Gun Owners pay for Gun Violence Costs

Bumblebee

Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
33,016
Reaction score
56,185
Hate to say it, but they are good investments. Cut off supply, price goes up. I don't know of any example firearm that has gone down in value.

When I sold the bricks of .22s I had, it was crazy. People acted desperate! For 22s. I had 6 responses in like 10 mins. I was like chyt I should have asked twice as much!
My older brother is the president of a sportsman club which has both indoor and outdoor ranges, he is the firearms officer for the region and is the primary instructor for all the firearms training in his region.

They also have a fish hatchery on the premises which he looks after...

Our government has limited the amount of ammunition they are allowed to both purchase and have on the premises...he used to be able to get a great deal on 10,000rd bundles of .22 but now he is only allowed to have up to 5,000rds of all caliber ammunition on premises and is only allowed to purchase it at 1,000rd bundles at once...

He said the price difference between a .22cal 1,000 rd bundle and 10,000 rd bundle is huge and it is costing way more for ammo.

The only way anyone in Canada can own a hand gun is to be a member of a club such as this....with all the limitations put on hand gun owners, people are getting out of owning them and his membership has cut in half...so much so, they had to shut down the fish hatchery-something which put 150,000 fish fry into the waters each year...now that is gone...

I wouldn't wish this sort of over-control on anyone....there has to be a balance...the balance here has tipped too far over to recuperate the gun industry in Canada...

Dougyp333

Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
378
Reaction score
827
I shot it's military equivalent M-16 and its .223 round for years. And more rounds than I can ever count. Using the small caliber argument only works if you think nobody is educated enough to want to discuss velocities and shock wave.

Oh but a .22 and and.223 are the same caliber. Technically true. Doesn't mean it's a good argument.

Yes I consider an AR-15 chambered in .233 a high caliber weapon. It's sole purpose is to kill what it hits with great efficiency. Please don't get into arguments of caliber and target shooting technicals. The .223 will liquify most of a torso. Break through bones cleanly. Decapitate almost completely in a single shot. By design!

And you can defeat a 30 round clip with a simple legal aftermarket replacement.

I sure don't need that to be considered a home defense weapon!

It's these ever present non compromising, views on firearms that give their rabid supporters a bad look. Refusing to accept we have a problem with mass killings via the preferred AR-15 platform is the problem.

This is a perfect response to show that this argument is all opinion (both sides of it). You ask 50 people how the gun laws should be and you will get 50 different answers. The problem I have is the lies told by people (mostly anti gun) to try and support their position.

Anyone can use the real facts to support their position so it ends up being a never ending circle jerk. You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. My opinion is that we should be able to buy and use any weapon we want short of a nuke. Top of my list is a suppressed, full auto, SBR, AR-15 chambered in 458 socom.

TallTom

Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
5,917
Reaction score
7,122
My older brother is the president of a sportsman club which has both indoor and outdoor ranges, he is the firearms officer for the region and is the primary instructor for all the firearms training in his region.

They also have a fish hatchery on the premises which he looks after...

Our government has limited the amount of ammunition they are allowed to both purchase and have on the premises...he used to be able to get a great deal on 10,000rd bundles of .22 but now he is only allowed to have up to 5,000rds of all caliber ammunition on premises and is only allowed to purchase it at 1,000rd bundles at once...

He said the price difference between a .22cal 1,000 rd bundle and 10,000 rd bundle is huge and it is costing way more for ammo.

The only way anyone in Canada can own a hand gun is to be a member of a club such as this....with all the limitations put on hand gun owners, people are getting out of owning them and his membership has cut in half...so much so, they had to shut down the fish hatchery-something which put 150,000 fish fry into the waters each year...now that is gone...

I wouldn't wish this sort of over-control on anyone....there has to be a balance...the balance here has tipped too far over to recuperate the gun industry in Canada...
Yeah I don't even go to my range anymore to stay current. Between the price of ammo and range time, I just make sure my laser site batteries are fresh.

Bumblebee

Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
33,016
Reaction score
56,185
Yeah I don't even go to my range anymore to stay current. Between the price of ammo and range time, I just make sure my laser site batteries are fresh.
I have a friend who has a farm, he built berms and made a range...he has a deal with the local wrecking yard to bring him a car to fill full of holes..the only thing they ask is to be able to come out and blast it as well...

Now that we have a huge gun ban here in Canada, the fun is limited...

Even is .338 is illegal now......before it became illegal, I helped him get it sighted in and set up...it sure puts big holes in a car...

TallTom

Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
5,917
Reaction score
7,122
My older brother is the president of a sportsman club which has both indoor and outdoor ranges, he is the firearms officer for the region and is the primary instructor for all the firearms training in his region.

They also have a fish hatchery on the premises which he looks after...

Our government has limited the amount of ammunition they are allowed to both purchase and have on the premises...he used to be able to get a great deal on 10,000rd bundles of .22 but now he is only allowed to have up to 5,000rds of all caliber ammunition on premises and is only allowed to purchase it at 1,000rd bundles at once...

He said the price difference between a .22cal 1,000 rd bundle and 10,000 rd bundle is huge and it is costing way more for ammo.

The only way anyone in Canada can own a hand gun is to be a member of a club such as this....with all the limitations put on hand gun owners, people are getting out of owning them and his membership has cut in half...so much so, they had to shut down the fish hatchery-something which put 150,000 fish fry into the waters each year...now that is gone...

I wouldn't wish this sort of over-control on anyone....there has to be a balance...the balance here has tipped too far over to recuperate the gun industry in Canada...
Yes. Reminds me of Daytona Beach deciding they didn't want loud motorcycles for bikeweek.

There went that economy.

Zerks

Registered
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
3,999
Reaction score
4,672
...the problem is guns are convenient and everywhere....a bad guy can lay his hands on almost anything he wants within the underground weapon world....

And you just never know when someone will "snap" and use their God-given right to take you out with a gun....get in a fender-bender and the guy loses it and shoots you....it's been done several times....

Look at Chris Kyle on the range helping out a fellow veteran and got shot in the back....you just never know who will decide to use lethal force..

Nobody in any post has mentioned taking away guns, only certain guns....

I get the desire to have an assault rifle, I have a few, now they are illegal...I used mine to shoot competitively in "jungle Lane" competitions. Now those competitions are no more....even that being said, does any civilian NEED an assault rifle?
What is an assault rifle good anyway?

In terms of easy to acquire guns the 12 gauge semi auto rules the land within a 100 feet which falls inside the distance most of the mass killings happen.

The only real reason the feds want guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is because most law abiding citizens know their rights which we are born with... and also granted by our ( USA ) government.

Our founders knew what was best for its citizens... They knew from the way European rulers had ruled for 100s of years that to be defenceless from a dictatorial government was to be enslaved. This country didn't become what it has become based on the contributions of slaves... though... these days that is also an contested issue.

It was the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government that the 2nd A was written. Let say for a moment all guns were somehow confiscated... what would our government do eventually? If you don't know... just look at what other gun less citizens in other countries have faced.

TallTom

Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
5,917
Reaction score
7,122
What is an assault rifle good anyway?

In terms of easy to acquire guns the 12 gauge semi auto rules the land within a 100 feet which falls inside the distance most of the mass killings happen.

The only real reason the feds want guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is because most law abiding citizens know their rights which we are born with... and also granted by our ( USA ) government.

Our founders knew what was best for its citizens... They knew from the way European rulers had ruled for 100s of years that to be defenceless from a dictatorial government was to be enslaved. This country didn't become what it has become based on the contributions of slaves... though... these days that is also an contested issue.

It was the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government that the 2nd A was written. Let say for a moment all guns were somehow confiscated... what would our government do eventually? If you don't know... just look at what other gun less citizens in other countries have faced.
So you sort of pointed the issue with your own comment. I totally agree shotguns are easier and more effective. Yet not chosen for mass shootings very often. Instead we know that assault weapons are the predominant choice. Are you at a loss as to why that is?

And by the way I completely concur as to the rest of the 2A rationale you used.

CBXRider

Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
15,840
Reaction score
23,285

justintime2

What's your story?
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
5,073
Reaction score
318
So many Constitutional Fudd's in this thread, "I support the 2A. But...muh magazine capacity and assault rifles". Again, apply your ridiculous logic to any of your rights and watch how fast it falls apart. "I support the 1A. But...muh safe space and hate speech"

Too many on the left are gas lit and too far gone. You can not reason a man out of an opinion he was never reasoned into to begin with.

justintime2

What's your story?
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
5,073
Reaction score
318
The left (and the right) needs to try a concept whenever they think up a new law or limitation. "And then what?" That should be the very next question. I like guns but get to decide how many you have, how much ammo you can have and carry. Ok, then what? Who gets to decide and when they come for what YOU thought was ok who do you turn to?

Hate speech shouldn't be allowed. Ok, then what? Who gets to decide what you can say and when you say it? Then once they encroach on what YOU found reasonable who will you find redress with outside the mob?


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis

TallTom

Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
5,917
Reaction score
7,122
So many Constitutional Fudd's in this thread, "I support the 2A. But...muh magazine capacity and assault rifles". Again, apply your ridiculous logic to any of your rights and watch how fast it falls apart. "I support the 1A. But...muh safe space and hate speech"

Too many on the left are gas lit and too far gone. You can not reason a man out of an opinion he was never reasoned into to begin with.
Do you think the 2A would have been written if they knew 17 year old kids could obtain and fire hundreds of rounds of high powered ammunition into the schools they attend?

Written to allow lack of control of known criminals having a sea of weapons available to do crime upon you?

Yeah I support the 2A. As it's written. But nothing in it says we should be expected to tolerate the above.

Compromise is how we resolve keeping our Rights as it's intended. You want your high powered assault weapons? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 2A will be violated.

I do not support either political paries approach being taken to solve our problems. And I don't vote left or right. The left wants to take away the guns and the right wants to add more.

Speaking of FUDD. Someone trying to convince us a hammer is as dangerous as an AR-15 represents the problem.

justintime2

What's your story?
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
5,073
Reaction score
318
You're so dense it actually hurts. 17 year old kids firing hundreds of rounds huh? Don't bother searching for the average age of the Revolutionary War soldier when the 2nd was written.

You'll have to point me in the direction of the law written to allow lack of control of criminals that allows a sea of weapons to descend upon you. I'll wait...

Support the 2A as written? What part of it supports a single contention you've laid out here? Have you actually read it? Have you actually read the founding fathers discussion of what it was for? For your review:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Not sure where it covers lack of control of criminals, sea of weapons and your hurt feelings.

Typical liberal who creates a straw man and obfuscates. No one said a hammer was as dangerous as an AR15, simply that it killed more people and by your insane interpretation if things they should then be banned, lest we get a sea of hammers through lack of control of criminals. Wonder if the people who died from blunt objects think AR15's or blunt objects are more deadly?

Replace the 2A with another right and watch what happens to it.
"You want your religious freedom in an unapproved house of worship? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 1A will be violated."

"You want your home to not have troops quartered in it? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 3A will be violated."

"You want your right to unreasonable searches and seizures? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 4A will be violated."

"You want your right to not incriminate yourself? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 5A will be violated."

CBXRider

Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
15,840
Reaction score
23,285
Geebus man, what century do you think this is? …’well regulated militia’. What a crock!

TallTom

Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
5,917
Reaction score
7,122
You're so dense it actually hurts. 17 year old kids firing hundreds of rounds huh? Don't bother searching for the average age of the Revolutionary War soldier when the 2nd was written.

You'll have to point me in the direction of the law written to allow lack of control of criminals that allows a sea of weapons to descend upon you. I'll wait...

Support the 2A as written? What part of it supports a single contention you've laid out here? Have you actually read it? Have you actually read the founding fathers discussion of what it was for? For your review:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Not sure where it covers lack of control of criminals, sea of weapons and your hurt feelings.

Typical liberal who creates a straw man and obfuscates. No one said a hammer was as dangerous as an AR15, simply that it killed more people and by your insane interpretation if things they should then be banned, lest we get a sea of hammers through lack of control of criminals. Wonder if the people who died from blunt objects think AR15's or blunt objects are more deadly?

Replace the 2A with another right and watch what happens to it.
"You want your religious freedom in an unapproved house of worship? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 1A will be violated."

"You want your home to not have troops quartered in it? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 3A will be violated."

"You want your right to unreasonable searches and seizures? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 4A will be violated."

"You want your right to not incriminate yourself? No problem. Get a higher license rating and have at it. Nothing in the 5A will be violated."
It's pretty easy to buy an assault weapon if you're a criminal. Any private sale will do. You can sell your gun to anyone you like. No background check required. I'm sure you know this. Happens thousands of times a year. Lack of laws sparky. Just how you prefer it.

I used a 17 year old because it's obvious he got his hands on it through someone else. What difference does it make how old a soldier using single shot muskets 200 years ago has any correlation to a kid shooting up a school with a high capacity assault weapon. Take your time. We will wait. Like we are still waiting for you to explain again how a hammer is as dangerous as an AR-15.

Here let's read the 2A together.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Where does it say you can have access to high powered assault rifles? Where does it say Joe Public shouldn't sell to Sam Criminal an Arm?

A tank is an arm. Go try and buy one that has a functioning ARM.

I'm all in favor of citizens taking up arms against a tyrannical government. And our government is more tyrannical than it has been.

So now we get down to without restriction. That is the most controversial part in the way it's written. For you that means everyone should be able to own anything. Yet you already know we have restricted fully automatic weapons. So we take the next step. We restrict assault weapons. Why because people like you try and make a hammer and doctors more dangerous that an assault weapon. Yeah I want to know some dumbass doesn't sell an assault weapon to some other dumbass because they can do so and not give a crap what happens with it.

And I know you will jump to stricter enforcement of existing gun laws. We should. It's become lax. And I will totally agree. And pass more laws so we can insure more people will be killed by hammers instead of assault rifles. I look forward to the day we see a hammer weilding looney take out a school.

I haven't voted liberal in years. But people like you make it tempting. I don't feel pain for you at all. Ashamed yes. Pain no.

justintime2

What's your story?
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
5,073
Reaction score
318
So lack of laws allow a criminal to buy a gun? Interesting concept, there should be a law that makes a criminal buying a gun illegal. Oh wait, never mind, there is and they are already prohibited persons. You really should slow down, think through your argument and see the holes you poke through it all on your own before posting and somebody else does it for you. It's frankly embarrassing.

Its almost like criminals don't follow the law (hint, it's why they're called criminals, they don't follow laws) but somehow more of your unlax laws will compel them to. Got it.

You understand by pure numbers the blunt object is more dangerous then a rifle is right? And you do know that AR15's are a small fraction of the rifles used in killing people right? It's in the FBI's own crime statistics. But continue arguing a point you're provably and unequivocally wrong on, they are more deadly, but that's not the point.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure how it can get any more simple for you man, this doesn't restrict you, it restricts the government. I would hate to see you argue contract law, good god. You should read the federalist papers and our founding fathers words on the matter, then it would be much more clear to you what the 2A was for and you wouldn't have to invent limitations the Ammendment makes no such case for And in fact says the opposite.

You also know its not an Assault Rifle and AR actually stands for Armalite, the Co that invented it right? It might also pain you to know that several hundred years ago one of our presidents and founders authorized a citizen privateer to have their days version of a tank and have canons as arms.

You're the worst sort of gun owner imaginable, completely uneducated on the constitution, our laws and want to wage war on lawful citizens who own guns you disapprove of, decide how many bullets they may have and how they may carry them. Your defense of the First Amendment (or any other part of the constitution) in the same manner would be cringe worthy to watch.

You argue with emotion, but in the end facts don't care about your feelings...

justintime2

What's your story?
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
5,073
Reaction score
318
On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
-Thomas Jefferson (1823)

justintime2

What's your story?
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Messages
5,073
Reaction score
318
You should spend some time reading Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, Paine, etc. you'd have a much better understanding of what you reference and get wrong.

fallenarch

THE SLOW RIDER
Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
10,483
Reaction score
16,418
Point of order:
You're so dense it actually hurts. 17-year-old kids firing hundreds of rounds huh? Don't bother searching for the average age of the Revolutionary War soldier when the 2nd was written.

The revolutionary war was ended in 1783. The constitution was written at the constitutional convention 4 years later in 1787. The initial constitution was only ratified by 13 states. The 2nd amendment was part of the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, The Bill of Rights "adjusted" the constitution to get the remaining states to ratify the document and form the United States of America. So the 2nd amendment was not written while 17-year-olds were fighting the revolutionary war.

The founders felt that the decentralization of power written into the initial constitution was the only necessary protection from a tyrannical government. That's why none of the 2nd amendment languages was in that first draft. The 2nd amendment was added to satisfy southern states that feared that the new government would take away gun rights to make plantations too dangerous to keep the institution of slavery alive.

CBXRider

Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
15,840
Reaction score
23,285
Point of order:
You're so dense it actually hurts. 17-year-old kids firing hundreds of rounds huh? Don't bother searching for the average age of the Revolutionary War soldier when the 2nd was written.

The revolutionary war was ended in 1783. The constitution was written at the constitutional convention 4 years later in 1787. The initial constitution was only ratified by 13 states. The 2nd amendment was part of the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, The Bill of Rights "adjusted" the constitution to get the remaining states to ratify the document and form the United States of America. So the 2nd amendment was not written while 17-year-olds were fighting the revolutionary war.

The founders felt that the decentralization of power written into the initial constitution was the only necessary protection from a tyrannical government. That's why none of the 2nd amendment languages was in that first draft. The 2nd amendment was added to satisfy southern states that feared that the new government would take away gun rights to make plantations too dangerous to keep the institution of slavery alive.

Are you sure those aren’t alternative facts? :D
Back
Top