dialamah

Yup, because the title made it abundantly clear that "discussion" wasn't the goal, bashing Liberals was. Yup.

Keeping thieves in jail costs more than implementing a gun ban. Its not just the housing of inmates that costs, but the criminal education they get and contacts they make, put to use when they're released. There's also the effect on mental health, especially for inmates that spend time in solitary confinement. Some inmates come out of prison with PTSD, and some come out so badly institutionalized they struggle to make simple decisions about what to buy for groceries. In the meantime, new people turn to criminal life for various societal reasons we could address, but do not. Some people really do need to be locked up for life, its true. But the majority could be succesfully rehabilitated or, even better, could have recieved the help they needed when they needed it and avoided crime entirely. But we himans, all of us, prefer the "easy" solution, so we ban guns and throw people into prisons that dehumanize them.

The fewer guns that are available legally, in Canada, the fewer guns will be available for thieves to steal and use in crimes.

Actually, what I believe would work best to solve the problem has been shouted down on this forum more than once because it involves spending money on people who "don't deserve it", and to focus on rehabilitation of criminals instead of punishment. Addressing the actual problems is too complicated, so we are driven to simple solutions like " ban guns", "throw them in jail longer" - often very popular, but the most effective. Still, if the right can be happy with simplistic "tough on crime" solutions, I guess I can be happy with a simplistic gun ban solution.

Why not? Isn't it a problem in this country and even more so in the States that people aren't "allowed" to disagree? Isn't that a major sticking point for many on the right, who claim that the left demands everyone agree with them? Isn't it better to have a civil discussion, present our thoughts, agree to disagree and move on?

It's not quite as all-encompassing as that; they never did find the driver who ran down a friend of mine in 2016, even though they had a picture of the vehicle from a traffic camera a half block away. Authorities also look for fugitives for weeks, months or years and sometimes never do find them. But there is definitely more surveillance of all of us than they're used to be, and even just using a cell phone is certainly a good way to be tracked. Do I think the installation of an app on my phone as a method for the government to track a virus a good idea? Not really; I think this is a short term problem (I hope, anyway) and that people's memories will have to suffice in order to track where the virus might have been picked up, and where it might have gone. An app allowing government to follow me would last well beyond the crisis of the moment. I might think it's ok if my spouse/children know where I am at all times, but that would be with my consent, with the belief that they'd really have my best interests at heart. Can't say as much for government.

I like Macleans, I've seen articles critical of both Liberal and Conservative policies and ideals.

Really? When was the last time I started a topic by calling an entire group of people "nuts", "extremists", etc, because of their "conservative" leanings. You've done this multiple times - you start topics with an insult toward whatever group you've got a hate-on for today - progressives, immigrants, Muslims, Blacks. Whomever. I also don't particularly support Trudeau, or the Liberals. I voted for both Harper and Mulroney (Harper only once, he lost my vote with his stance on abortion). I would vote Conservative again, if they started playing to the majority of Canadians, instead of their anti-science, pro-religion and racist base. I voted NDP last time, a protest vote against both Liberals and Conservatives. Admittedly, I was enamored of JT for the first couple of years, but I got over it and returned to my baseline which happens to be - politicians are essentially the same and Canada's direction doesn't change significantly regardless of whether it's Conservatives or Liberals at the helm. I know you hate being called out on your BS - that's why I do it. I really could care less about this legislation, but calling yourself unbiased and 'only dealing with the facts, ma'am' while denigrating and dismissing entire swaths of people as a starting point for your discussion deserves to be questioned and mocked.

I think this applies to plenty of issues, but with hyper-partisans starting a discussion with an insult aimed toward the group they personally dislikes, its pretty hard to take the OP or the discussion seriously.

You mean by claiming the government taking action supported by most Canadians had nothing to do with that popularity? So your belief is that he would have done exactly the same if the numbers were reversed, alienating the majority for the support of the minority? Makes perfect sense, yup. Anyway, as I mentioned previously, this topic isn't of particular importance to me, so I'll bow out now, and you all can continue your temper tantrum in peace. Thanks to Army Guy for a civil discussion and making the most sense.

You still have not answered the question: are the 80% of Canadians (including 45% of current gun owners) who support the banning of assault weapons all "anti-gun nuts" , or is that just your usual hyperbolic and highly partisan rhetoric designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason.

In the first instance, America started the war and the fighting was between soldiers, not directed towards civilians. Britain wasn't interested in killing all Americans, only trying to restore is power and keep America as a colony. In the second case, genocide was the goal, Aboriginals were a specific group and not really considered American, and most Americans responded with "Not my business" or "Yeah, good idea". You kinda just proved my point, thanks.

Thank you.

Why would the US government commit genocide against its own people - who would be left to tyrannize? They'd target a minority group, and the 300 million Americans would be much more likely to say ... "None of my business" or "Hey, good idea!" Who gets to decide when the line has been crossed from a disliked government or law to actual tyranny? If you are going to attack the gov and take the country into civil war, you better be pretty damn sure the vast majority agree with you, and not just your own bubble. Anyway, tryanny isn't so much imposed on people as they're persuaded into it. Each incremental step seems reasonable and justifiable for nationalistic and/or religious 'security' - or even just to make the other side "cry". Those who object, especially media, are discredited in any way possible. Those who support are rewarded. It can be hard to see the difference between a normal democratic government and a government on the way to tyranny, which is why education and critical thinking skills are a much better defense against tyranny than guns would ever be.

That's exactly what this forum looks like to me. I get what you are saying about guns and this legislation, and to some extent I agree. Still, it sends a message about how we, as Canadians, feel about guns and gun violence. Making these types of weapons illegal will make them harder for criminals to obtain, although not impossible given our proximity to the US. Those are good enough reasons for me. I think the tropes about "the start of the end of freedom" and "guns will save us from tyranny" are ridiculous statements designed to appeal to people who lack common sense and couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag. We disagree; that's ok. Most people are not going to be affected by this legislation one way or another, no point in getting all bothered about it.

Never ever anywhere? None of the 1500 types that were banned? Anyway, it seems you are mistaken: our recent gun enthusiast spree killer used some kind of now-banned weapon: "He announced the ban of over 1,500 models and variants of assault-style firearms, including two weapons used by the gunman as well as the AR-15 and other weapons that have been used in a number of mass shootings in the United States" Perhaps it's not the "liberals" who are spreading myths.

Argus is the dismisser; glance at the topic title. There are. But I suspect they involve social programs, and the same people howling about this gun legislation also howl at the idea of preventative measures directed towards the social and mental health issues that lead to violence.

I agree. But I personally don't see a need for people to own machines made for mowing other people down, video game style. Sure, if criminals want them, criminals will get them - but that's not an excuse to make them more common and accessible in Canada. Gun sports that require targetting skills don't need guns that can shoot lots of bullets easily and quickly, nor are they needed for bringing down animals. Their primary purpose is killing people; secondary purpose seems to be ego building for self-styled tough guys.

You think Fox and the Rebel are credible news sources so your opinion of this poll gives it a lot more credence. If you don't like it, it's probably as close to truth and accuracy as we can hope for.

This may well be true, and it applies to other issues as well. Nonetheless, Canadians as a whole support this legislation, including almost half of current gun owners. Dismissing the majority of Canadians as "anti-gun nuts" just because you disagree with the legislation is extreme partisanship in action.

The poll asked about assault style weapons. This poll was taken April 28-30, and the numbers barely changed from a similar poll in 2019. The legislation bans assault style weapons. The majority of Canadians support this legislation, and have supported it for some time. These are the people you referred to as "anti-gun nuts". You can disagree with the legislation all you want, but you can't deny it has the support of the majority of Canadians. Nor can you claim the legislation has nothing to do with what Canadians want, while also claiming it was done to appease anti-gun-nuts and get more support for Liberals. "Nearly four-in-five Canadians canvassed between April 28 – 30 say they support a complete ban on civilian possession of such weapons. While opinions may have hardened slightly after the tragedy in Nova Scotia, it is worth noting that support for such a ban was already at this level last year when the Angus Reid Institute studied the issue:"

Is this an attempt at a deflection? The poll asked people about the legislation you are complaining about; that poll said 80% of people supported it, including 45% of current gun-owners. You are calling those people 'anti-gun-nuts'. Would you care to explain why they're the 'nuts', but you are not?

Yes, and that is what got banned - 1500 assault style weapons. And, apparently, 45% of current gun owners support this ban; not surprising that only the pro-assault-weapons-nutbars are in on this forum, I guess. Though I suspect these complaints are more to do with the Liberal brand than the actual legislation.

Not when Tyranny has tanks, missiles and trained soldiers carrying a bigger, badder version of the firearm you happen to have.

Oh, chicken little .... LOL