[PluggyRug]

IMHO Trudeau spent millions trying to buy a seat on the UN security council.The recent gun ban was nothing more than him using the Nova Scotia shooting as an excuse to show them how concerned he is. Just more genuflection to the UN.

Boots. I have a some 30 round mags for my SKS pinned to 5, would take me 5 minutes to remove the pin.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle specifically designed for to kill people. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols (although they are also designed to kill people) are plenty for hunters and gun enthusiasts.

Everyone always goes on about 'need'. No one 'needs' a car where mass transit is available. No one 'needs' a grocery store, if you have land you can grow food on.

It's not about 'need'. It's about the law. In order to get those weapons, you have to undergo a strict background check, take many courses, and be under detailed scrutiny by the RCMP. Then you could shell out thousands of dollars for those rifles. Then you were limited to where you could take those weapons. Only to the gun range, and back home. They were only owned by law abiding citizens.

Such weapons were a sport. They were used in competition that gave people purpose. Something they loved to do, to challenge themselves and compare themselves against others.

What Trudeau did was take thousands of dollars worth of legally owned property, and make it worthless. I know people with tens of thousands of dollars worth of weapons that they can't even sell to buyers in other countries, because the chattel can not leave their homes.

And it still does not address the actual problem of illegal guns on the street. How does this ban stop someone from smuggling guns across the border? How does it stop people from making their own in a machine shop? How does it stop the willingness of some people to shoot others simply because they are different?

Trudeau's assault rifle ban is just another useless policy that only plays to the Liberal donors. It's not going to make Canada any safer.

[herbie]

So now we tie seats on the UN to new gun regulations?
Don't talk to me about logic FFS.
So you can take the pin out of a mag, so criminals can still get stolen or smuggled guns. Just like dope smoking while you grow up or getting behind the wheel drunk. They can only bust you when you're caught.
AFAIK you can still keep your Rambo rifle in the display case with a trigger lock and hump it whenever you want.

[Robair]

Rambo rifle? Have you had a look at what's included in the banned guns list?

Or would you even know what you're looking at?

[bootlegga]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Boots. I have a some 30 round mags for my SKS pinned to 5, would take me 5 minutes to remove the pin.

Well then that must explain all the mass shootings since Ecole Polytechnique in which the shooter had huge high-capacity magazines and killed dozens of people like similar shootings in the US (Orlando, Las Vegas, etc.) since they lifted the high cap magazine ban.

Oh wait, we hadn't had any until this April. So much for that theory...

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle specifically designed for to kill people. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols (although they are also designed to kill people) are plenty for hunters and gun enthusiasts.

Everyone always goes on about 'need'. No one 'needs' a car where mass transit is available. No one 'needs' a grocery store, if you have land you can grow food on.

While I get your point, but those are not entirely accurate.

My buddy works in an area in Edmonton which does not have ETS service during his work hours, so he most definitely does need a car. And I sincerely doubt there is enough arable land in Canada for every Canadian to grow enough food to sustain themselves all year long.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's not about 'need'. It's about the law. In order to get those weapons, you have to undergo a strict background check, take many courses, and be under detailed scrutiny by the RCMP. Then you could shell out thousands of dollars for those rifles. Then you were limited to where you could take those weapons. Only to the gun range, and back home. They were only owned by law abiding citizens.

Such weapons were a sport. They were used in competition that gave people purpose. Something they loved to do, to challenge themselves and compare themselves against others.

What Trudeau did was take thousands of dollars worth of legally owned property, and make it worthless. I know people with tens of thousands of dollars worth of weapons that they can't even sell to buyers in other countries, because the chattel can not leave their homes.

And it still does not address the actual problem of illegal guns on the street. How does this ban stop someone from smuggling guns across the border? How does it stop people from making their own in a machine shop? How does it stop the willingness of some people to shoot others simply because they are different?

Trudeau's assault rifle ban is just another useless policy that only plays to the Liberal donors. It's not going to make Canada any safer.

I feel for people affected by this ban, but shit gets outlawed all the time. At one point, Coca-Cola had traces of cocaine in it. Then people realized that isn't good for people, and it was banned. Same goes for high capacity magazines, asbestos, DDT, and a host of other things that society deemed to dangerous to use.

I believe someday the government may eventually outlaw smoking too (or make it so restrictive as to essentially ban it), because of the host of health problems it creates in the population.

As time goes on, society re-evaluates what was once considered safe and decides they are no longer safe. It sucks when someone personally gets stuck on the wrong side of that ban, but the idea is to enhance public safety/health.

Will this vastly increase public safety/health? Probably not, but it will do so a bit more than previously and moves the needle in the right direction IMHO. I know I'm in the minority here on CKA, but the majority of Canadians generally support this policy.

[PluggyRug]

bootlegga bootlegga:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Boots. I have a some 30 round mags for my SKS pinned to 5, would take me 5 minutes to remove the pin.

Well then that must explain all the mass shootings since Ecole Polytechnique in which the shooter had huge high-capacity magazines and killed dozens of people like similar shootings in the US (Orlando, Las Vegas, etc.) since they lifted the high cap magazine ban.

Oh wait, we hadn't had any until this April. So much for that theory...

The point is, banning high capacity magazines is a useless gesture to a criminal who just needs to remove the pin. There's tons of nasty stuff on the black market,

Do you honestly think bans will stop any form of firearm related killing?

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle specifically designed for to kill people. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols (although they are also designed to kill people) are plenty for hunters and gun enthusiasts.

Everyone always goes on about 'need'. No one 'needs' a car where mass transit is available. No one 'needs' a grocery store, if you have land you can grow food on.

While I get your point, but those are not entirely accurate.

My buddy works in an area in Edmonton which does not have ETS service during his work hours, so he most definitely does need a car. And I sincerely doubt there is enough arable land in Canada for every Canadian to grow enough food to sustain themselves all year long.

I wasn't going for accuracy, I was going for logic. 'Need' isn't a measure for things that are legal to own. Your friend doesn't 'need' a car, as he can walk to the bus. But he wants a car so he doesn't have to walk 50 blocks to get there.

I could take a horse to work, but I'd only be able to work 1 day a week, as it might take 3 days there and back. But I can legally own a car, so I do.

bootlegga bootlegga:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's not about 'need'. It's about the law. In order to get those weapons, you have to undergo a strict background check, take many courses, and be under detailed scrutiny by the RCMP. Then you could shell out thousands of dollars for those rifles. Then you were limited to where you could take those weapons. Only to the gun range, and back home. They were only owned by law abiding citizens.

Such weapons were a sport. They were used in competition that gave people purpose. Something they loved to do, to challenge themselves and compare themselves against others.

What Trudeau did was take thousands of dollars worth of legally owned property, and make it worthless. I know people with tens of thousands of dollars worth of weapons that they can't even sell to buyers in other countries, because the chattel can not leave their homes.

And it still does not address the actual problem of illegal guns on the street. How does this ban stop someone from smuggling guns across the border? How does it stop people from making their own in a machine shop? How does it stop the willingness of some people to shoot others simply because they are different?

Trudeau's assault rifle ban is just another useless policy that only plays to the Liberal donors. It's not going to make Canada any safer.

I feel for people affected by this ban, but shit gets outlawed all the time. At one point, Coca-Cola had traces of cocaine in it. Then people realized that isn't good for people, and it was banned. Same goes for high capacity magazines, asbestos, DDT, and a host of other things that society deemed to dangerous to use.

I believe someday the government may eventually outlaw smoking too (or make it so restrictive as to essentially ban it), because of the host of health problems it creates in the population.

As time goes on, society re-evaluates what was once considered safe and decides they are no longer safe. It sucks when someone personally gets stuck on the wrong side of that ban, but the idea is to enhance public safety/health.

Will this vastly increase public safety/health? Probably not, but it will do so a bit more than previously and moves the needle in the right direction IMHO. I know I'm in the minority here on CKA, but the majority of Canadians generally support this policy.

And that is entirely my point. Trudeau has taken legally owned property away, and likely without fair compensation. If Trudeau decided that trucks and SUVs were responsible for too many impaired charges in Canada and overnight it was illegal to drive them, I'd have the same objection. It's not about the guns, it's about punishing law abiding citizens for things they will never be responsible for.

[Scape]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

The point is, banning high capacity magazines is a useless gesture to a criminal who just needs to remove the pin. There's tons of nasty stuff on the black market,

Do you honestly think bans will stop any form of firearm related killing?

The ban of that type is never intended for the end user but the manufacture. Permits to sell in a market can only be obtained upon certification. If there is a ban on the device this will mean the market will be revoked from the people who make money from making the gun and that ultimately is policy that has impact.

[bootlegga]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

bootlegga bootlegga:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Boots. I have a some 30 round mags for my SKS pinned to 5, would take me 5 minutes to remove the pin.

Well then that must explain all the mass shootings since Ecole Polytechnique in which the shooter had huge high-capacity magazines and killed dozens of people like similar shootings in the US (Orlando, Las Vegas, etc.) since they lifted the high cap magazine ban.

Oh wait, we hadn't had any until this April. So much for that theory...

The point is, banning high capacity magazines is a useless gesture to a criminal who just needs to remove the pin. There's tons of nasty stuff on the black market,

Do you honestly think bans will stop any form of firearm related killing?

It's worked pretty well for 25 years at vastly reducing the carnage from mass shootings, so yeah.

The thing everyone who says "Well criminals will just do XYZ" miss is that most mass shootings in Canada aren't done by hardened criminals knocking over liquor stores or mugging people in the park. They usually aren't even done by gang bangers settling scores with rival gangs (although they do on occasion take out a few of their rivals in one fell swoop).

Most of them are done by average joes who snapped and suddenly decided to do something horrific and kill people. Average joes who own firearms, not hardened criminals with access to an arsenal capable of leveling a city block. So they snap and use what they have - like a shitty little carbine with 5 round magazines at Dawson College. Or the drug-addled asshole who killed Nathan Cirilo at the National War Monument and then stormed Parliament and jammed his crappy rifle.

So yeah, bans on certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines DO seem to work pretty well in CANADA no matter what some conservatives think.

Anyone who wants to live in the Wild West can move to the States and fill their boots.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that is entirely my point. Trudeau has taken legally owned property away, and likely without fair compensation. If Trudeau decided that trucks and SUVs were responsible for too many impaired charges in Canada and overnight it was illegal to drive them, I'd have the same objection. It's not about the guns, it's about punishing law abiding citizens for things they will never be responsible for.

I get your dislike/frustration, but as I said, governments ban things all the time when they deem them bad for public safety/health. People may not like it, but it's for the greater good.

FWIW, SUVs/trucks probably will need to be banned for all but business purposes if we're ever going to get serious about climate change.

[rickc]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's worked pretty well for 25 years at vastly reducing the carnage from mass shootings, so yeah.

The thing everyone who says "Well criminals will just do XYZ" miss is that most mass shootings in Canada aren't done by hardened criminals knocking over liquor stores or mugging people in the park. They usualy aren't even done by gang bangers settlign scores with rival gangs (although they do on occasion take out a few of their rivals in one fell swoop).

Most of them are done by average joes who snapped and suddenly decided to do something horrific and kill people. Average joes who own firearms, not hardened criminals with access to an arsenal capable of leveling a city block. So they snap and use what they have - like a shitty little carbine with 5 round magazines at Dawson College. Or the drug-addled asshole who killed Nathan Cirilo at the National War Monument and then stormed Parliament and jammed his crappy rifle.

So yeah, bans on certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines DO seem to work pretty well in CANADA no matter what some conservatives think.

Anyone who wants to live in the Wild West can move to the States and fill their boots.

I am curious as to how common mass shootings were before the ban went into effect.

[DrCaleb]

rickc rickc:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's worked pretty well for 25 years at vastly reducing the carnage from mass shootings, so yeah.

The thing everyone who says "Well criminals will just do XYZ" miss is that most mass shootings in Canada aren't done by hardened criminals knocking over liquor stores or mugging people in the park. They usualy aren't even done by gang bangers settlign scores with rival gangs (although they do on occasion take out a few of their rivals in one fell swoop).

Most of them are done by average joes who snapped and suddenly decided to do something horrific and kill people. Average joes who own firearms, not hardened criminals with access to an arsenal capable of leveling a city block. So they snap and use what they have - like a shitty little carbine with 5 round magazines at Dawson College. Or the drug-addled asshole who killed Nathan Cirilo at the National War Monument and then stormed Parliament and jammed his crappy rifle.

So yeah, bans on certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines DO seem to work pretty well in CANADA no matter what some conservatives think.

Anyone who wants to live in the Wild West can move to the States and fill their boots.

I am curious as to how common mass shootings were before the ban went into effect.

There were 13 mass killing events (can't really say 'shootings') between 1698 and 1989, when the Ecole Polytechic murders occurred. There were 6 mass killings afterward. Not all of them involved guns, and some involved guns that were illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _in_Canada

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I get your dislike/frustration, but as I said, governments ban things all the time when they deem them bad for public safety/health. People may not like it, but it's for the greater good.

The trouble is, it's not for the greater good. I don't care about banning these weapons, I don't own one. I care that the government is confiscating property without a valld reason. And people such as yourself are fine with this, because they are confiscating something you don't like.

It sets a bad precident.

bootlegga bootlegga:

FWIW, SUVs/trucks probably will need to be banned for all but business purposes if we're ever going to get serious about climate change.

Every car company out there has a pure EV or line of EVs in development or on the road. I'm pretty sure that with Tesla, Fiskar and Nicola that the market will take care of this.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I get your dislike/frustration, but as I said, governments ban things all the time when they deem them bad for public safety/health. People may not like it, but it's for the greater good.

The trouble is, it's not for the greater good. I don't care about banning these weapons, I don't own one. I care that the government is confiscating property without a valld reason. And people such as yourself are fine with this, because they are confiscating something you don't like.

It sets a bad precident.

That's where you're wrong - as I've said several times on CKA, I quite like assault rifles and wouldn't mind owning one. However, I am willing to forego that in the name of public safety, because I don't really need one, I just want one.

This one in particular would be very cool to own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36

If there were a serious threat to Canada, I'd be far more likely to feel that I need one.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

FWIW, SUVs/trucks probably will need to be banned for all but business purposes if we're ever going to get serious about climate change.

Every car company out there has a pure EV or line of EVs in development or on the road. I'm pretty sure that with Tesla, Fiskar and Nicola that the market will take care of this.

One of the reasons the market is moving that way is because almost a dozen countries have announced legislated bans on the sale of all ICE vehicles. Some European cities are also banning large vehicles in parts of their cities to fight congestion and pollution.

Further, what happens to every owner of a 60s or 70s muscle car in 30 years? Odds are, there will be places in the world that will ban their use on the roads because of their atrocious fuel economy/pollution.

I foresee severe restrictions or even outright bans on gas guzzlers (trucks and SUVs fall in that category) in the coming decades in the very same way we've seen them on smoking, assault rifles, and other products society deems bad for public safety/health. The USA might not enact these types of bans, but I'd bet most of the rest of the world will.