Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I respect and accept this anecdote as evidence of guns as tool use on farms. I posit that there are other tools that could potentially be used to similar effect that don't pose the same level of societal harm that mass firearm ownership does.
I also take your reference to farming methods having developed, and didn't intend to make it seem like all farmers have not changed tactics since 1600s.

Alcohol does more societal harm than guns do.

Why don't we ban it?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Azure

Alcohol does more societal harm than guns do.

Why don't we ban it?

You shut your mouth sir!

They tried that once. It didnt go well.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why is it murky? If outside influences are a major driver with inflation, then what the BoC has done (repeated & quick interest rate increases), are not going to necessarily lower inflation.

I'm not saying their job is easy. I'm just saying that if there is any truth to this report, then the BoC is WAY to hasty with the rate increases.

Honest question time, if the BoC policy succeeds and inflation gets under control in the next year, and rate increases pause, will you admit they nailed it?

[MBates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t disagree with you and personally I typically enjoy reading your takes but in this case you seem to be trying really hard to put words in my mouth.

I was genuinely not looking to put words in your mouth. I guess I started with responding to one of your quoted posts and then attempted to shift back to the broader topic but managed to leave it looking like I was directly criticizing your positions. Sorry for the confusion.

That said, I am interested to pick up this part of the exchange where I agreed with the point that the current apparent arbitrary actions of the government could lead to widespread non-compliance by gun owners who have to this point been faithful law abiding citizens (and actually therefore significantly increase the problem of black market guns and create many new criminals for no reason).

You suggest I made an assumption "that rationality isn’t subjective and citizens are incapable of opposing a law that the majority considers to be rational."

I mean, maybe I was thinking about it from too much of a constitutional point of view (and to be clear I am in no way suggesting there is a constitutional right to own firearms), but for a law to be rationally connected to its objective means to analyze it for objective reasonableness. The idea is that if the government claims a prohibition is to advance purpose 'x' that in an evidence-based and logical way they should be able to connect the legal measure to that purpose.

Nothing close to perfection is required, and there can be many reasonable (rational) ways for a government to approach its goals.

So my intended point is to say - as it relates to handguns and actual 'weapons of war' most people, even gun advocates, can connect the dots rationally. They might not like losing more of the firearms they would otherwise like to own, and safely and legally use, but they can at least see the argument why people who do not share their views would seek to use regulatory steps to prohibit them.

What has sparked the current debate is that continuing with this stated purpose or 'rationale' for gun bans, the government has arguably jumped the shark with its recent amendment.

We are no longer talking about only banning weapons that have an elevated public safety risk. And while they have objectively entered into a phase of banning some obvious hunting / sporting rifles and shotguns, the Minister responsible and all members of cabinet continue to stand and declare that water is not wet, the sky is not blue, and what we can all see with our own eyes is not actually what they are doing.

So for me (and I suspect many others) the issue is as much about government misleading citizens as it is about where to draw the exact line on gun ownership.

If the government needs to ban a single shot hunting rifle in the Ruger No. 1, because weapons of war are killing too many Canadians then that is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous. If the government contends a Ruger No. 1 is not a hunting rifle, (because they say they are not banning any such rifles) then it ought to really be simple to provide the rational explanation.

I contend that cannot be done. If someone can do it and prove me wrong, I am literally asking for it.

I am not saying you have said it can be done or that you have been defending the legislation, but I am interested in your view. If nobody in government can explain why guns were added to the ban list as late amendments and now even some Liberal back benchers are decrying the banning of some hunting rifles and shotguns (in spite of the government claim that is not happening) do you agree the law could end up being seen as a 'silly' law and lead to major non-compliance from current gun owners who have previously followed the existing laws religiously?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why is it murky? If outside influences are a major driver with inflation, then what the BoC has done (repeated & quick interest rate increases), are not going to necessarily lower inflation.

I'm not saying their job is easy. I'm just saying that if there is any truth to this report, then the BoC is WAY to hasty with the rate increases.

It’s not entirely outside influences though. When rates rise it makes it less attractive for commodity storage, which means more supply hits the market and prices decrease. I just say it’s murky because that’s more impactful south of the border.

I also think that the rate increases have driven real estate down in two major markets in Canada. That’s going to have a dampening effect on demand as well. So, the BoC is making decisions they can control and inflation has declined significantly. It’s because of that they can credibly talk about pausing the rate hikes.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Azure

Alcohol does more societal harm than guns do.

Why don't we ban it?

Not sure it's that easy to make direct comparisons.
Social harm does need to be weighed against social benefit.

Example does that volume of economic development supported by our transportation infrastructure justify highway deaths? sadly the answer is a resounding yes.

Does the rest and relaxation / social lubrication brought by drugs/alcohol justify with harms created (how many fewer people in the worlds labour force would there be without a few good drinks, a little social lubrication goes a long way ).

You'd also need to weigh it against the harms created by prohibition. In societies that have become very restrictive regarding guns we have largely seen the intended benefits, while with Alcohol prohibition has brought on some pretty undesirable secondary effects.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

You shut your mouth sir!

They tried that once. It didnt go well.

I sometimes wonder if opponents of harm reduction and safe-supply ever think back to how ineffective prohibition was.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I sometimes wonder if opponents of harm reduction and safe-supply ever think back to how ineffective prohibition was.

Probably not.

I think safe injection sites are a good idea, but I can also empathize with NIMBYs in this case because the aftermath is not exactly a fun community-building experience.

Safe-supply is going to be a tough sell.

Especially now when really, we're just trying to keep the health care system limping along in its current form, we're not really in a position to characterize it as a leader in this type of Health Care reform.

Its a tough and complex issue. But BC is going to decriminalize personal-use amounts pretty quickly here and I guess we'll see how that goes? Maybe thats the next step?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Probably not.

I think safe injection sites are a good idea, but I can also empathize with NIMBYs in this case because the aftermath is not exactly a fun community-building experience.

Safe-supply is going to be a tough sell.

Especially now when really, we're just trying to keep the health care system limping along in its current form, we're not really in a position to characterize it as a leader in this type of Health Care reform.

Its a tough and complex issue. But BC is going to decriminalize personal-use amounts pretty quickly here and I guess we'll see how that goes? Maybe thats the next step?

I don’t know if decriminalization of personal-use amounts is effective. It’s obviously not a deterrent now, and it’s not going to prevent deaths from tainted drugs. Just legalize the whole shebang and eliminate the sketchy drug supply.

And Calgary could use some supervised consumption sites, which I think is just the result of the Province being daft in some bid to pit people against each other. Let the drug consumption in public spaces get so out of control that everyone starts spitting vitriol at the drug users and then they can just employ whatever draconian measures they want to deal with the issue.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I sometimes wonder if opponents of harm reduction and safe-supply ever think back to how ineffective prohibition was.

In many ways, it was fairly effective. Alcohol-related deaths plummeted and so did domestic abuse. Prohibition wasn’t entirely terrible. In short, it reduced alcohol consumption.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/201...ceptions-facts

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...__ffn_sectitle

[Fuzz]

River Stone Recovery Centre in downtown Fredericton opened in July 2020 and started an injectable opioid agonist treatment program in October of that year.

The program allows participants with treatment-resistant opioid-use disorder to get an individualized liquid hydromorphone prescription that can be taken up to three times each day by self-injection in the clinic.

She said 84 per cent of those taking part in the treatment were homeless at some point, but after three months of treatment, 20 per cent had housing. After six months, that doubled to 40 per cent and after two years in the program, Cross said 89 per cent of participants had stable housing.

"We could look at building jails. But to be honest, that money will be much better invested in creating housing units. The $32-million jail would probably get us about 450 new units for the Fredericton area, if you look at a housing first model," said Davidson. "So there's so much potential in how we could provide housing for people."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...679190?cmp=rss

Whatever they are doing there, we need to copy it. What a fantastic success.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...679190?cmp=rss

Whatever they are doing there, we need to copy it. What a fantastic success.

Yeah, but it's Fredericton, the Edmonton of the Maritimes.

Seriously though, at a glance that looks pretty fantastic!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Honest question time, if the BoC policy succeeds and inflation gets under control in the next year, and rate increases pause, will you admit they nailed it?

Crashing the economy and creating a full blown recession is likely going to lead to inflation going down.

Does that mean the BoC did the right thing, because hey, inflation went down?

I mean either the report has some validity, or it doesn't. If it does, and I believe it does, then the BoC needs to take that into question when they make decisions. Did they?

Obviously not given that they didn't even have the foresight to conduct this research on their own.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Crashing the economy and creating a full blown recession is likely going to lead to inflation going down.

Does that mean the BoC did the right thing, because hey, inflation went down?

I mean either the report has some validity, or it doesn't. If it does, and I believe it does, then the BoC needs to take that into question when they make decisions. Did they?

Obviously not given that they didn't even have the foresight to conduct this research on their own.

So that's a no, then?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So that's a no, then?

Careful or he’s going to accuse you of bowing down to “dear leader” as a “liberal fanboy” for lightly challenging his uneducated opinion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by #-3

Not sure it's that easy to make direct comparisons.
Social harm does need to be weighed against social benefit.

Example does that volume of economic development supported by our transportation infrastructure justify highway deaths? sadly the answer is a resounding yes.

Does the rest and relaxation / social lubrication brought by drugs/alcohol justify with harms created (how many fewer people in the worlds labour force would there be without a few good drinks, a little social lubrication goes a long way ).

You'd also need to weigh it against the harms created by prohibition. In societies that have become very restrictive regarding guns we have largely seen the intended benefits, while with Alcohol prohibition has brought on some pretty undesirable secondary effects.

My point is that if we want to decide whether something should be legal based on the societal benefits, then alcohol should be made illegal.

But of course we have long moved past that kind of reasoning as a country, and have realized that if reasonable limitations are applied, most law abiding citizens are generally not an issue.

Except when it comes to gun control. For some reason when it comes to guns all reasoning goes out the window.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...679190?cmp=rss

Whatever they are doing there, we need to copy it. What a fantastic success.

Absolutely. Housing over jails every single time.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So that's a no, then?

Must be hard for you and your pal Pepsi, who has a strange obsession with following me around on CP and cheerleads dumb posts like yours, to understand.

Either the report is valid, or it isn't.

If it is valid, then repeated and quick interest rates are not necessarily the best option when dealing with high levels of inflation.

I never said interest interest rates should NOT have gone up. My issue is entirely with the race to raise them as fast as possible.

Not to say that inflation won't go down, but holy ####, one would think driving the economy into a recession in order to 'beat inflation' wouldn't be the tunnel visioned path.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

My point is that if we want to decide whether something should be legal based on the societal benefits, then alcohol should be made illegal.

But of course we have long moved past that kind of reasoning as a country, and have realized that if reasonable limitations are applied, most law abiding citizens are generally not an issue.

Except when it comes to gun control. For some reason when it comes to guns all reasoning goes out the window.

This is not an argument to convince anyone.

With your logic - I should be able to go Home Depot and buy up a bunch of bombs if I pass my background so I can take down the unwanted building in my backyard. If anyone uses one of these bombs to do something bad - well that's just a bad actor.

There are a ton of things you can't just walk down to the store and buy because they are dangerous to society. The government - with our support or non-support - decides what that line is - and if they go too far - we can vote them out. The decision has been made that banning alcohol went too far so it was removed.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Azure

My point is that if we want to decide whether something should be legal based on the societal benefits, then alcohol should be made illegal.

But of course we have long moved past that kind of reasoning as a country, and have realized that if reasonable limitations are applied, most law abiding citizens are generally not an issue.

Except when it comes to gun control. For some reason when it comes to guns all reasoning goes out the window.

I think you missed my point, I was saying that everything Guns, Alcohol, Cars, Hockey Games... has benefits and harms.

I believe my assessment of the societal benefits of guns is lower than yours, and I think you are willfully glazing over the societal benefits of alcohol with the argument you are making.

I consider countering a prohibition black market is part of the benefit of legalization / regulation, and I believe that the prohibition effect for alcohol exerts a greater burden on society than the prohibition effect for guns when you compare 20s error USA to modern London or Australia you can clearly see the negative effects from alcohol restrictions and the positive effects from gun restrictions, maybe there's a breaking point where those effects change, but for now history tells me gun restrictions have worked well and recreational drug restrictions have not.