Page 112 of 132 FirstFirst ... 12 62 102 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 122 ... LastLast
Results 1,666 to 1,680 of 1979

Thread: The Coronavirus Pandemic

  1. #1666
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Supreme Grand Master

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by saucelife90 View Post
    Imagine thinking that banning ARs will stop mass shootings.
    Illegal drugs aren’t on the streets and haven’t heard of any drug related deaths in a long time.....
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ​​

  2. #1667
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by Daydream Nation View Post
    Great response. This is how I approach people trying to defend semi-automatic rifle (AR-15 style) ownership in the US. The AR-15 has become the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Sure, those killers would have probably still killed but how about not giving them access to efficient killing machines? The guy in Vegas- maybe he wouldn't have killed 58 and wounded 413 if he didn't have modified AR-15s, high capacity magazines, and bump-stocks making his weapons practically automatic. Maybe he would have only killed 10 or 15 or 20 if he only had some traditional hunting rifles- but that's a helluva lot better than 58. But I guess since we couldn't completely eliminate his ability to commit murder, we throw up our arms, surrender, and put no regulations on weapons. (sarcasm)
    Canada is not the USA.

  3. #1668
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Deity

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Looks like we've moved on to guns now. I'll share this:

    I would say with confidence that the lives of innocent Canadians are more valuable and worthy of consideration than the rights of gun-owners to possess and use their preferred firearm (no matter how safely or responsibly they do so). Public safety takes priority over the privilege of weapon ownership.

    I understand why many of my friends, family and fellow citizens may disagree with this position. I have tried to remain open-minded, I have heard their concerns and have seen the validity of their perspectives. In respectful discussions, I have learned from some of those with whom I disagree. But I am still seeing some of the same tired, illogical, worn-out arguments being made, in the guise of "common sense" that are in fact completely senseless:

    1. "Banning guns won't stop crime" - Firstly, gun regulations are NOT the same as banning guns, so this is a "straw-man argument". No one in Canada is proposing a total gun ban, so stick to the facts. Secondly, the measure of success for a law isn't that it stops crime altogether, with 100% effectiveness. This is an impossible standard to meet, for ANY law. The goal is to REDUCE the danger. All available data shows that stricter gun regulations would absolutely accomplish this. Everyone who says "gun control laws won't help reduce crime" is merely offering their opinion, without citing any sources, stats or data to back it up. If they bothered to do the research, they would find this statement is false.

    2. "Gun laws are pointless, because they only punish law-abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow laws anyway" - What? Try saying this again, slowly, and see how stupid it sounds. This is a massive failure to understand the whole point of having ANY laws. Should we not have DUI laws, because drunk drivers don't obey them anyway? Should we scrap traffic laws too, because not all drivers follow them? Does regulating your licence, insurance, registration, driving tests, traffic laws, etc. unfairly punish law abiding motorists? Of course not. Ridiculous. We have no problem with vehicle regulations and restrictions, because a vehicle can be dangerous and can kill. These regulations are for public safety, regardless of whether criminals decide to break them. Society doesn't (and shouldn't) decide on laws based on whether criminals are likely to abide by them.

    3. "GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people". - No shit, Sherlock. No one is claiming otherwise. Not one person ever said that a gun can kill on it's own. This is why we want to regulate PEOPLE, not guns. Background checks on PEOPLE, mental health assessments for PEOPLE, limits on what firearms PEOPLE should own. Gun control is about restricting access to PEOPLE. A firearm is a dangerous and deadly tool, that is quite safe when used responsibly by well trained people. But easily quite deadly in the wrong hands. More deadly than a knife, a sword, a car, or a baseball bat, and should be treated as such. Regulations simply attempt to decrease the chances of legal guns falling into the hands of people whose intentions are illegal. Would you say "tanks don't kill people, people kill people" to argue against laws or regulations regarding tank ownership and operation? I hope not.

    Please stop using stupid soundbites as arguments against gun control, when there are actually intelligent and coherent points that could be made instead. It hurts your cause more than it helps.

    I grew up in a rural family that regularly used guns, and was taught how to use them by responsible people. I know many friends and family who have every right to own and continue using their firearms for hunting, sport and (ideally never) home defense. They have no problem with tough gun laws and strict regulations, because they realize what a huge responsibility firearm ownership is. They are grateful for the privilege, not entitled to the right. They are not selfish enough to elevate their desire to own a weapon above the lives of others, and they are willing to be subject to stringent measures for the greater good of public safety. I would question the level of awareness, responsibility and mental maturity of anyone who feels that gun control and regulation is a bad thing. Maybe that's the exact type of person - stubborn, selfish, and childish - who should NOT be allowed to own a gun...

    Finally, what do the facts say? Data from dozens of countries worldwide, spanning decades of research, consistently reveals that higher rates of gun ownership and relaxed gun control laws always correlate to higher rates of violent crime and gun deaths. Almost without exception, this trend is true. If this were false, then the USA would have the lowest rate of firearm deaths in the world. Instead, it's the exact opposite - they have the highest. Would Canadians rather follow the advice of "leaders" like Trump and groups like the NRA? Or instead, take inspiration from the world's most admired and respected leader, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand? The choice should be obvious here.
    10 Team, Points Only, Cash League

    25 Man Roster (no position), top 20 point getters count at end of month
    Keep 20/25 at seasons end, Cut 5 to FA for redrafting
    Goalie points W=2pt L=-1pt SHO=2pt

    Stamkos, Tavares, Eichel, Mercer, JRobertson, RThomas, Kucherov, Nugent-Hopkins, Tuch, KConnor, Necas, Point, Konecny, SJarvis, Cozenz, Morrissey, Bouchard, Josi, Novak, Tolvanen, Peterka, Brink

    G- Vasilevskiy, Sorokin, Oettinger


    "Cleavage is like the sun. You can look, but dont stare.. Unless you're wearing sunglasses."

  4. #1669
    Wonko's Avatar
    Wonko is offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    4,505
    Location
    Mountains
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports All-Star

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by Axeman33 View Post
    Looks like we've moved on to guns now. I'll share this:

    I would say with confidence that the lives of innocent Canadians are more valuable and worthy of consideration than the rights of gun-owners to possess and use their preferred firearm (no matter how safely or responsibly they do so). Public safety takes priority over the privilege of weapon ownership.

    I understand why many of my friends, family and fellow citizens may disagree with this position. I have tried to remain open-minded, I have heard their concerns and have seen the validity of their perspectives. In respectful discussions, I have learned from some of those with whom I disagree. But I am still seeing some of the same tired, illogical, worn-out arguments being made, in the guise of "common sense" that are in fact completely senseless:

    1. "Banning guns won't stop crime" - Firstly, gun regulations are NOT the same as banning guns, so this is a "straw-man argument". No one in Canada is proposing a total gun ban, so stick to the facts. Secondly, the measure of success for a law isn't that it stops crime altogether, with 100% effectiveness. This is an impossible standard to meet, for ANY law. The goal is to REDUCE the danger. All available data shows that stricter gun regulations would absolutely accomplish this. Everyone who says "gun control laws won't help reduce crime" is merely offering their opinion, without citing any sources, stats or data to back it up. If they bothered to do the research, they would find this statement is false.

    2. "Gun laws are pointless, because they only punish law-abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow laws anyway" - What? Try saying this again, slowly, and see how stupid it sounds. This is a massive failure to understand the whole point of having ANY laws. Should we not have DUI laws, because drunk drivers don't obey them anyway? Should we scrap traffic laws too, because not all drivers follow them? Does regulating your licence, insurance, registration, driving tests, traffic laws, etc. unfairly punish law abiding motorists? Of course not. Ridiculous. We have no problem with vehicle regulations and restrictions, because a vehicle can be dangerous and can kill. These regulations are for public safety, regardless of whether criminals decide to break them. Society doesn't (and shouldn't) decide on laws based on whether criminals are likely to abide by them.

    3. "GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people". - No shit, Sherlock. No one is claiming otherwise. Not one person ever said that a gun can kill on it's own. This is why we want to regulate PEOPLE, not guns. Background checks on PEOPLE, mental health assessments for PEOPLE, limits on what firearms PEOPLE should own. Gun control is about restricting access to PEOPLE. A firearm is a dangerous and deadly tool, that is quite safe when used responsibly by well trained people. But easily quite deadly in the wrong hands. More deadly than a knife, a sword, a car, or a baseball bat, and should be treated as such. Regulations simply attempt to decrease the chances of legal guns falling into the hands of people whose intentions are illegal. Would you say "tanks don't kill people, people kill people" to argue against laws or regulations regarding tank ownership and operation? I hope not.

    Please stop using stupid soundbites as arguments against gun control, when there are actually intelligent and coherent points that could be made instead. It hurts your cause more than it helps.

    I grew up in a rural family that regularly used guns, and was taught how to use them by responsible people. I know many friends and family who have every right to own and continue using their firearms for hunting, sport and (ideally never) home defense. They have no problem with tough gun laws and strict regulations, because they realize what a huge responsibility firearm ownership is. They are grateful for the privilege, not entitled to the right. They are not selfish enough to elevate their desire to own a weapon above the lives of others, and they are willing to be subject to stringent measures for the greater good of public safety. I would question the level of awareness, responsibility and mental maturity of anyone who feels that gun control and regulation is a bad thing. Maybe that's the exact type of person - stubborn, selfish, and childish - who should NOT be allowed to own a gun...

    Finally, what do the facts say? Data from dozens of countries worldwide, spanning decades of research, consistently reveals that higher rates of gun ownership and relaxed gun control laws always correlate to higher rates of violent crime and gun deaths. Almost without exception, this trend is true. If this were false, then the USA would have the lowest rate of firearm deaths in the world. Instead, it's the exact opposite - they have the highest. Would Canadians rather follow the advice of "leaders" like Trump and groups like the NRA? Or instead, take inspiration from the world's most admired and respected leader, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand? The choice should be obvious here.
    Nicely put Axe.
    KHL Fantasy Hockey League Keep 8
    3-C 3-RW 3-LW 6-D 2-G

    Forward 5-G 3-A 1.0 STP
    D-Men 6-G 4-A 1.5 STP
    .35 Shot .4 Hit .4 Block .1 FOW
    Goalie 6.5 Win .25 Save -2.5 GA 2-SO


    C- Larkin, Hischer, Horvat, R. Thomas
    LW- Stamkos, Hyman, Kreider, Lehkonen,
    RW- Laine, Marchessault, Toffoli. Buchnevich
    D- Doughty, Burns, Letang, Andersson (IR), Faulk, Toews, Pionk, Petry
    G- Vasilevskiy, Copley, Andersen



  5. #1670
    Location
    Chicago
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Sage

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by Axeman33 View Post
    Looks like we've moved on to guns now. I'll share this:

    I would say with confidence that the lives of innocent Canadians are more valuable and worthy of consideration than the rights of gun-owners to possess and use their preferred firearm (no matter how safely or responsibly they do so). Public safety takes priority over the privilege of weapon ownership.

    I understand why many of my friends, family and fellow citizens may disagree with this position. I have tried to remain open-minded, I have heard their concerns and have seen the validity of their perspectives. In respectful discussions, I have learned from some of those with whom I disagree. But I am still seeing some of the same tired, illogical, worn-out arguments being made, in the guise of "common sense" that are in fact completely senseless:

    1. "Banning guns won't stop crime" - Firstly, gun regulations are NOT the same as banning guns, so this is a "straw-man argument". No one in Canada is proposing a total gun ban, so stick to the facts. Secondly, the measure of success for a law isn't that it stops crime altogether, with 100% effectiveness. This is an impossible standard to meet, for ANY law. The goal is to REDUCE the danger. All available data shows that stricter gun regulations would absolutely accomplish this. Everyone who says "gun control laws won't help reduce crime" is merely offering their opinion, without citing any sources, stats or data to back it up. If they bothered to do the research, they would find this statement is false.

    2. "Gun laws are pointless, because they only punish law-abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow laws anyway" - What? Try saying this again, slowly, and see how stupid it sounds. This is a massive failure to understand the whole point of having ANY laws. Should we not have DUI laws, because drunk drivers don't obey them anyway? Should we scrap traffic laws too, because not all drivers follow them? Does regulating your licence, insurance, registration, driving tests, traffic laws, etc. unfairly punish law abiding motorists? Of course not. Ridiculous. We have no problem with vehicle regulations and restrictions, because a vehicle can be dangerous and can kill. These regulations are for public safety, regardless of whether criminals decide to break them. Society doesn't (and shouldn't) decide on laws based on whether criminals are likely to abide by them.

    3. "GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people". - No shit, Sherlock. No one is claiming otherwise. Not one person ever said that a gun can kill on it's own. This is why we want to regulate PEOPLE, not guns. Background checks on PEOPLE, mental health assessments for PEOPLE, limits on what firearms PEOPLE should own. Gun control is about restricting access to PEOPLE. A firearm is a dangerous and deadly tool, that is quite safe when used responsibly by well trained people. But easily quite deadly in the wrong hands. More deadly than a knife, a sword, a car, or a baseball bat, and should be treated as such. Regulations simply attempt to decrease the chances of legal guns falling into the hands of people whose intentions are illegal. Would you say "tanks don't kill people, people kill people" to argue against laws or regulations regarding tank ownership and operation? I hope not.

    Please stop using stupid soundbites as arguments against gun control, when there are actually intelligent and coherent points that could be made instead. It hurts your cause more than it helps.

    I grew up in a rural family that regularly used guns, and was taught how to use them by responsible people. I know many friends and family who have every right to own and continue using their firearms for hunting, sport and (ideally never) home defense. They have no problem with tough gun laws and strict regulations, because they realize what a huge responsibility firearm ownership is. They are grateful for the privilege, not entitled to the right. They are not selfish enough to elevate their desire to own a weapon above the lives of others, and they are willing to be subject to stringent measures for the greater good of public safety. I would question the level of awareness, responsibility and mental maturity of anyone who feels that gun control and regulation is a bad thing. Maybe that's the exact type of person - stubborn, selfish, and childish - who should NOT be allowed to own a gun...

    Finally, what do the facts say? Data from dozens of countries worldwide, spanning decades of research, consistently reveals that higher rates of gun ownership and relaxed gun control laws always correlate to higher rates of violent crime and gun deaths. Almost without exception, this trend is true. If this were false, then the USA would have the lowest rate of firearm deaths in the world. Instead, it's the exact opposite - they have the highest. Would Canadians rather follow the advice of "leaders" like Trump and groups like the NRA? Or instead, take inspiration from the world's most admired and respected leader, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand? The choice should be obvious here.
    That’s an all-time post right there. Axeman and Lawman are killing it in this thread.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    10 Team, 60 Player Roster
    G, A, PTS, PPP, PIM, BLKs, Hits, +/-, Shots, W, GAA, SV%, Saves
    C- JHughes, Trocheck, RThomas, Zegras, Norris, Bennett, PLD, Stephenson, Danualt
    RW- Raymond, Stone, TWilson, Toffoli, KJohnson, Nyqvist, Zary
    LW- Keller, Schmaltz, Bunting, Skinner, Barbashev, Duclair
    D- QHughes, McAvoy, Doughty, Heiskanen, LHughes, Mintyukov
    G- Shesterkin, Demko, Andersen, Kahkonen, Levi, Tarasov, Annunen

    Notable Prospects- Nikishin, Kulich, Leonard, Wood, Perreault, Lekkermaki, Ostlund, Othmman, REvans, L-Heureux, Ivanov, Murashov

  6. #1671
    Magicstew's Avatar
    Magicstew is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    5,131
    Location
    Stonewall, Mb.
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Superstar

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by Axeman33 View Post
    Looks like we've moved on to guns now. I'll share this:

    I would say with confidence that the lives of innocent Canadians are more valuable and worthy of consideration than the rights of gun-owners to possess and use their preferred firearm (no matter how safely or responsibly they do so). Public safety takes priority over the privilege of weapon ownership.

    I understand why many of my friends, family and fellow citizens may disagree with this position. I have tried to remain open-minded, I have heard their concerns and have seen the validity of their perspectives. In respectful discussions, I have learned from some of those with whom I disagree. But I am still seeing some of the same tired, illogical, worn-out arguments being made, in the guise of "common sense" that are in fact completely senseless:

    1. "Banning guns won't stop crime" - Firstly, gun regulations are NOT the same as banning guns, so this is a "straw-man argument". No one in Canada is proposing a total gun ban, so stick to the facts. Secondly, the measure of success for a law isn't that it stops crime altogether, with 100% effectiveness. This is an impossible standard to meet, for ANY law. The goal is to REDUCE the danger. All available data shows that stricter gun regulations would absolutely accomplish this. Everyone who says "gun control laws won't help reduce crime" is merely offering their opinion, without citing any sources, stats or data to back it up. If they bothered to do the research, they would find this statement is false.

    2. "Gun laws are pointless, because they only punish law-abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow laws anyway" - What? Try saying this again, slowly, and see how stupid it sounds. This is a massive failure to understand the whole point of having ANY laws. Should we not have DUI laws, because drunk drivers don't obey them anyway? Should we scrap traffic laws too, because not all drivers follow them? Does regulating your licence, insurance, registration, driving tests, traffic laws, etc. unfairly punish law abiding motorists? Of course not. Ridiculous. We have no problem with vehicle regulations and restrictions, because a vehicle can be dangerous and can kill. These regulations are for public safety, regardless of whether criminals decide to break them. Society doesn't (and shouldn't) decide on laws based on whether criminals are likely to abide by them.

    3. "GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people". - No shit, Sherlock. No one is claiming otherwise. Not one person ever said that a gun can kill on it's own. This is why we want to regulate PEOPLE, not guns. Background checks on PEOPLE, mental health assessments for PEOPLE, limits on what firearms PEOPLE should own. Gun control is about restricting access to PEOPLE. A firearm is a dangerous and deadly tool, that is quite safe when used responsibly by well trained people. But easily quite deadly in the wrong hands. More deadly than a knife, a sword, a car, or a baseball bat, and should be treated as such. Regulations simply attempt to decrease the chances of legal guns falling into the hands of people whose intentions are illegal. Would you say "tanks don't kill people, people kill people" to argue against laws or regulations regarding tank ownership and operation? I hope not.

    Please stop using stupid soundbites as arguments against gun control, when there are actually intelligent and coherent points that could be made instead. It hurts your cause more than it helps.

    I grew up in a rural family that regularly used guns, and was taught how to use them by responsible people. I know many friends and family who have every right to own and continue using their firearms for hunting, sport and (ideally never) home defense. They have no problem with tough gun laws and strict regulations, because they realize what a huge responsibility firearm ownership is. They are grateful for the privilege, not entitled to the right. They are not selfish enough to elevate their desire to own a weapon above the lives of others, and they are willing to be subject to stringent measures for the greater good of public safety. I would question the level of awareness, responsibility and mental maturity of anyone who feels that gun control and regulation is a bad thing. Maybe that's the exact type of person - stubborn, selfish, and childish - who should NOT be allowed to own a gun...

    Finally, what do the facts say? Data from dozens of countries worldwide, spanning decades of research, consistently reveals that higher rates of gun ownership and relaxed gun control laws always correlate to higher rates of violent crime and gun deaths. Almost without exception, this trend is true. If this were false, then the USA would have the lowest rate of firearm deaths in the world. Instead, it's the exact opposite - they have the highest. Would Canadians rather follow the advice of "leaders" like Trump and groups like the NRA? Or instead, take inspiration from the world's most admired and respected leader, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand? The choice should be obvious here.
    Great post Axe. I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting, these are not the people I worry about. No need to have automatic assault type weapons available. Saves 1 life it is worth it, ask relatives of victims?
    Piranha Hockey League est 1990 - Oakley Doakley's - 16 teams
    Pts only W=2 OL=1 SO=3 Auction Draft

    WHL - est 2016 Expansion - Glasgow Kiss - 24 teams
    25 pro players / 10 minor league players
    G,A,+/-,PPP,SOG,Hits,Blk,PIM,FOW, W,Sv,GA,SHO


  7. #1672
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Appreciate the effort Axe, but disagree with much of it. It's a pretty unproductive discussion though in my experience. I actually don't care too much either way so I'll let the people who feel strongly about it fight over it all!

  8. #1673
    Wonko's Avatar
    Wonko is offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    4,505
    Location
    Mountains
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports All-Star

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by doulos View Post
    Appreciate the effort Axe, but disagree with much of it. It's a pretty unproductive discussion though in my experience. I actually don't care too much either way so I'll let the people who feel strongly about it fight over it all!
    Be interested to hear your counter arguments doulos.
    KHL Fantasy Hockey League Keep 8
    3-C 3-RW 3-LW 6-D 2-G

    Forward 5-G 3-A 1.0 STP
    D-Men 6-G 4-A 1.5 STP
    .35 Shot .4 Hit .4 Block .1 FOW
    Goalie 6.5 Win .25 Save -2.5 GA 2-SO


    C- Larkin, Hischer, Horvat, R. Thomas
    LW- Stamkos, Hyman, Kreider, Lehkonen,
    RW- Laine, Marchessault, Toffoli. Buchnevich
    D- Doughty, Burns, Letang, Andersson (IR), Faulk, Toews, Pionk, Petry
    G- Vasilevskiy, Copley, Andersen



  9. #1674
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Deity

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonko View Post
    Be interested to hear your counter arguments doulos.
    You kind of read my mind.

    I didnt expect everyone to agree with my post, but I'd love to hear why you disagree. I'm not looking for arguments but education.
    10 Team, Points Only, Cash League

    25 Man Roster (no position), top 20 point getters count at end of month
    Keep 20/25 at seasons end, Cut 5 to FA for redrafting
    Goalie points W=2pt L=-1pt SHO=2pt

    Stamkos, Tavares, Eichel, Mercer, JRobertson, RThomas, Kucherov, Nugent-Hopkins, Tuch, KConnor, Necas, Point, Konecny, SJarvis, Cozenz, Morrissey, Bouchard, Josi, Novak, Tolvanen, Peterka, Brink

    G- Vasilevskiy, Sorokin, Oettinger


    "Cleavage is like the sun. You can look, but dont stare.. Unless you're wearing sunglasses."

  10. #1675
    Location
    Ottawa
    Rep Power
    50

    The Great One

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by Axeman33 View Post
    1. "Banning guns won't stop crime" - Firstly, gun regulations are NOT the same as banning guns, so this is a "straw-man argument". No one in Canada is proposing a total gun ban, so stick to the facts. Secondly, the measure of success for a law isn't that it stops crime altogether, with 100% effectiveness. This is an impossible standard to meet, for ANY law. The goal is to REDUCE the danger. All available data shows that stricter gun regulations would absolutely accomplish this. Everyone who says "gun control laws won't help reduce crime" is merely offering their opinion, without citing any sources, stats or data to back it up. If they bothered to do the research, they would find this statement is false.
    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html:
    "Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings is inconclusive."
    "Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive. Evidence for the effect of high-capacity magazine bans on firearm homicides is also inconclusive."

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rand-corporation
    "Overall, we rate Rand Corporation Pro-Science, Least Biased and High for factual reporting."

  11. #1676
    Wonko's Avatar
    Wonko is offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    4,505
    Location
    Mountains
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports All-Star

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by als_revenge View Post
    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html:
    "Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings is inconclusive."
    "Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive. Evidence for the effect of high-capacity magazine bans on firearm homicides is also inconclusive."

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rand-corporation
    "Overall, we rate Rand Corporation Pro-Science, Least Biased and High for factual reporting."
    The link disappeared so I was unable to read the research. That said, I would posit that one "inconclusive" study is hardly a rebuttal to Axe's argument.
    KHL Fantasy Hockey League Keep 8
    3-C 3-RW 3-LW 6-D 2-G

    Forward 5-G 3-A 1.0 STP
    D-Men 6-G 4-A 1.5 STP
    .35 Shot .4 Hit .4 Block .1 FOW
    Goalie 6.5 Win .25 Save -2.5 GA 2-SO


    C- Larkin, Hischer, Horvat, R. Thomas
    LW- Stamkos, Hyman, Kreider, Lehkonen,
    RW- Laine, Marchessault, Toffoli. Buchnevich
    D- Doughty, Burns, Letang, Andersson (IR), Faulk, Toews, Pionk, Petry
    G- Vasilevskiy, Copley, Andersen



  12. #1677
    Location
    Ottawa
    Rep Power
    50

    The Great One

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonko View Post
    The link disappeared so I was unable to read the research. That said, I would posit that one "inconclusive" study is hardly a rebuttal to Axe's argument.
    My error, there should not have been a colon at the end: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html (That should take you to an overview of the results).

    The one study is a review of 123 studies (there were criteria for selecting those 123 studies from 21,686 studies). Full report here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_r.../RR2088-1.html

  13. #1678
    LawMan's Avatar
    LawMan is offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,193
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Superstar

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    I’m not a gun nut, or fan. I do not own any guns, I do not want to own any guns. I firmly believe that having a firearm in your home increases the chance of harming a loved one over a home invader. I have fired a hand gun once in my life, at a range, it was more scary than fun.


    I believe that Canada has, by and large gotten it right when it comes to guns.
    I believe that the American subculture which worships the 2nd amendment is toxic and causes thousands of unnecessary deaths every year. I think it is laughable that certain individuals in the USA argue with a straight face that their individual ownership of firearms prevents a tyrannical government uprising in their country (especially given Trump’s rise to power and that same subcultures silence regarding same).
    All of that being said, the Order in Council (“OIC”) passed by the Liberal Government that was the basis for the new “assault gun ban” is, in my opinion, a terrible piece of governing for the following reasons.

    1. The Wrong ProcessIt was not passed as a Bill. You may have noticed I said a terrible piece of “governing” as opposed to “legislation” and that is because this ban was not made via Legislation, that is a Bill passed in the House of Commons and then the Senate, but rateer, via an OIC (the functional equivalent to the USA’s executive order). This is problematic for 2 reasons.
    a. The democratic process matters. The is the weaker of the two arguments but in my humble opinion major changes to legislation should not be enacted by ministerial order. OIC’s are effectively made by the executive branch and should be of a minor nature (relative to legislation) they should clarify points or instruct executive branch agencies or update items that get stale dated overtime (any monetary numbers tied to inflation), they should not be used to legislate.
    b. The lack of debate does (did) not allow the government to see the flaw in their own plan. This is the bigger point. One of the main reasons for debate in the House of Commons is for the government to defend the points, big and small, of their proposal and for the opposition to be allowed to challenge them. Unfortunately, this often turns into political grandstanding however it is still important. Further, the Senate then gets a crack at legislation and can review same before voting on it. Further still, legislative Committees are usually where details and unexpected consequences (very common in legislation) can be brought to light and corrected before a bill is passed.  this comes up a couple times below.
    As I mentioned above I do not own guns, I also do not know hardly anything about guns. I have been reading input from experts, whom I know know their stuff, and whose opinions I respect, a couple of major “problems” with the Liberal proposal have been revealed:

    2.Uncertainty concerning whether 12-gauge shotguns are banned. So I may get the details wrong here, but effectively the OIC bans all guns with a barrel (bore) greater than 20mm. Now lots of hunting shotguns have a removable piece called a “choke” by adding or removing the choke the gun acts differently. Note: I do not think it’s a more or less deadly option: more a deer vs. duck hunting thing… I’ve been told a choke allows 1 gun to act as “3 or more”.
    Anyways, legally speaking a gun’s bore is measured at the widest point with all chokes removed, this makes a 12-gauge shotgun slightly over 20mm and thus, banned. Again, this is not my uneducated opinion but the opinion of several advanced firearms lawyers.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSSA/PDF/SO...GihO2VT0ucX7Uc

    Now, the Minister has already come out and said the Liberal government’s “interpretation” is that 12-gauge shotguns are not banned.

    Therein lies a serious problem.

    Anytime the enforcement or non-enforcement of a law lays with a politician or crown prosecutor’s interpretation of same big problems occur. Your average 12-gauge owner, who likes to go duck hunting, and wants to be a law-abiding citizen, is either left to try and guess about whether they can own their gun, or hand it in, or face serious criminal charges if they wrong. If they’re rich enough they can get legal opinions non-stop but those provide no certainty. Further, the fact that the non-prosecution relies upon a government opinion means said opinion can, at a later date be changed, and the previous opinion provides some but not total protection to the 12-gauge owner.
    There are apparently other issues technical and interpretative issues with the ban that leave grey area surrounding the ownership of various guns, and modifications thereto. These uncertainties go back to my point 1(b) above, had this legislation been brought as a Bill before the committee then experts could have been brought in to review and comment on same and allowed the government to clarify the rules around barrels and chokes and give certainty on the restrictions. The government would have been able to write in an exception for shotguns, and they clearly would have not been banned and everybody would have been better off.

    3. Grandfathering. The order took AR-15s and made them prohibited (Note: Canada has 3 classifications of guns prohibited-(banned) restricted- really hard to get, really hard to transport, can only be used for certain purposes and non-restricted- the least restricted but still like pretty restricted, you need to pass a course and get a license).
    So the Liberals moved all AR-15s from “restricted” to “prohibited”. Now in doing this Trudeau said “nobody needs an AR-15 to take down a deer” and you know what he’s right. But, because AR-15s were previously restricted they are banned for use in hunting. Before the ban you could only possess (and own) an AR-15 if you had the elevated license and You can only fire them, at particular ranges which meet the qualifications. Further, even the rules around transporting them are incredibly tight. Legally speaking if you are transporting a restricted weapon you must go directly from the place it is stored (storage rules being regulated, so say a gun safe, in your home, unloaded and trigger locked. Again all of these measures I whole heartedly support) to the range, if you stop for milk with a restricted weapon left in your car you are in violation of firearms legislation. Which again, I’m ok with.
    The problem is that by making the comment “no one needs an AR-15 to take down a deer” Trudeau has done 2 bad things. First, he has shown his ignorance to the topic he is legislating, which reduces his credibility about being able to talk about the subject. Second, he has used fear mongering to argue for his ban. He’s trying to argue that he is preventing something that was illegal before.

    Along with the ban the government announced a two-year moratorium or grace period. No one will be charged with possessing an AR-15 for the next two years, so long as they could before.
    But the Liberals have also not decided if current owners will be grandfathered or not, again they did not have a full plan in place, and, given that nothing is going to happen for 2 years anyways, all the more reason to craft legislation the proper way, after a well thought-out and drafted bill is passed. There was no reason to rush anything in this case.

    In conclusion: I’m generally in favor of almost all of the gun regulation we have in Canada. I believe they keep most Canadians safer and are one of the factors that explain the large discrepancy between Canada and the USA’s gun violence numbers.
    That being said, the OIC passed by the Liberal Government was a knee-jerk reaction. The OIC should have been passed as an Act of Parliament, after a thorough review, expert input and full debate. Had that happened some of the problems surrounding interpretation and lack of clarity on grandfathering could have been avoided and everyone would have been happier. Because that was not done a lot of law-abiding Canadians are going to face a lot of uncertainty in the next two years none of which does, in my opinion, make Canadians safer.
    12 team H-2-H 1 year league, daily roster changes, 3 goalie start minimum/week
    2xC, 2xRW, 2xLW, 4xD, 3xUtil, 2xG, 5 Bench
    G, A, P, PIM, PPP, SHP, GWG, SOG, Hits, W, SV%, GAA, SVs
    C: C. Keller, C. Mittelstadt, B. Nelson, R. Strome,
    LW: K. Connor, B. Tkachuk, J. Gaudreau, J. Marchessault, E. Rodrigues, A. Lafreniere
    RW: K. Fiala, J. Bratt, T. Jeannot V. Arvidsson
    D: R. Josi, J. Trouba, E. Gustafsson,
    G: L. Thompson, F. Gustavsson, V. Vanecek
    NO IR

  14. #1679
    Location
    Ottawa
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Ninja

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    Quote Originally Posted by LawMan View Post
    I’m not a gun nut, or fan. I do not own any guns, I do not want to own any guns. I firmly believe that having a firearm in your home increases the chance of harming a loved one over a home invader. I have fired a hand gun once in my life, at a range, it was more scary than fun.


    I believe that Canada has, by and large gotten it right when it comes to guns.


    In conclusion: I’m generally in favor of almost all of the gun regulation we have in Canada. I believe they keep most Canadians safer and are one of the factors that explain the large discrepancy between Canada and the USA’s gun violence numbers.
    That being said, the OIC passed by the Liberal Government was a knee-jerk reaction. The OIC should have been passed as an Act of Parliament, after a thorough review, expert input and full debate. Had that happened some of the problems surrounding interpretation and lack of clarity on grandfathering could have been avoided and everyone would have been happier. Because that was not done a lot of law-abiding Canadians are going to face a lot of uncertainty in the next two years none of which does, in my opinion, make Canadians safer.
    Oh LawMan, your conclusion is what I've been trying to bang out on my keyboard, but you said it way, way better than I ever could.

    I've been a handgun owner and especially as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, have been able to spend a decent amount of quality time on the range over the years. I am very comfortable with both handguns and long guns, even carried a handgun every day while I was deployed in Kabul, Afghanistan for more than a year. I agree that Canada has it right when it comes to the sometimes draconian rules regarding weapons ownership. I believe that it does ultimately save lives. We do however, have an issue with a porous border which is how the vast majority of illegal weapons enter Canada. Legislation to shore up our border would actually save more lives.

    My biggest issue with what transpired with this was the way it was just decided and announced without any oversight or discussion. That's no way for a minority government to govern.

  15. #1680
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Deity

    Default Re: The Coronavirus Pandemic

    I may be wrong (and I am sure I will quickly be called out if I am) but doesn't this new order fall under Bill C-71? Please educate, don't insult. Thanks in advance.
    10 Team, Points Only, Cash League

    25 Man Roster (no position), top 20 point getters count at end of month
    Keep 20/25 at seasons end, Cut 5 to FA for redrafting
    Goalie points W=2pt L=-1pt SHO=2pt

    Stamkos, Tavares, Eichel, Mercer, JRobertson, RThomas, Kucherov, Nugent-Hopkins, Tuch, KConnor, Necas, Point, Konecny, SJarvis, Cozenz, Morrissey, Bouchard, Josi, Novak, Tolvanen, Peterka, Brink

    G- Vasilevskiy, Sorokin, Oettinger


    "Cleavage is like the sun. You can look, but dont stare.. Unless you're wearing sunglasses."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •