NationStates

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kubra wrote: Self defense is a piss-poor reason to carry a gun around here, m8.
The category of restricted is to keep range toys as range toys, minus handguns. On a range, there should be a sense of absolute freedom; less so on the average lethbridge denizens truck rack.

Is self-defense a piss-poor reason to keep a gun at home? Furthermore, what denotes a range toy? Why were AR-15s (pre-ban) range toys but not Tavors?

To the former, yes. Questions of how the law deals with self-defense aside, restricted firearms are a great way to make ones home *more* attractive to getting hit. To the latter, yeah yeah we get it, the difference between prohib and restricted is at times kafka-esque levels of abritrary. As I said: a good chunk of prohibs should probably be moved into restricted.

Kubra wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Is self-defense a piss-poor reason to keep a gun at home? Furthermore, what denotes a range toy? Why were AR-15s (pre-ban) range toys but not Tavors?

To the former, yes. Questions of how the law deals with self-defense aside, restricted firearms are a great way to make ones home *more* attractive to getting hit. To the latter, yeah yeah we get it, the difference between prohib and restricted is at times kafka-esque levels of abritrary. As I said: a good chunk of prohibs should probably be moved into restricted.

I think having a non-restricted shotgun or rifle at home for defensive purposes isn't an unreasonable thing to permit.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kubra wrote: To the former, yes. Questions of how the law deals with self-defense aside, restricted firearms are a great way to make ones home *more* attractive to getting hit. To the latter, yeah yeah we get it, the difference between prohib and restricted is at times kafka-esque levels of abritrary. As I said: a good chunk of prohibs should probably be moved into restricted.

I think having a non-restricted shotgun or rifle at home for defensive purposes isn't an unreasonable thing to permit.

You should not be defending your home with a non-restricted rifle. You're better off with a kitchen knife, quite frankly.
It's pretty unreasonable, insofar as it's justification is the same sort of media sensationalism that get's AR's banned.

Kubra wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:I think having a non-restricted shotgun or rifle at home for defensive purposes isn't an unreasonable thing to permit.

You should not be defending your home with a non-restricted rifle. You're better off with a kitchen knife, quite frankly.
It's pretty unreasonable, insofar as it's justification is the same sort of media sensationalism that get's AR's banned.

Mm, I guess we have a point of contention there.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kubra wrote: You should not be defending your home with a non-restricted rifle. You're better off with a kitchen knife, quite frankly.
It's pretty unreasonable, insofar as it's justification is the same sort of media sensationalism that get's AR's banned.

Mm, I guess we have a point of contention there.

With the former, or the latter?
If the latter, you do you, man. If the former, then we definitely have a problem.

Kubra wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Mm, I guess we have a point of contention there.

With the former, or the latter?
If the latter, you do you, man. If the former, then we definitely have a problem.

I'm just trying to figure out if you're taking the position on rifles not being suitable for home defense because of an actual innate flaw with such rifles and their capability for such a purpose, or whether because such usage and justification for said use cause further anti-gun rhetoric.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kubra wrote: With the former, or the latter?
If the latter, you do you, man. If the former, then we definitely have a problem.

I'm just trying to figure out if you're taking the position on rifles not being suitable for home defense because of an actual innate flaw with such rifles and their capability for such a purpose, or whether because such usage and justification for said use cause further anti-gun rhetoric.

Christ, the former, obviously. What, would *you* use a non-restricted rifle for home defense?
I ain't said shit about shotguns, because if one insists on "home defense" the non-restricted category has some decent options.

Kubra wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:I'm just trying to figure out if you're taking the position on rifles not being suitable for home defense because of an actual innate flaw with such rifles and their capability for such a purpose, or whether because such usage and justification for said use cause further anti-gun rhetoric.

Christ, the former, obviously. What, would *you* use a non-restricted rifle for home defense?

Me? I'd use my Mossberg 590A1 SPX. 00 Buckshot is wonderful in that regard.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kubra wrote: Christ, the former, obviously. What, would *you* use a non-restricted rifle for home defense?

Me? I'd use my Mossberg 590A1 SPX. 00 Buckshot is wonderful in that regard.

Not a rifle, and buckshot is already a red flag.

Kubra wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Me? I'd use my Mossberg 590A1 SPX. 00 Buckshot is wonderful in that regard.

Not a rifle, and buckshot is already a red flag.

I am well aware that it's not a rifle. Hence, why I answered with that. As for the buckshot, it is my hope that my racking of the shotgun is enough to deter any actual threat. I have no desire to actually fire my weapon unless I have absolutely no other choice but to do so.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kubra wrote: Not a rifle, and buckshot is already a red flag.

I am well aware that it's not a rifle. Hence, why I answered with that. As for the buckshot, it is my hope that my racking of the shotgun is enough to deter any actual threat. I have no desire to actually fire my weapon unless I have absolutely no other choice but to do so.

If a cartridge is chambered, there should be an expectation that it will be fired, and thus what happens if one fires should obviously be taken into account, man. Hence why you should not defend your home with a moist nugget, length aside.
While I don't really believe in the home defense argument, for god sakes just use bird shot if you insist. Folks will say "oh it's not enough to take down a determined attacker", but unless you live in a mansion with absurdly long hallways it'll fuck a dude up without fucking up your neighbours.

Kubra wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:I am well aware that it's not a rifle. Hence, why I answered with that. As for the buckshot, it is my hope that my racking of the shotgun is enough to deter any actual threat. I have no desire to actually fire my weapon unless I have absolutely no other choice but to do so.

If a cartridge is chambered, there should be an expectation that it will be fired, and thus what happens if one fires should obviously be taken into account, man. Hence why you should not defend your home with a moist nugget, length aside.
While I don't really believe in the home defense argument, for god sakes just use bird shot if you insist. Folks will say "oh it's not enough to take down a determined attacker", but unless you live in a mansion with absurdly long hallways it'll fuck a dude up without fucking up your neighbours.

I live in a rural area on my own lane. Overpenetration isn't really a concern.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kubra wrote: If a cartridge is chambered, there should be an expectation that it will be fired, and thus what happens if one fires should obviously be taken into account, man. Hence why you should not defend your home with a moist nugget, length aside.
While I don't really believe in the home defense argument, for god sakes just use bird shot if you insist. Folks will say "oh it's not enough to take down a determined attacker", but unless you live in a mansion with absurdly long hallways it'll fuck a dude up without fucking up your neighbours.

I live in a rural area on my own lane. Overpenetration isn't really a concern.

sure it is, because shot lodged in your drywall is shot not lodged in your fridge, and the dude is still visiting the mortician either way.

Kubra wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:I live in a rural area on my own lane. Overpenetration isn't really a concern.

sure it is, because shot lodged in your drywall is shot not lodged in your fridge, and the dude is still visiting the mortician either way.

Fair.

i feel like gun rights need to be updated and take a more modern context. Why are people allowed to buy military grade weaponry in the first place? If you're anti-regulation then fine, lets start selling tanks and nukes to private citizens. There needs to be a discussion to what is an acceptable amount of power to warrant self-defence. Theres this naive notion that gun laws dont stop criminals from attaining guns, but historically lax gun laws don't stop criminals from attaining guns either. Look no further than whats happening at the south and the lone shooters that pepper their news cycle every few months. And how some of these mass shooters simply got their weapons from people who procured it for them through legal means. Maybe redefine what a civilian rifle should be? Something that only has a certain amount of power, with up to a certain caliber, maybe nothing automatic or anything that can make the weapon automatic. It'll be hard when military grade weapons are already in circulation but there needs to a de-escalation of firepower in civilian self-defense weapons.

Trudeau's talking about how dysfunctional Parliament is

AKA we're going to lose the budget vote tomorrow and have an election in the next couple of months.

Shrillland wrote:Trudeau's talking about how dysfunctional Parliament is

AKA we're going to lose the budget vote tomorrow and have an election in the next couple of months.

oh good, i was thinking about giving the NDP a chance this time around. Admittedly Trudeau's been pretty good with the covid crisis but I feel like the NDP's focus on decriminalization of drugs and their focus on rehabilitation instead of incarceration was a stronger case than other parties.

Nevertopia wrote:

Shrillland wrote:Trudeau's talking about how dysfunctional Parliament is

AKA we're going to lose the budget vote tomorrow and have an election in the next couple of months.

oh good, i was thinking about giving the NDP a chance this time around. Admittedly Trudeau's been pretty good with the covid crisis but I feel like the NDP's focus on decriminalization of drugs and their focus on rehabilitation instead of incarceration was a stronger case than other parties.

Your lockdowns worked better than ours I'll concede, but not so sure about the efficacy of his attempt in the vaccine rollout.

Major-Tom wrote:

Nevertopia wrote:
oh good, i was thinking about giving the NDP a chance this time around. Admittedly Trudeau's been pretty good with the covid crisis but I feel like the NDP's focus on decriminalization of drugs and their focus on rehabilitation instead of incarceration was a stronger case than other parties.

Your lockdowns worked better than ours I'll concede, but not so sure about the efficacy of his attempt in the vaccine rollout.

Its hard to tell if there was anything trudeau couldve done better or if it was due to our vaccine production capabilities being gutted in the past. Although theres always room for improvement.

Nevertopia wrote:i feel like gun rights need to be updated and take a more modern context. Why are people allowed to buy military grade weaponry in the first place? If you're anti-regulation then fine, lets start selling tanks and nukes to private citizens. There needs to be a discussion to what is an acceptable amount of power to warrant self-defence. Theres this naive notion that gun laws dont stop criminals from attaining guns, but historically lax gun laws don't stop criminals from attaining guns either. Look no further than whats happening at the south and the lone shooters that pepper their news cycle every few months. And how some of these mass shooters simply got their weapons from people who procured it for them through legal means. Maybe redefine what a civilian rifle should be? Something that only has a certain amount of power, with up to a certain caliber, maybe nothing automatic or anything that can make the weapon automatic. It'll be hard when military grade weapons are already in circulation but there needs to a de-escalation of firepower in civilian self-defense weapons.

Name which automatic weapons or accessories that can make weapons function like automatics are for sale legally to civvies in Canada. Name this military grade weaponry that's supposedly available in Canada.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Nevertopia wrote:i feel like gun rights need to be updated and take a more modern context. Why are people allowed to buy military grade weaponry in the first place? If you're anti-regulation then fine, lets start selling tanks and nukes to private citizens. There needs to be a discussion to what is an acceptable amount of power to warrant self-defence. Theres this naive notion that gun laws dont stop criminals from attaining guns, but historically lax gun laws don't stop criminals from attaining guns either. Look no further than whats happening at the south and the lone shooters that pepper their news cycle every few months. And how some of these mass shooters simply got their weapons from people who procured it for them through legal means. Maybe redefine what a civilian rifle should be? Something that only has a certain amount of power, with up to a certain caliber, maybe nothing automatic or anything that can make the weapon automatic. It'll be hard when military grade weapons are already in circulation but there needs to a de-escalation of firepower in civilian self-defense weapons.

Name which automatic weapons or accessories that can make weapons function like automatics are for sale legally to civvies in Canada. Name this military grade weaponry that's supposedly available in Canada.

to what end? My argument is those tools shouldnt be available regardless.

Nevertopia wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Name which automatic weapons or accessories that can make weapons function like automatics are for sale legally to civvies in Canada. Name this military grade weaponry that's supposedly available in Canada.

to what end? My argument is those tools shouldnt be available regardless.

They aren't available to civilians at all here. Not legally.

In terms of illegal access it's not the hardest endeavour.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Nevertopia wrote:to what end? My argument is those tools shouldnt be available regardless.

They aren't available to civilians at all here. Not legally.

In terms of illegal access it's not the hardest endeavour.

well thats good! lets keep it up! Maybe we'll improve on mitigating illegal access next!

Nevertopia wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:They aren't available to civilians at all here. Not legally.

In terms of illegal access it's not the hardest endeavour.

well thats good! lets keep it up! Maybe we'll improve on mitigating illegal access next!

You already lost that battle, the entire world did tbh. Internet access and a printer more or less defeats gun control as a concept entirely.

Nevertopia wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:They aren't available to civilians at all here. Not legally.

In terms of illegal access it's not the hardest endeavour.

well thats good! lets keep it up! Maybe we'll improve on mitigating illegal access next!

Mitigating illegal access truly is impossible. Thanks to 3D printing technology advancements, a massively lowered expertise barrier for milling and machining apparatuses, the increasing sophistication of dark web deliveries, the monumental task of monitoring the porous border for well-concealed parts and firearms? Not happening.