The Great Gun Control Debate

[1feral1]

Hey Bro

I think that the siezed MAC 10 SMG was a semi-auto...Which ( I believe) are legal down there...

Cheers

Slim

MAC 10s were in .45ACP and 9 x 19mm. MAC 11s were in .380 Auto , AKA 9mmK. Cobray's original were semi and full auto, and later semi versions firing from an open bolt, then later versions friing from a closed bolt. Due to wierd US laws, the semi versions had no retracting butt, and were classed as pistols, as semi carbines but have a mininum barrel length of 16 inches.

Laws vary in the USA, and in most states machine guns and still quite legal to own, but are restricted in use.

As for MAC 10s and 11s in Canada, I know of a few legally owned in Saskatchewan. They are full autos, owned by people who had them registered prior to 01 Jan 78. Presently those people who own such can still buy and trade amoung themselves.

There is also semi auto MAC in Canada, with the original retracting butts due to our different laws. A friend of mine in Moose Jaw used to have one, a M11 in 9mmK. All happily registered.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[rw4th]

Laws vary in the USA, and in most states machine guns and still quite legal to own, but are restricted in use.

Legal to own if you get a special license (Class 3 FLL I believe) - the same as in Canada (think industrial firearms license and the like).

My problem with the news article is that it makes it sounds like you can easily just go over the border and legally acquire automatic weapons, and then smuggle them back into Canada. The following describes the required federal process to own automatic weapons in the US. Some states impose additional restrictions (if they don't ban them alltogether).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

 

[Zipper]

While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?


Who is that comedian? The one who said "raise the cost of bullets"? If a bullet cost 10 thousand dollars, alot of criminals would think twice before useing a gun. Laughed my ass off.

 

[Infanteer]

While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?

It is something deeper.  Although you'll have to go back to page 15 or so of this thread to get a more detailed answer, why is it that Switzerland (which is armed to the teeth) and Japan (which has no guns at all) have roughly the same rates of homicide and violent crime while the most violent societies on Earth are the primitive hunter/gatherer ones in New Guinea and South America in which the weapon of choice is a spear?

Obviously, it is something deeper.  "Guns" is merely a boogyman for many activists.

 

[Slim]

For all who believe that criminals are using theguns stolen from responsible firearms owners...

Wed, February 16, 2005


Pot trade a big bang



By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN



POLICE AND Customs officers say Canadian pot is being traded by gangs for weapons in the U.S. and then smuggled into the country for resale or to settle feuds. Customs officials said they seized 1,100 weapons being smuggled into the country last year. Of those, more than 200 were seized at southern Ontario border crossings.

"There are cases from time to time that involve the smuggling of weapons by organized crime," Dan Yen of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said yesterday.

Yen said most guns are seized from U.S. citizens entering Canada by car.

"There is an ongoing battle to combat and keep weapons off the streets," he said. "Our officers are vigilant and always on the alert."

Ron Moran of the Customs Excise Union said the seizures are only the tip of the iceberg.

"Police intelligence shows gangs are trading Canadian marijuana for weapons," Moran said yesterday. "Every time this happens the weapons are smuggled into Canada."

Moran said his unarmed officers routinely seize high-calibre weapons from criminals and U.S. gun owners. Customs officials seized 5,000 firearms being snuck into the country in the last five years.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/02/16/932486-sun.html

 

[Infanteer]

That's the general trend I was referring to.

 

[a_majoor]

Those who want to ban firearms will continue to advocate it regardless of the statistical or anecdotal evidence being raised. But since people apparently cannot be trusted to own one type of tool with a particular property, where is the line drawn?

As a student of Aikido, I own a Bokken; a wooden replica of a Samuri Katana, and by using Samuri sword techniques, can deliver devastating blows to an opponent. Should the Bokken be banned? Should the study of Aikido be banned? Dedicated Internet surfers, or people willing to take the time to comb libraries can discover how to make explosives (including nuclear weapons; I was very surprised to find a book in my personal library has an easy to follow recipie) out of relatively common items. Do we shut down the Internet? Close Libraries? Close Canadian Tire stores since many of the ingredients and suplies can come from there?

After attempting to deconstruct the arguments raised on this thread, it is quite clear the main issue is one of personal responsibility. IF we accept that a person has to prove his fitness to own and use firearms (an FAC), and is responsible for the safe storage and use of his firearms (as laid out in countless, existing, laws and statutes), then that is the end of the story.

The people who won't accept that an individual has the capacity to responsibly own and use a firearm are really advocating that individuals are not responsible, and therefore should be subjected to invasive and intrusive checks on their liberty. After all, having care and control over an infant child is also a huge responsibility, far better that children be raised according to a government formula in state sponsored day cares and public schools......you get the idea.

 

[P Kaye]

>>including nuclear weapons... out of relatively common items

Probably the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is obtaining the high-grade plutonium.  Plutonium is not a relatively common item, and is in fact VERY difficult and expensive to produce, which is why entire countries have difficulty obtaining nuclear weapons.

Of course, for "dirty" bombs (which are radiological, but not really "nuclear" in the sense that they don't generate a chain reaction) you don't need high-grade plutonium.  A bunch of radioactive material of any time, like uranium, would do.  But again, this is not all that easy to obtain.

 

[Infanteer]

Building a nuclear weapon shouldn't be hard.  The first, and most primitive, nuclear weapons were "gun type" weapons that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together.  The sudden crash of a critical mass of radioactive substance leads to the nuclear fission and the "boom".  One could almost "McGyver" up a system that simply crashes two pieces of fuel together.  The trick is to not let the two fuel sources be exposed to eachother at a close enough range to allow for a criticality.

As P Kaye said, acquiring the fuel is the tricky part - not for the science, which is available in a Grade 12 physics textbook, but rather for the technical processes required.

Infanteer (who took a nuclear weapons course in school....)

 

[P Kaye]

>> that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together

To get a proper chain reaction started,  I think this "ramming" has to be done in a very specific way.  You have to get a more or less uniform compression of the material happening.  This is done by surrouding the material with conventional explosives, but I think it requires a certain degree of precision engineering to get the implosion happening in the right way.

I haven't taken a course on this stuff though...just learned through reading.  Does this sound right, Infanteer?

 

[rw4th]

Maybe we should lobby to get personal ownership of nuclear weapons banned, just in case  :

This is all about personal responsibility

- You're fat, blame McDonalds
- You have a car accident, blame the manufacturer
- Your kids misbehave, blame television
- You don't feel safe, blame guns

Some people buy into a larger conspiracy theory when it comes to gun control, but I don't give the anti-gun people that much credit. I think they really are that shortsighted in their efforts.

If they do succeed in banning all private ownership of firearms, then it's only a question of time before knives and other weapons are restricted, and things like the practice of martial arts are targeted.

 

[Infanteer]

>> that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together

To get a proper chain reaction started,   I think this "ramming" has to be done in a very specific way.   You have to get a more or less uniform compression of the material happening.   This is done by surrouding the material with conventional explosives, but I think it requires a certain degree of precision engineering to get the implosion happening in the right way.

I haven't taken a course on this stuff though...just learned through reading.   Does this sound right, Infanteer?

No, what you are describing is an "implosion"-type bomb which works by compressing Plutonium (as opposed to Uranium) into a criticality.   It is alot more technical as it requires the explosives be composed, manufactured, and set-up to very exacting specifications.

The "gun-type" bomb is simple and involve two pieces hitting eachother in a manner to form a criticality.   There were stories, during the Manhatten Project, of crazy scientists in Alamgoro who would try and see how close they could hold two pieces of Uranium together (the two pieces would start to get very hot as the proximity closed and fission began to occur on the surface - there wasn't enough fissile reactions to start a chain-reaction, but the possibility was there).

When the Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombs were named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy".   Fat Man was an implosion-type bomb using Plutonium fuel while Little Boy was a gun-type using Uranium fuel.   I'm willing to bet that two bombs were dropped so that the US could get a good measure of the destructive powers of each type.

Anyways, I digress, back to protecting the right to bear arms....

 

[P Kaye]

>> Anyways, I digress, back to protecting the right to bear arms....

Which seems to be becoming a seriously over-flogged, quite dead, horse.

 

[a_majoor]

The scariest part of the book was it had reasonable suggestions of where to find Uranium Hexaflouride ("Yellowcake") or Plutonium Nitrate, as well as the chemical reactions to rend the substances down to the pure U 235 or Pu 238 needed to make the bomb.

As for high precision, the Plutonium implosion bomb requires the high precision devices to ensure a symmetrical implosion, but the Uranium "gun" can be quite crude. I could potentially build a very lightweight device and boost the explosive power by immersing it in a pool of water, with the saftey being a crossbar stuck in the "gun barrel", and the timing device being a wind up alarm clock....

Since I havn't taken a major city hostage, it should be safe to assume I am competent to deal with this knowledge. Since the book has been around for several decades, I would even say it is reasonable that the vast majorety of people are competent to deal with this knowledge. rw4th has it right, we either take personal responsibility for our actions, or give our responsibility to someone else.

 

[1feral1]

While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?

Personally I beleive we as Canadians have a diffferrent 'gun culture' than our neighbours to the south. Plus there is in excess of 250 million Americans living in a country (lower 48 states) that is smaller than Canada. If we were to multiply our 30 million population 10 times, then what would be the crime figures and similar stats?

Food for thought?

Cheers,

Wes

 

[muskrat89]

Maj Baker - The gun thing isn't too big a deal. I deal with it fairly frequently in my booking agent sideline. You fill out a form ahead of time, and pay $50 when you cross. It's almost as big a deal to borrow a rifle (if you do it by the book)

 

[Zipper]

Personally I beleive we as Canadians have a diffferrent 'gun culture' than our neighbours to the south. Plus there is in excess of 250 million Americans living in a country (lower 48 states) that is smaller than Canada. If we were to multiply our 30 million population 10 times, then what would be the crime figures and similar stats?

Food for thought?

Cheers,

Wes

Good question.

Just a small stat. There have been approx. 204,000 gun related incidents in US High Schools in the last 100 years. There have been 4 in Canada.

I was there for one of them.

 

[a_majoor]

"Gun related incidents" covers a lot of ground, from someone claiming to have a gun to Columbine. It would be far more useful if these stats can be broken down.

Earlier in this thread, we saw an interesting example of how undifferentiated statistics were manipulated in Canada; proponents of the Gun Registry used a similar data set to inflate the percentage of criminal acts involving fire arms, but once it was deconstructed and the "actual use" of firearms was counted (as opposed to discovering there was a gun stored in the house where the crime was comitted), then the numbers fell quite sharply.

 

[rw4th]

Just a small stat. There have been approx. 204,000 gun related incidents in US High Schools in the last 100 years. There have been 4 in Canada.

I agree with a_majoor, the statistics you quote are vague and purposefully pejorative; please cite your sources. If we consider â Å“gun incidentsâ ? to mean anything involving a gun, then 4 for Canada is way to low a figure. I can think of 4 just incidents â Å“involving gunsâ ? just in Montreal in the past few years.

 

[TCBF]

it's cultural.  IF you remove the statistics from the ten largest urban cores, you eliminate the innr city drug crime.  Then their rates fall below ours.

Tom