REVscene Automotive Forum

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   mass shooter in nova scotia dressed as RCMP caught (https://www.revscene.net/forums/716878-mass-shooter-nova-scotia-dressed-rcmp-caught.html)

stewie 05-01-2020 06:09 PM

I'm sure the next election will have conservatives all over this and use it as one of their highlights promising to reverse the ban if voted in.

SkinnyPupp 05-01-2020 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bouncing Bettys (Post 8985145)
I wasn't really making that argument. Simply pointing out that no two guns are the same and enthusiasts know that all guns have their own characteristics. Types, calibres, materials, etc. Even different manufacturers of the same models. I can tell you from experience how much better a Russian SKS is than a Chinese made copy. You asked why enthusiasts couldn't just enjoy disabled firearms or be happy with what remains unbanned. Because just like a car enthusiast wants to own and enjoy dangerous, gas guzzling, unreliable cars so long as they demonstrate safe practices, so too should a gun enthusiast. I don't want my options whittled down to econoboxes and nerf guns.

I was responding to the idea that this is just a collecting thing, and collectors should be able to keep these guns and not use them.

So my thought is, if you're not going to use them, why do they need to be functional?

Car collectors may require their collectables to be functional, but in that case the function isn't "killing people"

stewie 05-01-2020 06:34 PM

This is a topic that can be discussed a thousand times but if those supporting the ban have never owned a firearm or been a recreational shooter/hunter then its a waste of a conversation. I've my RPAL and none of the firearms I own were on the banned list but its only a matter of time I suppose.

This os going to be a huge hit for The Range indoor shooting range in Langley. Their whole selling point is that you don't need a license to fire their guns, you just need to have an instructor with you the entire time. They've a 50cal rifle there that coats 20$ a shot. Some nights I'll hear that gun go off 20 times within a 1 - 2 hour period. Half their selection is based on assault rifles and pistols... This will destroy them



Skinnypupp, your question about why we need them functuonal. I only speak for myself but if I purchase something legally and it gets to the point where it needs to be rendered non functional, I'll simply remove the firing pin. Gun is 100% useless without that. No welding pieces shut. I want it to be as functional as it can. I would like them to be fully functional just because I don't feel i should have to suffer due to a few bad apples

MarkyMark 05-01-2020 06:42 PM

Is it confirmed that a shooting range that supplies the guns while you're there isn't exempt? This seems like a great way to let people get their assault rifle fix without actually having to own one.

StylinRed 05-01-2020 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 8985118)
Please. That's not what I was stating. It's a metaphorical comparison of pursuing a hobby not a direct comparison of how deadly tattoos are :rolleyes: The point is that if you have a legal hobby you should be able to pursue it without the government outlawing it without logical precedent or oversight, then punishing you financially to do so by confiscating your property.

This change doesn't affect my life at all as a sit here now, but I understand the precedent it sets for all of us and the fallacy behind it. That's why I'm so against it.

They're not confiscating guns... The buyback is not mandatory (should be though)

I find it interesting that the dentist that went nuts was an unlicensed owner though

But glad to see the government doing something, instead of nothing, like our neighbours to the south

Canada should do something about all the arms being smuggled over the border too, but that would require more stringent checks on ppl crossing the border, and they won't have that

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52505765

underscore 05-01-2020 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondaracer (Post 8985140)
Once you give an inch, they take a mile and they do not care who gets swept up in it. That’s the issue.

Based on what? Genuine question, but the past changes to things like semi-auto magazine capacities didn't result in banning all guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondaracer (Post 8985140)
Welded shut barrel, welded shut action, welded shut receiver.

IIRC the guns in the course just had a hole drilled in them and no firing pin, or are guns deactivated for the purpose of training different from guns deactivated for normal civilian ownership?

Tegra_Devil 05-02-2020 06:50 AM

As a gun owner, I would be absolutely content with this ruling if it:

-was a mandatory buy back at a generous market value.
-was a blanket ban, and didn't exclude native groups
-was grandfathered, so those who currently own could follow previous rules for use and transport, but ban making sale, trade etc

Manic! 05-02-2020 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewie (Post 8985154)
This is a topic that can be discussed a thousand times but if those supporting the ban have never owned a firearm or been a recreational shooter/hunter then its a waste of a conversation. I've my RPAL and none of the firearms I own were on the banned list but its only a matter of time I suppose.

This os going to be a huge hit for The Range indoor shooting range in Langley. Their whole selling point is that you don't need a license to fire their guns, you just need to have an instructor with you the entire time. They've a 50cal rifle there that coats 20$ a shot. Some nights I'll hear that gun go off 20 times within a 1 - 2 hour period. Half their selection is based on assault rifles and pistols... This will destroy them



Just because a person does not own a gun does not mean guns don't affect them.

As for that gun range in Langley tough luck but thats part of doing business.

welfare 05-02-2020 08:18 AM

I'd suspect this one gun that was traced back to Canada is the gun he took from Const. Stevenson.
If so, the rest came from across the border.
Not sure if that was mentioned here yet or not.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ting-1.5544180

Quote:

Police have traced one of Wortman's weapons back to Canada, but believe the others may have been obtained in the United States, the RCMP revealed on Friday.

stewie 05-02-2020 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8985192)
Just because a person does not own a gun does not mean guns don't affect them.

As for that gun range in Langley tough luck but thats part of doing business.

It wont affect them the same degree as it would to others.

Using that same line there are you going to apply it to all the small restaurants that are going under due to covid?
Can't afford to run your business anymore and make rent because you've got no sales? Tough luck.. Should've been a better restaurant. Have fun watching what you created get pissed in to a toilet.


This affects me more than it does you. You have 0 care about how it affects me and it's fine. I'm sure it goes both ways with other subjects in each of our lives. This just happens to be the flavor of the week.

belka 05-02-2020 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StylinRed (Post 8985157)
Canada should do something about all the arms being smuggled over the border too, but that would require more stringent checks on ppl crossing the border, and they won't have that]

Government didn't even force more stringent checks when covids was declared a pandemic. People were coming into this country for weeks and all they were required to do was answer a questionnaire on a computer screen. We have the most inept and useless group of idiots in charge of this country right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondaracer (Post 8985140)
also the fact that this seemingly does not apply to native people is fucking grossssss.. for fuck sakes #Reconciliation

Cross border guns won't be an issue anymore. Criminals can just roll up to the res and buy whatever they want. This is going to create a whole new network of illegal gun ownership filtering through aboriginal communities. Its FN tradition, before the white man came, to use assault rifles in their hunts. :lol Fuck this government is retarded.

Manic! 05-02-2020 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewie (Post 8985195)

This affects me more than it does you.

I really doubt that.

kr4l 05-02-2020 09:28 AM

This gun ban has nothing to do with safety. It’s all about taking your rights away and that’s why everyone’s arguments and opinions aren’t going anywhere.

It’s very similar to the VI thread. If it effects you, you care. If it doesn’t, who gives a shit.

People who mod there cars take care of them better than your average joe. It’s the same with gun owners. They take care of their shit and make sure it’s stored securely and safely

Now if legal firearms were causing many deaths and mass shootings in canada, sure let’s ban guns. I get it. But to do it out of the blue for no apparent reason, well, that’s just not right imo

6793026 05-02-2020 09:41 AM

Compared to USA, our regulations on gun control is very "strict". Looking at Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, malaysia etc ... not Thailand hahaha), you'll be blown away how Canada is so open /free to even go to a gun range.

let's see how this pans out; will grandfathered laws come into affect, will the next government throw this out the door during the next election....

we all know how Harper's registry worked out.

Manic! 05-02-2020 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kr4l (Post 8985199)

Now if legal firearms were causing many deaths and mass shootings in canada, sure let’s ban guns. I get it. But to do it out of the blue for no apparent reason, well, that’s just not right imo

Majority of the mass shootings in Canada are done by legal gun owners. Also, it was not out of the blue it was a campain promise.

kr4l 05-02-2020 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8985204)
Majority of the mass shootings in Canada are done by legal gun owners. Also, it was not out of the blue it was a campain promise.

How many mass shootings have we had that were done with legally owned ar15’s? Because to say the majority of mass shootings are done by legal gun owners makes it sound like it’s happening on the daily. Also, why didn’t we do this ban when these mass shooting sprees happened?

You’re also correct about the campaign promise so I take that back.

welfare 05-02-2020 10:24 AM

Can someone explain how this ban was able to be implemented without first being passed through parliament? Or even voted on? With a minority government?
TIA.

donk. 05-02-2020 10:42 AM

lets ban assult rifles because they kill people

so i can still walk into a mall with two pistols and 10 mags

:facepalm:

belka 05-02-2020 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8985207)
Can someone explain how this ban was able to be implemented without first being passed through parliament? Or even voted on? With a minority government?
TIA.

Agree or disagree with this ban, but passing laws without a democratic process is called one thing - Dictatorship. Anyone who agrees with how this ban was put in place needs a serious wake up call.

mikemhg 05-02-2020 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 8985115)
It affects me the same as it affects you: a baseless erosion of your rights and freedoms. These new laws were done by order-in-council from cabinet without parliamentary oversight and thus no legislation, and that's inappropriate given the size of the population they impact. This has turned hundreds of thousands of innocent Canadians in to potential paper criminals. The government is seizing personal property and I can guarantee you will not be reimbursing firearm owners for the true cost of said property. People need to understand the big picture of how wrong this is. Plus, it's piss poor policy on a number of counts (logic, cost, logistics, enforcement, and more).

I'm an RPAL holder but do not currently own any restricted firearms as my living situation doesn't make it feasible. I sold my rifle and sidearm before leaving the CF, I currently only have a shotgun. I'm so against this power grab because it's completely illogical, a huge waste of money, and yeah because the Liberal government is corrupt and inept as fuck. But I'd be equally against it if any party did it in this manner.

I'll accept that then. I agree on the monetary side in terms of those consequences. You can't introduce a law out of nowhere and essentially force folks to lose money on their purchases, especially for businesses as well, their purchased stock now loses a ton of value as a result of this.

I definitely don't agree with that point, that's wrong for sure. We can agree on that.

stewie 05-02-2020 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8985197)
I really doubt that.

I haven't checked and memorized every post but do you have an RPAL?

I do.

Therefore me being told I'm now no longer allowed to buy firearms that are deemed "assault rifles" which are some that I had intentions of purchasing eventually down the road.

If you dont have an RPAL and never had any intentions of getting one then yes, this affects me more than it does you. I'm the one thats having my rights stripped away.

welfare 05-02-2020 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by belka (Post 8985213)
Agree or disagree with this ban, but passing laws without a democratic process is called one thing - Dictatorship. Anyone who agrees with how this ban was put in place needs a serious wake up call.

But by what means was this government able to circumvent the process?

roastpuff 05-02-2020 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8985218)
But by what means was this government able to circumvent the process?

They issued an Order In Council - essentially an executive order. It is usually used to add addendum to a law already in place but nothing of this magnitude.

welfare 05-02-2020 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpuff (Post 8985222)
They issued an Order In Council - essentially an executive order. It is usually used to add addendum to a law already in place but nothing of this magnitude.

So could this be challenged in court?
seems like it could be. And i feel like it might not hold up well either.

Manic! 05-02-2020 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewie (Post 8985216)
I haven't checked and memorized every post but do you have an RPAL?

I do.

Therefore me being told I'm now no longer allowed to buy firearms that are deemed "assault rifles" which are some that I had intentions of purchasing eventually down the road.

If you dont have an RPAL and never had any intentions of getting one then yes, this affects me more than it does you. I'm the one thats having my rights stripped away.


I didn't know you had it so ruff. How are you going to survive?

18 years ago a legal gun owner thought a 25 cent bullet was cheaper than a divorce. So he shot his estranged wife while she was getting gas with her 13-year-old daughter. I was the one working that day. But that's nothing compared to the pain and suffering you are going threw. it's not worse than looking at women with a hole blown thru her as her daughter screams I want to see my mommy as a customer holds her back. You might want to start a go fund me page so you can get some counseling for all the pain and suffering you are feeling.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net