Jump to content

Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So the next time a drunk driver kills someone, you will do the right thing and support total bans on alcohol and no more private cars?

Just like you supported similar laws the last time someone drove a vehicle into a crowd, right?

It sure is amazing how legal firearm owners are somehow responsible for every crime committed, yet somehow for every other crime it is only the person that is responsible.

Somebody sold that Canadian his weapons illegally. That person should be tracked down and pay the full penalty.

If you take the right to own/carry a deadly weapon then you should take the safety of those around you as an equally serious responsibility.

Otherwise somebody else with a gun should just fuckin' shoot yer ass in self defense, because you -will- end up killing one of us.

Rights without responsibility simply don't work

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I spent some time earlier this year in the US (there is a thread about it).   For the Americans reading this thread, a helpful piece of advice is to stop thinking of Canadians as the same as Amer

What we are trying to do is create a public mindset that these things are just unacceptable, completely.  I think that the mindset is just as important as the actual legislation. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131 After last weeks mass shooting in Nova Scotia, Trudeau has lived up to his promise (and one of the key reasons why I vo

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Blah blah blah. It sure is amazing how legal firearm owners are somehow responsible for every crime committed,  more blah.

Despite your verbal diarrhea, you accidentally hit on something there. Yes, society is beginning to hold legal gun owners responsible for gun carnage which speaks to my earlier point about y'all avoiding your responsibility.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Provide a cite.

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne.

I guess hunting is illegal due to the statute of northampton as well? It truly is an all-purpojse 14th century law. From another country.

Still awaiting your cite on suicide method effectiveness, Joe. I'm sure your very mistaken assertion was just a typo

 

I am amazed at your grasp of the Canadian constitution.  There is no law allowing access to firearms.  There are laws allowing the ability to provide for oneself and one's family.  This over-rides the law on hunting.  Without a law on the provision of firearms, there is no reason to take it to parliament.  Do you get a say in regulations given by the state on the type of personal protective equipment for a jobsite?  Not within statutory law. Same thing.  Actual equipment goes down at least one level.  In the Canadian system, process has been followed.  Not from a US perspective mind you. Different culture.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Despite your verbal diarrhea, you accidentally hit on something there. Yes, society is beginning to hold legal gun owners responsible for gun carnage which speaks to my earlier point about y'all avoiding your responsibility.

Amazing how it doesn't seem to apply to anything else.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Laker said:
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Provide a cite.

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne.

...    ...

 

I am amazed at your grasp of the Canadian constitution.  There is no law allowing access to firearms.  There are laws allowing the ability to provide for oneself and one's family.  This over-rides the law on hunting.  Without a law on the provision of firearms, there is no reason to take it to parliament.  Do you get a say in regulations given by the state on the type of personal protective equipment for a jobsite?  Not within statutory law. Same thing.  Actual equipment goes down at least one level.  In the Canadian system, process has been followed.  Not from a US perspective mind you. Different culture.

I'm not sure Beepers57 understands that Canada is a different country.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm not sure Beepers57 understands that Canada is a different country.

- DSK

Hell, we're on a different planet entirely from his.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne

I think you are missing a fundamental difference regarding  democratic checks and balances between the US constitution / election process and a parliamentary system. 

In the US, the parties pick their own presidential candidates,  and the electoral college,  voted in by the population,  then vote for the party,  and that party's prior presidential candidate choice becomes Potus.

It is a fixed 4 year term.  There can be no change of president until end of term (except for death,  resignation,  impeachment e.t.c).

Supply bills either pass or fail.  If necessary the government will shut down,  absent funding.  

In this way the Potus is basically ruler for 4 years. The only restraint is by federal court,  and its determination of the constitution. 

A parliamentary system is very different.  The parties elect their own leader.  Voters vote for the party they want (btw first past the post vs preferential voting doesn't have an impact on procedural checks and balances).

In a majority win,  the winning party federal politicians elect from themselves the new prime minister.

Those federal politicians from the winning party can at almost anytime decide they hate the current prime minister, and elect someone else from their group instead. This is not always good... Australia had made an artform of partys removing prime ministers during their term.... but it is an important check.  If you get an idiot prime minister. The pm will get chucked mid term because the other politicians in his party don't want to lose the next election. 

It's a little different in a minority situation, but the end result is the same.

Above the prime minister is the governor general. Largely ceremonial,  is a government appointee but usually mostly apolitical, a citizen of outstanding character and public works. 

Arguably the most important power of the governor general is the ability to temporarily appoint a different (minority) party while a new election is run...... in the case where the current government cannot get supply bills passed. So in this system it is basically impossible to have a government shutdown due to no money. 

Because of this,  the prime minister of the day is highly sensitive to immediate voter sentiment, not just 3 years in the future.  If the prime minister makes a crazy call,  he/she won't stay in power for more than a month or two, before being voted out at party level and the new policy reversed.

A noted above a minority government is a little different. You have to maintain support from the other coalition parties (which in canadas case are for gun regulation).

I suggest your claim of ruling from the throne is far more applicable to the US than Canada.

I think the fundamental challenge for you is the majority of voters in Canada are for the changes. If they weren't Trudeau wouldn't survive his decision and therefore would not have made policy. 

Imo these checks and balances generally result in a much more attuned and electorate responsive government,  but at the potential cost of leadership instability. 

Apologies to canadians if I got something not quite right. 

Aussie expat in Dallas TX.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

I think you are missing a fundamental difference regarding  democratic checks and balances between the US constitution / election process and a parliamentary system. 

In the US, the parties pick their own presidential candidates,  and the electoral college,  voted in by the population,  then vote for the party,  and that party's prior presidential candidate choice becomes Potus.

It is a fixed 4 year term.  There can be no change of president until end of term (except for death,  resignation,  impeachment e.t.c).

Supply bills either pass or fail.  If necessary the government will shut down,  absent funding.  

In this way the Potus is basically ruler for 4 years. The only restraint is by federal court,  and its determination of the constitution. 

A parliamentary system is very different.  The parties elect their own leader.  Voters vote for the party they want (btw first past the post vs preferential voting doesn't have an impact on procedural checks and balances).

In a majority win,  the winning party federal politicians elect from themselves the new prime minister.

Those federal politicians from the winning party can at almost anytime decide they hate the current prime minister, and elect someone else from their group instead. This is not always good... Australia had made an artform of partys removing prime ministers during their term.... but it is an important check.  If you get an idiot prime minister. The pm will get chucked mid term because the other politicians in his party don't want to lose the next election. 

It's a little different in a minority situation, but the end result is the same.

Above the prime minister is the governor general. Largely ceremonial,  is a government appointee but usually mostly apolitical, a citizen of outstanding character and public works. 

Arguably the most important power of the governor general is the ability to temporarily appoint a different (minority) party while a new election is run...... in the case where the current government cannot get supply bills passed. So in this system it is basically impossible to have a government shutdown due to no money. 

Because of this,  the prime minister of the day is highly sensitive to immediate voter sentiment, not just 3 years in the future.  If the prime minister makes a crazy call,  he/she won't stay in power for more than a month or two, before being voted out at party level and the new policy reversed.

A noted above a minority government is a little different. You have to maintain support from the other coalition parties (which in canadas case are for gun regulation).

I suggest your claim of ruling from the throne is far more applicable to the US than Canada.

I think the fundamental challenge for you is the majority of voters in Canada are for the changes. If they weren't Trudeau wouldn't survive his decision and therefore would not have made policy. 

Imo these checks and balances generally result in a much more attuned and electorate responsive government,  but at the potential cost of leadership instability. 

Apologies to canadians if I got something not quite right. 

Aussie expat in Dallas TX.

 

 

The only fundamental thing I would correct is that in Canada, the PM is the leader of the party which gets the most votes and is known beforehand. The party can, at any time, select a different leader and then he would be the PM. It is not necessary for the PM to have been elected to a seat, but it's considered good form. There is always someone who will step aside in a safe riding so that's a non-problem.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

I'm not lecturing them on firearm regs, Reichista Olliver - I'm talking to them about basic democracy and fairness.  There is a difference.  

 

5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Provide a cite.

Maybe you missed it, there was no process.

It was a decree from the throne.

 

They followed the mechanism as laid out in Canada's Criminal Code.  That's been the mechanism, since... forever. 

I didn't see you guys bitching when the Conservatives got rid of the Long Gun Registry... guess what?  Same process.

Cite?  Canada's Criminal Code:

 

Quote

RSC, 1985, c. C-46

PART III

Firearms and Other Weapons

Interpretation

Definitions

84 (1) In this Part,

(...)

prescribed means prescribed by the regulations  (Version anglaise seulement)

(...)

prohibited firearm means

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or

(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge, but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or

(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm; (arme à feu prohibée)

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-20.html#docCont

Quote

117.15 

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-29.html#docCont

 

It's not from Trudeau; it's not even from his Dad.  It's how that section of the Criminal Code's been written since... I dunno, exactly, but a long-ass time. 

Even the old 1953 version, which is structured quite differently (and doesn't allow handguns at all, by the way), has words to the same effect:

Quote

 

(e) "prohibited weapon" means

(i) any device or contrivance de- signed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,

(ii) any knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or

(iii) a weapon of any kind, not being a restricted weapon or a shotgun or rifle of a kind commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, that is declared by order of the Governor in Council to be a prohibited weapon

(...)

(g) "restricted weapon" means

(i) any firearm designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand,

(ii) any firearm that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger,

(iii) any firearm that is less than twenty-six inches in length or that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than twenty-six inches by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(iv) a weapon of any kind, not being a shotgun or rifle of a kind commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, that is declared by order of the Governor in Council to be a restricted weapon.

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl196869v0102cana/page/852/mode/2up

You guys are freaking out about Canadians doing things the way they do things in Canada. 

Pro-tip:  it's a different system

They don't have as many "safeguards" against "tyranny", because they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place.  It's not like here.  Governments can be recalled at the drop of a hat.  That's why they never have shut-downs, and are so bemused when we have one.

 

edit: I spent too long on that... got beat to the punch by dfw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both DFW and Frenchie have said it better than I have.  The important thing is that "they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place." It is a large difference and why I prefer constitutional monarchies for good governance.  It is difficult for me to live with the head of state and the head of government as the same person.  This does lead to tyranny. The US is living it at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

Both DFW and Frenchie have said it better than I have.  The important thing is that "they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place." It is a large difference and why I prefer constitutional monarchies for good governance.  It is difficult for me to live with the head of state and the head of government as the same person.  This does lead to tyranny. The US is living it at the moment.

Closer to Idiocracy than Tyranny at the moment, but they are trying. Thankfully, they are largely incompetent so it's taking longer than expected. Unfortuntely, the US public is dumber than expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

Both DFW and Frenchie have said it better than I have.  The important thing is that "they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place." It is a large difference and why I prefer constitutional monarchies for good governance.  It is difficult for me to live with the head of state and the head of government as the same person.  This does lead to tyranny. The US is living it at the moment.

 

1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Closer to Idiocracy than Tyranny at the moment, but they are trying. Thankfully, they are largely incompetent so it's taking longer than expected. Unfortuntely, the US public is dumber than expected.

Don't confuse a system of government with its corrupt participants..

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Laker said:

He did not ban firearms.  He banned specific examples, which can be done for many reasons.  This does not affect the basic law which affords the ability to hunt and provide for life. There is no inherent right in this case.  The restriction of arms "law" could be a regulation enacted at the ministerial level.  The optics would be wrong though for all the people who believe their right is for unrestricted use.  The rights, laws and processes are being followed.

 

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

Because it's regulation not legislation?

 

You do know the difference, don't you?

Maybe your new screen name could have an intellectual reference to it? "Dumbass" sounds appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

Dude.  See my post up-thread. 

The LAW passed by Parliament in 1985 SAYS that an Order by the Governor in Council is HOW THIS WORKS. 

It didn't go before parliament because THAT"S NOT HOW THEIR GUN LAW WORKS. 

It's nothing new; the law before this one, passed in 1953, didn't work that way, either.  That law ALSO worked this way.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2020 at 1:18 PM, Keith said:

We already have an existing tight licensing and transportation system for firearms in Canada.

So those don’t work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bpm57 said:
23 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Tom, the second word is 'off'.

You may choose your own first word.

Is this your normal response when asked what issues museum collections caused? Does the mere appearance of a semiauto firearm cause murders?

Hah! No, his previous response was to make up the notion that the collectors would not sell their guns overseas, despite the article under discussion saying that's exactly what they intended to do. He seems pretty sure that whatever he makes up must be right, then doesn't wish to talk to me when I prove it wrong. Happened in the asset forfeiture thread too. When an ignoramus who doesn't read what we're discussing and makes stuff up gets irritated with me for reading and proving him wrong again, I'm pretty sure I am on the right track.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

I wasn't aware the other countries had to meet your approval in their governing practices

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I wasn't aware the other countries had to meet your approval in their governing practices

Funny how you don't seem to have that issue in threads where all of the Aussie, NZ, canada, uk, etc experts weigh in on everything the US is doing wrong. Especially on the firearm topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bpm57 said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I wasn't aware the other countries had to meet your approval in their governing practices

Funny how you don't seem to have that issue in threads where all of the Aussie, NZ, canada, uk, etc experts weigh in on everything the US is doing wrong. Especially on the firearm topic.

That's cuz you don't look. It's true that I don't lead the pack in telling furriners to fuck off and die, but for the most part very few of them try to demand that we follow -their- laws.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

BS!  Then why didn't it go before parliament to be enacted?  I wasn't aware that the PM was a King that ruled by decree.  

Because it did not need to be, either by law or culture. It was not the PM that determined this.  He alone does not hold the power to do so.  He can lead the issue, but it is the Counsel that does so.  This means other people are involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

 

Don't confuse a system of government with its corrupt participants..

We can go into a discussion of moral hazard, the requirement of gentlemanly behaviour and the role of equity in governance, all of which are not handled well by a republic, especially one that has been reduced to only two participants in government due to the solidarity of the polarization.  The checks and balances are not effectively in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laker said:

We can go into a discussion of moral hazard, the requirement of gentlemanly behaviour and the role of equity in governance, all of which are not handled well by a republic, especially one that has been reduced to only two participants in government due to the solidarity of the polarization.  The checks and balances are not effectively in place.

How are you going to have a duel with more than two?

It would end up looking like this:  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Because it's regulation not legislation?

You do know the difference, don't you?

Doubtful.

It's likely just "commie shit" to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2020 at 1:26 PM, Foolish said:

Trudeau has lived up to his promise (and one of the key reasons why I voted for him) and banned assault rifles.

Just curious, did you know that he meant "ordinary .22's" when you supported banning "assault" rifles?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom after hearing .22s were banned as well, even though it is thousands of fucking miles away from him,

tenor.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 6:53 PM, Olsonist said:

Despite your verbal diarrhea, you accidentally hit on something there. Yes, society is beginning to hold legal gun owners responsible for gun carnage which speaks to my earlier point about y'all avoiding your responsibility.

What responsibility do I have for anyone else's behavior?    Your position is fallacy.   Are you responsible for the behavior of every watercraft owner because you have a boat?   How many people are hurt in jetski/boating accidents every year?  What is YOUR responsibility to preventing those tragic instances?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What responsibility do I have for anyone else's behavior?    Your position is fallacy.   Are you responsible for the behavior of every watercraft owner because you have a boat?   How many people are hurt in jetski/boating accidents every year?  What is YOUR responsibility to preventing those tragic instances?   

No, it only applies to firearm owners. Applying it to anything else would require olsonist to actually think about what he is saying.

And its just a continuation of one of the things jocal has been babbling for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What responsibility do I have for anyone else's behavior?    Your position is fallacy.   Are you responsible for the behavior of every watercraft owner because you have a boat?   How many people are hurt in jetski/boating accidents every year?  What is YOUR responsibility to preventing those tragic instances?   

My goodness, this sounds like a philosophy class.  I take it you are debating "No".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

My goodness, this sounds like a philosophy class.  I take it you are debating "No".  

You're correct  - I disagree with the premise that because I own something, that that infers an obligation of responsibility for how anyone else who owns a similar thing behaves with it.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 9:28 PM, frenchie said:

 

 

They followed the mechanism as laid out in Canada's Criminal Code.  That's been the mechanism, since... forever. 

I didn't see you guys bitching when the Conservatives got rid of the Long Gun Registry... guess what?  Same process.

Cite?  Canada's Criminal Code:

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-20.html#docCont

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-29.html#docCont

 

It's not from Trudeau; it's not even from his Dad.  It's how that section of the Criminal Code's been written since... I dunno, exactly, but a long-ass time. 

Even the old 1953 version, which is structured quite differently (and doesn't allow handguns at all, by the way), has words to the same effect:

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl196869v0102cana/page/852/mode/2up

You guys are freaking out about Canadians doing things the way they do things in Canada. 

Pro-tip:  it's a different system

They don't have as many "safeguards" against "tyranny", because they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place.  It's not like here.  Governments can be recalled at the drop of a hat.  That's why they never have shut-downs, and are so bemused when we have one.

 

edit: I spent too long on that... got beat to the punch by dfw.

I especially love the Q&A  Polite Slight sessions. The Gentlemanly art of the "Honorable member's mother served our sailors well." insult. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 9:28 PM, frenchie said:

 

 

They followed the mechanism as laid out in Canada's Criminal Code.  That's been the mechanism, since... forever. 

I didn't see you guys bitching when the Conservatives got rid of the Long Gun Registry... guess what?  Same process.

Cite?  Canada's Criminal Code:

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-20.html#docCont

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-29.html#docCont

 

It's not from Trudeau; it's not even from his Dad.  It's how that section of the Criminal Code's been written since... I dunno, exactly, but a long-ass time. 

Even the old 1953 version, which is structured quite differently (and doesn't allow handguns at all, by the way), has words to the same effect:

https://archive.org/details/actsofparl196869v0102cana/page/852/mode/2up

You guys are freaking out about Canadians doing things the way they do things in Canada. 

Pro-tip:  it's a different system

They don't have as many "safeguards" against "tyranny", because they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place.  It's not like here.  Governments can be recalled at the drop of a hat.  That's why they never have shut-downs, and are so bemused when we have one.

 

edit: I spent too long on that... got beat to the punch by dfw.

Recalled?  By the voters? Only BC has such a system and it is member by member. There is no process to recall a government. You are confusing the right of the ruling party to call a snap election or an election resulting from a vote of non confidence. The third, although VERY unlikely, event would be by order of the Queen to her governor general to dissolve parliament. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What responsibility do I have for anyone else's behavior?    Your position is fallacy.   Are you responsible for the behavior of every watercraft owner because you have a boat?   How many people are hurt in jetski/boating accidents every year?  What is YOUR responsibility to preventing those tragic instances?   

Yes, responsibility isn't in the Republican vocabulary. I get that. As per your boy Shitstain, I don't take responsibility at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
3 hours ago, Laker said:

My goodness, this sounds like a philosophy class.  I take it you are debating "No".  

You're correct  - I disagree with the premise that because I own something, that that infers an obligation of responsibility for how anyone else who owns a similar thing behaves with it.     

Yep

OTOH there is not chance that if 10% of some identifiable group of people.... let's say just for an abstract example, "people flying purple dirigibles" act like wild flaming dangerous selfish assholes, the rest of the people with that identity will be tarred with it.

No chance in a million of that happening, ever. It just ain't human nature, is it?

I suppose that by rejecting the premise that there is an interconnection between all gun owners, you are also accepting the idea that you and only you are responsible for the character & reliability & mental stability of the guy you sell it to.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I suppose that by rejecting the premise that there is an interconnection between all gun owners

Does this "interconnection" apply to any other items, or just the one you are afraid of?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I suppose that by rejecting the premise that there is an interconnection between all gun owners

Does this "interconnection" apply to any other items, or just the one you are afraid of?

Sea Ray motorboats

Vegans

Harleys

Protestors wearing or brandishing Nazi symbolism

Homosexuals

Grandparents

The IT Department

Advocates of the junk rig

Finn sailors (the one-design class, not the nationality)

etc etc

In the novel, CAT'S CRADLE, the author Kurt Vonnegut (mentioned recently in a couple of other threads) discusses a fictional religion which makes a great distinctions between groups of people with some alike characteristic, and artificial groups of people which appear to have something in common but really don't. A sort of metaphysical double-think. There are a lot of other great things in that book including the end of the world. But it might not be your cup of tea, no pictures.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sea Ray motorboats

Vegans

Harleys

Protestors wearing or brandishing Nazi symbolism

Homosexuals

Grandparents

The IT Department

Advocates of the junk rig

Finn sailors (the one-design class, not the nationality)

etc etc

In the novel, CAT'S CRADLE, the author Kurt Vonnegut (mentioned recently in a couple of other threads) discusses a fictional religion which makes a great distinctions between groups of people with some alike characteristic, and artificial groups of people which appear to have something in common but really don't. A sort of metaphysical double-think. There are a lot of other great things in that book including the end of the world. But it might not be your cup of tea, no pictures.

- DSK

I love Vonnegut's writing.

bEu5DwAAQBAJ?fife=w400-h600

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 7:43 PM, Laker said:

they don't grant the government tyrannical power in the first place

I'd also add: 

We don't see government as tyrannical or wanting to "take our rights" in the first place. We don't fear our government. We may think it's stupid, corrupt, or incompetent. But we're not afraid of the government as a society.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuses such as Ruby Ridge, Waco and post 9-11 power grabs and wars have shaken millions of peoples trust in USA government.

Then if you study subjects such as democide and understand that statistically you are much more likely to be killed by your own government than a thug or psycho you can see where people become concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pun Slinger said:

Recalled?  By the voters? Only BC has such a system and it is member by member. There is no process to recall a government. You are confusing the right of the ruling party to call a snap election or an election resulting from a vote of non confidence. The third, although VERY unlikely, event would be by order of the Queen to her governor general to dissolve parliament. 

I was referring to votes of non-confidence; just putting it in terms Americans could understand.

The closest thing in the US system is Impeachment; which doesn't throw out the whole government, just the leader. 

If you compare them, in actual practice, the difference is even more stark.  DJT would be probably be nicknamed "Donnie Who?" by now.  He'd have had to call an election after the failed ACA repeal.  Obama would have been kicked out, a year into his second term... etc. 

Point being, simply, that the Canadian system doesn't have a powerful "Executive Branch", like the US does.  An Order in Council is not comparable to an Executive Order by the President.  It's more aking to the rule-making authority that Agencies have, here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zonker said:

I'd also add: 

We don't see government as tyrannical or wanting to "take our rights" in the first place. We don't fear our government. We may think it's stupid, corrupt, or incompetent. But we're not afraid of the government as a society.

Idiot level right wingers are.

But they're afraid of a lot of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're correct  - I disagree with the premise that because I own something, that that infers an obligation of responsibility for how anyone else who owns a similar thing behaves with it.    

So you don't understand that automobile ownership makes you responsible for drunk drivers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Just what I thought - you've got nothing. 

The toilet seat is covered in bumper stickers.

Why read an entire article or transcript when you can just see if you can find 5 to 10 words to whine about.

Sometimes it takes effort and imagination though.  Like thinking Hydroxychloroquine and game changer showed up in the same paragraph.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steganographic Tom said:

So you don't understand that automobile ownership makes you responsible for drunk drivers?

We do understand that gun ownership as a hobby and not for hunting or some other legitimate purpose like LE leads inevitably to guns proliferating in the market and then being used for the purpose they were created for - killing humans.  So, we discourage that hobby with regulations and licensing.   In Canada, people can still own certain types of guns, but there are lots of rules they will have to follow.   It isn't a casual thing like it is in the US.  

Automobiles are not intended to kill humans, though it sometimes happens. 

I refused to sign for my best friend here to get a gun license.  He is a draft-dodger that moved here during the Vietnam war.  He grew up with guns in the house in California.  It was a wake-up call for him that things are different here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

We do understand that gun ownership as a hobby and not for hunting or some other legitimate purpose like LE leads inevitably to guns proliferating in the market and then being used for the purpose they were created for - killing humans.  So, we discourage that hobby with regulations and licensing.   In Canada, people can still own certain types of guns, but there are lots of rules they will have to follow.   It isn't a casual thing like it is in the US.  

Automobiles are not intended to kill humans, though it sometimes happens. 

I refused to sign for my best friend here to get a gun license.  He is a draft-dodger that moved here during the Vietnam war.  He grew up with guns in the house in California.  It was a wake-up call for him that things are different here.

I wonder if a parallel could be the ownership of a McLaren or a Ferrari.  Intended to speed, otherwise, why buy it.  Speed kills or at least puts up our insurance rates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

I wonder if a parallel could be the ownership of a McLaren or a Ferrari.  Intended to speed, otherwise, why buy it.  Speed kills or at least puts up our insurance rates.

When they start fighting wars with McLarens and Ferraris, let us know.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

When they start fighting wars with McLarens and Ferraris, let us know.  

When drivers of McLarens and Ferraris do not die on the road or more importantly make others die, I will let you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Laker said:
1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

When they start fighting wars with McLarens and Ferraris, let us know.  

When drivers of McLarens and Ferraris do not die on the road or more importantly make others die, I will let you know.

How about when bearded knuckled heads stat brandishing automatic McLarens and Ferraris, scary black ones, in order to threaten their local government because they don't like being told to wear masks and wash their hands?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Laker said:

When drivers of McLarens and Ferraris do not die on the road or more importantly make others die, I will let you know.

When they start designing McLarens and Ferraris to be as effective as possible at killing people, let us know.

You do realize your argument is ridiculous, right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

When they start designing McLarens and Ferraris to be as effective as possible at killing people, let us know.

You do realize your argument is ridiculous, right?

Actually, his argument that things that are designed to exceed by far the limits required by the majority of people are stupid and superfluous and should be better regulated.

Is entirely not stupid. To me anyway.

But I want to ban personalised number plates .......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Actually, his argument that things that are designed to exceed by far the limits required by the majority of people are stupid and superfluous and should be better regulated.

Is entirely not stupid. To me anyway.

But I want to ban personalised number plates .......

I want to ban drive-throughs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rain Man said:

We do understand that gun ownership as a hobby and not for hunting or some other legitimate purpose like LE leads inevitably to guns proliferating in the market and then being used for the purpose they were created for - killing humans.  So, we discourage that hobby with regulations and licensing.   In Canada, people can still own certain types of guns, but there are lots of rules they will have to follow.   It isn't a casual thing like it is in the US.  

Automobiles are not intended to kill humans, though it sometimes happens. 

I refused to sign for my best friend here to get a gun license.  He is a draft-dodger that moved here during the Vietnam war.  He grew up with guns in the house in California.  It was a wake-up call for him that things are different here.

Do you think self-defense is a legitimate purpose?

How about just target shooting for the fun of it?

The "inevitable" hasn't happened with my guns and won't.

You can't own some ordinary .22's in Canada any more, as noted in post 65. That tells me that the term "assault" weapon is just a scare tactic and unrelated to lethality.

Automobile deaths seldom just happen. People drive drunk. People speed. Then people die. Sober and safe drivers are not responsible for those things any more than the vast majority of gun owners are responsible for a handful of criminal assholes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Steganographic Tom said:

You can't own some ordinary .22's in Canada any more,

tenor.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steganographic Tom said:

...

How about just target shooting for the fun of it?

...

If that is the only way you can think of to have fun, you need to get a life.  This is a sailing website after all, maybe go sailing?

IMHO, target shooting is for police and military to practice an essential skill.    For regular folk, there is no need to practice.  The self-defense argument ("if there was just one good guy with a gun") has been long debunked.  

I was the best shot in my Rovers group as an adolescent.  It was boring after the first 20 minutes, noisy, and reeked from the gunpowder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

If that is the only way you can think of to have fun, you need to get a life.  This is a sailing website after all, maybe go sailing?

IMHO, target shooting is for police and military to practice an essential skill.    For regular folk, there is no need to practice.  The self-defense argument ("if there was just one good guy with a gun") has been long debunked.  

I was the best shot in my Rovers group as an adolescent.  It was boring after the first 20 minutes, noisy, and reeked from the gunpowder. 

So it didn't make you feel manly?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

I want to ban drive-throughs.

Why???  One of the best things invented since sliced bread, incall hookers, and the wheel.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

IMHO, target shooting is for police and military to practice an essential skill.    For regular folk, there is no need to practice.  The self-defense argument ("if there was just one good guy with a gun") has been long debunked.  

 

Sorry, but in a country where the 2A specifically allows for self-defense and national defense via the militia - target shooting is an essential skill for regular folk too.  For the exact same reason it is for Mil and the Po-Leece.  

And no, the self-defense argument has not been debunked.  Quite the opposite actually.  

On that note, I'm going target shooting tomorrow specifically to hone my self-defense skills.  I'll be joined by a retired ex-British London Bobby who also believes that "regular folk" should be able to defend themselves, since the Po-Leece can't be everywhere all the time..  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Sorry, but in a country where the 2A specifically allows for self-defense and national defense via the militia - target shooting is an essential skill for regular folk too.  For the exact same reason it is for Mil and the Po-Leece.  

And no, the self-defense argument has not been debunked.  Quite the opposite actually.  

On that note, I'm going target shooting tomorrow specifically to hone my self-defense skills.  I'll be joined by a retired ex-British London Bobby who also believes that "regular folk" should be able to defend themselves, since the Po-Leece can't be everywhere all the time..  

Yes, but we're talking about a different country here. One a little more rational and a lot less needy at displaying manhood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

If this happened in the states, she'd have been a dead stormtrooper. But seriously, those are some dumb cops.

 

Alberta: Canada's Texas.  Cop got all aggro because she didn't kneel fast enough.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Sorry, but in a country where the 2A specifically allows for self-defense and national defense via the militia - target shooting is an essential skill for regular folk too.  For the exact same reason it is for Mil and the Po-Leece.  

And no, the self-defense argument has not been debunked.  Quite the opposite actually.  

On that note, I'm going target shooting tomorrow specifically to hone my self-defense skills.  I'll be joined by a retired ex-British London Bobby who also believes that "regular folk" should be able to defend themselves, since the Po-Leece can't be everywhere all the time..  

Fear and paranoia is always thick in America, too bad.

But hey its your right to live in fear of your neighbor, your government, and all your fellow Americans.

Just don't forget,  all of them will be ready to shoot right back at you,  good luck.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Why???  One of the best things invented since sliced bread, incall hookers, and the wheel.  

For lazy, polluting layabouts that can't drag their ass out of the car and interface properly with another person.  I used to go to Starbucks, but no more since they all changed to having drive-throughs around here and closed down their "cafe" locations (west Portland).  I now go into a store and know that I am second fiddle to the stupid timer on the drive-through window. Then when I do sit down, instead of a calming conversation, I get this hive of activity in the corner that sounds like an out of control cacophony.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Sorry, but in a country where the 2A specifically allows for self-defense and national defense via the militia - target shooting is an essential skill for regular folk too.  For the exact same reason it is for Mil and the Po-Leece.  

And no, the self-defense argument has not been debunked.  Quite the opposite actually.  

On that note, I'm going target shooting tomorrow specifically to hone my self-defense skills.  I'll be joined by a retired ex-British London Bobby who also believes that "regular folk" should be able to defend themselves, since the Po-Leece can't be everywhere all the time..  

Well, you folks are doing something wrong.  In 2017, in the USA, there were 39,773 gun deaths.  In Canada in the same year, there were 266.  Your population is 10 times ours, so if you were doing things our way, you would have only had 2660 deaths.  Your way caused an additional 37,113 deaths.  

But, hey, you do you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Well, you folks are doing something wrong.  In 2017, in the USA, there were 39,773 gun deaths.  In Canada in the same year, there were 266.  Your population is 10 times ours, so if you were doing things our way, you would have only had 2660 deaths.  Your way caused an additional 37,113 deaths.  

But, hey, you do you.

 

Go research suicide stats.

Just so you're prepared for the inevitable strawmen....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laker said:

When drivers of McLarens and Ferraris do not die on the road or more importantly make others die, I will let you know.

The standard gun nutter rationalization - as long as people die for any other reason, don't do anything about guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rain Man said:
7 hours ago, Steganographic Tom said:

...

How about just target shooting for the fun of it?

...

If that is the only way you can think of to have fun, you need to get a life.  This is a sailing website after all, maybe go sailing?

IMHO, target shooting is for police and military to practice an essential skill.    For regular folk, there is no need to practice.

Just because my opposition to gun bans and confiscation programs is the only topic that draws interest in this shithole, don't assume it's the only thing of interest to me. There are lots of threads here proving the opposite, if you were interested.

I guess your non response answers my question about self defense. I think it's a human right, not just for those with badges.

As for your idea that hunters should go out without practicing, it's inhumane.

6 hours ago, Rain Man said:

The self-defense argument ("if there was just one good guy with a gun") has been long debunked.  

Not really, it happens all the time. It just doesn't draw much publicity because it's so common. And because it's anathema to people who want to confiscate (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) from peaceful people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tom, Australia ... New Zealand ... Canada ...

Can you see the pattern?  The devil is on the doorstep!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steganographic Tom said:

I guess your non response answers my question about self defense. I think it's a human right, not just for those with badges.

Self defense is a right. Using guns to achieve self defense is not a right wanking.

 

5 minutes ago, astro said:

Hey Tom, Australia ... New Zealand ... Canada ...

Can you see the pattern?  The devil is on the doorstep!

Nannothermite alert. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

 

And no, the self-defense argument has not been debunked.  Quite the opposite actually.  

Cite it, bitch. The SDU argument, that more guns means less crime,  is so discredited that it is no longer used in court.

The evidence, since 2007, is that loose gun restrictions, and right-to-cqrry laws in particular, increase violent crime, in the double digits. Rape is increased in the single digits.

 

Quote

Donohue 1(2007) and II (2012): RTC laws increase violent crime

 

Donohue applied the synthetic control approach using four previously published statistical data models that had generated conflicting panel data estimates of the impact of RTC laws on violent crime. In all four cases, the synthetic control estimates showed increases in overall violent crime of 13-15 percent.

“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue stated in the paper.

 

To put the significance of a 15-percent increase in violent crime in perspective, the paper notes that “the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.”

 

Donohue’s team engaged in an array of different tests to ensure that the findings were sound. For example, Donohue noticed that Hawaii was included as part of a synthetic control more than any other single state. So, he re-ran the entire synthetic controls analysis while excluding Hawaii to see if there were any major changes; there weren’t. He then did the same for every other state that contributed to the synthetic controls for any of the 33 adopting states, and the resulting estimates showed very little variation: in all cases RTC laws were linked with higher violent crime rates.

From <https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/>

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2020 at 6:53 PM, Olsonist said:

Despite your verbal diarrhea, you accidentally hit on something there. Yes, society is beginning to hold legal gun owners responsible for gun carnage which speaks to my earlier point about y'all avoiding your responsibility.

 

48204A40-0F99-4900-8C6E-2557F337D772.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Laker said:

I wonder if a parallel could be the ownership of a McLaren or a Ferrari.  Intended to speed, otherwise, why buy it.  Speed kills or at least puts up our insurance rates.

A thread distraction, I found it a hoot that there is a McLaren dealership in Hong Kong. The dealership also sells Rolls-Royces. There is one highway that has a speed limit of 110 km/h and it is not very long. I think the only reason someone buys a McLaren is to lord it over friends making do with a Ferrari - there is a Ferrari dealership as well. Good place to buy a used Ferrari or McLaren (RHD of course) since it is hard to put any mileage on one of these cars.

https://hongkong.mclaren.com/en

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Hong Kong has/had the most per capita Ferraris for years. There’s a 120% or some such tax too

Must be getting ready for war with someone....:ph34r:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Self defense is a right.

But it isn't, Joe. As you have told us endlessly, the Statute of Northampton disallows "bearing arms".

This may be news to you - but "bearing arms" covers alot more then just firearms.

Or are you now running away from your theory that 14th century laws from another country apply to today?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Well, you folks are doing something wrong.  In 2017, in the USA, there were 39,773 gun deaths.  In Canada in the same year, there were 266.  Your population is 10 times ours, so if you were doing things our way, you would have only had 2660 deaths.  Your way caused an additional 37,113 deaths.  

Thanks Mr. Rain for the cogent comparison. 

The gunz-humpers cannot answer the simple question: "If guns keep us safe, why aren't we safe?" 

In fact, they are so far gone, that they are unable to even process it mentally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites