Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper
My wife is a tactical shooter she could defend herself with any firearm all she would need is one round, her preferance would be her short barrel 12 gauge three round maximum. I am not sure why that has any bearing on the debate though. She is more likely to win the lottery than needing to defend herself with lethal force. May I respectfully suggest Canadian society as it is today would not exactly see the need for anyone to carry a weapon for self defense, Canada is not exactly a war zone.
I appreciate your continued referance to the past, but the past has very little to do with anything going forward. 100 years ago Canada had less than 5 million people and the west was still being settled, today Canada is quite a different place, the people not the politicians have decided there is a need for a measure of gun control I do not have a problem with that, in the future if the people decide there is need for additional gun control that will also happen. Gun control will not be driven by the anti gun groups it will be the the majority of the electorate that will decide. Moderates will also always discount the extremists on both sides of the issue, while extremists may not be the correct tiltle, the fact of the matter is the more extreme a persons views are on any particular issue the less that message will heard. The extreme view from the anti's is that all guns should be ban, that will never happen, the extreme view from gun supporters is all gun laws should be abolished, that will also never happen. Moderates that are able to see both sides of the issue is where the laws will come from.
|
Maybe you have a point about moderation. I see little point in some of the ultra high velocity rounds. Actually, very few people can use them to their fullest in a hunting situation. Statistically, rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity in excess of 3000 fps have killed the lion's share of people in recent history, not to mention that they can be deadly at over 5 km away.
Often these high powered sniper calibers are chambered in bolt action rifles, originally designed for warfare and a commonly play a prominent role in assaults with guns. They are easily fitted with scopes that allow killing shots at extreme range, and far too easily adapted to fit large 10 and 20 round magazines; which are commonly available at many sporting goods stores and mail order outlets, not even requiring a special license!
Compounding the danger of these high powered bolt actions, is the ease in which the trigger can be tuned to what's known as a "hair trigger". The sportsman has no need of any trigger lightening, and becomes as dangerous to innocent bystanders as he is to his quarry with such reckless mechanical work done to the rifle.
There are plenty of sporting arms to choose from besides glorified sniper rifles.
Wouldn't affect me too much if 3000+ fps rifles were restricted, and 3000+ fps repeating bolt actions were prohibited. I enjoy rifles of a more moderate velocity myself.
Didn't think you read this part, so I repeated it. This would have the average non gun owner nodding in agreement as being perfectly reasonable. You wouldn't have a problem turning in your .270 would you?
Only a few years ago Britain and Australia had gun laws fairly similar to ours. Ask the British where the apathy and constant concessions to social engin... I mean public safety got them...
So you would be perfectly fine with leaving your wife with 3 rounds against 3 armed men?! Cause we all know that as your adrenaline spikes, and odds are against you, you automatically default to Hollywood action hero mode. And a shotgun blows guys across the yard one shot a piece just like the movies.