One thing Canada has that I love is IIRC they don't have an assault weapon's ban so you could get an imported SIG-550 in Canada.
[sp]Canadian FPers, pls help me.[/sp]
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;51530302]One thing Canada has that I love is IIRC they don't have an assault weapon's ban so you could get an imported SIG-550 in Canada.
[sp]Canadian FPers, pls help me.[/sp][/QUOTE]
We have a significantly worse "assault weapons" ban. Just by luck and incompetence are we allowed things like SIG-550s and the like. There is [B]a lot [/B]of things we're outright not allowed for totally not illogical reasons.
[QUOTE=Aman;51530354]We have a significantly worse "assault weapons" ban. Just by luck and incompetence are we allowed things like SIG-550s and the like. There is [B]a lot [/B]of things we're outright not allowed for totally not illogical reasons.[/QUOTE]
You're not allowed to have ghost guns with 30 caliber clip magazines that fire 30 rounds every half second, either? (For those who don't know, an Anti-Gun senator in the states said this mouth full of bullshit almost word for word. And for those who don't want to do the math, 30 rounds every half second is basically the fire rate of the GAU-8 on the A-10)
We have some weird laws that make things illegal as well. But it's mostly for monetary reasons. It's illegal to have a Rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, unless you do some light paper work and send in a couple hundred bucks, then you can own a 'Short Barrel Rifle'. It's illegal to have a suppressor on your weapon, unless you fill out some paper work and send in a couple hundred bucks, then hey have fun. And because that paper work and tax stamp applies only to that particular suppressor, if you buy one that supports multiple calibers, then you can use it on a lot of weapons
[QUOTE=TheTalon;51530463]You're not allowed to have ghost guns with 30 caliber clip magazines that fire 30 rounds every half second, either? (For those who don't know, an Anti-Gun senator in the states said this mouth full of bullshit almost word for word. And for those who don't want to do the math, 30 rounds every half second is basically the fire rate of the GAU-8 on the A-10)
We have some weird laws that make things illegal as well. But it's mostly for monetary reasons. It's illegal to have a Rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, unless you do some light paper work and send in a couple hundred bucks, then you can own a 'Short Barrel Rifle'. It's illegal to have a suppressor on your weapon, unless you fill out some paper work and send in a couple hundred bucks, then hey have fun. And because that paper work and tax stamp applies only to that particular suppressor, if you buy one that supports multiple calibers, then you can use it on a lot of weapons[/QUOTE]
Doesn't apply for every state.
My Massachusetts neighbors to the south have banned AR-15s outright, and in order to conceal carry a pistol you have to go through two training courses and pay other stuff which in total probably costs more than the pistol you're planning on concealing.
Thank god I don't have to go through that.
did she just look straight into the barrel of a rifle?
Lynda Dong... fuk
[QUOTE=Perrine;51531378]did she just look straight into the barrel of a rifle?[/QUOTE]
How else are you going to make sure it's clear?
Should be noted that getting your possession and acquisition licence only allows you to buy "long guns" as in shotguns and rifles. Guns such as pistols or semi automatic rifles are classified as "restricted" and have a separate licence and training that goes along with it.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51531389]How else are you going to make sure it's clear?[/QUOTE]
if you stare into the rifle, the rifle stares right back.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51531389]How else are you going to make sure it's clear?[/QUOTE]
point directly at ballsack and pull trigger until something goes bang
Now that I started thinking about it, I have to say the american system of pretty much doing fuck all to train people is retarded compared to Canada's and it has nothing to do with the right to bear arms or freedom or anything like that. The simple fact is a gun is a weapon and can kill someone very easily, and I'm not talking just about murder. I'm pretty sure most gun related deaths are accidents in the US. Like why not just compare guns to cars? If you want to drive a car on the roads, you need a licence that basically proves you know how to operate a car safely. Why should guns be any different? Every time a politician brings up the idea of regulation in the slightest bit, even something as small as licenses/training/backround checks, the pro gun crowd immediately goes full South Park style shouting retard and says "they're coming to take our guns". No offense, Americans, but this is why most countries think Americans are crazy.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Perrine;51531378]did she just look straight into the barrel of a rifle?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is a part of the training course. Have to stress it's something you're only taught to do in VERY specific and controlled circumstances. They're not checking to see if the gun is loaded, they're checking to see if there could be any obstructions in the barrel.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51531389]How else are you going to make sure it's clear?[/QUOTE]
On a lever-action like that, you'd have the lever all the way forwards so the bolt's fully open, then visually check the chamber to make sure there's no round in it. Then maybe you can look down the muzzle end to make sure there's no obstructions in the barrel.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51531463]Now that I started thinking about it, I have to say the american system of pretty much doing fuck all to train people is retarded compared to Canada's and it has nothing to do with the right to bear arms or freedom or anything like that. The simple fact is a gun is a weapon and can kill someone very easily, and I'm not talking just about murder. I'm pretty sure most gun related deaths are accidents in the US. Like why not just compare guns to cars? If you want to drive a car on the roads, you need a licence that basically proves you know how to operate a car safely. Why should guns be any different? Every time a politician brings up the idea of regulation in the slightest bit, even something as small as licenses/training/backround checks, the pro gun crowd immediately goes full South Park style shouting retard and says "they're coming to take our guns". No offense, Americans, but this is why most countries think Americans are crazy.[/QUOTE]
Some states do require a permit and training in order to purchase a firearm. Not every state is the same.
I sell guns for a living so I'm exposed to our gun laws firsthand. They're mostly okay, with some ridiculous exceptions.
You can only fire a handgun at an authorized range and you can only transport it with an ATT form, which you can only obtain from a licensed gun club (or on the purchase of a first handgun). Yet, you can fire long guns or[B] set off tannerite [/B]on your own property (in a rural area, barring municipal by-laws) as much as you damn well please.
Also, because Ruger released a target pistol version of the 10/22 that takes the same magazines, we can no longer put 25, 50 & 100 round mags into [I]specifically[/I] the Ruger 10/22. Rimfire pistol magazines do have a capacity limit, whereas rimfire rifle ones do not. So you can still get a Remington 597 and put in as big a mag as you'd like. There's a magazine capacity limit on semiautomatic rifles of 5, I think. Yet, you can have over 10 in a bolt action rifle with no problems.
Some rifles are banned because they look scary. Antique firearms require little to no licensing or paperwork. Depending on the length of the handgun and the magazine capacity, a lot of random things end up being prohibited too.
There's little internal logic to it, to be quite honest.
[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;51531863]There's little internal logic to it, to be quite honest.[/QUOTE]
the people making guns laws are almost universally not people who are truly familiar with guns
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51532023]the people making guns laws are almost universally not people who are truly familiar with guns[/QUOTE]
[t]http://www.outdoorlife.com/sites/outdoorlife.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/import/2014/import/BlogPost/embed/gunquotes_06.jpg?itok=xjbE2IbW[/t]
[video=youtube;dgpEuCUm6SE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgpEuCUm6SE&ab_channel=CarniKCon[/video]
There's some goofy things in the law for sure but I'm a licensed gun owner and fairly happy with how the laws are.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51532048]
[video=youtube;dgpEuCUm6SE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgpEuCUm6SE&ab_channel=CarniKCon[/video][/QUOTE]
Man, I nearly fucking cried when I learned Dugan Ashley told everyone he had MS. Like fuck, the guy seemed so damn involved in the scene, and then BAM, MS out of fucking no where.
He hasn't said anything, anywhere. :(
Also, I believe that Canadians should be able to stand their ground inside of their own house. A person breaking into your place means they already have intents to harm someone and steal something from you.
[QUOTE=Covalent;51533091]Man, I nearly fucking cried when I learned Dugan Ashley told everyone he had MS. Like fuck, the guy seemed so damn involved in the scene, and then BAM, MS out of fucking no where.
He hasn't said anything, anywhere. :(
Also, I believe that Canadians should be able to stand their ground inside of their own house. A person breaking into your place means they already have intents to harm someone and steal something from you.[/QUOTE]
He did post something on instagram yesterday, might be coming back
[url]https://www.instagram.com/p/BOAeYFKgQ3D/?taken-by=dugashley&hl=en[/url]
This is actually [i]really[/i] well done. I wouldn't have expected VICE to be so unbiased when it came to something like this but good on them.
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51533165]He did post something on instagram yesterday, might be coming back
[url]https://www.instagram.com/p/BOAeYFKgQ3D/?taken-by=dugashley&hl=en[/url][/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/vPAAvRD.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51534129][img]http://i.imgur.com/vPAAvRD.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Oh shit. He was my favorite tacticool operator to watch on Youtube.
[QUOTE=nerdster409;51531158]Doesn't apply for every state.
My Massachusetts neighbors to the south have banned AR-15s outright, and in order to conceal carry a pistol you have to go through two training courses and pay other stuff which in total probably costs more than the pistol you're planning on concealing.
Thank god I don't have to go through that.[/QUOTE]
Have a friend in Massachusetts who is going through all those hoops. He's fucking pissed off right now because he can no longer inherit his father's HK 91 as a resident of Massachusetts. The kicker is the father in question is a cop, and none of his colleagues are sure if it's even legal for him to take it to a shooting range. It's fucking disgraceful is what that is.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51548969]Guns are a right, cars are not. Driving a car without killling people and causing expensive damage absolutely requires at least some basic training. Gun does not. Even then; cars kill more people.
But no, if you look at the political elites trying to legislate guns, the bullshit they pull in their home states and the retarded downright falsehoods they perpetuate (gunshow loophole, calling AR15 assault rifles, etc) you'd see they don't give a fuck about gun safety because they don't give a fuck about gun owners. given an inch they wouldn't ban guns, they would destroy them by a thousand little cuts.[/QUOTE]
And that's completely retarded if you ask me. Guns should not be a right, they should be a privilege, given to those who actually fucking deserve them and not just any Tom, Dick, and Mary out on the street. When that happens, you end up with cities like Chicago with several thousand gun deaths a year, police officers shot every week from easily concealable firearms, and a whole lot of other crimes that are made even worse due to the presence of guns. Don't get me wrong, banning guns is completely retarded, but there needs to be a regulation on who can access firearms, and those who can require the necessary training to maintain and actually use those firearms effectively, and not to use them for dubious purposes.
[QUOTE=Firestarfk;51549178]And that's completely retarded if you ask me. Guns should not be a right, they should be a privilege, given to those who actually fucking deserve them and not just any Tom, Dick, and Mary out on the street. When that happens, you end up with cities like Chicago with several thousand gun deaths a year, police officers shot every week from easily concealable firearms, and a whole lot of other crimes that are made even worse due to the presence of guns. Don't get me wrong, banning guns is completely retarded, but there needs to be a regulation on who can access firearms, and those who can require the necessary training to maintain and actually use those firearms effectively, and not to use them for dubious purposes.[/QUOTE]
And the natural response to someone positing this view is "How many of the guns used in those crimes were acquired legally?"
[QUOTE=Firestarfk;51549178]Guns should not be a right, they should be a privilege, given to those who actually fucking deserve them and not just any Tom, Dick, and Mary out on the street.[/QUOTE]
But everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, no? So why not with a firearm? And there are actually many restrictions in the US on who can possess a firearm.
Convicted felons (or anyone serving a prison sentence of over one year), users of certain drugs, people committed to mental institutions and people convicted of domestic violence cannot by law own guns.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51549475]And the natural response to someone positing this view is "How many of the guns used in those crimes were acquired legally?"[/QUOTE]
That doesn't change anything. The fact that guns are so easily legally obtained will always contribute towards the illegal obtainment of weapons.
[QUOTE=Firestarfk;51549644]That doesn't change anything. The fact that guns are so easily legally obtained will always contribute towards the illegal obtainment of weapons.[/QUOTE]
And you think a safety knowledge test, proof of a gun safe ownership, or some other restriction would make it harder for criminals to obtain them? What do you propose that respects peoples rights while reducing the end number of guns that get to criminals without an outright ban?
[QUOTE=Zombinie;51549635]But everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, no? So why not with a firearm?[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what your point is here. People would still be able to defend themselves with a firearm if they were required to get a license beforehand, it would simply mean that those who do would have the proper and necessary training to actually use a firearm for defense. Hell, this is why I support Concealed Carry Licenses, because they require you to actually understand how to use and firearm and more importantly when to use a firearm rather than just let any idiot have a concealed weapon or allow nobody to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
