Toronto shootings

[Admiral Beez]

Lol . So you intend to amend millions of legal gun owners criminals by stroke of a pen for following the law?

Yes. The law has changed. Hand in your handgun or semiautomatic rifle, take your tax credit and put it towards a bolt action rifle. I agree that any government in Ottawa taking my proposed route must be prepared for a storm of complaints from gun owners nationwide.

And deny them the property right which are enshrined in the charter of rights.

I do hate faux outrage predicated on a lie, or at best ignorance.

Where are property rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights? I’ll tell you; no where. In Canada property is the jurisdiction of the provinces, where property ownership is dictated by legislation, not constitutional rights. That doesn’t mean the federal government can’t set national standards for firearms and seize property now deemed illegal.

In 1991 there was talk of entrenching property rights into the Charter, see link, but nothing progressed further. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm

Get your facts straight first. Then you can take an informed position on the topic.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It’s noteworthy that Canadians can today own fully automatic machine guns provided they registered and owned them before laws changed in the 1990s https://nanaimofishandgameclub.com/...ed-Firearms-Royal-Canadian-Mounted-Police.pdf

Thus we may need to focus on banning any new sales of semiautomatic rifles, handguns, >10 round detachable magazines and short shotguns, effectively immediately, with compensation to gun shops for any inventory then cannot return to their suppliers. Buy-back of functional semiautomatic rifles and handguns would remain, but, and here’s our challenge, will need to be affordable yet effective.

I do dislike the grandfathering though. If we want to remove handguns and semiautomatic rifles from the public, and that’s something we need to ask ourselves, we won’t be successful if we only target new ones whilst ignoring the hundreds of thousands already in the public realm. I expect a national handgun ban is the most probable of any retroactive program.

 

[hannibal]

Yes. The law has changed. Hand in your handgun or semiautomatic rifle, take your tax credit and put it towards a bolt action rifle. I agree that any government in Ottawa taking my proposed route must be prepared for a storm of complaints from gun owners nationwide.I do hate faux outrage predicated on a lie, or at best ignorance.

Where are property rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights? I’ll tell you; no where. In Canada property is the jurisdiction of the provinces, where property ownership is dictated by legislation, not constitutional rights. That doesn’t mean the federal government can’t set national standards for firearms and seize property now deemed illegal.

In 1991 there was talk of entrenching property rights into the Charter, see link, but nothing progressed further. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm

Get your facts straight first. Then you can take an informed position on the topic.

Yeah anything does not impact you any only other is faux outrage. The policy proposal from you totally untenable and quiet lunatic. Large number of affected parties will not agree with your draconian abuse of power.

By your logic federal government can just make anything illegal and confiscate it. This is not USSR yet.

 

[hannibal]

It’s noteworthy that Canadians can today own fully automatic machine guns provided they registered and owned them before laws changed in the 1990s https://nanaimofishandgameclub.com/...ed-Firearms-Royal-Canadian-Mounted-Police.pdf

Thus we may need to focus on banning any new sales of semiautomatic rifles, handguns, >10 round detachable magazines and short shotguns, effectively immediately, with compensation to gun shops for any inventory then cannot return to their suppliers. Buy-back of functional semiautomatic rifles and handguns would remain, but, and here’s our challenge, will need to be affordable yet effective.

I do dislike the grandfathering though. If we want to remove handguns and semiautomatic rifles from the public, and that’s something we need to ask ourselves, we won’t be successful if we only target new ones whilst ignoring the hundreds of thousands already in the public realm. I expect a national handgun ban is the most probable of any retroactive program.

I agree with you on grandfathering, it a bad idea. Its delayed confiscation. We should be able to pass the full use of it to the next generation as family heirloom.

I truly believe that you have no idea on the scale of recreational firearms industry in Canada. Its a multi billion dollar industry. "Affordable yet effective." Long gun registry. We remember how that went. I guess some groups never learn.

What you are proposing would cost $10 billion if implemented by an effective authority. If implemented by liberals, it would cost $50 billion.


Canadian spend 8.5 billion a year on shooting sports. That's 8.5 billion each year.

Gun sports are a multi-billion dollar Canadian industry: Report - Okanagan | Globalnews.ca

A new report commissioned by the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) found that in 2018 alone, Canadians spent eight and a half billion dollars on gun sports, such as hunting and target shooting.

globalnews.ca

 

[hannibal]

You make it illegal to own one, giving everyone six months grace period to turn it in or face criminal charges for possession of an illegal firearm. The buy-back sum would be perhaps a couple of hundred dollars in the form of a tax credit, not cash. The real incentive and benefit of handing in your now illegal guns is not the financial reward but the avoidance of heavy fines and jail time.

What a great idea to threaten millions of law abiding Canadian with criminal prosecution? Let's not focus on the root cause of the gun violence and just go on some tangent to make an Orwellian dystonian version of Canada based on your impulses on what people can and cannot do to enjoy their lives.


Your extremist views are highly condemnable and would not fly in real word. No one of authority will take you seriously if you keep harping on such extremist ideas.

 

[Northern Light]

I agree with you on grandfathering, it a bad idea. Its delayed confiscation. We should be able to pass the full use of it to the next generation as family heirloom.

I truly believe that you have no idea on the scale of recreational firearms industry in Canada. Its a multi billion dollar industry. "Affordable yet effective." Long gun registry. We remember how that went. I guess some groups never learn.

What you are proposing would cost $10 billion if implemented by an effective authority. If implemented by liberals, it would cost $50 billion.


Canadian spend 8.5 billion a year on shooting sports. That's 8.5 billion each year.

Gun sports are a multi-billion dollar Canadian industry: Report - Okanagan | Globalnews.ca

A new report commissioned by the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association (CSAAA) found that in 2018 alone, Canadians spent eight and a half billion dollars on gun sports, such as hunting and target shooting.

globalnews.ca

You do not have a right to own a lethal toy.

Why not recreational nuclear weapons?; I'm sure most people would use low kilo-ton bombs and be responsible users, keeping their bombs in safes.

Yes, that was sarcasm; but it makes the point; on what basis should you be given a right to own a weapon, whose primary purpose is killing other people; because you enjoy it as a toy?

That view that you have no such right, nor should you have such right is not extreme, it is the norm in Canada.

There is no mass advocacy for removing the right to own rifles/shotguns whose practical purpose is hunting or protecting livestock on a farm/ranch from predation.

There is general agreement among Canadians that both hand guns and assault rifles are weapons of war, and of criminal violence. The defense of lethal toy ownership; that you like to pretend kill people is not a reasonable one.

Further, 8.5B on its face is about 0.5% of GDP, but if you subtract rifles/shotguns/hunting, which no one is trying to limit, the industry is much smaller; and the money will simply be spent differently in the economy. People will go to the movies, travel more, dine out more, or if they are adrenaline junkies, they'll go skydiving; or if they like targets, they'll take up archery. I am unconcerned about the adverse economic impact of limiting ownership of lethal weapons.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What a great idea to threaten millions of law abiding Canadian with criminal prosecution?

You lost me, what are you asking here?

Are you asking if it's a great idea?

 

[Admiral Beez]

There is general agreement among Canadians that both hand guns and assault rifles

I wish folks would stop using the term assault rifle.

At D-Day 14,000 Canadians assaulted the Normandy Beaches, armed with the ten round Lee Enfield bolt action rifle. Facing them were thousands of Germans armed for the most part with bolt action Karabiner 98k rifles. Anything can be an assault rifle. Whenever safety-minded or progressive-minded minded folks use the term assault rifle they demonstrate their lack of knowledge and provoke the derision of gun owners. If we're going to restrict any long arms it needs to be focused on function, such as semi-automatic, large detachable magazines, etc.

A ban on new handgun sales is a good place to start, as we'll at least prevent gun store robberies and new aftermarket sales.

 

[Northern Light]

I wish folks would stop using the term assault rifle.

At D-Day 14,000 Canadians assaulted the Normandy Beaches, armed with the ten round Lee Enfield bolt action rifle. Facing them were thousands of Germans armed for the most part with bolt action Karabiner 98k rifles. Anything can be an assault rifle. Whenever safety-minded or progressive-minded minded folks use the term assault rifle they demonstrate their lack of knowledge and provoke the derision of gun owners. If we're going to restrict any long arms it needs to be focused on function, such as semi-automatic, large detachable magazines, etc.

A ban on new handgun sales is a good place to start, as we'll at least prevent gun store robberies and new aftermarket sales.

While I don't disagree that the term isn't precise in its accuracy, it is widely understood shorthand and useful for that purpose. You clearly understood my intent.

 

[someMidTowner]

I wish folks would stop using the term assault rifle.

At D-Day 14,000 Canadians assaulted the Normandy Beaches, armed with the ten round Lee Enfield bolt action rifle. Facing them were thousands of Germans armed for the most part with bolt action Karabiner 98k rifles. Anything can be an assault rifle. Whenever safety-minded or progressive-minded minded folks use the term assault rifle they demonstrate their lack of knowledge and provoke the derision of gun owners. If we're going to restrict any long arms it needs to be focused on function, such as semi-automatic, large detachable magazines, etc.

A handgun ban is a good place to start.

People call them assault rifles because arguably the first such weapon (the German STG-44) was classified as "sturmgewehr" which literally translates as "assault rifle"
Your "anything can be an assault rife" statement ignores the fact that the term refers to a semi/full automatic weapon with shortened/intermediate rifle rounds. Not a definition of whether or not you can assault someone with it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Your "anything can be an assault rife" statement ignores the fact that the term refers to a semi/full automatic weapon with shortened/intermediate rifle rounds. Not a definition of whether or not you can assault someone with it.

The length of the ammunition never occurred to me. The AR-15 fires a round not much different than the .303 I fired through SMLE's in army cadets.

Semiautomatic and automatic are not terms that you can combine into one category. It's much more accurate to focus on function rather than appearance.

 

[someMidTowner]

The length of the ammunition never occurred to me. The AR-15 fires a round not much different than the .303 I fired through SMLE's in army cadets..

No, they are much different. See this comparison. https://i.redd.it/3u8g50a6nli21.jpg

Semiautomatic and automatic are not terms that you can combine into one category. It's much more accurate to focus on function rather than appearance.

The assault rifle classification isn't based on appearance or fire rate. It's entirely based on the intermediate rounds that are between the size or a rifle and SMG round. There is no wiggle room. This is the textbook classification

 

[hannibal]

You lost me, what are you asking here?

Are you asking if it's a great idea?

sarcasm is lost on you.

 

[hannibal]

ou do not have a right to own a lethal toy.

Lethal, it very subjective. White panel van can be lethal. In Canada white penal van have killed infinitely more Canadian than an AR-15, relatively. I reckon you think Ar-15 is lethal. It all depends on who is using it. No Law abiding Canadian has ever killed anybody with an AR-15. Think about it. Ever. They have been in Canada longer than white panel vans.

Why not recreational nuclear weapons?; I'm sure most people would use low kilo-ton bombs and be responsible users, keeping their bombs in safes.

Shows your level of maturity.

on what basis should you be given a right to own a weapon, whose primary purpose is killing other people; because you enjoy it as a toy?

For me its a firearm and not weapon, a tool a piece of equipment. I use it for hunting and target shooting which are permitted activities in this countries for centuries. I have a right to my property which i have paid for with after tax income and HST. If government want o ban it I must be compensated for all I have spent.

There is general agreement among Canadians that both hand guns and assault rifles are weapons of war, and of criminal violence. The defense of lethal toy ownership; that you like to pretend kill people is not a reasonable one.

Again non-fact based lies. Trudeau government held a year long consultation with Canadian population majority were against such a ban

Whole report can be found here:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2019-rdcng-vlnt-crm-dlg/index-en.aspx

I am unconcerned about the adverse economic impact of limiting ownership of lethal weapons.

Surely you are. It good to be an arm chair policy maker than to earn an honest buck.

 

[Admiral Beez]

sarcasm is lost on you.

Yours, yes. You can't stick a question mark on the end of a statement and assume it conveys sarcasm. Instead it conveys shoddy wordsmanship.

Perhaps some tutorial help is required.

How to Write Sarcasm - The Writer's Cookbook

Ignore what they say - sarcasm isn't the lowest form of wit. Writing it well does require intelligence, though. Here's some tips to get you started.

www.writerscookbook.com