"Canada Bans Assault Weapons; People 'Deserve More Than Thoughts and Prayers' ”

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now you have misunderstood my post as well. "The term" refers to the term you were discussing. That term is "military grade assault rifles." I hope this adds clarity.

That was my original point. There is no "generally accepted definition" of that term. So the legislation does what legislation always does, and provides such a "definition for the purposes of this bill." And it does so by providing an exhaustive list, rather than a blanket definition, of some "1,500 makes and models of military-grade 'assault-style' weapons in Canada." And rather than list those, I provided a reference to where that list can be found...the record of Parliament of Canada, Hansard.

 

[Curious George]

That was my original point. There is no "generally accepted definition" of that term. So the legislation does what legislation always does, and provides such a "definition for the purposes of this bill." And it does so by providing an exhaustive list, rather than a blanket definition, of some "1,500 makes and models of military-grade 'assault-style' weapons in Canada." And rather than list those, I provided a reference to where that list can be found...the record of Parliament of Canada, Hansard.

I still fear you are missing the point.

To use a term such as "military grade assault style weapon" is to use emotional rhetoric. It is a grouping of words that adds nothing except a specific emotional appeal. One might just as well term them big bad ultra-violent war guns. Excepting military grade assault style weapons somehow avoids many people's radar of what is clearly emotional rhetoric.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I still fear you are missing the point.

To use a term such as "military grade assault style weapon" is to use emotional rhetoric. It is a grouping of words that adds nothing except a specific emotional appeal. One might just as well term them big bad ultra-violent war guns. Excepting military grade assault style weapons somehow avoids many people's radar of what is clearly emotional rhetoric.

Ah, I see.

Well, remember, this is Canada. We don't get "rock hard" over weapons to nearly the extent that Americans do, and therefore this is not a big emotional issue for us. Just yesterday, a poll showed that roughly half of ALL urban Canadians support a FULL BAN on all firearms, not just the ones listed by the Federal Government. In Canada's 2 largest cities, Toronto and Montreal, the support was 67% and 57% respectively.

And non-urban Canadians typically own the arms they need, and they very, very rarely fall into the listed categories, and are therefore not affected at all.

I'm sorry, but Canadians are just not as emotional about guns as Americans are. I have no idea what causes the difference, but it is most assuredly there.

 

[Curious George]

Ah, I see.

Well, remember, this is Canada. We don't get "rock hard" over weapons to nearly the extent that Americans do, and therefore this is not a big emotional issue for us. Just yesterday, a poll showed that roughly half of ALL urban Canadians support a FULL BAN on all firearms, not just the ones listed by the Federal Government. In Canada's 2 largest cities, Toronto and Montreal, the support was 67% and 57% respectively.

And non-urban Canadians typically own the arms they need, and they very, very rarely fall into the listed categories, and are therefore not affected at all.

I'm sorry, but Canadians are just not as emotional about guns as Americans are. I have no idea what causes the difference, but it is most assuredly there.

Lol, i think you are proving otherwise. Don't worry i recognize that emotional rhetoric is heavy handed on both sides. I think however your apparent failure to recognize the emotional rhetoric that supports your views might be an indicator that you have some bias to examine and that you are more susceptible to be swayed by purely emotional rhetoric.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Some other bloke has a weapon that might threaten me so I need one too? Those countries that don't allow such possession know this is a dumb game to play.

Why don't you answer the questions?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Lol, i think you are proving otherwise. Don't worry i recognize that emotional rhetoric is heavy handed on both sides. I think however your apparent failure to recognize the emotional rhetoric that supports your views might be an indicator that you have some bias to examine and that you are more susceptible to be swayed by purely emotional rhetoric.

I quite honestly cannot see why you think as you do, that I am somehow emotionally involved in this. I am not. I have never in my life owned a gun, nor fired one, nor wanted to. On the other hand, I know people who do own guns, and have no opinion about it whatever, so long as they are properly and safely stored.

I know people who hunt, but I do not hunt. I don't like the idea of killing animals for my sport, but I am perfectly aware that I eat meat that I'm content to have let somebody else kill, so I don't get caught up in the hypocrisy of telling hunters how bad they are.

However, I am happy to confess that I do not like the idea of my neighbours owning weapons designed to kill lots of people (or whatever else you want to be killing) in very short order. I'm not averse to the military having such weapons, and being trained in their use -- but I can see little use for them in my neighbourhood. And therefore, if government wants to ban them, I'm quite okay with that.

After all, the government doesn't permit me to own my own nuclear reactor, either, and I don't feel terribly put upon because of that.

So I put it to you that any attempt to accuse me of emotional involvement in this issue stems from within yourself, or within @Good-Ole-Rebel , and has little to do with what I'm actually feeling.

 

[Curious George]

I quite honestly cannot see why you think as you do, that I am somehow emotionally involved in this. I am not. I have never in my life owned a gun, nor fired one, nor wanted to. On the other hand, I know people who do own guns, and have no opinion about it whatever, so long as they are properly and safely stored.

I know people who hunt, but I do not hunt. I don't like the idea of killing animals for my sport, but I am perfectly aware that I eat meat that I'm content to have let somebody else kill, so I don't get caught up in the hypocrisy of telling hunters how bad they are.

However, I am happy to confess that I do not like the idea of my neighbours owning weapons designed to kill lots of people (or whatever else you want to be killing) in very short order. I'm not averse to the military having such weapons, and being trained in their use -- but I can see little use for them in my neighbourhood. And therefore, if government wants to ban them, I'm quite okay with that.

After all, the government doesn't permit me to own my own nuclear reactor, either, and I don't feel terribly put upon because of that.

So I put it to you that any attempt to accuse me of emotional involvement in this issue stems from within yourself, or within @Good-Ole-Rebel , and has little to do with what I'm actually feeling.

I would disagree. I think that your jumping towards emotional appeals such as "rock hard" in an attempt to paint people who support rights to gun ownership is an example that proves what i am suggesting. This is bolstered by your use of nationality as a distinguishing characteristic. Further your lack of recognition that terms such as "military grade assault weapons" are used as emotional rhetoric also pushes me towards the conclusion that you have an emotional investment. Then you went tothe extreme in comparing guns to nuclear reactors. Finally, you are very, very defensive of the notion that you are emotionally involved.

I would say there is sufficient enough evidence for me to conclude you are likely very emotionally invested. Yet, you insist you are not. Well perhaps that is the case. Or perhaps you don't realize how emotionally invested about this topic you actually are.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would disagree. I think that your jumping towards emotional appeals such as "rock hard" in an attempt to paint people who support rights to gun ownership is an example that proves what i am suggesting. This is bolstered by your use of nationality as a distinguishing characteristic. Further your lack of recognition that terms such as "military grade assault weapons" are used as emotional rhetoric also pushes me towards the conclusion that you have an emotional investment. Then you went tothe extreme in comparing guns to nuclear reactors. Finally, you are very, very defensive of the notion that you are emotionally involved.

I would say there is sufficient enough evidence for me to conclude you are likely very emotionally invested. Yet, you insist you are not. Well perhaps that is the case. Or perhaps you don't realize how emotionally invested about this topic you actually are.

Well, I'll give this all the respect that I always give attempts at psychoanalysis-at-a-distance on internet fora.

 

[McBell]

That was my original point. There is no "generally accepted definition" of that term. So the legislation does what legislation always does, and provides such a "definition for the purposes of this bill." And it does so by providing an exhaustive list, rather than a blanket definition, of some "1,500 makes and models of military-grade 'assault-style' weapons in Canada." And rather than list those, I provided a reference to where that list can be found...the record of Parliament of Canada, Hansard.

List of "military grade assault weapons" Canada just banned:

Canada Gazette, May 1, 2020 Part II​

 

[Mock Turtle]

OK. What is the 'threat'? Is it real or perceived?

A threat that any other country doesn't have? You have increased your threat level by having so many weapons in circulation. The threat might have existed when the constitution, or amendments, were formed but such hinders rather than ensures your freedoms now - especially when gun ownership actually threatens the lives of others - those without weapons. More guns in circulation - tends to equal more deaths rather than giving you your freedom.

Which weapons do we have need of, according to you?

Apart from hunting, target practice for sport, use by the police and law enforcement, etc. - none. Just as applies in so many other nations.

No, we got the Constitution of 1776 right, and 1787. That is the issue.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You got a constitution for the times then, not now. Just like religions are set in stone (thanks Moses) and often can't quite cope with change.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

A threat that any other country doesn't have? You have increased your threat level by having so many weapons in circulation. The threat might have existed when the constitution, or amendments, were formed but such hinders rather than ensures your freedoms now - especially when gun ownership actually threatens the lives of others - those without weapons. More guns in circulation - tends to equal more deaths rather than giving you your freedom.

Apart from hunting, target practice for sport, use by the police and law enforcement, etc. - none. Just as applies in so many other nations.
You got a constitution for the times then, not now. Just like religions are set in stone (thanks Moses) and often can't quite cope with change.

As long as government exists the threat exists. Our originators of our Constitution recognized this. Power corrupts. No matter where it is located, it corrupts. Our Constitution was set up to hinder that corruption. Our 2nd amendment threatens an overreaching government.

I can hunt with an AR-15. I can also target shoot with it. In fact I would need to target shoot with it before I hunted with it. Hard to hunt birds with it though. Can I get a shotgun for that? How about a double barrel or over and under? Can I have a pistol for target shooting? How about a revolver type or standard 1911 with a clip.

Now, if someone breaks into my home can I shoot them with these 'target' and 'hunting' guns?

No, our Constitution is just fine.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Mock Turtle]

As long as government exists the threat exists. Our originators of our Constitution recognized this. Power corrupts. No matter where it is located, it corrupts. Our Constitution was set up to hinder that corruption. Our 2nd amendment threatens an overreaching government.

I can hunt with an AR-15. I can also target shoot with it. In fact I would need to target shoot with it before I hunted with it. Hard to hunt birds with it though. Can I get a shotgun for that? How about a double barrel or over and under? Can I have a pistol for target shooting? How about a revolver type or standard 1911 with a clip.

Now, if someone breaks into my home can I shoot them with these 'target' and 'hunting' guns?

No, our Constitution is just fine.

Good-Ole-Rebel

But your pea-shooters are an irrelevance when confronted by the government you have created. Why not ensure you vote for one that gives better rights - and not just for you but for all.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

But your pea-shooters are an irrelevance when confronted by the government you have created. Why not ensure you vote for one that gives better rights - and not just for you but for all.

You didn't answer my questions concerning the guns I can have. If they are just 'pea shooters' why are you concerned with them. Why should the government be concerned with them?

I do vote to ensure rights to all based upon our Constitution.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Mock Turtle]

You didn't answer my questions concerning the guns I can have. If they are just 'pea shooters' why are you concerned with them. Why should the government be concerned with them?

I do vote to ensure rights to all based upon our Constitution.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Because they are not designed for either use. And why would anyone want to slaughter animals rather than giving them a sporting chance - with single shot weapons? It's hardly about the government being concerned about them - such rights are in your (ill-formed) constitution after all - but if you seriously think that in this day and age you constitute the slightest threat to any government of yours I suggest you go see a psychiatrist. The times have changed when any government could be seen as a threat to your rights such that you have no recourse other than voting or protesting or campaigning. Violence is never a decent answer to anything other than a direct threat from others - and which is heightened in the USA because so many have weapons.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Because they are not designed for either use. And why would anyone want to slaughter animals rather than giving them a sporting chance - with single shot weapons? It's hardly about the government being concerned about them - such rights are in your (ill-formed) constitution after all - but if you seriously think that in this day and age you constitute the slightest threat to any government of yours I suggest you go see a psychiatrist. The times have changed when any government could be seen as a threat to your rights such that you have no recourse other than voting or protesting or campaigning. Violence is never a decent answer to anything other than a direct threat from others - and which is heightened in the USA because so many have weapons.

You still didn't answer my questions concerning the guns I can have. The guns mentioned are designed to shoot and kill. So, which ones can I have for target shooting and hunting? And, can I use it against an intruder?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

List of "military grade assault weapons" Canada just banned:

Canada Gazette, May 1, 2020 Part II​

Thank you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You still didn't answer my questions concerning the guns I can have. The guns mentioned are designed to shoot and kill. So, which ones can I have for target shooting and hunting? And, can I use it against an intruder?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Since this thread is about a law for Canada, you can have any guns now that you could before. Unless you're planning to move here, in which case we'd prefer you not bring an arsenal with you. We're just funny that way.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Since this thread is about a law for Canada, you can have any guns now that you could before. Unless you're planning to move here, in which case we'd prefer you not bring an arsenal with you. We're just funny that way.

I was addressing Mock Turtle's remarks concerning the U.S. See post #(52)

Concerning your Canadian laws, I asked what a 'military grade assault rifle' is. But no one seems to know. Which begs the question, who gets to make up the said list of guns that are illegal? How do they determine?

You said it....not me.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Mock Turtle]

You still didn't answer my questions concerning the guns I can have. The guns mentioned are designed to shoot and kill. So, which ones can I have for target shooting and hunting? And, can I use it against an intruder?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Not read the first sentence? The Canadian ban was for such weapons, and there isn't a legitimate reason for using them other than for killing humans. As for many countries, legitimate use for hunting or for sports (but even these might be very limited), would cover a range of weapons. Multi-shot assault weapons are not in either category.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Not read the first sentence? The Canadian ban was for such weapons, and there isn't a legitimate reason for using them other than for killing humans. As for many countries, legitimate use for hunting or for sports (but even these might be very limited), would cover a range of weapons. Multi-shot assault weapons are not in either category.

Well, you moved from talking about Canada to talking about the U.S. See post #(52).

What such weapons are you now addressing. "Military grade assault rifles"? What are those?

Any gun can be used to kill a human. That's why your statements concerning target shooting and hunting are silly.

When you say 'multi-shot weapons are not in either category' what do you mean? Are you talking about automatic fire or semi-automatic fire? Are you saying no weapon for the gun owner except a single shot weapon? So, no pistols allowed at all?

Good-Ole-Rebel