So, what you are telling us is that if the government wanted to be logical, reverse onus, the fact that you cannot be granted bail at a pre-trial hearing, should apply to other types of offences. It is not logical to do it for these offences. You seem to be saying that there are cases that are at least as troubling in terms of their severity.
You said that simply pointing a firearm would not trigger the reverse onus provision, just like assaults with a machete, making a semi-automatic weapon, etc. Did I understand you correctly? I would like you to come back to that. There are types of offences, just as troubling as the nine listed in the bill, for which reverse onus should perhaps have logically applied. But this is not the case.