Planet Rugby Forum

message #2527204 wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:

message #2527204 wrote: If the guns are illegal, then the market for them is gone when possession is illegal.
Not very often that these 'aboriginals' go postal. Much more likely that it's some obsessive who likes his big guns because they give him a feeling of power and control that he lacks.
They're normally law abiding citizens until the moment they flip. As such, they're much less likely to have the guns if they are illegal.

That doesnt make sense. Possession of drugs is illegal but we still have a $500B industry. Are you suggesting criminals will follow the law?

I'm suggesting that those who really need one will get it licensed, those that just like the idea of one - the ones that do the mass murdering - won't get one
The denture maker didn't go into a street corner to find criminals to buy these from.

You truly are the mong’s mong, aren’t you. That the mass murderer acquired his guns unlawfully is a statement of the facts as reported, yet here’s you shrieking, arm-waving and straw-manning about street corners.

MungoMan wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:

message #2527204 wrote: If the guns are illegal, then the market for them is gone when possession is illegal.
Not very often that these 'aboriginals' go postal. Much more likely that it's some obsessive who likes his big guns because they give him a feeling of power and control that he lacks.
They're normally law abiding citizens until the moment they flip. As such, they're much less likely to have the guns if they are illegal.

That doesnt make sense. Possession of drugs is illegal but we still have a $500B industry. Are you suggesting criminals will follow the law?

I'm suggesting that those who really need one will get it licensed, those that just like the idea of one - the ones that do the mass murdering - won't get one
The denture maker didn't go into a street corner to find criminals to buy these from.

You truly are the mong’s mong, aren’t you. That the mass murderer acquired his guns unlawfully is a statement of the facts as reported, yet here’s you shrieking, arm-waving and straw-manning about street corners.

WTF are you on about, dickhead? illegal firearms doesn't mean he's buying them out the back of some drug dealers car. it means they're not registered or he doesn't have a licence.

Luciano wrote:

moosehead wrote:
Can anyone give me one good reason that a person could need a semi auto gun ?

There is none.

Only the military/police should be able to use them, and receive enough opportunities to improve their skills. And even some of their equipment unfortunately ends up in the black market. Limited exceptions have to be put for museums that comply with security measures.

Civilians should stick to non-auto rifles/shotguns with limited shots before individual bullet reloading for hunting. Add very low caliber (.177) handguns for sport like Olympic shooting. Still, some of the 'less' lethal guns have been used in mass killings, so the control over their owners has to be extremely strict. Nobody should have more than 2 hunting guns.

And there should be no BS exceptions to some communities for tradition, defense, or whatever. That breaks the whole system.

Well said.
Again, having anything more than that is "I have a small penis" territory.

Did someone on the forum seriously kill a black bear though?

Floppykid wrote:Did someone on the forum seriously kill a black bear though?

It's common enough in the far north, not much different than shooting a rabbit.

Gavin Duffy wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Did someone on the forum seriously kill a black bear though?

It's common enough in the far north, not much different than shooting a rabbit.

Yes. It is.

Jesus, I lived/live in BC, never heard of it being common.
Must be different in the far north, gross thing to do.

Floppykid wrote:Jesus, I lived/live in BC, never heard of it being common.
Must be different in the far north, gross thing to do.

I've watched a lot of Alaska the Last Frontier. They hunt and eat bears.

Gavin Duffy wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Jesus, I lived/live in BC, never heard of it being common.
Must be different in the far north, gross thing to do.

I've watched a lot of Alaska the Last Frontier. They hunt and eat bears.

Fuck sake.

Are ye all vegans all of a sudden?

Gavin Duffy wrote:Are ye all vegans all of a sudden?

You Jebidiah Springfield all of a sudden?
Killing bears is f**ked.

Floppykid wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:Are ye all vegans all of a sudden?

You Jebidiah Springfield all of a sudden?
Killing bears is f**ked.

Why more so than other animals?

Gavin Duffy wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Jesus, I lived/live in BC, never heard of it being common.
Must be different in the far north, gross thing to do.

I've watched a lot of Alaska the Last Frontier. They hunt and eat bears.

Sickening. Disturbing. I would say yes if a person was at risk of starvation.
No other reason in my opinion.

there are plenty of countries where bear meat (properly cooked) is a delicacy

finland for example

https://www.nordictemptations.com/produ ... ?id=50/387

An observation from my time working with the police statistically.

The immediate effect of Tony Bliar's political stunt in opposition (banning hand guns following Dunblane) with which he followed through when elected despite civil service advice against was an immediate RISE in hand gun related incidents in the UK, after two years to FOUR times the recorded level before the election.

Subsequently, the number of incidents has fallen, back to roughly the same level it was at before the ban.

The reason for the rise was hand guns being much more readily available to the wrong person after the ban.

Meanwhile, every afternoon outside every school in the country there was and are lines of kids waiting for the bus just presenting an obvious target to deranged lunatics with a vehicle and the number of children killed by parents every year while unrestrained in vehicle accidents remains around 5 times the number of Dunblane victims.

Which just goes to prove that gun bans are about elections rather than children's lives and that voters (and forum contributors) are pig ignorant hipocrits.

Fat Albert wrote:An observation from my time working with the police statistically.

The immediate effect of Tony Bliar's political stunt in opposition (banning hand guns following Dunblane) with which he followed through when elected despite civil service advice against was an immediate RISE in hand gun related incidents in the UK, after two years to FOUR times the recorded level before the election.

Subsequently, the number of incidents has fallen, back to roughly the same level it was at before the ban.

The reason for the rise was hand guns being much more readily available to the wrong person after the ban.

Meanwhile, every afternoon outside every school in the country there was and are lines of kids waiting for the bus just presenting an obvious target to deranged lunatics with a vehicle and the number of children killed by parents every year while unrestrained in vehicle accidents remains around 5 times the number of Dunblane victims.

Which just goes to prove that gun bans are about elections rather than children's lives and that voters (and forum contributors) are pig ignorant hipocrits.

kiwinoz wrote:

message #2527204 wrote: If the guns are illegal, then the market for them is gone when possession is illegal.
Not very often that these 'aboriginals' go postal. Much more likely that it's some obsessive who likes his big guns because they give him a feeling of power and control that he lacks.
They're normally law abiding citizens until the moment they flip. As such, they're much less likely to have the guns if they are illegal.

That doesnt make sense. Possession of drugs is illegal but we still have a $500B industry. Are you suggesting criminals will follow the law?

Why do people make these false equivalences?

In places like the UK and Aus where gun ownership is highly regulated and assault weapons illegal why does gun crime rate drop? Why are assault weapons so expensive to be illegally purchased that they are prohibitively expensive to the type of nut job who wants one to shoot up a school?

It's not fúcking coincidence.

Fat Albert wrote:An observation from my time working with the police statistically.

The immediate effect of Tony Bliar's political stunt in opposition (banning hand guns following Dunblane) with which he followed through when elected despite civil service advice against was an immediate RISE in hand gun related incidents in the UK, after two years to FOUR times the recorded level before the election.

Subsequently, the number of incidents has fallen, back to roughly the same level it was at before the ban.

The reason for the rise was hand guns being much more readily available to the wrong person after the ban.

Meanwhile, every afternoon outside every school in the country there was and are lines of kids waiting for the bus just presenting an obvious target to deranged lunatics with a vehicle and the number of children killed by parents every year while unrestrained in vehicle accidents remains around 5 times the number of Dunblane victims.

Which just goes to prove that gun bans are about elections rather than children's lives and that voters (and forum contributors) are pig ignorant hipocrits.

What a load of f**king shit. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Are you honestly saying that a lunatic going on a shooting spree with a tool that is conceived and manufactured with the sole intention of it being able to kill people rapidly and efficiently is like a road traffic accident?

Always worth a watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Fat Albert wrote:An observation from my time working with the police statistically.

The immediate effect of Tony Bliar's political stunt in opposition (banning hand guns following Dunblane) with which he followed through when elected despite civil service advice against was an immediate RISE in hand gun related incidents in the UK, after two years to FOUR times the recorded level before the election.

Subsequently, the number of incidents has fallen, back to roughly the same level it was at before the ban.

The reason for the rise was hand guns being much more readily available to the wrong person after the ban.

Meanwhile, every afternoon outside every school in the country there was and are lines of kids waiting for the bus just presenting an obvious target to deranged lunatics with a vehicle and the number of children killed by parents every year while unrestrained in vehicle accidents remains around 5 times the number of Dunblane victims.

Which just goes to prove that gun bans are about elections rather than children's lives and that voters (and forum contributors) are pig ignorant hipocrits.

Disingenuous much?

The reason gun crime continued to rise was because the definition was too wide-ranging; it included everything and anything, every single report where a victim reported that a gun was used, even if that gun was never fired, even if it was a replica, or a fake, or even a toy. So by 2003, the laws were refined.

The use of air weapons and pellet guns, which made up a large number of gun crime complaints, was taken out of the Firearms Act and put under the auspices of the new Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, which meant gun crime figures purely under their Firearms Act definition began to decrease markedly thanks to reclassification taking air weapons out of the equation.

n the years before the act was commenced, Home Office statistics show that homicides involving firearms were 75 in 1993, the same in 1994, and 81 in 1995. Aside from spikes around the turn of the century, the subsequent years have all seen markedly lower gun-deaths recorded.

The Gun Control Network, a campaigning body set up in the wake of Dunblane, records its own gun-death statistics based on media reports, which it says generally tally with official figures once they come out. For the past few years it has reported 20 deaths in 2014-15, 24 in 2015-16, 27 in 2016-17, and since 1 April this year, 15 deaths in England, Wales and Scotland.

moosehead wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Jesus, I lived/live in BC, never heard of it being common.
Must be different in the far north, gross thing to do.

I've watched a lot of Alaska the Last Frontier. They hunt and eat bears.

Sickening. Disturbing. I would say yes if a person was at risk of starvation.
No other reason in my opinion.

You know that these aren't poachers, right, but that ministries of the environment sanction tags based on their assessment of the population? They're also out there patrolling for violators and the vast majority of hunters abide by the rules, hating violators as much (if not more, given the black mark they cast on the whole group) as tree huggers.

I'm no hunter, but find the critiques funny especially when they come from the same people who'd defend Indigenous people's traditional rights to hunt and fish. And would those same people cry "won't someone think of the deer!?" if predator populations got out of hand and ravaged through them?

Around here, people don't want the coyote/coywolf population to be controlled for the sake of farmers ... until their precious pet gets killed by one.

earl the beaver wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:

message #2527204 wrote: If the guns are illegal, then the market for them is gone when possession is illegal.
Not very often that these 'aboriginals' go postal. Much more likely that it's some obsessive who likes his big guns because they give him a feeling of power and control that he lacks.
They're normally law abiding citizens until the moment they flip. As such, they're much less likely to have the guns if they are illegal.

That doesnt make sense. Possession of drugs is illegal but we still have a $500B industry. Are you suggesting criminals will follow the law?

Why do people make these false equivalences?

In places like the UK and Aus where gun ownership is highly regulated and assault weapons illegal why does gun crime rate drop? Why are assault weapons so expensive to be illegally purchased that they are prohibitively expensive to the type of nut job who wants one to shoot up a school?

It's not fúcking coincidence.

There is no statistical correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. Some countries where gun ownership is prohibited have incredibly high rates of violence while others with very high gun ownership have no crime.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php ... 4555757616

I crunched the numbers myself just to be certain I wasn't falling prey to my own biases.

Canada has a lot of social issues that the UK doesn't have. There is quite a bit of poverty in certain parts of this Country and North of 60 is basically Cowboy Country where the rules don't apply because nobody is there to enforce them anyways.

The Territories are very violent and trouble isn't far away if you look for it.

Floppykid wrote:Did someone on the forum seriously kill a black bear though?

Yes, I've shot a black bear before. Went on my first black bear hunt when I was a teenager. The meat can be very good if prepared properly and depending on the time of year. In case you've missed the part about my family running a hunting and fishing camp. My Great Uncle even took a few celebs hunting, they shall remain nameless for obvious reasons.

PornDog wrote:He does come across well - not that I would (as an Irish city boy) agree with all his points, but there is sense in a lot of them and plenty of grounding (Black Bear hunting aside!?!!?).

This just highlights to me why those like Canadian Rugger and (responsible) gun owner associations should be the ones to the fore of gun control reforms. If you don't lead it then it will be lead by those who don't know the subject matter and are prone to knee jerk reaction policies.

A lack of sensible leadership across the board is the biggest issue.

One of the issues in Canada is the present Government won't let responsible gun owners have a voice. There is an organization in Canada called the Canadian Shooting Sports Association which I am a member of.

We used to have representatives on a firearms advisory board until the present Government removed our members. I am 100% for responsible firearms ownership and proper and effective licensing but this isn't about that. This is all about people control and the guns are inconsequential.

You can't own automatic weapons in Canada, you can't own semi-automatic firearms with magazine capacities greater than 5 rds.

I am frustrated because every time some violent crime happens, instead of the Government actually dealing with the problem, they go after the low hanging fruit of legal gun owners who are already heavily regulated and properly licensed.

The Nova Scotia gunman possessed illegal firearms, an illegal police vehicle and uniforms, had a firearms prohibition on his record and a history of violence and domestic abuse. The police were informed about all of this and did nothing!

The Federal Police Force in this country have a long history of incompetence and negligence and this is just another notch in their belt in that department.

I don't really care about the jibes, Nieghorn even knows me in RL and knows I'm not some hillbilly redneck.

Canadian_Rugger wrote:

earl the beaver wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:

message #2527204 wrote: If the guns are illegal, then the market for them is gone when possession is illegal.
Not very often that these 'aboriginals' go postal. Much more likely that it's some obsessive who likes his big guns because they give him a feeling of power and control that he lacks.
They're normally law abiding citizens until the moment they flip. As such, they're much less likely to have the guns if they are illegal.

That doesnt make sense. Possession of drugs is illegal but we still have a $500B industry. Are you suggesting criminals will follow the law?

Why do people make these false equivalences?

In places like the UK and Aus where gun ownership is highly regulated and assault weapons illegal why does gun crime rate drop? Why are assault weapons so expensive to be illegally purchased that they are prohibitively expensive to the type of nut job who wants one to shoot up a school?

It's not fúcking coincidence.

There is no statistical correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. Some countries where gun ownership is prohibited have incredibly high rates of violence while others with very high gun ownership have no crime.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php ... 4555757616

I crunched the numbers myself just to be certain I wasn't falling prey to my own biases.

That is true, some places are lawless shit holes regardless of the gun laws.

However, what you can draw a comparison to are western countries who have introduced more stringent regulation of firearms (the UK and Aus being prime examples) where gun crime has reduced as a result of the regulation, that isn't coincidence.

earl the beaver wrote:

Canadian_Rugger wrote:

earl the beaver wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:

message #2527204 wrote: If the guns are illegal, then the market for them is gone when possession is illegal.
Not very often that these 'aboriginals' go postal. Much more likely that it's some obsessive who likes his big guns because they give him a feeling of power and control that he lacks.
They're normally law abiding citizens until the moment they flip. As such, they're much less likely to have the guns if they are illegal.

That doesnt make sense. Possession of drugs is illegal but we still have a $500B industry. Are you suggesting criminals will follow the law?

Why do people make these false equivalences?

In places like the UK and Aus where gun ownership is highly regulated and assault weapons illegal why does gun crime rate drop? Why are assault weapons so expensive to be illegally purchased that they are prohibitively expensive to the type of nut job who wants one to shoot up a school?

It's not fúcking coincidence.

There is no statistical correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. Some countries where gun ownership is prohibited have incredibly high rates of violence while others with very high gun ownership have no crime.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php ... 4555757616

I crunched the numbers myself just to be certain I wasn't falling prey to my own biases.

That is true, some places are lawless shit holes regardless of the gun laws.

However, what you can draw a comparison to are western countries who have introduced more stringent regulation of firearms (the UK and Aus being prime examples) where gun crime has reduced as a result of the regulation, that isn't coincidence.

Be nice if you could back that up with some statistics. The homicide rate in the UK is rising, as well there are countries that have very high levels of firearms ownership that have lower homicide rates than any English speaking country.

Violence is a cultural and social issue, firearms can be a tool but they aren't the real issue.

I personally think letting kids sit at home playing violent video games is far more dangerous than any firearm ever will be. Or how about the bullshit gangbanger culture that promotes violence, misogyny and anti-authoritarianism?

Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.

We've got our priorities all backwards. We try and attack symptoms rather than the root causes.

Nieghorn wrote:

moosehead wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Jesus, I lived/live in BC, never heard of it being common.
Must be different in the far north, gross thing to do.

I've watched a lot of Alaska the Last Frontier. They hunt and eat bears.

Sickening. Disturbing. I would say yes if a person was at risk of starvation.
No other reason in my opinion.

You know that these aren't poachers, right, but that ministries of the environment sanction tags based on their assessment of the population? They're also out there patrolling for violators and the vast majority of hunters abide by the rules, hating violators as much (if not more, given the black mark they cast on the whole group) as tree huggers.

I'm no hunter, but find the critiques funny especially when they come from the same people who'd defend Indigenous people's traditional rights to hunt and fish. And would those same people cry "won't someone think of the deer!?" if predator populations got out of hand and ravaged through them?

Around here, people don't want the coyote/coywolf population to be controlled for the sake of farmers ... until their precious pet gets killed by one.

Sorry what?
Since when are deers the same as bears?
Big reach there.

Canadian_Rugger wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Did someone on the forum seriously kill a black bear though?

Yes, I've shot a black bear before. Went on my first black bear hunt when I was a teenager. The meat can be very good if prepared properly and depending on the time of year. In case you've missed the part about my family running a hunting and fishing camp. My Great Uncle even took a few celebs hunting, they shall remain nameless for obvious reasons.

Well if the meat tastes good and celebrities killed bears to feel like big men, I'm convinced.

Floppykid wrote:

Nieghorn wrote:

moosehead wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Jesus, I lived/live in BC, never heard of it being common.
Must be different in the far north, gross thing to do.

I've watched a lot of Alaska the Last Frontier. They hunt and eat bears.

Sickening. Disturbing. I would say yes if a person was at risk of starvation.
No other reason in my opinion.

You know that these aren't poachers, right, but that ministries of the environment sanction tags based on their assessment of the population? They're also out there patrolling for violators and the vast majority of hunters abide by the rules, hating violators as much (if not more, given the black mark they cast on the whole group) as tree huggers.

I'm no hunter, but find the critiques funny especially when they come from the same people who'd defend Indigenous people's traditional rights to hunt and fish. And would those same people cry "won't someone think of the deer!?" if predator populations got out of hand and ravaged through them?

Around here, people don't want the coyote/coywolf population to be controlled for the sake of farmers ... until their precious pet gets killed by one.

Sorry what?
Since when are deers the same as bears?
Big reach there.

You realize Black Bears aren't an endangered species right? Also, hunting is a highly regulated activity here. Some of the biggest proponents of sustainability and environmentally friendly practices are hunters.

Fun fact:

The Green Party of Canada was actually started by Conservative Rural Hunters until it was hijacked about a decade ago by champagne socialist elites from the concrete Jungles.

What's the difference between killing a deer or a bear? It's an animal that you can eat. You must prefer your meat from that slaughterhouse

It has nothing to do with feeling like a man. Guess who taught me to shoot my first rifle, my grandmother. We don't discriminate based on gender in my family.

I love the assumptions though, really showing just what a bigot and closed minded idiot you are

Canadian_Rugger wrote: Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.

There's a reason for that. You talk about statistics backing up points, it'd be nice of you to follow your own advice.
Do you similarly feel the A-Team, Generation Kill or Saving Private Ryan incites violent behaviour?

You've come across very well on this thread and made some good and informative points, but this line is not a good one. (Fair points on the Black Bear info btw - do they assign culling licenses and control the number of kills?)

For what its worth, nobody is arguing that guns make people go crazy and kill people. They do however, make it very easy for crazy people to kill a whole lot of people very quickly.

PornDog wrote:

Canadian_Rugger wrote: Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.

There's a reason for that. You talk about statistics backing up points, it'd be nice of you to follow your own advice.
Do you similarly feel the A-Team, Generation Kill or Saving Private Ryan incites violent behaviour?

You've come across very well on this thread and made some good and informative points, but this line is not a good one. (Fair points on the Black Bear info btw - do they assign culling licenses and control the number of kills?)

For what its worth, nobody is arguing that guns make people go crazy and kill people. They do however, make it very easy for crazy people to kill a whole lot of people very quickly.

That's a fair point which was part of my reason for making that post. It was to demonstrate how outlandish some claims against firearms are when compared to other things many many people enjoy and are harmless for 99% of the population.

It's that 1% that cause all the problems for everybody. Getting rid of guns isn't going to magically fix the 1%. They will find other ways to go about committing their vile crimes.

I don't think anyone wants firearms in the wrong peoples hands. In Canada though, we already have strict gun laws, the problem here is a lack of enforcement from the Government and Police of the laws we already have. We have a pretty strict licensing regime but the police refuse to enforce the law.

Gabriel Wortman was a known lunatic with a criminal record, he had illegal guns, an illegal police vehicle and uniforms. Worst of all, this was all known to police who did nothing! The firearms act allows police to search and seize anyone illegally handling firearms and is supposed to come with heavy sentences and fines. They didn't act on any of this and the results are what they are. The RCMP are completely incompetent, they are underfunded by the Federal Government and are a basket case of a police force.

What the Federal Government will do is enact more laws that won't protect anyone but will look good politically. It doesn't solve the underlying issues though. It also makes innocent people criminals overnight and results in property seizures without proper compensation. I have even bigger issues with the fact the Government of the day will simply reclassify personal property as illegal and then not properly compensate the owners for said property.

As for members of the sports shooting and hunting community working with the Government, that has been tried here which is why Canada doesn't have an NRA style gun lobby yet but this present Government, through its actions, is rapidly pushing the firearms community in that direction.

There is a vocal minority that think nobody should own guns of any sort, they won't be happy until every single firearm is confiscated. It won't stop with semi-auto firearms and they will only be satisfied when nobody has any guns any more which is why this will continue to be a political issue election after election.

Canadian_Rugger wrote:

PornDog wrote:

Canadian_Rugger wrote: Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.

There's a reason for that. You talk about statistics backing up points, it'd be nice of you to follow your own advice.
Do you similarly feel the A-Team, Generation Kill or Saving Private Ryan incites violent behaviour?

You've come across very well on this thread and made some good and informative points, but this line is not a good one. (Fair points on the Black Bear info btw - do they assign culling licenses and control the number of kills?)

For what its worth, nobody is arguing that guns make people go crazy and kill people. They do however, make it very easy for crazy people to kill a whole lot of people very quickly.

That's a fair point which was part of my reason for making that post. It was to demonstrate how outlandish some claims against firearms are when compared to other things many many people enjoy and are harmless for 99% of the population.

It's that 1% that cause all the problems for everybody. Getting rid of guns isn't going to magically fix the 1%. They will find other ways to go about committing their vile crimes.

I don't think anyone wants firearms in the wrong peoples hands. In Canada though, we already have strict gun laws, the problem here is a lack of enforcement from the Government and Police of the laws we already have. We have a pretty strict licensing regime but the police refuse to enforce the law.

Gabriel Wortman was a known lunatic with a criminal record, he had illegal guns, an illegal police vehicle and uniforms. Worst of all, this was all known to police who did nothing! The firearms act allows police to search and seize anyone illegally handling firearms and is supposed to come with heavy sentences and fines. They didn't act on any of this and the results are what they are. The RCMP are completely incompetent, they are underfunded by the Federal Government and are a basket case of a police force.

What the Federal Government will do is enact more laws that won't protect anyone but will look good politically. It doesn't solve the underlying issues though. It also makes innocent people criminals overnight and results in property seizures without proper compensation. I have even bigger issues with the fact the Government of the day will simply reclassify personal property as illegal and then not properly compensate the owners for said property.

As for members of the sports shooting and hunting community working with the Government, that has been tried here which is why Canada doesn't have an NRA style gun lobby yet but this present Government, through its actions, is rapidly pushing the firearms community in that direction.

There is a vocal minority that think nobody should own guns of any sort, they won't be happy until every single firearm is confiscated. It won't stop with semi-auto firearms and they will only be satisfied when nobody has any guns any more which is why this will continue to be a political issue election after election.

It doesn't seem you need an NRA style gun lobby, as your statements appear to come straight from their literature.

To blame the police is beyond belief. No-one has a right to own arms in Canada, it's a privilege.

No-one needs to be able to buy a f**king assault weapon, it you really need to kill a bear for 'sport' then use a knife.

message #2527204 wrote:

Canadian_Rugger wrote:

PornDog wrote:

Canadian_Rugger wrote: Nobody is saying we should ban people playing GTA or listening to NWA.

There's a reason for that. You talk about statistics backing up points, it'd be nice of you to follow your own advice.
Do you similarly feel the A-Team, Generation Kill or Saving Private Ryan incites violent behaviour?

You've come across very well on this thread and made some good and informative points, but this line is not a good one. (Fair points on the Black Bear info btw - do they assign culling licenses and control the number of kills?)

For what its worth, nobody is arguing that guns make people go crazy and kill people. They do however, make it very easy for crazy people to kill a whole lot of people very quickly.

That's a fair point which was part of my reason for making that post. It was to demonstrate how outlandish some claims against firearms are when compared to other things many many people enjoy and are harmless for 99% of the population.

It's that 1% that cause all the problems for everybody. Getting rid of guns isn't going to magically fix the 1%. They will find other ways to go about committing their vile crimes.

I don't think anyone wants firearms in the wrong peoples hands. In Canada though, we already have strict gun laws, the problem here is a lack of enforcement from the Government and Police of the laws we already have. We have a pretty strict licensing regime but the police refuse to enforce the law.

Gabriel Wortman was a known lunatic with a criminal record, he had illegal guns, an illegal police vehicle and uniforms. Worst of all, this was all known to police who did nothing! The firearms act allows police to search and seize anyone illegally handling firearms and is supposed to come with heavy sentences and fines. They didn't act on any of this and the results are what they are. The RCMP are completely incompetent, they are underfunded by the Federal Government and are a basket case of a police force.

What the Federal Government will do is enact more laws that won't protect anyone but will look good politically. It doesn't solve the underlying issues though. It also makes innocent people criminals overnight and results in property seizures without proper compensation. I have even bigger issues with the fact the Government of the day will simply reclassify personal property as illegal and then not properly compensate the owners for said property.

As for members of the sports shooting and hunting community working with the Government, that has been tried here which is why Canada doesn't have an NRA style gun lobby yet but this present Government, through its actions, is rapidly pushing the firearms community in that direction.

There is a vocal minority that think nobody should own guns of any sort, they won't be happy until every single firearm is confiscated. It won't stop with semi-auto firearms and they will only be satisfied when nobody has any guns any more which is why this will continue to be a political issue election after election.

It doesn't seem you need an NRA style gun lobby, as your statements appear to come straight from their literature.

To blame the police is beyond belief. No-one has a right to own arms in Canada, it's a privilege.

No-one needs to be able to buy a f**king assault weapon, it you really need to kill a bear for 'sport' then use a knife.

Top quality hysteria, smeggage.

Yes, I've shot a black bear before. Went on my first black bear hunt when I was a teenager. The meat can be very good if prepared properly and depending on the time of year. In case you've missed the part about my family running a hunting and fishing camp. My Great Uncle even took a few celebs hunting, they shall remain nameless for obvious reasons.


What percentage of your first shot are a clean kill....
What percentage of your first shot wounds the bear and makes it suffer..... Do you support cruelty of animals ?


Having rich tourists pay your family stupid money to torture animals in Canada is not the kind of money that i would ever want to receive.....

Yes, I've shot a black bear before. Went on my first black bear hunt when I was a teenager. The meat can be very good if prepared properly and depending on the time of year. In case you've missed the part about my family running a hunting and fishing camp. My Great Uncle even took a few celebs hunting, they shall remain nameless for obvious reasons.


What percentage of your first shot are a clean kill....
What percentage of your first shot wounds the bear and makes it suffer..... Do you support cruelty of animals ?


Having rich tourists pay your family stupid money to torture animals in Canada is not the kind of money that i would ever want to receive.....

Are they only hunted during sanctioned and necessary culls?
If it makes the hunter feel like a big man then, it's weird I guess but harmless enough.

If it's just because the hunter want to eat bear meat, well.....

message #2527204 wrote:
No-one needs to be able to buy a f**king assault weapon, it you really need to kill a bear for 'sport' then use a knife.

How would they survive without succulent bear meat?

Floppykid wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:
No-one needs to be able to buy a f**king assault weapon, it you really need to kill a bear for 'sport' then use a knife.

How would they survive without succulent bear meat?

Guiding tourist / charging huge dollars...... to shoot Canadian bears.... BLOOD MONEY. No thanks.

moosehead wrote:

Floppykid wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:
No-one needs to be able to buy a f**king assault weapon, it you really need to kill a bear for 'sport' then use a knife.

How would they survive without succulent bear meat?

Guiding tourist / charging huge dollars...... to shoot Canadian bears.... BLOOD MONEY. No thanks.

But it's not about feeling like a big man, I've been assured.

Floppykid wrote:

moosehead wrote:

Floppykid wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:
No-one needs to be able to buy a f**king assault weapon, it you really need to kill a bear for 'sport' then use a knife.

How would they survive without succulent bear meat?

Guiding tourist / charging huge dollars...... to shoot Canadian bears.... BLOOD MONEY. No thanks.

But it's not about feeling like a big man, I've been assured.

Yup... after their visit to canada they can head to africa and see if they can torture/kill a lion next.....
Sickening.

moosehead wrote:Yes, I've shot a black bear before. Went on my first black bear hunt when I was a teenager. The meat can be very good if prepared properly and depending on the time of year. In case you've missed the part about my family running a hunting and fishing camp. My Great Uncle even took a few celebs hunting, they shall remain nameless for obvious reasons.


What percentage of your first shot are a clean kill....
What percentage of your first shot wounds the bear and makes it suffer..... Do you support cruelty of animals ?


Having rich tourists pay your family stupid money to torture animals in Canada is not the kind of money that i would ever want to receive.....

Nobody is torturing any animals. The hypocrisy of your posts is quite hilarious. If I was First Nations, you'd probably be praising me for practicing the old ways.

Like I said, nearly 400 years on this continent buddy. My family originally settled in New Amsterdam and then moved to Canada during the American Revolution because we were loyal to the Crown. We have been hunting and fishing on this land since that time and will continue to do so.

Forgive us for showing others how to live off the land cleanly and running a business as well. Save your rage for evil food corporations who actually treat animals like shit.
I'm not going to apologize for hunting or fishing. I like my meat, fresh.

Floppykid wrote:Are they only hunted during sanctioned and necessary culls?
If it makes the hunter feel like a big man then, it's weird I guess but harmless enough.

If it's just because the hunter want to eat bear meat, well.....

Hunting Black Bear occurs in the spring and fall of the year. You get a license with a tag allocation that tells you where you can hunt. You can have a maximum of two licenses a year but can't get a second until you successfully bag a bear.

Outfitters who run a business get issued a certain number of licenses that they can issue, usually to non-residents who they will guide. Non-residents can also enter a randomized lottery draw.

It's a heavily regulated and controlled activity. It's done sustainably and ethically.

It's a heavily regulated and controlled activity. It's done sustainably and ethically.[/quote]


Yah, i am sure shooting a bear in its belly and watching it die is pretty ethical..........
Getting tourists to pay u huge dollars to do it is even more ethical , right ?

Weird, i prefer wine and nice meal on my holidays....maybe a walk... not shooting, maiming, killing the local wildlife.....