dialamah Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 39 minutes ago, blackbird said: Bet that doesn't happen in the states where the store owners can own a gun for protection of himself and his staff and goods. The idea that a "good guy with a gun" is always the hero is disproven almost daily in the States. These good guys with a gun kill innocent bystanders, friends and family members more often than they save the day with their heroic gun waving. My Canadian son, attacked by another Canadian, survived because his attacker couldn't get a gun so he had to use a knife and its harder to kill with a knife. So my opinion is that the fewer guns we have in Canada, the fewer oeople will die from guns. Win-win. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 20 hours ago, Aristides said: New Zealand is still one of the few countries in the world where the police don't routinely carry firearms. I don' think armed gangs and criminals are a big problem in New Zealand. Depends on what you claim is a big problem, in 2019 gangs were recruiting faster than the police. below is a list of gangs, and there estimated numbers. List of gangs in New Zealand - Wikipedia Gangs in New Zealand - Wikipedia Gun crimes more than double after New Zealand's massive new gun control program New Zealand Gun Crime Hits 10-Year High After Strict Gun Confiscation (westernjournal.com) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 I don't expect our new laws to have any effect on gang related gun violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 19 hours ago, Aristides said: Immigration didn't change it, drugs changed it. Drugs are certainly a major part of it, but immigration also plays a large role in the larger cities Quote He says smart kids pick up quickly on the drug trade controlled by gangs. “They know there are risks, but the rewards for the undereducated, underprivileged and just plain lazy are too tempting. … Gang members call it The Life – it’s cars, guns and girls”, he says. Quote These include the stresses of immigration, financial and cultural, and resultant tensions in the home, including violence, or simply a lack of virtually parental guidance with the parents or parent working long hours away to try to survive in this new country. There is also a sense of alienation from mainstream society and sometimes from the established ethnic community as well. This leads to a sense of isolation. Immigrant youth and street gangs – RCI | English (rcinet.ca) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 14 hours ago, dialamah said: My Canadian son, attacked by another Canadian, survived because his attacker couldn't get a gun so he had to use a knife and its harder to kill with a knife. So my opinion is that the fewer guns we have in Canada, the fewer oeople will die from guns. Win-win. Your son is very lucky, Knives kill as many Canadians as do fire arms... and the odd part of it is nobody is going to ban knives, Drunk drivers kill almost 2 times more people than all gun deaths in Canada in 2014 1273 were killed, and again no one is calling for a ban or action . So in my opinion we and politicians are not interested in making it safer for Canadians, atleast not seriously or we would have taken on issues that kill the many more, perhaps my logic is all wrong here. Knife-related homicides rise: StatsCan | CBC News Statistics – MADD Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) The Liberals are bringing in new laws to change the criminal justice system (allegedly to tackle racism). So I guess this means visible minorities will get much lighter sentences than those terrible old stock Canadians. Visible minorities, whose crimes are not considered that serious, will not be subject to minimum mandatory sentences and may be sentenced to house arrest instead. This all fits in to the Liberal ideology of turning a blind eye to evil and hate for law-abiding citizens. Edited February 18, 2021 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 19 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Your son is very lucky, Knives kill as many Canadians as do fire arms... and the odd part of it is nobody is going to ban knives, Drunk drivers kill almost 2 times more people than all gun deaths in Canada in 2014 1273 were killed, and again no one is calling for a ban or action . So in my opinion we and politicians are not interested in making it safer for Canadians, atleast not seriously or we would have taken on issues that kill the many more, perhaps my logic is all wrong here. Knife-related homicides rise: StatsCan | CBC News Statistics – MADD Canada Liberals are changing the laws now to give lighter sentences for visible minorities and abolish minimum mandatory sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) 15 hours ago, dialamah said: The idea that a "good guy with a gun" is always the hero is disproven almost daily in the States. These good guys with a gun kill innocent bystanders, friends and family members more often than they save the day with their heroic gun waving. My Canadian son, attacked by another Canadian, survived because his attacker couldn't get a gun so he had to use a knife and its harder to kill with a knife. So my opinion is that the fewer guns we have in Canada, the fewer oeople will die from guns. Win-win. The problem with "the fewer guns, ...the better" idea is the law-abiding gun owners like hunters and target shooters are not he ones killing people. It is the criminals with illegal guns that are doing most of the killing. Most of these killers are in the major cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. If the government really wanted to reduce gun crime and killing with guns it would eliminate all the illegal guns in these cities. They would be searching every suspected place where there might be guns. But they don't do that probably because of charter rights advocates and they would be accused of racism. You know who does most of the shooting in Toronto. We already have armed security guards for some things, like Loomis and Guardia, that handle the money being shipped in and out of banks. Why not allow someone to be trained as an armed security guard to protect the staff and businesses that are the target of criminals? Don't have to give a handgun to everyone. But there are certain businesses in areas of cities that are targets of criminals. They need armed security. Are they allowed now to hire armed security guards? Why prevent these businesses from protecting themselves? Edited February 18, 2021 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 38 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Your son is very lucky, Knives kill as many Canadians as do fire arms... and the odd part of it is nobody is going to ban knives, Drunk drivers kill almost 2 times more people than all gun deaths in Canada in 2014 1273 were killed, and again no one is calling for a ban or action . So in my opinion we and politicians are not interested in making it safer for Canadians, atleast not seriously or we would have taken on issues that kill the many more, perhaps my logic is all wrong here. Knife-related homicides rise: StatsCan | CBC News Statistics – MADD Canada Much harder and more painful to commit suicide with a knife, also much more difficult to kill people in batches. I'm neither pro or anti gun. I don't think the new laws will do anything to reduce gang related gun violence and probably not much to reduce homicides in general. This is more politics than anything. Drunk driving has been a criminal offence all my life, do you think banning vehicles is practical or even possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 39 minutes ago, Army Guy said: 1. Knives kill as many Canadians as do fire arms... 2. and the odd part of it is nobody is going to ban knives, Drunk drivers kill almost 2 times more people than all gun deaths in Canada in 2014 1273 were killed, and again no one is calling for a ban or action . 3. So in my opinion we and politicians are not interested in making it safer for Canadians, atleast not seriously or we would have taken on issues 1. Your cite is from 2008, and notes thats the first time since 1974, 34 years. Is it still true or was that year an anomaly? 2. Most guns are specifically for killing people; knives, cars and drunk drivers are not. Equating them fails; you might as well claim that guns are the same as rocks, because sometimes people kill using rocks. 3. I think there's some truth in that. But at the same time, you seem to be arguing against "making it safer for Canadians" by reducing guns and gun access. Perhaps one reason we don't "take on issues" - there's always pushback from someone. Seatbelts, helmets, safe injection sites, legalized abortion and prostitution - these measures all help "make it safer for Canadians" and there's always a fight to implement them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 18 minutes ago, blackbird said: We already have armed security guards for some things, like Loomis and Guardia, that handle the money being shipped in and out of banks. Why not allow someone to be trained as an armed security guard to protect the staff and businesses that are the target of criminals? Don't have to give a handgun to everyone. But there are certain businesses in areas of cities that are targets of criminals. They need armed security. Are they allowed now to hire armed security guards? Why prevent these businesses from protecting themselves? I'm not against the idea of well-trained, licenced people adding security. But most of the security guards (unarmed) make pretty low wages so I wouldn't expect them to risk their lives by engaging in a firefight with a robber. And I suspect most regularly targetted businesses wouldn't be able to afford the cost of someone with the degree of training, skills and dedication needed to risk their life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 1 hour ago, blackbird said: Liberals are changing the laws now to give lighter sentences for visible minorities and abolish minimum mandatory sentences. Where have you been? That's already the case, especially for natives, who get to go to 'healing centres' rather than prison. Then there's this guy, who threw shit on Asian students in colleges three separate times before being caught. Note this. Global News obtained documents that showed Opoku was convicted of criminal harassment on March 8, 2017, however, he was given a suspended sentence and put on probation for two years. Canadian-Africans should be shown leniency after suffering hundreds of years of racial oppression. Get that? He was given leniency because of 'suffering hundreds of years of racial oppression'. Note that he is from Ghana. Neither he nor his family have been in Canada for 'hundreds of years'. https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/01/29/targeting-asians-is-still-not-considered-racist/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, blackbird said: The problem with "the fewer guns, ...the better" idea is the law-abiding gun owners like hunters and target shooters are not he ones killing people. Sure. As far as I understand it, guns used in hunting are not targetted; the ban is for guns that are used to kill people. And, do people need to use those types of gun for "target practice"? 1 hour ago, blackbird said: It is the criminals with illegal guns that are doing most of the killing. Yes, criminals are the most likely to be shooting people, I agree. And it seems like common sense to me, if not you, that the fewer guns around, the fewer guns the criminals will be able to obtain illegally. If course, sharing a border with the States makes this challenging, but imo, that's no reason to throw our hands up in defeat. 1 hour ago, blackbird said: Most of these killers are in the major cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. If the government really wanted to reduce gun crime and killing with guns it would eliminate all the illegal guns in these cities Most violent crime, per capita, happens in smaller and more rural areas. Most gun offences, per capita, happens in smaller and more rural areas. So no, most of these killers aren't in urban centers, they're spread out across Canada. 1 hour ago, blackbird said: They would be searching every suspected place where there might be guns. But they don't do that probably because of charter rights advocates and they would be accused of racism. You know who does most of the shooting in Toronto. The solution to gun violence isn't pretending it only happens to other people in other places by folks who look different than you. A lot of violence is rooted in social issues and addressing those would go a lot farther in reducing violence than any gun bans, or tougher sentencing. But that would require large segments of our society to stop blaming poor people and brown people for existing. Edited February 18, 2021 by dialamah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted February 18, 2021 Report Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, dialamah said: Sure. As far as I understand it, guns used in hunting are not targetted; the ban is for guns that are used to kill people. And, do people need to use those types of gun for "target practice"? Yes, criminals are the most likely to be shooting people, I agree. And it seems like common sense to me, if not you, that the fewer guns around, the fewer guns the criminals will be able to obtain illegally. If course, sharing a border with the States makes this challenging, but imo, that's no reason to throw our hands up in defeat. Most violent crime, per capita, happens in smaller and more rural areas. Most gun offences, per capita, happens in smaller and more rural areas. So no, most of these killers aren't in urban centers, they're spread out across Canada. The solution to gun violence isn't pretending it only happens to other people in other places by folks who look different than you. A lot of violence is rooted in social issues and addressing those would go a lot farther in reducing violence than any gun bans, or tougher sentencing. But that would require people to stop blaming poor people and brown people for existing. I don't know where you get your statistics, but most of the gun crime is not in smaller towns or rural areas. It is in places like Toronto and is committed mostly by black people whose folks came from places like Haiti or Africa. Most shootings by young men associated with gangs. If they could take the guns away from these people, there would be a lot less shootings. But then the police would be accused of racism for searching black neighbourhoods. and residences. Also most shooting are not done with so-called assault weapons or long guns. Criminals don't use those kind of guns. They use hand guns that they can easily hide. Law-abiding guns collectors and target shooters are not the ones doing the crimes. You don't reduce the number of killings unless you go after the right people and the right guns. Edited February 18, 2021 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannuck Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 21 hours ago, Shady said: I laugh out loud at the morons that eat up meaningless terms like military “style” and assault “style” weapons. Style does not mean function. The look of something doesn’t determine its danger. These terms are used to frighten the public whom most know very little about guns at all. The politicians that write these laws seem to know even less about guns. Politicians don't write laws, lawyers do. BUT: they do so at the direction of the politicos. You are quite right, though: neither seems to know diddly squat about weapons -nor care diddly squat about the personal rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens...including those who own rifles and handguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 5 hours ago, dialamah said: Most violent crime, per capita, happens in smaller and more rural areas. Most gun offences, per capita, happens in smaller and more rural areas. And if you check, every one of those small urban and rural areas which have high levels of violent crime are near or include native reserves. That's where the crime is coming from. 5 hours ago, dialamah said: The solution to gun violence isn't pretending it only happens to other people in other places by folks who look different than you. But it IS mostly by folk who look different than me. 5 hours ago, dialamah said: A lot of violence is rooted in social issues and addressing those would go a lot farther in reducing violence than any gun bans, or tougher sentencing. Right. So do away with the Indian Act and close the reservations which have been pestholes of poverty for a hundred years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 16 hours ago, blackbird said: I don't know where you get your statistics, but most of the gun crime is not in smaller towns or rural areas. Maclean's breaks it down nicely for you. You can sort according to type of crime, or aggregate them. Examples: Thompson, MB has the highest homicide rate, 360 per 100,000 people; Essex, ON 34 per 100,000. Toronto has 66 homicides per 100,000 people. It may seem odd to you, but that means a person is safer in a large urban area with a lower crime rate than a small, rural area with a higher crime rate. Your error is in thinking that you hear about all the homicides across the country on the evening news. In fact, you do not - gang-related killings often make the news, or home invasion types, but many homicides and assaults are only mentioned in the local area. For example, in Fort St. John BC, last week, a man killed his girlfriend. I heard nothing about it on my news here in Surrey - did you? I only heard about it because it was next door to where my grandchildren live. (FSJ Homicide rate - 121 per 100,000). 16 hours ago, blackbird said: It is in places like Toronto and is committed mostly by black people whose folks came from places like Haiti or Africa. Most shootings by young men associated with gangs. If your primary source of information is the news, it's not surprising you'd think that; I'm under the same impression regarding gun crime in the lower mainland, with the perpetrators being primarily of South Asian descent. But without actual data, there's no way to know how true that is, since the news doesn't report on every homicide that happens. 17 hours ago, blackbird said: If they could take the guns away from these people, there would be a lot less shootings. Changing the social factors that lead young men into gangs would to a lot more to eliminate gang-related gun violence than 'taking their guns away'. The Border is ----> just over there, and guns come across pretty easily. Sadly, addressing social factors that would actually help isn't permitted by the right; after all, people who are poor and/or non-white must pay for their sins. Case in point: 11 hours ago, Argus said: So do away with the Indian Act and close the reservations which have been pestholes of poverty for a hundred years. A simplistic answer that decides removing people from their homes is going to solve problems that have been decades in the making; issues of generational trauma and racist attitudes by the wider society ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, Argus said: So do away with the Indian Act and close the reservations which have been pestholes of poverty for a hundred years. That is not going to solve the issues you think it will. First of all, as poor as these places are, they are "home" for many First Nations. You get your ire up even thinking that your home will be removed or changed by immigrants; why do you suppose First Nations people would be any happier to have the descendants of colonists decide to kick them out of their homes? Secondly, generational trauma is real. Children of 4 or 5 are taken from their family, raised in a residential school, shamed for being a 'savage', experience sexual and physical abuse growing up, and are 'discharged' at 16 or 18 or whatever, learns to use alcohol to escape their emotional pain, have their own child. They have no parenting skills - other than that shown by their caretakers, which means heaping abuse and shame onto children. These second generation children grow up, having learned to use alcohol/substances to alleviate the pain of the abuse and shame their parents have shown them and they proceed to raise their kids as they were raised. And so the cycle repeats. Now, in your arrogant ignorance, you probably don't know that First Nations people could not leave their reservation, without permission, up until the 1940s; sometimes, they wouldn't be able to even leave to get to a job. If they left without permission, they could be put in jail. After that, they could leave the reserve, but if they did, they also had to formally give up their right to return - imagine, Argus, if you had to stay home unless given a day pass, and then were told you could leave, but if you did, you could never go back. How would you like that, eh? But hey, in your colonist genes, you think you should be able to just kick brown people out of their home, because - like all colonists - you think you know what is best for the lesser humans of the world. The idea held by so many conservatives that First Nations should 'just get over it' is remarkable in it's arrogance, especially given how vehemently they demand that their own world never change; seems everyone else needs to change to make conservatives 'comfortable'. Denying Canada's role in the past should have any effect on the situation with First Nations today is also remarkable given how often conservatives decry the lack of 'personal responsibility' of everyone else. Take responsibility conservatives: First Nations are still suffering today directly because of the policies of our Government throughout our history. Try to think about effectively helping them move forward, instead of blaming and punishing them for being where we, as a country, put them. Your first step to understanding the situation and how to help effectively, is to listen to what they tell us about their experience. Edited February 19, 2021 by dialamah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 12 hours ago, Argus said: But it IS mostly by folk who look different than me. Prove it, with actual studies and statistics - not pictures from wanted posters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 20 hours ago, Aristides said: Much harder and more painful to commit suicide with a knife, also much more difficult to kill people in batches. I'm neither pro or anti gun. I don't think the new laws will do anything to reduce gang related gun violence and probably not much to reduce homicides in general. This is more politics than anything. Drunk driving has been a criminal offence all my life, do you think banning vehicles is practical or even possible? Yes it is alot harder, and yet it ranks up there as a cause of suicide , cutting ones wrist or throat is more common than you think. there are 4000 suicides a year and only 25 % of them have used a fire arm. And to bring that to zero you would have to ban ALL fire arms, you don't need a semi automatic rifle to take your life, just one bullet. I could list dozens of methods to reduce suicides and save lives that would produce more results than banning fire arms that "look" scary or military. reducing suicides is just another stat they are using to pull on heart strings of the voters, they aren't really concerned about suicide at all. so ya i 100 % agree this is all politics, that and they are playing on Canadians ignorance on fire arms and what it takes to legally purchase a fire arm. Suicide methods - Wikipedia As for preventing DUI's , I used to work with a guy who bragged about getting 8 DUI's on his 8 th they took away his permit for 5 years and a 5000 fine .... WOW here is a guy that has shown complete disregard for the law in fact bragging about it to anyone that would listen, do you think this criminal offence is working to deter DUI's . Banning cars is not the answer, but by the third DUI someone should have banned him from driving the rest of his life, and placed him in jail for a while. Take the billions they are going to spend on this ban, and put it into increasing police training , hiring more to stop trafficking of weapons and gang violence. That would be a common sense act, and you would not have to get on tv and Lie to Canadians to justify banning what we think is private property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 21 hours ago, dialamah said: 1. Your cite is from 2008, and notes thats the first time since 1974, 34 years. Is it still true or was that year an anomaly? 2. Most guns are specifically for killing people; knives, cars and drunk drivers are not. Equating them fails; you might as well claim that guns are the same as rocks, because sometimes people kill using rocks. 3. I think there's some truth in that. But at the same time, you seem to be arguing against "making it safer for Canadians" by reducing guns and gun access. Perhaps one reason we don't "take on issues" - there's always pushback from someone. Seatbelts, helmets, safe injection sites, legalized abortion and prostitution - these measures all help "make it safer for Canadians" and there's always a fight to implement them. 1. You are 100 % correct, it is the only one i could find, but it is a cite although a bit old it does prove my point. 2. I get it , you approve of this further gun control measure and that is alright as well, how ever do you think you have all the facts to make that call, have you even researched any of it, i ask because most of the time people do not understand all of the issue here, and believe the LIES being pumped out by the liberals. ALL guns sold in Canada are not specifically designed to kill people, they are designed for Hunting, and sport shooting, everything else like military grade weapons' are prohibited for use only by the Military, and RCMP/police forces. While they may LOOK like military grade weapons' for the cool factor.... they are different, they do not have an fully automatic capability, they can only fire one bullet per trigger pull " semi automatic", the magazine that the bullets go into can only hold 5 rounds, it is pinned by a rivet, and the springs within the mag are smaller so you can not put in any more than 5 bullets. If it has been altered in anyway to hold more than 5 rounds it is illegal and you risk a heavy fine, loss of ALL your weapons for life with NO compensation ,plus jail time and criminal record for a firearm offense. much more deterrent than say a fine and loss of drivers license for a year for a DUI... Yes the rivet can be drilled out and new springs put in and you'll have a magazine capable of holding in most cases 30 rounds but it will be prone to stoppages due to the rough edges from the rivet ... but again see above would it be worth it not really. The liberals have framed this entire issue around making Canada safer for Canadians... If that was the case why would we not go after things that kill "more" Canadians each year, Like DUI's, Knives etc, why start close to the bottom of the list, does that make sense to you. They have chosen fire arms because the issue has polled well with Canadians, because for most Canadians they don't give a shit and do not fully understand the topic, atleast not enough to make a decision and to ensure that the Liberals have produced lie after lie and told it over and over again.. 3. This issue is not about making it safer, this is about politics and firearms are an easy target. Firearms are tools, that if not used correctly can be deadly, like a chain saw, heavy logging truck etc ... And for a huge majority of gun owners they do exactly what is required of them by letter of the law. Firearms are already one of the most controlled items in Canada, one has to pass a detailed and stringent screening by RCMP, you need a special permit to move an restricted firearm to go from your home to the range every time you move it, you can not stop to get gas or something to eat or a flat tire it is strictly to go to point a to b and back. make a stop and get caught you lose everything, plus a huge fine and possible jail time. you must store all firearm's in a weapons' safe not a bedside table or again face a huge fine, etc, you can not use a fire arm for self defense, if you kill a bad guy in your home you will be arrested and charged with a homicide, it is up to the judge to decide if you and your family was indanger or not, you still lose the firearm and have to pay all you legal fees. And despite all of this there are some people who do enjoy a day out at the range or hunting or doing sport shooting, and what the majority of Canadians have said to f****ing bad, they scare us, and we want them gone... and for 99 % of fire arms owners have not bother you in the least, they hunt to put food on the table, or enjoy a sport. And if the government can ban or confiscate legally obtained private property where do they draw the line, what can they take away next, and why have they made up all these lies to sell you on taking them away. It is OK for me to go down town Vancouver and shoot up fental, and have to be revived over and over again just to get high at the price of the taxpayers... and yet responsible gun owners who pay for their enjoyment are not allowed to own a tool, because it scares you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 Quote Changing the social factors that lead young men into gangs would to a lot more to eliminate gang-related gun violence than 'taking their guns away'. The Border is ----> just over there, and guns come across pretty easily. Sadly, addressing social factors that would actually help isn't permitted by the right; after all, people who are poor and/or non-white must pay for their sins. Case in point: So what your saying is these young men have no choice but to join a gang or the life of crime. I think everyone has a choice to make in life that decides the direction you are headed. I grew up in a trailer park, poorer than shit, redneck village we used to call it, it was filled with races from around the globe.... nobody had it any better than the other.. and I seen alot of my peers head to the life of crime in search of easy money, chicks, fast cars. Me and some of my other friends took a different direction and joined the military... it's all about choices not race or the color of your skin , poor is poor and it does not care if your white or purple, it sucks .... I made a choice to change all of that "ME" i did that, no one else and there are lots of examples of people in worse conditions than i was in and they left and made something of themselves. Having more social programs are not going to change that, you can't force someone to get an education, or job, well you could if you took all the other social programs away in exchange for the above ....and even then most are going to reach out to the life of crime.. easy money baby, it's going to win most of the time...dumping huge wads of cash is not going to do anything either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannucklehead Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 Honestly I don't see what the big deal is. I've always said that if you need an ak-47 type of gun to defend your home you should start looking for a new neighborhood. Chances are whatever gun you come up with, so will the criminals, if not worse than yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said: Honestly I don't see what the big deal is. I've always said that if you need an ak-47 type of gun to defend your home you should start looking for a new neighborhood. Chances are whatever gun you come up with, so will the criminals, if not worse than yours. AK’s are already banned. You’re banning guns based on their look and not what they actually do. It’s absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannucklehead Posted February 19, 2021 Report Share Posted February 19, 2021 12 minutes ago, Shady said: AK’s are already banned. You’re banning guns based on their look and not what they actually do. It’s absurd. https://gun-shop.ca/product-category/firearms/rifles/page/3/ There are still hundreds of available munitions. If you're a hunter or skeet shooter any one of those can suffice. I've only fired a gun thrice (my uncles six shooter) and I bet I could bag a deer with very little training with most of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.