Quebec To Create Its Own Gun Registry

[Argus]

Then you don't know guns that well. What you would use would depend entirely on the situation and the distances involved. If you're walking into a classroom and everyone is going to be within 40 feet of you, a machine gun is not the best choice.

Shotguns don't have many shots, and are not really designed for close-in work against multiple opponents. They need space for the shot to spread, then you have to reload, which takes longer than for an AK47 too, and gives the survivors the opportunity to jump on your head and beat you to death. No, an automatic weapon is far superior for indoor mass murder.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard the fact you are comparing a war zone to a police operation and encounter with a civilian or between to civilians says a lot about your misunderstanding of what Derek and SmallC are trying to explain to you.

Police officers are not soldiers. Comparing operations in the field with an enemy and a soldier and police is just down right stupid.

I defer to soldiers and police and very professional hunters on weapons. All of them will tell you a shot gun is the most lethal, is not a toy, and most people who think they know how to use them don't appreciate their power and recoil.

By the way the most deadly weapon up close is a knife or your own hands if you know how to use either not a gun of any kind.

In fact most people hesitate when they shoot or freeze and can't shoot and in that hesitation or paralysis the gun can be turned against them so it really doesn't matter what gun it is.

Well we werent discussing the comparison between police and military, but you did get one fact straight for a change, yes police are not soldiers.

[Smallc]

Shotguns don't have many shots, and are not really designed for close-in work against multiple opponents. They need space for the shot to spread, then you have to reload, which takes longer than for an AK47 too, and gives the survivors the opportunity to jump on your head and beat you to death. No, an automatic weapon is far superior for indoor mass murder.

Thats why they shorten the barrel. A shotgun is known to be far superior for home defence that a handgun. An automatic weapon is actually a very poor choice in mot situations, long range or short.

[Argus]

Thats why they shorten the barrel. A shotgun is known to be far superior for home defence that a handgun. An automatic weapon is actually a very poor choice in mot situations, long range or short.

Sure, but we're not talking about home defense. We're not talking about shooting some crazed burglar or rapist who smashes through your door. We're talking about going into classrooms with dozens of people and mowing them all down, or shopping centres or theatres, I suppose, places with lots of people. I'm sure you can kill a few people with your shotgun, but then when you stop to feed in the shells you'll be beaten to death by the rest of the people there.

[On Guard for Thee]

Thats why they shorten the barrel. A shotgun is known to be far superior for home defence that a handgun. An automatic weapon is actually a very poor choice in mot situations, long range or short.

I dunno, ARs seemed to work pretty well at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Clackamas, etc., etc.

[Smallc]

They each have their uses. A shotgun has the advantage of killing up to several people with 1 shell

[On Guard for Thee]

As Argus pointed out if you are on a rampage in a school, mall, movie theater, etc., having to stop and reload all the time tends to be a show stopper which is I guess why they are seldom used for those things.

Edited March 30, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[poochy]

As Argus pointed out if you are on a rampage in a school, mall, movie theater, etc., having to stop and reload all the time tends to be a show stopper which is I guess why they are seldom used for those things.

lol, why do people who know nothing about firearms always have so many opinions about them. it's also a hell of a lot easier to hit something with a shotgun, it's not as though most of these mass killings have occurred outside at long range, anyway, as usual you moved the goal posts away from the original subject to the USA and mass killings, neither of those things have anything to do with registering firearms. As Dawson college proved, a registered firearm is still just an inanimate object, if the owner is a nut a piece of paper won't deter him from using it.

[On Guard for Thee]

lol, why do people who know nothing about firearms always have so many opinions about them. it's also a hell of a lot easier to hit something with a shotgun, it's not as though most of these mass killings have occurred outside at long range, anyway, as usual you moved the goal posts away from the original subject to the USA and mass killings, neither of those things have anything to do with registering firearms. As Dawson college proved, a registered firearm is still just an inanimate object, if the owner is a nut a piece of paper won't deter him from using it.

No they happen inside at close range. If you think you know something about guns, then why are shotguns seldom used. And perhaps if the guy is a nut, he doesnt get the piece of paper in the first place. But then NRA types dont think too logically.

[poochy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting Shotgun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_massacreShotgun, in fact, he had a bushmaster rifle in his truck chose not to use it and used the shotgun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings Shotgun, and bolt action .22

Anyway, the weapon doesn't matter, and if you look at the numbers as a whole, AR's are used very rarely, handguns are the real problem, but as i said above all of this talk is just a deflection by one poster who uses this same tactic every time he starts to lose an argument, which is almost every time. The registry has nothing to do with the usa, nor are our cultures comparable in this way, and when it comes to AR's in Canada they are all still registered, as are handguns, but as we all know, no firearm is used more often in homicides than handguns, again disproving the idea that the registry accomplishes something.

[poochy]

No they happen inside at close range. If you think you know something about guns, then why are shotguns seldom used. And perhaps if the guy is a nut, he doesnt get the piece of paper in the first place. But then NRA types dont think too logically.

lol, again, the pattern of deflection, to insults in your posts is painfully predictable. Ok, now post something else irrelevant.....annnnd go!

Edited March 30, 2015 by poochy

[poochy]

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

You're going to see the word Pistol, a lot.

[On Guard for Thee]

lol, again, the pattern of deflection, to insults in your posts is painfully predictable. Ok, now post something else irrelevant.....annnnd go!

Looks like you ve already got it covered.

[Argus]

lol, why do people who know nothing about firearms always have so many opinions about them. it's also a hell of a lot easier to hit something with a shotgun, it's not as though most of these mass killings have occurred outside at long range,

There really isn't any need to make this conversation as adversarial as all this, you know. A simple discussion with no chips on the table ought to be a little less snotty. The point was, as I said earlier, there is no demonstrated NEED for a fully automatic weapon, vs a WANT for them. Societies, like people, must weigh wants and needs, and must bear in mind the possible pros and cons of those decisions. I simply see no advantage to society in allowing fully automatic weapons vs the potential for one kook going off and killing many people with them. And regardless of the killing power of a close range shotgun the fact is the automatic weapon was designed for mass killing and quick reloads and the shotgun is designed for duck hunting. They are extremely effective, of course, until they run out of shells. At that point they become clubs.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Argus

[student13]

Some really good points being made here.

[TimG]

The point was, as I said earlier, there is no demonstrated NEED for a fully automatic weapon, vs a WANT for them. Societies, like people, must weigh wants and needs, and must bear in mind the possible pros and cons of those decisions. I simply see no advantage to society in allowing fully automatic weapons vs the potential for one kook going off and killing many people with them.

There is no NEED for vehicles capable of going 200 kph yet they are sold despite the fact that some people will push their vehicle to its limits and cause crashes. When doing a risk analysis it is necessary to remember that eliminating risk is impossible and, in a free society, living with some risk is a fair trade off for simply allowing people to make the choices they want to make. The real question is not whether some crazy will use an automatic gun to kill a few people but does it happen often enough for us to care? Edited March 30, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

There is no NEED for vehicles capable of going 200 kph yet they are sold despite the fact that some people will push their vehicle to its limits and cause crashes. When doing a risk analysis it is necessary to remember that eliminating risk is impossible and, in a free society, living with some risk is a fair trade off for simply allowing people to make the choices they want to make. The real question is not whether some crazy will use an automatic gun to kill a few people but does it happen often enough for us to care?

The two risks are hardly equivalent. An idiot who races his Masserati is probably only going to kill himself, tho of course, he could hit another vehicle. He's unlikely to kill dozens, though.

Plus society realizes not many people will be able to afford such vehicles, and those who do are likely to be fairly careful of them given the insurance costs. Almost any idiot can afford an AK-47, tho, based on the idiots who do, and they make fine tools for criminals, especially gang members.

I just don't see that this is something people NEED which society should allow. It's a toy, basically. Well, people have a lot of other, less dangerous toys they can play with. They don't NEED fully automatic weapons.

[poochy]

There really isn't any need to make this conversation as adversarial as all this, you know. A simple discussion with no chips on the table ought to be a little less snotty. The point was, as I said earlier, there is no demonstrated NEED for a fully automatic weapon, vs a WANT for them. Societies, like people, must weigh wants and needs, and must bear in mind the possible pros and cons of those decisions. I simply see no advantage to society in allowing fully automatic weapons vs the potential for one kook going off and killing many people with them. And regardless of the killing power of a close range shotgun the fact is the automatic weapon was designed for mass killing and quick reloads and the shotgun is designed for duck hunting. They are extremely effective, of course, until they run out of shells. At that point they become clubs.

Sorry, but when people who don't or are unwilling to understand and accept the facts, facts which are easy to find, and still rant and rave in complete opposition to those facts, why should anyone provide them or their arguments with more respect than they deserve?. Believe what you wish, but if you think that a registry is somehow needed to stop us from becoming 'like them', you are wrong, you are ignorant. If you also believe that an AR15 is killing more people than o idk, just about everything else commonly used as a weapon, you are also wrong, that includes in mass murders, where far more can easily be linked to handguns. Again, none of that has anything to do with the original topic, and was only brought up as a deflection.

Btw, fully automatic weapons as you put it, are not common in the USA, machine guns are tightly regulated, i would agree though that they are not something people need to own, and almost no one does. The Ar15 variants that have been used in shootings are semi automatics, many hunting rifles perform in exactly the same way firing exactly the same ammunition. But this is just another of the 'assault rifle' myths, an Ar15 is not an assault rifle, no more than grandpa's Springfield was anyway, as i said in a previous post, it's fine to debate the need or desirability of any firearm in our society, but to argue a registry prevents their illicit use is silly.

Edited March 30, 2015 by poochy

[poochy]

The two risks are hardly equivalent. An idiot who races his Masserati is probably only going to kill himself, tho of course, he could hit another vehicle. He's unlikely to kill dozens, though.

Plus society realizes not many people will be able to afford such vehicles, and those who do are likely to be fairly careful of them given the insurance costs. Almost any idiot can afford an AK-47, tho, based on the idiots who do, and they make fine tools for criminals, especially gang members.

I just don't see that this is something people NEED which society should allow. It's a toy, basically. Well, people have a lot of other, less dangerous toys they can play with. They don't NEED fully automatic weapons.

So you actuallybeleive that more people are killed with an AR15's etc. than by drivers exceeding the speed limit? We need cars sure, but we don't need to allow them to excced the limits, we could actually control that, yet we don't.

[Argus]

So you actuallybeleive that more people are killed with an AR15's etc. than by drivers exceeding the speed limit? We need cars sure, but we don't need to allow them to excced the limits, we could actually control that, yet we don't.

I make no claims with regard to which kills more people. There are millions of vehicles on the streets which can exceed the speed limit but very few fully automatic AK47s. Exceeding the speed limit is sometimes necessary when passing. Fully automatic weapons are never necessary except when fighting large groups of people.

I am certainly not in favour of a long gun registry but I'm also not in favour of legalizing automatic weapons, much less 'crew served machineguns' as per Derek's post which started this sub-topic.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Shotguns don't have many shots, and are not really designed for close-in work against multiple opponents. They need space for the shot to spread, then you have to reload, which takes longer than for an AK47 too, and gives the survivors the opportunity to jump on your head and beat you to death. No, an automatic weapon is far superior for indoor mass murder.

That is not true........a modern combat shotgun will carry 8-9 shells, that when loaded with 00, equates to 72-81 larger projectiles, that due to their sheer size have a greater felt impact......shot dispersal (spread) is also dependent upon the choke on the gun, in the case of a combat shotgun, the use of a cylinder bore which disperses the pattern over 3-4 lengths of the gun (9-12 feet)............combat reloads also don't take long, with very little practice, ensuring the gun a near cyclic rate of fire............As to "indoor mass murder", or CQB, all modern police and military entry teams, worldwide, are equipped with shotguns for a reason

Despite what is shown in movies and tv, automatic weapons are very inaccurate and hard for a well trained professional to use effective, let alone a nut-bar off his meds.

[Derek 2.0]

Thats why they shorten the barrel. A shotgun is known to be far superior for home defence that a handgun. An automatic weapon is actually a very poor choice in mot situations, long range or short.

And why most combat shotguns have a bayonet lug...........and the viable use of automatics, unlike what is shown in tv and movies, is as an area denial and suppressive fire weapon.....the only reason modern military rifles and carbines will have an automatic selection is to act as a poor-man's machine gun......even then, within NATO, most services either opted for (3 round) burst fire (instead of fully auto) or in many cases, operators of larger .30 caliber rifles (M-14 or FN FAL) would remove the selector switch leaving the rifle as semi-automatic only, as was found in fully automatic, very little would be hit (due to muzzle rise) and finite ammo was wasted.

[Derek 2.0]

The two risks are hardly equivalent. An idiot who races his Masserati is probably only going to kill himself, tho of course, he could hit another vehicle. He's unlikely to kill dozens, though.

Plus society realizes not many people will be able to afford such vehicles, and those who do are likely to be fairly careful of them given the insurance costs. Almost any idiot can afford an AK-47, tho, based on the idiots who do, and they make fine tools for criminals, especially gang members.

In Western States (United States, New Zealand etc) where they are legal, that is not true.......typical retail prices range from $5000-$20000+, in addition, a single 1 second mag dump will use $15-30 dollars worth of ammo.......Likewise, as to owners caring for them, I don't know of a single case of a legally obtained automatic firearms ever being used in a crime in New Zealand or Canada (when they were more commonplace 30+ years), and even in the United States, the last time was the North Hollywood shootout nearly 20 years ago........

[Derek 2.0]

I make no claims with regard to which kills more people. There are millions of vehicles on the streets which can exceed the speed limit but very few fully automatic AK47s. Exceeding the speed limit is sometimes necessary when passing. Fully automatic weapons are never necessary except when fighting large groups of people.

I am certainly not in favour of a long gun registry but I'm also not in favour of legalizing automatic weapons, much less 'crew served machineguns' as per Derek's post which started this sub-topic.

And the point was made to further the discussion........like a firearms registry, the banning of certain type of firearms is also pointless, as pointed out with New Zealand currently, and to a lesser extent Canada, with the private ownership of automatic weapons.........

If a lawful and sane citizen has a license, and uses them is a safe manner, what does it mater to you? In New Zealand one can purchase such firearms, and in Canada right now, some own them perfectly legally.......despite this, the streets aren't running red with blood from lawfully owned automatic firearms.......yet deaths from speeding is a near daily occurrence.

[poochy]

Exceeding the speed limit is sometimes necessary when passing. Fully automatic weapons are never necessary except when fighting large groups of people.

If you need to exceed the limit you shouldnt be passing, and in any case it's not a real argument, we could limit cars to 120 and the limits to 100, but again, we don't and many, many more people die as a result than die as a result of the almost non existent fully automatic anything, either here or in the USA, which is the important point really. Very few people are murdered with any 'assault' rifle, which of course they almost all aren't. I would almost bet that more people will be shot with a handgun in Chicago this year than have ever been killed with an 'assault' rifle in the USA, maybe not, but the numbers over all are not close. A reduced magazine capacity isn't a horrible thing, but they are easy to change, if you ban them completely then you have to think about other semi autos, like shotguns, which are incredibly deadly at relatively close range. There isn't a solution, guns exist, bad things will be done with them.