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

[oldbadger]

Also consider that a shotgun is not suitable for many owners due to physical limitation, low strength, small size and/or disabilities.

Garden gun, .410 with 2" cartridges, 20 bore, 16 bore or 12 bore with 2" cartrisges.....
There's a shotgun for many kinds of size, strength or disability.

 

[oldbadger]

Most firearm deaths in the US and Canada are due handguns.............

Most mass killings are due to fast-fire military type rifles.

 

[oldbadger]

............
................ Disarmed nations hope that their government wont turn against them. The US as per it's Constitution expects it. So which view aligns with reality more?

The US Constitution has a democratic election system.
Who would kill serving police, sheriffs, militia or military personnel serving the orders of an elected government?
That would be a form of terrorism to do that.

 

[Shad]

Garden gun, .410 with 2" cartridges, 20 bore, 16 bore or 12 bore with 2" cartrisges.....
There's a shotgun for many kinds of size, strength or disability.

Some people would be better off with a hand-gun when disabled. My point was general.

Likewise people can buy ammo for the ar15 which reduces risk.

Most mass killings are due to fast-fire military type rifles.

Define mass killing. By US standards it only requires more than 2 people. So that would make handguns the prime weapon.

 

[Shad]

The US Constitution has a democratic election system.

Yes and?

Who would kill serving police, sheriffs, militia or military personnel serving the orders of an elected government?

Depends on the order and the person with the weapon. I was just following orders is not an excuse too.

You know elected governments can turn on it's own population right? Look at the US's racial issues which often had the government using it's LEO to go after people for little cause.

Just to be clear I do not think the lockdown is something to revolt over at this time.

That would be a form of terrorism to do that.

Terrorism goes after the public not government. Government is considered a military target even in war.

 

[McBell]

Most mass killings are due to fast-fire military type rifles.

define "military type rifle"

 

[Mock Turtle]

I haven't live in the USA for a while. I did have a limited academic visa over a decade and a half ago.

No mistake in the Constitution.

Some of those weapons banned have the exact same caliber of rifles which are not banned.

FGM is different issue as it is about a child, their parents and their religion/culture.

Those all resulted in many of the culture issues I am talking about.

I forgotten no history. You want to use a point of disarmament and I pointed out how that worked out for many people in a certain world war. The government went along with it. The army went along with it. The regular population went along with it.

You start out like you do, then you finish as you do. You have clearly not understood my point of view.

I do not believe i have misunderstood or misinterpreted yours. Perhaps, reread my posts.

Cheers

You start out like you do, then you finish as you do. You have clearly not understood my point of view.

I do not believe i have misunderstood or misinterpreted yours. Perhaps, reread my posts.

Cheers

Since this is a all a bit pointless, I'll just leave this thought. One often can only assess the benefits of some actions long after the events, such that if the USA did become a more gun-free society, as so many others are, would it be a better society and would most people then prefer not to go back to what they previously had? All the rest just raises the temperature of discussions to no real purpose.

 

[oldbadger]

Some people would be better off with a hand-gun when disabled. My point was general.

Likewise people can buy ammo for the ar15 which reduces risk.



Define mass killing. By US standards it only requires more than 2 people. So that would make handguns the prime weapon.

I once read that mass killings are murders of four or more, but that might be incorrect.

Question. I mentioned 'garden gun' a tiny shotgun which was also called a 3 bore back on the day. I never did understand the term 3 bore because that would be a huge bore of shotgun. Do you know about these tiny little guns? Just interested, is all.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes and?
Depends on the order and the person with the weapon. I was just following orders is not an excuse too.
You know elected governments can turn on it's own population right? Look at the US's racial issues which often had the government using it's LEO to go after people for little cause.
Just to be clear I do not think the lockdown is something to revolt over at this time.
Terrorism goes after the public not government. Government is considered a military target even in war.

I can't split your post just now.
Let's be clear.
Just for instance, imagine a group of ring wing civilians who don't like a left wing elected government and its legislations. Or other way round. They are so upset with new laws passed that they refuse to obey them, finally shooting at police, sheriffs militia and military folks who are following orders. That's terrorism, not any kind of war.

We have had them on the UK in several attacks.

 

[oldbadger]

define "military type rifle"

No problem.
If military type is a confusion for you, just use fast-fire .

 

[Shad]

I once read that mass killings are murders of four or more, but that might be incorrect.

That is the FBI standard. In Congress it is 3 or more. For some police it is 2 or more. There is no legislated standard at the federal level. If using 2 or 3 and more handguns are the weapon of choice.

Question. I mentioned 'garden gun' a tiny shotgun which was also called a 3 bore back on the day. I never did understand the term 3 bore because that would be a huge bore of shotgun. Do you know about these tiny little guns? Just interested, is all.

The Garden Gun itself? No. We used .22 air rifles for small animals. For larger animals like feral dogs, coyotes and wolves we used a normal .22.

Just for instance, imagine a group of ring wing civilians who don't like a left wing elected government and its legislations. Or other way round. They are so upset with new laws passed that they refuse to obey them, finally shooting at police, sheriffs militia and military folks who are following orders. That's terrorism, not any kind of war.

Depends on the law still. Legislation is not automatically constitutional. Following illegal orders is not a defense. If the law were to say remove the right of people to vote based on nothing much like Southern States did those officials are oppressing their own citizens thus their legitimacy is void. If legislation were say a minor tax increase that is constitutional thus acts against officials would be terrorism.

Terrorism does not apply to military targets.

We have had them on the UK in several attacks.

Considering I have never heard of anything close to an unbearable legislation out of line with the constitutions there.

Keep in mind terrorism often is blurred when it divorced from government actions. Take Mandela for example

 

[McBell]

I once read that mass killings are murders of four or more, but that might be incorrect.

Question. I mentioned 'garden gun' a tiny shotgun which was also called a 3 bore back on the day. I never did understand the term 3 bore because that would be a huge bore of shotgun. Do you know about these tiny little guns? Just interested, is all.

Garden gun - Wikipedia

 

[McBell]

No problem.
If military type is a confusion for you, just use fast-fire .

Interesting.
The term is so confusing to you, you are completely unable to define it, but try in vain to turn it around claiming it is to difficult for me?

Let me guess, "fast fire" is also to difficult for you to define, right?


I sincerely hope you do not expect to be taken seriously.

 

[oldbadger]

That is the FBI standard. In Congress it is 3 or more. For some police it is 2 or more. There is no legislated standard at the federal level. If using 2 or 3 and more handguns are the weapon of choice.

Thanks for that info......

The Garden Gun itself? No. We used .22 air rifles for small animals. For larger animals like feral dogs, coyotes and wolves we used a normal .22.

Come to think of it I once saw a .22 shotgun...... smooth bore with tiny cartridges.
I remember now..... the Garden Gun was a 9mm shot.gun, although why we called it a 3 bore I have no idea.

Depends on the law still. Legislation is not automatically constitutional. Following illegal orders is not a defense. If the law were to say remove the right of people to vote based on nothing much like Southern States did those officials are oppressing their own citizens thus their legitimacy is void. If legislation were say a minor tax increase that is constitutional thus acts against officials would be terrorism.

I got that. But there was an Amendment to ban alcohol which lasted about a decade before democracy turned it around. I guess that could be an example of an unreasonable law that got reversed (eventually) by democracy.

Terrorism does not apply to military targets.

It must do if countryfolk are killing their own service men and women.

[/QUOTE] Keep in mind terrorism often is blurred when it divorced from government actions. Take Mandela for example[/QUOTE]
I cannot remember what Nelson Mandela actually did, or got convicted of. Would need to look that up.

 

[oldbadger]

Garden gun - Wikipedia

Yes...... thank you. I remembered that the most usual garden gun was 9mm and then saw this your post....... That the .22 shotgun was 7mm smooth bore, that I didn't know.

 

[oldbadger]

Interesting.
The term is so confusing to you, you are completely unable to define it, but try in vain to turn it around claiming it is to difficult for me?

Let me guess, "fast fire" is also to difficult for you to define, right?


I sincerely hope you do not expect to be taken seriously.

Well, yes.
I do............ you see, if folks want they can spin 'fast-fire' or 'military style' or 'assault rifle' all over the place, possibly in the hope of redirecting or slowing decisions. But Canada didn't do that it called the guns to be banned 'Military style', I think. And that has to be taken seriously.

I think New Zealand called them assault rifles....... but their new law has been taken very seriously.

In the UK such terms were not used. Guns that could fire more than three shots without reloading were banned. So semi-automatic shotguns were still legal, as long as their magazines could only hold two cartridges.

Different countries have used differing definitions, but all need to be taken seriously.

I think Taiwan banned assault rifles. Can't remember now.

 

[McBell]

Well, yes.
I do............ you see, if folks want they can spin 'fast-fire' or 'military style' or 'assault rifle' all over the place, possibly in the hope of redirecting or slowing decisions. But Canada didn't do that it called the guns to be banned 'Military style', I think. And that has to be taken seriously.

I think New Zealand called them assault rifles....... but their new law has been taken very seriously.

In the UK such terms were not used. Guns that could fire more than three shots without reloading were banned. So semi-automatic shotguns were still legal, as long as their magazines could only hold two cartridges.

Different countries have used differing definitions, but all need to be taken seriously.

I think Taiwan banned assault rifles. Can't remember now.

Given there is not a single agreed upon definition of the terms "assault rifle", "assault weapon", "fast fire", "military style", "military grade", etc. to use one of the terms means you need to define said term.

Instead of defining your generic could mean anything under the sun term, you claim it is to confusing for the reader...

Like I said, hope you are not expecting to be taken seriously.

 

[Shad]

Thanks for that info......

It makes things really confusing. Perhaps use of killing spree would be better as those typically involve not connection between shooter and victims.

Come to think of it I once saw a .22 shotgun...... smooth bore with tiny cartridges.
I remember now..... the Garden Gun was a 9mm shot.gun, although why we called it a 3 bore I have no idea.

Maybe the weapon used slugs as a primary ammo.

I got that. But there was an Amendment to ban alcohol which lasted about a decade before democracy turned it around. I guess that could be an example of an unreasonable law that got reversed (eventually) by democracy.

It was repealed was due economic and revenue losses. Firearms in the US is a constitutional issue regarding interpretation of "infringed". For one holding an absolute interpretation the government has already lost legitimacy.

It must do if countryfolk are killing their own service men and women.

Depending on the point of view those in service are traitors.

I cannot remember what Nelson Mandela actually did, or got convicted of. Would need to look that up.

His was a member of a militant political group that used violence against the State and civilians. However the point was more about the government of SA regarding if your or I as individuals believe it is legitimate. It is the freedom fighter or terrorist issue.

 

[Shad]

Well, yes.
I do............ you see, if folks want they can spin 'fast-fire' or 'military style' or 'assault rifle' all over the place, possibly in the hope of redirecting or slowing decisions. But Canada didn't do that it called the guns to be banned 'Military style', I think. And that has to be taken seriously.

I think New Zealand called them assault rifles....... but their new law has been taken very seriously.

In the UK such terms were not used. Guns that could fire more than three shots without reloading were banned. So semi-automatic shotguns were still legal, as long as their magazines could only hold two cartridges.

Different countries have used differing definitions, but all need to be taken seriously.

I think Taiwan banned assault rifles. Can't remember now.

The government of Canada has no definition. There is one person making that decision who is an appointee of Trudeau. Parliament was never involved. The whole ban was done using the Governor-General's position and Privy Council to issue an edict in the name of the Queen... Written by Trudeau's lackeys.. at the request of Trudeau. That's Canadian Democracy for you. Yes I am an anti-royalist. Now you see why.

 

[oldbadger]

Given there is not a single agreed upon definition of the terms "assault rifle", "assault weapon", "fast fire", "military style", "military grade", etc. to use one of the terms means you need to define said term.

Instead of defining your generic could mean anything under the sun term, you claim it is to confusing for the reader...

Like I said, hope you are not expecting to be taken seriously.

Well, I don't take you too seriously, to be honest.