Current Events > Canada just banned all assault guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

scorpion41 posted...

My debate skills are fine.

No, they aren't.

You cant prove that any gun bans drove down homicides significantly,

Notice you had to say "significantly", because you know it did indeed save some lives - you just don't care. I don't care how significant you think a life is. If one life was spared, then it was worth it. I don't care if the impact wasn't significant in your eyes.. nobody does. The 28% lol

so you point to a highly skewed survey that doesnt even reflect the views of Americans living in rural areas. All you have left is wanting regulation because of muh feelingz. So go back to living in your bubble and watch the world go on without your shitty views.

"Highly skewed survey", another one of your incorrect opinions that you just made up.

You are right, I take into account the views of the majority over the minority. Rural Americans are not the norm. And you say other people are in the bubble, lol. My views are in the majority, 28%er.

Dunning-Kruger in full effect. Imagine being so wrong about everything, all if the time.

---

So basically Canada just being canadian

---

Good. There's no reason for any civilian to carry an assault rifle unless there planning on shooting up the entire town. A handgun is all you need. I hope America follows suit.

---

LOL, this thread exploded

AssultTank posted...

I have to say, this line in particular amuses me.

He's right, an AR-15 is absolutely the wrong gun for deer hunting. It is wayyyyy too small a caliber.

Possibly mean those giant moose but yeah

---

The Wheelman1 posted...

Good. There's no reason for any civilian to carry an assault rifle unless there planning on shooting up the entire town. A handgun is all you need. I hope America follows suit.

the US banned ARs in 1986 you moron.

---

I'm buying an AR 15 soon, just in case they do end up getting pulled from market. would be kinda fun imo

---

JTilly posted...

I'm buying an AR 15 soon, just in case they do end up getting pulled from market. would be kinda fun imo

But if they get banned, you'd be required to hand it over to law enforcement. That's a big chunk of change just to throw away like that.

---

008Zulu posted...

But if they get banned, you'd be required to hand it over to law enforcement. That's a big chunk of change just to throw away like that.

I wouldnt hand it over lmao

---

JTilly posted...

I wouldnt hand it over lmao

Isn't there a registry in Canada?
There's no choice for law abiding citizens. They have to give them up.

---

JTilly posted...

I wouldnt hand it over lmao

okay tough guy lol

---

Proto_Spark posted...

The Government of Canada did a thing they have every right and legal authority to do, that they promised to do when they ran for election, and that four out of five Canadians wanted them to do. That's just good government.

Also, the 100 conservatives in Canada are basically on suicide watch.

That is incorrect. 4 out of 5 Canadians DID NOT want them banned.

https://tinyurl.com/y999lyuh


---

good

---

008Zulu posted...

But if they get banned, you'd be required to hand it over to law enforcement. That's a big chunk of change just to throw away like that.

They aren't, actually. Guns in current circulation are apparently grandfathered in with this 'ban.'

---

Malcrasternus posted...

Isn't there a registry in Canada?
There's no choice for law abiding citizens. They have to give them up.

Good thing criminals are not a concern! I mean, who uses guns illegally?

---

Doom_Art posted...

okay tough guy lol

Idk id just hide it, and say it fell into the lake. What would they do?

---

This isn't going to prevent any gang shooting.
Gangbangers in canada don't use assault rifles when they do a drive-by shooting or open fire at a rival in a club. They want something small and able to conceal. All their weapons are not from legal guns but illegally obtained.

If trudeau really wants to end gun violence then focus more better border control and gang specialized police.

---

ProudlyHated74 posted...

the US banned ARs in 1986 you moron.

And yet people still carry them. Moron.

---

MaverickXeo posted...

They aren't, actually. Guns in current circulation are apparently grandfathered in with this 'ban.'

"Trudeau said there will be a two-year amnesty period to allow people who already own these firearms to comply with the ban. Trudeau promised to pass legislation in the coming months to provide "fair compensation" to people who own these firearms."

---

Frogles posted...

what is an assault gun

an assault rifle? what are we talking about here.

Ah haha hAHAHAHAh HAHAHAHAHA!! He called it a GUN!! You have NO IDEA what he's talking about!!

AHHAHAHAHA!!!!

People who do this are fucking insufferable.

---

Hicks233 posted...

"Trudeau said there will be a two-year amnesty period to allow people who already own these firearms to comply with the ban. Trudeau promised to pass legislation in the coming months to provide "fair compensation" to people who own these firearms."

The Government has announced its intention to provide owners with the choice to return their firearms for buy-back or elect a grandfathering option.
If you relinquish a newly prohibited firearm or device before the implementation of the buy-back program or intended grandfathering regime, you won't be eligible for compensation once the program is announced.
More information on the buy-back program and grandfathering regime for the newly prohibited firearms and devices will be available at a later date.

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/need-know-the-government-canadas-new-prohibition-certain-firearms-and-devices


---

There's no debating their views, Tank. They're too stuck in their ways.

---

008Zulu posted...

How's the national stockpile of Thoughts & Prayers for future mass shootings?

There wouldn't be mass shootings if gun-crazed lunatics couldn't get acceess to firearms.

---

gguirao posted...

There wouldn't be mass shootings if gun-crazed lunatics couldn't get acceess to firearms.

Maybe you can enlighten me on the gun laws in Canada and explain how these recent changes would have prevented the majority of gun violence in the country.

---

MaverickXeo posted...

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/need-know-the-government-canadas-new-prohibition-certain-firearms-and-devices

Interesting, didn't see that part in the report before. You'd likely be better off not going for the purchase though. A grandfather clause is pretty shaky ground to rely on given how they're already weaseling. From the looks of it, all you're really going to be able to do is keep it in a gun case and let it gather what little dust it ever gets exposed to.

You're more than likely to get screwed as they are presenting these firearms as "military arms" "designed for the battlefield" - they're not automatic arms and they have an artificially limited magazine capacity - they're characteristics already prohibited under Canadian law for new purchases.

They're just made of black plastic so look "scary" and the people making the law are disingenuous pricks.

Don't waste your money, they'll just screw you out of it.

---

NES4EVER posted...

Maybe you can enlighten me on the gun laws in Canada and explain how these recent changes would have prevented the majority of gun violence in the country.

They'd have resulted in a surplus of thoughts and prayers that could have been redeemed for rainbows and puppy dogs. That would have made it impossible for someone to acquire a firearm on an illegal market, or neck down some metal pipe to make an ad-hoc shotgun.

---

I know it's not the African Savannah, but if I was in remote Canada I would want some high powered rifles for protection. Not everyone lives in Vancouver or Ottowa.

kelemvor posted...

I know it's not the African Savannah, but if I was in remote Canada I would want some high powered rifles for protection. Not everyone lives in Vancouver or Ottowa.

Same argument can be made about America. Unfortunately, the majority live sheltered lives in the big city and think they speak for everyone.

---

kelemvor posted...

I know it's not the African Savannah, but if I was in remote Canada I would want some high powered rifles for protection. Not everyone lives in Vancouver or Ottowa.

You'd still be able to have a weapon firing a high velocity round, but if it is made of black plastic, has a collapsible stock, or has a pistol grip, then it is somehow from a Middle Eastern warzone and doubleplusungood.

If you spent 20,000+ though on a firearm with a polished walnut stock, nickel engraved receiver and bought it from someone that smells faintly of wet dog and sneers at you for not having membership at the local country club - that one's ok.

Just remember that the high pope of feminism xirself, Trudeau describes these weapons as: designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.

And then scratch your head for a moment and think: If it is semi-automatic - so doesn't even have a cyclic rate as an automatic weapon would, and carries no more than 5 rounds of ammunition in its magazine - then it's going to be a pretty shit choice for shooting a large number of people in a short amount of time.

It looks scary though, just like in the kid down the street's vidya gaems.

You'd be better off going to a pub on the shit side of town, speak to "Big Phil" on the door about getting hold of a weapon, spending around 1000 - 2000 on an illegal firearm which will hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Now admittedly the weapon would probably have a history to it where it was used in other shootings, so if you were caught with it, you'd be running the risk of having that pinned on you as well. Bit difficult to introduce legislation for something that already is taking place outside the law though.

It's shit legislation by a bunch of bed-wetters so as to be seen to do "something" and make themselves feel good.

---

scorpion41 posted...

Same argument can be made about America. Unfortunately, the majority live sheltered lives in the big city and think they speak for everyone.

Yep, and we pay for them too. Which of the Welfare states do you come from? (New name for red states)

---

Whats the point of banning something that criminals get anyway through illegal means?

---

PrettyBoyMarth posted...

Whats the point of banning something that criminals get anyway through illegal means?

Why do you think laws exist only to stop people who are already criminals?

Many mass shooters were not criminals before they committed their act.

---

PrettyBoyMarth posted...

Whats the point of banning something that criminals get anyway through illegal means?

It's more profitable to sell guns when they aren't legal, just ask former California state senator Leland Yee.

---

Time_Rider posted...

Why do you think laws exist only to stop people who are already criminals?

Many mass shooters were not criminals before they committed their act.

If somebody wants to commit a mass murder they will find access to assault rifles or whatever they want to commit the act. Saying "banned" on paper doesn't mean anything.

They're not gonna go "Assault rifles are banned? Guess I'll just stay home and play Jenga"

---

PrettyBoyMarth posted...

If somebody wants to commit a mass murder they will find access to assault rifles or whatever they want to commit the act. Saying "banned" on paper doesn't mean anything.

They're not gonna go "Assault rifles are banned? Guess I'll just stay home and play Jenga"

You're right. If they want to kill, they'll buy, borrow, modify, steal or even make what they need.

They'll be paying through the nose illegally though to get hold of an "assault rifle", much harder to find now that things quietened down in the Balkans - a lot of the illegal weapons here came through from the Balkans and the Channel Tunnel. They'll need to source the ammunition for them as well.

If they don't mind it [not] looking like the wet dream of a 14 year old boy raised on a diet of Call of Duty and Battlefield then a semi-automatic, centrefire rifle will still be purchasable for their crazed rampage needs.

The more well healed sport shooters will raise a stink if their pretty walnut clad firesticks become the target of regulation though. The high pope would be a little less willing I think to go after that crowd.

---

Can anyone confirm that a listed 'banned' weapon is an airsoft gun? I've heard a few people say this, but I don't know if it's true or not.

---

MaverickXeo posted...

Can anyone confirm that a listed 'banned' weapon is an airsoft gun? I've heard a few people say this, but I don't know if it's true or not.

Yup, there are also grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and a website.

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

There need to be support groups for these gun fetishists.

Good for Canada. There are so many reasons that Canad has far less shootings per the population despite only being a stone's throw away.

To be fair, Mexico also has a lower public shooting rate if you discount cartel shootings.

Yeah and if you don't count all the gang shootings in America then our rate plummets as well.

I mean you can't really say "oh this country has a lower shooting rate then us as long as you don't count all these shootings."

---

Gamerguymass posted...

I mean you can't really say "oh this country has a lower shooting rate then us as long as you don't count all these shootings."

Well you can... it depends how much you want to twist and contort yourself to then "win" an argument though.

---

AssultTank posted...

The issue is that assault rifle is a clearly defined term that is very specific; and that is a select fire weapon capable of burst fire and often full automatic fire, usually small caliber and with a detachable magazine. Note: these weapons are already banned in the US and Canada from civilian ownership.

Assault gun does not have a clear definition. It would be like calling all ram "DDRP CPU sticks" despite different ram being different. It is a meaningless term that only serves to obscure what you are talking about or to show that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

If you go up to someone knowledgeable about computers and start talking about DDRP CPU sticks, rollerball monitors, and video dogs, they are going to look at you like you are stupid and ignore you.

Same principle with gun terms.

I was in the military, so respectfully I fully understand. It was more along the lines of people acting dumb like they have no clue what you are talking about when they clearly know and understand what someone is saying when they call it a gun and not a rifle. He did it simply to be a jerk instead of posting something of substance. The military is full of firearms elitists that act this way and it got very old as time went on. It just irritates me at this point.

---

Hicks233 posted...

Well you can... it depends how much you want to twist and contort yourself to then "win" an argument though.

It doesnt have to be about winning. We could try not being misleading about stats.

Take away suicides, for example, and gun deaths drop dramatically. This is important because the anti-gun argument is primarily that guns are bad because they lead to violent crimes against others. Take away gang violence and the numbers drop again. That is important because then we are left with three truths: law abiding citizens arent the problem, so whats the point of taking away their guns?; gangs are a problem, so solve the real issues of poverty and broken homes; and we need to resolve suicidal tendencies.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

It doesnt have to be about winning. We could try not being misleading about stats.

Take away suicides, for example, and gun deaths drop dramatically. This is important because the anti-gun argument is primarily that guns are bad because they lead to violent crimes against others. Take away gang violence and the numbers drop again. That is important because then we are left with three truths: law abiding citizens arent the problem, so whats the point of taking away their guns?; gangs are a problem, so solve the real issues of poverty and broken homes; and we need to resolve suicidal tendencies.

Those things are true, however the existence of a firearm, its availability and use tie into them. They're not going to be a separate issue. With what you've stated and included in the planning for firearm regulation and some honesty about what each weapon is and does, then it gives a more honest and solid foundation on which to build.

I'm particularly wary with the Canada situation over the issue of weapons being stolen. Here in England there has been a rise over the past few years of targeted robberies of firearms. If the owner is on the hook for what is done with a stolen weapon then it creates a whole new set of headaches. Laws aren't for the people that follow them, they're for those that don't. That's where there's going to need to be care in the planning.

Trudeau has gone for the easy win with this and been his usual disingenuous shit of a self.

---

Hicks233 posted...

Those things are true, however the existence of a firearm, its availability and use tie into them. They're not going to be a separate issue. With what you've stated and included in the planning for firearm regulation and some honesty about what each weapon is and does, then it gives a more honest and solid foundation on which to build.

I'm particularly wary with the Canada situation over the issue of weapons being stolen. Here in England there has been a rise over the past few years of targeted robberies of firearms. If the owner is on the hook for what is done with a stolen weapon then it creates a whole new set of headaches. Laws aren't for the people that follow them, they're for those that don't. That's where there's going to need to be care in the planning.

Trudeau has gone for the easy win with this and been his usual disingenuous shit of a self.

Thanks @Hicks233 for the civil discussion.

Ideally, no one would ever misuse firearms, so there would never be a need for laws to govern them. But that isnt reality, at least not yet.


---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Thanks @Hicks233 for the civil discussion.

Ideally, no one would ever misuse firearms, so there would never be a need for laws to govern them. But that isnt reality, at least not yet.

No problem. It's an issue that can be hugely frustrating as depending on what country you're in and the legal status, firearms can be considered a "right", "privilege", or "forbidden". Often the responsibilities that go with that ownership are forgotten.

I'm biased as I grew up with firearms, but see them as tools for specific jobs. Too often the topic descends into screeching and I understand why, have been guilty of it in the past and it will no doubt continue for as long as firearms are regarded as malicious entities, fashion accessories, anything other than tools.

We've got big problems here with knife crime, but to suggest that knives - even a kitchen knife needs to be outlawed would be too ridiculous to follow through on [check out the jokes made about English "Assault Spoons"]. So there are age limits on purchase as a compromise - which makes sense in a way, why do a group of four teenagers need a set of knives?

A bit of common sense and taking a deep breath before acting would likely help with all this. I'm hoping that the legislators here pull their heads out their arses and revisit firearm legislation. You can legally own a .50 rifle, but not if it is semi-automatic. You can own a SPAS-12 [oooh scary vidya gaem gun!] but a .30 M1 Carbine [as in the little .30 pistol round M1] is illegal because it operates on a semi-automatic action.

A bit of thought into extending the existing process "Why do you need a firearm? Why do you want one? What are you going to do with it?" could be extended to "Ok, so you're looking to do competition shooting - moving between an obstacle course, yeah... we can see how a centre fire semi-automatic rifle would help with that", or: "Ok, so you wish to do professional sports shooting, they use pistols for that, well... if it's taking place at a secure range we can see the sense in supporting ownership of that".

This admittedly requires the legislators [and more challengingly, the dumb ass public] to understand that a firearm is a tool, just as much as a lino knife, lump hammer or chainsaw. They need to explain and understand the differences, the intended purposes and the risks and concerns with owning certain variants of these tools. If someone really, really wants that 9mm pistol. They'll find someone that will steal or sell one to them. All those reams of paper of law won't count for shit in that instance.

I thought about getting something myself recently for target shooting, but wasn't comfortable with the idea of having to drive out to an area [where there is a registered shooting club] which has a tendency to have things stolen from cars and to then have a rifle in the vehicle. Now I could shoot at home - living in a rural area and having the space. Would I be granted that dispensation? Don't know. I don't like the idea of driving round with a weapon and some dickhead breaking into my car causing a torrent of trouble though. There have been gamekeepers that are specifically targeted by people looking to steal their firearms.

Anyway, take care and I hope that you're able to talk about this in the future and find other calm voices.

---

PrettyBoyMarth posted...

If somebody wants to commit a mass murder they will find access to assault rifles or whatever they want to commit the act. Saying "banned" on paper doesn't mean anything.

They're not gonna go "Assault rifles are banned? Guess I'll just stay home and play Jenga"

Do you deny that the law would make it harder for them to get these rifles? It's certainly not going to be easier. You're kind of making my point, these kinds of people will have to put in more effort or resources to get these weapons, ergo making them harder to acquire.

---

I honestly thought they were banned in Canada a long time ago.

Time_Rider posted...

Do you deny that the law would make it harder for them to get these rifles? It's certainly not going to be easier. You're kind of making my point, these kinds of people will have to put in more effort or resources to get these weapons, ergo making them harder to acquire.

Buying a weapon illegally will not require handing in paperwork to the RCMP, going through approval processes or maintaining a secure locker for them. The effort it will require is finding a place and person to buy from and for them to trust the buyer enough to make the deal.

You'll likely pay a bit more for that "convenience", at least depending on what you're buying - the after sale support will likely be a bit iffy as well.

If someone wants something, they'll find a way to get it. There'll be different hoops to jump through if you go down the black market route. What the legal changes will do, is create a public perception that something is being done, that's the main thing.

---