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?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I really feel like these debates miss the point.

I fee like it should be a discussion on the trade-offs between human life and human freedom. Guns are tools designed to kill. That is their primary focus and they are a very effective tool for killing. Reducing the capability of people to kill will reduce the number of people who die. It will never eliminate it, b/c humans are remarkably inventive in figuring out ways to kill. But the harder you make it to kill someone, the fewer people will die.

On the flip side of it, the harder you make it for people who might be weaker physically to access tools to defend themselves, the more likely they are likely to be afraid and intimidated by those who have more power. So taking tools away from them, reduces their freedom to some degree.

So, how do you balance it out?

Generally, I think you need to look at it as a multi-decade problem, where you try to reduce the number of idiots and felons from owning weapons, while allowing people access to tools they should be able to use to keep themselves safe.

 

[Dadsdream]

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.

Yeah, and after that 6,000 Danes immediately volunteered for the Danish Free Korps of the Waffen SS and the Nazis used them for cannon fodder against the Russians. Not many survived.

Other Danes joined the Nazi Waffen SS 5th Panzer (Viking) Division, which fought until the end of the war and surrendered to US forces.

The idea that everybody in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were resistance fighters is a bit of Allied propaganda. There were lots of folks who served in uniform with the Nazi Waffen SS (not to be confused with the German Army).

I stopped a near riot in the barracks one night between Latvian and Ukrainian soldiers we were training.
One of the Latvians had broken out a WWII picture of his grandfather . . . a Latvian Waffen SS colonel.
"He was not a criminal! He was Waffen SS! A soldier!" the Latvian pleaded with me.
"I know what that is," I said, quietly asking him to put away the picture and never show it again.
The Ukrainians went freaking ballistic, to say the least!

 

[Surviving Saint]

Generally, I think you need to look at it as a multi-decade problem, where you try to reduce the number of felons from owning weapons, while allowing people access to tools they should be able to use to keep themselves safe.

I disagree with this. If someone has paid their debt and let out of prison, all rights should be restored. If they can't own a firearm for protection because they are too dangerous, then why are they back on the street? A non violent ex con should be able to own a firearm with no questions asked.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I disagree with this. If someone has paid their debt and let out of prison, all rights should be restored. If they can't own a firearm for protection because they are too dangerous, then why are they back on the street? A non violent ex con should be able to own a firearm with no questions asked.

Sorry, I phrased it poorly -- I mean people who are currently committing felonies. Reduce the probability that they can access a powerful first strike capability.

 

[Surviving Saint]

Sorry, I phrased it poorly -- I mean people who are currently committing felonies. Reduce the probability that they can access a powerful first strike capability.

OK.

I think it's impossible to reduce their access when they are getting them off the black market or stealing them.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

OK.

I think it's impossible to reduce their access when they are getting them off the black market or stealing them.

Which is why I believe it's a multi-decade problem. It would take a long incremental process to reduce the number of guns just floating around.

 

[Heathen]

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

So where is the outrage over individuals not being able to own military grade weaponry? Why are we having petty arguments over guns and nothing more substantial?

Clearly playing devil's advocate here, but it's a legitimate question for those who don't think guns should be regulated strongly. I would think if the goalposts moved the length of the football field the argument would be that football field, not what short gain (in football terminology) we're squabbling over in the modern day.

 

[Heathen]

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.

Everyone knows you can't fix it, just as you cant completely fix anything.

Are you inferring that we shouldn't have stricter gun laws because a person will do what they want ultimately?

 

[Surviving Saint]

Everyone knows you can't fix it, just as you cant completely fix anything.

Are you inferring that we shouldn't have stricter gun laws because a person will do what they want ultimately?

That's exactly what I'm saying. How much stricter do you want to get for the illusion of safety?

We have enough regulations already and it's done nothing to stop gun violence. It's time to start looking at something else besides metal and plastic.

Let's ban everything that causes death and get that out of the way. Cars, water, hand tools, cigarettes, you name it.

We banned drugs and the death toll went up exponentially.

Let's ban something that could be used to kill maybe 100 people a year and leave everything else as is. That makes sense.

 

[Heathen]

That's exactly what I'm saying. How much stricter do you want to get for the illusion of safety?

By that line of logic, we shouldn't have many of the laws we have today simply because people occasionally 'do what they want' and commit atrocities. Is that exactly what you're saying too?

You see how that train of thought starts to become problematic.

Maybe you could expound on that.

We have enough regulations already and it's done nothing to stop gun violence. It's time to start looking at something else besides metal and plastic.

Well that's just incorrect. Here's one such example to the contrary:

Study: Tough gun laws linked to fewer firearm deaths among children | AAP News | American Academy of Pediatrics

www.aappublications.org

Let's ban everything that causes death and get that out of the way. Cars, water, hand tools, cigarettes, you name it.

Let's ban something that could be used to kill maybe 100 people a year and leave everything else as is. That makes sense.
[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, what if any gun control measures would you enact were you making the law?

 

[brandon]

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

I want to reduce the number of people killed by gun violence. That’s it.

I really feel like these debates miss the point.

I fee like it should be a discussion on the trade-offs between human life and human freedom. Guns are tools designed to kill. That is their primary focus and they are a very effective tool for killing. Reducing the capability of people to kill will reduce the number of people who die. It will never eliminate it, b/c humans are remarkable inventive in figuring out ways to kill. But the harder you make it to killing someone, the fewer people will die.

On the flip side of it, the harder you make it for people who might be weaker physically to access tools to defend themselves, the more likely they are likely to be afraid and intimidated by who have more power. So taking tools away from them, reduces their freedom to some degree.

So, how do you balance it out?

Generally, I think you need to look at it as a multi-decade problem, where you try to reduce the number of idiots and felons from owning weapons, while allowing people access to tools they should be able to use to keep themselves safe.

I hope the conservatives find this to be at least a reasonable position, because as about as far left a liberal as I am, I agree with it 100%. I hope there’s some common ground to be had here.

OK.

I think it's impossible to reduce their access when they are getting them off the black market or stealing them.

That’s why I said I supported the buyback component of what Canada is doing, just as I’ve consistently supported buyback programs in the past. The cat is most definitely out of the bag, and it will take a lot of time and money to get it back in the bag. But it can, and should, be done.

 

[Surviving Saint]

By that line of logic, we shouldn't have many of the laws we have today simply because people occasionally 'do what they want' and commit atrocities. Is that exactly what you're saying too?

You see how that train of thought starts to become problematic.

Maybe you could expound on that.

Well that's just incorrect. Here's one such example to the contrary:

Study: Tough gun laws linked to fewer firearm deaths among children | AAP News | American Academy of Pediatrics

www.aappublications.org

Let's ban something that could be used to kill maybe 100 people a year and leave everything else as is. That makes sense.

Out of curiosity, what if any gun control measures would you enact were you making the law?

The 2nd amendment wasn't designed to be regulated. It was so we would be able to fight tyranny.

We need laws but if we give up the 2nd, we will lose the first and all the rest.

That's linked to children. They aren't allowed to purchase firearms. My kids have a rifle. They both know how handle firearms and neither of them will play with it because they know that they can take somebody's life with it. They have shot my 9mm at 6 years old.

Children die because they are curious. Teach them what a firearm is, gun safety and how to use it, and there will be alot less deaths in the household. It wasn't long ago children hunted on their own.

None. No gun control. You would still be able to order one straight to your door USPS. Machine gun, no problem. If you have the funds we'll ship you an M1 Abrams. If you are responsible and can afford it there is no reason you shouldn't have one. Nukes, and missles would be the only thing I would ban from the public. You can protect yourself and others without those.

You probably think it's crazy but we didn't have near the lunatics back then and they could own every firearm imaginable.

But forget about the above. It won't happen. Now we have a few crazy people that decide to kill a few citizens and we need to start looking at the instrument instead of the person and the why? No reason to figure out how to stop them, let's start taking everyone's toys away.

 

[brandon]

The 2nd amendment wasn't designed to be regulated.

It’s literally the only amendment with the word “regulated” in it.

 

[Surviving Saint]

It’s literally the only amendment with the word “regulated” in it.

Militia.

......Right to bear arms Shall not be infringed. Too late for that though. Might as well keep infringing. There will come a time when enough is enough though. I might not see it but eventually it will happen.

 

[brandon]

Militia.

......Right to bear arms Shall not be infringed

Let’s go ahead and read that full quote, shall we?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So let’s be clear—your right to keep and bear arms exists because it makes you PART of the militia that is necessary to the security of a free state.

And guess what that militia is?

Well-regulated.

Your right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed. You can still keep them and bear them while being regulated to specific types and other limitations.

 

[Surviving Saint]

A free state means we shouldn't be limited on our means to over take a tyrannical government state or federal. It's clear as day that this isn't about saving lives. It's about power and if we give up the little we have left that dwindles by the day, there is absolutely no point in freedom. We need to just get it over with and go full Socialist /Communist. Get it over with. Let the government dictate our every move. This is exactly what you want.

 

[brandon]

A free state means we shouldn't be limited on our means to over take a tyrannical government state or federal. It's clear as day that this isn't about saving lives. It's about power and if we give up the little we have left that dwindles by the day, there is absolutely no point in freedom. We need to just get it over with and go full Socialist /Communist. Get it over with. Let the government dictate our every move. This is exactly what you want.

Now you’re just ranting like Karen’s grandpa on Facebook.

 

[Heathen]

The 2nd amendment wasn't designed to be regulated. It was so we would be able to fight tyranny.

Well nobody is doing that with a shotgun or even a modded out semiautomatic.

If the US wanted to turn against its own citizens, it'd be fish in a barrel.

The only fighting we'd be doing is fighting to get away. Don't know if you've ever watched hapless people being bombed by our drones in the Middle East, but I'd imagine it being something of that nature.

We need laws but if we give up the 2nd, we will lose the first and all the rest.

The second amendment was based at least pretty substantially on a time period long past. I doubt many people in the 1700's saw fighter jets, tanks, robots, etc. coming. How many of those can you use to level with the US govt. if the situation calls for it?

My point is that many gun advocates play blind to the higher powered weaponry used by military not being available but cry wolf when people want semiautomatics taken off the shelves. It seems like a lot..and I mean a lot..was ignored by the NRA and co. screaming tyranny.

That's linked to children. They aren't allowed to purchase firearms. My kids have a rifle. They both know how handle firearms and neither of them will play with it because they know that they can take somebody's life with it. They have shot my 9mm at 6 years old.

Children die because they are curious. Teach them what a firearm is, gun safety and how to use it, and there will be alot less deaths in the household. It wasn't long ago children hunted on their own.

That's one metric, and part of it is children killed by adults, obviously. I'm not against hunting in any aspect.

But there's plenty of data on this subject.

Here's another for you (Journal of the American Medical Association): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1661390

You probably think it's crazy but we didn't have near the lunatics back then and they could own every firearm imaginable.

But forget about the above. It won't happen. Now we have a few crazy people that decide to kill a few citizens and we need to start looking at the instrument instead of the person and the why? No reason to figure out how to stop them, let's start taking everyone's toys away.

I don't think it's any stretch to ban semiautomatic weapons. Let people hunt and defend themselves, but you don't need a AR-15 to do that -- just like you don't need a missile or nuke to protect yourself.