Canadian Firearms owners need your help

[hawkgt]

Originally Posted by Oerets

So having a AR would stop this from happening again?

How?

No an AR would not have stopped this.
What does that have to do with anything

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by hawkgt

I'm not about to get into a spat with you over economic usefulness.
Yes firearms do not deliver your fruits and vegetables to your local corner store,nor do they transport you to your place of employment if you are employed
i'm not about to start searching for what Sporting Rifles add to the economy ,but it is substantial.The manufacturing of them.The added cost of maintenance,accessories.The people they employ etc,etc.The cost of travel,lodging to go to competitions
Also you must remember that many of these including ammunition are made in the good old USA

The issue, let's remember, is your suggestion that we'd need to ban cars and trucks because they can be used for mass murder too. I'm saying the problem with that is that cars and trucks don't merely have 'substantial' economic impact. Take away cars and trucks and the whole economy stops dead. We can bear the cost of banning especially-lethal guns though.

In the future, though, I imagine computer-controlled cars and trucks will be programmed to make weaponizing vehicles more difficult....

[donquixote99]

Also, the car and truck thing is like saying we shouldn't bother with heart bypass surgery because it doesn't cure cancer.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by hawkgt

No an AR would not have stopped this.
What does that have to do with anything

Refer to your post.....

Originally Posted by hawkgt

Apparently our government wants to push through a ban on what they term as Military Assualt Style Weapons using Order in Council.What Order in council means is they con implement this without consent from Parliament,Senate Public Debate etc.

I believe you were attempting to say a AR is needed for home defense. I was stating having a AR would change nothing in your example. Except more may have been killed!

[hawkgt]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Refer to your post.....



I believe you were attempting to say a AR is needed for home defense. I was stating having a AR would change nothing in your example. Except more may have been killed!

Show me where I said a AR is required for home defence.

[hawkgt]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The issue, let's remember, is your suggestion that we'd need to ban cars and trucks because they can be used for mass murder too. I'm saying the problem with that is that cars and trucks don't merely have 'substantial' economic impact. Take away cars and trucks and the whole economy stops dead. We can bear the cost of banning especially-lethal guns though.

In the future, though, I imagine computer-controlled cars and trucks will be programmed to make weaponizing vehicles more difficult....

I said maybe we should ban cars and trucks.I did not say need

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by hawkgt

Show me where I said a AR is required for home defence.

OK let see,
you start off talking about "Black Guns" "Military Style Assault Weapons" ban.

Then later state,

Originally Posted by hawkgt

Plus,the right to protect your property.Rural Crime has been a big issue here.Google it and it will tell you what rights the Rural Property Owners have.

Also,

Originally Posted by hawkgt

If I were to attempt to protect my family or home and injure the assailant I would be charged.
It seems here the criminals have more rights

Originally Posted by hawkgt

Fellow out West shot and killed someone and was charged. It was a long drawn out affair,with who knows what it cost him in lawyers fees.He was finally arraigned,and then our Gov't thought to step in and see what they could do to change the verdict.
Thre accused was Caucasian,the fellow shot was Native.He was on his property a,breaking into a vehicle and was warned.According to the testimony the shooting was accidental.There are lots of stories of this up here

So I was left with the assumption the two were connected in your argument. That "Black Guns" were in desperate need for protection of the citizens. Last I checked a AR fits the description of a military style assault weapon.

In closing if you are saying a AR or "Black Gun" is not needed for home defense then we both are in agreement.

[hawkgt]

Originally Posted by Oerets

OK let see,
you start off talking about "Black Guns" "Military Style Assault Weapons" ban.

Then later state,




Also,








So I was left with the assumption the two were connected in your argument. That "Black Guns" were in desperate need for protection of the citizens. Last I checked a AR fits the description of a military style assault weapon.

In closing if you are saying a AR or "Black Gun" is not needed for home defense then we both are in agreement.

Well think about what assume means.If I need to spell it out I will.No where did I state that a Black Gun be used for home defence.
I did say that Black Guns are used for competition and sport, no more.
I also said the mags are pinned to 5 rounds to be legally used in Canada.
So,no more of this high capacity mag stuff.
Maybe in the States ,but not here.
It appears that you people have a wonderful way of turning things around to meet your own desires

[Oerets]

I always figure one is loosing the argument if they invoke the ole ass u or me as a response.

Still see no need for the weapons described in the public domain. Self defense target practice in reality does not change my views in the least.

[hawkgt]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Also, the car and truck thing is like saying we shouldn't bother with heart bypass surgery because it doesn't cure cancer.

And thank you for that little tidbit
My wife has had two open heart surgeries.One to do a Mitral Split when she was in her late 30's.And approx 15 years later her Aortic Valve and Mitral Valve were replaced with mechanical valves
My Prostrate was removed last May.
The only similarities I can see here is that we both went under the knife and General Anaesthesia.Oh, and in all cases we drove to the Hospital