They literally called it an "assault-style gun" ban. If that's not judging guns based on how scary they look then what would you call it?
Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).
I'm so confused now.
Again, you are saying "no they're stated goal was X" but I've never heard them state that. You're going to have to show the receipts because I followed this closely and I have told you _exactly_ why they banned them - it's because of how they look.
Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about and arguing about this with Canadians who actually know what's going on up here? This isn't worth engaging anymore, go to google.com and search for "Canada assault style gun ban" to learn more.
Being ignorant, asking me questions, and then disputing the answers when you don't know what you're talking about is not productive. I gave you all the information you need to educate yourself, so leave me alone and stop arguing with me about it.
In other words they were designed to be given to young men in the military to shoot at other people.
I don't particularly like the new gun rules, but I think that gun advocates do themselves a disfavour when they pretend that an SKS or G3 wasn't designed first and foremost as a military weapon.
You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind. https://www.cabelas.ca/product/110383/chinese-sks-semi-autom...
How does this argument hold water? If any military, anywhere, purchases your firearm design, it's now "too military" for the citizenry? Where is the line drawn?
How many bayonet attacks have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?
An M1 Garand is a weapon that was designed and produced by the US military specifically with war usage (killing people) in mind.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with rifles designed as weapons of war have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an M1, or an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an M1 was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "too military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.
What defines "weapon of war?"
Quit intentionally hand-waving with this "designed specifically for killing human beings" garbage - what does this mean in technical, industry terms rather than circular terms?
In the United States, Miller explicitly stated you only have a right to own things of military value (expanded in 2008 (Heller), 2016 (Caetano), 2022 (Bruen) but this was decided almost 100 years ago.)
> then legislators will come up with functional criteria
Let's write some! What would that criteria look like? The 1994 AWB and every similar state statute written since use cosmetic features.
Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
> What defines "weapon of war?"
I already defined it, but to be clear: A weapon originally designed for the military market, or one derived from such a model. We can also include any gun designed for the police market, or for the self-defense market. If the primary design intentions was killing humans, then it shouldn't be allowed. They are inferior tools for the allowed uses of guns in Canada, and they are a fetish item for deranged individuals and the type of gun culture that isn't welcome in Canada. This doesn't have to be the only criteria.
As far as functional criteria lets start from first principles. The allowed uses of guns in Canada are: hunting, target shooting, and protection from wild animals. So for rifles: Single shot bolt action allows you to hunt and target shoot, a rifle is a poor choice for defense against a charging animal, if your aim is so poor that you need to spray bullets in a panic use pepper spray instead like the other 94% of the population. The sale and transfer of handguns is already prohibited, but if it wasn't: You don't hunt with a handgun, they are less effective than bear spray for defense, and for target shooting, you don't need anything more than a single shot 22. Shotguns: Hunting, target shooting, and animal defense can all be done with a double barrel. So any break action gun, and any pump action with a capacity limit of 2.
> Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
Historical precedent is that American gun law is completely irrelevant north of the border. My criteria pass the test.
I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences?
You seem to think that "designed" is important but is that a material difference by itself? If so, how does that work? Is that true for anything else? (There's a lot of cross-over between other outdoor equipment, such as vehicle drive systems, clothing, and shelter, so ....)
If it's that the intent results in other differences, what are they?
It's not the ammunition. It's not how the gun functions. (Yes, the SKS is supposed to be more tolerant of rough handling than most guns, but the AR-15 is less tolerant.) Surely it's not appearance....
Yes, people tend to shoot back, but what material difference in gun design/function is a consequence of that?
You contrasted deer hunting with shooting people, but how are they appreciably different at the same distance? (The obvious difference, that the military prefers wounds to deaths, works against your conclusion.)
.223, which is what the AR-15 shoots, isn't legal for deer hunting in some jurisdictions because it isn't powerful enough. 7.62x39, which is what the SKS shoots, usually is legal for deer, because it is roughly equivalent to the ancient 30-30. However, typical deer rifles are significantly more powerful. (Of course, people do hunt things other than deer.)
You seem to think that a bayonet is important, but are bayonetings a problem? If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? Does that difference persist after the bayonet is removed? If so, how? (I ask because the first thing that most people do with an SKS is to remove the bayonet.)
From family history, you can't shoot a rifle well during a flat out four mile cavalry charge on machine guns, but you can sling a rifle and hold a bayonet.
https://anzac100.initiatives.qld.gov.au/remember/battle-of-b...
For one, I can stab someone in close quarters with a bayonet. It is a feature designed specifically with killing humans in mind. A bayonet has no legitimate or legal use in recreational hunting or shooting. It makes the weapon less useful for legitimate purposes if only as a weight penalty.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with guns designed specifically as human killing weapons have happened?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an SKS was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.