Venandi

I know I'm cherry picking here (out of context and all that) but the points are well taken and worthy of reflection I think. That's why I did it. I probably qualify as a political agnostic, and It may just be me... but: 1. I want to vote on the "policy" supporting that platform. The platform itself is way too vague and I see that as deliberate. Call me crazy but I happen to think that elections are actually a good time to discuss policy. So, if you plan to radically reduce emissions in support of accord targets and you plan to do it in less than 6 years, you better tell me how you hope to achieve that. Seriously now, when you compare what needs to be done with the time left to do it, people should exercise caution around open windows lest they be sucked into the vortex. 2. As it stands now, most of the accusations I hear aren't stupid, most of the defences are suspect though. Assuming I have a few (grade 13 level) biology questions about SP toxicity and lipid nano particles please understand that I'm looking for answers... not ridicule. If my neighbours and the ruling party of my country asses my character based on those questions and their response is in the form of another question, like "should I even be tolerated as a citizen?" well... the discussion with me is over. I'll just bide my time and vote you gone. When that happens, expect to be treated with the same respect you extended to others. I'm not advocating for that BTW, I simply see it as a likely outcome. 3. This one speaks to me of narrative, I see it as a close relative of religious dogma and think it contributes to the polarization and division we see now. Those deliberately manufactured wedge issues don't help either. In fact, they only serve to undermine any and all attempts to resolve the first two observations. We haven't lost the compass as a nation IMO, we simply doubled the magnetic declination, added an extra 10% for progressives and proceeded to apply the correction (that little brass screw) in the wrong direction. Follow the breadcrumbs back, reset the compass and try again. But expect a long day and a few blisters along the way, because we earned them.

Yup. I guess you either commit to doing it or not. As Yoda would say "there is no try." Canadians simply aren't up to the task IMO, people are already complaining about costs and we're gassing out 20 seconds into round #1. I think we watched too many motivational videos (from the couch) instead of doing the road work. If they were asked, how many people would voluntarily turn their thermostat down to 13 degrees (next winter) and only drive their cars twice a week to help with reaching our stated goals? Well, who knows eh, but I bet the answer is darned few. In the grand scheme of things, and even assuming everyone did it, it still qualifies as a weak sister effort because more is required. Instead of shivering in the dark maybe we should invest in R&D and take a leadership role in developing the new technologies required to actually get er done. In the final analysis, and IMO of course, new technology and a massive investment in infrastructure is the only way we will be hitting those accord targets at all, and it won't happen in under 6 years either. And that assumes we collectively agree to stay the course. if a vote were held today, and it outlined the effort required and projected costs in an honest way, I'm not even sure about predicting that vote's outcome.

Yes, the CBC is another one of those "no more compromise" issues for me and they worked tirelessly to achieve it. Completely unnecessary, easily avoided, and totally self inflicted. It's as if some of these organizations can now read the tea leaves and are trying to get their last digs in before they hit the wall. Apparently, Veterans Affairs just tweeted "Happy March Holiday Season" to serving members and veterans. Almost like it was designed to rub smelly cheese in their faces. Assuming it's not a hoax, it's neither cute, funny or, inclusive IMO. It leaves me wondering whether the intent was to annoy or if it's possible that they're so out of touch with the people they represent that they really think "Happy Easter" causes offence to non-christian members of the CAF or RCMP. News flash.... it doesn't. But what does annoy them is being continuously subjected to woke nonsense and being used as pawns in support of it. Imagine how many members mumbled FU under their breath as they cleared that tweet. The exact same sentiment I had when I saw it and I'm pretty sure those on deployment are saying the same thing out loud while simultaneously extending both middle fingers. My second thought was to feel badly for the two young ladies in the stock photo who (likely) had nothing to do with (and no advanced knowledge of) the intended message. History isn't going to be kind. I think woke nonsense will age just as badly (and just as quickly) as the hateful ridicule and ill-informed rhetoric of the rabid pro-vax crowd. As it turns out, my next task is to hide "March Holiday Eggs" (from the "March Holiday Bunny") for my grandkids.

Indeed, mostly because the people who previously searched for compromise have stopped looking. They see the futility of further discussion and are waiting patiently for an election that can't come soon enough. When the results are in, I suspect the people who've been gleefully stuffing gender ideology down everyone's throat will suddenly seek the very compromise they previously ridiculed and lament the loss of moderate support they once enjoyed. To quote my granddaughter, "I'm soooo over it." As it turns out, "transgender day of visibility" will be celebrated on Easter Sunday this year. So ya... not only has compromise left the building, the door is locked and the lights are off.

In a polarized society, the productive conversations you ellude to are hard to come by. Consider the spectacle of a politician suggesting that elections are no time to discuss important policy initiatives and then cringe as an entire room of party acolytes nod their little heads in unison. I reviewed quite a few threads on this very forum over the last while and I'm wondering how your (very own) concept of operations is working for you, especially given that your sphere of influence is viewable through the lens of one with 42 thousand (plus) posts. I see opinion as being malleable and narrative as dogmatic, the trick is knowing the difference because dogma is now bordering on religious fundamentalism. Do you seriously think that there's anything a professional pilot with 32 years experience can add to the chemtrail" debate (right here) that's likely have the slightest effect? If you think flight attendants with spray bottles are causing "chemtrails" then God bless you, but don't expect me to invest much time in thoughtful debate. That's why discussion and debate (including right here) is stifled, unproductive and impolite with a serious bent toward nasty. As it stands now, I really think people need to experience the sort of pain that only comes with experience, they're just starting to benefit from that now IMO. There's an old saying (African proverb I think) that says experience never arrives until just after it was needed it. That will translate into votes in the next election BTW. So, if you were to start a thread (right here) seeking a common solution to one of societies many ills would you expect to see the end result one of collaboration, compromise, consensus of opinion, an executable plan for the benefit of all? I don't, but I'm rooting for ya. I can tell you all about contrails but I won't, there's simply no point.

That's for sure. I watched this grow from a medical access issue to a bathroom access issue. From something I could tentatively support (with conditions and caveats), to an orbital level of absurdity I"m totally opposed to. That took significant and sustained effort, they worked hard at it. That effort showed a breathtaking absence of tactical thinking IMO, especially when you consider that all they had to do to keep most sympathetic to their cause was.... absolutely nothing. I suspect that former sympathizers (now with buyers remorse) would site the cumulative effect of individual absurdities as causal. Things like enforced Drag Queen story time, pornography in classrooms, the permanent mutilation of minor children, and the dismantling of women's sports. Weaponizing a national institution (I'm talking USA here) and labeling concerned parents "domestic terrorists" didn't help either. A true "what did you think was going to happen?" scenario for activists who were pushing that agenda. In terms of women's sports though, I'd like to see every women exit the pool, walk off the field or leave the building when the first hulking, uncut transgender "female" arrives to compete. Absurdity got us here, and in the absence of courage and political will, only counter absurdity will roll it back. The worst part of this is that the time required to fix it will far exceed the time it took to break it. It's a bit like clearcutting your entire property and then wondering why the birds don't nest there anymore. It takes more time to grow trees than it does to slash and burn them. There's a non-aviation analogy for any exflyers in the group.

In another thread I promised no more aviation commentary and I'll stick to it. A simple question in leu of commentary then if I could... are you talking about contrails? OK.... never mind, I googled it. Now that I see what's going on here I'll just squawk 7600 and wish you the best of luck with it. Cheers

Actually, I think flight analogies make perfect discussion points and apply to many of the issues under active consideration here. Assessing weather conditions, developing options in dynamic environment, maintaining control of a large beast with significant inertia whilst analyzing malfunctions, taking corrective action and followup action is exactly what we haven't been doing as a nation. It's a world with measurable consequences that tends to punish "strength of an idea" (dogma) on first contact. It's eating our lunch right now IMO. That said, your point is well taken. If you don't get it then no doubt my intent is lost in translation, I'll refrain from further aviation indulgences in future. I just found your screen name intriguing... sorry.

Not my first choice, but if you support unhinged immigration levels that exceed (virtually) every measurable aspect of "minimum infrastructure required", then it may qualify as an alternative to shivering in a tent. As an exflyer, I suspect you know exactly what happens when "maximum thrust available" equals "minimum thrust required." If you consider things like housing, inflation, taxation, regulatory environment, policing, medical availability, etc as the rising ground in that scenario then I don't think anything we're seeing here qualifies as surprising. Personally, I would have jettisoned all armament and been dumping fuel long before this, no fuel dump checklist either, just radar, HF, transponder and TACAN off followed by the smell of freedom. Up next is that distinctive tink, tink, tink tink sound as all thrust levers hit the stops.

I think that's part of how we got to where we are. Until now, I don't think Canadians have been paying enough attention and those who were tended to seek out news sources that align with their own (preconceived) judgements about the issue at hand. In the information age with no shortage of politically polarized media, that's pretty easy to do. As a result, we seem to have lost the "wait a minute, that doesn't make any damn sense at all" component of our collective awareness. Now that Canadians have been punched in the face a few times, that seems to be changing. Current events and having a defendable opinion about topical issues of the day is (or used to be) part of officer recruitment interviews for the CAF. A defendable position isn't simply one that aligns with the interviewer's, it means you understand the background events, can state a rational opinion, and then defend it in the face of a few basic questions. It's not trivia based either, there are no tricks here. It speaks to maturity and I've seen a surprising number of otherwise excellent candidates fall by the wayside due to the lack of it.

I think that threat assessment was based on JT's policy trajectory with a view toward future events based on the existing liberal plan. IMO, Canadians are just beginning to feel the climate change burn associated with getting what they voted for. Those who asserted that they think they might maybe want this have been punched in the face. Up until now, they thought they had a plan. I'm convinced that Canadians still don't realize the magnitude of effort required, the looming time crunch, or even that we're desperately astern of station in our efforts to reach the target. I'm not sure what they were thinking in the voting booth either because anyone with a hand held calculator is asking "what did you think was going to happen?" I'm not surprised at the carbon tax backlash, I'm surprised liberal voters are surprised. In that context it makes me fear for the future, I'm not sure there's been enough pain yet to penetrate the narrative and drive the lesson home.

I'll settle for what they won't do. I was just trying to think of something the liberals have gotten right, some relatively simple common sense sort of thing, anything really. The sort of legislation I would applaud as a good effort (even if it didn't work) instead of incessantly stifling the urge to scream "what did you think was going to happen." From marijuana to covid mandates, safe supply to a manifestly bogus gun seizure effort that's spent $42 million without collecting a single unit, I find myself with.... nothing. The only way I see myself voting liberal in the future is if they promise to do nothing and NOT "have my back" ever again. Even then it will be a long time coming, the existing knife wounds need time to heal.

I've run into this position with a few folks I'm acquainted with and even have a close relative with the same view. Personally, I see it as defining the line between opinion and narrative with opinion being subject to modification based on experience and narrative closer in texture to that of religion. For me it begs such questions as how much is enough and at what point do you start braking? In aviation there are crosswind component charts vs braking effectiveness (JBI) that help assess landing distance vs runway length. Even so, some are reluctant to overshoot or go to an alternate. Even when they find themselves fast and high on the glide path they accept a long landing / rollout instead of going around and trying again at Vref. We used to call that "strength of an idea" but it's the kissing cousin of narrative IMO. In any case, the results are usually just as predictable as those "what did you think was going to happen?" questions you'll be answering when the investigation team pitches up. Personally, I think we've done significant damage that will take a long time to repair and I see liberals in a similar vein as airline MBAs. There first reaction to the predictable accident (above) is to paint over company livery on the fuselage and tail. For me it's the rapidity with which disaster strikes that's concerning. Some would observe that we've been on course for many years but really, most major societal changes have a habit of occurring very quickly, the common refrain being "wow, how did we get here?" In my analogy above , the process of "getting there is a function of "normalization of deviation." A close relative of getting away with it over a long period of time. Throw in a bit of complacency and in the blink of an "eyeball" you're mowing grass at the end of the runway. IMO, the damage done in the US is even worse and will now take a generation to undo assuming they get off to a good start in November. So, can I assume from your position that you're actually happy with the status quo and/or the idea that Canada is fundamentally on the right track and anything that you take issue with only requires a bit of tweaking? The reason I ask is because I see the choices as stark, in a (largely) two party system, you either accept JT's trajectory or a conservative one. I find the idea of testing the orbital apex of JT's trajectory too horrifying to even contemplate. I've already refiled to that alternate... the amended clearance is coming in now. See ya in the crew lounge, I'll be the one drinking coffee with the flight attendants.

A bit of thread drift here (sorry) but I'm genuinely curious and will abandon this particular line of debate with your reply: I mentioned it previously but the “simple soldier” lesson for me during Covid was the gleeful lack of support people showed for the rights of others. Such things as cheering when neighbours got fired or calling the police when an outdoor group exceeded arbitrary gathering limits by two toddlers. Yes I said two toddlers, think about that for a second. I also said gleefully because from what I saw, the effort put forth to cause their neighbours harm was a true study in human nature. Imagine counting heads with binoculars from the other side of the lake prior to calling the police. In this case, the folks with binoculars (from the big city) were staying at their camp in clear violation of movement restrictions and they were reporting people who were full time residents. Pretty breathtaking eh? If asked, I bet that neighbour would have delivered something in the form of a T-shirt slogan they probably heard on CBC like “rights come with responsibilities.” I see this scenario as the true definition of progressive hypocrisy. Moving on now, I'm wondering if you feel any responsibility toward college aged women who are loosing athletic scholarships to uncut males? How about being injured by them in full contact sports? And what about the records being set that may now may stand in perpetuity? Is it OK with you that women’s sports are being wrecked or is that simply the price they should be expected to pay? Next we come to the prospect of uncut males invading your daughter’s, granddaughters, wife’s, sister’s (etc) change room. Is that OK? Getting back to my original premise, I think it’s noteworthy that literally none of this affects me personally. In fact, I find the prospect of athletic young women (who self identify as gay men) in the change room pretty appealing. From that perspective you would think I'd be cheering for you. BUT HERE”S THE THING My concern is actually for your wife, daughter, and granddaughter, and instead of being mortified yourself, it seems to me you're suggesting that putting aside my concern for others is (somehow) the hallmark of being progressive. I can't imagine ever wanting to join a club like that. Is there a compelling recruiting pitch I missed along the way, perhaps some aspect of this that should elicit (in me) the same level of apathy that so appalled me during the dark days of Covid? I perceive that there's a self inflicted and growing backlash looming against the sort of stratospheric (progressive) absurdities we've seen of late. That didn't have to happen with the intensity that I see on the horizon. Reasonableness might have saved the day. I'm pretty moderate (I think), largely disinclined to impose my views (or intervention) on other people... as long as they simply refrain from hurting others. I don't like bullies, and the problem liberal progressives now face is that I (and I expect many others) have come to view them as the sort of hateful, passive aggressive bullies they themselves (with the help of JT) say they hope to purge from the ranks of sane individuals who are inclined to stand opposed to their madness. Nothing in my experience suggests it's a winning hand.

I would say that caring about your neighbours rights, especially when your own rights remain unencumbered is how we avoid repeat performances of the covid madness and further encroachments under the guise of "this is an emergency." I had this very conversation years ago with an avid non smoker who was firmly in favour of draconian (and decidedly punitive) restrictions. Because she had a lovely fireplace and enjoyed the ambiance of an occasional fire, I suggested that at some point in the future her strong feelings about "smoke in her orbit of life" might come back to haunt her. Fast forward and suddenly she cares now (this is becoming a thing in urban areas now)... ironically, she expects me to care as well. You have every right not to know and not to care but a "responsible" person might find pretending to care is actually in their selfish best interests. That way when needed, others might extend them the same courtesy and come to their defence as opposed to asking "what did you think was going to happen?"

I find the reference to "rights" in that context to be curiously, even deliberately self serving. IMO, most of the "rights" under discussion here belong to Canadians by virtue of birth. And they were hard won too. I'd submit that forcing people to get inoculated in order to keep their jobs or travel in support of sick relatives doesn't leave much room for choice, suggesting that it does serves only to trivialize the duress they felt... many simply had no choice in the matter and I think you know that. Leaders of all sorts are now distancing themselves from this. If you ask the Minister of National Defence (or senior military brass) how many members were lost as a result of the mandates he will quote a very small number (maybe 200ish). The truth is significantly different here and he knows it. He's deliberately counting only those members forced out through the administrative release process. Since administrative release entails the possibility of future consequences, most members actually opted for voluntary release prior to disciplinary action being taken against them. As you might guess, those numbers are a bit higher and they include a couple of close family members and several acquaintances. Some very experienced folks were lost at a time the system could ill afford it. That process alone could take up an entire thread but the point is, I'd like to see more honesty and less euphemistic rhetoric. So, I'll test the waters a bit here: If we returned to the days of Covid passports at some point in the future and it required most people to get 4 booster shots as a catch up measure (to validate their immunity), how many like minded folks (right here) would approve and how many would line up for the jabs? How do you think your neighbours who felt forced or duped into getting the jab would now respond to renewed chants of "rights come with responsibilities." Clearly I can't speak for everyone, but in my circle of acquaintances that chant simply wouldn't resonate. And I'm putting it kindly.

I think so too. I had a few questions of my own about SP toxicity, systemic distribution / Lipid nano particles, possible ill effects for people with inflammatory diseases etc. Basic high school biology stuff, many others had the same or similar type questions. All were met with overt hostility and ridicule from people who didn't even understand the question or why it was being asked. The hateful rhetoric of the day has aged very poorly IMO and it was the first time I've ever been truly ashamed of my neighbours. What it has to do with democracy is the participation of government and the direct culpability of media, not to mention the muzzling / punishment of contrary minded Doctors and PHD level scientists. I wanted to hear the answers to my questions. Perversely, it was the level of ridicule directed toward people with simple biology questions that caused me to balk at this vaccine. Suggesting that multi deployment veterans who previously had every vaccine known to man were suddenly anti-vaxxers was a bridge too far for me. What frightened me were the shameful actions of a scared population and how those fears were manipulated by basic information management techniques. I never expected to see that in Canada and hope to never bear witness to such a thing again..

People should write that sentence out a thousand times. From what I saw, the majority of those leading the charge, those with the strongest and most hateful of opinions, the ones who cheered when their neighbours got fired, were unable to even discuss the issue at a high school biology level. It was absolutely breathtaking IMO. Shameful is exactly the right word.

Thanks for the response, I’m out of time and have to run so I’ll offer a final thought on the matter. I look at it this way, JT ratified the accord in 2016, the idea being to reduce Canada’s emissions to 30% below what they were in 2005 and to do it by 2030 (in under 6 years now). A pretty tall order I think. Then later, he upped that reduction to 40 to 45% below 2005 levels. Cool, I say best of luck with that but please tell me how it's going to be achieved and at what cost to Canadians. I’ll mull the answer over and vote accordingly. Isn't that how it's done? But year over year our emissions have risen at a level that exceeds most other G7 countries. In 2016 we were at 707 Mts. By 2019 we were at 730. Follow on levels were impacted by covid but they certainly provide a glimpse into the level of pain needed for further reductions to happen, especially since we’re increasing our population in an unhinged manner. Liberals will claim that they’re on track but that can only be true if we assume that the reductions planned are nonlinear in nature. For safety sake please stand clear of the windows because the coming blast is likely to leave all of us (except JT) without socks. So while I’m rooting for ya, the absence of meaningful progress leaves me with little confidence that “frameworks are in place and things are happening.” When I look at things that I actually do know something about, say military recruiting, all I see is a total disconnect with reality in the form of a Bud Lite moment, no sense of proportion, cost, cause and effect... nothing that fits in any way with anything in my experience. So before supporting all this I’m wondering what framework and what things? How are we to define “some impact” now and project “some impact” into the future globally? And how are we to fuse “some impact” on our part with the impact required elsewhere in the world whilst acknowledging that our impact is so small as to be no impact at all. This topic is always debated in a fruitless, politically charged, narrative driven manner with no real discussion of how we are to do it and with no idea of the associated costs. As I see it, the shutdowns attendant with covid were but a fraction of what’s actually required to meet our targets. Unless people are yearning for a return to those days, I don't think they really want what they say they think they do.

Yes... the cost of reducing from 1.8% to 0.9% within 6 years would be ruinous. What would you cut back on? I think there are two underlaying questions in all of this, can/will the world unite in a combined and concerted effort soon enough to matter, and what is it you are willing to give up. I think the answer is no and nothing. I don't see it happening. Shutting down our entire transportation industry (all of it) isn't enough, people need to start thinking big and in the absence of some new technology, they need to start thinking pain. Since I don't have time to address the other points I though I might find a video that served to addresses my skepticism with all this: Here's one of the first that popped up on YOUTUBE, I find myself with little to add:

That's bad news then, and the more you believe it the worse it actually is. To me, it means there's no logical solution other than achieving world wide consensus and a unified plan of attack (best of luck), adapting to the ill effects of a warming climate (sea level rise etc), or suffering the consequences of not being prepared. Can I assume that true believers would be opposed to being unprepared for something they assert is going to happen? In addition, I'd suggest that as a nation, nothing we say or do is going to have the least bit of effect on the Chinas of the world prior to an irreversible tipping point being reached. And if you think I'm wrong about that I'd love to hear the plan. As I see it, our paltry 1.8% of global emissions (subsequently gobbled up by our landmass) qualifies us as the very definition of inconsequential. In fact, if a unified global effort is required, I don't see how we could possibly make ourselves more irrelevant to the eventual outcome. The crux of the matter is that in the absence of a global standard of living that rivals our own, people just don't care (and never will) about the environment because they can't afford to. Logically, that means their country doesn't care either and it will be reflected in their own efforts to exploit the environment to the benefit of their own people. If you truly believe that this is a man made issue, the only logical solution (IMO) is to raise the standard of living of those less fortunate to a point where they can afford to share your opinion. It appears to me you're having a bit of bother convincing your own countrymen here but I'm rooting for you none the less. Put another way, the act of lifting people in poor countries out of poverty would have a far greater effect than reducing Canada's footprint from 1.8% of global emissions to 1%. And here's the logical absurdity of it, if we were to achieve that 1% as a nation, two things would immediately happen: the first would effectively be NOTHING in terms of the desired global outcome, and the second would be to reduce shivering Canadians to the same level of apathy as the the poverty stricken people I referred to above. Some might argue that given the fundamental change in support for the carbon tax that we're already there.

He better pick a category and get to work then, the record for churches and forests is already taken.

I predict the noise will get a lot loader (and broader in spectrum) assuming we stay the course on JT's plan to achieve emissions below 40% of 2005 values in less than 6 years. I don't think Canadians are tuned into the enormity of the effort here. The discussions around the carbon tax seem to be occurring in isolation, as if that's the only thing required from us when it actually appears to be the tip of a looming iceberg. The government itself is unsure of the total carbon mitigation this tax will have by 2030. Their best guess is that it will account for about 30% of the total, I'd call that pretty optimistic based on our current performance; independent estimates put it closer to 10%. But lets assume for the moment that they're right. If true, we better brace for incoming because it means that 66% of the total reductions will be coming from other sources. I'm not sure what those are but I'm pretty sure that the cost to consumers and disruption to the economy will be huge. I'm wondering how the economic effects of that won't make the current pain seem like the "good old days" when viewed through the lens of tomorrow. Barring a breakthrough in technology, how will this work? Were will the real meat in the carbon mitigation sandwich come from. People tend to talk about this euphemistically and in terms of "sectors." If we isolate but one of them for the sake of brevity, It seems (to me) that each and every raid on our energy sector is going to be nothing more than a gift to foreign producers. The real issue here is the pain for gain ratio. If Canada only produces 1.8% of world's carbon and our land mass scrubs all of that and more, how much pain are you, we and us collectively willing to endure in an effort to lower it further? Personally, I think we have only begone to whine... wait until we start shivering.

During the last election I recall there being a surprising (to me) level of support for the carbon tax. Just for fun I looked up a few news articles, depending on who you believe it ran at 65 - 75% support for the policy. The exact percentage doesn't matter really, the point is there was majority support and voters are now getting exactly what they voted for. As an aside here, one of the reasons I joined the forum is that I find myself in a constant state of astonishment and perplexity. On any number of current issues I'm barely able to suppress the urge to scream "what did you think was going to happen?" I foolishly hoped that a broader range of opinion and experience might convince me that I was being overly pessimistic, but alas, if anything my astonishment grows. For me, applying simple soldier logic to most of this stuff always comes back to "what did you think was going to happen?" - defund police, make bail easy, remove mandatory minimums... surprise, crime increases. - Mass withdrawal from Afghanistan leaving behind a treasure trove of equipment... surprise, the ANA collapses in two minutes and ISIS regains a foothold. - support an unhinged level of immigration in the complete absence of the most basic plan to increase critical infrastructure.... well, surprise. I could go on at some length but I won't. Each act of absurdity if looked at individually is, or might be, managed and compensated for on its own. But mixing them all together simultaneously is like mixing household chemicals in the bathtub, closing the door and lighting scented candles to mask the smell of chlorine without a single thought given to grade 9 chemistry. So, are people simply not paying attention or were they honestly expecting a different outcome? If it's the latter, I fear we are doomed. If the former, maybe experiencing some hard times is just what we need to get back on track and 8 years of JT is a valuable lesson for all. Hopefully the sort of lesson that lasts us about two generations as I have no desire to repeat any of it anytime soon.

Frankly I'm not sure about the associated costs and clearly Europe is in a different boat than Canada given our porous border with the US. Anyway, here's an Aljazeera (ya I know) article from 2021. It was the first one that popped up on my search and If nothing else, the heavy propaganda emphasis on "far right groups" is mildly entertaining. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/31/what-behind-far-right-trend-using-3d-tech-make-guns Most grade 5 students could write this exact same piece with a militant left wing slant but I actually enjoyed the craven bias contained in it... that's just me though. You may be right about costs (I don't know) but that doesn't seem to be reflected here, maybe it's because of their bias or maybe production is more cost effective in Europe given the geography and tighter national restrictions. Regardless though, I now see it as a pending growth industry for organized crime and MCs. As I recall, in 2021 it simply wasn't a statistically significant issue in Canada or the US. I think that's likely to change though and any push toward tighter boarder controls coupled with further restrictions on law abiding owners (and competitive shooters) could serve to accelerate the process. They'll find a way, the laws have reached a level of absurdity now that even the grade 5 student I referred to above could find a way. Those firmly in support of further regulation (and harassment) of competitive shooters in Canada might enjoy reading the firearm ownership rules in Haiti.