Author Topic: Canada gunz  (Read 8185 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

guest78

  • Guest
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2020, 08:51:04 pm »
"hurr, durr" That must be a local trump promotion thing I guess? Keep those guns on the shelf "until you canpry them from my cold, dead, hands " type of thing?
No.  It means Trump has nothing to do with this, other than a means to deflect.  Not every topic is related to Trump.  You should try it sometime.
Agree Agree x 1 Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2020, 08:59:23 pm »
No.  It means Trump has nothing to do with this, other than a means to deflect.  Not every topic is related to Trump.  You should try it sometime.

Trump provides "targets" so to speak on a daily basis. Hard to ignore unless you like the taste of pablum. Especially now as he tries to ignore how he ignored the warnings about Corona.
Dislike Dislike x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2020, 09:00:58 pm »
Trump provides "targets" so to speak on a daily basis. Hard to ignore unless you like the taste of pablum. Especially now as he tries to ignore how he ignored the warnings about Corona.

Trump has nothing to do with this topic. Coronavirus has nothing to do with this topic.

"hurr, durr" That must be a local trump promotion thing I guess? Keep those guns on the shelf "until you canpry them from my cold, dead, hands " type of thing?

Shush. Grown-ups talking. Go play Animal Crossing or something.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #63 on: May 07, 2020, 09:04:17 pm »
Trump has nothing to do with this topic. Coronavirus has nothing to do with this topic.

Shush. Grown-ups talking. Go play Animal Crossing or something.

 -k

ah yeah, the grown ups. "Hurr, durr" Carry on.

I will admit though I have a tendency to bring my disgust for trump with me wherever I go. You'll get over it I'm sure.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 09:07:33 pm by Omni »

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #64 on: May 07, 2020, 09:10:36 pm »
ah yeah, the grown ups. "Hurr, durr" Carry on.

I will admit though I have a tendency to bring my disgust for trump with me wherever I go. You'll get over it I'm sure.

We wish you’d get over it, cuz it really doesn’t make for good debate/discussion about something like gun control in Canada when every f’kn post you make is about Trump.  You’re as bad of a one-trick pony as Shady. 
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #65 on: May 07, 2020, 09:16:50 pm »
Yes, in an attempt to avoid further mass shootings drastic measures should be taken.

How many mass shootings are we actually talking about? 

We hade the Quebec city mosque shooting. We had the Dawson College mass shooting. We had Ecole Polytechnique.   That's 3, over a span of 31 years, with a death toll of 21. Less than one person per year on average, starting with and including Ecole Polytechnique. Mass shootings in Canada are barely a statistical rounding error.

Was the Nova Scotia rampage a mass shooting?  They haven't given us the details yet, but I don't think it's actually a mass shooting. Based on the information they've provided, it sounds like a series of single-murder events at numerous crime scenes over a short span of time. I don't know that any of the crime scenes actually qualifies as a mass shooting.  Given it was committed with illegally obtained weapons, it's not a good argument for gun bans regardless.

You’re making stupid arguments again Wilber.  We can save many lives with sensible gun control and deal with deaths from other sources as well. 
We're already saving many lives with sensible gun control measures.

You're suggesting that we should try to save a minimal number of additional lives by moving to irrational gun control measures.

ETA:

This is also a bad argument when looking at the risk/reward or costs to society.  What’s it going to cost society to ban all cars vs ban guns (although, you still ignore the fact that virtually no one, and not this new gun control measure, bans all guns.  Not even close).

Now you're talking sense.

The government says they expect last week's gun ban to cost $600 million.  To prevent a minimal number of homicides.

The Squid-Style ban suggests we ban and buy-back the vast majority of Canadian firearms to prevent an even more tiny number of homicides.  The current ban/buyback plan is for 90,000 or so formerly Restricted long-guns (mostly AR-15 variants) plus an unknown additional number of Non-Restricted firearms (Ruger Mini-14 variants, M1a variants, Cx4, etc).   To expand that ban/buy-back to include every firearm that isn't a single-shot, you're talking about expanding it from a number that's in the range of possibly a few hundred thousand to a number that's well into the millions.  You're proposing a course of action that increases the cost from the government's estimate of $600 million by a factor of probably 20 or more.

Before you say "you can't put a price on a human life!" consider how many lives could be saved if that money was put to some more sensible use.

$600 million could buy an awful lot of Naloxone, for example. Just to name one possibility that in itself would save more Canadians than will die from mass shootings in our lifetimes.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #66 on: May 07, 2020, 09:21:09 pm »
No no, we should ban tanks.  Especially semi automatic tanks.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if semi automatic tanks were already banned in Canada.

We can't afford automatic or semi automatic tanks, they all have crash boxes.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #67 on: May 07, 2020, 09:25:57 pm »
We wish you’d get over it, cuz it really doesn’t make for good debate/discussion about something like gun control in Canada when every f’kn post you make is about Trump.  You’re as bad of a one-trick pony as Shady.

Who's "we" and "get over what"? Supportin' guns 'n trump are ya now? I'll carry on until I see some light at the end of the tunnel. Push your ignore button as you wish.
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #68 on: May 07, 2020, 09:29:26 pm »



How am I doing that when I said I think it’s important to reduce car deaths too?  Sounds like I want to reduce deaths from multiple sources.

Because you are only willing to act on one of them because of ideology and because it isn't your ox that is being gored.

You are saying life of a person who gets shot because of criminal action has more value than the person who gets run down in a cross walk by two N's street racing their Lambos, cause N's gotta have their Lambos and ICBC will even insure them.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #69 on: May 07, 2020, 09:39:47 pm »
How many mass shootings are we actually talking about? 

We hade the Quebec city mosque shooting. We had the Dawson College mass shooting. We had Ecole Polytechnique.   That's 3, over a span of 31 years, with a death toll of 21. Less than one person per year on average, starting with and including Ecole Polytechnique. Mass shootings in Canada are barely a statistical rounding error.

Was the Nova Scotia rampage a mass shooting?  They haven't given us the details yet, but I don't think it's actually a mass shooting. Based on the information they've provided, it sounds like a series of single-murder events at numerous crime scenes over a short span of time. I don't know that any of the crime scenes actually qualifies as a mass shooting.  Given it was committed with illegally obtained weapons, it's not a good argument for gun bans regardless.
We're already saving many lives with sensible gun control measures.

You're suggesting that we should try to save a minimal number of additional lives by moving to irrational gun control measures.

Now you're talking sense.

The government says they expect last week's gun ban to cost $600 million.  To prevent a minimal number of homicides.

The Squid-Style ban suggests we ban and buy-back the vast majority of Canadian firearms to prevent an even more tiny number of homicides.  The current ban/buyback plan is for 90,000 or so formerly Restricted long-guns (mostly AR-15 variants) plus an unknown additional number of Non-Restricted firearms (Ruger Mini-14 variants, M1a variants, Cx4, etc).   To expand that ban/buy-back to include every firearm that isn't a single-shot, you're talking about expanding it from a number that's in the range of possibly a few hundred thousand to a number that's well into the millions.  You're proposing a course of action that increases the cost from the government's estimate of $600 million by a factor of probably 20 or more.

Before you say "you can't put a price on a human life!" consider how many lives could be saved if that money was put to some more sensible use.

$600 million could buy an awful lot of Naloxone, for example. Just to name one possibility that in itself would save more Canadians than will die from mass shootings in our lifetimes.

 -k

I would agree that buying back guns is a bit of a waste of our dollars. The weirdos ain't gonna show up to that program. Let's just hope maybe restricting access to guns beyond hunting rifles will save lives.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #70 on: May 07, 2020, 10:19:47 pm »
Because you are only willing to act on one of them because of ideology and because it isn't your ox that is being gored.

You are saying life of a person who gets shot because of criminal action has more value than the person who gets run down in a cross walk by two N's street racing their Lambos, cause N's gotta have their Lambos and ICBC will even insure them.

N’s?

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #71 on: May 07, 2020, 10:25:12 pm »
N’s?

Those green N signs on the back of cars that indicate the driver doesn't have a real license yet.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #72 on: May 07, 2020, 11:04:28 pm »
How many mass shootings are we actually talking about? 

Enough that citizens are concerned and want the government to try and prevent this in the future.

Quote
The Squid-Style ban suggests we ban and buy-back the vast majority of Canadian firearms to prevent an even more tiny number of homicides.  The current ban/buyback plan is for 90,000 or so formerly Restricted long-guns (mostly AR-15 variants) plus an unknown additional number of Non-Restricted firearms (Ruger Mini-14 variants, M1a variants, Cx4, etc).   To expand that ban/buy-back to include every firearm that isn't a single-shot, you're talking about expanding it from a number that's in the range of possibly a few hundred thousand to a number that's well into the millions.  You're proposing a course of action that increases the cost from the government's estimate of $600 million by a factor of probably 20 or more.

Factor of 20?  Probably.  I have no idea.  $12 billion to get rid of most of the guns in Canada.  Seems like a lot I guess.  Let's do it over 10 years.  Not so bad.

Quote
 

Before you say "you can't put a price on a human life!" consider how many lives could be saved if that money was put to some more sensible use.

$600 million could buy an awful lot of Naloxone, for example. Just to name one possibility that in itself would save more Canadians than will die from mass shootings in our lifetimes.

 -k

You're giving a false dichotomy.  Let's do both. 



Question:  Do you think banning all handguns and any long gun with a magazine would save lives?  Would it still allow shooters to shoot, whether it's hunting or recreational shooting?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 11:11:58 pm by the_squid »

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #73 on: May 07, 2020, 11:09:57 pm »
Because you are only willing to act on one of them because of ideology and because it isn't your ox that is being gored.

You are saying life of a person who gets shot because of criminal action has more value than the person who gets run down in a cross walk by two N's street racing their Lambos, cause N's gotta have their Lambos and ICBC will even insure them.



No, once again you're putting words in my mouth...  again.  Stop straw-manning.

I said "let's do both".   ::)

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Canada gunz
« Reply #74 on: May 07, 2020, 11:21:47 pm »
Enough that citizens are concerned and want the government to try and prevent this in the future.

People are concerned, but should they be? There's a lot of hype about mass shootings, but they are incredibly rare in Canada. More Canadians die from lightning bolts than from mass shootings.

Factor of 20?  Probably.  I have no idea.  $12 billion to get rid of most of the guns in Canada.  Seems like a lot I guess.  Let's do it over 10 years.  Not so bad.

$12 billion to get rid of the *legal* guns in Canada. Not the ones that are used in the large majority of homicides.

I guess. Let's do that too.  You're giving a false dichotomy.

Question:  Do you think banning all handguns and any long gun with a magazine would save lives? 

Maybe a few, possibly.

Do you think that government money is unlimited? Do you think that given the enormous expense you're proposing vs the very minimal number of lives that might be saved, the money could be better spent in other ways?

What you're proposing is extremely expensive, extremely divisive, and there's no rational argument to suggest that it would result in much if any saving of lives.

Would it still allow shooters to shoot, whether it's hunting or recreational shooting?

I hope to live on an acreage in the hills someday. If I do, I hope that on the day I find a grizzly or cougar in my yard, I hope that I don't have to put my faith in a single-shot rifle.


 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City