The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Weinie]

And the guide was carrying a .500 Nitro Express.

I wasn't advocating that. I just posted it for interest. For those that think a five round mag limit will solve things.

Oh yeah. Giddy-up.

 

[KevinB]

Jeez Jarn, you know everytime we mention something not on the list, it magically appears there a couple of weeks later. Stop it!

Just for shits and giggles, both of these were shot with Lee Enfield SMLE. 10 round mag and stripper clips. A mad minute is the amount of ammo you can accurately put down range in 60 seconds.

The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48-inch target at 300 yards (4.5 mils/ 15.3 moa).[1]

Another world record of 38 hits, all within the 24 inch target at 300 yards (2.25 mils/ 7.6 moa), is said to have been set in about 1914 by a Sergt.-Instructor Snoxall.[2] ‘Sergt.-Instructor Snoxall’ was probably Sergeant Frank Snoxell of the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment,

You don't need a semi to lay down volumous fire. Speed, skill and training.

Several years ago a now retired member of FBI’s HRT filmed a video (foolishly in their compound, as when he showed it to me I pointed out that it was pretty obvious where it was done ) showing how stupid mag capacity laws are.
He used 1 Glock mag loaded to 5 rounds.
He then would hand load 5 rounds into the magazine when he ran dry, reload and continue shooting targets — he got through 103 rounds in the time of the average LE response to a a school shooting (and he bobbled one reload)
That was 20 different reloads each taking rounds from a box and loading them into the magazine.

His point was like many, that people intent to do evil will do evil regardless of laws to the contrary.

Mass Murders have been committed with explosives, vehicles, a hammer, and believe it or not a conch shell.

 

[Good2Golf]

And that’s assuming a baddy wouldn’t just pop the rivets in the mags…

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/afn-resolution-gun-control-legislation-1.6679444

Trudeau screwed the pooch with this one


I can't wait to see the stick handling!

 

[FSTO]

I was chatting with my lefty daughter yesterday about how razor thin our society is when it comes to the contract between the citizenry and the institutions that govern our lives. Basically we follow your rules as long as they are reasonable and you don’t make our lives miserable. Push the populace too far and the house of cards come down. Examples? Imperial Russia, the Balkans post soviet collapse, Iran today, and even China is starting to crack. Not saying we are close to that, but if the Convoy did anything it showed that the populace is frustrated and our Institutions need to be better at explaining why they do what they do. Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I was chatting with my lefty daughter yesterday about how razor thin our society is when it comes to the contract between the citizenry and the institutions that govern our lives. Basically we follow your rules as long as they are reasonable and you don’t make our lives miserable. Push the populace too far and the house of cards come down. Examples? Imperial Russia, the Balkans post soviet collapse, Iran today, and even China is starting to crack. Not saying we are close to that, but if the Convoy did anything it showed that the populace is frustrated and our Institutions need to be better at explaining why they do what they do. Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.

Absolutely..but that would require those institutions to actually... well talk to the peasants.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.

It's a curious experiment - people with political and administrative power working hard to piss off the one part of the population that traditionally respected by default the people with political and administrative power. The friction of millions of people finding tiny ways to "go Galt" - to be marginally less co-operative - will be considerable.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I personally believe the citzenry have the right to rebel if the suituation demands it (we are no where near that at the moment, think USSR, Nazi Germany, China, etc.). Our democracy is actually based on it.

People think that the US is the only one who lead a revolution but about 100 years prior we had the English civil war which established our constitutional monarchy. This also cemented the right to bear arms in what should be our legal system as per the 1689 Bill of Rights, which we should note was never repealed, even if the supreme court refuses to recognize that. We many not have the second amendment, but we do have the statute it was based on written into our laws. It is interesting how the court will ignore our legal rights when its in their favour.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Absolutely..but that would require those institutions to actually... well talk to the peasants.

I enforced Federal legislation in the Yukon and Northern BC. It helped very much that I had worked outside of government and I knew the purpose and the history of the legislation I was enforcing. (2nd oldest Act in Canada) If I did things up there the way many bureaucrats do it in the south, they would have found my body drifting down a river or shot full of holes. Often you had to take time to create a relationship and show some genuine care and understanding of the people and what they had to do to survive. I started my office career under some old school bosses where "Service to the People" was super important.

 

[Lumber]

I was chatting with my lefty daughter yesterday about how razor thin our society is when it comes to the contract between the citizenry and the institutions that govern our lives. Basically we follow your rules as long as they are reasonable and you don’t make our lives miserable. Push the populace too far and the house of cards come down. Examples? Imperial Russia, the Balkans post soviet collapse, Iran today, and even China is starting to crack. Not saying we are close to that, but if the Convoy did anything it showed that the populace is frustrated and our Institutions need to be better at explaining why they do what they do. Once the institutions get the rep they are full of shit the population loses respect for the laid down rules and at best they just ignore them, at worst they rise up in rebellion.

Oh dont be so dramatic. Our institutions, specifically health Canada and the regional health authorities, did a perfectly fine job explaining why mandates were important. All the convoy did was reveal that some of Canada's finest lack empathy, and some critical thinking skills.

 

[Lumber]

How about we don't bother with any magazine restrictions and let law abiding citizens do as they please?

Your argument basically boils down to "if I'm jot hurting any body else, there should be no law against it" which is an awfully naïve way of living in a society (or libertarian, which I guess is the same thing).

 

[Lumber]

People think that the US is the only one who lead a revolution but about 100 years prior we had the English civil war which established our constitutional monarchy. This also cemented the right to bear arms in what should be our legal system as per the 1689 Bill of Rights, which we should note was never repealed, even if the supreme court refuses to recognize that. We many not have the second amendment, but we do have the statute it was based on written into our laws. It is interesting how the court will ignore our legal rights when its in their favour.

Holy crap, are you THE Bruce Montague?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Your argument basically boils down to "if I'm jot hurting any body else, there should be no law against it" which is an awfully naïve way of living in a society (or libertarian, which I guess is the same thing).

But that is literally the principle western society is based on.

Any law we do have should be the least amount required to do the job and infringe no more on personal freedoms than is absolutely necessary.

Which is where Canada’s current gun laws come into play. Some them are perfectly reasonable restrictions. Many of the rest are a patch work of often illogical and sometimes contradictory rules that are vexatious, at best and seem designed by people whose’s starting premise seems to be that governments have an inherent role to decide what a citizen ”needs” (often justified by the very paternalistic phrase “nobody in Canada needs xxxxxx”). That is a dangerous path to go down.

 

[Furniture]

Oh dont be so dramatic. Our institutions, specifically health Canada and the regional health authorities, did a perfectly fine job explaining why mandates were important. All the convoy did was reveal that some of Canada's finest lack empathy, and some critical thinking skills.

So it was reasonable, and scientifically defendable to close outside spaces like parks? Outside spaces with lots of UV light, the kind of light that destroys viruses?

It wasn't Health Canada that did it, but Ontario did... Now, you being an obvious superior intellect might get that Ontario and Canada aren't the same, but to Jane/Jamal Public, government is government.

You can be as indignant as you want about the pedantic points of governance in Canada as it pleases you to be, it doesn't change the reality that many Canadians have less time/respect for government interference in their lives that they previously had. People are only willing to have governments interfere with their lives to a point. Smart governments try to not come anywhere near that point... Governments in Canada weren't particularly smart.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Your argument basically boils down to "if I'm jot hurting any body else, there should be no law against it" which is an awfully naïve way of living in a society (or libertarian, which I guess is the same thing).

Basically, which is how our society is designed and functions. Welcome to classical liberalism, the ideal of maximum personal freedoms with only having laws where necessary. It is naive to believe that isn’t how we should function.

If a law does nothing to prevent or protect, and simply hinders someone else it shouldn’t be a law. I would argue at that point it becomes a violation of your right to life liberty and security of the person and as such should be struck down.

Holy crap, are you THE Bruce Montague?

I am not, simply that it can be argued we do have a right to bear arms.

I tend to view society as a series of violent interactions. We have laws, which if you refuse to follow we shall use force to make you comply up to and including killing you. I don’t like the idea of the government having a monopoly on that force, call it a check and balance.

Odds are that balance is never needed, it simply being there helps keep them in line. There are groups in Canada that understand this, look at the Oka Crisis where armed natives stood up for what they considered their rights. If they weren’t armed they wouldn’t have been taken seriously at all.

Venezuela is a excellent example of where gun control can lead, 2012 bans private ownership of firearms, by 2015 they have a dictatorship up and running.

 

[FSTO]

Oh dont be so dramatic. Our institutions, specifically health Canada and the regional health authorities, did a perfectly fine job explaining why mandates were important. All the convoy did was reveal that some of Canada's finest lack empathy, and some critical thinking skills.

Back when I was a wee lad (1970’s) and purchased a semi automatic .22, I had to take the hunter’s safety course and get a Firearms Acquisition Certificate from the RCMP before I could get my hands on the rifle. Perfectly reasonable requirements.
Then the Liberals brought in gun control legislation and instead of modernizing the FAC they went full LPC and spent huge sums of money, created nothing, and pissed off everyone. Most folks at the time said they weren’t going to follow the legislation and I never heard about one inspection by the RCMP to see if anyone had registered their firearms.
My old .22 is still at the farm, I’ve never bothered to register it, don’t know if my brother has. I’ll bet my pension that there are many many more non registered small arms out there.
Our institutions need buy-in from the populace for legitimacy, slowly but surely they are losing it from the populace who are the most pro law and order cohort in the land.

 

[Lumber]

But that is literally the principle western society is based on.

Any law we do have should be the least amount required to do the job and infringe no more on personal freedoms than is absolutely necessary.

Which is where Canada’s current gun laws come into play. Some them are perfectly reasonable restrictions. Many of the rest are a patch work of often illogical and sometimes contradictory rules that are vexatious, at best and seem designed by people whose’s starting premise seems to be that governments have an inherent role to decide what a citizen ”needs” (often justified by the very paternalistic phrase “nobody in Canada needs xxxxxx”). That is a dangerous path to go down.

You and I don't disagree on this.

The only thing I'm arguing against is the the overarching position Eagle Lord has (and if he actually doesn't, he's doing a good job of making it look like he does). It's the same one that I have seen taken by many of the more ardently pro-gun during the decade and a half that I've discussed/debated gun laws, which is this: if what I'm doing isn't hurting anybody, it should not be illegal, period. It's overly simplistic and not taking into account the complexities and realities of human society and the potential consequences of unfettered individual liberty.

 

[Lumber]

So it was reasonable, and scientifically defendable to close outside spaces like parks? Outside spaces with lots of UV light, the kind of light that destroys viruses?

Yes. Part of the reason that parks (and travel to your own cottage even) were shut down was not because of the threat of disease transmission at those places, but because they wanted people to stop moving around as much, thus reducing accidents, and reducing the potential the strain on the health care system. They explained that very clearly. #staytheblazeshome

 

[Lumber]

If a law does nothing to prevent or protect, and simply hinders someone else it shouldn’t be a law. I would argue at that point it becomes a violation of your right to life liberty and security of the person and as such should be struck down.

While individual rights and freedoms are important, they must sometimes be balanced against the greater good of society.

I am not, simply that it can be argued we do have a right to bear arms.

You "could", but someone else already tried, and the supreme court made it very clear that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was never meant to be included in any way whatsoever as an aspect, even in reference, of the constitution of Canada.

 

[Eaglelord17]

While individual rights and freedoms are important, they must sometimes be balanced against the greater good of society.

There is no greater good than individual rights and freedoms. ‘Greater Good’ is how the communists justified cleansing their societies. ‘Greater Good’ is how we justified the residential schools. ‘Greater Good’ is a term used to justify wrong doings for a outcome someone considers desirable in spite of the harm it will do to some.

Guaranteeing equal rights and treatment (i.e. individual rights and freedoms) is the best humanity can do.