[QUOTE=Penguiin;29495552]there is no "class 3 liscense". there is a federal firearms license that allows you (among the different categories) manufacture, import or distribute weapons.
as a civilian with no FFL (federal firearms license) you are allowed to buy restricted (aka title II destructive devices) weapons including RPGs, automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, grenades etc if you pay a $200 tax to the govt and pass a background check.[/QUOTE]Shit really? For the longest time people just threw around the Class 3 Liscense term out there.... Hm... Thanks for giving me the heads up.
[QUOTE=ChilColdCoolaid;29495478]Or maybe you never experienced the fear of almost dieing when you have some sort of disability that prevents you from being able to defend yourself from someone assaulting you.
Anyways I'm done with this thread. Some of you are just too stupid to argue with.[/QUOTE]
so how often do these random disabled person attacks happen
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;29495588]Shit really? For the longest time people just threw around the Class 3 Liscense term out there.... Hm... Thanks for giving me the heads up.[/QUOTE]
yes, there are class 3 weapons but no all-encompassing license. if you have a FFL with the ATF you can have guns shipped directly to your door, transfer weapons requiring registration and sell guns (depending on the type of ffl you have)
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;29495250]In many cases it involves only filing down a catch.
Not great for the condition of a gun in the long term and it might explode in your hands but that's unlikely to concern spree shooters and criminals who'll only be using it once.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that's a myth too.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;29495509]Can we all just agree to disagree..? Some countries have guns, some don't. Can't we just all get along, and realize you can't make everywhere in the world [I]exactly[/I] like your country.[/QUOTE]
yeah there's obviously nothing to learn from other countries with better standards of living
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29495325]There are pepper sprays and similar stuff that is lot less harmful and can still provide you with defensive measures even if you are weak or crippled.[/QUOTE]
So, your idea is that a woman, say she's about 100 pounds, and 5 foot 5 inches, has a guy my size, 6'2" and 200 pounds break in at night, and pepper spray is supposed to keep me from killing her? It may be uncomfortable, but it's definitely not going to end the confrontation. She would have to somehow spray them, and then manage to avoid the person long enough to call 911, then make it for the 10, possibly 20 minutes she's alone. This also assumes i don't have a knife, or anything like that, or worse still, a gun i got illegally, that she can't defend against, because she thinks pepper spray will save her.
That's the problem, pepper spray, mace, tazers, are all meant to incapacitate someone, to allow them to be brought under control. They aren't an end to an engagement, only a means to it.
[QUOTE=Penguiin;29495634]yes, there are class 3 weapons but no all-encompassing license. if you have a FFL with the ATF you can have guns shipped directly to your door, transfer weapons requiring registration and sell guns (depending on the type of ffl you have)[/QUOTE]
...
Excuse me while I get a job, and save money up. I've been eyeing a gatling gun kit for awhile.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29494405]A license to purchase guns won't stop criminals from getting them but if the license involves taking a gun safety course it will prevent accidents caused by non-criminal but careless gun use.
We do it for cars, we should do it for guns too.[/QUOTE]
In Canada, federal regulations require one to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and pass the CFSC test to acquire non-restricted weapons (long guns), as well as a test for Restricted Weapons if they wish to purchase Pistols and certain assault-style semi-automatic weapons. Autos are banned, as are "purse pistols" and short rifles. In order to purchase these types of guns, you need to have owned one before they were banned, and be therefore "grandfathered" into owning them, giving you a prohibited firearms license, which is almost impossible to get without grandfathering. The issue I have isn't with these bans, but with bans on certain guns that, by all rights, should be legal in the Canadian system, but were banned by a panel of Liberals lead by Chretien in ~1995 who banned guns they subjectively deemed "evil-looking," under no set of criteria.
I disagree with the apparent issue that using a gun for self-defence in Canada, no matter the circumstances, is going to get you charged, and depending on the jury, convicted of manslaughter/murder. I also disagree with not being able to hunt with pistols. Another thing I disagree with is long gun magazine restrictions. All semi-auto centre-fire long guns are restricted to a 5-round magazine, unless due to some historical manufacturing requiring they cannot abide this rule (I.E. the M1 Garand, designed for 8 shots). The cap of 10 rounds per magazine for pistols I'm less against, but one is more likely to use a pistol in a shooting, especially a school shooting, than a long gun, assuming you acquired it legally. I don't see the need to restrict long gun magazines so much, especially since most of them are a 10-round magazine when unrestricted. It's no huge difference, but mist quick-loading clips are designed for the full magazine capacity, and you can sometimes buy the ammo pre-loaded in the 10-round clip.
My personal views on gun laws involve stricter regulations on guns, but making more of them technically "legal," as well as a better enforced Canada-USA border, to lower arms trafficking, which is how the criminals get the firearms they use in their crimes, importing them from the States.
[QUOTE=Shostakovich;29495486]I think this only applies if the gun fires from an open bolt.
Most guns fire from closed bolt, rendering this modification impossible. (I think. I'm no expert on this)[/QUOTE]
I suppose it depends on the individual gun, a closed-bolt mechanism would generally be more difficult to modify.
My point is that if people can buy a semi-automatic gun that can be modified to fire full-auto then the restrictions on fully automatic firearms is pointless because the people who are going to shoot somebody wont care about a firearms conviction if they face a murder conviction if caught.
[QUOTE=Billiam;29495635]Pretty sure that's a myth too.[/QUOTE]
With certain firearms it's definitely possible.
Still with the risk of malfunctions and injuries though.
[QUOTE=James*;29495390]I don't really get the whole gun for self defense argument but then maybe I don't live my life in a state of paranoia and fear of 'home invasion', probably because I live in a country without that many guns[/QUOTE]
it's not that america is like the old west where every alley and dark street is gonna have a shootout occur and you need to be prepared. it's just that some people don't want be defenseless if someone tries to kidnap/mug/burglarize/kill you
Full auto is kind of a moot point anyhow. Some asshole blindly firing on full auto is way less of a threat, than a well trained person firing semi-auto.
It's just one of those things that got overplayed in it's lethality because of all the weird gun laws that came up back in what, 86?
[QUOTE=evilweazel;29493478]I think the USA has the gun laws down pat. They seem pretty reasonable to me.[/QUOTE]
Except for California and Illinois. New York has a very strict law set, but it's because they have a high population.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;29495250]It would help but prohibitive gun laws don't.
If governments spent more time fighting poverty instead of arguing over gun laws there would be far less crimes.
In many cases it involves only filing down a catch.
Not great for the condition of a gun in the long term and it might explode in your hands but that's unlikely to concern spree shooters and criminals who'll only be using it once.[/QUOTE]
yea, guns are made to be able to be converted by "filing down a catch"
this is pretty much untrue in 99.999% of all guns because in AR-15s and AK's they are missing key components and sometimes have different internal parts (in the AR's case) to actually prevent you from doing this
my AK would require a professional gunsmith (something you couldn't just do with a vice and a mill) to attempt to convert it to full auto
[editline]28th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;29495751]Full auto is kind of a moot point anyhow. Some asshole blindly firing on full auto is way less of a threat, than a well trained person firing semi-auto.
It's just one of those things that got overplayed in it's lethality because of all the weird gun laws that came up back in what, 86?[/QUOTE]
the media and anti-gun campaigns have a tendency to sensationalize any type of gun crime. often they try to ban things with umbrella laws when they really have no idea what they are talking about. example:
[quote=Wikipedia]On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC's program, Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act.[12] She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. However, a panel concluded it would not have made a difference in that situation.[13] After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, McCarthy incorrectly stated, "[b]I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.[/b]"[14][/quote]
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;29495674]So, your idea is that a woman, say she's about 100 pounds, and 5 foot 5 inches, has a guy my size, 6'2" and 200 pounds break in at night, and pepper spray is supposed to keep me from killing her? It may be uncomfortable, but it's definitely not going to end the confrontation. She would have to somehow spray them, and then manage to avoid the person long enough to call 911, then make it for the 10, possibly 20 minutes she's alone. This also assumes i don't have a knife, or anything like that, or worse still, a gun i got illegally, that she can't defend against, because she thinks pepper spray will save her.
That's the problem, pepper spray, mace, tazers, are all meant to incapacitate someone, to allow them to be brought under control. They aren't an end to an engagement, only a means to it.[/QUOTE]
My point is that crime like this can fought other ways than with direct confrontation with firearms. There are political actions that can be taken to evade you from winding up in circumstances that will eventually lead you to trying to kill this woman.
I just think that the average idiot shouldn't be able to have one. (I.E. someone stupid enough not to use them correctly.)
[QUOTE=kaine123;29495930]I just think that the average idiot shouldn't be able to have one. (I.E. someone stupid enough not to use them correctly.)[/QUOTE]
I think anyone pro gun control or anti gun control who is reasonable could agree on that
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;29495714]
With certain firearms it's definitely possible.
Still with the risk of malfunctions and injuries though.[/QUOTE]
I'm still skeptical.
Still doesn't sound like "true" automatic.
I personally think that if we ever had a rebellion guns would mean nothing to tanks and fighter planes but on the other hand I don't think it will really kill me if someone owned a gun.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29496013]I personally think that if we ever had a rebellion guns would mean nothing to tanks and fighter planes but on the other hand I don't think it will really kill me if someone owned a gun.[/QUOTE]
A few resourceful Iraqis did it.
[QUOTE=Penguiin;29495976]I think anyone pro gun control or anti gun control who is reasonable could agree on that[/QUOTE]
I think that moderate solutions tend to be the best at solving problems like this that are so split.
[QUOTE=Penguiin;29495728]it's not that america is like the old west where every alley and dark street is gonna have a shootout occur and you need to be prepared. it's just that some people don't want be defenseless if someone tries to kidnap/mug/burglarize/kill you[/QUOTE]
well for me ideally no one in that situation would have a gun, and they'd both be better off
yes criminals will still get guns, but it's a lot less likely than in a country where gun ownership is legal
i can understand Americans wanting to own guns because there's so many guns around already therefore the person trying to kidnap/mug/whatever you is more likely to have one themselves, and you don't wanna feel like the one guy without one
Well I prefer to live in a country with a much, much lower gun crime rate.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29495178]What's so utopical of my argument? It's a fact that lot of crime is cause by poverty. How would exterminating poverty not help fighting crime then?
[/QUOTE]
I'm not very fond of your use of the word 'exterminating' and in my probable 'taking it out of context'. It brings up unpleasant emotions in my mind. Please use a different word. 'Solving', 'negating' whatever, your choice of words is poor.
[quote]No, that was a serious question. How is that fascism? Do you even know what fascism is? [/quote]
I do know what fascism is. And now that you know my feelings behind the word 'exterminating', maybe you might now be on my page. Because when you say
[quote]How would exterminating poverty not help fighting crime then?
[/quote]
I interpreted that as a form of social eugenics. Which IMO is a kinda fascist idea. Sorry.
Let's agree to stop this discussion, this way off topic.
[editline]Seriously move on[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29495928]My point is that crime like this can fought other ways than with direct confrontation with firearms. There are political actions that can be taken to evade you from winding up in circumstances that will eventually lead you to trying to kill this woman.[/QUOTE]
I'm rather doubtful that any kind of benevolent government policy is going to stop person X from hating someone to the point of murder.
[QUOTE=Penguiin;29495796]yea, guns are made to be able to be converted by "filing down a catch"
this is pretty much untrue in 99.999% of all guns because in AR-15s and AK's they are missing key components and sometimes have different internal parts (in the AR's case) to actually prevent you from doing this
[/QUOTE]
My point is that there are firearms available that can be converted to fully-automatic and that the restrictions on fully-automatic firearms mainly effects people who don't intend to commit any crime.
I wasn't trying to get into an argument over whether or not every gun can be easily converted to fire on automatic.
Every design is different and some may be easy to convert and some may need new machined parts.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;29496193]I'm not very fond of your use of the word 'exterminating' and in my probable 'taking it out of context'. It brings up unpleasant emotions in my mind. Please use a different word. 'Solving', 'negating' whatever, your choice of words is poor.
I do know what fascism is. And now that you know my feelings behind the word 'exterminating', maybe you might now be on my page. Because when you say
I interpreted that as a form of social eugenics. Which IMO is a kinda fascist idea. Sorry.
Let's agree to stop this discussion, this way off topic.
[editline]Seriously move on[/editline][/quote]
Ah, sorry. No, I don't think we should exterminate poor, just poverty. English isn't my primary language so I'm using more direct translations that might not fit the context perfectly well.
[quote]
I'm rather doubtful that any kind of benevolent government policy is going to stop person X from hating someone to the point of murder.[/QUOTE]This scenario implies that this happens spontaneously, which can be prevented by governmental policies. If there is a profound hatred against someone, then governmental policies might not work so well.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;29495360]So most american liberals are against guns, i always had this idea of liberals being pro guns[/QUOTE]
Not really. Most Liberals I know as well as myself are pro-gun.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29496345]
This scenario implies that this happens spontaneously, which can be prevented by governmental policies. If there is a profound hatred against someone, then governmental policies might not work so well.[/QUOTE]
I told myself not to check this thread again but I did it anyways. And as luck would have it this got to be the first post I see.
Well I'm off again.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;29495169][b]Add to that how easy it is to modify most semi-automatic weapons for automatic firing[/b], if someone really wants to shoot up a school/public place they are unlikely to be concerned about being caught with an illegally modified gun.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much impossible, unless you're a professional gunsmith, even then it would be much easier just to make a new receiver.
Wow, this thread is a cesspool of argument.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29496405]Not really. Most Liberals I know as well as myself are pro-gun.[/QUOTE]
At least that's one thing we agree on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
