The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

Yes I said that too. My heresy is pointing out that not giving them what they want makes things harder for them.

Your heresy is thinking banning semi-automatic firearms from lawful gun owners hands will make Canada a whole bunch safer

Nothing about this is difficult for the Liberal party. They kick the can down the road year after year (enshrining abortion rights in the constitution anyone?), or, they toss some loose change on the floor for a bunch of gun owners in a transparent attempt to paint legal X's on their backs so if and when the Liberal party is struggling in an election they can dust this file off and make a scene of going after prohibited gun owners who never turned their registered but not compensated for firearms in. You know, for public safety.

 

[Lumber]

Your heresy is thinking banning semi-automatic firearms from lawful gun owners hands will make Canada a whole bunch safer

Trust me this is NOT his position/belief. You only think it is because he's arguing with you, but you're not actually listening to his arguments

 

[Jarnhamar]

Trust me this is NOT his position/belief. You only think it is because he's arguing with you, but you're not actually listening to his arguments

My bad. I thought he previously argued that semi-automatic firearms were more dangerous and getting rid of them meant less deaths in school shooting/mass shooting scenarios. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Lumber]

My bad. I thought he previously argued that semi-automatic firearms were more dangerous and getting rid of them meant less deaths in school shooting/mass shooting scenarios. Thank you for the correction.

Oh Im not 100% sure (he'll probably chime in and clarify at some point) but i think he believes (and so do I) that semi automatics ARE more dangerous, and he may even argue that removing them would result in less deaths in mass shootings, but believing in either or both of those things does NOT automatically mean that you support banning those guns.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Oh Im not 100% sure (he'll probably chime in and clarify at some point) but i think he believes (and so do I) that semi automatics ARE more dangerous, and he may even argue that removing them would result in less deaths in mass shootings,

Lawd of mercy, two heretics!

but believing in either or both of those things does NOT automatically mean that you support banning those guns.

That's a fair and good point with lots of nuance.


It's disappointing Carney chose to be such a coward on this file. People who have argued this is a nothing burger in the eyes of most Canadians are sadly right.

 

[suffolkowner]

Oh Im not 100% sure (he'll probably chime in and clarify at some point) but i think he believes (and so do I) that semi automatics ARE more dangerous, and he may even argue that removing them would result in less deaths in mass shootings, but believing in either or both of those things does NOT automatically mean that you support banning those guns.

i think its extremely difficult to show that the above two points are true even if it is a little counter intuitive
do we have a mass shootings problem?
do we have a mass shooting problem from R/PAL holders?

 

[Deleted member 175000]

My bad. I thought he previously argued that semi-automatic firearms were more dangerous and getting rid of them meant less deaths in school shooting/mass shooting scenarios. Thank you for the correction.

Your heresy is thinking banning semi-automatic firearms from lawful gun owners hands will make Canada a whole bunch safer

My thoughts summarized.

Distilled even further-

I feel no need to try and deny the role rate and volume of sustained fire can have in shaping outcomes of human on human violence. That being said-

I don't think they need to be banned, and don't want them banned.

For the very reasons militaries and law enforcement agencies choose them, that you seem to think makes them preferable for a hypothetical insurgency - I think society has justified interest in exercising a higher degree of caution in their private ownership. With the rising number of solo and organized -"ists" out there- (of all political and religious affiliations, and all mental states and capacities) I'm fully on board with them being harder to get, easier to track, and easier to take away from individuals and groups. Registration and higher licensing requirements, but again, no I don't support them being banned.

However I'm not king and the sitting government has won two elections with the ban in place. I don't think there's near as much public or political support for actually repealing the ban as there is pushback against the stupidity of the buyback / failure to properly mitigate the harm of a ban. I think there's a leverage point there.

I have made the same observation that you and @Halifax Tar, have about them actually preferring non-compliance. I just have a different opinion on the "why" and the potential outcomes of not doing what they hope you do.

 

[suffolkowner]

My thoughts summarized.

Distilled even further-

I feel no need to try and deny the role rate and volume of sustained fire can have in shaping outcomes of human on human violence. That being said-

I don't think they need to be banned, and don't want them banned.

For the very reasons militaries and law enforcement agencies choose them, that you seem to think makes them preferably for a hypothetical insurgency - I think society has justified interest in exercising a higher degree of caution in their private ownership. With the rising number of solo and organized -"ists" out there- (of all political and religious affiliations, and all mental states and capacities) I'm fully on board with them being harder to get, easier to track, and easier to take away from individuals and groups. Registration and higher licensing requirements, but again, no I don't support them being banned.

However I'm not king and the sitting government has won two elections with the ban. I don't think there's near as much public or political support foractually repealing the ban as there is pushback against the stupidity of the buyback / failure to properly mitigate the harm of a ban. I think there's a leverage point there.

I have made the same observation as you, and @Halifax Tar, have about them actually preferring non-compliance and thought through some of the "why" and the potential consequences of things happening differently than they envision.

semi autos arent banned though, just a hodge podge of models based on some loose interpretations
I think we have all learned from the dangers of registration

 

[Eaglelord17]

semi autos arent banned though, just a hodge podge of models based on some loose interpretations
I think we have all learned from the dangers of registration

Most semi-autos were banned with a evergreen clause which basically prevents any other new semi-autos from ever coming on the market.

Only a matter of time until they get the few remaining, they are just waiting to use it as a future political wedge.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My bad. I thought he previously argued that semi-automatic firearms were more dangerous and getting rid of them meant less deaths in school shooting/mass shooting scenarios. Thank you for the correction.

Semi autos are no more dangerous than that .22 Cooey bolt gun in the corner. They are inanimate until a lunatic or untrained person picks it up and starts fucking with it. The operator is the dangerous portion of the equation.

 

[suffolkowner]

Most semi-autos were banned with a evergreen clause which basically prevents any other new semi-autos from ever coming on the market.

Only a matter of time until they get the few remaining, they are just waiting to use it as a future political wedge.

looks like it. Only 64 in stock at Ellwoods and all Browning BAR and Benelli R1

 

[Haggis]

Right now, Gary and Nathalie and the rest of Public Safety are wargaming a nuclear option to ensure this key promise in the Liberal campaign is delivered upon. Thia is a no-fail task.

No one, and I mean no one should be looking for a silver lining in this.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Remember, their main reason for defining and banning is because:

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced a ban on “military-style” assault weapons in the country. This includes the buying, selling, transporting, or use of these guns.

“There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada,” Trudeau said.

The Canadian government has prohibited 1,500 models and variants of these “military grade” assault weapons, which the prime minister said were designed for one purpose and one purpose only. “to kill the largest number of people, in the shortest amount of time.”

'There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada': Trudeau bans 'military-style' assault weapons

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced a ban on “military-style” assault weapons in the country. This includes the buying, selling, transporting, or use of these guns.

ca.news.yahoo.com

#1 - they are not military grade.
'Assault style' is undefined.

#2 - "to kill the largest number of people, in the shortest amount of time." This was the total reason that the liberals gave for confiscation. Their go to sensationalistic phrase to justify their theft. To kill the largest number of people. Remember that phrase.

And what did the trudeau government immediately do?

They issued AR15 style firearms to all law enforcement across the country. Why? So they could kill the largest number of Canadians in the least amount of time? After all, to the liberals that is why they needed to be banned. And banned on that phrase alone. Why is the government issuing these mass killing machines to LE?

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Right now, Gary and Nathalie and the rest of Public Safety are wargaming a nuclear option to ensure this key promise in the Liberal campaign is delivered upon. Thia is a no-fail task.

The implications of this statement vary hugely depending on what "delivery" entails and what task they're not allowed to fail.

• Nuclear options for collecting and destroying registered guns + the NR's they anticipate being submitted to the program

and

• Nuclear options for finding, collecting, and destroying the number of guns they believe to be out there

look very different

 

[CadNav]

I find Luty's idea of gun control fascinating. He explains that there is no point to gun control because people can make their own guns. The famous "Luty Gun" and the DIY series of weapons, publicly available online, show how to make automatic submachine guns that require almost no knowledge of metalworking

 

[Haggis]

And what did the trudeau government immediately do?

They issued AR15 style firearms to all law enforcement across the country. Why? So they could kill the largest number of Canadians in the least amount of time? After all, to the liberals that is why they needed to be banned. And banned on that phrase alone. Why is the government issuing these mass killing machines to LE?

LE were using AR-15's long before this ban came into effect.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

LE were using AR-15's long before this ban came into effect.

Mea culpa. The point still stands though.

Why is LE issued firearms that are designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time?

 

[RedFive]

Mea culpa. The point still stands though.

Why is LE issued firearms that are designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time?

Because sometimes, that's our job.

There is more than one name on the RCMP Memorial in Regina there because they were hopelessly outgunned in the rolling gun fight.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Because sometimes, that's our job.

There is more than one name on the RCMP Memorial in Regina there because they were hopelessly outgunned in the rolling gun fight.

I am referring to trudeaus reasoning for banning them. I doubt LE were issued them to kill the most amount of people in the least amount of time as the government professes that is the only reason for banning them.

I am not putting any blame on LE. I hold the deepest respect for anyone in uniform. I'm pointing out the double standard of the current government.

Perhaps not very eloquently though.

 

[Lumber]

Semi autos are no more dangerous than that .22 Cooey bolt gun in the corner. They are inanimate until a lunatic or untrained person picks it up and starts fucking with it. The operator is the dangerous portion of the equation.

Yes they are. Take some disgruntled young adult who's got an infatuation with mass killings and a beef with the world. He can do a lot more damage and keep LE at bay more effectively with an AR-10 than he could we a Cooey.