The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Fabius]

Also keep in mind The Mosque shooters high capacity semi-automatic rifle jammed before he got inside the mosque and he had to switch to his Glock 19 pistol, which is what he used to shoot everyone with. No one was killed with the rifle.

One of the concerns that the gun control advocates have with internationally legitimate shooting sports is that they help make the participants proficient.

Not "too"- "more". "More" is quantifiable, observable. "More" is the advantages that other factors can mitigate, that make them optimal for warfare, that provide offensive parity against Opfor (Contextually -LEO's)

No one on the gun control side in Canada has offered a technical description of “more”. It’s just “assault style”, which is emotional gibberish.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm assuming there's a "don't" missing?

Yes, of course.

Not "too"- "more". "More" is quantifiable, observable. "More" is the advantages that other factors can mitigate, that make them optimal for warfare, that provide offensive parity against Opfor (Contextually -LEO's)

Optimal for warfare like the Mosque shooters rifle jamming and him having to run around with a pistol.

I'm open to anyone telling me I'm wrong and that hunting firearms can't be just as deadly as military style semi-autos in an active shooter scenario, or more deadly situation depending. It's just my opinion.


I'd rather see more proactive police work. Like what you ask? For starters, the CFO can direct police to do spot checks on firearm owners for restricted weapons. I believe they need to give you some kind of warning unless you have over 10 restricted firearm's then they can just show up and demand to see them, and how they're stored. I'd like to see anyone charged with any sort of illegal firearm possession or crime have the police given the power to do spot checks on their vehicles and homes for a certain number of years.

Got caught with a unregistered Glock? Guess what, police can search your car anytime they pull you over, and search your house. It wouldn't stop a shooter like the Mosque shooter but it would put a dent into the illegal gun trade.

To be clear - I'm not in favor of the bans.

My mistake. It sounded like you were in favor of banning military style firearms because they're more dangerous.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Doesn't matter what law you put in place. Doesn't matter which guns you designate. Doesn't matter your feelings on the subject. Today's technology allows even a novice to make a functional, semi automatic firearm in their bedroom. If they plan on a mass shooting, manufacturing an illegal firearm is just another charge. It makes zero difference to the criminal. It is easier to build a semi auto than a bolt action.

A bolt action, especially a Lee Enfield in the hands of competent shooter, can be devastating. Ask the Germans.

 

[IKnowNothing]

No one on the gun control side in Canada has offered a technical description of “more”. It’s just “assault style”, which is emotional gibberish.

technically c-21 established a definition- which future OIC's promptly ignored

 

[Fabius]

technically c-21 established a definition- which future OIC's promptly ignored

So a definition of nonsensical understandings that gets ignored by its very drafters cannot be much of a useful thing.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So a definition of nonsensical understandings that gets ignored by its very drafters cannot be much of a useful thing.

To a more effective lobby group it would be a great jump off point to anchor the debate to set standard and prevent scope creep, erroneous classifications etc.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://ellwoodepps.com/hunting/firearms.html#!/___SID=S&firearm_action=1589&firearm_calibre_group=3209-3215-3217-3212-3222&firearm_type=1569&home=0&no_cache=true&order=news_from_date&p=1&product_condition_used=3174

Browning BAR and Benelli R1 not long before they are banned too
this list also shows you what the bans have done. Eviscerated the firearm retail sector

 

[Fishbone Jones]

technically c-21 established a definition- which future OIC's promptly ignored

Of course we have the trudeau governments well worn shoe. The AR-15s "were designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: To kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time."

Just before he issued these mass killing machines to every cop in Canada.

While you chew on that, remember, they were designed for one purpose, and one purpose only. So why issue them to the police? Are we expecting law enforcement "To kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time." Or are the liberals just lying and infringing on peoples rights again.

 

[Fabius]

To a more effective lobby group it would be a great jump off point to anchor the debate to set standard and prevent scope creep, erroneous classifications etc.

That would require a Liberal Party that is not ideologically captured by the pro gun control elements and would be willing to listen.

The government would need to think along the below lines.

Decisions need to be inclusive in their making.
The rule of law must be adhered to.
Winner take all outcomes need to be avoided.
Education and critical thinking need to emphasized.
Misperceptions need to be countered.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The government would need to think along the below lines.

I have to admit, I have trouble reconciling the last two with a viewpoint that would tacitly agree with an SME opinion about the quality of tools having an impact on the outcome and LEO response while steadfastly refusing to allow such an opinion any place in the public discourse.

In any case, I've said my piece. Its not poly that needs to be convinced. Its the masses that make it politically tenable (or not) for the LPC to give poly what they want. Act accordingly.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I have to admit, I have trouble reconciling the last two with a viewpoint that would tacitly agree with an SME opinion about the quality of tools having an impact on the outcome and LEO response while steadfastly refusing to allow such an opinion any place in the public discourse.

Some tools make anyone a little better. Other tools make some people a lot better.

 

[Eaglelord17]

That was before "fudd guns" very publicly killed a bunch of Jews.

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.

 

[Lumber]

https://ellwoodepps.com/hunting/firearms.html#!/___SID=S&firearm_action=1589&firearm_calibre_group=3209-3215-3217-3212-3222&firearm_type=1569&home=0&no_cache=true&order=news_from_date&p=1&product_condition_used=3174

Browning BAR and Benelli R1 not long before they are banned too
this list also shows you what the bans have done. Eviscerated the firearm retail sector

Huh. I thought they banned all semi-autos. I see now it was just "assault style" weapons which includes a lot (if not most) semi autos. And that Celik Arms Chimera looks even more Assault Style then the Brownings! (It's name even makes it sound like an assault rifle)

 

[Lumber]

100% it could have.

A 308 could also go through a body at close range into another.

Also keep in mind The Mosque shooters high capacity semi-automatic rifle jammed before he got inside the mosque and he had to switch to his Glock 19 pistol, which is what he used to shoot everyone with. No one was killed with the rifle.

6 fatalities with a pistol. What if he had a shotgun with 5-7 rounds that could fire a big slug or OO Buck shooting 8 lead pellets per shot (or 15 per if he's using 3&1/2" shells)

And hence the handgun ban.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Someone needs to articulate what specific technical characteristic is too much for civilian ownership. Otherwise there is nothing to debate other than emotional feelings.

I have a close friend who is a prominent NS Liberal. We have had some very long debates over firearms.

And it always shocks me how much he hates something he has absolutely no understanding of, its truly just a bias or prejudice.

The Irony is his youngest daughter has asked if she can come to the range and hunting with my daughter and I. I told her not without her parents permission.

 

[suffolkowner]

And hence the handgun ban.

the funny thing about the bans is we all still have our firearms

 

[suffolkowner]

Huh. I thought they banned all semi-autos. I see now it was just "assault style" weapons which includes a lot (if not most) semi autos. And that Celik Arms Chimera looks even more Assault Style then the Brownings! (It's name even makes it sound like an assault rifle)

there is no logical process by which a firearm gets banned no matter what the Liberals, Poly or the RCMP say. Easily seen by looking at those guns banned and those that remain unbanned

 

[Halifax Tar]

there is no logical process by which a firearm gets banned no matter what the Liberals, Poly or the RCMP say. Easily seen by looking at those guns banned and those that remain unbanned

The logic is they are scary, for the LPC and Poly. Fear is a powerful motivator.

I think for the Left side of our house there is a resistance to self reliance and self defence, I think they prefer the state to look after our needs. And civilian firearms ownership counters much of that.

We like to poo poo on the RCMP for this, and lord knows the Cops and I aren't allies, but they are just being dutiful servants of the crown. If a new Gov came in and did a 180 on firearms the RCMP would simply alter course and carry on.

 

[Lumber]

there is no logical process by which a firearm gets banned no matter what the Liberals, Poly or the RCMP say. Easily seen by looking at those guns banned and those that remain unbanned

Yea but, couldn't they have made it logical? I mean, instead an extremely long and silly list of specific weapons, couldn't the OIC have just said "no semi-automatic rifles or shotguns (or maybe just say "long guns"... does a shotgun count as a "long gun"?) and no pistols"?

 

[suffolkowner]

Yea but, couldn't they have made it logical? I mean, instead an extremely long and silly list of specific weapons, couldn't the OIC have just said "no semi-automatic rifles or shotguns (or maybe just say "long guns"... does a shotgun count as a "long gun"?) and no pistols"?

Because theyve been arguing they weren't banning hunting guns?
I expect theyll get there given time.