TheGarbageStore t1_j07sjc5 wrote
Reply to comment by celtickerr in AFN votes to reject Ottawa’s gun-control bill, citing potential risk to treaty rights - National | Globalnews.ca by raider1v11
Neither hunting nor target shooting brings any benefit comparable with the societal negatives it also brings. There are ways to deter wildlife that do not require civilians being allowed to possess weapons.
Canada can crack down on both legally owned firearms and illegal firearm smuggling: that's a false dichotomy. It may cost money but a lot of desirable social programs do.
Your position is 100% unjustifiable.
celtickerr t1_j07uti8 wrote
How can you possibly hold the position that hunting holds no value. Hunting is a perfectly legitimate and sustainable way to feed oneself and one's family, regardless of wildlife conservation. Your position is untenable. Name one target shooter responsible for a homicide or violent crime. More people die playing hockey than are killed by target shooters or during target shooting accidents. There are in fact more target shooters in Canada than there are hockey players. There are over 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada and it annually contributes billions to the economy. Christ, more people die from drunk driving yet we don't ban alcohol because people like it.
>Canada can crack down on both legally owned firearms and illegal firearm smuggling: that's a false dichotomy.
It isn't a false dichotomy. Confiscating the lawfully obtained, legally used private property of 2 million Canadians, vs taking meaningful action to reduce the flow of illegal firearms into the country, are two totally separate issues, coming from the same budget. The Canadian government does not have limitless resources. Option one (confiscate guns) is incredibly expensive and will have a negligible effect at best on reducing firearms crime. Option two (increase border security) would be a moderately effective method to reduce the access to firearms for the criminal population. Option three (social supports) isn't even being discussed and would be the best bang for buck Option to address gang or domestic violence. It isn't a false dichotomy but we are dealing with scarce resources (tax dollars, police resources/manpower, pu lic service resources) to accomplish a stated goal. It would behoove the government to choose the most efficient option that doesn't involve forcibly removing property from 2 million Canadians.
TheGarbageStore t1_j08hfh8 wrote
Hunting holds no value: we have better ways for citizens to feed themselves and the sustainability is highly suspect. What you have to accept is that every gun death is a preventable death that didn't have to happen, and that there are plenty of legitimate pastimes people can engage in that do not require civilians to possess weapons.
I also don't think gun confiscation will really be all that expensive to implement.
celtickerr t1_j08hx49 wrote
>Hunting holds no value: we have better ways for citizens to feed themselves and the sustainability is highly suspect.
Ah yes, factory farming, so much better
TheGarbageStore t1_j08nqio wrote
Do you argue entirely with false dichotomies?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments