The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Halifax Tar]

Right now, Gary and Nathalie and the rest of Public Safety are wargaming a nuclear option to ensure this key promise in the Liberal campaign is delivered upon. Thia is a no-fail task.

No one, and I mean no one should be looking for a silver lining in this.

I am hearing rumblings thay Poly and the LPC are in a bit of panic over this now. It seems the resistance from PDs and Prov Govs is meaning something.

Perhaps there is hope for our PDs yet.

Carney has an off ramp here.

Once again, my point is being conflated. I did not say that long guns, and more specifically semi auto long guns, were the main source of gun deaths in Canada. All I said, and nothing more, was that a person with a semi-auto rifle, and especially a high calibre semi-auto rifle, has the capability to do more damage/cause more deaths and resist LE better than someone with a single shot 22LR (unless Fish was referring to the Cooey 60), especially if they are novice shooter.

You lose people in your statement when you cant get the technical details right. Much like people need long winded pontifications ad nauseum on this site to flex their English degree.

AR10s... If I had one ain't no one taking that.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes they are. Take some disgruntled young adult who's got an infatuation with mass killings and a beef with the world. He can do a lot more damage and keep LE at bay more effectively with an AR-10 than he could we a Cooey.

What about a 300 Winchester magnum with a 16 power scope, and pump action shotgun. Both hunting platforms

 

[Lumber]

I am hearing rumblings thay Poly and the LPC are in a bit of panic over this now. It seems the resistance from PDs and Prov Govs is meaning something.

Perhaps there is hope for our PDs yet.

Carney has an off ramp here.



You lose people in your statement when you cant get the technical details right. Much like people need long winded pontifications ad nauseum on this site to flex their English degree.

AR10s... If I had one ain't no one taking that.

And just what technical details did I get wrong?

 

[Lumber]

What about a 300 Winchester magnum with a 16 power scope, and pump action shotgun. Both hunting platforms

They would also be more deadly/dangerous than a bolt action, tube fed 22. Worse than an AR-10 or an SKS? It would probably depend on the situation.

 

[Halifax Tar]

And just what technical details did I get wrong?

I suppose you actually didn't get anything wrong. But using an AR10 as an example is laughable. Mea culpa.

It screams of the sweaty, flustered, keyboard smashing of an anti... To me...

 

[Halifax Tar]

What about a 300 Winchester magnum with a 16 power scope, and pump action shotgun. Both hunting platforms

 

[IKnowNothing]

Much like people need long winded pontifications ad nauseum on this site to flex their English degree.

Now that's good for an ironic chuckle. Gold star on the vocab!

 

[Brad Sallows]

I am hearing rumblings thay Poly and the LPC are in a bit of panic over this now. It seems the resistance from PDs and Prov Govs is meaning something.

A substantial and true civil disobedience campaign could derail it entirely. The prerequisite is enough people willing to face the consequences (and thus costs) specified by the laws. It is a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma. If the prisoners stand together, they can "win"; but those who defect can "win" leaving those who do not defect to "lose".

Some non-federal police agencies may be formally uncooperative. Some officers may be privately uncooperative. I doubt there is enough court capacity to deal with widespread refusals to cooperate and the resultant charges that might be brought. Prosecutors in maxed-out jurisdictions would have to be choosier. The cases they choose to drop or delay (and the kinds of crimes charged) would make the news; if prosecutors prioritize ordinary Joes with essentially clean credentials over dirtbags, there will be outrage. If the penalties render some kinds of people unemployable by the terms of their employment, all of their employers would be faced with suddenly having to replace those people (and thus losing all the time and money invested in them). There would be pressure from employers; governments themselves might be in a bind, especially if senior people take the plunge.

 

[Lumber]

I suppose you actually didn't get anything wrong. But using an AR10 as an example is laughable. Mea culpa.

It screams of the sweaty, flustered, keyboard smashing of an anti... To me...

Why is it laughable? I could have said the BAR-10, REC-10, MR308, M14, etc.. why was choosing AR10 laughable?

Also, how does my assertion that these rifles are more potentially dangerous mean that I'm anti you? I didn't even say that I'm "anti these guns"; I just think they have greater destructive and offensive power than a bolt action tube fed 22LR? THATS LITERALLY ALL I SAID.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

View attachment 97995

The first time I saw that meme, I tried to hunt down the manufacture. IIRC, there was one vendor making these and they were no longer doing the conversion. This was a few years back though.

Dangerous guns. They are lumps of inanimate metal and are no more dangerous than a floor lamp. The dangerous part should only enter the conversation when speaking of the person who picked it up and operated said lump of metal as a dangerous person. The same could be said of almost anything. That shovel in the garage is just a shovel until someone decides to use it like they were in a trench raid. It's still not the object, it's the user that is dangerous.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why is it laughable? I could have said the BAR-10, REC-10, MR308, M14, etc.. why was choosing AR10 laughable?

Also, how does my assertion that these rifles are more potentially dangerous mean that I'm anti you? I didn't even say that I'm "anti these guns"; I just think they have greater destructive and offensive power than a bolt action tube fed 22LR? THATS LITERALLY ALL I SAID.

Only if the perp that picked it up, is destructive and offensive. A person could own a claw hammer. They could build a house or bash someone's brains in. It is not the hammer.

 

[Lumber]

The first time I saw that meme, I tried to hunt down the manufacture. IIRC, there was one vendor making these and they were no longer doing the conversion. This was a few years back though.

Dangerous guns. They are lumps of inanimate metal and are no more dangerous than a floor lamp. The dangerous part should only enter the conversation when speaking of the person who picked it up and operated said lump of metal as a dangerous person. The same could be said of almost anything. That shovel in the garage is just a shovel until someone decides to use it like they were in a trench raid. It's still not the object, it's the user that is dangerous.

View attachment 98002

No, if someone goes postal and runs into a crowded McDonalds with the goal to kill as many people as possible, they are going to be far more deadly with a pump shotgun then with a shovel. Don't be rediculous.

Same for law enforcement. If the police get a call about a highly deranged and aggressive individual attacking people, their response and the danger posed to them will be vastly different if the perp is wielding a shovel vs wielding a SCAR. Again, you're argument makes zero sense.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why is it laughable? I could have said the BAR-10, REC-10, MR308, M14, etc.. why was choosing AR10 laughable?

Because AR platforms were almost never, and continue to almost never be used in crimes. I'm fact I believe up until what happened in NS the AR platforms had never been used. I stand to be corrected.

Trotting out the scary AR is a patented anti move.

Also, how does my assertion that these rifles are more potentially dangerous mean that I'm anti you? I didn't even say that I'm "anti these guns"; I just think they have greater destructive and offensive power than a bolt action tube fed 22LR? THATS LITERALLY ALL I SAID.

There is no such thing as more dangerous rifle. Dangerous people, yes. Rifles no.

 

[Lumber]

Only if the perp that picked it up, is destructive and offensive. A person could own a claw hammer. They could build a house or bash someone's brains in. It is not the hammer.

A perp that is destructive and offensive can do a lot more damage with an AR-15 or an F150 then they could do with a hammer. I can hide in a closet and lock the door and keep my self safe from the hammer, I can't keep myself safe in a closet from the AR-15.

I'm sure the kids at Columbine would have been much happier if those deranged psychopaths only had hammers.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No, if someone goes postal and runs into a crowded McDonalds with the goal to kill as many people as possible, they are going to be far more deadly with a pump shotgun then with a shovel. Don't be rediculous.

Same for law enforcement. If the police get a call about a highly deranged and aggressive individual attacking people, their response and the danger posed to them will be vastly different if the perp is wielding a shovel vs wielding a SCAR. Again, you're argument makes zero sense.

Is public safety the goal ? Is this what it's all about ? Saving lives ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

More joining the fray

Tracey Wilson

Both Hamilton Police and Peterborough Police to announce they’re also rejecting participating in the Liberal gun grab. 🇨🇦 #JustSayNo

www.facebook.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

Fall in the Yukon.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014740763683209705

 

[Lumber]

Is public safety the goal ? Is this what it's all about ? Saving lives ?

No. That conflates the debate and brings in whatever Trudeau said. This is still just the argument over whether a tube fed bolt action 22LR is the same level of dangerous/deadly as a higher calibre semi-automatic.

 

[Lumber]

More joining the fray

Tracey Wilson

Both Hamilton Police and Peterborough Police to announce they’re also rejecting participating in the Liberal gun grab. 🇨🇦 #JustSayNo

www.facebook.com

This brings me hope.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A perp that is destructive and offensive can do a lot more damage with an AR-15 or an F150 then they could do with a hammer. I can hide in a closet and lock the door and keep my self safe from the hammer, I can't keep myself safe in a closet from the AR-15.

I'm sure the kids at Columbine would have been much happier if those deranged psychopaths only had hammers.

You are simply extrapolating to the point in the discussion that suits your bias. You stop there, satisfied that your explanation is the final word on the subject. It's not. I will not accept that you are applying human characteristics to an inanimate object as part of a reasoned discussion. Stay your course, it's your opinion, nothing to be done for that.

And if I'm being ridiculous (proper spelling), in your eyes, I'll just consider you obstinate and ignorant, on the subject, bordering on hoplophobia.

At any rate. Neither of us is moving off our position, so I'll just agree to disagree and leave you to your thoughts.