3 ms·

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

by 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.
- 15155 3y ago
  All firearms are designed to kill: none are designed to wound. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or home defense. What defines "weapon of war?" Quit intentionally hand-waving with this "designed specifically for killing human beings" garbage - what does this mean in technical, industry terms rather than circular terms? In the United States, Miller explicitly stated you only have a right to own things of military value (expanded in 2008 (Heller), 2016 (Caetano), 2022 (Bruen) but this was decided almost 100 years ago.) > then legislators will come up with functional criteria Let's write some! What would that criteria look like? The 1994 AWB and every similar state statute written since use cosmetic features. Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    The Second Amendment, Heller, Caetano and Bruen are all completely irrelevant in Canada. Canada does not have anything like the Second Amendment, and Americans may be shocked to learn that US law has no relevance to Canadian weapons laws or this conversation. Owning and operating a gun in Canada is a privilege, not a right, and a supermajority of Canadians support more gun control in various polls. Less than 6% of eligible Canadians are licensed, so, for the most part, most Canadians don't really care if they clamp down hard on gun ownership. Largely, Canadians think American gun culture is absolutely insane. > What defines "weapon of war?" I already defined it, but to be clear: A weapon originally designed for the military market, or one derived from such a model. We can also include any gun designed for the police market, or for the self-defense market. If the primary design intentions was killing humans, then it shouldn't be allowed. They are inferior tools for the allowed uses of guns in Canada, and they are a fetish item for deranged individuals and the type of gun culture that isn't welcome in Canada. This doesn't have to be the only criteria. As far as functional criteria lets start from first principles. The allowed uses of guns in Canada are: hunting, target shooting, and protection from wild animals. So for rifles: Single shot bolt action allows you to hunt and target shoot, a rifle is a poor choice for defense against a charging animal, if your aim is so poor that you need to spray bullets in a panic use pepper spray instead like the other 94% of the population. The sale and transfer of handguns is already prohibited, but if it wasn't: You don't hunt with a handgun, they are less effective than bear spray for defense, and for target shooting, you don't need anything more than a single shot 22. Shotguns: Hunting, target shooting, and animal defense can all be done with a double barrel. So any break action gun, and any pump action with a capacity limit of 2. > Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)? Historical precedent is that American gun law is completely irrelevant north of the border. My criteria pass the test.

by 15155 3y ago

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.

15155 3y ago
All firearms are designed to kill: none are designed to wound. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or home defense. What defines "weapon of war?" Quit intentionally hand-waving with this "designed specifically for killing human beings" garbage - what does this mean in technical, industry terms rather than circular terms? In the United States, Miller explicitly stated you only have a right to own things of military value (expanded in 2008 (Heller), 2016 (Caetano), 2022 (Bruen) but this was decided almost 100 years ago.) > then legislators will come up with functional criteria Let's write some! What would that criteria look like? The 1994 AWB and every similar state statute written since use cosmetic features. Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  The Second Amendment, Heller, Caetano and Bruen are all completely irrelevant in Canada. Canada does not have anything like the Second Amendment, and Americans may be shocked to learn that US law has no relevance to Canadian weapons laws or this conversation. Owning and operating a gun in Canada is a privilege, not a right, and a supermajority of Canadians support more gun control in various polls. Less than 6% of eligible Canadians are licensed, so, for the most part, most Canadians don't really care if they clamp down hard on gun ownership. Largely, Canadians think American gun culture is absolutely insane. > What defines "weapon of war?" I already defined it, but to be clear: A weapon originally designed for the military market, or one derived from such a model. We can also include any gun designed for the police market, or for the self-defense market. If the primary design intentions was killing humans, then it shouldn't be allowed. They are inferior tools for the allowed uses of guns in Canada, and they are a fetish item for deranged individuals and the type of gun culture that isn't welcome in Canada. This doesn't have to be the only criteria. As far as functional criteria lets start from first principles. The allowed uses of guns in Canada are: hunting, target shooting, and protection from wild animals. So for rifles: Single shot bolt action allows you to hunt and target shoot, a rifle is a poor choice for defense against a charging animal, if your aim is so poor that you need to spray bullets in a panic use pepper spray instead like the other 94% of the population. The sale and transfer of handguns is already prohibited, but if it wasn't: You don't hunt with a handgun, they are less effective than bear spray for defense, and for target shooting, you don't need anything more than a single shot 22. Shotguns: Hunting, target shooting, and animal defense can all be done with a double barrel. So any break action gun, and any pump action with a capacity limit of 2. > Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)? Historical precedent is that American gun law is completely irrelevant north of the border. My criteria pass the test.