Starker on 5/6/2016 at 14:43
Quote Posted by heywood
The ranking I posted was based on civilian guns.
Yes, I suppose I would have to explain a bit. In some countries there are paramilitary organizations of volunteer civilians who have guns in their homes. In the event of a war, they would form a militia or something like that. Sometimes these guns are counted towards civilian ownership, regardless of whether the people own the gun or the organization does. One example would be Switzerland, which is one reason why there are so many guns there.
Quote Posted by heywood
UK: A million gun owners with 4 million guns, only half of which are registered.
France: 10 million gun owners with 19 million guns, <3M registered
Source: (
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home)
You really think the police are on top of that?
Maybe not on top exactly, but considering the total population, it's not that big of a number. As for France, mainland Europe has had some pretty severe gun trafficking problems with the inclusion of the latest EU states, which makes it pretty difficult to crack down on illegal guns a in a free country where you can't just search people's homes willy-nilly.
Also, this doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to try to keep an eye on the guns that are out there or regulate their use. You don't let just about anyone drive a car, why would you let just about anyone use a gun? At least you should try to enforce that they know how to operate one and don't use it drunk.
Volitions Advocate on 5/6/2016 at 15:53
Quote Posted by faetal
One of the problems with debating this is that responsible gun owners get all defensive because they think there is some objection to
them owning guns. There isn't. If there was a realistic way to just give guns to people who are responsible and would never use them against another person etc.. there'd be not problem - but there is no perfect system. Any system inherently has false positives and false negatives. A very strict system denies guns to a lot of people who are probably not going to use them - they then get pissy and defensive about their rights.
Quote Posted by nicked
Absolutely - in that way it's the same as anything dangerous. A stricter system could still make plenty of allowances for sport, clubs etc.
The thing is, while in theory you are right (and I'm not advocating for universal gun ownership, I definitely do not believe everyone should own one) , in practice it never works this way.
In Canada I am not allowed to own any magazine for a rifle larger than a capacity of 5. I can go to prison, and up until only a year or so ago, it was a mandatory minimum of 3 years if that were the case. Of course this law is circumvented legally by a number of ways based on the wording of the legislation. A pistol calibre carbine is considered a rifle according to the classification laws. But they take pistol magazines, which are legally allowed to hold 10 rounds. So my rifle can now shoot 10 rounds. I can also just up and use the wrong magazine in my firearm and that's not expressly illegal either. My ar15 can take .50 Beowulf magazines, which are designed for .50 calibre bullets fired from an AR, but I can jam 15 rounds of .233 or 5.56 in there. Legal, responsible gun owners are doing this in Canada for competition and recreation, and they are spending a lot of money on these magazines because they are in high demand.
The funny thing about it,is that while it does not violate the letter of the law, it absolutely violates the spirit of it. But it is the reaction to it that makes no sense. Legal magazines are a non-controlled item. Meaning you don't even need to have a license to buy one. What are you going to do with a magazine if you don't have a gun for it? Well the violent criminals have guns, and they can buy magazines for them legally, whether or not the magazine is black market. The only thing stopping them from loading 30 rounds in a normal capacity magazine (not HIGH capacity like the police and the media keep saying up here) is a rivet that they can drill out.
There is nothing about the magazine capacity laws that stop criminals from using normal and high capacity magazines. They can even go to the store to buy them in a perfectly legal configuration, and spend about 2 minutes altering them. Then us lawful owners spend extra money to get the rare magazines that are legal because of a loophole, and we're hounded by police and wrongfully charged with our personal property confiscated because they don't like it. Except that there has never been a single crime committed with a rifle that used a .50 beo mag.
TLDR: While I agree that not absolutely everybody should have a gun, law makers do put unnecessary laws in place that just put lawful people at risk for becoming paper criminals, while doing absolutely nothing to contribute to public safety. The truth is (in Canada) stricter gun laws make no allowances for sport shooting whatsoever, and make even that hobby (in controlled evironments, statistically safer than skiing or swimming) largely restricted.
There are no allowances whatsoever for gun owners in Canada. In the case of a misunderstading, "Charge 'em and let the courts sort it out" ... Bankruptcy, jail time, lost homes, divorce. It has happened so many times.
I have been vetted by the RCMP, they took 4 months to determine whether or not I was fit to own a firearm. I get a criminal background check every 24 hours. To say that I deserve that kind of scrutiny because I could potentially kill a bunch of people is insulting given what I did to prove I'm trustworthy. I am literally one of the safest people in Canada. Demonstrably so, and I have a piece of plastic the government and the RCMP say proves it. But I'm still treated like a criminal. A non-citizen.
An argument with a police officer over a parking ticket could land me in jail with a criminal record and a lifetime firearms ban.
bjack on 5/6/2016 at 17:32
Quote Posted by faetal
A small pool of gun owners, all of whom are on the police radar. Certainly a lot easier to contain than everyone potentially being armed after a trip to Walmart.
Impossible at Walmart in CA, so that negates your "everyone" statement. I am not being defensive, but yes, a little pissy. You tend to tear down people for the tiniest infractions, yet build your case here on lies, assumptions, personal experience in a different country, and various other fallacies. Reality here is far different than you assume. Just as I do not know jack about Lyon, and do not profess to tell people in Lyon how they should conduct themselves. So pppttttttpppp :p :cheeky:
Yes, some states have much looser gun laws than others. However, the states and cities with the strictest gun laws have the worse crime and number of shootings (i.e. Chicago, Oakland, Washington DC...) than high gun ownership states and cities.
The guns used in the San Bernardino shooting were illegal in CA. Didn't stop the maniac ISIS sympathizers. I can go to prison for owning a 20 round magazine now. Criminals do not give a shit about gun laws. Neither apparently does the Obama administration, since they sold guns to Mexican drug gangs in Fast and Furious.
Yesterday, I went into a local Big5 sporting goods store to look at shot gun shells. I struck up a conversation with the counter guy about the possible new law that will require a background check to buy ammo. He was against the measure, but then said that if someone covered in seriously psycho/sick tattoos comes into his store and wants to buy 9mm rounds, he has to sell them. If someone comes in that looks like a maniac, he has to serve them. A background check would be nice in those cases. It would also be nice in cases where the buyer is obviously disturbed. In addition, it would remove the stigma associated with, "well, he looked like an ISIS supporter..." So I would agree to a simple background check once per year, a license if you will, to buy ammo. As long as the cost is nominal, say $10. The new CA law is supposed to be something like this, but the costs are far higher. I think it also requires training, etc. All a bunch of shit, since we have to go through that to buy a gun in the first place.
However, the 2nd amendment gets in the way... It is complicated. And the black market is just a trunk load away... What is not complicated is when someone says "common sense gun laws" they really mean, "eventual confiscation". We already have those "common sense laws".
As for that Obama talk... he did not address that man's questions at all. He deflected into his normal diversion. He told outright lies. Ask that man if he likes your green shirt and he will respond that black pants are better than grey. Where was his answer to, "Why does Chicago have such a terrible shooting rate, yet has some of the strictest gun control laws in the USA?" No direct answer.
bjack on 5/6/2016 at 17:38
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
... My ar15 can take .50 Beowulf magazines, which are designed for .50 calibre bullets fired from an AR, but I can jam 15 rounds of .233 or 5.56 in there.
How does that work? I mean, I understand that the cartridge will fit the chamber, but wouldn't the bullet "flop around" while traveling down the barrel? I plead complete ignorance on this topic and wondering if you can help me understand how it would work. Does it even touch the barrel? If not, it would not have spin and would not be accurate. I guess that would not matter if you are trying to spray fire in a small area. I've just never heard of doing that, putting in a cartridge of the same size, but a smaller caliber bullet.
Volitions Advocate on 5/6/2016 at 19:27
Yeah, you've got it wrong but that's probably my fault for how I explained it.
My AR. 5.56 NATO / .223 Rem
the .50 Beowulf is a cartridge that was designed for the AR, so with any AR lower receiver it works. The upper receiver must have a different barrel and bolt in order to operate it.
This means that a .50 Beowulf Magazine will fit into any standard pattern AR, regardless of the calibre or cartridge the rifle's upper is prepared to use.
I can't fit .50 Beowulf cartridges in my AR, and if you were to try to fit .223 or 5.56 into a .50, what you describe would happen, assuming the case could even be held by the bolt, and fired, and that if that DID happen, the case didn't rupture and blow up your gun.
a 10 round .50 Beowulf magazine looks identical to a standard STANAG 30 round .223 / 5.56 magazine. The only real difference is the feed lips and the follower inside the magazine. You can own a .50 in canada, and the magazines are pinned with rivets to 5 rounds of .50. What Canadian shooters are doing is buying the wrong magazine for their AR pattern rifle, and instead of putting .50 beowulf cartridges init, they are cramming the .223 / 5.56 in there. The magazine might only hold 5 rounds, but with a smaller calibre in there, you can fit up to 15 depending on who made it. So the only thing that is out of place is the magazine itself. The rounds in it work with the rifle, and if it actually feeds,, you basically have a legal 15 round magazine for a semi-automatic centerfire rifle in a country where anything over 5 round capacity nets you a prison sentence.
Flagrant disregard for the spirit of why the (useless) law was put in place, sure. But there isn't a single Canadian who has committed a crime with a rifle that had one of these magazines. My point is that a criminal can use a full capacity magazine illegally anyway, despite the law. Or make their own. Or convert a riveted mag to full capacity. There is no point to passing or enforcing a law that restricts sport shooters, and yet it's there, and they do.
I wont even get into what happens when they decide they don't like the gun you own anymore and come around to confiscate it.
Starker on 5/6/2016 at 19:48
Quote Posted by bjack
Where was his answer to, "Why does Chicago have such a terrible shooting rate, yet has some of the strictest gun control laws in the USA?" No direct answer.
I'm not Obama, but I can actually answer that. Most of the guns in Chicago come from outside where there are relatively lax gun laws, such as Indiana. Though the gang problem isn't exactly helping either. No gun control laws are going to be a magic bullet that is going to cure crime. When the price of guns rises, the criminals will simply use other, less effective weapons.
bjack on 5/6/2016 at 20:03
Thanks for that explanation. I confused myself thinking .50 meant 50 caliber! Duh? My fault.
And I question the limit on capacity too. Criminals will use whatever they want. They have zero respect for the law. Hence, they are criminals. These laws are multifaceted, but mostly feel good measures by politicians thinking they are 'doing something" while really just screwing up law abiding people's lives. The other side is removing the only impediment to wholesale tyranny. Others may scoff at this idea. But, it is more difficult to take away freedoms if the citizens are armed. Collectivist mentality leftist hate this idea. They hate the idea of the individual taking control of his/her own. Yet these same people seem to be the most preciously conceited. I call it selective cognition. However, I am guilty of the same. At least I admit it. Many do not.
But whatever... This thread is a powder keg. A box of ammo thrown into a fire. It is fraught with emotion and some logic. One might as well have posted "God... Is he real or not?" What a blood bath that would be. ;)
bjack on 5/6/2016 at 20:08
Quote Posted by Starker
I'm not Obama, but I can actually answer that. Most of the guns in Chicago come from outside where there are relatively lax gun laws, such as Indiana. Though the gang problem isn't exactly helping either. No gun control laws are going to be a magic bullet that is going to cure crime. When the price of guns rises, the criminals will simply use other, less effective weapons.
And so the criminals do not respect the law, but those that wish to protect themselves are not allowed to? Sounds like a lot of idiots run Chicago. I have been there once. In 2000, a long time ago. It was a wonderful city. I loved it. Even the bums were nice to me when I said I did not have any spare change for them. I was thanked to acknowledging them. I even walked a bit of lower Wacker Street (cheese burger!) and did not get mugged. I guess things change.
Starker on 5/6/2016 at 20:32
Actually, you can now get a gun in Chicago. The ban was lifted a few years ago. The recent rise in shootings is probably unrelated to that, though. It likely has more to do with turf wars and police crackdowns. It's not really the criminals shooting innocent civilians as much as it's criminals shooting criminals and the police.
Tony_Tarantula on 6/6/2016 at 01:19
Quote Posted by Starker
I'm not Obama, but I can actually answer that. Most of the guns in Chicago come from outside where there are relatively lax gun laws, such as Indiana. Though the gang problem isn't exactly helping either. No gun control laws are going to be a magic bullet that is going to cure crime. When the price of guns rises, the criminals will simply use other, less effective weapons.
That's not true for the US as a whole. The largest source of illegal weapons is that they are smuggled in via the Mexican border with the main corridors being California and Interstate 25 (runs N/S from Wyoming down to Mexico through CO and NM). A smaller number come in by boat or hidden in commercial shipping and the rest are kind of scattered all over the board.
The part that most people don't know is that a noticeable of the arms that turn up on US streets are the same ones that the US government clandestinely distributes to "allies"(such as "moderate" muslim insurgents in Syria) who then resell the weapons when they want some quick cash.
Quote Posted by nicked
Absolutely - in that way it's the same as anything dangerous. A stricter system could still make plenty of allowances for sport, clubs etc. Imagine if dangerous animal laws were as lax as gun laws, and everyone could own a tiger.
"I'm a responsible tiger owner, I keep my tiger locked up safe in my large garden with proper security fences etc. Why should I be denied my tiger ownership because of those thousands of people that got mauled and eaten by tigers last year?"
That's another reason why, in one of the rare instances with which I'm OK with compelling people to do things, that I support mandatory military training. Not only does it ensure that people understand weapons and can either handle them safely or react appropriately to one appearing when it's not supposed to, but it helps weed out nutters.
