Canada effectively bans assault weapons after NS shooting (1 Viewer)

[Heathen]

Canada bans assault weapons after mass shooting in Nova Scotia

Canada bans assault weapons after mass shooting in Nova Scotia

abcnews.go.com

Pretty big news..

That is to say they will ban weapons they seem as such.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Humperdoo]

My apologies for the gulf between responses, I haven't been around much. I just meant that with his profession and disposable income he had access to the fund required to circumvent legal acquisition of the weapons. In the articles it said he obtained the guns illegally anyway, so laws would not have prevented this from taking place.

That’s usually how it works imo. The laws stop the ‘good guys’ from having.

 

[Intensesaint]

That’s usually how it works imo. The laws stop the ‘good guys’ from having.

And the poor, don't forget, those laws prevent the poor from access too.

 

[Surviving Saint]

[QUOTE="The moose, post: 95191, member: 64]

Considering the right is against both how do you suppose to fix the problem?
[/QUOTE]
You can't. Go about your life. Government can't protect you from dying. If someone wants you dead, then you will probably die. The odds are heavily against that happening so sleep good tonight.

Trudeau better be glad he is Canadian because his soy wouldn't make it here.

 

[Surviving Saint]

Yeah, Australia's gun ban seems to have largely worked, if numbers before and after are any indication. We will have to see if Canada's plan works or even makes a big difference. I don't think I would personally care if all SAWs were banned as I don't have any use for them and only hunting and personal protection guns like pistols remain. Ive only ever owned a 12 gauge.

I mean citizens can't own rocket launchers as far as I'm aware. Is it really that big a step to outlaw SAWs?

Yes. We should be allowed to own at minimum every weapon available to LE.

 

[brandon]

Fully support this move. It even includes a two-year amnesty/gun buyback, which I have supported for years as a way to reduce access to these weapons.

Reducing access saves lives, period.

How many deaths have we had in the US from fully-automatic weapons (not counting Vegas, which used a bump stock that was promptly made illegal)?

How many deaths in the US from grenade launchers? Nuclear strikes?

It’s almost like if people can’t get these weapons, they can’t use them.

And yes, they might use other weapons and still kill people, but that’s the point. If you take away the most deadly options, you reduce the killer’s capacity to inflict the largest number of casualties.

Don’t you think that if the Las Vegas shooter had access to a rocket launcher, he would have used it? Imagine the destruction he could have inflicted on that concert with a few shoulder-fired rockets. So why didn’t he?

Because he didn’t have access.

And yes, there are millions of guns already out there that a gun ban doesn’t fix. That’s why the buyback part of this legislation is so important. Access must be reduced. It’s the only way to eventually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.

 

[Surviving Saint]

Fully support this move. It even includes a two-year amnesty/gun buyback, which I have supported for years as a way to reduce access to these weapons.

Reducing access saves lives, period.

How many deaths have we had in the US from fully-automatic weapons (not counting Vegas, which used a bump stock that was promptly made illegal)?

You'll probably have to go back to the days of AL Capone for that. It's been a very very long time since we have had one.

How many deaths in the US from grenade launchers? Nuclear strikes?

It’s almost like if people can’t get these weapons, they can’t use them.

Stupid analogy.

And yes, they might use other weapons and still kill people, but that’s the point. If you take away the most deadly options, you reduce the killer’s capacity to inflict the largest number of casualties.

Worked out well for Timothy McVeigh

Don’t you think that if the Las Vegas shooter had access to a rocket launcher, he would have used it? Imagine the destruction he could have inflicted on that concert with a few shoulder-fired rockets. So why didn’t he?

Because he didn’t have access.

He could have made a bomb and killed as many.

And yes, there are millions of guns already out there that a gun ban doesn’t fix. That’s why the buyback part of this legislation is so important. Access must be reduced. It’s the only way to eventually reduce the number of gun deaths in America.

Liberals will gladly give up their protection for the illusion that government will save them. It's no surprise you feel the way you do.

 

[brandon]

You'll probably have to go back to the days of AL Capone for that. It's been a very very long time since we have had one.

That’s my point. Fully automatic weapons are illegal, and thus hard to come by. So we don’t really have deaths from automatic weapons.

Stupid analogy.

Not really. You admitted we don’t have automatic weapons deaths. You just didn’t put together that it’s for the same reason we don’t have nuclear weapons deaths—bad people cant get these weapons.

Worked out well for Timothy McVeigh

How many Timothy McVeigh-type situations have we had in America since then?

And how many times have we had someone go on a rampage with an AR?

Or are you saying that if we took away these guns, people would just start bombing?

Then you’re proving my point—access and convenience matters.

He could have made a bomb and killed as many.

But he didn’t. Why?

Because access and convenience matters

Liberals will gladly give up their protection for the illusion that government will save them. It's no surprise you feel the way you do.

Sad.

 

[Surviving Saint]

And how many times have we had someone go on a rampage with an AR?

What type of firearm did the shooter use?

 

[brandon]

What type of firearm did the shooter use?

Is that relevant to my point?

 

[Surviving Saint]

Yes, because they are removing the citizens protection because of one incident. It makes no sense. If it was about saving lives, they should have banned cigarettes a long time ago. It's politics. It has nothing to do with saving lives. It's about disarming the population.

 

[brandon]

If it was about saving lives, they should have banned cigarettes a long time ago.

What was it you said about stupid analogies?

Can’t think of any regulations they’ve put on cigarettes?

 

[Surviving Saint]

What was it you said about stupid analogies?

Can’t think of any regulations they’ve put on cigarettes?

How many deaths attributed to cigarettes and they are still available to kill millions more?
Firearm deaths pale in comparison.

You want to regulate everyone's lives. I don't.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Worked out well for Timothy McVeigh

You aren't the first to reference McVeigh in this thread, so this is addressed at more than just you.

After McVeigh detonated that bomb, the federal government immediately made changes to all federal buildings so this couldn't happen again. Barriers were installed to prevent vehicles from getting that close and new buildings were set far back from the road, among other measures.

 

[Beach Friends]

For those asking who many have been killed by AR-15 type weapons, have you looked at the numbers are or you just going off perception?

Pretty sure sure you are more likely to die from being stabbed. What kind of nation would we be if we banned knives? The answer is - the UK.

1776 looks better all the time.

 

[Surviving Saint]

You aren't the first to reference McVeigh in this thread, so this is addressed at more than just you.

After McVeigh detonated that bomb, the federal government immediately made changes to all federal buildings so this couldn't happen again. Barriers were installed to prevent vehicles from getting that close and new buildings were set far back from the road, among other measures.

As usual, the illusion of safety. I bet a UPS man can go in there with a dolly full of boxes and perform the same stunt. Or the coke delivery guy filling a coke machine.

There aren't alot of ways to prevent mass killings and if we passing laws to ban things, let's ban every form if social media first. Because 30 years ago we didn't have this crap.

You used to be able to buy a gun by mail. Little by little people are giving up freedom for the illusion of safety.

The bigger the government gets, the more this stuff will happen. A gun ban in the US will never happen in the next 50 years. If it does then bloodshed will happen.

How many governments killing its own citizens will it take for people to wake up? I don't think it would happen here, but I rather be safe than rely on them.

 

[NoPartyMike]

What type of firearm did the shooter use?

For clarity, they said he had a pistol and 2 long guns. They have not released which guns specifically, but said both of the long guns are on the list of newly banned weapons.

 

[Surviving Saint]

They have not released which guns specifically, but said both of the long guns are on the list of newly banned weapons.

How convenient.

 

[Beach Friends]

As usual, the illustration of safety. I bet a UPS man can go in there with a dolly full of boxes and perform the same stunt. Or the coke delivery guy filling a coke machine.

There aren't alot of ways to prevent mass killings and if we passing laws to ban things, let's ban every form if social media first. Because 30 years ago we didn't have this crap.

You used to be able to buy a gun by mail. Little by little people are giving up freedom for the illusion of safety.

The bigger the government gets, the more this stuff will happen. A gun ban in the US will never happen in the next 50 years. If it does then bloodshed will happen.

How many governments killing its own citizens will it take for people to wake up? I don't think it would happen here, but I rather be safe than rely on them.

Yep, things can spiral toward authoritarianism quickly. 6 weeks ago it would seemed unimaginable that deputies would show up at a citizen's door demanding that a teenager take down an Instagram post stating she had a virus. Or, that a governor could decree that the home improvement section of a store be partioned as off limits, or that it would be forbidden to ride in a boat by yourself on a lake.

Arbitrary limits on what citizens can do are not only accepted, they are applauded. All the while, people still act as though it could never happen here.

The other day a poster defended Denmark's lack of resistance to the Nazi invasion of that country by stating that Germany had not issued a declaration of war beforehand. People have to be more responsible than to walk around with that type of mentality.