Y'all are f'ked

[Aristides]

58 minutes ago, herbie said:

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.

As a matter of interest, what happens when something you do care about gets banned and other people say they don't care?

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Aristides said:

As a matter of interest, what happens when something you do care about gets banned and other people say they don't care?

Then it's racist. 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

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.

You should check out he fire arms that have been banned, there are plenty of bolt action HUNTING rifles, and lots of shot guns....You've already confirmed what we the readers already know you are not interested in this topic, your here to chirp about something that your not really sure on....you have every right to chirp , i would suggest you do a little research first, right now you sound like the typical lefty who hates guns... 

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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?   

If you're going to kill an animal or a person then do it quickly.  I have hunter friends and family members who use rifles and have found arrows from other hunters lodged in deer, including one who found a deer with in arrow in its skull.

Killing animals shouldn't be for sport.  You kill it to eat it.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you're going to kill an animal or a person then do it quickly. 

so you're not a hunter, that's correct?

Quote

I have hunter friends and family members who use rifles and have found arrows from other hunters lodged in deer, including one who found a deer with in arrow in its skull.

You are an absolute liar or they are one of the two.

I have personally hunted and killed many many animals. For a while when I was young and stupid I believe that bows were not effective killing tools. That I saw them in use. A bow and arrow, and this is even more true of a crossbow and arrow, is 100% every bit as lethal as a gun within its range.

But like a typical lefty you take something you have no knowledge of, fake up a story from someone who doesn't sound terribly much like they know what they're talking about either or is just yanking your chain, and pretend that now you're an expert and have a valid opinion.

Bows and crossbows, as authorized by the ministry for poundage and Broadhead size, are extremely ethical killing tools.  But please, continue telling people who have actually done it and witnessed it all about the things you've never even seen or tried. You're so credible when you do that

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you're going to kill an animal or a person then do it quickly.  I have hunter friends and family members who use rifles and have found arrows from other hunters lodged in deer, including one who found a deer with in arrow in its skull.

Killing animals shouldn't be for sport.  You kill it to eat it.

I'm not a cross bow guy but the higher draw weight (typically 100 lbs if memory serves) equates to more power and more speed at release. I've fired an acquaintances rig a few times (with a scope) and felt like a sniper with each and every shot. Bulls eye after bulls eye... very consistent, hard hitting and deadly accurate. Actually, the accuracy it achieves with minimum effort( and experience) is the very reason I have no interest in them.

Ya I know... if it isn't difficult I don't do it, bare bow folks are funny that way.

Cross bow is a separate endorsement for bow hunting...  I have both but don't use either. That said, If i actually was going bow hunting I would opt for the crossbow because its inherent qualities actually make it more ethical... not less. Subject to range limitations, it's every bit as effective as a rifle. The same could be said about traditional bows BTW... a 50 lb draw is required for moose as I recall.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound like an authority on cross bows, with about 15 shots to my credit I'm anything but... IMO though, and from what I've seen of them, you have the ethical aspect of cross bows 100% wrong.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Venandi

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

I'm not a cross bow guy but the higher draw weight (typically 100 lbs if memory serves) equates to more power and more speed at release. I've fired an acquaintances rig a few times (with a scope) and felt like a sniper with each and every shot. Bulls eye after bulls eye... very consistent, hard hitting and deadly accurate. Actually, the accuracy it achieves with minimum effort( and experience) is the very reason I have no interest in them.

Ya I know... if it isn't difficult I don't do it, bare bow folks are funny that way.

Cross bow is a separate endorsement for bow hunting...  I have both but don't use either. That said, If i actually was going bow hunting I would opt for the crossbow because its inherent qualities actually make it more ethical... not less. Subject to range limitations, it's every bit as effective as a rifle. The same could be said about traditional bows BTW... a 50 lb draw is required for moose as I recall.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound like an authority on cross bows, with about 15 shots to my credit I'm anything but... IMO though, and from what I've seen of them, you have the ethical aspect of cross bows 100% wrong.

This is what i've been told by hunters.

Bows are even worse.  If you're hitting an animal in the butt because the accuracy isn't easy and its able to run away and not be tracked down that's not very ethical.  This is what i've been told.  I have no issues with hunting in general, hunting and fishing is a more ethical way to acquire meat than a lot of the types of meat we get at the grocery store.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is what i've been told by hunters.

 

I rather doubt that you have

Quote

Bows are even worse.  If you're hitting an animal in the butt because the accuracy isn't easy and its able to run away and not be tracked down that's not very ethical.  This is what i've been told.  I have no issues with hunting in general, hunting and fishing is a more ethical way to acquire meat than a lot of the types of meat we get at the grocery store.

Those are every bit as accurate as a gun within their range. People can miss with a bow but they can miss with a gun just as easily and everybody knows at least one hunter who accidentally gut shot an animal or hit it in such a way that it didn't go down and it got away before it died. 

You have no knowledge of what you're talking about and no experience and yet you're putting yourself forward as an expert.

That would make you a kind of scummy person

Edited December 9, 2024 by CdnFox

[Army Guy]

22 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is what i've been told by hunters.

Bows are even worse.  If you're hitting an animal in the butt because the accuracy isn't easy and its able to run away and not be tracked down that's not very ethical.  This is what i've been told.  I have no issues with hunting in general, hunting and fishing is a more ethical way to acquire meat than a lot of the types of meat we get at the grocery store.

I've found animals that have had arrows still stuck in them normally in where the bones are large and thick.......and to be honest not that many,maybe two....one in the upper hip joint the other stuck in the hind quarters....we did not notice until we had dropped the deer with a rifle, later.... i've also seen animals shot with a rifle that got away or could not be found by hunters....Animals are normally pretty easy to spook, forcing a snapshot or worse, mostly the ones i've seen were shot just before dark making tracking that much more difficult....

That all being said most arrows normally go right through the animal, thats how much power they have...hitting one in the skull thats a ways off the optimal aiming point, might be a fluke or someone being stupid, sometimes you cant fix stupid...

Me an a good friend once came across two moose hunters while we were hunting partridge...one of them said have you seen a moose with a gun any where near here...at first i thought the man was crazy, then he explained his partner shot the moose dead on in the upper part of the skull and it had glanced off the moose's head..., the round did not penetrate instead knocked the moose out...dropping him to the ground...the boys went in to take there hero shots, one had placed his rifle in the rack...both had one foot on the moose head the other on the ground....when the moose jumped up, looked at the hunters and well the moose went one way the hunters went the other....only the moose had even the odds and was now armed, trotting off with the mans rifle...what a nice treat that would be bagging an armed moose, meat plus another rifle with a story behind it...

Edited December 9, 2024 by Army Guy

[Venandi]

This is from a month ago. JT celebrating the anniversary of his handgun ban.

Surprise - it turns out that restricting law abiding citizens has little effect on criminals... the police get it,  liberal voters still don't though.

As it stands now, the carnage will continue until they do get it, or better yet, until the next election when their epidemic of madness officially fizzles out.

The wedge issues may be clever but people are catching on to them now. If anecdotal "gym talk" actually translates into votes, these guys are going to get utterly crushed, and it's well deserved.

I just thought of a plan to curb impaired driving and keep Canadians safe... we'll simply ban vehicles with an engine displacement over 2.1 litres.

Makes perfect sense... right Herb?

 

  

 

 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Venandi

[Nefarious Banana]

10 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

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

The number one reason for issue being Wilderness Protection

Had a permit 'to pack' for a number of years . . . wilderness protection.

At that time the stipulation was that the sidearm had to be a minimum of .41 calibre.

Mine was .44 Remington Magnum (.429)

A shortie 12 ga. is a better option.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Had a permit 'to pack' for a number of years . . . wilderness protection.

At that time the stipulation was that the sidearm had to be a minimum of .41 calibre.

Mine was .44 Remington Magnum (.429)

A shortie 12 ga. is a better option.

Gave up my 44 Mag for a 12 gauge shorty. My favorite is still a double barrel over under with 12 inch barrels. No actions so it's as short as a 8 inch barrel shotgun but still has two rounds of "the ranger didn't like that yogi" at hand and fast firing. I have speed loaders for it too (i crap you not  )  and it's amazing how fast you can feed it if you have to.  I preferred challenger dangerous game slugs, tho of course most people like the brennekes.  I just felt the challengers were a little more accurate and hit just a little harder, and easier to get in Canada.  There was a little store in Alberta that sold all things anti-bear in the day who'd always carry them.

[maria orsic]

On 12/8/2024 at 12:23 AM, Five of swords said:

'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?

People commit crimes not guns. But people own guns. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, maria orsic said:

People commit crimes not guns. But people own guns. 

They also own knives and hammers and gasoline and trucks, all of which are used regularly to kill people. In fact the largest mass killings in the united states we're not committed with firearms. And in many countries knives and machetes etc kill more people per capita then guns do in the US.

In the US using guns is fashionable for mass murderers it would seem ( 🙄 )  And the US has a serious crime problem as most gun deaths involve criminal shooting other criminals or the like. But you had it right to begin with, the problem is the people not the tool. 

[Black Dog]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They also own knives and hammers and gasoline and trucks, all of which are used regularly to kill people. In fact the largest mass killings in the united states we're not committed with firearms. And in many countries knives and machetes etc kill more people per capita then guns do in the US.

Yeah it turns out that it's a lot harder to build a bomb out of fertilizer and diesel fuel and kill a bunch of people than do it with a easily obtainable firearm.

As for knives or hammers well the Uvalde shooter killed 21 people in about four minutes; try doing that with a handheld weapon.

Quote

In the US using guns is fashionable for mass murderers it would seem ( 🙄 ) 

Or cheap and easy to obtain and effective.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Yeah it turns out that it's a lot harder to build a bomb out of fertilizer and diesel fuel and kill a bunch of people than do it with a easily obtainable firearm.

Pretty easy to run them over with a truck though. Ask France. Trucks are fairly readily available as well aren't they?

Not terribly difficult to stab them with a knife either.

Or just start a fire and burn them alive. Arson kills a lot of people every year in the US. I'm pretty sure even you could figure out how to work a can of gasoline    And it's even easier to obtain than a firearm

I think you failed that one kiddo   Guns are neither the only nor the most readily available way to kill a lot of people

29 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

As for knives or hammers well the Uvalde shooter killed 21 people in about four minutes; try doing that with a handheld weapon.

Does the time frame matter? If 21 people are dead in 5 minutes or 5 hours does it make a difference? Are you saying that you're not opposed to killings as long as they don't happen all at once?

Which brings up another interesting point, there are serial killers out there who kill dozens if not hundreds of people and yet don't use a gun. And I mean a lot of them, far more than there are mass shooting incidents. Yet somehow you are strangely sanguine about that.

It sounds from what you're saying like the deaths don't matter to you. They only seem to matter if they are involving  a gun

Is it the noise violation that really upsets you? Is that what's that work here?

 

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Yeah it turns out that it's a lot harder to build a bomb out of fertilizer and diesel fuel and kill a bunch of people than do it with a easily obtainable firearm.

Really?

I think you need to get out more. 

LOL, I'd recommend warm places where people don't like each other.

Look doggie.... I can do that down vote sh^% too. I can even do it twice.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Venandi

[Black Dog]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Pretty easy to run them over with a truck though. Ask France. Trucks are fairly readily available as well aren't they.

And yet truck attacks are extremely rare compared to mass shootings.

 

Quote

Not terribly difficult to stab them with a knife either.

It's actually fairly hard to stab someone with a knife and kill them. It's also very difficult to stab a lot of people in a short period of time.

Quote

Or just start a fire and burn them alive. Arson kills a lot of people every year in the US. I'm pretty sure even you could figure out how to work a can of gasoline    And it's even easier to obtain than a firearm

And yet arson attacks are extremely rare compared to mass shootings.

Quote

I think you failed that one kiddo   Guns are neither the only nor the most readily available way to kill a lot of people

And yet they remain the weapon of choice for murderers and the suicidal alike. Probably because they are widely available, affordable, transportable and of course extremely effective.

Quote

Does the time frame matter? If 21 people are dead in 5 minutes or 5 hours does it make a difference? Are you saying that you're not opposed to killings as long as they don't happen all at once?

Holy shit you're retarded. Of course the time frame matters. The longer it takes to carry out an act of violence, the higher the probability someone can intervene to stop it.

Quote

Which brings up another interesting point, there are serial killers out there who kill dozens if not hundreds of people and yet don't use a gun. And I mean a lot of them, far more than there are mass shooting incidents. Yet somehow you are strangely sanguine about that.

There's no f*cking way there are more serial killers than mass shooting incidents, you need to stop watching so many true crime shows at the nursing home.

Quote

It sounds from what you're saying like the deaths don't matter to you. They only seem to matter if they are involving  a gun

Well no that would be a stupid interpretation by a stupid person. 

 

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, Venandi said:

This is fun... any more words of wisdom? 

Your mom should have swallowed.

[Venandi]

25 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Your mom should have swallowed.

And your dad should have practiced on himself before castrating the piglets and cutting off their little tails. They have this thing called Castr-gate now, it makes the job a lot easier, relax... dogs don't fit in it.

Edited December 9, 2024 by Venandi

[Legato]

9 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Your mom should have swallowed.

You need a good hard subway ride. Don't forget the Bog paper.

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

And yet truck attacks are extremely rare compared to mass shootings.

 

Yes because guns are more fashionable right now. You get 5 minutes in the newspaper if you kill someone with a knife or a truck or burn them alive but you get talked about for weeks if you shoot somebody. Do you have any idea how many people were stabbed in New York in the last week? But who are we talking about? The medical exec who got shot

 

Quote

It's actually fairly hard to stab someone with a knife and kill them. It's also very difficult to stab a lot of people in a short period of time.

It is stunningly easy and we have seen several examples of it. Wasn't that long ago a young teenager went to a party took a kitchen knife and killed five people within a couple minutes.

It's just that most people prefer not to. Guns are way more sexy these days

 

Quote

And yet arson attacks are extremely rare compared to mass shootings.

Sure, guns are way more sexy these days. You get lots of write-ups in the paper for it 

Although to be honest the number of people killed in what we call mass shootings each year, When you eliminate gang violence in the like, Is not far off the number of arson murders. And in other countries where guns are less popular the arson murders can go through the roof. One of Japan's largest mass murders with well over 100 people involved arson on a train

Quote

And yet they remain the weapon of choice for murderers and the suicidal alike. Probably because they are widely available, affordable, transportable and of course extremely effective.

 

For murderers in America yes because they are the sexy newsworthy thing right now. Suicides are a little bit different and nations with no guns but higher suicide rates certainly exist so that's out

 

Quote

Holy shit you're retarded. Of course the time frame matters. The longer it takes to carry out an act of violence, the higher the probability someone can intervene to stop it.

Well we know that's not true.

 

Quote

There's no f*cking way there are more serial killers than mass shooting incidents, you need to stop watching so many true crime shows at the nursing home.

There are definitely more serial killers than there are mass shooters. Unless you're going to say something stupid like including gang shootouts or something which is obviously very different. There are certainly a lot less now than there used to be but it goes up and down and inevitably will go up again.

 

Quote

Well no that would be a stupid interpretation by a stupid person. 

Which is your way of admitting that I nailed it dead on and you're angry and buthurt that I pointed it out   

Sorry kiddo. It's not the guns

[Dougie93]

18 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

A shortie 12 ga. is a better option.

one time in Petawawa on night patrol

I came up to a bear trap ;  big concrete cylinder with a drop gate

I wasn't sure what it was in the dark at first

then I hear the bear inside shuffling around

I shined my red light into the trap to see it

the bear was so big, I don't think 00 Buck would have stopped him if he was charging

so I'd probably go with a full sized 870 ;

that way you can still shoot slug through the smoothbore out to longer range

you might only have time for one shot when he's coming at you at 40km/h

and you don't want to wait until he gets close

Edited December 9, 2024 by Dougie93

[Nefarious Banana]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

 

The bear was so big, I don't think 00 Buck would have stopped him if he was charging.

So I'd probably go with a full sized 870, that way you can still shoot slug through the smoothbore.

A long tube/short rifled barrel 870 is the way to go.  A close face-on shot with bird shot will end it for Mr. G-bear, although that's not a situation you want to be in.  Slugs through a rifled barrel is the way to go for 'close & personal' situations. The older 870's are a musket of choice for many.

[Black Dog]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes because guns are more fashionable right now.

lmao

Quote

You get 5 minutes in the newspaper if you kill someone with a knife or a truck or burn them alive but you get talked about for weeks if you shoot somebody. Do you have any idea how many people were stabbed in New York in the last week? But who are we talking about? The medical exec who got shot

And you think that's just because he used a gun do you? Nothing to do with the various other angles?

Quote

It is stunningly easy and we have seen several examples of it. Wasn't that long ago a young teenager went to a party took a kitchen knife and killed five people within a couple minutes.

It's just that most people prefer not to. Guns are way more sexy these days

 

Most people prefer not to because guns are easier to use and more effective. You know, the same reason armies don't use swords anymore.

Quote

 

Sure, guns are way more sexy these days. You get lots of write-ups in the paper for it 

Although to be honest the number of people killed in what we call mass shootings each year, When you eliminate gang violence in the like, Is not far off the number of arson murders. And in other countries where guns are less popular the arson murders can go through the roof.

 

Yeah we're gonna need a stat for that.
 

Quote

 

One of Japan's largest mass murders with well over 100 people involved arson on a train

 

That was Korea.

Quote

For murderers in America yes because they are the sexy newsworthy thing right now. Suicides are a little bit different and nations with no guns but higher suicide rates certainly exist so that's out

That other nations might have higher suicide rates doesn't change the fact that guns contribute to the U.,S.'s suicide rate, which is the highest of any of the western democracies.

Quote

Well we know that's not true.

LOL ok.

Quote

There are definitely more serial killers than there are mass shooters. Unless you're going to say something stupid like including gang shootouts or something which is obviously very different. There are certainly a lot less now than there used to be but it goes up and down and inevitably will go up again.

lmao "there are more serial killers than mass shooters if you change the definition of mass shooting."

There have been at least 50 mass shootings involving three or more fatalities in 2024. Do you have any evidence there's more than 50 serial killers currently at large in the U.S.A? 

Quote

Which is your way of admitting that I nailed it dead on and you're angry and buthurt that I pointed it out   

No it's my way of asserting you are a stupid person. Talking about gun deaths in a conversation about guys doesn't mean one doesn't care about any other deaths anymore than talking about cancer deaths in a conversation about smoking means one doesn't care about AIDS victims, you retarded ape.