Y'all are f'ked

[Five of swords]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You haven't backed up any of your points, I have backed up all of mine, BTW, my math is just fine. Get back to me when you  have something more than you are just parroting from whoever you listen too.

So to remind you, this is the claim you are pretending you 'backed up':

 

"They are a complete joke. All they are is a check of a database that gets its information from individual states. They only apply to federally licensed dealers and if they don't get a result in 3 business days they get to sell the gun anyway. There is no check of private sales. They are slightly better than useless."

 

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

So to remind you, this is the claim you are pretending you 'backed up':

 

"They are a complete joke. All they are is a check of a database that gets its information from individual states. They only apply to federally licensed dealers and if they don't get a result in 3 business days they get to sell the gun anyway. There is no check of private sales. They are slightly better than useless."

 

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

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-background-check-nics-guide/

Quote

So if someone has done something that leaves them banned from firearm ownership, that record will be in one of the databases, the FBI will see it, and they won’t get the gun?

That’s the idea — but as experts will tell you, the gun background check system is only as strong as the records it contains. Some records never make it into the databases, and others are entered in a way that doesn’t make it crystal clear that the person is barred from possessing guns. 

States voluntarily supply records to the databases that make up the NICS system, and they do a spotty job of it. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report, at the end of 2014 there were 7.8 million active-warrant records in state warrant databases, but only about 2.1 million such records in the NCIC database.

Edited December 8, 2024 by Aristides

[Venandi]

The US second amendment and regulatory environment is often trotted out as if it had some relevance or was comparable (in some way) to Canadian rules. It gets a lot of play but it's about as relevant as the global warming implications of space aliens eating cats.  

I think there are two solitudes here and they're unbridgeable without hands on experience. Quoting statistics is no more effective in dealing with these folks than the examination of facts driving Toronto's gun violence... that's right under their noses yet cause and effect continues to be ignored with tragic results. 

This gun grab was about creating a wedge issue in anticipation of an upcoming election. The tactics are utterly transparent, I would have done exactly the same thing... the cynical selection of release and implementation dates was a master stroke IMO.

As I see it, the reason nobody believes that racing stripes convert 1/2 ton trucks to race cars is because everyone and his damn dog knows everything they need to know about cars and instantly recognizes the absurdity of that proposition. Tying to convince people that cars cause impaired driving, or racing stripes cause stunting is equally futile and falls flat for the same reason.  

So... If you're a hobbyist, or better yet a competitive shooter in any discipline, make a point of taking any hard core anti gun folks you're acquainted with to the range as often as you can.

Do it start to Finnish, explain the storage and transport regulations en route and be sure to include some of the amusing overlaps with hunting regulations... there are some archery got ya's that are absurd enough to make any hard core liberal laugh. 

It should be fun and enjoyable for them, I've done it many times as a kind of introductory instructional session... the results have always been more positive than I expected. 

Nothing you do or say on this forum will have the same effect... 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2024 by Venandi

[Aristides]

We certainly have different views although I don’t think our governments  actions are dealing with the biggest problem, guns smuggled in from the US by gangs. I do shake my head at our neighbours down south who think the solution to too many guns is even more guns. Didn’t someone say that doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is a definition of insanity?

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

We certainly have different views although I don’t think our governments  actions are dealing with the biggest problem, guns smuggled in from the US by gangs. I do shake my head at our neighbours down south who think the solution to too many guns is even more guns. Didn’t someone say that doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is a definition of insanity?

'Guns' isn't a problem that needs a solution. Aren't you instead trying to solve crime? And pretending guns commit crime instead of people?

[Venandi]

8 hours ago, Aristides said:

We certainly have different views although I don’t think our governments  actions are dealing with the biggest problem, guns smuggled in from the US by gangs

That's largely because of the absence of meaningful action to deal with it and I'd suggest it's because the effort itself is costly, time consuming and labour intensive.

Making lists, grand pronouncements and the mass banning of firearms that are statistically irrelevant to the problem at hand should be insulting to anyone concerned about gun violence... and yet somehow it isn't. The government has spent large sums of money on this and has yet to accomplish anything... or collect a single one of those guns (which again) aren't part of the problem anyway.

Some might ask why and there are two reasons IMO, the first is to create a powerful wedge issue with their base, you can see that right here... there is no meaningful discussion about the type of firearms being banned, the statistical instances of their use in crimes, or the likely benefit of doing this vs the cost of implementing the ban... is there? It's all hysterical rhetoric, ridicule and name calling amongst a group of people who graduated from high school decades ago and should be fu^%$#@ ashamed of their conduct.  

The kicker is, that was the exact goal of the governments action here in the first place.  

The second is strictly financial, the cost of this bogus effort is far and away cheeper (and optically more impactful) than the expense and hard work required to do what actually needs to be done could ever be.

As I see it, the people who should really be offended here aren't gun owners, it's party supporters and anyone else with a sincere desire to reduce the instances of gun violence in major urban centres... so how is it that the cynical, weak sister performance of your government isn't cause for outrage among the party faithful?

Most people with strong views on gun control haven't made the slightest effort to research/understand what's actually going on here and the government knows it. If people actually did that, not only would they not be ridiculing competitive shooters, they'd be absolutely pi$$ed at the government itself. Take a moment and look at the firearm regulations in Mexico (among the strictest to found anywhere) and compare those rules with the results  achieved. 

If I were them (meaning part of the crowd who holds this governments ethics) I'd be doing the exact same thing they're doing for exactly the same reasons they're doing it. I'd also repeat the same t-shirt slogans as often as possible too, like:

"My government will never apologize for keeping Canadians safe."

If the job was being done properly, the difference in views you mentioned (above) would be rendered just as irrelevant as my personal distain for golf...  none of you would care about my hobbies in the slightest because you would have no reason to.  

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2024 by Venandi

[Aristides]

Canadians and Americans certainly look at guns differently. The great majority of Canadians have no emotional attachment to guns, don't own and have no desire to own them. Gun ownership is a privilege like a driver's licence, not a right and it is generally thought that the only people needing them are hunters and farmers and neither of them need semi auto weapons or handguns. The idea of using them for self defence is foreign to them and indeed, if they are stored legally would be useless. No home invader is going to wait until you remove your gun from a safe and load it. Carrying one is out of the question, even our police officers aren't armed when they are off duty.

Does our government use bans as a cynical wedge issue? Absolutely. The first ban and buy back was announced right after the Portapique massacre in spite of the fact the shooter's guns had been obtained illegally in the US from a seller who had bought them legally. The ban would have done nothing to stop that shooting. The newest ban was announced on the 35th anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique shooting even though that gun had been banned previously.

Has the government been incompetent when it comes to the bans and buy back? You bet. As you point out, years have passed and millions spent without a single gun being bought back. After the Christchurch massacre, the New Zealand government announced a ban and buy back within weeks and completed it in six months. 

Do stiffer gun laws work? Yes, to a point but this government has gone overboard. Our gun laws were already a good compromise between ownership and public safety before the Portapique shootings. 

Do bans work? Depends. They have worked in Australia and New Zealand. In fact the Christchurch shooter was an Australian who decided to target New Zealand because the gun he used was readily available in NZ but banned in Australia. However, both of them are island nations which have far better control over what enters the country. They will be much less effective in a country that shares a 5000 mile undefended border with the gun happiest country on the planet, because these guns will always be available to those who really want them.

Barring some sort of miracle, the Trudeau government will be gone by next fall and it will be interesting to see what happens to the bans and buy back with a new government.

Edited December 8, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, Venandi said:

This gun grab was about creating a wedge issue in anticipation of an upcoming election.

Yup. That's it. 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

No home invader is going to wait until you remove your gun from a safe and load it.

well you could get a biometric gun safe which opens by fingerprint in 0.2 seconds

then with a shotgun, you can hand load shells into the breach as you go,

so first round downrange is available in only seconds

the optimal firearm for Canada is the 12 gauge slide action shotgun

as it universally available, comparatively cheap and Non Restricted class

it's the most versatile firearm with a wide range of shell options to include less lethal

it simply requires training and practice to employ it in a tactical role

just FYI

Edited December 8, 2024 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Do bans work? Depends. They have worked in Australia

No they didn't. The murder rate really didn't change until far later, and for other reasons

Australia Murder/Homicide Rate 1990-2024 | MacroTrends

The gun ban was in force in 1996. Homicides did not drop significantly and in fact went up in some years until 2002, 8 years later.

So the gun band did not appear to do anything to stop killings. The best thing you can say is that people went on to kill with something else.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

 Carrying one is out of the question,

this is not the case

there is such a thing as a permit to concealed carry for self defence in Canada

it can be issued by the police

police forces simply decline to issue them in all but the most extreme circumstances

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

The idea of using them for self defence is foreign to them

only to left wing urban Canadians whom control the country from Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

this is not the case

there is such a thing as a permit to concealed carry for self defence in Canada

it can be issued by the police

police forces simply decline to issue them in all but the most extreme circumstances

So it is out of the question. 

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

only to left wing urban Canadians whom control the country from Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver

And yet most of our firearms crimes are committed in urban centres. 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

So it is out of the question. 

the RCMP Authorization To Carry ( ATC ) is quite common in remote regions

the number one reason for issue being Wilderness Protection

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

And yet most of our firearms crimes are committed in urban centres. 

by gangters from the hood shooting each other with illegal firearms smuggled from America ; duh

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/6/2024 at 1:22 PM, Nationalist said:

The "kids" are all in their 20s.

Crossbows are unethical weapons.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Crossbows are unethical weapons.

In what universe is that true? What makes them an unethical weapon? You have lost your damn mind but go ahead explain how crossbows are somehow morally corrupt Did you mistake this for 1096 and think you were pope Urban or something?   

Edited December 8, 2024 by CdnFox

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, herbie said:

These days while leaning on the shopping cart for support.
Gave my guns to the kids ages ago.

So why do you care what other Canadians do with their time or money ? This topic like any thing the liberals do or have done is not having the effect on crime or illegal's guns which is 95 to 99 % of the problem. Instead the government tackles legal gun owners in a country with some of the toughest gun laws on the planet....were ever Gun owner gets a criminal check every single day of the year, where you back ground is thoroughly searched before they issue your PAL...You should know this IF you had fire arms to start with, talk to your kids everyone that owned a firearm can not understand these bans... They make no sense, nor do they solve any issues the Liberals have publicly stated for the ban... 

You do know criminals don't have any checks they just buy illegal's guns to carry out their crimes...

This could be about anything other than guns, the government could use this to take any number of your things, with or with out compensation...There is no such thing as property right here in Canada, the government can take what they want when they want, from your home, land, car what ever they want...with or without compensation... 

Your not concerned because it does not effect you, and somehow swallowed the government propaganda about it being for every canadians safety...when it has nothing to do with our safety...it has done nothing but increased violent gun crime...

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Do bans work? Depends.

anyone whom is willing to put in the time to research, train & practice

will come to understand that it is not about the gun, but rather all about the shooter

you think you can't employ a bolt action rifle for mass shooting in tactical close combat ?

sure you can, the bolt action rifle was the standard weapon carried by the infantry in both World Wars

[Army Guy]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

And yet most of our firearms crimes are committed in urban centres. 

with illegal fire arms coming from across the border...with accounts for 95 to 99 % of all violent gun crimes...those stats are available form any major police department web site or on media...And yet nobody is talking about those guns, it's OK neither is the liberals, they are playing the shell game with Canadians and are taking Legal gun owners firearms so you think your safer...Just take a look at how violent gun crimes have risen since the liberals took over...

 

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So why do you care what other Canadians do with their time or money ? This topic like any thing the liberals do or have done is not having the effect on crime or illegal's guns which is 95 to 99 % of the problem. Instead the government tackles legal gun owners in a country with some of the toughest gun laws on the planet....were ever Gun owner gets a criminal check every single day of the year, where you back ground is thoroughly searched before they issue your PAL...You should know this IF you had fire arms to start with, talk to your kids everyone that owned a firearm can not understand these bans... They make no sense, nor do they solve any issues the Liberals have publicly stated for the ban... 

You do know criminals don't have any checks they just buy illegal's guns to carry out their crimes...

This could be about anything other than guns, the government could use this to take any number of your things, with or with out compensation...There is no such thing as property right here in Canada, the government can take what they want when they want, from your home, land, car what ever they want...with or without compensation... 

Your not concerned because it does not effect you, and somehow swallowed the government propaganda about it being for every canadians safety...when it has nothing to do with our safety...it has done nothing but increased violent gun crime...

Liberal hysteria gun bans are  based on AR15 Derangement Syndrome

but in terms close quarters combat, I've always found that you have way more time than you initially surmised

slow is smooth, smooth is fast, walk don't run, single aimed shots ftw

bolt action, slide action, no problemo ; adjust TTP's accordingly

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

with illegal fire arms coming from across the border...with accounts for 95 to 99 % of all violent gun crimes...those stats are available form any major police department web site or on media...

 

More importantly, those stats stay pretty static going back for 24 years. As I recall going from memory it was something like 93% in 2001 or thereabouts, and it's The same or higher for pretty much every year since. So it's not like it's some random cherry picked statistic

I do recall the more left-leaning police services trying to obfuscate by using the figures for "Firearms seized in a crime" Which had a much lower percent. The reason for that is the guns weren't actually necessarily used in the crime or have anything to do with the crime, if they went to a domestic violence dispute they would seize the guns in the house even if they had nothing to do with the dispute just to be on the safe side and those ones were counted. They also included pellet guns. But when you actually look at guns used specifically in the commission of crimes they are almost always smuggled. And the smugglers have pretty much perfected their art in the last few decades 

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

with illegal fire arms coming from across the border...with accounts for 95 to 99 % of all violent gun crimes...those stats are available form any major police department web site or on media...And yet nobody is talking about those guns, it's OK neither is the liberals, they are playing the shell game with Canadians and are taking Legal gun owners firearms so you think your safer...Just take a look at how violent gun crimes have risen since the liberals took over...

 

on the bright side, the overwhelming number of shooting victims in Canada are in fact urbanite Woke Liberals

in Hamilton,  where shootings have gone exponential, it's all NDP on NDP violence ftw

leftists are not only not having children

while replacing themselves with arch conservative Asian immigrants

they are also the ones shooting each other dead

social Darwinism in action 

Edited December 8, 2024 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Canadians and Americans certainly look at guns differently. The great majority of Canadians have no emotional attachment to guns, don't own and have no desire to own them. Gun ownership is a privilege like a driver's licence, not a right and it is generally thought that the only people needing them are hunters and farmers and neither of them need semi auto weapons or handguns. The idea of using them for self defence is foreign to them and indeed, if they are stored legally would be useless. No home invader is going to wait until you remove your gun from a safe and load it. Carrying one is out of the question, even our police officers aren't armed when they are off duty.

Does our government use bans as a cynical wedge issue? Absolutely. The first ban and buy back was announced right after the Portapique massacre in spite of the fact the shooter's guns had been obtained illegally in the US from a seller who had bought them legally. The ban would have done nothing to stop that shooting. The newest ban was announced on the 35th anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique shooting even though that gun had been banned previously.

Has the government been incompetent when it comes to the bans and buy back? You bet. As you point out, years have passed and millions spent without a single gun being bought back. After the Christchurch massacre, the New Zealand government announced a ban and buy back within weeks and completed it in six months. 

Do stiffer gun laws work? Yes, to a point but this government has gone overboard. Our gun laws were already a good compromise between ownership and public safety before the Portapique shootings. 

Do bans work? Depends. They have worked in Australia and New Zealand. In fact the Christchurch shooter was an Australian who decided to target New Zealand because the gun he used was readily available in NZ but banned in Australia. However, both of them are island nations which have far better control over what enters the country. They will be much less effective in a country that shares a 5000 mile undefended border with the gun happiest country on the planet, because these guns will always be available to those who really want them.

Barring some sort of miracle, the Trudeau government will be gone by next fall and it will be interesting to see what happens to the bans and buy back with a new government.

I like most of what you have said, I think you mentioned about ownership is a privilege, i like to expand on that there is no property rights for anything, owning anything is a privilege and not a right, at any time the government can seize property, hold, your property be it for government convenience, or legal reasons. with or without compensation.

The first ban on firearms the government said it would compensate gun owners, the second ban constructed by RCMP of more than 800 firearms is not covered under the compensation package therefore those guns are to be turned in with NO compensation to the owners..Take a look at the fair compensation offer and you'll find it hardly covers the costs born by the owner....It is one thing to say yes you can legally own this today, and then tomorrow after spending thousands your told "nope" we changed our minds turn it in and i'll give you a few bucks...

Back to my point there are thousands of instances where government has also taken land , homes, cars, anything really...made an offer of fair market value or just seized it...only to expand a high way or in Trentons example expand the air base there...not very many owners were happy with fair market value...

I'd also like to mention that these bans do not only cover working firearms, but also fakes,trophy replicas firearms plus BB, Pellet, airsoft, Paint ball guns that look like a Military firearm...not sure how this keeps us safer but it seems that looks has more to do with the ban than actual mechanical function...and lastly there are bolt action rifles also on the banned list for what ever reason...

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

So why do you care what other Canadians do with their time or money ?

I don't. That's why I don't care about them banning guns they 'like' or think are 'cool'.
They haven't done anything that affects hunting rifles or shotguns.