this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
21 points (88.9% liked)

Canada

9553 readers
974 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Please point out any. I know there are models that fit European standards instead of North American, but they aren't arbitrarily banned because "they look scary."

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well not, I assumed you were not literally meaning they are banned because they "look scary"... I assumed a more rational interpretation like they "do not meet safety standards and/or do not meet environmental standards"

I will not find examples to fit your strawman

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not a strawman. I am all for gun safety, but the rifles that have been recently "prohibited" are simply models that "look scary" while their sporterized counterparts have had their classification unchanged.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok I guess it's time to be pedantic.

Please show me the part of the legislation that says the weapons are banned due to the fear their appearance may induce.

Or, are you willing to admit this is just your interpretation of a likely imperfect list the government came up with?

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago

That's not how legislation is typically written. Anyways, just because someone states their purpose doesn't mean that's actually their intentions. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I'm more than happy to support any measures which actually increase safety, but prohibiting these guns is just for show. Putting forward ineffective legislation like this wastes political capital which could have instead been used to actually make our society safer.