Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 05-04-2020, 09:33 AM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And really the whole, "That's not an assault rifle, idiot!" Argument was always being made in bad faith anyways, because the same people who harp on about the definition of "assault rifle" are also the people who like to point out that full-auto firing is usually a waste of time.
Who would say that? Automatic weapons exist for a reason. They didn't come up with the idea for nothing; automatic fire is very useful indeed, or else they wouldn't make weapons that do it.

Furthermore, since we're not talking about wars, the reason automatic weapons are banned has little to do with their tactical application in war and everything to do with the danger they pose in a civilian setting. If you are trying to reduce criminal acts (and accidental deaths) it makes perfect sense to prohibit weapons like that. If Chris the Criminal sprays bullets at someone on the street he wants to kill and misses but instead kills some innocent bystander, from the perspective of the law that's equally bad.

And I'm a gun nut now? I own no guns and have no plans to.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #452  
Old 05-04-2020, 12:04 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsToTheLeft View Post
Sam, I do care about the individuals affected. I donít care about the gun makers, cigarettes makers, or Asbestos manufacturers that are making money on the backs of products that cause needless harm.

I was in university during the Ecole Polytechnique shootings. The fact that it took 31 years to ban these guns is ridiculous. This putz in Nova Scotia went on a killing spree in middle of Covid, so we should just forget it? I realize this is a bad time for gun owners, as all of us, but we have to do something.
In 1983 Douglas Crabbe used a Mack Truck to kill 5 people and wound a while lot more.

And yet, 26 years later they still allow people to buy Mack Trucks. How crazy is that? They should be banned, and anyone who owns one should have to turn it over to the government. There are other truck models they can buy if they have to be a truck nut.

This is exactly the same argument you are using. Those girls would be just as dead if he had used any number of other guns just as capable of killing them. Banning the specific model used is just as stupid as banning Mack Trucks because one happened to be used in a killing.
  #453  
Old 05-04-2020, 12:11 PM
FinsToTheLeft is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
But this will accomplish nothing, or close to it. The guy apparently had all the guns illegally anyway. If you want to prevent guys like that from having guns, this law won't do that. What they need to do is intercept more guns from being smuggled into Canada.

That, however, is hard and costs more money and would inconvenience people at border crossings.

"We have to do something" perhaps, but wouldn't you rather they do something that would help?
Because I think it is doing something. Yes, we need to stop the smuggling of guns into Canada. Maybe we need a great big wall that we will make the US pay for.

Crime is still being committed with legally owner guns and guns that have been stolen from legal domestic gun owners. I live in Toronto where there is ZERO reason to own a gun. In my 50 years I do not know anyone that has used a gun in self defence. I did have a friend in university that went to his family cottage where they had guns and he blew his head off. If they had not legally owned that gun, he may have found another way or not.
  #454  
Old 05-04-2020, 12:12 PM
FinsToTheLeft is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In 1983 Douglas Crabbe used a Mack Truck to kill 5 people and wound a while lot more.

And yet, 26 years later they still allow people to buy Mack Trucks. How crazy is that? They should be banned, and anyone who owns one should have to turn it over to the government. There are other truck models they can buy if they have to be a truck nut.

This is exactly the same argument you are using. Those girls would be just as dead if he had used any number of other guns just as capable of killing them. Banning the specific model used is just as stupid as banning Mack Trucks because one happened to be used in a killing.
The purpose of a gun is to put a bullet through something and stop it. The purpose of a truck is to move stuff. This is a false equivalence.
  #455  
Old 05-04-2020, 12:53 PM
tastysandwiches is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsToTheLeft View Post
Crime is still being committed with legally owner guns and guns that have been stolen from legal domestic gun owners.
Yes, it is. And this legislation will not change that fact, because of all the functionally identical guns that aren't on this list and remain legal. You don't need a military style rifle to commit mass murder, any reasonably powerful gun that's quick to fire and quick to reload will do.

I'm not a gun lover, to be clear. I'll support a law that actually addresses the problem by removing all guns that are quick to fire and quick to reload. Ban detachable magazines for example, or all semiautomatic firearms. But this ain't that.
  #456  
Old 05-04-2020, 12:58 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsToTheLeft View Post
The purpose of a gun is to put a bullet through something and stop it. The purpose of a truck is to move stuff. This is a false equivalence.
All guns can do that. Banning a specific model because it happened to be the one used in a shooting is exactly like banning Mack Trucks because one was used to kill people.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 05-04-2020 at 12:58 PM.
  #457  
Old 05-04-2020, 01:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In 1983 Douglas Crabbe used a Mack Truck to kill 5 people and wound a while lot more.

And yet, 26 years later they still allow people to buy Mack Trucks. How crazy is that? They should be banned, and anyone who owns one should have to turn it over to the government. There are other truck models they can buy if they have to be a truck nut.

This is exactly the same argument you are using. Those girls would be just as dead if he had used any number of other guns just as capable of killing them. Banning the specific model used is just as stupid as banning Mack Trucks because one happened to be used in a killing.
Some guns are more effective at different kinds of things. Some guns are better for concealed carry; some for deer-hunting; some for boar hunting; etc. And some are better for shooting a bunch of people in an enclosed space, like a school or church. It's entirely reasonable to take this into account for legislation.
  #458  
Old 05-04-2020, 02:02 PM
FinsToTheLeft is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
All guns can do that. Banning a specific model because it happened to be the one used in a shooting is exactly like banning Mack Trucks because one was used to kill people.
Still not the case. I could bludgeon you to death with a Mac book, a flounder, or a baseball bat. That is not a reason to ban any of those things.

Would you feel better if they banned all long guns aside from shotguns or single shot rifles for farmers protecting livestock, registered hunters, or members fo First Nations?
  #459  
Old 05-04-2020, 02:59 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Some guns are more effective at different kinds of things. Some guns are better for concealed carry; some for deer-hunting; some for boar hunting; etc. And some are better for shooting a bunch of people in an enclosed space, like a school or church. It's entirely reasonable to take this into account for legislation.
Sure, except the guns in question do no such thing. The 'features' on an 'assault weapon' are cosmetic. They don't make it more lethal for spree killers. On military weapons these features make the gun lighter to carry for extended periods, easier to field strip and clean, etc. These guns aren't more accurate, more powerful, easier to conceal, etc. They're just rifles with 'tactical' accessories.

The only thing that might make them more dangerous is an extended magazine. But those are already prohibited.

In almost all the spree killings I've seen - especially the ones in enclosed spaces like schools - the carnage would have been much worse if the shooter had simply carried a couple of standard pump shotguns. The one I used to have could hold 7 rounds and be 'slam fired', meaning you could empty the shotgun in about two seconds.

Guess what the military used for trench warfare in WWI? That exact same shotgun. Because when you are shooting in hallways or while rapidly going around corners and such, a shotgun makes a great anti-personnel weapon.

And yet, no one has even mentioned those guns during all the debates over gun control. Because they aren't scary looking. If this legislation actually caused spree shooters to move away from scary looking rifles to shotguns, we will have driven them to use a more effective weapon for their purposes.

If gun controllers weren't downright proud of their ignorance of the guns they want to ban, they might understand some of this.
  #460  
Old 05-04-2020, 03:25 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
All guns can do that.
I really hope gun owners continue with that argument because it will lead to the conclusion to ban all civilian firearm ownership.
  #461  
Old 05-04-2020, 03:25 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsToTheLeft View Post
Because I think it is doing something. Yes, we need to stop the smuggling of guns into Canada. Maybe we need a great big wall that we will make the US pay for.

Crime is still being committed with legally owner guns and guns that have been stolen from legal domestic gun owners.
You're describing a phenomenon that is truly rare, and which wouldn't have prevented the New Brunswick murders.

Quote:
I live in Toronto where there is ZERO reason to own a gun.
Of course that is utterly preposterous. There are a number of reasons to own a gun if you live in Toronto. Many people hunt who live in Toronto (I know two, actually.) They might not be hunting IN TORONTO, but it is, incredibly enough, possible to live in one place and engage in recreational activities elsewhere. Or they enjoy target shooting - my stepdaughter's Dad is a skilled marksman, and my stepdaughter has enjoyed going to the range with him and learning to shoot. Hunting and target shooting may not be your things, and they're not mine, but people do those things and those are "reasons." The world isn't entirely made up of people with your preferences.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #462  
Old 05-04-2020, 05:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Sure, except the guns in question do no such thing. The 'features' on an 'assault weapon' are cosmetic. They don't make it more lethal for spree killers. On military weapons these features make the gun lighter to carry for extended periods, easier to field strip and clean, etc. These guns aren't more accurate, more powerful, easier to conceal, etc. They're just rifles with 'tactical' accessories.



The only thing that might make them more dangerous is an extended magazine. But those are already prohibited.



In almost all the spree killings I've seen - especially the ones in enclosed spaces like schools - the carnage would have been much worse if the shooter had simply carried a couple of standard pump shotguns. The one I used to have could hold 7 rounds and be 'slam fired', meaning you could empty the shotgun in about two seconds.



Guess what the military used for trench warfare in WWI? That exact same shotgun. Because when you are shooting in hallways or while rapidly going around corners and such, a shotgun makes a great anti-personnel weapon.



And yet, no one has even mentioned those guns during all the debates over gun control. Because they aren't scary looking. If this legislation actually caused spree shooters to move away from scary looking rifles to shotguns, we will have driven them to use a more effective weapon for their purposes.



If gun controllers weren't downright proud of their ignorance of the guns they want to ban, they might understand some of this.
So then the disagreement here is on which guns to focus on. That's a reasonable disagreement. I don't know which guns Canadian gun control advocates are focusing on, but as a gun owner and a veteran, here are the features I think should be focused on:

Magazine size, as you mention.

Barrel length. Carbine-length weapons combine ease of maneuverability with accuracy at medium distances - perfect for large enclosed spaces (schools, churches, etc.).

Semi auto action - much faster and easier to aim and hit multiple targets, especially moving targets.

Rifle caliber ammunition - rifle caliber ammunition is much more powerful, and thus much more likely to cause deadly wounds, then pistol calibers (aside from the extreme, like. 44 mag or. 50).
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #463  
Old 05-04-2020, 06:49 PM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,521
There might be an argument to dissuade copycats by banning that type of weapon. But it seems the Liberals see sense in tightening border security and letting municipalities ban handguns (thus passing the political buck).

I donít think these measures might have stopped some recent events. But I do think it is worth trying something. Guns can be compared to many things, but they are more dangerous than most when misused.

Still, Iíd rather the government focused on some other things at the moment.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
  #464  
Old 05-04-2020, 09:45 PM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,901
So why are all those "cosmetic" features so important that guns which include them shouldn't be banned? There are a lot of reasons why someone might need a rifle for hunting or varmint shooting, or even just target shooting. None of these uses require a scary-looking "assault rifle". The reason people want a scary-looking "assault rifle" is so they can be scary-looking.

If you look at online postings from what I would call "gun nuts" as opposed to normal gun owners, how many of them are displaying their .22 varmint gun and how many are showing off their AR-15 tricked out with all the cool military accessories? If you look at any of the many 2nd Amendment demonstrations in the US, how many participants are carrying a 30-30 hunting rifle and how many have an AK47 look-alike? If you can't go out of your way to look like a rough, tough Special Forces killer, maybe you're less likely to think about acting like a rough, tough Special Forces killer.
  #465  
Old 05-04-2020, 10:09 PM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper View Post
So why are all those "cosmetic" features so important that guns which include them shouldn't be banned?
It's not that they're important. It's that they're unimportant. The government is banning things for reasons that don't make sense, while allowing to be legal equivalent tools, also for reasons that don't make sense. The result, of course, will simply be the design and sale of weapons that are, again, exactly the same in function, but which just miss the cosmetic rules.

It's as if your province decided they needed to change the way people register their cars, but only if they're a shade of blue.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #466  
Old 05-05-2020, 08:28 AM
Muffin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,808
Trump would babble on about how he forced "security risk" Canada to build the wall at Canada's expense to protect the USA from the flood of illegal immigration permitted by the democrats.

And then he'd whine about how unfair it is that Canada is refusing to pay the USA for the cost of Canada building Canada's wall.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #467  
Old 05-05-2020, 09:42 AM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,694
Yeah, that Trump is terrible. In fact, he's so terrible that he has even messed ip Canadian gun control. Or at least threads about Canadian gun control...
  #468  
Old 05-05-2020, 12:40 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,899
Which, to be fair, this isn't.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #469  
Old 05-05-2020, 12:44 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,899
Anyway, I'm loving the data put out by BC Centre for Disease Control - https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/Covid-19_May4_PPP.pdf

I'd love to see a federal view for this.

It's interesting to see how the model's react to the physical distancing. I'm curious how the difference between LTC and general population acting as the "spark" for the different provinces drives how well initial responses work.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #470  
Old 05-05-2020, 12:46 PM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,899
Removed double post
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey

Last edited by Grey; 05-05-2020 at 12:46 PM.
  #471  
Old 05-05-2020, 01:47 PM
MrsTime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Of course liberals don't care. Their outrage over Castro was similarly lackadaisical.
Did you know that during Fidel's reign (I hear the screams of outrage already) he eliminated the death penalty, school through a doctorate was free, as was medical care with house calls even. During hurricanes the government would move all furniture AND all animals including cattle . Yes I am aware that was not always the case, however he did make life easier for people, while the US made it harder and harder for Cubans.
__________________
ďArguing with a trumper is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over the pieces, shit on the board, then strut around like they won.Ē
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017