Trudeau to spend a billion dollars pleasing anti-gun nuts

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You don't want to debate anything, perhaps rub salt in those wounds, with this temporary victory....This is all about you fearing something you don't understand, you've bought into the lefts propaganda and fear mongering on whole topic.....and your side of the debate are not going to be happy until there are no guns at all... your not concerned about public safety nor is there a threat to your families safety. 

 

Yeah I’m fine with no guns.  I’m a dual English-Canadian citizen. Many of Britain’s police carry club instead of guns.  Gun homicides are rare.  You and many of the posters on here seem to values an American-style Second Amendment type right to bear arms that most of the world rightly sees as reckless and stupid.  The only exception I accept in a country like Canada is for hunting, which is an honest way to eat meat. I don’t think civilians should be permitted to have handguns, automatic, or even semi-automatic weapons.  Multi-round weapons are also a problem.  Cut the demand and you cut the supply of legal firearms.  Cut the supply of legal firearms and you cut the supply of illegal firearms.  Add stricter penalties that are enforced on illegal firearms, as well as more careful screening at the border, and I think we have better public safety measures.  

Edited May 2, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah I’m fine with no guns.  I’m a dual English-Canadian citizen. Many of Britain’s police carry club instead of guns.  Gun homicides are rare.

There is zero chance British police would not be carrying guns if they had a long, land border with the United States. Even as it stands the UK has been increasing the number of armed police as the number of gun crimes increases. The UK homicide rate is the same as other European countries like Finland and Denmark, which do not ban firearms, and almost the same as others, like France.

Canada's homicide rate is largely the product of immigration, and the native reserve system and the poverty on those reserves.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Argus

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is zero chance British police would not be carrying guns if they had a long, land border with the United States. Even as it stands the UK has been increasing the number of armed police as the number of gun crimes increases. The UK homicide rate is the same as other European countries like Finland and Denmark, which do not ban firearms, and almost the same as others, like France.

There is much greater gun control and far fewer weapons in those countries than in the US.  There are far fewer gun homicides by order of magnitude.  If you want to supplement our national defence and improve our border screening for weapons, I’m in full support.  

[Army Guy]

19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah I’m fine with no guns.  I’m a dual English-Canadian citizen. Many of Britain’s police carry club instead of guns.  Gun homicides are rare.  You and many of the posters on here seem to values an American-style Second Amendment type right to bear arms that most of the world rightly sees as reckless and stupid.  The only exception I accept in a country like Canada is for hunting, which is an honest way to eat meat. I don’t think civilians should be permitted to have handguns, automatic, or even semi-automatic weapons.  Multi-round weapons are also a problem.  Cut the demand and you cut the supply of legal firearms.  Cut the supply of legal firearms and you cut the supply of illegal firearms.  Add stricter penalties that are enforced on illegal firearms, as well as more careful screening at the border, and I think we have better public safety measures.  

And thats your right, it would be different if we were forcing you to have guns , but here in Canada it is a chioce...Britian used to be a country where police had to go back to the station and grab a firearm...todays Britian is not the same, now you see them carrying both a hand gun and a Assault rifle...times are changing , not because of legal gun owners , but rather terrorist. here in Canada homicide by a legal wpn is also rare 23 in the last 30 years...you have a better chance of getting stuck by lightning than getting killed by a legal firearm....but some how that scares you why....In this country I don't think one group of people should be telling another group how and what they can do as long as it does no infringe on anyone else rights. Thats exactly what the anti gun lobby is doing....by using false info much like the liberals are doing now they have convinced 65 % of the country that these firearms are nothing more than death...and yet when asked to provide some stats you have to reach back some 30 years, or use examples from the USA, which is a totally different gun culture that will never even come close to here in Canada.

Who are you to tell anyone what you will accept ? I've asked you have you been threaten by a legal fire arm, is your family endanger of legal fire arms, No they are not...and yet you 're willing to enforce that opinion on others for no valid reason...certainly not safety, so what is it, because from my side of the fence is you don't fully understand enough about the topic to make a fully informed opinion...in fact i'd say 65 % of Canadians fall into that category...

ALL automatic wpns in Canada are prohibited period, unless you have a collectors permit which they stop issuing dozens of years ago...most wpns today are semi auto, and are capable of holding multi rounds , up to 5 in Canada....even most bolt action rifles have magazines holding up to 5 rounds...

Give us a number of how many legal firearms are stolen in Canada and then resold as illegal wpns… even the RCMP does not keep those records so if there are no records how can we prove they are the problem...you can't "the proof is the proof" want to cut the supply of illegal fire arms coming in from the states then pump those bils of tax payers dollars into border services and custom...reinforce the police task forces with resources and man power....I'd and many others would support that all day long....

Add stricter penalties that are enforced on illegal firearms...ya right thats another issue the courts....see Mark Chahal massacre where he used a hand gun and shot gun to kill 8 people not enough evidence to convict....he had a police record that read like a book, but could not convict him of anything..   

 

But we are not going in that direction are we....no we are going to waste BILLIONS to purchase wpns that the conservatives are going to make legal once again...And this buy back is not going to do anything for any of your concerns, except piss off the people who are law abiding citizens......

[Army Guy]

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

There is much greater gun control and far fewer weapons in those countries than in the US.  There are far fewer gun homicides by order of magnitude.  If you want to supplement our national defence and improve our border screening for weapons, I’m in full support.  

Even with our sharing the border with the US, our GUN violence by legally owned wpns is less than any country in Europe's.. which means all a ban will do is drive ownership of these wpns under ground like any other ban this county has tried....23 deaths in 30 years thats less than 1 per year...with over 100,000 of these firearms in the country...amazing 

[WestCanMan]

On 4/30/2020 at 9:30 AM, Argus said:

So the Trudeau government is set to ban a bunch of macho-looking rifles in Canada, even though they really don't do anything a lot of other rifles do, and even though everyone involved in policing recognizes that almost all illegal firearms come across the US border anyway.  The cost will be $250 billion up front and another $150 million a year for for years. But we all know it will be a lot higher. It always is.

And the reason for this billion dollars is not really a reduction in crime or the illegal use of firearms, it's to buy popularity for the Liberal party among urban progressives who know nothing about firearms except they don't like them. The government is exploiting the Nova Scotia tragedy for crass political gain despite the fact the killer had no license and used illegal weapons which can be easily obtained because the government refuses to do anything about weapons smuggling, or the illegal sale, purchase or ownership of firearms.

Remember this government passed more gun control legislation in 2018 and still hasn't' implemented it because the point was to be seen to be passing the legislation. They know the legislation won't do a thing anyway, but they got the good publicity for passing it, which is all this style over substance government ever cares about.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawas-gun-ban-to-target-ar-15-and-the-weapon-used-during/#comments

If the CBC had to edit your story to make an official, unbiased version it would look like this:

Quote

**SNIP*** Trudeau was emotional, yet macho as he banned ****snip**** [the most heinous] rifles in Canada.

*******snip******

The government is ***snip***  [horrified by] the Nova Scotia tragedy. ***snip****. 

Public safety is all the Trudeau government cares about. *****snip*****

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah I’m fine with no guns.  I’m a dual English-Canadian citizen. Many of Britain’s police carry club instead of guns.  Gun homicides are rare.  You and many of the posters on here seem to values an American-style Second Amendment type right to bear arms that most of the world rightly sees as reckless and stupid.  The only exception I accept in a country like Canada is for hunting, which is an honest way to eat meat. I don’t think civilians should be permitted to have handguns, automatic, or even semi-automatic weapons.  Multi-round weapons are also a problem.  Cut the demand and you cut the supply of legal firearms.  Cut the supply of legal firearms and you cut the supply of illegal firearms.  Add stricter penalties that are enforced on illegal firearms, as well as more careful screening at the border, and I think we have better public safety measures.  

Here's something for you to check out zg:

Quote

The UK has one of highest rates of acid attacks in the world, according to the police. According to London's Metropolitan Police, 2017 was the worst year for acid attacks in London, with 465 attacks recorded, up from 395 the previous year and 255 in 2015.

They don't even track acid attacks in our country as a stat because they're so rare that it's meaningless - the graph would look like the battlements on a castle... ones and zeros, and we have 5x London's population. 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

There is much greater gun control and far fewer weapons in those countries than in the US.  There are far fewer gun homicides by order of magnitude.

But we're not talking about the United States. We're talking about Canada. Canada has, even before this new ban, stricter gun control measures than Finland. So does the UK. Yet both countries have higher homicide rates.

[dialamah]

80% of Canadians approve gun ban

Argus, are you seriously suggesting that 80% of Canadians are 'anti-gun-nuts'?   In a democracy, isn't it true that what the majority wants, the majority should get - 80% seems like a pretty strong majority.  Perhaps we should appreciate it when a government action actually coincides with what most of it's citizens want.  

[dialamah]

On 4/30/2020 at 10:05 AM, PIK said:

And 9 billion to buy the young vote again. And it will work. Canada is doomed and will be a failed state if we do not get rid of him.

Oh, chicken little .... LOL

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

80% of Canadians approve gun ban

Argus, are you seriously suggesting that 80% of Canadians are 'anti-gun-nuts'?   In a democracy, isn't it true that what the majority wants, the majority should get - 80% seems like a pretty strong majority.  Perhaps we should appreciate it when a government action actually coincides with what most of it's citizens want.  

According to the poll they want assault weapons banned. Assault weapons have been banned in Canada for decades.

It's interesting that the question they ask Canadians is if they want Assault weapons to be banned from civilian use, yet they headline the story "assault-style" weapons.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Argus

[dialamah]

17 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

except with firearms can be a deterrent against Tyranny. 

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

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

According to the poll they want assault weapons banned. Assault weapons have been banned in Canada for decades.

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.  

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

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.

Do you even know what an assault weapon is? Would you care to define it for me?

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you even know what an assault weapon is? Would you care to define it for me?

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?

Edited May 2, 2020 by dialamah

[Rue]

21 hours ago, jacee said:

I guess that's why they said assault "style" weapons, to get rid of the wannabe lookalikes. Makes sense to me. That's a testosterone binge itself for the "yahoos" spoiling for a fight for the rights of the far right and spitting mad with isolation anxiety. 

That's an immediate problem. 

And the increasing trendiness of assault "style" wannabe rifles is a problem in itself. 

If it looks like one, now you can be charged as if it is one? 

Just like replica handgun gets you an armed robbery charge. 

Makes sense to me. 

It makes sense to you? How?.

Using your reasoning all guns should be banned. How do you know the difference between any gun let alone a toy or real one let alone an assault rifle from a non assault rifle? You clearly do not. So you make no sense. You are hyped on thinking any weapon is evil.  No law can not be based on subjective fear  perceptions to make sense.

You are being emotionally manipulated by a politican playing your fears.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Rue

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

80% of Canadians approve gun ban

Argus, are you seriously suggesting that 80% of Canadians are 'anti-gun-nuts'?   In a democracy, isn't it true that what the majority wants, the majority should get - 80% seems like a pretty strong majority.  Perhaps we should appreciate it when a government action actually coincides with what most of it's citizens want.  

I remember boarding the Aircraft to go on my first tour of Afghanistan as well , it's 3 am and thousands of Canadians had lined the streets with banners and flags cheering us on as we left for war...The majority of Canada was behind that mission just like the first invasion of Iraq....once again the majority of Canadians got behind that war as well...And by the second mission Canadians had lost interest, and DND lost it's support, by the 3 rd Canadians wanted nothing to do with the mission....my point is just because it's popular in Canada does not mean the public knows best....the question that should be asked is this government action going to produce results worth the funding it is going to have to pour into it...or Is it the best use of the money could we not use it in a more effective way....or can you even see past the liberal media machine and its propaganda. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

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?

The poll was an attempt at misleading Canadians to get an incorrect answer.

It's like posting a poll about abortion and saying "Do you like killing babies" and then using that to prove that Canadians do not approve of abortion.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by WestCanMan

[Army Guy]

 

53 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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?

They are making a decision without being properly informed or highly encouraged by the liberal media machine...most Canadians are not smart enough or to lazy to research what the government is trying to sell...and if they can do this to firearms, with a swipe of the pen, and very little evidence to prove anything , such as what is in the best interest of public safety.... what else can they change with out debate or evidence , perhaps you can show us some of the evidence that you have made your choice on... Show us how this is going to improve public safety in such a manner that it is going to be worth billions....show us how this is going to reduce illegal firearms enough to make a difference.. even the RCMP do not have the data to prove this will reduce illegal guns...so where do you get your data....

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

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?

No. The poll asked people whether assault weapons should be banned. It had nothing to do with this legislation. You support banning assault weapons even while not knowing what an assault weapon is. That sounds kind of nuts to me.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I remember boarding the Aircraft to go on my first tour of Afghanistan as well , it's 3 am and thousands of Canadians had lined the streets with banners and flags cheering us on as we left for war...The majority of Canada was behind that mission just like the first invasion of Iraq....once again the majority of Canadians got behind that war as well...And by the second mission Canadians had lost interest, and DND lost it's support, by the 3 rd Canadians wanted nothing to do with the mission.

The reason they supported it was because the government and opposition supported it. But then the Tories got elected. They continued to support it but the Liberals shifted 180 degrees to opposing it, digging for anything they could use to criticize it, from casualties to cost to 'abuse of poor, innocent terrorists', or even 'abuse of poor innocent terrorists we turned over to someone else". The media, being largely made up of Liberal party shills, abruptly reversed course, as well and began banging the peace drum and devoting extensive time to exposing the abuse of the rights of prisoners we had captured but turned over to Americans or Afghan authorities.

[Guest ProudConservative]

Here's my problem... Even though I have a bias against guns... and I'll admit I have that bias.... This is a pandemic... Trudeau has some nerve banning 1500 firearms without waiting until the pandemic is over, and having a respectful debate in parliament.

It looks like Trudeau thinks he's a dictator, and that respecting democracy is just some courtesy.

Edited May 3, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Guest ProudConservative]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

They are making a decision without being properly informed or highly encouraged by the liberal media machine...most Canadians are not smart enough or to lazy to research what the government is trying to sell...and if they can do this to firearms, with a swipe of the pen, and very little evidence to prove anything , such as what is in the best interest of public safety.... what else can they change with out debate or evidence , perhaps you can show us some of the evidence that you have made your choice on... Show us how this is going to improve public safety in such a manner that it is going to be worth billions....show us how this is going to reduce illegal firearms enough to make a difference.. even the RCMP do not have the data to prove this will reduce illegal guns...so where do you get your data....

If they take away your firearms, how will future generations, be able to defend themselves, if the government goes Tyrannical?

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

No. The poll asked people whether assault weapons should be banned. It had nothing to do with this legislation. You support banning assault weapons even while not knowing what an assault weapon is. That sounds kind of nuts to me.

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:"