DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Nope, no double standard at all. Not one of the items you mention was designed to kill people.
So? The vast, vast majority aren't
used to kill people. As I have said before purpose doesn't matter, use does. It doesn't make sense to ban something that more than 99% of are used in such a manner that doesn't cause harm and that criminals will acquire dispite being prohibited from doing so.
There's a big difference between something designed to kill people and something designed else. If you're too thick/refuse to see the difference, then there's not much point in responding to you any longer.
If we have to register our cars (a tool not designed for killing people yet very capable of it), why not guns? Why are guns any more special than cars?
DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
If you wanted to own an battle tank or fighter jet or navy frigate, I'd feel the same way. Military weapons belong in the hands of the military, not civvies.
Except your examples aren't weapons. I don't have a problem with someone owning a CF-18 as long as they have the training and license to fly it.
I guess I better tell the CF that the Leo 2s they bought aren't weapons...if you were right then the CF would likely be the cheapest department to run, not the most expensive.
If you couldn't figure out that I'm talking about an ARMED battle tank, fighter jet or frigate, then you too are guilty of mis-reading/mis-interpreting what I wrote.
DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
I didn't think you wanted a discussion about registering everything that can kill a person if thrown at them. If that's the case, we'd pretty much have to register almost everything we own, from telephone books to pens to frying pans to you name it. Likewise, if we're going to talk about a registry for everything that could be used to commit a crime, then I'd guess that we'd spend 24 hours a day dealing with the bureaucracy of it.
DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Exactly my point. It is ludicrous to register every potentially deadly object even though knives are responsible for as many murders as guns are but we don't register them. There's a clear double standard here.
This argument is facetious to the point of absurdity.
How so? You are suggesting that guns should be heavily regulated because they can kill people, yet all those other objects can. Knives are responsible for as many deaths as firearms yet they aren't registered or regulated to the extent guns are. And for the record my main complaint with firearms registration is that the resources dedicated to it vastly out weigh its usefulness.
It's an absurd argument because you are saying that because we don't have a knife registry or a DVD player registry or insert item here registry, the gun registry should go too.
If you think that a police officer doesn't find the fact that the guy he just pulled over might have a firearm in his car useful (like say an RCMP officer pulling over James Roszko), then you have zero clue about law enforcement. That knowledge could easily save his life. Yes, 99.9% of people use guns responsibly, but the gun registry is for the other .1%.
Like it or lump it, laws are put in place to deal with anti-social members of our society. If you're as truly honest as you say you are, than your name on a government database shouldn't be a big deal, now should it?
DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Again, get one and prove me wrong.
Winning an internet argument isn't worth potentially getting arrested but I will share this
story from across the pond. The UK has stricter gun laws and doesn't share a border with the US. If it can happen there it can defiantly happen here.
I don't care about the US or the UK or Switzerland or Somalia. This is Canada and concerns an issue in Canada. If you can't stick to the topic, at least stop throwing out red herrings.
DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
We'll have to agree to disagree.
In other words you have no counter argument but don't want to concede the argument.
No, there's simply no point, because both our opinions are set on this issue and some stranger on the internet isn't going to change either of our minds.
DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
And here's another shocker, some whacko who has 18 5 round mags will have to reload a lot more often than someone with 3 30 round mags, meaning there are more chances to disarm said whacko. The 5 round mag rule is a good one IMHO.
First none of this addresses the actual point I raised that automatic weapons are no more dangerous than semi autos. How about sticking to the actual points raised instead of nitpicking one tiny and irrelevant point an entire paragraph of argument.
So please respond to the actual argument:
Lets say the shooter brought 90 rounds [sentence edited from original post to simplify and avoid tangent of mag size]. He could pick people off one by one on semi by either firing one round per target or double tapping or he could spray bullets hoping to hit something. With the bullets he brought he could kill 45 people by double tapping or 18 if he manages to limit his fire to sort aimed bursts of 5 round on auto (something your average school shooter probably wont have the disciple to do). Furthermore do you think most psychotic shooters/criminals are going to lay down several several grand for an automatic assault rifle when they could buy a semi auto rifle or pistol for a few hundred buck? There just doesn't seem to be enough benefit to make autos illegal.
Furthermore in this hypothetical scenario the shooter acquired automatic weapons at which time he would probably acquire larger mags to facilitate using auto.
Second many guns require the mag to be of a certain size to work with the gun. Such mags often just have something blocking them so they can't go past 5 or 10 rounds. If someone knew what they were doing it wouldn't be hard to remove the blockage. It also isn't that hard to make home made mags. All they are is a piece of sheet metal and a spring. Or do like most criminals and use smuggled weapons and mags.
Frankly, I don't see any point to your story. First off, I've never heard of any semi-auto assault rifle costing a few hundred bucks. Everything I've looked at (as recently as last year BTW) at a local firearms store costs somewhere in the area of $1000 at least. If, as you assume, a full auto assault rifle is several thousand bucks, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy a legit one and convert it right before you go on your crime spree?
Secondly, you might not see a benefit of making automatic weapons illegal, but I'd be willing to bet there's at least a few police officers who would. A ban/registry will never keep 100% of weapons out of the hands of criminals, but it will prevent many of them from getting them. Selling automatic assault rifles at Canadian Tire to every Tom, Dick and Harry simply makes it all that much easier for criminals to get them to commit crimes with. However, right now, if some jack off wants a full auto assault rifle to rob a bank, it will take him a lot of effort, money and risk to obtain one.
Yes, someone can probably convert a mag to hold the full 30 rounds. Just like someone can convert an assault rifle (in this case the 97-A) to full auto. That's the whole gist of this thread really. Things that can be converted should be banned / should not be banned.
DeBoom DeBoom:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Besides, if all you responsible gun owners are going hunting (or whatever you plan on doing) with assault rifles, why would you need more than 5 rounds?
Well if you are going to a range to shoot 120 rounds it is a lot easier to use 4 30 round mags than 24 5 round mags. Buy that many mags can be costly. The other alternative is waste time loading mags over and over again. Why should I have to waste my time and money so anti-gun people can have an illusionary sense of security? None of this stops someone who is planning on committing a crime going down to the States and buying a bunch of 30 round mags. Its a feel good measure and nothing more.
And once again you are asking the wrong question. The burden of proof should be on those advocating for the restrictions on what law abiding citizens can do and own to demonstrate the necessity of such restrictions.
So you need 30 round magazines because you are too lazy to reload at the range? Fuck, I was expecting a ludicrous answer, but not one that ludicrous.
Nothing stops one from driving to the US and buying crack/heroin/cocaine either, so should we make those drugs legal? Just because you can obtain illegal items in another locale doesn't mean we should change our laws one bit.
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
