Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Ottawa Eyes Tougher Screening of Gun Owners for Mental Health, Violence

  1. #51
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badenoch View Post
    The thread is now five years old. In that time, for all the Liberals' talk, the only change is the background check is not limited to the previous five years but the entire lifetime of the applicant, an insignificant change if you already have a license.

    The Liberals talk a great deal about gun control but don't get much done. They said they "banned" so-called assault rifles and promised compensation. Three years later every single one of these rifles that government said are "too dangerous for people to own" are still in the hands of the people who own them.

    They talked about a handgun ban but decided to "freeze" them which prompted a buying frenzy. The result is there are now more legally-owned handguns in private hands in Canada than ever before in our history. There is also no approved mechanism to turn them in or dispose of them when an owner dies, leaves the country or decides to get out of the sport.

    Other countries have managed to achieve both a handgun and semi-auto ban with compensation programs and yet the Trudeau Liberals are so staggeringly incompetent they can't manage either.
    It's cuz we're broke and it was never really about the safety lol.
    It was the reaction of a tragic event that the government used as an opportunity to spread mis information and demonize a gun that kills less than family pets do in Canada. All because it's part of the agenda

    Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #52
    Needs a new keyboard

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trimmer21 View Post
    Other than the UK,what other countries had a "buy back",was it effective and what were the electoral implications?
    Australia and New Zealand.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishfood View Post
    It's cuz we're broke and it was never really about the safety lol.
    It was the reaction of a tragic event that the government used as an opportunity to spread mis information and demonize a gun that kills less than family pets do in Canada. All because it's part of the agenda
    They demonize the guns but let the owners keep them. It's a charade.

  4. #53
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badenoch View Post
    Australia and New Zealand.



    They demonize the guns but let the owners keep them. It's a charade.
    The only trouble for elected officials in those two countries will be the political fallout. From what I've seen and read,politicians backing those policies are paying a hell of a price at the polls. That's something our MP's are desperate to avoid.
    Society needs to stop bending to the will of the delusional.

  5. #54
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanE View Post
    Problem is who is qualified to do these background checks?
    if the last 3 years have shown Canadians anything it's the full system from Government to RCMP to Provincial Police to local Police are all operating well outside the letter of the law
    If you believe that to be the case then I suppose you would not support anything as you have already lost confidence in the whole system. I always take a more optimistic view of the world.

  6. #55
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Lots of shootings in Australia still here is a list of the recent shootings and there were plenty in November alone.

    https://www.9news.com.au/shootings



    Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

  7. #56
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Question.

    If the government made it easier or redefined the way a mass shooting is classified in 2012 could that not make a rise in mass shootings. Seems there was some changes made then and since then there was an increase of incidents .?

    Particularly going of usa s
    Charts ,they never used to call a street shootings a mass shooting. Also some organizations use 3 as a mass shooting others go by 4 or more people injured.






    Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Posting Permissions

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