Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

Something was not just 'banned'. It was purchased and removed from general circulation. There are no doubt a small number hidden in various locations but they are not being widely used in any sort of crime and none have been used in mass shootings - because the small number of people who would commit that type of crime haven't to date been able to access one.

And please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said assault rifles will cease to exist, a small number could at some time be smuggled into the country - to date there doesn't seem to be much of a black market but it could happen. Point is, the ban has kept the number of these weapons low enough to prevent their use in mass shootings. Much as you may dislike it that is a fact.

 

In their graves, dead is dead regardless of the weapon used.

 

And thus, you DO rely on correlation as your proof.

 

Correlation is a scientifically valid methodology, once it h as been substantiated (which it has in this case) - look it up if you don't believe me. And I note you consistently refuse, despite repeated requests to do so to outline an opposing explanation of the the lack of shooting incidents.

 

Agreed. But as I said before I have been trying to correct a misrepresentation of the facts. Which was the ban hasn't worked here. The facts show that within the limits I outlined it has, so far - for certain unique reasons. Doesn't mean it will work perfectly, forever because as I stated previously no law does. Doesn't mean it will work as well elsewhere either, just here and now, so far.

 

And fact. Because my observation re; the ban concurs with reality - no mass shootings with assault rifles . A fact you still stubbornly refuse to address despite repeated opportunities to do so. If my explanation is so wrong - whats yours? And simply parroting 'correlation is not proof' is not an answer. Anyone taking that route has to offer an alternate explanation that would mean the correlation is potentially invalid.

 

The asian punk that killed 32 students at Virginia Tech didn't have an "assault rifle". He had a 9mm glock and a Walther .22. Both "assault" pistols.
The two punk shooters had a semi-auto rifle, a semi-auto pistol, two shot guns and 99 bombs. With all that in a busy High School, they produced 13 dead students.
Point is that it doesn't take an AR-15 to do a mass killing.
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. It is used all over America for many, many different tasks, hunting, target shooting, and home defense among them.
And you want to ban just AR's and those similar to them, even though craized shooters have a slew of alternatives that will do just as good of a "job" than an AR.
Gun-grabbers make no sense when coming up with your "common sense" gun laws.

 

Sigh. If you had read my previous posts you would realize I wasn't advocating firearm confiscation laws in the US or anywhere else. I am also perfectly aware that hand guns were used in a greater number of such crimes in the US than long arms.

What I am trying to do is correct a misleading statement made about the historical ban on assault rifle style weapons enacted here in 1996. A statement was made that it hadn't worked. I simply pointed out that there had been no assault rifles used in mass shootings in Australia since the ban was imposed - this is a plain simple fact.

I also pointed out that the Australia's situation at the time was different to other countries and that while the ban had been successful (so far) in preventing there use there was no guarantee such a ban would be as effective if imposed elsewhere. Finally I noted that no law is perfect and that 'perfect safety' is an impossibility, so while the ban does greatly reduce the likelihood of such a shooting occurring again it is not a guarantee there will never be another one. The issue being one of harm reduction not elimination.

So no, I'm not a 'gun grabber'. People want to debate gun control? fine, I just want the debates to be as factual and honest as possible.

 

Correlation never, ever, proves causation.
Never.
Ever.
And you have nothing else.

Because -you- have the burden of proof; I need not do anything to disprove your premise in any way.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat a post hoc fallacy, it remains a post hoc fallacy.

 

Wrong - causation. You have now repeatedly stated a countervailing premise i.e. that the ban had nothing to do the absence of deaths via assault rifles. Well man up and state your own explanation for the lack of such deaths. If the ban has nothing to do with there must be one. And while your state your counter premise to my statement 'you cant use what you don't have'.

I have put my premise forward wheres yours? There has to be an explanation for that absence of deaths, what is it? Go say something.

But you won't, will you? I'll get reply back, you'll just hide behind the excuse that you don't have to and the lack of deaths just 'is'. Brilliant debating style BTW, 'it just is. That works for every topic on the forum, and it certainly saves you the time needed to do any original thinking or research.

 

So if a dentist removes a bad tooth and your pain ends. The statement 'removing the tooth removed the cause of the pain' is a Pot Hoc fallacy? Therefore (under the special conditions applying here at the time), removing that type of firearm from the population followed directly by an absence of deaths involving those firearms (a fact) is also a Post Hoc Fallacy?

Again if you believe a stated premise is wrong and you say so the onus swings to you to point out other possible solutions to the point in contention. If you have one then the relationship I noted in my argument may just be correlation and nothing else. But just shouting Post Hoc all the time because you have no other answer doesn't cut it and never will.

 

Correlation does not prove causation.
It does not matter how much you disagree.

No. I said you have not proven your premise, because causation does not prove causation.

Burden of proof rests entirely with you, and your post hoc fallacy does not meet it.

 

I'm sorry you don;t the fact you cannot support your premise with anything more than a post hoc fallacy, but there's nothing I can do about it.

 

Your right, there is nothing you can do about it.

You can't offer an alternate counter explanation, or countervailing theory. (Even worse you refuse to do so.) You can't explain how anyone can use something they don't have and you obviously can't debate, because you don't engage in it despite be offered repeated opportunities to do so.

You might of noticed that all the other posters who thought I was promoting the idea that gun bans work in general have dropped out because they seem to have understood my position. That's because they 'get' the very narrow circumstances under which I framed my argument. That and the fact I wasn't insisting that a ban would work elsewhere. But you can't get that either apparently.

O'h and I'll save you the effort of replying. Here's you're 'go to' reply whenever you don't have an argument.

Post Hoc.

 

That the burden of proof is on you, I need do no such thing.
Your "proof" is simple correlation - which proves nothing.
Repeating yourself does not change this.

 

Worked how?

The Aussies had draconian firearm confiscation, not just what gun-grabbers consider "assault" weapons. Your comparison is odious at best.
Anything else you're using in this discussion is just semantics issues. Meaningless.

 

So, Canada elected a Tyrant....who is now disarming them.....and that's being celebrated?
OH the Irony !!

When was the last time Canada was attacked by a foreign nation?
Next up....why not eliminate the Canadian military (all 50 soldiers) and REALLY REALLY make Canada a safer place. lol
Canada has less citizens than California. Their military couldn't stop a determined drug cartel. By disarming their citizens, they're easy pickings.
If the cartels are smart, they'll start operating through Canada.

Canada just declared war on every woman in it's territory by making sure that when a 220lb violent criminal comes knocking, he knows one thing for sure...she can't do a damn thing about it.
But then that makes sense since Justin doesn't really care for women.

 

Chopped, you can argue it was draconian and yes weapons other than assault rifles were subject to compulsory purchase (mostly pump action s/gs). Please understand however I am not arguing in support of the buy back, nor am I arguing against it. Right or wrong it happened and the results are now history. The point I have been trying to get across is that since it happened there have been no mass murders with assault rifles. Accepting this one point as fact (which it is) any debate about the merits or not of the buyback can go back and forward as people want.

Now certain people might not like the fact the ban appears to have worked over here up till now but that is not an excuse to lie and say it hasn't. No-body should get a free ride on this forum when it comes to using untruths to support their arguments. So if a pro-gun reformer jumped on this or any other firearm related thread and started using misinformation to support their case I would call them on those mistakes just as I did in this instance. Lastly, and I have said this repeatedly there is no guarantee any such scheme, if implemented somewhere else would work as well. My position on Canada's ban is simple. Its their country and their decision. Time time will tell if it works or not.

 

I delineated your comment...

...with the question, "Worked how?"
I guess you conveniently missed that one.

 

No. If you've ready any of my other posts I answered this question. The ban removed certain defined classes of firearm from the civilian market. Predominately semiautomatic rifles but certain other types as well. Since the date the new laws came into effect there have been no mass killings committed using assault rifles - that is the extent to which I noted had it worked, no more, no less.

Is this enough to justify the time/expense etc? You tell me. As I said I'm not singing the bans praises and I'm not condemning it, just pointing out that one part of the ban seems, to date at least to be working as the legislators intended. I wouldn't even have gone that far if someone hadn't claimed the ban hadn't worked at all.

 

I haven't expressed any opinion on Canada's ban Basic, one way or the other.

 

Wait... did you just concede that your correlation proves causation argument is flawed?
Why yes, yes you did.
Well done.

 

The 1994 "Assault" Firearm ban in this country, which was passed by congress and signed by the president on September 13, 1994, was quite extensive and covered a slew of firearms and firearm accoutrements.
Here's how it "worked" in April, 1999...



There were also two other mass shootings in Oregon and Arkansas in 1998 using banned "assault" weapons.

Your 1996 ban basically made it nearly impossible to own any firearm at all. It also took away most access to a firearm through a market for firearms. And you have to stand on your head while jumping through hoops to obtain a permit to even acquire a firearm. And, if a firearm is used in self defense of yourself or family - even in your own home, you will surely go to jail in most cases. It was essentially a firearm ban, not just an "assault" weapons ban. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of the piles of turned-in firearms.
It took more than an "assault" weapons ban for it to "work" there.
As I said, the ban also took away the power to defend oneself and/or others when the criminals come to do harm. How many did your "ban that worked" kill because it left the population defenseless?

 

Is it being committed by immigrants?