https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/stuff-you-need-to-know/news/?message=50612
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well would you rather take the donald trump approach to such issues? Sounds like it. Head in the sand as I said.I guess if owning an assault rifle gives you a hard on you should go sign up for the military.
disregard.
No doubt some are both but I'm also quite sure you can be one without being the other. I'm thinking there will be a new class of anti-racist gun-nut armed against racist gun-nuts and I suppose there must be other sub-divisions of gun-nuts out there. What about anti-government gun-nuts and gun-nuts that work for governments? How do they manage to get along without blasting away at each other?
Don’t be ridiculous our laws are much different from the US. I don’t own or have any desire to own a gun but just because I don’t is no justification to have someone else’s form of recreation banned.
Don’t people know that there’s already a law against using a police officer’s gun to kill people. Regardless we shouldn’t be making law based on the looks of guns. But, as usual, this law is all about symbolism over substance. The PM needs to look like he’s doing something. And the PM needs to distract from his coronavirus response and the massive Trudeau new debt and recession.
Don’t people know that there’s already a law against using a police officer’s gun to kill people.
Regardless we shouldn’t be making law based on the looks of guns. But, as usual, this law is all about symbolism over substance. The PM needs to look like he’s doing something. And the PM needs to distract from his coronavirus response and the massive Trudeau new debt and recession.
It's not "the looks of guns" that's important. If you had to reload the gun after each shot then a lot of people would still be alive. Probably wouldn't have a great impact on the number of deer shot for food.Get it?
Except no one’s form of recreation is being banned. They can switch to recreating with a legal gun. Problem solved.The automatic weapons ban prevents someone’s preferred competition, I’m sure... so why wouldn’t we allow automatic weapons?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun_competition
. So let’s get rid of cars that can do more than 100 kph and can reach it in less than ten seconds. No one needs them except first responders and they kill a lot more people than firearms in this country.Full auto weapons have never been legal in Canada and have been illegal in the US since 1986.
No. When the style of a weapon is used as a reason to ban it, you’re talking about looks. Style is not function. The PM needs to stop the referencing of “assault-style” weapons. It’s a meaningless term made up by people who don’t know which end of a gun to point with.
Sorry Wilber... you won’t distract me by comparing guns to cars. It’s a bad argument and also dishonest. A car’s purpose isn’t to kill things, while a gun’s is. Lowering death by both these things is a good thing. I’m not against doing things to lower car deaths. The biggest thing that would help is to train drivers better.But I am also not for banning all guns. You just created ANOTHER straw-man out of my argument. As long as you keep arguing against something I never said, I am going to keep reminding you not to and dismissing your arguments out of hand because that debate tactic is dishonest.