Venandi

No doubt, I simply rounded up the Parliamentary Budget Officer's own estimate. People who support this action will argue tooth and nail to discount and dismiss realistic estimates and will also dismiss previous cost explosions out of hand. They think the government is right... the government on the other hand knows full well that it's being wildly optimistic. There's a reason we've seen no action to date, it's a cheap, easily achieved wedge issue for JT. The 800 million price point and the 98% vs 2% issue should be sufficiently eye popping for any 10 year old with a hand held calculator to question the cost vs efficacy equation. Letting them chew on their own numbers just seemed more effective than trying to defend my own estimate from a full frontal attack. Anyone who doesn't get it at an 800 million price point is sufficiently removed from reality that reality will hide itself from their gaze anyway.

The buyback is going to cost you somewhere in the vicinity of 800 million dollars when all is said and done. In eight pages, we've pretty much covered all there is to cover in terms of efficacy/cost now so I'm not going to beat this horse any further. The link below is simply food for thought, mostly aimed at anyone still on the fence... if nothing else it's good to see the first glimmers of reporting on the subject that aren't a version of "keeping Canadians safe" propaganda. I think the message is now getting out in a manner that allows people to make informed, rather than emotional decisions: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/gage-haubrich-the-gun-ban-is-not-working-trudeau-already-knows-this

Cool, and (to date) I would defend your right to get all 7 of them... did you? But please, let's not clap when our neighbours get fired, can you give me that at least? Actually there are lots of them that point out how insignificant our efforts would be even if we had the stones to achieve our lauded goals. We could shiver in the dark and achieve nothing in terms of global reductions. I can easily pass the winter under a tarp with a bow and a handful of salt... it's not for everyone though, and the effort we would have to make to hit our goals (in a big sparsely settled frigid country) isn't far off that level of effort. Like college aged jocks at closing time when the handcuffs come out... I don't think most people actually want what they seem to be asking for. And they will believe the media outlets that most align with their thinking. They won't investigate or research contrary opinions, in fact they will ridicule them out of hand. Even if you do Herbs homework for him he won't read the link... instead he'll post something like TLDR as if it's a profound intellectual assessment of the study he didn't bother to read. Maybe I am. But spin is deliberate, it's a science, a technique, there are courses in it and those who have taken those courses recognize it when they see it and can tell you what the next release is going to be. Problem is, those who aren't paying attention label those folks as Trumpers... right Herb? It really is a fascinating thing to watch. Because they weren't paying attention, they didn't ask questions, they didn't dig out that old handheld calculator and do a little math, they never thought about the infrastructure requirements... they were too damn busy labeling anyone who did a racist and high 5ing each other's vitriol. I keep saying it, but look no further than right here.

1. And you certainly wouldn't tear down statues of long dead national icons because you chose to judge them by a standard that exists a century (or more) after they died... and as a direct result of their efforts on your behalf. 2. like the cheapest, most innocuous, most readily available viral inhibitor on the planet. Because it only works at the onset of symptoms and not under full viral loading you ask penetrating scientific questions like "are you a horse? 3. And yet Hunters laptop is still Russian disinformation, Hillary never wrote those emails, Trump is a Russian agent and the Steele report is gospel. 4. Yet you cling to the notion that duck hunters are shooting up the streets of Toronto. 5. Except jews of course... 6. The very sort of disinformation you ascribe to others... and think nobody notices. 7. Have to take a break on that one.... I choked coffee through my nose and have to wipe the keyboard down now. Thanks for playing, Ill catch up when things dry out and I stop laughing.

Implicit in your question is the notion that property rights shouldn't exist or that they should be malleable... subject to the whim of the government of the day. I know that's not what you said directly, and probably not even what you meant by it. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth either but if you think about it, there isn't much middle ground between that and the notion of ironclad possession/property rights. There are some compelling arguments on both sides I think. How would you ever expand a highway if property rights were constitutionally enshrined and inviolate. On the other hand, how do you stop JT from radical overreach by random OIC other than by an election that stomps him into the ground. This particular overreach is galling because its sole purpose is to create an election wedge issue... and nothing else. I've used several analogies about automobiles vs the gun grab and I'm sure some folks look at it askance. The situation really is analogous though, if you happen to be all in on climate change there could easily come a time when you can no longer drive your grandfather's 1960 convertible Cadillac without a carbon permit. After that, you won't be able to drive it at all and it becomes worthless as a result. Next, because it's value is now zero and nobody needs a gas guzzling boat of a car it will be confiscated and crushed. Sounds like paranoid delusion...right Herb? Well, as it stands now, the only connection I have left to my grandfather is an old 38-55 rifle, and the only connection to my great-grandfather is the Marlin 32 special he was carrying when he went through the ice and drowned on a trapline in NW Ontario. If you choose not to care about my two rifles getting seized for purely political reasons, you can expect an equal measure of ambivalence from me when it eventually comes to your authority to retain that treasured Caddy. I just don't get the thinking here, it's a big change to what I always considered the norm in Canada. WTF happened to us... I feel as though I wasted 32 years of my life on something that I don't even recognize anymore.

Maybe he'll come back when the fever breaks and beavers have regained their senses.

I'm now hoping that sentiment will become popular with progressives after the next election, thanks for cementing my thoughts on it.

Based on my experience that's 100% wrong. Many posts on forums just like this bear that out IMO. I'm not suggesting that's representative of the population at large, but it is illuminating none-the-less. I was a member of one such forum for 20 plus years and watched the transition of hard core individual members on several different topics. You need only review some of the covid threads to see this... be assured the most obnoxious of posters will be singing the same tune you are if all that goes sideways. People have short memories. 70% of Canadians favoured the carbon tax during the last election, now they mostly don't. Damn hard to govern people like that IMO. A popular sentiment with people who have suddenly discovered that they were dead wrong... the media made me act like that, or it's some politicians fault. You see that now with things like the police defunding that people actually voted for. There may come a time when covid mandates fall into the same category. Provincial governments elected on the promise not to implement them caved under the pressure from citizens to do so after they became frightened. JT himself is on record saying he wouldn't implement mandates and the NS conservatives caved weeks after getting elected. All due to public pressure exerted by scared people. Letters to the editor were the very definition of caustic, ill informed vitriol. Have you noticed that those who supported eugenics and residential schools are strangely quiet now too. Well, I'm looking forward to that. At the age I started looking, I was interested in seasonal charter flying to sunshine destinations instead of an airline gig... I ended up driving dump trucks instead. I remember that, the values test... who would ever lie on something like that eh? I'd reject it out of hand too because the pass rate would be close to 100%. And if it weren't, companies providing test prep courses would explode. There would be sample tests on the ride to the examination site and translators on hand to coach. And I think you know that... Like it or not, our leaders are us and we elected them to represent.... us. In fairness, JT has been nothing but predictable IMO. When I hear people who voted for him complaining about things like the carbon tax, I usually ask "what did you think was going to happen." Maybe, but it was aviation companies deliberately producing the bogus ads, deliberately rejecting highly qualified applicants for lack of a PPC, and deliberately misrepresenting the lack of qualified applicants (nationally) to government who then acted on it. I lived that for years, and from my window, companies drove it and a gullible government nodded its head and complied without much understanding of how the industry even worked. That was what the letter writing campaign (wasn't just me BTW) was intended to illustrate.

Yes the media were culpable here in the past and on a variety of issues they remain so in the present. But, and it's a big butt, pointing out potential and specific issues at the time of their occurrence only got you insults and ridicule from the very people (voters if you will) you now seem to be branding as innocent in this debacle. Not trying to put words in your mouth here BTW... I'm just a bit sensitive about all this I guess. There are lots of examples, one of my favourites was the deception about TFWs in aviation (just to name one). Employers (both fixed and rotary wing) would routinely issue bogus job ads seeking pilots with specific equipment endorsements that they didn't wish to provide training for. Highly qualified veteran pilots lacking only an endorsement and PPC were then deemed to be unqualified and inexperienced. Then.... that bogus determination based on the bogus ad was in turn used to obtain an LMO which allowed TFW pilots to parachute into the industry leaving Canadiens out of work... it was particularly common in seasonal employment venues. The RCAF used that exact tactic in reverse with equal success. They asserted that highly experienced veteran RAF pilots (released during cut backs) needing only an endorsement and PPC would prove incredibly valuable to the organization. And it worked... and they actually were. All of this got to the point that I would submit the employment ad, a copy of my (fairly lengthy) resume and a covering letter to the minister of labour every time I submitted an application. I'd do it again immediately after he authorized the LMO request. Guess how many responses I got? Then guess how much ridicule it generated from the very people who now want to deport every immigrant and TFW they lay their beady little eyes on. Sorry... If I sound a little disgusted with these folks it's because I am. Now that it affects THEIR rent, THEIR employment, and THEIR standard of living it's suddenly the medias fault, they were duped... and as if that weren't enough, now it's my lack of sympathy for their plight centred in a ridicule reticle that they themselves created.... and previously defended.

And particularly outrageous in the 0-19 age group. It was (and remains) a tough sell though, people are firmly entrenched and don't want to admit the possibility of being wrong, especially since the argument of choice for the most vocal proponents was ridicule. They couldn't even discuss the issues coherently enough to ask day one questions about toxicity, lipids, systemic distribution and the implications of BBB penetration. If this actually does go tragically sideways in a few years, they will delete all of their nasty hateful posts and blame politicians for giving them exactly what they demanded.... sort of like police defunding, carbon taxation and excessive immigration (vs available resources). I can only imagine how history will view all this in 50 years time. It will have things like eugenics, residential schools, and police defunding as competition for a Loon Award. Our great grand children will be asking our children to proof read their history essays and to explain WTF we might have been thinking at the time. I'm old enough to remember some of the discussions around eugenics back in the day, it was more popular than most here might want to admit.... Anyone care to defend it on its merits now? Tip of the iceberg when it comes to the future validity of what Jordan Peterson is routinely saying (and warning about) now. We've already seen this with those racist people who warned about immigration issues like security, demographic concentrations and resource allocation challenges 20 years ago. We will collectively recognize the value of considering such opinions (his and others) only after being bitten by ignoring them.

- If so then, do you accept the assumption that the grab under discussion here is an attempt to address the supply side of the issue... in other words availability and access to rifles and handguns? The reason I ask is that I don't... I think JT is smarter than that, I believe it's a cheap way of deferring real and appropriate action while simultaneously creating a series of powerful wedge issues that resonate in critical ridings. - Do you accept the assumption (more fact than assumption IMO) that the governments own statistics show that domestically sourced guns represent only 2% of the supply side problem and that 98% of the issue at hand is a function of guns illegally funnelled through a porous border for obvious illegal purposes and that the demand is growing? - Finally, do you accept the assumption that the problem in need of remedy is, indeed, the criminal use of those illegal guns, the possession and use of which is already manifestly illegal under current regulation? Taken a step further will you stipulate that many of the criminals arrested for using those illegal guns (for illegal purposes) were actually on bail for previous gun crimes at the time of re-arrest and already under a lifetime possession ban. Based on those assumptions, and putting aside the regulatory provisions that PAL and RPAL holders are already subjected to as a matter of course, does the decision to address only 2% of the supply side problem with such a weak sister (and expensive) response seem like a reasonable approach to you? Can you defend it as a rational course of action in and of itself, and while doing so, can you justify the money already spent (and the expense of future collection efforts) to finish an action aimed solely at 2% of the problem while virtually ignoring 98% of it. As an aside, keep in mind that we are really talking about the supply here, (criminal use is a separate assumption).... the point is that 2% was also acquired illegally, distributed illegally and used illegally. Most importantly, it isn't tied to wild eyed duck hunters from PEI shooting up the streets of Toronto. If we assume that 2% of crime gun availability is actually attributable to the theft of legal guns from legal owners, it means that they themselves were the victims of crime when their property was stolen. Just for fun, you should look into the number of service weapons lost by or stolen from active duty police officers in Canada... I could tell you but I don't want to ruin it. Then look at some of the individual cases individually and try to imagine a galaxy where a regular owner wouldn't be charged and have his entire collection seized. In keeping with my car analogy, your van was stolen and used in a crime so we're going to confiscate your pickup truck in an effort to deter further criminal behaviour on the part of criminals.... BTW, we're only confiscating it because you added racing stripes and it's now a "racing style pickup" as a result of the addition. Our working "assumption" in doing that is no one needs a racing pickup truck and we are committed to keeping Canadians safe. As a PS, I would observe that the reason you find the car analogy faulty is for two reasons: first your vehicle is important to and you use it every day. Secondly, `by exposure, knowledge and experience, you instantly realize how utterly foolish (and useless) my proposition is. If so, all I can say is welcome to the shooting sports club....

Semi automatic "rifles " are routinely being called "automatic weapons" now, That's not an accident. "Assault style" is another deliberate construct. Assault rifles have selective fire, and detachable high capacity box magazines... all illegal in Canada. Yes, I follow your framework but can't wrap my head around its lack of efficacy and total failure to address the problem at hand. IMO, it's closer to my van analogy than you would likely consider reasonable. Thanks for the reply... sun is out and I have to run. Cheers

Even if I were accepted the causal relationship as valid, our border issues would render my acceptance of it moot and suggest we're ignoring the real problem to our own detriment. In addition, the use of US data is nothing short of irrelevant for determining much of anything in Canada. I suppose I could draw a causal link between road construction and drowning incidents in Ontario but the idea is foolish on its very face. You would quite rightly point out that both things occur in summer. But, if the government amended boating regulations and banned back yard swimming pools (paying home owners to fill them in) to such an extent that road construction had to be curtailed... it would be an ahah moment for those making the comparison. I actually took the time (a while ago) to look into one of the studies linking gun ownership to child deaths and injuries. As you can imagine, it was an emotional thing at the time of release. Turns out that in order to make the stats have the desired impact, it considered anyone below the age of 21 to be a child. As a result, gang members in Toronto were captured. It was on par with the previous "crime gun stats" that were oft repeated a couple of years ago. If you drunk uncle punched your neighbour at your New Years Eve party, your entire gun collection instantly became "crime guns." Nationally, the domestic crime gun stats exploded... it was by design though and police departments (IMO again) were willing participants in the deception. As you may recsall, that came about shortly after a Toronto detective falsely asserted that domestic "crime guns made up 50% of the ones seized. Even I could make the stats look good simply by directing them to stop doing that. Here's the crux of the problem (IMO) and it's going unaddressed... this is just what got seized. The numbers flown in with drones and manufactured with 3D technology is on the rise. The X factor here is huge and it's growing fast: From 2022 to October 2024, the CBSA seized 2,862 firearms, with a staggering 2,818 (98%) sourced from foreign origins, primarily smuggled across borders. Domestic firearm seizures accounted for only 44 cases in the same period.

Trouble is, it's almost impossible to have a rational conversation about this because it's such an emotional issue for some folks. The combination of strong emotion and strong opinion coupled with a lack of experience and knowledge leads to bunny trail responses that serve only to deflect / delay the very remedial action that common sense would suggest be centred in the reticle (so to speak). We tend not to see this reaction when discussing the regulation of common place things that everyone is familiar with. If someone who didn't drive and only used mass transit suggested that raising car registration fees would reduce impaired driving you would probably laugh. Were I to assert that lowering speed limits is the best way to curb speeding, or that painting centrelines pink would stop unsafe passing, or banning the use of racing stripes would lower incidents of stunting you would likely shake your head. When I finally got around to banning more than 5 people in a van made to carry nine (because it would save the lives of 4 people per trip) and then passed a law which made you remove 4 seats... followed quickly by confiscating your new van after you had complied, you might even start to become annoyed enough to suggest that my concerns were better addressed by increasing the level of traffic enforcement than punishing responsible drivers. The analogy isn't quite as ridiculous as you are going to try and make it seem. The only difference is that (almost) everyone has enough in-depth knowledge, experience, and exposure to automobiles that they immediately realize how utterly useless (not to mention expensive) those actions would be. As an aside, I would have thought that people who consider climate change to be an existential emergency would be the most likely to drive the speed limit. It's something anyone can do and the collective effect would be pretty huge. Any motorcycle trip through Ontario will trash that expectation pretty quickly. On my last 2 cross country trips (that's four times through the entire length of Ontario), I didn't see a single police car or a single traffic stop. And if ever there was a target rich environment for catching speeders, the Trans Canada through Ontario would certainly be front and centre.

What exactly is your heart ache with semi automatics (with 5 round mags)... specifically? If it's rate of fire then please watch this video (CAS with a pistol caliber lever gun). This is a world record holder for speed and accuracy but don't be fooled, the CAS crowd (in general) are pretty darned fast. Archey can be done quickly with a bit of practice too, should quivers be limited to 5 arrows? If you're going to respond with something snarky about people not using bows, just keep in mind that they aren't using AR 15s either. If you consider the AR15 to be dangerous, how do you rationalize the lack of collection / buyback. A casual observer who actually knows less about this than you (if you can imagine that), might just conclude that they are so dangerous they can only be left in the hands of trustworthy registered owners. I'm looking for glimmer of logic here and finding none.

We've just established the nature and depth of the problem. This is what started, and currently sustains our journey to Crazy Island. I fear the conservatives aren't conservative enough to stomp this into the ground... but here's hoping. How's that working out for ya with the criminal elements in Toronto? Those lifetime possession bans cut a mean rug too by the looks of things. - Look at the body language here and imagine being caught dismounted...take a moment and just insert yourself into this video on foot. Head down, ears back... this girl means business Note the cub on the left side of the trail just as mom comes into view, easy to miss eh? That's just how fast things can happen. Bluffs tend to be head up, ears up and have more prance to them... but I wouldn't count on it, maybe only huffy puffy liberal bears do that. - Sure ya wouldn't like to borrow that semi automatic now? So: How about some moose hunting Ya only get one shot here Herb, after all, you're not a real hunter if you need more than that... right? How fast can ya swim Herb? In fairness, they may have been liberal boaters harassing a Republican bear, who knows... but ya get the point. And if you don't that's OK too as long as you're willing to come along. I don't need to outrun the bear, just you. Good luck Herb...

Exactly... All that and more, ridiculously porous... guns are being flown in with drones now and the 3D printing thing that was statistically insignificant a few years ago now isn't. We squandered about 3 years chasing duck hunters and spending vast sums of money collecting absolutely nothing. And the nothing we failed to collect had nothing to do with the problem. Liberals can't even do wrong things right but, doing wrong things wrong costs a lot less money than doing right things right.... and that's their logic here. There's enough other stuff to fill a book. What happens if border incursions explode after the US starts deporting people? The arrogance of Sanctuary Cities galls me too and I have zero sympathy for their financial woes. If liberal voters in liberal cities want to deliberately ignore (and thwart) immigration law then don't expect my help to do it. Raise taxes, pay your bills and stop whining about the cost of doing it.

Added vitamin A D and C aren't necessarily a bad thing (I'm one of those evil raw milk guys BTW) but their lack of overt badness doesn't support the goodness of Fluoride either. If all of the additions mentioned aren't a form of medication, what are they then. I certainly consider the Prevident I use daily a form of medication, there's one more potent than that too and it requires a prescription.... what do you call it? I'd say it's about time... It comes in small bottles too.. I use supplemental fluoride every day but still think the choice of using it or not should be left to my neighbours discretion and not mine. Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean you should take it upon yourself to force others into using it... or doing it. I want water in my water and milk in my milk, and I don't drink pop for the very reason you outlined. The difference here is I don't try to force those sentiments on anyone else... drink as much damn pop as you want. I feel the same way about forcing fat people to exercise or threatening their access to healthcare because of lifestyle issues. It's none of my business. It's about taking a measure of responsibility for yourself, and your children. It's also about minding your own business and leaving people alone in the hope they will reciprocate in like manner... what you would likely call freedumb. See ya at the gym Herb.

Well, best of luck with it...

Chemistry doesn’t care about the opposition of malcontents any more than it cherishes the support of ardent progressives. Chlorine does a great job of eliminating most pathogens from drinking water but there are some downsides to it as well, and suggesting that fluoride is good because chlorine isn’t bad is a pretty weak position to take. One of the problems is that when chlorine mixes with the organic compounds found in drinking water (even small quantities) it produces toxic byproducts that are carcinogenic and they can be linked to a wide range of modern ailments. Lots of stuff on line for those interested… suffice it to say that it could be an entirely separate thread. Personally, I don't see why this is such an emotional issue, why can't people just brush their teeth and mind their own business. Fluoride supplementation is so easily achieved with over the counter (and prescription) options for those that need it (like me) that the entire debate seems frivolous. It would never have occurred to me that forcing my neighbour to use Prevident just because I do qualified as reasonable.

You know that's actually the most feeble part of it... right?

Good Lord, Conservative signal now eh? Lots of long time old school liberals have been drinking that their entire lives, and still do. Most of those folks aren't granola people trying to find their way back to mother nature either, and it never occurred to any of them that it was a political statement.... POOF, now it's a signal. Maybe a buyback scheme for the family cow is in order eh? I know of a couple of older goats that are available too.

He didn't ignore it, it's a deliberate technique to goad you. I don't see this as overly complicated, maybe the solution here is brush your damn teeth. If you need fluoride supplementation beyond what's available in toothpaste use Colgate Prevident. If you really want to knock your socks off it's available in prescription strength too. I use it because I need to, but here's the difference... I don't insist that my neighbours use it too. Put another way, I spend about two hours a day at the gym, but I'm not suggesting that fat people should be denied medical treatment because of their lifestyle choices...it's none of my business, that's a progressive thing and it's about to get crushed (I hope). Remember when these creatures hurled that "no medical coverage for you" thing at their neighbours right after they got fired? Not something I'll soon forget but by the same token, I would never consider retaliating with the same ugliness they displayed. Just Imagine a world where people mind their own damn business, where they treat their neighbours kindly and with respect, essentially allowing them live their lives in peace asking only the same thing in return. That comes with a few expectations, sometimes it even means growing a pair, doing a bit of problem solving and taking responsibility for yourself. It's what the Herbs of the world call "freedumb." Morning Herb, don't forget to brush your teeth...

I can only tell you that this sort of ridiculous rhetoric no longer resonates with my anti-gun acquaintances... ya, anecdotal at best but true none-the-less based on my experience. I'd hasten to add that this wasn't the case a short while ago and they might have nodded sagely to such things... they seem to be paying attention now though. They now see right through this nonsense and would likely point out the bail debacle and quote you stats on the number of criminals arrested for gun crimes while out on bail for gun crimes whilst under a lifetime possession ban for previous gun crimes. They know the problem isn't duck hunters from PEI and these little diversions and wedge issues are actually annoying them now.... and I'm putting that mildly. The only way mentally ill folks and known criminals will get a gun is if they acquire them illegally, and that's desperately easy to do now. A couple of years ago 3d printed weapons (and individual parts for assembly) were statistically insignificant... now not so much. Factory mades are being flown across the border with drones whilst Liberal actions and rhetoric is looking in the opposite direction. These guys aren't dumb though, the new grab was strategically crafted for a specific purpose, just not in support of public safety. They pushed it a bit to far IMO, nobody believes that .22s are going to save the war effort in Ukraine. In short, your target audience no longer believe in fairy tales, if you want to convince them that the gun grab and the collection expenses that accompany it serve to mitigate the problems they see outside their kitchen windows... well, you need some new material. The current rhetoric is actually hurting your cause. Maybe a heavy volley of memes saying STFU will help eh? I'll leave you and offender to collaborate on the PR campaign. Best of luck with it.

I'm actually glad that meme got posted, moronic sentiments should continue to be brought forward so we have an opportunity to learn from them. When we get to the point of seriously considering the"how did we get here?" question the worst "OFFENDERS" will grow silent, refuse to acknowledge their role in prolonging the mess and lay the blame (for their own arrogance) at the feet of the politicians who actually gave them the mandates they demanded. All I can say is watch the video and then... follow your own advice as quoted: https://www.rebelnews.com/science_confirms_sv40_dna_in_pfizer_s_covid_shot_validating_concerns_over_unexplored_genetic_health_risks Only now are we asking the sort of questions that thoughtful people with rudimentary biology knowledge were concerned about on day one of the adventure, and it seems that pro vaccination fact checks prefixed with "there is no evidence to suggest" have evaporated like summer dew. This should never have been about being right, it should have been about getting it right... ignoring fools (who peaked in grade 12) shouting things like STFU is part of that process IMO. My fear now is that all too soon we will be talking about safety of the blood supply.