2 years ago, Canada announced ban on 1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms

[Aldebaran]

Alrighty then!

Handguns: Canada proposes complete freeze on ownership

So now homeowners won't even have a handgun to defend themselves with, as so many of the anti-"assault rifle" people were saying was a more sensible option.
But I'm sure the gang members in Canada will line up outside police headquarters to turn in all their "assault rifles", and now their handguns as well. So homeowners will no longer have to worry.

 

[Jamdoc]

Has it already been mentioned that the Canadian Supreme Court confirmed back in 1993 that there is no legal right to bear arms of any kind?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/is-gun-ownership-a-legal-right-in-canada-1.2723893

Yeah I'm certainly glad I don't live in the DPRC (Democratic People's Republic of Canada)

Things will probably get worse for them as criminals will just have guns they smuggle in from the US, while your average Canadian will be helplessly disarmed.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why do we need 1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms?

They aren't "types", and they're not "assault style" either.
They are individual models of semi auto rifles made by different manufacturers. Calling them "types" is like calling a Chevy Cavalier or a Ford F-150 "types" of vehicles. They are "make and model".
Also, the term "assault rifle" is just a propaganda term used by the anti-gun crowd. It has no meaning.

 

[Jamdoc]

Now the people who were saying, "You don't need a high capacity semiauto handgun that can rapidly kill 17 people anyway. All you need is a revolver!" will need to make up a new argument. Their accusations of "slippery slope fallacy" have just gone down in flames.
First, Trudeau just wanted to ban military-style rifles.
Then, he bans all semiauto rifles.
Now, he bans all handguns.
We saw it coming, but they didn't want to listen.

Slippery slopes are often touted as logical fallacies.
Instead, they often become terrain features.

I used to drink the kool aid regarding homosexuals wanting marriage.
I should have listened to the pastors saying they'd reach for pedophilia next.
When the LGBT+ community started targeting children for indoctrination... that was the last straw for me, I repented of my evil former position on the subject.
Unless they themselves can repent of their abominable position, I say "Let God Burn Them Quickly"

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah I'm certainly glad I don't live in the DPRC (Democratic People's Republic of Canada)

Things will probably get worse for them as criminals will just have guns they smuggle in from the US,

Maybe we should do something about our illegal gun traffic?

while your average Canadian will be helplessly disarmed.

They can always vote with their feet and move here... we love immigrants looking for work, amirite?

 

[Jamdoc]

Maybe we should do something about our illegal gun traffic?

Like they do with illegal drug traffic?
Liberals don't even want secure borders.

They can always vote with their feet and move here... we love immigrants looking for work, amirite?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Like they do with illegal drug traffic?
Liberals don't even want secure borders.

We'll see if Canada wants one -- they'll build a wall to keep the American criminal gun gun dealers out, and they'll make us pay for it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Canada only needs a wall to keep their own citizens in. Canadians who want firearm freedom will now have to escape their own country. And once again, America will be the safe haven they will seek to escape their own oppressive government.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Canada only needs a wall to keep their own citizens in. Canadians who want firearm freedom will now have to escape their own country.

Canada doesn't have a wall, so there's no need to escape.

And once again, America will be the safe haven they will seek to escape their own oppressive government.

Cool! Will we be locking them in cages and losing track of their children, or will we welcome them with open arms when they start taking jobs from citizens? (I mean, who wouldn't want a Canadian working for them?)

 

[Whyayeman]

Also by having a list; what stops manufactures from just renaming weapons?

The named weapons become illegal and must be handed in by the end of the amnesty period. Approximately 90,000 weapons are involved.

Renaming weapons to subvert the law is easily countered by adding the new weapon to the proscribed list. Easy!

(Well easy in nearly every country - next to impossible in America.)

 

[Aldebaran]

The named weapons become illegal and must be handed in by the end of the amnesty period. Approximately 90,000 weapons are involved.

Renaming weapons to subvert the law is easily countered by adding the new weapon to the proscribed list. Easy!

Very dictatorial.

(Well easy in nearly every country - next to impossible in America.)

That's how freedom is preserved here; by not allowing things to be banned simply by adding them onto a list on a whim.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

That's how freedom is preserved here; by not allowing things to be banned simply by adding them onto a list on a whim.

Like the freedom to enjoy chocolate!

Oh no wait, these are banned in the US sorry....

 

[Whyayeman]

Very dictatorial.

It is how laws are made in democracies. When laws are passed they do have authority - or they would not be laws! Another elected government can just as easily undo them.

You are confusing or conflating dictatorial fiat with the legitimate authority of a democratically elected government.

 

[Aldebaran]

It is how laws are made in democracies. When laws are passed they do have authority - or they would not be laws! Another elected government can just as easily undo them.

You are confusing or conflating dictatorial fiat with the legitimate authority of a democratically elected government.

Simply adding to a law after it has been passed to satisfy the whims of whoever is in power at the time is not how a law is made in a democracy.

 

[Whyayeman]

Simply adding to a law after it has been passed to satisfy the whims of whoever is in power at the time is not how a law is made in a democracy.

Not to satisfy the whims of a dictator - but to regulate responsibly and with the consent of the people - which is what has happened in Canada. But you are right in one respect (though rather obvious); governments do make laws. The legislature legislates.

Hand-guns were made illegal in the UK after the Dunblane massacre of school children and their teachers. All of them were required to be surrendered. This was not the dictatatorial whim of a crazed despot; the measure was widely approved and universally accepted. (Of course, the types of weapons Canada has listed have never been legal in the UK.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Culture is everything...not every country has the same culture with regards to certain things.

For instance, if you were to take a country that was predominately Muslim, and banned alcohol, you likely wouldn't get nearly as much backlash as you'd get in other countries.

If you look a the nearly dozen Islamic countries that banned alcohol in the 1970's (whose bans are still in effect to this day), it didn't create nearly the level of issues that the US saw when they tried prohibition.

I'd suggest that the same goes for guns...looking at the outcomes of countries that didn't have a "gun culture" isn't necessarily an accurate predictor of what would go down if such efforts were tried in a country that did have one.

I've always said, if the US is looking to find a good example country to model ourselves after with regards to guns, we should be looking to the Czech Republic, and not countries like UK/Canada/Australia.

The Czech Republic has found a way to maintain both gun freedoms (including the rights to conceal carry and an own an AR), while still boasting a very low murder rate that's on-par with Scandinavian countries.