ForsbergTheGreat

Personally, i'm in the 8-10 week camp and I understand how my opinion is contradictory to pro life, Because my stance can easily be debunked as purely a personal stance of a gut feeling. But the same can be made for people who are pro choice. Unless you are for abortion right up until the moment of birth, that opinion can also be easily be debunked. So really in order to be consistent, you either have to be pro life at conception or pro choice up until 9 months+. If you don't fall into either of those two groups you have to be willing to admit (which I can do) that your views have flaws to them.

And who’s fault is that. Take this thread as an example. Most people that are against this ban are open to a discussion as we tend to be the ones with a deeper background on the firearms, uses, current laws in place. The majority that are for the ban in this thread have little insight on firearms but act like they are all of the sudden experts on what guns are dangerous vs ones that are not as much. They are purely presenting an emotional response to an event. Liberals presented a thesis and positioned it as a closed case. No logic or statistics behind the decision, only an emotional position that these “assault” guns are scary. Why not support that thesis with facts and stats to back it up and justify how your solution provides any if at all of an answer to the problem at hand. why not discuss and have a debate why. Simply stating you don’t need XYZ is not a valid argument. personally with the amount of money it’s going to cost on the buy back. It could have been spent far better and resulted a much safer country with two tasks. -First they could have increased vetting for who qualifies for a firearms. We need to stop letting people with priors slip through the crack. It’s true guns are not a right and need to be earned, do something bad and lose your privilege. -Second increase boarder control and harsher penalties for those caught. These two things would go a long ways to help prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands and reduce gun related homicides. But that’s not the overall goal of the liberals. There goal is to make it a political play to by votes regardless of the end result.

See the issue most pro gun people have is people are so bent on removing these "assault" weapons, yet don't actually have the slightest clue about what that means. It's why so many pro gun people here have asked others to define what the characteristics that determine a firearm to be considered an "assault" weapon in Canada. Yet no one has even remotely tried. Most peoples knowledge is compiled based on what they have heard on the news or what they see happens in the movies... And they often confuse what's legal in the US to what isn't in Canada. You can easily pick these types out, as they constantly parrot statements that are purely emotional based using the generic terms like assault, more dangerous, and military style. You would think that before people take such a strong stance and form an unwavering opinion, that they would have at least some details beyond those generic terms as to what they are crying for. It's why pro gun people just laugh, there's no debate to be had. If someone would have stated they believe "ABC" weapons need to be banned because they have "XYZ" characteristics, then a debate could potentially start. If it ever got to that point, It would not only help broaden thier understanding on what is viewed as dangerous but people might actually take them seriously. "I don't exactly know what an assault weapon is....but i know don't like them....and Canada definitely needs to get rid of them" If that doesn't scream blind sheep then I don't what else does.

Yep, no one wants an animal to suffer, so you need to make sure you are using the right caliber to put an animal down quickly and not just wound them. Canada's made it a law. Here's a good chart for reference. And these are just rifles. Shotguns are typically used for waterfowl (geese and ducks). I have a few different types of shotguns based on the type of day it is. If it's a light rain, the semi auto 12g will often clamp up so my pump action is better in that situation. I have two 7mm rifles which is pretty versatile (I have two because I just bought a new one last year), In the last 4 years i've got a mule, whitetail, Elk and my old man shot his moose with it.. I also have a two 22, which were giving to me, they are like a 100 years old but they are perfect for gophers. and the wife likes to shoot targets with them as the have zero recoil. I may or may not have a few other guns around too ....but to be honest, i've only ever bought two. everything else was passed down to me from my old man and my grandpa. They're not worth anything to sell, so they sit in my safe for the most part.

This sums of the majority of this thread.

You need different guns based on what you are hunting. And for the most part if you hunt you eat all sorts of wild game not just deer or waterfowl, so you need a different firearm for each. It’s illegal to hunt the wrong type of game with the wrong type of firearm and for good reason.

As @Smashian Kassian said earlier. It’s a complete political play, the liberals are going to protect you from the big scary assault firearms and the people, like in this very thread, suck that crap up. Because when they hear that term COD immediately jumps in their minds. if the liberals gave a rats about reducing gun related deaths it starts with handguns. You know the type of firearm type represents 75% of Canadian gun related crime and 60% of Canadian gun homicides. The type of firearm that Canada allows to go over the 5 round magazine limit. But nope free pass on those and instead we must ban the AR-15 which has caused 3 deaths in Canada over the last 30 years. But you never hear a peep about that. Because it doesn’t buy you the fear vote. The most common reply you hear from people is, you don’t NEED to own one. Sure maybe we don’t, but Canada has a lot of things you don’t NEED. Smoking isn’t a right, alcohol isn’t a right, owning a sports car isn’t a right. There’s more smoking deaths in 2 days in Canada than yearly firearm deaths. And smoking also places a yearly health care cost of $6.6 billion a year. But we also don’t want to remove peoples freedoms. How many people would disregard the same argument in a debated for banning smoking.

Because it's not definitive. What characteristic make one firearm an "assault weapon" vs another that's not? In order define an item as dangerous to society you need to define the how and what that makes it so, it sets the bar that needs to be followed, without it you have zero consistency. Imagine if the roads didn't have an exact speed limit and instead just said it's illegal to drive fast. What if the cop who pulls you over has a different opinion on what you believe is going to fast....So again what people debating you are asking for is...What are the defining characteristic of an assault weapon, and the answer is....there isn't any.....

actually the Barret M82 comes in a ten round magazine but you had a good day though.

Because they have absolutely zero knowledge on anything firearm related... How can someone have such a strong opinion on something yet have such little background on what they believe. They fit right in with leaf fans. But then again we're talking with liberals, where their easily manipulated emotions have more power than actual facts. Trudeau adds in a scary word and their knees start trembling. Military style weapon...haha. wait tell me what military weapon has a 5 round magazine limit.

The margin in Airlines is extremely slim. They calculate their revenue by rasm (revenue per seat mile) in cents. A Calgary to Vancouver flight brings them in under $30 per seat. Much of the revenue is by ancillaries and right now with low load levels it’s not coming in. Add that govt is forcing them to fly so that people can get home with next to empty planes causing to operate at a huge loss. I expect massive layoffs and even some of the American companies declaring bankruptcy. Canada can’t have that happen with really only two options so I fully expect bail outs.

Here’s a bit of a summary from the Goldman Sachs conference call from Sunday night. There is a debate as to how to address the virus pre-vaccine. The US is tending towards quarantine. The UK is tending towards allowing it to spread so that the population can develop a natural immunity. Quarantine is likely to be ineffective and result in significant economic damage but will slow the rate of transmission giving the healthcare system more time to deal with the case load. China’s economy has been largely impacted which has affected raw materials and the global supply chain. It may take up to six months for it to recover. Global GDP growth rate will be the lowest in 30 years at around 2%. S&P 500 will see a negative growth rate of -15% to -20% for 2020 overall. There will be economic damage from the virus itself, but the real damage is driven mostly by market psychology. Viruses have been with us forever. Stock markets should fully recover in the second half of the year. Technically the market generally has been looking for a reason to reset after the longest bull market in history.

The reason why graves isn’t even on the radar is because graves is not a rookie.

Yep you are correct it was me....more than once. It’s honestly just grown so tiring spinning around in circles over and over. You feel like you explain it clear enough so they can easily understand then the topic goes away as facts are all laid out.... only for it to pop right back up two weeks later. It’s like honest why bother, some people will just never learn or better yet, purposely chose to remain ignorant. Oh well not my loss.

sure but out of that list the Toffoli, Brock and jake are the only top nine wingers that shoot right. Pod shoots left, Lind has a lot to prove before he’s Brock level replacement and imo I highly doubt he gets there considering they are only a year and a half apart. MacEwan look like a good bottom line winger maybe 3rd liner and jasek and lockwood are long shots to replace Brock. it’s really hard to predict 5 year, heck even two years to what are line up looks like. It wasn’t that long ago shinkaruk and Jensen were pegged to be top 6 wingers on our team.

It’s weird how he was having an “off season” and people are saying he is expendable with Toffoli. Toffoli looks good in the 9 games he’s played with us. But people seem to think this sample size is enough to trade away one of the brightest young players on this roster? Boeser is just turned 23 years old and is in his third NHL season. In his first two seasons he’s put up back to back 25+ goal, 55+ points seasons. This year he was on pace for 23 goals and his highest point total of 65 points in what people were calling a “down” year. To put that into perspective, Toffoli is turning 28 next month and is in his 7th NHL season this year. In that time frame he’s only cracked the 25 goal mark ONCE, he’s only cracked the 55 point mark ONCE. This year in a contract year he’s on pace for just meeting the 50 point mark, even if he were to finish out the season on the p/gp pace he’s been on since the trade he’d still only finished with 56 points. Boeser’s just scratching the surface of what he will become but with Toffoli you know what you are getting. And while that he does bring other tangibles, our roster is filled with those traits. Miller, Leivo, Horvat, Virtanen, Pearson and even to a lesser extent Eriksson, Roussel and Sutter. To be successfully this roster needs to sprinkle in some pure skill. Petty needs that for his chemistry, it’s why he and Goldy connected so well, players that are able to slow the game down and read off of each other. And while yes, the games have become tighter but since Brock has went down Petey’s productions has dropped from 1.02p/gp to only .76p/gp. I like Toffoli and if Canucks could keep him at a decent cost, that would be great considering the value we gave up, but to me keeping Toffoli doesn’t mean a guy like Brock becomes expendable. We need more players like Brock not less.

I'm going to be honest. I'm Albertan but I also don't really agree with separation and in all honestly I don't think it will ever happen. Although many people don't know, Alberta is more than oil and gas and many of these Albertan companies are integrated with Canada it would make it extremely difficult to have a clear divorce. But with that said, if it were to ever happen, i don't see many Albertan's leaving, When you consider the cost of moving, job search and cost of living in other places even if you were completely against separation i don't think packing up and leaving is a realistic option at least in the short term. Just think of all the Americans going to move to canada if trump won, yeah that didn't happen. Moving is a lot of work. The amount of people that do leave, you will also probably see the same influx of people moving into Alberta with the promise of better opportunity.

I really don't by this argument. Just because some areas are being cut doesn't mean life doesn't move forwards. It's the same with people that got mad at JT for buying donuts or going on vacation. I honestly don't care what he does, the guy still is a person and wants to live. You can't expect people of that status to live like peasants.. Just don't get caught spending tax dollars on hookers and blow and i'm ok with it. In terms of the tax breaks, you have to understand the alternative, seriously whats better watching a company leave and collecting zero taxes or giving them a higher incentive to resume/increase business, yes means lowering the short term taxes collected. But again some taxes collected is better than none. People look at this so narrow sighted as if things will always remain status quo and there will always be husky tax revenue coming in, no companies are in the business to make a profit, If another location will bring a higher ROI they have no issue packing up and moving out. That's actually what's happening, the parks that are basically lost caused will be turned into crown land. Many of these parks have potential in the long term. Like i said I can see municipalities taking the lead on this as they have the most to gain. Not just from profits of the park but driving traffic to their respected communities. It's a two way street and 160 parks are up for a partnership, we will see how many people actually engage and put forth a business plan regarding any. If no one wants to maintain them, again they will be turned into crown land, people will still be allowed stay there but they will not be maintained aka don't use the restroom and bring your own firewood. It's a tall task but that's why we give ourselves goals and build out strategic plans. It's better to push and fail than to accept defeat without trying. While those places are nice, Alberta has a lot more to offer

So what would you propose? Should Alberta heavily invest in upgrading these sites? Im actually curious to hear. alberta had 3 options. 1) maintain status quo and watch them get run down even more and waste more money (5 million) 2) invest so that when/if the economy flips and people once again have recreational spend, that these parks might see returns 3) partner with non profits, municipalities and aboriginals to take over maintaining these parks.

I know you hate everything the UPC does no matter what, but I’d challenge you to play the devils advocate for this time. Can you think of any reasons why this would be a good thing? I’ll give you a head start. You can’t keep dumping money into maintaining sites (some of which require helicopter access) that see less than 100 people per year. In 2018, Sulphur lake only had 36 people, Smoke River only saw 22 people, Crow lake only saw 81 people, the list goes on and on. So regardless of the war room money or not, these were not wise ways to spend money would you not agree? It’s an easy way to spin the narrative and shout at the current political party in power but there’s a lot of cry about nothing. Many of these sites have seen a consistent decline in attendance, they are run down and in need of some long term investment. The type of investment that without a strategic and individual focus will not see a ROI. So they are “leasing” out these parks, they are not selling off land but entering a leasing partnership that will allow a nonprofit, municipality or aboriginals and run and maintain. I imaging more of the partnerships will be made with municipalities as they have the most to gain. This has been happening for last 20 years in a number of different provincial parks. This saves them 5 million in the budget and gives some parks a bit hope of revival. As far as the tourism goes. You might want to clarify your understanding on the matter. Alberta isn’t doubling its investment to 20 billion over the next decade like you stated, they aren’t even doubling their investment. They are just hoping to double provincial tourism REVENUE to 20 billion by 2030.

if that’s the case why did we draft a center? Heck why would the canucks draft any center for the next 5 years? the reason is you can predict why this roster is going to look like even a year from now. just because you view a player as expendable doesn’t mean it doesn’t become a need for this team a few years from now. If madden continues his progression he could very well replace one of our current centers or better yet he moves to wing as many players do when they reach the NHL. Its not like the canucks couldn’t use another skilled right handed shot in there system LA Kings have drafted 5 centers in first 2 rounds over the last 3 years and they still saw value in madden.

Pure garbage. They should rip the letter off him and hand it over to miller.

Stupid tkachuk