6 ms·

They literally called it an "assault-style gun" ban. If that's not judging guns based on how scary they look then what would you call it?

WaxProlix 3y ago
Depends on what the content of the law was, I suppose, but you're not really addressing my point. Why did they say they wanted to ban these weapons? And why did standard capacity mags get banned around the same time? Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).
- evandale 3y ago
  I've never heard them come up with reasons beyond that they look scary .. which you're disputing but you don't seem to know why they banned them? I'm so confused now.
  - WaxProlix 3y ago
    You seem to be claiming that a specific law invoked scary aesthetics specifically. I obviously can't speak to that - I'm saying that I've seen other rationales given for firearm restrictions. It'd be weird if I did know what you were talking about, right?
    - evandale 3y ago
      I am claiming that because the government marketed it as a "assault-style gun" ban. It's not an assault rifle ban it's literally an "ASSAULT-STYLE GUN" ban. There is no such thing as an "assault-style gun". It's not a thing people say and it's not a type of gun you can buy. The word was invented by the Liberals for the marketing campaign the Liberals used to ban guns that look scary. Again, you are saying "no they're stated goal was X" but I've never heard them state that. You're going to have to show the receipts because I followed this closely and I have told you _exactly_ why they banned them - it's because of how they look.
      - WaxProlix 3y ago
        Which specific law are you referring to? What was the content of the law? You need to be more clear. Repeating the same talking point isn't going to get anywhere, and I can only reference the law(s) I'm familiar with. In Washington at least they were pretty clear that it was a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, exempting handguns. I think California, New York, and Illinois were roughly the same.
        evandale 3y ago
        You aren't even Canadian? Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about and arguing about this with Canadians who actually know what's going on up here? This isn't worth engaging anymore, go to google.com and search for "Canada assault style gun ban" to learn more.
        WaxProlix 3y ago
        There are gun control laws and increasing crackdown on liberties everywhere, not just Canada, and pressing you to mention the content of a law is still exactly what I'd do in the case of the Canadian weapons ban. Focusing on one sound bite is not productive.
        evandale 3y ago
        I mentioned the content of the law. I told you what the law is called. You can use Google and learn about it. Being ignorant, asking me questions, and then disputing the answers when you don't know what you're talking about is not productive. I gave you all the information you need to educate yourself, so leave me alone and stop arguing with me about it.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  One thing that all the guns you listed have in common is that they are all battle rifles or derived from battle rifles (very tenuously the M14 in the case of the mini 14). In other words they were designed to be given to young men in the military to shoot at other people. I don't particularly like the new gun rules, but I think that gun advocates do themselves a disfavour when they pretend that an SKS or G3 wasn't designed first and foremost as a military weapon. You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind. https://www.cabelas.ca/product/110383/chinese-sks-semi-automatic-rifle https://www.cabelas.ca/product/110383/chinese-sks-semi-autom...
  - WaxProlix 3y ago
    Yes, I agree. It's more about capabilities than aesthetics, despite what some gun folks would want to believe. Hence the magazine comment as well.
  - 15155 3y ago
    An M1 Garand was given to young men to shoot at other people. How does this argument hold water? If any military, anywhere, purchases your firearm design, it's now "too military" for the citizenry? Where is the line drawn? How many bayonet attacks have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      This is exactly the sort of argument I was talking about. An M1 Garand is a weapon that was designed and produced by the US military specifically with war usage (killing people) in mind. The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with rifles designed as weapons of war have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?". The answer is that there have been thousands. People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included). Pretending that an M1, or an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an M1 was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it. If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "too military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.

WaxProlix 3y ago

Depends on what the content of the law was, I suppose, but you're not really addressing my point. Why did they say they wanted to ban these weapons? And why did standard capacity mags get banned around the same time? Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).

evandale 3y ago
I've never heard them come up with reasons beyond that they look scary .. which you're disputing but you don't seem to know why they banned them? I'm so confused now.
- WaxProlix 3y ago
  You seem to be claiming that a specific law invoked scary aesthetics specifically. I obviously can't speak to that - I'm saying that I've seen other rationales given for firearm restrictions. It'd be weird if I did know what you were talking about, right?
  - evandale 3y ago
    I am claiming that because the government marketed it as a "assault-style gun" ban. It's not an assault rifle ban it's literally an "ASSAULT-STYLE GUN" ban. There is no such thing as an "assault-style gun". It's not a thing people say and it's not a type of gun you can buy. The word was invented by the Liberals for the marketing campaign the Liberals used to ban guns that look scary. Again, you are saying "no they're stated goal was X" but I've never heard them state that. You're going to have to show the receipts because I followed this closely and I have told you _exactly_ why they banned them - it's because of how they look.
    - WaxProlix 3y ago
      Which specific law are you referring to? What was the content of the law? You need to be more clear. Repeating the same talking point isn't going to get anywhere, and I can only reference the law(s) I'm familiar with. In Washington at least they were pretty clear that it was a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, exempting handguns. I think California, New York, and Illinois were roughly the same.
      - evandale 3y ago
        You aren't even Canadian? Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about and arguing about this with Canadians who actually know what's going on up here? This isn't worth engaging anymore, go to google.com and search for "Canada assault style gun ban" to learn more.
        WaxProlix 3y ago
        There are gun control laws and increasing crackdown on liberties everywhere, not just Canada, and pressing you to mention the content of a law is still exactly what I'd do in the case of the Canadian weapons ban. Focusing on one sound bite is not productive.
        evandale 3y ago
        I mentioned the content of the law. I told you what the law is called. You can use Google and learn about it. Being ignorant, asking me questions, and then disputing the answers when you don't know what you're talking about is not productive. I gave you all the information you need to educate yourself, so leave me alone and stop arguing with me about it.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
One thing that all the guns you listed have in common is that they are all battle rifles or derived from battle rifles (very tenuously the M14 in the case of the mini 14). In other words they were designed to be given to young men in the military to shoot at other people. I don't particularly like the new gun rules, but I think that gun advocates do themselves a disfavour when they pretend that an SKS or G3 wasn't designed first and foremost as a military weapon. You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind. https://www.cabelas.ca/product/110383/chinese-sks-semi-automatic-rifle https://www.cabelas.ca/product/110383/chinese-sks-semi-autom...
- WaxProlix 3y ago
  Yes, I agree. It's more about capabilities than aesthetics, despite what some gun folks would want to believe. Hence the magazine comment as well.
- 15155 3y ago
  An M1 Garand was given to young men to shoot at other people. How does this argument hold water? If any military, anywhere, purchases your firearm design, it's now "too military" for the citizenry? Where is the line drawn? How many bayonet attacks have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    This is exactly the sort of argument I was talking about. An M1 Garand is a weapon that was designed and produced by the US military specifically with war usage (killing people) in mind. The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with rifles designed as weapons of war have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?". The answer is that there have been thousands. People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included). Pretending that an M1, or an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an M1 was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it. If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "too military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.