Trudeau to spend a billion dollars pleasing anti-gun nuts

[Argus]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

The poll asked about assault style weapons.

No it didn't. The exact question is printed right there.

Would you support or oppose Canada having a complete ban on civilian possession of Assault weapons?

 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

  Gun sports that require targetting skills don't need guns that can shoot lots of bullets easily and quickly,

You don't know one single t hing about gun sports. And yes, some of them do indeed require you to shoot lots of bullets easily and quickly.

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Their primary purpose is killing people; secondary purpose seems to be ego building for self-styled tough guys.

If their primary purpose is killing people they're doing a piss-poor job of it as virtually none of them are or have been used for that purpose in Canada.

It's also interesting your whole argument is based on "I don't approve of this so it should be banned and I don't care what that costs" as opposed to "This will save many lives." or something similar.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, cougar said:

Those guns should be outlawed before we see the level of mass slaying the US is notorious for.

You can keep politics out of it; it is not appropriate

Sorry Argus, we never seem to be in agreement on anything.   Are you a pro-gun nut by the way?

No, I'm a pro logic guy, and a fiscal conservative. I don't have any of these weapons. But the idea of spending a billion dollars on something which will accomplish nothing offends me. I'm a law and order type. I'd love to have a billion dollars to go after the street gangs and those who sell them firearms. But instead we're going to buy back a bunch of rifles that spend most of their time in someone law abiding citizen's gun safe. Whooppee.

Canada's gun violence is mostly coming from ethnic street gangs and natives. It's not based on gun laws. Our gun laws were far, far weaker in the 1960s, but we had a lower homicide rate.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

In the first instance, America started the war and the fighting was between soldiers, not directed towards civilians.

Almost everything people know about the American revolution is based on Hollywood. The truth is it was a bloody, violent, inhumane conflict in which civilians were routinely slaughtered, raped and tortured by BOTH sides. The Loyalists who abandoned their farms and property and fled to Canada didn't do so because they couldn't stand the thought of living in a Republic, but because they feared their neighbors would murder them all.

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You are assuming the drama queen...er  - teacher...even knows what a rifle IS (he should have learned when he was on the set of The Great War where he played Papineau - and from what others on that set tell me, he was already the most ignorant and arrogant idiot they have ever encountered).   You are right, nobody issues 556 calibre (0.556") weapons, but there is a NATO standard 5.56mm cartridge that fits several weapons from several countries.  Yet another leftover from Big Tur...TRUdeau's ill planned metrification drive.

I know that most of the military rifles in production around the world for the past couple of decades are .556s. The M-16, M4, C7, etc are all chambered for .556, but all the .556s I know that are deployed with military units around the world either have 3-round burst mode or fully automatic mode, in addition to semi-auto. 

Canada's infantry used the Belgian-made FN for decades, and it was semi-auto, but it was a .30 calibre (7.62mm) not a .223 (5.56mm). I was just saying that the terminology of "military-grade assault rifle" applies to a semi-auto .556 at all. 

I know a guy who has a normal looking hunting rifle that is a .300 WinMag semi-auto. It is a complete beast of a rifle compared to the "AR-15s" that Trudeau is talking about. 

Quote

.300 Winchester Magnum (Winchester – SXP300WM) 180 gr (12 g)	Velocity	3,160 ft/s (960 m/s)
	Energy	3,992 ft⋅lbf (5,412 J)

Quote

5.56mm NATO

M855 5.56mm (5.56 × 45 mm) Ammunition

922 m/s (3,025 ft/s)

The NATO round is 40 m/s slower and the bullet itself is 1/3 the size. The kinetic energy of the WinMag round is about 4x higher. From what I saw, I don't think that all .300 Mags are banned. 

If you had a NATO .556 and you had to go across an open field vs a WinMag you'd want to start from less than 500m for sure. The effective range of the winmag is over 1,000m

[Argus]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

This may well be true, and it applies to other issues as well.   Nonetheless, Canadians as a whole support this legislation, including almost half of current gun owners.  Dismissing the majority of Canadians as "anti-gun nuts" just because you disagree with the legislation is extreme partisanship in action.

This ban wasn't designed to please the mushy middle. Those gun owners you speak of aren't going to decide to vote Liberal because of this. They responded to a question about 'assault weapons', and because they are gun owners they likely knew what an assault weapon is. So you should be pleased that even gun owners believe in gun control.

But again, the Liberals aren't going to collect any extra votes from such people, or from the mushy middle that says "Oh, right, sure, go ahead and ban those things". This is aimed squarely at progressive zealots because the Liberals want to ensure the NDP doesn't make a comeback.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

It's also interesting your whole argument is based on "I don't approve of this so it should be banned and I don't care what that costs" as opposed to "This will save many lives." or something similar.

You still have not answered the question: are the 80% of Canadians (including 45% of current gun owners) who support the banning of assault weapons all "anti-gun nuts" , or is that just your usual hyperbolic and highly partisan rhetoric designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason.  

[Argus]

Just now, dialamah said:

You still have not answered the question: are the 80% of Canadians (including 45% of current gun owners) who support the banning of assault weapons all "anti-gun nuts" , or is that just your usual hyperbolic and highly partisan rhetoric designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason.  

I actually DID deal with it.

You're sounding shrill again, you know. You should watch that.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

I actually DID deal with it.

You mean by claiming the government taking action supported by most Canadians had nothing to do with that popularity?  So your belief is that he would have done exactly the same if the numbers were reversed, alienating the majority for the support of the minority?  Makes perfect sense, yup.   

Anyway, as I mentioned previously, this topic isn't of particular importance to me, so I'll bow out now, and you all can continue your temper tantrum in peace.

Thanks to Army Guy for a civil discussion and making the most sense.

Edited May 3, 2020 by dialamah
Over and out

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You still have not answered the question: are the 80% of Canadians (including 45% of current gun owners) who support the banning of assault weapons all "anti-gun nuts" , or is that just your usual hyperbolic and highly partisan rhetoric designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason.  

I don't think they are anti gun nuts.  Some will be.  Most will be fencesitters who don't own guns, so think "meh, why not ban them?  It won't affect me".  They are just uninformed as to the consequences of the ban on crime (none) and the reasons for the ban as far as the government is concerned (cowardice and votes).

That said, if 80% of those polled advocated banning immigration, gay relationships and abortion, would you support those positions?  I wouldn't, and the percentage of Canadians supporting the ban on assault weapons means about the same to me.  Not because I want an assault weapon.  I don't.  I actually don't care that much if they are banned, to be honest.  I just hate the deception and the ignorance, and the utter failure to deal with the problems of gun crime, which are illegal weapons and criminals.

Edited May 3, 2020 by bcsapper

[cougar]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, I'm a pro logic guy, and a fiscal conservative. I don't have any of these weapons. But the idea of spending a billion dollars on something which will accomplish nothing offends me.

 

 

It makes all of those guns ILLEGAL.  This is not NOTHING!

Get your logic straight.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, cougar said:

It makes all of those guns ILLEGAL.  This is not NOTHING!

Get your logic straight.

Like he said, nothing.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

.  I just hate the deception and the ignorance, and the utter failure to deal with the problems 

I think this applies to plenty of issues, but with hyper-partisans starting a discussion with an insult aimed toward the group they personally dislikes, its pretty hard to take the OP or the discussion seriously.  

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

I think this applies to plenty of issues, but with hyper-partisans starting a discussion with an insult aimed toward the group they personally dislikes, its pretty hard to take the OP or the discussion seriously.  

Well, I try not to insult, except in kind. 

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, cougar said:

It makes all of those guns ILLEGAL.  This is not NOTHING!

Get your logic straight.

Please don't talk about logic while leaving it out of what passes for an argument. Would you like to make my toaster illegal? Will that help lessen gun violence? I will let the government buy it back for only a million dollars.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think this applies to plenty of issues, but with hyper-partisans starting a discussion with an insult aimed toward the group they personally dislikes, its pretty hard to take the OP or the discussion seriously.  

YOU are one of the most hyper-partisan and insulting people on this web site. Also a hypocrite with your whiny complaints.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Argus

[cougar]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Would you like to make my toaster illegal? Will that help lessen gun violence?

Your line of logic, now involving toasters i so bizarre, I cannot follow it.  

Try killing 25 people with your old toaster in a few hours and see how that works out for you.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cougar said:

Your line of logic, now involving toasters i so bizarre, I cannot follow it.  

Try killing 25 people with your old toaster in a few hours and see how that works out for you.

His toaster was probably purchased legally. 

[Rue]

This issue is a lot like the abortion issue. It incites highly emotional responses based on preconceived values.

1. Trudeau did not explain how they came to the determination that the guns they put on their list (1,500) are ONLY purchased to kill people let alone are more deadly than the ones not on the list;2. Trudeau has not explained how the banning of the 1,500 long guns he chose, prevent people from taking other long guns and re-calibrating them to be as dangerous if not more dangerous than the ones he banned;3. Trudeau has not explained how banning any long gun prevents illegal ones from being purchased and used in crimes.

Most of us may dislike guns. Its not the issue. Personal dislike is not how we base a law. That is far too subjective. This initiative was done to score brownie points and exploit a tragedy for Trudeau-the timing of the announcement makes that crystal clear.

Most people debating this issue can not explain what an assault rifle is. Any rifle is a weapon. Most people use the word assault meaning rapid fire. Rapid fire or ability to be rapid fire in itself does not determine whether a rifle is a assault or non assault rifle and the fact Trudeau uses the term assault shows he hasn't a damn clue what a rifle is let alone what kind of rapid fire rifles are dangerous.

I hate laws made by knee jerk emotional feel good fear responses. Good laws mean properly defining what it is you are doing and not pronouncing subjective stereotypes of weapons. No I do not think hand guns should be allowed outside gun clubs. I worry about police responding on routine traffic stops and domestic conflict charges with weapons yes. Yes I do want weapons regulated. However I did unlike Trudeau listen and read to what hunting associations, gun club associations and certain others with expertise in weapons have said. I also defer to people who know about the actual weapon it is we speak of.

The tragedy in Nova Scotia, in Montreal, will NOT be prevented by simply banning certain kinds of weapons.  The issue is deep and is part of a more complex issue as to who SHOULD own any weapon.

Rural people who depend on hunting to eat and protect themselves from rabid animals need their rifles as a necessity. I  have not heard sufficiently from Trudeau to indicate he even knows what a rifle is let alone an assault one to take him seriously.

I do not want specific military weapons to be able to be purchased by citizens so do most gun club owners and hunting associations and those supporting guns on this thread. That is not the issue. Its how you define those specific weapons and even then banning them is wishful thinking in terms of thinking it stops them from being obtained illegally. Illegal trafficking of weapons is the issue. If you make something illegal, sometimes that makes it easier to engage in and sell, i.e, liquor.

Liquor is as deadly as weapons in the wrong hands. We tried banning it. Didn't work. So what we really need to address is how to control ILLEGALLY OBTAINED weapons. As for screening suitable owners of rifles, good luck. You ask me the entire homo sapiens species is deranged and should not have anything sharp or pointed. Where do you want to start to control us and how? Easier said than actually done in practice.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Rue

[cougar]

23 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

His toaster was probably purchased legally. 

Those semi-automatics were purchased legally too.  This is why they are going to be buying them out instead of simply seizing them.

Argus can write the Canadian military a letter recommending toasters to be used as weapons in next military operations.  I am sure the commanders will follow his logic and buy his old toaster for good money.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

You still have not answered the question: are the 80% of Canadians (including 45% of current gun owners) who support the banning of assault weapons all "anti-gun nuts" , or is that just your usual hyperbolic and highly partisan rhetoric designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason.  

99% of Canadians don't like killing babies. That doesn't mean that 99% of Canadians are against abortion. Get it?

80% of Canadians want assault weapons banned. Good news! Assault weapons have been banned since before I was born, and I'm over 50. 

The "poll" that you linked to was irrelevant. No country sends their soldiers to war with semi-auto .556s with 7-round magazines. Not even one. Those aren't "military-grade assault rifles" any more than my Nissan is a military-grade assault vehicle.

[dialamah]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

YOU are one of the most hyper-partisan and insulting people on this web site. Also a hypocrite with your whiny complaints.

Really?  When was the last time I started a topic by calling an entire group of people "nuts", "extremists", etc, because of their "conservative" leanings.   You've done this multiple times - you start topics with an insult toward whatever group you've got a hate-on for today - progressives, immigrants, Muslims, Blacks.  Whomever.

I also don't particularly support Trudeau, or the Liberals.  I voted for both Harper and Mulroney (Harper only once, he lost my vote with his stance on abortion).  I would vote Conservative again, if they started playing to the majority of Canadians, instead of their anti-science, pro-religion and racist base.   I voted NDP last time, a protest vote against both Liberals and Conservatives.   Admittedly, I was enamored of JT for the first couple of years, but I got over it and returned to my baseline which happens to be - politicians are essentially the same and Canada's direction doesn't change significantly regardless of whether it's Conservatives or Liberals at the helm.   

I know you hate being called out on your BS - that's why I do it.   I really could care less about this legislation, but calling yourself unbiased and 'only dealing with the facts, ma'am' while denigrating and dismissing entire swaths of people as a starting point for your discussion deserves to be questioned and mocked.  

[New World Disorder]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

You still have not answered the question: are the 80% of Canadians (including 45% of current gun owners) who support the banning of assault weapons all "anti-gun nuts" , or is that just your usual hyperbolic and highly partisan rhetoric designed to appeal to emotion instead of reason.  

Ignorant people that are easily manipulated during a crisis. Government throws a couple stats out to scare people.  Fear is what the government is selling.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Really?

Yes.

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I also don't particularly support Trudeau, or the Liberals.  I voted for both Harper and Mulroney (Harper only once, he lost my vote with his stance on abortion).  I would vote Conservative again, if they started playing to the majority of Canadians, instead of their anti-science, pro-religion and racist base. 

This is the usual screed from the Left. Playing to their 'racist base' without ANY policies directed to appease it is apparently something only the Left has the imagination to conceive. Pro religion? Yeah, okay. The two leading candidates for the Tory party are arguing over which is more supportive of transgender rights. Anti-science apparently consist of not wanting to pour tens if not hundreds of billions into fighting climate change just so we can look noble, even though everyone who wants us to do so admits it is a largely useless exercise.

Hey, the majority of Canadians want less immigration. I don't see you demanding the parties get on board with that.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, cougar said:

  I am sure the commanders will follow his logic and buy his old toaster for good money.

It makes about as much sense as buying weapons that were purchased legally by people who took all the courses and passed all the requirements in an effort to limit gun crime. 

Probably not as cowardly and unprincipled though.