n2burns

Come on, let's get real. That's not a binary, it a trinary/ternary. Totally different!! /s

As a white, cis, hetero, Christian male, I don't know even know if I'd be willing to go to the states! Maybe if it was for work, but even then I'd probably push back.

I see a possible scenario where I cross the border for a day trip (go to a show, a game, or even just dinner), and can't leave. I know it's not very likely, especially given my privileged, but if that situation came to pass, that would be hugely disruptive. Before 2025, I'd say that scenario is almost impossible, as Canadians could even get home after 9-11.

Authoritarians? You mean glorious communists! /s

Toronto is definitively south-central, though nobody calls it that, instead saying GTA/GTHA/Golden Horseshoe, etc. I can't find any sources that say Toronto is in Southwestern Ontario, so I don't think there's any support for what your saying (Wikipedia, Ontario Tourism for 2 counter examples).

Like Fort Frances is on the border and it’s Western Ontario but you would still call it Northern

Yes, because we first divide Ontario into Northern & Southern. If you just said Fort Frances was in Western Ontario, it would cause confusion which is why it's "Northwestern Ontario" (EDIT Wikipedia also agrees with me on this one).

Toronto isn't in Southwestern Ontario though.

That's not how legislation is typically written. Anyways, just because someone states their purpose doesn't mean that's actually their intentions. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I'm more than happy to support any measures which actually increase safety, but prohibiting these guns is just for show. Putting forward ineffective legislation like this wastes political capital which could have instead been used to actually make our society safer.

They literally say:

"Now the whole idea of independence is a messy social construct with a bunch of issues that I won't get into right now."

(Emphasis mine). They are not just saying, "it's complicated." They literally use the word "issues."

It's not a strawman. I am all for gun safety, but the rifles that have been recently "prohibited" are simply models that "look scary" while their sporterized counterparts have had their classification unchanged.

Please point out any. I know there are models that fit European standards instead of North American, but they aren't arbitrarily banned because "they look scary."

🤞the bastard is the one to the south 🤞

While this is definitely a positive, I worry it's a repeat of what happened in the Ontario election: Likely voters want to get-it-over-and-done-with so they go as soon as practical. In the case of Ontario's election, it was just a shift that a larger percentage of voters went to the Advanced Polls, not that a larger percentage of people voted.

Actually, not like gun laws because we don't ban "scary looking" models of vehicles. In generally we don't even ban provably deadlier models or limit their usage based on need. Any idiot can buy a jacked-up F150 and drive it on any public road.