The Great Gun Control Debate

[Jimmy_D]

Hardly.  My ROF is much lower and my magzine capacity is much lower.  AR15s are meant for shoot outs/fire fights.  They were designed to produce a high volume of fire.

If a bolt action .308 is deadlier in a shoot out we (the CF) should have never left behind bolt action rifles.

The reason the Military went from a 7.62mm/.308cal in your case to a 5.56mm/.223cal was to take more men off of the battlefield. A 7.62 has more chances of killing its desired target than a 5.56mm, as the 5.56mm is intended to wound the enemy. Therefore taking personal from fighting to dragging the injured member off of the battlefield.

 

[Jed]

What would you say is appropriate gun control legislation then ?  Free for all ?  Own anything you want ?  You would have people setting up MG nests in the woods to hunt deer!

Now this is just plain 'over the top'. No one but the criminal wants totally lawless, indiscriminate use of the firearms tool. That is why we have reasonable laws for hunting.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The reason the Military went from a 7.62mm/.308cal in your case to a 5.56mm/.223cal was to take more men off of the battlefield. A 7.62 has more chances of killing its desired target than a 5.56mm, as the 5.56mm is intended to wound the enemy. Therefore taking personal from fighting to dragging the injured member off of the battlefield.

Im in no way intending to be rude but whats your point ?  I think I am missing your intended point.

 

[Jimmy_D]

Im in no way intending to be rude but whats your point ?  I think I am missing your intended point.

You were stating that an AR-15 is deadlier than your .308 which is far from the truth. Not to mention, that in Canada you are only allowed 5rd mags with an AR class firearm. So therefor your .308 bolt action is proven to be a deadlier weapon.

 

[NavyShooter]

Tar,

You've focused on ROF, looks and ignore the fact that in the eyes of someone who wants to ban all guns, mine are an easier target than yours, so they start with mine.

Don't mistake the fact that they haven't targetted yours YET for them planning to let you keep them.

Someone as rabidly anti-gun as the CGC (or others) sees all civilian firearm ownership (be they hunting rifles, sniper rifles, etc) as BAD, and make no mistake, they're after you too.  They've just convinced you that they're not...and that you don't need to help me keep mine because mine are bad.

Go ahead and toss me under the bus....see who'll be there when they come for yours.

NS

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hardly.  My ROF is much lower and my magzine capacity is much lower.  AR15s are meant for shoot outs/fire fights.  They were designed to produce a high volume of fire.

If a bolt action .308 is deadlier in a shoot out we (the CF) should have never left behind bolt action rifles.

HT, don't look at this from a military point of view.  Consider it in the realm of gun control, curbing gun violence  and mass/school shoot outs.

A .308 has farther range (creating more stand off with police), deeper penetration (shooting through barricades, police car doors, walls), a bullet that weights in upwards of 3times as much as a 5.56 round (hits harder).  Soldiers overseas have complained that 5.56 rounds are just punching through unarmred insurgents. they get up and start shooting back.  Hitting someone with a 7.62 has a more terminal effect.

When you look at the rates how many people are actually killed in school shootings the number is very low. Under half a dozen. Few and far between are the shootouts with 20+ dead.  It's like a plane crash vs car deaths a year. Cars are way more dangerous, but it's a small number of deaths when it happens.

Rate of fire in an AR15 doesn't really amount to much when you look at the ratio of deaths in shootings.  Shooting an ar15 at a high rate of fire also makes it very inaccurate. compared to something with slower aimed shots.  A bolt action isn't even that slow all things considered.

I've done enemy force tasks quite a lot in my career and I've often put a very big dent in an 8 to 10 man section, armed with not only AR15 assault rifles (capable of fully automatic fire) but also 2 light machineguns. And all I've had was a C7 set on semi auto. Give me a bolt action rifle (with blanks, miles gear) and I'd triple my kill count.

Arguing gun control based of of technical date (magazine capacity, make and model of the rifle) isn't a solid argument when it comes to stopping gun violence if you ask me.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You were stating that an AR-15 is deadlier than your .308 which is far from the truth. Not to mention, that in Canada you are only allowed 5rd mags with an AR class firearm. So therefor your .308 bolt action is proven to be a deadlier weapon.

They why don't SWAT teams, other LOE and armed forces use bolt action rifles anymore for anything more than long range precision shooting ?

 

[Jed]

HT, don't look at this from a military point of view.  Consider it in the realm of gun control, curbing gun violence  and mass/school shoot outs.

A .308 has farther range (creating more stand off with police), deeper penetration (shooting through barricades, police car doors, walls), a bullet that weights in upwards of 3times as much as a 5.56 round (hits harder).  Soldiers overseas have complained that 5.56 rounds are just punching through unarmred insurgents. they get up and start shooting back.  Hitting someone with a 7.62 has a more terminal effect.
When you look at the rates how many people are actually killed in school shootings the number is very low. Under half a dozen. Few and far between are the shootouts with 20+ dead.  It's like a plane crash vs car deaths a year. Cars are way more dangerous, but it's a small number of deaths when it happens.

Rate of fire in an AR15 doesn't really amount to much when you look at the ratio of deaths in shootings.  Shooting an ar15 at a high rate of fire also makes it very inaccurate. compared to something with slower aimed shots.  A bolt action isn't even that slow all things considered.

I've done enemy force tasks quite a lot in my career and I've often put a very big dent in an 8 to 10 man section, armed with not only AR15 assault rifles (capable of fully automatic fire) but also 2 light machineguns. And all I've had was a C7 set on semi auto. Give me a bolt action rifle (with blanks, miles gear) and I'd triple my kill count.

Arguing gun control based of of technical date (magazine capacity, make and model of the rifle) isn't a solid argument when it comes to stopping gun violence if you ask me.

Wrt caliber of bullet: This is why you are not allowed to hunt big game with a .22 or .223. It takes a larger, more powerful round to stop a bigger animal unless you are very accurate with your shot placement.

 

[Jimmy_D]

They why don't SWAT teams, other LOE and armed forces use bolt action rifles anymore for anything more than long range precision shooting ?

The reasoning is that LEO's, ERT, SWAT teams etc are trained to subdue the assailant. Their training is to shoot for the torso. A torso shot is not a guaranteed kill shot. When LE Teams bring out the bolt action rifles, those shooters are looking for a kill shot. Most LE teams also use less lethal rounds (depending on circumstances), for the fact they want to subdue and arrest the assailant and carry on with the judicial system.

 

[Halifax Tar]

HT, don't look at this from a military point of view.  Consider it in the realm of gun control, curbing gun violence  and mass/school shoot outs.

A .308 has farther range (creating more stand off with police), deeper penetration (shooting through barricades, police car doors, walls), a bullet that weights in upwards of 3times as much as a 5.56 round (hits harder).  Soldiers overseas have complained that 5.56 rounds are just punching through unarmred insurgents. they get up and start shooting back.  Hitting someone with a 7.62 has a more terminal effect.

When you look at the rates how many people are actually killed in school shootings the number is very low. Under half a dozen. Few and far between are the shootouts with 20+ dead.  It's like a plane crash vs car deaths a year. Cars are way more dangerous, but it's a small number of deaths when it happens.

Rate of fire in an AR15 doesn't really amount to much when you look at the ratio of deaths in shootings.  Shooting an ar15 at a high rate of fire also makes it very inaccurate. compared to something with slower aimed shots.  A bolt action isn't even that slow all things considered.

I've done enemy force tasks quite a lot in my career and I've often put a very big dent in an 8 to 10 man section, armed with not only AR15 assault rifles (capable of fully automatic fire) but also 2 light machineguns. And all I've had was a C7 set on semi auto. Give me a bolt action rifle (with blanks, miles gear) and I'd triple my kill count.

Arguing gun control based of of technical date (magazine capacity, make and model of the rifle) isn't a solid argument when it comes to stopping gun violence if you ask me.

I actually agree with most of your points.  If you read my original post this thread you will notice I also don't think guns cause violence,  I believe that all crime is a socioeconomic problem and guns are simply the preferred tool of some criminals. 

I also state that I think out current laws are just fine and I don't think there are any changes coming soon.  BUT if changes do come I said what I see as reasonable.

I would like to see the stats on crimes committed using an assault rifle VS hand gun VS bolt action rifle.  As well as the live lost using the same paramaters.  Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the hand guns and assault rifles would be the worse off in those stats.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The reasoning is that LEO's, ERT, SWAT teams etc are trained to subdue the assailant. Their training is to shoot for the torso. A torso shot is not a guaranteed kill shot. When LE Teams bring out the bolt action rifles, those shooters are looking for a kill shot. Most LE teams also use less lethal rounds, for the fact they want to subdue and arrest the assailant and carry on with the judicial system.

Why would a LE team be sent into a shoot out or gun fight with less lethal rounds ?  My uncle is an OPP officer I will have to ask him about this. 

 

[NavyShooter]

Tar, 

At no point have I suggested throwing away the laws and having a free-for all.  I'm not sure how you got there from what I wrote.

A sensible graduated firearms licensing program with qualifications, testing, etc along the way to prove competence to go with ownership would make sense to me.  Right now we have a basic format for this, why not expand it?

NS

 

[Halifax Tar]

Wrt caliber of bullet: This is why you are not allowed to hunt big game with a .22 or .223. It takes a larger, more powerful round to stop a bigger animal unless you are very accurate with your shot placement.

Unless you talking about .50 Cal or 20MM rounds its not about the caliber or size of the round its about the rate of fire.  No one uses a .303 to shoot up a school or bank.  Its SMGs, Hand Guns and Assault Rifles.

 

[Jimmy_D]

Why would a LE team be sent into a shoot out or gun fight with less lethal rounds ?  My uncle is an OPP officer I will have to ask him about this. 

If a LE team is going to a shoot out, they will be using ball rounds. But their objective is to fire their weapon as necessary. A LEO is scrutinized more for firing their weapon. They are accountable for the amount of rounds they fire. If it is believed that they over used the use of lethal force (IE: firing too many rounds, compared to others) then they face repercussions unless justifiable.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Halifax Tar, in your opinion as a member of the Navy and being exposed to boarding parties, how dangerous are pump action shotguns in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors?

If you wanted to get to someone and they were barricaded behind a door, say one you might find in a school, which would allow you to get into that room easier?  A semi-automatic 5.56mm assault rifle or a shotgun (capable of firing 1oz slugs).

In your opinion as someone who has been exposed to firearms, which would make a more deadly weapon in the hands of an inexperienced shooter at close range. A shotgun or ar 15?

 

[Jed]

Unless you talking about .50 Cal or 20MM rounds its not about the caliber or size of the round its about the rate of fire.  No one uses a .303 to shoot up a school or bank.  Its SMGs, Hand Guns and Assault Rifles.

Sawed off shotguns are most likely the wpn of choice. Easy to get and if you pull the mag plug, easy to increase the capacity. In Canada anyway, pistols and SMGs are by far illegally obtained if they are being used. It goes without saying,  law abiding gun owners are very reluctant to have any of their wpns used indiscriminately.

 

[captloadie]

I think NS has a good idea on how to allow the public at large to legally own firearms that are currently restricted or prohibited. That being said, there is more to this than just training. We keep discussing on how guns don't kill people, people do, and that criminals will always find a way to get their hands on illegal weapons. I agree.

However, the incidents that spur on gun control advocates aren't normally the petty crime stuff, or even that of organized crime. It is when everyday Joe blow citizen, or their children, lose it (mentally speaking). It's the school shootings, the murder/suicides, etc. that normally involve legally owned guns. How do we stop this from happening? Can we stop this from happening? Should there be a psychological evaluation or something to determine whether someone should be able to keep their guns? Unfortunately the answer to this is probably no, which means we have two choices. Accept that some gun owners are going to go off the rails and harm others, or ban guns altogether in an attempt to limit the ability of said gun owners to cause harm.

 

[ballz]

However, the incidents that spur on gun control advocates aren't normally the petty crime stuff, or even that of organized crime. It is when everyday Joe blow citizen, or their children, lose it (mentally speaking). It's the school shootings, the murder/suicides, etc. that normally involve legally owned guns. How do we stop this from happening? Can we stop this from happening? Should there be a psychological evaluation or something to determine whether someone should be able to keep their guns? Unfortunately the answer to this is probably no, which means we have two choices. Accept that some gun owners are going to go off the rails and harm others, or ban guns altogether in an attempt to limit the ability of said gun owners to cause harm.

And given that these type of incidents represent a small fraction of actual homicides, it's a little bit irrational to focus on them. Not surprisingly, the same people who react irrationally are the same people that come up with completely irrational solutions. I understand, huge tragedies stir up huge emotions, but they (we) have all got to be able to step back and look at it calmly and rationally. If the goal is to preserve life, it makes more sense to focus on preventing the common every day homicides, not the outliers.

 

[Jed]

I think NS has a good idea on how to allow the public at large to legally own firearms that are currently restricted or prohibited. That being said, there is more to this than just training. We keep discussing on how guns don't kill people, people do, and that criminals will always find a way to get their hands on illegal weapons. I agree.

However, the incidents that spur on gun control advocates aren't normally the petty crime stuff, or even that of organized crime. It is when everyday Joe blow citizen, or their children, lose it (mentally speaking). It's the school shootings, the murder/suicides, etc. that normally involve legally owned guns. How do we stop this from happening? Can we stop this from happening? Should there be a psychological evaluation or something to determine whether someone should be able to keep their guns? Unfortunately the answer to this is probably no, which means we have two choices. Accept that some gun owners are going to go off the rails and harm others, or ban guns altogether in an attempt to limit the ability of said gun owners to cause harm.

I agree that this is the main issue gripping the minds of everyday people and adversely affecting legal firearms ownership. My response to those insisting we fiddle with existing laws to 'do something' is: What do you fear more? The extremely rare mentally disturbed person or the much more common bureaucratic control freak in a position of power who is insistent on doing something for your own good?

I know my point of view on this, I trust myself, other self reliant individuals and that of the current law enforcement agencies (provided they have appropriate democratic oversite) far more than self serving bureaucrats and politicians.

 

[ballz]

Halifax Tar, in your opinion as a member of the Navy and being exposed to boarding parties, how dangerous are pump action shotguns in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors?

If you wanted to get to someone and they were barricaded behind a door, say one you might find in a school, which would allow you to get into that room easier?  A semi-automatic 5.56mm assault rifle or a shotgun (capable of firing 1oz slugs).

In your opinion as someone who has been exposed to firearms, which would make a more deadly weapon in the hands of an inexperienced shooter at close range. A shotgun or ar 15?

:cheers:

I would like to see the stats on crimes committed using an assault rifle VS hand gun VS bolt action rifle.  As well as the live lost using the same paramaters.  Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the hand guns and assault rifles would be the worse off in those stats.

Wait out. I wrote a paper on this and some of those stats are in there. What I can recall, before I find the paper, is that almost all of those homicides committed with handguns that weren't registered, and ~97% of them were smuggled in from the US. In other words, they were already illegal. So your idea of making them outright illegal wouldn't do a diddly-frig to prevent those incidents from happening.

So far, all I can think of when reading the current convo is "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist..."