Canadian Politics Today

Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Gorgeous Graham on May 06, 2020, 12:12:25 pm


Title: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 06, 2020, 12:12:25 pm
Last thread was nuked. Talk about Canada guns n' legislation.

I don't disagree with the assault weapon ban, but I also don't think the government should be allowed to ban the ownership of private property of any kind without democratic legislation.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: guest78 on May 06, 2020, 12:17:00 pm
Last thread was nuked. Talk about Canada guns n' legislation.

I don't disagree with the assault weapon ban, but I also don't think the government should be allowed to ban the ownership of private property of any kind without democratic legislation.
Good point.  But what is the governmentís definition of an assault weapon?  And what is the difference between the terms they use, assault weapon vs assault-style weapon?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 06, 2020, 12:34:41 pm
I don't disagree with the assault weapon ban, but I also don't think the government should be allowed to ban the ownership of private property of any kind without democratic legislation.

surely you're not saying there's no supporting legislation - surely not, yes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcUpDssvhPU
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 06, 2020, 12:36:54 pm
Last thread was nuked. Talk about Canada guns n' legislation.

I don't disagree with the assault weapon ban, but I also don't think the government should be allowed to ban the ownership of private property of any kind without democratic legislation.

They are using regulations that are empowered by legislation that already exists.  Legislation that went through the democratic process.   

How do you think this actually works?  That the PM barks an order and the cops say ďHeil TrudeauĒ???    Now it may be that the action is challenged in court and is overturned for whatever reason, but your understanding of this seems to be based on some really naive understanding of how government works coming from some crappy sloganeering.

It reminds me of the ďguns donít kill people...Ē stupidity.  Evidence based on a slogan is junk.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 06, 2020, 04:39:32 pm
surely you're not saying there's no supporting legislation - surely not, yes?

Legislation that says a government can ban private property without a democratic vote isn't very good legislation.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 06, 2020, 04:45:30 pm
Now it may be that the action is challenged in court and is overturned for whatever reason, but your understanding of this seems to be based on some really naive understanding of how government works coming from some crappy sloganeering.

It reminds me of the ďguns donít kill people...Ē stupidity.  Evidence based on a slogan is junk.

Your assumptions are wrong yet again as per usual.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 06, 2020, 05:07:57 pm
Legislation that says a government can ban private property without a democratic vote isn't very good legislation.

It's not quite so "private" property when you use it to kill 22 people. Did they have to pry that private property from the murderers "cold, dead  hands"?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 06, 2020, 06:30:58 pm
Legislation that says a government can ban private property without a democratic vote isn't very good legislation.

You disagreeing with the legislation has no bearing on whether the legislation actually exists to do what they did.

Your assumptions are wrong yet again as per usual.

So your contention is that the government cannot regulate guns with existing legislation?  Based on what?  Be specific.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: eyeball on May 07, 2020, 01:44:56 am
Good point.  But what is the governmentís definition of an assault weapon?
I would have suggested a bolt-action rifle with no more capacity than a single round and outlawed everything else. But a little birdy over at MLW tells me rednecks will soon be gunning for my grandkids because they're Chinese so...I should probably be looking for something quite a bit deadlier.

Doesn't take much to turn a guy into a hard-boiled gun nut these days I guess.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 09:32:27 am
I would have suggested a bolt-action rifle with no more capacity than a single round and outlawed everything else. But a little birdy over at MLW tells me rednecks will soon be gunning for my grandkids because they're Chinese so...I should probably be looking for something quite a bit deadlier.

Doesn't take much to turn a guy into a hard-boiled gun nut these days I guess.

So the gun nutz are not only red necks but they're also racist? Yeah, makes sense. And we know one place to find 'em.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: bcsapper on May 07, 2020, 09:39:12 am
So the gun nutz are not only red necks but they're also racist? Yeah, makes sense. And we know one place to find 'em.

And they also want to protect their grandchildren, apparently.  Well, it seems reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 10:47:26 am
And they also want to protect their grandchildren, apparently.  Well, it seems reasonable to me.

Yes I guess you need some guns to protect your grandchildren from other people with guns. Seems reasonable to me....oh wait, this is not MLW. disregard.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 11:25:32 am
I would have suggested a bolt-action rifle with no more capacity than a single round and outlawed everything else.

Then you would have to buy back about 90% of the guns in the country.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 11:50:31 am
Then you would have to buy back about 90% of the guns in the country.

Fair enough. You wanna go hunt birds, get a 12 guage. Beasts, get a lever action .303. Nobody needs that 30 round AR-15 with a bump stock.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 11:58:56 am
Fair enough. You wanna go hunt birds, get a 12 guage. Beasts, get a lever action .303. Nobody needs that 30 round AR-15 with a bump stock.

When were 30 round AR-15's and bump stocks ever legal or even sold in Canada? It will be just as easy to get them from the US as it ever was.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 12:15:51 pm
Then you would have to buy back about 90% of the guns in the country.

Yes, in an attempt to avoid further mass shootings drastic measures should be taken.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 12:16:35 pm
When were 30 round AR-15's and bump stocks ever legal or even sold in Canada? It will be just as easy to get them from the US as it ever was.

Now there's a head in the sand approach if ever I heard one. I wonder if relatives/friends of 22 people in NS would be thinking of a different approach?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 12:19:01 pm
Now there's a head in the sand approach if ever I heard one. I wonder if relatives/friends of 22 people in NS would be thinking of a different approach?

True....   Iím in favour of increased border security to actually deal with the problem.   Less worrying about collecting taxes at the border and more emphasis on actual security.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 12:39:26 pm
Now there's a head in the sand approach if ever I heard one. I wonder if relatives/friends of 22 people in NS would be thinking of a different approach?

So you have no answer.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 12:41:26 pm
True....   Iím in favour of increased border security to actually deal with the problem.   Less worrying about collecting taxes at the border and more emphasis on actual security.

It will be as easy to stop guns coming over the border as it is drugs. Face it, we have the longest border in the world next to the gun happiest country in the world. We are not the UK, New Zealand or Australia.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 01:03:41 pm
It will be as easy to stop guns coming over the border as it is drugs. Face it, we have the longest border in the world next to the gun happiest country in the world. We are not the UK, New Zealand or Australia.

No one said it was easy or that weíre the UK.  Stop straw-manning my argument. 

We have a particularly bad problem with the USofA to our south.  Unfortunately, itís going to take resources and the problem will never go away with the border as it is.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 01:05:38 pm
So you have no answer.

Yep. Take guns off the shelf. Can't make it any simpler.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 01:51:34 pm
Yep. Take guns off the shelf. Can't make it any simpler.

How does that stop something that was never legal in Canada entering the country?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 01:59:49 pm
How does that stop something that was never legal in Canada entering the country?

Well would you rather take the donald trump approach to such issues? Sounds like it. Head in the sand as I said.
I guess if owning an assault rifle gives you a hard on you should go sign up for the military.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: guest78 on May 07, 2020, 02:32:13 pm
The grandstander in chief err Prime Minister was in such a rush to do something, he ended up banning a coffee company!  Bwaaahaaaa.  What a moron.

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 02:42:29 pm
The grandstander in chief err Prime Minister was in such a rush to do something, he ended up banning a coffee company!  Bwaaahaaaa.  What a moron.


Yes, it was certainly Trudeau himself who would have done that.   Probably on purpose too!  Was it a coffee company from Alberta??  WEXIT!
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 02:44:40 pm
Gun group launches court challenge.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/12-gauge-shotguns-firearms-charter-challenge-1.5559402

Quote
The group acknowledged it has "no guarantee of a win," given past legal rulings by the country's top court on firearms. In the 1993 R v. Hasselwander case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the firearms regime which banned automatic firearms.

"Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited," the court said.

Not likely to win....
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 02:47:10 pm
The grandstander in chief err Prime Minister was in such a rush to do something, he ended up banning a coffee company!  Bwaaahaaaa.  What a moron.

(Attachment Link)

Drawing at straws once again eh? This time stir strawz itr seems.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 03:54:44 pm
As suspected....   

Quote
Black Rifle Coffee Canada is located and operated in St. Albert, Alberta.

https://www.blackriflecoffee.ca/pages/about-us

#WEXIT
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: eyeball on May 07, 2020, 04:54:56 pm
So the gun nutz are not only red necks but they're also racist?
No doubt some are both but I'm also quite sure you can be one without being the other. I'm thinking there will be a new class of anti-racist gun-nut armed against racist gun-nuts and I suppose there must be other sub-divisions of gun-nuts out there.  What about anti-government gun-nuts and gun-nuts that work for governments?  How do they manage to get along without blasting away at each other?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 04:59:24 pm
Well would you rather take the donald trump approach to such issues? Sounds like it. Head in the sand as I said.
I guess if owning an assault rifle gives you a hard on you should go sign up for the military.

Donít be ridiculous  our laws are much different from the US. I donít own or have any desire to own a gun but just because I donít is no justification to have someone elseís form of recreation banned.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: bcsapper on May 07, 2020, 05:02:26 pm
disregard.

Haha, don't worry.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 05:04:43 pm
No doubt some are both but I'm also quite sure you can be one without being the other. I'm thinking there will be a new class of anti-racist gun-nut armed against racist gun-nuts and I suppose there must be other sub-divisions of gun-nuts out there.  What about anti-government gun-nuts and gun-nuts that work for governments?  How do they manage to get along without blasting away at each other?

I agree. I grew up in the woods, owned a gun, and used to hunt every now and then. Moved to the city and was happy to drop that Winchester off at the OPP station. If I wanted venison in downtown TO I could find it at a restaurant.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 05:06:54 pm
Donít be ridiculous  our laws are much different from the US. I donít own or have any desire to own a gun but just because I donít is no justification to have someone elseís form of recreation banned.

Except no oneís form of recreation is being banned.  They can switch to recreating with a legal gun.  Problem solved.

The automatic weapons ban prevents someoneís preferred competition, Iím sure...   so why wouldnít we allow automatic weapons?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun_competition
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: guest78 on May 07, 2020, 05:17:26 pm
Donít people know that thereís already a law against using a police officerís gun to kill people.  Regardless we shouldnít be making law based on the looks of guns.  But, as usual, this law is all about symbolism over substance.  The PM needs to look like heís doing something.  And the PM needs to distract from his coronavirus response and the massive Trudeau new debt and recession.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 05:23:42 pm
Donít people know that thereís already a law against using a police officerís gun to kill people.  Regardless we shouldnít be making law based on the looks of guns.  But, as usual, this law is all about symbolism over substance.  The PM needs to look like heís doing something.  And the PM needs to distract from his coronavirus response and the massive Trudeau new debt and recession.

It's not "the looks of guns" that's important. If you had to reload the gun after each shot then a lot of people would still be alive. Probably wouldn't have a great impact on the number of deer shot for food.

Get it?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 05:25:38 pm
Donít people know that thereís already a law against using a police officerís gun to kill people. 

You think most shootings happen by taking a copís gun and using it?  Wow...  thatís brilliant.  Cuz the Libs just banned ďtaking an officerís gunĒ...   ::)

Quote
Regardless we shouldnít be making law based on the looks of guns.  But, as usual, this law is all about symbolism over substance.  The PM needs to look like heís doing something.  And the PM needs to distract from his coronavirus response and the massive Trudeau new debt and recession.

Youíre right.  There needs to be much more substance to these things.  Bans that go way beyond how a gun looks.  Your CoronaVrirus stuff is just idiotic.  I donít think anything is distracting anyone from the pandemic. 
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 05:26:46 pm
It's not "the looks of guns" that's important. If you had to reload the gun after each shot then a lot of people would still be alive. Probably wouldn't have a great impact on the number of deer shot for food.

Get it?

Thatís not what this ban is at all.  It is mostly about the looks of the gun.  Also a bit about the ease of use, I suppose, but not really.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 05:31:52 pm
Except no oneís form of recreation is being banned.  They can switch to recreating with a legal gun.  Problem solved.

The automatic weapons ban prevents someoneís preferred competition, Iím sure...   so why wouldnít we allow automatic weapons?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun_competition
.

So letís get rid of cars that can do more than 100 kph and can reach it in less than ten seconds. No one needs them except first responders and they kill a lot more people than firearms in this country.

Full auto weapons have never been legal in Canada and have been illegal in the US since 1986.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: guest78 on May 07, 2020, 05:33:15 pm
It's not "the looks of guns" that's important. If you had to reload the gun after each shot then a lot of people would still be alive. Probably wouldn't have a great impact on the number of deer shot for food.

Get it?
No.  When the style of a weapon is used as a reason to ban it, youíre talking about looks.  Style is not function.  The PM needs to stop the referencing of ďassault-styleĒ weapons.  Itís a meaningless term made up by people who donít know which end of a gun to point with.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: guest78 on May 07, 2020, 05:36:12 pm
.

So letís get rid of cars that can do more than 100 kph and can reach it in less than ten seconds. No one needs them except first responders and they kill a lot more people than firearms in this country.

Full auto weapons have never been legal in Canada and have been illegal in the US since 1986.
Good point.  Look at all the lives that could be saved.  More lives in a year than any mass shootings.  Why arenít cigarettes and cigars banned too?  They cause tens of thousands of deaths each year.  Maybe more.  And nobody needs cigarettes or cigars.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 05:40:27 pm
No.  When the style of a weapon is used as a reason to ban it, youíre talking about looks.  Style is not function.  The PM needs to stop the referencing of ďassault-styleĒ weapons.  Itís a meaningless term made up by people who donít know which end of a gun to point with.

"Assault style weapons" were designed to be used in a war zone were you needed to kill a lot of people who had the same guns who were trying to kill you. Why the **** do you think we need them in Toronto for example?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 05:43:06 pm
.

So letís get rid of cars that can do more than 100 kph and can reach it in less than ten seconds. No one needs them except first responders and they kill a lot more people than firearms in this country.

Full auto weapons have never been legal in Canada and have been illegal in the US since 1986.

Sorry Wilber...  you wonít distract me by comparing guns to cars.  Itís a bad argument and also dishonest.  A carís purpose isnít to kill things, while a gunís is.  Lowering death by both these things is a good thing.  Iím not against doing things to lower car deaths.  The biggest thing that would help is to train drivers better.

But I am also not for banning all guns.  You just created ANOTHER straw-man out of my argument.  As long as you keep arguing against something I never said, I am going to keep reminding you not to and dismissing your arguments out of hand because that debate tactic is dishonest.

Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 05:46:29 pm
While we are at it, letís get rid of recreation boats that can go faster than 50 kph, thatís plenty fast enough for skiing, tubing or wakeboarding. Get rid of all PWCís because they are just irritating as hell.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 05:49:05 pm
Sorry Wilber...  you wonít distract me by comparing guns to cars.  Itís a bad argument and also dishonest.  A carís purpose isnít to kill things, while a gunís is.  Lowering death by both these things is a good thing.  Iím not against doing things to lower car deaths.  The biggest thing that would help is to train drivers better.

But I am also not for banning all guns.  You just created ANOTHER straw-man out of my argument.  As long as you keep arguing against something I never said, I am going to keep reminding you not to and dismissing your arguments out of hand because that debate tactic is dishonest.

Not all cars, just the ones we donít need and produce a much higher body count than firearms.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 05:50:22 pm
While we are at it, letís get rid of recreation boats that can go faster than 50 kph, thatís plenty fast enough for skiing, tubing or wakeboarding. Get rid of all PWCís because they are just irritating as hell.

Youíre making stupid arguments again Wilber.  We can save many lives with sensible gun control and deal with deaths from other sources as well. 

One isnít tied to the other.  Why do you think one needs to be tied to the other?

Itís the same stupid argument that the people against a shut down for the pandemic argued...   Cars kill WAY more people than COVID-19.  Letís ban cars too! 

Itís a  lazy and stupid argument without nuance and thought behind it.

ETA:

This is also a bad argument when looking at the risk/reward or costs to society.  Whatís 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).
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 06:01:04 pm
Youíre making stupid arguments again Wilber.  We can save many lives with sensible gun control and deal with deaths from other sources as well.  Ok

One isnít tied to the other.  Why do you think one needs to be tied to the other?

Itís the same stupid argument that the people against a shut down for the pandemic argued...   Cars kill WAY more people than COVID-19.  Letís ban cars too! 

Itís a  lazy and stupid argument without nuance and thought behind it.

Back attcha. You are saying ban semi auto guns because no one needs them so why not ban everything we donít need that kills people. You are putting a value on peopleís lives according to how they died.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 06:07:29 pm
You are saying ban semi auto guns because no one needs them...

I didnít say it was ďbecause no one needs themĒ. 

I said it would make mass shooting more difficult while still maintaining peopleís ability to hunt and shoot for sport. 

Iíve also never said that we will ever get deaths down to zero.  Itís about a compromise between reducing the potential carnage as much as possible while still acknowledging that people do need to use guns to hunt and for sport shooting, although I put far less value on the sport shooting, as it is strictly recreation.  They could easily use air guns to do exactly the same thing.  That canít be said for hunting.

...so why not ban everything we donít need that kills people.


Because thatís an unworkable, unrealistic, overly-simplistic viewpoint. 

It would be like saying ďwell since guns kill people, why donít we just allow automatic weapons and bazookas tooĒ?


Quote
You are putting a value on peopleís lives according to how they died.

How am I doing that when I said I think itís important to reduce car deaths too?  Sounds like I want to reduce deaths from multiple sources.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: bcsapper on May 07, 2020, 07:01:53 pm
Not all cars, just the ones we donít need and produce a much higher body count than firearms.

I can see that.  No-one needs more than a Corolla, anyway.  The lives saved would be far more than any gun ban.  And while we're at it, ATVs and snowmobiles, too.  They kill a lot of kids.

Air pollution would be reduced, which is also a killer, and the climate change people will approve too.

There's no downside!
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 07:40:11 pm
I can see that.  No-one needs more than a Corolla, anyway.  The lives saved would be far more than any gun ban.  And while we're at it, ATVs and snowmobiles, too.  They kill a lot of kids.

Air pollution would be reduced, which is also a killer, and the climate change people will approve too.

There's no downside!

A nine and a ten year old were killed last weekend near Chilliwack when a family in an ATV went off a road into a lake.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 07:59:38 pm
A nine and a ten year old were killed last weekend near Chilliwack when a family in an ATV went off a road into a lake.

Your devilís advocate routine would work if it wasnít such a brain dead argument.  Keep trying though.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: bcsapper on May 07, 2020, 08:01:08 pm
A nine and a ten year old were killed last weekend near Chilliwack when a family in an ATV went off a road into a lake.

Yeah, avoidable tragedies.  At least it's not a brain dead argument.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 08:03:06 pm
Yeah, avoidable tragedies.  At least it's not a brain dead argument.

Should we allow tanks?  Heck, we allow guns and cars...  they kill people by the thousands.  Why not tanks?  I bet they wouldnít kill as many people as guns and cars...
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: bcsapper on May 07, 2020, 08:05:38 pm
Should we allow tanks?  Heck, we allow guns and cars...  they kill people by the thousands.  Why not tanks?  I bet they wouldnít kill as many people as guns and cars...

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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 07, 2020, 08:11:17 pm
Yep. Take guns off the shelf. Can't make it any simpler.

Not a single one of the Nova Scotia killer's guns was purchased "off the shelf".

Well would you rather take the donald trump approach to such issues? Sounds like it. Head in the sand as I said.
I guess if owning an assault rifle gives you a hard on you should go sign up for the military.

"hurrr durr!  Dunald Trump1!!"


 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 07, 2020, 08:20:02 pm
Yes, it was certainly Trudeau himself who would have done that.   Probably on purpose too!  Was it a coffee company from Alberta??  WEXIT!

Don't you think banning a coffee company shows that they didn't put as much thought into this as they'd like you to think?

As suspected....   

https://www.blackriflecoffee.ca/pages/about-us

#WEXIT

Oh okay. It was an Alberta coffee company so that makes it not stupid?

Perhaps the caffeination levels were found to be "military grade".

Perhaps they found that the Keurig Cups had a diameter larger than 20mm.

Perhaps they found that the coffee had an energy of over 10,000 Joules per cup.

"This coffee was designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to caffeinate as many people as possible as a quickly as possible."

"Canadians deserve more than caffeine and prayers."




 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 07, 2020, 08:24:47 pm
Don't you think banning a coffee company shows that they didn't put as much thought into this as they'd like you to think?

Oh okay. It was an Alberta coffee company so that makes it not stupid?

Perhaps the caffeination levels were found to be "military grade".

Perhaps they found that the Keurig Cups had a diameter larger than 20mm.

Perhaps they found that the coffee had an energy of over 10,000 Joules per cup.

"This coffee was designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to caffeinate as many people as possible as a quickly as possible."

"Canadians deserve more than caffeine and prayers."




 -k

I never claimed they put ANY thought into it.  I said earlier that this is mostly optics, maybe addresses a bit of the easy to use assault-style guns but doesn’t go nearly far enough to actually prevent deaths.  I may have called it a good start.

If they went with the Squid Gun-Safety Plan, there would be a more well thought out plan to ban handguns and to ban anything other than single-shot rifles and a ban on pump action shotguns.  People could still kill things and shoot bullseyes.   Just not as quickly.

Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 07, 2020, 08:28:04 pm
Should we allow tanks?  Heck, we allow guns and cars...  they kill people by the thousands.  Why not tanks?  I bet they wouldnít kill as many people as guns and cars...

Well, luckily they did ban the Soviet M-42 anti-tank gun (http://), which as you may know was involved in the mass shootings of many Nazis during World War 2.
(https://i.imgur.com/cTD5Ndy.jpg)

I know that all Canadians will breathe easier knowing that the government has taken action to stop the epidemic of M-42 shootings in Canada!

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 07, 2020, 08:29:58 pm
I never claimed they put ANY thought into it.

We agree on that much.

I said earlier that this is mostly optics,

We agree on that as well.

maybe addresses a bit of the easy to use assault-style guns but doesnít go nearly far enough to actually prevent deaths.  I may have called it a good start.

If they went with the Squid Gun-Safety Plan, there would be a more well thought out plan to ban handguns and to ban anything other than single-shot rifles and a ban on pump action shotguns.  People could still kill things and shoot bullseyes.   Just not as quickly.

I'll get to this shortly.

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 08:42:46 pm
Not a single one of the Nova Scotia killer's guns was purchased "off the shelf".

"hurrr durr!  Dunald Trump1!!"


 -k

"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?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: guest78 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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni 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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy 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
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni 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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect 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 youíd get over it, cuz it really doesnít make for good debate/discussion about something like gun control in Canada when every fíkn post you make is about Trump.  Youíre as bad of a one-trick pony as Shady. 
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy 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.

Youíre 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.  Whatís 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
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber 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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 09:25:57 pm
We wish youíd get over it, cuz it really doesnít make for good debate/discussion about something like gun control in Canada when every fíkn post you make is about Trump.  Youíre 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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 09:29:26 pm



How am I doing that when I said I think itís 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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni 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.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect 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.

Nís?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 10:25:12 pm
Nís?

Those green N signs on the back of cars that indicate the driver doesn't have a real license yet.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect 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?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect 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".   ::)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy 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
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2020, 11:26:37 pm


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

I said "let's do both".   ::)

So why are you only advocating getting rid of guns? I'm not in favour of getting rid of high performance vehicles but I think if one wants to use one, they should have to demonstrate competency and have a license that is endorsed to use one. In BC a person with a novice license can insure and drive a 500+ hp vehicle capable of doing over 200 MPH. That is a lot more insane than a person who has been properly vetted and examined owning a firearm.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 07, 2020, 11:37:31 pm
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.

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

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.

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

Hopefully you're a better shot by the time you get there, but if not, how long do you think it will take to crank a new round into that .303? Not very long and your aim will be much better than an AR 15 which jumps around every time you pull the trigger. Believe me, I know.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 07, 2020, 11:44:57 pm
Hopefully you're a better shot by the time you get there, but if not, how long do you think it will take to crank a new round into that .303? Not very long and your aim will be much better than an AR 15 which jumps around every time you pull the trigger. Believe me, I know.

yes yes tell us again about the time you burned your fingers on your AR-15, Walter Mitty.

It's not legal to use an AR-15 or any other Restricted rifle anywhere outside a registered shooting range, and it hasn't been for decades.

I don't own one, never have had one, and never intended to. 

Also those little cartridges very powerful and aren't suitable for shooting bear, or anything else larger than a human. 

Also those little cartridges generate very little recoil, which makes me think you must have arms like overcooked spaghetti if it jumps around while you're shooting it.  Go ahead, flex your little pipe-cleaner arms for us, Commando-Man.

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 08, 2020, 12:01:55 am
... by moving to irrational gun control measures.

I'll ask again - what supposedly "rational" uses of assault style firearms will be curtailed by this latest most sensible gun control measure?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 08, 2020, 12:04:36 am
yes yes tell us again about the time you burned your fingers on your AR-15, Walter Mitty.

It's not legal to use an AR-15 or any other Restricted rifle anywhere outside a registered shooting range, and it hasn't been for decades.

I don't own one, never have had one, and never intended to. 

Also those little cartridges very powerful and aren't suitable for shooting bear, or anything else larger than a human. 

Also those little cartridges generate very little recoil, which makes me think you must have arms like overcooked spaghetti if it jumps around while you're shooting it.  Go ahead, flex your little pipe-cleaner arms for us, Commando-Man.

 -k

Having had training on such weapons I'm well aware of why we don't need, or should have them here, other than in the hands of teh military in case there's another war. Otherwise you don't need something that can get so hot as to burn your hands, especially if your such a bad shot you can't take down a deer with one or two rounds. Apparently you're not a hunter.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 08, 2020, 11:55:10 am
So why are you only advocating getting rid of guns?

What do you mean ďadvocatingĒ?   If someone started a thread about driver testing, Iíd be in favour of stricter regulations for that too.


Quote
I'm not in favour of getting rid of high performance vehicles but I think if one wants to use one, they should have to demonstrate competency and have a license that is endorsed to use one. In BC a person with a novice license can insure and drive a 500+ hp vehicle capable of doing over 200 MPH.

Me too.

Quote
That is a lot more insane than a person who has been properly vetted and examined owning a firearm.

If only it were so simple.  Law abiding citizens abiding by the law and everyone is happy and the criminals will get guns anyway. 

Unfortunately for that argument, studies conclude that the ease of access to guns is the driver for gun-related deaths.  More legal guns available = more deaths.  So, to me, it would be sensible to restrict access as much as we possibly can while still maintaining hunting and shooting.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 08, 2020, 12:08:19 pm
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.

Yes.  I think they should be concerned.  22 people being mowed down with some ease should be concerning to us. 

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

Yes.  Legal guns made illegal.  Thatís how this would work.  The $12B is your number.  I have no idea what the real number would be. 

Quote
Maybe a few, possibly.

I think it might save more than a few.  Easy access to ďlegalĒ guns means access to illegal guns is easier too.  Why canít you go out and easily get an automatic weapon On the black market in this country?  Because they havenít been available for decades.  Itís not impossible, but itís not easy either.  That same thing would happen eventually to handguns and guns with magazines under The Squid Plan. 

Quote
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?

No and no.  I think this would be a very good program and would help more than you think it would.

Quote
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.

Expensive?  Sure.  But we can do it with a 1% GST hike.  Thatís not so bad. 

Divisive?  Well...  why would it be divisive?  This is what I donít get.  The Squid Plan would still allow hunters to hunt and shooters to shoot.  What is divisive about that?

Quote
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.

Total BS argument.  I now many, many people who live in grizzly areas who have grizz in their yards who donít have guns and donít start blasting at bears when they show up.

Cougars?  Youíre more likely to be shot by your neighbour thinking youíre a bear than to be attacked by a cougar. 

People hike in areas with cougars and bears with nothing but granola bars and a little bell and virtually none of them are eaten. 

Nice try.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2020, 12:36:37 pm
What do you mean ďadvocatingĒ?   If someone started a thread about driver testing, Iíd be in favour of stricter regulations for that too.



But no one ever does, certainly not people foaming at the mouth about guns. That's why I say it is about ideology, not comparable body counts and that is why I say people put different values on peoples lives according to how they died, as well as putting different values on the rights and recreations of others.

I'm not a fan of semi automatic weapons but in 2018 there were 249 firearms homicides in Canada, 56 were from rifles and shot guns and 143 from hand guns (90% gang bangers). Hardly an epidemic.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 08, 2020, 01:04:34 pm
But no one ever does, certainly not people foaming at the mouth about guns. That's why I say it is about ideology, not comparable body counts and that is why I say people put different values on peoples lives according to how they died, as well as putting different values on the rights and recreations of others.

I'm not a fan of semi automatic weapons but in 2018 there were 249 firearms homicides in Canada, 56 were from rifles and shot guns and 143 from hand guns (90% gang bangers). Hardly an epidemic.

And the recent mass shooting in N.S. that left 22 dead was accomplished with 2 semi automatic long guns and 2 semi automatic pistols. I'll bet the loved ones of those 22 are even less fans of semi automatic weapons than you.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 08, 2020, 01:36:47 pm
But no one ever does, certainly not people foaming at the mouth about guns.

Not true.  There are lots of road-safety advocates.  Iím not an advocate for anything.  Iím just giving my opinion on an internet forum.  Not sure why you think Iím a foaming at the mouth advocate.

Quote
That's why I say it is about ideology, not comparable body counts and that is why I say people put different values on peoples lives according to how they died, as well as putting different values on the rights and recreations of others.

Except the Squid Plan took all those into account...  it still allows for hunting and sport shooting AND would save lives.

Quote
I'm not a fan of semi automatic weapons but in 2018 there were 249 firearms homicides in Canada, 56 were from rifles and shot guns and 143 from hand guns (90% gang bangers). Hardly an epidemic.

I never said it was an epidemic.  But someone can mow down 22 people quite easily with semi-auto handguns and long guns, which is what happened in N.S. 

Yes, they say he got them illegally.  That doesnít mean that these types of guns should be able to be gotten legally though.  I want to make it more difficult for these to be used in shootings.  Less legal guns available, better border security.

The Trudeau governmentís recent ban is window dressing and wonít do anything to reduce gun violence. 
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 09, 2020, 12:13:24 pm
Not true.  There are lots of road-safety advocates.  Iím not an advocate for anything.  Iím just giving my opinion on an internet forum.  Not sure why you think Iím a foaming at the mouth advocate.



Have any of them ever advocated banning particular vehicles and having the government buy them back?


Quote
Except the Squid Plan took all those into account...  it still allows for hunting and sport shooting AND would save lives.


Will the cost of buying them back justify the number of lives that might be saved. The "if it saves one life it is worth it" is one of the most ingenuous statements there is. We prioritize spending versus lives all the time and with good reason.  Who could possibly justify spending a billion dollars to save one life if hundreds or thousands could be saved if that money was spent differently.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 09, 2020, 12:41:10 pm
Canada has had three incidents of multiple shootings using this type of weapon in the past thirty years. Three, and we want to spend tens of millions to buy them back from legal owners?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 09, 2020, 02:44:49 pm
And the recent mass shooting in N.S. that left 22 dead was accomplished with 2 semi automatic long guns and 2 semi automatic pistols. I'll bet the loved ones of those 22 are even less fans of semi automatic weapons than you.

Iím not a fan of them at all but that doesnít equal wanting them banned.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 09, 2020, 04:20:33 pm
Have any of them ever advocated banning particular vehicles and having the government buy them back?

Not that I know of.  But, once again, youíre ignoring that I never called for a ban on guns.

Quote
Will the cost of buying them back justify the number of lives that might be saved. The "if it saves one life it is worth it" is one of the most ingenuous statements there is. We prioritize spending versus lives all the time and with good reason.  Who could possibly justify spending a billion dollars to save one life if hundreds or thousands could be saved if that money was spent differently.

Yes, it would probably be worth it to prevent the potential for mass shootings.

Canada has had three incidents of multiple shootings using this type of weapon in the past thirty years. Three, and we want to spend tens of millions to buy them back from legal owners?

I think itís money well spent. It also makes it more difficult to obtain guns illegally when there are fewer legal guns of that type around.

Iím not a fan of them at all but that doesnít equal wanting them banned.

I didnít see that Omni called for a ban of all guns.  I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 09, 2020, 04:52:28 pm
Not that I know of.  But, once again, youíre ignoring that I never called for a ban on guns.

Yes, it would probably be worth it to prevent the potential for mass shootings.

I think itís money well spent. It also makes it more difficult to obtain guns illegally when there are fewer legal guns of that type around.

I didnít see that Omni called for a ban of all guns.  I could be wrong.

No I didn't suggest a ban on all guns. I grew up out in the country and used to go hunting birds, deer etc. at the appropriate times of the year. I had a 12 guage and a .303 and they did the job. I can't say I ever enjoyed killing anything but of course if you like meat, it has to come from somewhere. And who doesn't like a fresh venison steak! Then some years later I ended up at Blackwater on a course that involved training on a whole bunch of different kind of guns, none of which you'd ever need to get meat on the table. If I thought I needed an AR15 to shoot a deer then I would admit I am one **** up hunter and stay home. I'm fine with the first type of guns being available to responsible people who may have the opportunity to go into the woods or even shoot a popcan off a fence post for fun. The latter type should be completely unavailable unless you are in the military and need to be prepared to kill people who want to kill you.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 09, 2020, 06:42:45 pm

The Trudeau governmentís recent ban is window dressing and wonít do anything to reduce gun violence.


Quote
I think itís money well spent. It also makes it more difficult to obtain guns illegally when there are fewer legal guns of that type around.

Which of these statements is not like the other?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 09, 2020, 07:00:03 pm

Which of these statements is not like the other?

They didnít ban all guns.

So you wouldnít ban ANY guns?  What about full auto?  Are you against that?

Of course some guns should be banned.  Like I said, this doesnít go far enough. But people can stil chose from THOUSANDS of different types of guns.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 10, 2020, 01:23:40 pm
waldo PSA: you're welcome!

(https://i.imgur.com/tFP0N1P.jpg)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 10, 2020, 03:53:36 pm
Waldo, is that an advisory for right now?  Like since COVID lockdown?  Or just a general "Americans are gun wahoos" warning?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 10, 2020, 08:27:53 pm
Del
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 11, 2020, 10:32:21 pm
As FN are exempt from this ban, it seems they do need them to hunt deer. Just like the illegal trade in smokes and drugs on border reserves, gun trafficking will also flourish.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 12, 2020, 12:16:24 am
Yes.  I think they should be concerned.  22 people being mowed down with some ease should be concerning to us. 

I think there are many things that should be more concerning to us. Canada has a very low number of firearms deaths per year, and when we get to the end of this year, even with the 22 killed in Nova Scotia, it'll still be a very low number.

Also, should be pointed out that the killer didn't shoot 22 people in one session.  As I understand it there was a mass shooting (7 victims) followed by a series of single-victim murders. And I gather they aren't even sure how many were killed by shooting and how many were killed in fires.  This was someone driving a police car and dressed as a police officer... he could very easily take his victims by surprise, and could have probably killed them just as easily with a knife, club, or single-shot weapon. 

People are concerned about mass shootings because of an irrational amount of media hype that has given people a very distorted perception of the size of the problem. Like terror attacks, it's a topic that makes people very emotional but doesn't actually cause much death.

Yes.  Legal guns made illegal.  Thatís how this would work.  The $12B is your number.  I have no idea what the real number would be. 

There are over 2 million gun owners in Canada, and an estimate of about 12.7 million guns.   The very large majority of those are NOT single-shot.  Assuming an average price of $1000 per gun gets us to $12 billion quite easily, before we even get to administration and enforcement costs.


I think it might save more than a few. 

Maybe if we were willing to spend an even larger amount of money and act in an even more draconian fashion we could reduce the number even further.  As firearms homicides in Canada are so few to start with, and that most are committed with handguns, and that most of those handguns are sourced from the US, I think you're already far past the point of diminishing returns.  "The Squid Plan" isn't rational.

Easy access to ďlegalĒ guns means access to illegal guns is easier too.  Why canít you go out and easily get an automatic weapon On the black market in this country?  Because they havenít been available for decades.  Itís not impossible, but itís not easy either.  That same thing would happen eventually to handguns and guns with magazines under The Squid Plan. 

The vast majority of guns in Canada are typical hunting firearms-- bolt action rifles and shotguns.  And yet these constitute a small portion of guns used in homicides. Despite the vast number of Elmer Fudd shotguns in Canada, that isn't what the gangsters in Toronto are using to shoot each other.

And of homicides that are committed with long guns, the vast majority are single-victim killings, not mass shootings.  Depressed farmer shoots his wife before shooting himself, that sort of thing.  These could be just as easily committed with a single shot gun as any other.

Quote
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?
No and no.  I think this would be a very good program and would help more than you think it would.

You seriously don't think there are better uses for $12 billion than stopping possibly a handful of deaths?   One example I already gave you was that Naloxone kits and outreach/treatment facilities for addicts would save far more lives for far less money.

Expensive?  Sure.  But we can do it with a 1% GST hike.  Thatís not so bad. 

In a year that the government has spent an unprecedented amount of money dealing with the pandemic, I think proposing to spend billions of dollars on a project of such doubtful value is incredibly foolish.

Divisive?  Well...  why would it be divisive?  This is what I donít get.  The Squid Plan would still allow hunters to hunt and shooters to shoot.  What is divisive about that?

You don't get why taking away people's firearms would be divisive?  Take away someone's favorite rifle and tell them to go buy some government-mandated piece of crap that's annoying to use if they want to continue to shoot?   Many of these are family heirlooms that have been in the family for generations, some are collector's items or antiques.  You really don't get that people would be upset at having to surrender their firearms?

Also, what are people going to shoot with?  There aren't actually many single-shot hunting rifles, because nobody likes single-shot rifles.  Maybe the government could step in and fill that void with the "Justin-12" shotgun, the "Justin-1" centerfire rifle, and the "Justin-22" rimfire rifle.  These delightful government-approved guns would take 2 minutes to load to reduce the chances of them being used in a mass shooting!  They could be made of high-vis yellow plastic and have safety regulations printed on the stock, along with a picture of our fearless leader.  I can imagine this would be very popular with hunters and shooters.


Total BS argument.  I now many, many people who live in grizzly areas who have grizz in their yards who donít have guns and donít start blasting at bears when they show up.

Cougars?  Youíre more likely to be shot by your neighbour thinking youíre a bear than to be attacked by a cougar. 

People hike in areas with cougars and bears with nothing but granola bars and a little bell and virtually none of them are eaten. 

Nice try.

And you're more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a mass shooting in Canada, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to spend billions of dollars to prevent it. 

Also, why are you nanny-state people so confident in telling other people what they need or don't need?

Members of my family have lived in rural areas for a long time, and have used firearms for hunting as well as for animal protection.  That includes protecting the chickens from predators like coyotes, or shooting the badger that maimed one of the dogs. They didn't have a grizzly on their doorstep, but one of the neighbors did.




 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 12, 2020, 12:27:25 am
Waldo, is that an advisory for right now?  Like since COVID lockdown?  Or just a general "Americans are gun wahoos" warning?

fall of 2019... given there is no/limited travel, the waldo thought it obvious, even to you!

twas prompted to throw the PSA out as a generalized statement on such a backward country... after seeing the video of the father/son vigilantes performing a "citizen arrest" on a blackMan for running... but more for seeing the dozen or so heavily armed shutdown protestors in Raleigh North Carolina being skewered big-time with photos of them caught taking a lunch break at a Subway!  ;D
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/f9/4f95575f-2ba4-5255-beb8-6edec34c5f8f/5eb842b614d29.image.jpg)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 12, 2020, 01:47:58 am
... by moving to irrational gun control measures.

I'll ask again - what supposedly "rational" uses of assault style firearms will be curtailed by this latest most sensible gun control measure?

Members of my family have lived in rural areas for a long time, and have used firearms for hunting as well as for animal protection.

thanks for finally replying to my repeat ask!  ;D
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 12, 2020, 01:57:00 am
I'll ask again - what supposedly "rational" uses of assault style firearms will be curtailed by this latest most sensible gun control measure?

thanks for finally replying to my repeat ask!  ;D

I'm wondering how guns protect animals.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 09:13:11 am
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/

Is anyone surprised? Not me.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 09:28:44 am
fall of 2019... given there is no/limited travel, the waldo thought it obvious, even to you!

twas prompted to throw the PSA out as a generalized statement on such a backward country... after seeing the video of the father/son vigilantes performing a "citizen arrest" on a blackMan for running... but more for seeing the dozen or so heavily armed shutdown protestors in Raleigh North Carolina being skewered big-time with photos of them caught taking a lunch break at a Subway!  ;D
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/f9/4f95575f-2ba4-5255-beb8-6edec34c5f8f/5eb842b614d29.image.jpg)

Why does waldo insist on posting photos from the US on a Canadian subject? Stop being so lazy and find some examples from Canada.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 12, 2020, 11:41:41 am
Why does waldo insist on posting photos from the US on a Canadian subject? Stop being so lazy and find some examples from Canada.

c'mon man! I'm just offering support to your (and others) raised concerns that emphasis needs to be placed on guns entering Canada from the U.S.... rather than on domestic gun control measures. Of course we do differ in that the waldo believes both can be done at the same time!
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 11:50:22 am
c'mon man! I'm just offering support to your (and others) raised concerns that emphasis needs to be placed on guns entering Canada from the U.S.... rather than on domestic gun control measures. Of course we do differ in that the waldo believes both can be done at the same time!

Funny how the reaction of police associations to this ban has been deafening silence. They know where guns come from.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387

Quote
Vancouver police Chief Adam Palmer, who heads the organization, says Canada already has strong firearms regulations and no other law is required.

Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 12, 2020, 12:40:30 pm
We rely on good police work to prevent terrorism in Canada. It works.

If good police work had been done in Nova Scotia, 22 people wouldn't have died needlessly.  The police were alerted to the dangers this individual posed, and they ignored the warnings.

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/he-was-a-psychopath/

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: JMT on May 12, 2020, 03:43:34 pm
As FN are exempt from this ban, it seems they do need them to hunt deer. Just like the illegal trade in smokes and drugs on border reserves, gun trafficking will also flourish.

They're not exempt.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: JMT on May 12, 2020, 03:45:42 pm
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/

Is anyone surprised? Not me.

Not in the least:

ďThey may continue using firearms that were previously non-restricted for these purposes until a suitable replacement can be acquired.Ē

In other words, they have to prove that is their only suitable weapon for the purpose to keep using it for right now.

Last week gun nuts were foaming at the mouth about this ban being a constitutional violation. Infringing on section 35 rights without a very easy and reasonable accommodation would be a violation of our actual constitution.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 05:47:18 pm
They're not exempt.

They are excluded from the ban, did you not read the link I posted?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 12, 2020, 05:54:07 pm
They are excluded from the ban, did you not read the link I posted?

JMT posted the quote from the link.  Theyíre exempt ďuntil a suitable replacement can be foundď.   Iím not a big fan of that, but because there was probably no consultation with indigenous groups, this is the way it had to be, otherwise it would be overturned by the courts. 

Hopefully, they will actually do the work, the consultations and get them suitable (legal) replacements if needed.  But the odds are very slim that any indigenous hunter is even using one of these rifles to hunt. 

Plus, they are now banned for sale and import, so no one will be getting a new one.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 07:33:14 pm
Suitable replacement found by who, and what is considered a suitable replacement. If it is a suitable replacement for hunting there are hundreds available today.

Weasel words so the government doesn't have to deal with FN at all.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 07:39:02 pm
Quote
Plus, they are now banned for sale and import, so no one will be getting a new one.

Bet they will, governments are scared stiff of dealing with FN, they will just turn a blind eye if smuggled ones turn up in FN hands.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: JMT on May 12, 2020, 10:05:45 pm
They are excluded from the ban, did you not read the link I posted?

They are not excluded from the ban. Maybe you should read your link?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 10:34:40 pm
They are not excluded from the ban. Maybe you should read your link?

They are excluded, the government is just weaselling out of having to deal with FN. They will still have their AR-15's twenty years from now.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: JMT on May 12, 2020, 10:48:12 pm
They are excluded, the government is just weaselling out of having to deal with FN. They will still have their AR-15's twenty years from now.

They can only use the weapon if they have no other suitable weapon.  How many guns do you think we're actually talking about here? It's a lot closer to 0 than 100.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 12, 2020, 10:54:06 pm
They can only use the weapon if they have no other suitable weapon.  How many guns do you think we're actually talking about here? It's a lot closer to 0 than 100.


Who will enforce that and how do you know how many there are? I bet there are a lot more than 100. Anyway, double standards don't seem to bother you.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: JMT on May 12, 2020, 11:39:26 pm

Who will enforce that and how do you know how many there are? I bet there are a lot more than 100. Anyway, double standards don't seem to bother you.

Canada exists because of 'double standards.'
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 12, 2020, 11:44:56 pm
Canada exists because of 'double standards.'

What makes you thing that tabernac? ;)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on May 12, 2020, 11:58:48 pm
It was already illegal to use an AR-15 to hunt with, because AR-15s are classified as Restricted and you can only use Restricted weapons at a licensed shooting range.

"You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer" is one of the dumber sound-bites Trudeau came up with the other day... probably another catch phrase lifted straight from the mouths of US activists without stopping to consider that it's nonsensical in a Canadian context.

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2020, 12:08:09 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz4tvxJB790
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 13, 2020, 12:34:18 am

Who will enforce that and how do you know how many there are? I bet there are a lot more than 100. Anyway, double standards don't seem to bother you.

Indigenous people have hunting rights, and a duty to be consulted by the Crown.  The rest of us do not.  I guess itís a double standard, but I think theyíve had the short end of the stick, to put it mildly, since the 1700s. 
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 13, 2020, 08:45:48 am
It was already illegal to use an AR-15 to hunt with, because AR-15s are classified as Restricted and you can only use Restricted weapons at a licensed shooting range.


 -k

Apparently not if you are FN.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 14, 2020, 08:43:25 pm
Apparently not if you are FN.

WTF:  https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/

Why?  This is so stupid. Aboriginals commit more homicides than just about any other group in the country.  It seems silly to give them and them alone a speicla right to have and use the guns.  And why the hell would you need an AR-15 or other assault-ish guns to bring down a deer or moose?  Did aboriginals use AR-15's in pre-colonial days or something?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 14, 2020, 08:48:34 pm
Indigenous people have hunting rights, and a duty to be consulted by the Crown.  The rest of us do not.  I guess itís a double standard, but I think theyíve had the short end of the stick, to put it mildly, since the 1700s.

Ya I guess. 
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 14, 2020, 09:46:20 pm
Ya I guess.

You guess, or you just don't know?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 14, 2020, 09:51:35 pm
Ya I guess.

Itís all about consultation and a lack of it.  Because of the lack of consultation, it could be overturned by the courts if challenged.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 14, 2020, 10:10:13 pm
Itís all about consultation and a lack of it.  Because of the lack of consultation, it could be overturned by the courts if challenged.

They have hunting rights, but what about gun rights?

Basically the Liberals are saying if you hunt with an assault rifle, and that's the only gun you have, you can still hunt with it until you can replace it.

As someone else said, sounds rare someone would only own restricted assault rifles if they hunt.  I'd think most hunters own at least one hunting rifle.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 14, 2020, 10:33:05 pm
They have hunting rights, but what about gun rights?

Basically the Liberals are saying if you hunt with an assault rifle, and that's the only gun you have, you can still hunt with it until you can replace it.

As someone else said, sounds rare someone would only own restricted assault rifles if they hunt.  I'd think most hunters own at least one hunting rifle.

Yes, thatís the other thing...   it is probably so rare that itís not really an issue.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 14, 2020, 10:43:29 pm
Quote
Yes, thatís the other thing...   it is probably so rare that itís not really an issue.

Try Googling the Oka Crisis.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on May 14, 2020, 10:49:57 pm
Try Googling the Oka Crisis.

So they were mostly hunters then?   ::)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 28, 2020, 12:16:30 pm
just released Global News/Ipsos polling: states 82% of those surveyed either strongly (54%) or somewhat (27%) agree with banning ďassault-styleĒ weapons. Regionally, support for the assault-style gun ban is highest ⁠ó 89% ⁠ó in the province of Quebec:

(https://i.imgur.com/zRSEZyh.png)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Granny on May 28, 2020, 11:53:07 pm
WTF:  https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-hunters-excluded-from-ottawas-assault-weapons-ban-under-section-35/

Why?  This is so stupid. Aboriginals commit more homicides than just about any other group in the country. 

That's a strange claim. Never heard that before.
Can you provide evidence to support that, or are you just making it up?
  If so, why?


Quote
It seems silly to give them and them alone a speicla right to have and use the guns.  And why the hell would you need an AR-15 or other assault-ish guns to bring down a deer or moose?  Did aboriginals use AR-15's in pre-colonial days or something?

All owners can keep and use their AR-15's for two years, until a buyback or grandfathering are worked out.
Indigenous owners can keep and use their AR-15's until a suitable replacement can be found.

I fail to see much difference worth making a fuss about at all, and especially not making up nonsense about murder rates.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Rue on May 29, 2020, 11:10:25 am
Trudeau in both his election platforms proposed banning assault rifles. He never got around to it because of its unpopularity. He then used the tragedy in Nova Scotia to revisit the issue and linked his ban to the tragedy with these words:
 ďTheir (victims of the mass shooter) families deserve more than thoughts and prayers. Canadians deserve more than thoughts and prayers,Ē    and
ďThese weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time,Ē said Trudeau.

The problem with using a tragic incident to prop a law is that this acts based on emotional reaction and not well thought out principles.

So for example the ban covers some 1,500 models and variants of what the government considers assault-style weapons and the list can be found at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6880974-Canada-Gazette-May-1-2020-Part-II.html

Because of the rush to react, the list was assembled to quickly leading to too broad a list that covers 10 and 12 gauge shotguns, bolt-action rifles and even airsoft guns which will affect almost 100,000 sport gun owners but over a million hunters and duck hunters. By doing that its alienated people who use rifles who might have otherwise agreed with a regulation to control assault rifles.

The ban also has two other inherent weaknesses. The first is that the ban and list will not prevent owners of rifles not on the list on their own to modify them making them assault type rifles. The government admitted this and said they will look into making sure ďmanufacturersĒ canít get away with making minor tweaks to illegal models so as to render them legal, but gave no specifics and does not address how they will stop legal rifle owners from reconverting their legal rifles.

The next flaw and the one many who would otherwise support rifle regulation oppose is that it does not address illegal smuggling in of firearms or criminals or mentally ill getting their hands on weapons. In fact it ignores hand-guns and delegates the concern of hand-guns to municipal governments. It in fact focuses on legal rifle owners, who are law abiding and who have been requires to complete training as to storing, transporting and using their rifles and who have been screened through the Canadian Police Information Centre daily to make sure no laws are being broken. It focuses on the wrong people and does not prevent high powered rifles getting into the wrong hands. It focuses on law abiding rifle owners not mad-men or criminals who get their hands on weapons.

The issue that remains unanswered by the ban is how we address any weapon getting into the hands of criminals or mentally ill people.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 29, 2020, 11:49:23 am
Trudeau in both his election platforms proposed banning assault rifles. He never got around to it because of its unpopularity. He then used the tragedy in Nova Scotia to revisit the issue and linked his ban to the tragedy with these words:
 ďTheir (victims of the mass shooter) families deserve more than thoughts and prayers. Canadians deserve more than thoughts and prayers,Ē    and
ďThese weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time,Ē said Trudeau.

The problem with using a tragic incident to prop a law is that this acts based on emotional reaction and not well thought out principles.

So for example the ban covers some 1,500 models and variants of what the government considers assault-style weapons and the list can be found at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6880974-Canada-Gazette-May-1-2020-Part-II.html

Because of the rush to react, the list was assembled to quickly leading to too broad a list that covers 10 and 12 gauge shotguns, bolt-action rifles and even airsoft guns which will affect almost 100,000 sport gun owners but over a million hunters and duck hunters. By doing that its alienated people who use rifles who might have otherwise agreed with a regulation to control assault rifles.

The ban also has two other inherent weaknesses. The first is that the ban and list will not prevent owners of rifles not on the list on their own to modify them making them assault type rifles. The government admitted this and said they will look into making sure ďmanufacturersĒ canít get away with making minor tweaks to illegal models so as to render them legal, but gave no specifics and does not address how they will stop legal rifle owners from reconverting their legal rifles.

The next flaw and the one many who would otherwise support rifle regulation oppose is that it does not address illegal smuggling in of firearms or criminals or mentally ill getting their hands on weapons. In fact it ignores hand-guns and delegates the concern of hand-guns to municipal governments. It in fact focuses on legal rifle owners, who are law abiding and who have been requires to complete training as to storing, transporting and using their rifles and who have been screened through the Canadian Police Information Centre daily to make sure no laws are being broken. It focuses on the wrong people and does not prevent high powered rifles getting into the wrong hands. It focuses on law abiding rifle owners not mad-men or criminals who get their hands on weapons.

The issue that remains unanswered by the ban is how we address any weapon getting into the hands of criminals or mentally ill people.

Well I can assure of one thing, leaving weapons on store shelves is one way to make sure they will get into the hands of those people. But you already knew that, right? duh!
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 29, 2020, 02:42:00 pm
Well I can assure of one thing, leaving weapons on store shelves is one way to make sure they will get into the hands of those people. But you already knew that, right? duh!

You could say that about hundreds of potentially dangerous things that are on store shelves. People make bombs out of fertilizer.

How does it make sure that they will get into the hands of "those people" when you need a PAL to buy one?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 29, 2020, 03:08:43 pm
Trudeau in both his election platforms proposed banning assault rifles. He never got around to it because of its unpopularity.

no - your self-serving revisionism isn't factual: the regulations were always intended to be presented this session... late March. And then, you know, COVID-19 redirected the near entirety of the government's attention, particularly Public Safety Minister Blair's focus on border security and other pandemic related public safety concerns.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on May 29, 2020, 03:31:13 pm
The next flaw and the one many who would otherwise support rifle regulation oppose is that it does not address illegal smuggling in of firearms or criminals or mentally ill getting their hands on weapons.

Nov 8, 2018: Liberals will spend $86 million to tackle rise in gang and gun violence (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gang-gun-violence-funding-1.4896844)

Quote
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Bill Blair, the minister of border security and organized crime reduction, announced Thursday that $51.5 million will be spent over five years for the Canada Border Services Agency to build an all-weather detector dog training facility, deploy more sniffer dog teams and expand X-ray technology at postal centres and air cargo facilities. More training on detecting concealed items in vehicles entering Canada is also planned.

Another $34.5 million will go to the RCMP to enhance investigations, training, inspections, technology and intelligence.

The money comes from a $327 million pot to tackle gangs and gun violence announced last year. Of that sum, $200 million will go to provinces and territories to address regional needs.

Aug 26, 2019: Federal government gives Ontario $54 million to fight illegal guns and gangs (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-government-gives-ontario-54-million-to-fight-illegal-guns-and-gangs-1.4565950)

Quote
The federal government is giving Ontario $54 million over the next three years to combat illegal gun and gang activity, with the funds earmarked for specialized prosecutors, policing projects and intelligence-gathering efforts in jails.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Omni on May 29, 2020, 04:20:32 pm
You could say that about hundreds of potentially dangerous things that are on store shelves. People make bombs out of fertilizer.

How does it make sure that they will get into the hands of "those people" when you need a PAL to buy one?

Well you could check the stats of rates of gun deaths between countries with tight gun laws compared to those like the US who have weak gun laws and, hint, hint, the highest rates. Of course there always the Charlton Heston approach and you can wait to have your gun taken from you "when they can pry it from my cold dead hands". I'll go for the tighter law concept.

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/charts/embed/mar/2016-03-11T12:33:28.html
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on May 29, 2020, 11:28:06 pm
Well you could check the stats of rates of gun deaths between countries with tight gun laws compared to those like the US who have weak gun laws and, hint, hint, the highest rates. Of course there always the Charlton Heston approach and you can wait to have your gun taken from you "when they can pry it from my cold dead hands". I'll go for the tighter law concept.

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/charts/embed/mar/2016-03-11T12:33:28.html
We have tighter laws, much tighter.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Rue on June 01, 2020, 11:44:16 am
Nov 8, 2018: Liberals will spend $86 million to tackle rise in gang and gun violence (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gang-gun-violence-funding-1.4896844)

Aug 26, 2019: Federal government gives Ontario $54 million to fight illegal guns and gangs (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-government-gives-ontario-54-million-to-fight-illegal-guns-and-gangs-1.4565950)

That is something yes point taken..but is it just feel good stuff.?Does it really address the issues of  how easy it is to smuggle weapons because of how long our border is? You think it will have any difference on how guns get smuggled in or with gangs? The proximity of living next door to a country with no shortage of weapons makes preventing smuggling of weapons an almost impossible task.

Preventing police from shaking down known gang members during regular patrols has added to the problem although I appreciate why people feel profiling is racist or fascist or both. I get that.

I do agree to your point it is something but I think its token gestures. So this brings us back to what kind of security measures do we want on our borders? The reality is we do not have sufficient money to police our borders and so guns will keep coming in illegally like drugs. Like drugs you can outlaw the sale of them but they end up on the streets. The border control issue is a non partisan issue that plagues any Prime Minister.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on June 07, 2020, 01:55:06 pm
Well I can assure of one thing, leaving weapons on store shelves is one way to make sure they will get into the hands of those people. But you already knew that, right? duh!

Actually it's hard for mentally ill people to get an RPAL, and the provincial firearms officers can and do remove guns from owners who they believe may be a danger to others or themselves.

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: JMT on June 07, 2020, 05:21:47 pm
Actually it's hard for mentally ill people to get an RPAL

So you're under the naive assumption that most people with mental health issues are diagnosed (if there's even anything to officially diagnose them with). Cute.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on June 09, 2020, 12:37:40 am
So you're under the naive assumption that most people with mental health issues are diagnosed (if there's even anything to officially diagnose them with). Cute.

The evidence says that Canada's firearms licensing works.  Holders of firearms licenses are the most scrutinized people in Canada.  People with something to hide seldom volunteer themselves to this sort of scrutiny from the authorities.  People with firearms licenses commit less crime, and less homicide, than the general populace.

This RCMP report elaborates on the measures taken to make sure that people with firearms licenses aren't a threat to the public.
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/2018-commissioner-firearms-report
One of the things they have is "continuous eligibility screening", which is to say that any number of minor events, or even a call to a snitch line, could cause the authorities to reevaluate whether you should have firearms.
Quote
Continuous eligibility screening of firearms licence holders

Under the continuous eligibility regime, at any point during an individual's licence validity period, an event could occur that could prompt a review of their eligibility to hold a firearms licence.

If a firearms licence holder is involved in an event which could affect their eligibility (as defined by section 5 of the Firearms Act), it is reported by law enforcement via the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database and sent to the relevant CFO for review. An event can also be registered by individuals using the CFP's 1-800 number or by the courts with the issuance of a Firearms Prohibiton Order. A CFO is authorized to investigate the incident to determine if the client remains eligible to hold a licence.


If Gabriel Wortman had attempted to get a firearms license, he'd have likely been rejected due to his known history of violence.

If he had a license, he'd have probably have lost his license and had his firearms confiscated after one or more of:
 -the report of domestic violence
 -the two reports that he had illegal firearms
 -the report that he "wanted to kill a cop"
 -several other bizarre incidents with police or neighbors.

If people who don't have firearms licenses were held to the same standard as those of us who do, the numerous red flags that Gabriel Wortman presented would have most likely would have alerted the police to the dangers he posed.  Which makes it very unfortunate that the government continues to focus all its attention on legal firearms owners rather than people like Wortman.


 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: JMT on June 09, 2020, 11:42:22 am
That in no way addressed what I said to you.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on September 09, 2020, 04:11:45 pm
so... O'Tool makes the Hon member from Oklaberta his 'Shadow Minister for Health'... does firearms activist, BuffaloGal, accept that gun control is a public health issue/concern?

(https://i.imgur.com/MgpJN4r.png)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on September 09, 2020, 07:01:09 pm
so... O'Tool makes the Hon member from Oklaberta his 'Shadow Minister for Health'... does firearms activist, BuffaloGal, accept that gun control is a public health issue/concern?


Well...   she thinks people with bullet holes should get medical coverage, if thatís what you mean... 
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: cybercoma on September 10, 2020, 06:49:47 am
Not a single one of the Nova Scotia killer's guns was purchased "off the shelf"

 -k
Gun bans make black market weapons more expensive and more difficult to procure.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on September 10, 2020, 11:36:44 pm
so... O'Tool makes the Hon member from Oklaberta his 'Shadow Minister for Health'... does firearms activist, BuffaloGal, accept that gun control is a public health issue/concern?

Well...   she thinks people with bullet holes should get medical coverage, if thatís what you mean... 

She won't be a good health critic because she doesn't support Bill Blair's Big Boondoggle? Is that what you guys are saying?

Given the scale of gun violence in Canada, trying to frame it as a significant public health issue seems like a stretch.  Firearms violence in Canada is an incredibly small issue in terms of our overall health picture.

In particular, mass shootings-- which the gun ban seems intended to address-- rate somewhere in the same area as lightning strikes and wasp attacks on the list of public health emergencies facing Canadians.

Gun bans make black market weapons more expensive and more difficult to procure.

Given the ease of smuggling guns across the border, it's hard to picture it making much impact. Most gun crime in big cities already involves US sourced guns.

Also, the very large majority of gun violence in Canada involves handguns, and the gun ban doesn't actually ban any handguns, so the notion that the gun ban will change anything on that front is fanciful at best.  Indeed, I was reading yesterday that  Toronto's shootings are actually up this year.  Banning "military and assault style weapons" doesn't reduce gun violence in Canada, because nobody in Canada actually gets shot with "military and assault style weapons".



 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on September 10, 2020, 11:49:23 pm
so... O'Tool makes the Hon member from Oklaberta his 'Shadow Minister for Health'... does firearms activist, BuffaloGal, accept that gun control is a public health issue/concern?

(https://i.imgur.com/MgpJN4r.png)
She won't be a good health critic because she doesn't support Bill Blair's Big Boondoggle? Is that what you guys are saying?

no - the waldo referenced BuffaloGal's broader pro-firearms activism - it's your desperate play that wants to target your vindictiveness toward the recent gun control action. But surely you're not questioning the impact shooting injuries/deaths have upon the public health system - are you?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 11, 2020, 12:30:21 am
Gun bans make black market weapons more expensive and more difficult to procure.

Probably true.  I'm in favour of very strict regulation on guns, including bans where appropriate.

Unfortunately, most of the people who want them seem still be getting them.  I would think gun bans in general do help the problem somewhat, but they don't seem to solve the problem in any significant way, which is caused by poor uneducated people typically not raised properly by their parents who are intent on committing all sorts of crimes to make money because they're too poor and uneducated to make any on their own.  I assume people who buy and sell smuggled contraband, like drugs, are also easily able to buy other smuggled contraband, like guns.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: cybercoma on September 11, 2020, 06:37:56 am
Probably true.  I'm in favour of very strict regulation on guns, including bans where appropriate.

Unfortunately, most of the people who want them seem still be getting them.  I would think gun bans in general do help the problem somewhat, but they don't seem to solve the problem in any significant way, which is caused by poor uneducated people typically not raised properly by their parents who are intent on committing all sorts of crimes to make money because they're too poor and uneducated to make any on their own.  I assume people who buy and sell smuggled contraband, like drugs, are also easily able to buy other smuggled contraband, like guns.
I mean, I'm sure there's some population level relationship between poverty and gun crimes, but mass shooting events seem to be largely perpetrated by people who are neither uneducated nor living in severe poverty. Emphasis on "seem" because I haven't looked into the data.

Nevertheless, these strict gun bans are targeting mass murders. The other types of gun control primarily address domestic violence and suicide (e.g., guns need to be locked in a cabinet with another lock on the triggers and separate from ammo--it's a hassle to get the gun out so you're less likely to pull it out and just shoot someone in the heat of an argument). In any case, gun control works according to the numbers when you compare jurisdictions with each other (those with restrictions against those without) and even within themselves (before and after regulations).
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: cybercoma on September 11, 2020, 06:57:40 am
Given the ease of smuggling guns across the border, it's hard to picture it making much impact. Most gun crime in big cities already involves US sourced guns.

Also, the very large majority of gun violence in Canada involves handguns, and the gun ban doesn't actually ban any handguns, so the notion that the gun ban will change anything on that front is fanciful at best.  Indeed, I was reading yesterday that  Toronto's shootings are actually up this year.  Banning "military and assault style weapons" doesn't reduce gun violence in Canada, because nobody in Canada actually gets shot with "military and assault style weapons".



 -k
Two things:

1) Ease of smuggling doesn't make it easy nor easier than having a large domestic supply to steal and move, unhindered by regulation. Smuggling is costly and risky, which means the black market value of those firearms goes up dramatically. Higher cost means more difficult access.

2) Yes the majority of "gun violence" in general does involve handguns, so are you advocating we have stricter regulations on those? Because I'm all for it. However, I doubt that's what you're implying. So what we're talking about here isn't general "gun violence" nor is that why this legislation was created. This legislation was created to make it more difficult to carry out mass murders. Those rarely involve handguns.

3) Lastly, we're never going to have an "all or nothing" solution, which is the implied solution in your arguments. The government can only mitigate harm and the steps they're taking are designed to make it markedly more difficult to get the weapons that have been used in mass murders. They can never and will never be able to make it absolutely impossible.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on September 11, 2020, 10:24:07 am
(https://i.imgur.com/DXxOT4F.png)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 11, 2020, 01:20:28 pm
I mean, I'm sure there's some population level relationship between poverty and gun crimes, but mass shooting events seem to be largely perpetrated by people who are neither uneducated nor living in severe poverty. Emphasis on "seem" because I haven't looked into the data.

Nevertheless, these strict gun bans are targeting mass murders. The other types of gun control primarily address domestic violence and suicide (e.g., guns need to be locked in a cabinet with another lock on the triggers and separate from ammo--it's a hassle to get the gun out so you're less likely to pull it out and just shoot someone in the heat of an argument). In any case, gun control works according to the numbers when you compare jurisdictions with each other (those with restrictions against those without) and even within themselves (before and after regulations).

I agree with this, and I also agree with strong gun regulation.

As we saw though, some of the guns the NS mass shooter had were illegally obtained (if i'm not mistaken).  So we have a complex problem that gun regulations do not do enough to resolve.  The problem is it's much harder to catch guns smuggled at the border or shipping ports than it is to ban/restrict guns.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on September 13, 2020, 04:03:30 pm
1) Ease of smuggling doesn't make it easy nor easier than having a large domestic supply to steal and move, unhindered by regulation. Smuggling is costly and risky, which means the black market value of those firearms goes up dramatically. Higher cost means more difficult access.

It's not in evidence that there's a "large domestic supply" of the guns that have been banned. 80,000 AR-15 type rifles in Canada might sound like a lot, but in a country of 37 million people, finding a house that has one and breaking in and stealing it might be like finding a needle in a haystack.   And movement of guns is certainly not unhindered by regulation in Canada. If you buy a restricted gun and you sell it to somebody who isn't allowed to have it, you're going to prison. 

As you point out in point #2, this measure is aimed toward mass shooting events, not the kind of gang-related shootings that constitute most of Canada's gun violence.  And as you point out to Coonlight in your later post:
I mean, I'm sure there's some population level relationship between poverty and gun crimes, but mass shooting events seem to be largely perpetrated by people who are neither uneducated nor living in severe poverty.

So, it seems to me that whether this nudges up the street price of an AR-15 a few bucks doesn't really matter much.

2) Yes the majority of "gun violence" in general does involve handguns, so are you advocating we have stricter regulations on those? Because I'm all for it. However, I doubt that's what you're implying. So what we're talking about here isn't general "gun violence" nor is that why this legislation was created. This legislation was created to make it more difficult to carry out mass murders. Those rarely involve handguns.

I'm not sure that's true.  While the headline grabbing incidents may use long guns, I am not sure that's the case in general.  I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the Surrey Six shooting was carried out with a handgun.  Toronto's Danforth shooting was carried out with a handgun.  It's quite possible that the first crime scene of Gabriel Wortman's rampage (where he shot 6 people at the house party he had left then returned to) was carried out with a handgun (but they won't tell us for sure).

But even if it's supportable to claim that mass murders most commonly use an "assault style rifle", that's hardly a prerequisite.  Somebody who has fantasies about killing a whole bunch of people might think  "I was going to use an AR-15, but now I can't get one so the plan is off" but instead he's probably thinking "I can't get an AR-15 so I'll find an alternative." An alternative might be a handgun in each pocket, it might be some other gun that's suitable for shooting people, or it might be a rental van.


Two things:

3) Lastly, we're never going to have an "all or nothing" solution, which is the implied solution in your arguments. The government can only mitigate harm and the steps they're taking are designed to make it markedly more difficult to get the weapons that have been used in mass murders. They can never and will never be able to make it absolutely impossible.

There's never going to be a 100% successful solution, but the measures we have in place already work extremely well.  Canada's existing measures already mitigate harm to an exceptional degree. There's no perfect solution, but less than two hundred gun homicides per year in a country of 37 million people has to be regarded as tremendously successful.

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on September 13, 2020, 04:11:33 pm
no - the waldo referenced BuffaloGal's broader pro-firearms activism - it's your desperate play that wants to target your vindictiveness toward the recent gun control action. But surely you're not questioning the impact shooting injuries/deaths have upon the public health system - are you?

You're saying she supports hunting and sport-shooting as well as the recent petition against the gun ban?  Okay, I wasn't aware of that.

So what?  Hunting and sport shooting have negligible impact on public health.   They're among the safest sports. Skateboarding costs the public health system more money than hunting or sport shooting.



 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2021, 01:36:02 pm
in the news, the National Firearms Association that claims to be, "the leading voice for firearms rights", in Canada:

a House of Commons committee will be asked Monday (today) to censure the National Firearms Association (NFA) over comments the associationís president made in a recent conference call... comments that came the day after the Trudeau Liberal government introduced new firearms legislation that proposes a buyback program for about 1,500 different firearms... models that the government last May classified as prohibited - the NFA opposes that legislation.

Quote from: Sheldon Clare, president of the National Firearms Association
If they think that I have advocated violence in any way, they should have me charged. And I certainly have not. Iíve merely related comments from upset people who have a real big problem with tyranny. And I think that the virtue-signaling woke liberal left has a problem with being called out as being tyrants.

(https://i.imgur.com/dMeH1Gt.jpg)

the NFA that has been preparing to run ďcustom attack adsĒ against Liberal members of Parliament it hopes to help defeat in the next general election... most notably, a vocal critic of the NFA, Liberal MP Pam Damoff (Ontario riding of Oakville North ó Burlington). And you Erin O'Foole, what say you about the NFA policy/practice - what say you, hey?

(https://i.imgur.com/O0D2yLn.jpg)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2021, 01:48:40 pm
Well there is some truth to that first cartoon. If someone doesn't have a PAL and possesses a newly restricted weapon, how will anyone know about it until after they use it. These new laws are aimed at legal gun owners, not gang bangers.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on February 22, 2021, 02:52:03 pm
Well there is some truth to that first cartoon. If someone doesn't have a PAL and possesses a newly restricted weapon, how will anyone know about it until after they use it. These new laws are aimed at legal gun owners, not gang bangers.

If you donít have a PAL, then you canít own any guns.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 22, 2021, 03:55:07 pm
You're saying she supports hunting and sport-shooting as well as the recent petition against the gun ban?  Okay, I wasn't aware of that.

So what?  Hunting and sport shooting have negligible impact on public health.   They're among the safest sports. Skateboarding costs the public health system more money than hunting or sport shooting.

If you want to be a sport shooter you should have to go to the range and borrow a gun that the range owns.  It's a pretty stupid sport.  In fact it may be the dumbest sport on the face of the planet.

I don't have a problem with hunters or farmers or a dude living in the mountains with cougars and bears who needs a rifle.  Other than that the people who own guns are typically low-IQ morons, wannabe tough guys, and/or gang bangers and drug dealers and I don't care about their gun rights.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2021, 04:37:42 pm
If you want to be a sport shooter you should have to go to the range and borrow a gun that the range owns.  It's a pretty stupid sport.  In fact it may be the dumbest sport on the face of the planet.



It's as stupid as bowling in rented shoes, skiing on rented skis, golfing with rented clubs. They all suck.
 What's your point?

Quote
I don't have a problem with hunters or farmers or a dude living in the mountains with cougars and bears who needs a rifle.  Other than that the people who own guns are typically low-IQ morons, wannabe tough guys, and/or gang bangers and drug dealers and I don't care about their gun rights.

That hasn't been my experience, I don't think you know much about gun owners, you have just made up your mind.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2021, 05:11:29 pm
If you donít have a PAL, then you canít own any guns.
Not legally but that won't stop a lot of people, including gang bangers and would be mass murderers.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 22, 2021, 06:06:37 pm
It's as stupid as bowling in rented shoes, skiing on rented skis, golfing with rented clubs. They all suck.
 What's your point?

Bowling shoes aren't designed to kill human beings.  I don't care about anyone's right to own a handgun or semi-auto for target practice.

But I also know illegal weapons in the hands of criminals are a bigger problem.

Quote
That hasn't been my experience, I don't think you know much about gun owners, you have just made up your mind.

I have many gun owners in my family.  They're all hunters.  No issues with them.  I know a few people who own guns because they like to pretend they're in the military or something.  These people are morons IMO and their rights to these guns are irrelevant.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2021, 07:49:51 pm
Bowling shoes aren't designed to kill human beings.  I don't care about anyone's right to own a handgun or semi-auto for target practice.



Just because you don't care about a particular right isn't enough reason enough to abolish it. Besides, owning a gun isn't a right, there are lots of limitations.
I live two miles from the border, there is no way to keep illegal guns from crossing it. I'm not a gun owner but this whole exercise is just theatre, forecast to cost $600 million, but if it is anything like the gun registry it will cost a couple of billion.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on February 22, 2021, 08:27:46 pm
Owning a gun is not a right in Canada.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on February 23, 2021, 01:22:43 am
If you donít have a PAL, then you canít own any guns.

Gabe Wortman didn't have a PAL...

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 23, 2021, 10:21:30 am

I have many gun owners in my family.  They're all hunters.  No issues with them.  I know a few people who own guns because they like to pretend they're in the military or something.  These people are morons IMO and their rights to these guns are irrelevant.

Everything is extremes with you. I've known plenty of gun owners, some collectors, some just like shooting as a recreation. They weren't pretending to be anything.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2021, 01:04:45 am
in the news, the National Firearms Association that claims to be, "the leading voice for firearms rights", in Canada:

a House of Commons committee will be asked Monday (today) to censure the National Firearms Association (NFA) over comments the associationís president made in a recent conference call... comments that came the day after the Trudeau Liberal government introduced new firearms legislation that proposes a buyback program for about 1,500 different firearms... models that the government last May classified as prohibited - the NFA opposes that legislation.

Quote from: Sheldon Clare, president of the National Firearms Association
If they think that I have advocated violence in any way, they should have me charged. And I certainly have not. Iíve merely related comments from upset people who have a real big problem with tyranny. And I think that the virtue-signaling woke liberal left has a problem with being called out as being tyrants.

results of the censure/condemnation vote: the HoC Committee on Public Safety and Security voted to condemn comments made last week by the National Firearms Association. Liberal, NDP and BQ committee MPs all voted in favour... all 4 CPC MPs abstained.

so, of course, the CPC and its supporters deflected away criticism of the CPC abstain votes by highlighting the Liberal cabinet members abstaining in the HoC vote to declare that China is committing genocide against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in its western Xinjiang region. Oh my - considering the Liberal cabinet abstained in consideration of a possible negative impact upon the '2 Michaels'... while the CPC MPs abstained so as not to be seen as being critical towards the National Firearms Association! Oh my!
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on February 24, 2021, 09:46:24 pm
Anybody who found those cartoons threatening is obviously too fragile to live outside of an institutional environment.

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2021, 10:15:48 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/dMeH1Gt.jpg)

the NFA that has been preparing to run ďcustom attack adsĒ against Liberal members of Parliament it hopes to help defeat in the next general election
... most notably, a vocal critic of the NFA, Liberal MP Pam Damoff (Ontario riding of Oakville North ó Burlington). And you Erin O'Foole, what say you
about the NFA policy/practice - what say you, hey?

(https://i.imgur.com/O0D2yLn.jpg)

Anybody who found those cartoons threatening is obviously too fragile to live outside of an institutional environment.

these 'cartoons' that you're too fragile to even reference directly? I'm shocked you're so dismissive of them... given the gunner you are I thought perhaps you might actually have something to say about them... their content... and how the NRA North National Firearms Association is peddling them! By the by, have you figured out what you're going to spend your buyback money on, hey?  ;D
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on February 24, 2021, 10:27:50 pm
these 'cartoons' that you're too fragile to even reference directly? I'm shocked you're so dismissive of them... given the gunner you are I thought perhaps you might actually have something to say about them... their content... and how the NRA North National Firearms Association is peddling them! By the by, have you figured out what you're going to spend your buyback money on, hey?  ;D

It's been almost a year and what's his name still hasn't come out with the slightest inkling of a plan as far as the buy-back. I assume they're still trying to find the right Liberal-connected firm to operate it. When the plan does arrive does I have little doubt that it'll be a farce that offers pennies on the dollar, so at this point I'm not budgeting for anything more extravagant than a trip to Starbucks. Unless the incentive is appropriate I may decline to participate.

 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2021, 10:56:01 pm
It's been almost a year and what's his name still hasn't come out with the slightest inkling of a plan as far as the buy-back. I assume they're still trying to find the right Liberal-connected firm to operate it. When the plan does arrive does I have little doubt that it'll be a farce that offers pennies on the dollar, so at this point I'm not budgeting for anything more extravagant than a trip to Starbucks. Unless the incentive is appropriate I may decline to participate.

still... still... nuthin to say about the toons?

hey now, Bill C-21 introduced just days ago: offers you gunners a bit of a reprieve should you choose not to leverage the buyback - win, win, hey!

(https://i.imgur.com/f5qcovI.png)
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: kimmy on February 24, 2021, 11:06:04 pm
still... still... nuthin to say about the toons?

I don't find them particularly insightful, but beyond that I don't get what the fuss is about.  Like I said before, anybody who is worked up over them is clearly too fragile.

hey now, Bill C-21 introduced just days ago: offers you gunners a bit of a reprieve should you choose not to leverage the buyback - win, win, hey! 

Yes, they already told us it would be voluntary. So when do they get around to the part where they talk about compensation?

WHERE'S MY GOD DAMN MONEY JUSTIN YOU FUCKEN DEADBEAT


 -k
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2021, 12:32:04 pm
I don't find them particularly insightful, but beyond that I don't get what the fuss is about.  Like I said before, anybody who is worked up over them is clearly too fragile.

the toons have a very NRA look/feel to them. How am I not surprised you won't speak to their purposeful misinformation, fear peddling, lies, etc.. In any case I doubt many have seen those toons - unless you follow blogs/twitter. The key point is how they (the National Firearms Association) continually flout their intent to run ads of a similar nature/kind targeted towards the general public, targeted against Liberal MPs they position as being profile anti-gunners... attempting to defeat them in the next election!

Yes, they already told us it would be voluntary. So when do they get around to the part where they talk about compensation?

WHERE'S MY GOD DAMN MONEY JUSTIN YOU FUCKEN DEADBEAT

so, good to have declare you're willing to take the cash... and run - that your targeted guns aren't a part of your being, of your self! Good on ya!
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2021, 02:03:25 pm
still... still... nuthin to say about the toons?

hey now, Bill C-21 introduced just days ago: offers you gunners a bit of a reprieve should you choose not to leverage the buyback - win, win, hey!

(https://i.imgur.com/f5qcovI.png)

So why would any aspiring mass murderer turn in their weapon and why would they give a **** about any law that says they can't use it?
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on February 25, 2021, 03:02:33 pm
So why would any aspiring mass murderer turn in their weapon and why would they give a **** about any law that says they can't use it?

Thatís a very short-sighted view on what gun control does Wilber. 

For example, banning automatic weapons doesnít take them out of the hands of criminals, either...   so why not let law abiding gun owners have fun at the range with a full auto? 

If you consider that they are nearly impossible to get illegally because they are not available legally, then gun control measures actually make sense.  You canít just look at one measure and say ďthe criminals will ignore itĒ.  No sh!t...  of course they will.  But if you look at the larger view where these guns will slowly get harder and harder for criminals to come by, then it makes sense.

Quote
Santaella-Tenorio's study (co-authored with Columbia professors Magdalena CerdŠ and Sandro Galea, as well as the University of North Carolina's Andrťs Villaveces) examined roughly 130 studies that had been conducted in 10 different countries. Each of those 130 studies had looked at some specific change in gun laws and its effect on homicide and/or suicide rates. Most of them looked at law changes in the developed world, such as the US, Australia, and Austria, while a few looked at gun laws in developing countries, specifically Brazil and South Africa.

This isn't, then, a study that compiled its own original data on one specific gun law. It's actually more valuable than that: It's telling us what all the different studies on individual laws say when you examine them put together.

So what do Santaella-Tenorio et al. conclude? First, and most importantly, that gun violence declined after countries pass a raft of gun laws at the same time: "The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths," the study finds.

This finding doesn't highlight one specific law, like an assault weapon ban, in isolation. There were "so many different kinds of laws," Santaella-Tenorio told me, that it was hard to make good international comparisons on every specific kind of gun restriction.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2021, 03:27:06 pm
Thatís a very short-sighted view on what gun control does Wilber. 

For example, banning automatic weapons doesnít take them out of the hands of criminals, either...   so why not let law abiding gun owners have fun at the range with a full auto? 

If you consider that they are nearly impossible to get illegally because they are not available legally, then gun control measures actually make sense.  You canít just look at one measure and say ďthe criminals will ignore itĒ.  No sh!t...  of course they will.  But if you look at the larger view where these guns will slowly get harder and harder for criminals to come by, then it makes sense.

Full auto weapons aren't even legal in the US. They may be difficult to get illegally on the Island but there is very little stopping them from coming over the border where  I live.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on February 25, 2021, 03:40:53 pm
Full auto weapons aren't even legal in the US. They may be difficult to get illegally on the Island but there is very little stopping them from coming over the border where  I live.

I think you ignored the point there....

 Gun crime is never committed by full auto anything.  Maybe some people will perform a hack, but there is a reason it doesnít happen ...  they just arenít accessible.

Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2021, 04:04:56 pm
I think you ignored the point there....

 Gun crime is never committed by full auto anything.  Maybe some people will perform a hack, but there is a reason it doesnít happen ...  they just arenít accessible.

No it isn't and making all semi auto long guns or even hand guns illegal isn't going to make much difference to gun crime either, considering our close proximity to the US.

WW1 and 2 Lee Enfields are the fastest firing bolt action rifles ever made and had a ten round magazine. Hundreds of thousands of them were converted to sporting rifles during the fifties and sixties. You could buy one at your local hardware for 30 bucks.

I'm not a proponent of guns for self defence against other humans or the idea that gun possession is some kind of deterrent to bad guys. I do have a problem with a mentality that makes good guys the target just because they own one of these things.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on February 25, 2021, 04:40:35 pm
No it isn't and making all semi auto long guns or even hand guns illegal isn't going to make much difference to gun crime either, considering our close proximity to the US.

Not true at all.  If this was the case, our gun control measures currently in place wouldnít be working.  They clearly are, as we have much lower gun crime rates than the USA. 

I believe ours are in line with other western democracies...  so why arenít they a lot higher, since you contend that the USA makes our controls moot?


Quote
I'm not a proponent of guns for self defence against other humans or the idea that gun possession is some kind of deterrent to bad guys. I do have a problem with a mentality that makes good guys the target just because they own one of these things.

To eliminate the bad guys getting the guns, the good guys will have to lose their guns.  Finding the balance is the key...   personally, I donít think weíve gone far enough yet.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2021, 04:54:40 pm
Not true at all.  If this was the case, our gun control measures currently in place wouldnít be working.  They clearly are, as we have much lower gun crime rates than the USA. 

I believe ours are in line with other western democracies...  so why arenít they a lot higher, since you contend that the USA makes our controls moot?




We have higher numbers than some and lower than others. Our rates are lower than say Finland and Germany yet our per capita gun ownership is about the same. If you look at per capita gun ownership rates vs gun homicide rates by country, the numbers are over the map. Gun laws are only part of it.

Quote
To eliminate the bad guys getting the guns, the good guys will have to lose their guns.  Finding the balance is the key...   personally, I donít think weíve gone far enough yet.

Do you seriously think even one of the gang bangers shooting up the lower mainland is using a legally purchased hand gun, has a PAL or any other kind of permit? Our border is pretty much a sieve for this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: Mr. Perfect on February 25, 2021, 08:30:36 pm
We have higher numbers than some and lower than others. Our rates are lower than say Finland and Germany yet our per capita gun ownership is about the same. If you look at per capita gun ownership rates vs gun homicide rates by country, the numbers are over the map. Gun laws are only part of it.

Do you seriously think even one of the gang bangers shooting up the lower mainland is using a legally purchased hand gun, has a PAL or any other kind of permit? Our border is pretty much a sieve for this kind of stuff.

Once again, youíre ignoring the fact (see the studies in the link) that the harder guns are to get, the less gun deaths there are. 

ďThis wonít do anything to take guns away from gang bangersĒ is a non-argument that ignores facts.No one is saying these guns will disappear from the black market tomorrow.  Itís asinine to frame it as if thatís what anyone is trying to do, or thinks it will do.
Title: Re: Canada gunz
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2021, 08:46:54 pm
Once again, youíre ignoring the fact (see the studies in the link) that the harder guns are to get, the less gun deaths there are. 

ďThis wonít do anything to take guns away from gang bangersĒ is a non-argument that ignores facts.No one is saying these guns will disappear from the black market tomorrow.  Itís asinine to frame it as if thatís what anyone is trying to do, or thinks it will do.

it's exactly what they are claiming it will do. Why else do it?