PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

What’s the GST rebate?  Is this part of the relief package?

Yes. It's a one time credit that pretty much everyone over 19 will get as far as I can tell, based on the 2018 tax filing (so those who haven't yet filed for 2018 won't receive it). Mine dumped into my bank account because I have direct deposit set up for my tax returns. If you don't have that set up, I believe you'll get a cheque. Google for details.

I checked, yes, I also received a deposit...will come in handy...

Sad...

now 16 + gunman are now dead...

worst mass shooting in Canadian history...

My understanding is this is the type of work that does not occur during the much-vaunted (in certain circles) virtual sessions. So once a week changes can be made to proposed legislation.

Obviously I would have preferred the Conservative proposal for more in person sittings than virtual.

Also disappointing to read that Dr. Tam has twice chosen not to appear in front of government committees at the last minute. But had time for a lengthy interview with the CBC, who aren’t much better than Pravda these days.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/student-support-benefits-covid19-1.5548883

Another good thing about covid 19 is that suddenly a rash of health had broken out seeing as ERs are mostly empty...according to the news.

Never the wrong time to limit accessibility to firearms in my opinion. If one can make use of justified public sentiment about it, so much the better.

oftenreading said:

I think the whole “don’t use a gun tragedy to make changes in gun laws” argument is just so much bullshit. We use every other type of tragedy to learn from and ideally make changes to prevent a repeat. Toxic waste spill? Contamination of consumer products? Food safety issues? Train derailments? All of these and more have been opportunities to tighten up regulations and oversight, so why the hell should we not use incidents of gun violence to do the same? 

I'm not necessarily saying don't use a tragedy to make effective changes, but this isn't that case.  Trudeau is going after legal gun owners who have passed extensive background checks to earn the privilege to own these items.  The Nova Scotia killer didn't possess a single legal firearm.

If we're limiting items that have the potential to kill and hurt people, then I vote for banning vans (sarcastically, obviously), since there was a tragedy here in Toronto 2 years ago where someone killed 10 people by driving.  While we're at it, put breathalyzers in every single motor vehicle to end the crime of drunk driving and all its social damages.  I'm all for addressing gun violence, but I'd be incredibly surprised to find out the guns used in the murder I was steps from were legal (case remains unsolved as far as google shows me).  Deal with the gangs and the illegal guns they use, not the legal gun owners, in my opinion.

I understand that "gun culture" is inexplicable to those who don't get it, I suspect a parallel could be drawn with "car culture" as well.  I'm not active in either of those groups, but I have enjoyed target shooting on a few occasions (and every gun owner I've ever met have been almost obsessively responsible with their weapons) as well as the roar of a sweet muscle car.

Why, for that matter can anyone walk into a store and buy any knife that isn't for the kitchen (until they decide to come for the kitchen knives as well)?  That damn rhetorical slippery slope, and the idea of no one being around when they came for me because I didn't stand up for others.

oftenreading said:

DarthMaeglin said:

oftenreading said:

I think the whole “don’t use a gun tragedy to make changes in gun laws” argument is just so much bullshit. We use every other type of tragedy to learn from and ideally make changes to prevent a repeat. Toxic waste spill? Contamination of consumer products? Food safety issues? Train derailments? All of these and more have been opportunities to tighten up regulations and oversight, so why the hell should we not use incidents of gun violence to do the same? 

I'm not necessarily saying don't use a tragedy to make effective changes, but this isn't that case.  Trudeau is going after legal gun owners who have passed extensive background checks to earn the privilege to own these items.  The Nova Scotia killer didn't possess a single legal firearm.

If we're limiting items that have the potential to kill and hurt people, then I vote for banning vans (sarcastically, obviously), since there was a tragedy here in Toronto 2 years ago where someone killed 10 people by driving.  While we're at it, put breathalyzers in every single motor vehicle to end the crime of drunk driving and all its social damages.  I'm all for addressing gun violence, but I'd be incredibly surprised to find out the guns used in the murder I was steps from were legal (case remains unsolved as far as google shows me).  Deal with the gangs and the illegal guns they use, not the legal gun owners, in my opinion.

I understand that "gun culture" is inexplicable to those who don't get it, I suspect a parallel could be drawn with "car culture" as well.  I'm not active in either of those groups, but I have enjoyed target shooting on a few occasions (and every gun owner I've ever met have been almost obsessively responsible with their weapons) as well as the roar of a sweet muscle car.

Why, for that matter can anyone walk into a store and buy any knife that isn't for the kitchen (until they decide to come for the kitchen knives as well)?  That damn rhetorical slippery slope, and the idea of no one being around when they came for me because I didn't stand up for others.

I’m not interested in rehashing the specious “why can we buy knives and cars” arguments - those have been beaten to the ground elsewhere on the forum and many other places, and they have nothing to do with the point you originally raised and which I answered. 

It mostly just boils down to, people who like guns don’t want them limited and find reasons why they shouldn’t be no matter how or when the issue is raised.  I disagree with that. 

My first point (I guess not properly made) was questioning yet another example of Trudeau’s hypocrisy when it came to his methods, and I did also question his timing for addressing this issue. I also questioned the Prime Minister’s expertise in making a decision on this (maybe he does have a background in responsible firearm use, but I’ve never heard a whisper of such).

Fair enough that here isn’t necessarily the right thread to get into the wider gun debate, but I still take issue with a government (of any stripe) using a tragedy to enact bad policy. Why is now the time to do such a thing (I did read your post on this, you don’t take issue with it)?

Can we at least agree that guns in Canada are already extremely regulated? Personally I’m not looking for a loosening of regulations, and I think my previous post said where I think attention should be given (illegal guns and gangs).

i honestly thought the AR-15 was already illegal here. seems i know more about american gun laws than canadian. lol. 

a very close friend of mine who hunts posted a video rant of some dude in the states speaking at his local legislative assembly, with a "well said!", i said "you need an AR-15 to shoot prairie chickens?" and he said "for sure, it's fun for target practice". 

i will never understand the fascination. i have seen him with pellet guns, and he literally acts like a mentally deficient pre-teen boy. not irresponsible, just a very immature attitude about how cool it is to blow things to bits. he's a different person with a gun. and i suspect he's not alone. 

brianlux said:

This is sort of like sneaking pipelines in through the back door.  Disappointing.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-alberta-minister-says-its-a-great-time-to-build-a-pipeline-because/

Alberta minister says it’s a ‘great time’ to build a pipeline because COVID-19 restrictions limit protests against them

Our government is terrible.