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.
Almost half the people that murderer killed in his spree, weren't shot. They died in fires set by the murderer.
So where is the nationwide ban against matches, and those long-handled barbecue lighters (aka "assault matches")? They are just as much at fault as the firearms, aren't they?
I've said it before, someone dedicated to a body count can always rent a van or buy some flares and gasoline.
Oh look the country with one of the highest rate of gun violence/gun accidents/gun deaths per capita is judging other countries for their gun policies -- that have much lower rates of .........
It's fair to say that they are 'more strict' than the US, but calling it 'super strict' is probably a stretch (unless of course one belongs to the camp that says any regulation is 'super strict').
That said, what you're likely to hear from many Canucks on this topic is that they are perfectly fine with the law. That it may or may not have any efficacy whatsoever is not relevant. That said, regardless of whatever I may feel about guns, I would be 100% NOT ok with govt officials wasting time/money/brain cycles on laws that are almost entirely symbolic in nature, but I'm obviously in the minority, so there you go.
Well I have no problem with what Canadians legislate in their own country.
The same thing happened in New Zealand after that nut shot up the place. Weapons I assume were nonexistent there were banned.
Wow a national government that actually passes a bill in crisis. Four president's since Columbine, none have really addressed the issues and besides this year when we are at home social distancing, we have seen more and more shootings.
It's fair to say that they are 'more strict' than the US, but calling it 'super strict' is probably a stretch (unless of course one belongs to the camp that says any regulation is 'super strict').
That said, what you're likely to hear from many Canucks on this topic is that they are perfectly fine with the law. That it may or may not have any efficacy whatsoever is not relevant. That said, regardless of whatever I may feel about guns, I would be 100% NOT ok with govt officials wasting time/money/brain cycles on laws that are almost entirely symbolic in nature, but I'm obviously in the minority, so there you go.
Fair enough. I would agree, many Canadians will be likely fine with it, despite its symbolic nature simply for "The Feelz". But some will not, and they do not have a strong recourse to fall back on like the 2nd amendment. Just stuck with what Big Govt has served them.
I don't care what imaginary lines you live within when your natural rights are infringed upon it's an affront to all moral people.
I'm a moral persona nd don't feel affronted at all. You did -- that's your feelings and you don't live there. Don't go there. Don't buy Canadian do whatever makes you feel like you showed them but what the heck does it matter.
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.
