New Canadian Gun Ban

[TurkeysGhost]

Deleted, off topic rambling

 

[Leftus]

I really don't see why any of this matters. The Canadian government has acted to try to reduce the quantity of guns available to the public in Canada. They are currently doing this by eliminating weapons with a high fire rate and/or large magazines. Splitting hairs about what any single weapon is capable of changes nothing. The bottom line is that the total number of rounds that can be fired by all weapons that can be legally owned in Canada is reduced. This is generally viewed by the Canadian public as a good thing.

Did they really reduce the quantity of guns? They may have reduced the size of menu of options, but the amount available hasn't really changed.

The fake Mountie used more handguns than rifles, but they made no attempt to limit handguns. Also, since fake Mountie didn't have a license for any weapon, he couldn't buy ammo in Canada. How does any of this make Canadians any safer when it wouldn't have stopped fake Mountie?

 

[Steve]

Did they really reduce the quantity of guns? They may have reduced the size of menu of options, but the amount available hasn't really changed.

The fake Mountie used more handguns than rifles, but they made no attempt to limit handguns. Also, since fake Mountie didn't have a license for any weapon, he couldn't buy ammo in Canada. How does any of this make Canadians any safer when it wouldn't have stopped fake Mountie?

If you count today, no, the quantity of guns is not reduced. If you count a year from now there will be a reduction.

There will always be those who succeed in circumventing laws. No legal system is perfect. That is a poor reason for not attempting to make it better and make people safer.

 

[Ziggurat]

None of this matters. The Canadian government has described and listed the guns that are banned. A majority of Canadians appear to agree with the bans. Opinions of foreigners have little to no relevance.

You seem confused about my point, which is that the press did a crap job at reporting on what the Canadian government did. I don't think that's of little relevance, regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of the government's action.

 

[arthwollipot]

Did they really reduce the quantity of guns? They may have reduced the size of menu of options, but the amount available hasn't really changed.

They may not have reduced the overall quantity of guns, but they may have changed the composition of that quantity from more-lethal to less-lethal.

 

[Ranb]

12” is about the best grouping you’ll see at 300m with an M16 variant, and that’s using 5.56 ammunition, 223 will be worse. 12” is the difference between a clean shot and hitting a shoulder blade.

Your experience with an ar-15/m-16 rifle seems to be rather limited. I can maintain 4-6 inches at 300 meters with mine. What are you shooting? One of mine is a scoped National Match in .223 Remington. My 5.56 AR-15 with a medium weight barrel does better (2.5 MOA) than the 3.5 MOA you claim.

Even if you make a pretty good shot the relatively low stopping power of the AR15 means there is a good chance a dear will get up an run anther 2 miles before it does.

While the 22 caliber AR-15's suffer from this problem, one chambered in a 30 caliber round or an AR-10 in .308 Winchester or .338 Federal does not. People who criticize the AR-15 as a hunting rifle seem to have no clue as to how versatile it actually is when it comes to using other calibers, or using properly loaded VLD bullets with a high BC.

An 80 grain .224 bullet has a BC of .461 and retains about 60% of its muzzle energy out to 300 meters. If I shoot this in an AR-15 I would have to load it too long for the magazine and load one at a time. But with a 300 meter zero I would still have a good shot on a coyote. At that range the bullet is dropping another 2" at 320 meters, but if I guess my range well, then it will work.

I'd rather use my Savage 12 bolt rifle than my NM AR-15 though.

 

[Ranb]

If you count today, no, the quantity of guns is not reduced. If you count a year from now there will be a reduction.

You really think that those who turn in their guns will not replace them with legal rifles? What do you base your claim on?

 

[Steve]

You really think that those who turn in their guns will not replace them with legal rifles? What do you base your claim on?

I base my claim on the idea that many of those who own the type of guns that will be banned also already own rifles that will remain legal. There will be no rush to maintain a specific quota of guns.

 

[Steve]

You seem confused about my point, which is that the press did a crap job at reporting on what the Canadian government did. I don't think that's of little relevance, regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of the government's action.

Seems I did miss your point re the reporting. I apologise.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Your experience with an ar-15/m-16 rifle seems to be rather limited. I can maintain 4-6 inches at 300 meters with mine. What are you shooting? One of mine is a scoped National Match in .223 Remington. My 5.56 AR-15 with a medium weight barrel does better (2.5 MOA) than the 3.5 MOA you claim.


While the 22 caliber AR-15's suffer from this problem, one chambered in a 30 caliber round or an AR-10 in .308 Winchester or .338 Federal does not. People who criticize the AR-15 as a hunting rifle seem to have no clue as to how versatile it actually is when it comes to using other calibers, or using properly loaded VLD bullets with a high BC.

An 80 grain .224 bullet has a BC of .461 and retains about 60% of its muzzle energy out to 300 meters. If I shoot this in an AR-15 I would have to load it too long for the magazine and load one at a time. But with a 300 meter zero I would still have a good shot on a coyote. At that range the bullet is dropping another 2" at 320 meters, but if I guess my range well, then it will work.

I'd rather use my Savage 12 bolt rifle than my NM AR-15 though.

I see 4 MOA cited as the US Army acceptance standards.

That's the rejection standard, mind you. I would assume that a rifle coming off the factory floor is shooting a good bit better with that. A rifle that couldn't shoot 4MOA would probably be sent to the armorer to replace a shot-out barrel or have other work done.

That's also using Army ammo, which will not shoot better than 2-3 MOA regardless of rifle quality. The green tip penetration XM855 is especially notorious for not being a marksman's round, as the insertion of the steel tip can cause an off-axis center of gravity if not perfect.

A mid shelf AR-15 these days is probably doing 1-2 MOA. A high end one is doing sub-MOA if given the right ammo, and AR-15's win 600 yard high power matches all day long these days. National match sights on the AR-15 have 1/2 or 1/4 MOA adjustments on them, and highly skilled shooters can shoot well enough to use them.

 

[Ranb]

I base my claim on the idea that many of those who own the type of guns that will be banned also already own rifles that will remain legal. There will be no rush to maintain a specific quota of guns.

Do you know anyone who actually owns and shoots as a hobby? Some people like to have a collection of guns. I suspect that Canadians who have to part with some of their collection will replace them.

 

[Ranb]

I see 4 MOA cited as the US Army acceptance standards.

I've seen the same thing.

A mid shelf AR-15 these days is probably doing 1-2 MOA. A high end one is doing sub-MOA if given the right ammo, and AR-15's win 600 yard high power matches all day long these days. National match sights on the AR-15 have 1/2 or 1/4 MOA adjustments on them, and highly skilled shooters can shoot well enough to use them.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that a person selects a gun they want for hunting using some criteria based on accuracy, weight and power. If they have an semi-auto rifle that meets their requirements, then they might use it.

Too many people think that AR's are limited to .224 caliber with light or medium weight barrels and sights. But a hunter may well have an AR with a heavy match barrel, scope and more powerful high BC bullets or an AR with a .308 or .458 cartridge instead.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I've seen the same thing.


The point I was trying to make earlier was that a person selects a gun they want for hunting using some criteria based on accuracy, weight and power. If they have an semi-auto rifle that meets their requirements, then they might use it.

Too many people think that AR's are limited to .224 caliber with light or medium weight barrels and sights. But a hunter may well have an AR with a heavy match barrel, scope and more powerful high BC bullets or an AR with a .308 or .458 cartridge instead.

When I hear the "you don't need an AR-15 to hunt", i tend to agree broadly.

It can be used to hunt, and may even be the best option in certain scenarios.

But there are plenty of adequate substitutes. As a matter of public policy debate, I don't find that depriving hunters the ability to fire semi auto, box mag firearms as really that significant.

There are suitable substitutes, and hunters are well to use to various restrictions on equipment based on nature management rules.

the people saying that these guns are worthless as hunting tools are engaged in hyperbole or are misinformed, but they aren't too far off from the truth. Hunting will not be significantly affected by the loss of these rifles.

 

[Steve]

Do you know anyone who actually owns and shoots as a hobby? Some people like to have a collection of guns. I suspect that Canadians who have to part with some of their collection will replace them.

Every one of them?

 

[Leftus]

There will always be those who succeed in circumventing laws. No legal system is perfect. That is a poor reason for not attempting to make it better and make people safer.

If the legislation does neither?

At best, one of the weapons he used is on the list of banned weapons. Of course, since he still managed to get the weapon, I'm not sure if the ban makes the existing gun laws better or makes anyone safer. Under the existing laws, he shouldn't have had any of them. How does making it more illegal, if such a concept exists, make anyone safer?

I don't have the numbers in front of me anymore, but the border police in Canada stopped somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 guns from coming in during what was a 5 year period. In the same period they caught a bit over 10K blade weapons and brass knuckles. If they were to focus in on people smuggling in banned weapons, it might make a difference. But expanding what is already not working is not progress. It changes nothing.

 

[Leftus]

Your experience with an ar-15/m-16 rifle seems to be rather limited. I can maintain 4-6 inches at 300 meters with mine. What are you shooting? One of mine is a scoped National Match in .223 Remington. My 5.56 AR-15 with a medium weight barrel does better (2.5 MOA) than the 3.5 MOA you claim.

It's been a few years, let's call in an even 30, since I got to qual on anything, but I was probably as accurate. I don't even remember having a 12 inch group at 500 yards. But again, my memory only here.

I would even argue that since roughly 60% of the Marines hold a Rifle Expert badge that an AR15/M16 being that inaccurate can't be true. I think it's up to 65% now, but everyone gets optics now. How soft. Iron sights were good enough for Chesty!

 

[Leftus]

They may not have reduced the overall quantity of guns, but they may have changed the composition of that quantity from more-lethal to less-lethal.

I don't see that. Fake Mountie was plenty lethal and, again, at best had one of the newly banned weapon. Probably. We aren't allowed to know.

Take away one of his weapons, that he may not have even used, and what changes? Nothing. Of course, we can't really evaluate this because what he used is just not being released. Because knowing that would, somehow, interfere with the investigation.

 

[theprestige]

A bit of a non sequitur, there.

The statement was that the fabric of society was not damaged by removing the guns, not that they were removed to preserve it (even if that was a factor). Not the same thing.

I'm against making new laws and criminalizing more things unless it's truly necessary.

"The fabric of society is being torn, we need to stop it" is a good reason for a new law.

"We tried it and nothing bad happened" is a bad reason for a new law. In my opinion, the creation of an unnecessary new law is already bad enough.

 

[Ranb]

Every one of them?

Sorry, some of them. Going to answer my question?

 

[Ranb]

....the people saying that these guns are worthless as hunting tools are engaged in hyperbole or are misinformed,

And in this thread there is at least one person who refuses to learn more about his false claims.

but they aren't too far off from the truth. Hunting will not be significantly affected by the loss of these rifles.

I think there will be zero affect on hunting with no AR-15's in the woods.