Guns in America: 12 year old girl murders father with gun, then kills herself

[cunning linguist]

i don’t have a problem them being armed with them.They can run into conflicts with both armed people and dangerous animals.

Can’t help but notice they get to call them anything but scary assault rifles. Some the oblivious public wouldn’t pick up on.

I don't care for the double standard, its an "assault rifle" when wielded by civilians but a "patrol carbine" when wielded by someone with a badge in a uniform.

The guy who doesn't hunt, thinks that hunters shouldn't have to take more than one shot. Most hunters will strive for that, despite having extra rounds in the magazine in case things don't go as planned.

But apparently, this standard of accuracy and accountability doesn't apply to the same uniformed officers that he'll call "racist" in other threads.

 

[Not getting younger]

If I’ve said it once. I’ll say it again.

The left and activist, uses misinformation, occasionally outright lies and the lack of knowledge most Canadians have about firearms to their advantage.

For example. Both my shotgun and my .308 lever action are far deadlier in a “mass shooting event” and have the same ammo capacity as “assault rifles”…what they don’t have is accuracy out to a few hundred yards……….In a public setting especially close quarters that means Jack. And if they had a clue about ballistics, kinetic energy, how internal organs just explode let alone the shock wave and what that does internally. vs pencil holes……Equally, albeit sadly laughable is that the ignorant public can’t clue in, there are reasons “military style” weapons are chambered in .308 or 5.6…….and not .223……..hook…..line…..and sinker

And that’s plenty evident in these threads. Has been, for 20+ years when the fights over the registry started. Which did squat, cost us millions, and did Jack about the problem. Which has only gotten soooooooooo ( 20 some odd os) worse. It took I think about 15 years of “fighting” to get that useless, colossal waste of time and money scraped. Same old, same old. Obviously the public hasn’t learned a damn thing.

Some may not like being forced to look in the mirror and realize it’s their fault that so many have paid the price over those years. because they won’t learn, are convinced gun owners are “over my dead hands”…. Don’t care anymore, so tired of this. All that blood is on their hands.

The topic of Firearms, gun control is a wedge issue here. Only a fool, would think the left doesn’t want their votes first and foremost. It’s the left. They don’t lie, they don’t use fear mongering. They don’t foster division…only the right does that……

equally obvious there are those that aren’t interested in discussion, learning some things. Think they know it all.

 

[basketcase]

...

Wonder why they weren't issued bolt action rifles; the government must hold its employees to a lower standard of accuracy.

Because their job is not to hunt but rather to eliminate animals. Different tools for different jobs and yes, a government employee has a different standard of responsibility than average citiznes.

Of course it could be that the guy in charge of government procurement made a bad choice. Have you bothered looking at what the other provinces and territories issue?

 

[basketcase]

...

The left and activist, ...

Ah, time for a politically motivated diatribe to avoid discussing any of the issues.

 

[cunning linguist]

Because their job is not to hunt but rather to eliminate animals. Different tools for different jobs and yes, a government employee has a different standard of responsibility than average citiznes.

No.

Did your "hunting buddy" tell you that bullshit?

Of course it could be that the guy in charge of government procurement made a bad choice. Have you bothered looking at what the other provinces and territories issue?

Government procurement make constant bad decisions, but take notice of the direction it's going; not toward the allegedly "superior" bolt actions.

Sask. conservation officers to get AR-type carbine rifles

The Ministry of Environment says the move complies with a court ruling related to the 2014 deaths of four mounties in Moncton

leaderpost.com

Environment Minister defends purchase of AR-10 rifles for conservation officers

The federal list of banned firearms includes an exception for peace officers

www.yukon-news.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/78-of-mounties-now-carbine-trained-after-years-of-pressure-1.6434504

So again, what's the excuse; to compensate for poor accuracy with volume? Even if a conservation officer were tasked with a cull, they don't need "high capacity" to do that and they should still take aimed, disciplined shots.

Canadian Law Enforcement are becoming more para-militaristic, while laws are simultaneously disarming citizens, which according to someone, is allegedly a "conspiracy".

Rules for thee, not for me.

 

[Not getting younger]

No.

Did your "hunting buddy" tell you that bullshit?



Government procurement make constant bad decisions, but take notice of the direction it's going; not toward the allegedly "superior" bolt actions.

Sask. conservation officers to get AR-type carbine rifles

The Ministry of Environment says the move complies with a court ruling related to the 2014 deaths of four mounties in Moncton

leaderpost.com

Environment Minister defends purchase of AR-10 rifles for conservation officers

The federal list of banned firearms includes an exception for peace officers

www.yukon-news.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/78-of-mounties-now-carbine-trained-after-years-of-pressure-1.6434504

So again, what's the excuse; to compensate for poor accuracy with volume? Even if a conservation officer were tasked with a cull, they don't need "high capacity" to do that and they should still take aimed, disciplined shots.

Canadian Law Enforcement are becoming more para-militaristic, while laws are simultaneously disarming citizens, which according to someone, is allegedly a "conspiracy".

Rules for thee, not for me.

i didn’t have to read his reply to know he’s not interested in learning anything, nor discussion. What he’s interested in, is convincing himself and others that he knows better than both people that use guns, and experts. In this case “they made a bad decision”….

and again, all but Saskatchewan refer to them correctly as Carbines. Anyone else. Scary assault rifles.

Loved this part in Saskatchewans justification.

’s proven to be extremely quick and effective in both obtaining a sight picture and rapidly fire effective shots in high stress situations, such as engaging a charging grizzly bear at close range.

An example almost to the word, that I gave him of but one scenario where hunters would want a semi. And if it wouldn’t get me banned I’d upload images from a wounded bear that left a massive pool of blood, where it was first hit. So much, experienced hunters all thought we’d find it within 50 years. Dead.., the amount of blood on the ground tracking it. Until eventually the blood trail thinned out and was lost…2 miles later…through brush…No doubt he thinks reality is call of duty, and Hollywood.

I have zero doubt he’d have stayed at the camp, he wouldnt have the stones instead drinking around guns….I thought an expert would know better.

It’s obvious, he thinks most of Ontario. Is farmland. Where rifles ( like bolt actions with scopes) are barred due to their range ……..and hunters use 12g shotguns with slugs to kill deer. Has no clue that in reality, most hunting is done heavily forested areas. Where range out past 100 or 150 yards isn’t needed that often, in fact not even possible ( pay attention below) . But what is, is shorter barrels, faster target acquisition and at times fast follow ups.

Go right ahead know it alls, get those scary “ARs” banned.

I wouldn’t bother Cunning, he knows better.

 

[anon1]

my shotgun and my .308 lever action are far deadlier in a “mass shooting event” and have the same ammo capacity as “assault rifles”…

They have 30 round capacity?

 

[Not getting younger]

They have 30 round capacity?
View attachment 247214

yes. In the states they do. It’s something they have to change. How? I’m not sure. There must be 1 billion 30 round magazines there. Probably far more.

Here, while there are some very slight differences. As a general rule we are limited to 5. Which might include 1 hot ( one in the chamber) and 4 in the magazine/clip..like my .308. which means NO DIFFERENCE between any of them. Except…..

Shot guns are plugged at 3 in the tube. God help you if caught without the plug. But we can easily remove it for 5 in the tube.

My bolt action Lee Enfield is .303 British. Same rifle issued to our troops since about WWW1. And was just recently decommissioned totally when the Northern Rangers were given C19s.it has a 10 round magazine. This is military grade.

 

[Not getting younger]

For some perspective. Look to the far right. That’s a .22LR on the far left 30-06. The left two, might approximate a shotgun slug. In the middle are 5.56s nato..308s larger still.

There are a lot of factors to take into consideration for an honest comparison of 308 Win and 5.56 NATO, including: 308 Win does deliver enormously greater kinetic energy on target than 5.56 NATO. 5.56 NATO and its related firearms are much lighter weight and more portable than those in 308[

But whatever. The antis have everyone peeing in their pants over “AR”s

 

[Not getting younger]

My BLR in .308
So much fear, bs, misdirection. But unlike the US, Canadians don’t know a lot. Hence they get away with it.

 

[anon1]

So your 5 round guns have the same capacity as the AR 30-rounder?

 

[Not getting younger]

So your 5 round guns have the same capacity as the AR 30-rounder?

No. In Canada
clips/magazines are limited to 4.
With shotguns 3.

So with most rifles, 4 in the “clip”. And one in the chamber, waiting for the safety to come off and the triggered pulled.

With shotguns we can remove the plug in the tube ( the cylinder under the barrels) at any time for maintenance etc. but don’t under any circumstances go into the field without it plugged at 3….without the plug the tube can take 5. My shotgun is good for 3.5 in shells. Allows for more powder, more kinetic energy. Kicks like s horse ..sounds like a canoncan usesmaller shells too. 2 3/4 etc.

In the US, I’m 98% sure they don’t have to have plugs.

Point being.
So other than major differences in ballistics ( which also has a major impact on effective killing range and accuracy) and some very minor differences in handling, target acquisition speed and weight.

in a public setting. Usually target rich, cramped close quarters, where even body armour won’t stop them.

what’s the biggest factor.?
30 round magazines

it’s just stupid.

But here in Canada? Almost have to wonder why someone that does knows guns…hasn’t walked into a school yet with something to be truly scared of.

“Think about it”.

 

[anon1]

So in Canada, you can't LEGALLY commit mass murder with hi-capacity magazines?

 

[Not getting younger]

So in Canada, you can't LEGALLY commit mass murder with hi-capacity magazines?

Nope

 

[basketcase]

No.
...

What a well reasoned argument. Strange that it hasn't convinced me.

And a province in Canada choosing semi-auto is proof of nothing. Considering the amount of distrust your posts show in government, it seems strange that you suddenly take one jurisdiction's choice as proof of something.

More importantly, these are government officials with a specific job to eliminate problematic wildlife. No surprise that they would use different tools than a recreational hunter.

 

[basketcase]

...


An example almost to the word, that I gave him of but one scenario where hunters would want a semi. And if it wouldn’t get me banned I’d upload images from a wounded bear that left a massive pool of blood, where it was first hit. So much, experienced hunters all thought we’d find it within 50 years. Dead.., the amount of blood on the ground tracking it. Until eventually the blood trail thinned out and was lost…2 miles later…through brush…No doubt he thinks reality is call of duty, and Hollywood.
...

And I responded by asking how this situation requires a semi-auto as even a muzzle loader could have reloaded before travelling that 50 yards. Being the expert you are, would you not be able to charge the bolt while walking? 50 yds in the woods would take a couple minutes to travel. Why would you need your next shot available less than a second after the 1st? hell, you've even said your preference is a lever action.

 

[cunning linguist]

What a well reasoned argument. Strange that it hasn't convinced me.

And a province in Canada choosing semi-auto is proof of nothing. Considering the amount of distrust your posts show in government, it seems strange that you suddenly take one jurisdiction's choice as proof of something.

More importantly, these are government officials with a specific job to eliminate problematic wildlife. No surprise that they would use different tools than a recreational hunter.

I don't care about convincing you, I'm here to make you look foolish and destroy your shitty arguments, which isn't very difficult.

But I admit fault...in giving you too much credit. Of course, if your only experience is allegedly sitting around camp, drinking someone else's beer; you wouldn't know that a predator cull resembles hunting more than it does a drive by.

Predator culls aren't that common and it's a decision made above the average patrolling CO. A conservation officer will spend more time tracking and euthanizing injured game than they will "spraying" into a pack of wolves or coyotes. So again, your argument falls flat.

There is still quite the discrepancy between it being acceptable for one group of people, but not for another, when the purpose is more similar than you would know; but you'd have to wander past the campfire to see it.

Go ahead and Google another list for all I care, it's clear you have no understanding of what you repost and you have an irrational and paranoid disdain for firearms you barely understand.

 

[Not getting younger]

I don't care about convincing you, I'm here to make you look foolish and destroy your shitty arguments, which isn't very difficult.

But I admit fault...in giving you too much credit. Of course, if your only experience is allegedly sitting around camp, drinking someone else's beer; you wouldn't know that a predator cull resembles hunting more than it does a drive by.

Predator culls aren't that common and it's a decision made above the average patrolling CO. A conservation officer will spend more time tracking and euthanizing injured game than they will "spraying" into a pack of wolves or coyotes. So again, your argument falls flat.

There is still quite the discrepancy between it being acceptable for one group of people, but not for another, when the purpose is more similar than you would know; but you'd have to wander past the campfire to see it.

Go ahead and Google another list for all I care, it's clear you have no understanding of what you repost and you have an irrational and paranoid disdain for firearms you barely understand.

Well said Cunning.

Of course, if your only experience is allegedly sitting around camp, drinking someone else's beer; you wouldn't know that a predator cull resembles hunting more than it does a drive by.

I invite everyone reading to read the paragraph I quoted. A self admitted expert, who drinks at a hnt camp, around guns………who argues that bolt actions are superior and enough. Has no clue that target acquisition speed especially when looking through scopes…

But has never walked 50 yards into the brush, enough to know. You usually can’t see 50 yards into the brush for a clear shot, let alone so much more I might mention.

Go back to the ballistics gel video I linked. How far into the trees and brush……can you see? There was a specific reason I chose that demonstration….Bolt actions are the weapon of choice when you have clear lines of sight out past 200 yards…not only to the target. What’s around the target, what’s behind the target….they have superior effective killing range…and that’s it…there are reasons rifles are not permitted in Southern Ontario…

I don’t need to see what ever he is arguing now, to guess.

 

[mandrill]

lol. Sure shack. That’s an idea with support that it’s going to work when the problem is Bangers and smuggling across the border. Fucking clueless. Do you have a hard time understanding that criminals don’t follow the law?

Yeah.... but the more legal guns in Canada, the more they're going to end up eventually in the hands of bad people.

You might have an argument that law abiding Canadians needed as many guns as they could get for self defence...... if Canadian crime stats were as high as El Salvador or Brazil. But they're a small fraction of that and most law abiding citizens here are never going to see a gang banger or get in a shoot out with him.

 

[dirtyharry555]

Gang violence kills gang members, mostly in their own rough neighbourhoods.

Mass shootings kills children and regular people, in every settings that are supposed to be safe.

So yes, even though mass shootings may be a tiny percentage of overall gun related deaths, they are still the bigger problem.

Mass shootings are defined as 4 or more killed or wounded, and if you eliminate gang violence, you actually eliminate the majority of mass shootings.

May your liberal tears flow from being struck with facts over misinformation.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1681966842083172352