Canadian politics thread

[Hondaracer]

That personal choice is a wayyyyyy bigger strain on society. Infinitely more. And you’re the broker.

[Great68]

Smokers pay massive amount of taxes on their vice, and their life expectancies are generally shorter so overall their "strain on society" is not so big at all.

[MarkyMark]

I mean it's not like smokers just up and die, they get cancer or COPD and then the last few years of their life are basically living in a hospital which can't be cheap.

[Great68]

A pack a day smoker pays on average an additional $100k in taxes on cigarettes over 40 years than a non smoker, in addition to the same general taxes that you and I pay towards health care.

[underscore]

We're onto the whataboutisms already?

[Great68]

Lol, indeed

Anti-gun control rhetoric 101:

1. Blame something else
2. Say it's too hard to do anything
3. Revert to Whataboutism

[Hehe]

As a RPAL holder, I think the new regulation is stupid. This is purely punishing those who abide laws because there less of them and there's less resistance.

People who have the motive would not stop because we made firearms illegal.

For people on here who can't understand the way we feel... an appropriate way to put it for this car-centric forum would be the federal gov't announcing that we are banning all cars capable of going more than 120km/hr and limit all cars' acceleration from 0-100 to 10sec because car accidents kill too many people every year and there's no need for such a fast acceleration in daily driving.

Does it make sense? Just because cars are capable of those fast speeds aren't the reason causing so many accidents. Instead, more strict licensing scheme, better training are what would ultimately lead to fewer accidents.

For firearms.. having the ability to kill is not the problem. Many products in our daily life can be lethal if used inappropriately. Many of the anti-gun people here, your logic is what? Oh, it doesn't affect me... the less gun the safer.

But that logic is seriously flawed. For gang members (the vast majority of our shootings) who want access to firearms, they would get it... one way or the other. This can be seen in many Asian countries where guns are totally outlawed, but guns still exist in those countries. Mass shooters... if the end goal was to hurt/kill many people, there are many ways and many things that we have access with little to no restrictions that can achieve that goal. And then what? We just ban them all? I don't see Trudeau making a huge deal about cars last time during the Toronto incident. And the reason is simple... it didn't make sense to limit it and there would be far too much resistance.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Great68

Lol, indeed

Anti-gun control rhetoric 101:

1. Blame something else
2. Say it's too hard to do anything
3. Revert to Whataboutism

Slightly right leaning politics - “can we please have harsh penalties for severe crimes”

Lefty politics “yea, we can’t do any of that, but we can do some irrelevant shit that only punishes victims”

You guys don’t have feelings on someone with 5 first degree murder chargers getting out in a few years? It’s the new thing! Pretty dope edit* sorry, 6 first degree, 6 attempted.

[MarkyMark]

Well cigarettes are probably more insane than guns if you think about it. They serve no purpose whatsoever other than making you sick, stink, or get other people sick in the process. They cause massive fires to boot. At least booze can get you drunk what does a cigarette do? How is there not a plan in place to phase them out over the next couple decades?

Dat tax money tho

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Hehe

As a RPAL holder, blah blah blah

Ok?

Is stating that supposed to carry some weight or something?

Like who cares.

All that means to me is "Everything I say after this statement is bias"

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Hehe

As a RPAL holder, I think the new regulation is stupid. This is purely punishing those who abide laws because there less of them and there's less resistance.

People who have the motive would not stop because we made firearms illegal.

For people on here who can't understand the way we feel... an appropriate way to put it for this car-centric forum would be the federal gov't announcing that we are banning all cars capable of going more than 120km/hr and limit all cars' acceleration from 0-100 to 10sec because car accidents kill too many people every year and there's no need for such a fast acceleration in daily driving.

Does it make sense? Just because cars are capable of those fast speeds aren't the reason causing so many accidents. Instead, more strict licensing scheme, better training are what would ultimately lead to fewer accidents.

For firearms.. having the ability to kill is not the problem. Many products in our daily life can be lethal if used inappropriately. Many of the anti-gun people here, your logic is what? Oh, it doesn't affect me... the less gun the safer.

But that logic is seriously flawed. For gang members (the vast majority of our shootings) who want access to firearms, they would get it... one way or the other. This can be seen in many Asian countries where guns are totally outlawed, but guns still exist in those countries. Mass shooters... if the end goal was to hurt/kill many people, there are many ways and many things that we have access with little to no restrictions that can achieve that goal. And then what? We just ban them all? I don't see Trudeau making a huge deal about cars last time during the Toronto incident. And the reason is simple... it didn't make sense to limit it and there would be far too much resistance.

A car is a form of transportation not something designed to kill. Governments have forced automakers to cars safer.

[sdubfid]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Smoking is a personal choice and the government is working on getting rid of it. Getting shot is not a choice.

Getting shot actually is a choice.

If you choose to live in a concrete bunker then you will not die from the 3 mentioned methods. If you don’t want to live in a concrete bunker then there is a possibility you may be one of the ~140 people killed by a handgun, ~400 drownings or the ~1800 auto deaths.

To save lives it would be more effective to ban bodies of water and cars. But I still think people would swim and drive. These topics don’t make good news content though.

[mikemhg]

I'm an RPAL carrier and I have no issues with additional regulations, ammo is already hard to get anyways

[Hondaracer]

Can’t say it’s surprising that his supporters are ultimately as short sighted as he is.

[68style]

Omg the speeding car argument.

When does the knife one get brought up? “You can also kill people with a knife, let’s ban all knives then too”

[68style]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Can’t say it’s surprising that his supporters are ultimately as short sighted as he is.

Do you have a stupid photo from 20+ years ago of the Safety Minister? Cuz he’s the one that actually came up with the plan.

[Hondaracer]

Just somone arguing these points, please explain how creating HARSH penalties for illegal gun possession/crime is the wrong direction? I’ve yet to year an argument.

You mount a campaign saying if you’re caught with an illegal firearm, you’re going away for 5 years period. There’s no grey area. The amount of illicit gun crime plummets over night.

I don’t get this need for like these round about fixes that do nothing to the people who actually commit these crimes?

[westopher]

If anything that photo makes me like him more. At least the guy is down to fuckin party.
I’m pretty indifferent. I don’t think this angle is effective, but the gun argument compared to ANYTHING always makes you look like an idiot.
Cars are for driving, people dying is a negative side effect
Water is for drinking, people dying is a negative side effect
Smoking/drinking is for pleasure, people dying is a negative side effect
Handguns are for killing people, people dying is the INTENDED.
No every day danger that is available to the public is created with the same intent of guns. The comparisons are asinine.
That said, I’m a proponent of hunting, and being able to have a rifle, with restrictions and stipulations that make them very difficult to use in violence against humans. You can’t put a rifle in your pocket.

[underscore]

I have an RPAL and I don't really care much either way. I'm not opposed to harsher sentences for smuggling or possession of illegal firearms though. Using anything that requires an RPAL is purely a hobby, there are plenty of others out there if that goes away. People basing their entire personality around it need to get out more.

Originally Posted by westopher

You can’t put a rifle in your pocket.

Maybe they're just happy to see you.

[westopher]

I’m very much for harsher penalties for certain gun crimes, while I can see the angle of reducing certain sentence minimums as an attempt at preventing long term incarceration for people who get into bad lifestyles due to circumstances with inequality and lack of opportunity for success.
Kind of treating it like a dealer/user sort of situation. That said, any violence that ends up with innocent lives being lost or long term injury in an unprovoked attack should really end up with the perpetrator having their life ruined as badly as they ruin someone else’s.

[Manic!]

Alberta MLA threatening JT.


https://twitter.com/StaySaif/status/...tin-trudeau%2F

[westopher]

Remember though guys. Trudeau is sowing division in this country! Not the politicians that are posting death threats to him on twitter.

[68style]

Do you think he kept the tag on that Tigger outfit because he returned it after he wore it? Edgy.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by Manic!

A car is a form of transportation not something designed to kill. Governments have forced automakers to cars safer.

In which ways have governments forced auto makers to make their cars safer? blind spot detection? advanced emergency braking? rev limiters? Sure, all useful things so long as the driver is competent. A car is only as safe as the driver is capable of being. Then there's the people who like to modify cars, kinda like half the people who use this forum. Swap this out for that, that for this, remove that, add this and yaaay more HP! What's the need for that other than personal pleasure? I can't image that many people here being professional race car drivers who would benefit from it.


As Hehe said, he's an RPAL holder(myself as well so I 100% understand his frustration) and anti gun people's logic is completely flawed and they've yet to bring forward any sort of logical explanation as to how banning Canadian RPAL holders from handguns will accomplish anything..... other than making gun smuggling a much more lucrative job. I don't know how many times it has to be said and how people aren't capable of understanding that it is not licensed RPAL/PAL holders who are committing the crimes you see on TV with registered firearms. For every 20 shootings in Canada, maybe one of them is legitimately licensed. It is the illegally smuggled in firearms doing the shootings by people who've already got lengthy criminal records or known to police. What is so impossible to understand about that?

I'd be more than happy to see gun crimes have an instant 50 year prison term with no chance of parole. I'd be happy to see anyone with a police record pertaining to assault or any type of bodily harm to another person to be stripped of their license and have anything they own seized.
To me, anti firearms people are starting to resemble Trump supporters screaming that the election was stolen.... Give solid proof and we'll talk.

[Hondaracer]

An emoji of a gun is like a maga hat to the blind Trudea supporter.

Also, digging into that mosque shooting a bit, Jesus Christ they didn’t label him a domestic terrorist because they couldn’t affiliate him with “a group” yet Trudeau and his lackeys had the gall to talk about the freedom convoy as being domestic terrorists?

I guarantee you by the end of his Reign, even the most staunch supporter is going to look back and say what in the fuck.

And before Manic comes back saying hArPeR WaS dEViL! I’m not saying anyone is better or worse. I’m saying Trudeau is terrible as the government I live under. Wasteful, ineffective, clueless.