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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Canada Gazette, May 1, 2020 Part II​

More accurate:

List of weapons that Canada just banned.

The terms "military grade" and "assault weapons" are not used anywhere in the regulation.

"Military grade assault weapon" was just a shorthand term used in the media coverage... probably because a long list of specific model names of firearm makes for a boring story.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Silly? What do many mass-killers use? I think you are just being evasive on this. You probably see any infringement of the right to own what kind of weapons you want - within the law - as justifiable, even when many of them make it so much easier to kill innocent people. Any knife, or car, can kill a person. What kind of argument is that. Stop trying to bandy words about descriptions of weapons when you know the issue here. You, and many others are afraid of the creeping gun control, that would take your toys away, when actually what is needed is to take most of them away and then your country might become truly civilised.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

The list has been posted, with thanks to @Mestemia .

Your question is one of "definitions," and definitions belong to humans. We have a number of ways of doing that. I could define, for example, the set of all even numbers (any number that is divisible by 2 {2,4,6...} or any "prime number" (divisible by itself and 1 only {1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,...}).

But sometimes forming a precise verbal definition isn't possible without actually providing the set itself, in its entirety. For example, the set of women Bob has ogled ({Amy, Anne, Bertha, Betty, Charlene...}. This is such an example: the set of all guns that the government of Canada wishes to deny Canadians private ownership. Now, since this set is in a law respecting Canada, and it is enacted by a government elected by Canadians, and since the majority of Canadians support the law, the government has the right to do it. Simple.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Didn't read the whole document? The law specifically recognizes that some do legitimately use these weapons for hunting and may not be able to immediately replace their legitimate hunting weapon with another legitimate hunting weapon that is not on the list. Consequently, provisions are made to that end.

However, merely declaring there is no legitimate reason for using them does not make it so. I could compose a document that says their is no legitimate reason for any number of things, that wouldn't make it so. This means we need to actually address the arguments and the why behind this reasoning. I am not so sure that there is any logical train of thought that will give good reason to ban all the weapons on that list.

I certainly know i haven't heard one proposed on RF.

 

[McBell]

More accurate:

List of weapons that Canada just banned.

The terms "military grade" and "assault weapons" are not used anywhere in the regulation.

"Military grade assault weapon" was just a shorthand term used in the media coverage... probably because a long list of specific model names of firearm makes for a boring story.

Thus the reason "military grade assault weapon" is in quotes when I use the term.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thus the reason "military grade assault weapon" is in quotes when I use the term.

I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with @Evangelicalhumanist 's characterization of the regulation. I don't think it tries to define any classes of firearm other than "prohibited weapon," which it expands the previous definition of.

A few people in the thread have jumped on the terms "military grade" and "assault weapon" as if they're actually in the regulation. I would like to invite them to tell us:

- what weapons do you think should have been on the list but weren't?
- what weapons do you think shouldn't have been included on the list?

For me, I haven't gone through the whole list, but at a quick glimpse, all the weapons they've listed that I'm familiar with are centre-fire semi-auto rifles that can accept an external magazine. If they've missed any weapons that meet this description that are available in Canada, I'd be fine with them expanding the regulation to include them.

 

[McBell]

I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with @Evangelicalhumanist 's characterization of the regulation. I don't think it tries to define any classes of firearm other than "prohibited weapon," which it expands the previous definition of.

A few people in the thread have jumped on the terms "military grade" and "assault weapon" as if they're actually in the regulation. I would like to invite them to tell us:

- what weapons do you think should have been on the list but weren't?
- what weapons do you think shouldn't have been included on the list?

For me, I haven't gone through the whole list, but at a quick glimpse, all the weapons they've listed that I'm familiar with are centre-fire semi-auto rifles that can accept an external magazine. If they've missed any weapons that meet this description that are available in Canada, I'd be fine with them expanding the regulation to include them.

The regulation does not use the term "assault weapon".
It does use the term "assault style firearms".

It does not use the term "military grade".
It does use the term "military style"

There are few firearms listed that are auto-fire.
M16 for example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The regulation does not use the term "assault weapon".
It does use the term "assault style firearms".

It does not use the term "military grade".
It does use the term "military style"

There are few firearms listed that are auto-fire.
M16 for example.

Wait... are you talking about the background section at the end (which isn't actually part of the regulation)?

 

[Curious George]

Wait... are you talking about the background section at the end (which isn't actually part of the regulation)?

I think it is a stretch to suggest that the background and the contemporary commentary the record in enacting a law is not part of the regulation. Indeed this is something to which courts look explicitly when interpreting laws and in determining whether a law exceeds legal authority.

Trying to ignore this because of a realization that one or both sides relied on emotional rhetoric is not going to change this. This doesn't mean Canada cannot make laws that rely on questionable logic. For indeed they can. But if someone challenges the logic or asserts that the day was carried by emotion, one cannot fall solely back upon the text of the regulation to insist otherwise.

You asked which firearms on the list people believe should not be on that list. I would say any that are reasonably used for lawful purposes. And especially any that are used to protect one's fundamental rights.

 

[McBell]

Wait... are you talking about the background section at the end (which isn't actually part of the regulation)?

You are correct.
The terms are not in the actual Regulation.
Good catch.

 

[McBell]

I think it is a stretch to suggest that the background and the contemporary commentary the record in enacting a law is not part of the regulation. Indeed this is something to which courts look explicitly when interpreting laws and in determining whether a law exceeds legal authority.

 

[Curious George]

View attachment 39583​

Again i think it is a stretch to say that it is not part of the regulation. And i explained why. Would you hold that courts will not use the regulatory impact statement when interpreting the regulation?

Would you hold that the courts interpretation of the regulation is not part of the regulation?

That words can be written, does not make it practically so.

 

[McBell]

Again i think it is a stretch to say that it is not part of the regulation. And i explained why. Would you hold that courts will not use the regulatory impact statement when interpreting the regulation?

Would you hold that the courts interpretation of the regulation is not part of the regulation?

That words can be written, does not make it practically so.

Seems your argument is with the Canadian Government...

No idea how it works in Canada, but the comment, analysis, interpretations, etc. are not part of the law here in the USA.
That is not to say that the comments, analysis, interpretations, etc. do not impact the enforcement of the laws, just that they are not part of the laws.

 

[Curious George]

Seems your argument is with the Canadian Government...

No idea how it works in Canada, but the comment, analysis, interpretations, etc. are not part of the law here in the USA.
That is not to say that the comments, analysis, interpretations, etc. do not impact the enforcement of the laws, just that they are not part of the laws.

I would disagree there too. In fact, i would say that because the record of a law is very much a part of the interpretation of a law, then it is part of the law, regardless of disclaimers in the portion that is supposedly disclaimed.

For instance, i could write in my employee handbook that "this is not a contract" but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Curious George]

Seems your argument is with the Canadian Government...

.

Lol, my argument tends to be with everyone, i shouldn't expect the Canadian government to be an exception. But don't let it bother you. I mean no offense, and won't take any offense if you do not want to pursue this particular facet of the discussion.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Silly? What do many mass-killers use? I think you are just being evasive on this. You probably see any infringement of the right to own what kind of weapons you want - within the law - as justifiable, even when many of them make it so much easier to kill innocent people. Any knife, or car, can kill a person. What kind of argument is that. Stop trying to bandy words about descriptions of weapons when you know the issue here. You, and many others are afraid of the creeping gun control, that would take your toys away, when actually what is needed is to take most of them away and then your country might become truly civilised.

Just trying to show how silly your statements and position are. Which by the way, doesn't take much.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[McBell]

The Canadian ban was for such weapons, and there isn't a legitimate reason for using them other than for killing humans.

Good thing the USA does not go by your notion of "legitimate".....

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.

Now you need to define "assault weapon"...
Or perhaps instead you can list weapons that are not "assault"?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The list has been posted, with thanks to @Mestemia .

Your question is one of "definitions," and definitions belong to humans. We have a number of ways of doing that. I could define, for example, the set of all even numbers (any number that is divisible by 2 {2,4,6...} or any "prime number" (divisible by itself and 1 only {1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,...}).

But sometimes forming a precise verbal definition isn't possible without actually providing the set itself, in its entirety. For example, the set of women Bob has ogled ({Amy, Anne, Bertha, Betty, Charlene...}. This is such an example: the set of all guns that the government of Canada wishes to deny Canadians private ownership. Now, since this set is in a law respecting Canada, and it is enacted by a government elected by Canadians, and since the majority of Canadians support the law, the government has the right to do it. Simple.

Of course. Your government can do whatever it wants. I was asking for it's definition of a 'military grade assault rifle was'. Of course no one knows. But it seems to me that must be explained before you come up with a list.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[McBell]

Of course. Your government can do whatever it wants. I was asking for it's definition of a 'military grade assault rifle was'. Of course no one knows. But it seems to me that must be explained before you come up with a list.

Good-Ole-Rebel

"military grade assault rifle" is not used in the regulation.
Nor is "military grade" or "assault rifle"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course. Your government can do whatever it wants. I was asking for it's definition of a 'military grade assault rifle was'. Of course no one knows. But it seems to me that must be explained before you come up with a list.

Good-Ole-Rebel

"military grade assault rifle" is not used in the regulation.
Nor is "military grade" or "assault rifle"

Exactly! Those terms that @Good-Ole-Rebel finds offensive were used by press organizations reporting what the government has done. For the government's part, it simply listed (actually, added to an existing list) a whole bunch of items that it didn't want the public to be able to possess.