• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Anyone else following along with the SECU transcripts? The more I read the more it becomes clear that (whether by arrogance/incompetence or design (or both)) the communication and delivery of the amendment has been undertaken in a manner that maximizes pushback.

Noted failures:
Chiang failing to grow a set to field questions about why it was tabled the way it was
Failing to communicate that a large part of the list was codifying guns already captured by previous bans
Failing to create a carvout for historical and hunting guns within the 10kJ/ 20mm restriction (seriously- Parker Bro's shotguns are in the same section as Javelin ATGM)
Failing to communicate that not all versions of guns on the list are prohibited only the ones that are chambered such that they violate said restrictions (would have been rendered moot by the carveout, but still- own goal)
Failing to communicate that the Benelli ban has a long long list of exemptions, including all of the models commercially available in Canada
Failing to properly follow their own damn definitions when compiling the list (I'm looking at you SKS and M1 Garand)
Failing to consult with well, anyone
 
Other tidbits via committee

-Chair pre-emptively ruled that the amendment was admissible, no debate allowed. Decision was challenged but lost the vote
-They had/have to tapdance around the list in G46 while discussing G4, because the amendments have to be dealt with in order and can't be discussed until moved
-The committee doesn't have the power to bring in a buyback amendment because of the financial ramifications
-Even if the Amendment fails nothing prevents the same measures being adopted as OIC
 
Another problem with this bill and the OIC is how much is depending on which way the wind is blowing on Murray Smiths opinion. Another expert another opinion?
 
KevinB said:
Once in 1944, maybe ;)


I would have suggested the FN C1A1 but those had all been disposed of…


Honestly a decent 5.56mm load would be able to do both quite well, or a suppressed .300BlackOut.

Then a 12ga with Slugs.
Click to expand...
Suppressed FNC1A1 over a .300 Blackout for boars and bears
 
IKnowNothing said:
Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.

Also, retrofit to a fixed mag isn't a "mag restriction", it changes the functional properties of the firearm
Click to expand...
You are wrong on the first (competition) but right on the second.
 
IKnowNothing said:
Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you IKN just using this as an example.

But that right there is the issue. Who gets to decide what's useful and what metrics are employed to come up with that equation ?

No Law abiding citizen has a use for a car to go over 110, no law abiding citizen has a use for fast food, no law abiding citizen has a use for alcohol or tobacco. Not one of those things hold a single bonified use or need for the law abiding citizen; and all of them, individually, kill vastly more Canadians than firearms. Yet they are all available for purchase and consumption without limit of volume.

If this was about public safety those would be tackled first.
 
Halifax Tar said:
Not picking on you IKN just using this as an example.

But that right there is the issue. Who gets to decide what's useful and what metrics are employed to come up with that equation ?
Click to expand...
No offense taken. But honestly, I did a bad job expressing the meaning of that post, and this is a great segue to come back to it.

The philosophical debate regarding who can decide what is "needed", and the technical debate about mag restrictions are both moot. As they pertain to gun control in Canada both are settled law.

The line "Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds" was not an expression of personal belief. It was a poorly worded attempt at a wakeup call- trying to expose the catch-22 posters and advocates are faced with when arguing against/ to change amendment G4. The centre-fire mag restrictions are law, therefore (with certain limited exceptions) the ability of a firearm to exceed that capacity is not legally usable, rendering that capability of no functional value to a law abiding citizen. In my opinion, vehement arguments to the contrary (in the context of debate gun control advocates are either/both:
A- a waste of energy fighting a battle long lost
B- a misstep that weakens the "moral" authority/ credibility of the phrase "law abiding gun owner" via tacit admission that laws aren't followed/won't be followed if the need arises

Again, in my opinion, all effort needs to be devoted to the battles in front of us, and statements/arguments need to be carefully considered for maximum value within the context of the current regulatory reality. Standing on a hill to protect capabilities that cannot legally be used isn't that- especially when it comes at the cost of providing the Cukier's of the world with soundbites/quotes that all guns are just as bad. It's a bad strategic play. We're past the point where guns will be protected by philosophy, but there are strong shields to be leveraged, namely - "reasonable use" hunting and rural firearms, Native rights, and said existing regulatory reality.

The Liberal misstep in how they've tabled this amendment has but them on their backfoot and introduced a groundswell of support that can be used. By using their own definitions of reasonable use/ mag restrictions against them, and leveraging that pushback to carve out protections for historical weapons (SKS/Garand) and clear hunting rifles (Remington 742 etc), and even pushing farther into using Fixed Mag type retrofits to allow owners to pull their firearms off the 2020 OIC list. They've invited a fight that is winnable- as long as the objective is chosen properly. They've laid the ground rules that a given firearm can be prohibited (or more importantly- not) based on a strict application of their definitions, regardless of whether those properties could be altered by a competent individual. That's an opportunity.
 
IKnowNothing said:
No offense taken. But honestly, I did a bad job expressing the meaning of that post, and this is a great segue to come back to it.

The philosophical debate regarding who can decide what is "needed", and the technical debate about mag restrictions are both moot. As they pertain to gun control in Canada both are settled law.

The line "Law abiding citizens have no use for a centre-fire mag that exceeds 5 rounds" was not an expression of personal belief. It was a poorly worded attempt at a wakeup call- trying to expose the catch-22 posters and advocates are faced with when arguing against/ to change amendment G4. The centre-fire mag restrictions are law, therefore (with certain limited exceptions) the ability of a firearm to exceed that capacity is not legally usable, rendering that capability of no functional value to a law abiding citizen. In my opinion, vehement arguments to the contrary (in the context of debate gun control advocates are either/both:
A- a waste of energy fighting a battle long lost
B- a misstep that weakens the "moral" authority/ credibility of the phrase "law abiding gun owner" via tacit admission that laws aren't followed/won't be followed if the need arises

Again, in my opinion, all effort needs to be devoted to the battles in front of us, and statements/arguments need to be carefully considered for maximum value within the context of the current regulatory reality. Standing on a hill to protect capabilities that cannot legally be used isn't that- especially when it comes at the cost of providing the Cukier's of the world with soundbites/quotes that all guns are just as bad. It's a bad strategic play. We're past the point where guns will be protected by philosophy, but there are strong shields to be leveraged, namely - "reasonable use" hunting and rural firearms, Native rights, and said existing regulatory reality.

The Liberal misstep in how they've tabled this amendment has but them on their backfoot and introduced a groundswell of support that can be used. By using their own definitions of reasonable use/ mag restrictions against them, and leveraging that pushback to carve out protections for historical weapons (SKS/Garand) and clear hunting rifles (Remington 742 etc), and even pushing farther into using Fixed Mag type retrofits to allow owners to pull their firearms off the 2020 OIC list. They've invited a fight that is winnable- as long as the objective is chosen properly. They've laid the ground rules that a given firearm can be prohibited (or more importantly- not) based on a strict application of their definitions, regardless of whether those properties could be altered by a competent individual. That's an opportunity.
Click to expand...

Like I said I wasn't aiming that as you, just using you as the example.

The 5 round limit is a stupid law. Here are some other stupid laws in Canada.

www.casita.com

Weirdest Laws and Regulations in Canada | Casita.com

Laws are put together to keep order in society. However, the following laws keep you wondering about the reason and the story behind them.
www.casita.com www.casita.com
 
Halifax Tar said:
Like I said I wasn't aiming that as you, just using you as the example.

The 5 round limit is a stupid law. Here are some other stupid laws in Canada.
Click to expand...
Regardless, it is law- going on 30 years. Harper majority didn't change that. Nor would a PP. It's Canadian reality, and political suicide to anyone that tries to change it.

Which comes to the point of the post- we can climb up on a hill and yell about things that aren't going to change, or accept those things and use them as both an anchor point to prevent more change and a lever to reverse changes that are less immutable.
 
IKnowNothing said:
Regardless, it is law- going on 30 years. Harper majority didn't change that. Nor would a PP. It's Canadian reality, and political suicide to anyone that tries to change it.

Which comes to the point of the post- we can climb up on a hill and yell about things that aren't going to change, or accept those things and use them as both an anchor point to prevent more change and a lever to reverse changes that are less immutable.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. I really think we missed an opportunity with Harper to cement firearms regulations.
 
Halifax Tar said:
Who gets to decide what's useful and what metrics are employed to come up with that equation ?
Click to expand...
That's simple; we do. There is no such thing as "universal" (meaning intrinsic) rights. Everything we do and decide upon is based on us getting together and (hopefully) coming up with well researched and reasoned opinion. There's no reason we can't do that with things like what's a reasonable "need" and what's a reasonable "want".
Halifax Tar said:
No Law abiding citizen has a use for a car to go over 110, no law abiding citizen has a use for fast food, no law abiding citizen has a use for alcohol or tobacco. Not one of those things hold a single bonified use or need for the law abiding citizen; and all of them, individually, kill vastly more Canadians than firearms. Yet they are all available for purchase and consumption without limit of volume.

If this was about public safety those would be tackled first.
Click to expand...
First off, this isn't a zero-sum game. Just because we may not have placed reasonable limits on all the things that need reasonable limits doesn't mean we give up and stop tryin to be reasonable limits on some things. So, yes, should the things you've listed be tackled? Absolutely. However, since we haven't done an adequate job of tackling them yet, does that mean we are morally obliged to stop trying to tackle guns until we are finished with fast food? No, we can do them in any order, and we can debate on what's more important.

Further, you focus on the 5-round limit and "volume limit" for the other things you mentioned, but fundamentally what we're talking about is "reasonable use" and "reasonable limits", and I absolutely DO think that we as humans and Canadians have the mental capacity to establish these reasonable limits, and I further believe the things you listed should have reasonable limits:

There are law abiding citizen that do have a use for cars going over 110kph: emergency services and race car drivers. As for your average citizen, I actually agree with your principle. The highest speed limit in Canada is 120kph, so let's make it a law that cars sold in Canada must have a governor that limits them to 120 (or maybe 130kph). That seems reasonable to me. Cars are dangerous. It's already illegal to go over the speed limit, and cars are extremely regulated in both production and use (registration), so why make cars that go that fast?

Law abiding citizens absolutely do "have a use" for fast food. It's extremely convenient in a pinch, and in many cases (sadly) the price of value meals can be cheaper (and far easier) than buying and preparing healthy options at home. We have enacted laws to try and make people more aware of their unhealthy choices and to try and exclude certain harmful ingredients from food products, but it's really hard (and bordering on immoral) to go so far as to restrict people's access to the food.

Law abiding citizens absolutely do "have a use" for alcohol; it's entertaining, both as a social "tool" and for its direct effects on our mind. We have lots of laws regarding the use and consumption of alcohol. What more could we add that is reasonable? Maximum number of bottles purchased in one visit without an event permit or liquor license? Sure, as long we sit down and agree what that "reasonable amount" is, I'm game.

I will give you one: no law abiding citizens have any meaningful use for tobacco, other than to de-stress by satiating a craving for tobacco brought on my the use of tobacco which was useless and stupid to start in the first place. I think the whole world should follow in NZ's footsteps and ban cigarettes for future generations.
 
My Reponses are in yellow in the quote:

Lumber said:
That's simple; we do. There is no such thing as "universal" (meaning intrinsic) rights. Everything we do and decide upon is based on us getting together and (hopefully) coming up with well researched and reasoned opinion. There's no reason we can't do that with things like what's a reasonable "need" and what's a reasonable "want".

If we were making these calls they wouldn't be done via OIC and amendment; adding in with very little consultation with the FA community.
Also, firearms a simple mechanical devices. Decisions on what is and isn't allowed should be sound and reason based using the mechanical function of the various firearms, that's currently not the case.

First off, this isn't a zero-sum game. Just because we may not have placed reasonable limits on all the things that need reasonable limits doesn't mean we give up and stop tryin to be reasonable limits on some things. So, yes, should the things you've listed be tackled? Absolutely. However, since we haven't done an adequate job of tackling them yet, does that mean we are morally obliged to stop trying to tackle guns until we are finished with fast food? No, we can do them in any order, and we can debate on what's more important.

I'm all for people having the ability to spend the cash on what ever they wish. But don't sell me firearms legislation as a means for the good of public safety when we allow avenues of, much more highly successful, self destruction for a price and don't bat an eye.

Further, you focus on the 5-round limit and "volume limit" for the other things you mentioned, but fundamentally what we're talking about is "reasonable use" and "reasonable limits", and I absolutely DO think that we as humans and Canadians have the mental capacity to establish these reasonable limits, and I further believe the things you listed should have reasonable limits:

Absolutely and those limits should be established using facts, mechanics and data. Not opinions.

There are law abiding citizen that do have a use for cars going over 110kph: emergency services and race car drivers. As for your average citizen, I actually agree with your principle. The highest speed limit in Canada is 120kph, so let's make it a law that cars sold in Canada must have a governor that limits them to 120 (or maybe 130kph). That seems reasonable to me. Cars are dangerous. It's already illegal to go over the speed limit, and cars are extremely regulated in both production and use (registration), so why make cars that go that fast?

Those aren't citizens they are organizations using tools that are empowered by law. The LEO has no need for a personal vehicle to go over 120, I just used 110 as an example.

Law abiding citizens absolutely do "have a use" for fast food. It's extremely convenient in a pinch, and in many cases (sadly) the price of value meals can be cheaper (and far easier) than buying and preparing healthy options at home. We have enacted laws to try and make people more aware of their unhealthy choices and to try and exclude certain harmful ingredients from food products, but it's really hard (and bordering on immoral) to go so far as to restrict people's access to the food.

Absolutely not. You do not need fast food to eat. Therefore it has no basic use.

Law abiding citizens absolutely do "have a use" for alcohol; it's entertaining, both as a social "tool" and for its direct effects on our mind. We have lots of laws regarding the use and consumption of alcohol. What more could we add that is reasonable? Maximum number of bottles purchased in one visit without an event permit or liquor license? Sure, as long we sit down and agree what that "reasonable amount" is, I'm game.

Absolutely not. You don't need Alcohol to have fun or entertain. There fore it has no basic use.

I will give you one: no law abiding citizens have any meaningful use for tobacco, other than to de-stress by satiating a craving for tobacco brought on my the use of tobacco which was useless and stupid to start in the first place. I think the whole world should follow in NZ's footsteps and ban cigarettes for future generations.

Perfect.
Click to expand...
 
Halifax Tar said:
My Reponses are in yellow in the quote: Absolutely not. You don't need Alcohol to have fun or entertain. There fore it has no basic use.
Click to expand...

See, I actually don't think you and I disagree as much as it seems, I just think you are confounding the meanings of "need" and "use for".

Using the example I picked above, you could argue that you don't need a gun to hunt or for use in "shooting" sport. We used other tools for those things for thousands and thousands of years. Therefore, it has no basic use. Ergo, lets ban or heavily restrict guns (more than we have).

I don't agree with that statement I just made, but it demonstrates that we can't oversimplify the issue and argue things from the perspective of "most basic need". From that viewpoint, a personal car isn't a need, because you can walk somewhere, but in reality that's naive; our modern society requires the vast majority of people to have cars in order for it to function.
 
Lumber said:
Using the example I picked above, you could argue that you don't need a gun to hunt or for use in "shooting" sport. We used other tools for those things for thousands and thousands of years. Therefore, it has no basic use. Ergo, lets ban or heavily restrict guns (more than we have).
Click to expand...

Exactly, now do you see how stupid it all is ?

I don't actually care if someone eats themselves to death with big macs, smokes or drinks themselves to death, or plows into a highway divider and becomes a blood stain at 200kph; so long as no one else is harmed in the process. People can play fast an loose with their own life, I don't give a 💩.
 
Halifax Tar said:
Exactly, now do you see how stupid it all is ?

I don't actually care if someone eats themselves to death with big macs, smokes or drinks themselves to death, or plows into a highway divider and becomes a blood stain at 200kph; so long as no one else is harmed in the process. People can play fast an loose with their own life, I don't give a 💩.
Click to expand...
Ok, see there's where I disagree.

More at 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edward Campbell
QC Muslim 1st woman charged under 9/11 terror law for shipping wpn parts to LBN
Replies
2
Views
9K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
Ex-Dragoon
Wierd But Supposedly True News Stories:
Replies
0
Views
6K
Ex-Dragoon
Ex-Dragoon
Mike Bobbitt
Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerrilla (Book review)
Replies
2
Views
10K
Mike Bobbitt
Mike Bobbitt
Back
Top