Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

canada.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 341 posts

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#261

Post by evandale »

WaxProlix wrote: post #99
evandale wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard them come up with reasons beyond that they look scary .. which you're disputing but you don't seem to know why they banned them? I'm so confused now.

You seem to be claiming that a specific law invoked scary aesthetics specifically. I obviously can't speak to that - I'm saying that I've seen other rationales given for firearm restrictions. It'd be weird if I did know what you were talking about, right?

I am claiming that because the government marketed it as a "assault-style gun" ban. It's not an assault rifle ban it's literally an "ASSAULT-STYLE GUN" ban. There is no such thing as an "assault-style gun". It's not a thing people say and it's not a type of gun you can buy. The word was invented by the Liberals for the marketing campaign the Liberals used to ban guns that look scary.

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.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#262

Post by firebat45 »

flir wrote: post #219
melevittfl wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but we can freely buy and eat chocolate Kinder eggs.

"Don't put small inedible things inside edible things" doesn't sound like a bad rule to me, to be honest.

OTOH, how many children got Kinder Eggs ~without~ knowing that there was a small plastic toy inside? That was kind of the whole gimmick.

Also, there have been 9 reported deaths worldwide that have been linked to choking on the toy inside a Kinder Egg. 7 Children in the US die ~every day~ from being shot. It seems pretty clear to me which one is a bigger issue.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#263

Post by firebat45 »

blindriver wrote: post #95
nonethewiser wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the gun control debate.

Except gun ownership is codified into the US Constitution. That’s why is impossible to get rid of, unfortunately.

And the Constitution is immutable, right? What would you even call a ratified change to the Constitution?

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#264

Post by firebat45 »

defrost wrote: post #128
loopdoend wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no legal right to gun ownership in Australia.

Complete utter nonsense - I'm an Australian gun owner, all legal. My neighbour here in the Australian wheatbelt enjoys ULR shooting at 5,000 yards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Perhaps you might like to do some actual fact checking before being utterly wrong in public? W.Aus Firearms Act 1973 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l... W.Aus Firearms Regulations 1974 (cur…

He only said there is no legal "right", not that gun ownership was completely illegal.

The point being, reasonable countries view gun ownership as a privilege that can be lost, instead of a right that cannot.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#265

Post by thsksbd »

AnarchismIsCool wrote: post #200
thsksbd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is you're from the GTA come to Pittsburgh. You're still close to family and friends and there's a tech scene (if you're into that)

OTOH, if you're from GTA come to Philadelphia. It's basically GTA but weirder and with more bicycle related chaos.

Haha.

Unfortunately I think Philly is more dysfunctional than GTA. Perhaps the greatest of American cities.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#266

Post by theultdev »

firebat45 wrote: post #264
defrost wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete utter nonsense - I'm an Australian gun owner, all legal. My neighbour here in the Australian wheatbelt enjoys ULR shooting at 5,000 yards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Perhaps you might like to do some actual fact checking before being utterly wrong in public? W.Aus Firearms Act 1973 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l... W.Aus Firearms Regulations 1974 (cur…

He only said there is no legal "right", not that gun ownership was completely illegal. The point being, reasonable countries view gun ownership as a privilege that can be lost, instead of a right that cannot.

Yeah don't want any pesky citizens or colonies standing up for themselves if we go full tyrant.

When in history did we ever need, oh wait...

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#267

Post by dghlsakjg »

15155 wrote: post #192
dghlsakjg wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that all the guns you listed have in common is that they are all battle rifles or derived from battle rifles (very tenuously the M14 in the case of the mini 14). 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 de…

An M1 Garand was given to young men to shoot at other people. 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?

This is exactly the sort of argument I was talking about.

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.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#268

Post by evandale »

neom wrote: post #114
dghlsakjg wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Deputy PM of Canada is a Harvard educated Rhodes scholar, wrote an international best-seller and was a correspondent for Financial Times, The Washington Post, and The Economist before joining Thomson Reuters as a managing director. Then she started her political career.

Chrystia Freeland PM, Mark Carney Deputy PM is a dream team for me. My sister dated Justin for a couple of years at McGill, imo he's a genuinely good guy, but I can't say I'd consider him a good leader.

I'm really really sorry but good people don't wear blackface costumes at the age of 29 years old.

They also don't assault women and apologize for being so forward because if they knew the victim was a reporter they wouldn't have assaulted them.

I have no idea how anyone can have a favourable opinion of Justin Trudeau. He's repeatedly been caught in racist or misogynistic behavior and it blows my mind the number of people who turn a blind eye to it and think he's different.

The way he handled Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott, and Celina Caesar-Chavannes speaks volumes of his character and what he really thinks of women. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. You can stand up on a podium and declare you're a feminist a million times but his actions repeatedly contradict that statement. He's no feminist and I don't think he cares about anything except for himself and his image.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#269

Post by dghlsakjg »

anamax wrote: post #195
dghlsakjg wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that all the guns you listed have in common is that they are all battle rifles or derived from battle rifles (very tenuously the M14 in the case of the mini 14). 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 de…

> 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. 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 oth…

> I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences?

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.

Re: Canadian government banning Flipper Zero to combat auto theft

#270

Post by flir »

firebat45 wrote: post #262
flir wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't put small inedible things inside edible things" doesn't sound like a bad rule to me, to be honest.

OTOH, how many children got Kinder Eggs ~without~ knowing that there was a small plastic toy inside? That was kind of the whole gimmick. Also, there have been 9 reported deaths worldwide that have been linked to choking on the toy inside a Kinder Egg. 7 Children in the US die ~every day~ from being shot. It seems pretty clear to me which one is a bigger issue.

Hey, I'm not American, I just wish our food adulteration laws were as comprehensive as theirs.
Post reply on HN