The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[OldSolduer]

Until there's a shooting on a reserve with one...

Do you really think that will see the SKS banned?

 

[Lumber]

Do you really think that will see the SKS banned?

Honestly, maybe, but what I really meant was that PolySeSouvient's official policy is that there should be an exception on a potential SKS ban for indigenous hunters and that if there was a mass shooting on a reserve with an SKS, they would change their tune (or not... they might not give two shits).

 

[Haggis]

if there was a mass shooting on a reserve with an SKS, they would change their tune (or not... they might not give two shits).

In Poly's mind, I guess it would depend on the ethnicity of the victims. Kill a few natives and they may not care. But kill a non-native and they'd probably care a lot.

You mean two psychopaths very publicly killed a bunch of Jews.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether it is a gun, truck, etc. it matters the intent behind the person using it.

Vehicle attacks have been more deadly than most shooting sprees (Nice is a great example), yet I don’t see people trying to ban F150s or lorry trucks.

You missed my point. Investing in mental health and criminal intelligence is expensive and mostly happens outside the public eye (not everyone needs mental health services). But, banning guns is done very publicly because it's easy, and the government is seen to have taken "decisive action" on gun violence at far less expense and effort than helping the people who need it to prevent such attacks..

 

[OldSolduer]

You missed my point. Investing in mental health and criminal intelligence is expensive and mostly happens outside the public eye (not everyone needs mental health services). But, banning guns is done very publicly because it's easy, and the government is seen to have taken "decisive action" on gun violence at far less expense and effort than helping the people who need it to prevent such attacks..

Now if the government were to crack down on illegal firearms......

BTW who funds Polysouvient?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Polysouvient

According to AI:

There is currently no public evidence identifying where PolySeSouvient receives its funding. If you need the most definitive answer, the only way would be to contact them directly at the email provided in their media releases:
[email protected]

 

[Fabius]

Gun control in Canada largely starts and ends with Poly and a few others adjacent. It’s not an issue for most.
Some of Polys thoughts in their own words;


Policy document

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/SECU/Brief/BR12228832/br-external/PolySeSouvient-e.pdf

ATIP’d Government reports and emails

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/A-2022-00442-Interim-Release-Package.pdf

Parliamentary Committee Discussion on Hanguns and sport

Evidence - SECU (44-1) - No. 41 - House of Commons of Canada

Evidence - SECU (44-1) - No. 41 - House of Commons of Canada

www.ourcommons.ca

Parliamentary Committee Discussion on long guns

Evidence - SECU (42-1) - No. 114 - House of Commons of Canada

Evidence - SECU (42-1) - No. 114 - House of Commons of Canada

www.ourcommons.ca

Parliamentary Committee Discussion on IPSC

Evidence - SECU (44-1) - No. 44 - House of Commons of Canada

Evidence - SECU (44-1) - No. 44 - House of Commons of Canada

www.ourcommons.ca

Interestingly both sides formerly believed the Canadian laws were disjointed and nonsensical. However both sides took different approaches to that reality.

One side tried logic and reason. The other side used fear, gas lighting, denigration of citizens. You can decide for yourself by the committee testimony which one is which.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Because theyve been arguing they weren't banning hunting guns?

The SKS is the primary example of them not following their own rules for political reasons, but Winchester 100's, Remington Woodsmasters, most models of BAR's are all actually examples of them sticking to their definition.


They've been arguing they weren't banning hunting guns because they found there's a line society won't let them cross. It played out very clearly and publicly when Paul Chiang's last minute amendments to bill C-21 were loudly and publicly rejected.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The SKS is the primary example of them not following their own rules for political reasons, but Winchester 100's, Remington Woodsmasters, most models of BAR's are all actually examples of them sticking to their definition.


They've been arguing they weren't banning hunting guns because they found there's a line society won't let them cross. It played out very clearly and publicly when Paul Chiang's last minute amendments to bill C-21 were loudly and publicly rejected.

What is a hunting gun ?

 

[Fabius]

What is a hunting gun ?

In the Poly documents they explicitly state that just because a rifle is used for hunting does not make it a hunting rifle.
However they do not ever define what they mean by hunting rifle.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

What is a hunting gun ?

You can play coy, or you can learn from what's happened over the last 5 years and the political mechanics of it.

Good summary

https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/9781487562311.007

 

[Halifax Tar]

You can play coy, or you can learn from what's happened over the last 5 years and the political mechanics of it.

Good summary

https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/9781487562311.007

Why cant you tell me what a hunting gun is ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The very problem with all this is definitions and the anti-gun lobby's inability to put together a coherent definition. Instead they thrash around and use terms like assault styled and military styled.

Definitions are important. And in order to reach consensus on these the Poly's of the world need to work with firearms owners, groups and businesses. Which they cant do because it legitimizes private firearms ownership, which they want to end.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Why cant you tell me what a hunting gun is ?

In context, a hunting gun is one whose mix of traditional use and functional characteristics place it too low on the the "risk" and too high on the "utility" axes to be a politically viable target for further restriction/ banning in the eyes of the overall public.

In legislative terms: any gun that is used for hunting that is not prohibitted as:

• is not a handgun
• discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner; and
• was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In context, a hunting gun is one whose mix of traditional use and functional characteristics place it too low on the the "risk" and too high on the "utility" axes to be a politically viable target for further restriction/ banning in the eyes of the overall public.

In context what is risk and utility, and how does that relate to the definition of what a hunting gun is ?

 

[Deleted member 175000]

In context what is risk and utility, and how does that relate to the definition of what a hunting gun is ?

From the paper I linked up thread:

"In the twenty-first century, citizens have ceded much of the responsibility for managing risk to their government. They expect it to regulate which objects are too risky to allow ordinary people to own. This risk calculus is tied to utility. Risky activities that are broadly practised, or that enjoy widespread public support, are generally tolerated. Most Canadians own cars. The Canadian public accepts that cars, potentially dangerous objects, are useful enough that their risk is justified. ......
When the Canadian public is convinced of the value of firearms, generally as tools of hunting, it is broadly tolerant of their ownership."

Definitions are important.

Yes.

And in order to reach consensus on these the Poly's of the world need to work with firearms owners, groups and businesses. Which they cant do because it legitimizes private firearms ownership, which they want to end.

Counterpoint- The government has put one forward, it's law. To move it and work with government against Poly's the CCFR etc. need to recognize that definition and the underlying reasoning behind it, which they can't because it legitimizes the capability discussion, which they don't want to have.

 

[Fabius]

From the paper I linked up thread:



Yes.

Counterpoint- The government has put one forward, it's on the books. To move it and work with government against Poly's the CCFR etc. need to recognize that definition, which they can't because it legitimizes the capability discussion, which they don't want to have.

You are fixated on capability as determined by risk vs utility.
Okay, what technical components increase risk?
How are we defining risk? Risk to what?
How do we manage risk? What are the mechanisms by which we can mitigate risk? Ie licensing vs banning.

How are defining utility? Utility to who? Hunters, Farmers, trappers, sport shooters, historians, collectors, home owners, young, old, ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

From the paper I linked up thread:

Yes.

So I used an M1A and M1 Carbine to hunt in the past, but buy your definition they aren't hunting rifles...

You seem to be missing my point. My point is not to get you to define what a hunting gun, but to show that using the term was folly, because the fact is many firearms (thousands) fall under the third point and are in fact hunting rifles.

Counterpoint- The government has put one forward, it's law. To move it and work with government against Poly's the CCFR etc. need to recognize that definition and the underlying reasoning behind it, which they can't because it legitimizes the capability discussion, which they don't want to have.

I see your counter point. And if I thought this is where it all ends you might be right. But its not, not even close.

 

[Fabius]

I see your counter point. And if I thought this is where it all ends you might be right. But its not, not even close.

This is key. For the proponents of gun control no risk is acceptable, no utility is acceptable. Gun regulations in 2014 had achieved a degree of stability and social consensus. The LPC and Poly have destroyed that consensus, if was not lawful owners that did that.

There always is an expectation that lawful citizens will give up more property because, pick your justification. There is no indication that Poly, the Government nor the LPC are negotiating in good faith.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You are fixated on capability as determined by risk vs utility.
Okay, what technical components increase risk?
How are we defining risk? Risk to what?
How do we manage risk? What are the mechanisms by which we can mitigate risk? Ie licensing vs banning.

How are defining utility? Utility to who? Hunters, Farmers, trappers, sport shooters, historians, collectors, home owners, young, old, ?

Hunters very much want to act like their firearms aren't just as capable as military styled firearms when school shootings and mass shootings are being discussed. Their apathy towards sport shooters plight will shoot them in the ass when their bolt actuon "sniper rifles" and close range shotguns are on the list next.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hunters very much want to act like their firearms aren't just as capable as military styled firearms when school shootings and mass shootings are being discussed. Their apathy towards sport shooters plight will shoot them in the ass when their bolt actuon "sniper rifles" and close range shotguns are on the list next.

I understand the sentiment but know that not all of us are like that. And some of us know we are all one in the same.