"Deep cuts to NASA’s science programs would be the end of America’s leadership in space science. It would clearly signal to the world (and to America’s children) that America is a declining power."
Yeah, tht's been clear since Donald Doofus got voted in the first time. It's time that the signals get registered by America.
Thanks for this. Unsubscribed.
Considering those grandfathered in is too broad for the discussion because at that point someone somewhere has one still, no matter what we're talking about.
Not really. Setting aside that atm the only legal handgun owners are the police/military, they have to be stored in a locked container anchored immovable to the home and their location known to the police at all times. IF someone broke in and somehow ripped the safe off the wall/open the minute the owner got home it would be immediately reported.
That's a whole load of gaslighting and disinformation. You are not entitled to guns and they will be taken away.
You're welcome to actually disprove anything instead of just putting your head in the sand. They'll never get taken away. They are too ingrained in our culture. The reality is we're only discussing how annoying the Government will be about them, not whether they'll be removed completely. You'd never see a Liberal Government ever again if that was the case.
the case of a father murdering his wife, his grandfather and himself a few months back
~~Citation please~~. Edit: NM I found it. The exception that proves the rule. Your only example is a case that emphasizes the limitations I already explained. It was a crime that happened to use a gun, not one that could only have happened because of it. Had the guy not had a firearm he would have done the same thing with something else because the firearm used is so neutered.
It wasn't Luigi. He was banging my wife at the time.
CC for the hearing impaired:
{Kaboom} "Я вижу свой дом отсюда"
This isn't for you, but anyone else who feels similarly to @sunshine@lemmy.ca
In Canada, all firearms are regulated and fall under 3 categories: Prohibited, Restricted, and Non-Restricted.
In order to possess or buy a firearm you must be licensed. To get a license you need to pass a firearms safety course, and pass a background check of varying severity depending on the class of license. History of mental issues? Good luck. Ex girlfriend doesn't want you owning guns? You'll be getting a suspension in the mail instead of a license. On top of that, most Canadians are ineligible for Prohibited and Restricted licenses which are limited to mainly the Military and Law-enforcement (with club owners and those grandfathered in being the notable exceptions).
The one category you do need to 'worry' about are those deemed Non-Restricted. Firearms that fit in this class are limited to long rifles that don't have an automatic action. Even here, cartridge capacity and transport options are limited. What that means is you won't see normies walking around with a rifle legally, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances and they are functionally limited to the point even street patrol officers outclass them. Someone with a longarm could indeed commit violent crimes, but the scope of the damage would be limited to 1 or 2 before reality prevented any further harm to the public. The same amount of damage a madman could inflict with a butcher knife.
Looking at the image and scenarios described in the article make it clear further laws are unnecessary. Almost all of those weapons in the photo are restricted to law enforcement use or flat out prohibited already. Some are clearly labelled "Restricted" but you can tell just by looking at them. Automatic action, or barrel short/sawed-off? Restricted/Prohibited. Magazine larger than your palm? Over capacity. There are only 1 or 2 actually Non-Restricted firearms presented and the issue with them is they have a conversion kit to change them from semi-auto to full-auto, which is already illegal.
If you see an article about an instance of tragic Canadian gun violence in the news the perpetrator will (or should if accuracy is intended) be described as in possession of illegal firearms. They (edit) almost always are. The issue is they weren't caught in possession of the illegal firearms before they acted, and more laws won't fix that.
As a gun owner I can say with certainty that the gun laws are already more than enough. Stricter laws would do nothing but punish law abiding citizens. We aren't 'murica. The only guns allowed to the public are simple rifles with 5 round mags at most. Anybody hell bent on causing violence would either use a melee weapon or be breaking the law to obtain/hack an automatic weapon or pistol with increased capacity despite being restricted.
It's a quick and easy way to sound 'tough on crime' for the average person who doesn't know better but in reality the only thing they can do is stop smuggling at the US border and that is a matter of Border Patrol budgeting and staff, not more laws. With the orange doofus demanding stricter border controls this is going to happen regardless of who gets voted in.
Why do so many on here espouse communism when it has failed so hard at every opportunity? Hate capitalism, fine. But regressing back a hundred years because you can't think of an actually better system is ludicrous.
Not my proudest fap.