The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[IKnowNothing]

You call it a fallacy, yet it is not. It is only a fallacy when you over exaggerate the end result, which based off the evidence provided we are not. In Canada we are on the slippery slope argument, which can be proven through the continued and repeated attacks against legal firearms ownership.

That is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of the slippery slope. The proposed end result is one aspect, but the other- arguably more important one- is the unsupported linkages between Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 ... Step N to get to the (possibly) exaggerated end result

Here is a good summary of Canadas laws over time (provided by the RCMP surprisingly). You will notice every time a little bit is given up they come back a few years later and take more.

To say they aren’t trying to slowly strangle firearms ownership in this country is at a minimum ignorant, at maximum it is purposely malicious to help achieve said goal.

Third option- accept that the risk<->utility curve exists in public perception, don't commit the fallacy of composition, and re-examine said good summary from the lens of "society doesn't consider all firearms equal." Specifically- plot a mental trendline of regulation as it pertains to the blanket "firearms" (the one that leads to your conclusion) then plot the same trendline of regulations as they pertain only to "fudd" guns. That 2nd line is essentially flat outside of ~16 year period with the now defunct long gun registry. Decades of minor oscillation around local permitting and registration, 2 incremental licensing steps in the introduction of the FAC then conversion to PAL. In terms of technical restriction only some niche stuff around length. But no- not a little bit being given up every few years.

Hence the slippery slope fallacy. There are two opposing groups of people in Canadian society that insist that all guns need to be thought of and treated the same way. The assumption that the rest of the population will be convinced to join the extremes and pick a winner is completely unsupported - in fact the Dec 2022-Jan 2023 period rejecting C-21 overreach explicitly refutes the idea.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Tightening since 1997 includes:

-2003/2004 National Handgun Agreement after Monash University (which lead to stricter licensing, magazine limits, and barrel lengths).

-2015 appearance-based reforms targeting rapid-fire aesthetics and imports.

-Repeated re-classifications and buybacks

-Ongoing tightening of storage, importation, and dealer requirements (all good things, still tightening)

Relaxation since 1997 is primarily at the territory rather than the National level - removing cooling off periods, allowing suppressors, lowering age limits etc.

In any case, the overall long gun regime has been essentially static since 97, and if the only technical restriction in response to Bondi was to classify something that wasn't already classified only because it didn't exist at the time / poorly worded regulation - that wouldn't exactly be an example of a continued ratchetting now would it?

 

[Jarnhamar]

That wouldn't exactly be an example of a continued ratchetting now would it?

It would. Even seemingly minor reclassifications contribute to a gradual tightening.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It would. Even seemingly minor reclassifications contribute to a gradual tightening.

Except for the end state is the exact same. Type B licenses can have a non-pump manual action shotgun with up to 5 rounds.

the only reason for the "minor reclassification" was that the regulation was initially poorly written for purpose and failed to consider new manual action types coming to market.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Except for the end state is the exact same. Type B licenses can have a non-pump manual action shotgun with up to 5 rounds.

the only reason for the "minor reclassification" was that the regulation was initially poorly written for purpose and failed to consider new manual action types coming to market.

You're still obsessing about minor technical details which in practice aren't going to have a significant outcome on any incident, and just one step closer to the next reclassification.

What do you think the tactical or practical difference is between a 5 round pump action shotgun and a 5 round level action shotgun?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Gun control operates on the premise of "We are only taking a slice of your bread" , but they keep coming back, because their intent is to get the whole loaf.

 

[IKnowNothing]

You're still obsessing about minor technical details which in practice aren't going to have a significant outcome on any incident, and just one step closer to the next reclassification.

What do you think the tactical or practical difference is between a 5 round pump action shotgun and a 5 round level action shotgun?

Next to none. But that's not the point. The point is interacting with the rules as written and societal perceptions / resistance points to leverage the best outcome possible.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Next to none. But that's not the point. The point is interacting with the rules as written and societal perceptions / resistance points to leverage the best outcome possible.

Throwing your neighbors daughter in the volcano to save yours because the societal perception is the sun god will be appeased and stop burning your crops isn't a best outcome no matter how much someone wants it to be. I suspect you'll understand in the next 5 or so years.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Throwing your neighbors daughter in the volcano to save yours because the societal perception is the sun god will be appeased and stop burning your crops isn't a best outcome no matter how much someone wants it to be. I suspect you'll understand in the next 5 or so years.

History -far, recent, and present- says otherwise.

 

[Jarnhamar]

History -far, recent, and present- says otherwise.

5 years ago I could buy a handgun and go to the range with semi-automatic .22 caliber pop-can killer.

 

[IKnowNothing]

5 years ago I could buy a handgun and go to the range with semi-automatic .22 caliber pop-can killer.

Re- read the post 4621.

65 61 (forgot about the cooey 64) years ago.... I could have the exact same guns in the cabinet.

We are not experiencing the same trend line.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Specifically- plot a mental trendline of regulation as it pertains to the blanket "firearms" (the one that leads to your conclusion) then plot the same trendline of regulations as they pertain only to "fudd" guns. That 2nd line is essentially flat outside of ~16 year period with the now defunct long gun registry. Decades of minor oscillation around local permitting and registration, 2 incremental licensing steps in the introduction of the FAC then conversion to PAL. In terms of technical restriction only some niche stuff around length. But no- not a little bit being given up every few years.

Hence the slippery slope fallacy. There are two opposing groups of people in Canadian society that insist that all guns need to be thought of and treated the same way. The assumption that the rest of the population will be convinced to join the extremes and pick a winner is completely unsupported - in fact the Dec 2022-Jan 2023 period rejecting C-21 overreach explicitly refutes the idea.

You do understand they banned over 2500 models of firearms in the last 5 years regardless of where they should fall based off technical characteristics? You do understand they basically rewrote the law without having to do so thanks to the OiC exemption?

How you can even believe the law has been stagnant is beyond me.

Handguns forbidden to be transferred, 2500 models of firearms prohibited, evergreen clause on bores over 20mm, evergreen clause on pressures over certain amount.

This isn’t niche and it isn’t small scale. Very few firearms owners have not been affected in some way.

It’s a noose around the neck of all firearms owners that is slowly tightening every year.