Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[SebC]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Its not Poly technique, its Polysouvient. But I will not argue semantics with you on this matter.

The Poly in PolySeSouvient is Polytechnique. Referring to one is referring to the other.

[TheIronMaiden]

With respect to Price, I don't think it is explicate, but there is a long history in Canada of telling Ingenious folks they shouldn't be hunting.

[EldrickOnIce]

If this is not a linear relationship, please correct me. More guns equal more gun violence. Less guns equal less gun violence. This is math.
I sympathize with enthusiasts whose hobbies will be affected but you can't win a marathon without putting bandaids on your nipples.

[TheIronMaiden]

The idea is the more lethal the gun, the more destructive the violence can be.
I get the idea, and I think that with careful consideration and targeting slightly stricter gun laws can be helpful. That said, targeting hunters as bad people is hypocritical and unproductive.

[Fuzz]

Would it make sense for them to just have some limited number of guns you can use? Like, here's a couple shotguns that qualify, a few rifles etc. That's it. You can swap your non-compliant one for a compliant one.

How many different gun types do we need to have legal in this country, anyway? Sure, choice decreases, whatever. This way there are no gray areas, no slight modifications to keep track of. Just a short list of guns you can legally own that are capable of hunting, or sport shooting or whatever, but have the limitations we desire like rate of fire, magazine size etc.

Note that I know nothing about guns, so maybe this is a dumb idea but it seems like it would simplify the argument a lot.

[TorqueDog]

Carey Price has come out himself and stated that he was/is fully aware of the massacre at Polytechnique. It's an Instagram story so it'll disappear in a day. The statement that he was unaware was made by France Margaret Bélanger, president of Group CH, which owns the Montreal Canadiens; clearly an "oh sh-t, get in front of this" team PR move.

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

ummm he lives in a server in Siberia.

Actually, we traced the source of the posts to a computer located at 12111 68 Street SE.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Would it make sense for them to just have some limited number of guns you can use? Like, here's a couple shotguns that qualify, a few rifles etc. That's it. You can swap your non-compliant one for a compliant one.

How many different gun types do we need to have legal in this country, anyway? Sure, choice decreases, whatever. This way there are no gray areas, no slight modifications to keep track of. Just a short list of guns you can legally own that are capable of hunting, or sport shooting or whatever, but have the limitations we desire like rate of fire, magazine size etc.

Note that I know nothing about guns, so maybe this is a dumb idea but it seems like it would simplify the argument a lot.

The trouble with guns in Canada now are two fold. 1. folks can bring in modifications for their guns that make them more lethal 2. there is a black market for guns to use in criminal activity. it is worth stating that 90% of gun owners are not doing this.

It is very difficult to control or restrict this because the people doing this are willfully breaking the law. Making stricter laws does not stop these people. All it is is good PR. It punishes law abiding gun owners. So yeah, you could make the laws more simple, but its not going to stop the people who are trying to break the law anyways.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Would it make sense for them to just have some limited number of guns you can use? Like, here's a couple shotguns that qualify, a few rifles etc. That's it. You can swap your non-compliant one for a compliant one.

How many different gun types do we need to have legal in this country, anyway? Sure, choice decreases, whatever. This way there are no gray areas, no slight modifications to keep track of. Just a short list of guns you can legally own that are capable of hunting, or sport shooting or whatever, but have the limitations we desire like rate of fire, magazine size etc.

Note that I know nothing about guns, so maybe this is a dumb idea but it seems like it would simplify the argument a lot.

This is essentially what we already have in place, we in Canada had three tiers of firearms.Non Restricted firearms (long guns and shot guns) , Restricted Firearms ( Pistols , Hand guns, Certain semi automatic rifles ) , Prohibited - Full Automatic weapons. We have restrictions of use within the first 2 categories as is IE you can only use a handgun in a certified range and it must be only transported from safe storage to the range direct A to B.



Bill C-21 removes restricted firearms to prohibited and now with the new ammedments is moving firearms from non restricted to prohibited as well. To add to this is the very lose language of the amendment that can be used to cover many more hunting rifles.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

If this is not a linear relationship, please correct me. More guns equal more gun violence. Less guns equal less gun violence. This is math.
I sympathize with enthusiasts whose hobbies will be affected but you can't win a marathon without putting bandaids on your nipples.

Its non linear as illegal firearms are coming across the border every single day that are being used in this Country for gun violence. In your analogy, all the fair runners are following the route, while the cheaters are taking the shortcut. Now add that the fair runners have to do so without shoes.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

This is essentially what we already have in place, we in Canada had three tiers of firearms.Non Restricted firearms (long guns and shot guns) , Restricted Firearms ( Pistols , Hand guns, Certain semi automatic rifles ) , Prohibited - Full Automatic weapons. We have restrictions of use within the first 2 categories as is IE you can only use a handgun in a certified range and it must be only transported from safe storage to the range direct A to B.



Bill C-21 removes restricted firearms to prohibited and now with the new ammedments is moving firearms from non restricted to prohibited as well. To add to this is the very lose language of the amendment that can be used to cover many more hunting rifles.

Is it though? I know we have 3 tiers, but it seems there is a struggle to categorize the thousands of different models and variants. I'm saying there should only be a few (like, less than 5) of each type. Remove all the gray areas.

[TheIronMaiden]

It is also worth mentioning that gun laws in Canada not only define who can own guns or which guns you can own, but also how you store and transport guns. It is already a very strict system for law abiding citizens.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is it though? I know we have 3 tiers, but it seems there is a struggle to categorize the thousands of different models and variants. I'm saying there should only be a few (like, less than 5) of each type. Remove all the gray areas.

There is no gray area. The items in the non restricted are essentially different brands of Hockey sticks, some have different curves, some have different flex, all are categorized as hockey sticks.

Hunting rifles, come in different calibres, some are magazine fed, some are lever action. None of them are militarized or Assault weapons. The government is using a lack of firearm education and understanding to stoke the populace.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Would it make sense for them to just have some limited number of guns you can use? Like, here's a couple shotguns that qualify, a few rifles etc. That's it. You can swap your non-compliant one for a compliant one.

How many different gun types do we need to have legal in this country, anyway? Sure, choice decreases, whatever. This way there are no gray areas, no slight modifications to keep track of. Just a short list of guns you can legally own that are capable of hunting, or sport shooting or whatever, but have the limitations we desire like rate of fire, magazine size etc.

[Note that I know nothing about guns, so maybe this is a dumb idea but it seems like it would simplify the argument a lot.

What would make more sense is mandatory sentences for gun crimes, black market gun sales and gun smuggling as well as increasing CBSA staffing focusing on gun smuggling. If the goal is public safety and crime reduction this is where it begins.

Turning sportsman into criminals by declaring their shotgun illegal does not make sense.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

There is no gray area. The items in the non restricted are essentially different brands of Hockey sticks, some have different curves, some have different flex, all are categorized as hockey sticks.

Hunting rifles, come in different calibres, some are magazine fed, some are lever action. None of them are militarized or Assault weapons. The government is using a lack of firearm education and understanding to stoke the populace.

It is all about making it look like they are making a difference. The logic is the same as making sports cars illegal because some drug dealers drive them and people are more likely to drive recklessly with them.

"They are more dangerous and associated with criminal activity, and really non essential, you could drive any other car, so lets make them illegal."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I sympathize with enthusiasts whose hobbies will be affected but you can't win a marathon without putting bandaids on your nipples

Wait what

[SebC]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

If this is not a linear relationship, please correct me. More guns equal more gun violence. Less guns equal less gun violence. This is math.

It is not linear. But it definitely crosses (0, 0).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Would it make sense for them to just have some limited number of guns you can use? Like, here's a couple shotguns that qualify, a few rifles etc. That's it. You can swap your non-compliant one for a compliant one.

How many different gun types do we need to have legal in this country, anyway? Sure, choice decreases, whatever. This way there are no gray areas, no slight modifications to keep track of. Just a short list of guns you can legally own that are capable of hunting, or sport shooting or whatever, but have the limitations we desire like rate of fire, magazine size etc.

Note that I know nothing about guns, so maybe this is a dumb idea but it seems like it would simplify the argument a lot.

See, this I don't get.

The overwhelming majority of firearm owners in Canada have no issue with the mandatory back ground check, license restriction, etc. Every single firearm owner I know abides by that.

As soon as you start banning certain guns, like a shotgun in the picture with Price that is literally used for hunting, many firearm owners will start obtaining these weapons illegally. This will drastically increase the size of the black market for firearms, and will surely lead to more gun crime as it will be even EASIER for criminals to buy guns.

And if you think the government has the resources to deal with that, guess again. Right now they have a problem bringing in children's Tylenol.

But always amusing watching the Liberal gang following mindlessly allow with their dear leaders whim's and wishes without a single shred of critical thought.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

The overwhelming majority of firearm owners in Canada have no issue with the mandatory back ground check, license restriction, etc. Every single firearm owner I know abides by that.

As soon as you start banning certain guns, like a shotgun in the picture with Price that is literally used for hunting, many firearm owners will start obtaining these weapons illegally. This will drastically increase the size of the black market for firearms, and will surely lead to more gun crime as it will be even EASIER for criminals to buy guns.

I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here. You’re saying that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners currently abide by the laws but if the laws change they’ll up and decide to start not obeying the laws?

But always amusing watching the Liberal gang following mindlessly allow with their dear leaders whim's and wishes without a single shred of critical thought.

Ironic way to end your post.

[jayswin]

I love the idea that CP is a liberal, Trudeau worshipping land. Just hilarious.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I love the idea that CP is a liberal, Trudeau worshipping land. Just hilarious.

I don't much care for Trudeau but this Liberal Gang thing sounds interesting. If we joined would we get patches or jackets? Maybe some cool hand shakes? Damn, I feel like I'm missing out. LG. I can make the L with my one hand, having trouble flipping a G though.