Liberals Ban Hundreds More Types of Firearms

[cunning linguist]

Still unable to tell the difference between civilian and governmental functions?

How many semi-auto guns do you own and how many times have you needed to deal with herds of feral hogs?

Yeah, the difference is rules for thee, not for me. How can a group of people claim to be held to a higher standard when they're exempt from the laws they're supposed to uphold?

Where are the unsafe storage charges for the officers and clerks who have lost over 200 guns?

Or this?

Police searching for missing riot gear find their chief's gun under car seat

Chief Jamie Graham chastised for leaving service pistol in vehicle to attend a news conference

www.theglobeandmail.com

Or this?

https://dennisryoung.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/813-Guns-Lost-and-Stolen-from-Police-and-Public-Agencies-July-3-2019.pdf

There are a couple of million PAL holders in Canada, under 100,000 LE; civilians have a better track record.

 

[cunning linguist]

An admission that you are more interested in your hobby of shooting things quickly than you are about Canadian law which is based on utility.

I don't care what you want to call guns but having to wait a second before shooting again doesn't impact civilian life.

Canadian firearm law isn't based on utility, it's punitive.

But from a pragmatic viewpoint, it's also a gigantic waste of money. Remember the billions sunk into the long gun registry? How about the tens of millions wasted now over the consultation for a buy back boondoggle?

Any time Liberals announce a new gun control scheme, it's a ploy to virtue signal and burn money.

 

[cunning linguist]

And still the excuses because you know that there is no legitimate need for civilians in the Canadian context to own semi-auto long guns, especially with the 5 round cartridge.

Excuses? That's the pot calling the kettle black.

You haven't been able to explain why you're not even aware that PAL holders residences can be searched, despite [bullshit] "allegedly being a shooter yourself." [/bullshit]

So on top of your fake moose hunting story, you've gone from little to zero credibility.

 

[GameBoy27]

Yet every single one who chooses to keep their gun loaded for self defense or every owner who chooses not to properly lock up their guns isn't law abiding and is increasing the chances of their gun being accidentally discharged or taken by someone who will use it for criminal purposes. There are a wide variety of estimates of the sources of guns used in crimes but some data has Canadian owned guns either being stolen or sold illegally making up from 20%-60%.

And that doesn't change the fact that under the standards of Canadian law, semi-auto rifles serve very little legitimate purpose in civilian hands.

“Exclusive data obtained by Reuters for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, shows that when handguns involved in crimes were traced in 2021, they were overwhelmingly - 85% of the time - found to have come from the United States.”

Here’s a simple question. When was the last time someone was shot in Toronto with one of the guns on the list of banned weapons?

 

[basketcase]

“Exclusive data obtained by Reuters for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, shows that when handguns involved in crimes were traced in 2021, they were overwhelmingly - 85% of the time - found to have come from the United States.”

Here’s a simple question. When was the last time someone was shot in Toronto with one of the guns on the list of banned weapons?

As I said, different studies have a wide variety of conclusions.

As to your question, I don't have the data. Neither do you.

 

[basketcase]

Yeah, the difference is rules for thee, not for me. ...

Yes. That's how society works. The government has options the rest of us don't and we get to vote for who runs that government. Are you some kind of sovereign citizen?

And they aren't exempt. The law allows them to use those guns. Again, you're arguing that it's unfair that the Army gets top use Leopard 2's and you can't.

 

[basketcase]

Canadian firearm law isn't based on utility, it's punitive.
...

You seem to have the opinion that any law you don't like is punitive. Are you upset we live in a form of democracy?

Laws state what is allowed. The punishment is only if you refuse to follow the law.

 

[basketcase]

Excuses? That's the pot calling the kettle black.

You haven't been able to explain why you're not even aware that PAL holders residences can be searched, despite [bullshit] "allegedly being a shooter yourself." [/bullshit]

So on top of your fake moose hunting story, you've gone from little to zero credibility.

Ah, the excuses. If all you can do is knit pick wording, you really have no point to argue. The reality is police don't do spot checks. In extreme cases where there is other criminal activity or mental health crisis, they might use that wording to remove guns but it's not something that happens.

And it doesn't change that the only argument you've backed up is you want guns and don't like the government making laws without your approval.

 

[cunning linguist]

Ah, the excuses. If all you can do is knit pick wording, you really have no point to argue. The reality is police don't do spot checks. In extreme cases where there is other criminal activity or mental health crisis, they might use that wording to remove guns but it's not something that happens.

And it doesn't change that the only argument you've backed up is you want guns and don't like the government making laws without your approval.

You needed two days to respond. Guess you had to call your "hunting buddy" for clarification.

Police can do spot checks, to say otherwise is disingenuous. You're the one nit picking because it doesn't happen enough for your liking. But of course it doesn't happen on a regular basis, why should it? PAL holders are already checked in CPIC daily, why waste sending a cruiser over to check a safe when there hasn't been a credible threat established?

Liberals have already wasted 60 million dollars on consulting a buy back boondoggle. The actual buy back is projected to be in the nighbourhood of 800 million.

So for the past 4 years, these guns have been "too dangerous" to own and use. But since they haven't come up with an expensive enough buy back scheme yet, the only legal option has been for owners to keep storing them.

Pretzel logic.

The gun issue has been a Liberal boogyman so they can continue to be invited to a photo op every December, in Montreal and to use as a wedge issue when it's election time. Except crime has gone up during Trudeau's tenure, so he can't even argue it's for public safety.

 

[GameBoy27]

As I said, different studies have a wide variety of conclusions.

As to your question, I don't have the data. Neither do you.

See the data below. It wasn't hard to find. It also proves my point. Trudeau's wasting time and money banning something that's not the number one issue. But typical for him and the Liberals.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-005-x/2022001/article/00002-eng.htm

 

[basketcase]

You needed two days to respond.

I'm not franky, logged on to here 24/7. Some days I do this thing like pretend I have a social life.

And still waiting for the reasons why you "need" a semi-auto rifle.

 

[cunning linguist]

I'm not franky, logged on to here 24/7. Some days I do this thing like pretend I have a social life.

And still waiting for the reasons why you "need" a semi-auto rifle.

Epic dodge.

Concession accepted.

 

[basketcase]

Epic dodge.

Concession accepted.

Lol.

Still waiting for why regular Canadians NEED a semi-auto rifle and why you think a 5 round magazine limit is unfair.

 

[cunning linguist]

Lol.

Still waiting for why regular Canadians NEED a semi-auto rifle and why you think a 5 round magazine limit is unfair.

Justifying "need" is stupid; it's irrelevant especially when you have failed time and again to justify why they shouldn't be available AND how such a costly program can improve public safety. Might as well argue against automatic transmissions or disposable lighters.

If necessity was enough justification for or against something, society would have much fewer choices and freedoms.

 

[basketcase]

Justifying "need" is stupid; it's irrelevant especially when you have failed time and again to justify why they shouldn't be available AND how such a costly program can improve public safety. Might as well argue against automatic transmissions or disposable lighters.

If necessity was enough justification for or against something, society would have much fewer choices and freedoms.

Thank you for admitting there is no civilian need for semi-auto long guns. Next step is for you to admit that the societal need for semi-autos is outweighed by the potential dangers, the same reason why cars, planes, and pretty much every field have had safety regulations added over the years.

Most important is in our form of democracy, the government are the ones making the decisions. We can all lobby them but when it comes down to it...

Do you think that Poilievre's government will actually loosen gun laws when elected?

 

[cunning linguist]

Thank you for admitting there is no civilian need for semi-auto long guns. Next step is for you to admit that the societal need for semi-autos is outweighed by the potential dangers, the same reason why cars, planes, and pretty much every field have had safety regulations added over the years.

Most important is in our form of democracy, the government are the ones making the decisions. We can all lobby them but when it comes down to it...

Do you think that Poilievre's government will actually loosen gun laws when elected?

The "potential dangers" are exaggerated and just as applicable to the rules for thee, not for me crowd. It's utter hypocrisy.

"Need" is such a bullshit argument, responsible use is what matters.

Banning a bunch of semi-autos has demonstrably not done anything to improve public safety and has always been a gigantic waste of taxpayers' money.

Did Trudeau legalize prostitution?

Difference being, Johns and SPs aren't put on a centralized government watch list.

 

[basketcase]

The "potential dangers" are exaggerated and just as applicable to the rules for thee, not for me crowd. It's utter hypocrisy.

"Need" is such a bullshit argument, responsible use is what matters.

Banning a bunch of semi-autos has demonstrably not done anything to improve public safety and has always been a gigantic waste of taxpayers' money.

Did Trudeau legalize prostitution?

Difference being, Johns and SPs aren't put on a centralized government watch list.

Okay then. By the way, what weapons did the NO terrorist have?

And despite your libertarianesque views when it benefits you, we have a government that decides what 'responsible use' is acceptable.

p.s. The basic purpose of sex is to create life. For guns it's to take it. Both can be fun to 'practice' but fun doesn't mean it has to be legal.

 

[cunning linguist]

Okay then. By the way, what weapons did the NO terrorist have?

And despite your libertarianesque views when it benefits you, we have a government that decides what 'responsible use' is acceptable.

p.s. The basic purpose of sex is to create life. For guns it's to take it. Both can be fun to 'practice' but fun doesn't mean it has to be legal.

Thought we were discussing gun laws in Canada. What weapons did the Portapique shooter have? Oh yeah, smuggled, illegal firearms; like almost every shooter we hear about in the news.

 

[basketcase]

You're the one who wants our guns law to be more American yet you don't want to discuss the results, even though you admit that the US free market is the source of many guns used in crime.

And funny to see you wanting to talk about Canadian gun laws while arguing against Canadian gun laws.