The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Deleted member 175000]

The only thing you get from the current Gov is an ever moving set of goal posts that continually makes firearms ownership more and more difficult.

Until now. Now we have a functional definition and a framework for it's application- a framework that sets precedent for both
-explicitly exempting firearms clearly designed for "traditional" uses (Benelli)
-implicitly exempting firearms that do not meet their functional definition, regardless of whether they are named

as well as
-an amendment procedure that forces the debate remain on the definitions (and allows for editing) before applying them to generate lists in a later amendment
-a tabled amendment attempting to codify an earlier OIC that would be subject to above edited definitions
-a debate happening under what passes for a microscope in this country, with public support for pro-firearm revisions

 

[Lumber]

That was 25 mins ago here…

Tar and I live in Halifornia.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Tar and I live in Halifornia.

I'm figuring you meant 11pm... Lol

You can always PM me.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I bought an XCR-L to practice my shooting outside of work without the hassle of getting a restricted. I was becoming a much better shot, because I was able to actually practice, rather than do 5 rounds warming before going straight into testing.

Now, my shooting skills have atrophied because the CAF doesn't care about my proficiency, as long as I pass a test every few years, and the GoC decided to make me a criminal.

You didn't hear, the CAF is all about bare minimums these days

It's the Canadian Way, peak mediocrity for all!

 

[QV]

I bought an XCR-L to practice my shooting outside of work without the hassle of getting a restricted. I was becoming a much better shot, because I was able to actually practice, rather than do 5 rounds warming before going straight into testing.

Now, my shooting skills have atrophied because the CAF doesn't care about my proficiency, as long as I pass a test every few years, and the GoC decided to make me a criminal.

With how risk adverse the CAF/GoC is... you would think they would want those who could potentially be shooting to be:

a. very good at shooting; and
b. able to account for their bullets.

Good quality range time would also be a big moral improver... But here we are.

 

[Jarnhamar]

XCR-L

 

[Dana381]

See, I actually don't think you and I disagree as much as it seems, I just think you are confounding the meanings of "need" and "use for".

Using the example I picked above, you could argue that you don't need a gun to hunt or for use in "shooting" sport. We used other tools for those things for thousands and thousands of years. Therefore, it has no basic use. Ergo, lets ban or heavily restrict guns (more than we have).

I don't agree with that statement I just made, but it demonstrates that we can't oversimplify the issue and argue things from the perspective of "most basic need". From that viewpoint, a personal car isn't a need, because you can walk somewhere, but in reality that's naive; our modern society requires the vast majority of people to have cars in order for it to function.

It's very dangerous to accept a law because you don't believe people need the item banned. Where does it stop? What freedoms do you hold deer? There are a lot of things that can be banned.

Look at the U.K. Locking pocket knifes are illegal to carry no matter how small they are. Personally I only carry a locking pocket knife because I have cut myself on a Swiss army knife when it suddenly folded on my fingers. Why they made that law? who knows? I believe non-locking pocket knives should be banned.

With all the gun control laws enacted in the last 100 years none of them have had a significant impact on violent gun crime. The amount of time and money wasted by lawmakers on this issue and no results. Frankly people should be upset about the wastage.

Laws should only be made and kept if they present a benefit to society. It has been shown repeatedly that tough gun control benefits no one and costs a ton to maintain. Just because a law doesn't hinder you doesn't mean you should support it. The government should have someone to go through old laws and see if they are still relevant and remove them if they no longer apply.

 

[Good2Golf]

“Once again, AirSofters bridging the gap…”

 

[singh1947]

Semi-auto rifle magazines... are the topic of discussion.

And that's nonsense . Are you actually claiming, that all equal (shooter, planning, calibre, victim/LE response) shooter X with a 5 shot fixed that they have to top feed is "going to do equal amounts of damage" as shooter x (again same person) with a series of 30 round mags?

Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.

Also, retrofit to a fixed mag isn't a "mag restriction", it changes the functional properties of the firearm

"If you need follow up shots you suck at hunting"
"If you need a disarmed populace to govern, you suck at governing"

Weapons are sacred.

/end

https://www.instagram com/p/Cl1FCvnhpyC/?hl=en

(big embed, remove space)

It's very dangerous to accept a law because you don't believe people need the item banned. Where does it stop? What freedoms do you hold deer? There are a lot of things that can be banned.

Look at the U.K. Locking pocket knifes are illegal to carry no matter how small they are. Personally I only carry a locking pocket knife because I have cut myself on a Swiss army knife when it suddenly folded on my fingers. Why they made that law? who knows? I believe non-locking pocket knives should be banned.

With all the gun control laws enacted in the last 100 years none of them have had a significant impact on violent gun crime. The amount of time and money wasted by lawmakers on this issue and no results. Frankly people should be upset about the wastage.

Laws should only be made and kept if they present a benefit to society. It has been shown repeatedly that tough gun control benefits no one and costs a ton to maintain. Just because a law doesn't hinder you doesn't mean you should support it. The government should have someone to go through old laws and see if they are still relevant and remove them if they no longer apply.

4/5 year terms with Parliamentary supremacy over the bureaucracy will lead to hysterical bills.
No one won an election going over the old, but by proposing something new.

Old laws aren't enforced anyway is the argument - unless you don't like the guy.
Kind of like the Army..

 

[Halifax Tar]

‘Free to go’: U.S. man acquitted in seizure of 56 handguns at border

A Florida man arrested more than a year ago at the Blue Water Bridge amid what officials said was one of the largest gun seizures at a Southwestern Ontario border i…

windsorstar.com

 

[Good2Golf]

I wonder how many more Vivian Richards unknowingly pass through Canada with a trunk load of illegal handguns, and don’t get stopped by CBSA?

 

[Dana381]

I wonder how many more Vivian Richards unknowingly pass through Canada with a trunk load of illegal handguns, and don’t get stopped by CBSA?

They will be glad to know that Trudaeu dropped the mandatory minimum sentence for gun smuggling.

 

[CBH99]

They will be glad to know that Trudaeu dropped the mandatory minimum sentence for gun smuggling.

Hold on a sec…But what the actual heck?

The dude who is trying to ban basically all firearms in Canada is the same guy who dropped the mandatory minimum for gun smuggling?

Tell me that isn’t some deep-state bulls**t to keep the cycle going? (crime/money/politics)


Which demographic’s voters did that win over again?

 

[Haggis]

Hold on a sec…But what the actual heck?

The dude who is trying to ban basically all firearms in Canada is the same guy who dropped the mandatory minimum for gun smuggling?

Yes, he did. You can read Bill C-5 here.

Which demographic’s voters did that win over again?

Those who are over represented in the criminal justice system.

 

[Good2Golf]

Yup.

Minimum sentencing for gun smuggling apparently targeted a disadvantaged demographic unfairly.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Huh. What happened to "it might save a life"?

 

[Good2Golf]

Huh. What happened to "it might save a life"?

I think you misspelled ‘vote’…

 

[OldSolduer]

OK there was a mass shooting in Toronto yesterday, Five killed.

Any bets that:

a. The firearms used were illegally smuggled in from the USA; and
b. The Trudeau government will use it to justify their gun control bill.

 

[Lumber]

OK there was a mass shooting in Toronto yesterday, Five killed.

Any bets that:

a. The firearms used were illegally smuggled in from the USA; and
b. The Trudeau government will use it to justify their gun control bill.

For b: Absolutely. never turn down an opportunity.

For a: Not totally convinced. One article said there were victims in multiple flats, which, I dunno, for that kind of methodical rampage I picture a guy with a legal rifle going around looking for targets, not some guy with an illegal pistol who either got pissed off or was doing a hit. But, we'll see! I hope it was illegal weapons.

 

[Halifax Tar]

OK there was a mass shooting in Toronto yesterday, Five killed.

Any bets that:

a. The firearms used were illegally smuggled in from the USA; and
b. The Trudeau government will use it to justify their gun control bill.

Well, that's convenient for the LPC.