Trudeau to spend a billion dollars pleasing anti-gun nuts

[SpankyMcFarland]

I would agree that the government has more pressing matters to consider. 

[Tdot]

41 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Who owns weapons like these? I don’t know anybody who does. 

Exactly!  So now, Trudeau has to make sure all Canadians can eventually say this same exact thing.

[Tdot]

20 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I would agree that the government has more pressing matters to consider. 

Nothing is more, pressing, than extinguishing a potential movement of homegrown terrorists who are angry at the Canadian GOVT's political horizon.

[Army Guy]

The questions many are asking is where does it stop, today it is 1500 different guns that look like military firearms...what is it going to look like a year from now, when they decide all semi auto rifles are banned, all lever action guns are banned or all pump action shotguns … thats the problem, there is no line in the sand, it is what ever they decide when they decide it....all in the mind set of safety... but the facts do not support that....it is just an excuse to do it....

[Army Guy]

The liberals are starting to pad their stats on "semi auto magazine fed guns" or assaults' wpns as they are calling them, which they are not, the only people that can use or operate assault wpns are the military and RCMP, the rest , the ones available to the public look like the military wpns, but are infact manufacture for civilian use, and have much different characteristics, full auto, sighting systems, magazine capacity, and more.....to be used in sport shooting or leisure range shooting, ....they are not designed to do one thing that is kill people, all fire arms can kill people, and those banned wpns are limited to 5 round magazines, ….. they are not military grade wpns, once again they are designed and manufacture as per specs given to them by the government to be used by the general population....Now the liberals and some media outlets are using mass murder incidents form the US to press their point...But we are not talking about the US Strictly Canada...

 

Mass killings in Canada.

Polytechnique, Quebec, 14 people killed , plus one by suicide ,by a semi auto rifle , dec 6 1989., legal owned wpn.

Moncton, NB 3 people killed,  semi auto rifle legally owned  June , 2014 

Fredericton NB, 4 people killed , long gun, hunting rifle, Aug  2014

Mosque shooting, Quebec, , 6 people killed , by semi auto rifle, legally owned , Jan 2017

NS, 22 people killed , by semi auto rifle , and hand guns, all illegal obtained.

Total number of people killed by semi auto wpns or (so called Assault wpns )in this country in the last 30 years , 49 people have been murdered although each one is tragic, these numbers are far better than most western countries including all of Europe...And although each country has different solutions or gun laws ours does sound very effective, there are 7 million firearms in Canada...

It is being said this is for the public safety, but other causes of death are not of any interest, well because they are not on the liberal platform thats , why...no mention of Knifes, cars, drunk drivers, and to my surprise bridges...where thousands of people kill themselves in less than 30 years....this is not about public safety it's about politics... 

 

Canada[edit]

• There are a number of suicide bridges in the greater Vancouver area, the most frequented being the Lions Gate Bridge, which saw 324 suicidal incidents, including 78 jumps from 2006 to 2017.^[11]
• The High Level Bridge (Edmonton) in Edmonton, Alberta, is considered a suicide bridge. It is unknown how many deaths have occurred at the bridge, but there have been at least 25 in total, with 10 being from 2012–2013. There have also been many failed attempts at the bridge. A suicide prevention barrier has been installed along with signage and support phone lines.^[12]
• The Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal, Quebec, is considered a suicide bridge. In 2004, a suicide prevention barrier was installed. Until then the bridge saw an average of 10 suicides a year.^[13]
• The Prince Edward Viaduct, commonly referred to as the Bloor Viaduct, in Toronto, Ontario, was considered a suicide bridge. With nearly 500 suicides by 2003, the Viaduct was ranked as the second most fatal standing structure in North America, after the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.^[14] Suicides dropped to zero after a barrier was completed in 2003.
• The Lethbridge Viaduct in Lethbridge, Alberta, also known as the High Level Bridge, locally known as the Deathbridge^{[citation needed]}, is considered a suicide bridge. It is unknown how many deaths have occurred at the bridge in its 107 year long history. Suicide prevention signage has been installed at the entrance to the bridge, however no further prevention program is in development.^[15]
• The Angus L. Macdonald Bridge in Halifax, Nova Scotia, has been used for suicide attempts^[16]. As of 2010, safety barriers have been installed the full length of the pedestrian walkway.
• Burgoyne Bridge in St. Catharines, Ontario has had several suicides since 2018, mostly young adults or people who were turned away from the nearby hospital for psychiatric treatment. Volunteers have started to position themselves at key points on the bridge, in the hopes of stopping further suicides.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bridge

 

 

 

[jacee]

47 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The liberals are starting to pad their stats on "semi auto magazine fed guns" or assaults' wpns as they are calling them, which they are not, the only people that can use or operate assault wpns are the military and RCMP, the rest , the ones available to the public look like the military wpns, but are infact manufacture for civilian use, and have much different characteristics, full auto, sighting systems, magazine capacity, and more.....to be used in sport shooting or leisure range shooting, ....they are not designed to do one thing that is kill people, all fire arms can kill people, and those banned wpns are limited to 5 round magazines, ….. they are not military grade wpns, once again they are designed and manufacture as per specs given to them by the government to be used by the general population....Now the liberals and some media outlets are using mass murder incidents form the US to press their point...But we are not talking about the US Strictly Canada...

 

Mass killings in Canada.

Polytechnique, Quebec, 14 people killed , plus one by suicide ,by a semi auto rifle , dec 6 1989., legal owned wpn.

Moncton, NB 3 people killed,  semi auto rifle legally owned  June , 2014 

Fredericton NB, 4 people killed , long gun, hunting rifle, Aug  2014

Mosque shooting, Quebec, , 6 people killed , by semi auto rifle, legally owned , Jan 2017

NS, 22 people killed , by semi auto rifle , and hand guns, all illegal obtained. [2020]

Total number of people killed by semi auto wpns or (so called Assault wpns )in this country in the last 30 years , 49 people have been murdered although each one is tragic, these numbers are far better than most western countries including all of Europe...And although each country has different solutions or gun laws ours does sound very effective, there are 7 million firearms in Canada...

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. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

The gang of furious... I doubt that even one of you would have voted for him anyway.

[Zeitgeist]

Hopefully now we can also start to clamp down on handguns.  I welcome your responses...

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Hopefully now we can also start to clamp down on handguns.  I welcome your responses...

I really hope they clamp down on criminals using handguns.  I hope they leave peaceful target shooters alone though.

 

[Guest ProudConservative]

Well I just read a poll that 65% of Canadians agree with Trudeau's ban. Another 15% or so think Trudeau didn't go far enough. I'm liberal on gun control, except with firearms can be a deterrent against Tyranny. I wouldn't mind living in Japan. Seems like a very safe country.

Edited May 2, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Argus]

18 hours ago, scribblet said:

As per Senator Housakis:  Capitalizing on a national tragedy in the middle of a worldwide crisis, subverting parliament while doing absolutely nothing to address the actual problem in order to curry political favour is quite a crass partisan feat but that’s exactly what Justin Trudeau has done.

My question is, what can the opposition do?  This is a minority gov't,  if they had a majority I'd say nothing

"Nothing" is the appropriate answer. The Liberals might have a minority but the Left has a majority. The other parties would be thrilled to ban any and all firearms in Canada, and would do so with a great sense of glee and without regard to the cost or effectiveness.

The Liberals have done this now because with a 250 billion dollar deficit, eh, what's another billion or so? Also, with no house of commons they won't face daily questions from the Tories revealing just how useless this move would be. Trying to explain why Rifle A is banned while Rifle B is okay, when they do and perform exactly the same way, can be uncomfortable. They certainly don't want to have to admit the ban is based purely on how macho the gun looks. Nor do they want the Tories pointing out multiple times every question period that almost all gun crime is done with illegal firearms and that they are doing nothing about that.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

Well I just read a poll that 65% of Canadians agree with Trudeau's ban. Another 15% or so think Trudeau didn't go far enough. I'm liberal on gun control, except with firearms can be a deterrent against Tyranny. I wouldn't mind living in Japan. Seems like a very safe country.

Most Canadians are city people, and most don't have a clue about how gun licensing works, or how restrictive the laws already are. Most will accept the Liberals ban on 'military grade' weapons as only common sense. They don't know what these weapons are or do. They know nothing about them.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I really hope they clamp down on criminals using handguns.  I hope they leave peaceful target shooters alone though.

 

What kind of a dream world do you live in, anyway?

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Hopefully now we can also start to clamp down on handguns.  I welcome your responses...

How many billions of dollars do you think the government should spend on restricting or banning legal weapons which aren't doing anything harmful anyway? If the government spends twenty or thirty billion dollars on buying back guns and banning them all and the gun crime rate remains identical would you be willing to take on a special tax on gun-ban people to pay that money back?

By the way, do you know anything at all about current hand gun laws and restrictions?

Edited May 2, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

13 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.

The most obvious of these is the AR-15. Legally owned AR-15s have killed, as far as I'm aware, a total of -0- people in Canada.

Doesn't sound like all that immediate a problem.

[cannuck]

Yeah, it always starts out as a measely billion or so, but once the Liberals get their hands into our back pocket, billions more pour into yet another totally useless bureaucracy just to buy some more votes.   Remember that self-funding gun registry that was going to save us all from death and destruction?   How many billions that that "freebie" cost us?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

What kind of a dream world do you live in, anyway?

I know, it's a long shot.  That a government would have the courage to actually do something about gun violence, instead of just going for the self serving, vote grabbing optics that only have any effect on those gun owners who would never commit crimes with them.

Still, every four years I think England are going to win the world cup, so I have a lot of experience in far fetched dreams.

[scribblet]

Trudeau said yesterday that people who own certain weapons in Canada have ONE purpose - to kill people, but then he turns around and exempts aboriginals. They are allowed to own guns whose only purpose is to kill people –does that make sense. 

[AngusThermopyle]

15 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. 

Based on the pile of delusional crap you posted I'm not at all surprised that it makes sense to you.

[Guest ProudConservative]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Most Canadians are city people, and most don't have a clue about how gun licensing works, or how restrictive the laws already are. Most will accept the Liberals ban on 'military grade' weapons as only common sense. They don't know what these weapons are or do. They know nothing about them.

I'm struggling with gun control alright... I don't want to be a dick towards conservatives, but I don't want unnecessary death.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Trudeau said yesterday that people who own certain weapons in Canada have ONE purpose - to kill people, but then he turns around and exempts aboriginals. They are allowed to own guns whose only purpose is to kill people –does that make sense. 

 

I don’t understand.  Criminal law applies equally to Indigenous.  There should be no exceptions, especially given the history of smuggling on border reserves.  How stupid.  

[Army Guy]

17 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. 

You make it sound like this only effects the right, maybe your right and you are enjoying your 5 mins in the light, go ahead enjoy your time...once Justins time is done , do you really think that the conservatives are not going to change all of this back....what a waste of money and time...but hey you leftys like spending money on useless shit....Of all the problems this nations has right now Gun control is the most important ….get a fuc***ing grip

[Army Guy]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Hopefully now we can also start to clamp down on handguns.  I welcome your responses...

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. 

 

[Argus]

56 minutes ago, ProudConservative said:

I'm struggling with gun control alright... I don't want to be a dick towards conservatives, but I don't want unnecessary death.

What is necessary death?

I'm in favour of reasonable gun control myself. What I'm not in favour of is spending a billion dollars on pretend gun control, where the Liberals strut about acting like they've accomplished anything by banning some hunting rifles which happen to have sexy plastic coverings to make them look more macho.

[Army Guy]

53 minutes ago, ProudConservative said:

I'm struggling with gun control alright... I don't want to be a dick towards conservatives, but I don't want unnecessary death.

23 people have been murdered with legally owned fire arms in the last 30 years....thats less than 1 per year, with 37 million people in the country I think your odds of being killed by a legal fired arm is next to impossible... Why don't you just read the fire arms act, and all the controls we have on fire arms right now...then tell me your at risk... you have a better chance of getting run over by a drunk driver or throwing yourself off a bridge... or maybe you can just stay under your bed for the next 2 years until the bad guns are collected...How can Canadians be so gullible...