Multiple Victims Shot in Toronto's Greektown

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Cost and privacy issues aside, If the government ever gets corrupted by true evil, they'll have all the addresses and armaments of the citizens that would be their biggest opposition. Its less about what the government now will do, but what future evil governments should they ever exist can do with this information.

The USA has shown us that when an evil government arises, the gun nuts will be cheering it on.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Gun owners:

Honestly, what is the big deal about registering your weapons in a new federal database?

What additional 'burden' is really being imposed on you? You have to fill out more paperwork? Oh, the horror!

If a centralized gun registry would prevent one murder or help identify the source of weapons used to commit crimes, in my view the minor inconvenience to gun owners is insignificant.

The greater good and all that.

I am not a gun owner and I'm opposed to it simply for the fact that it's a huge waste of money for little benefit. Canada already has strict gun laws. Adding another wasteful registry isn't going to solve anything other than win votes for politicians.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

i dunno... is it just me, or this veering towards InfoWars/3%/Promise Keepers territory...?

Are there actual facts to base such assertions?

I dont know what facts you are looking for as there is no evil government right now in Canada so how can there be facts to back this assertions (as much I absolutely despise Trudeau I dont think hes evil, nor even close).

All I'm pointing out is should the government start rounding people onto cattle cars to be killed (which again we are nowhere even close to) I dont want the government being able to easily identify who would be their biggest resistance, so they can be dealt with prior to the chaos.

Governments need to fear their citizens to keep themselves in check.

It may sound conspiratorial to you but history has shown time and time again good civilizations fall to evil, its not far fetched to think this could happen again.

Originally Posted by SebC

The USA has shown us that when an evil government arises, the gun nuts will be cheering it on.

Trump is not True evil, come back to reality.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

I dont know what facts you are looking for as there is no evil government right now in Canada so how can there be facts to back this assertions (as much I absolutely despise Trudeau I dont think hes evil, nor even close).

All I'm pointing out is should the government start rounding people onto cattle cars to be killed (which again we are nowhere even close to) I dont want the government being able to easily identify who would be their biggest resistance, so they can be dealt with prior to the chaos.

Governments need to fear their citizens to keep themselves in check.

It may sound conspiratorial to you but history has shown time and time again good civilizations fall to evil, its not far fetched to think this could happen again.



Trump is not True evil, come back to reality.

i've heard similar point made by those fringe groups

while this might not be your mindset, nor intent, the notion that and 'evil government' would be held in check or to account by a few handgun/long gun owners or that said firearm owners would be targeted by the government is pretty far fetched.

As for evidence, i'd settle for any incidents where this has that happened en masse in any Western Democracy in history.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by activeStick

How does it bring a racial or religious dimension into the shooter's motive?

Singh is a Sikh last name, which is an entirely different religion from Islam.

Yes I know what a Sikh is.

I didn't think this would require explanation but the shooter obviously chose not to target this person, and there could be a number of reasons for that:

A) If Singh is not wearing a turban (or displaying outward signs of religious affiliation) then it's reasonable that the shooter would have spared him based on the significant probability of a South Asian man being Muslim.

B) If Singh is indeed wearing a turban, the racial justification becomes a possibility.

C) There's also the possibility - which I didn't think of at the time I posted the above comment - that he was only targeting women.

And of course there could have been some other bizarre reason only known to the shooter for picking and choosing victims, given his alleged mental health challenges.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

i've heard similar point made by those fringe groups

while this might not be your mindset, nor intent, the notion that and 'evil government' would be held in check or to account by a few handgun/long gun owners or that said firearm owners would be targeted by the government is pretty far fetched.

As for evidence, i'd settle for any incidents where this has that happened en masse in any Western Democracy in history.

You are underestimating the prevalence of firearms in Canada

There are ~ 35 Firearms per 100 people
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country

~25% of households have firearms in their home

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/c...dt98_4/p2.html

These are not insignificant #'s

It hasn't happened to my knowledge in a Western Democracy because it hasn't been required yet, doesn't mean it wont ever.

[llwhiteoutll]

I think that in Canada, the issue that the majority of firearms owners have with the new laws that the Liberals are trying to push through isn't related to being able to keep firearms to use against a tyrannical government, but more the fact that Canada already has significant firearms laws that do keep things in check.

In the case of C-71, we have a bill that does nothing to actually improve public safety. None of the restrictions that it would introduce would impact those currently committing criminal acts. The Liberals have also shown they are willing to twist facts, words and make outright false statements in order to push their narrative that firearms laws in Canada are lax. We have MPs in the house talking about US shootings when trying to justify a Canadian law, we have MPs calling firearms owners thugs and trying to say that a restricted firearm can be carried around in a car to wherever, we have MPs saying that there are a lot of mental health issues among gun owners, we have the public safety minister telling outright lies and saying that any records would only be obtainable under warrant and we have the PRIME MINISTER sending out tweets that are designed to make it look like you can walk into a store and buy a gun without a license.

There are parts of the bill that can only be designed to make acquiring a license so onerous and costly that people simply get rid of their firearms and stop getting licensed. If you suddenly need to declare that 20 years ago you were treated for depression (even though it hasn't been an issue for two decades), this can lead to refusal of a renewal or being forced to find a doctor who will sign a document stating that you are not a threat to yourself or others. How many doctors do you think will do that without multiple sessions, if they would at all? How many people would be able to provide a lifetime of details on every job loss or relationship that ended?

The portion of the bill that will make it mandatory for a transfer record to be generated for ANY sale will create, at minimum, a registry of sales since there will be a permanent record who sold a firearm when and who bought one. Considering the fact that the CFP currently tries to pry information about sales out of sellers when verifying a license with no law requiring that verification, it is very plausible that they will being making issuance of that transfer number contingent on the provision of details such as make/model/serial.

If the Liberals presented FACTS alongside each portion of their bill, many people would see that it's a waste of time that will have no real effect on criminals using illegally obtained firearms.

Originally Posted by longsuffering

If a centralized gun registry would prevent one murder or help identify the source of weapons used to commit crimes, in my view the minor inconvenience to gun owners is insignificant.

I think the "if it saves one life" argument is somewhat flawed. There are many, many other things that we could impose strict regulations on using that same justification, but there is no demand for it.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

All I'm pointing out is should the government start rounding people onto cattle cars to be killed (which again we are nowhere even close to) I dont want the government being able to easily identify who would be their biggest resistance, so they can be dealt with prior to the chaos.

What is the minimum level that would be considered evil? You've pointed out cattles cars to slaughter as an example. What about separating families and locking up children? Where is the line and who gets to decide?

Governments need to fear their citizens to keep themselves in check.

That's why you put checks and balances in place in government so that if a government starts to become tyrannical you can vote them out. The end that you're arguing for is a justification for sound government not justification for arming the masses.

It may sound conspiratorial to you but history has shown time and time again good civilizations fall to evil, its not far fetched to think this could happen again.

I would take it one step further. History has far more examples of civilizations being ruled by 'evil' tyrants than it does of benevolent leaders. Good government is a relatively new phenomenon. The reason that democracy works where it does is not because of an armed populace but because of an engaged electorate and a sound system of government that includes checks and balances.

Trump is not True evil, come back to reality.

That's probably true but hard to say depending on your definition. Can we say he is incompetent, corrupt, unethical, immoral and predatory? I think there's enough evidence for that. So what is missing to declare him evil? Does he need to kill innocents for him to be considered evil? Do they have to be his own people or can they live in a desert on the other side of the world?

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

What is the minimum level that would be considered evil? You've pointed out cattles cars to slaughter as an example. What about separating families and locking up children? Where is the line and who gets to decide?

If the government was separating families from children for no apparent reason that could be a case. But I'm assuming you are referring to the separation of children from families (or the "caregivers" who are transporting the children) of illegal immigrants - correct me if I'm assuming incorrectly. This is very different case as it pertains to the design and operation of facilities (ie you shouldn't be putting children into facilities where violent criminals are being held), or if the "caregivers" are actually parents / relatives and not human traffickers. There is alot more nuance to these cases than "THEY ARE SEPARATING CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES!!!!"

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

That's why you put checks and balances in place in government so that if a government starts to become tyrannical you can vote them out. The end that you're arguing for is a justification for sound government not justification for arming the masses.

I agree, the normal democratic checks and balances should be the first/second/third/fourth/.... line of defense against the corruption to evil. An armed population is the absolute last line of defense should those fail.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I would take it one step further. History has far more examples of civilizations being ruled by 'evil' tyrants than it does of benevolent leaders. Good government is a relatively new phenomenon. The reason that democracy works where it does is not because of an armed populace but because of an engaged electorate and a sound system of government that includes checks and balances.

I agree that good government is a relatively new phenomenon, but that should be attributed to economic factors which are supported by western democracies. People today in western democracies have a vastly superior quality of life compared to 10/50/100/500/2000 years ago both in the % of people meeting that quality and the quality relative to the past and its only getting better. So there is no reason to unduly overthrow the government for power as it can be achieved relatively independent of government.

Economies thrive when there is high levels of trust between its citizens, which exists in spades today, but it does not mean it will forever.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

That's probably true but hard to say depending on your definition. Can we say he is incompetent, corrupt, unethical, immoral and predatory? I think there's enough evidence for that.

By this definition of evil some could also apply it to Trudeau. Again I don't think he is evil, although I believe he is most of what I bolded.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

So what is missing to declare him evil? Does he need to kill innocents for him to be considered evil? Do they have to be his own people or can they live in a desert on the other side of the world?

The killing of its own people is a definite trigger (albeit it has to be done with malice - ie we cant say a Cop shot a violent criminal in the act therefore the government is evil)

Intent matters, should we be going across the world to kill others? Probably not, but if horrible atrocities are being committed it could be considered evil not to interject.

I'm by no means advocating as firearms as the only way to protect against a corrupt and evil government, all I'm saying it IS the absolute last line of defense against it should all the democratic checks and balances fail.

[CaptainCrunch]

Is it me or is this going in a weird direction?

Look the whole concept of a armed population being the last line of defense against a tyrannical government makes little to no sense. The world has changed since the 1700 and 1800's when it would have been poorly trained and equip soldiers going against a civilian base that was probably equally armed and just as poorly trained.

Even in the terrible shape that its in, a modern day army against an enraged civilian base would be a wipe out. While your bullets are spranging off the front of an armored personal carrier while they're calling in accurate air strikes and artillery and your screaming as you're wife who was handing you bullets suddenly gurgles and goes down with a hole in her face because that extremely well trained 19 year old sniper saw movement.

So the question is then because I know its coming. Why did Western Armies fail against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for example. Well frankly because 1st of all those countries have a history of fighting conquering powers going back generations, in the Western World, we're tremendously soft.

Second of all in Afghanistan and Iraq believe it or not the modern Western Powers tried to limit civilian casualties. I'm pretty sure that if a evil or repressive tyranny took over and a insurgency broke open with armed fat civilians, the order would be to make an example out of them.

Come on the well armed citizen militia doesn't exist anymore, the disparity between an armed civilian and a modern trained and even some what equip soldier is incredibly vast.


Oh and in the case of Red Dawn, as cool as it was. The only accurate scene was when the helicopter gunships got involved and tore Jennifer Grays intestines out her back.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Is it me or is this going in a weird direction?

Look the whole concept of a armed population being the last line of defense against a tyrannical government makes little to no sense. The world has changed since the 1700 and 1800's when it would have been poorly trained and equip soldiers going against a civilian base that was probably equally armed and just as poorly trained.

Even in the terrible shape that its in, a modern day army against an enraged civilian base would be a wipe out. While your bullets are spranging off the front of an armored personal carrier while they're calling in accurate air strikes and artillery and your screaming as you're wife who was handing you bullets suddenly gurgles and goes down with a hole in her face because that extremely well trained 19 year old sniper saw movement.

So the question is then because I know its coming. Why did Western Armies fail against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for example. Well frankly because 1st of all those countries have a history of fighting conquering powers going back generations, in the Western World, we're tremendously soft.

Second of all in Afghanistan and Iraq believe it or not the modern Western Powers tried to limit civilian casualties. I'm pretty sure that if a evil or repressive tyranny took over and a insurgency broke open with armed fat civilians, the order would be to make an example out of them.

Come on the well armed citizen militia doesn't exist anymore, the disparity between an armed civilian and a modern trained and even some what equip soldier is incredibly vast.


Oh and in the case of Red Dawn, as cool as it was. The only accurate scene was when the helicopter gunships got involved and tore Jennifer Grays intestines out her back.

Yes this is moving in a weird direction for this thread (my bad sorry).

The army would vastly out equip the 'militia' if that scenario came about, I'd at least like to have my firearms to attempt to defend myself / family / community rather than just roll over and say this is fine.

At least i could use those to bug out into the wilderness.

That said I'm fairly confident that if the government was truly evil our armed forces or a significant portion, would disobey orders (albeit I'm not exactly 100% on how the chain of Command works in Canada, can the PM issue direct military orders? The only thing that comes to min is the War Measures Act. Although that could all change over time)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Yes this is moving in a weird direction for this thread (my bad sorry).

The army would vastly out equip the 'militia' if that scenario came about, I'd at least like to have my firearms to attempt to defend myself / family / community rather than just roll over and say this is fine.

At least i could use those to bug out into the wilderness.

That said I'm fairly confident that if the government was truly evil our armed forces or a significant portion, would disobey orders (albeit I'm not exactly 100% on how the chain of Command works in Canada, can the PM issue direct military orders? The only thing that comes to min is the War Measures Act. Although that could all change over time)

They'd be ripping your fire arm out of your cold dead hands as they round up your family and community are marched into forced labor camps.


And realistically bugging out into the wilderness would be a bad tactic, the modern day military has supreme air recon capabilities, they'd find you by head signatures, pursue you with special forces to pin you down and harass you to with air and artillery.


The only effective tactic would be to blend in with civilians and hope that the evil government cares about public relations or civilian casualties.


Anyways the point is that the whole justification of allowing fire arms for civilian militias that can appose governments or defend the nation makes little to no sense to me.

[Tacopuck]

I've watched Predator enough times, its as simple as covering myself in mud

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Gun owners:

Honestly, what is the big deal about registering your weapons in a new federal database?

What additional 'burden' is really being imposed on you? You have to fill out more paperwork? Oh, the horror!

If a centralized gun registry would prevent one murder or help identify the source of weapons used to commit crimes, in my view the minor inconvenience to gun owners is insignificant.

The greater good and all that.

I think you missed my post. I'll repeat it for you. Pistols are already centrally registered. That has never changed at all. And clearly, tracking pistols did nothing to prevent this crime, or any other crime with illegally obtained pistols. The long gun registry went away, which included everyone's hunting rifles and shot guns (oh, the horror), which C71 is trying to restore the tracking and sale of. That, in addition to mandatory PAL checks (which is ok, I think nearly all legal sales do that already anyhow, it would be nice if there was an online method of checking, the CFO is a ridiculously inefficient office), and longer history background checks. Nobody has an issue with the backgrounding, or the PAL verification. People have issues with non secure "registries", ledgers, at stores where they can be purchased by criminals from low level employees for some sweet pocket $$, or lost, or stolen, creating a shopping list of firearms owners and their addresses (something all of us like to keep private). Additionally, the firearms that they are essentially targeting in C71, because pistols are already registered with the CFO with certificates, are rarely used in crimes, so its just drawing attention to more people.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I think that in Canada, the issue that the majority of firearms owners have with the new laws that the Liberals are trying to push through isn't related to being able to keep firearms to use against a tyrannical government, but more the fact that Canada already has significant firearms laws that do keep things in check.
.........

Phenomenal post. The fact twisting is the most frustrating part!

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Aleks

That, in addition to mandatory PAL checks (which is ok, I think nearly all legal sales do that already anyhow, it would be nice if there was an online method of checking, the CFO is a ridiculously inefficient office), and longer history background checks. Nobody has an issue with the backgrounding, or the PAL verification.

If there was an online tool like you said, I think the concerns over PAL verification would go away. But as they plan to implement with a mandatory phone call and mandatory transfer number, a lot of people see this as backdooring a registry. Especially with the CFP trying even now to find out details of what NR firearms are being sold. The check will just give them a legislative tool to try and use to force that information.

With regard to the background checks, they can already consider lifetime criminal history. It's the mental health self-declaration that is going to cause a lot of issues. Imagine how hard it is going to be to satisfy the CFO's demand of a doctors letter that proves you are not a risk when your only treatment for mental health was years in the past. The Liberals are basically saying that if you have EVER sought treatment for mental health reason, you can be considered a risk to yourself and to other unless you can prove otherwise. If you don't have the means ($$$ for doctors visits you don't need) to prove it, then feel free to give up tens of thousands in property because you don't get a license. Then repeat ever five years upon renewal, because they sure aren't going to relax all the self-declaration questions.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh and in the case of Red Dawn, as cool as it was. The only accurate scene was when the helicopter gunships got involved and tore Jennifer Grays intestines out her back.

Now I'm legitimately curious, what would CC do if caught in a Red Dawn situation?

[CaptainCrunch]

Probably learn to live in glorious workers paradise and turn in all who oppose the might of great Stalin.,

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Probably learn to live in glorious workers paradise and turn in all who oppose the might of great Stalin.,

I'm totally going to narc Murray Edwards to NKVD.