Trudeau to spend a billion dollars pleasing anti-gun nuts

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

A person who is found to be illegal possession of a gun will not be able to use it when they are in jail.  The longer they are in there, the longer they won't be able to use it.

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

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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

The more thieves there are in jail, the fewer there are to steal guns.

[cougar]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

What's his face who thinks that animals do not kill each other of the same species does not watch the many nature shows that are shown on TV.  Animals do kill each other of the same species all the time, and it is either over a female, or for leadership, or for turf. Sadly, some animals are no better than some human beings who will kill someone of their own human species. 

 

They kill each other more or less accidentally.  It happens when you have two well matched animals and neither refuses to end the fight.  For the most part, one runs away and is saved.

 

I said two barrel shot guns.  I will not discuss milliseconds of automatic and semi-automatic rifles and how they compare to one another.

Edited May 4, 2020 by cougar

[cougar]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Well, I don't know about rams and elk, but bears definitely do. So do wolves. And like them, we're predators.

No , you are not a predator, you are omnivorous.    Humans never had claws and fangs and the ability to chase and capture prey.

Your statements get more laughable by the minute.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

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

Civil discussion, you made a drive by comment, while having no real interest in a response or discussion, which normally means the exchange of ideas and facts....but you do have any energy in doing any research on the topic...which kind of suggests you have already made up your mind, to follow the mob rules....you loose....want to talk about stereo types  for liberals you checked a lot of boxes...my comment was to draw you back into the conversation, but I think I am to late, the train has already left the station....and your right we disagree, you basically basing your choices on mob rules, and I was basing my on facts and common sense...perhaps it is better to move on...

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The more thieves there are in jail, the fewer there are to steal guns.

Keeping thieves in jail costs more than implementing a gun ban.  Its not just the housing of inmates that costs, but the criminal education they get and contacts they make, put to use when they're released.  There's also the effect on mental health, especially for inmates that spend time in solitary confinement.  Some inmates come out of prison with PTSD, and some come out so badly institutionalized they struggle to make simple decisions about what to buy for groceries.  

In the meantime, new people turn to criminal life for various societal reasons we could address, but do not.

Some people really do need to be locked up for life, its true.  But the majority could be succesfully rehabilitated or, even better, could have recieved the help they needed when they needed it and avoided crime entirely.

But we himans, all of us, prefer the "easy" solution, so we ban guns and throw people into prisons that dehumanize them.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

you made a drive by comment, while having no real interest in a

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

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

perhaps it is better to move on...

Yup.

[Army Guy]

44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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

And what source are you using for that tidbit....are you using the liberal talking points....How many stolen firearms are being used by criminals last year, the reason I ask is the CBC reported that the RCMP do not have those records, nor do they have any data on wpns legally purchased and then resold to criminals....please provide source.

Cut off one source of supply and another will pop up, it's called supply and demand... prohibition does not effectively work, or stop the flow of any material item...look at booze, drugs,    

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Keeping thieves in jail costs more than implementing a gun ban.  Its not just the housing of inmates that costs, but the criminal education they get and contacts they make, put to use when they're released.  There's also the effect on mental health, especially for inmates that spend time in solitary confinement.  Some inmates come out of prison with PTSD, and some come out so badly institutionalized they struggle to make simple decisions about what to buy for groceries.  

In the meantime, new people turn to criminal life for various societal reasons we could address, but do not.

Some people really do need to be locked up for life, its true.  But the majority could be succesfully rehabilitated or, even better, could have recieved the help they needed when they needed it and avoided crime entirely.

But we himans, all of us, prefer the "easy" solution, so we ban guns and throw people into prisons that dehumanize them.

Easy doesn't have to be wrong.  It certainly can be. (see Trudeau's gun ban) 

As long as it is clearly understood that possession of a gun without having all the relevant courses and permits will result in a minimum sentence of (take your pick) years I have no problem with that.  No-one to blame but the idiot with the gun.

I'm not generally a fan of minimum sentences.  Too many life for stealing a slice of pizza horror stories.  But I could get behind that one.  Plus the much bigger one for actually firing the gun.

If you want to offer counselling, I'm fine with that too.  But until it takes, I'd go with my plan.

[cougar]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And what source are you using for that tidbit....

 

She is using the statistical probability source which is plain logic and math.

But of course nothing would convince an "Army Guy" that we need less weapons.

Edited May 4, 2020 by cougar

[Army Guy]

23 minutes ago, cougar said:

They kill each other more or less accidentally.  It happens when you have two well matched animals and neither refuses to end the fight.  For the most part, one runs away and is saved.

 

I said two barrel shot guns.  I will not discuss milliseconds of automatic and semi-automatic rifles and how they compare to one another.

You won't discuss it because you don't know anything about it, except you have an opinion, based on false liberal talking points , and your not interested in the facts...but you love chirping....

[cougar]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

You won't discuss it because you don't know anything about it,

What I know is enough to make me make up my mind.

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Easy doesn't have to be wrong.  It certainly can be

So the "easy" of throwing people in jail is right, and the "easy" of a gun ban is wrong.  Ok.  We too can agree to disagree.  

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

based on false liberal talking points ,

Exactly what I said earlier, this thread isn't about discussion, it's just to bash liberals.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So the "easy" of throwing people in jail is right, and the "easy" of a gun ban is wrong.  Ok.  We too can agree to disagree.  

I'm good with that!

Of course, with my plan, the bad guys suffer.  With yours...

Edited May 4, 2020 by bcsapper

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, cougar said:

She is using the statistical probability source which is plain logic and math.

But of course nothing would convince an "Army Guy" that we need less weapons.

Here is some Stats and math for you, in the last 30 years there has been 29 legally owned wpns used to commit a murder....less than one per year....here is some more math, you more likely to be struck by lighting than kill with a legal firearm.....want some more I got tons of them this has never been about public safety as there are a lot better live safeing measures that would be more effective at actually saving lives…......This is not about less fire arms, it is about how they came to the conclusion that this would be a good idea....that the ban would solve what the nation really wants, to stop the flow of fire arms to criminals, you know the animals that are doing all the killing.........we are going to spend bils on buying back these fire arms, and only 350 million on preventive measures with border services and RCMP across the entire country...whats funney is you guys think that is the best way to go....the most effective way, but most Canadians don't give a shit because it won't effect them...thats sound decision making right there....

Maybe you can share your source of all this statistical Probability source which is plain logic and math....talk to me like I'm 3 I'm a little slow in understanding liberal logic.......

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

So in other words, an old fashioned revolver qualifies as a 'fast shooting' gun?

Depends who you are lol.

 

I think this guy with his single-action revolver would beat any NYC punk with a Glock semi-auto.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm good with that!

Of course, with my plan, the bad guys suffer.  With yours...

With your plan, everybody suffers.  With my plan, everybody does better - except the truly bad guys, they suffer.

But our society isn't nearly ready for anything like that. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

With your plan, everybody suffers.  With my plan, everybody does better - except the truly bad guys, they suffer.

But our society isn't nearly ready for anything like that. 

I’m now even better with the agree to disagree option.

Edited May 4, 2020 by bcsapper

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Exactly what I said earlier, this thread isn't about discussion, it's just to bash liberals.  

Maybe it's all about how liberal make there decisions based on lies, Bring something to the table some source,  anything that will prove this liberal decision will severely reduce  criminals ability to gain access to fire arms...

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

The problem here in Canada is that it seems that if someone does anything to defend themselves from some criminal trying to hurt or shoot them in their own home they could then also become and be treated like a criminal for daring to defend his home and his family. The person would be no doubt hounded by the police and the government into asking him as to whether he could have shot the criminal in the leg rather than to have killed him. It can go either way for the victim in Canada. It all depends on how zealous the police or the government want to pursue the shooting. They can make life hell if they want to blame the victim rather hen the criminal. I have seen that happen many times where the victim as gone thru hell trying to defend himself over something that should not have been done at all to the victim. 

Agreed, but the worst thing that can ever happen to you is for another human being to have absolute power over you. You'd be better off vs a shark or a bear because you just die quickly.

I live in a two storey house. We have an alarm. If someone breaks in and stays on the main floor, steals some TVs while the alarm is going off, the police can try to track them down, and I'll have an insurance claim to get a new TV. I'm not even going to get involved. If someone came to the top of the stairs, after they were warned, I would assume that they were there to attack my family.

[Army Guy]

21 minutes ago, cougar said:

What I know is enough to make me make up my mind.

Ya I know,  who needs facts anyway... I wonder if your going to be so easily swayed when the cons reverse all of this....

[Army Guy]

29 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Depends who you are lol.

 

I think this guy with his single-action revolver would beat any NYC punk with a Glock semi-auto.

Stop it your scaring all the little bunneys I mean liberals they shoot to fast....he's one of those legal gun owners...

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Exactly what I said earlier, this thread isn't about discussion, it's just to bash liberals.  

Well, in this instance, Liberals are wrong on a number of fronts.

1) This wasn't a scenario that just had to get done Friday. Liberals knew they wanted this done. They had a majority in 2015, they are still in power now (5 years later), they could have done this above board, in parliament. Instead they snuck it through the back door like the media-controlling, totalitarian regime they are.

2) The Liberals lied about this whole scenario from the start. The info about the illegal guns was withheld, the killer's criminal status was withheld, all to create the impression that this was a gun control issue while it was still an extremely emotionally-charged situation. If they couldn't talk about that, then why would they talk about the fact that guns were even involved? Or who the victims were? That's just sick. 

There isn't a single ounce of "Canadian gun laws failing" in this whole scenario. It's a failure of the criminal justice and mental health systems. Money being wasted on legal gun owners is FAR BETTER OFF being spent elsewhere and that's a fact.

3) If Canadians don't need an AR-15 to kill a deer, then why do 1st nations people need AR-15s to hunt deer? Are they a bunch of pussies now? They used to be able to do that with stone-age bows and arrows, now they can't do it with a modern compound bow, or a bolt-action .308? I sure as hell could. If it's an issue of "If the illegal guns are around, criminals will get them" don't you think that indigenous people could sell them too? Aren't they also a danger to society like crackers are? 

Trudeau is just an ass-clown of the highest order. Everything he does is based on lies, stupidity, narcissism, and bigotry. He hates the west, and white anglo-saxon males, and we hate him far more.

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Stop it your scaring all the little bunneys I mean liberals they shoot to fast....he's one of those legal gun owners...

Pretty insane though hey? It defies logic, what he can do. 

When I watch a movie and some cowboy blows away 5 people in a room who all have guns, part of me says buuuullllllshiiiiiit and part of me says "Bob Munden could kill 5 of me no problem."