Gun Control is Completely Useless.


Colpy
Conservative
+2
#15751
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#15752
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Why Can't We Return To How Peaceful The World Was Before Guns?
August 7th, 2019

107.1k
Shares
SHARE
SHARE
SHARE
Guns are a plague on mankind. They are the source of all violence in our modern world. Can you imagine how peaceful the world would be if guns didn’t exist? Well, you don’t have to imagine. There was such a time; it’s called our distant past.


In the long, long ago, people lived in harmony. They had no choice but to, as they had nothing to shoot each other with. Theoretically, they had bows and arrows, but if you’ve ever actually tried to use one, they’re basically impossible to hit anything with. So if they had a problem, they just talked things out. If things got really heated, they’d settle things with a riddle competition. And men were respectful to women, as there were no guns to enhance toxic masculinity. Also, politicians only ever did the will of the people since there was no NRA to buy them off. And no one knew anything about war, because how would you have a war without guns? Throw rocks at each other? Who could haul that many rocks to a battlefield? It’s impractical.

Life was basically as peaceful as a John Lennon song or a Communist country.

This all changed, though, when the inventor of guns (Bob Gun, I believe) created guns in his racism laboratory while trying to find ways to enhance racism. Since then, gun deaths have increased infinity-fold, from zero to more than zero. And there have been violence, murder, and, admittedly, some very entertaining John Wick movies. Also, think of all the wars since then. World War I. World War II. World War: Vietnam. World War: Desert Heat. And the World War prequel, World War Stories: The Civil War.

It’s no exaggeration to say things are now a million billion times more violent than before guns were invented. It’s past time to get rid of all the guns and go back to how peaceful and nice everyone was in ancient history. It won’t end all conflicts, but it will get pretty close. We’ll just have to think of some good riddles to stave off invasion.


FYI (just for fun)



Quote:

The historian Laurence Stone calculated that homicide levels in medieval England were at least 10 times what they are today. Certainly, we cannot doubt that it was a dangerous time in which to live. An exceptional case, even by medieval standards, is provided by 14th‑century Oxford. Levels of violence there were considered unacceptably high by contemporaries: in the 1340s, the homicide rate was around 110 per 100,000. (In the UK in 2011, it was 1 per 100,000.)


https://www.historyextra.com/period/...e-middle-ages/



110 per 100,000 in Medieval England. Must have been all those guns.


For Comparison (per 100,000)


UK: 1.2


Canada: 1.8


USA: 5.3 (most guns)


El Salvador: 61.8 (highest murder rate on earth)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#15753
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Why Can't We Return To How Peaceful The World Was Before Guns?
August 7th, 2019

107.1k
Shares
SHARE
SHARE
SHARE
Guns are a plague on mankind. They are the source of all violence in our modern world. Can you imagine how peaceful the world would be if guns didn’t exist? Well, you don’t have to imagine. There was such a time; it’s called our distant past.


In the long, long ago, people lived in harmony. They had no choice but to, as they had nothing to shoot each other with. Theoretically, they had bows and arrows, but if you’ve ever actually tried to use one, they’re basically impossible to hit anything with. So if they had a problem, they just talked things out. If things got really heated, they’d settle things with a riddle competition. And men were respectful to women, as there were no guns to enhance toxic masculinity. Also, politicians only ever did the will of the people since there was no NRA to buy them off. And no one knew anything about war, because how would you have a war without guns? Throw rocks at each other? Who could haul that many rocks to a battlefield? It’s impractical.

Life was basically as peaceful as a John Lennon song or a Communist country.

This all changed, though, when the inventor of guns (Bob Gun, I believe) created guns in his racism laboratory while trying to find ways to enhance racism. Since then, gun deaths have increased infinity-fold, from zero to more than zero. And there have been violence, murder, and, admittedly, some very entertaining John Wick movies. Also, think of all the wars since then. World War I. World War II. World War: Vietnam. World War: Desert Heat. And the World War prequel, World War Stories: The Civil War.

It’s no exaggeration to say things are now a million billion times more violent than before guns were invented. It’s past time to get rid of all the guns and go back to how peaceful and nice everyone was in ancient history. It won’t end all conflicts, but it will get pretty close. We’ll just have to think of some good riddles to stave off invasion.


The one downside to that being the necessity to resort to strangulation to kill big game. (a rock wouldn't do it)
 
Hoid
#15754
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

here is a perfect example of wishing things to be true
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#15755
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

here is a perfect example of wishing things to be true

You probably wish everything you post was true. (It isn't)
 
DaSleeper
+1
#15756
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

here is a perfect example of wishing things to be true

You just proved it true with your post!
 
Hoid
#15757
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

You probably wish everything you post was true. (It isn't)

i know you are but what am I?
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#15758
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Congrats Colpy for proving you didn't read the entire post, you just got as far as it took for something to make you ragey and stopped right there.
I'm a gun owner myself. I believe that responsible citizens should have the right to own guns.
Key word, "responsible."
Americans have the right to own guns. But ownership of a gun DOESN'T mean you win all the arguments. A gun isn't license to intimidate others or overthrow the government whenever you please.
So... now what?

So go after the criminals. Leave law abiding citizens alone and quit trying to change the laws to make them criminals.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#15759
Liberal priorities for minority Parliament, NAFTA ratification, assault rifle ban
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#15760
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

So go after the criminals. Leave law abiding citizens alone and quit trying to change the laws to make them criminals.


I suggest you read the source if you haven't already.



As it is, the person who wrote it is more qualified to comment about the issue than you.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#15761
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

I suggest you read the source if you haven't already.



As it is, the person who wrote it is more qualified to comment about the issue than you.


Wow, you seem to be one of these small minority of people able to evaluate other's knowledge and ability. That assumption will often bite you in the ass!
 
spilledthebeer
#15762
Quote: Originally Posted by harrylee View Post

I imagine Harry is out of that small gene pool....Wasnt Dianna banging that red haired horsey guy at that time


NO HARRY..........................................


DIana WAS NOT A ROYAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


She was a Commoner with some sort of relatively famous family..............................


AS SUCH SHE DID REPRESENT NEW BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And WE SEE THE CLEAR RESULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Harry his brother are stronger minded and more independent than their uncles and aunts of the previous generation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


One has only to look at the struggles of Prince Edward........................................


or the difficulties of Princess Ann in the royal pressure cooker to realize the need for a more grounded life style........................


meaning one NOT SO HIDEBOUND IN TRADITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In other news.........................................


OVER SIXTY PERCENT OF CDNS AGREE WITH MY SUGGESTION................................


THAT WE APPOINT HARRY TO BE GOVERNOR GENERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It will give him some work.......................................


and some honest income.....................................


and will FILL AN ESSENTIAL CDN POLITICAL POSITION..................................


WITHOUT THE BOTHER OF ANY NEW EXPENSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


STUPID LIE-berals are keen to drop the Monarchy from Cdn politics....................................


BUT AS ALWAYS LIE-berals LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


OTHER COUNTRIES that are republics- meaning they HAVE NO ROYAL FAMILY................................


ALL HAVE INSTEAD BOTH A PRESIDENT AND A PRIME MINISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


France and Germany fit that bill................................


as does Poland and the Czech republic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There is NO GRAVY TO BE SAVED BY DUMPING THE MONARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BUT THERE IS LIE-beral opportunity to create NEW LIE-beral political positions...............................


and to weaken the power of parliament by dividing up responsibility between parliament and new President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-beral enthusiasm for a Cdn republic is nothing more than..............................................


an elaborate ELECTORAL REFORM AND VOTE RIGGING SCAM!!!!!!!!
 
spilledthebeer
#15763
Quote: Originally Posted by colpy View Post






hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
spilledthebeer
#15764
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Quite possibly the best 'response' for the current "protest" going on in Richmond.


Jim Wright

Since I'm getting mail:
As noted here many times: I'm a gun owner myself. In fact, I'm a professionally trained firearms instructor who taught both military and civilian shooters for more than 30 years.
Right now I'm sitting in my office about 5 feet from two gun safes.
I spent most of my adult life in uniform, sworn to defend the Constitution. I served in peace and in multiple wars. There aren't many weapons I'm not qualified on or haven't used.
I spent my life in places where gun ownership is common, for military reasons, for sport, for defense.
I know a fair bit about firearms; their history, theory and, design; their construction; their use in all types of situations from the battlefield to the sporting range; their maintenance; how to handle them safely; how to keep them secure when not in use. It was my job and the military spent a hell of a lot of money training me in detail and then keeping my knowledge, experience, and training current for more than 20 years.
I'm a gun owner myself. I believe that responsible citizens should have the right to own guns.
Key word, "responsible."
Americans have the right to own guns. But ownership of a gun DOESN'T mean you win all the arguments. A gun isn't license to intimidate others or overthrow the government whenever you please.
The 2nd Amendment is for defense of the Republic, NOT nullification of democracy.
As gun fanatics are wont to point out: A gun is tool. It can be used for good or evil. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If you believe that's true then you must likewise admit a gun can't threaten others by itself either.
Terrorism requires a human operator.
And that's what those marching in Richmond today don't get. To them, might makes right, they WANT you to be intimidated. Afraid. Cowed.
THAT's terrorism.
Ironic, given the Constitution they claim to defend was designed specifically to prevent that very thing.
What those in Richmond apparently can't understand is this: If it wasn't for their fanatical obsession with guns, their endless threats of violence and their attempts to intimidate both citizens and government, there would be no reason for the very laws they oppose.




SERRYAH SPEWS FOOLISH NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If those gun owners had wanted to intimidate.......................


they would NOT have lined up quietly and marched in a peaceful way.....................


and listened to various speakers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I want to point out that I do think that there is NO NEED for Yankee style gun laws here in Canada AT THIS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Our society is still relatively peaceful and the idea that somebody - such as the Yankee woman interviewed on the evening news


telling us she always CARRIES HER PISTOL even when grocery shopping



is simply NOT the kind of social situation we want to develop!!!!!!!!!!!!


On the other hand - it is CLEAR that the Cdn legal system is IN GRAVE DANGER of sliding over


INTO YANKEE STYLE CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It has been over 30 years since my Mom stopped her car at a red light in Toronto



and 2 black guys opened the car door and tried to shove her out!!!!!!!!!!!!


Mom isnt the sort to take crap laying down and grabbed a long handled ice scraper and started flailing away


while at the same time hitting the gas to go flying through the intersection and escape!!!!!!!


LIE-beral hug a thug judges are THE GREATEST MOTIVATOR FOR PEOPLE TO BUY GUNS!!!!!!!!!
 
spilledthebeer
#15765
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Why Can't We Return To How Peaceful The World Was Before Guns?
August 7th, 2019

107.1k
Shares
SHARE
SHARE
SHARE
Guns are a plague on mankind. They are the source of all violence in our modern world. Can you imagine how peaceful the world would be if guns didn’t exist? Well, you don’t have to imagine. There was such a time; it’s called our distant past.


In the long, long ago, people lived in harmony. They had no choice but to, as they had nothing to shoot each other with. Theoretically, they had bows and arrows, but if you’ve ever actually tried to use one, they’re basically impossible to hit anything with. So if they had a problem, they just talked things out. If things got really heated, they’d settle things with a riddle competition. And men were respectful to women, as there were no guns to enhance toxic masculinity. Also, politicians only ever did the will of the people since there was no NRA to buy them off. And no one knew anything about war, because how would you have a war without guns? Throw rocks at each other? Who could haul that many rocks to a battlefield? It’s impractical.

Life was basically as peaceful as a John Lennon song or a Communist country.

This all changed, though, when the inventor of guns (Bob Gun, I believe) created guns in his racism laboratory while trying to find ways to enhance racism. Since then, gun deaths have increased infinity-fold, from zero to more than zero. And there have been violence, murder, and, admittedly, some very entertaining John Wick movies. Also, think of all the wars since then. World War I. World War II. World War: Vietnam. World War: Desert Heat. And the World War prequel, World War Stories: The Civil War.

It’s no exaggeration to say things are now a million billion times more violent than before guns were invented. It’s past time to get rid of all the guns and go back to how peaceful and nice everyone was in ancient history. It won’t end all conflicts, but it will get pretty close. We’ll just have to think of some good riddles to stave off invasion.






STOP READING THAT URSALA E GUIN SCI FI GARBAGE AND A FANTASY LIFE IN A PEACEFUL SOCIETY!!!!!!


THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY SUCH THING!!!!!!!!


IN OTHER NEWS - IS IT NOT IRONIC THAT CDN TEACHERS HAVE STOPPED TEACHING KIDS ABOUT THAT OLD BOOK


I refer to "THE REPUBLIC" BY PLATO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The IRONY of a bunch of wealthy guys sitting around discussing civil rights and freedoms in a society


WHERE TWENTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION WERE SLAVES


APPARENTLY GENERATED TO MANY HARD QUESTIONS FOR OUR HOGS TO HANDLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



And it is for the same reason that kids are CAREFULLY GUIDED AWAY from any real discussion of current affairs!!!!!


Our HOGS DO NOT wish to discuss why it is fair for ordinary people to deal with frozen wages and reduced work hours


while HOGS DEMAND EVER MORE!!!!!!!!!!


Such a debate about the UNHOLY CONFLICT OF INTEREST ENGAGED IN BY HOGS AND LIE-berals


is not one that HOGS want!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#15766
 
AnnaEmber
No Party Affiliation
+1
#15767
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Hey! Hey!


Speak for yourself.


I'm the whitest white guy you ever met (according to 23 and me), and I am sweet, benevolent, tolerant, non-violent, gentle in all I do, honest, hard-working, "the ultimate in virtue and morality".......and if you believe that.........


Well, the white guy thing is true.....and some of the rest of it.


You get to figure out which parts

lol Well, I can agree with you. But you, sir, are an exception. :d
 
AnnaEmber
No Party Affiliation
#15768
Quote: Originally Posted by Girth View Post

It's also well known that Native women considered White men the best lovers, of all ethnic groups.

lol Most people once thought the universe was geocentric, too. And that was after most people thought the planet was flat.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#15769
Trudeau government’s ‘buy back’ gun program likely a multi-billion boondoggle

— January 21, 2020





In his mandate letter to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair (pictured above), Prime Minister Trudeau gave the highest priority to prohibiting and confiscating “military-style assault rifles.” And this week, during a federal cabinet retreat in Winnipeg, Minister Blair reiterated the government’s commitment to the plan.
This program is being called a “buy back,” but actually it’s a mandated confiscation of legally-purchased firearms for which the government will compensate owners at a rate the government deems “suitable.” Only owners who can document their legal ownership will be compensated, and non-compliance will be a criminal act. Unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Minister Blair has not been forthcoming in explaining which firearms will be prohibited and confiscated as “military-style assault rifles.” Nor is there general agreement about what this vague term might include. True military assault rifles are capable of firing as full-automatic (the gun keeps firing as long as the trigger is held back) and they have been prohibited to civilians since the 1950s. A large share of civilian firearms (both shotguns and rifles) are semi-automatic (the gun reloads automatically, but pulling the trigger only fires one shot). In New Zealand, the government’s recent “buy back” program included centre-fire rifles and some shotguns, as well as pump action and lever action firearms.
Speculation about the cost of this “buy back” has focused on how much owners will be paid for surrendering their guns. For instance, CBC reported that Minister Blair claimed the cost for the “buy back” of roughly 250,000 firearms would be between $400 million and $600 million—$375 million for the guns and presumably the rest for overhead. That is, if owners comply.
However, the actual full cost of the “buy back” won’t be $600 million; it will be much more.
Focusing on reimbursement costs is misleading because it ignores the biggest expense—staffing costs. Prohibiting and confiscating an estimated 250,000 firearms is a complex undertaking and would involve considerable government resources. It’s impossible to do with current police resources.
How much will taxpayers be billed for this boondoggle? The government has been silent. No budget for the “buy back” program has yet been announced. My best estimate for Ottawa’s confiscation plan is in the billions. Here’s a rough outline of the steps involved in the nation-wide confiscation program.
  • draw up plans for the entire project and secure approval from Trudeau’s cabinet
  • identify, as specifically as possible, the firearms to be confiscated and announce the list
  • evaluate information and processing capacity, possibly develop new computer systems
  • identify and notify owners of soon-to-be-confiscated firearms
  • organize the physical set up for collecting the firearms (e.g. arrange secure office space for collection points and train the police and clerks who will accept surrendered firearms)
  • staff the collection points so surrendered firearms may be assessed and processed
  • identify and hire venders who will destroy the collected guns
  • process payments to the former owners
  • physically collect and ship the firearms, and then destroy the firearms
Plus, of course, there will be an advertising program to persuade the public that confiscating legally-purchased and legally-used firearms will “make Canada safer.”
It would be surprising if everything went as planned. The gun registry was predicted to cost no more than $2 million and ended up costing $2.7 billion.
Another major potential problem is that no one knows how many owners will refuse to surrender their newly-prohibited firearms, or if they do decide to submit, how many will simply wait until the deadline and show up in a last-minute tsunami.
Accurately estimating the entire budget for Minister Blair’s confiscation of thousands of semi-auto rifles is beyond the purview of this blog post. But I can make a rough estimate of costs for at least one stage in the complex process—the cost of collecting the guns to be surrendered. The experience of the New Zealand Police, a national police force, which in 2019 set about to confiscate “military-style” semi-automatic rifles, provides a template Canada might follow. The New Zealand Police set up “collection events” at 524 collection points around their country to collect an estimated 175,000 newly-prohibited guns in their “buy back” program.
Since Canada is much larger than New Zealand—in population, geography and in the number of “buy back” firearms (250,000)—to keep the same ratio, Canada must have many more collection points. Canada’s population is more than seven times that of New Zealand’s, and it’s geographically 37 times larger.
Guns to be collected 2019 population Geographic size Number of collection pointsNew Zealand175,0004.8 million268,000 km2524Canada250,00037.6 million10,000,000 km24,100 to 19,500Following the New Zealand model, Canada would require between 4,100 and 19,500 collection points. I will assume the minimum number of collection points (4,100) in the following estimate. Each collection point must be staffed by either hiring new police officers or diverting current police personnel away from other policing duties.
The New Zealand Police do not report how the collection points were specifically staffed. At a minimum, collection point staff might only work one eight-hour shift per day (e.g. noon to 8 p. m.) so staffing requirements would range from four to eight people per collection point. Security is vital, so a minimum of four employees would be necessary—a clerk, a manager, a police officer and a security guard. Personal observers from New Zealand report that there were four police officers and four clerks at each collection point. This may have been to process surrenders more expeditiously. Managers will be required to supervise this work force, as well as high-ranking civil servants to oversee the process. This means a minimum of 16,400 employees to a maximum of 32,800 employees required to staff these collection points. I’ve budgeted the “buy back” for one year, which includes planning and collection phases.
Because handling firearms safely requires training and a high level of responsibility, it’s doubtful the Minister Blair would employ low-skilled civilian office workers, but instead would prefer police officers. Statistics Canada reports that in 2017/18, the average police salary was $99,298 per annum (including both sworn officers and civilian employees), which for ease of calculation I’ve rounded up to $100,000. This is a lower bound of how much staff members cost taxpayers. If the cost per collection employee is estimated using the operating expenses for Canadian police divided by the number of police personnel (officers and civilian employees both), the cost per staff member is approximately $150,000.
Assumptions Collection points Staff at each collection point Total Staff Cost per employee Total Minimum 4,100, 416,400 $100,000 $1.64 billion Maximum 4,100832,800 $150,000$ 4.92 billion Based on these assumptions, confiscating 250,000 firearms would cost the Canadian taxpayer between $1.6 billion to almost $5 billion in the first year. This estimate excludes travel costs and any ministerial administrators.
Remember, this is just part of the costs to taxpayers for the “buy back.” These estimates do not include the $600 million the government promises to pay owners who surrender their firearms. Nor have I estimated the costs involved with a) new information processing equipment or systems, b) notifying law-abiding citizens that their property is to be confiscated, c) contracting for venders and destroying the guns collected, c) arresting and charging anyone who refuses to submit or d) the costs of the public relations campaigns.
It seems clear from my rough calculation that just one of the required steps needed to complete a “buy-back” program of the nature contemplated by this federal government would include costs well over $1.5 billion with many additional costs, some of which would be difficult to even estimate in advance. One thing is certain—the costs will greatly exceed the $600 million presented thus far by the government.



Author:

Gary Mauser
Last edited by Colpy; 4 weeks ago at 03:41 PM..
 
AnnaEmber
No Party Affiliation
#15770
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Why Can't We Return To How Peaceful The World Was Before Guns?
August 7th, 2019

107.1k
Shares
SHARE
SHARE
SHARE
Guns are a plague on mankind. They are the source of all violence in our modern world. Can you imagine how peaceful the world would be if guns didn’t exist? Well, you don’t have to imagine. There was such a time; it’s called our distant past.


In the long, long ago, people lived in harmony. They had no choice but to, as they had nothing to shoot each other with. Theoretically, they had bows and arrows, but if you’ve ever actually tried to use one, they’re basically impossible to hit anything with. So if they had a problem, they just talked things out. If things got really heated, they’d settle things with a riddle competition. And men were respectful to women, as there were no guns to enhance toxic masculinity. Also, politicians only ever did the will of the people since there was no NRA to buy them off. And no one knew anything about war, because how would you have a war without guns? Throw rocks at each other? Who could haul that many rocks to a battlefield? It’s impractical.

Life was basically as peaceful as a John Lennon song or a Communist country.

This all changed, though, when the inventor of guns (Bob Gun, I believe) created guns in his racism laboratory while trying to find ways to enhance racism. Since then, gun deaths have increased infinity-fold, from zero to more than zero. And there have been violence, murder, and, admittedly, some very entertaining John Wick movies. Also, think of all the wars since then. World War I. World War II. World War: Vietnam. World War: Desert Heat. And the World War prequel, World War Stories: The Civil War.

It’s no exaggeration to say things are now a million billion times more violent than before guns were invented. It’s past time to get rid of all the guns and go back to how peaceful and nice everyone was in ancient history. It won’t end all conflicts, but it will get pretty close. We’ll just have to think of some good riddles to stave off invasion.

lol Again, the research says violence has diminished significantly over the centuries.
From Nova's article The Violence Paradox
 
AnnaEmber
No Party Affiliation
#15771
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

FYI (just for fun)






https://www.historyextra.com/period/...e-middle-ages/



110 per 100,000 in Medieval England. Must have been all those guns.


For Comparison (per 100,000)


UK: 1.2


Canada: 1.8


USA: 5.3 (most guns)


El Salvador: 61.8 (highest murder rate on earth)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

lol Yeah but I think they have a fascination with sharp things and blood over there in Jolly Olde.
 
AnnaEmber
No Party Affiliation
#15772
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Trudeau government’s ‘buy back’ gun program likely a multi-billion boondoggle
— January 21, 2020 ........

...... and it would be a failure anyway, just like the Gliberal's Long-Gun Registry.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#15773
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo


This is great stuff fellas!


Gotta Love Representative Alexandria Occasional Cortex. Such an idiot.


And Alex Jones is a moron.


White Nationalists? There were Black Panthers marching. LOL!!!! Loathesome as they are in today's day and age, they understand that the right to keep and bear arms was essential in the early civil rights movement.........as it always is when tyranny raises its ugly head.
Last edited by Colpy; 4 weeks ago at 04:42 PM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#15774
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMbaG6CVh48
Now, Imagine 22,000 antifa fascists on the streets................

Don't need to imagine 22,000 Nazis and Klan on the street. We already know what happens. Aggravated assault and murder.

Name "Charlottesville" ring a bell?
 
Hoid
#15775
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Trudeau government’s ‘buy back’ gun program likely a multi-billion boondoggle

— January 21, 2020





In his mandate letter to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair (pictured above), Prime Minister Trudeau gave the highest priority to prohibiting and confiscating “military-style assault rifles.” And this week, during a federal cabinet retreat in Winnipeg, Minister Blair reiterated the government’s commitment to the plan.
This program is being called a “buy back,” but actually it’s a mandated confiscation of legally-purchased firearms for which the government will compensate owners at a rate the government deems “suitable.” Only owners who can document their legal ownership will be compensated, and non-compliance will be a criminal act. Unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Minister Blair has not been forthcoming in explaining which firearms will be prohibited and confiscated as “military-style assault rifles.” Nor is there general agreement about what this vague term might include. True military assault rifles are capable of firing as full-automatic (the gun keeps firing as long as the trigger is held back) and they have been prohibited to civilians since the 1950s. A large share of civilian firearms (both shotguns and rifles) are semi-automatic (the gun reloads automatically, but pulling the trigger only fires one shot). In New Zealand, the government’s recent “buy back” program included centre-fire rifles and some shotguns, as well as pump action and lever action firearms.
Speculation about the cost of this “buy back” has focused on how much owners will be paid for surrendering their guns. For instance, CBC reported that Minister Blair claimed the cost for the “buy back” of roughly 250,000 firearms would be between $400 million and $600 million—$375 million for the guns and presumably the rest for overhead. That is, if owners comply.
However, the actual full cost of the “buy back” won’t be $600 million; it will be much more.
Focusing on reimbursement costs is misleading because it ignores the biggest expense—staffing costs. Prohibiting and confiscating an estimated 250,000 firearms is a complex undertaking and would involve considerable government resources. It’s impossible to do with current police resources.
How much will taxpayers be billed for this boondoggle? The government has been silent. No budget for the “buy back” program has yet been announced. My best estimate for Ottawa’s confiscation plan is in the billions. Here’s a rough outline of the steps involved in the nation-wide confiscation program.

  • draw up plans for the entire project and secure approval from Trudeau’s cabinet
  • identify, as specifically as possible, the firearms to be confiscated and announce the list
  • evaluate information and processing capacity, possibly develop new computer systems
  • identify and notify owners of soon-to-be-confiscated firearms
  • organize the physical set up for collecting the firearms (e.g. arrange secure office space for collection points and train the police and clerks who will accept surrendered firearms)
  • staff the collection points so surrendered firearms may be assessed and processed
  • identify and hire venders who will destroy the collected guns
  • process payments to the former owners
  • physically collect and ship the firearms, and then destroy the firearms
Plus, of course, there will be an advertising program to persuade the public that confiscating legally-purchased and legally-used firearms will “make Canada safer.”
It would be surprising if everything went as planned. The gun registry was predicted to cost no more than $2 million and ended up costing $2.7 billion.
Another major potential problem is that no one knows how many owners will refuse to surrender their newly-prohibited firearms, or if they do decide to submit, how many will simply wait until the deadline and show up in a last-minute tsunami.
Accurately estimating the entire budget for Minister Blair’s confiscation of thousands of semi-auto rifles is beyond the purview of this blog post. But I can make a rough estimate of costs for at least one stage in the complex process—the cost of collecting the guns to be surrendered. The experience of the New Zealand Police, a national police force, which in 2019 set about to confiscate “military-style” semi-automatic rifles, provides a template Canada might follow. The New Zealand Police set up “collection events” at 524 collection points around their country to collect an estimated 175,000 newly-prohibited guns in their “buy back” program.
Since Canada is much larger than New Zealand—in population, geography and in the number of “buy back” firearms (250,000)—to keep the same ratio, Canada must have many more collection points. Canada’s population is more than seven times that of New Zealand’s, and it’s geographically 37 times larger.
Guns to be collected 2019 population Geographic size Number of collection pointsNew Zealand175,0004.8 million268,000 km2524Canada250,00037.6 million10,000,000 km24,100 to 19,500Following the New Zealand model, Canada would require between 4,100 and 19,500 collection points. I will assume the minimum number of collection points (4,100) in the following estimate. Each collection point must be staffed by either hiring new police officers or diverting current police personnel away from other policing duties.
The New Zealand Police do not report how the collection points were specifically staffed. At a minimum, collection point staff might only work one eight-hour shift per day (e.g. noon to 8 p. m.) so staffing requirements would range from four to eight people per collection point. Security is vital, so a minimum of four employees would be necessary—a clerk, a manager, a police officer and a security guard. Personal observers from New Zealand report that there were four police officers and four clerks at each collection point. This may have been to process surrenders more expeditiously. Managers will be required to supervise this work force, as well as high-ranking civil servants to oversee the process. This means a minimum of 16,400 employees to a maximum of 32,800 employees required to staff these collection points. I’ve budgeted the “buy back” for one year, which includes planning and collection phases.
Because handling firearms safely requires training and a high level of responsibility, it’s doubtful the Minister Blair would employ low-skilled civilian office workers, but instead would prefer police officers. Statistics Canada reports that in 2017/18, the average police salary was $99,298 per annum (including both sworn officers and civilian employees), which for ease of calculation I’ve rounded up to $100,000. This is a lower bound of how much staff members cost taxpayers. If the cost per collection employee is estimated using the operating expenses for Canadian police divided by the number of police personnel (officers and civilian employees both), the cost per staff member is approximately $150,000.
Assumptions Collection points Staff at each collection point Total Staff Cost per employee Total Minimum 4,100, 416,400 $100,000 $1.64 billion Maximum 4,100832,800 $150,000$ 4.92 billion Based on these assumptions, confiscating 250,000 firearms would cost the Canadian taxpayer between $1.6 billion to almost $5 billion in the first year. This estimate excludes travel costs and any ministerial administrators.
Remember, this is just part of the costs to taxpayers for the “buy back.” These estimates do not include the $600 million the government promises to pay owners who surrender their firearms. Nor have I estimated the costs involved with a) new information processing equipment or systems, b) notifying law-abiding citizens that their property is to be confiscated, c) contracting for venders and destroying the guns collected, c) arresting and charging anyone who refuses to submit or d) the costs of the public relations campaigns.
It seems clear from my rough calculation that just one of the required steps needed to complete a “buy-back” program of the nature contemplated by this federal government would include costs well over $1.5 billion with many additional costs, some of which would be difficult to even estimate in advance. One thing is certain—the costs will greatly exceed the $600 million presented thus far by the government.



Author:

Gary Mauser

Not long enough
 
Colpy
Conservative
+2
#15776
https://idw.community/


Love the guy in the intro...........he must identify as a "white natty". Oh, btw, are you listening Justin?


lol


The second "white natty" they interview also has a great tan.


Too funny.
 
petros
+2
#15777
New, Deadlier AR-16 Introduced Which Is An AR-15 Wearing A MAGA Hat

 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#15778
Guns seized after SUV driven at officer, collides with Sask. gas station: RCMP

Quote:

Numerous weapons were seized after an SUV accelerated at an officer and then collided with a Saskatchewan gas station over the weekend, according to police.
The Pierceland RCMP detachment area initially reported a “suspicious” man was in a farmyard driving a grey SUV on Jan. 18. A vehicle matching the description was located on Highway 26 north of Loon Lake.

READ MORE: Saskatchewan officer shot, alleged impaired driver injured, RCMP say

A Loon Lake RCMP officer said the driver sped away in response to an attempt to stop the SUV.
The vehicle and the driver were seen shortly after at a gas station in Makwa. The officer pulled in behind and handcuffed the man.
While escorting the man to the police truck, RCMP said a woman who was a passenger in the SUV struck the officer from behind.
The officer took the man to the ground to keep control of him. Meanwhile, police said the woman ran to the SUV and armed herself with a machete.
RCMP said she then got into the driver’s seat and accelerated at the officer who was still on the ground. The officer was able to move himself and the man to safety, according to a press release.
The woman then tried to turn around and accelerate at the officer again before losing control of the SUV and colliding with the side of the gas station, causing significant damage, police said.

READ MORE: Suspects wanted for 10 break and enters in one night in rural Saskatchewan

Stephane Joseph Leclerc, 50, and Jolene Nicole Sinclair, 35, were arrested by the officer.
No injuries were reported.
Police searched the SUV and found bolt cutters, multiple knives, a machete, six rifles, three semi-automatic handguns with five loaded magazines, bags of ammunition and a revolver. A black ski mask and leather gloves were also seized.
Leclerc and Sinclair have been charged with multiple offences. Both were remanded to appear in Meadow Lake provincial court on Monday.
Makwa is approximately 290 kilometres northwest of Saskatoon

Interesting no mention of PAL either valid or expired
 
Hoid
#15779
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Guns seized after SUV driven at officer, collides with Sask. gas station: RCMP



Interesting no mention of PAL either valid or expired

I guess nobody in rural Saskatchewan has heard about gun safes.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#15780
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess nobody in rural Saskatchewan has heard about gun safes.

In the thieves vehicle? No PAL no need for a gun safe, failing to secure is minor compared to unlawful possession.