The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Lumber]

Social utility is multidimensional, reducing it to a single beneficial function ignores externalities, risk distribution, and broader societal trade offs.

Yes, that's what he's saying. Sport shooting is a societal benefit, to wit, "fun".

 

[suffolkowner]

theyll come for the rest of the SA and the handguns
then it will be pump actions and levers
if its good enough for Australia and NZ

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes, that's what he's saying. Sport shooting is a societal benefit, to wit, "fun".

3-gun shooting was fun, once upon a time.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Yes, that's what he's saying. Sport shooting is a societal benefit, to wit, "fun".

Firearms ownership falls into 4 main uses (in no particular order, all are valid).

1) Hunting
2) Self defence
3) Collecting
4) Sport shooting

One of those tools that you would rather have and not need than need and not have.

Besides in a free and democratic society the onus isn’t on me to prove a need to own something.

It is on the government to prove that I shouldn’t. And the data does not support that conclusion.

Hence why the government declared it a state secret when ordered to provide it by a judge, can’t have their scapegoat measure shown to be fraudulent.

Or its simply a return to pre ~1964 mainstream commercial availability (albeit with modern construction methods) after a temporarily accepted proliferation of something different.

So pre-1964 commercial availability, so I can have full autos, converted autos, handguns, anti-tank guns, semis, concealed carry, et al back? Sweet I am on board.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So pre-1964 commercial availability, so I can have full autos, converted autos, handguns, anti-tank guns, semis, concealed carry, et al back? Sweet I am on board.

Pretty blatant omission of a key word there hoss.

Sure a tommy gun or colt monitor was "available", but cost a year's wages and essentially no one had them.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Pretty blatant omission of a key word there hoss.

Sure a tommy gun or colt monitor was "available", but cost a year's wages and essentially no one had them.

I think your ignoring the surplus bonanza of the era, the catalogs of what was available was huge.

This myth that Canada only had ‘hunting’ rifles and such kicking around is a myth. Canada has alway had a fairly martially armed population. Just what is martial arms has changed.

That bolt action hunting rifle with a wood stock was just surplussed from war stocks. The exact same rifle most the hunters of that era went to war with.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That bolt action hunting rifle with a wood stock was just surplussed from war stocks. The exact same rifle most the hunters of that era went to war with.

The Remington 700 and Winchester Model 70 killed a lot of people.

Gun owners who support heavy gun control on firearms that don't belong to them are the kind of people you don't want to stand next to at a bus stop or train station.

 

[Lumber]

Gun owners who support heavy gun control on firearms that don't belong to them are the kind of people you don't want to stand next to at a bus stop or train station.

Really? Why? If you met someone who both hunted every year and loved going to the range to plink with his friends, but had the opinion "the only thing civilians should ever need is a 4-5 round bolt action rifle and break-action shotgun. No semi-autos, no levers, no pumps, and no pistols. Everything else should be illegal," you think automatically that that person must be someone who has such unpleasant other personal characteristics that you'd be uncomfortable standing next to them and possibly engaging in small talk?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Really? Why? If you met someone who both hunted every year and loved going to the range to plink with his friends, but had the opinion "the only thing civilians should ever need is a 4-5 round bolt action rifle and break-action shotgun. No semi-autos, no levers, no pumps, and no pistols. Everything else should be illegal," you think automatically that that person must be someone who has such unpleasant other personal characteristics that you'd be uncomfortable standing next to them and possibly engaging in small talk?

I think any firearm owner that's willing to sacrifice others firearms so they can keep there's is not someone I want to stand next too.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I think your ignoring the surplus bonanza of the era, the catalogs of what was available was huge.

No- just looking at things over a wider time frame. If you start with said bonanza, sure- you see an inexorable decline. If you start at depression era or before, you see a gradual rise to a baseline, then a multidecade reciprocation as things grow away from that baseline then get taken away.

Baseline - > Civilian Introduction -> Civilian Accessibility Increase/ Proliferation -> Regulatory Push back towards baseline.

The barest hint of challenge to the baseline got the LPC set on their ass in 2022/23.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Really? Why? If you met someone who both hunted every year and loved going to the range to plink with his friends, but had the opinion "the only thing civilians should ever need is a 4-5 round bolt action rifle and break-action shotgun. No semi-autos, no levers, no pumps, and no pistols. Everything else should be illegal," you think automatically that that person must be someone who has such unpleasant other personal characteristics that you'd be uncomfortable standing next to them and possibly engaging in small talk?

They are unpleasant because they are willing to sell out everyone else to protect ‘their’ interests.

It is like someone who is very religious and believes that their religion is the only option and everyone else deserves to rot in hell and is vocal on it. Vocal on it to the point of restricting everyone else's rights well protecting their own. Not someone I would respect.

I have also met a few of that type of hunter and I don’t particularly care for the comments they have made to me unprompted. If I wanted their opinion on what I own or how I use it I would ask.

Hunting is about the worst thing for firearms owners to base ownership on. At the end of a day there is no animal on this continent which cannot be taken with a single shot muzzleloader making everything else above and beyond the requirement for the job. Two muzzleloaders max, one rifled for larger game and one smoothbore shotgun and you have everything you need.

 

[Eaglelord17]

No- just looking at things over a wider time frame. If you start with said bonanza, sure- you see an inexorable decline. If you start at depression era or before, you see a gradual rise to a baseline, then a multidecade reciprocation as things grow away from that baseline then get taken away.

Baseline - > Civilian Introduction -> Civilian Accessibility Increase/ Proliferation -> Regulatory Push back towards baseline.

Civilian ownership begins well before the 30s. It starts with everyone being armed in the early years (with such arms being suitable for military usage in the time frame) and it is only in the last 50 years has parity been lost between civilians and the military.

What has changed isn’t how capable arms are (comparatively), rather what the government is willing to accept civilians owning, in many cases due to their own fear of it being used against them.

The rush to ban most semi-autos and other arms couldn’t have anything to do with the RCMP reporting that it is very likely there will be great civil unrest in the next decade.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Civilian ownership begins well before the 30s. It starts with everyone being armed in the early years (with such arms being suitable for military usage in the time frame) and it is only in the last 50 years has parity been lost between civilians and the military.

You just restated what I said. A gradual rise to a baseline, then divergent factors proliferating for relatively short time periods before being removed.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You just restated what I said. A gradual rise to a baseline, then divergent factors proliferating for relatively short time periods before being removed.

The levels of control we have now are the divergence from the norm. Not the other way around.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The levels of control we have now are the divergence from the norm. Not the other way around.

If you're looking from the lens of capability relative to what is available to the military. That's not the only lens. For many (most) the only change in the last 100+ years is in licensing requirement

Civilian ownership begins well before the 30s. It starts with everyone being armed in the early years (with such arms being suitable for military usage in the time frame) and it is only in the last 50 years has parity been lost between civilians and the military.

When you say parity, what do you mean? You were previously adamant that the a gun is gun, there is no capability difference. Are you now saying that the restrictions place actors in conflict with law enforcement at a disadvantage?

 

[Eaglelord17]

If you're looking from the lens of capability relative to what is available to the military. That's not the only lens.


When you say parity, what do you mean? You were previously adamant that the a gun is gun, there is no capability difference.

Up until 1978 you could buy full autos. That is parity with what we were issuing (you could even buy directly from Canadian Arsenals a brand new C1 or C2 if you wished).

A gun is a gun. If your going to do harm with it whether its a full auto, shotgun, or bolt action it changes nothing. It is the fact you seek to do harm which is the problem.

My argument is never that there is no capacity difference rather that it doesn’t matter that there is (and the stats bear that out). Controlling who has access matters, what they have access to doesn’t change outcomes.

 

[Lumber]

They are unpleasant because they are willing to sell out everyone else to protect ‘their’ interests.

It is like someone who is very religious and believes that their religion is the only option and everyone else deserves to rot in hell and is vocal on it. Vocal on it to the point of restricting everyone else's rights well protecting their own. Not someone I would respect.

Who said they are selling any one out? Jarn implied that such a person with the opinion I stated would be an unpleasant person in general. I didn't say that this person was a vocal proponent of banning guns or who was actively supporting/helping to implement a ban on anything but the weapons I listed. I'm talking about an average joe dude who if you if you asked "What's your opinion on gun restrictions/laws?" he said something like, "Ah hell, I don't think too much about it, but I guess I think the only things that really need to be legal are my good old Betsy here and maybe my coach gun back at the camp." ... "So you wouldn't mind if the rest were illegal?... "Yea, wouldn't bother me none. Now watch me nail this water melon from 600 yards!"

 

[Jarnhamar]

Really? Why? If you met someone who both hunted every year and loved going to the range to plink with his friends, but had the opinion "the only thing civilians should ever need is a 4-5 round bolt action rifle and break-action shotgun. No semi-autos, no levers, no pumps, and no pistols. Everything else should be illegal," you think automatically that that person must be someone who has such unpleasant other personal characteristics that you'd be uncomfortable standing next to them and possibly engaging in small talk?

Small talk? No, they would try and throw me under the bus or train, obviously.

Someone thinking civilians should just own bolt action firearms clearly doesn't care about freedom or history. They would quickly steer the conversation towards the benefits of communism.

 

[Lumber]

Small talk? No, they would try and throw me under the bus or train, obviously.

Someone thinking civilians should just own bolt action firearms clearly doesn't care about freedom or history. They would quickly steer the conversation towards the benefits of communism.

That is an awfully MASSIVE presumption. I don't know, nor have I ever met, a Canadian who was both "pro communism", or even just extreme socialism, that was also a gun owner, hunter, shooter, and believe guns (some guns) should absolutely be legal for civilians to own.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Pretty blatant omission of a key word there hoss.

Sure a tommy gun or colt monitor was "available", but cost a year's wages and essentially no one had them.

Even today in the US, the average legal machine gun goes for around $20,000, not to mention the cost of feeding such a thing.

Average deaths by long guns of any type in the US is around 400 per year. That's about 1.01 people killed out of a million people a year.