Toronto shootings

[hannibal]

Justin Trudeau has said that he would ban AR-15 rifle in Canada and enforce it with a mandatory $250m buyback program.

Q: How many people have been killed in Canada by AR-15, (the rifle he plans to ban) in the last 10 years?

Answer to this question will lead you to truth and how much JT cares. It all about optics.

 

[hannibal]

BTW AR-15 is the most popular rifle in Canada with more than 200K with RPAL holders.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That's a weak response - organized crime constitute a far more existential threat than random bangers that have little to no access to conventional political power.

AoD

I disagree. One block south of me in Regent Park I've had at least four street gang murders I can recall, plus multiple non-fatal shootings. The bangers, if only due to their sloppy marksmanship are a greater risk to me and my family than any mafia or biker gang.

 

[Admiral Beez]

BTW AR-15 is the most popular rifle in Canada with more than 200K with RPAL holders.

Considering that Canada is a large producer of AR-15 type rifles, this doesn't surprise me. You can buy one with free home shipping from several Canadian retailers https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/mayor-john-torys-toronto.20871/page-347#post-1470806

I've been thinking of getting my RPAL permit, to take up the rifle shooting I used to do in army cadets back in the 1980s. Though I can't imagine needing or wanting an AR-15 for that. I'm more looking for a Lee Enfield Mark IV like I used back in the day. http://usedfirearms.ca/ad-tag/lee-enfield/

 

[hannibal]

The point I am trying to make is that Liberal firearms policy misdirected. banning gun from law abiding legal owner wont solve anything. law abiding owners will hand in their guns.

Do you think the gang bangers will?


Also the on Ar-15, it has not been used to kill anybody in Canada Ever. It has been inCanada for 50+ years

 

[Admiral Beez]

Also the on Ar-15, it has not been used to kill anybody in Canada Ever. It has been inCanada for 50+ years

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. The panic over AR-15s is more a US thing, IMO. Here is Canada we're worried about handguns ending up in illegal hands. Yes, most come through the US, but many come from robberies of gun shops and gun owners. If we ban handguns, that would leave only the US border to worry about.

 

[narduch]

The point I am trying to make is that Liberal firearms policy misdirected. banning gun from law abiding legal owner wont solve anything. law abiding owners will hand in their guns.

Do you think the gang bangers will?


Also the on Ar-15, it has not been used to kill anybody in Canada Ever. It has been inCanada for 50+ years

Why can't we do both though? Why does it have to be either or?

Nobody NEEDS to own an AR-15.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The point I am trying to make is that Liberal firearms policy misdirected. banning gun from law abiding legal owner wont solve anything. law abiding owners will hand in their guns.

Do you think the gang bangers will?

Also the on Ar-15, it has not been used to kill anybody in Canada Ever. It has been inCanada for 50+ years

Are you sure? Recall the threats by gunowners to ignore previous bans - Canadians about about law abiding as red-light stopping - i.e. not very if they can get away with it. Also we know the mass-casualty potential of this weapon - whether it has happened in Canada or not is not germane.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I disagree. One block south of me in Regent Park I've had at least four street gang murders I can recall, plus multiple non-fatal shootings. The bangers, if only due to their sloppy marksmanship are a greater risk to me and my family than any mafia or biker gang.

Yeah, you want to compare and contrast that with extension involvement with drug, prostitution, corruption, and other kinds of unsavory and illegal activities? Risk to you is one thing - don't mistake it for risk to society at large.

AoD

 

[hannibal]

The panic over AR-15s is more

Why can't we do both though? Why does it have to be either or?

Nobody NEEDS to own an AR-15.

Agree nobody NEEDS it.

Also no body needs F-150.

Spending 250mm+ which can easily balloon to $1B+ to solve a problem which dos not exist is not prudent policy.

Spending that money $1B to create jobs and livelihood for troubled youth would go a long way in saving lives and improving lives. Alot more bang for the tax dollars.

It about policy.

 

[hannibal]

Are you sure? Recall the threats by gunowners to ignore preivous bans - Canadians about about law abiding as red-light stopping - i.e. not very if they can get away with it. Also we know the mass-casualty potential of this weapon - whether it has happened in Canada or not is not germane.

AoD

Yes I am sure.

Potential but no history. Also there are many more types of guns with potential. Also white panel van or trucks also have a potential to create massive casualties.
If you really wanna ban guns, start with ban handgun and see what impact does it have. At least we know handguns are used t kill anywhere between 50-80 people each years in Canada.

Why leave handgun as is and ban Ar-15 which has no history of killing in Canada at all. If you are going to spend hundreds on millions of tax payer dollars why not come up a with a prudent policy not virtue signalling.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes I am sure.

potential but no history. I f you really wanna ban something, ban handgun and see what impact doe sit have. At least we know handguns are used t kill anywhere between 50-80 people each years in Canada.

Why leave handgun as is and ban Ar-15 which has no history of killing in Canada at all. If you are going to spend hundreds on millions of tax payer dollars why not come up a with a prudent policy not virtue signalling.

I am all for banning hand guns as well - I don't think this needs to be a ban only or social policy only approach. I definitely don't call any policy that removes weapons of mass casualty from circulation "virtue signalling".

AoD

 

[hannibal]

Why can't we do both though? Why does it have to be either or?
..

Because it cost money. do you want to spend hundreds of million on a problem which does not exist or health care. There are cancer patients which are actually dying in this country because province wont approve live saving drug which may cost 80K. Whereas we are prepared to throw 250+mm on Ar 15 ban which wont save a single life? I mean where are the priorities?

 

[hannibal]

I am all for banning hand guns as well - I don't think this needs to be a ban only or social policy only approach. I definitely don't call any policy that removes weapons of mass casualty from circulation "virtue signalling".

AoD

But you have to agree that its lazy policy and virure signalling. I fyou are choosing between the two, hand gun ban should come first. It kills 50-80 people a years vs AR-15 which has not been used to kill anybody in the last 50 years.

Prioritization. You have to have clear priorities.

Government has the fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers to spend money in the most effective policy outcomes.

I know it sounds cool to ban ar-15, but it does not achieve much to reduce gun violence in Canada.

Suppose this ban had been in place, do you think gun deaths would be reduced. Where is the back testing on this policy?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But you have to agree that its lazy policy and virure signalling. I fyou are choosing between the two, hand gun ban should come first. It kills 50-80 people a years vs AR-15 which has not been used to kill anybody in the last 50 years.

Prioritization. You have to have clear priorities.

I don't have to chose. In fact I am all for banning without any compensation whatsoever, but that's just me, and I don't determine government policy.

AoD