The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[ArmyRick]

My guess is this, Trudeau knows he looks really bad at the Trucker EA Inquiry. So he needs another distraction. Insert this ridicolous additional list of firearms to the bill at the 11th hour.

Unacceptable governing. What really makes me sick, is the people of this country who keep supporting this bone headed, silver spoon fed rich boy and his clown band of Liberals.

 

[Lumber]

Dude, I am simmered down.

This goes way beyond Trudeau's "gun policies". Or his handling of anything from relationships with China to How he handles protestors, Its the Trudeau Liberals and their mind set.

No, it doesn't, and thank you for making my point. I'm discussing libertarianism vs collectivism as a potential justification for gun rights and gun laws, and you come out of nowhere drag me into the realm of being a Trudeau apologist.

 

[ArmyRick]

 

[ArmyRick]

No, it doesn't, and thank you for making my point. I'm discussing libertarianism vs collectivism as a potential justification for gun rights and gun laws, and you come out of nowhere drag me into the realm of being a Trudeau apologist.

So which are you?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Simmer down. There was literally NOTHING in my post other than a question: a non-hunter asking hunters for an elaboration on the frequency of use of certain fire arms and their function.

I respect you asking open minded questions about hunting. Like you I'm not a hunter.

Can I pick your brain and ask you why (or if you think) hunters having a semiautomatic firearm vs non-semiauto matters?

Or are you just curious about people's views on it?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I'd like to drive my car home after a few beers, and I'm usually safe to do it, but it's illegal for everyone to do it because of the greater good.

I'd like to drive my car at 200kph on the highway, and as an experience race car driver, I can do it, but for the greater good of society, it's illegal.

I want to be able to shoot toward a residential property at close range when hunting. I'm a really good shot and can ensure that I don't aim directly at a house, but for the greater good of society, that's illegal too.

I think what a person consumes is a personal choice, so if they want to smoke, I should be allowed to smoke, but we've established that people, especially youth, are extremely impressionable, and smoking is harmful, so we've estbalished laws restricting marketing cigarettes for the greater good of society.

I could go on.

First off I am not a Libertarian, I am a Classical Liberal. What that means is maximum personal freedoms with only reasonable restrictions as required. That doesn’t mean I am against laws, just that you have to justify them all and they have to be applied evenly.

It isn’t a greater good to restrict drinking and driving, there is clearly quantifiable cause and effect, I.E. beer messes up your mental state and therefore substantially increases the risk to all. You are guaranteeing the same treatment to everyone. There isn’t a greater good to speed limits, usually it is very quantifiable based off the roads which are designed, the speeds the vehicle is capable off and the ability of the average driver. There isn’t a greater good to ensure people are shooting in safe directions, again extremely quantifable and perfectly allowable under a classical liberal society like Canada.

What isn’t reasonable is arbitrary restrictions such as we are going to ban all magazine fed semi-auto firearms when there isn’t even a problem with them. That we are going to ban the sale of handguns despite virtually all handgun crime is done with firearms smuggled from the USA by gang members the Liberals released from jail. That we have magazine restrictions which do nothing.

There is only two parts to our firearms laws which have any sort of positive effect. 1) licensing because it keeps the crazies and criminals from getting access. And 2) regestration of full autos and handguns which prevents the strawbuying of firearms.

You could literally remove basically every other part of the firearms act and you wouldn’t notice a increase in crime, danger to the public, or difference other than some legal gun owners would be happier.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'd like to drive my car at 200kph on the highway, and as an experience race car driver, I can do it, but for the greater good of society, it's illegal.

I could go on.

Yet I can go out right now and buy a car that goes 200 an hour.

I'd like to drive my car home after a few beers, and I'm usually safe to do it, but it's illegal for everyone to do it because of the greater good.

I could go on.

And yet we sell cars without built in breathalyzers to start them.


EDIT: ..and I'm not a gun guy even a little. I think they should be registered since I have to register my cat. I just know it's not legal guns that are in any way, shape, or form, the problem.

 

[CBH99]

First off I am not a Libertarian, I am a Classical Liberal. What that means is maximum personal freedoms with only reasonable restrictions as required. That doesn’t mean I am against laws, just that you have to justify them all and they have to be applied evenly.

It isn’t a greater good to restrict drinking and driving, there is clearly quantifiable cause and effect, I.E. beer messes up your mental state and therefore substantially increases the risk to all. You are guaranteeing the same treatment to everyone. There isn’t a greater good to speed limits, usually it is very quantifiable based off the roads which are designed, the speeds the vehicle is capable off and the ability of the average driver. There isn’t a greater good to ensure people are shooting in safe directions, again extremely quantifable and perfectly allowable under a classical liberal society like Canada.

Sooooo…you’re a Conservative then?

I had a post written, but then read your entire post because everything you said was 100% bang on.

Summarized what I was going to say far, far better than what I had typed.

 

[Booter]

none of the examples provided were examples of things that only affect the individual. They were examples of selfish behaviour. If you demonize people you disagree with before you talk…

 

[Lumber]

I respect you asking open minded questions about hunting. Like you I'm not a hunter.

Can I pick your brain and ask you why (or if you think) hunters having a semiautomatic firearm vs non-semiauto matters?

Or are you just curious about people's views on it?

I dont think it matters. Use whatever works best for the type of hunting you're doing. I just legitimately had no idea how common semi auto were in hunting.

So which are you?

Neither. It's a spectrum. If you claim to be wholly one or the other, you're wrong.

 

[Lumber]

There is only two parts to our firearms laws which have any sort of positive effect. 1) licensing because it keeps the crazies and criminals from getting access. And 2) regestration of full autos and handguns which prevents the strawbuying of firearms.

You could literally remove basically every other part of the firearms act and you wouldn’t notice a increase in crime, danger to the public, or difference other than some legal gun owners would be happier.

So, we're pretty much on the she same page you and I with regard to gun laws. Why are you so angry at me?

(I'm surprised by your stance btw. I had you pegged as one of those complete law-aboloshists who thinks we should have complete unregulated access to firearms)

 

[Eaglelord17]

So, we're pretty much on the she same page you and I with regard to gun laws. Why are you so angry at me?

(I'm surprised by your stance btw. I had you pegged as one of those complete law-aboloshists who thinks we should have complete unregulated access to firearms)

Not angry at you specifically, angry at the government and the constant fight just to attempt to maintain where we are already at. It is frustrating to constantly be scapegoated for political purposes by people who don’t even believe what they are pushing, rather using it for political gain.

Why would I be a law abolitionist? Laws are needed, just there is many which we could get rid of and society would be no worse off.

I have spent a lot of times studying firearms, both the historical and technical side (turned down a job at the firearms lab in Ottawa once, and am a machinist by trade). I have also looked at many countries laws and the effects they have had.

Basically only laws controling who has access and the registering of handguns/full autos makes a difference. Controling who has access because it prevents criminals and the mentally ill from buying. Registration of handguns and full autos works because it prevents straw buying, i.e. how criminals circumvent the controlling who has access point. Beyond that everything else is just inconvenient and unnecessary.

In Switzerland for example they keep their full auto service rifles at home and there isn’t a problem. They will have kids biking to the range with a converted auto on their back and no issue. They also don’t have the crime we have due to a very stable society with excellent education.

Gun crime is related to regular crime. The roots of which are socioeconomic and difficult to solve. Banning handgun ownership for me doesn’t stop that gangbanger in toronto from using his illegally smuggled handgun for killing. Magazine restrictions for me doesn’t stop that hells angel member from having a 18rd mag in their illegal glock.

But its frustrating to have to repeat the same mantra over and over again even with people like Gary Mauser proving all of this and disproving the anti-gun studies on the regular.

 

[mariomike]

In Switzerland for example they keep their full auto service rifles at home and there isn’t a problem.

See also, from 2018,

The Great Gun Control Debate

https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=h9eNWs-0MsOKjwTik5aICA&q=japan+crime&oq=japan+crime&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.13362.16416.0.16714.13.13.0.0.0.0.191.2003.0j13.13.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1971...0i67k1j0i22i30k1j35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0...

army.ca

 

[Brad Sallows]

EDIT: ..and I'm not a gun guy even a little. I think they should be registered since I have to register my cat. I just know it's not legal guns that are in any way, shape, or form, the problem.

I don't think you should have to register your cat. But even though you do, it doesn't follow that anything else should necessarily be registered.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The pressure for gun control seems to largely stem from one (1) event over 30 years ago. Not a rational response to an extremely low probability risk.

 

[KevinB]

I don't think you should have to register your cat. But even though you do, it doesn't follow that anything else should necessarily be registered.

But, it may be an Assault Cat…

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Assault 'style' cat.

 

[Haggis]

The pressure for gun control seems to largely stem from one (1) event over 30 years ago. Not a rational response to an extremely low probability risk.

The pressure for gun control has been the need for the LPC to win urban ridings. Team Trudeau has largely given up on using The Ecole Polytechniqie shooting. Recently they been using Mayerthorpe, Moncton, NS and the Québec mosque shootings as their new evidence. I'm surprised that Saanich hasn't been trotted out yet.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think I read something this week about Poly deciding to pack it in. Something about wasting time trying to get everything banned and if trudeau doesn't do it this time they were finished with the fight.

 

[Dana381]

We are arguing weather gun owners need semi-automatics or not, we are missing the bigger picture. Once the semi-automatics are banned then the rest of the guns will be banned also.

I have suspected for a while now that when Trudeau gets defeated in an election he will refuse to step down and cite humanitarian grounds because he believes the Conservatives views are discriminatory, dangerous and draconian. If he wins the next election he will change the laws to keep him in power indefinitely. Whoever dosen't buy into the woke agenda is evil and MUST be stopped. I truly believe he has 100% bought in to the communist ideal and that he really enjoyed the absolute power that he gave himself during covid. He seems to continue to run the government like he answers to no-one.

I expect if he is not stopped very soon that he will institute a dictatorship, he will likely call it something else and sell it on the greater good platform just like every communist leader before him.

In order to achieve this he needs a completely unarmed populace. Hence the push now to get guns out of Canadians hands quickly. This explains why these rulings and OIC's don't seem to make any real sense. They keep citing a horrible gun crime that is 33 years old, They tried really hard to use the Portapique rampage to help their agenda but that failed. However they push on regardless. It is very hard to find the rate of gun crime in Canada that involved legally owned firearms, they suppress this information so they can push on with the disarming. Almost every news report of shootings involve gangs and street violence. This violence uses illegally acquired firearms almost exclusively. There are 2.2 million licensed gun owners and estimated to be 20 million guns in Canada. If legal gun owners were a problem then it would be much worse than we are seeing. However legal gun owners probably own more guns than the CAF

History of governments that have disarmed their populace is quite bleek.

• 1911: Turkey; citizens disarmed – 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered
• 1929: Russia; citizens disarmed – 20 million Russians murdered
• 1935: China; citizens disarmed – 20 million Chinese killed, other source suggested 65 million dead.
• 1938: Germany; citizens disarmed – 6 million Jews murdered
• 1956: Cambodia; citizens disarmed – 1 million “intellectuals” killed
• 1964: Guatemala; citizens disarmed – 100,000 Mayan Indians massacred
• 1970: Uganda; citizens disarmed – 300,000 Christians put to death

All in the name of the Greater Good.

In order for Trudeau to have power like Xi, that he envies he must disarm Canadians. He needs this power to push his globalist agenda. Ushering in the "Great Reset". His buddy Hans at the WEF has also expressed admiration for Xi's way of controlling his people. This is precisely why the American founding fathers created the 2nd amendment.

I am very afraid for Canada's future.

You may think I am a tin foil hatter but he bought control of the media. He is disarming law abiding citizens. He is for a universal basic income. He is ignoring due process in government. He has frozen bank accounts of peaceful protesters and those that helped them. He has labeled those protesters and anyone who disagrees with him enemies of the state. Is there any part of the dictator playbook he isn't for or hasn't done yet?