CBC talks about firearms - fear mongering 101

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...arms-1.3521141

Summary
There are almost a billion guns in world today. Every year more than 12 billion bullets are produced. That's almost enough to kill every person on earth. Twice.

Worldwide, 300,000 people are shot dead each year. Many more, of course, are injured.

The numbers involved in the trade are staggering:

• The global pistol and revolver trade more than tripled in value between 2003 and 2013.
  
• UN data indicates that by 2013 almost 31 million firearms and parts were being traded by 94 countries worldwide.
  
• In one year alone, the U.S. imported about $800 million worth of guns from around the world and exported a further $400 million.
  
• Over 98 million firearms were sold by Americans, to Americans between 1986 and 2010.

Looks like CBC is off to race on firearms fear again.... selective data, no explanation or details... bringing up terrorism and ISIS and actual wars...they love their UN of course... articles like this always make me wonder their goal...? So that 100 .22 rounds someone shot at the range to put it in their "perspective" could kill 100 people... but why that comparison?

Transcript from the radio
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...22019#segment3

CBC talking about 'sniper' rifle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...-foo-1.3542673
The high-powered rifle, described as "a unique piece of kit" by Detective Sergeant Tam Bui at a news conference on Tuesday, is a Browning BLR short magnum lever-action model with a Bushnell scope and a bipod.

It was recovered by police "a considerable distance away" from the site of Yow Foo's body in the Kingston and Ellesmere roads area, following a search with police canine units, mounted units, and a drone.

Bui said he believes Yow Foo was shot from a distance of about 200 yards (183 meters) by a person with "some considerable skill and some training."





Uh... does this sound clueless and fear mongering to anyone else too?

A Lever action is not a sniper rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

CBC talking about 'sniper' rifle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...-foo-1.3542673
The high-powered rifle, described as "a unique piece of kit" by Detective Sergeant Tam Bui at a news conference on Tuesday, is a Browning BLR short magnum lever-action model with a Bushnell scope and a bipod.

It was recovered by police "a considerable distance away" from the site of Yow Foo's body in the Kingston and Ellesmere roads area, following a search with police canine units, mounted units, and a drone.

Bui said he believes Yow Foo was shot from a distance of about 200 yards (183 meters) by a person with "some considerable skill and some training."





Uh... does this sound clueless and fear mongering to anyone else too?

---

Any rifle with a scope is considered a sniper rifle by the clueless media and it seems the coppers are not much brighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

A Lever action is not a sniper rifle.

---

neither is a 200 yds a 'sniper' shot :)

"Sniper" sounds more newsworthy and exciting than "Granddads old deer rifle".

Next they'll want to ban people with the capability of shooting over 100 yards. :)

I know plenty of people who can shoot over a 100 yards. Not sure how many of them will hit their target and that goes for some of the guys from camp as well. ;)

[COLOR=#222222][COLOR=#222222]Whatever….. Theywere after genetically modified vegies, beef and all a year ago or so and nothing changed,people are still eating crap.

All they are looking for is publicity, and obviously they succeed. Maybe it’s timeto stop paying attention to that Chit![COLOR=#000000]

From the photos,did anyone happen to notice the threaded end of the barrel to attach a suppressor? It's pretty hard to deny the purpose of the rifle to the media when we see that,right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

CBC talking about 'sniper' rifle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

A Lever action is not a sniper rifle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

Any rifle with a scope is considered a sniper rifle by the clueless media ...

---

The report in question does not contain the words "sniper rifle."

It refers to the person shooting as a "sniper," which means a person who fires from hiding, usually (but not necessarily) at longer ranges. It's not inaccurate in this instance.

The media reports the news and you think you're being persecuted. You guys are a laugh riot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The report in question does not contain the words "sniper rifle."

It refers to the person shooting as a "sniper," which means a person who fires from hiding, usually (but not necessarily) at longer ranges. It's not inaccurate in this instance.

The media reports the news and you think you're being persecuted. You guys are a laugh riot.

---

No mention of "Sniper Rifle" in the CBC report. The Post on the hand had it front and centre in their headline:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-metres-police

Headline cut and pasted from above article:

Toronto man murdered in driveway was shot with ‘high-powered’ sniper rifle from 180 metres: police

[COLOR=#000000]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

The Post on the hand had it front and centre in their headline....

---

This from a conservative paper whose opinion editor is a gun owner. The conspiracy runs deep! :)

I can count on some on here to twist and get it wrong as usual but let's look at what was actually written. Actually the suspected drug dealer was shot... not according to the National Post but according to:

Det. Tam Bui said. “We believe,” Bui said, “he was shot by a sniper.”..

Bui is hoping for a repeat of that success in the Yow Foo case. On Tuesday, he displayed the rifle — a Browning BLR Short Mag, fitted with a Bushnell high-definition scope and a Champion bipod — used in Yow Foo’s killing. He promised to reveal future clues in the coming days if a suspect isn’t found right away.

Bui called the gun used in the killing “a sniper rifle.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...toronto-sniper

and 640 also called it a Sniper Rifle
http://www.640toronto.com/2016/04/19/130861/


Officer Bui giving the talk didn't seem to know much about firearms actually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RODARE_g98g

200 yards with a scope and that rifle.... probably most hunters/shooters could do that yet they make it sound like some amazing trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

From the photos,did anyone happen to notice the threaded end of the barrel to attach a suppressor? It's pretty hard to deny the purpose of the rifle to the media when we see that,right?

---

Likely just threads from a muzzle brake. Rifles are much louder when braked. I also own that same rifle in a different chambering ( 7mm08), not a bad shooter but not exactly what I consider a "sniper" rifle. They also called the low end Bushnell a high definition scope and claimed the bipod was almost a sign of evil. Uninformed idiots, but what the hell it works right?

So the police used the words "sniper rifle," and your complaint is the media reported it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Likely just threads from a muzzle brake. Rifles are much louder when braked. I also own that same rifle in a different chambering ( 7mm08), not a bad shooter but not exactly what I consider a "sniper" rifle. They also called the low end Bushnell a high definition scope and claimed the bipod was almost a sign of evil. Uninformed idiots, but what the hell it works right?

---

The Police feed shyte to the media and they eat it up like candy canes from Santa. They'll say anything that'll bang the liberal gun control drum in any way possible. It's beyond ridiculous.

ROFL. Okay.

Yup, that's a real anti-gun report, all right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The Police feed shyte to the media and they eat it up like candy canes from Santa. They'll say anything that'll bang the liberal gun control drum in any way possible. It's beyond ridiculous.

---

Just ignore Welsh... there are some on here that regardless of the evidence will only choose the Liberal marching song.... if Stalin and Mao had their followers then Trudeau has his unquestioning minions too.

Notice he ignores the complete fear mongering nature of the first article talking about enough bullets to kill everyone twice and their resolute paranoia. Then nit picks and twists the fact an ambush shooter killing a known drug criminal and the police and media turn a BLR into a sniper rifle. The media a few times since the election especially has dragged out sniper and sniper rifles in relation to types of firearms and shooting more than in the same room.

Fear mongering, distortions on the ignorant and bills like S-223 will see an end to much of the private ownership of firearms it seems and when it does come to a vote the Feds will do a Quebec no doubt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03...n_9481124.html
No free vote allowed in Quebec on Long Gun registry.

I mean just look at when the Toronto police got some semi-automatic rifles...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...fles-1.3409707
Toronto police to get military-style assault rifles
Toronto the last GTA police force to acquire high-powered rifles for its front-line officers

Dozens of front-line Toronto police officers will soon be equipped with semi-automatic assault rifles similar to those carried by Canadian Forces soldiers and specialized tactical units, CBC News has learned

I would question a .223 being called high-powered but I'll give it a pass. CBC and the Liberals have an ideology that like the Muslim Taquiya (various spellings) where you can lie if it gives an advantage accountability and integrity fall second to the agenda. You can see it clearly in many articles that are deliberately written in a way to distort. CBC in the first article was clearly fear mongering but in this case didn't do much distortion, BUT it didn't do anything to correct or explain the idiocy of the statements by the police officer (probably media type, he seemed to barely know anything about a firearm) either and marched to the tune and sadly more of the media bought it too.

I am sure that spin and celebration by CBC of the Omar Khadr wedding will be the media event of the year too probably.
http://www.therebel.media/terrorist_...radical_muslim

Let's clear a couple things up here.

1. I've never voted Liberal.
2. I'm not a big fan of Trudeau.

The fact that nobody in this community is allowed to disagree with the contention that the media and police are out to get us without being accused of voting Liberal speaks volumes. You know why you don't hear the pro-gun side in the media? Because when they try to have a pro-gun guy respond, all he wants to do is complain about attacks on gun ownership where none exist, or nitpick and quibble about what is or is not a sniper rifle. Fear mongering? That's the specialty of our pro-gun groups, constantly whipping people into a frenzy about how the Liberals and the police and the media are conspiring against us. And woe betide anyone who disagrees with the Chicken Littles.

The media have not marginalized gun owners; they've marginalized themselves.

This is a news story about a shooting, in which the media fairly and accurately reported what the police said. That's all. It's not a conspiracy to manipulate public opinion on gun control.

Every time guns are in the news, people like you always perceive some attack. Ever stop to think they might be in the news because shootings are news?

While I agree with Welsh on this, I also "in part" agree with everyone else.

When the story first broke every media outlet showed that image, used the words high powered sniper rifle, as did LEO. I thought to myself, gee given I own that exact rifle (Browning white gold BLR) in .308, I wasn't aware I owned a sniper rifle.

Where I differ I guess is I chalk it up to.
1) Ignorance by LEO who often don't know much about firearms, nor the laws relating to firearms. Which is highly ironic. Perhaps many in LEO should know a little about what they carry?

2) Sensationalism by the media, but unlike near every other topic be it political, be it A to Z that they do the same.

The pen is mightier than the sword. So while the media doesn't necessarily have an "anti gun" agenda/bias (some might), even unintentional (as in this case) fear generating sensationalism reporting can have serious implications for gun owners. Which "justifies" the fears.

Cant have it both ways Welsh. If the media (and others) can whip up "fear" in the Pro gun crowd..... they can do they same with the "Anti Gun" and misinformation (As here) can sway the middle.

Think War of Worlds where everyone for 1 day was convinced Aliens were attacking. Or see simply.

Global Warming.....And the consequences here in Ontario with Hydro and the GEA.
ISIL and "refugee's, or "fears" of every Burka wearing Lever Action (sorry..Islamist) being mislabeled a terrorist.....

So at least imo, while the "fears" of the pro gun crowd may at times be misguided, they aren't necessarily unjustified. Lots of examples in life where propaganda (intentional or not) has whipped up or changed public sentiment, resulting in this or that.

Sniper rifle sounds a lot better than hunting rifle, nothing personal , just business!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Let's clear a couple things up here.

1. I've never voted Liberal.
2. I'm not a big fan of Trudeau.

The fact that nobody in this community is allowed to disagree with the contention that the media and police are out to get us without being accused of voting Liberal speaks volumes. You know why you don't hear the pro-gun side in the media? Because when they try to have a pro-gun guy respond, all he wants to do is complain about attacks on gun ownership where none exist, or nitpick and quibble about what is or is not a sniper rifle. Fear mongering? That's the specialty of our pro-gun groups, constantly whipping people into a frenzy about how the Liberals and the police and the media are conspiring against us. And woe betide anyone who disagrees with the Chicken Littles.

The media have not marginalized gun owners; they've marginalized themselves.

This is a news story about a shooting, in which the media fairly and accurately reported what the police said. That's all. It's not a conspiracy to manipulate public opinion on gun control.

Every time guns are in the news, people like you always perceive some attack. Ever stop to think they might be in the news because shootings are news?

---

Great post W. but I fear you are wasting you time , some will always be chicken little. I, and I think most people, want information about all shootings to be in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This from a conservative paper whose opinion editor is a gun owner. The conspiracy runs deep! :)

---

Most who complain about the media will ignore that fact.
For some the tin foil hat is on too tight.

It's probably better that they make it seem like a "sniper" rifle and a "sniper" shot. If the media and the general public knew that a lot of us have versions on that gun and many of us have more accurate rifles, with those we could easily make that shot, there would be more ammo for the anti-gun crowd.

Also wonder if that gun was chosen because it's possibly a takedown version?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

neither is a 200 yds a 'sniper' shot :)

---

When 99.8% of these drug dealing punks get shot within 5 feet with a handgun , I personally would say, any dealer shot from 200 yards away with a long gun with a scope instead of a handgun , was snipped.( if there is such a word for being shot in an apparent sniper situation.)

That was a very nice rifle to use then ditch before the cops showed up. Most of us would like to have at least one of them in a decent caliber. No doubt it was stolen,scrubbed and untraceable. One shot,one kill,unseen and unheard,in an urban environment. Somebody sure knew what they were doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Cant have it both ways Welsh. If the media (and others) can whip up "fear" in the Pro gun crowd..... they can do they same with the "Anti Gun" and misinformation (As here) can sway the middle.

---

True, but where is the misinformation in this case?

"Sniper rifle?" Would you prefer if they'd said, "this is an ordinary hunting rifle, as might be found in millions of homes in Canada ... thanks to the abolition of the long gun registry we no longer know who has these guns and why. Criminals can obtain them easily."

That would be 100% factually accurate.

Instead, we have a news report that, if anything, stresses the unusual nature of the shooting. I'd hardly call that sensationalism.

I'm going to suggest that gun owners are hypersensitive, and so they jump to attack any media reporting on firearms by nitpicking and quibbling, without considering what's actually being said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I'd hardly call that sensationalism.

---

I reallythink they used the term "Sniper riffle" to obtain moreattention. The mass associate sniper rifle to war weapon so it definitely makes the allshooting more sensational. At no point they didn't use "Hunting rifle"to protect our butt.....

But I agree with everything you are saying and yes ironically gun owners do live in fear.....

How about just "Shot by a rifle" or "Shot from a distance", or I can think of many more adjectives/discriptors that don't sensationalize it in the way the word

"Sniper" or Sniper rifle does. Conjure up certain gut feelings/automatic reaction doesn't it.

Next thing you know everyone going to be thinking every black gun is an "Assault Rifle"...(Oops sorry, that is reality today ) or every pressure cooker a bomb.

or every burka wearing Islamist....

Funny Gord. Don't you hate Harper for "fear mongering"...So when its the "left" screaming about it.(harper or ultra right people playing on the publics fears)...Or the Media admonishing people...

but when its the right or gun owners saying the same things.

You call those gun owners paranoid nut bars
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

How about just "Shot by a rifle" or "Shot from a distance", or I can think of many more adjectives/discriptors that don't sensationalize it in the way the word

"Sniper" or Sniper rifle does. Conjure up certain gut feelings/automatic reaction doesn't it.

Next thing you know everyone going to be thinking every black gun is an "Assault Rifle"...(Oops sorry, that is reality today ) or every pressure cooker a bomb.

or every burka wearing Islamist....

Funny Gord. Don't you hate Harper for "fear mongering"...So when its the "left" screaming about it....Or the Media admonishing people...but when its the right or gun owners saying the same things.

You call those gun owners paranoid nut bars
:)

---

The media has repeatedly shown an open hostility to firearm ownership and CBC I have seen lie several times on air including one where they talked about the NFA and saying they wanted to legalize semi-automatic weapons ..... I had three thoughts on that, first I thought semi-auto was legal and second why is a firearm a weapon and who knew better. I talked to several people and most left voters were surprised semi's weren't illegal and thought they should be. The media for the most part are like the neighbours dog that bites you 8 out of 10 times you walk past their house, you begin to watch them closer and can see their intent pretty soon.... sadly some seem to be ideologues that have no interest in learning. I would say the Liberal/NDP are the 9 out of 10 biters too, it would be rare for them to take the honest firearm owners side.

The media and police now seem to like the newest buzz word sniper and to equate the BLR as one (I'm now jealous of a few people...:p) is technically correct, any rifle a sniper uses could be called one.

When we see bills like S-223 being introduced, articles like the first CBC show post where they talk about killing every person on earth twice etc. their view that every bullet and every firearm is dangerous to public safety and health is and should be gov't controlled and monitored is clearly shown. The only surprise I see in S-223 is that pump and lever actions are not included but that can be an interesting play two when you look at what a summary of the bill said

"3. To qualify as a “hunting firearm”, government approval will be required by way of Order in Council for any specific model."

Whether this intent is there or inaccurate I didn't see in my quick read but it would be interesting to see what would get approvals if it passes???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

T

"3. To qualify as a “hunting firearm”, government approval will be required by way of Order in Council for any specific model."

Whether this intent is there or inaccurate I didn't see in my quick read but it would be interesting to see what would get approvals if it passes???

---

That is the scary part. Whenever a judgement call is left to the RCMP ( remember the High River gun confiscations) to make re: firearms the result will be bad for legal gun owners. The RCMP now have government support from an anti gun Liberal administration. Expect it to get worse when it's convenient for them to do so. Trudough will eventually have to face another election and if attacking legal gun ownership nets more seats than leaving us alone then get ready to get screwed.

lol Mosquito, should you ever desire a Sniper rifle, or plan a Western hunt for Rams and 700 yard shots.

Just like mother nature, tis a wonderful and at times frightening thing of beauty (Sans Bi pod)
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s/v-2/p1259940322.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Whenever a judgement call is left to the RCMP ( remember the High River gun confiscations) to make re: firearms the result will be bad for legal gun owners.

---

The quoted section does not leave a decision to the RCMP. Orders in Council are issued by the GG on the advice of Cabinet.

Bill S-223 proposes that all firearms will be considered restricted ("circumscribed") unless specifically identified as such by Order in Council. Essentially, it would reverse the onus: instead of being non-restricted unless specified otherwise, guns would be non-restricted only if specifically named as such. This is one of the problems this bill will face if it makes it to committee, as it would place a substantial burden on Cabinet.

But it's a moot point anyway, as S-223 will not pass. Senate bills very rarely become law, and this one conflicts with the government's plans.

Good. Because it it were ever to pass the committees of "experts" would be nothing but unqualified anti gun activists with a pinch of gun hating law enforcement to make it look legitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

lol Mosquito, should you ever desire a Sniper rifle, or plan a Western hunt for Rams and 700 yard shots.

Just like mother nature, tis a wonderful and at times frightening thing of beauty (Sans Bi pod)
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s/v-2/p1259940322.jpg

---

Sweet rig JBen.

:D:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

lol Mosquito, should you ever desire a Sniper rifle, or plan a Western hunt for Rams and 700 yard shots.

Just like mother nature, tis a wonderful and at times frightening thing of beauty (Sans Bi pod)
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s/v-2/p1259940322.jpg

---

Nice .... NOW... As loud as I can ..... :tongue::tongue::tongue::tongue::tongue: (insert childish raspberry sound here)!!!!


I ALMOST got one this year, there was a 308 takedown BLR on Canadian Gunnutz awhile ago at what I thought was a good price but the pictures only showed the one side. When I asked for a picture of the ejector side and barrel where it attaches (it was a takedown after all) he made a comment about he wouldn't take "weird pictures" etc. and I got suspicious and walked away. No proof but I suspect he had trashed the ejector side and was hoping for some sucker to not question it and pay up. The ad was gone the next week so ??? but now about once a week I take a peak at CGN and if a 223 or 308 came along that looked good ..... shhhhhh don't tell the wife!!! :scream::cool: I still have a few of my Dad's stuff to sell including a 16lb .22 falling block target that should be worth a fair bit more so I MAY survive her finding out if I sell that.

Senate bills like S-223 are rare to pass but when you look at the Liberal Youth resolution 151 and the Nova Scotia womens resolution 42 ??? in the past then look at that recent CBC radio show (the one in post 1 of this thread) on firearms I would actually put it alot higher odds than the usual senate nonsense make work bill. To be completely paranoid and suspicious it would be a good way to sneak all their changes through and try to not actually take the blame. The Liberals have proven themselves more than underhanded, about 10 months ago O'Reilly and Harper were both saying the Liberals would run it to a $30B deficit and no one would believe them... now they came out with the $29.6B deficit and then announced $2B in unbudgeted spending within 2 weeks so my trust of them ranks in the negative right now! :madman:

At first I was going to agree with the general consensus about how this was reported and what terms the police used. However, the more I thought about it, the more I am convinced this was reported correctly.

First, lets look at the term sniper. A sniper is an individual who shoots at individuals as opportunity offers from a concealed or distant position. Now the definition doesn't denote distances. Many who think of snipers think of military snipers who engage the enemy past distances of 800m. However, police tactical snipers routinely engage targets at ranges of 300m or less (mainly because their error of judgment is significantly smaller than a military sniper). Police snipers train within the same distance as many hunters. I could make the argument that many guys who hunt are as skilled as police snipers (how many of us routinely try to "drive tacks" on the range). Is hiding in a tree, ground blind or a deer blind not considered concealment? So under those qualifications, most guys who hunt in the fall fit the bill of a sniper. I read a great book about the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment by Farley Mowat when I joined The Hasty P's (and have read it again and again) and in the book, the Germans and Italians had a real tough time when the Canadian Boys got ahold of a scope to put on their rifles as many of them hunted deer and the scope gave them a better view of their targets. They became for all intents and purposes defacto snipers.

Secondly, any rifle which is used by a sniper is a man portable, high precision, shoulder fired rifle designed to more accurate shooting at longer ranges than other small arms. This definition accurately describes most hunting rifles. Are some calibres better at longer distances than others? Absolutely but the definition still applies I think.

Lastly, the police describe whomever shot Yow Foo as a person with some considerable skill and some training. This statement is accurate because I think some folks are forgetting how much skill goes into hitting a target accurately. If you took Joe Blow with no firearms experience off the street today, set him up behind that rifle and told him to shoot a human sized target at 200 yards away in one shot without any experience on the rifle, do you think he could do it in one shot? Could we do it? Sure, however, we all know how to shoot (or at least we pretend to) and some of us are better shots than others.

If anything I can find about this is the detective describes this firearm as a "unique piece of kit" without elaborating or that the unique rifle would likely have been noticed by someone, as it isn't popular among hunters, who typically don't mount bipods on their guns. I am not sure what constitutes the rifle as not popular among hunters. Many lever action rifles have a bi-pod on them and if someone showed up to a range or a hunt camp with one, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Perhaps the media could have did a better job of why the detective made those statements (in the above paragraph) and included them in the story but they were reporting what the detective stated. If the police are looking for a suspect in a crime of a certain ethnicity, does the media need to do its own investigation to ensure the police have their facts correct? I don't think so. If you have a problem with the message, should you take it out on the messenger or the person who sent the message?

Dyth

Good take on it Dyth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

True, but where is the misinformation in this case?

"Sniper rifle?" Would you prefer if they'd said, "this is an ordinary hunting rifle, as might be found in millions of homes in Canada ... thanks to the abolition of the long gun registry we no longer know who has these guns and why. Criminals can obtain them easily."

That would be 100% factually accurate.

Instead, we have a news report that, if anything, stresses the unusual nature of the shooting. I'd hardly call that sensationalism.

I'm going to suggest that gun owners are hypersensitive, and so they jump to attack any media reporting on firearms by nitpicking and quibbling, without considering what's actually being said.

---

Can you blame us for being hypersensitive? We have been vilified by the press for so long. Lets add to that being automatically considered criminals if we did not register our firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

At first I was going to agree with the general consensus about how this was reported and what terms the police used. However, the more I thought about it, the more I am convinced this was reported correctly.

First, lets look at the term sniper. A sniper is an individual who shoots at individuals as opportunity offers from a concealed or distant position. Now the definition doesn't denote distances. Many who think of snipers think of military snipers who engage the enemy past distances of 800m. However, police tactical snipers routinely engage targets at ranges of 300m or less (mainly because their error of judgment is significantly smaller than a military sniper). Police snipers train within the same distance as many hunters. I could make the argument that many guys who hunt are as skilled as police snipers (how many of us routinely try to "drive tacks" on the range). Is hiding in a tree, ground blind or a deer blind not considered concealment? So under those qualifications, most guys who hunt in the fall fit the bill of a sniper. I read a great book about the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment by Farley Mowat when I joined The Hasty P's (and have read it again and again) and in the book, the Germans and Italians had a real tough time when the Canadian Boys got ahold of a scope to put on their rifles as many of them hunted deer and the scope gave them a better view of their targets. They became for all intents and purposes defacto snipers.

Secondly, any rifle which is used by a sniper is a man portable, high precision, shoulder fired rifle designed to more accurate shooting at longer ranges than other small arms. This definition accurately describes most hunting rifles. Are some calibres better at longer distances than others? Absolutely but the definition still applies I think.

Lastly, the police describe whomever shot Yow Foo as a person with some considerable skill and some training. This statement is accurate because I think some folks are forgetting how much skill goes into hitting a target accurately. If you took Joe Blow with no firearms experience off the street today, set him up behind that rifle and told him to shoot a human sized target at 200 yards away in one shot without any experience on the rifle, do you think he could do it in one shot? Could we do it? Sure, however, we all know how to shoot (or at least we pretend to) and some of us are better shots than others.

If anything I can find about this is the detective describes this firearm as a "unique piece of kit" without elaborating or that the unique rifle would likely have been noticed by someone, as it isn't popular among hunters, who typically don't mount bipods on their guns. I am not sure what constitutes the rifle as not popular among hunters. Many lever action rifles have a bi-pod on them and if someone showed up to a range or a hunt camp with one, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Perhaps the media could have did a better job of why the detective made those statements (in the above paragraph) and included them in the story but they were reporting what the detective stated. If the police are looking for a suspect in a crime of a certain ethnicity, does the media need to do its own investigation to ensure the police have their facts correct? I don't think so. If you have a problem with the message, should you take it out on the messenger or the person who sent the message?

Dyth

---

My problem is with the message actually and with some of the messengers too but to a smaller degree, in this case.

Definition
A sniper is a marksman or qualified specialist who operates alone, in a pair, or with a sniper team to maintain close visual contact with the enemy and engage targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel.


Agreed, technically it is correct to say it is a sniper rifle if the person in question is a sniper but to me it sounds like fear mongering in a couple ways. The range is nothing outstanding really, especially with a half decent scope and in any of the BLR calibers. Heck when my Dad was teaching me some target shooting a few times we setup balloons at 200 yards to pop with the 22 and once you had the adjustment figured out it was relatively easy but I agree it took some practice but not alot.

After the first post about the CBC radio show seeing CBC show a BLR and talking about a sniper seemed rather buzz wordy (more so since the movie a couple years ago) atleast on the part of the police, to call the shooter or murderer if you prefer a sniper, uh, no. Police snipers often shoot from distances half or less that range and can from twice or more too. It is their training and skill that make them a sniper and I see no evidence of anything more than some murderer had some practice in this shooting as they have described it so far. If they show he had training, built a proper hide and was there unobserved (the shot was heard so no silencer was involved likely * Supersonic shells still would bang) I would agree he qualified as a sniper otherwise I would just say he was another murderer that used his weapon of choice in a murder wither it was a rifle, handgun or knife. A sniper has been in this (and other cases too) been reduced to someone that hides and shoot. One of the anti-hunting groups last fall was trying to portrait hunters as cold blooded snipers so perhaps the polices officers stupid definition hit one of my buzz words and the BLR made it look all the more like fear mongering or just plain ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTurk

Can you blame us for being hypersensitive? We have been vilified by the press for so long. Lets add to that being automatically considered criminals if we did not register our firearms.

---

Firearms are the only object I can think of that you don't have to use to be a criminal, a pilot's license, no problem unless you fly, a fishing license... same, driver license... same.... PAL... don't renew and you are a criminal!

A sniper is not a person with special qualifications. A sniper is, by definition, a person who snipes. Check a dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

A sniper is not a person with special qualifications.

---

I distinctly remember laying in my gillie suit sniping and the Sgt. kicking my the heal of my boot and telling me " You are no sniper Cpl.." :)

The military does consider a 'Sniper' as someone who has special qualifications..

(a very challenging course I might add)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

A sniper is not a person with special qualifications. A sniper is, by definition, a person who snipes. Check a dictionary.

---

Technically correct but in the big picture irrelevant as the connotation is more important than the actual definition. In today's Hollywood culture the term sniper has definite connotations of military prodigies capable of using firearms to kill people at outrageous distances.

Well there were actually a couple definitions for snipe, I just copy and pasted the one that fit. He wasn't the other either as to my knowledge that firearm is too big to use for hunting snipe. :D


1. pl. snipe or snipes Any of various long-billed shorebirds of the family Scolopacidae, especially the widely distributed species Gallinago gallinago.

Maybe a bit of overkill for a snipe, maybe the drug dealer had a snipe shirt on???But this one I cut and paste seemed like they are trying to make it fit by the usual distortion of it's original/actual meaning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Definition
A sniper is a marksman or qualified specialist who operates alone, in a pair, or with a sniper team to maintain close visual contact with the enemy and engage targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel.

---

Letting Hollywood define the meaning and reality of things is like allowing a Liberal to try and balance a budget, prone to misunderstanding and fantasy without fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

Technically correct but in the big picture irrelevant as the connotation is more important than the actual definition.

---

Bingo....to snipe (verb) does not make you a Sniper (A sniper is a marksman or qualified specialist )


just as to doctor (verb) a wound (treat someone medically) doesn't make you a Dr.

Good retort MikeP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Good take on it Dyth...

---

............X2

I'm sure somebody here can find archived media stories on firearms where they use accurate descriptions of firearms and don't erroneously use terms like "automatic", assault weapon right? And they never have misrepresented any of the handling and storage laws right? No liberal has ever publicly stated that nobody needs semiautomatic guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

The military does consider a 'Sniper' as someone who has special qualifications.

---

The military does many things, but it is not responsible for prescribing the meanings of English words.

Words are defined by their usage. This word is used outside the military, and in these uses, it does not denote a person with special qualifications; it denotes a person who does a thing, i.e., a person who snipes.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sniper
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sniper
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...english/sniper
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...english/sniper
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/u...merican/sniper
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us..._english/snipe
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/sniper

As you can see, the essential sense of "snipe," as a verb, is to shoot at people from a concealed position. The original meaning, since folks seem to want to talk about the original and proper meanings of words, predates modern sniper doctrine by at least 100 years.

To find a definition that made a sniper a qualified specialist, mosquito had to go to Wikipedia. Do I need to explain the difference between Wikipedia editors and dictionary editors? Hint: one role requires nothing more than an Internet connection and a room temperature IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I'm sure somebody here can find archived media stories on firearms where they use accurate descriptions of firearms and don't erroneously use terms like "automatic", assault weapon right? And they never have misrepresented any of the handling and storage laws right? No liberal has ever publicly stated that nobody needs semiautomatic guns?

---

If you feel you had enough proof before, why exasperate the problem by inventing a situation where there was none?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The military does many things, but it is not responsible for prescribing the meanings of English words.

Words are defined by their usage. This word is used outside the military, and in these uses, it does not denote a person with special qualifications; it denotes a person who does a thing, i.e., a person who snipes.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sniper
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sniper
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...english/sniper
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...english/sniper
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/u...merican/sniper
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us..._english/snipe
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/sniper

As you can see, the essential sense of "snipe," as a verb, is to shoot at people from a concealed position. The original meaning, since folks seem to want to talk about the original and proper meanings of words, predates modern sniper doctrine by at least 100 years.

To find a definition that made a sniper a qualified specialist, mosquito had to go to Wikipedia. Do I need to explain the difference between Wikipedia editors and dictionary editors? Hint: one role requires nothing more than an Internet connection and a room temperature IQ.

---

You seem rather dismissive of the group that doesn't agree with you... is your temperature OK? Having hot flashes?

sniper (ˈsnaɪpə )
Definitions
noun

• a rifleman who fires from a concealed place, esp a military marksman who fires from cover usually at long ranges at individual enemy soldiers

snip·er

(snī′pər)n.1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place


Some of the contemporary definitions seem to have denigrated to the Hollywood interpretation sadly.


Then there is

snipe (snaɪp )
Definitions
noun
Word forms: plural snipe snipes

• any of various birds of the genus Gallinago (or Capella) and related genera, such as G. gallinago (common or Wilson's snipe), of marshes and river banks, having a long straight bill: family Scolopacidae (sandpipers, etc), order Charadriiformes
• any of various similar related birds, such as certain sandpipers and curlews

so of course the other version of sniper....

(intransitive) to hunt or shoot snipe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...arms-1.3521141

Summary
There are almost a billion guns in world today. Every year more than 12 billion bullets are produced. That's almost enough to kill every person on earth. Twice.

Worldwide, 300,000 people are shot dead each year. Many more, of course, are injured.

The numbers involved in the trade are staggering:

• The global pistol and revolver trade more than tripled in value between 2003 and 2013.
  
• UN data indicates that by 2013 almost 31 million firearms and parts were being traded by 94 countries worldwide.
  
• In one year alone, the U.S. imported about $800 million worth of guns from around the world and exported a further $400 million.
  
• Over 98 million firearms were sold by Americans, to Americans between 1986 and 2010.

Transcript from the radio
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...22019#segment3

---

Hmmmm... so 12,000,000,000 bullets killed 300,000 people.... I wonder how many were executions, in war etc., I wonder if those killed by ISIL count? So ..... CBC thinks that's enough bullets to kill everyone twice but 12B/300K would be 40,000 so it actually takes 40,000 to kill one person based on their concept about each bullet ...... not alot of snipers I guess. Or maybe the snipers need more Browning BLRs ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I'm sure somebody here can find archived media stories on firearms where they use accurate descriptions of firearms and don't erroneously use terms like "automatic", assault weapon right? And they never have misrepresented any of the handling and storage laws right? No liberal has ever publicly stated that nobody needs semiautomatic guns?

---

The Liberals have said several times S-223, S233, Resolution 151, resolution 42 that we don't need semi-autos.

https://www.ofah.org/downloads/PDF/N...s42Hotline.pdf

Liberal Party of Canada’s Resolution #42
WHEREAS automatic and semiautomatic weapons are illegal
for hunting purposes; and
WHEREAS automatic and semi automatic weapons do not
support the hunting culture found in all parts of Canada;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the
Government of Canada to support legislation to eliminate the
personal use of automatic and semi automatic weapons.
National Women’s Liberal Commission Liberal Party of Nova Scotia

A Browning as a serious sniper rifle? More like a firearm of opportunity and a lucky shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

A Browning as a serious sniper rifle? More like a firearm of opportunity and a lucky shot.

---

Oooohhh........you must be related to Gilroy to stir it up like that. :scream:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

You seem rather dismissive of the group that doesn't agree with you... is your temperature OK? Having hot flashes?

---

And there's the gendered attack, right on schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Hmmmm... so 12,000,000,000 bullets killed 300,000 people.... I wonder how many were executions, in war etc., I wonder if those killed by ISIL count? So ..... CBC thinks that's enough bullets to kill everyone twice but 12B/300K would be 40,000 so it actually takes 40,000 to kill one person based on their concept about each bullet ...... not alot of snipers I guess. Or maybe the snipers need more Browning BLRs ?

---

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

The Liberals have said several times S-223, S233, Resolution 151, resolution 42 that we don't need semi-autos.

---

What does this have to do with the question at hand?

Are you off your meds?

But....but...a bi pod on a lever action? I just can't get over that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SongDog

But....but...a bi pod on a lever action? I just can't get over that.

---

Makes two of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SongDog

But....but...a bi pod on a lever action? I just can't get over that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Makes two of us.

---

...............or the threaded muzzle,either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Oooohhh........you must be related to Gilroy to stir it up like that. :scream:

---

Nope. Just know better plus currently own and have owned Brownings and shot many. To quote Browning USA on a BAR accuracy issue "we only guarantee 5" @ 100yds." I said crap I have a Browning 375 H&H that is way better than that. He said "Well you got a good one"

Nobody in the business would knowingly pick a Browning for a sniper rifle regardless of whose definition of sniper you use.

That said, it's not that hard to hit a man at 180m with a scoped rifle. Many here likely sight in at 200 and shoot moose every year at that distance. After all, 10" is 10" inches whether it's a shot on a moose or a head.

Do we really need to split hairs and argue over semantics? Aka the literal definition of Sniper?

TO the point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Nope. Just know better plus currently own and have owned Brownings and shot many. To quote Browning USA on a BAR accuracy issue "we only guarantee 5" @ 100yds." I said crap I have a Browning 375 H&H that is way better than that. He said "Well you got a good one"

Nobody in the business would knowingly pick a Browning for a sniper rifle regardless of whose definition of sniper you use.

That said, it's not that hard to hit a man at 180m with a scoped rifle. Many here likely sight in at 200 and shoot moose every year at that distance. After all, 10" is 10" inches whether it's a shot on a moose or a head.

---

Skypilot knows it, I know it, we know it, I hope to god most cops know it, though obviously some don't and if they don't they maybe shouldn't be cops or allowed to carry. Simple question for the esteemed detective.

What rifle does his own guys use?.......

Name me one just one armed force, paramilitary, leo, anything. That uses BLRs as their weapons of (scuze the pun coming...see below)......surgical precision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Bingo....to snipe (verb) does not make you a Sniper (A sniper is a marksman or qualified specialist )


just as to doctor (verb) a wound (treat someone medically) doesn't make you a Dr.

---

Doctoring a wound, does not make one a Doctor, that true. It's also highly improbable Mike, LEO and the Media would when crediting someone with saving someones life say "The unknown Doctor doctored the wound". No they would say Joe Blow treated the victim...Done, nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SongDog

But....but...a bi pod on a lever action? I just can't get over that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Makes two of us.

---

Makes me shiver. Though the thought of putting a pod on a thing of beauty makes me shiver with revulsion.
Just as the word Sniper and high powered sniper rifle might. Its menacing, and was chosen, used specifically for that reason. By the cops and the media.

Now if we want to argue semantics. (The meaning of words, phrases, etc)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Why choose the word Sniper? Because it's threatening, menacing, scary ( A hidden marksman)
Why choose the phrase High Powered Sniper Rifle? See the same.

Translation. Browning BLRs are menacing.Instilling fear in the public, aka fear mongering.

Funny that.

Well that's it then....I guess we can all call ourselves 'Snipers' from now on because according to Welsh's literal translation of the dictionary and common usage and because we conceal ourselves behind our camo and hunting blinds... we are all Snipers.

So when we are heading down the hiways this fall on our annual pilgrimage to the Moose camp, the civilians will watch us go by and say "there go a bunch of snipers" and they won't be wrong ..LOL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Doctoring a wound, does not make one a Doctor, that true. It's also highly improbable Mike, LEO and the Media would when crediting someone with saving someones life say The unknown Doctor doctored the wound. No they would say Joe Blow treated the victim...Done, nuff said.

---

So a guy shots someone; did the Cops/media first analyze the scene to find out the guy was concealed, was he wearing camo when he made the shot ? Is that why they called it a sniper attack. or was it because he was, maybe, up to 200 yds away ? Or was it because his gun had a bipod and scope so it must be a sniper rifle, ergo he then must be a sniper.

Seems the common usage of the term Sniper is anything but realistic or factual and only being used willy-nilley to sensationalize the press release.

I think I'll retain my common usage..the true definition..."A sniper is a marksman or qualified specialist " less ambiguity; used and accepted by every Law Enforcement Agency and Military around the world.

Lol :)

There is power in words. This is undeniable. We can quibble over the literal definition and meaning of "sniper" and "Sniper Rifle". Immaterial. Or off the target, bullseye.

The question really, imo is why might they choose the those specific words.
To me anyways, theres only one reason, and that reason is fear. Everyone, even the "professionals" fear Snipers.
So those words were chosen and used to instill fear. In both the assailant (Hmmm anyone sense a difference)
Assailant (they could have used that word)....versus Sniper. How often do they use the words Assassin. (They might have used that to)..Heck JT goes to great lengths to avoid using the word "Terrororist.."


And the weapon used.

Not rifle, not hunting rifle,.....High Powered Sniper Rifle...Which Browning BLRS are not. And everyone knows that...except.
Likely the majority of the public and
apparently, the cops.
Why the Media would run with it, is obvious. "Sensationalism" and it sells.

So I guess the question is. Why might the cops want to portray an everyday hunting/bush rifle as something menacing.

Well, I conceal myself 20ft up in the tree canopy and lie in wait with a stainless BLR. I wonder if they are trying to make fat old guys who legally deer hunt with legally purchased firearms and ammunition sound evil? Naaahhh, they would never do that right? That wouldn't fit their agenda would it?

You give them too much credit Terry. They don't have nearly enough knowledge about hunting to make that connection. After all the "evil hunter" just walks into the woods and starts blasting at everything that moves. ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Well that's it then....I guess we can all call ourselves 'Snipers' from now on because according to Welsh's literal translation of the dictionary and common usage and because we conceal ourselves behind our camo and hunting blinds... we are all Snipers.

So when we are heading down the hiways this fall on our annual pilgrimage to the Moose camp, the civilians will watch us go by and say "there go a bunch of snipers" and they won't be wrong ..LOL...

---

We are not snipers because we do not target people. If we start to, we then transition from hunters to snipers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

So a guy shots someone; did the Cops/media first analyze the scene to find out the guy was concealed, was he wearing camo when he made the shot ? Is that why they called it a sniper attack. or was it because he was, maybe, up to 200 yds away ? Or was it because his gun had a bipod and scope so it must be a sniper rifle, ergo he then must be a sniper.

Seems the common usage of the term Sniper is anything but realistic or factual and only being used willy-nilley to sensationalize the press release.

I think I'll reserve by common usage to the true definition..."A sniper is a marksman or qualified specialist " less ambiguity; used and accepted by every Law Enforcement Agency and Military around the world.

---

A marksman doesn't have to belong to a branch of the military or police services. We don't know what the crime scene (I am including the spot where the shot was taken in that definition) looks like. As welsh said, the term sniper doesn't automatically denote a military or police personnel. Even using mosquito's Wikipedia definition of a sniper it doesn't mention the military:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Definition
A sniper is a marksman or qualified specialist who operates alone, in a pair, or with a sniper team to maintain close visual contact with the enemy and engage targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel.

---

So was the shooter a marksman or qualified specialist? Yes I propose he qualifies as a marksman because the shot was at 200 yards, with a significant wind, it was at night with a Browning BLR short magnum lever action rifle (I can't find which exact caliber was used), which others have indicated isn't exactly a highly precise rifle so the shooter must have some skill.
Did the shooter operate alone, in a pair or with a sniper team? Yes, at least alone.
Did the shooter maintain close visual contact with the enemy? Yes, the shooter had visual contact throughout the shooting with the victim because as we know 200 yards is close and the shooter was able to see his target.
Did the shooter engage targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel? Yes, the shooting took place on a windy night. The victim was an enemy of the shooter (we don't know why right now) and the shooter was at a distance which exceeded the detection range of the victim (how far can any of us hear or see on a windy night?).

I submit since the shooter meets all of the criteria which even mosquito uses as a sniper definition, the shooter is a sniper. Hence, as a result of the afore mentioned qualification, anything involved in this crime used by the sniper can be denoted as have the term sniper prior to it (eg sniper rifle, sniper nest, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Well that's it then....I guess we can all call ourselves 'Snipers' from now on because according to Welsh's literal translation of the dictionary and common usage and because we conceal ourselves behind our camo and hunting blinds... we are all Snipers.

---

If you shoot people, yes. Do you usually go around shooting people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

So I guess the question is. Why might the cops want to portray an everyday hunting/bush rifle as something menacing.

---

Really?

As I pointed out previously, if the cops wanted to portray this rifle as something menacing, the first thing they'd do is call it a "hunting rifle," and go on about how easy these rifles are to get and how we're all in danger as a result. Did they do that?

No.

The cops hold a press conference and ask for the public's help regarding what they describe as an unusual crime. The firearms community circles the wagons and complains that it's under attack. The cops describe how a career criminal was shot in what they characterize as a targeted "sniper" attack; the firearms community complains that the cops are trying to sensationalize the event and frighten the public.

Just what do people think they're defending here?

What we have here is a classic example of the whole media dynamic surrounding guns. People aren't reacting because the cops used sensational language. They're reacting because firearms were in the news in a negative way, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

And there's the gendered attack, right on schedule.

---

What are you talking about, you disappoint me, you were the one worried about the relation between temperature and intelligence and being dismissive. To bad, here I was hoping with using a dictionary you might raise the mental temperature to body heat or even low grade fever. After we got your IQ was raised I was hoping we could work on the EQ and Empathy deficiencies but keep working on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

What does this have to do with anything?

---

Gee, you forgot already... go back and read Post #1 of this thread again. Repetition helps with memory.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post967246

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

What does this have to do with the question at hand?

---

You forgot already... here's I'll save you time, here is a link to Terry's post
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post970400

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Are you off your meds?

---

No, I remembered my crestor thanks for asking, I hope you are keeping up with your doctor's recommendations on diet, meds and exercise, I need less of the first and more of the third.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Do we really need to split hairs and argue over semantics?

---

No, but it was fun to get some using educational things like a dictionary... me bad! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Makes me shiver. Though the thought of putting a pod on a thing of beauty makes me shiver with revulsion.
Just as the word Sniper and high powered sniper rifle might. Its menacing, and was chosen, used specifically for that reason. By the cops and the media.

Now if we want to argue semantics. (The meaning of words, phrases, etc)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Why choose the word Sniper? Because it's threatening, menacing, scary ( A hidden marksman)
Why choose the phrase High Powered Sniper Rifle? See the same.

Translation. Browning BLRs are menacing.Instilling fear in the public, aka fear mongering.

Funny that.

---

:thumbup: BINGO :thumbup:


Now my issue is with the public perception, the quote below is an extreme taken from one of the animal rights groups (Animal Alliance) posts... I have seen more and petitions etc. but Jben summed up my point on the Post about the murderer perfectly and the agenda or slant behind the writing of the news, hence my biggest issue is the post 1 article.

Supporter comment
Hunting is legal murder, committed for pleasure by cruel and calloused people. Hunters are cold-blooded snipers. I despise them.
Steven Feinberg, Point Richmond, CA




As long as the public is ignorant and hunters and even firearms themselves are misrepresented the situation will only get worse especially with the Liberals in power, look at posts on S-223.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post970038

http://www.therebel.media/canadian_f...e_with_new_law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Gee, you forgot already... go back and read Post #1 of this thread again. Repetition helps with memory.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post967246

---

Right, but how is that connected to the second news item and the subsequent discussion?

Do you think all these things are the product of a media conspiracy? That there is a single intent behind all these reports?

Wind doesn't make a huge difference unless one can't relocate to a favorable position. I personally always admired the range guys that HAD to deal with wind at a set firing line.

I don't see the difficulty in the shot, although I haven't seen the crime scene. Anyone can easily hit a body @ 180meters especially from prone if the gun is set up properly.

For example, my wife(Canadian and therefore not exposed to firearms previously)can take my rifle and shoot inside a 5" circle @ over 400meters even with NVG when I set it up so she only has to point and click.

I suspect the cops were overly impressed by the bipod and distance. Hunters wouldn't see it the same as they are likely proficient at that type of shooting.

Unless there is some very unique firing position or a barrier involved, I would say anyone with basic skills could make that shot and likely did.

Quote:

---

[COLOR=#333333]What we have here is a classic example of the whole media dynamic surrounding guns. People aren't reacting because the cops used sensational language. They're reacting because firearms were in the news in a negative way, period.

---

Could I suppose waste an awful lot of time discussing, linking and proving the "dynamic" surrounding Assault Rifles, ARs and black guns.

Could I suppose waste an awful lot of time discussing, linking and disproving your last sentence. That's as simple as wasting time finding 6, 12 or dozens of examples where firearms have been used in murders and the majority of people dont react to it. A simple example might be when a shotgun is used in a murder and the its described as a Shot gun.

Could I suppose waste time flipping it around and suggest some are reacting because despite claims theres nothing to it, there is.
:)

Bottom line:
[Until and unless you can find examples, credible ones where BLRs are used as sniper rifles. They aren't. Thus describing it as such is wrong, be it willful or not, it wrong.

Thus describing it as such is akin to describing any plane as a fighter plane, any car as a race car, any person of colour as gang banger, etc, etc, etc.

Bottom line #2.
By describing it as a high powered Sniper Rifle...If they hadn't included the image of the BLR, what might you have "imagined"........So for the public.......

Bottom line #3.
By describing it as high powered Sniper Rifle, and not just a "rifle". Or simply saying the killer, shooter, Sniper, Assassin, used a Browning Lever Action it absolutely will portray a certain image/conotation. What did you picture with just the words HPSR (no image).

Theres only one reason to use that description, the same or similar reason the Media used it.
because of the reaction it's certain to generate. HPSR sounds oh so much better than just a plain old BLR, Bush gun.

Theres no arguing that.

So the only real thing that can be argued is why, leo would want to "sensationalize" it. Personally, I think its likely little more than the detective not knowing much about firearms. Scary that, but it is what it is.

And why "might" all of that matter?
because the public and their feeling towards firearms matters. So when a plain jane bush gun is described as HPSR....Well it could/might matter, much like black guns/ARs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Bottom line:
Until and unless you can find examples, credible ones where BLRs are used as sniper rifles.

---

This misses the point by a country mile. The question is not whether the police inaccurately called the rifle a sniper rifle, but whether this is clearly an attempt to demonize firearms ownership in general.

As I've previously pointed out, if they wanted to demonize firearms in general, it would make more sense to say this murder was done with an ordinary hunting rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Bottom line #2. By describing it as a high powered Sniper Rifle...If they hadn't included the image of the BLR, what might you have "imagined"........So for the public.......

---

Two points:

1) But they DID include a picture, so what people might imagine is beside the point.

2) The public is not as stupid and gullible as you imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Bottom line #3. By describing it as high powered Sniper Rifle, and not just a "rifle". Or simply saying the killer, shooter, Sniper used a Browning Lever Action it absolutely will portray a certain image/conotation.

---

And this proves what?

Again, if I wanted to suggest gun ownership is a danger to society, wouldn't I be better off stressing how ordinary the gun was, and how easy to obtain, and that anyone could use such a gun to make a 200-yard shot and kill someone?

Do you think the police held this news conference for the purpose of attacking gun ownership? Do you think they sat down beforehand and said, "How can we take advantage of this event to pursue our ultimate goal of gun control?"

Not to mention this is the SECOND attention getting shooting using a lever action rifle. The Parliament Hill shooter and this ambush murderer both used lever actions.

The press will always sensationalize, the goal of shooters and hunters should be education of the uninformed BUT if you look at the first two posts of this thread #1 is clear fearmongering by the $1,000,000,000 fiasco called CBC and # 2 is sensationalizing and fear mongering but by the police officer but reported that way by much of the media.

Doesn't miss the point Welsh. Hate to say it, but to some small degree you've found yourself on the defensive.Youve been "wrong" from the get go.

Go back to the start, page 1 and 2. Some/many were taking exception to it being described as a HPSR.

Quote:

---

[COLOR=#333333]The report in question does not contain the words "sniper rifle."

[COLOR=#333333]It refers to the person shooting as a "sniper," which means a person who fires from hiding, usually (but not necessarily) at longer ranges. It's not inaccurate in this instance.

[COLOR=#333333]The media reports the news and you think you're being persecuted. You guys are a laugh riot.

---

Ok, first off it was established quickly that yes, in fact it was described as a HPSR......
Secondly "You guys are a laugh riot" always thinking your being persecuted.

Well given you did/were persecuting them.

But as I said, as I do agree that with respect to leo its just a detective who doesn't know much about firearms and wanting a attention grabbing soundbite, presser.......aka fear mongering.

What leo could have said, if demonizing firearms is immaterial, maybe they are better ways. Red Herring that...
The point is they used the phrase HPSR. Which atomically conjures up certain images, gut reactions/feelings. Damage done.

You actually didn't think they would such a mistake, couldn't credit it....Didnt believe they made such a colossal mistake. I know when I read the headline, then saw the image. What I was imagining....I laughed.

Shame a big chunk of the public won't know the difference and there in lies the threat/danger/diservice and more. So, in many ways those people reacting, whom you are persecuting ;) (see the /winky ) are actually justified, have cause to be concerned. See black guns/ARs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

The press will always sensationalize, the goal of shooters and hunters should be education of the uninformed....

---

Returning to one of my earlier points, the reason you don't hear pro-gun voices in the media is precisely this attitude: the idea that the public is gullible and stupid and needs to be educated on, for example, when we can use the word "sniper." And the media are not interested in this, because whether the word "sniper" is appropriate here has nothing to do with any issue raised by the incident in question: nothing to do with organized crime, nothing to do with the use of firearms in violent crime, nothing to do with the criminal black market in guns.

How do I know this? From conversations with CBC radio producers. They would love to get someone from the pro-gun side on their shows, but not if all he plans to do is quibble and whinge and repeat well-worn talking points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Ok, first off it was established quickly that yes, in fact it was described as a HPSR......

---

But those words were not in the link provided, which was the subject of the complaint that prompts this discussion. This is a thread about supposed CBC fear-mongering and the CBC's supposed anti-gun agenda. But the CBC report did not use the words "sniper rifle."

Now we're justifying the idea that the CBC is anti-gun by pointing to the words used by the National Post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This misses the point by a country mile. The question is not whether the police inaccurately called the rifle a sniper rifle, but whether this is clearly an attempt to demonize firearms ownership in general.

As I've previously pointed out, if they wanted to demonize firearms in general, it would make more sense to say this murder was done with an ordinary hunting rifle.



Two points:

1) But they DID include a picture, so what people might imagine is beside the point.

2) The public is not as stupid and gullible as you imagine.



And this proves what?

Again, if I wanted to suggest gun ownership is a danger to society, wouldn't I be better off stressing how ordinary the gun was, and how easy to obtain, and that anyone could use such a gun to make a 200-yard shot and kill someone?

Do you think the police held this news conference for the purpose of attacking gun ownership? Do you think they sat down beforehand and said, "How can we take advantage of this event to pursue our ultimate goal of gun control?"

---

Unfortunately your last paragraph is exactly what some on here think. Everyone is out to get their guns.

Thats true Welsh, missed that. (not in the link)

My point there, was mainly to show you (most of us) I assume are surprised by the description. I certainly was, I was expecting to see X....and then I saw a BLR...made me laugh..And I want to be clear.

I do agree with you, that sometimes things are too far, and people over-react to every little thing. But how things play in the media, and given a big chunk of the public doesn't know any better. We just need to look at topics relating to terrorist and even guns (the guns used, much was made about the Paris shootings, AKs,,,,are they easily obtained)...or ARs/Black guns. These days, an awful lot of people are worried about Terrorist and shootings in the streets.

So...

The point of this thread from the beginning, was to show the anti-gun bias by the CBC, but that opinion was not backed up by the facts in this case. Post # 20 was/is the best of the 80 so far.

The piece stated high powered rifle and inluded the wording shot by a sniper/catch the sniper hashtag Not much of a step in comprehension to reach a conclusion of a high power sniper rifle.

The definitive fact is the photo of the firearm. The truth is that it is far from the ideal tool for the task it was used. Innuendo and perception are something else. Those with no firearm knowledge will see it one way and responsible gun owners another.

Regardless it once again appears to be a criminal on criminal gun crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

The piece stated high powered rifle and inluded the wording shot by a sniper/catch the sniper hashtag Not much of a step in comprehension to reach a conclusion of a high power sniper rifle.

The definitive fact is the photo of the firearm. The truth is that it is far from the ideal tool for the task it was used. Innuendo and perception are something else. Those with no firearm knowledge will see it one way and responsible gun owners another.

Regardless it once again appears to be a criminal on criminal gun crime.

---

Bang on Skypilot bang on. And while Welsh is correct on the proper language ( as always ) you summed up how we as the responsible gun owners see it, sadly the media cant see the difference but I suppose thats not there job.

We can argue about semantics until the cows come home but the reality is that this government, most of the media and most of law enforcement are anti-gun and now that they have a majority mandate and a leader with near "God like" support it is only a matter of time before they proceed with this agenda. The CBC is the media arm of the Liberal party and gets a $Billion a year to support the the Liberal agenda. That's a hell of a lot of tax money to support liberal initiatives. Enjoy your love of hunting and shooting while you can because it is one bill away from being taken from you. Trudough will eventually have control of the Senate and then it will happen. He would do this just to "undo" everything Harper and the Supreme Court will be too happy to rubber stamp it.

Well Terrym you managed to get assumption, supposition and conjecture all in the same post , that is nothing but your opinion. Undo everything harper... I did not know harper was the one who gave us permission to hunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Well Terrym you managed to get assumption, supposition and conjecture all in the same post , that is nothing but your opinion. Undo everything harper... I did not know harper was the one who gave us permission to hunt.

---

Once again you display how out of touch you are. Pay a bit of attention to what has been happening in this country and courts. And yes, I was giving my opinion.

Well,you stated them like they are facts, not to be questioned. Wrong!.... The Liberals are going to take away hunting once they get control of the senate, because harper gave it to us, what are you thinking, to say such nonsense.

The initial post, fine perhaps.That does not take away from A) misuse of wording for headlines B) the inherent danger/problem in that etc, etc.

Read the post by the majority of people. Almost all of whom are expressing varying degrees of "Are you kidding me" and/or concerns of the terminology used for various reasons........

News flash G, I've only seen one or two people have taken issue with the CBC..
As for the CBC, well it is well known to be very left biased and often........Which when you think about is outrageously funny given you often do the same with anything produced by the right.aka the fraser Institute...

Hypocrisy? Typical Liberal
;)

If you want to wade in, as you have and call people paranoid, crack pots,
Well thats your problem.

When people THINK that something is being done to them ,and there is no PROOF of any such thing happening, that IS paranoid. Does anyone really think that the Liberals are going to ban hunting once they get control of the senate, seriously?

Hmmm. No "proof".
We have a Vegan Liberal MP introducing a bill that so poorly worded, it opens the door to hunting be an offence.
We have a Liberal Senator introducing a private members bill
We have the Adam Vaughns who want to ban the sale of bullits
we have the Liberal Ottawa MP (?) who wants to have all guns, safely stored outside city limits
We have the RCMP and high River
we have more

stick your head in the sand much? No "proof"?
lol

If various groups, including the OFAH have concerns about things. Various people have concerns and/or reservations about things. And or take exception to things like this.

open your eyes G, it is 2016 after all
and GC is a very hot topic. Here and elsewhere.

Btw G. Do you own any guns? I think you have previously said no?

one wonders why someone with no interest, nothing to lose, had such a problem and ridicules people who do. And there is Plenty of proof and ammunition to have concerns/reservations, that justifies those fears/reaervations.

Well there is a lot of things that I want, and I won't get, is that proof of ANYTHING? That is 2 MPs out of 184 in Ottawa, not good odds they will get their way. No different than the handful of Conservative MPs that wanted to ban all abortions, how did that work out? There are nuts in every political party.

That is 2 MPs out of 184 , what are the chances they will get their way? Yes I have 6 guns and 2 bows, (I know, very few by some standards), , a compound and crossbow and I hunt with them all. I have no fear that I will be unable to pursue hunting , due to parliament.

G, you simply like arguing, despite oh so much. Even this thread, when it's not that hard with just a modicum of impartiality, common sense, and open eyes, a little (not a lot) of firearms knowledge, to see why the terms used by Leo and the media are grounds for critism and a little more.

its really that simple.
The fact is, the Liberals want more GC. This isn't up for debate, and the fact they are prepared once again to give the RCMP the powers to classify weapons ( and they have a history of both bad decisions and stomping all over people's rights). The fact is, there are Liberals who....and they do listen to their special interest friends, just as any political party does.

How they bring more in, time will tell.
just maybe the problem isn't the paranoid people (and I agree we aren't likely to see confiscations in my lifetime) but rather "you".

My concern was the inflammatory , unjust and untrue tittle of this thread . Because for some anything , anything at all, stated by the CBC must absolutely be untrue. Even when it is pointed out that the CBC did not make anything up, but just stated what the police had said, was not enough to exonerate the CBC for some .

Omg.
This is a hunting forum, with lots of firearms owners. There will be people ranging from staunch Pro Gun, to middling. Myself not horribly against some more GC. I might not even throw a fit against a registry though would fight it tooth and nail.

fact.
Gun owners have good reasons to have concerns. There's history, proof and more. So on the "balance" of things. Based on history, politicians, more. I'd say those on the far right have a better stance than you when it comes to the debate and inflammatory remarks. By all means G, find a resident of High River who had homes broken into, LGs taken and tell him/her they are paranoid flakes. I bet you don't have the conviction to.

The CBC is hardly neutral. Not even remotely. There's a history there to that you can't simply ignore or wish away. While I do agree Mosquitos initial post in that respect only was off...big deal. The rest I should hope is satisfactory.

Not sure I've worded all that as best I might.

Edit.
If Ms Wynne said today/tomorrow. I'm not going to increase Hydro rates anymore. Would you trust her?
If the Liberal Party wants to earn the trust of gun owners on the topic of GC and what measures they want/plan to bring in. There's a lot of work, and damage to their credibiltiy/ability to be done first.

Not unlike the cons and balanced budgets.And we know what you think of them.
it cuts both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

... it's not that hard with just a modicum of impartiality, common sense, and open eyes, a little (not a lot) of firearms knowledge, to see why the terms used by Leo and the media are grounds for critism and a little more.

---

I'd argue that it actually takes bias and cognitive dissonance to reach that conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

fact.
Gun owners have good reasons to have concerns. There's history, proof and more.

---

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

The cbc should be given the boots instead of a billion dollars a year , the same goes for the senate. First , no need in this day and age for a government to run a public broadcasting agency. It may of been important during the big war but its not needed any more. Second is the senate. They do not need to exist as the so called chamber of second thought. Ask the people , as we are the ones paying the bills. A bunch of appointed party hacks do not speak for me. Never have and never will.

Semantics Welsh? To what end. For the sake of arguing?

Fact:
gun controls measures here have caused many various problems for gun owners. From minor, to onerous, to the outright absurd (bankruptcy fighting bogus charges) and the stomping on of civil rights (High River)

Thats is not opinion it's fact.
deal with that.

Ever hear the expression cause and effect?

So I will say it again, gun owners have good reasons for concern.
Fact. Deal with it.

Perhapsanother fact escapes you. The vast majority of gun owners, from shooting enthusiast, range operators, the various gun groups, Various hunting groups and sportsmen groups, conservation groups like Delta and more. Have those same concerns/reservations.

are you really saying they are baseless? It appears you are.

I am saying many gun owners vote Liberal, and would never let that happen. Do you really think everyone with a gun votes conservative, how, as you would say, absurd.

Many people who value healthcare, Education and more vote con, and would never let a Hudak utterly destroy PS. What are you afraid of. I'm sure many thousands of Ontario voters seriously regret handing Ms Wynne a majority now. Your point?

Some may be-not sure how to word this- too concerned about gun grabs.
Some have concerns about the future of GC and hunting for that matter. If anyone is going to say those concerns are baseless......

By all means, step up and say so.

Why does it always come back to Provincial politics , it has nothing to do with this debate. The federal Liberals are not going to take away your right to hunt, period.....And no, the CBC was not the ones to claim it was a sniper rifle, but just reported what was told to them by the authorities.

/whoosh

you used (not me) a theoretical (?) scenario, anology saying Liberal leaning gun owners would never allow (going to use term stringent) GC measures. To paraphrase, it's impossible what are you afraid of.

I used a real example where many people who would have voted Con (your Liberal Gun owners) but voted Liberal handed Ms Wynne a majority, because they were afraid the cons would utterly destroy Healthcare. Lots were like Nurses and more. No way she could make things worse. And now not only are fiscal problems (GC problems) worse, and people (your gun owners) are paying huge prices. Healthcare Atleast is being seriously gutted.

your point?
how much luck despite overwhelming opposition to the sale of Hydro 1 are people having stopping it.
Your point?

Utterly cannot believe the extent you will argue something, the hairs and semantics at times.

Im going to ask it plainly. Hoping for a yes or no answer, so I don't feel like Patrick Brown.
/wink

Are concerns and reservations baseless?
If yes. Well given the RCMPs history pertaining to classification....wrong answer. then there High River and more that can be said.

If no. Well what's the point, of some of these arguments...you already agree. And further why would you call someone paranoid when...

35+ posts since 730 am on one of the most beautiful days of the spring and trout opener to boot. I think we have bigger issues at play than CBC's agenda.

Yes baseless ,until we see facts and not opinion, but even if you do not agree, since when does it become the Liberals fault that the RCMP oversteps its bounds and kicks in doors or wants to reclassify some firearms? They were not even in power, harper was, so I guess it was his fault that he did not control the federal police force. Why did Highriver become a liberal problem , and why did harper not fix it with his majority?

S8472...Went last night at midnight for the opening of the trout season, had a nap, and today just relaxing on the back patio getting a little entertainment on the laptop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

S8472...Went last night at midnight for the opening of the trout season, had a nap, and today just relaxing on the back patio getting a little entertainment on the laptop.

---

Any luck?

Not me, but a buddy caught 3 and kept one, a 2lber for his sis, all steelhead. East trib.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

35 odd posts since 730 am on one of the most beautiful days of the spring and trout opener to boot. I think we have bigger issues at play than CBC's agenda.

---

I would have to agree there.... CBC is known for it's outright lies to advance the Liberals policies, hence the thank you for all the hard work from Wynne after she won and the 150,000,000+ from Justin. There are some that won't believe any evidence, outlandish statement, mandate letters about reducing firearms etc. but to put it simply in the originator of Bills S-233 and now S-223 the retired (as of today I hear) Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette....


http://eurekablog.ca/en/articles/pol...onal-shooting/

The British gun control policies have had some impressive results. In 2011, there were just 38 gun deaths in Britain for 63 million inhabitants, while in the same year, Canada had 153 gun deaths for 34 million inhabitants. It has been proven that guns, not people, kill people, unlike what the gun lobby claims.






Ah well... gardening, work and meetings (yuck) and too many posts to read in 1 go... some can be shown evidence over and over and still disregard it so I think it's time to open a Hockley Valley dark or Magner cider and turn off some brain cells in front of another screen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Not me, but a buddy caught 3 and kept one, a 2lber for his sis, all steelhead. East trib.

---

Nice. Spent the day on the Rocky Saugeen. 3 specks 6 to 8 inchers. They all went back.

http://eurekablog.ca/en/articles/pol...onal-shooting/

The British gun control policies have had some impressive results. In 2011, there were just 38 gun deaths in Britain for 63 million inhabitants, while in the same year, Canada had 153 gun deaths for 34 million inhabitants. It has been proven that guns, not people, kill people, unlike what the gun lobby claims.



does the 153 gun deaths include those shot by cops ???
just asking as the UK cops are predominately unarmed (no guns)

Cars kill people , knives kill people, guns kill people, poison kills people, 2x4s kill people. If people had to kill people with their bare hands, there would be a lot less dead people. Just sayin.

Yes, gun control has caused legal problems for gun owners. That's a fact. But the Highway Traffic Act causes legal problems for car owners. What conclusions shall we draw?

These are not semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

So I will say it again, gun owners have good reasons for concern.
Fact. Deal with it.

---

Again: not a fact.

It is a fact that gun owners have concerns. Whether those concerns rest on strong grounds is a matter of opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Perhapsanother fact escapes you. The vast majority of gun owners ... Have those same concerns/reservations.

---

Do you have polling data to back up that claim? There is strong evidence that gun owners are not united in, for example, believing in the existence of a conspiracy between the police, the media, and the Liberal party. I don't see much real-world evidence that the "vast majority of gun owners" believes the Liberals will ban firearms and hunting as soon as they gain control of the Senate.

Sorry, not a fact. Even if it were a fact, you'd be arguing the bandwagon fallacy.
http://skepdic.com/adpopulum.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Some have concerns about the future of GC and hunting for that matter. If anyone is going to say those concerns are baseless......

By all means, step up and say so.

---

One fact is that I've said that very thing on numerous occasions. Let me say it again: fears that the Liberals will ban firearms and hunting are baseless. Fears of a conspiracy between the police, media, and Liberal party are baseless. Fears that the Liberals will ban semi-autos are baseless. Fears that the Liberals will bring in a new long gun registry are baseless. Fears that Ontario will copy Quebec and bring in a provincial registry are baseless.

Should I go on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

35+ posts since 730 am on one of the most beautiful days of the spring and trout opener to boot. I think we have bigger issues at play than CBC's agenda.

---

I never fish the opener anymore, because it's a zoo scene. But my day wasn't entirely wasted. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

Nice. Spent the day on the Rocky Saugeen. 3 specks 6 to 8 inchers. They all went back.

---

That's a fine way to spend the opener, in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Cars kill people , knives kill people, guns kill people, poison kills people, 2x4s kill people. If people had to kill people with their bare hands, there would be a lot less dead people. Just sayin.

---

And if people didn't use the tools you just listed there would be no murders. None of my cars, knives, or spare lumber have ever assaulted anybody let alone kill them. You must have special ones if they have that capability. Come on man, try and make it a bit harder. ............:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I never fish the opener anymore, because it's a zoo scene. But my day wasn't entirely wasted. ;)

---

Just have to know where to go and know the right people for access. Not a single soul encountered on my stretch of river. Just me, the dog, a few cohibas, a couple sandwiches and a 6 pack.

Plan for tomorrow is the same except it will be on the Pine for steelhead. Restricted access section 2 km long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

And if people didn't use the tools you just listed there would be no murders. None of my cars, knives, or spare lumber have ever assaulted anybody let alone kill them. You must have special ones if they have that capability. Come on man, try and make it a bit harder. ............:rolleyes:

---

Make it a bit harder to what? I never said that any of those things of mine have killed anyone either. But to say they don't kill people is wrong, they do. They just happen to be the weapon of choice at the time.

Obviously G, you don't stay informed.
At the very least, the liberals are giving back the RCMP the power on classification. Their track record there isn't exactly stellar. Many accuse them of "black gun" syndrome. Further, even if the RCMP didn't have histories of this/that. In a democracy, it's Leo's job to enforce the law, not make it. That belongs in the hands of elected officials. Heres a toothpick for the crow your eating.

anything else you want to show how paranoid, arguemententive, wrong (yet again, as with other topics) and more, like hipocritical. You keep arguing and arguing and well, you have nothing but your own claims and opinions, and a woeful lack of facts.

and if you still want to argue semantics. Perchance you should google the definition of paranoia.

Species some of us may have more important things in life to do than go fishing. :(
Taking the odd break to read a thread, is a nice distraction. Albeit increasingly frustrating because a couple want to keep going.

More important than fishing, I think not. When 95% of the stuff on here is just personal opinion, how can anyone be wrong? You would think during his 9 years in power, harper would have fixed everything, so there should be nothing to complain about.

You certainly don't know when to stop.

As you and many others , including myself have stated, if you do not like what is being written, don't read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Species some of us may have more important things in life to do than go fishing. :(

---

Virtually certainty that no one has convinced anyone to budge a single mm where their own opinions are concerned. This to me is proof that this thread is far less important than spending the day fishing. To each their own.

Just re-read your post and I suppose I could interpret it as you were otherwise occupied with either work or family matters - if so my apologies.

I did both, plus also vacuumed and did the inside windows on the truck, fertilized the back lawn and then went and got pizza for dinner. A full day for me, now off to watch a little hockey before falling asleep with the knowledge of a day well spent. Not bad for a retired guy. Tomorrow , going golfing. Cheers

It was a beautiful day for fishing but I stopped doing openers a few years ago. Too crowded too crazy. I took the dog for a nice run in the woods. Got a nice point on a grouse, couldn't find a nest so I'm hoping it wasn't a hen. Pretty well time to stay out of those spots now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

I did both, plus also vacuumed and did the inside windows on the truck, fertilized the back lawn and then went and got pizza for dinner. A full day for me, now off to watch a little hockey before falling asleep with the knowledge of a day well spent. Not bad for a retired guy. Tomorrow , going golfing. Cheers

---

i was thinking of fertilizing this weekend. What do you put down this time of year? I have some dandelions up already.

Anything with the big number first, (nitrogen), at this time of year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

Virtually certainty that no one has convinced anyone to budge a single mm where their own opinions are concerned.

---

You can always hope to convince people who haven't made up their minds. Trying to convince people who have, when it comes to guns, is futile. Guns, like religion, are a matter of faith.

Anyway, I never did fish the Rocky Saugeen much. Access was always a problem. One of these days I'll go back to fishing the Saugeen system.

When it comes to (for lack of better words and lets not get too hung up on literal translations) extreme positions, that's pretty much the heart of the matter. Be it Guns and GC, be it politics and the far Left or far right, be it religion, be it A-Z. Neither are going to budge.

On this topic, or those/others. Is anything accomplished by name calling and outright dismissal of peoples concerns? You and I Welsh, I suspect are pretty close (broad term, lets not split hairs or get into semantics) ;). I have no problems with our current GC measures, and likely wouldn't freak out over some more (depending on specifics). You and I have both, at different times used the US and drawn the parallels to show the similarities and differences. Why GC works here, why other factors such as socio economic leads to compounding the problems there., etc, etc.

Funny thing about what happens when two extreme sides are more interested in calling each names, arguing, dismissive of this or that, and going on and on and on and on. Nothing gets done and things worsen. Even to the point where now because the Left dismisses everyone on the right as being paranoid, xenophobic, homophobic, red neck mysogonist, and as a result Trump has risen to the fore, become very popular, or the right or the NRA dismisses the concerns of the left and vice versa.

I suppose if we flipped things around a little, changed a couple words here and there.............

We can always hope to either to change the middle. Or hang on to it, see both sides......There (the US) where the middle is now almost completely lost, we to as we always do are following in their footsteps and slowly, inch by inch losing the middle.

The problem is JBen...in the Gun community if you don't back the hard right 100%, you're branded a FUDD (Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and don't have a real problem with some GC measures.

There seems to be little middle ground. It's the old "either you're with us or your against us"....

JT and the left. if you aren't with them your a paranoid xenophobic, mysogonist,
Wynne and the left, if you don't agree with everything or have concerns about say curriculums, and refugees. Your a paranoid xenophobic, mysogonist.

JT talking about the changes to GC he wants to and is bringing in...Whole lot of hyperbole, fear mongering, dismissive attitude there to.

And Kevin O'Leary a Trump light coming on the horizon. Almost eerily similar to the US, where Ross Perot first came on the scene. Things weren't quite as bad back in the 90s, so the American public wasn't quite as disenfranchised and ready to embrace him with open arms as they very obviously doing today with Trump.

It cuts both ways Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

It cuts both ways Mike

---

That's the second 1/2 of the Fudd definition: "These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt." ..LOL...

Bingo.

Back to the US. The left ridicules the right, treats them with a lot of scorn and contempt about Trump. Never bothering to pause for one second to ask "Why, why are so many people getting behind him". And not realizing that the problem is them their dismissive attitudes, the disenfranchising of the public, etc, etc. Cause and effect.

We are seeing it here in Canada. As we always do on most things, we follow the US by a generation or so.
Back in 90s Ross Perot came on the scene. We have O'Leary coming on the scene today. Both Trump lights and both just a little too soon.

Lol.
Hmm,........regional nationalism......opposing constitutional views....."immigrants"...... life changing economics.....no logical possibility of reconciliation.....and the worst U S President in history.

I just know I've seen that somewhere else in US History...........oh yeah, James Buchanan and the Civil War.