Venandi

Yup. I've been wondering how long it would take for 3D printed guns (especially handguns) to take off. The technology has been around for a while but until recently the overall effect could (IMO) be described as statistically insignificant. If RCMP warnings are to be believed, that seems to be changing now. Over time I think it will become a serious issue, actually I'm a bit surprised it isn't way worse already. If there was an award for most polarizing issue in Canada I suspect firearm regulations would qualify as a medal contender. IMO, the debate itself clearly illustrates the difference between narrative (in the dogmatic sense) and opinion that's based on (and modified by) experience. As an occasional participant in several competitive shooting sports, I sometimes get to talk to people from the narrative driven side of the firearms equation. Many have pretty strong feelings about it. While I don't press the issue, I will usually ask a pretty simple question: If you were king of Canada for a day, what single firearm law (or regulation) would you enact to make the world a safer place? Almost invariably they'll suggest something that already exists and that already exceeds their stated choice in terms of scope and broad effect. Most of them can't define an assault rifle and are unfamiliar with the selective fire aspect of the definition and most are surprised at the regulatory overlap with some provincial hunting regulations. My point here is that we've collectively used up lot of time and money in unproductive narrative driven (not to mention ineffective) pursuits that include such pleasantries as "nobody needs a gun". The response is usually something equally inane like "nobody needs a swimming pool either." What follows is a rousing debate over suicide prevention and drowning deaths. All very interesting from an academic point of view (I guess) but hardly productive in view of existing or looming issues of importance to all regardless of differing opinions... smuggling, illegal distribution, bail conditions, mandatory sentencing, 3d printing etc. being but a few of them. In short, polite, rational discussions aimed at solving this and other important problems are a rarity now. Based on the casual perusal of this and various other opinion forums, I think it will get worse over time. Seems to me it has helped create the very vacuum in which government over reach (under the guise of "keeping Canadians safe") can thrive and expand. I would argue that it's already here and is getting worse at a faster pace than those criminals manufacturing 3D guns can compete with.

Indeed. And while it started innocuously (some might argue) with washrooms, it's now invaded women's sports with a vengeance. Putting aside the risk of physical injury and bogus performance records that will stand in perpetuity, women are (or soon will be) taking a hit on athletic scholarships, and provincial, national, and olympic participation. I submit that the original idea that "it's only a toilet who cares" has come with some unintended consequences, and anyone who admits to being ambivalent about that should at least acknowledge its unfairness and propose an equitable workaround. Supporting an idea that's manifestly unfair to women and then shrugging your shoulders and walking away is just as bad as the scenario their original support ultimately created. IMO of course...

An unfortunate position IMO but I think it’s fairly common. Collectively, we seem to dance around the periphery of these issues without truly considering legalities based on hard science or unintended consequences. In other words, we seem content to allow the courts to figure it on our behalf and the result seems to be absurdities that inventively beg the question “how did we get here? I offered (above) an example of the possible disconnect between identity politics and hard science when both (simultaneously) are allowed to hold legal status. If a trans women has legal status as a women (and it appears they do) and DNA at the murder scene identifies her as male, is it a legitimate defence to suggest that it couldn’t be her? I suspect we both agree that it isn’t and it shouldn’t. This is why “person with a vagina” and “person with a penis” is being incorporated into the legal lexicon. It’s why supreme court judges can’t define a women. At it’s core, It’s a self inflicted absurdity that has the potential to effect everyone, but women in particular. Its grown legs, largely (IMO) as the result of the apathy of most voters. Interestingly enough though, my concern is not for myself, it’s for your daughter, your wife, your granddaughter etc. Because of that I can’t quite bring myself to assert that “it’s easier to accept reality than fight it. We are actually engaged in radically distorting reality here. As an aside, when I say my concern is that it negatively effects women (in particular), it’s because I am not the least offended by fit young ladies who self identify as gay men in the shower room. See how absurd it all is.

As a nation, I don't think we've fully considered the implications of entrenching such things in law, it hasn't survived first contact in the crucible of legal reality yet. By way of example, suppose DNA evidence is left at the scene of a murder and it positively identifies a specific individual and definitively labels him as male even though that individual identifies as transgender. You see where i'm going here right? Clearly (I think) using misgendering as a defence (the notion that it couldn't possibly be me because I'm a girl) would be, and certainly should be, a futile (bordering on foolish) defence strategy. I'm guessing that everyone here would agree that in this case science should triumph over the politics of identity / gender choice. In addition, we would likely all agree that the guilty individual should go to prison. But take our example a step further.... should that individual be incarcerated in a female prison because he identifies as female? After all, we just legally identified him (by DNA) as being male and convicted him despite his assertion that he's a woman. As an aside, and just for fun, I approached a few retired RCAF Pilot acquaintances at the gym and suggested we all self identify as being 30 years old and go to the nearest CFRC Det to re-engage as experienced retread pilots. Even though we're all in pretty good shape and could get through the aircrew medical, I doubt it would fly with the recruiters... but the question remains, should we be able to do that? Using the same logic applied to transgender rights, If I really am as physically fit as most 30 something pilots currently serving why shouldn't I be able rejoin? Unfortunately there was a general lack of interest in my plan and as a result you won't be seeing us on CBC. I think it might have been fun...

True enough but what I’m suggesting is that it’s a matter of context and extent, I'll leave you with a final thought: Contracted Initial cadre training on new acquisitions, say the C17 or B200 makes sense, short term requirements with leased aircraft like the Heron UAV is another. Contract maintenance on small, special purpose fleets qualifies too. And, if your operational tempo is high and organic assets are too limited to support long duration training, well you contract that too. The common element is that seasoned RCAF pilots are sent to an allied nation (or civilian company) as a stop gap training measure but those pilots are produced in numbers that reflect RCAF requirements and national priorities. It's a galaxy away from contracting everything from day one of PFS to wings parade. This may be necessary due to personnel deficiencies (I don't know for sure), but it’s a vulnerability all the same. If national production priorities ever collide between us and the host nation, and I think they will, it will be our training slots that are cut back, delayed, or totally eliminated. If the pilot training stream is deemed essential and if it qualifies as a national priority, we may find ourselves asking what has become an all too common question... how did we get here?

Yes, and that's likely how it will be sold too. Then again, relying on foreign countries for essential infrastructure, be it energy, pharmaceuticals, military training, (or what ever) is a potential vulnerability always worthy of sober reflection. I wonder how much surge capacity is built into the training contract, how much flexibility there is to absorb the vagaries of RCAF pilot supply and demand, attrition due to airline hiring, retirements, new acquisitions (UAV/UAS for example).... that retention, recruiting, tempo of operations thing I referred to above, it's dogging our heels right now and I fear we're making it worse. Will our national needs be a priority within a foreign training system? Will off contract training requirements come at a hefty premium that renders anticipated savings moot? At best, it's aways tricky to judge future requirements in any MOC that requires long duration training and significant experience prior to upgrade. IMO, this adds an additional complication to system that would be well served by having less. Personally, I don't trust the government to fill pot holes in front of my house but I'm rooting for ya. That said, I think the idea that we don't need organic pilot training is destined for the same the box as "we don't need heavy lift helicopters, tanks, shore bombardment, ASW, etc" Cheers

I fear we’ve systemically forgotten previous harsh lessons on the interaction between retention, recruiting and operational tempo. Each factor effects the other two and any trade (or classification) that places a premium on experience and/or has long training times is susceptible to self inflicted chaos if they allow that equation to get out of balance. IMO, that ship has already sunk and the only thing still functioning is the swimming pool. Mentors are walking out the door faster than recruitment and training systems can produce new ones. As a result, and across the board, readiness and operational tempo is in a spiral dive. To me, it’s not a question of who neglected what, when they neglected it, or even why. It’s here now and it’s a systemic problem reminiscent of a snake eating its own tail. A vulnerability that needs to be addressed if any pretence of operational tempo is to be retained. I’m retired and thus removed from the present situation, but when I left the quality of candidates arriving at OTUs was different than in the OCTP intake days, they are older as a result of obtaining a degree, language training and extended OJT periods due to training delays. That’s huge in and of itself BTW. So, I think that what's being sold as a good idea (be it cost savings or whatever) is actually an act of desperation and the recognition that RCAF pilot production has deteriorated to the point that we are incapable of out training the deficit without a complete loss of operational tempo. In short, there are no trainers left to train others and no mentors left to mentor those out of the training mill. Essentially it’s aerodynamic lock point at low altitude… lower the nose you crash, raise it and you stall, a situation where the only thing that saves the day is drop-off. It creates vulnerabilities with the supply side of an equation incapable of surviving further tampering, we are relying on other nations now. And like sole sourcing your energy supplies from potentially hostile trading partners, like it or not it creates a vulnerability. Remember those German delegates at the UN snickering at Trump for suggesting they were now vulnerable as a result? I think this is that, but at a minimum and regardless of your opinion on the matter, it should be acknowledged as a potential vulnerability. I'll be surprised and delighted if future events prove me wrong. I suspect that politicians and the RCAF brass will sell this as a good idea even if they know it’s an act of desperation. In Career Manager circles, I bet they're praying for layoffs at airlines and the return of those they previously failed to retain. They'll call it good supply management, pilots will call it drop off.

IMO, that concept should be front and centre in the minds of everyone but unfortunately it takes time to gain the required experience. As it stands now though, I fear the see-saw effect resulting from future changes in government will serve to prolong the current agony as every new government campaigns on undoing the actions of their predecessors.. Only now (IMO) are liberal voters starting to see the predictable effects of getting what they voted for and they need more experience to drive these lessons home. Seems to me that narrative (as opposed to opinion) can only be refined by painful experience and I can't think of a better example than the madness behind defunding the police.

Nothing to do with spine, it's a simple matter of trust. Actually it's the complete absence of it. As it stands now, I don't trust these creatures to fill pot holes in front of my house. Whilst typing the above I was trying to think of something that the Liberals have gotten right, some concrete action I could agree with, something that made sense to me, anything that might cause me to say "ya, good idea, that might work." I'd even settle for a decision or action that showcased honour, integrity or courage, maybe even all three at the same time... something I might respect even if I didn't agree with it. I got nothing... other than the very question posed by JT himself, "should we tolerate these people?"

Amen to that. But what I find interesting here is the level of "popular support," across the board, not that popular support translates (or even should translate) into seats. Residual support for the Liberals, NDP, Greens, and Bloc (essentially the status quo) seems to be running at about 56% (chart below). That's not to say 56% of the population is happy with the trajectory of the country (I hope) but IMO it sets the stage for future see saw elections as we cycle between competing party visions sandwiched in more polarization than I've ever seen in my lifetime. Put another way, the damage that JT has done in a short period of time is simply breathtaking to me and I would hate to think that over 50% of my neighbours would find the status quo acceptable enough to willing suffer a return to the governance that created it. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/pierre-poilievres-conservatives-maintain-lead-over-justin-trudeaus-liberals-check-our-polling-tool-to-track/article_a7ed34b2-ae6c-11ee-8398-e7344102c0db.html

Thanks, that's how I see it too, this is not a statistically insignificant demographic. In addition, (and IMO of course), they are not the sort of folks easily pushed around or stampeded into ill-advised actions by ridicule or peer pressure either. That's simply the wrong approach. Being retired from the military (32 years and 10 foreign deployments), I’ve had lots of vaccinations. This was the first one I balked at. It didn’t have to be that way either, I had a few simple high school biology questions, the sort you would ask your science teacher before class. Basic queries about spike protein toxicity, lipid nanoparticles and the possible effects they might have on systemic distribution, the potential for passing the BBB, and what effect a full blown immune response might have on those people with inflammatory type conditions (arthritis, allergies, etc). The questions were easy and they were reasonable. The answers are a completely different thing, they require(d) a level of expertise way beyond grade 13. And instead of getting those answers in a straight up manner, the people who asked them were ridiculed and attacked. For me, it was that frontal attack that set off the master warning light. Rights and freedoms aside, speaking strictly about vaccine efficacy, everything that’s happened subsequently suggests that my suspicions and concerns had merit. I’d suggest that people who’ve previously had (just about) every vaccine known to man don’t rise to the level of rabid anti vaxxers and suggesting that they do is to loose all credibility with them. So yes, of course people are hesitant now, and while that’s a shame and has potential consequences, I simply don’t see how any rational person is surprised by that hesitancy. Maybe some of the hateful rhetoric previously directed at “anti vaxxers” (on social media) should be showcased here for those who might have forgotten, one things for sure, it didn’t age well.

It appears to me that only recently (like now) are those very rulings coming to to the fore or even being discussed in a semi-coherent manner. It also seems that these rulings, discussions, and in some cases the dropping of charges (not to mention the pending law suits) are occurring long after the fact. Essentially after the damage has already been done and the precedent for future abuses set. I fear that the notion of generating an emergency to coerce a frightened public into the acceptance of draconian measures has now been established as SOP and that we will be seeing it again in the future. Covid restrictions were the warmup and the emergencies act was a trial run; a test if you will. And IMO, we collectively failed the test pretty badly. For the sake of illustration though please put all of that aside because it certainly won’t be solved here anyway. Consider only the the freezing of bank accounts after the Emergencies Act was invoked. IMO, willful government misinformation and a compliant media were on full display during this event. If nothing else, that, and that alone, should send shivers down the backs of voters (of all stripes) and serve as a sterling example of a societal trajectory much to be feared. So, my question really boils down to does it actually send those shivers? Does it resonate with those folks who supported the use of the Emergencies Act? I think it’s an important starting point because when deciding where any line should be drawn it seems appropriate to identify and agree upon the grid reference of where the “bridge too far” is located. Identifying and establishing the line not to be crossed and working backwards from there just seems reasonable to me. From that vantage point though it would take binoculars to see my personal line in the sand, I'm simply curious if there is a collective one... something that any and all would consider abhorrent in a country like Canada.

Ain’t that the truth… The percentage of people ready, willing and able to join the CAF at any given time is a small percentage of the Canadian population as a whole. And, given the systemic delays in recruiting, all too often the top contenders in that cadre are lost to other hungry entities like policing. The current woke madness has lost touch with the notion that experienced based organizations need to closely monitor retention, recruiting and operational tempo with binoculars trained on the horizon, eagerly anticipating future needs. What a lot of people don’t realize (I think) is that military service has a significant generational component to it. Most (or at least many) recruits have family members or family friends who are either currently serving or veterans. When those folks start recommending alternative career paths (as I do now) it negatively affects the supply side of the equation. There simply aren't enough purple haired Wiccans with facial piercings to pick up the slack. At present we lose 10 experienced solders for every 9 new recruits making the situation unsustainable if nothing changes. Over time, mentoring and operational tempo gets crushed, and time is running out IMO. Since careers are measured in decades, I fear that the woke cadre currently gaining traction will be a cultural factor in the CAF for years to come. I think it’s a Bud Light moment for the military. I usually ask those who disagree to search their memory banks and consider every women they have ever known or met… relatives, friends, coworkers etc and ask how many of them sincerely want to join the infantry and go to jump school. Or how many of them want to join the navy, sleep in mess decks and spend 6 months at sea every year. I’m not talking about those women who actually could do it either (that ready willing and able thing again), I refer only to those who actually want to do it. I know several young ladies at the gym capable of meeting the JTF2 or CSOR physical fitness standards, none of them are even remotely interested in joining. I even suggested SAR Tech as an alternative to one of them who is interested in nursing. The answer wasn’t just no, it was hell no. Apparently I would have better luck with a marriage proposal than a recruiting pitch.