Jump to content
Frank.Castle

Trudeau gun ban

Recommended Posts

The drama teacher is now talking about banning handguns and assault weapons...  what an idiot.  First of all I’m sure there’s other gun owners here that know how stupid this is.  

Assault wepons are banned in Canada already.  To be classified as an assault weapon it needs to be capable of full auto.

its not us gun owners shooting up playgrounds.  Maybe go after the gang bangers shooting at kids.

im sick and tired of being blamed as a gun owner for mass shootings and being told im a danger to society because I own guns.

problem is too your average Canadian has no idea how hard it is to get a license and to keep it and the media loves to talk about shit they have no idea about

anyone else think this is retarded

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we move this top politics?or am i wrong?it is a rant though hrmmmmmm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fellow gun owner(handguns and "assault" style rifles), I 1000% agree. It seems to me no matter how many times statistics are thrown up showing how none of these mass shootings are being carried out by law abiding gun owners, the general public just doesnt want to hear it.  They've made their minds up based on fake news and what the media tells them, and are completely unwilling to acknowledge the straight up facts.  Banning handguns WILL NOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS. It's simply not the solution, we know this, history and statistics show and prove this point.  Gov wasted millions on the rifle registration, when gun owners and sensible educated on the subject people knew it would have 0 effect on gun crime.  Then what do ya know, it gets thrown out because it did nothing but waste the tax payers hard earned $.  People REALLY need to do some reading and research before forming an opinion on this topic.  I see it all over Facebook and I have to just sit back and shake my head.  Emotion is winning out over logic and commen sense now a days, sad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disappeared from social media a couple years ago because I was tired of getting wound up by stupid sheeple just following and regurgitating what the tv tells them.  So nice to be free lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FitGM said:

Emotion is winning out over logic and commen sense now a days, sad.

This is true but the caveat is that it cuts both ways.

Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs is a psychological framework that illustrates how people will prioritize how they think and behave:

maslow-hierachy-of-needs-min.jpg

Members of the pro-gun demographic have higher level needs met by gun ownership, potentially all the way up to self-actualization. Thus the idea of losing the ability of gun ownership can have a major negative psychological impact including loss of one's purpose or identity. This would be a net loss because they would lose higher level needs but at best, gain lower level safety needs.

Whereas the anti-gun demographic will not see gun ownership as a way of meeting higher level needs. They will only see it as a detriment to their safety needs and further gun control can only be a net positive for them. Thus the premise that if there were NO guns in circulation then there would be NO mass shootings means that there would be LESS mass shootings if there were LESS guns in circulation is a perfectly rational conclusion for them. It does not matter to the anti-gun demographic, whether the perpetrators are law-abiding or not. (Although by definition, someone who commits a mass shooting cannot be law-abiding so I'm really not sure what the point of that argument is.) 

So each side looks at the same 'facts' differently because they have different priorities. There can be no absolute right or wrong. 

This is the same situation as an atheist arguing religion with someone of faith. The religious person has adopted his faith as a source for satisfying higher level needs. When an atheist argues against the existence of god(s) he is effectively telling the religious person to give up his identity, status, sense of purpose, etc. There really cannot be any consensus.

For the record: I think Canada's laws strike a good balance, Trudeau is knob, the registry WAS a waste, and the US does have gun issues.

If a 'more or less guns' ballot was shoved in my face I would vote less simply because I have no personal use for them. However I would much rather the commie supply management system get dealt with instead... 

 

Edited by Fizzyx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fizzyx said:

This is true but the caveat is that it cuts both ways.

Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs is a psychological framework that illustrates how people will prioritize how they think and behave:

maslow-hierachy-of-needs-min.jpg

Members of the pro-gun demographic have higher level needs met by gun ownership, potentially all the way up to self-actualization. Thus the idea of losing the ability of gun ownership can have a major negative psychological impact including loss of one's purpose or identity. This would be a net loss because they would lose higher level needs but at best, gain lower level safety needs.

Whereas the anti-gun demographic will not see gun ownership as a way of meeting higher level needs. They will only see it as a detriment to their safety needs and further gun control can only be a net positive for them. Thus the premise that if there were NO guns in circulation then there would be NO mass shootings means that there would be LESS mass shootings if there were LESS guns in circulation is a perfectly rational conclusion for them. It does not matter to the anti-gun demographic, whether the perpetrators are law-abiding or not. (Although by definition, someone who commits a mass shooting cannot be law-abiding so I'm really not sure what the point of that argument is.) 

So each side looks at the same 'facts' differently because they have different priorities. There can be no absolute right or wrong. 

This is the same situation as an atheist arguing religion with someone of faith. The religious person has adopted his faith as a source for satisfying higher level needs. When an atheist argues against the existence of god(s) he is effectively telling the religious person to give up his identity, status, sense of purpose, etc. There really cannot be any consensus.

For the record: I think Canada's laws strike a good balance, Trudeau is knob, the registry WAS a waste, and the US does have gun issues.

If a 'more or less guns' ballot was shoved in my face I would vote less simply because I have no personal use for them. However I would much rather the commie supply management system get dealt with instead... 

 

I choose to respectfully disagree not busting balls here but, you can’t equate facts set in law about guns with a persons ideals of religion.  Also the “facts” that the anti gun ownership uses as their ammunition (pardon the pun) are not educated or based in reality.

CBC (notoriously left leaning anti gun) even came out and said that the facts over crime guns are 50% sourced in Canada is not correct. Stats Canada states they don’t track this information hardly at all.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-statistics-1.4779702

To your point of less legal gun ownership = less mass shootings, again if people are truly informed on real facts.  They would know that banning legal guns would do nothing to stop guns from being on our streets.  We have a border that is so in regulated that people just walk across.  Compare the size of a person to a firearm.. if we consider our border security a net, if something as large as a person makes it through said net, there’s no way a handgun will be caught in that net.  Maybe by accident but not on a consistent basis.

you want to stop gun crime? Go after the criminals not me a guy that every day has a background check run on him to maintain the privelage of owning a gun. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a drivers license gives you the privelage if driving... every year more people are killed in car accidents than killed by guns.  Why is there not a call to ban cars?  Because it’s not an easy minority group to demonize.

look at the biggest mass shooting in usa’s history in Vegas.  If that guy drove a truck through that crowd the death toll would have been massively higher.

crazy stupid people will do crazy stupid things 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Frank.Castle said:

I choose to respectfully disagree not busting balls here but, you can’t equate facts set in law about guns with a persons ideals of religion.  Also the “facts” that the anti gun ownership uses as their ammunition (pardon the pun) are not educated or based in reality.

Think you missed the point of my post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re talking in the post about ideals and how people feel... I’m strictly sticking to facts.  I don’t have a problem with Trudeau wanting to ban guns because it’s part of how I feel about myself or how I’m identified... I have a problem with the fact that the truth is banning guns will solve nothing.  I think the problem with a lot of things these days is conflating ideals or views with facts.  This argument may work with the way the states is run because it is a right in the states it is an ideal they hold up to be true.  Where as here owning a gun takes work money and is a privelage that at any point can be taken away.  

Just like to say I’m no psychologist so maybe I’m missing the broader point but that’s what I take from it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s silly to compare cars and guns, this is honestly a terrible comparison.

 

the purpose of a car is transportation, the modern vehicle is what gives us our health, food and literally everything else.

the guns design and purpose is one: to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crazyguy said:

It’s silly to compare cars and guns, this is honestly a terrible comparison.

 

the purpose of a car is transportation, the modern vehicle is what gives us our health, food and literally everything else.

the guns design and purpose is one: to kill.

A firearm has more purpose than to "just kill".  I'm a hunter and I use my rifle to obtain meat that i provide my family and many of my friends with.  I live off that meat year around, and my family has lived this way for generations.  My firearm is my protection when I'm camping, hunting, fishing  hiking, or any other out door activity, and I've needed it for the purpose of protection many a time.  My dad taught me how to shoot targets at 4 years old, in fact my whole family learned to shoot responsibly at a young age.  I grew up on a farm and guess what the farmers used to kill the cattle, pigs, lambs before butchering, a firearm.  When I hear a person say something as ignorant as "guns only have one purpose, kill" it drives me fucking crazy.  Like I said above, people need to learn a bit about the subject before forming an ignorant opinion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FitGM said:

A firearm has more purpose than to "just kill".  I'm a hunter and I use my rifle to obtain meat that i provide my family and many of my friends with.  I live off that meat year around, and my family has lived this way for generations.  My firearm is my protection when I'm camping, hunting, fishing  hiking, or any other out door activity, and I've needed it for the purpose of protection many a time.  My dad taught me how to shoot targets at 4 years old, in fact my whole family learned to shoot responsibly at a young age.  I grew up on a farm and guess what the farmers used to kill the cattle, pigs, lambs before butchering, a firearm.  When I hear a person say something as ignorant as "guns only have one purpose, kill" it drives me fucking crazy.  Like I said above, people need to learn a bit about the subject before forming an ignorant opinion.

You just described killing, like oxford level definition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crazyguy said:

It’s silly to compare cars and guns, this is honestly a terrible comparison.

 

the purpose of a car is transportation, the modern vehicle is what gives us our health, food and literally everything else.

the guns design and purpose is one: to kill.

The comparison was not of usefulness or how they are meant to be used.  A vehicle is a tool.  So is a gun.  It’s what the person using the tool does with it that makes it deadly or not.  My guns sit in my safe and don’t escape at night and go on killing sprees by themselves.  It’s only a hunk of metal.  My comparison was that vehicles have just as much killing power as a gun if not more.  Look at the stats of deaths on our roads compared to deaths due to gun shots.... so in the logic the people use to jump all over gun owners could be used against people driving.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FitGM said:

A firearm has more purpose than to "just kill".  I'm a hunter and I use my rifle to obtain meat that i provide my family and many of my friends with.  I live off that meat year around, and my family has lived this way for generations.  My firearm is my protection when I'm camping, hunting, fishing  hiking, or any other out door activity, and I've needed it for the purpose of protection many a time.  My dad taught me how to shoot targets at 4 years old, in fact my whole family learned to shoot responsibly at a young age.  I grew up on a farm and guess what the farmers used to kill the cattle, pigs, lambs before butchering, a firearm.  When I hear a person say something as ignorant as "guns only have one purpose, kill" it drives me fucking crazy.  Like I said above, people need to learn a bit about the subject before forming an ignorant opinion.

I grew up in the country as well our family farm was gone by the time I was around but, still had other family members with farms.  I think this may be the divide between city people and rural.  I started learning to shoot at 5 with a pelet gun.  Taught proper gun safety was paramount. 

 

Some people enjoy hitting a ting a golf ball 300 yards....  I enjoy shooting a target at 300yards.  It’s my sport of choice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Frank.Castle said:

You’re talking in the post about ideals and how people feel... I’m strictly sticking to facts.

That is the salient point. People's emotions dictate how they weight and interpret those facts. That is why you feel that you are banging your head against a wall debating with 'stupid people.' They will NEVER see the facts the way you do because their priorities are different. The reverse holds true for the other side.

You have just witnessed this in the last few posts...

The only time that both parties can be relatively objective is if the subject at hand does not contribute to anyone's needs at any level (Mazlow's). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a dozen high powered rifles. Don’t have any handguns as I couldn’t be bothered. I have had my PAL and restricted and non restricted licenses since I was 14. Yeah it’s a pain always renewing and that older registration that was recently dropped was also stupid. A lot of this pressure is coming from tree huggers as well. This proposed ban would pretty much do nothing as the criminals will always have a way to obtain handguns or any guns for that matter and as you said it sucks we the responsible owners will take the fall for this bs. 

Man if you want to dig deep into conspiracies and how Trudeau is supposedly puppeted by George soros, it’s all an attempt to de arm everyone so we have no means of protecting ourselves. But that depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Handguns are already a joke as there is so much red tape involved in their transport and use. I don't have time to go to the shooting range these days so I sold most of my handguns. I kept a couple for nostalgic reasons, like taking one out of the safe to play with when I watch Die-Hard or something. That's about it.

These liberal fuck-tards just don't understand that all the firearms causing the trouble are smuggled into Canada from the USA. They are not owned by law-abiding firearm owners... or they understand this very well and simply want to confiscate firearms to further control the population, which is most likely the case. 

I could go on and on with this topic. Bottom line: buy all the non-restricted firearms you like while you can and stockpile ammo for them. If/when a registry is imposed DO NOT COMPLY.

The fact that we can not own suppressors in Canada is the biggest joke of all. So many other countries allow this, and benifit from it. Liberals think we will all turn into ninja assassins if we screw a can on to our .22 Ruger plinkers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how hard it was to get a gun license when others got it but I just took a 2 day course and got mine. It goes through RCMP or whatever the gun organization is. 

 

Then i I could buy firearms online. 

Not saying I agree with firearms being banned but it definitely isn’t hard to get. That being said, you can’t do much with a gun in terms of self defence unless it’s against someone who is armed 

If you shoot or fire shots at an intruder/robber who isn’t armed you get charged. Whether or not get convicted is up to the judge but it’s going to be a lot of money and time wasted. Not sure why I even own mine, when my gun license expires im going to give my handgun to police to dispose and then get a shotgun or a non-restricted. It’s been more of a headache owning one than a benefit. You aren’t even allowed to carry a handgun outside your home without a paper saying you’re moving it from either your home to the range or your home to another home/gun store. You have to lock it up to the point where if you needed it you’d have to have a 30 second head start to get your firearm to defend yourself 

Edited by Rocky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frank.Castle said:

The comparison was not of usefulness or how they are meant to be used.  A vehicle is a tool.  So is a gun.  It’s what the person using the tool does with it that makes it deadly or not.  My guns sit in my safe and don’t escape at night and go on killing sprees by themselves.  It’s only a hunk of metal.  My comparison was that vehicles have just as much killing power as a gun if not more.  Look at the stats of deaths on our roads compared to deaths due to gun shots.... so in the logic the people use to jump all over gun owners could be used against people driving.  

Guns are manufactured to kill, what u do with the kill is on u.

 

cars are manufactured for our standard of life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rocky said:

...when my gun license expires im going to give my handgun to police to dispose...

 

I'll happily dispose of it for you when the times comes. Let me know. We can transfer it and talk of compensation so you're not just out of pocket. I certainly don't need it, but lets just work together to not let it get buried in some RCMP locker. If you turn it in I'll bet that gun finds its way out of the locker and onto the streets to further the Liberal agenda.

 

3 minutes ago, Crazyguy said:

Guns are manufactured to kill, what u do with the kill is on u.

cars are manufactured for our standard of life

 

Some cars are manufactured to kill...

d3318.jpg

Edited by mt666tm
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my thought.  Stick up then don’t comply when they ask you to.  If all shit goes to hell, well you’ll be armed they won’t.

my dad had a shotgun for years, never had his licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not against utility guns, rides meant for hunting etc.

 

i jusr cannot find a practical reason to own a handgun or assault weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Crazyguy said:

I’m not against utility guns, rides meant for hunting etc.

 

i jusr cannot find a practical reason to own a handgun or assault weapon

It's not about the idea that there is no use for a hand gun.  It's the fact that the gov banning them will do nothing accept cause us law abiding hand gun owners to have to go out of our way to dispose of our property and not be compensated for our loss.  Banning hand guns will not decrease gun crime in this country.  It just means that those of us who have  followed and complied with the rules of owning a hand gun, will be forced to give up hundreds, or in most cases, thousands of dollars worth of our personal property, with 0 compensation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...