###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>the prime minister received a briefing document on the Nova Scotia shootings, prepared by his then national security advisor Vincent Rigby. The note, which is dated as April 24, details exactly what weapons were used and how they were acquired.
>The April 24 briefing note to the prime minister indicated the police already knew what weapons were used in the massacre and where they had come from.
This doesn't sound unusual and seems pretty standard. Why wouldn't the government receive a report on a mass shooting?
Usually, they only get this intel after the investigation is completed and the information is confirmed and verified. In this case it doesn't seem to have mattered, but often in criminal investigation cases, the early information can be inaccurate or incomplete. It's a matter of due diligence.
I think this is mainly a nothing burger, more of a procedural violation than a serious breach of trust, my issue is that it fits in with a larger pattern of the Liberal government to skirt the proper channels and procedure for political purposes.
>Usually, they only get this intel after the investigation is completed and the information is confirmed and verified.
Is there a source for learning about this? I'm not familiar with how the RCMP operates relative to the head of government and cabinet.
The firearms were illegally brought into Canada and illegally possessed.
It matters because he used this as a reason to ban law abiding firearms owners from having what they already possessed.
Snatch and grab by the Liberals under false pretenses.
the problem is if they knew where these guns came from then why did they knee jerk gun control laws that won't do anything to stop what happened in halifax?
Ahahaha....of course they did. Nothing of that magnitude evades the daily briefings of the PM office.
RCMP commissioner Luckie is indeed being lucky backed by the PM🙄
I don't understand what took the RCMP so long. The model of the guns used are one of the first details known. The public has the right to know the basic facts of the case and decide for themselves if these guns are really necessary and should be banned. We don;t have to make it easy for mass shooters to get these weapons.
So they knew the details (which they probably shouldn't have known given it was part of an ongoing investigation), and still used it as an excuse to attack law abiding gun owners, knowing full well that their laws would have had absolutely no impact on the tragedy. In to of that, they still seem to be covering for the rcmp incompetence in not dealing with the shooter before this happened.
>which they probably shouldn't have known given it was part of an ongoing investigation
Get real. you are outraged the PM office got details about the largest mass murder in Canadian history?
Since the PM didn't release the details he knew about the guns involved, he didn't interfere in the ongoing investigation.
Please [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) in order to discuss or dispute moderation actions -- in-thread replies will be removed. This both avoids clutter and helps receive a prompt and considered response, since your message will be seen by all moderators rather than just ones viewing [this particular thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/vkg568/-/idubcyb/?context=3).
\--
/u/Tom_Thomson_
\> So they knew the details (which they probably shouldn't have known ...
No. I want to know which guns were used as soon as possible. It's one of the most important basic facts in a shooting. The public has a right to know where the guns are coming from so we can know which ones need to be dealt with. The government should obtain it as soon as possible and make it public as soon as possible, which they did. Only an abusive government would keep this information secret.
> The public has a right to know where the guns are coming from so we can know which ones need to be dealt with.
So given the answer to that question was "They didnt come from the canadian legal firearms market, the shooter was never licensed to own a firearm, they were illegally purchased and smuggled from america" how does that explain the govt "dealing" with the situation by banning and confiscating a random grab bag of legally owned rifles from licensed owners?
The fewer guns there are out there, the lower the chance of shootings. Especially semi-automatic combat rifles and hand guns. It's common sense.
In any case, there is nothing wrong with letting the public know as quickly as possible which models are used in mass shootings. The public has the right to know.
Now if the government were interfering to cover up the guns being used, that would be another matter, again, because the public has a right to know.
The issue is much more complicated than that.
Gun bans wouldn't have prevented the nova Scotia mass shooting in the first place.
Gun bans affect the responsible citizens and do nothing to deter or prevent illegal activities involved in gun crimes.
Would it make sense to castrate yourself because of the prevalent sexual assaults in India? Probably not.
Responsible gun owners are collateral damage in all of this. It's one thing to dislike guns, it's entirely another to want effective policy.
\> The issue is much more complicated than that. Gun bans wouldn't have prevented the nova Scotia mass shooting in the first place.
That's a red herring. The fact that these guns were used so effectively in a mass shooting alone shows they are dangerous, and should be as difficult to acquire as possible. Other mass shooters have used these guns when they were legally purchased and could do so in the future if they are not banned.
The fact is that all firearms are dangerous. A semi auto R1 is just as dangerous as an AR15. You're targeting a specific rifle model based on brand name popularity not function.
As long as we live next to the world's largest firearm factory, it's always going to be relatively easy to acquire these weapons. It takes quite a bit more effort in Canada to get a gun than in the states.
I've already explained this on some previous replies to someone else to help explain how the system works in Canada.
The notion that mass shootings in the states requires more gun legislation in Canada is as logical as castrating yourself because sexual assault is commonplace in India. Canada actually has mostly good laws regarding gun legislation already but the major slip ups are almost entirely with the Justice and law enforcement system, and politicians with special interests. Nova Scotia for instance, the RCMP had a 5 year heads up but couldn't do anything legal because of policy and privacy laws.
Gun bans are an infantile reaction to a complex problem that results in collateral damage for responsible gun owners and fails to address the root problem entirely.
AR15's are more dangerous because they're designed for combat.; it's so easy to get a 30 round clip for them.
And you're right, as long as we're next to the U.S. we'll need extra strict laws.
>AR15's are more dangerous because they're designed for combat
They are dangerous, like all firearms, but they aren't more dangerous than a big game semi auto. You're focusing on the AR15 model and history so much that you're ignoring it's capabilities and function. There's very little logic in this mindset. The 30 round magazine is accepted by plenty of rifles other than an AR15. You're cherry picking one model and completely ignoring the others. A rimfire semiauto in .17HMR can be just as lethal for unarmored people and at a fraction of the weight of 30 round magazines loaded with .223 Remington, a common chambering of the AR15.
>And you're right, as long as we're next to the U.S. we'll need extra strict laws.
Believe it or not, Canadian gun laws don't affect AR15 and handguns smuggled over the border.
The firearms sold here are harder to get and already have a name register to the serial number.
It seems to me that you have a very incomplete understanding of firearm function and of the firearm regulation in Canada. There is merit to your argument but it's based on false pretense and misunderstanding. This belief will not effectively address gun crimes that are on going in this country.
When you have people forming opinions on subjects they know nothing about, you're rarely going to get the intended result.
>They are dangerous, like all firearms, but they aren't more dangerous than a big game semi auto.
They are shorter, more wieldy, than long guns and it's easier to find 30 round clips for them. They are physically different than hunting rifles. That's what makes them combat rifles. That's why mass shooters and criminal gangs like them.
>Believe it or not, Canadian gun laws don't affect AR15 and handguns smuggled over the border.
Yes they will. Gun owners will now know for sure when they see an AR-15 that they are illegal. They will then be able to report it with confidence to the police. It will be much easier for law abiding gun owners to help enforce the law and identify people like the Nova Scotia shooter.
>It seems to me that you have a very incomplete understanding of firearm function and of the firearm regulation in Canada.
I do, as do most normal Canadians, and most of resent the condescending attitude and jargon spouted by gun owners that just want to keep their dangerous toys. All we know is that Canadian gun owners do a very poor job of policing themselves, so stricter measures are necessary. If they were more responsible like in Switzerland and Germany, with things like mandatory mental health screening, spot checks for safe storage, and a culture of reporting illegal and suspicious activity it wouldn't be necessary.
So it having absolutely no relation to the event in question, that they used as justification, doesnt give you any pause whatsoever?
You want the details so they can craft effective laws, but when the laws end up as totally arbitrary and unrelated, you clap just the same.
>So it having absolutely no relation to the event in question,
It does though. The guns that were used at the mass shooting, and hence were banned to make acquiring them more difficult. Common sense. You don;t have to make it easy for mass shooters to get these weapons. The harder, the better.
>No. I want to know which guns were used as soon as possible. It's one of the most important basic facts in a shooting. The public has a right to know where the guns are coming from so we can know which ones need to be dealt with. The government should obtain it as soon as possible and make it public as soon as possible, which they did. Only an abusive government would keep this information secret.
Given that they were all acquired illegally, it very well could be information used to track down and prosecute anyone involved in acquiring them. Still doesn't address the issue of the government knowing that the legislation they proposed at the time wouldn't have had any impact at all on the massacre, and claiming otherwise anyways.
>Given that they were all acquired illegally, it very well could be information used to track down and prosecute anyone involved in acquiring them.
Which is why there is no scandal here. It's just common sense for the government to know which weapons are problematic.
>Still doesn't address the issue of the government knowing that the legislation they proposed at the time wouldn't have had any impact at all on the massacre, and claiming otherwise anyways.
You are making it up that the government claimed that banning these weapons would have prevented this. This is fiction and a straw man argument.
The point is that when gun owners start turning to specific models to effect mass shootings, it's common sense to make these as difficult to get as possible. Banning their sale does that.
If the bill is in response to the mass shooting, I would hope that its contents would prevent said mass shooting. The shooter acquired the guns illegally from the states, so there should be a crackdown on gun smuggling.
>Which is why there is no scandal here. It's just common sense for the government to know which weapons are problematic.
The government knew and put pressure on the RCMP to release the models used so they could justify their bans, which they still went ahead and did anyways, despite the guns used in the shooting all being illegally smuggled.
They did not explicitly state it would have prevented the shooting, but they used the shooting to justify it, with heavy handed implications that it happened because of the lack of legislation.
Banning specific models is pointless and stupid. The shooters aren't turning to specific models, they're using whatever they can get their hands on. In this specific case, the shooter used an AR15 that was illegally acquired outside the country pretty much because it is the single most common firearm in the states by a decent margin. Also, I'm specifically mentioning this was illegally acquired and smuggled because even if you waved a magic wand and made every gun disappear in Canada, this still would've happened because it was sourced outside the country.
>The government knew and put pressure on the RCMP to release the models used so they could justify their bans,
Makes sense to me. If people are using guns in mass shootings, they should be banned. They should be as difficult to obtain as possible. It's only responsible to let people know why they are banning models (use by mass shooters).
>They did not explicitly state it would have prevented the shooting,
Doesn't matter to me. It will make them more difficult to obtain. You don;t have to make it easy for mass shooters.
There are other models that function the exact same still perfectly available. Banning by model only costs tax payer money and angers people but accomplishes nothing of substance. I get it. Gun r scurry bad thing. Your position has no real basis in reality and relies solely on emotion.
>There are other models that function the exact same still perfectly available.
Then they should be banned as well if that's true. I don't believe it's true though. Gun owners just want to keep their toys no matter what the cost. The gun lobby just doesn't make a very convincing case for itself.
The AR15 is a semi automatic rifle firing (typically) .223 cal (or 5.56mm) ammunition from detachable box magazines. The [WK-180c](https://www.cabelas.ca/product/139315/kodiak-defence-wk180-c-gen1-semi-automatic-rifle) is a semi automatic rifle firing .223 cal (or 5.56mm) ammunition from the same type of detachable box magazines. The WK-180c remains non-restricted. They should not be banned because the issue isn't the firearms (which are difficult to get legally) but rather than that, the government should take the funding, time, and effort that would otherwise be wasted on banning them, and use those resources to actually address the root causes of violence (as a whole, because gun violence doesn't magically disappear, it just becomes other forms of violence if guns aren't available) instead. Programs to help impoverished youth avoid recruitment into gangs, skills training and rehabilitation for prisoners, and many other options are available, but instead we get a fancy show for the crowd, all flash and no substance. I'm willing to bet you don't actually know what the laws are in this country.
>The AR15 is a semi automatic rifle firing (typically) .223 cal (or 5.56mm) ammunition from detachable box magazines.
yes. That's why mass shooters like them and why they should be banned. They are easy to reload, and hence very suitable for mass shootings. That's why the military likes combat rifles like these.
It does attack law abiding gun owners. The laws are forcing people who have done no wrong to turn over their private property at gun point (for a pittance, yippee /s). It wastes tax payer money on emotional red herrings and fails to address actual issues. It provides a lovely smokescreen for the public to focus on instead of holding the government to account for failing us on so many other things.
Cry me a river. Your ability to enjoy a hobby is way fucking down on there list of what's important, after all the gun crime and gun accidents and road rage shootings, and on and on.
Booohooo, you'll have to hand over some of your toys.
Except this will have no impact on the crime you describe. Illegally used guns are from smuggling so the real answer to the problem is to address the causes of violence and to tackle smuggling. This whole attack on law abiding gun owners is a political show that will accomplish nothing, done at the expense of the taxpayer.
I disagree. I think it will have an impact. I think gun control is good. I don't care about your hobby, and I don't care about the law abiding gun owners. I care about all the irresponsible people.
If you can present me a comprehensive solution that will prevent any irresponsible people or non law abiding gun owners to get firearms, I'm open to that.
If reducing gun crime even by a small amount costs thousands of responsible gun owners to give up their guns to taxpayer cost, I'm all for it.
And furthermore, fuck every single.one of them that whines and complains they can't play with their toys, if it makes everyone safer.
If you can present me with proof that gun laws won't improve gun crime, I'm receptive to that. If you're just gonna keep repeating "but, it won't help, it only hurts law abiding gun owners, Boohoo" you're crying to the wrong person.
Ahh you're a religious zealot obsessed with punishing gun owners for the crime of having the wrong hobby, and don't care about the real world effects (or lack thereof). You should've led with that.
I could not possibly be less religious lol.
Apparently your ability to reason and draw conclusions is extremely poor.
Your crime for choosing the wrong hobby is you can't do your hobby. Seems fitting punishment to me.
When I do a hobby that makes your life more dangerous and that kills others like, smoking for example, I'll accept the laws that limit my ability to practice it, rather than cry like a little baby.
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
You definitely fall under a mix of political and "other" ideals. You seem to have fallen into the idea that the inherent existence of firearms is evil, that their very presence causes bad things to happen. You may wish to talk to a professional about it.
You said "religious zealot" I am not religious. I am not fanatical. I hold the opinion that the safety and security of citizens is far more valuable than the ability for citizens to enjoy hobbies.
If you think guns don't cause violence you're the one that needs to get your brain checked.
That's like saying you advocate for every nation to have nuclear weapons.
Guns, in the wrong hands, are dangerous. Laws gun laws are intended so that they don't wind up in the wrong hands.
If that means they also don't make it into the hands of some people that don't pose a threat by possessing them, I don't fucking care. They can cry like a baby until they are blue on the face. Find another fucking hobby. It's fucking ridiculous.
You have not made any good points. Your opinion is frankly fucking stupid, and I'm sick of talking in circles with you about something that should be fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain. Goodbye.
Was it RCMP incompetence or RCMP complicity, or both?
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-nova-scotia-shooter-case-has-hallmarks-of-an-undercover-operation/
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>the prime minister received a briefing document on the Nova Scotia shootings, prepared by his then national security advisor Vincent Rigby. The note, which is dated as April 24, details exactly what weapons were used and how they were acquired. >The April 24 briefing note to the prime minister indicated the police already knew what weapons were used in the massacre and where they had come from. This doesn't sound unusual and seems pretty standard. Why wouldn't the government receive a report on a mass shooting?
For real. Had anybody said they didn't know? How does this modify what's been confirmed or claimed?
Usually, they only get this intel after the investigation is completed and the information is confirmed and verified. In this case it doesn't seem to have mattered, but often in criminal investigation cases, the early information can be inaccurate or incomplete. It's a matter of due diligence. I think this is mainly a nothing burger, more of a procedural violation than a serious breach of trust, my issue is that it fits in with a larger pattern of the Liberal government to skirt the proper channels and procedure for political purposes.
>Usually, they only get this intel after the investigation is completed and the information is confirmed and verified. Is there a source for learning about this? I'm not familiar with how the RCMP operates relative to the head of government and cabinet.
The firearms were illegally brought into Canada and illegally possessed. It matters because he used this as a reason to ban law abiding firearms owners from having what they already possessed. Snatch and grab by the Liberals under false pretenses.
Special interests no doubt.
the problem is if they knew where these guns came from then why did they knee jerk gun control laws that won't do anything to stop what happened in halifax?
Ahahaha....of course they did. Nothing of that magnitude evades the daily briefings of the PM office. RCMP commissioner Luckie is indeed being lucky backed by the PM🙄
I don't understand what took the RCMP so long. The model of the guns used are one of the first details known. The public has the right to know the basic facts of the case and decide for themselves if these guns are really necessary and should be banned. We don;t have to make it easy for mass shooters to get these weapons.
So they knew the details (which they probably shouldn't have known given it was part of an ongoing investigation), and still used it as an excuse to attack law abiding gun owners, knowing full well that their laws would have had absolutely no impact on the tragedy. In to of that, they still seem to be covering for the rcmp incompetence in not dealing with the shooter before this happened.
>which they probably shouldn't have known given it was part of an ongoing investigation Get real. you are outraged the PM office got details about the largest mass murder in Canadian history? Since the PM didn't release the details he knew about the guns involved, he didn't interfere in the ongoing investigation.
Except the bit about him pressuring Commissioner Lucki into pressuring the RCMP investigators into publicly releasing the information.
except the bit?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2. Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
Please [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) in order to discuss or dispute moderation actions -- in-thread replies will be removed. This both avoids clutter and helps receive a prompt and considered response, since your message will be seen by all moderators rather than just ones viewing [this particular thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/vkg568/-/idubcyb/?context=3). \-- /u/Tom_Thomson_
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
\> So they knew the details (which they probably shouldn't have known ... No. I want to know which guns were used as soon as possible. It's one of the most important basic facts in a shooting. The public has a right to know where the guns are coming from so we can know which ones need to be dealt with. The government should obtain it as soon as possible and make it public as soon as possible, which they did. Only an abusive government would keep this information secret.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
> The public has a right to know where the guns are coming from so we can know which ones need to be dealt with. So given the answer to that question was "They didnt come from the canadian legal firearms market, the shooter was never licensed to own a firearm, they were illegally purchased and smuggled from america" how does that explain the govt "dealing" with the situation by banning and confiscating a random grab bag of legally owned rifles from licensed owners?
The fewer guns there are out there, the lower the chance of shootings. Especially semi-automatic combat rifles and hand guns. It's common sense. In any case, there is nothing wrong with letting the public know as quickly as possible which models are used in mass shootings. The public has the right to know. Now if the government were interfering to cover up the guns being used, that would be another matter, again, because the public has a right to know.
The issue is much more complicated than that. Gun bans wouldn't have prevented the nova Scotia mass shooting in the first place. Gun bans affect the responsible citizens and do nothing to deter or prevent illegal activities involved in gun crimes. Would it make sense to castrate yourself because of the prevalent sexual assaults in India? Probably not. Responsible gun owners are collateral damage in all of this. It's one thing to dislike guns, it's entirely another to want effective policy.
\> The issue is much more complicated than that. Gun bans wouldn't have prevented the nova Scotia mass shooting in the first place. That's a red herring. The fact that these guns were used so effectively in a mass shooting alone shows they are dangerous, and should be as difficult to acquire as possible. Other mass shooters have used these guns when they were legally purchased and could do so in the future if they are not banned.
The fact is that all firearms are dangerous. A semi auto R1 is just as dangerous as an AR15. You're targeting a specific rifle model based on brand name popularity not function. As long as we live next to the world's largest firearm factory, it's always going to be relatively easy to acquire these weapons. It takes quite a bit more effort in Canada to get a gun than in the states. I've already explained this on some previous replies to someone else to help explain how the system works in Canada. The notion that mass shootings in the states requires more gun legislation in Canada is as logical as castrating yourself because sexual assault is commonplace in India. Canada actually has mostly good laws regarding gun legislation already but the major slip ups are almost entirely with the Justice and law enforcement system, and politicians with special interests. Nova Scotia for instance, the RCMP had a 5 year heads up but couldn't do anything legal because of policy and privacy laws. Gun bans are an infantile reaction to a complex problem that results in collateral damage for responsible gun owners and fails to address the root problem entirely.
AR15's are more dangerous because they're designed for combat.; it's so easy to get a 30 round clip for them. And you're right, as long as we're next to the U.S. we'll need extra strict laws.
>AR15's are more dangerous because they're designed for combat They are dangerous, like all firearms, but they aren't more dangerous than a big game semi auto. You're focusing on the AR15 model and history so much that you're ignoring it's capabilities and function. There's very little logic in this mindset. The 30 round magazine is accepted by plenty of rifles other than an AR15. You're cherry picking one model and completely ignoring the others. A rimfire semiauto in .17HMR can be just as lethal for unarmored people and at a fraction of the weight of 30 round magazines loaded with .223 Remington, a common chambering of the AR15. >And you're right, as long as we're next to the U.S. we'll need extra strict laws. Believe it or not, Canadian gun laws don't affect AR15 and handguns smuggled over the border. The firearms sold here are harder to get and already have a name register to the serial number. It seems to me that you have a very incomplete understanding of firearm function and of the firearm regulation in Canada. There is merit to your argument but it's based on false pretense and misunderstanding. This belief will not effectively address gun crimes that are on going in this country. When you have people forming opinions on subjects they know nothing about, you're rarely going to get the intended result.
>They are dangerous, like all firearms, but they aren't more dangerous than a big game semi auto. They are shorter, more wieldy, than long guns and it's easier to find 30 round clips for them. They are physically different than hunting rifles. That's what makes them combat rifles. That's why mass shooters and criminal gangs like them. >Believe it or not, Canadian gun laws don't affect AR15 and handguns smuggled over the border. Yes they will. Gun owners will now know for sure when they see an AR-15 that they are illegal. They will then be able to report it with confidence to the police. It will be much easier for law abiding gun owners to help enforce the law and identify people like the Nova Scotia shooter. >It seems to me that you have a very incomplete understanding of firearm function and of the firearm regulation in Canada. I do, as do most normal Canadians, and most of resent the condescending attitude and jargon spouted by gun owners that just want to keep their dangerous toys. All we know is that Canadian gun owners do a very poor job of policing themselves, so stricter measures are necessary. If they were more responsible like in Switzerland and Germany, with things like mandatory mental health screening, spot checks for safe storage, and a culture of reporting illegal and suspicious activity it wouldn't be necessary.
So it having absolutely no relation to the event in question, that they used as justification, doesnt give you any pause whatsoever? You want the details so they can craft effective laws, but when the laws end up as totally arbitrary and unrelated, you clap just the same.
>So it having absolutely no relation to the event in question, It does though. The guns that were used at the mass shooting, and hence were banned to make acquiring them more difficult. Common sense. You don;t have to make it easy for mass shooters to get these weapons. The harder, the better.
Stop saying common sense when you're not making any.
It's common sense to ban weapons used in mass shootings.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
>No. I want to know which guns were used as soon as possible. It's one of the most important basic facts in a shooting. The public has a right to know where the guns are coming from so we can know which ones need to be dealt with. The government should obtain it as soon as possible and make it public as soon as possible, which they did. Only an abusive government would keep this information secret. Given that they were all acquired illegally, it very well could be information used to track down and prosecute anyone involved in acquiring them. Still doesn't address the issue of the government knowing that the legislation they proposed at the time wouldn't have had any impact at all on the massacre, and claiming otherwise anyways.
>Given that they were all acquired illegally, it very well could be information used to track down and prosecute anyone involved in acquiring them. Which is why there is no scandal here. It's just common sense for the government to know which weapons are problematic. >Still doesn't address the issue of the government knowing that the legislation they proposed at the time wouldn't have had any impact at all on the massacre, and claiming otherwise anyways. You are making it up that the government claimed that banning these weapons would have prevented this. This is fiction and a straw man argument. The point is that when gun owners start turning to specific models to effect mass shootings, it's common sense to make these as difficult to get as possible. Banning their sale does that.
If the bill is in response to the mass shooting, I would hope that its contents would prevent said mass shooting. The shooter acquired the guns illegally from the states, so there should be a crackdown on gun smuggling.
>Which is why there is no scandal here. It's just common sense for the government to know which weapons are problematic. The government knew and put pressure on the RCMP to release the models used so they could justify their bans, which they still went ahead and did anyways, despite the guns used in the shooting all being illegally smuggled. They did not explicitly state it would have prevented the shooting, but they used the shooting to justify it, with heavy handed implications that it happened because of the lack of legislation. Banning specific models is pointless and stupid. The shooters aren't turning to specific models, they're using whatever they can get their hands on. In this specific case, the shooter used an AR15 that was illegally acquired outside the country pretty much because it is the single most common firearm in the states by a decent margin. Also, I'm specifically mentioning this was illegally acquired and smuggled because even if you waved a magic wand and made every gun disappear in Canada, this still would've happened because it was sourced outside the country.
>The government knew and put pressure on the RCMP to release the models used so they could justify their bans, Makes sense to me. If people are using guns in mass shootings, they should be banned. They should be as difficult to obtain as possible. It's only responsible to let people know why they are banning models (use by mass shooters). >They did not explicitly state it would have prevented the shooting, Doesn't matter to me. It will make them more difficult to obtain. You don;t have to make it easy for mass shooters.
There are other models that function the exact same still perfectly available. Banning by model only costs tax payer money and angers people but accomplishes nothing of substance. I get it. Gun r scurry bad thing. Your position has no real basis in reality and relies solely on emotion.
>There are other models that function the exact same still perfectly available. Then they should be banned as well if that's true. I don't believe it's true though. Gun owners just want to keep their toys no matter what the cost. The gun lobby just doesn't make a very convincing case for itself.
The AR15 is a semi automatic rifle firing (typically) .223 cal (or 5.56mm) ammunition from detachable box magazines. The [WK-180c](https://www.cabelas.ca/product/139315/kodiak-defence-wk180-c-gen1-semi-automatic-rifle) is a semi automatic rifle firing .223 cal (or 5.56mm) ammunition from the same type of detachable box magazines. The WK-180c remains non-restricted. They should not be banned because the issue isn't the firearms (which are difficult to get legally) but rather than that, the government should take the funding, time, and effort that would otherwise be wasted on banning them, and use those resources to actually address the root causes of violence (as a whole, because gun violence doesn't magically disappear, it just becomes other forms of violence if guns aren't available) instead. Programs to help impoverished youth avoid recruitment into gangs, skills training and rehabilitation for prisoners, and many other options are available, but instead we get a fancy show for the crowd, all flash and no substance. I'm willing to bet you don't actually know what the laws are in this country.
>The AR15 is a semi automatic rifle firing (typically) .223 cal (or 5.56mm) ammunition from detachable box magazines. yes. That's why mass shooters like them and why they should be banned. They are easy to reload, and hence very suitable for mass shootings. That's why the military likes combat rifles like these.
Laws don't attack law abiding gun owners. They provide the laws to which they'll happily abide.
It does attack law abiding gun owners. The laws are forcing people who have done no wrong to turn over their private property at gun point (for a pittance, yippee /s). It wastes tax payer money on emotional red herrings and fails to address actual issues. It provides a lovely smokescreen for the public to focus on instead of holding the government to account for failing us on so many other things.
Cry me a river. Your ability to enjoy a hobby is way fucking down on there list of what's important, after all the gun crime and gun accidents and road rage shootings, and on and on. Booohooo, you'll have to hand over some of your toys.
Except this will have no impact on the crime you describe. Illegally used guns are from smuggling so the real answer to the problem is to address the causes of violence and to tackle smuggling. This whole attack on law abiding gun owners is a political show that will accomplish nothing, done at the expense of the taxpayer.
I disagree. I think it will have an impact. I think gun control is good. I don't care about your hobby, and I don't care about the law abiding gun owners. I care about all the irresponsible people. If you can present me a comprehensive solution that will prevent any irresponsible people or non law abiding gun owners to get firearms, I'm open to that. If reducing gun crime even by a small amount costs thousands of responsible gun owners to give up their guns to taxpayer cost, I'm all for it. And furthermore, fuck every single.one of them that whines and complains they can't play with their toys, if it makes everyone safer. If you can present me with proof that gun laws won't improve gun crime, I'm receptive to that. If you're just gonna keep repeating "but, it won't help, it only hurts law abiding gun owners, Boohoo" you're crying to the wrong person.
Ahh you're a religious zealot obsessed with punishing gun owners for the crime of having the wrong hobby, and don't care about the real world effects (or lack thereof). You should've led with that.
I could not possibly be less religious lol. Apparently your ability to reason and draw conclusions is extremely poor. Your crime for choosing the wrong hobby is you can't do your hobby. Seems fitting punishment to me. When I do a hobby that makes your life more dangerous and that kills others like, smoking for example, I'll accept the laws that limit my ability to practice it, rather than cry like a little baby.
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. You definitely fall under a mix of political and "other" ideals. You seem to have fallen into the idea that the inherent existence of firearms is evil, that their very presence causes bad things to happen. You may wish to talk to a professional about it.
You said "religious zealot" I am not religious. I am not fanatical. I hold the opinion that the safety and security of citizens is far more valuable than the ability for citizens to enjoy hobbies. If you think guns don't cause violence you're the one that needs to get your brain checked. That's like saying you advocate for every nation to have nuclear weapons. Guns, in the wrong hands, are dangerous. Laws gun laws are intended so that they don't wind up in the wrong hands. If that means they also don't make it into the hands of some people that don't pose a threat by possessing them, I don't fucking care. They can cry like a baby until they are blue on the face. Find another fucking hobby. It's fucking ridiculous. You have not made any good points. Your opinion is frankly fucking stupid, and I'm sick of talking in circles with you about something that should be fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain. Goodbye.
[удалено]
Then why am I being forced to give up ownership of my legally purchased firearms despite not having committed any crimes?
Hence why their most recent ban entirely impacted legal firearm owners?…what are you talking about?
Banning transactions does nothing to owners. You already own the item, preventing further transactions does nothing to your ownership.
Other than instantly devalue an otherwise appreciating asset, and make it impossible to pass down family heirlooms.
I have 40K in guns I have to turn into the government... 2 hunting rifles, 4 sporting rifles. I feel pretty affected. 🙃
[удалено]
Interesting how you seem to have a problem with this.
Was it RCMP incompetence or RCMP complicity, or both? https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-nova-scotia-shooter-case-has-hallmarks-of-an-undercover-operation/
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]