The US of A Shooting Mega-Thread

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Security as well, schools are ridiculous now, so many easy access points, too many of them, and not enough of a hardened target. I've been saying for years the best attack ISIS or whomever could do is sent 25 groups of 2 idiots with rifles and 10 magazines each into schools all across America, and attack the kids there. It would shut the country down, with 3000+ kids killed and wounded, 1/2 the parents in the country wouldn't sent their kids to school, and that would crater the work force and economy in a stroke. Schools are still pretty defenseless against such a thing, yet that threat is hanging out there, still, along with the active shooter problems. There are many less expensive options out there to harden schools, in addition to starting to have a stronger active defense at them (ie rifle armed security).

Design schools like prisons...that'll show 'em.

[rage2]

Out of curiosity, is it actually harder to get a gun in Canada than in the US? I’m not a fan of guns so I have no clue if it’s easier locally here or not, but I have tons of friends who are gun people and have quite the collection.

Illegally, I remember people offering to sell me and my friends guns as far back as jr high living in the NE.

[D'z Nutz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Out of curiosity, is it actually harder to get a gun in Canada than in the US? I’m not a fan of guns so I have no clue if it’s easier locally here or not, but I have tons of friends who are gun people and have quite the collection.

Illegally, I remember people offering to sell me and my friends guns as far back as jr high living in the NE.

I'm assuming you mean legally, but yeah big time. If you want to be able to own an unrestricted firearm, like a rifle for hunting, you gotta take a course and pass the exam. If you want to own a restricted firearm, like a handgun or a "scarier looking" rifle like an AR-15, you have to pass an additional exam on top of that. And then there's the process of applying for the license after you pass the exam, in which the RCMP do a background check on you and call your references. It's 28 days waiting minimum, and that's with you keeping on top of calling them to check the status of your application. If you've recently been through a divorce, have a gambling/finance problem, have a history of depression, have a record with the police, etc it's an instant rejection on your application. And when the RCMP interviews you, they'll ask you why you want a firearm and the only answers they'll accept are hunting, sport shooting, or collecting. Protection is not an acceptable answer. If you pass all that, then you'll be allowed to own a firearm.

It's been a long time since I've purchased a firearm, but I think the steps to buying one was once you've purchased it the seller (private or business) would have to call the RCMP with the information as to what was sold and who it was sold to, then the buyer would have to call the RCMP to confirm it. You used to have to also get a separate permit to go pick up your new firearm and transport it home (in addition to your transport permit to take it to the range), but now they just have one general purpose transport permit for that. And of course, for restricted firearms the only place you can transport it is to a firing range and home, so you need to have a membership to a range and the RCMP need to have that on file too. The permit to go pick up your newly acquired firearm was only good for the day it was issued too, so if you didn't pick it up on the day of, you'd have to go request another one.

Now in comparison to the US, years ago when I was in Arizona right after I got my license, I was at a gun store just browsing around and I overheard some guy wanting to buy a shotgun. The guy didn't have ID or he wasn't a resident there or something, but the store owner said the only thing he needed to get a firearm was his last 3 pay stubs to show he was working in Arizona and a background check with the police, which wasn't supposed to take more than 30 minutes of wait time I imagine it would be even easier if he was a resident.

And you can't really buy firearms (as well as many parts) from the US either, cause for that to happen the US seller has to go through the process of exporting it out of the US and then someone has to import it into Canada before you can get your hands on it. The government and RCMP also have a comprehensive list of firearms Canadian citizens are allowed to own so that narrows down what can even cross the border if it were worth the effort and additional fees.

It's been a long time since I've been in the hobby, so some of my info might be outdated but I don't imagine much of it to be, if any.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Getting an illegal gun is pretty easy. If you really wanted one and you had no clue where to even start, it would probably take only a few days of asking around

The perception that advocates have about gun laws actually doing anything meaningful in Canada is pretty funny. Really the only thing that I can credit them with is that if you want a gun, you have to do about a days worth of planning... so you can't just be murderously enraged and suddenly go nuts right away.

I wonder if it (Canadian gun laws) has a secondary effect on the perception of guns in Canada. Since it’s not touted as a god given right most of us don’t care to own one.

It would take me personally a lot longer than a few days to acquire an illegal gun here, I don’t know or have any contact with shady individuals.

[speedog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I wonder if it (Canadian gun laws) has a secondary effect on the perception of guns in Canada. Since it’s not touted as a god given right most of us don’t care to own one.

It would take me personally a lot longer than a few days to acquire an illegal gun here, I don’t know or have any contact with shady individuals.

Six degrees of separation - you'd be surprised whom you might know who knows someone else. I know two individuals that could probably get me an illegal gun within a day, I do not hang out with these two individuals but circumstances over the years have brought me into contact with them, all good contact but their lifestyle and history links them to some fairly deep gang shit. One of them actually has a juvenile child in jail on murder charges. It's actually kind of interesting that I could probably seek protection through the people that these two individuals know but that protection would obviously come at a price.

[Gman.45]

Getting a firearm in the USA is much easier than in Canada, but that doesn't make getting a firearm in Canada difficult - best way i can say it.

I could take you to a Walmart anywhere in the USA Rage2, even in cities/states with tight "gun control", and withing 2 or 3 vehicles, be right on which one has an unattended firearm we could in theory quickly steal.

Legally, you have a right to own a firearm in the USA, it isn't a privilege like driving here in Canada ( or also owning a firearm). So long as you aren't disqualified due to being a felon or a dishonorable military discharge, and some certain very specific medical/mental health disqualifiers, anyone can go buy a firearm in the USA, in nearly every state. A few like Hawaii/etc have registration requirements, but they are by far not the norm.

- - - Updated - - -

Design schools like prisons...that'll show 'em.

Ignore the actual problems and solutions, and just blame it on devices that have existed in large numbers in the USA as a ratio to the population (even greater in the early years than now), since its inception. That'll show em even better.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm assuming you mean legally, but yeah big time. If you want to be able to own an unrestricted firearm, like a rifle for hunting, you gotta take a course and pass the exam. If you want to own a restricted firearm, like a handgun or a "scarier looking" rifle like an AR-15, you have to pass an additional exam on top of that. And then there's the process of applying for the license after you pass the exam, in which the RCMP do a background check on you and call your references. It's 28 days waiting minimum, and that's with you keeping on top of calling them to check the status of your application. If you've recently been through a divorce, have a gambling/finance problem, have a history of depression, have a record with the police, etc it's an instant rejection on your application. And when the RCMP interviews you, they'll ask you why you want a firearm and the only answers they'll accept are hunting, sport shooting, or collecting. Protection is not an acceptable answer. If you pass all that, then you'll be allowed to own a firearm.

Answering in the affirmative to those questions is not an automatic denial, it triggers a more in depth review by the CFP and CFO. Someone who does might be required to obtain a letter from their doctor saying they are fit to own a firearm, go through an interview with a firearms officer, have the CFP/CFO talk to their ex etc... The Canadian licensing system is shall issues and the CFP/RCMP has to show why you should not possess firearms if they want to deny a license.

It's been a long time since I've purchased a firearm, but I think the steps to buying one was once you've purchased it the seller (private or business) would have to call the RCMP with the information as to what was sold and who it was sold to, then the buyer would have to call the RCMP to confirm it. You used to have to also get a separate permit to go pick up your new firearm and transport it home (in addition to your transport permit to take it to the range), but now they just have one general purpose transport permit for that. And of course, for restricted firearms the only place you can transport it is to a firing range and home, so you need to have a membership to a range and the RCMP need to have that on file too. The permit to go pick up your newly acquired firearm was only good for the day it was issued too, so if you didn't pick it up on the day of, you'd have to go request another one.

A lot of this does not apply with the removal of the long gun registry and the passage of bill C-42. The CFP only gets involved with the sale of restricted firearms, non-restricted sales are not subject to CFP involvement or registration.

The separate ATT has basically been abolished except for special cases. The RPAL now has the ATT attached and allows transport to and from the range/gunsmiths/shows/borders/from place of acquisition. Pretty much just need an ATT for going cross border, taking a restricted to the post office post sale and moving.

A range membership is not required to own or acquire a restricted firearm. This "requirement" isn't contained in law and is basically the CFO abusing their powers.

Now in comparison to the US, years ago when I was in Arizona right after I got my license, I was at a gun store just browsing around and I overheard some guy wanting to buy a shotgun. The guy didn't have ID or he wasn't a resident there or something, but the store owner said the only thing he needed to get a firearm was his last 3 pay stubs to show he was working in Arizona and a background check with the police, which wasn't supposed to take more than 30 minutes of wait time I imagine it would be even easier if he was a resident.

The background check you are referencing is the NICS check. Required any time someone buys from a dealer or a private sale over state lines. There is also a form that gets filled out by the store with the buyer's details and has to be retained.

And you can't really buy firearms (as well as many parts) from the US either, cause for that to happen the US seller has to go through the process of exporting it out of the US and then someone has to import it into Canada before you can get your hands on it. The government and RCMP also have a comprehensive list of firearms Canadian citizens are allowed to own so that narrows down what can even cross the border if it were worth the effort and additional fees.

Not that hard to buy from the US. Many importers in Canada and the forearms they bring in just have to meet Canadian law. No real additional cost to this, I think the most I have paid is $25 brokerage and it took a couple of weeks over and above what it would have taken from a brick and mortar (except no Canadian store sold them or could match price)

It's been a long time since I've been in the hobby, so some of my info might be outdated but I don't imagine much of it to be, if any.

The reality is that a lot of Canada's laws don't really prevent crimes and are more or less designed based on fear or to give the appearance of doing something. The AR-15 being restricted in every case and not classified based on the guidelines in the Firearms Act is a perfect example of this.

[vengie]

I was just down in Whitefish for my Stag and we went to an indoor gun range, shot a wicked amount of guns including a fully auto AR-15 and a fully auto SILENCED AR-15.

No one needs to own one of those. Ever. for any reason. and this is coming from a gun nut.

[DonJuan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

... fully auto AR-15 and a fully auto SILENCED AR-15.

No one needs to own one of those. Ever. for any reason. and this is coming from a gun nut.

I agree, most people use excuse of using the AR15 etc for hunting which is absolute shit. As a hunter I use the best tool for the job, rifle is by far best for anything big game hunting related.

The home defense excuse is also shit too. A home defense shotgun would imho would be way better, ~15m effective range and no need to aim, just point at whoever is "threatening" you or in your "personal" space.

The fact that just about everyone has guns in the US has done the opposite of making people safer should be a signal to do something different, not more of the same

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Out of curiosity, is it actually harder to get a gun in Canada than in the US? I’m not a fan of guns so I have no clue if it’s easier locally here or not, but I have tons of friends who are gun people and have quite the collection.

Illegally, I remember people offering to sell me and my friends guns as far back as jr high living in the NE.

It's slightly harder, but not at all difficult and hardly any different at the end of the day.

You take the test which is a joke difficulty-wise (short multiple choice with super obvious answers, then a VERY straight forward practical exam), then wait ~28 days. You do get a background check and the RCMP calls references, which is probably more reliable than the USA checks. They call for an interview but everyone with an internet connection already knows exactly what they want to hear. If you have a clean past or if issues have gone unreported or undocumented, there will be zero issues. If you have a history of some kind or if they find out about a major negative life event that happened recently, they will deny it or investigate further. After that you can buy any restricted/unrestricted (depending on the course(s) you took).

Transportation and storage laws (or theft from another legal owner) obviously would not matter to anyone looking to do something like this, and anyone can easily modify a magazine beyond the 5/10 round limits.

I've sold used as well and it's a very quick/easy process - you just need to notify the RCMP and check the buyer's PAL/RPAL.

Basically if you have ill intentions, you can do the minimum, ignore lots of the rules, and there really is very little standing in the way. After going through the process myself it's pretty clear our laws are mostly for show and would not create many barriers at all for someone with ill intentions.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was just down in Whitefish for my Stag and we went to an indoor gun range, shot a wicked amount of guns including a fully auto AR-15 and a fully auto SILENCED AR-15.

No one needs to own one of those. Ever. for any reason. and this is coming from a gun nut.

There are so many other things people can own that could be considered gross excess, can cause enormous harm if used irresponsibly, and yet we don't restrict them. Nobody NEEDS a 600HP car, ever, for any reason - but they are super fun so people enjoy using them.

I get what you're trying to say but applying it ONLY to guns doesn't really make sense. Also I don't think the public can buy full-auto's anywhere, they would be strictly for range rental use as far as I know. I shot one in Hawaii and it was chained to the table.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There are so many other things people can own that could be considered gross excess, can cause enormous harm if used irresponsibly, and yet we don't restrict them. Nobody NEEDS a 600HP car, ever, for any reason - but they are super fun so people enjoy using them.

I get what you're trying to say but applying it ONLY to guns doesn't really make sense. Also I don't think the public can buy full-auto's anywhere, they would be strictly for range rental use as far as I know. I shot one in Hawaii and it was chained to the table.

You can't buy fully automatic per-say, but you can very easily purchase a bump stock and have the same effect.

The comparison for a 600hp car is ridiculous if you ask me. One tool is designed to kill, very effectively. One is designed for transportation albeit with the potential of doing it very fast.

I am a gun nut that has shot thousands of rounds and owns multiple long guns, but having shot full auto for the first time has drastically changed my perception.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I get what you're trying to say but applying it ONLY to guns doesn't really make sense.

sure it does. A gun's primary purpose is to inflict harm on a living creature. A 600HP car, while it can inflict harm, is NOT it's primary purpose.

[DonJuan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There are so many other things people can own that could be considered gross excess, can cause enormous harm if used irresponsibly, and yet we don't restrict them. Nobody NEEDS a 600HP car, ever, for any reason - but they are super fun so people enjoy using them.

I get what you're trying to say but applying it ONLY to guns doesn't really make sense. Also I don't think the public can buy full-auto's anywhere, they would be strictly for range rental use as far as I know. I shot one in Hawaii and it was chained to the table.

I don't like the 600hp car analogy. I prefer the elephant analogy. Nobody needs an elephant, ever, for any reason - but they are super fun.

[phreezee]

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

sure it does. A gun's primary purpose is to inflict harm on a living creature. A 600HP car, while it can inflict harm, is NOT it's primary purpose.

Why does it's primary purpose matter? Firearms have dozens of purposes and not all involve killing. I'm sure there are many other things that were invented for malicious purposes that also have peaceful uses. Regardless, they exist anyway and hundreds of millions of people have both, so the only thing that matters is how people actually use them. In both cases, 99% of people use them responsibly (actually if I had to guess there are probably way more responsible gun owners than competent drivers) and not with the intention of causing harm. Both can cause similar levels of harm if used irresponsibly. It's primary purpose is irrelevant if the overwhelming majority of use is peaceful.

It's been said here many times but mental illness and access to appropriate care is the issue that people should be worried about, and might be something that can actually change.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't like the 600hp car analogy. I prefer the elephant analogy. Nobody needs an elephant, ever, for any reason - but they are super fun.

You aren't wrong haha, it's equally as ridiculous. Some people probably do use them for work though. Any time you have to punish the 99.9% for the 0.01% it doesn't make sense, and so far it seems that society in general deems those types of risks as an acceptable part of life.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why does it's primary purpose matter?

because that's a good starting point on why things should be illegal/controlled or not. what's the purpose of a missile? why can't i build a missile in my garage and blow something up on my acreage for fun if i'm responsible?

hell look at a bumpstock... primary purpose of that is to make a gun function like an auto. Even the NRA is on board with banning that even though it could be used for fun/peaceful purposes.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's been said here many times but mental illness and access to appropriate care is the issue that people should be worried about, and might be something that can actually change.

i don't think anyone disagrees that mental health is a huge factor, but why does it have to be one or the other? mental health is a complicated issue and is not an easy thing to fix. an 'easy' fix is to make it harder for the crazies to do damage with common sense gun control.

anyways, after this entire thread and many we've had before it, one thing is for sure - nobody has changed their viewpoint on this issue and probably never will unless you're affected by it (i.e. victim of a mass shooting). you're either "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "less guns in general = less mass shootings in general"

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

because that's a good starting point on why things should be illegal/controlled or not. what's the purpose of a missile? why can't i build a missile in my garage and blow something up on my acreage for fun if i'm responsible?

hell look at a bumpstock... primary purpose of that is to make a gun function like an auto. Even the NRA is on board with banning that even though it could be used for fun/peaceful purposes.


i don't think anyone disagrees that mental health is a huge factor, but why does it have to be one or the other? mental health is a complicated issue and is not an easy thing to fix. an 'easy' fix is to make it harder for the crazies to do damage with common sense gun control.

anyways, after this entire thread and many we've had before it, one thing is for sure - nobody has changed their viewpoint on this issue and probably never will unless you're affected by it (i.e. victim of a mass shooting). you're either "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "less guns in general = less mass shootings in general"

I don't think there is anything stopping you from blowing stuff up on your acreage for fun - a quick browse of YouTube suggests it's a rather popular thing to do. Most of us probably did similar things when we were younger as well. I have no idea what the laws surrounding making a missile are lol, but you can build some pretty enormous model rockets...

Some people have canons and trebuchets that they use for fun on their property, I have no idea what the specific laws are surrounding those are though.

I agree it's often a circular debate, and there are several factors at play. One thing that probably won't change is how easy it is to get a firearm (even in Canada), either legally or illegally, so my personal opinion is that efforts should be focused more on the mental health side of things. Better background checks and unifying the records keeping between all the states (currently it's a disaster of 50 different systems) would also go a long ways to making things safer. As far as I know, a bump stock was used once in a tragic yet extremely ineffective (relative to the amount of people) attack, but I don't recall reading about them before or after Vegas. I really like magazine limit restrictions because it doesn't stop people from owning what they want (which is what I often argue in favor of), it just makes it harder to do serious harm if someone has ill intentions (which helps satisfy the anti-gun crowd) - the biggest problem is just how easy it is to take out the plug, so that remains an issue. Canada already has the restrictions that some people want for the USA (i.e. magazine limits) and they prevent nothing if you have an extra 2 minutes to spare and simple tools. Most of the laws and restrictions are ineffective if you have nothing to lose and are already going down this path, so I am of the opinion that the most effective way to combat this is to go after the route of the problem (mental illness). I would venture a guess that one reason Canada has fewer incidents is our vastly superior healthcare system.

[Gman.45]

I love how people claim to be gun nuts, then say nobody should have an AR15 or xyz/whatever.

Also, those claiming you don't need one have NO training or experience with which to make such a statement, at least not from a position of intelligence. A 556 shoulder supported rifle is by FAR the best defensive option in any situation, outside of threats at extreme range, as in 500 meters plus, which is no longer a defensive situation, but a warfare one. 556 has been tested by the FBI and everyone else in buildings/structures, and the round due to its velocity, weight, composition, etc, fragments more often and quickly than handgun rounds, and in fact over penetrates less than handgun rounds. This makes a 555 shoulder supported weapon more safe in built up areas with others around, more lethal than handgun rounds, and also much more of a gross motor skill weapon being shoulder supported. The AR or any 556/etc magazine shoulder supported rifle is by far and away the best option in a fight. When every xyz agency agrees and so arms their own officers, it should be obvious. Subgun handgun caliber weapons are rarely if ever used anymore, and handguns are only carried in low threat or convenience places. If a fight is expected, officers nearly always have a 556 caliber rifle to hand. The reasons are above, and civilians serious about using a firearm for self defense can and should have that same option. Yes, shotguns, even handgun can be effective, but they'll never be as effective in fights overall as much as a magazine fed semi auto rifle.

Full auto is already controlled in the USA. Certain ranges have permits, as do certain people having class 3 etc licenses in the US, or have paid the tax stamp for a full auto weapon (expensive, very expensive). Even in Canada ranges have this, The Shooting edge had a machine gun and high cap/suppressor licence, that's had the 18 round mag ended up in Mitsi's handgun, it got mixed in from the wrong vault there, as there is a full auto/suppresor/etc vault separate from the main vault/renter room. This is also how TSE rented AK47s etc on their wall for so long, using their LE/demo/etc license.