1: I'm not wrong about it. It's been proven time and time again that background checks create more problems and do not prevent crimes.

2: Which is exactly why your voice carries no weight on the topic.

3: Um....But none of these recent crimes have been committed by "High power assault rifles" so why are you even mentioning them?

Yes, because that photo clearly shows a 40 round magazine. Even so, that gun would be perfectly legal to hunt with deer and elk in most states. What's the problem? Does it scare you or something? :1orglaugh

You lost the argument a long time ago - That's why you continue with this pedantic nonsense...

By 'you' of course I mean gun lobbyists - Not you in particular.....

You might be wrong about that

From your article:
Special report: Examining the state of gun research | PolitiFact

Look up the word AGENDA, here I'll do it for you


And maybe not
The existing law requiring background checks for gun purchases is know as the Brady Bill
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

See below :thumbsup

The simple fact is people who hate us are going to be trying to kill as many Americans as possible in the coming days, I don't think anybody disputes that.
Our best defense against being attacked on the street or in the shopping malls is for as many Americans as possible to be armed and able to defend ourselves because frankly, the police can't be everywhere.

WWII Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto may not have actually uttered the quote that is often attributed to him:
But you cannot deny the truth of it.


(damn I made a Mark Prince style endless multi-quote post, I must be bored today)

LOL This comment is a prime example of why non-Americans shouldn't be concerned with our gun laws. You obviously have no clue WTF you are talking about.

All your argument's seem to be based on pedantic rebuffs - For example the guy who didn't know his clip from a magazine - That is the sort of shit that lost you the case...

BTW, I haven't insulted you. Yes, I've called you ignorant because...Well..You are exactly that. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word? If you find it insulting then maybe it's time for you to stop making ignorant posts. :2 cents:

Personally, I find it insulting that you think people can't hunt with a .308 if it's black, has a 16" barrel, uses magazines, is semi-auto and has an adjustable stock. NONE of those features make it any less of a hunting firearm.

This rifle is a .308 semi-auto that takes magazines. In the wrong hands, it's capable of the EXACT same kind of destruction as the other you posted. Why are you not crying like a little girl about it being used for hunting as well? What if we paint it black? Is it evil then?

http://picturearchive.gunauction.com...thumbnail0.jpg

Model 7400? Autoloading Centerfire Rifle

My "pedantic rebuffs" are to show the ignorance of others. If you don't know WTF you're talking about then you shouldn't be engaged in the conversation. You sir, have no idea WTF you're talking about nor does ANY of it concern you.

There's a reason this country fought a war to be free from your type. What makes you think that you can force your opinions on us 200 years later? <-----That's a rhetorical question.

Rhetorical questions are often used to direct an argument rather than end one - Anyway, I am not forcing anyone here to do anything. I am just stating my point of view...

The second amendment is outdated BS.....

Nobody wants your opinion....Informing you of that is pretty much he purpose of this thread. :321GFY

You will get it anyway - That's pretty much the idea of this forum:thumbsup...

Neither those make it better one for hunting. Hunting firearms are usually different kinds as military firearms, as the purpose is different and different characteristics are required. And on the other hand, for example our legislation starts from the suitability point of view; it suits for the purpose and it doesn't have unnecessary amount of firepower, etc. If you apply for a firearm to hunt squirrels, you won't get fully automatic elephant gun, and if you want some sort of elephant gun, you gotta give some plan about hunting the elephants. Which is not that hard as you can go to safaris, but anyways, at least you have to lie about your plans if you want to hunt squirrels with elephant gun, or you want to use it for another purpose altogether.

Good hunting firearms are camo or dull in color, have long barrel for increased accuracy (as you hunt at outdoors) and can be handled well for steady shooting.

Even if you can do all the same with military firearms, why you should get one? Using hunting firearm for hunting is no way away from you, you lose nothing.

that being said, looking at how the UK went about banning guns and comparing it to the current drive in the US is a very interesting read.

however, when you have stuff like this:

The U.K. Political Pedophile Ring Scandal is Just The Tip of the Iceberg - The Full Story is Much More Disturbing [UPDATED] | SCG News

one can understand why a government feels a need to disarm it's populace, by any means necessary

People hunt with bows and handguns proving that a longer barrel isn't needed for hunting, especially for anything under 300 yards which most hunting kills are made within. A shorter barrel allows for easier transportation, lighter weight, and getting in and out of vehicles and hunting stands safer.

Why would I get one? They sell regular hammers so why would anybody need a nail gun?

Um, yeah, you have. It's ok, don't worry about it.


MKUltra:

Thanks for the info. So then let's agree that some say increasing gun control will make a difference, and others say it won't.

If you were in charge and could do anything to reduce gun violence, what would it be?

Bow isn't firearm, so it doesn't have a barrel. Secondly, hunting with handguns is even illegal where I live. Of course you can hunt with an artillery too, but just someone using it doesn't make it that good hunting weapon.

Even in 300 yards accuracy matters and with regular sized hunting weapons the length of the barrels isn't a problem. Especially as I meant with the "long" barrel a regular length barrel that is long compared to many military firearms. Why you would need to get out of the vehicle with gun in your hand? Haven't heard about trunk or getting out of the vehicle and then picking up the weapon? And how is shorter weapons safer in those instances? You do it with loaded gun? Hopefully not.

Yes, why you would get one? Nail guns and hammers are for different purpose, so that comparison doesn't match. To what you need your military firearm, so that hunting firearm isn't enough, assuming you use it to hunting? If you need hammer, why you would buy nail gun or vice versa?

a post directed at me by that dumbfuck canaduhian from another thread, yet here he is in my thread yapping his fuckwad trap about shit he knows nothing about.


then he wonders why everyone thinks he makes ignorant posts.

I am obsessed with big tits in Poland.

What is in their water?

LOL Why would I be worried? :1orglaugh

Obviously a bow isn't a gun but if a hunter can kill an elk within 100 yards with a bow then they can do the same with an SBR let alone a 16" barrel. The fact remains that a long barrel isn't needed.

Your words are like those of somebody who has never hunted a day in their life. If you need somebody to explain why a shorter barrel is safer and easier to manipulate then you don't belong owning a gun in the fist place. :2 cents:

It's ok, don't worry about it. :glugglug

Isn't needed? No, but it is better. As having barrel altogether.

About the rest; it is just regular bullshit when someone hasn't valid counterargument. I have hunted about 20 years and I posses firearms. But it doesn't even matter, you are just out of arguments; other than "you are so great and I know nothing"-bullshit.

So, please explain how shorter barrel is safer? Easier to manipulate regarding what situation? We are talking about hunting and it doesn't happen in very confined environments. And even if your barrel clings to some object, it isn't dangerously. Actually, the shorter barrel the easier you shoot yourself. What comes to getting out of a stand, car, getting over fence, etc., all safety instructions tell you to do it with unloaded gun. So, the only dangerously part is you managing to hit yourself with your own gun, or just stumbling in general. What comes to the safety of shorter barrel, as I have been in military service I can tell something about that; especially one guy without front teeth and a half of a lip can tell you that shorter barrel is not that safe when stumbling (he fell when skiing downhill).

You have ZERO valid counter argument and based on your posts, you know fuck all about guns. I'm not here to educate you. Research the topic on your own.

You must be hunting on the open plains of Africa or some shit. Around here, many of the outdoor spaces are definitely confined environments.

You want to talk about gun safety then tell me about a guy who was skiing with a loaded gun. Yeah....OK. Great example. :thumbsup

i'm just rubbing it in real good.

:upsidedow

Regular sized hunting gun is just fine even in thickest woods, you just point the barrel forward or straight up. There is not that much shooting in those situations anyways. Or if the barrel length is problem, buy short barreled hunting gun. Why you need to buy short barreled military firearm?

What comes to that skiing accident; the gun wasn't loaded, the muzzle hit him in the mouth when he fell. Besides, it was in the army, so having loaded gun wouldn't be that unheard. At least in the war time the guns are surely loaded when skiing. I am sure you know why.

The main point I was trying to make is don't put your faith in a study paid for by somebody with an agenda, will more gun laws reduce gun crime? I really doubt it.
There will always be those who abuse something, I for one don't blame the shovel for the hole.

The left has been working the "just a little bit more restriction... just a few more laws and this whole problem goes away" angle for generations even though it doesn't seem to have worked so far, the problem persists.

The fact that it seems to be only the left that are trying to remove guns from the hands of citizens tells me that the 2nd amendment is working as planned and that an armed population is making them just a little bit nervous. :1orglaugh

#1- Ban Canadians

#2- From the statistics it seems that the huge per capita majority of gun crimes happen in the cities, let me tell you a little story...

I got my first shotgun when I was around 12 or 13 years old, a single-shot .410, my father used to let me go into the large water percolation area next to our farm to hunt with it when I went out to the farm with him on Saturdays.

One day a jackrabbit jumped from behind a tumbleweed and started running away from me, without thinking I aimed and fired.
When the dust cleared the rabbit was bouncing up and down and his legs were still trying to run, but the back of his head was missing.

I had this immediate, overwhelming feeling of "what have I done?" Feelings of horror and grief that I can still feel to this day.

That jackrabbit had done nothing to deserve this.

My father had taught me about gun safety and gun handling before he ever let me out on my own but nothing he taught me prepared me for what it felt like to kill something with a gun. Shooting birds with a bb gun doesn't even come close.

I never really respected the lethal power and finality of a gun until that moment, and that respect has never waned even though I continued to hunt varmints that caused damage to our crops and shot dove and pheasant to eat.

Kid in the cities never have experiences like that, they never have their fathers teach them to respect and be safe with guns, all they learn is what they see on tv and the movies.
Guns make you a badass.
Guns make the other guy fall down and you win.
Guns give you power.
Guns are cool.

So when they get older and have the pressures from poverty and gangs getting a gun becomes a no-brainer for them, they don't experience what it's like to kill with a gun until it's too late. :(

But of course if anybody suggests teaching gun safety and education in the schools the left goes into convulsions with blood squirting from their ears at the very idea. :helpme

Would teaching kids gun safety and respect solve the problem on it's own? No.
Would it help? I think in time,Yes.

Wrong,

It was designed to wound not to kill. A wounded enemy needs help, which takes more enemies out of the fight. A dead enemy needs no imediate help.

Secondly a 5.56 round is like half the size and weight than the 7.62 x 51, (which is what the 5.56 replaced) when the army went from the M-14 to the M-16, thus enabling soldiers to carrry twice the ammunition.

As far as damage, the .30 cal 7.62 x 51 NATO round which had a 150.5 gr projectile traveling at 2750 fps will flat out fuck some shit up.

The 22 .cal 5.56 NATO round with a 62 gr projectile at 3000 fps is nothing to sneeze at but nowhere near the damage done as the heavier .30 cal 7.62 traveling almost as fast.

It's a huge hunk of lead that does MASSIVE damage.

Most sniper rifles still use 7.62 x 51 to this date because it's Bad Ass, you will never see a 5.56 sniper rifle because they really suck in comparison.

You can't build a zoo if the monkeys are armed.

I have friends & family across the States. I live 10 mins from the border and frequently travel the east coast. Not obsessed over America's gun culture...but I pay attention and have opinions. The U.S. is not an isolationist society. Their issues and affairs have far-reaching effects.

The existence of USA contradicts this. :)















..Sorry, it was too good to pass. I don't really mean it.

far-reaching effects like what?

you do get the drift of this thread though, in a sea of anti-Americanism at teh GFY, the caring about American gun culture here is just another snide anti-American jab.

You're so tough.

You tell him, tough guy. Man you're tough. And smart. Woah-doggy you're a smart man yessir.

**********, full of shit, as per usual.

Every sane person would understand that, Silent, but you're talking to Dynamo here. He's the biggest right-wing doofus I've ever had the displeasure of posting with. Don't back him into a corner though because when he realizes he can't fight anymore, he will just devolve into his boring old "republitard libitard canadiantard whatevertard" gibberish.

And definitely don't bring up the fact about how he lied to others on GFY, and that he changed quotes in posts, or that he thinks its ok for animals to suffer as long as the Koch Brothers can keep getting richer, or don't dare ask him about the REAL reason he's afraid to ride motorcycles. He will just start crying like the little bitch that he is, again. PS You know he's crying when he ads " 'tard" to every second word.

Cheers.

You are such a tough man! OMG what a man you are. Big man, big balls too I'm sure, right? Tough tough tough.

There's no Anti-Americanism at GFY, you fucking idiot. Red Neck Cow-fucks like you take genuine concern about racism, Hilarious political antics, and mass killings, and then turn it into anti-American rhetoric. Stop being such a little bitch and listen to some alternative ideas for a change you fucking pussy.

wait **********, you said you had nothing to say to me.

then you yap your trap exclaiming there is no anti-Americanism at teh GFY. :1orglaugh


more ********** canaduhian bullshit




and if anyone has 1 single fucking iota of research that reveals guns in America have far-reaching international effects, i'd enjoy reading that.

You see, this is the kind of stupid shit I'm referring to. People don't buy "military firearms" for hunting in the first place. As far as I know, that would be illegal in most States because "military firearms" & "assault rifles" are fully automatic.

Just because you feel like calling a gun something it clearly is not does not make you correct. A "short barreled hunting gun" is no different than a short barreled AR-10 with a 5 round magazine. YOUR chosen definition of "hunting gun" is based on what exactly? That the stock isn't adjustable? That it's not semi auto? That it's not black? That it doesn't accept magazines? All those scary things make it a "military gun" to you?

Seriously, you're not making any sense here.

Seriously and seriously? You take military firearm, mod it as semi-auto only and you think it is not military firearm anymore? It is the same fucking gun without full-auto capability, that can be suppressed even in guns possessed by military (like forced burst fire). You can call it whatever you want in there, in Somalia they have different legal definitions, and here in Finland again different definitions, so let's stay focused into those guns, not to the legal stuff.

My definition for hunting gun is a gun that is designed for hunting, or in broader terms for sport shooting too if such gun is used for hunting.

I have been in army and I can say that army's guns clearly differ from guns designed for hunting or sport shooting, especially when it comes to rifles. Guns are tailored for certain purposes. There aren't just guns; there are guns designed for specific situations and purposes.

One of the fastest growing shooting sports in America is 3-Gun. Head over to 3gunnation.com and let me know what manufacturers and rifle types you see used there.

Let me try saying this a different way....

WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT THE GUN LOOKS LIKE?

An AR-10 chambered in 7.62x51 is just as effective for hunting as something like a semi-auto Remington 7400 chambered in .308. In some ways, it's even better because it's easier for the shooter to customize to their specific usage.

It's the bullet that does the harm and unlike you, the bullet doesn't care what the gun it's fired from looks like. The only valid response from you is to admit you're a pussy who's afraid of a black gun.

We're done here. :321GFY

I haven't even heard about some 3-gun, but we have something similar that is called as practical. It pretty much simulates shooting people and the weapons match that intent. That 3-gun seems very similar. It is sport shooting, but not exactly what I meant by sport shooting. However, the choice of weapons in that 3-gun supports what I have said.

You are the one that talks about the gun's look, I talk about for what it is designed for.

Travel and tourism, for starters. North of the border we are constantly inundated by the media about the daily stories of shootings...and I'm sure it has a deterrent effect at times on people wanting to travel or vacation in certain areas. It's perceived as a lot of civil unrest these days - and one never knows where another shooting is going to crop up.

Other far-reaching effects such as friends and family members being involved. Everyday I hear and read these stories and wonder if someone I know caught a bullet...wounded, killed.

Our border patrols officers have started carrying guns in recent years at border crossing due to the increasingly large numbers of weapons being smuggled back and forth. Costs, training and implementation of this isn't cheap...another burden to the taxpayer.

Of course I get the drift - and my reply above wasn't intended as a trite jab or bashing, merely an observation of what I see and hear everyday. It's genuinely a concern to some of us...and we're starting to see more mass shooting here in Canada these days - and whether that's an influence from down south is debatable. Just today in fact we had a mass shooting at a cafe in Woodbridge, just north of Toronto. Two dead...two injured (one in critical).

There's no doubt a ripple effect takes place.

isn't calling out concern as 'anti-americanism' a bit like brassmonkey decrying every concern about black culture as 'racist'? Sure, there are about 4 genuine anti-american members here, just like there are 4 or 5 genuine racists, 'this board is anti-america' seems a bit of a stretch to me though. Surely we don't need to tiptoe around US members here like we have to tiptoe around ethnic issues?

I'll never 'get' american culture simply because I'm not american, and I have no *real* leanings one way or the other as far as your gun stuff goes, other than to be baffled at the (and only the) 'we need it to fight the government' arguments.