Jump to content

Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Zonker said:

Which is a WAG right?

Not sure which you're asking about? The cost?

It's a couple of guesses bundled together, apparently.

Quote

Applying this to the government dataset, the result is a preliminary cost estimate ranging from $47 million to $188 million (tiered compensation), and $56 million to $225 million for the market value approach. Applied to the CSAAA dataset, the estimate amounts are $158 million to $632 million (tiered compensation), or $180 million to $756 million using market value. 

Those datasets attempt to guess how many covered firearms Canadians own.

They seem to presume a high, or maybe 100%, compliance rate, but a gun that has an unfortunate boating accident will never require any compensation.

As for the compliance rate guess, it's based on looking at compliance rates with other confiscation programs in America and Australia and New Zealand. Low double digits is kinda optimistic but Canadians are easygoing, eh? That's a heck of a lot better than New Jersey is doing, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 567
  • 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

I was referring to compliance rate. Comparing to the US is foolish. Our gun owning culture is very different. We have no 2nd Amendment. (see below)

Comparing to Australia and NZ might be similar - except we look to our southern neighbours and are thus more exposed to the mass shootings which have become so common there, and I think even some of our gun owners are upset by this. 

If they are fairly compensated (who knows), I think there will be reasonably high compliance. Especially if the penalties for holding on to a banned weapon are high enough. 

 

You may have missed our Throne Speech last week. The government proposed legislation to allow provinces to ban all handguns in their province. That's offloading a responsibility to other governments because I don't think it will be as politically popular with the assault weapon ban. ~1/2 the gun murders in Canada were with handguns. But progress marches on, if slowly. 

 

Interesting reasons as to why Canadians own guns:

The previous review touched on the reasons for owning firearms. Based on the findings of three surveys, Gabor reported that about 70 percent of firearm owners said hunting was the primary reason they owned firearms (Gabor, 1994: 12). These findings were since confirmed by ICVS data (Block, 1998) where nearly 73 percent of respondents said they owned firearms to hunt. They also owned them to target shoot (18.4 percent), and because there has always been a firearm in the respondents’ homes (10 percent). Another 7.4 percent of those surveyed collected firearms, and 4.6 percent had them for protection (Block, 1988: 12).

The extent to which Canadians own firearms to protect themselves from criminals or animals is the subject of some controversy. However, survey findings have consistently shown that the proportion of Canadians who state self-defense or self-protection as a reason or their main reason for owning a firearm is very low. Even when those who use a firearm in their job are included in that figure, it is still likely to be lower than five percent (Block, 1998: 12-13; Gabor, 1997:5; Sacco, 1995)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zonker said:

was referring to compliance rate. Comparing to the US is foolish. Our gun owning culture is very different. We have no 2nd Amendment. (see below)

Comparing to Australia and NZ might be similar - except we look to our southern neighbours and are thus more exposed to the mass shootings which have become so common there, and I think even some of our gun owners are upset by this. 

If they are fairly compensated (who knows), I think there will be reasonably high compliance. Especially if the penalties for holding on to a banned weapon are high enough. 

Well, your guess might be as good as mine on compliance rates. I think your post reveals why it will be low.

Of course gun owners are upset by violent criminals! We're sort of human too! The big difference of opinion is about whether gun owners are RESPONSIBLE for the actions of violent criminals, which would justify taking their guns away.

By and large, past behavior indicates gun owners do not feel responsible for the actions of criminals and so don't cooperate with the confiscation programs that attempt to hold them responsible.

We've tried endlessly upping mandatory minimums and even using the death penalty, but without a credible threat of being caught, all those hypothetical penalties don't seem to bring compliance with prohibition programs, whether they target guns or drugs.

I've complimented your nation in the past for at least acting like guns are legitimate property for people to own and offering compensation. It is likely to bring a higher compliance rate than our approach of declaring gun ownership a nuisance and taking the guns without compensation. Still, if the compensation is market value, I'd point out that those people can sell their guns for that amount today and choose not to do it. They're likely to continue to make the same choice, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother is an avid gun nut owner and hunter. He runs a shooting range near Whistler for international tourists to come and shoot things when they aren't skiing.

(www.whistlershooting.com - check them out if you are ever in the area. Americans, please ignore. You'll be shocked at the cost of bullets and thus the cost to shoot here)

Anyway he hates Justin Trudeau for the ban, but he already bought new legal guns to replace the banned ones. I'm sure when the compensation/buyback is figured out, he'll be right there turning in the guns and grumbllng about how much they are worth. 

As a whole we are very law abiding society. We may complain about the laws but we typically obey them, even when we think they are stupid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

  

11 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
14 hours ago, Liquid said:

Yeah, not!!

That's a S&W 22 target pistol.

Is that the "Battlefield Dogballs" he's always going on about us banning?

I'm not sure whether Canadians are allowed to have those, but was pretty specific about the battlefield .22's to be banned and confiscated in your country, since a list was helpfully provided.

It's weird that Canadians can still buy a 10-22 like my wife's battlefield .22.

But whether a .22 is an ordinary .22 or a battlefield .22 just depends on whether it's included in an assault weapons ban, so is location-specific.

Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PeterSailor said:

Jumped ahead 2 pages in that thread, and Tommy still whining about .22s. Not surprised from someone whose country think Kinder Surprise are more dangerous than guns.

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing. I believe the clinical term is "obsession".

obsession-by-calvin-klein-for-women-edp-

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ishmael said:

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing.

Everyone is saying it!

For those interested more in facts than popular gossip, there are lots of threads in PA where I talk about things other than guns. Grabbers come along and bring up guns and I politely thank them, that's it.

You can go to Cruising Anarchy and see political posts about guns from triggered Canucks like Sloopy and Ish, but you can't find a single post over there where I do the same thing they do.

But I'm the problem. Everyone (who obstinately ignores facts) is saying it.

Seems to me the real problem in this thread is that there are still lots of Canadians with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war that need confiscation and nobody is getting around to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

Everyone is saying it!

For those interested more in facts than popular gossip, there are lots of threads in PA where I talk about things other than guns. Grabbers come along and bring up guns and I politely thank them, that's it.

You can go to Cruising Anarchy and see political posts about guns from triggered Canucks like Sloopy and Ish, but you can't find a single post over there where I do the same thing they do.

But I'm the problem. Everyone (who obstinately ignores facts) is saying it.

Seems to me the real problem in this thread is that there are still lots of Canadians with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war that need confiscation and nobody is getting around to it.

https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2021_12/image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Keith said:

https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2021_12/image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

I saw it the first time.

Asprirational memes are nice and everything, but the whole point of this thread is that there are Canadians who are armed with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war and they need to have those confiscated asap because of the dangers these people are creating.

Maybe you should wait until they're actually disarmed before repeatedly bragging about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I saw it the first time.

Asprirational memes are nice and everything, but the whole point of this thread is that there are Canadians who are armed with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war and they need to have those confiscated asap because of the dangers these people are creating.

Maybe you should wait until they're actually disarmed before repeatedly bragging about it?

https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2021_12/image.png.49974527a2cbf989a28f6db5c3d63fd2.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/1/2020 at 1:26 PM, Foolish said:

There is a 2 year amnesty period where the government will buy them from owners.

It didn't go quite that way.

So far, 160 battlefield .22's and other weapons of war have been taken.
 

Quote

 

...

“If an individual or business were to relinquish a newly prohibited firearm or device before the implementation of the taking program, they won’t be eligible for compensation once the program is announced,” the RCMP said this week in response to questions iPolitics asked it last month.

“Government officials are currently in the process of refining requirements and developing program design and implementation options for a taking program,” said the RCMP’s media-relations branch.

“The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) can confirm that, as of Dec. 9, 2021, 18 firearms (formerly classified as restricted) affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC) have been deactivated,” added Sgt. Caroline Duval, the spokesperson who forwarded the Mounties’ response.

“In addition, there have been 142 OIC-affected firearms recorded as surrendered to a public agency for destruction since May 1, 2020.”

...

 

So it's kind of surprising that as many as 160 were taken, given that no one is yet eligible for any compensation.

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

Where in the article does it mention "battlefield .22s"?

What an odd question!

The article references firearms "affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC)."

The list was posted back on page 1:

On 5/1/2020 at 2:03 PM, Foolish said:

The list can be found on the government of Canada’s site: Canada Gazette

Since I view such lists as shopping lists, I was interested and looked at the guns to be taken.

Just as in civilized countries like Australia, just as in the US Congress, just as in New Jersey, battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" in Canada.

If you're going to try to argue they should not be, you're on your own. I tried and lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2021 at 11:59 AM, Ishmael said:

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing. I believe the clinical term is "obsession".

obsession-by-calvin-klein-for-women-edp-

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Zonker said:

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

The casual acceptance of lies is a weird thing.

I count at least half a dozen "Tom" threads, if that means threads on political subjects that seem to be of interest only to me, on the front page at the moment. Admittedly, that counts an extended troll of randumb, but the rest are actual political issues, just not ones where partisan axes are ground.

You can indeed go back years in any of them and see the same thing: posts about the topic. And occasional interruptions from grabbers who want to emphasize my heresy on the gun issue.

You seem like a reader who may have actually done this, so why the casual acceptance of Ishmael's lie about me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

What an odd question!

The article references firearms "affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC)."

The list was posted back on page 1:

Since I view such lists as shopping lists, I was interested and looked at the guns to be taken.

Just as in civilized countries like Australia, just as in the US Congress, just as in New Jersey, battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" in Canada.

If you're going to try to argue they should not be, you're on your own. I tried and lost.

Ruger is a king of the 22. Only Rugers on the list are 556, same for S&W...

How many on the list are actual .22LR calibers???

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

You seem like a reader who may have actually done this, so why the casual acceptance of Ishmael's lie about me?

I can't be bothered to follow the back and forth. I was commenting on some perfume, not guns. 

 

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

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

It was extremely well named. After I got a waft of it on a female customer, I asked her what she was wearing, taking pains to explain I wanted to buy it for my wife. My wife got a bottle of it on the next occasion. It's been over a decade, and it's still my favourite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Liquid said:

Ruger is a king of the 22. Only Rugers on the list are 556, same for S&W...

How many on the list are actual .22LR calibers???

Common sense gun control is sometimes difficult to comprehend. For example, my wife's gun is a Ruger battlefield .22, slated to be banned in both the US Congress and in the FL legislature, but you can just buy one in Canada. So they're not battlefield .22's above a certain latitude or something.

If you read the thread, I discussed several of the .22 items on the Canadian shopping list. I'm not sure I got them all and don't feel like counting if you don't feel like reading, so... some is the answer to your question.

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

I can't be bothered to follow the back and forth. I was commenting on some perfume, not guns. 

 

Ah, unaware, gotcha.

If you should ever develop a desire to discuss a political subject other than guns with me, despite Ishmael's lies, opportunities to do so can be found here and here and here and here and here and here and here just to start. But don't let a pile of facts get in the way of enjoying lying grabber gossip.

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

 my wife's gun is a Ruger battlefield .22

Exactly which Ruger 22 does she have? They do not make a 'Ruger Battlefield 22'!

You have made this stupid label you call 'battlefield 22" - it's meaningless but to you!

There is NO such thing!!

FYI: When you make the shape of a gun with your hands, it's not a real gun and doesn't shoot battlefield 22 ammo, what ever the fuck that is.....

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

Exactly which Ruger 22 does she have?

It has a terrifyngly scary (aftermarket) folding stock,

, and a pistol grip, 

(, if that's the one I'm remembering)

It shoots the same (dot) twenty two rimfire round as the others.

 

? Tom, a pic ? 

( with appropriate warnings for the children, of course )

 

1 hour ago, Liquid said:

You have made this stupid label you call 'battlefield 22"

NO.

team grabbers, in the legislation, call it that

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

Exactly which Ruger 22 does she have? They do not make a 'Ruger Battlefield 22'!

You have made this stupid label you call 'battlefield 22" - it's meaningless but to you!

There is NO such thing!!

FYI: When you make the shape of a gun with your hands, it's not a real gun and doesn't shoot battlefield 22 ammo, what ever the fuck that is.....

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Just do as I did and read the assault weapons ban proposals in Congress. She has a 10-22 carbine which had an adjustable stock up until an unfortunate boating accident early last year. I'm not saying whether she replaced the lost stock or not, but hypothetically, if she did, that would be a battlefield .22.

Not sure what's stupid about that label. Assault weapons bans target weapons of war. Just read any press release. So if a .22 is subject to such a ban, it's a weapon of war. Or, battlefield .22.

I admit that I used to go around this forum calling .22's ordinary or "squirrel shooters" but I have been educated as to their military nature and now use a more acceptable term.

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

blah blah.... .22's ordinary or "squirrel shooters" but I have been educated as to their military nature and now use a more acceptable term.

That's your origin story for Battlefield 22???? A term 'more acceptable' to you and that you have made up!?  It's still udder BS...

What military specs .22LR for killing humans? 

Why isn't the smallest, cheapest and most widely available round used in ALL military?????

 

Which would you rather be hit with:

A brick at 5 MPH

or

The same brick at 15 MPH

 

 

22223.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guess which hits* are from a .22LR vs a .223/5.56 (green tip) from the same distance (~100 yards)?

 

* Some are previously painted over plus different caliber hits closer in.

Hint: 8 from big boy rounds!

The smallest indents are from a .22LR among 9MM and .357 Mag...

target1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Liquid said:

That's your origin story for Battlefield 22???? A term 'more acceptable' to you and that you have made up!?  It's still udder BS...

Most here were upset when I called them squirrel shooters and have not objected now that I recognize that battlefield .22's are part of the ordinary military equipment.

8 hours ago, Liquid said:

What military specs .22LR for killing humans? 

I guess you missed this?

  

On 3/26/2018 at 6:40 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

I never did understand why you think strawmen are so fun, but I learned something about battlefield .22's today.

On 3/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, badlatitude said:

Did you tell them that the Israeli Army uses them for sniper weapons? 

http://www.ruger1022.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/8.jpg

Operator armed with the Ruger 10/22 Suppressed sniper rifle during the Israeli-Palestinian clashes in the Occupied Territories, October 2000. Note that the sniper has a Sig Sauer handgun tacked in his vest.

Expand  


I guess badlat must have forgotten to include his source.

 

Anyway, I guess the search for an acceptable term for the weapons subject to bans continues. If it's defined as a "weapon of war" in press releases and defended in court because all "assault weapons" are "the like" of an M-16, what do you call such a .22? How do you distinguish it from those .22's that are not to be banned?

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

Most here were upset when I called them squirrel shooters and have not objected now that I recognize that battlefield .22's are part of the ordinary military equipment.

I guess you missed this?

  

 

Anyway, I guess the search for an acceptable term for the weapons subject to bans continues. If it's defined as a "weapon of war" in press releases and defended in court because all "assault weapons" are "the like" of an M-16, what do you call such a .22? How do you distinguish it from those .22's that are not to be banned?

Battlefield .22s are the most prolific and lethal weapons known to man. Shit, you've got a 20 year old picture proving it!

Why anyone warrior/sniper would choose something like a battlefield .308 over a .22 is just crazy talk.... 

 

Gotta run, I'm going to the range with the kid to shoot battlefield paint balls! This weekend we're going to shoot some sporting clays with our battlefield 12 gauges! Might even do some indoor shooting with our battlefield 9MMs... we may even break out the battlefield .357 Magnum revolver. Probably drive my battlefield Chevy pickup too!

 

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

Battlefield .22s are the most prolific and lethal weapons known to man. Shit, you've got a 20 year old picture proving it!

Why anyone warrior/sniper would choose something like a battlefield .308 over a .22 is just crazy talk.... 

 

Gotta run, I'm going to the range with the kid to shoot battlefield paint balls! This weekend we're going to shoot some sporting clays with our battlefield 12 gauges! Might even do some indoor shooting with our battlefield 9MMs... we may even break out the battlefield .357 Magnum revolver. Probably drive my battlefield Chevy pickup too!

 

Don't forget to drink some battlefield beer afterwards.

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

Maybe also consume some battlefield weed!

And top it off with a nice battlefield single malt scotch.

VIuwyMU.jpg

And some battlefield mud.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Liquid said:

Battlefield .22s are the most prolific and lethal weapons known to man. Shit, you've got a 20 year old picture proving it!

Why anyone warrior/sniper would choose something like a battlefield .308 over a .22 is just crazy talk.... 

I didn't say they're more lethal than an M-16, I'm just aware of the TeamD party line that they're "the like" of one and should therefore be banned. Not sure what the grabber party in Canada is, but they obviously join Aussie grabbers in feeling the same way, or the answer to your earlier question about how many battlefield .22's they want to confiscate would not have been "some."

I guess you don't want to come up with a different name to distinguish those .22's that are to be taken from those that are OK to own, so I'll just continue to use battlefield .22's the describe the ones subject to bans.

Even if you manage teach me stuff I already know about ballistics, that won't change one simple fact: battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" around the world and there's no way in hell grabbers are going to back off from that, or any other, gun control position. You might not like it or agree, but battlefield .22's are a fact of political life and will continue to be.

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

And top it off with a nice battlefield single malt scotch.

VIuwyMU.jpg

And some battlefield mud.

 

Check out those sweet battlefield kilts and battlefield bagpipes!

 

9 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I didn't say they're more lethal than an M-16, I'm just aware of the TeamD party line that they're "the like" of one and should therefore be banned. Not sure what the grabber party in Canada is, but they obviously join Aussie grabbers in feeling the same way, or the answer to your earlier question about how many battlefield .22's they want to confiscate would not have been "some."

I guess you don't want to come up with a different name to distinguish those .22's that are to be taken from those that are OK to own, so I'll just continue to use battlefield .22's the describe the ones subject to bans.

Even if you manage teach me stuff I already know about ballistics, that won't change one simple fact: battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" around the world and there's no way in hell grabbers are going to back off from that, or any other, gun control position. You might not like it or agree, but battlefield .22's are a fact of political life and will continue to be.

I think you are battlefield confusing the battlefield weapon with real battlefield ammo...

 

So, I'm going to battlefield fuck off now

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

I think you are battlefield confusing the battlefield weapon with real battlefield ammo...

I didn't write the rules in Canada that classify battlefield .22's as weapons of war.

I didn't write the assault weapons bans in Congress that do the same.

I didn't write the assault weapons ban in the FL legislature that does the same.

If grabbers would stop classifying battlefield .22's as weapons of war, I'd stop talking about it.

They never will, nor will I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2022 at 11:10 AM, Liquid said:

Gotta run, I'm going to the range with the kid to shoot battlefield paint balls! This weekend we're going to shoot some sporting clays with our battlefield 12 gauges! Might even do some indoor shooting with our battlefield 9MMs... we may even break out the battlefield .357 Magnum revolver.

NO!

You WON"T.

If you had bothered to read the legislation that Tom has posted, (many times)

Your 12 guage is WAR ammo,

Your 9mm is WAR ammo

Your .357 mag is INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE,,

, and the preferred caliber of criminals and insurrectionists.

 

If you had bothered to read the legislation,,,

 

Turn your guns in to be melted down into Peace Bricks.

Seattle to melt buyback guns into peace bricks | KBOI (idahonews.com)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I didn't write the rules in Canada that classify battlefield .22's as weapons of war.

I didn't write the assault weapons bans in Congress that do the same.

I didn't write the assault weapons ban in the FL legislature that does the same.

If grabbers would stop classifying battlefield .22's as weapons of war, I'd stop talking about it.

They never will, nor will I.

The zone has now been flooded, with bullshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I didn't write the rules in Canada that classify battlefield .22's as weapons of war.

Didn't you?

Where does any legislation specifically cite a "battlefield .22"?

While you're at it, could you also cite the legal definition of "battlefield .22"?

I'm really concerned that my Henry lever action .22 is a battlefield weapon..... I think I'll melt my AR-15 down myself now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Liquid said:

Didn't you?

Where does any legislation specifically cite a "battlefield .22"?

While you're at it, could you also cite the legal definition of "battlefield .22"?

I'm really concerned that my Henry lever action .22 is a battlefield weapon..... I think I'll melt my AR-15 down myself now!

I already asked if you had a more appropriate term.

Look at the topic post and read the article to find out what they're banning. Or maybe I should just spoon feed you?
 

Quote

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today announced a ban on some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade and "assault-style" weapons in Canada, effective immediately.

...

"These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," Trudeau said. "There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada."

 

So once again, and as always, the people describing what they're banning say they're banning "military" weapons. This is really news to you?

And once again, they proceed to ban, among other things, some .22's. I guess that part might be news to you, but that's certainly not my fault.

I'm just buying into what THEY are saying. Take it up with them for once!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Not-wrong.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2022 at 6:06 AM, Pertinacious Tom said:

Mass Shooting In Canada

Coming up on two years since the promise to stop this shit by taking the battlefield .22's from the people who are responsible and it still hasn't been done?

You really should put it in your signature. It would spare you time and be able to post more pointless things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Four people found dead in ‘targeted shooting’ at home in Richmond


Early indications are that the shooting was targeted but is not connected to the continuing Lower Mainland gang conflict. Police have not identified any of the victims but say all four are known to each other

 

:rolleyes: , but NOT criminal gang related

I think this whole article is a lie,

, this would HAVE to be Chicago, or DC, 

, SURELY not in  peaceful Canukistan.

 

12 hours ago, Keith said:

Not-wrong.jpg

 

get into ze cattle car, Kieth

617661831_restoftheworld.jpg.565c1cc8e0166cc737d64e48f2947c25.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

:rolleyes: , but NOT criminal gang related

No, they said it wasn't related to the current gang warfare, it's a side event.

Yes, we have bad actors up here, thankfully many of them are at the Ku Trux Klan rally in Ottawa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2022 at 3:06 AM, Pertinacious Tom said:

Coming up on two years since the promise to stop this shit by taking the battlefield .22's from the people who are responsible and it still hasn't been done?

Not to worry single minded Tom. There is/was no "taking". Just a ban on the weapons. They are now prohibited. You have to turn them in. You've got 2 years since the ban. Legislation for a compensation/buyback is (I think) on pause due to a pandemic. It's pretty low priority on the government's agenda. They do not stay up late at night worrying somebody is taking their guns. Time for some facts.
 

https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2020/05/01/prime-minister-announces-ban-assault-style-firearms

May 1, 2020
The newly prohibited firearms and components cannot be legally used, sold, or imported. Owners must also continue to safely store them, and may only transfer and transport them under limited circumstances...There will be a transition period of two years to protect owners of newly prohibited firearms from criminal liability while they take steps to comply with these new rules. This two-year amnesty order under the Criminal Code is in effect until April 30, 2022....Individuals should not surrender their firearm while physical distancing requirements are in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic.

So nothing happens until May. Come back and bother us then. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

 , but NOT criminal gang related

I think this whole article is a lie,

, this would HAVE to be Chicago, or DC, 

, SURELY not in  peaceful Canukistan.

True it wasn't gang related. Murder-suicide by son. We have plenty of gun related drug gang violence. Mostly they shoot each others but sometimes bystanders are killed.

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

Not to worry single minded Tom. There is/was no "taking". Just a ban on the weapons. They are now prohibited. You have to turn them in. You've got 2 years since the ban. Legislation for a compensation/buyback is (I think) on pause due to a pandemic. It's pretty low priority on the government's agenda. They do not stay up late at night worrying somebody is taking their guns. Time for some facts.

I've come around on that issue and have started using "buybacks" in the Kelo thread to describe what I would have previously called "takings." I know it's an issue other than guns so is unlikely to be of any interest to you, but I think I deserve credit for helpful growth on that one.

"Taking" is an archaic term used in our fifth amendment but when it becomes necessary to give someone's home to a private developer to boost the property tax revenue, that's really not any kind of taking. It's the government's house and they can buy it back at will. Don't worry, I get it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

,,, Neighbours on either side of the home either didn’t want to speak to the media or didn’t answer their doors.

 

On 1/30/2022 at 6:32 PM, Zonker said:

True it wasn't gang related. Murder-suicide by son. We have plenty of gun related drug gang violence. Mostly they shoot each others but sometimes bystanders are killed.

Interesting. 

In 'Merica, we have plenty of drug gang violence where they mostly kill each other, but sometimes kill bystanders too.

 

? Do you think there will ever be discussion about controlling Criminals ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Oh you crazy Canuck, gun nuts....

It never ends.

60 or 70 shots fired in Edmonton 'mass shooting event,' 2 charged: police chief

The battlefield .22 owners who are responsible for this kind of thing still have their guns for another couple of months, so the mayhem will continue until the confiscations can begin in earnest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, 60 to 70 shots fired to get one dead and injure six ?

 

Zonk &  I recently had conversation about this.

On 1/30/2022 at 6:32 PM, Zonker said:

,,, We have plenty of gun related drug gang violence. Mostly they shoot each others but sometimes bystanders are killed.

 

On 2/4/2022 at 5:07 AM, Mike in Seattle said:

Interesting. 

In 'Merica, we have plenty of drug gang violence where they mostly kill each other, but sometimes kill bystanders too.

 

 , so in this case it appears to criminal gang members killing each other, and no bystanders hurt. 

 @PeterSailor

 (1) ? is gang members killing each other a bad thing?

(2) ? Do you think there will ever be discussion about controlling Criminals ?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since most of our illegal pistols that end up in gang members hands are smuggled across the border, maybe if the US ever did better at reducing the numbers of guns in their society, we would have less here.

Nobody said anything about assault rifles did they?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Nobody said anything about assault rifles did they?

Not so far, from these news bits it seems to be handguns

 

 

59 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Since most of our illegal pistols that end up in gang members hands are smuggled across the border, ,,,

I do not doubt your word on that, Zonker,

Stolen Guns in America - Center for American Progress

 

Of course, that would push the conversation back to Criminal control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2022 at 4:19 AM, Pertinacious Tom said:

The battlefield .22 owners who are responsible for this kind of thing... 

Except this clown who seems to worry so much about what other countries do with their gun laws....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Zonker said:

Except this clown who seems to worry so much about what other countries do with their gun laws....

I'm just following Keith's example. Polite Canadians are concerned about the fact that we don't yet have a confiscation program for battlefield .22's like you do, so bring up anecdotes.

I figured that was the polite thing to do, so I bring anecdotes here in return.

Maybe if Canadians stopped worrying so much about

16 hours ago, Zonker said:

if the US ever did better at reducing the numbers of guns in their society

Which is another way to say "enacted a ban/confiscation program like ours," I would stop worrying so much about your wanting to make our laws like yours. I don't think confiscating battlefield .22's from people like me will do anything about any of the anecdotes Keith brings up to advocate gun bans in America, nor do I think your confiscation program, once it finally gets going, will result in any reduction in crimes like the one I posted.

Those crimes are the excuse for gun control, but will not be affected by it. People like me will. I'll stop talking about your gun laws the day after you stop advocating that our grabbers take our battlefield .22's. I eagerly await that day.

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

I'm just following Keith's example. Polite Canadians are concerned about the fact that we don't yet have a confiscation program for battlefield .22's like you do, so bring up anecdotes.

I figured that was the polite thing to do, so I bring anecdotes here in return.

Maybe if Canadians stopped worrying so much about

Which is another way to say "enacted a ban/confiscation program like ours," I would stop worrying so much about your wanting to make our laws like yours. I don't think confiscating battlefield .22's from people like me will do anything about any of the anecdotes Keith brings up to advocate gun bans in America, nor do I think your confiscation program, once it finally gets going, will result in any reduction in crimes like the one I posted.

Those crimes are the excuse for gun control, but will not be affected by it. People like me will. I'll stop talking about your gun laws the day after you stop advocating that our grabbers take our battlefield .22's. I eagerly await that day.

see.... the problem with that is all of your shit pours over into Canada, not the other way. I dont see fucking hockey fights in the streets of Santa Fe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, basketcase said:
8 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:
...

see.... the problem with that is all of your shit pours over into Canada, not the other way. I dont see fucking hockey fights in the streets of Santa Fe.

Tom is worried that the lack of guns, and lack of desire to fondle and brandish them, will spill across the border and start infecting more USAneans.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

  

10 hours ago, Keith said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61192975

"Gun deaths were the leading killer of US children in 2020"

"Guns overtook car crashes to become the leading cause of death for US children and teenagers in 2020, new research shows.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that over 4,300 young Americans died of firearm-related injuries in 2020.

While suicides contributed to the toll, the data shows that homicides form the majority of gun-related deaths.

More than 390 million guns are owned by US civilians.

Yes, and all gun owners are responsible for killing children. That's one way you can tell we're irredeemable enemies to be destroyed.

Thanks for checking in. How's the plan to take battlefield .22's from the Canadian who are responsible for so many deaths in your country going?

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/tougher-gun-legislation-thwart-bc-gang-violence

"Tougher gun rules to thwart B.C. gang violence in works, says federal safety minister"

"Marco Mendicino met with VPD chief Adam Palmer to curb ghost-gun and 3D technology in firearm use"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/30/2022 at 9:30 PM, Zonker said:

So nothing happens until May. Come back and bother us then. 

Reporting as requested. I missed it, but in March it was decided that Canadian battlefield .22 owners have another year and a half to stop being so darn murderous.

Ottawa extends amnesty on 'assault-style' firearms, says taking program still in the works
 

Quote

 

The federal Liberal government is extending its amnesty on "assault-style" firearms until October 2023.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in May 2020 he was banning more than 1,500 models of firearms, including battlefield .22's.

He also announced owners of these guns would have a two-year amnesty period to come into compliance with the prohibition.

The Liberal government revealed on Wednesday that the order, set to expire in April, would be extended until October 2023.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/30/2022 at 8:27 AM, PeterSailor said:

You really should put it in your signature.

  

20 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Another thing to note about TT is his signature. He calls himself "it."

It was just another helpful effort to follow suggestions and fit in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

 It was just another helpful effort to follow suggestions and fit in.

Understood. I'd missed the suggestion. How's it working out for ye?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...