Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I hear a lot of this, but what is backing up that statement? Are experts in the field(researchers and law enforcement, not gun club owners) echoing that, or is it just frustrated gun users?

Look, there is a truthiness to it that feels correct. If you are asking for studies or proof points go somewhere else.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by GGG

A true accounting of alcohols cost/benefit likely would see a cigarette approach of increased taxation and denormalization.

Probably save more people than the current fight over guns.

Probably save, way, way, way more people.

In 2018, guns killed ~700 Canadians. Whereas alcohol had an estimated 15,000 deaths, 90,000 hospital admissions and 240,000 years of life lost are directly attributable to alcohol use. The cognitive dissonance surrounding alcohol and how dangerous it is blows my mind every time I run the numbers. If you really want to save canadian lives, combating booze and obesity should the top targets.

[BlindMilwaukee]

I'm not taking away from the validity of the argument that alcohol should be viewed in the light of a harmful and somewhat celebrated pastime in some people's lives when it is abused.

However, a kid having access to beer in the fridge doesn't mean they have the opportunity to bring that beer to school and purposefully kill kids/teachers.

Or a kid finding a bottle of whiskey and accidentally killing their sibling with it.

Those are two easy examples using just children. Of course there are more examples of mentally unwell adults doing the same thing.

Guns and vices taken excessively should definitely be taken seriously but it isn't fair to directly compare them against each other.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, the alcohol comparison is only compelling to incredibly simple minded people. I think most normal human adults can accurately measure the difference in destruction potential between a handgun and a can of Pabst. It’s dishonest arguing to the point of coming off as satire, done by people who have no actual argument so they bring up mindless red herrings.

“This legislation doesn’t do enough so they shouldn’t do it!”
“You think GUNS are dangerous? Wait until I tell you about ALCOHOL!”

Just nonsense. Who finds these arguments compelling or thoughtful in any way? Anybody? If shooting guns was done as frequently and casually as drinking alcohol, we can logically assume the deaths and injuries from it would outrank alcohol by a mind warping margin. It’s not just about comparing which has the biggest overall impact on society, current state, it’s about the potential for damage measured against the benefit. We don’t talk about banning cars seriously, right? Because that would be ####ing stupid and we’re not ####ing stupid, even though cars are dangerous and cause plenty of deaths. I don’t see a lot of people advocating for being able to drive a tank down Deerfoot. Why not? Don’t you guys like freedom?

Guns should be banned until I can buy missiles and meth without government or legal intervention of any kind. Anyone against the free sale of missiles and the hardest drugs money can buy is a commie Liberal supporter and a Trudeau fanboy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, the alcohol comparison is only compelling to incredibly simple minded people. I think most normal human adults can accurately measure the difference in destruction potential between a handgun and a can of Pabst. It’s dishonest arguing to the point of coming off as satire, done by people who have no actual argument so they bring up mindless red herrings.

“This legislation doesn’t do enough so they shouldn’t do it!”
“You think GUNS are dangerous? Wait until I tell you about ALCOHOL!”

Just nonsense. Who finds these arguments compelling or thoughtful in any way? Anybody? If shooting guns was done as frequently and casually as drinking alcohol, we can logically assume the deaths and injuries from it would outrank alcohol by a mind warping margin. It’s not just about comparing which has the biggest overall impact on society, current state, it’s about the potential for damage measured against the benefit. We don’t talk about banning cars seriously, right? Because that would be ####ing stupid and we’re not ####ing stupid, even though cars are dangerous and cause plenty of deaths. I don’t see a lot of people advocating for being able to drive a tank down Deerfoot. Why not? Don’t you guys like freedom?

Guns should be banned until I can buy missiles and meth without government or legal intervention of any kind. Anyone against the free sale of missiles and the hardest drugs money can buy is a commie Liberal supporter and a Trudeau fanboy.

I tend to agree with you on the Meth argument. We could probably reduce gun violence with a legalize tax and treat illicit drug use program rather than banning more guns.

The other area people completely miss the point on guns is that they are used in suicide. You don’t ban guns to prevent mass shootings. You ban guns to reduce sucucides. This is how legal guns kill people.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Ben_in_Canada

As a sports shooter, I'm really disappointed..

I agree we all want to reduce gun violence. 2 years ago, they banned the sporting rifles in the name of public safety and since then gun violence has continued to rise. We said it then and we're saying it now, it's not the legally owned guns doing this, why are spending precious resources removing legally obtained property (restricted license holders are subject to daily background checks) instead of focusing on the real issues.

I fear this is the end of shooting sports in Canada (Olympics etc)

Keep your guns at the club you shoot at.

If going to a competition, the guns need to be transported by the RCMP or equivalent.

It's not hard to find a work around to appease enthusiasts.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If we made all guns legal and encouraged folks to buy guns, the percentage of guns that were smuggled into Canada along with the percentage of crime that was committed by smuggled guns would be reduced. If you want to drive down those metrics, pumping up the number of guns is a valid approach.

Should start a petition to legalize everything to reduce crime.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Just for the record the real effect of banning guns isn't that they'd completely go away. It's two fold:

(1) limiting or eliminating legal access means everyday people can't get their hands on a gun, thus they can't accidentally shoot someone else, they can't shoot themselves, they can't use a gun in a moment of manic stress, and someone else can't use the gun. Those gun deaths and injuries literally drop to zero.

(2) Yes. Criminals will find a way. But not all criminals. You're effectively raising the price of guns. Restricting supply, and lowering the demand. Meaning price goes up. So even if you're willing to break the law to have a gun, the price is much higher.

You'll never eliminate all guns. But you'll never eliminate all crime. Doesn't mean we just repeal the Criminal Code and say "oh well, what ya gonna do?"

You can debate the effectiveness of policies, legislation, etc... but the above 2 issues hold true. You essentially need to debate within those parameters to argue in good faith.

[Macman]

I didn’t realize there was a provincial election going on in Ontario today, looks like the PCs and Doug Ford will be getting re-elected with a majority.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Macman

I didn’t realize there was a provincial election going on in Ontario today, looks like the PCs and Doug Ford will be getting re-elected with a majority.

Yep. A bigger majority than he had before.

Some of that is because of terrible campaigns by the NDP and Liberals (who have imploded for the 2nd straight election).

But other conservative parties in Canada should consider some lessons from Ford. He booted the people who went against covid rules from his party. They went and started a few splinter parties that were complete non factors in the election, while the Ontario PC's can say they don't court the far right. So voters are much less swayed by scary conservatives messages. They won seats in Toronto and other areas where the federal conservatives can't get a sniff.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Low voter turnout was a factor too. Around 45% I read which would be the lowest ever for an Ontario election.

[GirlySports]

Low turnout because it was deemed a slam dunk from the start.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm in Ontario. General sentiment is that he didn't completely crater the COVID response (not great but passable) and booted the nutjobs out. That made a big difference.

This most certainly isn't an endorsement of Ford, though. Ontario is coasting on a great economy at the moment and Ford has a 'Dad' reputation to him at the moment.

If this was two years ago it would have been ugly for him. People are a bit complacent at the moment, hence low voter turnout.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm in Ontario. General sentiment is that he didn't completely crater the COVID response (not great but passable) and booted the nutjobs out. That made a big difference.

This most certainly isn't an endorsement of Ford, though. Ontario is coasting on a great economy at the moment and Ford has a 'Dad' reputation to him at the moment.

If this was two years ago it would have been ugly for him. People are a bit complacent at the moment, hence low voter turnout.

Well, we know the feds are embracing the nutjobs, so the next federal election will go nothing like this one.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Yep. A bigger majority than he had before.

Some of that is because of terrible campaigns by the NDP and Liberals (who have imploded for the 2nd straight election).

Both party leaders stepped down after losing last night.

[madmike]

I didn't vote for Ford, but I'm not that upset about the result. The bottom line is he ditched his populist schtick a year into his government when he booted Dean French, worked well with the Feds during Covid and his only big mistake was the early re-opening in 2021. A lot of people don't like the new highway he'll be building because it is tied to plenty of the PC party's cronies, but new highways are always controversial.

Unlike Poilievre, Ford kicked most of the nut jobs in his party to the curb. And the ones he couldn't outright get rid of, he just ignores.

I am disappointed he's overspending, but so did Harper. I'd love any government that actually takes a responsible stance on spending, but economics seems to take a back seat in Canadian politics these days.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Both party leaders stepped down after losing last night.

They didn't run effective campaign - just the odd terrible ad and placed no pressure on the PCs. It basically let the PCs just not talk (they basically did no interviews) because they were a mile ahead the whole time.

[GirlySports]

Doesn't Ontario traditionally vote opposing parties provincially and federally? Kind of a cheque and balances?

Ford & Trudeau
Wynne & Harper
Harris & Chretien
Peterson & Mulrouney

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

They didn't run effective campaign - just the odd terrible ad and placed no pressure on the PCs. It basically let the PCs just not talk (they basically did no interviews) because they were a mile ahead the whole time.

I definitely didn't pay much attention to the campaigns and election but it seemed like the Liberals and NDP fought each other for scraps more than they fought against the PCs this go around. The ABC vote was splintered and I see quite a few parallels to the NDP vs Conservative win in Alberta. There seems to be quite a bit of chatter starting up about the need for a united left in Ontario.

[PeteMoss]

^Somewhat - before those guys there was like a 40 year run of the PCs though. The Liberals took over the last time when Paul Martin was the PM.

Of late - its more the Liberals and PCs party stays in control for a while until people get sick of them and then they get decimated. Then repeat the same every 2-3 elections.