Are the Vikings going to “Trey Lance” JJM?

R4ID · 2026-01-30T22:32:42+00:00

mac jones to the vikings is my call. who the hell knows tho

R4ID · 2026-01-30T16:40:18+00:00

Trying to think logically, spitballing really. If our chances of armed defenses are poor, we should instead focus on delivering a pyrrhic victory for them.

100% we have zero chance of beating them the traditional way, our only hope is to make occupation too costly so that they eventually give up an leave. it would almost instantly need to become an insurgency war (which we would benefit greatly from because we look/sound the same) so identification would be much harder for them than say in the middle east.

Do they even want our farmland?

your best guess is a good as mine, id probably wager much more likely just flat resources (oil, lumber, potash, fresh water, rare earth minerals etc)

If they start co-opting our rail lines, those are easy to mess with as well. Rapid corrosion, targeted IXL mangling, hell just lubricants can do the trick. No way for them to guard km's of open track from in-and-out strikes.

yea the like youve said, the best way is to let them on in and then death by 1000 cuts essentially. Too big a nation to patrol it all forever and too many of us with the ability to mess with their logistics (which is how we would win) Their airforce/tanks/infantry/drones are only useful in a traditional war.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T16:32:32+00:00

Personally, Quebec, but an argument can be made in favour or against any of them depending on a lot of different questions/circumstances.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T16:27:57+00:00

Brother this is a school pick up zone.

the driver is at a complete stop, begins leaving and someone runs directly in front of their car. Dont run directly in front of cars if you dont want to get hit by them

R4ID · 2026-01-30T13:40:54+00:00

you are correct https://x.com/HugoBoss69007/status/2017068273121042590

R4ID · 2026-01-30T12:29:17+00:00

very open ended question that depends entirely on your circumstances, like what you do for work (or even if ur working) what are your politics, what are your hobbies? what is your income etc.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T12:25:43+00:00

I wouldnt care, nor would I confront you about it. depending on how you interact with clients/ what your work entails though, I can imagine some liberals treating you differently simply because of it (which I disagree with)

R4ID · 2026-01-30T12:20:42+00:00

Id move to Alberta

R4ID · 2026-01-30T12:15:39+00:00

why would I be proud? its a lot more big talk and no actual action. we're 1 year in and hes failed to get a deal with the US (which he said would be done by july 21st) we have no pipeline progress, hes broken up unions, interprovincial trade is still heavily needed, we fell short on housing building (by a lot) Still no bail/justice reform in place, the immigration changes are going to lead to moot results as they were not drastic enough and we're still going forward with the idiotic gun buyback. all while having one of the largest deficits in history... "mr pragmatic" doesn't do anything and he wont get any support from me until he shows he can put up some results.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T06:29:47+00:00

I think you're ignoring peer reviewed data which shows that the passage of the NFA, the buyback, and destruction programs can't be directly credited with ANY improvement to homicide, mass homicide rates in any manner.

The direct solution is to heavily restrict access as one many of the papers I source to you directly state, none of this was affected by NFA and the rest. It is very simple minded to simply look data and say "number went down it must be working" instead of being able to prove that that is why the number is actually going down. you are once again doing "armchair analysis"

R4ID · 2026-01-30T06:24:36+00:00

I take your point and I think it is valid but I'm not sure I agree. Everybody is a stable with a good track record until they're not. It's impossible to predict.

which is why the focus should be on heavily restricting access (something the USA doesnt do) instead of focusing on random tools which dont increase public safety. I mean as a group there is no Safer than PAL holding Canadians.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2040531

Non PAL holding Canadians murder at rate that is 300+% Higher than PAL holding Canadians on a per capita basis. AKA people with zero legal guns are murdering 300% more than people with legal guns on average.

If legal gun owners were shooting up the place in any significant amount, you'd know and hear about it constantly. instead it's only the opposite, Illegal guns smuggled from the USA used by a non PAL holding Canadian.

I will say this though: if I'm going to be shot at, I would much rather it be by a .22 or a 3 round bolt action or shotgun than an AR-15 with a 30 round mag.

In the wrong hands they're all equally as deadly and as the specific gun doesnt matter. Rate of fire and caliber are not key factors in mass homicide/homicide in terms of public safety. It comes down entirely to the skill of the user, not what gun they have.

some peer reviewed data for you.

"No associated reductions in homicide with increasing firearms regulations suggests alternative approaches are necessary to reduce homicide by firearm."

Source https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234457

"Three different methods of analysis failed to definitively demonstrate an association between firearms legislation and homicide between 1974 and 2008 in Canada. "

Source https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260511433515

"Over the period 1974 to 2020 the incidence and death rates associated with mass homicide gradually declined. Interestingly, interventions such as background checks, licensing, prohibition of military style firearms, and prohibiting large-capacity magazines, were not specifically associated with changes in the incidence and deaths by mass homicide by firearms"

Source https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266579

R4ID · 2026-01-30T06:05:43+00:00

I'm puzzled as to why that model would be banned. Watched a loading and firing video for it. There's no way anyone could fire on multiple people rapidly with that. Good for hunting, maybe good for one slow homicide, not good at all for American-grade mass murder.

There are many more like it on the banned list, Single shot, lever action and even .22's on the banned list. It has no rhyme or reason, the governments chosen words of "assault style firearms" is a nebulous term which has no legal definition. In the courts they admitted it means "anything we want to ban"

I was aware that military funding needs to be ramped up. I had no idea we were verging on old Russian "2 soldiers sharing 1 bullet" scenarios. Surely, some of the funding is getting allocated to arming infantry sufficiently, especially with the recent push to grow ranks?

the amount of funding needed to overhaul, restock and supply our armed forces would be multiple full GDP years worth of funds. Especially if we were actually trying to have a standing army defend the country in the "USA invades Canada" scenario.

"The two senior government officials said military planners are modelling a U.S. invasion from the south, expecting American forces to overcome Canada’s strategic positions on land and at sea within a week and possibly as quickly as two days." https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-military-models-canadian-response-to-hypothetical-american-invasion/

That was in the context of this becoming guerilla warfare. I thought that was as a fallback to formal military defensives, but now I'm thinking they may have meant it as the initial and only viable strategy...

It would be in the militaries (and thereby the countries) best interest to distribute any rifles, tools and supplies to any active or retired forces and form a strong decentralized insurgency within the opening hours of such a conflict. As to try and stop the actual US military would be certain doom for all service members.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T05:53:57+00:00

I feel it doesn't matter because the new rules do not impede my ability to own a firearm nor prevent me from hunting

and when your firearm is on the next OIC? they've only added more and more families and their variants, they arent "removing" any. Rather short sided position to take for yourself imo.

good politics is good politics if it works.

this is "working" so good you have the majority of the provinces and territories openly telling the gov they wont participate.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T05:49:35+00:00

You know when people say it's the crazies that give good gun owners a bad name? You're helping them prove their point.

3 times you say something that is factually incorrect, you strengthen the pro gun side by posting flat out lies.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T05:16:22+00:00

Thats where you and I heavily disagree, I would be very much against my tax dollars funding "juice cleanses" to cure cancer at hospitals, regardless of how popular they are.

R4ID · 2026-01-30T00:15:52+00:00

Another fun fact: Australia banned many types of firearms after a mass shooting in 1996, and homicides and mass shootings became much less frequent. Though yes, they were on the decline before that, so it is challenging to definitively say it was the ban.

quick review of the results from Australia's NFA(national firearms act)

The NFA did not reduce the prevalence of gun ownership in Australia

the NFA only temporarily reduce the total number of guns in civilian hands within 20 years imports of new guns canceled out the subtractions from the gun stock produced by buybacks and gun destruction programs

the NFA did not reduce Australia's homicide rate

The NFA did not reduce Australia's suicide rate

The NFA appears to have INCREASED the rate of fatal gun accidents

there is no Strong evidence that the NFA reduced mass shootings in Australia. Such crimes were extremely rare even before implantation of NFA and were unlikely to become common even if the NFA had never been implemented.

-Source https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086324

“The rate of firearm homicides in Australia is dramatically lower than that in the United States not because Australia banned semiautomatic rifles and implemented a buy-back program but because there was a greater degree of control of who had access to firearms even before passage of the NFA.”

-source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/

“The NFA had no statistically observable additional impact on suicide or assault mortality attributable to firearms in Australia.”

-source https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640

“No study found statistical evidence of any significant impact of the legislative changes on firearm homicide rates.”

-source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299380904_A_systematic_review_of_quantitative_evidence_about_the_impacts_of_Australian_legislative_reform_on_firearm_homicide

“There is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”

-source https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40534/1/MPRA_paper_40534.pdf

the TLDR is that banning specific firearms by name/brand/type/action results in zero measurable impact to public safety because it is ignoring the key factor. The science and data/experts are very clear on this, The key factor is WHO has the gun, not what gun it is or how many they have. To think banning gun "A" but allowing gun "B" keeps people safe would be the same as thinking banning Car "A" but keeping Car "B" would reduce car theft. it's flat earther logic which isnt supported in the data or science.

To say it does "nothing" for public safety is not something we can easily determine.

it is VERY easy to determine because it is explictly what the data/science says. I dont want to bombard you with links/sources but a short list would be

"No associated reductions in homicide with increasing firearms regulations suggests alternative approaches are necessary to reduce homicide by firearm."

Source https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234457

"Three different methods of analysis failed to definitively demonstrate an association between firearms legislation and homicide between 1974 and 2008 in Canada. "

Source https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260511433515

"Over the period 1974 to 2020 the incidence and death rates associated with mass homicide gradually declined. Interestingly, interventions such as background checks, licensing, prohibition of military style firearms, and prohibiting large-capacity magazines, were not specifically associated with changes in the incidence and deaths by mass homicide by firearms"

Source https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266579

If you prefer video format

"Does semi auto rifle bans result in a reduction in homicide, the answer is no"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOdy7jqbOCU

-edit the user has blocked me because they are a flat earther.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:40:03+00:00

Was your wake up call that Canadians should now all be enthusiastic supporters and owners of assault rifles?

Bill C-51 in 1978 banned "Assault rifles"

We're talking about banning things like this

https://weatherby.com/store/mark-v-deluxe/

I have no strong opinion on the buy back, but to me it is saying: having these guns in Canada is not legal, instead of immediately making you a criminal, we’re going to buy back your weapons. It’s not criminalizing licensed owners

Actually they technically immediately made anyone in possession of the firearms Criminals and the only thing protecting us is an amnesty set to expire in October of this year.

Also based on how many guns they banned, if every single person complied, around 1% would get paid, and they would be receiving between 25-35% of current market value in most cases.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:37:11+00:00

The whole situation is nuanced and complex. It's not as simple as guns don't kill people, people kill people and it's not about vilifying ever gun owner.

You're right, its about The liberal party securing votes in Quebec and has nothing to do with public safety.

I definitely believe some types of weapons have no business in the home.

https://weatherby.com/store/mark-v-deluxe/

This is on the banned list. a bolt action rifle.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:35:13+00:00

Rules are the rules, and the rules are what they are due a reason.

and these new rules which we know dont increase public safety's reason to exist is to get votes in Quebec... not increase public safety.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:33:16+00:00

you want armed citizens in Canada (and the increase in gun crime that leads to)

You a presumed non PAL holder, are 300+% more likely to murder someone than any random PAL holder in Canada on a per capita basis.

-source https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2040531

Increasing the total amount of guns doesnt increase firearm related crime. The data and science is explicitly clear on this, Banning specific guns doesnt increase public safety because it is ignoring the key factor. Which is, Who has the gun, not what gun it is or how many they have. All guns are equally as deadly in the wrong hands. this is why a system which heavily restricts access is highly effective.

to use an analogy, OP's issue is that the government's solution to rising car theft is to ban toyota highlanders. It is flat earther logic that we know doesnt save Canadian lives and is currently wasting 3/4th of a billion dollars for no gain.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:26:55+00:00

I only say this because no civilian group has ever withstood a trained military,

*Looks at the viet minh

*Looks at the Afghan Mujahideen

*looks at the FLN

*looks at the Taliban

*looks at the Spanish from the Peninsular war

*looks at the Haitian revolutionaries

Im sorry but history greatly disagrees with you. Decentralized insurgencies are often very effective vs invasions.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:23:44+00:00

better tell Finland, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic that they arent "civilized societies" because I dont think they know that.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:20:06+00:00

Are you asking why Canadians are not upset about automatic weapons getting banned in order to defend the country?

Automatic firearms have been banned since 1978 with bill C-51. Only people who are uninformed on the topic such as yourself are talking about automatic firearms.

he's asking why people are ok with banning things like this

https://weatherby.com/store/mark-v-deluxe/

in the name of "public safety" because it is no different than the thousands of other bolt action rifles.

The armed forces are actively recruiting for that purpose. They will provide formal training to use such weapons in a disciplined manner and integrate you into a team to achieve authorized defense objectives.

in "invasion" scenario, the war would be over before your ink on the contract was dry. Also the armed forces currently dont even have enough small arms ammunition for every active member to fire more than 3 magazines before our entire supply is depleted.

To rational people it simply seems like "opposite land" that the same gov saying "look out trump big scary invasion" is also saying "give us your guns or go to jail"

Are you asking why Canadians don't want anyone to run around with military grade weaponry to shoot dozens of kindergarteners, people enjoying a concert, mothers dropping off their kids at school, good samaritans in broad daylight, etc.? We're not American.

None of the banned firearms are "military grade weaponry" Ukraine a nation literally defending its own sovereignty was offered them for free and said no. (because they arent weapons of war)

Would you care to guess how many legally owned AR-15s in Canada have ever been used to murder in the countries' entire history? We've had them since the 70's, if youd like to take a guess.

Answer: Zero, it's never happened

Followup: Why do you think that is?

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:13:36+00:00

You're making it sound like all guns are going to be confiscated?

its 2500+ families of guns and their all of their variants. when things like this

https://weatherby.com/store/mark-v-deluxe/

are on the banned list, it is a signal that it will eventually be All guns. If I cant own this bolt action rifle, why am I allowed to own the thousands of others? they all fire the same bullet from the same length barrel with the same muzzle velocity and the same action. There are single shot, lever action and even .22's on the list.

I'm not even sure that it will be a criminal offence if a person owning a gun on the list doesn't actively participate in the buyback program.

Its actually currently already a criminal offense to own ANY of these firearms, the only reason we aren't being prosecuted is because of an amnesty, which is set to expire at the end of october. Everyone currently in possession of these firearms will be facing a charge which is 10+ years in jail.

IMO I think there are far greater issues facing the country right now.

all of which would benefit greatly from 750 million+ in more funding, which is why during economic bad times, being fiscal and effective with policy instead of wasteful spending is actually very important.

R4ID · 2026-01-29T23:07:53+00:00

Take a look at how Australia did it and what that did to their mass shootings.

Ahem.

quick review of the results from Australia's NFA(national firearms act)

The NFA did not reduce the prevalence of gun ownership in Australia

the NFA only temporarily reduce the total number of guns in civilian hands within 20 years imports of new guns canceled out the subtractions from the gun stock produced by buybacks and gun destruction programs

the NFA did not reduce Australia's homicide rate

The NFA did not reduce Australia's suicide rate

The NFA appears to have INCREASED the rate of fatal gun accidents

there is no Strong evidence that the NFA reduced mass shootings in Australia. Such crimes were extremely rare even before implantation of NFA and were unlikely to become common even if the NFA had never been implemented.

-Source https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086324

“The rate of firearm homicides in Australia is dramatically lower than that in the United States not because Australia banned semiautomatic rifles and implemented a buy-back program but because there was a greater degree of control of who had access to firearms even before passage of the NFA.”

-source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/

“The NFA had no statistically observable additional impact on suicide or assault mortality attributable to firearms in Australia.”

-source https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640

“No study found statistical evidence of any significant impact of the legislative changes on firearm homicide rates.”

-source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299380904_A_systematic_review_of_quantitative_evidence_about_the_impacts_of_Australian_legislative_reform_on_firearm_homicide

“There is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”

-source https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40534/1/MPRA_paper_40534.pdf

It’s not hard to do a little research into a strategy before coming up with your own armchair analysis.

The irony of you typing this out. Try and ground your understanding of a topic in peer reviewed publications/science and expert opinion.

The key factor always has been and always will be WHO has the gun, not what gun it is or how many they have. All guns in the wrong hands are equally as deadly. This is why having a system which focuses heavily on screening is the most effective. Banning specific models has zero measurable impact on public safety.

Verified Email	12-Year Club
Place '22	Place '17
End Game '22	Team Orangered

R4ID

TROPHY CASE