BF2S Forums anti-gun hysteria in Canada

JohnG@lt wrote:

Vilham wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald?

True, however he was in a high vantage point with plenty of time, if I had as much time to fire as him and had 5 mags for an m16, a lot more people would have been hurt. So there is a difference.

There are semi-automatic hunting rifles you know. AR-15s are popular only because they are relatively cheap, ammunition is plentiful and they appeal to guys who had experience with them while in the military or who want to pretend they are in the military. It's not a very good rifle for anything more than plinking cans in the civilian world but it's primary virtue is that it scares the ever living daylights out of people who don't know any better such as yourself I'll take the stopping power of the .306 round an M1 Garand shoots over the .223 round the AR-15 shoots any day.

Vilham wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Vilham wrote:

True, however he was in a high vantage point with plenty of time, if I had as much time to fire as him and had 5 mags for an m16, a lot more people would have been hurt. So there is a difference.

There are semi-automatic hunting rifles you know. AR-15s are popular only because they are relatively cheap, ammunition is plentiful and they appeal to guys who had experience with them while in the military or who want to pretend they are in the military. It's not a very good rifle for anything more than plinking cans in the civilian world but it's primary virtue is that it scares the ever living daylights out of people who don't know any better such as yourself I'll take the stopping power of the .306 round an M1 Garand shoots over the .223 round the AR-15 shoots any day.

I know there are. That's my point, any kind of rifle except single shot rifles are unnecessary. You take a dear down with 1 bullet not 15. I find the pleasure in shooting the skill of being able to hit something either very far away moving slightly about, or moving quite fast over head.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's not a very good rifle for anything more than plinking cans in the civilian world but it's primary.

Last edited by 1stSFOD-Delta (2010-02-08 10:01:29)

RAIMIUS wrote:

Vilham wrote:

golt there is a massive difference between a bolt action and a gun with a magazine, even if they are both automatic. I can still gun down 16 people in 5 seconds with a semi auto m16 I cant with a bolt action.

Wow...
Knowing some technical ideas would help...
A magazine has almost nothing to do with the action.  The only guns without magazines are revolvers, multi-barreled guns, and single-shots.  That K98 or Lee-Enfield No.4--they both have magazines (they're internal).
A bolt-action cannot be semi-auto.

Vilham wrote:

No I just don't live in a country that has had guns legal for so long and so unrestricted that every two bit crim has one.

Before we get into this who debate, which i have no intention of debating, look at the stats, countrys without guns fair a hell of a lot better. Its too late for the US though.

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

    * The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

    * Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

    * "After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

    * England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

    * The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.

Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

    * Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
    * Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
    * Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
    * In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
    * In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
    * There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Vilham wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

That's fucking retarded, I'm sorry. There is absolutely no reason I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself in my own home from an intruder. Should I politely ask the intruder to give me a minute to call 911 so that I have a 'sporting chance'? You obviously value the life of the intruder more than you value the home owner. Nice to know.

Again, I use the Katrina argument, their lack of imagination is my reality.  Shit happens in real life -one cannot rely on anyone else for their protection.  To believe that police protection will be available and instantaneous at any given time is naive and dangerous.  Honestly if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight, I'd want to bring a RPG or a machine gun.  Since I can't... .  Also, individuals under the infulence of certain drugs may not go down after one shot.  The average man can cover some 20 feet in less than two seconds, I won't be arsed to bolt action it.

Look at the statistics?  Go for it.  What is your violent crime rate compared to the US?  Thought so.  An armed society is a polite one.

Recent stats, that someone posted in another thread similar to this show violent crime rates to be pretty even, except the homicide rate is much higher in the US. I have insurance for anything else. Then theres the fact that if i do get in a fight its still a very low chance anyone has a gun or a knife and im much larger than most people.

Anyway I said I wouldn't get into another debate about this, this being the 1000th one, you can believe what you wish, thats your prerogative.

G@lt crimes are rated differently in different countries, pushing someone in this country is probably classified as a violent crime.

* Burglary rates ..... according to 1995 figures;

JohnG@lt wrote:

Vilham wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Again, I use the Katrina argument, their lack of imagination is my reality.  Shit happens in real life -one cannot rely on anyone else for their protection.  To believe that police protection will be available and instantaneous at any given time is naive and dangerous.  Honestly if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight, I'd want to bring a RPG or a machine gun.  Since I can't... .  Also, individuals under the infulence of certain drugs may not go down after one shot.  The average man can cover some 20 feet in less than two seconds, I won't be arsed to bolt action it.

Look at the statistics?  Go for it.  What is your violent crime rate compared to the US?  Thought so.  An armed society is a polite one.

Recent stats, that someone posted in another thread similar to this show violent crime rates to be pretty even, except the homicide rate is much higher in the US. I have insurance for anything else. Then theres the fact that if i do get in a fight its still a very low chance anyone has a gun or a knife and im much larger than most people.

Anyway I said I wouldn't get into another debate about this, this being the 1000th one, you can believe what you wish, thats your prerogative.

G@lt crimes are rated differently in different countries, pushing someone in this country is probably classified as a violent crime.

* Burglary rates ..... according to 1995 figures;

Yeah, it's no fun being on the losing side of a debate where you can't support your position with facts instead of feelings.

Vilham wrote:

Rather than stats from 10 years ago? I just don't care enough to go digging around for the stats. If you can find me some recent data that doesn't have massive holes in it Ill conceed defeat.

Anyway, u have fun with ur guns.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Look at the statistics?  Go for it.  What is your violent crime rate compared to the US?  Thought so.  An armed society is a polite one.