this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
275 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

9021 readers
1631 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/trump-fentanyl-weapon-of-mass-destruction-executive-order-draft-scoop

Well this is absolutely frightening in so much that Trump is going to force his way into Canada via military operations by claiming fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.

Anyone remember the Bush Administration and WMDs they said were there but never were?

Elbows up Canuck’s. The time to prepare is most likely closer than we think.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 17 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

Serious question, should I get a gun?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The statistics are overwhelmingly clear; the most likely person to be killed by a gun is its owner.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yah show me those statistics cause I highly doubt that.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

It makes sense, more proximity to a weapon is more potentially deadly encounters. An intruder very rarely enters your house, but you pass the gun safe in your closet every day.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, but those statistics weren't taken in a country that is being invaded or going through a civil war

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

True, and I'd agree on the civil war point.

If you're prepping for an invasion your best bet would be supporting wartime mobilizations instead of personal defense. Bootstrapping a total war economy is no joke.

Your government can probably handle the logistics of recruiting/arming/training people better than local defense cells. However, even if you're not enlisted they'll still need people to work the factories, drive the trucks, sell war bonds, etc...

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 12 hours ago

What are you talking about, history is over. /s

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 6 points 22 hours ago

The only resistance that could stand a chance against the US army would be organized by the Canadian government, in which case they’d provide you with the weapon.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 5 points 23 hours ago

No, fentanyl might be more effective at mass destruction. /s (obviously)