I have read through this thread and I am still struggling as to what is a good/cogent argument for these assault-style guns guns to be still legal?
Here are some of the arguments made:
- Because Canadian’s current have this right, it ought not to be taken away: But, if that were to be the case, no rights, once given to people, ought be taken away! That doesn’t make sense. Smoking inside a plane (and restaurants etc. etc.) was a right that the smokers had at one point - But, that surely wasn’t reason enough to not ban smoking in public places, once the error of that “right” became apparent
- The assaults-style gun owners are law-abiding people who have gone through RCMP background checks: Yes, they are. But, so were the smokers who bought their cigarettes lawfully. Once the broader society decided (through democratic means) that those very lawful smokers couldn’t smoke inside an office building, that is the end of that. I fail to see what being law-abiding has to do with being allowed a certain activity that the society deems it ought not to allow. Take prostitution as another example. I would bet all sides on this Board would agree that it is a commercial activity (willing buyer/seller; consideration; etc. etc.) that ought be allowed to otherwise law-abiding fine people of this Board, but many jurisdictions simply do not.
- Trudeau is using NS shooting to further this cause, while the NS shooter got his guns illegally from the US: So what? Politicians do this all the time. They know that to pass/promote something that is otherwise controversial, they have to act while there is a emotional outrage arising from a recent incident. This is not limited to Trudeau. This happens every where (Take Trump’s so called immigration ban due to Covid-19, for example).
I can go on. But, my point simply is that if these assault-style guns are really intended for only one purpose (to kill people) and not really for hunting / recreational purposes, then I do not see why they ought not be banned? I submit they should be.
Here are some of the arguments made:
- Because Canadian’s current have this right, it ought not to be taken away: But, if that were to be the case, no rights, once given to people, ought be taken away! That doesn’t make sense. Smoking inside a plane (and restaurants etc. etc.) was a right that the smokers had at one point - But, that surely wasn’t reason enough to not ban smoking in public places, once the error of that “right” became apparent
- The assaults-style gun owners are law-abiding people who have gone through RCMP background checks: Yes, they are. But, so were the smokers who bought their cigarettes lawfully. Once the broader society decided (through democratic means) that those very lawful smokers couldn’t smoke inside an office building, that is the end of that. I fail to see what being law-abiding has to do with being allowed a certain activity that the society deems it ought not to allow. Take prostitution as another example. I would bet all sides on this Board would agree that it is a commercial activity (willing buyer/seller; consideration; etc. etc.) that ought be allowed to otherwise law-abiding fine people of this Board, but many jurisdictions simply do not.
- Trudeau is using NS shooting to further this cause, while the NS shooter got his guns illegally from the US: So what? Politicians do this all the time. They know that to pass/promote something that is otherwise controversial, they have to act while there is a emotional outrage arising from a recent incident. This is not limited to Trudeau. This happens every where (Take Trump’s so called immigration ban due to Covid-19, for example).
I can go on. But, my point simply is that if these assault-style guns are really intended for only one purpose (to kill people) and not really for hunting / recreational purposes, then I do not see why they ought not be banned? I submit they should be.
