The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Lumber]

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.

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.

 

[KevinB]

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.

All of those things you mentioned are dangerous to public safety in the manner you described.

Lawful Firearms Ownership and Usage is not dangerous regardless of the Firearm.

 

[Lumber]

All of those things you mentioned are dangerous to public safety in the manner you described.

Lawful Firearms Ownership and Usage is not dangerous regardless of the Firearm.

Ok, I can see why this isn't entirely obvious becuase it is nuanced, and because well, we're in the gun laws thread, but, I'm not arguing here against gun rights, I'm arguing against eagle lord's libertarian viewpoint in general.

I also do not see any threat from lawful gun ownership.

 

[suffolkowner]

Libertarianism in its extreme isnt going to work in our large populations. We just bump up against each other too much. Reasonable people are just arguing over whats reasonable. The problem is most of the general population encouraged by the Liberal government doesnt have enough education on this topic to discuss it reasonably. That people still cannot differentiate between a semi-automatic and fully automatic is just one example. Its not just Eaglelord thats not harming anyone its all firearms owners. There has been no demonstrated public harm from legal firearms ownership in Canada. There also is no explanation on how the banning of these firearms will contribute to public safety. They cant because if the firearms are never confiscated or turned in like in Australia or New Zealand any downturn in gun homicides or mass murders must be due to some other factors. Personally the government can say I dont have the right to a firearm all they want, it doesnt pass the smell test with me. Are they going to limit me to bow and arrow? How long before they come for them? The mistake they made when they came for clearly hunting firearms was that it was obvious to the general population that uncle joe with his shotgun was being targetted

 

[Jarnhamar]

I also do not see any threat from lawful gun ownership.

Neither does the prime minister. Lawful gun owners just don't need semi automatics.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Lawful Firearms Ownership and Usage is not dangerous regardless of the Firearm.

But for such ownership and usage to be lawful, doesn't there have to be rules on permissible ownership and permissible use for the greater public good, so that you can actually compare your personnal ownership and usage and actually determine that it is lawful?

In the US, beause of the noise around the second amendment, many people say the answer is no.

In Canada, we tend (even lawful gun owners) to say the answer is yes, and therefore it becomes a political matter for debate by our elected representatives. The problem with the current governement's actions in this regard is that they are not debating, they are dictating, and doing so within a context where they do not even try to explain what their actual objective is for the law and how what they try to implement achieves this objective.

If they did, they would have to admit that what they are doing is not aimed at reducing gun violence but at making gun ownership so onerous that most people won't want to try, thus creating their wedge issue to win election. If they made that admission, they would get trounced. If they stated they want to redude gun violence, they would probably see most of what they propose be trounced by all proper experts on the subject (such as local police chiefs) because their proposed rules change nothing to the source of gun violence in Canada (mostly gangs and illegal black market gun acquisition).

 

[KevinB]

But for such ownership and usage to be lawful, doesn't there have to be rules on permissible ownership and permissible use for the greater public good, so that you can actually compare your personnal ownership and usage and actually determine that it is lawful?

In the US, beause of the noise around the second amendment, many people say the answer is no.

Common Law is based on the the principle that everything is legal, unless it is illegal.
We have was against Murder, Assault etc, as long as one isn't violating those, ones firearms usage should thus be lawful.
Careless or Criminal Usage then has penalties.

In Canada, we tend (even lawful gun owners) to say the answer is yes, and therefore it becomes a political matter for debate by our elected representatives. The problem with the current governement's actions in this regard is that they are not debating, they are dictating, and doing so within a context where they do not even try to explain what their actual objective is for the law and how what they try to implement achieves this objective.

If they did, they would have to admit that what they are doing is not aimed at reducing gun violence but at making gun ownership so onerous that most people won't want to try, thus creating their wedge issue to win election. If they made that admission, they would get trounced. If they stated they want to redude gun violence, they would probably see most of what they propose be trounced by all proper experts on the subject (such as local police chiefs) because their proposed rules change nothing to the source of gun violence in Canada (mostly gangs and illegal black market gun acquisition).

Boiling Frogs...
Unitended Consequences reference.

 

[FSTO]

But for such ownership and usage to be lawful, doesn't there have to be rules on permissible ownership and permissible use for the greater public good, so that you can actually compare your personnal ownership and usage and actually determine that it is lawful?

In the US, beause of the noise around the second amendment, many people say the answer is no.

In Canada, we tend (even lawful gun owners) to say the answer is yes, and therefore it becomes a political matter for debate by our elected representatives. The problem with the current governement's actions in this regard is that they are not debating, they are dictating, and doing so within a context where they do not even try to explain what their actual objective is for the law and how what they try to implement achieves this objective.

If they did, they would have to admit that what they are doing is not aimed at reducing gun violence but at making gun ownership so onerous that most people won't want to try, thus creating their wedge issue to win election. If they made that admission, they would get trounced. If they stated they want to redude gun violence, they would probably see most of what they propose be trounced by all proper experts on the subject (such as local police chiefs) because their proposed rules change nothing to the source of gun violence in Canada (mostly gangs and illegal black market gun acquisition).

Doesn’t help that the point man Mendicino is a lying sack of goat poo.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I could go on.

And a lot of people do, being cavalier with the pastimes of others, and that's a problem.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And a lot of people do, being cavalier with the pastimes of others, and that's a problem.

And livelihoods…

 

[suffolkowner]

And a lot of people do, being cavalier with the pastimes of others, and that's a problem.

I dont consider my firearms to be a hobby. I guess I could put down a horse or cow with an arrow instead of a bullet or call the vet if time allows, but that is not as viable as it once was when vets were plentiful, not many vets for large animals anymore. For me they are tools. I can accept the governments right to regulate them reasonably. The OIC exceeded that IMO.

 

[ArmyRick]

This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:

How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
b. actually use the semi-auto function in the process of taking down the animal? (i.e. shoot 2-3 times in quick succession)

I have it in my mind that hunters only ever fire one bullet and one bullet only to take down a target, and I want to figure out if that's a wild and incorrect assumption or not.

Try euthanizing an injured bull. You really want a powerful and preferably semi-automatic firearm.

Get a clue. The Trudeau Liberals will not stop there. Its only a matter of time before ALL firearms are banned.

 

[ArmyRick]

It doesn't matter what goes on the list, what doesn't.

The Trudeau use gun violence to make a "score points" useless bill and disarm future protestors.

The line really has to be drawn here. Trudeau won't stop at this. Eventually he wants ALL firearms banned. He said before he was PM on hunting "If people need meat, they can go to a grocery store..."

That is his mind set. End story. None of this will stop one ounce of gun crime. No metrics that make sense will be used to show the effectiveness of this nonsensical bill.

@Lumber , I don't get you. Your like the abused wife who constantly defends an abusive husband. When are you (and people like you) going to call out the Trudeau Liberals for their complete lack of integrity, accountability and transparency?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Get a clue. The Trudeau Liberals will not stop there. Its only a matter of time before ALL firearms are banned.

At this point, bad faith by the Liberals has been established. Foolish to expect restrictions to not increase in future.

 

[Lumber]

Try euthanizing an injured bull. You really want a powerful and preferably semi-automatic firearm.

Get a clue. The Trudeau Liberals will not stop there. Its only a matter of time before ALL firearms are banned.

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.

 

[Lumber]

@Lumber , I don't get you. Your like the abused wife who constantly defends an abusive husband. When are you (and people like you) going to call out the Trudeau Liberals for their complete lack of integrity, accountability and transparency?

Simmer down x2. You don't get me because you can't differentiate between what I actually wrote, and what the angry voice in your head says that I wrote. I haven't once defended Trudeau's gun policies.

 

[ArmyRick]

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.

 

[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]