Justin Time | Page 34 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Justin Time

Status
Not open for further replies.
backmarkerducati said:
So the changes worked back then? :)

Luckily we do not have many mass shootings so I agree the stats are hard to evaluate here. But we can look south, this is from Fox News (posted link previously) of all places.... they have LOTS of stats on mass shootings.

“Statistics show that those individuals committing ‘mass killings’ during ‘active shooter’ events do so utilizing weapons that have been obtained legally by themselves or a friend or family member,” observed Charles Marino, CEO of Sentinel Security Solutions. “Statistics show that those individuals committing what is known as ‘street crimes’ are typically doing so by utilizing weapons that have been initially stolen and may have further traded hands in the black market.”

Sandy Hook in the US is a prime example (obtained by a family member/mother and taken....)

Too much focus on this aspect and this is not one dimensional...
Click to expand...

There were no changes in legislation when Polytech happened. That is the point. It was an outlier in our society.
And again, these are US statistics. We do not have the same kind of lax gun laws or easy access to guns as they do.
You keep saying its not one dimensional like it's your one answer.
We know it isn't one dimensional, if it was to save lives in Canada this wouldn't be the right move.
It's political and an easy to target portion of Canadians.

I think you are the one that's not understanding, all you have in your head is that guns are made to kill, we should get rid of all guns.
At least you are clearly more honest than the current Govt
 
killvino said:
There were no changes in legislation when Polytech happened. That is the point. It was an outlier in our society.
And again, these are US statistics. We do not have the same kind of lax gun laws or easy access to guns as they do.
You keep saying its not one dimensional like it's your one answer.
We know it isn't one dimensional, if it was to save lives in Canada this wouldn't be the right move.
It's political and an easy to target portion of Canadians.

I think you are the one that's not understanding, all you have in your head is that guns are made to kill, we should get rid of all guns.
At least you are clearly more honest than the current Govt
Click to expand...

That first line was in jest, hence the smiley face.

As for the purpose of the gun, some are made for hunting, some are made for self defence (people or animals), some are made for the military and law enforcement. The intended use in the design is where part of the purpose comes in. I have been clear in this thread about that... but as I noted this legislation is not one dimensional just saving lives thing and therefore also not just about this...

BTW, I looked at mass shootings in Canada and while we do not have anywhere near the problem the US has the trend over the decades is legally purchased firearms (but obviously not all), similar to the trend in the US.
 
Lets for a second look at the multi dimensions of this legislation via a little critical thinking (and hopefully not full on tinfoil hat...) about the government's possible motivation beyond the body count. These are all off the top of my head, some I agree with, some I disagree with but there are multiple dimensions...

If you noticed there was a recent change in what we now classify as terrorism. The recent example was the classification of an incel killing as terrorism. In the past we trended towards brown person-religion radically motivated = terrorism, white radically motivated = murder (FLQ being an obvious exception). In our recent past van attack, mosque shooting just resulted in murder charges. In the US they have a growing problem with white supremacist "militia" groups like Sons of Odin, 3 Percent, et al. These groups have been making inroads into Canada, mostly Alberta (and that is a important point) and the changes in the terrorism laws here are becoming inclusive of these groups (if they act of course). SO, it does not escape me that the banned list looks a lot like a white militia shopping list. I am sure the RCMP, CSIS, etc, had some input here. If they need to do something about these groups in the near future they want it harder for them to arm up....

If these groups do arm up with weapons on the banned list it also gives the RCMP, CSIS etc. a reason to act before they do anything, not as terrorism but preemptively just under the gun laws.

The individual "type" from my meme does exist in Canada (beyond the first point above), get into rural Canada and you will find those guys with the camo pants and AR type guns and pretty much only these guns. I have seen them, I know some, they are a target here (like the pitbull ban was...). If they can't buy these guns and have limited options to legally use the ones they have some may just move on to something else non-gun. Not a huge number of people here, but they do exist. They can also not flaunt them because they don't know if the person the are flaunting to will make a call. We just don't see them on the streets like the US because they cannot do that here, but they are here. Wooden stocks just don't them feel as much of a big man as black ones....

The future argument about targeting legal gun owners becomes blurred. If that gun owner (gun on the list) decides to ignore the changes and violates them they now become illegal gun owners. Also plays into some points above.

Supply, two things come up here with respect guns on the list. Recently the maker of the AR-15 said they will no longer make the riffle for civilian use. Not because of laws but because the market is drying up (US demand). The US market for "black guns" is starting to dry up due to saturation. Demand also dropped when Trump was elected. At the same time western countries with the exception of the US are also banning these weapons. At some point there will be no place to sell them and production stops, drying up (at some point maybe decades from now) the supply that filters into the black market. Long game here. Also, say Biden wins in November and there is a crack down on the guns on the list, Canada has now preemptively prevented dumping by these manufactures into our market.

We see in the US that mass shootings usually take place with legally purchased guns (not all), quoted earlier from Fox News! We also see the same trend here (legally purchased, again not all). Making guns less available will have a non-zero positive impact. Restricting the guns that get used in the US shootings...

Banning all guns will not fly, so ban the scary looking ones. Funny how the gun lobbyists then started listing up all the similar ones they missed, and now the same people are shocked things look to be moving beyond the initial list to the list they helpfully provided.

Shifting to political motivation....

It of course is not about body count.

After Nova Scotia they needed to politically do something, anything--that is actually the global trend. The true coward move was to do nothing. Did not need to be super impacful, just need to look like action is taken.

This is just one more point for a UN security council seat. It plays well outside of the US.

Taking a look at the guns used in mass shootings and putting them on the list is politically efficient.

We cannot impact the laws in the US (the real core problem), all we can do is change ours.

There is no need for new laws to crackdown on the border so obviously they are not in the new laws. If they do or do not crackdown is also beyond the legislation.

The vast majority of the people impacted by this legislation were never going to vote Liberal so not loss for them there.

The majority of people in Canada do not own any gun. They are not impacted by this, most will lean somewhere between don't care to strongly agree.

Next election, the Conservative will pushed by some of the base to repeal the legislation and it will become an election issue, that will likely be political suicide to all but non-base voters. They may splinter the right. The last election I received a letter from the MP from Fort Mac basically saying we need US style gun laws because of freedom... again base (which they seem to think I am part of as a former active PC member). Splintering in Alberta....

Using an OIC was strategic beyond just preventing debate. We see the gun lobby crying about how JT is doing this democratically dangerous precedent setting thing. Smart people know that Harper used OICs, he even tried to hide some he used. Past governments used them as well and it is actually part of the Westminster System. This is nothing new and it actually makes the lobby look very hypocritical and invalidates many of their political arguments. Sort of debate trolling them...


I am sure we can add to this list. As I said I agree with some, disagree with others so I do not care if this makes anyone here butthurt.
 
Last edited:
Did the reporter forget to ask the questions in the right order?
 
Baggsy said:
Did the reporter forget to ask the questions in the right order?
Click to expand...

The reporter decided to depart from the pre-scripted, pre-approved list of questions.

Bet you it's the last one of these he gets clearance to...
 
The man takes less then half a minute to think about the question(s) asked and compose a decent response and people take that as what, a weakness? That's ridiculous, if he was an illiterate idiot with a grade 4 vocabulary then he would have just blurted out a Trump like answer.

 
It was not taking time to craft an adequate response.

The "you motherf**ker" look on his face says it all.

He looks legitimately dumbfounded as it was not the carefully crafted, pre vetted question he was expecting.

...and yes, perhaps DT should take a bit more time thinking of a response before he blurts out whatever jumps in his head at the given moment.
 
Last edited:
miggs said:
It was not taking time to craft an adequate response, the "you motherf**ker" look on his face says it all.

He looks legitimately dumbfounded as it was not the carefully crafted, pre vetted question he was expecting.

...and yes, perhaps DT should take a bit more time thinking of a response before he blurts out whatever jumps in his head at the given moment.
Click to expand...
You don't shift your jaw like that when you are dumbfounded,
you do that when you wish you could say what you are thinking, and then think better of it.
 
I would like a PM with the intelligence and education to react quickly and properly to questions like that one. Obviously it's not JT.
The people that have that ability are the ones that didn't get elected because they don't have his great hair. Voters are pretty dumb sometimes.
 
I think he was dumbfounded. If fairness the reporter asked what is known as a "loaded question". The reporter asked Trudeau what he thought about the U.S. President calling for military action against protesters, and having protesters tear-gassed so they could make way for him to have a photo-op.

First, Trump called for National Guard assistance in quelling violence. The US constitution protects the right to protest, but it's not an unlimited right "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." When it turns to anarchy, rioting and looting situation that that overwhelms the police, the National Guard is the backup force to protect the peace in the domestic USA. As for the disbursing of the crowds in Washington, this was no more no less than what police forces are doing across the country when protests escalate from peaceful to violent.

I think the real thinking here goes into what we expect from the free media. Impartial journalism maybe something in our rear view mirror, which is a sad thing for all of us. I'm pretty sure when our respective constitution framers enshrined "freedom of the press", they did not anticipate press becoming surrogates for political parties. A press pass means very little if it's doled out to members of a political organization simply to game the constitutional rights of the press.
 
It's kind of interesting how people's opinion of Trudeau's silence sways almost purely on their existing political stance and/or their opinion of him. It would be interesting to see someone's opinion that somehow had no previous opinion/knowledge of him. I suppose that would be most non-North Americans, but they have mostly come out with a positive response from what I've seen.

I personally think it was intentional. If you take things into consideration, such as the look on his face, the eventual response, his history of "umm"s and "uhhh"s when unscripted, and the obvious stance he was going to take, it looks very intentional. I've also heard the opinion that someone was preparing a scripted response and feeding it to an earpiece, but this question was almost certainly going to be asked in some form, and he had previously said something similar already about it the day before.

I'm content with the response. He could have come out swinging, but then people would be upset he **** on a close trade partner and hurt the relationship, and it would have given Trump something to redirect the attention towards which wouldn't work well for us.
 
Wingboy said:
I would like a PM with the intelligence and education to react quickly and properly to questions like that one. Obviously it's not JT.
The people that have that ability are the ones that didn't get elected because they don't have his great hair. Voters are pretty dumb sometimes.
Click to expand...
He did it perfect! It was 100% multi-lingual.
The only people that did not get it, are the ones that can't read human expression.
 
And that's it. Trump's volatile and unpredictable personality means it's inadvisable to say something that directly offends. Silence, followed by slightly skirting the question, speaks volumes ... but it doesn't give the Donald or his supporters anything to latch onto. This has not been lost on international audiences.

Haters of Trudeau gonna hate no matter what.
 
It seems the press got mixed up in the violence in the protests in the US. (by the police not the protesters)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom