Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes you need two references and they are interviewed as would in the case of the Texas shooter his grandmother and teachers. I do not know what all questions they ask as I never applied for a gun license. I have had apolice check and got secret clearance in the Military and do not know who all they checked with. With the Texas shooter hiscschool, the two who offered his guarnatee, the town police, maybevsomevfriends and neighbours and I guess checking his on line social media. Being Texas maybe nit his hockey history as youbseem to think Canadians are nothing butvhickey goons.
Enough of your stupid stereotype of Canadians are all hockey goons. Reality shows is more an American thing. Background checks are not invading your privacy and more than a job application orvavlianvapplication.
This is some of the info you asked about. And bullies is just another excuse Americans have for refusing to keep firearms out of the reach of those who should not have them.
Do you think that every singke persin in your country should be able to own a gun, for example a convicted murderer on death row? Of course not . We have through background checks in this country. Do not like it dont move here.
In Canada what other questions can you ask your references to determine social deviance/awkwardness other than how they played the game of hockey? Or whether they even played hockey. It is a huge part of your culture. If they did not, it probably an indication they should not have guns. They not partake in a huge part of Canadian culture. That should raise flags. Otherwise what else can you use?
If you background checks are like that, then Canada is an absolute nanny state. If you are not absolutely perfect from K-12, you never have a chance at somethings. Your authorities can find any reason what so ever to deny you something. That is terrible, and USA does not want that. Having 2nd Amendment is one option the founders thought can help prevent the nanny state from happening.
And LOL you dont think references can flat out lie, or really know someone that well? You think every murderers mother thought their child was the Spawn of Satan? What is that saying, "everyone is an angel in their mothers' eyes". That is probably how guys like this guy in the vid got his guns. He may not shoot up a school filled with kids because he has an honor code, but does not make him any less bad.
Tell me how your background checks on this guy would have raised red flags, well obviously before he became a hardened mobster and put himself on RCMP radar by committing his first gun crime
So why then does it perform that task so diligently with the plethora of domestic security agencies all tasked with keeping tabs on its own citizens? The U.S. not wanting to be "the eye in the sky" is sure going about that in a very peculiar fashion.
Aside from the freakishly easy ability for the worst among you to purchase a firearm, it has already been shown innumerable times with posted links to any number of org's/agencies tasked with measuring (some even American conservative think tanks); your freedoms, from individual through economic to freedoms of the press, being inferior to those realized in Canada. If you folks actually put as much effort into "sensibly & intelligently" holding your government's feet to the fire in areas that effect you the most tangibly and spent less time worrying about what a foreign country does as regards the ownership of certain types of firearms . . .
And once USA govt starts using this intel they illegally gathered on its citizen as a way to deny people just about anything, we truly become a nanny state. That is not something we Americans will ever want. Nothing is worse.
In Canada what other questions can you ask your references to determine social deviance/awkwardness other than how they played the game of hockey?
*snip*
This is a red flag:
Quote:
The 18-year-old shooter who killed 21 people in Texas last week had a history of violence and “loved” abusing animals, his classmates from Uvalde High School have claimed.
In Canada what other questions can you ask your references to determine social deviance/awkwardness other than how they played the game of hockey? Or whether they even played hockey. It is a huge part of your culture. If they did not, it probably an indication they should not have guns. They not partake in a huge part of Canadian culture. That should raise flags. Otherwise what else can you use?
If you background checks are like that, then Canada is an absolute nanny state. If you are not absolutely perfect from K-12, you never have a chance at somethings. Your authorities can find any reason what so ever to deny you something. That is terrible, and USA does not want that. Having 2nd Amendment is one option the founders thought can help prevent the nanny state from happening.
And LOL you dont think references can flat out lie, or really know someone that well? You think every murderers mother thought their child was the Spawn of Satan? What is that saying, "everyone is an angel in their mothers' eyes". That is probably how guys like this guy in the vid got his guns. He may not shoot up a school filled with kids because he has an honor code, but does not make him any less bad.
Tell me how your background checks on this guy would have raised red flags, well obviously before he became a hardened mobster and put himself on RCMP radar by committing his first gun crime
And once USA govt starts using this intel they illegally gathered on its citizen as a way to deny people just about anything, we truly become a nanny state. That is not something we Americans will ever want. Nothing is worse.
You simply have no interest in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Enjoy your next mass school shootings. Sad how much a joke you think dead children are to you. And enjoy your stereotypes too. Probably easier than doing any thinking.
LOL is there any actual proof of this? That the shooter did indeed torture animals? If there was, and "background check" found this, then likely the Uvalde shooter be arrested for it, and have a criminal record. A criminal record that US background checks already discovers. In US animal torture would also raise flags. But there has to be actual proof. We dont go be here say. If US finds proof, there will be prosecution of the individual.
Honestly something like animal torture needs to be immediately prosecuted and perps sentenced. It is bad enough. So waiting until a person applies for gun until you find out is silly. You may as well just call up everyone and start asking around about everyone. Who did this, who done that, what is he like.
That is called a nanny police state. Also what is to keep people from lying? I can really screw someone over. I can claim this person had incestuous intercourse. How long ago must this occur to have any effect? Only perfect people should be allowed to keep guns for self defense or hunting? Who and how you determine perfect people? You are getting into the thought crimes realm now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
You simply have no interest in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Enjoy your next mass school shootings. Sad how much a joke you think dead children are to you. And enjoy your stereotypes too. Probably easier than doing any thinking.
We have no interest in becoming a nanny police state. Its not our gun laws that cause this. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Mental illness is the problem. You are just another pathetic Canadian Liberal fruit cake that voted for Trudeau. Enjoy your nanny police state.
I'll take a "nanny police state" a million times over having my children slaughtered at school by some nut who should have never had access to a gun.
Considering the kids were so shot up that they needed to be identified by DNA. And as far as nut jobs go what about those p ostinv g death threat at the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook?
It is normal livin g in so much fear of your government, meighbour, co-work er or a black man jogging t hat you dismiss any attempt to lessen mass carnage of innocent people. And calling background checks on potential gun buyers being in a nanny sta te but it is OK for his government to search for anyone with any mental problem and lock them up?
No, to the poster the slaughter of little childr en is acceptable. That anyone who wishes to c ommit mas murder is free to do so and th at as long as you are not yourself heavily armed you do not deserv e to live.
And he is posting on a thread about Canada on how we are wrong to value our children.
NJ Brazen stay home. We sure not need frighten, paranoid, scared and heartless visitors here.
LOL is there any actual proof of this? That the shooter did indeed torture animals? If there was, and "background check" found this, then likely the Uvalde shooter be arrested for it, and have a criminal record. A criminal record that US background checks already discovers. In US animal torture would also raise flags. But there has to be actual proof. We dont go be here say. If US finds proof, there will be prosecution of the individual.
Honestly something like animal torture needs to be immediately prosecuted and perps sentenced. It is bad enough. So waiting until a person applies for gun until you find out is silly. You may as well just call up everyone and start asking around about everyone. Who did this, who done that, what is he like.
That is called a nanny police state. Also what is to keep people from lying? I can really screw someone over. I can claim this person had incestuous intercourse. How long ago must this occur to have any effect? Only perfect people should be allowed to keep guns for self defense or hunting? Who and how you determine perfect people? You are getting into the thought crimes realm now.
We have no interest in becoming a nanny police state. Its not our gun laws that cause this. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Mental illness is the problem. You are just another pathetic Canadian Liberal fruit cake that voted for Trudeau. Enjoy your nanny police state.
Aaah yes; resorting to the name calling of another poster. There's an indicator right there of your mature, reasoned level of intelligence.
So while you totally ignored my post showing your country having more domestic security org's and agencies than any other developed first world democracy and probably more than some dictatorships; you're still prepared to use the collective "we" to describe what you supposedly don't want but HAVE IN SPADES already? Gee with all those guns in your wee hands you still have a bunch of police agencies running around with armoured vehicles, you still have asset forfeiture laws on the books, you still have a higher incarceration rate than Russia's gulag occupancy rate and you still have to keep your hands at the 10 & 2 position on your steering wheels.
I think you need to work on what you don't want, especially as it applies to that "nanny state" thingy with you also having more forms of welfare assistance than all others out there and well over 50% of you receiving some form of government benefit from Veterans assistance to EBT cards and cel-phone plans for baby mommas with multiple babies from multiple fathers, none of whom are supporting their progeny. Medicare, Medicaid just for two systems paralleling the metrics you use to call other countries nanny states.
So if you're an example of that rugged individualist and still resort to the infantile name calling, are we to take it, contrary to the indicators you yourself have provided us with; you actually aren't still living in your mom's basement?
LOL is there any actual proof of this? That the shooter did indeed torture animals? If there was, and "background check" found this, then likely the Uvalde shooter be arrested for it, and have a criminal record. A criminal record that US background checks already discovers. In US animal torture would also raise flags. But there has to be actual proof. We dont go be here say. If US finds proof, there will be prosecution of the individual.
Honestly something like animal torture needs to be immediately prosecuted and perps sentenced. It is bad enough. So waiting until a person applies for gun until you find out is silly. You may as well just call up everyone and start asking around about everyone. Who did this, who done that, what is he like.
That is called a nanny police state. Also what is to keep people from lying? I can really screw someone over. I can claim this person had incestuous intercourse. How long ago must this occur to have any effect? Only perfect people should be allowed to keep guns for self defense or hunting? Who and how you determine perfect people? You are getting into the thought crimes realm now.
We have no interest in becoming a nanny police state. Its not our gun laws that cause this. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Mental illness is the problem. You are just another pathetic Canadian Liberal fruit cake that voted for Trudeau. Enjoy your nanny police state.
Canada is not a nanny police state. That is just ridiculous. Just because you don't like or understand our gun laws, doesn't make it so.
Guns on their own don't kill people, but they sure make it easier to do so, and make the body count higher and quicker. Would the Vegas shooter have killed so many if he was just throwing down knives? Guns also make a rash suicide choice more likely to succeed. Guns also kill and maim many accidentally.
Mental illness IS a problem, but I doubt the US has more mental illness than other countries. What Canada does have is stricter back ground checks. Obviously a criminal records disqualify you, but further checks weed out not only the mentally ill, but those who are in a temporary bad mental state, like after a messy divorce. The waiting period helps in this.
You also have to understand that this notion of guns equaling freedom, is a very odd and strange concept to most Canadians. I feel no more bothered by our gun regulations, than I do for the regulations of getting a driver's licence. I WANT the system to choose people who qualify, and not just because of some 18th century frontier, colonial idea of gun ownership. The US had just fought a revolution 15 years earlier, and Madison had NO idea of the carnage the future held in his amendment. I'm sure he would be horrified.
Gun laws in Canada go back almost to the beginning to the country. The history of gun ownership in Canada is almost the polar opposite of the US.
Canada is not a nanny police state. That is just ridiculous. Just because you don't like or understand our gun laws, doesn't make it so.
Guns on their own don't kill people, but they sure make it easier to do so, and make the body count higher and quicker. Would the Vegas shooter have killed so many if he was just throwing down knives? Guns also make a rash suicide choice more likely to succeed. Guns also kill and maim many accidentally.
Mental illness IS a problem, but I doubt the US has more mental illness than other countries. What Canada does have is stricter back ground checks. Obviously a criminal records disqualify you, but further checks weed out not only the mentally ill, but those who are in a temporary bad mental state, like after a messy divorce. The waiting period helps in this.
You also have to understand that this notion of guns equaling freedom, is a very odd and strange concept to most Canadians. I feel no more bothered by our gun regulations, than I do for the regulations of getting a driver's licence. I WANT the system to choose people who qualify, and not just because of some 18th century frontier, colonial idea of gun ownership. The US had just fought a revolution 15 years earlier, and Madison had NO idea of the carnage the future held in his amendment. I'm sure he would be horrified.
Gun laws in Canada go back almost to the beginning to the country. The history of gun ownership in Canada is almost the polar opposite of the US.
Aaah yes; resorting to the name calling of another poster. There's an indicator right there of your mature, reasoned level of intelligence.
So while you totally ignored my post showing your country having more domestic security org's and agencies than any other developed first world democracy and probably more than some dictatorships; you're still prepared to use the collective "we" to describe what you supposedly don't want but HAVE IN SPADES already? Gee with all those guns in your wee hands you still have a bunch of police agencies running around with armoured vehicles, you still have asset forfeiture laws on the books, you still have a higher incarceration rate than Russia's gulag occupancy rate and you still have to keep your hands at the 10 & 2 position on your steering wheels.
I think you need to work on what you don't want, especially as it applies to that "nanny state" thingy with you also having more forms of welfare assistance than all others out there and well over 50% of you receiving some form of government benefit from Veterans assistance to EBT cards and cel-phone plans for baby mommas with multiple babies from multiple fathers, none of whom are supporting their progeny. Medicare, Medicaid just for two systems paralleling the metrics you use to call other countries nanny states.
So if you're an example of that rugged individualist and still resort to the infantile name calling, are we to take it, contrary to the indicators you yourself have provided us with; you actually aren't still living in your mom's basement?
All those law enforcement agencies is mostly about money. They are largely ineffective in their roles. Like the DEA, and Border Patrol. They have not curbed drugs, or illegal immigration because the brass at the top hinder the efforts.
All those law enforcement agencies is mostly about money. They are largely ineffective in their roles. Like the DEA, and Border Patrol. They have not curbed drugs, or illegal immigration because the brass at the top hinder the efforts.
You'll get no argument from me on that score. This thread is about your problems becoming ours, is it not?
BUT, to the point of Canada being called a nanny police state by some Americans with nowhere near the governmental policing agencies the U.S. has, nowhere near the per-capita incarceration rate, nowhere near the governmental confiscation of personal assets without proof or prosecution of any crime, why would anyone propose Canada fitting the description while not using an inward look at their own country?
In that context one must consider the possibility that IF Canada is becoming a police state; that too is a problem generated by the influence of having to sleep with an elephant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
