More mass shootings

[riggerrob 558]

First time I have ever heard the term "gas chambered."

You guys are confusing the discussion by miss-using older terminology and inventing new terminology. IOW the language is changing faster than us old farts can keep up. Dagnamit! We learned the definition of "gun" 50 years ago and are too old and too grumpy to learn anything new! Hmmpf!

Let's return this discussion to terminology that us old farts can understand.

Bolt action - we agree on that term. And yes, there are a few bolt-action pistols available. They are single-shot and must be registered as restricted weapons in Canada. All pistols must be registered as restricted in Canada.

Lever-action - similar to bolt-action in that they fire one bullet, then the shooter must crank the lever to re-load. Most lever-action rifles have tubular magazines and are unrestricted in Canada, as long as barrels exceed 18.5".

Semi-automatic - any weapon that fires one bullet per trigger pull. .... then the action re-loads a second bullet. ... also referred to as self-loading in Britain. Semi-automatic actions include: gas-piston, direct gas impingement, gas tappet, gas trap, roller-delayed, lever-delayed, short-recoil, long-recoil, etc. As long as the barrel exceeds 18.5" most semi-automatic rifles are unrestricted in Canada.

Fully-automatic - any machinegun that continues firing as long as the trigger is depressed and ammo remains in the magazine or belt. Really only accurate when fired from bipods or tripods. Ammo ranges from pistol (9 x 19mm) to 14.5mm Russian. All machineguns are prohibited in Canada meaning that it is almost impossible for civilians to own them legally.

Sub-machinegun - a sub-calibre machine gun that only fires pistol ammunition: Thompson, Grease Gun, Sten, Uzi, H&K MP5, etc. Most SMGs fire from a open bolt and operate by straight recoil. Only a few fire from closed bolts (e.g. H&K MP5). SMGS are prohibited in Canada.

Assault-rifle - a term coined by Nazi Germany during World War 2. Sturmgewehr 44 = storm rifle = assault rifle. Another sub-set of machineguns because they can be fired fully-automatic or semi-automatic. Assault rifles typically fire intermediate calibre ammo (7.62 x 39 mm communist, .223 calibre, 5.56 mm NATO, etc.). Because they are a sub-set of MGs, Canadian civilians are prohibited from owning assault rifles.

Armalite 15 - a rifle invented by Eugene Stoner when he worked at Armalite Research during the 1950s. Original AR-15s were assault rifles that fired .223 ammo semi or full-automatic. Most modern ARs only fire semi-automatic, taking them out of the "assault rifle" category."

M-16, M4 carbine etc. - US Army developments of AR-15.

Assault weapon - a term coined by the US gov't in 1994 to define scary-looking weapons that had military features like pistol grips, removable magazines, bayonet lugs, flash-hiders, etc. This term is popular among anti-gun campaigners, but confuses knowledgeable gun owners.

10-round clip - first time I have heard this term.

5-round stripper clips are common military issue allowing faster re-loads while keeping the magazine in the rifle. Most rifles discard stripper clips as soon as the rifle is loaded. The confusion arises from the WW2-vintage M1 Garand rifle issued to American soldiers. Garand used 5-round enblock clips that stayed in the magazine until the last round was fired, then they were ejected. IOW you cannot fire a Garand without an enblock clip. Garand was not an assault rifle because it fired full-bore ammo and only semi-automatic.

Magazine - a removable metal box containing ammunition. Double-stack, double-feed stick magazines are the most popular these days, but magazines have also included pans, drums, single stack, rotary, etc.

[jcd11235 0]

BIGUN

Assault rifle = fully automatic
Assault weapon = military form factor, e.g., AR-15.

Glad you finally figured that out. Now you can use the vocabulary correctly.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BIGUN 1,053]

jcd11235

***Assault rifle = fully automatic
Assault weapon = military form factor, e.g., AR-15.

jcd11235

Glad you finally figured that out. Now you can use the vocabulary correctly.

Are you in the habit of taking something you wrote and using it as someone else's quote? That's misleading.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[DJL 232]

BIGUN

***I do understand the difference between gas chambered and bolt action. I have one of each.

Awesome! Are they registered?

They don't need to be in my state but I'd have no problem with registering them. Why?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[BIGUN 1,053]

Just trying to bring it back full circle to solutions. I agree. No problem with registration. Some of the Dems might find this interesting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sorry-mandatory-gun-registration-is-constitutional/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Bob_Church 7]

DJL

******I do understand the difference between gas chambered and bolt action. I have one of each.

Awesome! Are they registered?

They don't need to be in my state but I'd have no problem with registering them. Why?

I believe we're at a point in time where anything that gets collected into a computer database has a high probability of getting stolen. Too many computer people are filling in gaps in their competence with arrogance.
If you register something there is no legitimate reason to believe that that information will not become public.
And then when someone needs a gun they'll know which house to rob.

[jcd11235 0]

BIGUN

******Assault Rifle = a fully automatic or selective fire rate firearm (semi to fully), e.g., M-16, MP-5, UZI.

jcd11235

Glad you finally figured that out. Now you can use the vocabulary correctly.

Are you in the habit of taking something you wrote and using it as someone else's quote?

Nope, not in the habit, but I wrote my post too quickly and proofread poorly in this case, keeping an incorrect excerpt. Apologies, and thanks for the catch. I've replaced the incorrect quote with the passage from your post that I intended to quote above in this post.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BIGUN 1,053]

No worries. Can't say I haven't done the same.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rushmc 18]

BIGUN

Just trying to bring it back full circle to solutions. I agree. No problem with registration. Some of the Dems might find this interesting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sorry-mandatory-gun-registration-is-constitutional/

I for one would fight registration with everything I have. It's step number one to confiscation.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JoeWeber 2,299]

rushmc

***Just trying to bring it back full circle to solutions. I agree. No problem with registration. Some of the Dems might find this interesting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sorry-mandatory-gun-registration-is-constitutional/

I for one would fight registration with everything I have. It's step number one to confiscation.

Have they confiscated your vote? Your car? Your Social Security? Your paranoia?

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

I for one would fight registration with everything I have. It's step number one to confiscation.

If you are as effective at fighting as you are at arguing that will be a plus for your opposition.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,254]

rushmc

***Just trying to bring it back full circle to solutions. I agree. No problem with registration. Some of the Dems might find this interesting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sorry-mandatory-gun-registration-is-constitutional/

I for one would fight registration with everything I have.
What do you have?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Phil1111 910]

jakee

******Just trying to bring it back full circle to solutions. I agree. No problem with registration. Some of the Dems might find this interesting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sorry-mandatory-gun-registration-is-constitutional/

I for one would fight registration with everything I have.
What do you have?

The power of prose, intelligent use of fact and logic. Ain't one.

So stock up:
https://www.shtfblog.com/burying-guns-ammo-with-mono-vault-burial-tubes-master-cacher-joe-nobody-the-preppers-guide-to-caches/

[BIGUN 1,053]

rushmc

***Just trying to bring it back full circle to solutions. I agree. No problem with registration. Some of the Dems might find this interesting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sorry-mandatory-gun-registration-is-constitutional/

I for one would fight registration with everything I have. It's step number one to confiscation.

I get your point, Rush. I do. It has happened in more than one case here in the US starting back in the 1960's. But, I would ask you to consider that in each case; the overzealous and over-reaching officer or department got a severe spanking and the guns were returned to the owners with apologies or remuneration for rights' violations.

One of the arguments used by the NRA to fight gun laws is the idea that any new gun law will lead to gun registration which will then lead to gun confiscation. And since everyone knows that disarming citizens is a tried-and-true method for consolidating tyranny, pro-gun organizations like the NRA keep us "free" by opposing anything that might result in the registration of guns.

The 4th Amendment prohibits search and seizure by government agents without probable cause. And, while the judicial system has argued back and forth over how to define probable cause; the bottom line is that law enforcement officers cannot enter your premises without a duly-executed warrant. Nor, can they present evidence seized in this way in court. This exclusion applies not only to the residence, but to the vehicle.

I would also ask you to consider whether or not you're a CCW. If you are; therefore, you are registered; therefore, there must be guns where he lives. If; the whole confiscation thing were implemented; whose house do think they'll show up at first?

The challenge for advocates promoting common-sense policies to reduce gun violence is to acknowledge that privacy, guns or no guns, is a legitimate concern. Owning a gun is not a crime. So if registration, either directly or indirectly will help reduce the mortality and morbidity of guns, a way has to be found to make legitimate gun owners feel that gun ownership will not be threatened even if government needs to know about their guns.

What would it take to satisfy you that your ownership of guns would not be threatened? I'd really like to know the answer to this.

You know; in property law one can submit to a court for "Interpleader Action." In short, you take your deposit/escrow concerns about who gets it to a Judge on behalf of both parties and the judge decides who gets what before it becomes a legal issue. It would be nice if we could get a ruling on a proposed solution from SCOTUS before enacting a law.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

I for one would fight registration with everything I have. It's step number one to confiscation.

just like they confiscated your car, airplanes, boats, drivers license, business license, automatic weapons, beer and wine license, liquor license, your phone number, your voter card, your.... oh never mind

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What would it take to satisfy you that your ownership of guns would not be threatened?

How many mass shootings would have been prevented if firearms were required to be registered?

Vehicles are required to be registered and they are still used to create mass casualties.

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Hooknswoop

Quote

What would it take to satisfy you that your ownership of guns would not be threatened?

How many mass shootings would have been prevented if firearms were required to be registered?

Vehicles are required to be registered and they are still used to create mass casualties.

Derek V

3

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

3

Please explain.

Derek V

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Hooknswoop

Quote

3

Please explain.

Derek V

Derek,

I think he's pointing out that the question is unanswerable as to how many. It might be arguable that no system of controlling who has certain types of firearms could succeed without registration. Hence, if you agree that certain types of firearms should be controlled then you ought to agree that registration is part of the solution. I'm guessing that you definitely do not agree.

Me, I'm converted to Bigun's definitions and solutions, in the main, simply because I believe there is a problem and action is required. Better than others he is able to wrap it up, and explain it, sensibly and without undo hardship or infringement.

I've been open about what firearms I have and want to protect. Are you willing to post what you have that you want to protect? I ask the same of everyone posting on this thread.

Joe

[BIGUN 1,053]

Hooknswoop

Quote

What would it take to satisfy you that your ownership of guns would not be threatened?

How many mass shootings would have been prevented if firearms were required to be registered?

Vehicles are required to be registered and they are still used to create mass casualties.

Derek V

ccidental VS. Intentional

Even in the case of intentional vehicular casualties. Finding the ow3ner of the vehicle is easier.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I think he's pointing out that the question is unanswerable as to how many. It might be arguable that no system of controlling who has certain types of firearms could succeed without registration. Hence, if you agree that certain types of firearms should be controlled then you ought to agree that registration is part of the solution. I'm guessing that you definitely do not agree.

I agree that certain types of firearms should be controlled, but the current system works to control those firearms.

I do not see how registration will prevent mass shootings.

I do see how registration is the first step in confiscation.

Pro-gun control supporters will take any new gun control laws they can get. Here in Colorado, 5 years ago they passed 2 new gun control laws. Universal background checks, which did nothing, and magazine size limit. The state senator that sponsored this law, Mary Hodge, thought that this law would cause 30-round magazine to quickly be used up since she thought they could only be used once.

This is why I do not trust new gun control laws and ask how they would work. I don't see how they would. I think the end goal is extreme gun control, verging on confiscation. One small step at a time, aka boiling a frog.

Quote

I've been open about what firearms I have and want to protect. Are you willing to post what you have that you want to protect? I ask the same of everyone posting on this thread.

You made a jump from "there is a problem" to "action is required" to what guns do you want to keep? I do not agree with that chain of reasoning.

You want to save lives? Require GPS speed limiters, ignition breathalyzers, real initial and recurrent driver training, and cell phones that are disabled in vehicles. Now there is some low hanging fruit.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

ccidental VS. Intentional

Even in the case of intentional vehicular casualties. Finding the ow3ner of the vehicle is easier.

Which does nothing to prevent the vehicle from being used as a weapon.

Derek V

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Hooknswoop

Quote

I think he's pointing out that the question is unanswerable as to how many. It might be arguable that no system of controlling who has certain types of firearms could succeed without registration. Hence, if you agree that certain types of firearms should be controlled then you ought to agree that registration is part of the solution. I'm guessing that you definitely do not agree.

I agree that certain types of firearms should be controlled, but the current system works to control those firearms.

I do not see how registration will prevent mass shootings.

I do see how registration is the first step in confiscation.

Pro-gun control supporters will take any new gun control laws they can get. Here in Colorado, 5 years ago they passed 2 new gun control laws. Universal background checks, which did nothing, and magazine size limit. The state senator that sponsored this law, Mary Hodge, thought that this law would cause 30-round magazine to quickly be used up since she thought they could only be used once.

This is why I do not trust new gun control laws and ask how they would work. I don't see how they would. I think the end goal is extreme gun control, verging on confiscation. One small step at a time, aka boiling a frog.

***I've been open about what firearms I have and want to protect. Are you willing to post what you have that you want to protect? I ask the same of everyone posting on this thread.

You made a jump from "there is a problem" to "action is required" to what guns do you want to keep? I do not agree with that chain of reasoning.

You want to save lives? Require GPS speed limiters, ignition breathalyzers, real initial and recurrent driver training, and cell phones that are disabled in vehicles. Now there is some low hanging fruit.

Derek V

Derek,

That there is a problem and that action is required are my personal opinions. When I see a problem I want to fix it. I'm not sure that is making a leap.

As to disclosing our personal arsenals, it seems to me that there might be a real connection between the types of weapons we own and where we each stand on interpreting the Second Amendment.

Mostly, I was hoping someone like Marc would exclaim that he doesn't want the bad guys to know he has guns in his house! Or that saying so on the internet was the actual first step towards registration!!

Joe

[BIGUN 1,053]

Hooknswoop

Quote

ccidental VS. Intentional

Even in the case of intentional vehicular casualties. Finding the ow3ner of the vehicle is easier.

Which does nothing to prevent the vehicle from being used as a weapon.

Derek V

Remote vehicle shutdown.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,400]

>>Even in the case of intentional vehicular casualties. Finding the ow3ner of the vehicle is easier.

>Which does nothing to prevent the vehicle from being used as a weapon.

There is a concept common to our justice system called "deterrence." Knowing you will be found and arrested for vehicular manslaughter serves as a deterrent for people who want to run someone down and flee.