@@thatguy1080 ergonomically it's crap but engineering-wise I think it's pretty good. We can't get AR-15s up here any more but it hurts my head that Canadians are shelling out > 1500 bucks to buy AR-180 clones that frequently have catastrophic failures within a few hundred rounds
dude leafs are in a way worse situation they can’t own ar15s and instead have to rely on garbage overpriced 180s that break easily americans not being able to own mid chicom rifles is not a problem at all
@@cabbage6015how tight is the gun control in Canada, really? I heard some say only 5 round magazine is allowed there. Others say you can own full auto/select fire there. Idk who’s right
@@thomaszhang3101 the previous guy lol. 5-round magazines for centrefired semiautomatic long guns. 10 rounds for handguns. No select fire of course. Most of the good guns are banned by name, like AR-15s, AKs, G3s, FALs,…
@@cabbage6015 i had a 515c, really good quality and solid build. recently i purchased some vector products, super budget friendly, but not test them on the range yet.
Hello since you are a vietnamese Canadian gun owner I have a question. Do you support the vietnamese government denying vietnamese citizen the right to own and carry guns??
I’m not a politics nerd, just an engineering nerd that happens to be into guns. Never thought/cared about the politics of gun ownership, and I do not have the knowledge to foresee what would happen if guns are introduced to a society with its own dynamics and culture. Seeing how the general Vietnamese populace operate motor vehicles, how would they handle lethal weapons without training/licensing? If there is training/licensing, how do we ensure that there is no conflict of interest, and that unfit people cannot just bribe the entity that oversees licensing to get their license (like what happens fairly regularly at driving schools)? It’s a complex issue, and I just think that at the end of the day, with our East-Asian risk-averse collectivist culture, peacetime civilian gun ownership would not happen anytime soon
@@cabbage6015 The problem that's gun ownership is a fundamental human right and it does not need any license (permission from the government). Vietnamese civilians during 17th-18th century own lots of matchlock muskets and lots of ethnic minority regulary used guns. Vietnamese used to have a gun culture before but the communist government decides to deny the people their right.
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 This is gonna be a long rant lol. I don't believe there's such a thing as a fundamental human right. Of course there are rights that are respected by an overwhelmingly large portion of humanity, such as the right to life, but not all rights are like that. Technically, I can do anything that's possible under the laws of physics, but I don't live in a vacuum and my actions affect other people and is judged by other people. These individuals, whose values depend on their circumstance, media exposure, inherent disposition, and probably a lot more, form the cultural norm of the society I'm living in. I mean there's gonna be biases due to the power and influence of different individuals as well, but I think that's the gist of it. When times change or when I go between different societies, what's deemed okay to do varies. I can say that I have a fundamental right to something, but when the feedback of my action depends on what time in history and in which society I am performing said action, what's the value in saying that it's a fundamental right? I can relocate to a society that best align with my views, or add my drop of personal opinion into the sea of cultural norm, and I do sometimes, but realistically that's as far as it goes. I think it's not controversial to say that guns, especially modern ones, enable individuals to drastically alter other people's lives in a negative way, from long distances and within a short span of time. I'm not denying their positive uses, but indiscriminately distributing them creates an inherent risk that can potentially affect multiple people, and because of this, modern gun ownership became a societal issue rather than an individual one. The conclusion of this risk-reward analysis depends on what each society values most. It's not surprising to me that more risk-averse, collectivist societies tightened their gun laws more than individualistic ones. I can't say if civilian gun ownership is objectively right or wrong. This is why I really hate talking/thinking about politics. First, different people value different things and are willing to accept different risks. Second, guns, and other political issues, always affect all these different people. Finally, I don't think there is a way to definitely prove the effects of a political/societal change. When I said that the expansion chamber in the QBZ191 gas regulator allows the pressure and temperature of the propellant gasses to drop, thus alleviating the erosion of the regulator gas port, that statement is based on universal laws of physics and can be proven either right or wrong by fairly achievable experiments. When it comes to politics, I certainly don't have any background in political science, so my opinion is probably worthless. But I see many people on the internet, who are probably just as poorly-qualified, throw out claims like "when this state tightened their gun laws, their crime rate went up", or "this country banned all guns and their annual gun deaths are in the single digit". How do we concretely prove that these effects are the sole and direct results of simple gun ownership rates? How do we concretely prove that this policy, which led to positive outcomes in this population, will also lead to positive outcomes in another population with entirely different cultural norms, behavioral patterns, and socio-economic problems? What even IS a positive outcome? Let's say that we can perfectly simulate another earth where people behave exactly like in real life, and give guns to every single human being in that simulation. I'm pretty sure that looking at the same simulation results, some people would call it heaven, and some would say "I wouldn't go within 3 lightyears of that shithole". Different people value different things. As an engineering nerd, I hate talking/thinking about things that are that subjective and fickle. What's the point? Pretty sure I didn't convince you, because you probably value different things than me and a RUclips comment isn't gonna change that. Is peacetime civilian gun ownership beneficial? Which political system best suits this one country? Is individual freedom better than harmonious collectivism? Fuck if I know. I try to mind my own business, do what the Romans do, be respectful and compassionate during my daily life, that's all. And I happened to be really into firearms engineering, so the fact that I have access to some firearms as a civilian in Canada personally benefits me. I would probably be just as happy living in Vietnam and working as an engineer for the military though. That's my goal, actually. Btw, I wear a red flag with a gold star on my chest rig because it's the flag I spent my formative years under. It represents a shared cultural experience with the people I care about, and is a part of my identity that I am proud of when I live abroad. Sorry for the schizo rant, it's my drop of personal views into the sea of cultural norm I guess. Safe to say that I'll refrain from answering overtly political questions from now on lol
@@cabbage6015 why would you want to be an weapons engineer for an authoritarian government like Vietnam? You know they might turn their weapons against you right??
@@cabbage6015based, read max stirner, human rights dont exist, morals also dont exist, they are “spooks” metaphysical concepts that the human minds create in their head with no physical being on reality, The laws of physics exists, but stuff like “international law” is simply a concept that only exists when enforced by physical means
This was by far my favourite stage. Proper rifle accuracy requirement instead of just blasting targets at close range.
Same. I just wished that weak-handed shooting was incentivized by stage design (like the bolt gun shooting port) instead of forced
It is a travesty that we burgers can't have type 97.
it's pretty mid but you can make it work with some practice
It's really not very good compared to even a lower-priced AR15.
@@thatguy1080 ergonomically it's crap but engineering-wise I think it's pretty good. We can't get AR-15s up here any more but it hurts my head that Canadians are shelling out > 1500 bucks to buy AR-180 clones that frequently have catastrophic failures within a few hundred rounds
Yall can have AR15s and M14s and all the real guns tho.
dude leafs are in a way worse situation they can’t own ar15s and instead have to rely on garbage overpriced 180s that break easily
americans not being able to own mid chicom rifles is not a problem at all
This looks great! Happy to see more uploads from you.
Type 97. Nice. I love mine even though I'm left handed. I'm trying to learn to shoot right handed.
You did well. Had to pause to check out that rifle!
Holy shit, never knew you were in Canada! What range is this? Looks awesome.
I'd rather not mention explicitly due to privacy reasons but I think there are a few context clues from the video 😉
@@cabbage6015how tight is the gun control in Canada, really? I heard some say only 5 round magazine is allowed there.
Others say you can own full auto/select fire there.
Idk who’s right
@@thomaszhang3101 the previous guy lol. 5-round magazines for centrefired semiautomatic long guns. 10 rounds for handguns. No select fire of course. Most of the good guns are banned by name, like AR-15s, AKs, G3s, FALs,…
@@cabbage6015 😥
Pretty cool you are back
vector marvick？
Holosun 403r
@@cabbage6015 i had a 515c, really good quality and solid build. recently i purchased some vector products, super budget friendly, but not test them on the range yet.
You still alive bro?
Yup haha. Just haven’t gotten a lot of motivation to make videos lately
cool!
Do you have a Bilibili account?
No I don’t, I just lurk on there sometimes lol
@@cabbage6015 Do you have interest in making one
Hello since you are a vietnamese Canadian gun owner I have a question. Do you support the vietnamese government denying vietnamese citizen the right to own and carry guns??
I’m not a politics nerd, just an engineering nerd that happens to be into guns. Never thought/cared about the politics of gun ownership, and I do not have the knowledge to foresee what would happen if guns are introduced to a society with its own dynamics and culture. Seeing how the general Vietnamese populace operate motor vehicles, how would they handle lethal weapons without training/licensing? If there is training/licensing, how do we ensure that there is no conflict of interest, and that unfit people cannot just bribe the entity that oversees licensing to get their license (like what happens fairly regularly at driving schools)? It’s a complex issue, and I just think that at the end of the day, with our East-Asian risk-averse collectivist culture, peacetime civilian gun ownership would not happen anytime soon
@@cabbage6015 The problem that's gun ownership is a fundamental human right and it does not need any license (permission from the government). Vietnamese civilians during 17th-18th century own lots of matchlock muskets and lots of ethnic minority regulary used guns. Vietnamese used to have a gun culture before but the communist government decides to deny the people their right.
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 This is gonna be a long rant lol.
I don't believe there's such a thing as a fundamental human right. Of course there are rights that are respected by an overwhelmingly large portion of humanity, such as the right to life, but not all rights are like that. Technically, I can do anything that's possible under the laws of physics, but I don't live in a vacuum and my actions affect other people and is judged by other people. These individuals, whose values depend on their circumstance, media exposure, inherent disposition, and probably a lot more, form the cultural norm of the society I'm living in. I mean there's gonna be biases due to the power and influence of different individuals as well, but I think that's the gist of it. When times change or when I go between different societies, what's deemed okay to do varies. I can say that I have a fundamental right to something, but when the feedback of my action depends on what time in history and in which society I am performing said action, what's the value in saying that it's a fundamental right? I can relocate to a society that best align with my views, or add my drop of personal opinion into the sea of cultural norm, and I do sometimes, but realistically that's as far as it goes.
I think it's not controversial to say that guns, especially modern ones, enable individuals to drastically alter other people's lives in a negative way, from long distances and within a short span of time. I'm not denying their positive uses, but indiscriminately distributing them creates an inherent risk that can potentially affect multiple people, and because of this, modern gun ownership became a societal issue rather than an individual one. The conclusion of this risk-reward analysis depends on what each society values most. It's not surprising to me that more risk-averse, collectivist societies tightened their gun laws more than individualistic ones.
I can't say if civilian gun ownership is objectively right or wrong. This is why I really hate talking/thinking about politics. First, different people value different things and are willing to accept different risks. Second, guns, and other political issues, always affect all these different people. Finally, I don't think there is a way to definitely prove the effects of a political/societal change. When I said that the expansion chamber in the QBZ191 gas regulator allows the pressure and temperature of the propellant gasses to drop, thus alleviating the erosion of the regulator gas port, that statement is based on universal laws of physics and can be proven either right or wrong by fairly achievable experiments. When it comes to politics, I certainly don't have any background in political science, so my opinion is probably worthless. But I see many people on the internet, who are probably just as poorly-qualified, throw out claims like "when this state tightened their gun laws, their crime rate went up", or "this country banned all guns and their annual gun deaths are in the single digit". How do we concretely prove that these effects are the sole and direct results of simple gun ownership rates? How do we concretely prove that this policy, which led to positive outcomes in this population, will also lead to positive outcomes in another population with entirely different cultural norms, behavioral patterns, and socio-economic problems? What even IS a positive outcome? Let's say that we can perfectly simulate another earth where people behave exactly like in real life, and give guns to every single human being in that simulation. I'm pretty sure that looking at the same simulation results, some people would call it heaven, and some would say "I wouldn't go within 3 lightyears of that shithole". Different people value different things.
As an engineering nerd, I hate talking/thinking about things that are that subjective and fickle. What's the point? Pretty sure I didn't convince you, because you probably value different things than me and a RUclips comment isn't gonna change that. Is peacetime civilian gun ownership beneficial? Which political system best suits this one country? Is individual freedom better than harmonious collectivism? Fuck if I know. I try to mind my own business, do what the Romans do, be respectful and compassionate during my daily life, that's all. And I happened to be really into firearms engineering, so the fact that I have access to some firearms as a civilian in Canada personally benefits me. I would probably be just as happy living in Vietnam and working as an engineer for the military though. That's my goal, actually. Btw, I wear a red flag with a gold star on my chest rig because it's the flag I spent my formative years under. It represents a shared cultural experience with the people I care about, and is a part of my identity that I am proud of when I live abroad.
Sorry for the schizo rant, it's my drop of personal views into the sea of cultural norm I guess.
Safe to say that I'll refrain from answering overtly political questions from now on lol
@@cabbage6015 why would you want to be an weapons engineer for an authoritarian government like Vietnam? You know they might turn their weapons against you right??
@@cabbage6015based, read max stirner, human rights dont exist, morals also dont exist, they are “spooks” metaphysical concepts that the human minds create in their head with no physical being on reality,
The laws of physics exists, but stuff like “international law” is simply a concept that only exists when enforced by physical means