Victor Villas

? Yes Switzerland and a few others have high gun ownership, but how does that help the thesis?

oh man, you two agree that the RCMP are assholes, why die on this hill

if the police don’t have guns, who can safely respond to gun crime?

Police, with non-lethal weapons. Though I agree this is a very unbalanced scenario, so of course the police should have some gun availability until gun crime becomes very rare.

If you do that, your government will never respect you

What does this even mean? Are countries with high gun ownership examples of societies high in “respect”? Like Japan, South Korea… no wait

angry at the idea of not drinking and catching the bus… lol damn these useless city people, subsidizing fuel for everyone

I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.

The fact that you’re trying to bring legal ownership to this discussions means that you are claiming that the origin of guns is an important detail. But at this point we already know that reducing the presence of guns in this world is good, and we already know that making it harder and harder to acquire guns helps reducing the presence of guns. So while true that legality matters in crime statistics, the main point still stands: gun laws can and should be more strict. There’s never going to be a point in time where this sentence is not true, unless guns stop existing.

You can’t just ignore them and pretend they don’t exist.

That doesn’t seem what gp is suggesting, though

Hannam is my go-to, but for some stuff also sometimes Aria and T&T

lmao what

“making oneself difficult to invade” is quite an understatement of pursuing nuclear weapons but point taken

lmao thank you for the analysis and so valuable sage stoic advice

OK stupid Trump comments aside, I do think it’s a diplomatic blunder for Trudeau to say that the tariff would kill the Canadian economy. Even if it would, better not to admit it, because pleading with a demon is guaranteed loss while at least a bluff could get some result. So I just hope this is hearsay and not really how things went down during those talks.

If to protect ourselves from our enemies we have to become like them, I prefer to give up on Canada and go somewhere else.

So how are those two asset types tied so closely?

For 1 bd condos specifically prices did go down, because developers overshot the supply aiming for investors. But larger units are still very much underserved and there’s too much demand.

Houses aren’t expensive just because they’re houses. They’re expensive mostly because there’s a big plot of land underneath, land that eventually will be required for a big tower that will sell like hot cakes. It’s the same market because Canada has a market of land speculation.

plus paying condo fees forever

Isn’t it the norm for a property to generate fees forever? It’s a passive depreciating asset, just like a house

who gives a damn, wtf are you going to do?

They already promised to make a few key issues “their priority” and “fix it”.

For a large part of the voter base, that’s enough of a promise.

I get what they mean but… it’s in such poor taste.

Beyond insane. Every time Doug Ford comes back to mind I’m triple thankful for being represented by David Eby.

Has Singh called for this? Trudeau?

Eby did it, though. And maybe that’s what saved their majority in this very tight election. He surely knows it’s not the effective way to spend, but he also knows that it’s an easy hill to not die on because so few really care about this.

Welcome aboard!

That’s literally what almost every harm reduction activist has been saying for decades, but I’m not saying this to shame you. I barely did it sooner, I was beyond my 30’s when I finally got it. The fact that it takes so long for someone to encounter the rationale for all the effort going into decriminalization, destigmatization, safer-supply and supervised consumption sites… speaks volumes about who really is holding the megaphone of the media apparatus!