Reply #96: eh?

[iverglas]

You used to make fun of rkba types when they asked why the anti's...
"hated guns". You used to say that it was ridiculous to hate inanimate objects. That was you, wasn't it?

Well, if you embrace that kind of rhetoric now, so be it.

Alrighty. You have just spoken a banana.

I mean, if we're just going to start characterizing words spoken as anything we like, then yours are a banana.

Oh, well, I guess you're characterizing maybe "Crazy semi-auto assault rifle military bullshit type guns" as the "kind of rhetoric" that equates to "hating guns". Me, I'd characterize it as hyperbole. And no matter how literally it were taken -- as you went to such amusing lengths to try to do -- I would still fail to see how it could be characterizing as an expression of "hatred". I don't hate delusional people; do you?

So of course I'm failing to take your point. Except as an effort to represent something said as something it wasn't.


I didn't think you thought guns needed to be outlawed?

Really? After all the times I've stated my support for existing Canadian legislation and regulations on the subject?

I mean, assuming you aren't pretending never to have read what I've said on the subject, and also that you aren't pretending that my support for prohibitions on certain firearms can be characterized as support for "outlawing" all firearms, when you say you didn't think I thought guns needed to be outlawed.

English just does lend itself to equivocation sometimes, doesn't it? That sentence couldn't be translated into French, for instance, unless the translator already knew whether you were saying "all guns needed to be outlawed" or "some guns needed to be outlawed". So any equivocation that was actually intended would be a big flop in the translation.

Which ones would you like to see 'outlawed'?

Why don't you just try paying attention? You've been here two years now; you're not actually just jumping into an existing conversation with two big feet and demanding that the participants explain themselves to you. It really just is not my problem if you don't know what I've said, and I really do get bored to tears by such efforts to keep the conversation going in circles.

Oh look. I'm pretty sure you read this post, because you were rather active in the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119783

And oh look -- your post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119816
my post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119830

Let me save you the wear and tear on your pinkies:

You: And if gun safes fail -- the next step may be total ban, eh?

Me: You're right. If public safety cannot be ensured by permitting people to possess certain firearms subject to conditions (whether because the conditions are never adequate for the purpose or because it proves impossible to secure compliance with them), the only way to protect the public may be to cease permitting people to possess them.

The "certain firearms" under discussion were of course handguns -- which people are allowed to possess now, with few exceptions, only for sporting purposes if they are members of approved clubs or to hold as part of collections. I advocate removing the provision excepting "collectors" from the general prohibition on possession of handguns other than by shooting club members. (And I would also advocate prohibiting the possesion of handguns by those people off the club premises, the most determining reason being that too many of both groups have demonstrated their complete inability/refusal to comply with safe/secure storage rules and as a result their firearms have ended up being used to commit crimes and cause harm.)

Happy?

But I'm glad you would allow people to own long guns. Does that include semiauto rifles similar looking to the ones the military uses (except not full auto or burst fire!!!) as they are long guns too? Or do you want them 'outlawed'? Or restricted?

I have given the source for Canadian rules in this regard, which I support, and the rules themselves, on quite a few occasions. Use your gold star and do a search for my name and "canlii". In short: they already are. And I agree.

I didn't know that handguns were useless for hunting. I'll have to tell my friends who kill 300 lbs wild pigs with their handguns that good information. I wish you told me that sooner. Do you agree they are useless?

Oh, well, dear me. I guess my car isn't actually useless for getting me to the 7-11 on the corner, but I just might say call it that in a careless moment. Is a match useless for burning down the Empire State Building? Not really, eh?

However do Canadian outfitters stay in business?

http://www.jackhumeadventures.com/firearms.html

Guidelines for bringing firearms to Canada for hunting:

No handguns or fully automatic weapons allowed for hunting.
Clips are limited to five rounds.
Rifles must have min. barrel length of 470mm or 18.5 inches.

http://www.travelmanitoba.com/default.asp?page=95&node=531&menu=437

NOTE: use of hand guns for hunting purposes is specifically prohibited in all provinces under Canadian federal law.

I can't seem to figure out whether we have wild pigs up here ... other than members of a Cdn chapter of the controversial Wild Pigs police motorcycle club ...
http://www.sgrm.com/art36.htm

But I'm not quite sure what makes handguns particularly useful, let alone more useful than long arms, for shooting them. The non-cop variety, that is; I'd imagine that they're very useful indeed for shooting the cop variety.