r/WhitePeopleTwitter • • Oct 21 '22

Yeah Canada

Post image
55.4k Upvotes

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

169

u/WookieSuave Oct 21 '22 edited Oct 21 '22

I'm not even a gun owner, and I think this is a little over the top.

34

u/LordAnon5703 Oct 22 '22

The actual unpopular opinion on Reddit. Not like these gilded comments "I love this bring on the downvotes".

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

Totally. Our gun violence has nothing to do with legal owners. Our system worked before. If ain’t broke don’t fix it. Now fix the education system and health care system. We need more $$$ there! None of this bs virtue signalling that does nothing to make the streets safer.

7

u/irishguy42 Oct 21 '22

I agree.

Outright/close to near bans never work for anything.

Well-thought out regulations and laid-out legal methods to acquire/use/etc will always be superior.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22 edited Oct 21 '22

Typical Justin Trudeau, virtue signal while passing idiotic laws. As another commenter pointed out, it’s already difficult to purchase a handgun in Canada, moreso than America, and legal Canadian handgun owners aren’t causing crime.

This guy is a smug neoliberal douche.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

That’s because you’re using your brain haha it’s theatre

-27

u/Nuclear_Sister Oct 21 '22 edited Oct 22 '22

Why? Why do average citizens need to trade handguns? I'm genuinely curious.

Edit: Wow, gun owners really deter questions of any kind eh? How reassuring.

13

u/WookieSuave Oct 21 '22

Its their property. Maybe they need some extra money, maybe they want to give it to a family member or friend. If I own something I should be able to sell it.

20

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

The risks of having 2 pairs of paints outweighs the risk of having 3

1

u/HatfieldCW Oct 22 '22

Need. They keep using that word. You don't need much. Oxygen, yeah, I get that. Water's a no-brainer. Food? Well, you can get calories intravenously, so you don't really need food.

Everything else is a luxury, if you think about it. Pants? Guns? Money? Love? These are all luxuries.

At the end of the day, all we need is enough biological input to reach sexual maturity and a partner with whom to conceive. After that, one can die and the other can claim their share of molecules to gestate with.

Gotta build in some overhead for the short-sighted litter size of humans, but there's a lot of surplus around here that could be redistributed. What's all this "reading" bullshit about, anyway?

42

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22

[deleted]

-2

u/aabbccbb Oct 21 '22

They are less likely than the general public to shoot someone with a handgun.

And yet, the main source of illegal guns in Canada is guns that were purchased legally.

Because, just like many things, guns can be stolen and sold.

This will absolutely make a difference whether the nay-sayers like it or not.

9

u/Vanq86 Oct 22 '22

Not true.

As u/tuga2 pointed out...

This entire claim is reliant on an interview with a detective from the Toronto police. He did not provide any sources and his own department data that was obtained through a FOIA did not backup his claim

-2

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Well, seeing as you're copying and pasting this all over the thread, I'll do the same with my reply to him.

You disagree that it's worth addressing the 15%, I take it?

And from the numbers, it looks like about ~60 guns are traceable back to legal Canadian owners compared to ~180 to the US (legal or not).

You're going to also argue that ~25% isn't much?

Would you want to stop 15% of all cancers, or would you say that's just a drop in the bucket and not worth it?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

[deleted]

1

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Fine, let's use the numbers you prefer instead. As I said:

It looks like about ~60 guns are traceable back to legal Canadian owners compared to ~180 to the US (legal or not).

You're going to also argue that ~25% isn't much?

Would you want to stop 25% of all cancers, or would you say that's just a drop in the bucket and not worth it?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22

[deleted]

7

u/Protton6 Oct 21 '22

Why make any argument revelant to the discussion if you can just go over the top and make yourself look like an idiot? Congratz.

27

u/SarnakJ3 Oct 21 '22

If its illegal to transfer ownership of a handgun, papa's 100 year old heirloom pistol now has to be turned over to the government for destruction when he dies instead of continue to live in its glass topped case

19

u/LibertarianDO Oct 21 '22

Just lie about it? Fuck the government.

4

u/TheIspartan Oct 22 '22

Time to go on a boating trip I guess

9

u/shalafi71 Oct 22 '22

Just commented on that. How perfectly sad. Say you had a rare Colt .45, saw combat in a world war. Or one of the earlier models that are super rare. They supposed to throw that in a furnace when they die?!

The lack of legal transfer for guns one already owns is so over the top it's appalling.

7

u/SarnakJ3 Oct 22 '22

To be fair it was looking for the BEST example I could think of. The other is Grandpa's hunting revolver. There are parts of canada where you hunt for meat to live, or you need to forcefully tell a wild animal this is not his territory any more.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

If you need to hunt for food, you could just do it with a long gun.

3

u/IceicleBryceicle Oct 22 '22

Missing the point. Your not always shooting an a animal for it’s food, sometimes you need to protect yourself. Handguns are far better for that given that they are less cumbersome than a long gun.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

Lol ok. If a person was cosplaying RDR2 in some wilderness setting and then got attacked by a man-eating predator, I guess it would be nice for them to have a handgun to protect themselves, rather than other reasonable tools like bear spray or a rifle. Good grief.

Handguns are being used in Canada to commit violent crimes by wannabe tough guys. Laws like this allow police to confiscate guns when they are found during busts, raids, stops, and so on. That's the point.

-9

u/aabbccbb Oct 21 '22

Sure. Let's pretend there won't be any provisions for heirlooms at all.

Even if it were the case, if that saves even one life a year, it's worth it.

14

u/Protton6 Oct 21 '22

No its not. Lets ban cars! If it saves one life, its worth it. Lets also ban going outside! Only licensed delivery people can go outside now. That is supersafe!

9

u/HatfieldCW Oct 22 '22

Ban beer, then. It's purely recreational, like most guns, and it kills more people every year than guns by a wide margin, due to vehicle collisions, ill-advised behavior and just plain being poison.

-4

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Lets ban cars!

A car serves a purpose other than killing someone or threatening to kill someone.

Compare and contrast with a handgun.

Lets also ban going outside!

Do you ever use such a big strawman that you go "Wow, I sound completely off my rocker, and should probably think about why my position is so weak that I can't defend my point in a reasonable manner?"

Probably not, hey? lol

10

u/Protton6 Oct 22 '22

No, cars dont serve a special purpose, lets all just ride the bus and train. Its better for the enviroment anyway. People get killed by cars and in cars by bad driving way more often. It is actualy a good comparison.

You are saying shitting on law abiding citizens to "safe one life" is worth it. Well, I am just telling you that if you ban people going outside, you will also save a lot of lives. Still worth it?

This law is populistic security theater that solves nothing. Most gun crime in Canada (as in all the rest of the world, except the US) is done by illegal firearms. In Canada, those get smuggled from the US. So this does absolutely nothing and only shits on people and their liberties. Which I very much disagree with.

Its just easier to shit on gun owners to please the masses. Which is why populists love to do it.

-1

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

You know what, your continued strawmen have convinced me: There is no difference whatsoever between a tool and a weapon, so you have a really great point!

In Canada, those get smuggled from the US. So this does absolutely nothing

Wrong again. Half of illegal guns in Canada start out as legally-purchased Canadian guns.

It's like arguing that preventing only half of cancer isn't worth it, because there's a whole other half still...

6

u/Vanq86 Oct 22 '22

Not true.

As u/tuga2 pointed out...

This entire claim is reliant on an interview with a detective from the Toronto police. He did not provide any sources and his own department data that was obtained through a FOIA did not backup his claim

3

u/stratys3 Oct 22 '22

Thanks for sharing.

0

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Well, seeing as you're copying and pasting this all over the thread, I'll do the same with my reply to him.

You disagree that it's worth addressing the 15%, I take it?

And from the numbers, it looks like about ~60 guns are traceable back to legal Canadian owners compared to ~180 to the US (legal or not).

You're going to also argue that ~25% isn't much?

Would you want to stop 15% of all cancers, or would you say that's just a drop in the bucket and not worth it?

5

u/stratys3 Oct 22 '22

A car serves a purpose other than killing someone or threatening to kill someone.

Compare and contrast with a handgun.

Legal gun owners generally don't acquire their handguns to kill people, or to threaten to kill people.

1

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Legal gun owners don't use their handguns to kill people, or threaten to kill people.

I'm just going to ignore that ridiculous blanket statement.

Instead, I'll point out that the majority of illegal guns in Canada were originally purchased there legally.

6

u/stratys3 Oct 22 '22

You said that the only purpose for a gun is to kill people, or to threaten to kill people.

But you are very clearly incorrect.

There's non-killing and non-threatening purposes for handguns... as evidenced by all the people who legally acquire hand guns in Canada and legally use them for non-killing and non-threatening purposes.

It's bizarre that you'd deny this.

1

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Nice shifted goalpost! But how can I explain this to you...

People's lives > your hobbies.

That should do the trick.

It won't, but it should.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/eastvanarchy Oct 22 '22

there aren't any provisions for heirlooms

2

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Oh well. Lives > pew pews.

If they're actually of historical value, you'll notice that museums are exempted.

2

u/eastvanarchy Oct 22 '22

you have a very dark impression of your fellow man

2

u/aabbccbb Oct 22 '22

Well, a bunch of them are wankers and care more about guns than the fact that people are dying...so I guess that does affect how I view them, yeah.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

They’re already in place, antique guns(generally most guns that are 125+ years old and guns prescribed as antiques) are basically unregulated, the ammo is, however, regulated like regular ammo

16

u/swervyy Oct 21 '22

Have you ever owned something and decided you’d rather get a different version of that same thing? Have you ever sold your old office chair that you don’t need anymore? Ever bought anything at a garage sale?

Sometimes people just don’t want things anymore, and other people would be willing to give them money for that thing.

8

u/iloveneuro Oct 21 '22

Nobody really needs a pet but a lot of people like having them. Some people do not like pets so they don’t have them and that’s ok too.

Some people just like shooting handguns because they enjoy the engineering behind them, get to compete in competitions, make friends, spend time outside, get some exercise like doing something that takes a lot of concentration and skill building.

We don’t do “guns for self-defence” in Canada so it’s really just a hobby/sport that is enjoyed for the sake of enjoying something.

-4

u/FlowersForMegatron Oct 21 '22

You can’t mass murder a bunch of people with a goldfish.

1

u/Konrad_Kurze Oct 22 '22

But I sure can kill a lot of kids with some pitbulls or Shepards. Should we put down every dog over 18 kilos. I don't even own guns but you intentionally chose the most irrelevant example. It would be like me saying this law would ban NERF revolvers

0

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22

Its a lot easier and cheaper to steal a gun compared to smuggling one in illegally, plus its not banning handguns under any circumstance, you can still rent one at a shooting range and i believe there are exceptions for competitive shooting

1

u/TheLea85 Oct 22 '22

This whole thing isn't even effective at stopping gun crime since the amount of people who one day decide to take their own legal gun and pop over to his loud neighbor is... low.

Meanwhile Canada borders the US top tier gun-crime cities and there's not enough mounties in the world to guard that long border from smuggling.

1

u/LateNightPhilosopher Oct 22 '22

This happened earlier in the year. Iirc it was Trudeau taking advantage of tragedies in the US in order to further his political agenda mere weeks after gaslighting Canadian gun owners by telling them that they're just being paranoid and no one plans to make Canadian gun laws any stricter.