Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
Similar to the above, anything that lowers quantity is a fantastic outcome in my books. So ya, if that analogy were applied back to the gun world, prohibiting certain types based on appearance sounds like a great idea. Let's start with the black ones.
|
How is the color or appearance of a firearm related to it's safety or risk to be used in a crime?
A better analogy is that you have two cars. Both go the same speed and have all the same features, but because one has a different name and usually comes in a different color, you need a special silence to drive it, it can only be driven in certain places and you essentially have to ask the government to use it every time.
No one would ever accept those kinds of restrictions on vehicles or anything in common circulation. But guns are fair game because the vast majority don't own them and have had an irrational sense of fear instilled into them by the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
The restrictions in Canada are largely put in place to decrease the users ability to use them to kill other people.
The kind of things you're talking about, silencers, shorter barrel lengths, etc.. Add nothing to a guns utility, unless your goal is to use them on people.
|
So by that reasoning, all the EU countries that allow their use for safety and for hunting are all wrong? Mind you, these are countries that generally have more restrictions than Canada. Not to mention that a suppressor doesn't work like they are portrayed in the movies. A suppressed rifle or handgun doesn't go "pfftt" and the db range is still in the same range as the sirens on emergency vehicles.