The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

Yup, typing 2027 because they can't meet the timeline definitely physically collects and destroys hundreds of thousands/ millions of guns and doesn't leave said non-destroyed guns in the hands of their non-criminalized owners past the current deadline.

Despite abysmal turn out, Liberals will declare a resounding victory and move on from this.
Minister of public safety was pretty clear that Carney doesn't want to deal with this bullshit anymore. They found a way to fuck around gun owners for compensation, then found a way to really fuck around gun owners for compensation.

It's clear non-compliance is a Liberal goal. It's also a present for future Liberal parties to pull out and squeeze.

Liberal voters should be proud how clever Carney is being on this file.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The moment we answer being unfairly lumped together by lumping others together, we’ve lost the moral high ground. That kind of thinking doesn’t protect us, it corrodes the conversation and makes real understanding impossible.

Societal fractures start when we treat groups as monoliths. Some anti-gun people may hold extreme views about gun owners, but assuming all of them do is the same lazy thinking you’re objecting to. You don’t fix stereotyping by stereotyping back.

I disagree.

I'm not trying to impose any thoughts, beliefs or political stance on anyone. I'm not advocating for taking away peoples property. I'm not advocating that people should own particular property.

And I'm not not advocating for the legislative creation of criminals out of otherwise upstanding Canadians.

I'm not lumping anyone together. I simply feel less welcome in my own country. A country I have served faithfully for 25 years.

I know this isn't the end. Next will be our bolt and pump guns. This is an attack on a group of Canadians because of political wrong think, and vote generation. It's divisive and a rot in our country.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Despite abysmal turn out, Liberals will declare a resounding victory and move on from this.

A victory taken from their grasp and replaced with a problem by a turn out they have no plan or capacity to handle.

Minister of public safety was pretty clear that Carney doesn't want to deal with this bullshit anymore.

Yes I said that. So make him.

It's clear non-compliance is a Liberal goal. It's also a present for future Liberal parties to pull out and squeeze.

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

 

[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?

 

[IKnowNothing]

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?

 

[IKnowNothing]

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