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

[J-Dizzle]

6 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

Not likely.

The simple fact is the majority of the unfortunate shootings are committed using firearms obtained illegally.

A fraction of a percentage of gun violence is committed by PAL holders. 

 

But hey, it makes some people get the good feels so whatever. 

*shrugs"

Government(s) confiscating legally obtained private property is ok by those people. Go figure.

I think most of ‘those people’ just want to see others kept safe.  Unfortunately they’re - imho - barking up the wrong tree to see that happen. 

[bishopshodan]

The tech has been around for about 2 decades.

 

It could be as simple as having a watch with a chip in it. The gun would only fire if it was within 10 inches of the watch.

 

Seems simple to me what should be being implemented. 

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/what-is-smart-gun-technology

The smart gun, which ensures only its gun owner can pull the trigger, was invented nearly two decades ago. But it’s still a long way off from hitting the market. 

[Ryan Strome]

11 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

The tech has been around for about 2 decades.

 

It could be as simple as having a watch with a chip in it. The gun would only fire if it was within 10 inches of the watch.

 

Seems simple to me what should be being implemented. 

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/what-is-smart-gun-technology

The smart gun, which ensures only its gun owner can pull the trigger, was invented nearly two decades ago. But it’s still a long way off from hitting the market. 

Now I have to wear jewelry?

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Now I have to wear jewelry?

Think of it.

You could wear your Smith & Wesson watch on when you go out. 

People would see it and know you're a bad ass.

 

It actually might make some gun owners feel even more secure if they could subtly show people that they possess ballistic weapons.

[Warhippy]

27 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

Government(s) confiscating legally obtained private property is ok by those people. Go figure.

Laws change.  People protest them.

 

50 years ago it was driving while drunk

45 years ago seatbelts were the issue

35 years ago it was helmets

20 years ago it was smoking in public places

15 years ago it was flying with a bottle of water

2 years ago it was smoking pot

 

Laws change, people whine about it but life goes on and your ability to live your life doesn't change at all.  You'll still be able to own guns, you'll still be able to hunt.  But the type you're allowed to own will change.  If you're up in arms about that sorry man, you're just whining because it changes literally nothing.

[Junkyard Dog]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Now I have to wear jewelry?

Haha I know you joking but it isn't a terrible idea compared to the idea passed.

 

I do like Scheer's response to the ban even though I dislike him as a conservative myself.

[Junkyard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Laws change.  People protest them.

 

50 years ago it was driving while drunk

45 years ago seatbelts were the issue

35 years ago it was helmets

20 years ago it was smoking in public places

15 years ago it was flying with a bottle of water

2 years ago it was smoking pot

 

Laws change, people whine about it but life goes on and your ability to live your life doesn't change at all.  You'll still be able to own guns, you'll still be able to hunt.  But the type you're allowed to own will change.  If you're up in arms about that sorry man, you're just whining because it changes literally nothing.

Apples and Oranges though.

 

People mainly just don't see the point when there are better solutions available. At least that's a part of my reasoning. I also see this as a political ploy to attract more of the progressive left and for good PR. I will state that I am not a fan of those sort of tactics from both sides.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[Lancaster]

10 hours ago, inane said:

I can't take my F1 home with me at night. Nor is my F1 designed to kill people. 

 

But ok.

Sure you bring it home.  It just doesn't mean you can drive it on the street.

 

At first you were talking about rapid fire, then suddenly you're off about design/purpose.... 

Swords are designed to kill people too.  Of course, you'll just move the goalpost by using the "ease of use" argument.  

Yet when vehicles are mention, suddenly it's back to "purpose".  

 

There has been lots of facts and stats provided that can easily dissuade most people who are actually within an open mind and willing to see both side... but I guess not for you.  I mean, why let cold hard facts get into the way of dogma?

[Lancaster]

26 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Laws change.  People protest them.

 

50 years ago it was driving while drunk

45 years ago seatbelts were the issue

35 years ago it was helmets

20 years ago it was smoking in public places

15 years ago it was flying with a bottle of water

2 years ago it was smoking pot

 

Laws change, people whine about it but life goes on and your ability to live your life doesn't change at all.  You'll still be able to own guns, you'll still be able to hunt.  But the type you're allowed to own will change.  If you're up in arms about that sorry man, you're just whining because it changes literally nothing.

But a lot of those legislation were based on fact and stats.  Drinking and drive has a good chance of accidents.  Not using a seatbelt or helmet has a greater chance of injuries... the facts back those arguments.  

This firearms debate is more based on emotions and politics than anything.  

 

If a bunch of PAL holders were out committing crime, maybe an argument could be made.  But the stats are pointing out to illegal guns and from people who are actively engaging in criminal activities.... not the run-of-the-mill PAL holders.  

[Ryan Strome]

Come on Ontario, dump this loser and his cronies. 

 

Out of the nearly 160 thousand signatures, 52,103 were collected from residents of Ontario, the one place in Canada that either elects Liberals or ruins their electoral chances if they underperform.

[Warhippy]

25 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Apples and Oranges though.

 

People mainly just don't see the point when there are better solutions available. At least that's a part of my reasoning. I also see this as a political ploy to attract more of the progressive left and for good PR. I will state that I am not a fan of those sort of tactics from both sides.

The issue with the belief of attracting voters is we're 3.5 years at furthest point away from an election.

 

Again I need to reiterate and clearly that I believe a far better option for curtailing gun violence would be clamping down on the border and enacting far stricter shipping and travel regs against American goods.

 

But.  

 

People keep claiming this is dictatorial, or communistic or undemocratic or against the law.  But none of that could be further from the truth.  For me the heart of the matter is trying to remind people that this is NOT an impingement or loss of rights.  Nobody is saying no guns period.  We do not have a 2nd amendment to begin with.  This was done democratically, this was done by the letter and while I disagree with it is not illegal, undemocratic or somehow a nefarious power grab

[Lionized27]

39 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Laws change.  People protest them.

 

50 years ago it was driving while drunk

45 years ago seatbelts were the issue

35 years ago it was helmets

20 years ago it was smoking in public places

15 years ago it was flying with a bottle of water

2 years ago it was smoking pot

 

Laws change, people whine about it but life goes on and your ability to live your life doesn't change at all.  You'll still be able to own guns, you'll still be able to hunt.  But the type you're allowed to own will change.  If you're up in arms about that sorry man, you're just whining because it changes literally nothing.

Thank you for providing proof that sheeple are ok with this...not that any more evidence from you was necessary.

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

Thank you for providing proof that sheeple are ok with this...not that any more evidence from you was necessary.

Your attempted slight was attempted so you get points for that I guess.  Not that you capably addressed the poignant statement I made but hey.  You made a noise so yay for you

 

But then again, you opt to call me a sheeple while crying about potentially losing a pew pew stick or two.  So I mean a case of whining childishness vs someone following the writ of the law I guess right bud?

Edited May 3, 2020 by Warhippy

[Lionized27]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

Your attempted slight was attempted so you get points for that I guess.  Not that you capably addressed the poignant statement I made but hey.  You made a noise so yay for you

 

But then again, you opt to call me a sheeple while crying about potentially losing a pew pew stick or two.  So I mean a case of whining childishness vs someone following the writ of the law I guess right bud?

You don't like it, stop replying to my comments. 

 

Willfully ignorant indeed. Remember that?

 

 

[Warhippy]

Just now, Lionized27 said:

You don't like it, stop replying to my comments. 

 

Willfully ignorant indeed. Remember that?

 

 

I can't quit you boo 

 

I am attracted to childishness and petulant whining.  That's why I have two young daughters and a pretty wife.  but my life, was not complete until I read page after page of your incessant whining and crying about losing...literally nothing

[Lionized27]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

I can't quit you boo 

 

I am attracted to childishness and petulant whining.  That's why I have two young daughters and a pretty wife.  but my life, was not complete until I read page after page of your incessant whining and crying about losing...literally nothing

So, you're a troll.

Tell your wife I say "hi".

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

So, you're a troll.

Tell your wife I say "hi".

I did, she said she doesn't talk to children.  Something about the legalities and incessant whining involved.  

 

Me though, I can't quit you boo

 

[Warhippy]

Jokes and jabs aside

 

What actual rights are you losing to make you moan on and on about this for so long?  You keep bringing it up but what rights are you losing hmmm?

 

 

18 minutes ago, Lionized27 said:

Thank you for providing proof that sheeple are ok with this...not that any more evidence from you was necessary.

 

[Lionized27]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I did, she said she doesn't talk to children.  Something about the legalities and incessant whining involved.  

 

Me though, I can't quit you boo

 

I didn't say "ask her to respond".

How do the kids feel about daddy being an internet troll? Something you might brag about over gruel come dinner bell?

 

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

Jokes and jabs aside

 

What actual rights are you losing to make you moan on and on about this for so long?  You keep bringing it up but what rights are you losing hmmm?

 

 

 

The right to possess private, legally obtained property the government has (kind of) offered to "buy back". Two problems: they never owned it to begin with and they'd be buying it back with my own tax dollars.

The right to own goods, essentially.

 

Again, I am not losing anything here although it's only a matter of time before I am. This is only the beginning. I'm upset because I see it coming and have seen it for some time. It was about a year ago or so when you said I was "willfully ignorant" for believing this would actually become reality yet, here we are.

 

Where is that F$&€ING ignore button.

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, Warhippy said:

The issue with the belief of attracting voters is we're 3.5 years at furthest point away from an election.

 

Again I need to reiterate and clearly that I believe a far better option for curtailing gun violence would be clamping down on the border and enacting far stricter shipping and travel regs against American goods.

 

But.  

 

People keep claiming this is dictatorial, or communistic or undemocratic or against the law.  But none of that could be further from the truth.  For me the heart of the matter is trying to remind people that this is NOT an impingement or loss of rights.  Nobody is saying no guns period.  We do not have a 2nd amendment to begin with.  This was done democratically, this was done by the letter and while I disagree with it is not illegal, undemocratic or somehow a nefarious power grab

Alright thanks for clarifying where you stand. We agree on how it could of been done better or even before we considered this sort of ban.

 

I think parties always want to grow and solidify their audience that agree with them year round, regardless of whether or not we are a ways away from an election. I think that's a natural thing politicians do. Yeah they do turn it up to 11 by the time a new campaign needs to start.

 

Is it true that Trudeau passed this legislation when the Liberal party effectively shut down parliament due to Covid? That might be what people are getting at when saying it is undemocratic. I haven't experience too much of the other side to say that some may be overboard with it as you say. So I am not saying that you're wrong with people calling it communistic/dictatorial, that is kind of ridiculous a sentiment to have. However it could be considered inappropriate timing given the circumstances.

 

I have also read that a lot of these talking points were already written into law. That for decades real assault rifles and high capacity magazines were already prohibited. That some real hunting rifles and even in some cases pest rifles are on the ban list. If that's truly the case then this ban may be overboard to a degree.