• n2burns@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    Actually, not like gun laws because we don’t ban “scary looking” models of vehicles. In generally we don’t even ban provably deadlier models or limit their usage based on need. Any idiot can buy a jacked-up F150 and drive it on any public road.

    • Jhex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      are you crazy? there are TONS of models that are changed or cannot be sold in Canada due to a bunch of safety and environmental regulations

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 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.

    • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      We block new cars that have the wrong color indicator lights or the wrong color of seatbelt button. We block cars from other countries that don’t have a preset to have the headlights on.

      The jacked up F150 still has laws about its road worthiness, still can be taken off the road, especially if the operator does something stupid with it.

      Ya the more you talk about it the BETTER it sounds that we get more specific laws about guns just like cars.

      Lets add inspections when you cross provinces.

      Restrict its use if too loud.

      What if the operator shoots it too rapidly? Get a license revocation for a period of time maybe longer?

      Sounds perfect!