Handguns and Assault Rifles

[Spiderfish]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

There is no prohibition against hunting deer with a shotgun, and shotgun shells come in different flavors, to include 00 Buck, otherwise known as buckshot, because it is for hunting deer. 

Do yo hunt?  How many deer hunters do you know that hunt deer using buckshot? 

Yeah...me neither.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

Do yo hunt?  How many deer hunters do you know that hunt deer using buckshot? 

Yeah...me neither.

I know lots of people who hunt deer with shotgun, first of all, not all deer hunting is for sport, there is culls as well, but also slug hunting deer is quite popular.

A lot of guys don't own both a shotgun and a rifle, so they hunt everything with their shotgun.

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

So why not prohibit the handgun that the  magazine fits into. The Ruger Charger is new....the 10/22 and magazines have been around for decades.  Prohibiting the Ruger Charger would affect maybe 5 people in Canada, banning the magazine affects 10s of thousands.

Also, since when is it a good idea for the RCMP to re-interpret law and affect the ban of a legal possession?  I thought they were supposed to enforce law, not interpret or amend it.

Makes sense, but maybe the Ruger Charger is too easy to get across the border.

Are there a lot of .22 handguns that fit commercially-available high-capacity mags?

[Spiderfish]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Makes sense, but maybe the Ruger Charger is too easy to get across the border.

Then maybe this is the problem the RCMP and government should be trying to solve, instead of banning legally owned guns and magazines from law-abiding people and creating criminals out of innocent people.

[Spiderfish]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I know lots of people who hunt deer with shotgun

With a rifled barrel and slug..maybe.  Certainly not with "shotgun bullets" with "all the pellets" as was referenced.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Spiderfish

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Spiderfish said:

With a rifled barrel and slug..maybe.  Certainly not with "shotgun bullets" with "all the pellets" as was referenced.

I fire slugs through smoothbore, it's no problem, pretty accurate out to about 75 yards or so.

The slug gun is a bit longer ranged, but not that much more, maybe a hundred yards or so.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[WestCanMan]

42 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

SMDH

Dude that rifle with a tactical red dot sight turns a librarian into Rambo. It's quick like a pistol or sawed-off in close quarters, it's still a dead-shot at 100 yards even with a red dot, it's deadly accurate at 400 yards with a scope, and it's got lethal through-wall power when inside a building.

It's better than a pistol or a SG or a long gun for close-to-medium range because it does every single thing well in that environment, it's just not a good hunting gun.

If you wanted to design a rifle to make law enforcement shit their pants it's that one.

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Dude that rifle with a tactical red dot sight turns a librarian into Rambo. It's quick like a pistol or sawed-off in close quarters, it's still a dead-shot at 100 yards even with a red dot, it's deadly accurate at 400 yards with a scope, and it's got lethal through-wall power when inside a building.

It's better than a pistol or a SG or a long gun for close-to-medium range because it does every single thing well in that environment, it's just not a good hunting gun.

If you wanted to design a rifle to make law enforcement shit their pants it's that one.

It's no different than an Armalite, you're making up a bogey like an hysterical gun grabber, and law enforcement are also way too inclined to take away liberties in the name of their safety.

Being a Peace Officer entails risk, if you can't handle the populace being armed, then you shouldn't be a Peace Officer, because there is no peace without freedom.

[Dougie93]

ZOMG Tavor is the exact same sort of hysteria that has resulted in the Armalite being legal while the Steyr AUG is not, which is based on nothing more than feelings; "looks scarier".

A Bullpup imparts no additional performance to the cartridge, .223 fired through an Armalite, or an AUG,  or a Tavor, is the same .223 in all cases, and the barrels are all about the same.

The purpose of a Bullpup is simply to make a weapon short for crews of armored vehicles, it's not some sort of super weapon which is any more dangerous than a conventional platform.

Once you start allowing panic monkeys to ban things on a whim, it never stops, they just keep on panicking and coming back for more.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Norinco is from China isn't it? Are they any good?

Great for the price.  They certainly work, the parts just aren't as precisely made, but there is a whole cottage industry in Canada around the Norinco M14, people mix and match and try to improve them, and there are armorers who work on them for you, like M14 Medic.

[WestCanMan]

30 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It's no different than an Armalite, you're making up a bogey like an hysterical gun grabber, and law enforcement are also way too inclined to take away liberties in the name of their safety.

Being a Peace Officer entails risk, if you can't handle the populace being armed, then you shouldn't be a Peace Officer, because there is no peace without freedom.

Bullpup is lighter and approx 4" shorter. Going around a corner with a bullpup is not the same as going around a corner with a long gun. The bullpup is easier to conceal. 

I guess the only thing in favour of the bullpup is the high price point. Anyone who can afford it probably isn't going to rob anyone.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Bullpup is lighter and approx 4" shorter. Going around a corner with a bullpup is not the same as going around a corner with a long gun. The bullpup is easier to conceal.

Absolute nonsense.  When you go around the corner, you cut the pie, you're not right up against the corner as you go, weapon length is of no consequence at a corner, I go around a corner the same way no matter what rifle I am employing, again, you're making up bogeys, tactics are not about the kit, it's all about the shooter.

In terms of easier to conceal, concealment is a tactic, I can put an M14 in a hockey bag too, presto; concealed.

And yet shooting a police officer in cold blood remains a major indictable offence, so that contingency is already covered by existing law.

[Dougie93]

If you are going to be defending yourself with a firearm, make sure you understand how to pie a corner.

 

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Absolute nonsense.  When you go around the corner, you cut the pie, you're not right up against the corner as you go, weapon length is of no consequence at a corner, I go around a corner the same way no matter what rifle I am employing, again, you're making up bogeys, tactics are not about the kit, it's all about the shooter.

In terms of easier to conceal, concealment is a tactic, I can put an M14 in a hockey bag too, presto; concealed.

And yet shooting a police officer in cold blood remains a major indictable offence, so that contingency is already covered by existing law.

Wik "bullpup":

Quote

The primary benefit of a bullpup weapon is that the weapon's overall length can be significantly decreased without reducing the barrel length. This allows a bullpup weapon to be maneuvered in tight spaces and concealed more easily than a conventional weapon with a similar barrel length

This isn't designed for the outdoors, it's built to specialize in close quarters. 

If you ask any swat team member or special forces guy what weapon they'd use if they wanted to conceal a weapon, and then use it at mid-to-close range, to inflict maximum damage in an urban scenario, they'd all choose a bullpup over an AR. None of them would choose the bullpup for hunting big game. 

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wik "bullpup":

This isn't designed for the outdoors, it's built to specialize in close quarters. 

If you ask any swat team member or special forces guy what weapon they'd use if they wanted to conceal a weapon, and then use it at mid-to-close range, to inflict maximum damage in an urban scenario, they'd all choose a bullpup over an AR. None of them would choose the bullpup for hunting big game. 

There's no mandate under Canadian law for firearms to only be for the "outdoors", and you have right to defend yourself with a firearm, including at close quarters.

And since you invoked appeal to authority, I am a world class elite soldier, I was an Infantry Reconnaissance Patrolman in the Canadian Army back when it was actually the best trained army in the world, and I was an instructor at the Royal Canadian Regiment Battleschool, I don't require the assistance of the police nor any other soldiers, to advise me on tactics, techniques nor procedures, thank you.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[WestCanMan]

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

If you are going to be defending yourself with a firearm, make sure you understand how to pie a corner.

 

Thanks for that D93.

In that scenario though, there was a lot of room behind him. It wasn't a narrow corridor like a standard hallway. 

A lone shooter has to move quickly, get exposed walking through doorways, acquire targets quickly, he would have a harder time coming out of a closet or something to engage law enforcement, etc. 

IMO a bullpup is a far superior weapon in an urban environment to an AR 15. It's like a big brother of the smg, which is again, a close quarters option. No one chooses an smg to go out in the open either. 

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

There's no mandate under Canadian law for firearms to only be for the "outdoors", and you have right to defend yourself with a firearm, including at close quarters.

I am world class elite soldier, I was an Infantry Reconnaissance Patrolman in the Canadian Army back when it was actually the best trained army in the world, and I was an instructor at the Royal Canadian Regiment Battleschool, I don't require the assistance of the police nor any other soldiers, to advise me on tactics, techniques nor procedures, thank you.

Thanks for your service and kudos for reaching that level.

I'm not advising you, I'm just showing you that I'm not making things up like some diehard Liberal. I'm going along with conventional wisdom.

The main criteria for banning weapons is their 1) lethality, 2) ease of use, and 3) concealability in urban environments. That could be mitigated somewhat by an important practical application for hunting, target shooting, etc. 

The bullpup is king of the big 3 and has no practical mitigating factors imo. It might be more fun if you're into plinking with high-powered rifles, but that's not a major consideration imo.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

IMO a bullpup is a far superior weapon in an urban environment to an AR 15. It's like a big brother of the smg, which is again, a close quarters option. No one chooses an smg to go out in the open either. 

To each his own, personally, it makes no difference to me,  I am the weapon system, I can clear a house with a Lee Enfield bolt action rifle, I can close with and destroy with an H&K MP5 outdoors, tactics is not about the kit, it's all about the shooter.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Thanks for your service and kudos for reaching that level.

No need to thank me, I was paid in full, and all kudos go to my instructors at the Royal Canadian Regiment Battleschool who passed the torch to me, but I appreciate the sentiment and return compliments in kind on behalf of Her Majesty none the less, cheers.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

In terms of Special Operations Forces,  would point out that the finest Special Operations Counterterrorism units in the world, be that the British 22nd Special Air Service Regiment of United Kingdom Special Forces, 1er Régiment de Parachutistes d'Infanterie de Marine of Commandement des forces spéciales Terre,  the Army Compartmentalized Element 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta Combat Applications Group of Joint Special Operations Command,  or even  Sayaret Matkal of the Israel Defense Force, use the Armalite as their primary weapon, none the them use the Tavor,

In the IDF, the Tavor is issued as a general service weapon to new recruits, it's not a special forces weapon, it's primary characteristic is that is easy to use for conscripts.

[Zeitgeist]

11 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

No, that's the American doctrine, when in the House of Windsor, as I already said, I resist Her Majesties enemies and defend the Queen's Peace.

I am landed gentry, a privileged elite, Her Majesty defends the right and I defend Her Majesty.

 

All that "American doctrine" and "House of Windsor" stuff doesn't solve gun violence.  You can still join the military and use the high-powered bling.  You can hunt with the big boys in the wild with rifles full of scopes, lasers and tech that a blind monkey could use.  How heroic.  But when it comes to high-powered, fast-action rifles and handguns, that's where the risks outweigh the benefits.  It's clear that the Canada Firearms Centre, RCMP, and this Liberal government are not going far enough to protect people.  Look where the debate has shifted, from banning firearms to banning guns that kill people too quickly.  It's also the characterization of people who want to place sensible restrictions on firearms as gun grabbers.  The gun lobby is even worse in the States and they have worse violence to contend with.  Sad.

[Yzermandius19]

51 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

All that "American doctrine" and "House of Windsor" stuff doesn't solve gun violence.  You can still join the military and use the high-powered bling.  You can hunt with the big boys in the wild with rifles full of scopes, lasers and tech that a blind monkey could use.  How heroic.  But when it comes to high-powered, fast-action rifles and handguns, that's where the risks outweigh the benefits.  It's clear that the Canada Firearms Centre, RCMP, and this Liberal government are not going far enough to protect people.  Look where the debate has shifted, from banning firearms to banning guns that kill people too quickly.  It's also the characterization of people who want to place sensible restrictions on firearms as gun grabbers.  The gun lobby is even worse in the States and they have worse violence to contend with.  Sad.

The Liberals have already gone too far down the gun control path, your assessment of risks versus benefits is not very good.

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

All that "American doctrine" and "House of Windsor" stuff doesn't solve gun violence. 

I'm not opposed to gun violence, I embrace it, it's merely a question of for what purpose.

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Liberals have already gone too far down the gun control path, your assessment of risks versus benefits is not very good.

The Liberals are nothing if not calculating, they've done the polling, as Goodale said yesterday "Canadians are deeply divided on this issue"

That's code for saying that if they go too far it favors the Conservatives.

Gun grabbers have nowhere else to go, so the Liberals don't have to do much about it, because what are gun grabbers going to do? 

Vote for the Cons? Vote for the NDP which is a vote for the Cons? No. 

So the Liberals are in the sweet spot,  and I don't think they want to mess with it.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dougie93

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

In terms of Special Operations Forces,  would point out that the finest Special Operations Counterterrorism units in the world, be that the British 22nd Special Air Service Regiment of United Kingdom Special Forces, 1er Régiment de Parachutistes d'Infanterie de Marine of Commandement des forces spéciales Terre,  the Army Compartmentalized Element 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta Combat Applications Group of Joint Special Operations Command,  or even  Sayaret Matkal of the Israel Defense Force, use the Armalite as their primary weapon, none the them use the Tavor,

In the IDF, the Tavor is issued as a general service weapon to new recruits, it's not a special forces weapon, it's primary characteristic is that is easy to use for conscripts.

IMO that works against it in this context, because easy to use makes it more effective for noobs.

I would agree that the bullpup is not as good as the armalite for an elite shooter, as the bullpup isn't quite as accurate as a rifle with the sights further down the barrel. The close-in advantage of a bullpup is somewhat negated when your troops have breeching charges, stun grenades and all that other fun stuff, but nothing in a SF soldier's kit replaces the armalite's ability to take out a target at long range, or a target that's in an area with a lot of civilians. They also have a bit more room to add secondary weapons and bigger scopes, etc on an armalite.