Nova Scotia shooter dead after killing 22 people/CDN Govt "assault style" weapons ban.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

But check the numbers and forget about his grammar. Problem is it doesn't fit your narrative. 

Better border security. This buy back is 1 billion dollars. Fund better border security. 

OK but realistically, what would that look like? what would that 1 billion go in to?

[Ryan Strome]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

OK but realistically, what would that look like? what would that 1 billion go in to?

Better screening and better technology is a start imo.

[JM_]

31 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Better screening and better technology is a start imo.

do we even really know the main points of entry? I'm actually interested if you've looked into this or have read about it. Is it over standard crossings, tucked into rail cars, via reserves that border the US? I wonder what the major routes are?

 

some of it seems to be at regular crossings but that number seems really low for whats likely on the street:

 

The majority of the illegal guns in Canada used to be smuggled across the border from the U.S., but that seems to be changing. According to police, a growing number of guns are bought legally in Canada and resold on the black market, or made here illegally.

 

That's not to say smuggling isn't still a problem. The number of firearms confiscated at the Canada-U.S. border has fluctuated over the years — 751 were seized during the 2017-18 fiscal year, according to the Canada Border Services Agency.

They are hidden in gas tanks, the trunks of cars, in luggage, or on someone's body. In one remarkable instance involving Montrealer Alexis Vlachos, firearms were smuggled through a public library that straddles the border with the U.S.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/national-gun-trafficking-straw-buying-smuggling-firearms-1.5126228

 

 

It also looks like domestic supply is on the increase:

 

The number of guns obtained legally in Canada but are then sold to people who use them for criminal purposes has surged dramatically in recent years compared to firearms smuggled from the United States, Toronto police say.

In recent years, they say, investigators have noticed a stark shift in where guns used to commit crimes are coming from.

 

Before 2012, about 75 per cent of the firearms were trafficked from the United States. By 2017, however, about half originated from domestic sources, putting an end to the idea that most of Canada's illegal guns come from across the border, Det. Rob Di Danieli of the guns and gangs unit said.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/guns-domestic-danforth-shooting-toronto-1.4759159

Edited May 24, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[You Mad Bro?]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Cmon man. I mean look at the second one. Who needs a gun like that? It’s common sense. No one needs a fully semi automatic assault weapon. The pink one looks normal. So it’s obviously ok. I don’t own guns or know anything about them but I mean cmon, it’s common sense. If we just ban those scary looking guns people will never be shot with them. Because obviously criminals won’t be able to get their hands on them if we ban them. It’s common sense. 
 

#liberal logic 

[JM_]

28 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

Cmon man. I mean look at the second one. Who needs a gun like that? It’s common sense. No one needs a fully semi automatic assault weapon. The pink one looks normal. So it’s obviously ok. I don’t own guns or know anything about them but I mean cmon, it’s common sense. If we just ban those scary looking guns people will never be shot with them. Because obviously criminals won’t be able to get their hands on them if we ban them. It’s common sense. 
 

#liberal logic 

I have a solution, lets ban both. 

[You Mad Bro?]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I have a solution, lets ban both. 

Honestly, I respect that argument more than ‘ban the scary looking ones’. At least it’s black and white. I would completely disagree with you, but respect that stance more. 

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

Honestly, I respect that argument more than ‘ban the scary looking ones’. At least it’s black and white. I would completely disagree with you, but respect that stance more. 

the scary ones are just the start, they'll close the loop on the other ones with the same function soon enough. Its very easy to add names to a list on a regulation. 

 

I suspect the logic on the "scary" ban is they think the crazies are more attracted to the 'assault rifle' look. Yes I know thats not a real term. 

[You Mad Bro?]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

the scary ones are just the start, they'll close the loop on the other ones with the same function soon enough. Its very easy to add names to a list on a regulation. 

 

I suspect the logic on the "scary" ban is they think the crazies are more attracted to the 'assault rifle' look. Yes I know thats not a real term. 

Assault rifle is a real term. It’s a magazine fed fully automatic rifle designed for military use. Which are illegal in both Canada and America and have been for decades. Assault weapon is a made up term the left likes. And use it to dump as many ‘scary looking’ guns as they want into that category. 

[Lancaster]

11 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

But the fact is, I don't need to do that. 8/10 people in Canada want more gun control. Our discussion to this point hasn't moved me off that position at all. I haven't seen anything yet in this thread from the gun lobby or enthusiasts that provide more solitons, just excuses as to why one idea or another won't work. 

 

I don't need to educate myself, you need to educate me. Tell me something that would help reduce gun crime if you don't like my suggestions. 

 

 

Once again you're avoiding talking about what is "reasonable" because you have no idea what is "reasonable"... or maybe it's so excessive that anyone who has even heard of the book "1984" would find it abusive. 

 

 

The cold hard facts it that the majority of gun crimes and firearms related death (outside of suicides) are from illicit activities.  Human trafficking, drug smuggling/distribution, organized crime, gang wannabees, etc.  How many regular law-abiding gun owners are engaged in those activities?  Are there some?  I wouldn't say with 100% certainty there aren't..... but lets just say the guy pimping out girls and getting them hooked on drugs isn't walking around with his PAL and ATT.  

 

That's why it's hard to put forth a "solution"... since it's there is no problem to begin with.  It's a completely different issue altogether.  The only "constant" is that firearms are involved... but just actually put your emotions away and you realize it's very very different types of firearms and from vastly different source.  It's like banning Advil because there are addicts abusing heroin..... or banning Honda Civics because some rich kids are driving 200km+ in their Ferraris.  Yes, one is "drugs" and other appears to be "sports cars"... but anyone with any cognitive thinking will know that Advil and Heroin are drugs... but very different.  Both a Civic and Ferrari are vehicles... but not the same type of vehicle. 

 

When you gloss over this, you're not out to protect the public, you're just either subconsciously afraid of something, or you're being insidious... which would make you more dangerous than any legal firearms owner.  

Edited May 25, 2020 by Lancaster

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Once again you're avoiding talking about what is "reasonable" because you have no idea what is "reasonable"... or maybe it's so excessive that anyone who has even heard of the book "1984" would find it abusive. 

 

 

The cold hard facts it that the majority of gun crimes and firearms related death (outside of suicides) are from illicit activities.  Human trafficking, drug smuggling/distribution, organized crime, gang wannabees, etc.  How many regular law-abiding gun owners are engaged in those activities?  Are there some?  I wouldn't say with 100% certainty there aren't..... but lets just say the guy pimping out girls and getting them hooked on drugs isn't walking around with his PAL and ATT.  

 

That's why it's hard to put forth a "solution"... since it's there is no problem to begin with.  It's a completely different issue altogether.  The only "constant" is that firearms are involved... but just actually put your emotions away and you realize it's very very different types of firearms and from vastly different source.  It's like banning Advil because there are addicts abusing heroin..... or banning Honda Civics because some rich kids are driving 200km+ in their Ferraris.  Yes, one is "drugs" and other appears to be "sports cars"... but anyone with any cognitive thinking will know that Advil and Heroin are drugs... but very different.  Both a Civic and Ferrari are vehicles... but not the same type of vehicle. 

 

When you gloss over this, you're not out to protect the public, you're just either subconsciously afraid of something, or you're being insidious... which would make you more dangerous than any legal firearms owner.  

so now you claim I have a philosophy thats more dangerous than guns? I dunno, maybe you and I have reached the end of our conversation. I just posted a link to the increase in domestic access to guns for crime and you quote 1984? I just don't see how we can have a reasonable conversation if this is where we end up 

 

If this is all gun owners have you guys are in for a lot more angst. 

 

[Lancaster]

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

so now you claim I have a philosophy thats more dangerous than guns? I dunno, maybe you and I have reached the end of our conversation. I just posted a link to the increase in domestic access to guns for crime and you quote 1984? I just don't see how we can have a reasonable conversation if this is where we end up 

 

If this is all gun owners have you guys are in for a lot more angst. 

 

You should actually read the follow-up articles to the links you provided.  It pretty much gives a much more accurate portrayal of the numbers... and it's not what you think.

In any case, I've posted many stuff from StatsCan... but why don't you ever take those into considerations?

 

Our conversation hasn't been going anywhere, but the onus isn't on me.  I have been asking you what your idea of an actual search for illicit firearms would be like, what are your requirements for having a warrant issued for such a search, etc.  So far... you've given nothing either than vague notion of status in society or something, or maybe something about the police will somehow know what to do.... then you go about asking/demanding how the law-abiding firearms community should do more to stop criminals from getting the illegal weapons.

 

So far, the LAGO just wants to be left alone, they don't ask the non-firearms owners to bend over backwards for them.  That all rules and regulations should be approached with facts.  

Unfortunately, individuals like yourself wishes to impose whatever ideology or rules or whatever upon others for no legitimate reasons.  You get all "think of the children".... even when it's the wrong group of people you're targeting.  Your refusal to provide what is "reasonable" seems more like you're willing to just hand over a blank cheque to whoever to get what you want.  

 

The facts proves that LAGO are not the issue... but apparently fact doesn't matter in your world.  It's apparently emotions over empirical evidence.  When you make irrational choices and want them to be applied to others, the yes, that is dangerous.  In any other context, it would be as clear as day it's a bad thing to do.  But due to your own biases and inability to comprehend anything either than "gunz R bad!".... you don't even know it.  

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

You should actually read the follow-up articles to the links you provided.  It pretty much gives a much more accurate portrayal of the numbers... and it's not what you think.

In any case, I've posted many stuff from StatsCan... but why don't you ever take those into considerations?

 

Our conversation hasn't been going anywhere, but the onus isn't on me.  I have been asking you what your idea of an actual search for illicit firearms would be like, what are your requirements for having a warrant issued for such a search, etc.  So far... you've given nothing either than vague notion of status in society or something, or maybe something about the police will somehow know what to do.... then you go about asking/demanding how the law-abiding firearms community should do more to stop criminals from getting the illegal weapons.

 

So far, the LAGO just wants to be left alone, they don't ask the non-firearms owners to bend over backwards for them.  That all rules and regulations should be approached with facts.  

Unfortunately, individuals like yourself wishes to impose whatever ideology or rules or whatever upon others for no legitimate reasons.  You get all "think of the children".... even when it's the wrong group of people you're targeting.  Your refusal to provide what is "reasonable" seems more like you're willing to just hand over a blank cheque to whoever to get what you want.  

 

The facts proves that LAGO are not the issue... but apparently fact doesn't matter in your world.  It's apparently emotions over empirical evidence.  When you make irrational choices and want them to be applied to others, the yes, that is dangerous.  In any other context, it would be as clear as day it's a bad thing to do.  But due to your own biases and inability to comprehend anything either than "gunz R bad!".... you don't even know it.  

and you've done nothing to convince me to not keep supporting more gun laws. I'm in line with the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs on long guns and want to see RCMP have more power to follow up on reports that would have helped stop the NS shooter, and you're quoting 1984 at me and going with the LAGO rant which makes no logical sense, but whatever. 

 

Lets end this tho, you and i are never going to agree. 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[You Mad Bro?]

1 hour ago, Lancaster said:

You should actually read the follow-up articles to the links you provided.  It pretty much gives a much more accurate portrayal of the numbers... and it's not what you think.

In any case, I've posted many stuff from StatsCan... but why don't you ever take those into considerations?

 

Our conversation hasn't been going anywhere, but the onus isn't on me.  I have been asking you what your idea of an actual search for illicit firearms would be like, what are your requirements for having a warrant issued for such a search, etc.  So far... you've given nothing either than vague notion of status in society or something, or maybe something about the police will somehow know what to do.... then you go about asking/demanding how the law-abiding firearms community should do more to stop criminals from getting the illegal weapons.

 

So far, the LAGO just wants to be left alone, they don't ask the non-firearms owners to bend over backwards for them.  That all rules and regulations should be approached with facts.  

Unfortunately, individuals like yourself wishes to impose whatever ideology or rules or whatever upon others for no legitimate reasons.  You get all "think of the children".... even when it's the wrong group of people you're targeting.  Your refusal to provide what is "reasonable" seems more like you're willing to just hand over a blank cheque to whoever to get what you want.  

 

The facts proves that LAGO are not the issue... but apparently fact doesn't matter in your world.  It's apparently emotions over empirical evidence.  When you make irrational choices and want them to be applied to others, the yes, that is dangerous.  In any other context, it would be as clear as day it's a bad thing to do.  But due to your own biases and inability to comprehend anything either than "gunz R bad!".... you don't even know it.  

Lol pretty much.

 

”Guns are bad!! Orange man bad!!”

 

”Why?”

 

”Because I said so! Jeeeez! Idiot”

 

Edit: My god do we need hockey back. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by You Mad Bro?

[Kanukfanatic]

On 5/25/2020 at 7:47 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

so now you claim I have a philosophy thats more dangerous than guns? I dunno, maybe you and I have reached the end of our conversation. I just posted a link to the increase in domestic access to guns for crime and you quote 1984? I just don't see how we can have a reasonable conversation if this is where we end up 

 

If this is all gun owners have you guys are in for a lot more angst. 

 

Your condescending writing does not help "if this is all anti gun" people have.  

 

See...we can all type like you. You have already shown a lack of understanding of the whole issue. That is why I stopped responding to all your anti gun rhetoric.

[Kanukfanatic]

On 5/25/2020 at 8:38 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

Lets end this tho, you and i are never going to agree. 

 

Please do.

[JM_]

30 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Your condescending writing does not help "if this is all anti gun" people have.  

 

See...we can all type like you. You have already shown a lack of understanding of the whole issue. That is why I stopped responding to all your anti gun rhetoric.

not sure why you're choosing to make this personal. But, whatever floats your boat.

 

You still haven't shared where you get your expertise from on the topic btw. 

[Down by the River]

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-nova-scotia-killer-had-ties-to-criminals-and-withdrew-a-huge-sum-of-cash-before-the-shooting/

 

The Nova Scotia shooter case has hallmarks of an undercover operation

 

Basically, the story presents opinions from multiple people (former officers, banking experts) that the nature of Wortman's cash withdrawals align with how the RCMP pays confidential informants or 'agents'. The fact that he was not investigated for domestic assault, other offenses is speculated to have been because he was working for the RCMP.

 

-----

EDIT: At least one person with expertise in the area thinks that the story is BS... and after reading her points I would favor agreeing with her:

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Down by the River

[Lancaster]

On 6/20/2020 at 7:42 AM, Down by the River said:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-nova-scotia-killer-had-ties-to-criminals-and-withdrew-a-huge-sum-of-cash-before-the-shooting/

 

The Nova Scotia shooter case has hallmarks of an undercover operation

 

Basically, the story presents opinions from multiple people (former officers, banking experts) that the nature of Wortman's cash withdrawals align with how the RCMP pays confidential informants or 'agents'. The fact that he was not investigated for domestic assault, other offenses is speculated to have been because he was working for the RCMP.

 

-----

EDIT: At least one person with expertise in the area thinks that the story is BS... and after reading her points I would favor agreeing with her:

 

 

Not really into conspiracy theories, but it's good to double check and review everything.

What I find still very suspicious is why the RCMP still doesn't release the type of all the firearms used.  

[Russ]

6 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Not really into conspiracy theories, but it's good to double check and review everything.

What I find still very suspicious is why the RCMP still doesn't release the type of all the firearms used.  

Usually doesn't take nearly this long.  One of my facebook groups about guns has sources that say it wasn't any AR15s or anything like that.  How legit is that?  Who the hell knows.  But it really seems like the RCMP is trying to let the story die out to justify the gun ban when if it comes out non were semis then the whole thing is a sham.  I like a good conspriacy but don't like them when they involve peoples lives being harmed, would love to just have straight up legit facts.

[Grapefruits]

On 5/25/2020 at 8:38 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

and you've done nothing to convince me to not keep supporting more gun laws. I'm in line with the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs on long guns and want to see RCMP have more power to follow up on reports that would have helped stop the NS shooter, and you're quoting 1984 at me and going with the LAGO rant which makes no logical sense, but whatever. 

 

Lets end this tho, you and i are never going to agree. 

 

They don't need more power.  If they followed current laws and the powers that they have the shooting never would have happened.