New Canadian Gun Ban

[Steve]

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

I have several good friends who hunt. They keep my dog supplied with venison bones. His skin allergies restrict what he can eat. Each of them has more than one rifle that they use for specific hunting purposes. None of them, to my knowledge, buy rifles in order to maintain a quota. I assume hunting meets your definition of hobby. I do not think I know anyone who owns rifles or hand guns for any other purpose.

Eta: A couple of my friends also own shotguns.

 

[lomiller]

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!

See below for the targets they are shooing at.
(Or I guess were, it sounds like the qualifications were recently revamped.)

Notice the 200-300 yard target you get full points for a hit within a 12” diameter circle? Even among those that hit the expert level will struggle to get a full 10 shot grouping in that 12” circle.

Again, though, the limitation is the rifle not the marksman. It’s also not really a limitation for an infantry rifle, you don’t need an instant kill and if you injure then target and someone else needs to attend to them, that’s even better because that takes 2 enemies out of the fight instead of just 1. For hunting this isn’t good enough, the last thing you want to do is wound an animal have it get up and run and spend the next day trying to track it.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6ed8a27f79554671070d9b234aa01433-c

 

[theprestige]

Ironically, the military goal isn't even to kill people, exactly. If they withdraw, that's fine too. The goal is to provide a sufficient volume of sustained fire so the enemy is forced abandon key points. Obviously if they stand and fight, people are going to die, and that's part of it. But the important part isn't the killing, it's the forcing the enemy to back off.

The challenge for modern armies is to provide their soldiers with weapons that are light enough to carry, powerful enough to be a deterrent, and simple enough to operate and maintain.

That's what makes the AR-15 an assault rifle. Not because it was designed to kill (it wasn't), but because it was designed to be a practical tool for deterring enemy soldiers from holding a position.

The distinction is subtle, I know. And I know it will probably be lost on most gun-control proponents. But I think it's an important distinction.

 

[Ranb]

.... I assume hunting meets your definition of hobby. I do not think I know anyone who owns rifles or hand guns for any other purpose.

I compete using precision air rifles, small bore rifles and service rifles. I also help coach a junior shooting team. I make some firearms and load my own ammo. It is a hobby as I don't earn a living from it. I rarely hunt, but I still have some rifles and handguns designed for hunting.

 

[Ranb]

Again, though, the limitation is the rifle not the marksman. It’s also not really a limitation for an infantry rifle,....

Do you understand that if a hunter wants to use an AR-15 for hunting, he or she may be unsatisfied with something that is merely mil-spec (for the infantry) and use an AR-15 that is much more accurate?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Ironically, the military goal isn't even to kill people, exactly. If they withdraw, that's fine too. The goal is to provide a sufficient volume of sustained fire so the enemy is forced abandon key points. Obviously if they stand and fight, people are going to die, and that's part of it. But the important part isn't the killing, it's the forcing the enemy to back off.

The challenge for modern armies is to provide their soldiers with weapons that are light enough to carry, powerful enough to be a deterrent, and simple enough to operate and maintain.

That's what makes the AR-15 an assault rifle. Not because it was designed to kill (it wasn't), but because it was designed to be a practical tool for deterring enemy soldiers from holding a position.

The distinction is subtle, I know. And I know it will probably be lost on most gun-control proponents. But I think it's an important distinction.

Exactly. And poison gas was only made to make enemy soldiers withdraw or stop fighting without killing them too.
Sure, it killed some people, but most lived for decades more.
And you can use it for hunting, as I'm sure it will kill animals.

But those details are lost on gas-control proponents.
After all, some people just like having canisters of poison gas in the house without using them, and those have been unfairly discriminated against for decades.

 

[Steve]

I compete using precision air rifles, small bore rifles and service rifles. I also help coach a junior shooting team. I make some firearms and load my own ammo. It is a hobby as I don't earn a living from it. I rarely hunt, but I still have some rifles and handguns designed for hunting.

All well and good. I think I knew that from your posts in the past.

You asked if I knew any one who owns and shoots guns as a hobby. You seemed rather interested in my answer so I assumed there was a related point you wished to make. Is this it?

 

[Ranb]

You asked if I knew any one who owns and shoots guns as a hobby. You seemed rather interested in my answer so I assumed there was a related point you wished to make. Is this it?

Your posts make you appear to be very ignorant about guns as you didn't understand the difference between rate of fire and volume. Yet you still thought your opinion was an informed one. Your posts are like those that people who don't understand the difference between fuel tank capacity and fuel economy make.

But it is par for the course on an anti-gun forum like this one.

 

[Steve]

Your posts make you appear to be very ignorant about guns as you didn't understand the difference between rate of fire and volume. Yet you still thought your opinion was an informed one. Your posts are like those that people who don't understand the difference between fuel tank capacity and fuel economy make.

But it is par for the course on an anti-gun forum like this one.

Maybe I don't understand. What do you mean by volume? Volume of what?

In my younger days I had experience firing (and maintaining) .22's, .303's, FN 7.62mm's, and 105mm Howitzers. I think I am not totally ignorant about guns, but I am definitely way out of date.

 

[Ranb]

Volume, as in the total number of rounds fired compared to rate of fire, which is rounds per minutes. You said that the new restrictions would reduce the total number of rounds fired by all weapons.

I've never had any problem shooting the same amount of ammo in a day from a bolt gun as a semi-auto. It is all aim, squeeze, follow-though. Cycling the bolt delays me little as I'm not a spray and pray kind of shooter.

I can shoot rapidly if I want, or even bump fire. I limit my firing rate to reduce barrel heat up on center fire bolt guns and semi-auto. My .308 bolt gun would heat up it's slim barrel up with fewer rounds than my AR-15 on a typical day at the range.

 

[Steve]

Volume, as in the total number of rounds fired compared to rate of fire, which is rounds per minutes. You said that the new restrictions would reduce the total number of rounds fired by all weapons.

I've never had any problem shooting the same amount of ammo in a day from a bolt gun as a semi-auto. It is all aim, squeeze, follow-though. Cycling the bolt delays me little as I'm not a spray and pray kind of shooter.

I can shoot rapidly if I want, or even bump fire. I limit my firing rate to reduce barrel heat up on center fire bolt guns and semi-auto. My .308 bolt gun would heat up it's slim barrel up with fewer rounds than my AR-15 on a typical day at the range.

Now that I know what you were trying to say I can assure you that I do understand the difference between rate of fire and volume. And I think the total number of rounds fired in Canada, the "volume", will be reduced as a result of this legislation. I do not think most owners of the soon to be banned guns will make a point of firing more rounds from still legal guns in order to maintain their volume.

 

[Leftus]

See below for the targets they are shooing at.
(Or I guess were, it sounds like the qualifications were recently revamped.)

Notice the 200-300 yard target you get full points for a hit within a 12” diameter circle? Even among those that hit the expert level will struggle to get a full 10 shot grouping in that 12” circle.

If more than half of a population can do a task, is it fair to call it a struggle?

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Yeah, the standards are in the process of changing. Reading some of them, it's a bit more fun and interactive. You put all 10 on target before scoring. Some mobile targets. I think the shooters get to be mobile too. A change to reflect current battlefield conditions, to be certain.


If the weapon is so wildly inaccurate as to not produce many casualties, why ban them?

 

[arthwollipot]

If the weapon is so wildly inaccurate as to not produce many casualties, why ban them?

Because of the risk of hitting something that you're not aiming at.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If more than half of a population can do a task, is it fair to call it a struggle?

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Yeah, the standards are in the process of changing. Reading some of them, it's a bit more fun and interactive. You put all 10 on target before scoring. Some mobile targets. I think the shooters get to be mobile too. A change to reflect current battlefield conditions, to be certain.


If the weapon is so wildly inaccurate as to not produce many casualties, why ban them?

To be fair, military are interested in accuracy in combat scenarios, often ranges in 2-300 yards or more.

A crap accuracy gun with 10 MOA at would be hitting within a 2.5" circle at 25 yards. For your average mass shooter that is firing on unarmed people at close range, accuracy is not really a concern.

For someone walking into a crowded place and killing as many people as possible before they can flee, the ability fire as many times as possible in a short time is highly advantageous. Every moment of delay means more time for unarmed people to escape or evade. Accuracy is irrelevant.

Hence all the focus on magazine limits and semi auto fire. Cosmetic feature bans are pretty dumb, IMO, but there are intrinsic features on some firearms that make them much more advantageous for a potential mass shooter.

This whole accuracy thing spouts from some conversation about hunting, which is red herring when it comes to matters of public policy involving semi-auto firearms.

 

[Leftus]

Hence all the focus on magazine limits and semi auto fire. Cosmetic feature bans are pretty dumb, IMO, but there are intrinsic features on some firearms that make them much more advantageous for a potential mass shooter.

But it has a bayonet stud! Take that off and it's like 1% less lethal. That weight is removed from the weapon and the weight is totally off. Just imagine the weight distribution if you take off all that black paint!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But it has a bayonet stud! Take that off and it's like 1% less lethal. That weight is removed from the weapon and the weight is totally off. Just imagine the weight distribution if you take off all that black paint!

The united states weapons ban was especially pointless. Here I am in a state that has an assault weapons band since 1994, and I was able to buy a preban rifle with the bayonet lugs and all the other evil kill-y bits.

Half measures are the worst solution, because they impose restrictions that have no reasonable chance of any policy success.

 

[Ranb]

When I lived in Hawaii, I was shopping for a Buckmark Sillouette for target shooting competitions. However it appeared on the assault pistol ban list as it was too long and had an "evil" barrel shroud.

The shroud was actually a wooden fore-end designed to rest on a sand bag or the shooter's calf during competition. It was not intended for heat protection as the heavy barrel did not heat up much from extended use of the small 22lr cartridge.