Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Jarnhamar on April 28, 2018, 16:51:41

Title: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 28, 2018, 16:51:41

Quote
Gerald Stanley to pay $3,900 and receive 10-year ban on gun ownership for improper firearm storage

Gerald Stanley pleaded guilty to improperly storing firearms.

Gerald Stanley has been fined $3,000, plus a $900 victim surcharge, and banned from owning firearms for 10 years after he pleaded guilty Monday to improper storage of firearms.


Quote
The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are a J. Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle; a .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle; a.22-calibre bolt-action rifle; a Winchester 1200 shotgun; a Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle; and a Winchester 1894 rifle. 

A previous charge relating to a Ruger Blackhawk .45-calibre handgun was dropped.


https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4621381

$3900 and a 10 year firearms ban for improper storage.

Its unfortunate that the other firearm owner in this story who was Illegally in possession of a firearm that was not only improperly stored but loaded in a moving vehicle and present during the commission of robberies isn't facing any sort of punishment.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Strike on April 30, 2018, 11:02:54

Its unfortunate that the other firearm owner in this story who was Illegally in possession of a firearm that was not only improperly stored but loaded in a moving vehicle and present during the commission of robberies isn't facing any sort of punishment.

I've searched online and haven't found anything in any news articles stating such.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Strike on April 30, 2018, 11:07:49
So, found this little gem last night about the government considering banning lead ammunition (along with fishing weights and such).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ammunition-lead-gun-owners-1.4636598 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ammunition-lead-gun-owners-1.4636598)

The numbers they spout are way off and they've had to estimate pretty much all of it since most clubs didn't want to play ball. I would be interested in seeing those original studies in full though.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/management-toxic-substances/list-canadian-environmental-protection-act/lead/using-more-lead-free-ammunition/lead-ammunition-executive-summary.html (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/management-toxic-substances/list-canadian-environmental-protection-act/lead/using-more-lead-free-ammunition/lead-ammunition-executive-summary.html)

Thoughts from the masses? Seems especially sucky for those who make their own ammo.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 30, 2018, 11:45:38
So, found this little gem last night about the government considering banning lead ammunition (along with fishing weights and such).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ammunition-lead-gun-owners-1.4636598 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ammunition-lead-gun-owners-1.4636598)

The numbers they spout are way off and they've had to estimate pretty much all of it since most clubs didn't want to play ball. I would be interested in seeing those original studies in full though.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/management-toxic-substances/list-canadian-environmental-protection-act/lead/using-more-lead-free-ammunition/lead-ammunition-executive-summary.html (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/management-toxic-substances/list-canadian-environmental-protection-act/lead/using-more-lead-free-ammunition/lead-ammunition-executive-summary.html)

Thoughts from the masses? Seems especially sucky for those who make their own ammo.

The quantity of lead that enters the environment from shooting in a non-range setting in Canada is not significant, given the size of the country.

This is just an attack on legal gun owners, by misusing environmental regulations.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 30, 2018, 12:04:29
The quantity of lead that enters the environment from shooting in a non-range setting in Canada is not significant, given the size of the country.

This is just an attack on legal gun owners, by misusing environmental regulations.

It seems a favourite of this government. Everytime there is something they don't like, (pipelines) they slap enviromental clauses all over it. Next they'll ban FMJ steel core bullets as "cop killer" bullets. Death by a thousand cuts.

Yet they allow places like Montreal and Vancouver to dump billions of gallons of raw sewage, baby wipes and condoms into our waters. Can't shoot, can't fish, can't drive. Eliminate CO2 and carbon footprint? We won't be able to breathe when all the vegatation dies.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 30, 2018, 12:06:44
I've searched online and haven't found anything in any news articles stating such.

What do you mean?

One of the occupants of the car that was going around stealing admitted that the loaded 22 caliber rifle that police found in the vehicle was his. Even if he actually had a firearms licence and the gun wasn't stolen (assumptions on my part) it's still illegal to drive around with a loaded gun.  And especially have it ne present when robbing people I'd guess.

To date police haven't charged him.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Strike on April 30, 2018, 12:09:14
What do you mean?

One of the occupants of the car that was going around stealing admitted that the loaded 22 caliber rifle that police found in the vehicle was his. Even if he actually had a firearms licence and the gun wasn't stolen (assumptions on my part) it's still illegal to drive around with a loaded gun.  And especially have it ne present when robbing people I'd guess.

To date police haven't charged him.

I mean news either way - nothing saying they wouldn't charge him and nothing saying they were charging him. That's all.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 30, 2018, 12:41:02
Ah right, gotcha.
I think it's safe to assume at this point he won't be charged.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on April 30, 2018, 16:43:49
The quantity of lead that enters the environment from shooting in a non-range setting in Canada is not significant, given the size of the country.

This is just an attack on legal gun owners, by misusing environmental regulations.

Yup.

Solid lead is rarely ingested by fish, birds, or animals.

Leaded fuel, leaded paint, and public water systems are prime sources of lead in the environment.

http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/1997/7/97.07.05.x.html

http://dhhs.ne.gov/publichealth/Pages/LeadSources.aspx

http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst2.html

https://www.webmd.com/children/lead#1
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 06, 2018, 08:49:13
Quote
Okotoks rancher charged with shooting intruder frustrated with court delays


http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/okotoks-rancher-charged-with-shooting-intruder-frustrated-with-court-delays/wcm/838fa343-fa42-4a8b-b8f3-b115c182be4a





Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: suffolkowner on May 08, 2018, 20:13:31
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/08/police-should-decide-limits-on-guns-not-politicians-trudeau-says/

guess which way the wind is blowing
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 08, 2018, 20:22:14
Police should make decisions about guns because they're the experts.

Police have no business making decisions about drugs because they're not the experts.
 :nod:


Quote
The rifle jammed on the first shot, and Bissonnette then used a handgun, but the letter asks how much worse the carnage could have been had Bissonnette’s rifle worked.

Good thing he didn't have a pump action shotgun. Mine hasn't jammed once in 25 years of use.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 08, 2018, 21:46:27
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/08/police-should-decide-limits-on-guns-not-politicians-trudeau-says/

guess which way the wind is blowing

I cannot think of another area of law where Liberal politicians would even dream of deferring to police...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on May 09, 2018, 12:41:00
Ralph suggesting that if he see a assault weapon ban, he will review it, trial balloon enough?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 09, 2018, 16:14:27
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi64.tinypic.com%2F23uwtoh.jpg&hash=5b56f37032dcfd77a9fb37cfba017454)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on May 09, 2018, 16:36:19
How is the petition against C-71 going?  I know this is most likely a pointless exercise as the Liberals have already decided to push an agenda against law abiding citizens to further the eventual process of taking away firearms from all Canadians. (Unless it is a compliant Police Force that can be bent to the will of the Government of the Day).

Future Police State anyone? In about the year 2025?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 09, 2018, 16:43:40
.....and you wonder why he just appointed a new RCMP Commissioner. Well below seniority from what I read. I think she's beholden to Trudeau and will do whatever he wants. We'll see what falls out.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 09, 2018, 20:08:01


Goodale
Ralph suggesting that if he see a assault weapon ban, he will review it, trial balloon enough?

It's so blatant. Goodale talking about an assault weapon ban after a whopping 75 people signed their name. Fun y there's  no mention of the over 100'000+ people who signed a petition against C71.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 09, 2018, 21:33:36
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/bill-c71-projet-de-loi/index-eng.htm


Is it me or does it seem like the bill is already passed?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on May 09, 2018, 22:36:18
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/05/08/police-should-decide-limits-on-guns-not-politicians-trudeau-says/

guess which way the wind is blowing

Passing the buck. If the Horseman start banning firearms and upsetting gun owners, the PM can say, "Out of my hands, its the RCMP making the decision."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 10, 2018, 12:33:10
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/bill-c71-projet-de-loi/index-eng.htm


Is it me or does it seem like the bill is already passed?

the fact the RCMP chose to put these words in bold suggests something else is going to happen between now and 2021: "The Order will provide protection from criminal prosecution for illegal possession of these firearms until February 28, 2021, while the Government implements measures to address continued possession and use.


 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 10, 2018, 17:06:24
Gun owners are already distrustful of the RCMP, their hate for private gun ownership, their overbearing and overblown actions, their illegal activity, smash and grabs, invasion of property and confiscation without warrants.

An absolutely horrendous appreciation by civilians towards the RCMP is about to become even worse. All vestiges of trust in the law and the RCMP is evaporating at a huge rate.

Your about to see comparisons between the RCMP and the gestapo or stazi. And we all know what the population's feeling of them were.

Federal police replacing our legislative body is an abhorent thought to a democratic society. This is more akin to a dictatorship or a communist triumvirate.

And their first step? Steamroll legal, law abiding citizens, make them criminals due to administrative errors and ommissions, invade their medical history, search without warrants, seizure of personal property with no compensation, disregard orders of the government and intentionally kept unauthorized copies of the gun registry after being ordered by the government to destroy it, then using the same to harass law abiding citizens. I shouldn't call it a first step, they've done all this already.

I hope they realize that their iconic stature throughout the world is going to take a massive hit that Walt Disney won't even know how to spin. Bullies and secret police are the future for them. The internet is a wonderful thing and the world will know within minutes when they start operating by their own rules rather than those expected of them.

Meanwhile, not one single thing is being done about the criminals or illegal guns. That takes real work to make a case and catch the bad guy. Easier to target tax paying, legal people sitting home reading the paper that have done nothing wrong except to have a legal hobby and interest in using their property.

They may be giggling and rubbing their palms together now, but they are not looking at the long game and the damage they are about to inflict on themselves.

Not one single good thing will result in letting the RCMP make their own laws, and no democracy should allow it. But we don't have a democracy anymore, do we. :whistle:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on May 10, 2018, 18:29:57
One has to understand the root cause:

    “I came to Ottawa . . . with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.” –Liberal minister of justice, Allan Rock, 1994.

    “Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world.” –Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, 1998.

    “Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy at a gun control conference, Oslo, Norway, 1998

C-71 is just more unfinished work.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on May 11, 2018, 08:40:59
Gun Control Explained by Rowan Atkinson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwKThyMmi7I
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Shrek1985 on May 15, 2018, 12:43:31
What am I doing all this for again?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 22, 2018, 22:21:05
Interesting article over at the gun blog.

Seems like having to actually pass Bill C-71 is just a formality. Looks like a done deal to me.

Quote
TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s federal police agency is so eager to ban guns that it’s ordering owners to register their firearms under a law that doesn’t exist.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which manages firearm licensing, registration and classification, said owners of so-called “Restricted” CZ 858 and SAN Swiss Arms rifles must register the firearms with the police by June 30 to benefit from the delayed confiscation offered by Bill C-71.

“If you have not done so, the registration must be completed by June 30, 2018, in order for your firearm to be eligible for grandfathering,” the RCMP said May 7 on a new web page titled “How does Bill C-71 affect individuals?”

But Bill C-71 doesn’t affect individuals, businesses or anyone else because it isn’t law. There is no June 30 deadline for anything. The date is based on the text of draft legislation presented by the government in March and currently under review by parliament. It may become law, and it may not. For now it’s a draft proposal.



https://thegunblog.ca/2018/05/09/rcmp-is-so-eager-to-ban-guns-its-already-enforcing-bill-c-71/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 22, 2018, 23:41:25
Well, I for one welcome our new RCMP gun control overlords.

You know, the ones the Liberals are so eager to delegate the role of Parliament to.

 ::)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 26, 2018, 15:42:10
Pretty weird there's a deadline to be grandfathered for a law that hasn't passed yet.  Thinking of buying one just to get the prohibited grandfather class. Probably won't even shoot it  :facepalm:

Kinda funny- someone else who won't be shooting guns, some retired American porn star.
(she retired from porn because ISIS was threatening to kill her).
I think the real travesty there is that she thinks a Remington 870 is worth $1500 USD.

https://tribunist.com/news/mia-khalifa-calls-police-to-surrender-her-shotgun-it-doesnt-make-me-feel-safe-anymore/?fb_comment_id=1891021197583804_1891072267578697&comment_id=1891072267578697

(https://tribunist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/0520B1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on May 26, 2018, 22:56:27
The RCMP should have all the members involved with that page either fired or reprimanded. Unfortunately nothing will be done about it much like High River. Simply put it is a blatant abuse of power and it is fraud. The question is who polices the police?

To be honest I wouldn't bother with the prohibited class. I suspect it will end up like all 12.x classes (except 12.6) where you are unable to use them at all.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 27, 2018, 01:39:27
I thought I read somewhere that CZ victims who are grandfathered  will be allowed to buy, use and sell the cz's and other prohibited guns in that 12 class.

Kinda sounded too good to be true. 
I'd like to trust the RCMP when it comes to firearms but they really seem to be targeting law abiding gun owners. 

It's too bad too because I think most of us legal gun owners really detest criminals and dirt bags. I'd take pride in being able to help th RCMP catch criminals and going out of my way to help and support them but the trust just isn't there.  I don't feel like they make a distinction between me(us) and a gang member. Imagine the kind of support they'd get if they did a 180?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on May 27, 2018, 02:16:02
I suspect those grandfathered into the new prohibited class would be able to still transfer and sell the CZ and Swiss Arms rifles, however I also suspect like all 12.x classes other than the 12.6 short barrelled handguns you wouldn't be able to shoot them.

In recent years my faith in the police has reached a all time low. Large cases like High River, smaller things like this C-71 page, a friends cousin who was a Bosnia vet getting shot and killed from behind and lying about how it happened (coroners report contradicted the police statement, however they had already been cleared by the provinces investigative unit). Other cases like some local cases where clear nepotism, corruption, and abuse of power came to light and was agreed upon by a judge. Police threating members of the press with lawsuits, police chiefs son abusing a unarmed and cooperative arrested citizen (to the point that citizen almost died in the hospital from his injuries), supervisors watching the abuse and doing nothing about it.

I honestly believe there is a 'old boys club' at work in many police forces and they fail to take the criminals within their ranks to task. Much like how the military can't seem to make hard decisions and do what we are ordered to do (such as more teeth, less tail), the police can't police themselves.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 06, 2018, 10:31:26
I'm not going to be able to drive around town with my AR15 and glock under my seat anymore. That sucks.


Quote
Mr. Mark Holland (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)

“By having clear legislation on the requirement to have an authorization to transport, that sends that clear message that one cannot just drive around with a restricted or prohibited weapon anywhere one wants to go. I think that is a reasonable way of working with law-abiding firearms owners to make sure we do not have thugs who can just throw weapons in the back of their car, and drive anywhere they want to go.”

An hon. member: “What do thugs do?”

Mr. Mark Holland: “What thugs do, is to make sure that they are able to keep weapons in their car and not have to answer any questions. That is what they are going to do. They are going to put the weapons in the car and drive wherever they go. They know that if they are pulled over by a police officer, all they have to do is list one of a million different places to explain where they are going. That is what this legislation changes.”


https://firearmrights.ca/en/mark-holland-calls-gun-owners-thugs-in-parliament/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 06, 2018, 17:28:48
Holland with his same old tired bullshit.

He just admitted that the grits gun laws are a farce and have no deterrence, whatsoever, to people intent on breaking the law.

They are only there to harass the lawful gun owner.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 06, 2018, 19:51:36
Quote
and not have to answer any questions.


Quote
all they have to do is list one of a million different places to explain

So which is it?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 11, 2018, 13:14:40
Liberals making Liberal use of the definition of "consulted".

I guess they thought adding names of various people in the firearms community as people they consulted would lend some kind of credibility to Bill C-71.  They they think people wouldn't object to being lied about? Or maybe just expected people not to find out.

https://thegunblog.ca/2018/06/10/bill-c-71-consultations-table-lists-people-who-werent-consulted/

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,128220.0.html

Edit: thanks for the editing MM!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 21, 2018, 18:14:23
RCMP (could be) in Contempt

Quote
Commons Speaker Geoff Regan has ruled the RCMP could be found in contempt of Parliament over advice to firearm owners and gun shops on rifle prohibitions under new gun law amendments.
Regan said language the national police force had used assumed the government’s bill to bring in new controls over gun sales had already been approved by the Commons – when it had not yet passed through committee hearings.
Responding to a complaint from Alberta Conservative MP Glen Motz, Regan said the RCMP acted in a “careless manner” by posting advice to gun owners and businesses that made it seem as if Bill C-71 had already become law.
The Commons referred the incident to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee for investigation on a motion from Motz.
In his ruling, Regan dismissed RCMP attempts to duck the issue quickly by changing the wording on its Canadian Firearms Program web site the same day Motz made his complaint in the Commons.
After the Mountie web site adjustments, Liberal MP Mark Holland, the Parliamentary secretary to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, had urged Regan to dismiss the contempt allegations because “the matter raised was simply one of debate as there was clearly no presumption of anything in the information respecting Bill C-71 on the RCMP website.”


More at link
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/06/20/rcmp-web-posts-on-gun-bill-careless-and-could-be-contempt-of-parliament-speaker/



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: PuckChaser on June 21, 2018, 22:35:21
With only 18 months left, I can either see 2 things happening:

1. Liberals use majority to ram the legislation through with limited or no debate.
2. Senate holds up the legislation in committee or with amendments so that it dies on the order paper when Parliament is prorogued for the fixed election date in October 2019. Then the Liberals pacify their base that they desperately tried to stop those mean gun owners from murdering people, but it didn't work.

Edit to remove implication that October 2019's election is rigged.  :rofl:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on July 23, 2018, 20:43:45
Their 'familiarity' with weapons does not, to mind, extend to any particular degree of expertise. A small number of CAF members are pretty experienced and proficient with pistols. The rest might occasionally get to play with them but fall well short of anything I would want to see for someone carrying.

Aside from that, as frequently as I've seen CAF members saying really outlandish stuff on police use of force discussions, I have zero faith that CAF training or mindset appropriately equips people to be carrying firearms on civvy street. Honestly, soldiers and vets are some of the worst armchair quarterbacks for what should be done in use of force situations. There's quite a strong hubris from soldiers who believe that carrying a rifle in training or combat operations carries across perfectly or even adequately for being armed for daily carry for self/public defense. Many are very out to lunch. All that said- military training/experience should not be a factor that is at all in play in determining whether someone should or should not be permitted to carry a firearm in public in Canada.

There's not a chance we are going to see private open or concealed carry of firearms expanded generally in Canada, and I'm fine with that. There's no significant political appetite here, and few of us want to see us move along the trajectory to what we see south of the border. Just no thanks.

CCW was more common here, without a wild west happening. There are quite a few people , myself included that would like to see a return to historical levels or higher. CCW permit carriers in the US have a incredibly low indictment rate, they are not the problem. For a civilian CCW, the use of deadly force is much more cut and dried, then for a police officer who has several levels of lethal and non-lethal force to use and a much wider level of variables to consider.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 23, 2018, 21:40:09
CCW was more common here, without a wild west happening. There are quite a few people , myself included that would like to see a return to historical levels or higher. CCW permit carriers in the US have a incredibly low indictment rate, they are not the problem. For a civilian CCW, the use of deadly force is much more cut and dried, then for a police officer who has several levels of lethal and non-lethal force to use and a much wider level of variables to consider.
Pretty sure there is little to no appetite for ccw permit carrier expansion in Canada. Our laws around handguns are sound. If and when I get a restricted permit to go with my non restricted permit it will be a PIA to transport a pistol but I will do it properly IOT    to keep  sidearms out of criminals’ hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on July 23, 2018, 22:24:34
There is a strong effort to push for a more open policy on CCW here, known as ATC for self defense. The CFO's won't even release the training standard as they know that someone will design a course to meet it and that would remove another obstacle to getting them.

 https://globalnews.ca/news/1411270/applications-to-carry-handguns-skyrocket-in-b-c-alberta/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: JesseWZ on July 23, 2018, 23:01:41
CCW was more common here, without a wild west happening. There are quite a few people , myself included that would like to see a return to historical levels or higher. CCW permit carriers in the US have a incredibly low indictment rate, they are not the problem. For a civilian CCW, the use of deadly force is much more cut and dried, then for a police officer who has several levels of lethal and non-lethal force to use and a much wider level of variables to consider.

My comments (and criticisms) are more directed towards the idea that every able bodied soldier, sailor or air-person could be an ideal candidate for a CCW. The sheer number of lost weapons, magazines and ammunition files that came through the Esquimalt guardhouse when I worked there was argument enough that many in the military are not aptly suited to take care of and/or keep custody of a weapon. Sometimes I had a hard time believing we weren't tripping over old weapon parts in the training area with every step. (I jest, but only slightly...)

Honest unbaited question - In your ideal CCW world, would we relax magazine restrictions for CCW permit carriers so that they could have more than 5 rounds?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 23, 2018, 23:32:39
Quote from: JesseWZ
would we relax magazine restrictions for CCW permit carriers so that they could have more than 5 rounds?

Handguns are limited to 10 rounds and semi-auto rifles 5.

Most people can pop the rivet out of a pinned magazine in a few seconds.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: JesseWZ on July 24, 2018, 00:39:12
Handguns are limited to 10 rounds and semi-auto rifles 5.

Whoops... brain fart.

You're answer is not really what I meant by the question - I know people *can* unpin their magazines easily. People *can* do lots of things. I'm wondering if those who support a more robust CCW program would argue for more relaxed rules in general for the portion of the population granted CCW status.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 24, 2018, 00:59:12
Quite frankly, since most of the hand guns I know have a maximum capacity  of 13 to 15 rounds for their magazines, I don't believe that the "10" rounds restriction is a biggie when compared to the restriction on mags for the semis.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 24, 2018, 01:31:52
Whoops... brain fart.

You're answer is not really what I meant by the question - I know people *can* unpin their magazines easily. People *can* do lots of things. I'm wondering if those who support a more robust CCW program would argue for more relaxed rules in general for the portion of the population granted CCW status.

Happens  ;D
Asking about mag limits and ccw seemed like a bit of a red herring and I was wondering where you were going with it. Carrying a handgun for self defense and limiting how much ammo is in the mag seems self-defeating, know what I mean?


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on July 24, 2018, 06:59:28
Honestly for self defence you can't beat a revolver. If it is in good shape basically no stoppages, and anything that is a stoppage is solved by pulling the trigger again vs. a semi where you can have all sorts of out of ammo related stoppages, people grabbing your pistol and putting it out of battery, safeties to fumble with (as opposed to a DA trigger pull for a revolver). Many of the serious self defence classes in the US show just how much more difficult it can be to use a pistol for self defence over a revolver as most these situations happen within 5m or less where there can be a chance to try and grab your gun. 5 or 6rds is sufficient for pretty much all self defence requirements, anything requiring more than that you really should have something more serious such as a rifle or shotgun.

Shooting skill for concealed carry is pretty much not important. Some of the worst trained pistol shooters I have ever seen are the police and they carry pistols on a regular basis. What is important is knowing where and when you are legally able to use your carry firearm. That is the part which matters, and for those arguing about civilian casualties how is it that the police and all these civilian concealed carry permit holders in the States seem to avoid them despite in many States the bar for being both is pretty low?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on July 24, 2018, 08:45:40
Honestly for self defence you can't beat a revolver.

"I like to know the XXXXX is going to work."  :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI33vW90yqg

Warning: Offensive language.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: YZT580 on July 24, 2018, 09:30:39
I'd be quite happy if started holding the illegal gun dealers much more accountable.

If an illegal gun you sold was used in a murder = Automatic 10 years.

And before the naysayers jump in and start complaining about "What about the UHaul dealers?", it's apples and oranges.

One is renting a legal good which has many legal uses.  The other is selling an illegal item which only has illegal applications.
aUTOMATIC penalties don't work in Canada.  They have been deemed unconstitutional by the supremes in most cases.  Although you might get away with it when it comes to firearms.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Beadwindow 7 on July 24, 2018, 11:28:41
aUTOMATIC penalties don't work in Canada.  They have been deemed unconstitutional by the supremes in most cases.  Although you might get away with it when it comes to firearms.

Not necessarily automatic sentences, however supplementary charges in my opinion are warranted. IE, Criminal Code 351(2):

Quote
Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
.

I don't like group punishment, along the lines of "criminals are wearing body armour, so legislate and regulate body armour". But targeting criminals who commit these particular offences makes sense to me.

Used body armour in the commission of an indictable offence? Additional charge.
Used a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence? Additional charge.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on July 24, 2018, 21:22:25
Quote
that the Trudeau government is prepared to consider a proposal to ban handguns.

When are we going to ban drinking and driving so no more drinking and driving related deaths occur? Oh wait... :facepalm:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 24, 2018, 22:11:27
When are we going to ban drinking and driving so no more drinking and driving related deaths occur? Oh wait... :facepalm:

Maybe before the politicians start talking about banning handguns, they should determine how someone with a history of mental illness and thus unable to legally buy a firearm, let alone a handgun, was able to obtain one.

Also, if more money was spent on treating people with mental illness, its possible we wouldn't have people going on shooting rampages.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on July 24, 2018, 23:42:38
"The vote comes at a time when gun violence has been overwhelming in Toronto with numerous incidents being reported this year. There were 39 people who fell victim to gun violence in Toronto during the month of July alone. "

www.narcity.com/news/toronto-city-council-just-voted-to-ban-the-sale-of-handguns-and-am
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on July 25, 2018, 10:18:42
Following recent events in Toronto, it appears the CBC is doing a full court press on the gun control issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toronto-shooting-goodale-guns-1.4759484
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/guns-domestic-danforth-shooting-toronto-1.4759159
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-gun-bill-gang-crime-1.4733374

Joined it seems, by the Globe and Mail.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-feds-prepared-to-consider-proposal-to-ban-handguns-goodale-says/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-rethinking-canadas-outdated-gun-control-laws/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-all-the-other-answers-come-after-fewer-guns/



Edit to add G&M piece and links.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on July 25, 2018, 10:23:32
It's easier to scapegoat law abiding citizens than it is to deal with an issue like gangs, particularly when the gang issue is mixed up in race and class issues as well.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 25, 2018, 10:42:33
I'd really like to meet Ralph Goodale in person and pick his brain.

2.1 million or 5.6% of Canadians own 10-20 million guns.

I don't think the liberals fart without paying a lot of money to advisors and spin doctors to calculate how it will effect voting, polls and such. 

Ralph and friends are going to have to try pretty hard to spin a gun ban on legally owned guns based on an ******* using an illegal gun to shoot people. 

Elections coming up, go hard and use the shooting to enamor anti-gun types or kick the can down the road as to not piss off the voters on the fence.

4500 firearm and ammo businesses and 1000 restricted handguns and rifles are bought ever week, or a restricted firearm bought every 6 hours. And that doesn't include all the restricted guns that are privately sold every day. Little political minefield for Justin to dance in.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on July 25, 2018, 10:57:11
I'd really like to meet Ralph Goodale in person and pick his brain.

2.1 million or 5.6% of Canadians own 10-20 million guns.

I don't think the liberals fart without paying a lot of money to advisors and spin doctors to calculate how it will effect voting, polls and such. 

Ralph and friends are going to have to try pretty hard to spin a gun ban on legally owned guns based on an ******* using an illegal gun to shoot people. 

Elections coming up, go hard and use the shooting to enamor anti-gun types or kick the can down the road as to not piss off the voters on the fence.

4500 firearm and ammo businesses and 1000 restricted handguns and rifles are bought ever week, or a restricted firearm bought every 6 hours. And that doesn't include all the restricted guns that are privately sold every day. Little political minefield for Justin to dance in.

Toronto is a vote rich area.  Torontonians want to see something done.  Easy win for the liberals to just ban handguns and claim they did something.  Most handgun advocates don't vote liberal for the most part so its hardly a mine field. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 25, 2018, 11:01:27
There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.

I'd really like to meet Ralph Goodale in person and pick his brain.

2.1 million or 5.6% of Canadians own 10-20 million guns.

I don't think the liberals fart without paying a lot of money to advisors and spin doctors to calculate how it will effect voting, polls and such. 

Ralph and friends are going to have to try pretty hard to spin a gun ban on legally owned guns based on an ******* using an illegal gun to shoot people. 

Elections coming up, go hard and use the shooting to enamor anti-gun types or kick the can down the road as to not piss off the voters on the fence.

4500 firearm and ammo businesses and 1000 restricted handguns and rifles are bought ever week, or a restricted firearm bought every 6 hours. And that doesn't include all the restricted guns that are privately sold every day. Little political minefield for Justin to dance in.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 25, 2018, 11:11:11
There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.


We've had this discussion. Go check the old thread.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on July 25, 2018, 11:18:33
There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.

Need is rarely an approved reason to gain the privilege of private firearms ownership in Canada.  Very few concealed carry permits are issued and one must have very well defined, apparent and documented reasons.  For the most part its purely a recreational want.

This is the crux of firearms ownership in Canada.  We have no legislated right to own firearms if we wish.  So "need" or "should" cant really enter the discussion no matter how much we wish they could.

The vast majority of handgun owners are sports shooter or target shooters.  And sadly these privately handgun owners can be made criminals with a pen and a couple of votes, and thousands of dollars invested will be for not.

And it will not stop at handguns, this will continue on until we are down to levers, bolts and slides.

Unfortunately we law abiding firearms are forced to pay the consequences for criminals like this fellow in Toronto.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on July 25, 2018, 11:27:56
There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.

There is a whole slew of reasons.

Some like to compete.  Some like to hone their skills on their own (most handgun owners I know are military, ex military or LEO). Some want something cool to do that isn't knitting or bowling.

One could ask why anyone needs to learn a martial art.  Plenty of reasons there too and no less valid. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 25, 2018, 11:33:20
Thanks for your points HT and Remius.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on July 25, 2018, 11:54:36
Yes, just a few months ago the Liberals were saying "We aren't going after anyone guns"....

which is why no experienced gun owner trusts the Liberals.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 25, 2018, 12:08:32
Yes, just a few months ago the Liberals were saying "We aren't going after anyone guns"....

which is why no experienced gun owner trusts the Liberals.

Incorrect.  I know many experienced gun owners who trust the Liberals AND the Conservatives. Depends on whether they lie or not...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 25, 2018, 13:05:21
There are many switched on folks (including you Jarnhamar)  in this forum.  Many gun owners (myself included) here.  Still waiting for a coherent argument as to why a private citizen would need or should own a handgun...  Thanks all for the debate.

I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!) 

It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.

I find smoking insane. People poison their own bodies, put a drain on health care and poison non-smokers with second hand smoke. How on earth do we still sell that poison? Enough people still want it and money in the business.

Alcohol? How many injuries and deaths are caused by alcohol being a factor. Domestic abuse, assaults, sexual assault. It's a substance we put in our body and just a little too much leads to people being hurt or worse. (How many of us have driven home from the mess when we probably shouldn't have?).
But the lives having no alcohol available would save isn't a big enough trade off for the monetary value alcohol brings in/jobs it creates and just how many people want it.

If we're pretending the argument is we need to ban handguns to save lives then sure saving lives is important but there's a number of areas ahead of handguns that cause more deaths so as far as I'm concerned start there.


We could (should) triple the capability of our borders. I've been trained on a pretty awesome XRay machine that could pick up weapons being carried by people inside of vehicles as they drove through the portal. You could see different metal (and liquid) densities. Let's set those up at the borders, scan everyone and everything. Instead of giving India 750 million dollars put that towards our own borders. We're such a materialistic society. I think I read CBSA only searched 3% of incoming cargo ships? That's crazy. Lets give them more money and better tools. They won't just catch guns but illegal alcohol, drugs AND humans too (whether they're illegal immigrants or especially sex trade slaves)

Domestically sourced guns? Get rid of the revolving door system we have. Double or triple the punishment for thieves and gun sellers. Families and communities can know it off with the "he's a good boy" bullshit and stop making excuses for people.




I hate bringing up Uhaul trucks, and no disrespect intended to the families of the deceased, but Faisal Hussain killed 2 people and injured 13 with a handgun. That's alot. Alek Minassian killed 10 people and injured 13 with a van attack, that's alot more.

A $400 handgun costs over $2000 on the blackmarket (ammo is very expensive too). Blackmarket isn't like a Walmart and that easy to access. From what I understand of the 2006 Toronto 18 planned terrorist attack the members tried but failed to source illegal guns on the black market.
26 foot UHaul truck is $39.95 to rent and you don't require a special license (minus Quebec).

No, we can't ban trucks but maybe looking at what we can ban is less effective than looking at how we can forecast and intervene before these attacks happen.   



Why should I be allowed handguns? Stop worrying about me and go after people who are "known to police", access violent radical websites, associate with criminals and terrorist groups or are simply criminals themselves. (Generally speaking, I know you're not targeting me personally RR).




Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on July 25, 2018, 13:45:24
I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!) 

It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.

I find smoking insane. People poison their own bodies, put a drain on health care and poison non-smokers with second hand smoke. How on earth do we still sell that poison? Enough people still want it and money in the business.

Alcohol? How many injuries and deaths are caused by alcohol being a factor. Domestic abuse, assaults, sexual assault. It's a substance we put in our body and just a little too much leads to people being hurt or worse. (How many of us have driven home from the mess when we probably shouldn't have?).
But the lives having no alcohol available would save isn't a big enough trade off for the monetary value alcohol brings in/jobs it creates and just how many people want it.

If we're pretending the argument is we need to ban handguns to save lives then sure saving lives is important but there's a number of areas ahead of handguns that cause more deaths so as far as I'm concerned start there.


We could (should) triple the capability of our borders. I've been trained on a pretty awesome XRay machine that could pick up weapons being carried by people inside of vehicles as they drove through the portal. You could see different metal (and liquid) densities. Let's set those up at the borders, scan everyone and everything. Instead of giving India 750 million dollars put that towards our own borders. We're such a materialistic society. I think I read CBSA only searched 3% of incoming cargo ships? That's crazy. Lets give them more money and better tools. They won't just catch guns but illegal alcohol, drugs AND humans too (whether they're illegal immigrants or especially sex trade slaves)

Domestically sourced guns? Get rid of the revolving door system we have. Double or triple the punishment for thieves and gun sellers. Families and communities can know it off with the "he's a good boy" bullshit and stop making excuses for people.




I hate bringing up Uhaul trucks, and no disrespect intended to the families of the deceased, but Faisal Hussain killed 2 people and injured 13 with a handgun. That's alot. Alek Minassian killed 10 people and injured 13 with a van attack, that's alot more.

A $400 handgun costs over $2000 on the blackmarket (ammo is very expensive too). Blackmarket isn't like a Walmart and that easy to access. From what I understand of the 2006 Toronto 18 planned terrorist attack the members tried but failed to source illegal guns on the black market.
26 foot UHaul truck is $39.95 to rent and you don't require a special license (minus Quebec).

No, we can't ban trucks but maybe looking at what we can ban is less effective than looking at how we can forecast and intervene before these attacks happen.   



Why should I be allowed handguns? Stop worrying about me and go after people who are "known to police", access violent radical websites, associate with criminals and terrorist groups or are simply criminals themselves. (Generally speaking, I know you're not targeting me personally RR).
Great reply, worthy of posting to papers in the an editorial. As if that would even happen given the Mainstream Media’s bias on the storyline.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 25, 2018, 14:20:08
I think that's a fair question to ask RocketRichard. I'll try not to be soap-boxy (but I'll fail!) 

It's hard to quantify a need because really it's a want and at the end of the day I think something like this boils down to what the public majority wants, what the politicians think will get them the most votes and money. It's not about saving lives, other wise we wouldn't sell cigarettes or alcohol.

I find smoking insane. People poison their own bodies, put a drain on health care and poison non-smokers with second hand smoke. How on earth do we still sell that poison? Enough people still want it and money in the business.

Alcohol? How many injuries and deaths are caused by alcohol being a factor. Domestic abuse, assaults, sexual assault. It's a substance we put in our body and just a little too much leads to people being hurt or worse. (How many of us have driven home from the mess when we probably shouldn't have?).
But the lives having no alcohol available would save isn't a big enough trade off for the monetary value alcohol brings in/jobs it creates and just how many people want it.

If we're pretending the argument is we need to ban handguns to save lives then sure saving lives is important but there's a number of areas ahead of handguns that cause more deaths so as far as I'm concerned start there.


We could (should) triple the capability of our borders. I've been trained on a pretty awesome XRay machine that could pick up weapons being carried by people inside of vehicles as they drove through the portal. You could see different metal (and liquid) densities. Let's set those up at the borders, scan everyone and everything. Instead of giving India 750 million dollars put that towards our own borders. We're such a materialistic society. I think I read CBSA only searched 3% of incoming cargo ships? That's crazy. Lets give them more money and better tools. They won't just catch guns but illegal alcohol, drugs AND humans too (whether they're illegal immigrants or especially sex trade slaves)

Domestically sourced guns? Get rid of the revolving door system we have. Double or triple the punishment for thieves and gun sellers. Families and communities can know it off with the "he's a good boy" bullshit and stop making excuses for people.




I hate bringing up Uhaul trucks, and no disrespect intended to the families of the deceased, but Faisal Hussain killed 2 people and injured 13 with a handgun. That's alot. Alek Minassian killed 10 people and injured 13 with a van attack, that's alot more.

A $400 handgun costs over $2000 on the blackmarket (ammo is very expensive too). Blackmarket isn't like a Walmart and that easy to access. From what I understand of the 2006 Toronto 18 planned terrorist attack the members tried but failed to source illegal guns on the black market.
26 foot UHaul truck is $39.95 to rent and you don't require a special license (minus Quebec).

No, we can't ban trucks but maybe looking at what we can ban is less effective than looking at how we can forecast and intervene before these attacks happen.   



Why should I be allowed handguns? Stop worrying about me and go after people who are "known to police", access violent radical websites, associate with criminals and terrorist groups or are simply criminals themselves. (Generally speaking, I know you're not targeting me personally RR).
Whoa. That was more of a response than expected. Really appreciate it J. You almost have me convinced;) I will use your points when I get into a debate with my friends that are very ‘left wing’. Maybe I will even buy a hand gun, nah, too much of a PIA. Have a great day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on July 25, 2018, 15:12:40
Wasn't just a few months ago we were told the Liberals aren't coming for your guns.......
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on July 25, 2018, 15:17:04
Then they are fools who don't bother studying history. The Liberals are always one crisis away from banning firearms, generally by taking a few slices at a time.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 25, 2018, 15:39:23
Then they are fools who don't bother studying history. The Liberals are always one crisis away from banning firearms, generally by taking a few slices at a time.
Thank you for contributing to the discussion with your blanket statements about gun owners and their political leanings and that those who trust Liberals and conservatives are fools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on July 25, 2018, 17:21:00
Wasn't just a few months ago we were told the Liberals aren't coming for your guns.......

They don't want all of your guns, just the "scary" ones... they'll come back for the rest later. ;)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 25, 2018, 18:02:21
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi65.tinypic.com%2F29pum9x.jpg&hash=f28a0a72578837e7feb8e1e73fc16e96)
Non-restricted
Restricted
Prohibited


Ubless you're in Oshawa Ontario then they're all illegal  ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on July 25, 2018, 18:08:25
Thank you for contributing to the discussion with your blanket statements about gun owners and their political leanings and that those who trust Liberals and conservatives are fools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am 12(5) so I am all to painfully aware of Liberals and their "gifts". My comment is directed to gun owners who naively think the Liberals won't come after them, because they don't own scary guns.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: PuckChaser on July 25, 2018, 18:51:07
CTV is now reporting the gun used was illegal to start with, and smuggled from the US.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-shooter-s-gun-was-illegal-originally-from-u-s-source-1.4027129 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-shooter-s-gun-was-illegal-originally-from-u-s-source-1.4027129)

Quote
The gun used to shoot 15 people on a busy Toronto street was likely obtained from a “gang-related source,” according to a person familiar with the case.

CP24 safety specialist Cam Woolley says a police source has told him the semi-automatic handgun used in the shooting is illegal in Canada and was originally from the United States. American authorities are helping track the gun’s exact origin.

Hussain opened fire on Danforth Avenue in Toronto Sunday night, killing two people and wounding 13 others.

CTV News has further learned that ammunition and large-capacity magazines were found by police officers searching the apartment Faisal Hussain shared with his parents. Police are also looking into the connection between Hussain’s brother, who is currently in a coma, and a 2017 seizure of more than 30 guns in Pickering, Ont.

So how many laws were broken here? Prohibited weapon, prohibited device, carried concealed, murder, attempted murder, weapons trafficking... a handgun ban stops none of them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on July 25, 2018, 20:03:34
CTV is now reporting the gun used was illegal to start with, and smuggled from the US.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-shooter-s-gun-was-illegal-originally-from-u-s-source-1.4027129 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-shooter-s-gun-was-illegal-originally-from-u-s-source-1.4027129)

So how many laws were broken here? Prohibited weapon, prohibited device, carried concealed, murder, attempted murder, weapons trafficking... a handgun ban stops none of them.
But now your making sense, stop that it’s anti Canadian
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 26, 2018, 14:18:56
Mentally ill ::)

He was using illegal hi capacity magazines. I think we should lower the magazine limit from 10 to 5 just to be safer.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on July 26, 2018, 19:26:20
More on the illegal gun discussion:

http://brianlilley.com/no-50-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-not-from-canada/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Xylric on July 27, 2018, 00:56:02
I seem to recall reading a statistic from some years back (2010 or so) which strongly indicated that the majority of murders in Canada aren't even committed with firearms...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Ostrozac on July 27, 2018, 07:08:35
I seem to recall reading a statistic from some years back (2010 or so) which strongly indicated that the majority of murders in Canada aren't even committed with firearms...

That is true. The number one cause of murder varies from year to year between shooting and stabbing, but neither category is ever large enough to be the cause of a majority of murders.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510006901
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on July 27, 2018, 08:40:54
It depends on how you frame the interpretation: guns account for the most frequently used means vs guns account for the majority of murders. You can make the results say what you want if you pick the right data point. Witness the oft cited 2016 is the worst year ever statistic, with the starting point of 2013. If you go back to 2011, there's no statistically significant increase in the number of gun related homicides (614 vs 611). In fact if you go back 20 years, there are eight periods where the numbers are equal or worse than today. Sample size matters.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 27, 2018, 10:44:52
Big city criminals like using handguns because they're easy to conceal (obviously). The police I know in Toronto say the same thing. Our gun control is generally working. Criminals/gang members aren't carrying around their pistols every day and not everyone is carrying one like in the US.

They're very expensive, they're hard to obtain and they'll get in a lot of crap for having one both from the police and from their gang leaders (for getting caught and losing the pistol). A gang of 20 to 30 losers might have 2 or 3 guns they share between themselves. They'll hid them in construction yards and abandoned places and pick them up as required.

There's an estimated 10 million to 20 million guns in Canada. In 2015 there was 795,854 restricted firearms [384,888 in 2004].  Out of that 795'000 I believe I've read there's only 50'000 AR15 restricted firearms so lets say there's about 650'000 handguns.

If criminals are predominately drawn to pistols I find it hard to believe 50% of guns used in crime are sourced in Canada.

There are a few cases of legal gun owners selling their guns illegally but I think when I looked in the past I found maybe 5 or 6 examples in the news (I've seen the media say 40 cases but there seems to be no where near that many according to the google machine)
But lets just say even 20 people out of close to 2 million license holders. Not a significant amount.

Here's a picture from Cornwall Ontario (border town) on June 22nd 2018 of 78 guns seized. These weren't taken out of some target shooters basement and they didn't "fall off the truck" on the way to a Canadian firearms retailer.

(https://i.cbc.ca/1.4717774.1529673396!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/seized-guns.jpg)

Here is a picture of a seizure from June 2016 in Toronto. Once again, these aren't coming from firearm retailers in Canada.

(https://dynamicmedia.zuza.com/zz/m/original_/1/e/1ef5d91b-f6fc-48e8-8557-5160cdfbc414/3hMET_SizzleGuns1_0603___Gallery.jpg)


These were the 33 guns confiscated from the Toronto shooters brother in 2017. Definitely a trend.

(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.3599995.1506010780!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg)


Theft of firearms from homes is a problem, especially out west in rural areas but a 3.5 foot long SKS isn't the weapon of choice for criminals so much less attractive to serious criminals and for sale on the black market.







Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on July 27, 2018, 11:17:09
Big city criminals like using handguns because ...
Excellent post.  Thank you.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Rifleman62 on July 31, 2018, 10:40:50
The legislation will be aimed at legal hand gun owners of course. Won't stop criminals.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-as-toronto-says-goodbye-to-shooting-victim-reese-fallon-trudeau-says/

As Toronto says goodbye to shooting victims, Trudeau says Ottawa will study handgun ban -30 Jul 18

Extract: He (Trudeau) said his government will study approaches to gun violence in other jurisdictions before deciding on a policy direction. “We’re taking a look at things that have been done around the world,” he told reporters at the Alexander the Great Parkette in Toronto’s grieving Danforth neighbourhood on Monday afternoon. “Things that have been done in other jurisdictions, looking at the best evidence, the best data to make the right decisions to make sure that we are ensuring that our citizens, our communities are safe into the future.”

Last week, a senior official told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Trudeau will decide in mid-August whether to pursue a ban on handguns as part of a new legislative agenda he would outline in a fall Throne Speech.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 31, 2018, 10:52:19
“We’re taking a look at things that have been done around the world,”

That means taking the false stats from countries (Britain, Australia, etc.) that have full bans, and making Canada the same. No guns.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on July 31, 2018, 11:29:22
It depends on how you frame the interpretation: guns account for the most frequently used means vs guns account for the majority of murders.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

According to StatsCan (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14244/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm), the consistently top three homicide methods are stabbing, shooting, and beating.

Raw Numbers (http://www.rawnumbers.com/crime/gun-deaths-in-canada.html):
Gun Deaths in Canada this Year:  357 gun deaths in Canada as of July 31, 2018 at 10:28:33
However, note that suicides are by far the leading form of gun death in Canada, outpacing homicides by about 4:1.

Suicide  77.16%
Homicide  19.29%
Unintentional  2.54%
Undetermined  1.01%

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on July 31, 2018, 11:54:16
ok, I'm a little confused.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4355300/danforth-shooting-handgun-stolen-saskatchewan/

So the gun was stolen during a break and enter at a gun store in Saskatchawan but the gun may have been illegally obtained from the US?

Does anyone have any other info on this?

I can see this going two ways.  Handguns used in crimes are illegally obtained in almost all cases.  How they are obtained may shape the way the government reacts.  If theft from lawful gun owners/stores is the issue then they may go the ban route or use that as a justification.  if it comes across the border then the ban might no seem justified.

Either way I sense an overreaction.   
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Rifleman62 on July 31, 2018, 12:00:23
Quote
Either way I sense an overreaction.
What would you expect?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on July 31, 2018, 12:05:34
That means taking the false stats from countries...
In what way are they false?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Hafoc on July 31, 2018, 12:47:26

Long time reader first time poster. 

This thread caught my attention so I thought I would chime in.  I'm an Electrical Engineer, numbers and data are my speciality.

In what way are they false?

They are false in the sense they are cherry picking data.  You will notice they (Media etc.) use the term "Firearm related death rate" or something similar, not Homicide rates. This distinction is very important if one really cared about reducing homicides.   I did my own research on this subject using two studies from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) data for Firearms ownership rates per capita and the Intentional Homicide rate per capita.  When plotted there is ZERO correlation between firearms ownership rates and intentional homicide rates.  If anyone is interested I can dig through my archives to find the excel file.

As a counter example to the commonly presented narrative, take a look at the homicide rates in New Hampshire, which has some least restrictive firearm laws.  Then take that data and compare it to provinces in Canada.

-Hafoc
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on July 31, 2018, 13:12:02
They are false in the sense they are cherry picking data.  You will notice they (Media etc.) use the term ….
Numbers, data, and perhaps  psychic abilities must be your speciality.

The government hasn't yet surveyed these other, unnamed countries, so I'm not predisposed to judge that 'they' (as in government, not media) are cherry-picking data or using dubiously vague language.  I do assume that their sources will be more credible than evil, tree-hugging media headlines from these countries though.

So while I don't claim it as a "specialty," I am predisposed to wait for the results to come in...or at least  know the questions being asked... before judging.


Welcome to the site.   :cheers:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 31, 2018, 15:19:50
Numbers, data, and perhaps  psychic abilities must be your speciality.

The government hasn't yet surveyed these other, unnamed countries, so I'm not predisposed to judge that 'they' (as in government, not media) are cherry-picking data or using dubiously vague language.  I do assume that their sources will be more credible than evil, tree-hugging media headlines from these countries though.

So while I don't claim it as a "specialty," I am predisposed to wait for the results to come in...or at least  know the questions being asked... before judging.


Welcome to the site.   :cheers:

You aren't a firearms owner, are you?

I have learned to have low expectations around Truth and Statistical Correlation when it comes to the LPC and firearms policy in Canada.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on July 31, 2018, 15:55:13
You aren't a firearms owner, are you?
Response via PM

And while the current Prime Minister has reaped a significant amount of well-deserved skepticism, I don't feel a need to pre-emptively foam at the mouth and call everything I personally disagree with "fake news".... especially before anything actually happens.

 :2c:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 31, 2018, 16:11:13
Fair enough.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 31, 2018, 17:00:31
ok, I'm a little confused.
Me too. I've heard both accounts now and wonder where the final answer is with where did the gun come from.

It was apparently kept at the parents house, I say hit them with unlawful firearms storage.



So if there were 722 deaths caused by firearms this year so far, and 19.2% of them were cases of murder instead of suicide+murder then that's 138 deaths out of a population of 36'708'100.    Every preventable death is horrible but is 138 out of almost 37 million people an epidemic? And that's 138 shootings, not all handguns.


Is a gun ban about saving lives or could the driving factor here, insofar as the government is concerned, be about votes?

Is the government sitting around a table discussing what banning handguns will result in not in terms of how many people will be saved but the political fall out? The hardcore left and right have already made up their mind about votes, but what about people in the middle. Will a move like that make people want to vote for them for (presuming to) make streets just a bit safer, or will it upset them that the government is infringing on something many Canadians enjoy or don't have an issue with.

What would the government do? Tell hundreds of thousands of handgun owners that they need to turn in all their guns by a certain date or they'll be arrested?  Will the government buy back all those handguns? If an average pistol runs $1000 and there's that subjective number of 650'000 handguns in Canada is the government going to cut a check for 650 million dollars? Would they take the cheaper option and say gun owners can keep their handguns they just can't buy anymore or sell theirs so once they die they get destroyed.

That's a great way not to shell out any money but with 650'000 pistols still in civilian hands what about those 138 / (handgun deaths) per year?  Would gun store owners have to eat millions of dollars of product lost? Or will the government be buying those too?


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 09, 2018, 08:55:08
American story but posting here to show how simple someone legally carrying a concealed handgun can save lives.

Quote
A concealed carry holder stopped a gunman on Saturday in Florida who opened fire on a back-to-school event where dozens of children were present.

Law enforcement officials say that the shooting happened at Isaac Campbell Park around 5 p.m. when a man "returned to the park after a fistfight and began firing," WFTV reported.

Once the gunman opened fire, an armed citizen, who was legally carrying, shot him. The gunman was reportedly taken to a nearby hospital after sustaining life-threatening injuries.




https://www.dailywire.com/news/34089/concealed-carry-holder-stops-shooting-school-event-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on August 10, 2018, 11:30:18
Was this really published by the CBC?

Canada can't say where its crime guns are coming from (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-statistics-1.4779702)

Governments, police not collecting national statistics on whether guns are smuggled or sourced domestically
Evan Dyer · CBC News · Posted: Aug 10, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 6 hours ago

"It is a fact that the majority of gun-related crimes in our communities are committed with guns that are domestically-sourced," RCMP Inspector Chris McBryan told the Vancouver Sun two years ago.

Insp. McBryan was speaking as head of the Western Canada division of the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team (NWEST) of the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP).

But when CBC News contacted the CFP and asked for the data behind his categorical statement, the RCMP replied that no such data exists.

[remainder at link]
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 22, 2018, 05:11:07
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-liberals-are-playing-dishonest-games-with-stats-to-crack-down-on-legal-gun-owners

Quote
According to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, Bill C-71 is a response to substantial increases in gun violence since 2013. It is legislation driven and justified by the empirical evidence. Or so it would seem.

In actuality, the statistical basis for Bill C-71 is particularly weak. Its reliance on faulty assumptions regarding crime and firearms breaks with the government’s promise of legislation tempered by “evidence-based decision making.”

Minister Goodale’s assertion that “gun homicides are up by two-thirds since 2013” should concern Canadians. After all, that’s quite an increase. But why select 2013 as the baseline for comparison?

2013 was a year of historical lows, a statistical outlier of sorts. According to Statistics Canada, 2013 had the lowest police-recorded crime rate since 1969. In fact, it had the lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years (1.45 per 100,000) as well as the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada (0.38 per 100,000).

Patrick Deegan, a senior range officer, displays long guns at a gun store in Calgary in 2010.

By selecting a year of record lows, marginal increases in succeeding years are made to look like significant surges. This explains Minister Goodale’s decision to use four years (2013 to 2016) of crime data instead of the standard five. Selecting 2012 as the point of comparison would weaken the perception that gun violence had increased precipitously.

In truth, gun homicides have not exploded. They have regressed to normal levels prior to 2013. In fact, Canada’s crime rate has steadily declined since the 1990s.



A handgun ban will still be low hanging election fruit starving liberals will be grasping for.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 22, 2018, 10:39:04
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-liberals-are-playing-dishonest-games-with-stats-to-crack-down-on-legal-gun-owners

A handgun ban will still be low hanging election fruit starving liberals will be grasping for.

No doubt at all.  This and Carbon Tax could be 2 big election issues.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on August 22, 2018, 11:19:47
Response via PM

And while the current Prime Minister has reaped a significant amount of well-deserved skepticism, I don't feel a need to pre-emptively foam at the mouth and call everything I personally disagree with "fake news".... especially before anything actually happens.

 :2c:

When it comes to legal firearms, the Liberals have a long history of being untrustworthy and for targeting gun owners for political gain. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 22, 2018, 14:13:57
When it comes to legal firearms, the Liberals have a long history of being untrustworthy and for targeting gun owners for political gain.

True. And if handguns increased votes, they'd be handing them out on the street corner.

Likely at Jane and Finch.

Let's not forget, one of the first goals of a socialist government is to disarm the population to give the government a position of strength over the populous.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on August 22, 2018, 14:36:24
It's demographics like this that scares the Libs, once gun owners reach a certain point, it will be politically toxic to go after them and unlike the early 90's gun owners are connected and internet savy. Not to mention a rapid increase in gun ownership by wealthy ethnic groups like the Chinese. https://thegunblog.ca/2018/08/15/gun-licences-rise-to-record-in-june-after-21-quarterly-increases/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 22, 2018, 15:32:08
The left wing want to drum up ridicule for gun owners by suggesting they're a bunch of angry whiten racist rednecks. Unfortunately for the Liberals, and I think fortunatly for gun owners,  there's a wide variety of people of both genders who are interested in shooting and that number keeps getting bigger.

I suspect that's why the Liberals haven't just broke out their hair trigger double barrel ban machine gun. They know it'll cost votes.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on August 22, 2018, 21:49:08
Because lawful gun owners are a fractured community (they can take your handguns and semi-auto rifles if they leave my bolt-action alone), they fear them as a voting bloc even less than they fear veterans.  They know a gun ban will win them the metropolitan vote.  After that, they really don't care.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 23, 2018, 07:49:50
Because lawful gun owners are a fractured community (they can take your handguns and semi-auto rifles if they leave my bolt-action alone), they fear them as a voting bloc even less than they fear veterans.  They know a gun ban will win them the metropolitan vote.  After that, they really don't care.

That is a very accurate statement.  Not to mention the toxic vitriol that some gun owners have no problem spewing on public forums, example CGN.  In some senses we, legal firearms owners, can be our own worst enemies.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on August 23, 2018, 11:00:25
Because lawful gun owners are a fractured community (they can take your handguns and semi-auto rifles if they leave my bolt-action alone), they fear them as a voting bloc even less than they fear veterans.  They know a gun ban will win them the metropolitan vote.  After that, they really don't care.

Agreed.  I know plenty of long gun owners who hunt primarily that could care less if there was a hand gun ban and don't care about competitive shooting. 

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on August 23, 2018, 11:18:13
My belief is that if the Liberals are successful in 2019 and form a majority again, any gun ban in place from an expanded C-71 will be expanded to resemble the Australian or British model.  By then, it will be too late for the hunter/sports shooter community to make a stand.  lawful firearms owners need to be united now and accept that there are exclusive factions who can be mutually supporting to the benefit of the entire community.  Throwing handgun owners under the bus to preserve your deer gun will eventually fail you as a political choice.

Liberals understand two things: 
- lawful gun owners and their property are an easy political target which will garner huge votes; and
- criminals (even inmates) still get to vote and they will vote for whomever empowers their enterprise.

And there are more criminals in Canada than lawful gun owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 26, 2018, 03:09:36

TheGunBlog.ca — Toronto Mayor John Tory asked the city’s 100,000 federally licensed gun owners to leave town, he said today on NewsTalk 1010 radio. He didn’t ask the murderers and gangs responsible for a wave of shootings to leave or to stop.

Quote

“I repeat the question that you posed: Why does anybody need to have a gun in the city of Toronto?,” Tory told the Moore in the Morningshow today, according to a recording shared by JohnToryWatchon Twitter. “And if it’s someone who’s involved in a gun club, perhaps they could do that somewhere else, because I’m just trying to make sure we do everything we can to save lives and to save the trauma that I’ve seen in the community when these kinds of shootings take place.”




https://thegunblog.ca/2018/08/07/john-tory-asks-sport-shooters-to-leave-toronto-he-tells-radio/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on August 26, 2018, 11:28:00
That is a very accurate statement.  Not to mention the toxic vitriol that some gun owners have no problem spewing on public forums, example CGN.  In some senses we, legal firearms owners, can be our own worst enemies.

Thanks. 

For the record, I'm a gun owner, a veteran and I work in law enforcement.  In my agency there are a lot of lawful gun owners and a fair number of hunters and other sport and competitive shooters.

The Canadian "gun lobby" (i.e. CCFR, NFA etc.) are mostly on the right track but, in my opinion, they have to re-work their message a bit. They are not protecting gun ownership "rights".  This doesn't exist in Canada.  Legally owning a firearm is a privilege, much like legally driving a car, flying a plane or practicing brain surgery.  They are protecting the privilege of gun ownership by lawful owners.  A privilege can be rescinded for bad conduct but it should only be rescinded from those who misbehave (criminals, for example), not the entire community.  (We all know how much "group punishment" was enjoyed at BMQ.  :nod:). They have to abandon the gun "rights" narrative.  This is too easily countered by the anti-gun coalitions and the government and too easily equated to the "evil NRA".

I'm also of the opinion that they have to distance themselves from the "Canadian Citizens Concealed Carry" crowd.  Mainstream Canada is not ready for that extreme version of firearms ownership nor is there a general need for it here.  Unlike the US, not even our cops carry off-duty as a rule.  The argument has been made that civilian gun owners are better shots than cops.  To an extent I can buy that, but it's equally (if not more) important to know WHEN to shoot and when not to, something none of our mandated civilian firearms safety training covers.

So, I support legal firearms ownership.  I support registration of restricted firearms.  I find magazine capacity restrictions unrealistic (the Parkland shooter had 10 round magazines).  I believe that police and the CBSA should be properly resourced and empowered to combat illegal/illicit firearms trafficking and misuse.  And, once that's done, I believe that our existing firearms laws - properly and consistently applied - are more than sufficient to deal with Canada's "gun crisis".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 26, 2018, 11:57:01
But, beating up on legal gun owners is poltically nearly risk free; it makes politicians look like they are doing something, wothout actually upsetting constituencies who come out and protest if they were to actually go after the root causes of gang/gun crime.

The fact of the matter is that our gun laws currently work exceeding well. You are far more likely (by orders of magnitude) to die Canada in a traffic accident or from opioid overdose, than from a bullet- random or otherwise.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on August 26, 2018, 14:26:27
I think what some folks are missing in this discussion is that the gun control issue is pretty much emblematic of the urban-rural divide. The Liberals know that their support is quite shallow outside the major population centers, and they can afford to write those areas off in favour of solidifying their vote in urban centers. The reaction of the Toronto and Montreal mayors are just icing on the same cake.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 26, 2018, 14:37:10
Thanks. 

For the record, I'm a gun owner, a veteran and I work in law enforcement.  In my agency there are a lot of lawful gun owners and a fair number of hunters and other sport and competitive shooters.

The Canadian "gun lobby" (i.e. CCFR, NFA etc.) are mostly on the right track but, in my opinion, they have to re-work their message a bit. They are not protecting gun ownership "rights".  This doesn't exist in Canada.  Legally owning a firearm is a privilege, much like legally driving a car, flying a plane or practicing brain surgery.  They are protecting the privilege of gun ownership by lawful owners.  A privilege can be rescinded for bad conduct but it should only be rescinded from those who misbehave (criminals, for example), not the entire community.  (We all know how much "group punishment" was enjoyed at BMQ.  :nod:). They have to abandon the gun "rights" narrative.  This is too easily countered by the anti-gun coalitions and the government and too easily equated to the "evil NRA".

I'm also of the opinion that they have to distance themselves from the "Canadian Citizens Concealed Carry" crowd.  Mainstream Canada is not ready for that extreme version of firearms ownership nor is there a general need for it here.  Unlike the US, not even our cops carry off-duty as a rule.  The argument has been made that civilian gun owners are better shots than cops.  To an extent I can buy that, but it's equally (if not more) important to know WHEN to shoot and when not to, something none of our mandated civilian firearms safety training covers.

So, I support legal firearms ownership.  I support registration of restricted firearms.  I find magazine capacity restrictions unrealistic (the Parkland shooter had 10 round magazines).  I believe that police and the CBSA should be properly resourced and empowered to combat illegal/illicit firearms trafficking and misuse.  And, once that's done, I believe that our existing firearms laws - properly and consistently applied - are more than sufficient to deal with Canada's "gun crisis".

I think our positions are pretty much on par with each other.  I have my restricted license, but now that Non-Res AR styled platforms are out in .308 Win I will be going that route. 

Having said the above I will support my restricted owning brother and sisters in anyways I can.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on August 26, 2018, 14:56:13
I think our positions are pretty much on par with each other.  I have my restricted license, but now that Non-Res AR styled platforms are out in .308 Win I will be going that route. 

Having said the above I will support my restricted owning brother and sisters in anyways I can.

Brand / model? I better get one before the bureaucrats swipe their pens.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 26, 2018, 15:06:55
This is one of my .308's

Took some tuning to get it to run solid, but it's a great gun now.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on August 26, 2018, 16:28:58
Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 26, 2018, 19:02:54
Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?

Yes, it's non restricted. It has an 18.5" barrel. The chamber is located just ahead of the magazine. A true bullpup. It's as accurate as any semi .308 in the scout category. I'd be willing to bet 500 and under. Your pushing the 18" barrel accuracy at that point, the gun will do its job. It's up to the operator at that range though. It'd take a bear or deer at those ranges, lots of velocity and energy still. Most bear and deer in NA are taken at under 50 yards though.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on August 26, 2018, 19:09:25
I am not sure if it has been gone over.. but the restricted crowd or competition crowd vs the yearly hunting crowd is far more complex then "they just dont care".. in my opinion.

I have many friends who are competition firearms owners, many who love the "toys" side and even more who are hunters only. (I am sure this is a debate strategy now that I'm re reading it haha, I just meant to say I've seen people from each group and got to know them per se)

I find the more someone is into the gun cultural scene, the more likely they are going to be a single issue voter. Unlike those who only hunt once a year. The person who hunts once a year, may still want everyone to have the chance/right/privilege* to own a firearm.. but may at each election cycle have a more pressing priority governing their vote. So they vote in essence against firearms rights*.

I find the issue with a lot of the pro firearms propaganda is it revolves around firearms issues only. Or maybe rights being infringed upon and it is very reactionary to any and/or all issues that may or may not exist in the firearm community and does not really allow for dialogue or reform due to fear (which I may say is well grounded) that any try at reforming firearm laws will take a lot more then they intend so they cant allow any changes*.

I relatively obtained my restricted license and I'd like to believe I'm a relatively well balanced, healthy person. But! I felt that process left a little for the wanting.. it seemed to easy to me personally. I think we need to address the issue of gun smuggling and/or reporting illegal firearms etc, which may not be a firearm owners issue to firearms owners, but it is to everyone else. I don't know the answer to what is a healthy amount of regulation vs freedoms, I'd personally be ok with three or 4 levels of common accessible licenses allow people to own up to fully auto firearms IF they prove they are stable etc etc.

Any rate my point is as long as firearms rights are only firearms rights, we lose a lot of people who would otherwise support the cause per se. We need to prove or establish that restricting or forbidding firearms rights or privileges is a far more heinous issue then crying they will take all our guns. We need to make sure firearms owners show that the money spent to govern and watch over firearms owners is paid for by firearms owners or make it that way if it is not the case. We need to show that we have no issue with our guns being taken either temporarily or permanently to a third party if we go off our rocker* etc etc

Basically just grow up past the "come and take them" or "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric that so many espouse these days.

Abdullah

*ps these are things as I understand them, believe them or think exist. If I am wrong in these things or any others please correct me and show me how I am :)

Ps also maybe this struck a chord because I voted NDP last time around because of issues other then firearms rights etc so when I perceived contempt against people who do not put firearms issues first, I shook my head and decided I needed to put a self righteous rant up. If I took it the wrong way oops haha and sorry for the rant lol
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on August 26, 2018, 20:31:54
AbdullahD:

Just to be clear, no one has the right to own a firearm in Canada without a license to do so.  Unlike other licensed activities, firearms ownership is more restrictive.  You can own a car without a driver's license but you cannot drive it legally.

If you are moderately intelligent, involved in a stable emotional relationship and have no overt or reported psychological issues, you can get a firearms license in Canada fairly easily.  That's a given.  If you have a history of violence, substance abuse, relationship issues or psychosis, then, no, it's not easy. It should be impossible, but people lie.

Firearms licences in Canada are also very easy to lose.  The fact that it happens very rarely means that firearms owners are very well behaved and well adjusted citizens who, as a matter of daily life, play by the rules.  Many understand the Firearms Act better than most police officers because, despite MSM rhetoric, firearms offences are relatively rare.  Again, this is a testament to their commitment to making their sport as safe and legal as possible. 

Canadian firearms license holders (who may not even own firearms) are vetted daily in CPIC and if that daily vetting indicates that you have been charged with a crime which, in the eyes of the Canadian Firearms Program may compromise your ability to safely possess, store, use or transport your firearms, you will lose them and your license.  If found not guilty, your firearms will likely be returned and your license re-instated as long as you still meet all the conditions for licensing.  (This happened to a family member, wrongfully accused of domestic violence, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts - the trifecta for triggering a firearms seizure.  He was found not guilty and his firearms returned within a week.)

if you post photos of you and your firearms doing stupid, unsafe or illegal things together, know that there is an RCMP section that scours the Internet looking for such things and you can expect to be contacted as a result.

Do we really need more controls on lawful firearms owners?  Or should we just use those controls we already have more effectively on illegal firearms users?

BTW I'm not a single issue voter.  Defense (obviously - I'm on Army.ca), the economy and trade (I live in a border town), public safety (I live in a border town)  and healthcare (I'm and old guy who lives in a border town) are also equally high on my list of concerns. But I do recognize that the government's current attitude and rhetoric towards lawful firearms owners can easily be extended to any other demographic that will garner quick votes from the uninformed/misinformed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 26, 2018, 20:49:44
Brand / model? I better get one before the bureaucrats swipe their pens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCL_102

https://www.theammosource.com/store/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&zenid=9bmggn4kb7oueqfts5mhri6kp6&keyword=BCL+102&x=0&y=0

https://blackcreeklabs.com/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 26, 2018, 20:50:23
Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?

Why not ?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on August 26, 2018, 22:21:29
Haggis

Thanks for your reply mate, I am not sure were I got that it is a "right" idea from.. probably US news.

I see your point and I think I agree with you, we do have a lot of good controls in place.. which should all be utilized. Yet, we still have shootings sadly, something everyone hates. The vast majority, as I understand are not by lawful firearms owners and the extremely small percent that do commit them, I agree do not create a significant portion and can as such be largely ignored as outliers/one offs/what have you.

But what happens, after every shooting is one side screams take them all away and the other dig ins and shows how it is not the lawful owners creating the issue and from what I see and dig in that way (I'll admit I dont follow the news closely so I could be out to lunch). Now I absolutely hate when innocent people who in no way associate with the crazy's get forced to defend their way of life, but sadly that is the way this twisted world is and firearms owners are forced into this corner.

Now one way we can argue to reduce firearms crimes is by being tougher on crimes, but that is a predictable approach that many would scoff at and ignore (again only my opinion). What I wonder is why doesn't the firearms association's out left the left and say something to the effect of

 "We are all deeply and cofoundly saddened by these actions, that have resulted in such a catastrophic loss of life. We the xyz firearms association all have broken hearts when we see the social and economic issues that led this troubled individual to commit this heinous crime. We call on the prime minister to launch an investigation into social and economic problems that created this scenario and we implore him/her to create programs to support individuals who need help in their social lives and or with their financial/economic well being."

I remember reading somewhere that the fees firearms owners and hunters pay, create a surplus in many provinces and or for the country.. so we don't we demand better fiscal governance and maybe show that if the firearms branch is properly managed we can use some of that money to help solve these problems.

Any rate I'm pretty out of the loop with the firearms stuff/any other issues, I have the problem of just keeping to myself in my own little world.. I play my game on my phone, i use Facebook, YouTube and I come here.. so I could be considered sheltered haha

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2018, 04:43:27
Can you hunt with that thing? (would you?) if so, what range would you rely upon it to make a kill with?


Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.

(https://www.northwestfirearms.com/data/attachments/315/315659-9fbfdc07de53280c3ea830f40915cb02.jpg)

Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 27, 2018, 08:53:41

Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.

(https://www.northwestfirearms.com/data/attachments/315/315659-9fbfdc07de53280c3ea830f40915cb02.jpg)

Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length

Well put.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on August 27, 2018, 09:28:15
Well put.

I ask because I don't hunt (and I've never shot at anything living).

I've always wondered why is it that "hunting rifles" always seems to look like, well, "hunting rifles".

I was curious whether anything in that design (being a bull pup, having a tri-pod, whatever) would lend it to being advantageous toward hunting.

I mean, it looks cooler than a standard hunting rifle (at least that's my opinion), so if you can have a rifle that's good for hunting AND have it look cool, why not?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 27, 2018, 10:46:34
I ask because I don't hunt (and I've never shot at anything living).

I've always wondered why is it that "hunting rifles" always seems to look like, well, "hunting rifles".

I was curious whether anything in that design (being a bull pup, having a tri-pod, whatever) would lend it to being advantageous toward hunting.

I mean, it looks cooler than a standard hunting rifle (at least that's my opinion), so if you can have a rifle that's good for hunting AND have it look cool, why not?

Functionally they do they same thing.  Semi-Auto .308.  With ergonomic and esthetic differences.

Depending on how one hunts a bipod can be valuable or simply added weight with little value.  For instance, I am still young enough that I find it hard to sit for 8 hours in a blind or stand.  So I always bring two rifles hunting.  One is Lee Enfield No.5 Jungle Carbine, its short and light and good for my morning hunts when I like to walk the choppings perimeters and goat trails.  At lunch I switch it out for my Norc M305 or a .12ga shotgun and use either to sit in my ground blind for the evenings.  When in my ground blind I also employ my homemade shooting sticks, which act like a bipod.

Sorry if I came off defensive earlier, that was not intended.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 27, 2018, 14:01:30

Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.

(https://www.northwestfirearms.com/data/attachments/315/315659-9fbfdc07de53280c3ea830f40915cb02.jpg)

Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length

That is the same as my deer rifle. A Remington 742. Very versatile. It is barreled in a number of calibers and you can just change out the barrels. .243 Win up to 30-06.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 27, 2018, 17:38:53
But it is black.  Therefore it is an assault rifle.  Therefore it is used to kill people.  Therefore it should be banned.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 :whistle:

Now you see how silly the ban guns argument can get at times, when it is driven by emotion and not an understanding of the technical functionality of any specific firearm.  People feel "safer" if they ban something purely for its features.  Its like trying to curb speeding by demanding that all sports cars not be painted red.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 28, 2018, 02:09:47
But it is black.  Therefore it is an assault rifle.  Therefore it is used to kill people.  Therefore it should be banned.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 :whistle:

Now you see how silly the ban guns argument can get at times, when it is driven by emotion and not an understanding of the technical functionality of any specific firearm.  People feel "safer" if they ban something purely for its features.  Its like trying to curb speeding by demanding that all sports cars not be painted red.

You're preaching to the choir in here Infanteer.  :nod:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on August 28, 2018, 13:58:36
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-handguns-firears-1.4801700

Liberals looking at full ban on handguns and "assault" weapons.


We'll see where this goes...

My take is that I don't fear lawful gun owners.  So I don't think a ban will make me any safer.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 28, 2018, 14:17:14
Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on August 28, 2018, 14:23:48
Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.

I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.

I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D

How's them for property rights.

As for Australia and Britain, they didn't outright ban their guns, so why would you expect them to get rid of all the existing guns?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 28, 2018, 14:41:06
I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.

I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D

How's them for property rights.

As for Australia and Britain, they didn't outright ban their guns, so why would you expect them to get rid of all the existing guns?

The law in NS is more along the lines of not being able to interfere with a legal hunt, you are also allowed remove any materials that persons leave on your property, such as trail cams, blinds, stands ect ect ect. 

Its people who abuse this nuance that give hunters a bad name.  IMHO the law should be changed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on August 28, 2018, 14:49:25
The law in NS is more along the lines of not being able to interfere with a legal hunt, you are also allowed remove any materials that persons leave on your property, such as trail cams, blinds, stands ect ect ect. 

Its people who abuse this nuance that give hunters a bad name.  IMHO the law should be changed.

I'm a very strong proponent of property rights (and by property I specifically mean "my land"), and it blows me away that if I cant you just walking through my forest, that's trespassing, but if you have a gun in your hands and claim to be "hunting", then you haven't broken any law.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 28, 2018, 15:00:54
We are not talking just land, but anything you own.

It's not about trespassing and hunting rights (which is not part of the Gun Control debate)

It's about the government's ability to seize anything you own and not compensate you for it, or just the ability to arbitrarily and usually with flawed logic, statistics and just plain lies, take what they want and leave you at the side of the road with an empty bag.

I certainly don't want to lose any guns, but in the event of government seizure, fair compensation would go a long way to smooth things a bit.

However, I doubt they'll be willing to give me $100,000 for my retirement nesteggs.

Amnesty's to turn in guns usually net owners $25-$50 for each firearm, which is a major loss for some.

It's like the government going in and just draining your RRSP account and telling you 'tough crap.'
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on August 28, 2018, 15:10:03
Maybe if they allowed a tax deduction...

Better than nothing.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on August 28, 2018, 15:25:53
We are not talking just land, but anything you own.

It's not about trespassing and hunting rights (which is not part of the Gun Control debate)

I just find it hypocritical that a faction of those who are very pro gun (hunters) are concerned about with property rights (owning guns), while at the same time maintaining the right to infringe on my property by trespassing on my property (hypothetically).

Otherwise, yes, this tangent has nothing to do with the overall theme of the government simply making a law forcing law abiding gun owners to hand over their weapons.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on August 28, 2018, 15:33:41
Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.
  The RCMP Commissioner and some major municipal police chiefs don't agree that a gun ban is the solution.  They want more resources to go after bad guys.   Both the promised and undelivered ($300 M +) and un-promised but soon-to-be asked for.  A gun ban will tax existing resources even more leaving even less money for front-line law enforcement.   I think Minister Blair is in for quite a fight - from within and without - if this is the path he chooses.  And, this is not the top item in his mandate letter nor the most pressing for the Liberals. He's also got irregular migration, cannabis regulation and dealing with the opioid crisis on his plate.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 28, 2018, 18:34:35

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

While you are for the most part right, I think that trying to confiscate property (firearms) from people who have committed no crimes would result in numerous constitutional challenges that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: PuckChaser on August 28, 2018, 18:39:07
I just find it hypocritical that a faction of those who are very pro gun (hunters) are concerned about with property rights (owning guns), while at the same time maintaining the right to infringe on my property by trespassing on my property (hypothetically).

Otherwise, yes, this tangent has nothing to do with the overall theme of the government simply making a law forcing law abiding gun owners to hand over their weapons.
Lawful hunters don't trespass. They'd be the ones knocking on your door to ask polite permission to hunt your property. Some will even offer money or some of the meat as thanks. Its even covered in the Ontario hunter safety course.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: LunchMeat on August 28, 2018, 20:51:36
Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.

Compensation for damages, losses, theft of property as a result of crime would be covered under the Victim's Bill of Rights and your provincial Victims of Crime Act/Fund.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 28, 2018, 21:00:59
LoL. Not a snowball's chance....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chief Engineer on August 28, 2018, 21:01:42
While you are for the most part right, I think that trying to confiscate property (firearms) from people who have committed no crimes would result in numerous constitutional challenges that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.

They have already confiscated firearms without compensation. SPAS 12, Tec 9, Barrett .50. They showed up to peoples doors without warning with a bunch of cops and took them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: LunchMeat on August 28, 2018, 21:07:18
Barrett .50.

When? Because you can still buy Barrett's and other branded .50's.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chief Engineer on August 28, 2018, 21:42:19
When? Because you can still buy Barrett's and other branded .50's.

The semi auto barret M82

http://www.firearms-safety-course.com/list-of-restricted-and-prohibited-firearms



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Larry Strong on August 28, 2018, 21:59:43
I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.

I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D

How's them for property rights.

Post your fence line every 50'.... "No Trespassing or Hunting"...pretty sure that would have legal standing, it does in Alberta.


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Nuggs on August 28, 2018, 22:19:55
That varies province to province.

In Nova Scotia:

No person may be
prosecuted for contravening any notice given
pursuant to this Act prohibiting entry or prohibiting
activity on "forest land" as defined in the Act if that
person is hunting as defined in the Wildlife Act,
fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking skiing or
engaged in another recreational activity or
engaged in the study of flora or fauna.

"forest land" means a wooded area, forest stand,
tract covered by underbrush, barren ground, marsh
or bog.

"hunting" means chasing, driving, flushing,
attraction, pursuing, worrying, following after or on
the trail of, searching for, trapping, attempting to
trap, snaring or attempting to snare, shooting at,
stalking or lying in wait for any wildlife whether or
not the wildlife is then or subsequently captured,
killed, taken or wounded, but does not include
stalking, attracting, searching for or lying in wait for
any wildlife by an unarmed person solely for the
purpose of watching or taking picture of it.


I've run into a similar issue back home recently. When they get into trouble is building a blind, leaving garbage, causing damage, or violating hunting regs.

WRT hunters; Basically once they break a law they are deemed to no longer be engaged in a lawful activity under the wildlife act and are then subject to trespass charges.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 05, 2018, 10:29:36
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/40643118_1843886589036204_2080846311279558656_n.png.jpg?_nc_cat=0&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_eui2=AeGbSVXlsIK22-6yx1qKK5RNCIDXFhj3yHJkBzDIGhpN0eJrPyB32w4cwaXvMrGUJWHX3GK9yeLS37xGfXajL0KYLIwJSsNb1ryi28gwJAA1zPTFIOUo_b8V59KAWIn2zc4&oh=67207a585dd9c318737f4c2a11485e6d&oe=5BF69829)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 07, 2018, 06:56:46
Data shows Toronto’s gun ‘surge’ never happened


https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook

 :tsktsk:



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 07, 2018, 09:18:06
Another aspect that is often overlooked here is that the numbers involved are so low that they make any statistical change from year to year fall in the "not statistically significant" category, regardless of how wild the swings. It is only long term trends that can be significant here, and they are all downwards presently.

The reason is simple: the sample numbers are so low that they can be largely impacted by single events. An example: In year X, a gang is busted that used the "legitimate owner that has guns stolen" trick as the method to acquire their firearms, and 30 firearms are seized in that sole bust. In that year, there will be a huge jump in the number of firearms traced to as legally registered in Canada. Yet it means nothing. Next year no such bust occurs and we are back down by as much.

As usual, statistics can tell a story, but you must review the basis of their collection to draw meaningful conclusions.

Here, the statistics have now been shown to be in the "Lies, Damn Lies" category.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on September 07, 2018, 11:00:20
Data shows Toronto’s gun ‘surge’ never happened


https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook

 :tsktsk:

And the damage is already done... despite this, the Liberals, the media, and the general anti-firearm crowd will continue repeating the false claim by the TPS officer until it is accepted as truth by the general population.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Old Sweat on September 07, 2018, 11:17:07
I caught part of an interview with the Ottawa chief of police about half an hour ago. When asked, he stated he was not in favour of a ban, because it would not work. Instead he suggested stiffer and more stringent bail conditions, along with heavier penalties for criminal use of a firearm.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on September 07, 2018, 12:47:32
I caught part of an interview with the Ottawa chief of police about half an hour ago. When asked, he stated he was not in favour of a ban, because it would not work. Instead he suggested stiffer and more stringent bail conditions, along with heavier penalties for criminal use of a firearm.

Exactly as advocated, consistently, by the legal gun owning crowd for years. We are not afraid of stiff penalties and jail time, because we follow the rules. We want this so the government can stop inflicting damage to us and goes after those that need it. It is too easy for the government to make us the constant scapegoat.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on September 07, 2018, 17:53:15
That means the Ottawa chief, the TPS Union President, and the RCMP Commissioner have all either questioned this ban or outright said it's a bad idea because it will waste resources.

Maybe, for once, we have a chance...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on September 07, 2018, 20:51:44
It won't matter who says it's a bad idea. It is a core Liberal goal to disarm the public.

Quote
“Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy (1998)

“I came to Ottawa . . . with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.” — Liberal minister of justice, Allan Rock, 1994.

"C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada.” — Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs, 1996.

“Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, 1998.

While these statements all occurred in the late 90s, I see no evidence to suggest any change of heart.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Thucydides on September 08, 2018, 02:50:22
National Post had a good article here: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-it-would-look-like-if-canada-banned-all-handguns

But recent history tells us it is all a sham anyway. Mayor David Miller in Toronto puled a lot of crap, including closing gun ranges and harassing legal gun owners while Toronto was suffering a wave of violent gun crimes in the early to mid 2000's, yet gun crimes continued to climb.

What ended the reign of violence was a multi national police operation in Canada, the US and Jamaica which took down a criminal organization known as the Shower Posse...no amount of "gun control" stopped the violence, only dedicated and wide ranging police work directed against the criminals. South of the border, we also have the example of cities like Chicago with draconian gun laws suffering waves of violence similar to low intensity war zones.

This is all about posturing and virtue signalling, pure and simple.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 08, 2018, 13:11:45
The Liberal government was quick to trump out the police in support of their designs, like when Goodale got behind the cheery picked 2013 stat, bullshit "gun and firearm related surge"  or mysterious Toronto police detective.

When the police however advised caution a out legalizing pot the Liberals brushed them off.


I wonder how the Liberals will handle  these police members or unions or whoever going on the record saying a handgun ban won't help.
Will the Liberals just ignore them (and the pretty solid looking stats and evidence they tried to bullshit everyone) or will the clever Liberals capitalize on this and use it as a political get out of jail free card to avoid the mess of banning handguns.

'We looked at banning handguns but our brave and wise police officers say it won't fix the problem so we're looking at other avenues, because we care'.



And speaking about missing firearms.
In 2012 a Freedom of Information request from then NFA determined that between October 2008 and February 2012, police forces and other law-enforcement agencies have lost at least 428 firearms nationwide.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 08, 2018, 13:59:50
I think we as Canadians way over react when it comes to crime and gun crime. 

Sure we have pockets of rougher areas but in comparison to juristicians in other countries we have a pretty safe country. 

We tend to internalize American problems as well, I suspect that this comes from an over consumption of American media.

Truly in Canada the small problems we do have are 99% socioeconomic I reckon.  Withs gun play being a small spin off effect.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 09, 2018, 13:55:53
Hypothetical question.

Suppose the government decides all handguns and "assault weapons", let's say ar15s, are banned and must be turned in to the government without compensation.

Considering it is a firearms serialized receiver that is the registered part, could gun owners get away with turning in stripped down pistol and rifle receivers?


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/2e/25/f62e25bdee7a53b06e3117ccdf8041d7.jpg)


(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8fuHYvU8EKu-SbveUK8Me0EVTa5hYWFHvudoJkcqXsvHPgD0i)

After all I don't even need a firearms licence to purchase an AR15 upper receiver or pistol upper slide.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on September 09, 2018, 14:06:44
Hypothetical answer

They will likely insist on the whole firearm, but you're right.

All of my ARs are builds. They are registered Receiver Only. That will all they get from me. Totally stripped and smashed in a press with only the serial # untouched. They will get the same with my pistols. I sold all the other non accountable parts before they asked me to turn them in.

edit - You MAY be able to call them, tell them you've stripped it all away and only have the receiver left and could they register it Receiver Only? It's still restricted. The worse they can do is say NO.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 09, 2018, 18:21:53
Hypothetical question.

Suppose the government decides all handguns and "assault weapons", let's say ar15s, are banned and must be turned in to the government without compensation.

Considering it is a firearms serialized receiver that is the registered part, could gun owners get away with turning in stripped down pistol and rifle receivers?

On a Sig Sauer P320 the serial number only appears on the fire control group, which is removable from the frame by rotating one pin.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on September 09, 2018, 19:29:44
On a Sig Sauer P320 the serial number only appears on the fire control group, which is removable from the frame by rotating one pin.

So you are saying we should all go buy sig sauer p320's, right? Just want to be sure...

Abdullah

P.s if I stop posting on here it is cause my wife offed me for doing it haha
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 26, 2018, 15:42:27
Bill C71 is crushing through Parliament, there is talk of it being implemented by christmas.

Max Bernier didn't bother to even shown up to vote on Bill C71.



In other news Ralph Goodale supported the woman who was found guilty kidnapping raping and murdering Tori Stafford, 8,  getting moved to a healing lodge, calling her actions "bad practices".

This guy is really something else.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 26, 2018, 17:24:11
Bill C71 is crushing through Parliament, there is talk of it being implemented by christmas.
It is now in the Senate.

Max Bernier didn't bother to even shown up to vote on Bill C71.

Nor did 18 CPC members.  Not that it would've made a difference, because the Bill was destined to pass by virtue of the Liberal majority anyways (bolstered by the near-liberals of the NDP).  However, it would've been nice if they'd showed up even to symbolically vote against it and show their support to law-abiding firearms owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 27, 2018, 03:12:05
Quote from: Haggis


Nor did 18 CPC members.

I seen that, very shitty of them. I hope the members of their ridings give them an ear full.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on September 27, 2018, 18:43:18
My NDP Member of Parliament  (https://navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127903.0.html)voted for it, even after her telling me she knew it was flawed.


**Edit: IAW the site's Political Discourse policy.  **
Staff
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 27, 2018, 18:49:00
My NDP Member of Parliament  (https://navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127903.0.html)voted for it, even after her telling me she knew it was flawed.


**Edit: IAW the site's Political Discourse policy.  **
Staff

The NDP are even more left than the Liberals.  That your NDP member supported the Liberal social agenda should not surprise you.  Legal firearms owners have very, very few allies in the House.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on September 27, 2018, 19:42:41
The NDP are even more left than the Liberals.  That your NDP member supported the Liberal social agenda should not surprise you.  Legal firearms owners have very, very few allies in the House.
I thought she was coming around as her riding is northern ont. She has voted against a few of the UN proposals, she was all for the sniper rifle ban till I schooled her on the use of lee Enfields as the prime sniper platform for the commonwealth and the fact that 90% of the people in the room had one at home.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 28, 2018, 08:05:06
I thought she was coming around as her riding is northern ont. She has voted against a few of the UN proposals, she was all for the sniper rifle ban till I schooled her on the use of lee Enfields as the prime sniper platform for the commonwealth and the fact that 90% of the people in the room had one at home.

Sniper rifle ban ?  Did I miss a timing ?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on September 28, 2018, 10:29:26
Sniper rifle ban ?  Did I miss a timing ?
It was something the dipers were wailing about a few years back.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 28, 2018, 16:52:49
Sniper rifle ban ?  Did I miss a timing ?

it's also something currently being looked at in Australia, one of the countries Minister Blair and the PM hold out as a successful model of gun control/confiscation.  Some Australians who own "very powerful firearms" are being asked by the police to justify their continued ownership and demonstrate proficiency (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/4011422c80efe377af0c1dd2482582ab00834b2a/$file/tp-1422.pdf) in order to continue to possess them. Canada's anti-gun lobby has already drawn parallels between "hunting" and "sniper" rifles, a move which should concern sportsmen should a handgun and "assault weapons" ban become reality.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on September 30, 2018, 19:36:25

I seen that, very shitty of them. I hope the members of their ridings give them an ear full.

Do we know where they were or what they were doing? I'll reserve judgement till I know that.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 12, 2018, 01:15:54
Here's the government's public consultation questionnaire. Pretty obvious the direction their taking. Fill it out. You know the gungrabbers are going to fill it out dozens of times each. No retreat, no surrender!

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on October 12, 2018, 01:26:01
It certainly has a "zero sum" flavour about it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 12, 2018, 10:14:42
Here's the government's public consultation questionnaire. Pretty obvious the direction their taking. Fill it out. You know the gungrabbers are going to fill it out dozens of times each. No retreat, no surrender!

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx

Using the crap show US federal weapons ban as a definition base for assault weapons?

"Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator"

How deadly.

"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

Besides didn't the US assault weapons ban prove to be ineffective in lowering crime rates/shootings?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 12, 2018, 10:31:23
Jarnhamar, the policy paper attached to the survey is actually pretty good. It notes (amongst other things) that the US Assualt weapons ban had no real effect on violent crime in the US; that violent crime is on a general decline in Canada but that the vast majority of gun violence is gang related and there is not really any good data that legal gun ownership is problematic.

So basically, this Government is trying to solve that does't exist.

Spread the word- every gun owner needs to fill his survey out!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on October 12, 2018, 15:35:54
Using the crap show US federal weapons ban as a definition base for assault weapons?

"Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator"

How deadly.

"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

Besides didn't the US assault weapons ban prove to be ineffective in lowering crime rates/shootings?
Since when did semi auto qualify for assault status?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on October 12, 2018, 16:26:53
Make sure you do your part and answer the government survey...

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: cld617 on October 12, 2018, 17:40:12
Since when did semi auto qualify for assault status?

Since it became the most convenient definition to benefit the predetermined outcome.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on October 12, 2018, 18:16:45
It certainly has a "zero sum" flavour about it.

The fact that the last firearms related question is, "Are there any other comments you would like to share with respect to limiting firearms?" would indicate that the fix is in.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 13, 2018, 02:26:06
I suppose we could hope they drop a writ before this gets moving through Parliament. Then it could die on the floor. They can't really campaign until the writ is dropped so the longer they wait, the less campaigning he can do. And I'm pretty sure the PM wants to campaign as much as possible. Hopefully, they'll want this as an election issue to get the gungrabber vote. All this is just spit balling and wishful hoping.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 13, 2018, 04:57:48
Jarnhamar, the policy paper attached to the survey is actually pretty good. It notes (amongst other things) that the US Assualt weapons ban had no real effect on violent crime in the US; that violent crime is on a general decline in Canada but that the vast majority of gun violence is gang related and there is not really any good data that legal gun ownership is problematic.

So basically, this Government is trying to solve that does't exist.

Spread the word- every gun owner needs to fill his survey out!

Thanks, I should have read it in hindsight.

I'll jump on board and fill out the survey as well but I still think the Liberal government will only hear what it wants to hear. If enough responders want guns taken away from lawful owners they'll run with the results like they did that erroneous report from the random Toronto police detective.
If the survey goes against what they want to hear then they'll spin it one way or another and just approach the issue from a different angle.

The survey is set up to target lawful gun owners along with criminals, it's pretty blantent in it's bias.

I guess there's a small victory in denying them a small piece of propaganda.

I mentioned a while ago I was pleasantly surprised the Liberals seemed to be leaving gun owners alone and wondered if they were holding the issue as an ace up their sleeve for closer to election time. Thinking I was right.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 14, 2018, 00:15:33
E-petition, sponsored by Michelle Rempel, against a handgun ban.

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-1883
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ontheedge on October 14, 2018, 01:09:18
I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 14, 2018, 01:42:25
I noticed that this e-petition has over 13,000 signatures.

The one above it sponsored by Robert Falcon Oullette calling for the ban of all private firearms? 39 signatures.

Keep up the good work, everyone. Pass the word to your fellow firearm enthusiasts!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 14, 2018, 08:54:26
Mrs Rempel brings up an interesting point.
Quote
Bill C-71 contains no mention of the words “gang” or “organized” crime anywhere

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on October 14, 2018, 09:19:59
I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??

Not entirely true.  QR$O 19.10 reads:

"No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:

a.  combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
b.  sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
c.  obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces."

So, as this petition does not relate to the Canadian Forces specifically, you're in the clear.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ontheedge on October 14, 2018, 12:20:59
Thanks for the help!
Okay there was another petition going on several years ago allowing soldiers to carry concealed firearms. I guess that also borders on an authorized petition since perhaps the request is a change in the criminal code not a CAF issue directly...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on October 14, 2018, 12:35:18
I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??

Signing a Petition? Go or No Go?
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=109788.0
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on October 15, 2018, 16:48:08
The petition site won't let you sign in from a government computer.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on October 15, 2018, 18:19:24
Aaaaaaaaand the inevitable outcome:

Strong support for handgun ban (https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/strong-support-for-handgun-ban-497543641.html?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TopStory&utm_content=HandgunBan&fbclid=IwAR1bSCb6NdcEEwAIZBz4OSLCxYHu7aAigSimfMLlP1K7SSU3c6gZfbHrbVE)
Women more likely than men to back prohibition

There is strong support among Winnipeggers for a Canadawide handgun ban.

Three-quarters of respondents to a Probe Research poll, which was commissioned by the Free Press and CTV, said "urgent action should be taken on banning handguns in Canada."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 16, 2018, 03:31:37
.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on October 16, 2018, 09:01:24
.

What's this called... a red herring? My point is that this is a flawed argument. Yes, you can build a gun in shop class, but the meme implies that if you were to ban guns, former gun owners would start making their own guns en masse. I highly HIGHLY doubt that. How many of the thousands and thousands of gun owners in Canada have the skill, knowledge, capacity and desire to actually make their own guns? I'm going to guess that that number is EXTREMELY small.

Thus, the meme implies that "if you can't get a 100% solution, don't bother." No solution is ever a 100% solution, but we still do something.

To be clear, I'm not expressing support for or against any gun laws; I'm just playing devils advocate and ripping apart what I think is a sh*tty argument in a sh*tty meme.  :sword:

And to be more clear, I actually am against a handgun ban, and like someone said earlier on, gun owners/enthusiasts of all types need to all be on the same page, or they will slowly whittle away until one day you can only own a bolt action center fire rifle with a 1 rounds magazine that can only be used to hunt and must have a trigger lock on it until you get to your blind...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 16, 2018, 09:46:35
Approximately 795,000 restricted guns in Canada. Handguns, revolvers, ar15s and such.

Let's say all those are banned. Pistols run from $400 to $1600 on average so let's say $1000 each. Restricted rifles on average $800 to $2500.

So let's say each of those 795,000 guns are worth $1500.
Do we think the government will come up with $1'192'500'000 to pay gun owners for the guns they turn in?


And that's just restricted guns.

A very large portion of the 10-20 million estimated guns in Canada are non-restricted and would fall under the "assault weapon" definition.  Two of mine do and run $3300 each. 

If we lowball and say there's only 5 million assault weapons at $1500 a piece is the government going to add another $7'500'000'000 to the $1'192'500'000 compensation package?


Or are Canadian firearm owners going to be out $8'692'500'000?

And don't forget the 4'500 firearm and ammunition businesses across Canada that will suffer lay offs and closings. Or practically all of the 1'400 target ranges that would probably close up.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on October 16, 2018, 09:59:02
Or are Canadian firearm owners going to be out $8'692'500'000?

First, we need to tackle the really important question, which is, why do you use apostrophes in your numbers instead of commas? Seriously, just curious.

Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.

I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets their guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.

Second, they invite people to voluntarily hand in their weapons with a tax deduction based on (ideally) the market value of the weapon, or (more likely) a set amount per weapon (and let's not start a discussion about "how do you assess the value of a custom rifle?". I don't have real answers here, I'm just spit-balling).

Cheers,
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on October 16, 2018, 10:43:28
I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.

The Liberals pander to the millennial and urban elite crowd.  That's their support base.  Both crave instant gratification. Grandfathering, in my case, means that my guns will remain in my possession for (hopefully) another 30+ years.  That's not acceptable to those that want guns off the street "NOW!".  Confiscation will be the only way to satisfy them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on October 16, 2018, 10:59:11
First, we need to tackle the really important question, which is why do you use apostrophes in your numbers instead of commas? Seriously, just curios.

Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.

I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.
Why, indeed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on October 16, 2018, 11:04:32
I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.

The  flaw I see with this idea is a pretty serious one. Your proposed plan would instantly make all firearms legally worthless, but would create the opportunity for a massive illegal market. The government doesn't know how many, or what type of non-restricted firearms people own. The vast majority of people wouldn't do it, but there are those that would be so offended by the government devaluing their property that they would look to recuperate the lost value somehow. If people decided to start selling their non-restricted firearms under the table to friends, and friends of friends the likelihood that firearms would start ending up in criminal/less than desirable hands greatly increases.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on October 16, 2018, 11:13:48
The  flaw I see with this idea is a pretty serious one. Your proposed plan would instantly make all firearms legally worthless, but would create the opportunity for a massive illegal market. The government doesn't know how many, or what type of non-restricted firearms people own. The vast majority of people wouldn't do it, but there are those that would be so offended by the government devaluing their property that they would look to recuperate the lost value somehow. If people decided to start selling their non-restricted firearms under the table to friends, and friends of friends the likelihood that firearms would start ending up in criminal/less than desirable hands greatly increases.

Hey it's not MY proposed plan, it's the plan of the hypothetical future government that exists in my head...

Anyways, as with making your own guns in shop class, I highly HIGHLY doubt that law abiding gun owners (the ones getting the shaft) would risk being caught involved with ILLEGAL WEAPONS TRAFFICKING, no matter how mad they are.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on October 16, 2018, 11:22:28
I would say a good half of the people I knew who were gun owners had a unregistered firearm or two during the long gun registry. I suspect any ban will be on new guns and new gun owners, as the cost of seizing guns is massive. The good news is it would give time for a Conservative government to overturn the law. But what a mess it would create.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on October 16, 2018, 11:30:41
Why, indeed.

'You makin' fun of me, kind Sir?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on October 16, 2018, 11:52:32
Hey it's not MY proposed plan, it's the plan of the hypothetical future government that exists in my head...

Anyways, as with making your own guns in shop class, I highly HIGHLY doubt that law abiding gun owners (the ones getting the shaft) would risk being caught involved with ILLEGAL WEAPONS TRAFFICKING, no matter how mad they are.

Forgive me for assuming that the words you had written as a possible government COA was you plan.  ;)

You'd likely be surprised how many people failed to comply with the registry, we all would really because there was no enforceable way to ensure it was correct apart from door to door searches. Those searches didn't happen so there is no accurate figure on compliance.

People don't like being pushed around by people in suits, siting in a office half a continent away. Some of the 2 million+ firearms owners would likely sell firearms illegally if that was the only way left to get value from their property. Nobody wants to wake up one morning to find that tens of thousands of dollars of their legally owned property is now illegal and worthless.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on October 16, 2018, 12:35:17
The first rule of fight club is we don’t talk about fight club will be the modus operendi.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 16, 2018, 13:23:45
Quote from: Lumber


Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.


Me and 2 million some Canadians stand to sell $3000 guns to the government for $100, which we'll probably be taxed on too. Probably a good guess, all things considered.

The thing is with that COA guns likely won't be made illegal over night, they'll likely have some sort of time line. Within that time line I can see a lot of licensed gun owners offering to legally buy non-restricted guns from other liscensed gun owners looking to sell them quick (already happening with the cz878 rifles)
I'd rather lose a couple hundred bucks and still make two grand a pop than get $100 ea. for them. 

I sort of feel some of those 2million gun owners would feel the same way.


Making guns non transferable so we die with them and give them to the government sounds like a great 30+ year plan that will get lots of votes (I'm sure) but do nothing to curb crime.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on October 16, 2018, 13:38:15


Me and 2 million some Canadians stand to sell $3000 guns to the government for $100, which we'll probably be taxed on too. Probably a good guess, all things considered.

The thing is with that COA guns likely won't be made illegal over night, they'll likely have some sort of time line. Within that time line I can see a lot of licensed gun owners offering to legally buy non-restricted guns from other liscensed gun owners looking to sell them quick (already happening with the cz878 rifles)
I'd rather lose a couple hundred bucks and still make two grand a pop than get $100 ea. for them. 

I sort of feel some of those 2million gun owners would feel the same way.


Making guns non transferable so we die with them and give them to the government sounds like a great 30+ year plan that will get lots of votes (I'm sure) but do nothing to curb crime.



A key observation. A government COA the will be sure to fester hard feelings from good citizens for decades to come. Probably not as bad as Marie Antoinette's 'Let them eat cake'


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 16, 2018, 14:18:13
ONE of my guns is worth approx $5000. It is not unique nor uncommon.

Some have collections worth tens of thousands of dollars. Those people stand to lose an enormous amount of money, that they rightfully and legally invested.

If their worth tanks because of market value, so be it.

If it tanks because of government intervention and confiscation of legally owned goods, that government is responsible for those losses. Especially, if they allowed you to initially and legally purchase them.

Other than feeling good about signing petitions and ranting on social media, there is SFA anyone can do but sit and wait.

Hopefully, this is something that they might be promising to get votes, intending to implement it after re-election.

That should give us some breathing room.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 16, 2018, 18:50:51
>Making guns non transferable so we die with them and give them to the government sounds like a great 30+ year plan

Would it be OK with real estate?  Stocks and bonds?  Stamp and coin (and other) collections?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on October 17, 2018, 17:51:38
I've said it before and I'll say it again;  I have 6" ABS pipe, cleanout caps, pipe glue, grease and plastic sheeting, along with a sharp shovel. I'd rather put them in the ground for four years than hand them over, only to start again when the inevitable regime change comes about.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 18, 2018, 00:38:23
No wonder the consultation numbers were skewed. It seems our government doesn't even know how to conduct a proper poll.

No control to stop anyone filling it out more than once and it garnered thousands of anti votes from all over the world.

Bet the grits stick to their guns, pretend the numbers are good and they will consistently tout it during debate and an excuse to push the legislation.

https://torontosun.com/news/crime/lilley-serious-flaws-in-ottawas-handgun-ban-consultations?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1539736101
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on October 31, 2018, 16:50:41
A rather long, but well written piece by the MacKenzie Institute (http://mackenzieinstitute.com/gun-control-seen-critical-priority-increased-vehicular-safety-virtually-ignored/?fbclid=IwAR3oLhdpWiO8xah7UHpKffIFTf7zSSfH1-nwLYKJyUlAqSm_fCDzvGFCKkE)

Why is ‘gun control’ seen as a critical priority when increased vehicular safety is virtually ignored?

Many public safety issues confront Canada’s governments and police every day. Why do politicians seem to hyperventilate over lawful firearms use when moose actually kill more people every year than do licensed firearms owners? Could such posturing about “gun bans” be nothing more than a “red herring” to distract voters from real problems? It doesn’t seem to be about saving lives.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on October 31, 2018, 18:49:38
A rather long, but well written piece by the MacKenzie Institute (http://mackenzieinstitute.com/gun-control-seen-critical-priority-increased-vehicular-safety-virtually-ignored/?fbclid=IwAR3oLhdpWiO8xah7UHpKffIFTf7zSSfH1-nwLYKJyUlAqSm_fCDzvGFCKkE)

Why is ‘gun control’ seen as a critical priority when increased vehicular safety is virtually ignored?

Many public safety issues confront Canada’s governments and police every day. Why do politicians seem to hyperventilate over lawful firearms use when moose actually kill more people every year than do licensed firearms owners? Could such posturing about “gun bans” be nothing more than a “red herring” to distract voters from real problems? It doesn’t seem to be about saving lives.

I read that article this morning, it lays out a pretty simple explanation for why more laws aren't the answer.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 16, 2018, 15:37:15
Saw this today. Better than the cold, dead fingers analogy.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 09, 2019, 22:25:33
GOODALE, RCMP HEADING TO COURT FOR VIOLATING ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

 https://firearmrights.ca/en/goodale-rcmp-heading-to-court-for-violating-access-to-information-act/

The CCFR has been following the saga of a Canadian citizen who is in a battle for information with the RCMP. That battle is heading to federal court, on advice from the OIC (Office of the Information Commissioner) after Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness Minister Ralph Goodale refused to comply with the request and findings of the Information Commissioner.

This 4.5 year battle began with a simple request by a Canadian citizen for a copy of the FRT (Firearms Reference Table), an RCMP database of firearms and their classifications. This same document has been shared and sold over 10 000 times with foreign governments and private companies, yet the RCMP are refusing to hand it over – in spite of a decision by the Information Commissioner that they must do so.

When the RCMP fail to comply with a decision from on high, who answers for that? Minister Goodale of course.

Only problem is he is also failing to comply and has refused to order the RCMP to follow the law.

<more at link>

Funny. I'm not suprised. ::)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on January 19, 2019, 18:20:58
Consultations are still, technically, underway, but Minister Blair is ready to make his pitch for a ban to Cabinet "within two weeks".  Shared (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/blair-guns-ban-legislation-1.4983849?fbclid=IwAR1ocR5JlLR3G1YnUMLQQCKNc4DMgSfYtXvJeaiZdxEmbJCgrbJMvKwHuis) with the usual disclaimer and an additional one against reading the article's comments.  They will inflame you, regardless of your thoughts on the matter.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 19, 2019, 19:49:04
Blair is completely biased and an absolute hypocrite. He has always expressed the opinion that only military and police should have guns. The poll he produced was a total farce and  fell outside normal polling practices.  All we can hope for is a compliance date for surrender after Oct 19 and the Conservatives shut it down.

It'll be interesting to see if their seizure of private property, duly and lawfully purchased under existing law, will be reasonably compensated. Or whether the grits are just going to steal them for a hundred apiece, if anything.

Blair used to compare cannabis to heroin in effect and use. Now he owns million of dollars in stock with one of the largest cannabis growers in Canada. As did other liberal party insiders, before cannabis use was passed in the house. How's that for timing and changing lifelong opinions?

I don't expect much difference from him on the firearms file.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Infanteer on January 19, 2019, 20:02:52
Wonder what they'll do after they ban handguns and then some guy shoots up Toronto with a handgun?   :dunno:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 19, 2019, 20:38:08
Wonder what they'll do after they ban handguns and then some guy shoots up Toronto with a handgun?   :dunno:

Like Chicago. They just hardened their gun laws, again, last week. They already had the toughest laws in the US, even with all that, they still kill more in a week there, than some small countries.

In order to try quell the outrage of seizing or hindering property taken from legal owners, I expect they'll use the false excuse that most firearms illegally used here are stolen from us lawful Canadian owners. Total bullshit. They've tried to push that narrative before and got called on it, but they keep trotting it out. The number one cause of illegal firearms, are smuggled guns into Canada from elsewhere. Stolen Canadian firearms used in crimes is so minisculle in comparison that it can almost be ignored.

 The rcmp and stats Canada don't even track that info - http://brianlilley.com/no-50-of-guns-used-in-crime-are-not-from-canada/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 20, 2019, 01:13:34
I've found some nice 22 caliber pistols I think would be great purchases for family shooting at the range but I'm holding off until I see whether pistols are banned.

I don't relish the idea of the government confiscation a few thousand dollars of personal property, which appear legally capable of.

Between private owners and businesses there's millions and millions of dollars worth of handguns in Canada. Maybe 800 million in private ownership alone (850'000x$900 average)   

Think the government will forkup over a billion dollars?  Maybe maybe not. Possible they're just going to make handgun ownership and use so restrictive people will say screw it and try to sell them, perhaps turning them in when no one buys em, and not renewing their licence.

And like you point out FJ, the police and government unfortunately got caught making up numbers and stories about the leading cause of firearms in criminal hands is stolen from lawful gun owners residences. It's been debunked and called out - but its like a news paper printing a retraction to a story on page 8. Damage is already done.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 20, 2019, 02:38:54
Wonder what they'll do after they ban handguns and then some guy shoots up Toronto with a handgun?   :dunno:

Ban long guns.

It is easier than actually police work and going after actual criminals.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 20, 2019, 09:01:55
Ban long guns.

It is easier than actually police work and going after actual criminals.

The problem isn't wanting to do 'police work and go after criminals', it's that those criminals are back in play in minuscule amounts of time......
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 20, 2019, 10:57:19
The problem isn't wanting to do 'police work and go after criminals', it's that those criminals are back in play in minuscule amounts of time......

Oh, I get that part, too.

My point was that this Government is all about the "optics" of being seen to do something, rather actually doing the hard, uncomfortable work of getting at the root causes of urban gang violence.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 20, 2019, 11:05:30
So true...but can't lose those prison votes...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 23, 2019, 10:45:51
(https://i.imgur.com/oNnQu8Y.png)

Probably a glitch.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on January 23, 2019, 12:45:27
(https://i.imgur.com/oNnQu8Y.png)

Probably a glitch.

Does the amount of signatures matter ? 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on January 23, 2019, 13:57:26
No more than facts do to decision-based evidence-making Liberals.

On the brighter side - and be prepared to be shocked by this RCI article about firearms and pending legislation: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/01/21/the-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-18699
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on January 23, 2019, 20:36:02
No more than facts do to decision-based evidence-making Liberals.

On the brighter side - and be prepared to be shocked by this RCI article about firearms and pending legislation: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/01/21/the-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-18699

Wow!  Just.....wow.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on January 28, 2019, 18:56:54
No more than facts do to decision-based evidence-making Liberals.

On the brighter side - and be prepared to be shocked by this RCI article about firearms and pending legislation: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/01/21/the-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-18699

it appears that the series has been removed from the RCI website for being "too one-sided."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on January 28, 2019, 19:05:40
it appears that the series has been removed from the RCI website for being "too one-sided."

Can anyone give a quick breakdown of it?

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on January 28, 2019, 19:42:45
Can anyone give a quick breakdown of it?

Abdullah

in a nutshell it showed gaping holes and inconsistencies holes in the government and media's assertions regarding the source of so-called "crime guns' in Canada and also showed legal firearms owners in a positive light.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on January 28, 2019, 21:39:01
in a nutshell it showed gaping holes and inconsistencies holes in the government and media's assertions regarding the source of so-called "crime guns' in Canada and also showed legal firearms owners in a positive light.

Thank you and yeah, definitely understand why that can not see the light of day up here.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on January 29, 2019, 15:10:40
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/cbc-pulls-fact-based-firearms-article-for-being-too-pro-gun/

And the links to the cached articles from within:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181205135115/http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/12/03/the-gun-debate-in-canada-where-lies-truth-part-1/

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AUmVxeI_xvg8J%3Awww.rcinet.ca%2Fen%2F2019%2F01%2F21%2Fthe-gun-debate-in-canada-pt-2-assault-weapons%2Fcomment-page-1%2F%20&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=safari&fbclid=IwAR2AxvPzs6Dr685yGfPgGs8mKY5Ne3MZYa1Ev41vI3MJIRIGzkmTK6Ou3qQ
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 19, 2019, 12:34:24
Maybe, just maybe, with all the shady SNC business going on the Liberals will be too nervous to push through a handgun/black rifle ban on the accout of it may look like they're grasping low hanging fruit and trying to divert attention from their imploding empire.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 19, 2019, 12:46:03
Maybe, just maybe, with all the shady SNC business going on the Liberals will be too nervous to push through a handgun/black rifle ban on the accout of it may look like they're grasping low hanging fruit and trying to divert attention from their imploding empire.

Or they might blitzkrieg it hoping to win back the support they are losing through their other scandals?

Or the PM may just implode and decide to do as much damage as possible until October?

Don't forget his end game. It's not to make things better for us, it's to move us to the NWO form of world socialism. Make us a broken nation for the picking.

You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out of it.

He only needs to get us to that tipping point of no return. He condemns Maduro in public, but, in private, he's on the exact same path with Canada as Maduro took with Venezuela.

 I'm getting too political for the gun thread. Stopping now.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 19, 2019, 15:27:58
I'm going to email the prime minister and offer to meet with him one on one to talk a out guns and gun control. Maybe float some ideas by him.

Im thinking he needs all the friends he can get.

Any idea what email address to use?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 19, 2019, 15:35:55
purgatory@parl.gc.ca
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on February 21, 2019, 13:21:47
meanwhile

https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/rcmp-labs-make-more-cuts-to-firearms-testing-impacting-some-criminal-cases
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 21, 2019, 13:52:17
They still have enough money and manpower to hound and harass legal gun owners and taxpayers though. ::)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on February 21, 2019, 16:21:35
exactly, priorities and all that......
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 21, 2019, 18:18:05
The Senate has temporarily iced this one. Not going to be a forum for JT to change the current public discourse on other matters  ::)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 21, 2019, 20:48:49
The Senate has temporarily iced this one. Not going to be a forum for JT to change the current public discourse on other matters  ::)

Really?  Hearings of the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and scheduled to resume next Monday.  Blair is set to deliver his report (and recommendations for any bans) to Cabinet by the end of the month.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 21, 2019, 22:03:41
Really?  Hearings of the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and scheduled to resume next Monday.  Blair is set to deliver his report (and recommendations for any bans) to Cabinet by the end of the month.

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/20/committee-presses-pause-on-senate-study-of-gun-bill-amid-snc-lavalin-affair/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 21, 2019, 23:32:16
Then the Senate needs to update their web calendar (https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/SECD/noticeofmeeting/513406/42-1?fbclid=IwAR0q6zwVeU3s2aMAPvSZxEo497Od6d3O0rqLbe6Pj2P6G7SXVLMeHk3el9s).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on February 21, 2019, 23:34:27
Really?  Hearings of the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and scheduled to resume next Monday.  Blair is set to deliver his report (and recommendations for any bans) to Cabinet by the end of the month.

I believe that's completely separate from Bill C-71. Bill C-71 actually can and still may get passed before October... Blair's new gun grab wouldn't have nearly enough time, he even said as much that it wouldn't be happening this time around. With that said, it may be a campaign strategy for them.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 21, 2019, 23:41:47
I wonder if ipolitics has published irregular facts.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 22, 2019, 14:52:19
A group of about a dozen victims of Toronto's Danforth shooting have called for a complete ban on private ownership of legal handguns and "assault weapons".  They go so far as to suggest that competitive and sport shooters could still pursue their sport, but by using firearms owned by and stored at licensed shooting clubs and not their own.

No mention of action against illegal guns, though....

This should give the Liberals something to distract the public from SNC Lavalin and a few other files.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on February 22, 2019, 15:26:08
I think we should make it illegal to be a criminal. That would fix everything.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 22, 2019, 15:42:48
Quote from: HAGGIS

This should give the Liberals something to distract the public from SNC Lavalin and a few other files.

Right on time and predicted.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 22, 2019, 16:36:40
I believe that's completely separate from Bill C-71. Bill C-71 actually can and still may get passed before October... Blair's new gun grab wouldn't have nearly enough time, he even said as much that it wouldn't be happening this time around. With that said, it may be a campaign strategy for them.

It could clear the Senate by May if everything falls into place and the Senate does not vote to change even a word of the Bill: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/22/gun-bill-still-faces-long-haul-as-election-closes-in/

I assume Royal Proclamation would occur before the election kicks off. Regulations can come later by OIC or they can come on day 1. Either way, it's a legislative assassination of loyal law abiding citizens ("legicide") who are not the problem and nothing of substance will be addressed from a criminal use of firearms perspective.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 22, 2019, 18:45:15
Regulations can come later by OIC or they can come on day 1.

My guess is that the regulations are all ready to go on Day 1.  There will be no delay in implementation as the results have to be visible to the Liberal loyalists before the writ drops.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 26, 2019, 14:50:28
The Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence sat yesterday and heard testimony from both sides of the C-71 debate.   I won't dissect the veracity of anyone's claims on either side, but I will say that watching Dr. Gary Mauser waving a photo of a moose while declaring that more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2019, 18:22:57
And far more are killed by medical staff as well.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on February 26, 2019, 18:58:12
I will say that watching Dr. Gary Mauser waving a photo of a moose while declaring that more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.

Can't comment on moose fatalities. They never sent us to one.

I would say that about 90 per cent of the gun fatalities they sent us to were suicides. No idea if they were lawful firearms owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 26, 2019, 19:23:24
I would say that about 90 per cent of the gun fatalities they sent us to were suicides. No idea if they were lawful firearms owners.

That statistical void is part of the problem.  Bill C-71 is aimed (pun intended) at enhancing the psychological background checks of lawful owners.  If my unhinged spouse/child/other relative/friend/neighbour unlawfully takes my lawfully owned gun and offs himself, Bill C-71 won't prevent that.

And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on February 26, 2019, 19:34:22
< snip> more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.

And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.

ok. Thank-you for the clarification.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 26, 2019, 19:44:08
That statistical void is part of the problem.  Bill C-71 is aimed (pun intended) at enhancing the psychological background checks of lawful owners.  If my unhinged spouse/child/other relative/friend/neighbour unlawfully takes my lawfully owned gun and offs himself, Bill C-71 won't prevent that.

And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.

If you have anyone in your home without a PAL, they should not be able to access your firearms or ammo. Keep your stuff secure, as required by law and dont make it accessable to anyone. My wife had firearms prior to the PAL. They are secured and she will never get them again, until she gets her PAL. She s no idea how to access anything.

Now, that raises another point. No matter how much the CFO badgers her, she cant get at anything. If she could, and does for the CFO, we can both end up in jail. She is oblivious to what is where and how many there are. If she gets her PAL, she gets her guns back.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 26, 2019, 20:00:13
If you have anyone in your home without a PAL, they should not be able to access your firearms or ammo. Keep your stuff secure, as required by law and don't make it accessible to anyone.

Hence my qualification of "unlawfully takes".  My firearms and ammo storage arrangements exceed the requirements of the Firearms Act.  However, in the eyes of Minister Blair and other Liberal MPs, this is still insufficient and my firearms are deemed to be at risk of unlawful use.  Since I clearly can't be trusted, centralized storage is the only solution

My wife had firearms prior to the PAL. They are secured and she will never get them again, until she gets her PAL.
That's awesome incentive, particularly if she wants her guns (her property) back.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 26, 2019, 21:05:53
I would say that about 90 per cent of the gun fatalities they sent us to were suicides. No idea if they were lawful firearms owners.

Two personal anecdotes.

My uncle who had been suffering from both mental and health problems managed to find a .22 rifle in the attic that everyone had forgotten about and used it to commit suicide.

One of my best friends committed suicide using his legally owned hunting rifle. He was also having problems; alcohol, split with his wife, etc.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 26, 2019, 22:54:34
Sorry for your losses, brother.

My uncle who had been suffering from both mental and health problems managed to find a .22 rifle in the attic that everyone had forgotten about and used it to commit suicide.
  I assume the gun was unregistered and he was un-licensed?  C-71 would not have prevented that, nor would, I suspect, the former long gun registry.

One of my best friends committed suicide using his legally owned hunting rifle. He was also having problems; alcohol, split with his wife, etc.
  Our current laws could have prevented this tragedy had someone (family member, co-worker, ex-wife) spoken up and called the local PD or CFO.  But no one wants to be "that guy" who gets a friend or relative "in trouble" even if getting them "in trouble" saves their life.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 27, 2019, 15:47:42
That's awesome incentive, particularly if she wants her guns (her property) back.

It sounds mean and autocratic, but it's for her own protection against an unscrupulous government or Crown prosecutors.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on February 27, 2019, 18:03:50
Our current laws could have prevented this tragedy

They may have eliminated firearms as a method in this, and similar tragedies, at best.

There are plenty of other methods that are just as lethal, however.

This is why gun grabbers speak about "gun deaths", and not total homicide and suicide rates.

The current legislation may have reduced the number of suicides in which firearms were used, but rope sales easily made up the difference.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on February 27, 2019, 18:43:29
The current legislation may have reduced the number of suicides in which firearms were used, but rope sales easily made up the difference.

An uncomfortable truth overlooked by those who portray guns as the only suicide method that matters.  "If it saves only one life..."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on February 28, 2019, 08:32:18
An uncomfortable truth overlooked by those who portray guns as the only suicide method that matters. 

Hardly the only way. Although not failsafe, certainly one of the more reliable.

Not suitable for a "suicidal gesture".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on February 28, 2019, 13:05:52
Suicide rates have little to do with method, Japan and South Korea would love to have the US suicide rate per 100,000
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on February 28, 2019, 20:19:52
Sorry, but I get a little irritated every time these debates switch to suicide.

Was the 1995 Firearms Act about preventing suicide? Is Bill C-71 about preventing suicide? Is the potential handgun ban and "assault weapon" ban (i.e. every restricted weapon) about preventing suicides?

Did suicides spur this debate? Are lawful firearm owners being attacked because the suicide rate is too high? Is it suicide they are talking about when they keep talking about how violent our streets are becoming? Are we discussing the "legally purchased and then diverted to the black market" firearms because those are apparently causing suicide? I never once heard Ralph Gooddale mention suicides in all of this.

There is no doubt that suicides are by far the biggest danger that firearms offer, and that suicide prevention is an important part of firearm policy (probably the most important if preventing death is the goal)... but I can't help but find that bringing the topic of suicide into the fold creates a tangent that takes the heat off of those who are trying to use violent crime, gang violence, homicides, mass shooters, etc, as propaganda to disarm lawful citizens, those are the same people who don't give a damn about how many suicides occur and their rhetoric takes away from the possibility of any reasonable policy measures that could be used to prevent suicide or accidental deaths. Anyone who is concerned about suicides should be as angry as firearm owners with the government's agenda.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 21:24:05
Hardly the only way. Although not failsafe, certainly one of the more reliable.

Haggis did not say that it was "the only way". He said that it was "the only suicide method that matters".

There is a big difference.

Gun-grabbers do not care about the poor unfortunates that leap from tall buildings, lie down on railway tracks, ram their cars into bridge abutments, or hang themselves etcetera. They only care when firearms are used. And, even then, they don't actually care about the people. They only care that an inanimate object that they unreasonably hate and fear and want to take away from people like me was used, and want them all banned even though restrictions and bans do not affect suicide rates. That is why they use the term "gun deaths" and not "deaths".

Yes, "gun deaths" can be reduced, but overall suicide and homicide rates tend not to be affected by such restrictions and bans.

How many gun-grabbers does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They just pass a law banning burnt-out light bulbs and stumble around wondering why it is still dark.

Sorry, but I get a little irritated every time these debates switch to suicide.

Was the 1995 Firearms Act about preventing suicide?

They claimed that, back then, as partial justification for the legislation - even though they had the same information that we had.

Reductions of deaths and injuries really had nothing to do with it, though. It was always only about votes - and mainly votes in Quebec. They cashed in - and continue to cash in - on the memory of the Ecole Polytechnique tragedy. Emotion over logic.

There is no doubt that suicides are by far the biggest danger that firearms offer

Firearms do not, and cannot, "offer danger". Triggers do not, and cannot, pull fingers.

Absent a human operator, firearms can do nothing at all.

and that suicide prevention is an important part of firearm policy (probably the most important if preventing death is the goal

Firearm policy cannot influence suicide prevention one whit. Firearms legislation is completely impotent as a means of suicide  - and homicide - reduction.

Well, not completely. Restricting possession by honest citizens does not reduce is impotent. Reducing restrictions has proven benefits, however.

The US has seen significant reductions in homicides, rapes, assaults, and robberies in most jurisdictions that have reduced or eliminated restrictions on non-felonious citizens and certain people with adjudicated mental health problems. The "bad" areas - which drive and distort the US national homicide rate - tend to be large, Democrat-controlled cities with extremely- and unreasonably-restrictive policies, and even certain specific smallish neighbourhoods within those cities. There are several states with lower homicide rates than Canada - New Hampshire and Vermont are two such. Either or both are now "constitutional-carry" states, in which no permit is required for either open or concealed carry by citizens with no criminal background or certain categories of mental illness. Nunavut was, for at least one year recently, the territory/province/state in Canada and the US with the highest homicide rate.

Anyone who is concerned about suicides should be as angry as firearm owners with the government's agenda.

Yes - if they cared to study the actual facts and evidence with open minds. Few people understand firearms. Few people have ever handled one, let alone fired one. They are influenced by fictional movies and television programmes, and anti-gun media and government propaganda.

They have been taught to fear what they do not understand. It is called "hoplophobia".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 28, 2019, 21:49:55
I am not going to enter the gun debate but I will provide a little not-objective, personal observation: Here in Montreal, where anti-gun/gun grabbers have the most sway and where, I suspect, you probably have the lowest gun ownership rates in the country, we have the subway stopped for a few hours for unspecified "technical" reasons (and everybody in Montreal know what those are - jumpers) about twice a week - with all the delays and late arrivals that entails. Yet, when I was a kid and guns were more easily available, you never even had more than one or two of those a year.

I know that is not scientific, but it's a fact. At the same time, the Federal government invested millions in a suicide prevention barrier on the Jacques-Cartier bridge pedestrian walkways. it is now impossible to jump from the bridge to your death in the river below. Yet, that's been up for ten years now and the suicide rate in Montreal didn't drop.

Go figure!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 22:35:09
Here in Montreal, where anti-gun/gun grabbers have the most sway and where, I suspect, you probably have the lowest gun ownership rates in the country

I don't think that the ownership rate is significantly different. A lot of Quebeckers love to hunt as much as anywhere else. They don't seem to have been as vocal as owners eslewhere - who are already not vocal enough.

we have the subway stopped for a few hours for unspecified "technical" reasons (and everybody in Montreal know what those are - jumpers) about twice a week - with all the delays and late arrivals that entails.

And the traumatic effect on crews and those who have to clean up the mess.

Statistically, a head-end crewmember (conductor or engineer), will kill at least one person in a twenty-year career.

We got sent to check a section of the CN mainline near the lakeshore on the western edge of Toronto for a potentially suicidal person sometime after midnight one night when I was flying the Police Helicopter Trial. He had been drinking heavily at a local bar, and announced his intentions to his buddies just before leaving. We searched along the tracks for several kilometres in either direction, well beyond the distance that he could have run, let alone staggered, with no sign of him. One of the coppers on the ground had phoned CN, to see when the next train was due past. Buddy would have lain on the tracks for almost 1.5 hours, in the cold, before getting "lucky". The only humanoids that we saw were fishing along the banks of a small stream that passed under a bridge carring the mainline over it. We were astounded that anybody would be fishing at that time (it was, by then, somewhere around 0200), but passed the location to the ground guys. They found our quarry huddled under the bridge - and also told us that the fisherpeoplekind were all Chinese (I still do not know whether or not that was of any significance, or a particular Chinese fishing custom). Buddy was taken to a hospital for observation and treatment, and we all felt pretty good about things.

We found out later that he'd been successful in the same area a few days after we thought that we'd saved him. He'd seemed in a good mood at the same bar, said a cheery goodnight to his friends and, this time, made no mentioned of his intent.

At the same time, the Federal government invested millions in a suicide prevention barrier on the Jacques-Cartier bridge pedestrian walkways. it is now impossible to jump from the bridge to your death in the river below. Yet, that's been up for ten years now and the suicide rate in Montreal didn't drop.

Toronto wasted a few million on an anti-suicide net on the Bloor Street Viaduct across the Don Valley several years ago, which was a popular spot for jumpers (somebody, I think a councillor, had referred to it as a "romantic" location for suicides). This, obviously to all non-experts, was a wasted effort, as there is no shortage of other tall structures around. Or railway tracks, or ropes etcetera. The only part that would have made sense would have been the section that crosses the Don Valley Parkway a few hundred feet below: six lanes with an occasionally-attainable 90 km/hr speed limit. To the best of my knowledge, however, nobody had ever been so inconsiderate as to launch his/herself into a car below, but it would not have been an unreasonable safety precaution.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on February 28, 2019, 22:47:52
Rural Quebec culture is pretty insular. They own guns and be damned if some modi Anglais or Big City gars will tell them what to do.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on February 28, 2019, 23:49:21
Toronto wasted a few million on an anti-suicide net on the Bloor Street Viaduct across the Don Valley several years ago, which was a popular spot for jumpers (somebody, I think a councillor, had referred to it as a "romantic" location for suicides).

The Bloor Viaduct was North America's No. 2 suicide draw. Second only to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

To the best of my knowledge, however, nobody had ever been so inconsiderate as to launch his/herself into a car below,

Oh, they have.

And the traumatic effect on crews and those who have to clean up the mess.

Only bothered me once. Some joker sounded the Operator's horn twice, while my partner and I were crawling under a subway with flash lights picking up the pieces.

Two blasts on the horn was the "Go" signal. Guess he thought it was funny. Not!  :)






Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 01, 2019, 00:20:03
Why do I feel like we did the whole suicide thing already?

Still the same charges, still the same sensible facts in reply?

Nothing has changed has it? Did I miss something?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 01, 2019, 04:38:05
Did some quick checking, but it's tricky because there seems to be conflicting stats.


In one study I'm seeing that during the 1980s and 90s firearms and hanging were the leading 1st & 2nd (respectively) methods of suicide in Canada with a rate of around 13 cases per 100'000 people.

In the mid and later 2000s it appears that hanging (suffocation) and poisoning were the leading methods used, and the rate dropped to around 11 per 100k.

In nuvavut its between 60 and 70 suicides per 100k.

Other studies suggest that hanging and poisoning were always the leading cause of suicides in Canada.

Two family members I've had commit suicide one was hanging and the other vehicular, the latter having access to firearms and ammunition.


What I find irksome is that anti-gun proponents often seem to try and relate increasing gun control with preventing suicides but their prevention/help concerns don't go beyond gun control debates. Don't use deaths of people you don't otherwise care about to push an agenda.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 01, 2019, 14:05:07
Did some quick checking, but it's tricky because there seems to be conflicting stats.


In one study I'm seeing that during the 1980s and 90s firearms and hanging were the leading 1st & 2nd (respectively) methods of suicide in Canada with a rate of around 13 cases per 100'000 people.

In the mid and later 2000s it appears that hanging (suffocation) and poisoning were the leading methods used, and the rate dropped to around 11 per 100k.

In nuvavut its between 60 and 70 suicides per 100k.

Other studies suggest that hanging and poisoning were always the leading cause of suicides in Canada.

Two family members I've had commit suicide one was hanging and the other vehicular, the latter having access to firearms and ammunition.


What I find irksome is that anti-gun proponents often seem to try and relate increasing gun control with preventing suicides but their prevention/help concerns don't go beyond gun control debates. Don't use deaths of people you don't otherwise care about to push an agenda.

That is the forte of many governments.........and news agencies. Dance on the graves of the dead to try bolster a lacking opinion or perspective.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 01, 2019, 14:24:39
Rural Quebec culture is pretty insular. They own guns and be damned if some modi Anglais or Big City gars will tell them what to do.

Ditto Northern Ontario.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 01, 2019, 14:56:13
Ditto Northern Ontario.

Sorry fellas. That feeling is not singular to those two areas. Gun owners right across the country hold that sentiment.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 07, 2019, 17:10:00
The Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence will hold hearings on Bill C-71 again next Monday (https://sencanada.ca/en/Committees/SECD/NoticeOfMeeting/516817/42-1).  The witness list has yet to be posted.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on March 18, 2019, 13:18:02
The events in NZ will be used to punish legal gun owners in Canada, done by the same people who say we cannot hold Muslim there or here responsible for the action of other Muslims elsewhere. That disconnect galls us.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 18, 2019, 15:07:49
The events in NZ will be used to punish legal gun owners in Canada, done by the same people who say we cannot hold Muslim there or here responsible for the action of other Muslims elsewhere. That disconnect galls us.

Again, at the risk of thread drift, if it does hapoen in Canada, it will not be sold as punishment. It will be a public safety measure. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians stand to lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in property and many sporting goods stores will cease to exist, is neither here nor there, in the minds of official Ottawa.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Baden Guy on March 18, 2019, 18:06:20
Again, at the risk of thread drift, if it does hapoen in Canada, it will not be sold as punishment. It will be a public safety measure. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians stand to lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in property and many sporting goods stores will cease to exist, is neither here nor there, in the minds of official Ottawa.

Looks like we follow the model of most countries. "How to Buy a Gun in 16 Countries"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/02/world/international-gun-laws.html
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 18, 2019, 20:49:25
During today's SECD hearings, Liberal Senator Marilou McPherdran proposed Bill C-71 be amended to make all handguns prohibited.  She states this must be done now as the government is running out of time before the next election.  it was only a matter of time before this happened and it can be accomplished without C-71 being passed but by a simple OIC.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: milnews.ca on March 19, 2019, 10:30:51
Found some interesting charts in this article (https://www.sofmag.com/illegal-gun-trafficking-to-canada-the-latest-atf-sting/) about three Americans pleading guilty to firearms trafficking offences (here's the September 2018 state attorney's news release (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/four-charged-ohio-canada-gun-smuggling-ring) on the charges), so sharing the charts so people who know more about this than me can check out & pick apart as needed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 19, 2019, 10:46:12
Hopefully, should it come to it, I hope it comes with a very robust buy back program.

I'll could use that money to try get a visa somewhere more copacetic.  :rofl:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 19, 2019, 11:31:13
Hopefully, should it come to it, I hope it comes with a very robust buy back program.

The most vocal anti-gun groups are dead set against any buyback schemes.  In their opinion, why should the government pay to purchase illegal property?  Just seize and destroy it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 19, 2019, 17:42:35
This sucks.

I just want my kids to be safe at school and not worry about some psychopath shooting up the school, then take then shooting at the range after school.

Not looking forward to stripping down my pistols and ARs to turn in bare-bones receivers.

Should probably pick up a few more NR rifles come to think of it.


If the government thinks the SNC bullshit would cost a lot of jobs the shooting community is going to knock their rainbow socks off.

A quick glance at a message forum that has just some of the firearms/ammo/target/sporting crap for sale in Canada shows 126 businesses- that's alot of (actual, non SNC-bullshit) jobs and stock to lose.

If there's around 950'000 legally owned handguns in Canada (not counting what's in stock in stores) at an average of $750 per handgun thats + $712 million dollars in private property. I doubt the government can afford a buy back program.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chief Engineer on March 19, 2019, 19:26:15
This sucks.

I just want my kids to be safe at school and not worry about some psychopath shooting up the school, then take then shooting at the range after school.

Not looking forward to stripping down my pistols and ARs to turn in bare-bones receivers.

Should probably pick up a few more NR rifles come to think of it.


If the government thinks the SNC bullshit would cost a lot of jobs the shooting community is going to knock their rainbow socks off.

A quick glance at a message forum that has just some of the firearms/ammo/target/sporting crap for sale in Canada shows 126 businesses- that's alot of (actual, non SNC-bullshit) jobs and stock to lose.

If there's around 950'000 legally owned handguns in Canada (not counting what's in stock in stores) at an average of $750 per handgun thats + $712 million dollars in private property. I doubt the government can afford a buy back program.

You may very well see AR's having to be turned in whole as the parts are also prohibited and such not being able to be sold. Any NR AR's will probably be seen as a loophole and be reclassified by the RCMP as Prohibited under a OIC. Any buyback will most likely go the same as Australia with a government "guide" to prices, you won't be getting full value. Between restricted and prohibited rifles and handguns I have about 35 guns that I may lose at some point.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 20, 2019, 01:16:00
If there's around 950'000 legally owned handguns in Canada (not counting what's in stock in stores) at an average of $750 per handgun thats + $712 million dollars in private property. I doubt the government can afford a buy back program.

Any buyback will most likely go the same as Australia with a government "guide" to prices, you won't be getting full value. Between restricted and prohibited rifles and handguns I have about 35 guns that I may lose at some point.

A quick look at today's pre-election budget doesn't show any money to fund a buyback.  The antis are all about confiscation without compensation.  My hope is for grandfathering but it's starting to look like any pre-election moves on legal gun control will be heavy-handed and harsh, with immediate effect,  to "turn the page" away from other problems dogging the ruling party these days.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on March 20, 2019, 01:20:17
A quick look at today's pre-election budget doesn't show any money to fund a buyback.  The antis are all about confiscation without compensation.  My hope is for grandfathering but it's starting to look like any pre-election moves on legal gun control will be heavy-handed and harsh, with immediate effect,  to "turn the page" away from other problems dogging the ruling party these days.

Heavy-handed and harsh would no doubt yield a hard push back. As per Quebec non compliance to their gun registry. Lots of fur will fly.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 20, 2019, 01:27:37
Heavy-handed and harsh would no doubt yield a hard push back. As per Quebec non compliance to their gun registry. Lots of fur will fly.

You re most likely right.  But, at this point, new legal gun control measures are not about achieving results, but about distraction.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 02:41:00
You may very well see AR's having to be turned in whole as the parts are also prohibited and such not being able to be sold. Any NR AR's will probably be seen as a loophole and be reclassified by the RCMP as Prohibited under a OIC. Any buyback will most likely go the same as Australia with a government "guide" to prices, you won't be getting full value. Between restricted and prohibited rifles and handguns I have about 35 guns that I may lose at some point.

My receivers are all Receiver Only registrations. Bought bare balls like that and they have no idea if they were ever assembled or not. Thats all they get, after we put them through a press, leaving the markings alone.

I'm hoping an immediate stay pending appeal to the SCC. That should get us to the election at least.

I'm wondering though, this won't just put gun owners against him, as we've always been, it'll also affect others who may not like guns. What about constitutionalists and freedom seekers and other bellwethers of authoritarian takeover.

Even peasants get the balls to take back their daughters and farm by the end of the movie.🤣
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 20, 2019, 10:25:54
You may very well see AR's having to be turned in whole as the parts are also prohibited and such not being able to be sold.

I figure that would be quite the nightmare for the RCMP. You can buy AR upper recievers and pistol slides at the gas station (where I got mine).

Firearm owners don't have to inform the RCMP when they purchase that stuff, or when they sell it. The RCMP can (and may) decide all that stuff is prohibited and unsellable over night but nothing stops a firearms owners from saying they've already sold it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 20, 2019, 12:48:30
If criminals don't follow the law, how is new legislation going to stop criminals and gangs?  This is obvious virtue signalling to try to get new votes for the Liberal party.  This is an attempt to recuperate the losses the Liberals have suffered due to the SNC Lavalin debacle. I'm totally biased though.  It's staggeringly divisive behavior that shouldn't be allowed in the first place.  Bill C-71 should have been shot down the moment it was even thought of.  I really have to use a heavy filter when I'm talking about this stuff, because it annoys the heck out of me.

I honestly believe that armed men are citizens; unarmed men are subjects.  I can feel the eyes rolling, but you know, I don't really want to test the theory, do you?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chief Engineer on March 20, 2019, 16:08:33
I figure that would be quite the nightmare for the RCMP. You can buy AR upper recievers and pistol slides at the gas station (where I got mine).

Firearm owners don't have to inform the RCMP when they purchase that stuff, or when they sell it. The RCMP can (and may) decide all that stuff is prohibited and unsellable over night but nothing stops a firearms owners from saying they've already sold it.

When the SPAS 12 and Tech 9 firearms were confiscated without compensation in the early 90's the police turned up for them and you had to turn in the entire firearm not just the receiver. Basically several cars showed up, they went to your door and you had to immediately surrender them. It was mentioned in a previous post that like myself some people who bought receivers and built AR's are only going to turn over the receiver. That being said there will thousands of people with AR parts they can't sell which are kind of useless.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 16:19:15
When the SPAS 12 and Tech 9 firearms were confiscated without compensation in the early 90's the police turned up for them and you had to turn in the entire firearm not just the receiver. Basically several cars showed up, they went to your door and you had to immediately surrender them. It was mentioned in a previous post that like myself some people who bought receivers and built AR's are only going to turn over the receiver. That being said there will thousands of people with AR parts they can't sell which are kind of useless.

I used to be a Boy Scout. I still follow the motto 'Be Prepared'.

If you've been watching what has been going on, and you haven't prepared yourself, or your firearms, that is no one's fault but yours.

If you still have all your parts, it will be much easier to rebuild them when we need them.  ;)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 20, 2019, 21:12:49
.22s are great and all, but their ballistics are horrible, and any moderate winds affect performance.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 09:50:05
Looks like New Zealand is going after the rifles, parts and accessories.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 21, 2019, 10:16:38
I used to be a Boy Scout. I still follow the motto 'Be Prepared'.

If you've been watching what has been going on, and you haven't prepared yourself, or your firearms, that is no one's fault but yours.

If you still have all your parts, it will be much easier to rebuild them when we need them.  ;)


I am curious what you think "we" might "need" them for?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 21, 2019, 13:10:30


I am curious what you think "we" might "need" them for?

For hunting of course.

Ask the Venezuelans. They can explain it better.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 21, 2019, 13:17:20
Looks like New Zealand is going after the rifles, parts and accessories.

And it was done through an OIC. Maybe that's the "really big" announcement that Ministers Blair and Goodale are expected to make "very quickly".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 21, 2019, 14:03:11
For hunting of course.

Ask the Venezuelans. They can explain it better.

I feel sometimes, that as a gun owner in Canada, that I am caught between federal politicians, whose endgame motive on firearms ownership I cannot fully trust and a vocal group of firearms owners whose rhetoric on firearms I find distasteful and will be seized upon by those opposed to all firearms ownership in Canada to use as a club against us all.

The fact of the matter is that in Canada, there is no constitutional protection for firearms ownership, unlike the US. To run around pretending otherwise and comparing Canada to Venezula is somewhat of a stretch. At least for now.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on March 21, 2019, 14:23:05
I wouldn’t bother buying, may as well just send the money straight the government, they’ll all be illegal soon.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 21, 2019, 14:36:44
I wouldn’t bother buying, may as well just send the money straight the government, they’ll all be illegal soon.

Ah c'mon.  I'm not worried about that.  You really think C-71 will hold water?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on March 21, 2019, 14:43:47
Perhaps not, but this gov has proved it’s willingness to ram through legislation. I think the smart money would be on waiting for the results of the next election before splashing out the cash.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 21, 2019, 15:09:05
Perhaps not, but this gov has proved it’s willingness to ram through legislation. I think the smart money would be on waiting for the results of the next election before splashing out the cash.

That'll just make the Liberals even less popular than they already are.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 21, 2019, 15:11:49
Ah c'mon.  I'm not worried about that.  You really think C-71 will hold water?

You don't need a bill to prohibit firearms.  The Kiwis just did it through an OIC.  I fear (suspect) Ministers Blair and Goodale will do the same thing based on the results of Minister Blair's "extensive consultations".  I, for one, am not buying anything new until after the writ is dropped, at the very least.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 16:44:11
If NZ can do it in a week, and the people clapped, then so will we. I just hope the Cons don't take the bait, what is done by OIC can be reversed by OIC after an election.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 21, 2019, 16:45:38
I feel sometimes, that as a gun owner in Canada, that I am caught between federal politicians, whose endgame motive on firearms ownership I cannot fully trust and a vocal group of firearms owners whose rhetoric on firearms I find distasteful and will be seized upon by those opposed to all firearms ownership in Canada to use as a club against us all.

The fact of the matter is that in Canada, there is no constitutional protection for firearms ownership, unlike the US. To run around pretending otherwise and comparing Canada to Venezula is somewhat of a stretch. At least for now.

Venezuela was a world class economy and near the biggest suppliers of oil in the world. A vibrant, beautiful country. Just like Canada was.

Now they are a cesspool of misery and starvation. Led by the type of socialist dictatorship that so enamours and guides our own lead politician.

Just because Canada hasn't gotten there...yet, doesn't mean we aren't comparable.

Maybe we can ban UHaul vehicles also, or maybe knives. Cars, planes and cows are also on the agenda.

I'm terribly sorry that my concerns seem frivolous to everyone else, but I follow a bigger picture than most, that just look local.

I like to extrapolate and plan for most contingencies. I'm not zeroed in on any single fact or outcome.

Total failure of our government is simply another of those contingencies to plan for. What are the odds? If it's not zero, nobody should be condemned for planning for it.

I cannot fully trust a government whose rhetoric on firearms I find distasteful and will be seized upon by those opposed to all firearms ownership in Canada to use as a club against us all.





Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 21, 2019, 16:56:03
If NZ can do it in a week, and the people clapped, then so will we. I just hope the Cons don't take the bait, what is done by OIC can be reversed by OIC after an election.

...and the next government will flip it again. Maybe we can just rent our guns, four years at a time. We're a hot button, divisive topic that all politicians love to hate and they drag us out every four years to try curry favour. You're doubly screwed if your a Vet. You suffer twice concurrently.

Until property rights are enshrined in the Charter and it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban, we'll continue being ping pong balls and at the mercy of dimwitted, spiteful politicos and parties.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on March 21, 2019, 17:14:23
The fact of the matter is that in Canada, there is no constitutional protection for firearms ownership, unlike the US. To run around pretending otherwise and comparing Canada to Venezula is somewhat of a stretch. At least for now.

Very much so.  A very simple read of the history of Venezuela shows that it is apples and oranges.  That won't stop people from believing it to be true as long as it fits their narrative.

Convince the government that legal gun owners are not the problem.  Except that legal gun owners blew a away a bunch of people in Quebec and Christchurch.

I think we need to move away from the term legal gun owners and go with "lawful" gun owners.  Anyone can do illegal things withy legal tools.  Knives, cars, Tylenol.  A legal gun owner can do unlawful things. 

So lawful gun owners are not the issue.  It's the unlawful ones that need to be targeted.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 21:18:02
Very much so.  A very simple read of the history of Venezuela shows that it is apples and oranges.  That won't stop people from believing it to be true as long as it fits their narrative.

Convince the government that legal gun owners are not the problem.  Except that legal gun owners blew a away a bunch of people in Quebec and Christchurch.

I think we need to move away from the term legal gun owners and go with "lawful" gun owners.  Anyone can do illegal things withy legal tools.  Knives, cars, Tylenol.  A legal gun owner can do unlawful things. 

So lawful gun owners are not the issue.  It's the unlawful ones that need to be targeted.

There's no apples or oranges or hunting in Venezuela because the starving people ate everything already  ;)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 21, 2019, 22:07:29
what is done by OIC can be reversed by OIC after an election.
... but by then the semis and handguns will have been collected and destroyed.  There will be no need for an OIC and the Liberal opposition will push very hard against it.

.....and it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban....

Look at the budget.  There is NO money set aside to finance any buybacks.  The gun grabbers have supported Bill C-71 and Minister Blair's campaign against handguns and semis on the pretext that there will be confiscation without compensation, just like in the 1990's.  The LAST thing the Liberals want to do is to alienate the antis by being too soft in their application of the bans.  The Liberals will need to show immediate results in order to capitalize on the support of the anti-gun crowd before the election.

My firm belief is that bans are coming - soon.  Handguns, semi rifles and shotguns and, for good measure, pump shotguns. They will be overarching, comprehensive, immediate and diligently enforced.   There will be no grandfathering.  There will be no buyback and there will be at least a Liberal minority government in October as a result.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 21, 2019, 22:20:28
... but by then the semis and handguns will have been collected and destroyed.  There will be no need for an OIC and the Liberal opposition will push very hard against it.

Look at the budget.  There is NO money set aside to finance any buybacks.  The gun grabbers have supported Bill C-71 and Minister Blair's campaign against handguns and semis on the pretext that there will be confiscation without compensation, just like in the 1990's.  The LAST thing the Liberals want to do is to alienate the antis by being too soft in their application of the bans.  The Liberals will need to show immediate results in order to capitalize on the support of the anti-gun crowd before the election.

My firm belief is that bans are coming - soon.  Handguns, semi rifles and shotguns and, for good measure, pump shotguns. They will be overarching, comprehensive, immediate and diligently enforced.   There will be no grandfathering.  There will be no buyback and there will be at least a Liberal minority government in October as a result.

Please read my response again.
What I said was,

"Until property rights are enshrined in the Charter and it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban, "

No sweat, I'm used to it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on March 21, 2019, 22:22:10
So if immediate Bans are arbitrarily applied and 10s of thousands of Canadians have the property stolen by the government in the next few months; what kind of a backlash would you expect to see? Especially after the country and the world views the gong show going on in Ottawa?  As I have said before, fur will fly. Lucky if Canada will be intact within a few years.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 21, 2019, 22:44:59
I've had some doubt that ruination was the end game. Those doubts are losing ground quicker with every day that passes.

I'm glad its coming to an end, only because I've become tired waiting for the hammer to drop for almost four years.

I haven't looked much and dont know if it could work, but if the Speaker sides with the Conservatives on the budget vote, I understand the trudeau grits could fall to a no confidence vote?

There's the Mother of all Hail Mary passes.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 22:49:56
... but by then the semis and handguns will have been collected and destroyed.  There will be no need for an OIC and the Liberal opposition will push very hard against it.

Look at the budget.  There is NO money set aside to finance any buybacks.  The gun grabbers have supported Bill C-71 and Minister Blair's campaign against handguns and semis on the pretext that there will be confiscation without compensation, just like in the 1990's.  The LAST thing the Liberals want to do is to alienate the antis by being too soft in their application of the bans.  The Liberals will need to show immediate results in order to capitalize on the support of the anti-gun crowd before the election.

My firm belief is that bans are coming - soon.  Handguns, semi rifles and shotguns and, for good measure, pump shotguns. They will be overarching, comprehensive, immediate and diligently enforced.   There will be no grandfathering.  There will be no buyback and there will be at least a Liberal minority government in October as a result.

100 percent agree. They are wickedly desperate now to switch the channel from SNC.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 21, 2019, 23:25:33
And what better way than to enrage millions of gun owners, who don't vote Liberal, anyway.

They get to change the channel on SNC.

In fact, they stand to gain the more they goad gun owners- some of whom are virtualiy garaunteed to say and do inflammatory things, which will then run 24/7 on CBC Newsworld.

Cynical and very, very dangerous.

The CPC had better have already gamed this out.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on March 21, 2019, 23:34:52
And what better way than to enrage millions of gun owners, who don't vote Liberal, anyway.

They get to change the channel on SNC.

In fact, they stand to gain the more they goad gun owners- some of whom are virtualiy garaunteed to say and do inflammatory things, which will then run 24/7 on CBC Newsworld.

Cynical and very, very dangerous.

The CPC had better have already gamed this out.

And the Liberals are too self absorbed to game this out and see the damage they are foisting on to the country.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 22, 2019, 00:16:36
Please read my response again.
I read it.  I focused on the line related to the topic at hand.

What I said was,

"Until property rights are enshrined in the Charter and it will cost a government millions upon millions to buy back whatever they decide to ban, "

Yup, but property rights never were, and will not be enshrined in the constitution in our lifetime and probably never.

No sweat, I'm used to it.

If you believe I quoted you out of context, I am sorry.  But, like you, I represent everything Liberals disdain and I'm taking this upcoming gun grab very, very personally as it's a disgusting, self serving and deeply offensive affront to the values I spent my entire adult life defending. I will fight it and I will campaign vigorously against any politician who supports it as it is symbolic of a government's mistrust of those who brought them to power and it's desire to rule rather than govern Canada.

The really sad part is that I will most probably also comply.  The last 40 years have conditioned me to be a creature of duty.  I still obey lawful authority.  To do otherwise, even if I don't agree with the law, is wrong and could very well see me in jail or, at least, unemployed.  I will not sacrifice my career and my family's livelihood for simple property, no matter how valuable it may be in my eyes.

if there is time between the OIC publication and the implementation, I will either sell or transfer my guns to some American friends in the hopes a future government will overturn the bans some day.  But I'm sure the Liberals will find a way to close that loophole, too.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 22, 2019, 11:12:26
I don't own guns. I shoot with a hand gun in the US with a friend who has several kinds of wpns.

Is it possible to move your guns to the US, store them in a facility, and go there to shoot as an alternative to losing them completely?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on March 22, 2019, 11:26:20
All we have to do is make being a criminal illegal. That way, nobody will ever get killed again, too easy.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 22, 2019, 12:05:24
I don't own guns. I shoot with a hand gun in the US with a friend who has several kinds of wpns.

Is it possible to move your guns to the US, store them in a facility, and go there to shoot as an alternative to losing them completely?

It's possible, but it's a royal pain in the butt... and ultimately not worth it.  Might as well look for a long term posting in the states instead.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 22, 2019, 12:25:26
All we have to do is make being a criminal illegal. That way, nobody will ever get killed again, too easy.
Where were you 313 posts ago?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on March 22, 2019, 14:48:47
I don't own guns. I shoot with a hand gun in the US with a friend who has several kinds of wpns.

Is it possible to move your guns to the US, store them in a facility, and go there to shoot as an alternative to losing them completely?

I found this.

https://www.ezbordercrossing.com/the-inspection-experience/transporting-firearms/bringing-firearms-into-the-u-s/

This part:it is unlawful for non-U.S. residents to possess or obtain firearms or ammunition while in the U.S.
but there are a few exception listed on that page.

Short answer might be no.  But I am not sure.  I heard that ironically, bringing a gun into the US legally is apparently harder than legally bringing in a gun to Canada.  Not sure if that is true or not.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 22, 2019, 17:01:28
If your paperwork is in order, it takes no time at customs. We used to shoot competition almost every weekend over there. I still cross yearly, more than once with guns. Sometimes I've never even been sent to secondary. Just know the laws and have your papers ready. If you didn't have your own, you borrowed one, at the range. All legal and easily doable.

Same if we won a gun as a prize. Report to Customs on return and it's almost easier to register it through them than on your own.

Taking firearms into the states, for legal reasons, is not a heartache. Most times you spend way less time with US Border Patrol than Canada Customs. Even if you don't bring anything back. Just tell them you were over there shooting, then settle in for the wait. At least you're back on your side of the border.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 23, 2019, 20:49:21
 :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 23, 2019, 21:52:32
:Tin-Foil-Hat:

I've conversed with a number of gun owners who hold on to this belief that gun ownership will be deregulated and gun owners won't need to possess a licence to own guns. At the very minimum licenses are cash grabs for the government and the government loves it's money. Need a license for everything these days. I don't see it happening.

But what do you think of this idea.

I think the system the RCMP has in place for handgun ownership and transfers is working. For the most part handguns are difficult enough to find on the black market and we don't have the same guns everywhere problem the US does.

What if all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were treated the same way as handguns WRT all being registered with the RCMP and require RCMP approval and facilitation of transferring. On the same note "AR15s" and other semi-autos under 18.5 would be treated like non-restricted firearms and you could bring them to private ranges, private property or use them on crown land.

Would registering all semis and having the RCMP involved be a worth while trade off to use them like non-restricted firearms?  With a big caveat that the RCMP wouldn't be banning named guns willy nilly and confiscating them.

It may not be a popular opinion among gun owners but I actually think the RCMP registration/transfer process works.  What do you (or anyone else) think?

All semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are registered through the RCMOP
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on March 23, 2019, 22:05:17
I've conversed with a number of gun owners who hold on to this belief that gun ownership will be deregulated and gun owners won't need to possess a licence to own guns. At the very minimum licenses are cash grabs for the government and the government loves it's money. Need a license for everything these days. I don't see it happening.

But what do you think of this idea.

I think the system the RCMP has in place for handgun ownership and transfers is working. For the most part handguns are difficult enough to find on the black market and we don't have the same guns everywhere problem the US does.

What if all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were treated the same way as handguns WRT all being registered with the RCMP and require RCMP approval and facilitation of transferring. On the same note "AR15s" and other semi-autos under 18.5 would be treated like non-restricted firearms and you could bring them to private ranges, private property or use them on crown land.

Would registering all semis and having the RCMP involved be a worth while trade off to use them like non-restricted firearms?  With a big caveat that the RCMP wouldn't be banning named guns willy nilly and confiscating them.

It may not be a popular opinion among gun owners but I actually think the RCMP registration/transfer process works.  What do you (or anyone else) think?

All semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are registered through the RCMOP



It would work if it was just pistols. Too me it is a non starter because hunters do use Semi long guns and shotguns all the time. You are missing the whole point of this Gun Control push, that is the long game of Anti gun zealots is that they want all guns gone. Period.


As long as only Government controlled forces and / or Criminals have access to guns, this is bad news for a society that respects the rule of law and freedom of lawful citizens.

 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 23, 2019, 23:21:11
For the most part handguns are difficult enough to find on the black market and we don't have the same guns everywhere problem the US does.
Illegal guns can be had within hours in most urban centres for under $500 cash.  Want an 'untraceable' one, it'll cost you about $1500.

What if all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were treated the same way as handguns WRT all being registered with the RCMP and require RCMP approval and facilitation of transferring.
What if I told you that somewhere, someone has a copy of the former LGR just waiting to be uploaded after C-17 passes? Government records are never really "destroyed" unless it's done to protect the government.
 
It may not be a popular opinion among gun owners but I actually think the RCMP registration/transfer process works.  What do you (or anyone else) think?
I actually agree with you in this regard.  My main beef with C-71 is that the system we have now works very well for law abiding gun owners.  But, just like in the senior ranks of the CAF, politicians and bureaucrats like to have that "leading change" bubble ticked off on their PER, whether that change is good, proper and required, or not.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 23, 2019, 23:42:49
Illegal guns can be had within hours in most urban centres for under $500 cash.

I've heard they're harder to obtain which is one of the reasons a lower level gangs share guns between them use dead drops but the $500 is just as believable.

Quote
Want an 'untraceable' one, it'll cost you about $1500.
i'd prefer GPS enabled  ;D

Quote
What if I told you that somewhere, someone has a copy of the former LGR just waiting to be uploaded after C-17 passes? Government records are never really "destroyed" unless it's done to protect the government.
We've seen that of course.

I don't see how the LGR would really assist police officers.  I sold all but two of the guns I registered years ago. We weren't required by law to keep track of who bought what after the LGR was dismantled so the info seems mostly useless to me?

Quote
I actually agree with you in this regard.  My main beef with C-71 is that the system we have now works very well for law abiding gun owners.  But, just like in the senior ranks of the CAF, politicians and bureaucrats like to have that "leading change" bubble ticked off on their PER, whether that change is good, proper and required, or not.
I've also read gun owners in Canada are statistically more law abiding than non gun owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 23, 2019, 23:52:09
I've conversed with a number of gun owners who hold on to this belief that gun ownership will be deregulated and gun owners won't need to possess a licence to own guns. At the very minimum licenses are cash grabs for the government and the government loves it's money. Need a license for everything these days. I don't see it happening.

I don't see it happening either. I've never heard of anyone that ever thought it was all going away. At that though, I am satisfied with the the basics of what we have. I would like some of the restricted rifles designations lifted. The 'assault rifle' argument is hyperbolic horse hockey. There isn't a single valid arguement for any of the reasons, whether large capacity mags or pistol grips. I'm good with the handgun registration system. I would like the class system reviewed. I've never had any real problem with transfers back and forth.
Confiscation will accomplish nothing. Except piss off millions, pull scarce resources from cops while they run around collecting magazines, cause people to do things they would never do otherwise and put lots and lots of people in danger of one sort or another. Attacks won't stop or diminish, theyll just become more savage, bloody and terrifying.

I am also a believer that every person that has or carries firearms, except military, should have a PAL course.
Permits for handguns? Sure, as long as I can take it to any range set up for it and to anywhere else related to the handgun, like a gunshop or smith or to the border.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 24, 2019, 10:20:56
I've also read gun owners in Canada are statistically more law abiding than non gun owners.
That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of another group of sports enthusiasts/hobbyists who stand to lose their hobby, their property and possibly their freedom and end up with a criminal record for even a minor transgression of the often confusing and poorly conceived laws of our passion.  or any other law, for that matter.  Defend yourself in a domestic assault?  You're prone to violence.  Lose your guns.  (If you think I made that up, it happened to a relative.  Yes, he eventually got his guns back, almost three years later,  but he was guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the Firearms Act.)

And what other legal segment of the sporting/hobby community stands to be criminalized at the stroke of a pen from a government who panders to vocal special interest groups?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on March 24, 2019, 10:35:38
That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of another group of sports enthusiasts/hobbyists who stand to lose their hobby, their property and possibly their freedom and end up with a criminal record for even a minor transgression of the often confusing and poorly conceived laws of our passion.  or any other law, for that matter.  Defend yourself in a domestic assault?  You're prone to violence.  Lose your guns.  (If you think I made that up, it happened to a relative.  Yes, he eventually got his guns back, almost three years later,  but he was guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the Firearms Act.)

And what other legal segment of the sporting/hobby community stands to be criminalized at the stroke of a pen from a government who panders to vocal special interest groups?
That, in my way of thinking is a very key point. This result is very unjust, grossly unfair and non democratic.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 24, 2019, 11:04:27
That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.

While I dont disagree we, firearms enthusiasts, have everything to lose I don't think that is the reason. 

Simply put criminals have no interest in spending the time or capital it takes gain the ability to walk into a store and legally buy firearms and ammunition.  Not to mention the licencing process would preclude most of them anyways, think back ground checks and references.

Its my opinion that the reason legal firearms owners aren't the cause of any significant gun crime in Canada is:

1) Those seeking to legally obtain firearms don't have a preclusion or background of criminal behavior to begin with, and;

2) Our current licencing program is effective in deterring and weeding the bad apples out.

I would change two things though:

1) The PAL/RPAL courses should have implemented a practical marksmanship portion with additional fees to cover the expenses, and;

2) The AR platform should be moved to the non-restricted catagory, as its position in the restricted catagory is based solely on aesthetics and not about functionality or capability.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 11:47:53
An article in today's G&M (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-critics-question-ottawas-online-survey-that-found-strong-opposition/) shows the results and, more importantly, calls into question the methodology and reliability of the recent on-line poll commissioned by Minister Blair.

I believe that, as a result of one person's ego-driven statement to the G&M, the "gun lobby" has lost the ethical high ground in this fight.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on March 25, 2019, 12:28:41
An article in today's G&M (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-critics-question-ottawas-online-survey-that-found-strong-opposition/) shows the results and, more importantly, calls into question the methodology and reliability of the recent on-line poll commissioned by Minister Blair.

I believe that, as a result of one person's ego-driven statement to the G&M, the "gun lobby" has lost the ethical high ground in this fight.

While I believe it would be impossible to expect everyone in the firearms community to have the same opinion. It wouldn’t matter one way or the other. The Liberal machine would continue to gaslight the issue for their own purposes.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 13:31:05
The Liberal machine would continue to gaslight the issue for their own purposes.

Having ethically conducted poll results in favour of the regulatory status quo with more emphasis on illegal guns would have made it much harder for the Liberals to gaslight the issue.  We have lost that.  The entire result is suspect.  Even if the questions were slanted towards the achieving the government's aim and roundly opposed, it's now clear that (at least) one side in the debate has deliberately influenced the results.

On the good news (?) side, there is increasing chatter of amending Bill C-71, possibly to include bans, which should result in it going back to the House for a vote then returning to committee for further study.  This would push it beyond the writ being dropped and it would die on the order paper.  Not a bad thing, IMO.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 25, 2019, 15:51:19
the fact the RCMP chose to put these words in bold suggests something else is going to happen between now and 2021: "The Order will provide protection from criminal prosecution for illegal possession of these firearms until February 28, 2021, while the Government implements measures to address continued possession and use.

I'm not sure what was so dangerous about those particular firearms that they had to table them for prohibited firearms anyhow?  Seems like random tooling by the Liberals, to me.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 25, 2019, 15:58:04
Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?  I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 16:30:27
I'm not sure what was so dangerous about those particular firearms that they had to table them for prohibited firearms anyhow?  Seems like random tooling by the Liberals, to me.

First off, the RCMP jumped the gun (pun intended) and were forced to revise the text of the website you referenced.  They have been called to task on that as Bill C-71 has not yet passed.

Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?

This is, for the most part, true.  It's highly uncommon for the MSM to challenge the "facts" trotted out by gun control advocates, such as the "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced", which has been thoroughly disproven.  Some gun control advocates have proposed drastic measures against gun owners and threatened them with violence should they not comply.

I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.


The AR has a bad rep thanks to the MSM, never mind how many lives it's saved and how many good guys/gals have used it to defend others.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 17:07:52
Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?  I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.

That is because the medium is the message and the message is false fake news, proceeding with a communist agenda for their benefactors and bosses.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: FSTO on March 25, 2019, 17:29:34
First off, the RCMP jumped the gun (pun intended) and were forced to revise the text of the website you referenced.  They have been called to task on that as Bill C-71 has not yet passed.

This is, for the most part, true.  It's highly uncommon for the MSM to challenge the "facts" trotted out by gun control advocates, such as the "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced", which has been thoroughly disproven.  Some gun control advocates have proposed drastic measures against gun owners and threatened them with violence should they not comply.
 

The AR has a bad rep thanks to the MSM, never mind how many lives it's saved and how many good guys/gals have used it to defend others.

Heard that quote today by a Dr who is a gun control advocate on Anthony Fury's radio show this morning (Canada Talks on Sirius). He said nothing to the good Dr to refute that claim.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 18:21:35
Heard that quote today by a Dr who is a gun control advocate on Anthony Fury's radio show this morning (Canada Talks on Sirius). He said nothing to the good Dr to refute that claim.
My point is made.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 18:34:09
I've said it before. If you are sitting on a firearms panel for legislation., everyone there should be PAL restricted trained and have at least one good range session under their belt.

It is the norm rather than the exception, that we deal constantly with those that have no idea what the laws are. Firearms owners, by default are the best experts at that.

I'm including police in this also. There are huge amounts of hunters and shooters that have been stopped, searched, harassed and penalized because the officer that was carrying as part of the job has no civilian arms and no PAL. They only try think about firearms laws when a situation is encountered. Even shooters carrying copies of the RCMP rules of transport and storage guidance memo, have not been able to assuage the ire of certain RCMP. Typically, at the station, the Desk Sgt usually prevails with some common sense and education of the officer. If they had the same training as firearms owners, maybe the mistakes would diminish. If councils and boards and committees, had the training, we might not have as much animosity when they finally understand. Unfortunately, most have no interest of becoming educated and are comfortable in their belief that firearms sneak out at night and kill people while the owner sleeps.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 25, 2019, 18:39:17
Gun Control Explained by Rowan Atkinson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwKThyMmi7I

There's a reason this is categorized as comedy.

The reality is that a criminal in Canada can break into your house, and if the judge feels like it... if you defend yourself, and injure the criminal, you can be charged as well.  Because the law is truly blind, and there was an incident of violence on your behalf.

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 18:49:58
There's a reason this is categorized as comedy.

The reality is that a criminal in Canada can break into your house, and if the judge feels like it... if you defend yourself, and injure the criminal, you can be charged as well.  Because the law is truly blind, and there was an incident of violence on your behalf.

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

The only thing a homeowner can do is harden his home, but many local laws prevent that. Or you can run, after you herd all the family out of danger. Or you can have your kids traumatized while the perps beat you and the wife. If you're in bed and the bad guys kick in the door, you have seconds to react. If unarmed, your only recourse is option three and hope you get squeamish assailants. You're either dead or beat, but you shouldn't get charged. I say shouldn't because the Crown appears to have their own thoughts that home invaders aren't the problem, the people that chase them out with guns are.

Call 911, because when seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. To Serve and Investigate.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 25, 2019, 18:56:21
The only thing a homeowner can do is harden his home, but many local laws prevent that. Or you can run, after you herd all the family out of danger. Or you can have your kids traumatized while the perps beat you and the wife. If you're in bed and the bad guys kick in the door, you have seconds to react. If unarmed, your only recourse is option three and hope you get squeamish assailants. You're either dead or beat, but you shouldn't get charged. I say shouldn't because the Crown appears to have their own thoughts that home invaders aren't the problem, the people that chase them out with guns are.

Call 911, because when seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. To Serve and Investigate.

Also, taxpayers have to pay for expanded police protection, while if firearms were allowed as a deterrent to home invasion... as in you can get killed if you break into someone's house... I'm pretty sure criminal b&e would decline rapidly.

Fun fact:  in 2012, Winnipeg was more dangerous per capita in terms of violent crime than Compton.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 19:03:59
The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

Honestly, what's wrong with "reasonable force"? Do you understand the concept of reasonable force?

Reasonable force is not proportional force.  It is force that is reasonable in the circumstances.  It is dependent on situational factors, such as the abilities of the victim and individual perceptions as per CCC s 34(2) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-6.html#h-9\).  For example, a smaller person may have to use very violent, disproportionate force to defend themselves against a bigger aggressor.  This force is reasonable, because proportional force would not have resulted in an adequate defense and the victim reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death and was able to articulate those fears.

I have no problem with reasonable force.  Anything more may subject me to civil or criminal liability.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 25, 2019, 19:20:49
Honestly, what's wrong with "reasonable force"? Do you understand the concept of reasonable force?

Reasonable force is not proportional force.  It is force that is reasonable in the circumstances.  It is dependent on situational factors, such as the abilities of the victim and individual perceptions as per .  For example, a smaller person may have to use very violent, disproportionate force to defend themselves against a bigger aggressor.  This force is reasonable, because proportional force would not have resulted in an adequate defense and the victim reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death and was able to articulate those fears.

I have no problem with reasonable force.  Anything more may subject me to civil or criminal liability.
 (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-6.html#h-9\CCC s 34(2)[/url)

What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2019, 19:49:57
What??   You need to open the criminal code and read what reasonable force is
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 19:58:36
What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.

There's a fair amount of cases where the assailants have sued the homeowner for getting hurt after breaking in.

"I only broke in to steal his beer and he hit me with a golf club. I wasnt even armed, just thirsty."

Civilians bolting out of bed don't know how to recognise subtle aggression moves, or not. They are intent on protecting themselves and their family without consulting on the Use of Force Continuum
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on March 25, 2019, 20:00:08
The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

For reference to the discussion,

The Legality of Self Defence In Canada
https://navy.ca/forums/index.php?topic=97769.75
7 pages.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2019, 20:02:19
Yup.....and "I feared for my life" when weighed by a reasonable and unprejudiced mind allows you to do whatever you need to do....in good faith of course.    Anyone can sue anyone else for anything....that's a whole different ball game.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 20:14:44
What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.

Wrong, on so many levels.  A criminal who uses force to commit an offence does so unlawfully, regardless of the circumstances. 

It becomes an issue for the victim only when the force used is so wildly disproportionate as to be unreasonable in the circumstances.  Someone attacks me with fists, I cannot use force which could reasonably be expected to cause grievous bodily harm or death UNLESS I can articulate that I believed the force was reasonable for me, given the circumstances and the judge (or jury) buys it.

Civilians bolting out of bed don't know how to recognize subtle aggression moves, or not. They are intent on protecting themselves and their family without consulting on the Use of Force Continuum.

Agreed, up to the point where a firearm is used.  The use of lethal force as a "go to" in all circumstances is unacceptable.

Those who argue for concealed carry or the ability to have a firearm readily available for home defense often fail to understand that knowing how to shoot is sometimes less important than knowing when to shoot.  The US is rife with stories of homeowners who fired at sounds and shadows, only to have shot a family member, neighbour or friend.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 20:47:11
Wrong, on so many levels.  A criminal who uses force to commit an offence does so unlawfully, regardless of the circumstances. 

It becomes an issue for the victim only when the force used is so wildly disproportionate as to be unreasonable in the circumstances.  Someone attacks me with fists, I cannot use force which could reasonably be expected to cause grievous bodily harm or death UNLESS I can articulate that I believed the force was reasonable for me, given the circumstances and the judge (or jury) buys it.

Agreed, up to the point where a firearm is used.  The use of lethal force as a "go to" in all circumstances is unacceptable.

Those who argue for concealed carry or the ability to have a firearm readily available for home defense often fail to understand that knowing how to shoot is sometimes less important than knowing when to shoot.  The US is rife with stories of homeowners who fired at sounds and shadows, only to have shot a family member, neighbour or friend.

Then there's this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris some may remember when this happened
Not disagreeing, just filling it out .🙂
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2019, 21:00:44
I got no issue with a firearm being used.....knife, bat, big guy, all could be lethal and therefore lethal force would be "reasonable ".  Just make sure he/she are advancing and not retreating
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 21:20:17
I got no issue with a firearm being used.....knife, bat, big guy, all could be lethal and therefore lethal force would be "reasonable ".  Just make sure he/she are advancing and not retreating

Fully agree.  Considering  the situational factors, as per my post No. 347, above, lethal force can be quite reasonable.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 25, 2019, 21:42:10
Then there's this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris some may remember when this happened
Not disagreeing, just filling it out .🙂

I remember that well. An all-round trail of errors on the part of the police who were the the substantial authors of this tragedy. He was found guilty of the firearms charges and his wife and children recently lost their bid for compensation from the Laval Police in a decision where that judge saw the conduct of the police far differently than the trial judge in 2007.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 25, 2019, 21:56:01
That decision was issued just this past February, the English version is not yet available in CanLII: Gounis c. Ville de Laval, 2019 QCCS 479 (CanLII), < http://canlii.ca/t/hxm21 >

I note Basil himself is not listed as one of the plaintiffs.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 25, 2019, 22:49:13
Humor me fellas.

In less than 2 weeks the number of Canadians killed in alcohol related vehicle accidents will surpass the NZ shooting number of fatalities. Up to 4 lives a day are lost on average.

What if, to save lives, we started implementing changes.

Require a license to drink alcohol. Lets say one licence to drink at a bar, and another licence to drink at home which involves a police check, maybe some interviews.

You have to call in to the government to get permission to transport alcohol from the store to your house, on top of having a licence.

Limit alcohol consumed at the bar to 5 or 10 drinks.

For those allowed to store alcohol at home, a locked container that's difficult to break into. Which is subject to police inspections.

Prohibit certain brands of beer with higher alcohol content. Prohibit some alcohol based on popularity or even how the bottles look.

Now I know that probably sounds obnoxious and clearly there's a difference between a bottle of beer and an AR15. Personally I get annoyed when gun owners start droning on about banning trucks and knives.

But if the big rallying call here is about saving lives in Canada, well alcohol is a factor in more deaths than firearms by a pretty big margin.
Plus I would also argue a larger factor in suicides, assault, sexual assault, maybe robbery?





On a side note every day an average of 11 people overdose in Canada on opioids. Of course someone overdosing on opioids in a mcdicks bathroom isn't as violent as someone shooting up a school (more of a someone elses problem) but again if lives are lives and suicide gets included in "gun deaths" 11 people (accidentally) killing themselves every day is a pretty huge problem isn't it?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 26, 2019, 12:35:40
The reason though for your ideas is saving lives.

The government gun plans are not safety related or victim related. If they were, they'd be settled by now. That is a well orchestrated curtain of deceit.

The government gun plans are being used for confiscation, not safety.

Safety is simply a convenient excuse to muddy the waters and distract from their real reason.

Simply, the government is saying, "we don't trust you with guns and we won't let you keep them"

Why would they be afraid of gun owners?

When your government tells you you don't need a gun, you need a gun.

Numerous examples exist where confiscation has led to subjugation and genocide after taking place.

Can it happen here? Never say never. The Brits tried confiscating everyone's guns just before the American Revolution. Things might have been different had the colonials complied.

More recently, we can look to Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, Mao, to name few.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 26, 2019, 13:03:05
I know this article  (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-ottawa-gun-control-pressure-1.5070589) is from the CBC but it's fairly well balanced for a change.  The one point that the author misses is that the Trudeau government can also show courage and responsibility by NOT following New Zealand`s  lead and bowing to the strident cries of the anti-gun crowd and the intent of the terrorist who openly stated in his manifesto that he wanted his attack to precipitate exactly this type of assault on gun ownership in NZ (and America) so it would become a highly divisive international issue.

Trudeau desperately needs to start displaying integrity if he is to salvage his party`s future by October.  Leaving lawful gun owners alone and targeting criminals would be a great start.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 26, 2019, 13:38:17
That's a strategy fraught with the perils of exercising common sense in an irrational debate.   
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 26, 2019, 13:45:17
That's a strategy fraught with the perils of exercising common sense in an irrational debate.
True, but I'm feeling particularly optimistic today.  Must be the sunshine.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 26, 2019, 15:33:17
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y


The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 semi-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.

$500 million for 15'000 if I'm reading that right. In Canada I believe there's an estimated 50'000 AR15s alone and a hell of alot more guns that would fall under a military style /detachable magazine clause. Litterally millions I'd guess.

NZ gun owners also want more compensation for magazines (I have 9 P226 mags at $65 a pop), expensive reloading equipment and especially ammunition.

I'd imagin Canadians would demand the same.

Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or confiscate millions of dollars or private property. Tough choices for Mr T.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: TimneyTime on March 26, 2019, 16:05:21
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y


The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 smti-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.

$500 million for 15'000 if I'm reading that right. In Canada I believe there's an estimated 50'000 AR15s alone and a hell of alot more guns that would fall under a military style /detachable magazine clause. Litterally millions I'd guess.

NZ gun owners also want more compensation for magazines (I have 9 P226 mags at $65 a pop), expensive reloading equipment and especially ammunition.

I'd imagin Canadians would demand the same.

Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or confiscate millions of dollars or private property. Tough choices for Mr T.

The idea of paying taxes so that the government can buy back my guns is kind of circular too.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 26, 2019, 16:17:12
My reloading equipment is off the table. I reload for guns other than semi's & rifles fire pistol cartridges. Other than an ancillary relationship. My reloading stuff won't kill anyone. Besides, it can't figure out how the door works.

On the other hand, I caught my guns having a party the other night and stopped them before they went downtown and caused trouble. They thought about pushing it, but I reminded them, I was the one that feeds them. They grudgingly returned to their rooms. You think they didn't have a brain sometimes. :facepalm:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 26, 2019, 16:25:43
I'd imagine Canadians would demand the same.
That would be asking the government for more than they can give right now.

Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or confiscate millions of dollars or private property.
As I pointed out before, there is no money earmarked in the FY 2019/2020 budget for compensation following a ban.

Tough choices for Mr T.
  He's used to tough choices.  He's just not used to accepting the consequences of those choices.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 26, 2019, 17:36:05
  He's used to tough choices.  He's just not used to accepting the consequences of those choices.

He doesn't make tough choices, he throws darts. He has no idea what he's doing as he bumbles from one fiasco to another. All he hopes for, is that if it goes in the shitter, he has someone to blame.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on March 26, 2019, 17:44:10
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y


The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 semi-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.

$500 million for 15'000 if I'm reading that right. In Canada I believe there's an estimated 50'000 AR15s alone and a hell of alot more guns that would fall under a military style /detachable magazine clause. Litterally millions I'd guess.

NZ gun owners also want more compensation for magazines (I have 9 P226 mags at $65 a pop), expensive reloading equipment and especially ammunition.

I'd imagin Canadians would demand the same.

Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or confiscate millions of dollars or private property. Tough choices for Mr T.

We can demand all we want, everyone here knows what we'll get is the square root of frig all.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 26, 2019, 20:40:04
TBH the feds are setting themselves up for an epic constitutional battle with provinces who, should they choose, have a lot of firepower. If Kenney wins the election in AB, the block from AB to Ont. will be looking to backhand the feds on pretty much every issue they can. The mission for firearms owners is to push for enshrined property rights.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SentryMAn on March 28, 2019, 10:32:47
Why gun control works....for reasonable society
If no one has guns and a fight breaks out, the hospital deals with a couple broken bones, a concussion, some lacerations, etc.
If a fight breaks out and everyone has guns, the coroner is called, the police need to make notifications, the wounded are arrested, families destroyed, the good guys get shot by the police, etc.

I'm not against gun ownership, I could care less about you spending 1000's on arming yourself for when the government gets overthrown by......the military? Militia? USA?  still trying to figure out what people are arming themselves against.

Responsible ownership of weapons and guns SHOULD be what every person in Canada is looking for.  I really don't want to go down the road of the USA where I get stopped for speeding and need to be removed from my car by a trigger happy gun pointing officer of the law for possibly having a firearm in my car. 

Do you really want some Joe kid with a fake ID walk into a gun store and pay a few quid for a gun then walk out after 20mins of pleading with the store owner?

does anyone really believe the ideology that to solve the gun problem we need more guns?  Why is it that guns make people feel safe?  Why are people scared of some mythical uprising of the totalitarian state?  Are we all scared of Putin?

Flame away.....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 28, 2019, 10:45:33
Quote from: Sentry Man


I'm not against gun ownership, I could care less about you spending 1000's on arming yourself for when the government gets overthrown by......the military? Militia? USA?  still trying to figure out what people are arming themselves against.


Thats as pig headed as me saying I'm not against you buying alcohol so you can.... get women drunk to date rape them?   
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 28, 2019, 10:48:58
Responsible ownership of weapons and guns SHOULD be what every person in Canada is looking for.

Canada already does have responsible ownership of firearms and that privilege is exercised by two million Canadians every day.  If you read through the 300+ posts that precede yours you'll see that the focus of current government initiatives on gun "control" are aimed at those 2M Canadians that are already responsible.  There is nothing - absolutely NOTHING in Bill C-71 to address current and future criminal acquisition and use of illegal firearms.

Do you really want some Joe kid with a fake ID walk into a gun store and pay a few quid for a gun then walk out after 20mins of pleading with the store owner?

The instances of this happening in Canada (and I suspect you're unaware of how the current laws work to have made such a statement) is so rare as to be statistically insignificant.  Again, current gun "control" initiatives will do nothing to stop Joe Kid from buying an illegal gun smuggled in from the US out of the trunk of a car.  And it'll cost a heck of a lot more than a few quid.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SentryMAn on March 28, 2019, 11:14:00
My apologies, I need to remember the audience of this board isn't "general public" and more geared towards trained military members/former members.

I'm used to the Canadians wanting the 2nd amendment in Canada and allowing open carry and everything that comes with it



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on March 28, 2019, 12:43:26
My apologies, I need to remember the audience of this board isn't "general public" and more geared towards trained military members/former members.

I'm used to the Canadians wanting the 2nd amendment in Canada and allowing open carry and everything that comes with it

There are some on here who want exactly that, and would go a step further and believe guns should be treated like, oh let's say... breakfast cereal. Production standards for sure, but no real laws when it comes to buying, selling, owning, using, sharing, etc.

So, while we're definitely more a "right leaning" site when it comes to gun laws, I would say the majority of us on here thing that gun laws and gun control are good thing, but that those laws need to be smart and based on real data. Most probably don't want it to be like the US where you can go into a store without any kind of licence or training and buy a gun. In fact, most states have passed laws that expressly state that it is illegal to MAKE gun laws requiring licences and registration, meaning to create licencing nad registration laws, they'd first have to repeal the anti-licence and registration laws.

I, for one, used to be much more pro gun-control, but the people here make sound arguments, and it's hard to be pro-gun control (the really strict kind of gun control) when you stop and listen and hear the facts.

When it comes to the US, I'm mixed. I don't personally believe that we need guns for "home protection" or "self defence" here in Canada, but in the US, there are SO MANY FREAKING GUNS that if I lived there, I would probably want one too. Other than making guns illegal and forcibly taking guns away from all gun owners to reduce the number of guns in the US, no gun control law, IMO, will take away the threat posed by the fact that there are just an unbelievable number of guns, both legal and illegal, floating around the states.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on March 28, 2019, 14:02:18
I think that it might just be as simple as not criminalising legal law abiding gun owners when the government moves the goal posts.

Grandfathering people who followed the rules might be nice too.

People like to use the car license analogy.  Well when they moved to graduated licensing in Ontario, current licensees didn't have to go back and redo the new tests and conditions.

I think a vast majority of the pro gun lobby in Canada aren't against certain legislation surrounding fire arms just legislation that they feel unfairly treats them when all they do is follow the rules. 

 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 28, 2019, 15:59:29
I think that it might just be as simple as not criminalising legal law abiding gun owners when the government moves the goal posts.
The problem is that the government rarely moves the goalposts in favour of law abiding gun owners.  By default, they become as criminalized as the gang bangers.  What would be nice is if simple paper gun crimes were decriminalized and dealt with administratively instead.

Grandfathering people who followed the rules might be nice too.
  This statement implies that something needs to be grandfathered because it was banned. 

I think a vast majority of the pro gun lobby in Canada aren't against certain legislation surrounding fire arms just legislation that they feel unfairly treats them when all they do is follow the rules.

But it's because they follow the rules that law abiding gun owners are an easy target for new laws.  For the most part, they will comply, likely grudgingly, because they are law abiding.  This gives the government the social justice "win" needed.  The Liberals know that criminal possession and use of firearms is already outlawed.  They can "re-outlaw" it.  So, they go after something they can outlaw (like handguns) so they can be seen to have done "something".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on March 28, 2019, 19:05:19
If I had guns that were required to be turned in, they’d be going through a 80 ton press on the way to their internment.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 28, 2019, 19:11:45
There are some on here who want exactly that, and would go a step further and believe guns should be treated like, oh let's say... breakfast cereal. Production standards for sure, but no real laws when it comes to buying, selling, owning, using, sharing, etc.

Not trying to force an issue, but I don't think I've seen anyone here voice that extreme an opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you point me to a post where the user that said they preferred no gun laws whatsoever and give things over to the 1800's Old West? That would be akin to saying they want criminals to have the same status as law abiding owners.  :dunno:

On the face, that seems a rather, over the top, hyperbolic statement.


Why gun control works....for reasonable society
If no one has guns and a fight breaks out, the hospital deals with a couple broken bones, a concussion, some lacerations, etc.
If a fight breaks out and everyone has guns, the coroner is called, the police need to make notifications, the wounded are arrested, families destroyed, the good guys get shot by the police, etc.

Hmmmm, where to start. Gun control, as envisioned by our current government, doesn't work. Full stop. They go for votes, not safety. Law abiding citizens are penalized because they are easy prey for the propaganda and derision spread by Blair, Trudeau, Goodale and Toronto's John Tory, to name a few. Their disinformation campaign would make Joseph Goebbels blush with envy. It would take balls and guts for a government to tackle the criminal side of the issue, but our government is impotent and disinterested when it comes to tackling the criminals.

If they are intent on causing bodily harm, as with a gun, they will employ whatever they have at hand or brought with them. Bats, golf clubs, axes, knives, swords, trucks or explosives........Oh, plus, zipguns and homemade firearms. It will be much more bloody and horrific, than if a gun had been used. The end results are the same, but bloodier and more violent.  The coroner will still be called, the police will still need to make notifications, the wounded will still be arrested(?not sure where you were going with that?), families will still be destroyed, the good guys will still get shot by police, etc, as per your explanation.


I'm not against gun ownership, I could care less about you spending 1000's on arming yourself for when the government gets overthrown by......the military? Militia? USA?  still trying to figure out what people are arming themselves against.

If you could care less, why come here and ask? Are you trying to inflame things? A person can own a firearm for any number of reasons, not just the single one you've stated or decided to hang your hat on. Is there a reason someone should not be prepared for any contingency? It may only be 1% of the overall reasons for owning, but it doesn't hurt anyone to look toward all options. Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Better to hope, but be prepared, in case. What is wrong with that? It's not prepping, or militia or anything else. It's a thought, a "What if?", a combat estimate, if you will. Isn't that what the military pounds into every leader's head? Never say never.

Responsible ownership of weapons and guns SHOULD be what every person in Canada is looking for.  I really don't want to go down the road of the USA where I get stopped for speeding and need to be removed from my car by a trigger happy gun pointing officer of the law for possibly having a firearm in my car.

It is what every gun owner wishes for, but that is not what some Canadians and our government wish for. If you have not had concealed carry training, don't know the laws or mechanics of it, don't know how, or refuse to properly respond to an officer's instructions, you'll have the hard time your expecting. Learn the rules, take the training, etc, then you can talk from a position of knowledge, instead of ignorance. If your speeding, your already breaking the law, aren't you. Not what we want in law abiding firearms owners. Is it?



Do you really want some Joe kid with a fake ID walk into a gun store and pay a few quid for a gun then walk out after 20mins of pleading with the store owner?

Where did this happen in Canada? Post me a link please. Otherwise that's a red herring. A hypothetical that doesn't rate any sort of serious answer

does anyone really believe the ideology that to solve the gun problem we need more guns?  Why is it that guns make people feel safe?  Why are people scared of some mythical uprising of the totalitarian state?  Are we all scared of Putin?

Many people are hunters. Many people are collectors. Many have firearms for self defence. Many are target shooters. You, on the other hand, have bypassed the brush and gone straight to throwing the paint bucket at the wall. It appears you're being purposely inflammatory. Why should it concern you what I want to buy or possess. What business is it, of yours, what I own or possess? Has anyone asked you for an inventory of your holdings so they can tell you what you can have or have not? Can I look over your list and tell you what you can keep? Of course not.

Reminds me of an adage though.
If a Conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, nobody can buy one.


Flame away.....

Tanks!

If your queries are genuine. Start reading this thread at the beginning. Then go read The Great Gun Control Debate ver 1.0. A lot of your questions, if not all, have been asked and answered before. Go spend some quality reading time, your perspective might change.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 28, 2019, 19:18:35
If I had guns that were required to be turned in, they’d be going through a 80 ton press on the way to their internment.

I have a standing offer at a die shop, 24/7. :)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: suffolkowner on March 28, 2019, 19:48:52
Before the Christchurch massacre I felt that the Liberals would move handguns to prohibited and semiautomatics to restricted. I am now fearing that there is pressure and opportunity to do more and follow the NZ example. It would be a great wedge issue for the election. My rifles are split almost 50/50 between semis and levers and I am extremely disinclined to lose them. For me they are a tool that I use in my daily/yearly life. For hunting and the removal of predators that threaten my family and livestock. I feel that firearm ownership is more than just a privilege and more like a restricted right. I don't believe my grandfather had any real restrictions on his firearm use (and he used to shoot an excessively large amounts of wildlife a year it was part of his livelihood). In what other case are people advocating that people use an inferior tool and disregard progress. This is probably completely beyond the comprehension of urban voters, unfortunately.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 28, 2019, 22:40:52
Here's an example of more stupidity.

Last Saturday Dean Carr, owner of Select Shooting Supplies in Cambridge Ontario , was knifed in his store. Looks like some nutbar who maybe wanted to commit suicide by cop. Haven't read why yet.

City councillor Mike Mann's response speaks volumes.

Quote
In the wake of Saturday’s incident at a Preston gun shop, city Coun. Mike Mann is asking city staff to develop a list of shops selling guns and ammunition in Cambridge.

“My concern is we don’t know about these gun shops that are located in our communities,” he told council Tuesday.

Mann learned that while the businesses are registered federally and provincially, the city, while issuing a business licence, is unaware of what products or goods are being sold.

“Having a gun store in a downtown core, opposite a park, down the street from a school and close to a senior centre is not appropriate,” Mann said, in reference to Select Shooting Supplies.


https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-story/9245317-cambridge-councillor-wants-better-information-on-city-gun-shops/?fbclid=iwar1ljzhi-p02eibnuw2bj5gi-nqacwf9_wmqs2ohm8xny_minv-68gx6upg

The store owner was *stabbed*.

Why is having a gun store near a park, school and senior center inappropriate?  Because gun owners are waiting months to get their license then buying guns when they finally do get approved and turning around and shooting up senior centers?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 28, 2019, 23:12:24
Interesting. SAIL is just up the road from there. The second floor is where all the iron is. There is a bank and a liquor store nearby, there's another deadly mixture  ::)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SentryMAn on March 29, 2019, 06:19:41

Quote from: SentryMAn on Yesterday at 09:32:47

Why gun control works....for reasonable society
If no one has guns and a fight breaks out, the hospital deals with a couple broken bones, a concussion, some lacerations, etc.
If a fight breaks out and everyone has guns, the coroner is called, the police need to make notifications, the wounded are arrested, families destroyed, the good guys get shot by the police, etc.

Hmmmm, where to start. Gun control, as envisioned by our current government, doesn't work. Full stop. They go for votes, not safety. Law abiding citizens are penalized because they are easy prey for the propaganda and derision spread by Blair, Trudeau, Goodale and Toronto's John Tory, to name a few. Their disinformation campaign would make Joseph Goebbels blush with envy. It would take balls and guts for a government to tackle the criminal side of the issue, but our government is impotent and disinterested when it comes to tackling the criminals.

If they are intent on causing bodily harm, as with a gun, they will employ whatever they have at hand or brought with them. Bats, golf clubs, axes, knives, swords, trucks or explosives........Oh, plus, zipguns and homemade firearms. It will be much more bloody and horrific, than if a gun had been used. The end results are the same, but bloodier and more violent.  The coroner will still be called, the police will still need to make notifications, the wounded will still be arrested(?not sure where you were going with that?), families will still be destroyed, the good guys will still get shot by police, etc, as per your explanation.


I'm not against gun ownership, I could care less about you spending 1000's on arming yourself for when the government gets overthrown by......the military? Militia? USA?  still trying to figure out what people are arming themselves against.

If you could care less, why come here and ask? Are you trying to inflame things? A person can own a firearm for any number of reasons, not just the single one you've stated or decided to hang your hat on. Is there a reason someone should not be prepared for any contingency? It may only be 1% of the overall reasons for owning, but it doesn't hurt anyone to look toward all options. Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Better to hope, but be prepared, in case. What is wrong with that? It's not prepping, or militia or anything else. It's a thought, a "What if?", a combat estimate, if you will. Isn't that what the military pounds into every leader's head? Never say never.

I have friends that prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse too, if they brought this into a combat estimate I'd politely ask them to proceed directly to mental health

It is what every gun owner wishes for, but that is not what some Canadians and our government wish for. If you have not had concealed carry training, don't know the laws or mechanics of it, don't know how, or refuse to properly respond to an officer's instructions, you'll have the hard time your expecting. Learn the rules, take the training, etc, then you can talk from a position of knowledge, instead of ignorance. If your speeding, your already breaking the law, aren't you. Not what we want in law abiding firearms owners. Is it?

Tell that to the 100's of Americans shot dead each year by cops at routine traffic stops, for listening to and abiding by commands.  Everyone is packing in the USA(ok ya got me, it's like 70% of the population own guns....)

Where did this happen in Canada? Post me a link please. Otherwise that's a red herring. A hypothetical that doesn't rate any sort of serious answer
Follow=-on to the moving towards a USA style gun control system in Canada, where so long as you can pay, you can play....everything else it secondary

does anyone really believe the ideology that to solve the gun problem we need more guns?  Why is it that guns make people feel safe?  Why are people scared of some mythical uprising of the totalitarian state?  Are we all scared of Putin?

Many people are hunters. Many people are collectors. Many have firearms for self defence. Many are target shooters. You, on the other hand, have bypassed the brush and gone straight to throwing the paint bucket at the wall. It appears you're being purposely inflammatory. Why should it concern you what I want to buy or possess. What business is it, of yours, what I own or possess? Has anyone asked you for an inventory of your holdings so they can tell you what you can have or have not? Can I look over your list and tell you what you can keep? Of course not.
What are you hunting with an assault riffle or is this for protection(from what exactly in Canada)?  Collectors can collect.  I picked a segment of the Gun touting population and targeted them. 
I prefer to say I bypassed the Brush and grabbed the paint gun as it does a better job of covering...


Reminds me of an adage though.
If a Conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, nobody can buy one.

Why segregate the population on gun control?  Maybe there are Liberals on your side and maybe there are Cons not.....



Flame away.....

Tanks!

You said a lot of words.....I decided to only read half of them due to time constraints.

I also like teal
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 29, 2019, 10:43:58
Quote from: SentryMAn

Tell that to the 100's of Americans shot dead each year by cops at routine traffic stops, for listening to and abiding by commands.  Everyone is packing in the USA(ok ya got me, it's like 70% of the population own guns....)


Follow=-on to the moving towards a USA style gun control system in Canada, where so long as you can pay, you can play....everything else it secondary

SentryMAn it seems like there is a specific argument you're looking to have here. I'll be honest I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for.  If you really want gun owners to flame you and beat up on you and your assault rifles for hunting style arguments there's probably a number of forums out there (both pro and anti gun) that you'd probably find more fulfilling.     :2c:






This article is about New Zealand gun confiscation but I'm placing it here of the obvious similarities of what could go wrong.

NZ Confiscations Begin: Police Going to Gun Owners’ Homes, Jobs…One Gun Owner Dead
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/luis-valdes/nz-confiscations-begin-police-going-to-gun-owners-homes-jobs-one-gun-owner-dead/



16 year old kid posted a photo of him holding an airsoft rifle and helmet on Facebook, looks like him and his father were airsoft players. People reported the photo to the police who showed up at the homes of his father, mother and grandparents to search for weapons.

Father is ex Russian military and for whatever reason assumed/was afraid of going back to prison and the 3 hour standoff ended in his apparent suicide.

Quote
Upon a search of the residence, police found an 8mm blank pistol, an airsoft rifle, and a SKS carbine. The SKS is now illegal under the country’s new ban.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on March 29, 2019, 11:34:00
Tell that to the 100's of Americans shot dead each year by cops at routine traffic stops, for listening to and abiding by commands.

I call bullcrap.  Since 2015 US police have shot 3309 people.  Only 7% (231) were unarmed.

US police have to, by virtue of the Second Amendment, assume that every traffic stop will result in the presence of a firearm other than the officer's.  Not everybody acutely obeys the officer.  Some think they are trying to help by being proactive during a traffic stop (jumping out of the car with a wallet in their hands, for example).  Others are genuinely obstructive (refusing to take their hands out of pockets) before eventually complying, sometimes too late.

No LEO I know (American or Canadian) wants to shoot somebody.  All LEOs I know want to go home alive at the end of their shifts, though.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 29, 2019, 15:34:33
I thought as much. I could have wrote your post for you, having dealt with these same, comical fantasy comments all the time as a gun owner. Does sentryman even know what an assault rifle is? I'm sure he's trying to speak to what is referred to in law enforcement as Patrol Carbines. These still don't meet definition, but that is ignored by anti gun people. Doesn't fit their fantasy objectives. I'm starting to agree with Jarn. We've had this type here before. The only right answer is the predisposed one they brought here.

I'm not repeating our documented responses, to these open ended, hyperbolic hypothesis. sentryman has no documentation to prove his argument, which are all made up and not based on any kind of truths he can prove. Running on disjointed emotional hate of gun owners. 100's shot in traffic stops yearly by US LE? That is the over the top, emotional, and false info he's bringing to the table and resting his argument on.

Things have been explained, technically and without emotion by members here. Responded to by more of the same.

I refuse to waste time on those that are just looking for an argument based on emotion. I'm not responding anymore to the ignorant emotional drama brought here by those with a torch.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: garb811 on March 29, 2019, 19:25:52
You said a lot of words.....I decided to only read half of them due to time constraints.

I also like teal
SentryMAn:

If your sole intent is to troll the thread, it isn't going to be tolerated. If you wish to actually engage in a reasonable and facts based debate with the remainder of the posters in this thread, bring your contributions up to that level.

Fair Warning

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 01, 2019, 21:32:36
CCFRs response to the handful of Canadian doctors calling for a complete firearms ban.

Doctors didn't like having their ethics and appropriateness questioned and reacted by painting themselves as big victims of bully gun owners.

https://youtu.be/_T41KfeBPrw

There were 13,168 deaths from firearms between 2000 and 2016 in Canada (9919 of which were suicides).

There's an estimated 70,000 Canadians harmed by medical errors per year.  The University Health Network estimates medical errors killed more than 30,000 Canadians in 2014 alone.
Statistically speaking there's one death from medical error per 3 doctors in Canada.

I think I'd feel a little safer knocking those medical mistake numbers down first.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on April 02, 2019, 08:06:46
Not trying to force an issue, but I don't think I've seen anyone here voice that extreme an opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you point me to a post where the user that said they preferred no gun laws whatsoever and give things over to the 1800's Old West? That would be akin to saying they want criminals to have the same status as law abiding owners.  :dunno:

On the face, that seems a rather, over the top, hyperbolic statement.

FJ, I can see how my statement would seem hyperbolic but I promise it's not. I tried looking for the original conversation in v1.0, but couldn't find it.

I've had a poster on here call me a "grabber" just for supporting any form of gun control, and it may have been the same person who, when asked, admitted that they believe we should have no regulation what so ever.

Wish I could provide the source, but that statement (and the "grabber" accusation) both seem to have been removed from the v1.0 thread.

Cheers.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 02, 2019, 18:44:20
Thanks for the effort. 8)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: suffolkowner on April 03, 2019, 21:07:53
two articles by Matt Guerney

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/new-zealand-is-not-showing-canada-the-way-on-gun-control/

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-the-globe-and-mails-little-and-big-gun-control-screwups

pissing in the wind no doubt.

I thought the NZ ban encompassed all semis other than those limited to 5 rd magazines sort of like the M1 with its 8 rd?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 08, 2019, 13:55:53
Senator McPhedran to move Bill C-71 amendment to “prohibit” handguns in Canada


For immediate release
Ottawa, April 8, 2019 – Today at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence’s
(SECD) clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in
relation to firearms, Senator Marilou McPhedran, an independent Senator for Manitoba, will move to
amend clause 16 that already proposes to amend subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code – exactly the
subsection that could also be amended to add handguns to the “prohibited firearm” list in the Code.
“Looking at how swiftly the New Zealand government is moving to prohibit the weapons used in the
mass killings of Muslims in their places of worship, and looking realistically at the Canadian
parliamentary agenda, the Government of Canada has run out of time unless the bill currently before
the Senate is used for a new initiative to deal more effectively with the proliferation of handguns in
Canada.” – Hon. Marilou McPhedran, Independent Senator for Manitoba
During their appearance at SECD on February 18th, 2019, Doctors for Protection from Guns advised
that: “A now abundant and international body of medical evidence shows that reducing access to
guns through regulations saves lives and decreases the burden of injury.” The Coalition for Gun
Control expanded on the link between access to firearms and death, submitting that: “About one in
five (21%) firearm-related deaths in Canada is the result of a criminal offence, while the majority
(79%) are the result of suicide, accident, or legal intervention.” Making it harder to access killing
weapons can reduce occurrence and lethality.
A handgun killed Colton Boushie of the Red Pheasant First Nation in Saskatchewan. In Toronto, Police
Chief Saunders reported that 514 handguns were seized in 2018 - 222 more than in 2017 and 172 more
than in 2016. This amendment is being introduced in light of extensive testimony with factually
accurate evidence heard by the SECD committee from groups such as Doctors for Protection from
Guns, the Coalition for Gun Control, and the Centre culturel islamique de Québec that illustrate the
need for decisive action in combating firearm violence against women, children, and Canadians at
large.
“Prohibition of handguns would strengthen Canada’s leadership internationally, including Canada’s
commitment to the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with SDG 16 on significant
reductions in homicides and SDG 5 on reducing violence against women and girls,” notes Senator
Marilou McPhedran.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on April 08, 2019, 14:10:15
"A handgun killed Colton Boushie of the Red Pheasant First Nation in Saskatchewan."

Can't deny that,  never mind all the other facts and evidence in the case, FFS.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on April 08, 2019, 14:47:06
Thankfully, Sen McPhedran's motion was defeated.  There will not be a handgun ban in C-71.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 08, 2019, 18:35:10
Every single person or group cited is anti gun and their use of half truths and omissions of fact belies the deceit they are employing to get their way by lying to the public.

Firearms owners will never get their side told honestly. Nor will a party, liberal or ndp, ever agree to a proper panel where all sides are given equal weight and experts are vetted for their knowledge of the subject, before being considered experts.

This has nothing to do with firearms safety and classification. It is about incremental confiscation and they won't let facts, feeling or finances get in the way of their social engineering of the Canadian populace.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on April 11, 2019, 14:20:47
This has nothing to do with firearms safety and classification. It is about incremental confiscation and they won't let facts, feeling or finances get in the way of their social engineering of the Canadian populace.

I don't think it's nefarious like that at all. I think people are just genuinely ignorant. The mayor of Cambridge Ontario isn't trying to "socially engineer" Canadians, he just holds an honest, but insanely ignorant, belief that having a fully regulated gun store near a liquor store and 2km from a school is somehow dangerous. He believes that banning all guns is necessary and would solve our gun problems. He's not lying and ignoring facts or the opinions of the pro-gun side, he's just stupid.  :nod:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 11, 2019, 14:28:31
I'm not talking mayors or city councillors.

I'm talking about the current federal government.

All gun laws are federal. No one else can do anything about it except them. Every nuance is dictated by the Feds

I don't care about Tory, the Mayor of Cambridge, or anyone else like them, they are just sideshows and only have an opinion. Ignorant or otherwise. They are no different than opinions here.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on April 11, 2019, 14:36:07
I don't think it's nefarious like that at all. I think people are just genuinely ignorant. The mayor of Cambridge Ontario isn't trying to "socially engineer" Canadians, he just holds an honest, but insanely ignorant, belief that having a fully regulated gun store near a liquor store and 2km from a school is somehow dangerous. He believes that banning all guns is necessary and would solve our gun problems. He's not lying and ignoring facts or the opinions of the pro-gun side, he's just stupid.  :nod:

This is the true issue facing firearms owners in Canada, the ignorance of the population.

Most Canadian's don't know what our laws are, and the media is not interested in letting them know. There are far more views/clicks to be had for the media(advertisers) by dragging crying families, half a dozen doctors, or masacre survivors on screen to have them yell about how all guns are evil. (A shooting is what happens on the range when you shoot targets, when you kill people it's a murder, or masacre)

Firearms owners also have a public image problem, because far too often the "from my cold dead hands" crowd is who the media wants to show. They aren't interested in lawyers, doctors, mechanics, store owners,  etc. that advocate for firearms, they want the crazies. Crazies make for more entertaining viewing, and more views works out to more advertising dollars.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on April 11, 2019, 15:01:54
I'm not talking mayors or city councillors.

I'm talking about the current federal government.

All gun laws are federal. No one else can do anything about it except them. Every nuance is dictated by the Feds

I don't care about Tory, the Mayor of Cambridge, or anyone else like them, they are just sideshows and only have an opinion. Ignorant or otherwise. They are no different than opinions here.

I apologize; that was merely a recent and poignant (IMO) example.

I will make the same claim about the federal governement. Some know better but see it as an opportunity to win over voters, but for the most part I believe the politicians are just as ignorant (sometimes willfully so) and are not running some backroom scheme to try and "socially engineer" the population. They just don't like guns, don't understand guns, don't understand why anyone would want to own a gun, and want to see guns gone. That's it.

It's frustrating, I know. I just think we need to look any deeper than that.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 11, 2019, 17:38:28
Quote from: Lumber
not running some backroom scheme to try and "socially engineer" the population.

Quote from: Lumber
They just don't like guns, don't understand guns, don't understand why anyone would want to own a gun, and want to see guns gone. That's it.

Isn't that social engineering?

Quote
the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on April 12, 2019, 07:19:59
Isn't that social engineering?

Which is also interesting because you could also argue it is cultural genocide. Whether people like it or not, firearms have always been a large part of Canadian culture. Early Canada especially was gun crazy, we even helped found the NRA (though the aims of the organization then was to train marksmenship, it wasn't really political at that point).

'Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons'
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 12, 2019, 11:57:47


'Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons'

FTFY  ;)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 13, 2019, 01:05:33
Trudeau government will consider handgun ban if re-elected

https://tnc.news/2019/04/12/trudeau-government-will-consider-handgun-ban-if-re-elected/?fbclid=IwAR3WWRw4s1LMEEqaidiRwO5SQxRQ6avNzuRzQL2xxHUuqbS1A2_-SmEZlxA

Quote
It’s too late to consider a handgun ban before the 2019 federal election this fall, but the Trudeau government will explore it if re-elected.

Bill Blair, Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister, refused to tell the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence if a government-initiated report on the effects of a handgun ban would be finished by the time of the election.

“Canadians expect us to take the time to do it right and I’ve been doing my very best to take that time,” Blair said.

He also inferred that further discussion on a handgun ban may have to wait until after the election this fall.

The committee was discussing the proposed Bill C-71, which amends several of the firearms rules in Canada. Some on the committee wanted to see the report before C-71 becomes law.

One senator, Liberal-appointee Marilou McPhedran, questioned Blair on waiting until after the election to deal with the report on the assumption that the Liberals will win.

“It’s not an assumption, it’s an intent,” he answered.

Bill C-71 proposes a number of changes new restrictions to the purchase of firearms and makes changes to the enforcement of current firearms laws and regulations — but comes short of any form of firearm ban.

Blair had promised a report on the effects of a handgun ban, and public consultations, by the end of 2018. Four months into 2019 the report has yet to be completed.

The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, still discussing C-71, struck down a proposal Monday to put a handgun ban into to the bill.

McPhedran attempted to amend Bill C-71 to include a handgun ban, but that amendment failed 2-6 with three abstentions.

A spokesperson for Bill Blair said that his office plans on releasing the Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction report in “early 2019.”
Well, we can quit worrying for a little while longer.
Blair is also examining central storage.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on April 13, 2019, 10:51:00
Blair is also examining central storage.

Since no club I know of can afford to implement central storage, the government will likely step in to provide, fund or subsidize the facilities.  IMO central storage of firearms in government owned or controlled facilities is covert confiscation.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 13, 2019, 10:55:25
Sheldon Clare and the National Fire Arms Association (NFA), who claims  "THE NFA IS LEADING THE FIGHT AGAINST BAD GUN LAWS - THE UNIFIED VOICE OF THE CANADIAN FIREARMS COMMUNITY" is suing a new but popular Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights.

Copyright infringement and the NFA want money from the CCFR.

Wonderful timing from the NFA and really highlights what they're all about. I'll be interested to see how the lawsuit pans out. The logo in question wasn't originally property of the NFA. Some gun owner made the logo and started sharing it. The NFA unofficially started using it and promoted all gun own owners to use it. A couple years later it's their trade marked property. Weird.

Here's some explanation from the CCFR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1430DEYyZTY&feature=youtu.be


If anyone is looking for a gun org in Canada to join I highly recommend the CCFR. They're the second org I donate to (first being army.ca). I'm biased but where the NFA is a pry guns from my dead fingers type organization the CCFR push firearms education, women using firearms and an all around balanced approach to firearm ownership and firearm rights.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2019, 11:26:13
You know, there is one thing I notice missing in all the firearms control discussions (and to me that is likely because the Canadian media is mostly biassed in favour of the "control" crowd): The differences in National Psyche between Canada and the US.

To my mind, that is in itself the greatest difference between the two nations that explains why our gun violence is much much lower than the US one and really not that significant in overall World wide comparison

In the US, the founding myth are the bloody war of independence  against the British, then the Wild West and it's sharpshooter and the need for everyone to be armed against one another. That Wild West permeated all their police/military and even "gang" movies, etc., which are basically all remakes of the "Shooting at the O.K. Coral" In short, in the US, people see guns as a requirement of protection against other people, and consider their primary use as being for shooting people.

In Canada, we have never really felt such need. Our founding myth are not wild people but wild nature. Our guns are for hunting, to sustain ourselves, and for protection not against one another, but against wild animals likely to hurt us in the woods and to remove threat from these same animals against our herds. Canadians simply don't consider their guns as a safety device for their personal security from other Canadians. And that, to me, explains why we very seldom use them against other people.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on April 13, 2019, 11:39:04
You know, there is one thing I notice missing in all the firearms control discussions (and to me that is likely because the Canadian media is mostly biassed in favour of the "control" crowd): The differences in National Psyche between Canada and the US.

To my mind, that is in itself the greatest difference between the two nations that explains why our gun violence is much much lower than the US one and really not that significant in overall World wide comparison

In the US, the founding myth are the bloody war of independence  against the British, then the Wild West and it's sharpshooter and the need for everyone to be armed against one another. That Wild West permeated all their police/military and even "gang" movies, etc., which are basically all remakes of the "Shooting at the O.K. Coral" In short, in the US, people see guns as a requirement of protection against other people, and consider their primary use as being for shooting people.

In Canada, we have never really felt such need. Our founding myth are not wild people but wild nature. Our guns are for hunting, to sustain ourselves, and for protection not against one another, but against wild animals likely to hurt us in the woods and to remove threat from these same animals against our herds. Canadians simply don't consider their guns as a safety device for their personal security from other Canadians. And that, to me, explains why we very seldom use them against other people.

Interesting generalization. In my opinion there is some truth to this but the sentiment is rapidly evolving. As media becomes more evasive and city population  grows and strays apart from rural roots, Canadians start to want the need of personal protection. They know they are the first line of defence to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 13, 2019, 11:45:18
Protect yourself from a criminal and you become a criminal is the Crown stance.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on April 13, 2019, 13:12:57
If anyone is looking for a gun org in Canada to join I highly recommend the CCFR.

I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.

Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 13, 2019, 14:10:55
I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.

Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".

Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 13, 2019, 14:16:48
Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.

The liberal narrative has moved on. We're white nationalists now. Along with the Yellow Vests.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on April 13, 2019, 14:52:27
I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course.
You know me personally and you know I'm not like that.  As you stated, some participants in this conversation are very polarized to take an all-or-nothing approach to the issue.  it'e either "Canadian Second Amendment NOW" or "No Guns in Canada NOW"

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never.
  We have CCW now, but it's very limited in scope and numbers (less than 1000 nationwide)

Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably.
Yes, but many want it "just because" and not because they need it. They fail to realize that carrying a firearm outside of a training/competition environment is an awful responsibility which opens you up to considerable civil and legal liability should you act in any way inappropriately.  I have very firm views on the general practice of civilian CCW both in the US and here.  But that's for another discussion
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 13, 2019, 18:39:50
I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.

Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".

I couldn't agree with you more.  I find their facebook groups very toxic and I find I have little in common with allot of the participants. 

I find it hard to reason supporting these organizations because of the polarizing posts made by members. 

Personally I have very little issue with our current firearms laws with the exception being what you have already stated and I dream of the day when the AR platform is made NR.  But I know that is probably never going to happen. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 13, 2019, 19:39:17
We have CCW now, but it's very limited in scope and numbers (less than 1000 nationwide)

Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that? The reason I ask is that over the years the numbers I heard were much, much lower that that.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2019, 19:55:40
I know more than a few judges who have them, and some for good reasons. In fact, all for good reasons as it is the one imperative requirement for such permission. Similarly, many Police investigators and Crown attorneys who worked on various gang, drug cartels and other organized crime files get such permit for the rest of their lives. About 1000 in Canada as a whole sounds about right to me, but be certain you will find no statistics on it for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on April 13, 2019, 23:10:54
Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.

Jarnhamar, I think Mr.Giltaca and by extension the ccfr have really done a good job by pushing education instead of the childish rhetoric of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd.

I find the CCFR is far more presentable at the dinner table then the NFA and as such, I do intend to donate to them.. but I agree with was it Haggis? That said that the membership of both groups does leave some to be desired. So while I follow on YouTube, I cant on fb really.

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 14, 2019, 09:24:14
No disagreement here. Social Media is a double-edged ball.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on April 14, 2019, 11:21:20
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that? The reason I ask is that over the years the numbers I heard were much, much lower that that.

The last FIRM number I saw was 678 from 2015.  I've been told by reliable sources that it has gone up since then, with a spike seen after the shooting of a high profile Toronto lawyer in 2016.  So, my statement that the number is "under 1000" is as accurate today as anything you'll get from the Government.  ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 14, 2019, 19:24:38
The last FIRM number I saw was 678 from 2015.  I've been told by reliable sources that it has gone up since then, with a spike seen after the shooting of a high profile Toronto lawyer in 2016.  So, my statement that the number is "under 1000" is as accurate today as anything you'll get from the Government.  ;D

Interesting. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on April 14, 2019, 19:48:17
Jarnhamar, I think Mr.Giltaca and by extension the ccfr have really done a good job by pushing education instead of the childish rhetoric of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd.

I find the CCFR is far more presentable at the dinner table then the NFA and as such, I do intend to donate to them.. but I agree with was it Haggis? That said that the membership of both groups does leave some to be desired. So while I follow on YouTube, I cant on fb really.

Abdullah

This is essentially the same way I think of the CCFR, and the NFA as well.

Just so people are clear, the FB group for the CCFR has many posters/members that aren't actually CCFR members, just people that follow the updates and drama. I'll also point out that I have yet to see an organization made up of people that I agree with on every point, all the time. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with myself all the time...

I suggest joining, or at least donating to the CCFR or CSSA to help them keep up the good fight against the anti-firearms crowd. Both suggested organizations present themselves well, and show the public that all firearms owners aren't crazies. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 16, 2019, 13:08:40
Quote
From Glen Motz, MP for Medicine Hat

"Quietly, the Liberals put out the results of their handgun ban consultation. Overwhelmingly, Canadians do not support a ban on legally acquired handguns. Of the 130k+ responses, 81% said no to further handgun restrictions. Two out of three Canadians who do not currently own any firearms said they did not support a handgun ban. Of note, a majority of women and urban residents are also opposed to the ban"

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: milnews.ca on April 16, 2019, 14:27:54
And for a bit more detail, here's the report (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2019-rdcng-vlnt-crm-dlg/index-en.aspx), with some more results/highlights below.

(I guess MP Motz or his staff don't use Google News much if they think the engagement report was released "quietly" - here's what's out there as of this post (https://www.google.com/search?q=handguns+ban+consultation*&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=sbd:1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmz-H8jdXhAhVpRN8KHVlVBG8QpwUIHw&biw=1787&bih=832&dpr=0.9))
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 16, 2019, 19:47:08


Should Canada track race when it comes to crime like the US does? To include crimes committed with firearms/weapons, by race?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 16, 2019, 20:27:13
Here's an interesting statistics coming off those slides:

While many "elites" and MSM, particularly here in Quebec (where they drag out the Polytechnic shooting every chance they got) are "en bloc" behind further restriction - if not outright ban of handguns and assault weapons, the provided stats would indicate that Quebecers are the ones least in favour of such ban. The percentage of Quebecers who want such step is the group with the lowest level of support from all provinces. interestingly enough, it appears that Ontario is the big driver, with the highest number who want such further restrictions - though still not a majority - and just because of the weight of Ontario in population number, they probably skew the results heavily.

All in all, we will now see if the Liberals govern for their clique's socialistic views or on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent.

P.S.: I believe the results actually depict the fact that Canadians don't generally perceive that there is any gun violence problem in Canada, save the occasional bout here and there, so they don't see this as an issue. It flies in the face of the oft repeated mantra of the MSM decrying the power of Canada's "gun-lobby". IMHO, not only is there not a gun lobby in Canada (unlike in the US), but we rather have the reverse: there is a strong Anti-gun-Lobby which is trying to push their agenda even though, as we now see, Canadians feel no interest in the issue or need to bother with it.
 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chris Pook on April 25, 2019, 18:30:09
There must be a wheen o' a lot o' Cameronians in Indiana

Quote
IN lawmakers OK guns in schools when building is used by, or attached to, a house of worship


APRIL 25, 2019 DAN CARDEN - THE TIMES

Hoosier lawmakers gave final approval Monday to pro-gun legislation just days before the National Rifle Association hosts some 80,000 gun rights advocates, including President Donald Trump, in Indiana’s capital city for the NRA’s national convention.

House Enrolled Act 1284 opens the door for more Hoosiers to carry guns in school buildings where guns generally are forbidden except by special permission of local authorities.

Under the plan, which would take effect July 1, any person legally authorized to carry a firearm may possess it in a school building when the building is being used by a church or other house of worship.

Similarly, a gun owner could bring his or her weapon into any church or religious building that’s connected to a school, so long as the religious institution permits guns within its facilities.

Supporters of the measure said churches that believe their members should be free to carry guns while worshiping shouldn’t have that right denied just because the church holds services in a school building, or because the sanctuary is connected to a school.

On the other hand, state Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, who opposed the measure, said, “I can’t believe that we’re going to have people sitting in church, with firearms, expecting to defend the entire church.”

However, the legislation also provides that if a Hoosier uses a gun in self-defense — whether at a church, school, home or anywhere else — the shooter cannot be sued for civil damages if the person shot was committing a forcible felony or causing serious bodily injury to another person.

The proposal’s immunity against civil damages even applies to lawsuits filed by any surviving relative or the estate of the person injured or killed by a gun owner acting in self-defense.

In addition, the measure makes Indiana’s four-year handgun carry license into a five-year license, and eliminates the $10 application fee and $5 license fee for a five-year license, starting July 1, 2020.

It passed the Republican-controlled House, 64-17, and the Republican-controlled Senate, 37-7, and now goes to Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb to likely be signed into law.

———

© 2019 The Times (Munster, Ind.)


https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/04/in-lawmakers-ok-guns-in-schools-when-building-is-used-by-or-attached-to-a-house-of-worship/?utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=amn&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3YCBtnv_VGZIbyDJIA5bD0kt1DLCeuX7ydVHh4jb6MdeoxSmX1bEUFweI
Quote
Sunday 15th of May is Cameronian Sunday, the nearest to the 14th of May on which the regiment was both raised (1689) and disbanded (1968).

As ever the services are held in the village of Douglas South Lanarkshire, home of the legendary Douglas family who raised the regiment in Covenanting Times.

The day starts at 9 30 am with the raising of the regimental flag, 10 am church service at St Brides Church, 2 pm service at the memorial cairn in the form of a Cameronian Conventicle, piquets at four points of the compass and the all clear given to Minister of no enemy in sight, the service, sermon and hymn proceeds.

"No enemy in sight!"
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 06, 2019, 09:49:47
Interesting. Thanks.

Last week, gun rights advocate and researcher Dennis R. Young received a final reply to an ATIP request for the number of Authorizations to Carry in Canada.  In their initial reply, the RCMP refused to disclose the number of ATCs issued for "protection of life" (e.g. concealed carry) saying that to do so could pose a risk to those persons.  Mr. Young complained to the Information Commissioner.  As a result, the RCMP revised their reply and now state that the number of ATC in Canada specifically for protection of life is ONE.

Speculation is rampant on social media as to who "The ONE" is. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on May 06, 2019, 10:12:04
Last week, gun rights advocate and researcher Dennis R. Young received a final reply to an ATIP request for the number of Authorizations to Carry in Canada.  In their initial reply, the RCMP refused to disclose the number of ATCs issued for "protection of life" (e.g. concealed carry) saying that to do so could pose a risk to those persons.  Mr. Young complained to the Information Commissioner.  As a result, the RCMP revised their reply and now state that the number of ATC in Canada specifically for protection of life is ONE.

Speculation is rampant on social media as to who "The ONE" is.
Well, we know from Kevin Vickers in 2014 that the Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms is armed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 06, 2019, 12:13:49
Well, we know from Kevin Vickers in 2014 that the Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms is armed.

Likely as a consequence of his employment along with 6687 other Canadians (armed guards, couriers etc.). The claimed one (1) ATC for protection of life is probably not him as he's been OUTCAN for a few years and his ATC would have been cancelled/revoked as a result.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on May 07, 2019, 09:11:13
Likely as a consequence of his employment along with 6687 other Canadians (armed guards, couriers etc.). The claimed one (1) ATC for protection of life is probably not him as he's been OUTCAN for a few years and his ATC would have been cancelled/revoked as a result.
I was referring to the position, rather than the individual, in that the concealed carry was a generally unknown aspect (unlike armed guards, etc, who are open carry).

I fully acknowledge that it was merely a guess.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on May 07, 2019, 11:07:12
As a result, the RCMP revised their reply and now state that the number of ATC in Canada specifically for protection of life is ONE.

Speculation is rampant on social media as to who "The ONE" is.

Norm Gardner used to carry. Not sure if he still does? Must be in his 80's by now.

Oops. Apparently not,

"This week Gardner said he’s no longer permitted to carry a gun."
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/01/31/former_pistolpacking_politician_norm_gardner_aims_for_mayor_rob_fords_job.html
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 07, 2019, 11:10:58
I was referring to the position, rather than the individual, in that the concealed carry was a generally unknown aspect (unlike armed guards, etc, who are open carry).

I fully acknowledge that it was merely a guess.  :dunno:

And it was a good guess.  My understanding of how events unfolded was that Mr. Vickers was not carrying at the time of the incident but had to return to his office to retrieve his firearm from secure storage.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on May 07, 2019, 11:42:06
From what I understand, years ago, an armoured truck company had an armed plain-clothes member.

I remember a friend of mine who owned an auto repair business who carried a gun. Not sure if he had a permit.

My understanding of how events unfolded was that Mr. Vickers was not carrying at the time of the incident but had to return to his office to retrieve his firearm from secure storage.

Sounds similar to the bank managers, years ago. As long as the gun stayed on the property. That came to an end when a bullet fired by a manager during a robbery ricocheted and killed a teller.

Race tracks had armed plain clothes men as well. Not sure if they still do?

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 07, 2019, 12:25:23
From what I understand, years ago, an armoured truck company had an armed plain-clothes member.....
Race tracks had armed plain clothes men as well. Not sure if they still do?

That would be an ATC for employment, quite different from an ATC for protection of life.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 07, 2019, 13:29:33
25 counts of attemoted murder, drive by shooting and organized crime related offenses? Recipe for a plea bargain for sure.


Plea deals made for 3 Calgary gangsters involved in gun violence
Tarek El-Rafie and brothers Barakat and Talal Amer originally faced a total of 25 attempted murder charges

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-gangsters-amer-el-rafie-guilty-pleas-sentence-1.5125325
Three Calgary men involved in gun violence connected to a 2015 gang war on city streets have been sent to prison after plea deals meant most of their charges were withdrawn.

The three men — Tarek El-Rafie and brothers Barakat and Talal Amer — originally faced a total of 25 attempted murder charges as well as organized crime-related offences.

Plea deals were arranged between prosecutor Brian Holtby and defence lawyers Brian Greenspan, Brian Beresh and Kent Teskey.

Tarek El-Rafie pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly discharge of a restricted firearm and received a six year, four month sentence of which he has just over two years left to serve.

El-Rafie admitted to his involvement in a November 2015 drive-by shooting in the city's northeast, according to an agreed statement of facts.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 09, 2019, 19:04:41
I don't usually quote Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/bmoi4u/gun_ban_confirmed_in_question_period_today/) but I''ve now seen this same assertion from at least two other source including Tony Clement's own Twitter page. 

Today during question period Independent MP Tony Clement is said to have asked the following question.

Tony Clement: "...I have it on good authority that the PM has a secret plan to ban legal firearms. Apparently this plan is to be executed by cabinet directive with no debate in parliament. The PM plans to announce this gun ban at the Women Deliver conference held in early June in Vancouver where New Zealand PM Ardern will also attend. Can the PM confirm or deny this zero-accountability secret plan?"

Bill Blair: "I just want to assure this house that our government remains absolutely committed to taking all the measures that are effective in keeping Canadians safe and as I believe every member of this house will agree, there is no greater responsibility for any order of government..."

I have been saying it for months... this is how the Liberals will ban firearms in Canada.  No debate. No consideration of studies that don't fit their agenda.  Just an OIC.  Boom.  Done. Just like New Zealand.   No grandfathering, just confiscation.

I suspect the timelines to surrender our firearms will be very short and the penalties for non compliance quite harsh to get as many firearms seized and destroyed as possible before the election.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 09, 2019, 19:20:55
I don't usually quote Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/bmoi4u/gun_ban_confirmed_in_question_period_today/) but I''ve now seen this same assertion from at least two other source including Tony Clement's own Twitter page. 

Today during question period Independent MP Tony Clement is said to have asked the following question.

Tony Clement: "...I have it on good authority that the PM has a secret plan to ban legal firearms. Apparently this plan is to be executed by cabinet directive with no debate in parliament. The PM plans to announce this gun ban at the Women Deliver conference held in early June in Vancouver where New Zealand PM Ardern will also attend. Can the PM confirm or deny this zero-accountability secret plan?"

Bill Blair: "I just want to assure this house that our government remains absolutely committed to taking all the measures that are effective in keeping Canadians safe and as I believe every member of this house will agree, there is no greater responsibility for any order of government..."

I have been saying it for months... this is how the Liberals will ban firearms in Canada.  No debate. No consideration of studies that don't fit their agenda.  Just an OIC.  Boom.  Done. Just like New Zealand.   No grandfathering, just confiscation.

I suspect the timelines to surrender our firearms will be very short and the penalties for non compliance quite harsh to get as many firearms seized and destroyed as possible before the election.

Prepare for massive non compliance like in NZ.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on May 09, 2019, 19:36:02
Just remember, there are no property rights in Canada. Remember also who's bright idea that was.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on May 09, 2019, 20:01:04
Question period, note the response. Remember Paul Martins handgun ban, every time they suck in the polls they go this route.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=362176877975151&t=9
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on May 09, 2019, 20:05:03
Haggis, do we have a more reputable source for this then reddit?

It kind of seems like fear mongering from anti-government or pro-firearm crowds... it does not make a lot of sense to me. I am not saying that Trudeau would not love to ban firearms, cause god knows he would. I just do not think his people feel that the social support for it in Canada has reached a level to support such a call.

I found the post, posted from the original reddit thread showing a huffington post on it...
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/05/09/tony-clement-secret-plan-firearms-ban_a_23723860/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

Then a bunch of firearms blogs etc... any rate will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I suspect it will be more of a "if re-elected" kind of thing.

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Beadwindow 7 on May 09, 2019, 20:07:16
Just received this in my inbox. Usually don't pay much attention to Mrs. Gallant, but seems relevant.

Quote
Dear XXXX,

Today it was revealed Trudeau has a secret plan to ban all legal firearms.

It will be done by Cabinet Directive with no discussion, no debate in the house.

He plans to decree the ban at the “Woman Deliver Conference” in Vancouver BC (June 1 -3 2019).

New Zealand PM Ardern will be in attendance to offer Trudeau cover.

When the Liberal Minister responsible was asked about the plan to ban all legal firearms, he did not deny it.

As each day produces a new scandal, one more petal falls from the wilted rose of the Liberal leader.

Unpopular among more of his own party members, one Liberal MP after another announces intentions not to run for Parliament again.

Their party is desperately trying to change the channel as Canadians get closer and closer to a fall election.

The Liberals think they can manipulate the emotions of women by using sportsmen and farmers as scapegoats.

The conference is a convenient platform to attack law-abiding firearms owners, and try to make female voters, outraged over the “Kokanee Grope”, forget about it.

The conference is less than 25 days away.

That is all the time we have to fight Trudeau and the Liberal Party.

This fight is real.

We need to stop this plan now before it gets swept up in this fall’s election.

Don’t let Trudeau use you to cover up his failures.

Regards,

Cheryl Gallant

Ironically,  just as I was about to hit post on this, the CTVnews headline on the telly was "Homemade guns on the rise"
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 09, 2019, 20:12:21
The man loves the applause of a crowd. He's got nothing else to offer them, and since he seems to think this will piss off men to please certain women, what better way than this?
Would this also be why he is not in Parliament QP?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 09, 2019, 22:51:06
Can't find any good news articles, but I read on CGN that Kingston City Council defeated a complete gun ban in a 7-6 vote last night. Well done!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 09, 2019, 23:26:17
When I was in Kingston the wait list to join the gun club (requirement to possess restricted firearms) was up to two years.

I've been told the city constantly treated the club like crap and now and then students try to shut it down but there's a lot of gun owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chris Pook on May 09, 2019, 23:50:20
Haggis, do we have a more reputable source for this then reddit?

It kind of seems like fear mongering from anti-government or pro-firearm crowds... it does not make a lot of sense to me. I am not saying that Trudeau would not love to ban firearms, cause god knows he would. I just do not think his people feel that the social support for it in Canada has reached a level to support such a call.

I found the post, posted from the original reddit thread showing a huffington post on it...
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/05/09/tony-clement-secret-plan-firearms-ban_a_23723860/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

Then a bunch of firearms blogs etc... any rate will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I suspect it will be more of a "if re-elected" kind of thing.

Abdullah

Abdullah, see Colin P above.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on May 10, 2019, 00:30:00
Abdullah, see Colin P above.

I saw that, both versions the 40~ second one and the 57~ second one.

The allegations were made, but nothing was confirmed. The devils advocate in me thinks it could be a low level trying to be important, misinformation being fed from the liberals, the conservatives using it to rally the troops and so on and so forth.

I do not trust politicians of any side, stripe or inclination. Not saying they are bad people, but sometimes they make choices that are.. interesting.

So yes, the allegations have been made and they have been neither confirmed nor denied.. i just feel something more concrete is needed before i visit mike from canmore or have a boating accident haha

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 10, 2019, 15:21:11
I'm glad I called the CFO and registered my AR15 as a reciever only. Very helpful and pleasent people to deal with. AR15 owners might want to consider it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on May 10, 2019, 21:24:32

Tony Clement: "...I have it on good authority that the PM has a secret plan to ban legal firearms. Apparently this plan is to be executed by cabinet directive with no debate in parliament. The PM plans to announce this gun ban at the Women Deliver conference held in early June in Vancouver where New Zealand PM Ardern will also attend. Can the PM confirm or deny this zero-accountability secret plan?"

On the other hand the source may be some Russian troll just trying to stir things up.

I'll wait until I see something more substantial. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on May 10, 2019, 22:32:34
A wounded animal is a dangerous one, and the Libs are definitely wounded. I'm unsure if Bill C-71 has time to get passed which would be another failure of them to execute and another blow for them. They are bleeding votes and a new threat on their left, the Greens, has emerged making their job even harder.

This could be easy cheap points for them to try and recuperate some of the votes they lost on the left, if they overdo it (all handguns and all currently restricted rifles) I think it might backfire as those who sit on the LibCon fence would be pushed to the Cons after another serious blow to democracy and liberty. But I think if they limited the order-in-council to make AR-15s prohibited, they would walk away saying they did something to take assault rifles off the streets as they promised, and unfortunately not enough Canadians, including not enough firearm owners, would be appalled.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 10, 2019, 22:49:12
Couple of problems I see with making them prohibited.

a) do you grandfather all owners to 12.6 status and expand the base of people that can own prohibs?

b) if not, do we create a special class for AR variants?

There's more along that line, but eliminating the obvious allows for drilling down to the end result.

Whatever they do though, they will be creating thousands of criminals overnight.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 11, 2019, 00:20:56
The only reason I can see them doing that is to try and bait the worst out of some people, and it's working.
On CGN, I see people working  on theories that they have not enough time left in their lives to let anyone take their weaps. I get the sentiment, but I think it's too much Hollywood and not enough pragmatism. Why anyone would think the high ground would be to operationalize this to fighting words let alone fighting sentiment is beyond me. It's just property and a certain construct of "rights", and the deprivation thereof does not amount to property in weapons = the DNA of their life, or anyone else. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on May 11, 2019, 00:39:39
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/UPDATE---AR-15-Rifle-to-be-included-in-Liberal-Gun-Bans.html?soid=1124731702303&aid=3w5MwM13yKc

CSSA is reporting that "two separate, unconnected government sources, one of whom has direct knowledge of the plan, confirmed the Liberal government’s proposed “sweeping gun ban” will include the AR-15 target rifle."
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on May 11, 2019, 08:48:04
Couple of problems I see with making them prohibited.

a) do you grandfather all owners to 12.6 status and expand the base of people that can own prohibs?

b) if not, do we create a special class for AR variants?

There's more along that line, but eliminating the obvious allows for drilling down to the end result.

Whatever they do though, they will be creating thousands of criminals overnight.

They cannot grandfather anyone without changing the laws. Currently the laws allow for the prohibition of firearms based off a OIC but you cannot grandfather anyone into a prohibited category except for direct relatives with a pre-1945 registered 12.6 firearm.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 11, 2019, 10:26:54
The Toronto Star takes the view there is no sweeping gun ban in the works, because --- wait for it ....
"It could be that the Trudeau team is aware that all this pro-feminist rhetoric of the past four years has been interpreted in some quarters as being unfriendly to men, and that it doesn’t want gun control falling into that polarized, men-versus-women atmosphere. Gun control, historically, has been polarizing enough already."

 ::) As everybody knows, Trudeau is not about polarizing ...


"https://www-thestar-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thestar.com/amp/politics/political-opinion/2019/05/10/trudeau-government-takes-a-gender-neutral-approach-to-gun-control.html?amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpolitical-opinion%2F2019%2F05%2F10%2Ftrudeau-government-takes-a-gender-neutral-approach-to-gun-control.html"
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on May 11, 2019, 11:16:08
They cannot grandfather anyone without changing the laws. Currently the laws allow for the prohibition of firearms based off a OIC but you cannot grandfather anyone into a prohibited category except for direct relatives with a pre-1945 registered 12.6 firearm.

The CSSA notice seems to imply that there is something in Bill C-71 that might enable it, and could even enable taking it to the range.

It's almost like they've had this planned........................................
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on May 11, 2019, 12:44:14
The only reason I can see them doing that is to try and bait the worst out of some people, and it's working.
On CGN, I see people working  on theories that they have not enough time left in their lives to let anyone take their weaps. I get the sentiment, but I think it's too much Hollywood and not enough pragmatism. Why anyone would think the high ground would be to operationalize this to fighting words let alone fighting sentiment is beyond me. It's just property and a certain construct of "rights", and the deprivation thereof does not amount to property in weapons = the DNA of their life, or anyone else.

I think allot people talk a big game but when actually faced with violent civil disobedience the vast majority will cower and peacefully surrender their firearms.

The thing with firearms arms debates in Canada is that the Liberals and other left leaning parties really have nothing to lose with bans and confiscations.

Our numbers are too small and we are more or less mostly right leaning folks.  So it wouldn't hurt the poll numbers.

In fact I think it would work in their favor.  The average Canadian is apathetic to just about everything that doesn't immediately effect them negatively or get in the way of hockey night in Canada, and they aren't firearms owners.   Lastly they have a negative opinion of firearms and believe there is a gun problem in this country.

Just look at the Kingston city council vote. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on May 11, 2019, 13:04:10
Just remember, there are no property rights in Canada. Remember also who's bright idea that was.


Regarding the first part of your statement I refer to what The Constitution Act of 1867 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1867_(annotated)/Part_VI#92.) has to say on the matter:

Quote
EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

92.    In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
        .
        .
        13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

Also, from the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling in Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200 Date: 1975-06-26 (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5960/index.do)

Quote
(page 201) Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, or any interest therein, save by due process of law.

Whether federal responsibility for regulating firearms overrides provincial responsibility for property rights and whether an OIC would constitute "due process" I'll leave up the legal experts.

As for the second part of your statement, I take it you are placing the blame on PM Pierre Trudeau, when the actual guilty person was Roy Romanow (https://www.revolvy.com/page/Roy-Romanow), Sask. Attorney General.

Anyone looking for further reading of Canadian property rights can check out these sites:

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION (http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm#(3)end)

Property Law (The Canadian Encyclopedia) (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/property-law)

Are property rights protected in Canadian law? (http://propertyrightsguide.ca/are-property-rights-protected-in-canadian-law/)

Sorry for the hijack. Back to regular programming.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 11, 2019, 13:28:56
Bottom line is that you can sit back, do nothing and wait until June.

This government will do what it wants, no matter what the populous thinks or wants.

You can worry a hole in your guts till then or sit back and wait to see what happens.

Civil disobedience to the previous laws was fairly widespread with people refusing to register their firearms.

Once the requirement got dropped, even more vowed to never again let the government know what property they hold.

Quebec is the most draconian in the country for self established gun laws.

They also have the highest incidence of non compliance.

The law will be ineffective and only useful for scoring political points, depending of course whether it happens or not and what kind of dictatorial powers the PM decides to exercise.

This could/ could not become a defining moment in civil disobedience and far outweigh whatever points he thought he could gather.

The anti gun squad on Parliament Hill is really just a well connected, vocal minority of bleating folks that roll out Armageddon for the benefit of the liberal party's tactics of demonization and deflection of the less organised, uninterested and feeble response from the gun lobby that far outweighs the concern of the left.

Whatever is planned, will probably take place in whatever form they decide. They'll talk about concensus and overwhelming support of the majority of Canadians, but it'll just be another lie from the liberals to force their agenda.

Bottom line is we don't know what's happening. A couple of rumours, well placed or not. That's not enough to get upset about......yet. We need to see what they roll out, then there will be serious thought among individuals, who will seek out like minded others to become a larger force. With luck this will be the incident that galvanizes everyone in the country concerned with overreach of government and property rights.

But again, until we see what he says when he gets all grandiose and pompous during the speech to women and virtue signals the world, there is no sense getting wrapped around the axle about what may or may not happen.

Any firearm owner that didn't see this coming and didn't make contingencies to ensure their property would be somewhat safe until the liberals are defeated has only themselves to blame and will likely be the same people that meekly turn over their property with all the woe is me whimpering that'll come with it. They'll gather in garages, have a couple of beers, grouse about trudeau, ***** about their losses, then go home and watch Jimmy Fallon.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 17, 2019, 10:13:26
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-gun-buyback-screw-up

In the Toronto police's attempt to brag about the success of their gun buyback program they posted personal information about at least one of the individuals turning in guns. This puts them at an increased risk to be targeted by thieves and probably harassment from anti-gun SJWs.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Good2Golf on May 17, 2019, 11:55:01
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-gun-buyback-screw-up

In the Toronto police's attempt to brag about the success of their gun buyback program they posted personal information about at least one of the individuals turning in guns. This puts them at an increased risk to be targeted by thieves and probably harassment from anti-gun SJWs.

Good thing all those Webleys are coming off the street!  Those things are without a doubt THE ubiquitous gang piece!

:not-again:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 19, 2019, 10:20:39
Even though it a long weekend, Minister Blair is keeping the gun ban possibility very much alive. (https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/blair-not-ruling-out-federal-order-to-implement-potential-handgun-ban-1.4427928?fbclid=IwAR1BQndNUXRj9rwLL9PIQJNOwRGrz44h_kRZqap-joyctx5CsToOXrFuwMk#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=yvhoUeB).  However, if one reads between the lines one could surmise that anything AR-15 like is probably doomed in June with all other semi-automatics and handguns to follow during their next mandate.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 19, 2019, 10:34:28
Even though it a long weekend, Minister Blair is keeping the gun ban possibility very much alive. (https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/blair-not-ruling-out-federal-order-to-implement-potential-handgun-ban-1.4427928?fbclid=IwAR1BQndNUXRj9rwLL9PIQJNOwRGrz44h_kRZqap-joyctx5CsToOXrFuwMk#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=yvhoUeB).  However, if one reads between the lines one could surmise that anything AR-15 like is probably doomed in June with all other semi-automatics and handguns to follow during their next mandate.


Gun bans ~ real bans ~ are likely keys to winning many urban ridings in October.

35% of Canadians live in three cities:

Toronto     ~ population 5.9 Million;
Montreal    ~ population 4.0 Million; and
Vancouver ~ population 2.4 Million.

Of course, some of those voters are in "close" suburbs" but many, something like 100 of the 338 seats in the Commons are really "urban" and in those ridings gun ownership is low and gun ownership is often seen as a problem, not as a right.

I'm not predicting anything ... just saying why Bill Blair is not saying anything that gun owners want to hear.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 19, 2019, 10:45:48
Gun bans ~ real bans ~ are likely keys to winning many urban ridings in October.

Edward, you may not be predicting anything, but I earlier posted a quote from a Liberal strategist that predicted gun bans as an "untapped opportunity" to boost Liberal fortunes.  Any bans announced in June may well push Liberal poll numbers back into majority territory.  But I also believe those numbers will fall once the Liberals start to open their mouths and speak to a stable or increasing violent crime rate post ban.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 19, 2019, 18:28:16
May have posted this from. The gun blog
Quote
-10-20 million. Guns owned by individual Canadian hunters, farmers, collectors, recreational shooters and competitors. (Adding in government agencies, military and police would add less than 0.5 million.)
-2.2 million. Canadian men and women with gun licences. (30 June 2018)
-833,000. Pistols, revolvers, AR-15 rifles and other “Restricted” firearms owned by private individuals at 30 June 2018. (All guns are tightly restricted. Including businesses and museums, ownership is higher.)
-443,000. Canadians prohibited by courts from owning firearms (2017)
-90,000. Canadians (mainly police, law-enforcement and military) allowed or required to carry loaded guns in daily life for personal and public safety.
-10,000. Canadian youth aged 12-17 with licences to use, but not buy, firearms.
-4,500. Firearm and ammunition businesses in Canada. (Roughly 1,500 are licensed to sell firearms.)
-1,400. Target-shooting ranges in Canada. About the same as the number of hospitals.
-1,000. New firearms legally bought in Canada each day. (Plus about 1,000 used firearms.)
-1,000. New handguns, AR-15 rifles and other “Restricted” firearms bought in Canada each week.

Some target ranges charge over $1000.a year for members-and people pay it.
A good number of those 4500 business's would go under if pistols and ARs were banned.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 20, 2019, 12:22:52
All semantics and conjecture until the shoe drops. It'll be what it is.

People have had fair warning, if they haven't taken steps by now, to secure or dispose of the rumoured items, they have nobody to blame.

I know, at least, five people that have called the CFO in the last week, and had their AR registrations changed to lower receiver only. The CFO has been, surprisingly, cordial, efficient and happy to help. It's a small move that may save you thousands, depending on your holdings. If you haven't made that call....... :dunno:


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on May 20, 2019, 14:26:31
I think I need a lawyer to interpret it, but I think Bill C-71 has built into it that if you own a restricted firearm and it is changed to prohibited, you are then eligible for a prohibited PAL.

"Grandfathered individuals — regulations
(9) An individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms of a prescribed class if the individual
(a) possesses one or more firearms of that class on a day that is prescribed with respect to that class;
(b) holds a registration certificate for one or more firearms of that class in the circumstances prescribed with respect to that class; and
(c) was continuously the holder of a registration certificate for one or more firearms of that class beginning on the day that is prescribed — or that is determined under the regulations — with respect to that class."

Tricksy Liberals, they aren't just using an OIC because they've ran out of time / are desperate, banning firearms by OIC was always their plan.....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 21, 2019, 11:56:37
I wonder if this will create a new class of prohibs? Their original idea for prohibs was to class a number of poodle shooter pistols and their owners to 12.6. The idea was that in a couple of generations, they'd be done with prohibs by default death of the holders. If everyone that has AR types, get that 12.6 designation, they've just expanded the prohib base by thousands of people and guns....and years. The legal traffic/ market in prohibs will expand accordingly.

If they give out 12.6 that is.

If all they do, is switch the designation to 12.6, it'll make no difference to the owner. They'll still be able to take them to the range, etc just as now. Maybe they just want to be seen as tough, but it's all a word game. Prohibited 12.6 or restricted carry the same rules for transport and use, just a different class name. They get their publicity and they don't end up in a big confiscation fight with taxpayers.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 22, 2019, 01:55:29
The anti-gun lobby will see right through that, and hoist Trudeau by the nuts.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: BurnDoctor on May 22, 2019, 01:57:31
The anti-gun lobby will see right through that, and hoist Trudeau by the nuts.
The mention of a specific hoist point makes an assumption that may not be accurate.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 22, 2019, 02:42:04
Lol!!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: RomeoJuliet on May 22, 2019, 08:02:21
The anti-gun lobby will see right through that, and hoist Trudeau by the nuts.
Classy comment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 22, 2019, 08:33:45

RCMP Slows Printing Gun Licences, Fuelling Speculation of Bans

15 May 2019

TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s federal agency in charge of gun licensing everyone from hunters and farmers to Olympic shooters said it slowed printing the permits because of “technical circumstances,” fuelling speculation new firearm bans are imminent.

“Due to technical circumstances, the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) is producing firearms licence cards in a limited capacity between March 11 and June 7, 2019,” a spokeswoman for the Ottawa-based Royal Canadian Mounted Police told TheGunBlog.ca today by e-mail in response to questions.

https://thegunblog.ca/2019/05/15/rcmp-slows-printing-gun-licences-fuelling-speculation-of-bans/



The RCMP will "fix" their technical difficulties one day after the
Women Deliver conference that the Liberals are rumored to announce sweeping changes to firearm laws and ownership in Canada.

I'm sure its a coincidence.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 22, 2019, 20:01:31
(https://www.rangebob.com/Canada/PoliceVsShootings_Toronto20052017_short.png)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on May 22, 2019, 20:09:23
Link to original...?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on May 23, 2019, 08:15:25
Link to original...?

There is a link on the graphic.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on May 23, 2019, 12:59:14
Jesus what did John Tory do? The spike started at almost the exact moment he got elected!  :cold:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: QV on May 23, 2019, 16:07:02
John Tory ended "carding", and he reduced the number of cops.  Seems like an appropriate result.

 
https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/toronto-mayor-john-tory-announces-plans-to-permanently-end-carding

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/06/15/mayor-tory-rejects-idea-carding-ban-led-gun-violence/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 23, 2019, 18:55:08
Link to original...?

Thieved it from another site. OP is pretty solid with this stuff
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 27, 2019, 22:42:54
Time to ban bananas...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 28, 2019, 19:15:50
Bill C-71 just passed third reading in the Senate a few minutes ago.  It will receive Royal Assent tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 28, 2019, 19:33:18
What's the worst fallout from C-71?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 28, 2019, 19:52:48
What's the worst fallout from C-71?

The Liberals win a majority in October as a result of "making Canada safer".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 31, 2019, 18:57:33
https://globalnews.ca/news/5335558/feds-guns-clamp-down-hunt-people/


Forget for a minute that Bill Blair is telling us the RCMP and other police forces use guns "designed to hunt people", check out the blatant attempt at identity politics. Specifically, who he's trying to drum up support from.

Quote
“These weapons are for use in the battlefield, but too often they have been brought into our communities and used to target and kill law enforcement, women, members of the LGBTQ2S community, religious observers and children doing nothing more than attending class.

What garbage.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on May 31, 2019, 19:27:12
What garbage.

Not garbage.  Strategy.  The Liberals control the narrative on gun control and are using the MSM to shape the battlespace in support of their ban(s).  The harsher the precursor condemnation of "weapons of war in our neighbourhoods in civilian hands" the harsher the ban(s) will be.  My prediction is that this will be so well sold that by mid-month they will be polling back in minority territory in most urban areas.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on June 01, 2019, 09:40:17
Strategy.  The Liberals control the narrative on gun control and are using the MSM to shape the battlespace...
And with every news story about a school/religious shooting in the US, the people most disposed to proclaim that Canadians are superior to Americans will buy in that 'something must be done' here.  Actual legal and statistical comparisons between the two countries are irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on June 01, 2019, 10:18:40
2019: "military style assault weapons used to hunt people will be banned!"
2020: "handguns used to rob and murder people will be banned!"
2021: "super accurate bolt-action and scoped sniper rifles used to hunt people from afar will be banned!"
2022: "shotguns, which are really just cannons used to blow people to pieces, will be banned!"

It's important to note that a firearm or class of firearm banned by an OIC by this government cannot be un-banned by an OIC by a future government.  It remains banned until legislative changes are made to refine the classification to now include the banned class/firearm in the refined definition.

The big question now is that under C-71, is an OIC even required to ban certain classes?  Now that the RCMP can classify/reclassify firearms, could they not simply reclassify all restricted to prohibited with/without grandfathering?  Could the PM - as he did with VAdm Norman - publicly state that "I expect that the RCMP will now reclassify all handguns and semi-automatic firearms to keep them out of civilian hands" and the RCMP, like in the Norman investigation, would follow this implied order?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 03, 2019, 00:23:42
Not garbage.  Strategy.  The Liberals control the narrative on gun control and are using the MSM to shape the battlespace in support of their ban(s).  The harsher the precursor condemnation of "weapons of war in our neighbourhoods in civilian hands" the harsher the ban(s) will be.  My prediction is that this will be so well sold that by mid-month they will be polling back in minority territory in most urban areas.

I have words I'd like to use to describe him  but I'd get infractions for it.

Everything about what they're trying to do is deceitful and based on bullshit.

Like the idea that requiring gun owners to call the RCMP to obtain a permission slip to transport restricted firearms to the post office or gun Smith will combat crime. The whole principal of a ATT is stupid. It's like having a driver's licence but requiring a permission note to drive to get gas or take the car to the mechanic.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on August 16, 2019, 15:58:30
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387) won't be supporting a handgun ban.  Clearly, they are not as smart as the PM and Mayor Tory, who both know that real problems require unreal solutions.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on August 16, 2019, 16:27:54
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387) won't be supporting a handgun ban.  Clearly, they are not as smart as the PM and Mayor Tory, who both know that real problems require unreal solutions.

Indeed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on August 17, 2019, 07:04:19
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387) won't be supporting a handgun ban. 

They supported this,

Quote
Police chiefs endorse long-gun registry
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-chiefs-endorse-long-gun-registry-1.886844


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 17, 2019, 13:40:14
Other than assigning police to every church or school or mall is an armed public.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 17, 2019, 13:47:04
Police Forces don't want changes to handgun laws because they are some of the biggest benefiters from the present set up.

Most police forces don't own their own ranges.  They have deals with civilian owned ranges that are run by the sport shooting community.  No handguns allowed, sports shooting community dies and ranges close leaving police forces on the hook.

Many police officers also own their own pistols and rifles and shoot on their own time because they are professionals who want to stay sharp.  No police force gives their regular members anywhere near enough rounds to stay proficient with their service weapon.

I used to be a member of the Frontenac Rifle and Pistol Club, some of the biggest users of our facility were Kingston Police Force.

Edit:

Too add, a registry makes sense to police because it allows them a certain level of control and is just personal information at the end of the day.

An outright ban doesn't make sense because now it's also affecting them negatively.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 17, 2019, 14:26:22
Good point about the police using privately owned ranges, I've seen it myself a few times including kingston as well. Had some pretty good convos and shoots at the corneall handgun club with cops.

I believe Kingston has or had a 1-2 year wait period to even join the shooting range. People underestimate how popular shooting is.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 17, 2019, 15:10:01
Good point about the police using privately owned ranges, I've seen it myself a few times including kingston as well. Had some pretty good convos and shoots at the corneall handgun club with cops.

I believe Kingston has or had a 1-2 year wait period to even join the shooting range. People underestimate how popular shooting is.

Two year minimum wait, you need to go to an interview meeting and orientation and you need to do I believe five accompanied range days before you can shoot on your own.  You also need to commit to show up to do work like clean up days, building ranges, maintenance, etc.  It's about $300.00 a year just for membership.

Police Officers don't need to do any of that.  They can show up whenever they want, have first priority on all ranges and don't need to pay or participate in any of the social club BS that I never really cared about. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on August 17, 2019, 16:13:04
I believe Kingston has or had a 1-2 year wait period to even join the shooting range. People underestimate how popular shooting is.

In some provinces the CFO will not approve a restricted purchase or transfer to someone who is not a club or range member.  Those CFOs believes that proof of club or range membership is required to show "target shooting at an approved club or range"  as a legitimate purpose for owning a restricted.

I'm a training officer in my club.  New members are required to attend a classroom day plus up to six supervised range visits with a club training officer and attend a club level holster user's course, if they intend to use their own holsters. (LEO need not attend this if and only if they are using duty gear and firearm.  If they intend to use their personal firearm(s) and holster, they must attend the course to show safe handling and proficiency with that setup.)

Even with those requirements, membership applications have exploded over the past few months as we are one of the only clubs in our region that doesn't have a year-plus long waiting list or a membership cap.... yet.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2019, 11:04:00
Sounds like there is opportunity for those who want to open a new business in the area...that whole supply/demand thing....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 18, 2019, 11:30:26
Sounds like there is opportunity for those who want to open a new business in the area...that whole supply/demand thing....

Good luck getting a new range through the zoning/approval process in most municipalities today. You might as well propose building an oil pipeline....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 18, 2019, 13:13:50
Sounds like there is opportunity for those who want to open a new business in the area...that whole supply/demand thing....

Except Supply/Demand doesn't work with guns in this country because municipalities have basically killed the ability to build a new one with legislation. 

There is only one range anywhere near the GTA and it's 40 min outside the city.  There can't be many sports shooters in Toronto so I wonder where all those handguns are coming from?

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on August 18, 2019, 14:09:18
The range I run in Wawa (missed a monthly meeting and got elected president)  :facepalm: has members from the gta that own camps here and can't get into clubs south of Hwy 7. They meet all club safety requirements by shooting here when at camp, this gives them the ability to do walk-in’s down south till an opening presents its self.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 19, 2019, 18:34:24
Colt is going to stop making AR15 rifles for consumers. Says the market is flooded and there’s an excess of stock:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/19/business/colt-ar15/index.html
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 19, 2019, 18:37:59
Not surprised. Colt refused to evolve with the times.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 11:50:35
Trudeau is going to need something big to deflect the black face frig up.

Time to play the Gunn control card?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 20, 2019, 11:52:33
Trudeau is going to need something big to deflect the black face frig up.

Time to play the Gunn control card?

Already in motion, press conference at 1030am.  At the location of a fatal shooting last year in TO.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 12:12:50
Oh, well crap lol

Trudeau has been eating black face paint if he thinks this is going to go well for him.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on September 20, 2019, 12:17:58
Oh, well crap lol

Trudeau has been eating black face paint if he thinks this is going to go well for him.

Calculated risk.  Most of the pro gun types are against him no matter what.  According to some sources 75% of Canadians want to see some sort of "Assault" weapons ban.

If they can frame Scheer as being in league with the gun lobby that can only help them.   

I am certain they were waiting for the right tinme (like after this blackface fiasco) to do this.

Like them or not, the LPC war room is shaping this election battlefield.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 12:22:09
From the free sources I cared to look at it looked like the majority thought our gun control was sufficient and didn't want to change it. Of course that's not going to stop Trudeau.

On the bright side the chances of a picture of him doing something stupid with a gun in existence is pretty high.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: milnews.ca on September 20, 2019, 12:50:23
Initial reports from a 1030EDT Liberal newser (https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/trudeau-pledges-tougher-gun-control-as-he-tries-to-get-campaign-back-on-track) via The Canadian Press:
Quote
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is promising to ban all military-style assault rifles as part of a broader gun-control plan that will also take steps towards restricting and banning handguns.

Trudeau is making the pledge in Toronto as he tries to get his campaign back on track after apologizing for wearing blackface years ago.

The Liberals also pledge to work with provinces and territories to empower municipalities to further restrict — or ban — handguns.

Trudeau is making the announcement in the city’s Greektown neighbourhood, where a gunman killed two people and wounded 13 others last year in a shooting rampage.

The party says it will protect the rights of law-abiding hunters and vows not to re-establish the controversial long-gun registry that was scrapped by the previous Conservative government.

The proposal also includes pledges to create a buy-back program for all legally purchased assault rifles and a two-year amnesty while the program is being set up.

Cross-posted this to the Election 2019 thread (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,131141.0.html) so the politics can be discussed there, and the mechanics of the proposals here.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Brad Sallows on September 20, 2019, 13:37:45
In Canada, what constitutes an "assault rifle"?

If the definition is feature/configuration dependent, will removal of the offending features/configuration render a weapon "lawful"?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on September 20, 2019, 13:39:55
If the boy blunder gets in gun owners are royalty knackered.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on September 20, 2019, 13:40:19
Well PM Trudeau and the Liberal Party have now launched the opening salvo on the division of this once great nation of Canada. Fingers are crossed that the Canadian people are not duped into putting these charlatons back into power.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: George Wallace on September 20, 2019, 13:49:13
Well PM Trudeau and the Liberal Party have now launched the opening salvo on the division of this once great nation of Canada. Fingers are crossed that the Canadian people are not duped into putting these charlatons back into power.

I noted his DIVISIVE comments in inaccurately stating the policy held by the Conservatives. 
This man blames everyone else and is the one who drives division more than any other faction in Canada.
Definitely not a nation builder and a unifier of peoples.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: VinceW on September 20, 2019, 13:53:12
There will be a Liberal ban before there’s another gun ban.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on September 20, 2019, 13:59:48
There will be a Liberal ban before there’s another gun ban.

I disagree gun owners who care on this subject are already voting Conservative. This mobilizes the mass of likely ignorant people who think a Ban will make Canada safer.

It also deflects attention away from the Blackface issue and if Scheer is not careful he will get caught up in the pro-firearms argument effectively moving the Liberal campaign forward past this black face issue.

So sadly I still expect to see a liberal minority, our best hope is to block these motions before they become law.. cause our voters seem not to care.
Also, I am curious if they will try to ban the SKS too...

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 14:12:10
If the boy blunder gets in gun owners are royalty knackered.

Maybe it'll be like New Zealand.  Turn up to turn your guns in and if you don't like the price and decide to leave the armed gentlemen at the back of the room will take your guns from you anyways lol
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: VinceW on September 20, 2019, 14:22:28
I disagree gun owners who care on this subject are already voting Conservative. This mobilizes the mass of likely ignorant people who think a Ban will make Canada safer.

It also deflects attention away from the Blackface issue and if Scheer is not careful he will get caught up in the pro-firearms argument effectively moving the Liberal campaign forward past this black face issue.

So sadly I still expect to see a liberal minority, our best hope is to block these motions before they become law.. cause our voters seem not to care.
Also, I am curious if they will try to ban the SKS too...

Abdullah

Conservatives are ahead in polls so far and the last time a gun ban was announced during an election was in 2005 when Harper won.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on September 20, 2019, 14:37:48
Conservatives are ahead in polls so far and the last time a gun ban was announced during an election was in 2005 when Harper won.

Unfortunately they are not ahead where it counts and for seat distribution.

That may change in the coming days but the latest Nanos poll sees no significant drop yet.

And that election was all about the Gomery report.  gun control played little or no role in that.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on September 20, 2019, 15:06:24
1. "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons" : does this mean all semi-autos or just "assault" semi-autos, and if the latter, wtf makes it an assault weapon vice a nongassault weapon?

2. I agree with Abdullah. Most of those who this pisses off the most were never going to vote liberal anyway. Of those who are on the fence about who to vote for (like me), there are probably very few who consider gun control or gun rights as one of their top priorities. That's also like me. I don't own a gun, but I support gun ownership in general, and I don't think we need this ban. That being said, will this decide my vote? Nope.

I think this is a win for the liberals. Not only does it move the message away form black face, but it could sway votes from ignorant voters on the left side of the spectrum.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 15:09:27
1. "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons" : does this mean all semi-autos or just "assault" semi-autos, and if the latter, wtf makes it an assault weapon vice a nongassault weapon?

2. I agree with Abdullah. Most of those who this pisses off the most were never going to vote liberal anyway. Of those who are on the fence about who to vote for (like me), there are probably very few who consider gun control or gun rights as one of their top priorities. That's also like me. I don't own a gun, but I support gun ownership in general, and I don't think we need this ban. That being said, will this decide my vote? Nope.

I think this is a win for the liberals. Not only does it move the message away form black face, but it could sway votes from ignorant voters on the left side of the spectrum.

You're still on the fence about voting Liberal?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on September 20, 2019, 15:20:27
You're still on the fence about voting Liberal?

It is not unreasonable depending on your intentions.  gun control one way or another won't sway my vote either.  I support gun owners and am ok with the laws we have.  But I have other issues that are more important than guns.  Same with defence.  it's white noise from both the liberals and the CPC as neither will keep their promises on that so I ignore their policies on that when vote time comes.

Campaigns matter.  the day of the election is what matters and that's when I will decide.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 15:44:58
I'm not thinking about just gun control - this is really a small thing and not surprising. I meant in light of everything else.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on September 20, 2019, 16:11:11
I'm not thinking about just gun control - this is really a small thing and not surprising. I meant in light of everything else.

Don't want to derail this much but I'm still hoping for a weak LPC majority.  Scheer steps down and someone better steps up.  Trudeau government falls within a year and we get a better option for maybe two terms.  I don't want to see Scheer or Trudeau as PM.  So I'm thinking long game here.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 16:32:34
Editing for decorum. I respectfully hope you don't get what you want  :nod:



I wonder where the liberal government will get the money for a buy back program.

This seems like a good time to look for some cheap gun deals and make some cash down the road. Do you have a pal/rpal?

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 20, 2019, 16:36:49
Which police force is going to go on to FN land and disarm them of their "assault rifles" and other soon to be banned weapons.

I can't think of any officer I know that is prepared to face the two way range over that, and I would not support the army once again being asked to take up arms against people in our own country.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Lumber on September 20, 2019, 18:05:49
You're still on the fence about voting Liberal?

Yes. Yes, I am.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 20, 2019, 18:13:37
I’m not impressed with Bill Blair and the plan to ban handguns. Really.
How about using laws already on the books to incarcerate repeat offenders?


Oh I’m sorry.... I forgot they aren’t offenders they just perceive laws differently than we do.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on September 20, 2019, 18:35:09
Great time to invest in real estate if you live in Carleton Place or anywhere in Renfrew or lanark as im pretty sure Ottawa will get on the handgun ban and some people will look to move lol.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 18:40:58
Yes. Yes, I am.

Cool cool. Gun owner?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 19:00:01
Great time to invest in real estate if you live in Carleton Place or anywhere in Renfrew or lanark as im pretty sure Ottawa will get on the handgun ban and Somme people will look to move lol.

Let's split on some land. We can be conservative & liberal land lords and make a reality tv show about it :)


News article is saying most guns are around $1500. Sure. Mine are between $2700-$3300 a pop. Just seen some atrs rifles for $4500-$5500. I think the Liberals are purposefully lowballing the cost estimate.

Do gun buy back programs take into account accessories? Optics? $2500 elcan spectre and $1600 acog would be pretty silly on a bolt action "hunting" rifle and essentially useless on most guns that will be permitted I'd guess.

There's around 4500 firearm businesses, about 2200 of them I believe are ammo only. Lots of these businesses cator to tactical shooting (not to mention all the gear and kit businesses).
Banning semi autos and probably pistols is going to cost a lot of jobs. Probably hundreds of millions in revenue too. Think there's a plan for that?

How many jobs was Trudeau talking about saying for the snc bs?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on September 20, 2019, 19:14:25
Let's split on some land. We can be conservative & liberal land lords and make a reality tv show about it :)


News article is saying most guns are around $1500. Sure. Mine are between $2700-$3300 a pop. Just seen some atrs rifles for $4500-$5500. I think the Liberals are purposefully lowballing the cost estimate.

Do gun buy back programs take into account accessories? Optics? $2500 elcan spectre and $1600 acog would be pretty silly on a bolt action "hunting" rifle and essentially useless on most guns that will be permitted I'd guess.

There's around 4500 firearm businesses, about 2200 of them I believe are ammo only. Lots of these businesses cator to tactical shooting (not to mention all the gear and kit businesses).
Banning semi autos and probably pistols is going to cost a lot of jobs. Probably hundreds of millions in revenue too. Think there's a plan for that?

How many jobs was Trudeau talking about saying for the snc bs?

Meh I’m more of a red Tory rather than a liberal.  But a love it or list it type show might get some traction...

To be honest I don’t support the liberal gun law plan.  But it isn’t an issue that will sway me one way or another. 

My riding is currently Blue but has a real chance of going red.  Last time it was about a 1400 vote difference.  Like I said I want a weak LPC minority in order to usher in change in The CPC.  Means I might have to pull an Alpharius (I’m pretty sure you are the only one here who might get that reference).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chief Engineer on September 20, 2019, 19:24:10
Let's split on some land. We can be conservative & liberal land lords and make a reality tv show about it :)


News article is saying most guns are around $1500. Sure. Mine are between $2700-$3300 a pop. Just seen some atrs rifles for $4500-$5500. I think the Liberals are purposefully lowballing the cost estimate.

Do gun buy back programs take into account accessories? Optics? $2500 elcan spectre and $1600 acog would be pretty silly on a bolt action "hunting" rifle and essentially useless on most guns that will be permitted I'd guess.

There's around 4500 firearm businesses, about 2200 of them I believe are ammo only. Lots of these businesses cator to tactical shooting (not to mention all the gear and kit businesses).
Banning semi autos and probably pistols is going to cost a lot of jobs. Probably hundreds of millions in revenue too. Think there's a plan for that?

How many jobs was Trudeau talking about saying for the snc bs?

I feel you're pain, I stand to lose close to 40 firearms, including prohibits. You won't get top dollar that's for sure.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on September 20, 2019, 19:53:11
Only the Lower.
Only the trigger assembly for my handguns?

Basically the bare minimum I can surrender... and hope for laws to change. Screw giving them everything I bought for free. I'll keep all my accessories and if the Laws do not change, I will move.

I hear they need railroaders bad down south ;)
Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: uncle-midget-Oddball on September 20, 2019, 20:03:11
Oh, well crap lol

Trudeau has been eating black face paint if he thinks this is going to go well for him.

Quick, look!!! A distraction!!!!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on September 20, 2019, 21:09:29
Quote
The proposal also includes pledges to create a buy-back program for all legally purchased assault rifles and a two-year amnesty while the program is being set up.

As someone pointed out in the election thread, I'm sure glad that they are going to leave all the illegally owned guns alone.  ::)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 20, 2019, 21:25:55
What’s his plan to deal with these upstanding citizens: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/someone-found-a-loaded-shotgun-stuffed-in-a-duffle-bag-in-kelowna-1.4603475
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Journeyman on September 21, 2019, 00:31:46
Cross-posted this to the Election 2019 thread so the politics can be discussed there, and the mechanics of the proposals here.
How'd that work for you?   :pop:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 21, 2019, 10:21:11
Great time to invest in real estate if you live in Carleton Place or anywhere in Renfrew or lanark as im pretty sure Ottawa will get on the handgun ban and some people will look to move lol.
  No municipality is safe from the possibility of a ban.  Cities, townships, counties and probably even provinces will be empowered to enact bans.  There could be nowhere in Canada for legal handgun owners to hide.

And for those wondering what "assault" rifles will be banned, look at Part 2 of  this schedule  (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/fulltext.html)to see what, at a minimum, will be immediately banned.  Then add in every semi auto rifle of any calibre that meets the to be published post election CC definition of "assault rifle".  Lastly, it would be wise to expect that semi-automatic and possibly pump shotguns are tossed in there, too.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on September 21, 2019, 12:04:34
  No municipality is safe from the possibility of a ban.  Cities, townships, counties and probably even provinces will be empowered to enact bans.  There could be nowhere in Canada for legal handgun owners to hide.

And for those wondering what "assault" rifles will be banned, look at Part 2 of  this schedule  (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/fulltext.html)to see what, at a minimum, will be immediately banned.  Then add in every semi auto rifle of any calibre that meets the to be published post election CC definition of "assault rifle".  Lastly, it would be wise to expect that semi-automatic and possibly pump shotguns are tossed in there, too.

From there it would go to bolt and lever guns that hold more than 7 rounds, and rimfires that hold more than 11, like the deadly Cooey M60.....
Say goodbye to your duck gun and trusty Rem 760.

Here's New Zealand's list...

https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2019-go2786

There's even parts and accessories listed...

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 21, 2019, 12:40:05
From there it would go to bolt and lever guns that hold more than 7 rounds, and rimfires that hold more than 11, like the deadly Cooey M60.....
Say goodbye to your duck gun and trusty Rem 760.

Here's New Zealand's list...

https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2019-go2786

There's even parts and accessories listed...

Ever seen the video of new Zealand police going to a gun owners house "just to talk" but refuse to talk to the owner unless he stops recording them? Nothing shady about that.

Last I heard they had about 700 guns turned in out of an estimated 1 million.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 21, 2019, 12:45:26
Quote from: Remius
Means I might have to pull an Alpharius (I’m pretty sure you are the only one here who might get that reference).

Unique and great example!
(minus their plan being to end humanity quicker and all)   ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 21, 2019, 16:16:42
Ever seen the video of new Zealand police going to a gun owners house "just to talk" but refuse to talk to the owner unless he stops recording them? Nothing shady about that.

Last I heard they had about 700 guns turned in out of an estimated 1 million.

Here’s a thought: When gun owning people have to renew drivers licenses, register a car or business, transfer title of a house, apply for a passport, receive a tax refund, enrol in school and the like, then the guns will be turned in or those people do not pass “go”.

Fight this one people, there’s much more at stake here than guns and ammo. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jed on September 21, 2019, 16:21:12
Here’s a thought: When gun owning people have to renew drivers licenses, register a car or business, transfer title of a house, apply for a passport, receive a tax refund, enrol in school and the like, then the guns will be turned in or those people do not pass “go”.

Fight this one people, there’s much more at stake here than guns and ammo.

Right on Cloud Cover; there is a lot more at stake than guns and ammo. There is essential basic freedom an protection from bureaucratic zealots and possibly unethical and criminal politicians. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on September 21, 2019, 17:31:07
If this goes through, what will be super fun to watch is when the few remaining private ranges left in Canada  (no shooting sports= no ranges) refuse to rent to police forces (why would you rent to the people putting you out of business?) and the police leadership in most municipalities suddenly realize that they have no place to qualify or maintain their members on firearms currency.

This is a travesty that everytime the Liberal Party in Canada gets themselves in trouble, lawful gunowners become the distraction.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on September 21, 2019, 17:33:25
Here’s a thought: When gun owning people have to renew drivers licenses, register a car or business, transfer title of a house, apply for a passport, receive a tax refund, enrol in school and the like, then the guns will be turned in or those people do not pass “go”.

Fight this one people, there’s much more at stake here than guns and ammo.

Cloud Cover: sorry- I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Can you try again for a simpleton, such as myself?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on September 21, 2019, 18:34:18
I think he's implying that the next step is to tie surrender to one's official documents.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on September 21, 2019, 19:09:01
Basically criminalize over a million previously law abiding citizens of Canada?

I could see them sinking that low.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: milnews.ca on September 21, 2019, 20:13:11
How'd that work for you?   :pop:
Not as well as hoped, but ya do the best ya can, right?  ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 21, 2019, 20:37:33
If this goes through, what will be super fun to watch is when the few remaining private ranges left in Canada  (no shooting sports= no ranges) refuse to rent to police forces (why would you rent to the people putting you out of business?) and the police leadership in most municipalities suddenly realize that they have no place to qualify or maintain their members on firearms currency.

This is already a concern.  Many clubs will not rent to LEAs and some don't want LEOs as members, either.  In that most clubs operate as not-for-profit entities, when use dries up (i.e. IPSC, IDPA, 3-Gun ,  long range precision shooting etc. become outlawed activities under CCC s 70.(1)(b)) they will quickly fold and be forced to sell off their facilities, possibly to the feds or local LEAs (or SNC-Lavalin???), or face expropriation.

Remember who we are dealing with here.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on September 21, 2019, 20:55:32
Many clubs will not rent to LEAs and some don't want LEOs as members, either.

It's pretty sad when the relationships between firearm owners and LEOs is so poor. In the US the firearms community are typically dyed-in-the-wool LEO supporters.

The Liberal govenments, *and* the RCMP leadership who have more than just supported them in this but actively sought to make life for firearm owners even harder than the law requires, are turned what should be productive, positive relationships into bitter mistrust for one another.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 21, 2019, 21:06:43
It's pretty sad when the relationships between firearm owners and LEOs is so poor. In the US the firearms community are typically dyed-in-the-wool LEO supporters.

I have heard of isolated cases where LEOs have taken it upon themselves to visit gun clubs -  which are generally private properties -  and ask to see PALs, ATTs and check storage/transport conditions of members firearms, in essence trolling for offences.  This has undoubtedly poisoned the relationship in some areas.

There are several LE members of my club.  Most established members know who we are and generally, we keep a low profile.  We, as sport handgun shooters, obviously bemoan the latest Liberal theatrics as we know they will make no difference in the long run.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 21, 2019, 23:14:23
Remember the flood in Calgary?
The RCMP took it upon themselves to enter vacated premises and seize firearms. Public Safety they said, which it may have been.
It didn’t appear that way to firearms owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on September 22, 2019, 12:57:33
Remember the flood in Calgary High River?
The RCMP took it upon themselves to enter vacated premises and seize firearms. Public Safety they said, which it may have been.
It didn’t appear that way to firearms owners.

Public safety, my eye. They abused the public trust and broke into houses and safes. In the end cost taxpayers $2.3M.

Quote
A report released last year found that RCMP-led search teams used crowbars and sledgehammers, in some instances, to gain entry to homes and dragged mud and debris across floors as they searched for stranded people and pets and checked for gas leaks, weapons and other hazards. The house entries and seizures of more than 600 firearms sparked outrage among residents and even claims that gun safes had been breached by the Mounties. But an investigation by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP could find no evidence to support those claims.
The watchdog did, however, criticize the Mounties for carrying out, in some cases, overly broad searches for firearms and contraband and for improperly seizing a number of guns that had been lawfully secured. (The Criminal Code allows only for warrantless seizures of unsecured firearms or contraband that are in “plain view”).

From here:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/high-river-residents-paid-2-3m-for-controversial-rcmp-home-and-gun-sweeps-during-2013-flood
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 22, 2019, 13:13:27
Thank you for clarifying that.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 22, 2019, 13:43:53
There were accusations of the RCMP using information from the long gun registry which was supposed to be destroyed, too.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on September 22, 2019, 23:24:23
New salvo fired by CBC:

Targeted - Inside the gun lobby's fight to save assault weapons in Canada. (https://gem.cbc.ca/media/the-fifth-estate/season-45/episode-1/38e815a-011b132580c)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on September 22, 2019, 23:50:37
Funny. There wasn't a "gun lobby" in Canada until gun owners backs got put to the wall.

Strange how people get militant when they are continually treated unfairly and demonized by their government...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 23, 2019, 15:48:03
Which police force is going to go on to FN land and disarm them of their "assault rifles" and other soon to be banned weapons.

I can't think of any officer I know that is prepared to face the two way range over that, and I would not support the army once again being asked to take up arms against people in our own country.

Eating crow and stand corrected: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/drugs-guns-cash-peguis-first-nation-1.5294088

Looks like they modified the barrel on the bolt action sniper rifle as well. This could have been a bloodbath.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 23, 2019, 17:22:09
75,634 AR15's as of August 14, 2019. A small drop in the bucket when you consider the number of other firearms that will likely be identified as "assault weapons". Easily over a million I'd say. Maybe closer to 5?
Wonder where the Liberals would get the money for compensation.


And what would the Liberals DO with all these firearms? Destroy them? Store them with the police?

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-hundreds-of-guns-go-missing-from-the-mounties-military-and-other-departments
Quote
Newly-released documents from the RCMP and other federal departments and agencies show that if the risk of lost and stolen guns is an issue, then we better think of taking guns from the Mounties, maybe even the military.

Firearms researcher Dennis Young obtained a list of the number of guns lost or stolen by police or public agencies from 2005 through 2019 and the numbers might shock you.

A total of 640 firearms were reported lost in that time frame, another 173 were reported stolen.

640 lost firearms. Ouch.  Military has lost 559 firearms and another 14 stolen between 2008-18.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on September 23, 2019, 19:24:01
Sorry, I have a hard time believing in "lost" firearms. I think someone (multiple someones) have sticky fingers and can't resist.

I consider 95% of "lost" stats stolen personally.

Unless their is a logical reason, people can "lose" firearms easily.. happened in combat? Ok I'll buy that... but I don't think thats the case.

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 23, 2019, 21:40:05
75,634 AR15's as of August 14, 2019. A small drop in the bucket when you consider the number of other firearms that will likely be identified as "assault weapons". Easily over a million I'd say. Maybe closer to 5?
Wonder where the Liberals would get the money for compensation.


And what would the Liberals DO with all these firearms? Destroy them? Store them with the police?

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-hundreds-of-guns-go-missing-from-the-mounties-military-and-other-departments
640 lost firearms. Ouch.  Military has lost 559 firearms and another 14 stolen between 2008-18.

As a guy who has been running SNACs, every quarter, for 2 decades I would like to know the details behind the 559 lost firearms and 14 stolen. 

If there is one thing we done mess about with its verifying those E class items (weapons) every quarter. 

Any destroyed in service are written off but that's not a loss in the same manner as this article is making it out.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on September 23, 2019, 22:34:19
Sorry, I have a hard time believing in "lost" firearms. I think someone (multiple someones) have sticky fingers and can't resist.

I consider 95% of "lost" stats stolen personally.

Unless their is a logical reason, people can "lose" firearms easily.. happened in combat? Ok I'll buy that... but I don't think thats the case.

Abdullah

I’ve seen two weapons lost one went overboard in swan lake (nothing comes back out of that place, second one off a bridge in Germany so yes lost does happen.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: garb811 on September 23, 2019, 22:52:27
Looking at what was produced in response to that ATIP request, it looks like someone took the lazy way out when they processed it by just doing a generic CCJS search in SAMPIS without actually seeing what the items lost actually was. "THEFT, PUBLIC (WEAPON)" or "LOST, PUBLIC (WEAPON)" can be anything that is associated with a weapon. So some of those will be actual weapons, but the vast majority will be EIS items, probably with C7/C8 mags topping the list by a huge margin.

ie. Between 20 and 30 July 2012 there were 13 LOST, PUBLIC (WEAPONS) files generated in Gagetown. Do you think that might not have warranted some kind of panic if there were 13 instances of actual weapons being lost, or is it more probable 13 items of EIS being lost by students out in the training area and recorded under that CCJS code because there isn't any other alternative? Anyone who has been DS on a course in Gagetown, Wainwright, Petawawa, Meaford etc has probably had to deal with at least one lost mag at the end of a trace...

Edit: Typo
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ballz on September 24, 2019, 02:07:43
ie. Between 20 and 30 July 2012 there were 13 LOST, PUBLIC (WEAPONS) files generated in Gagetown.

Tangent, but somewhere in that 10-day period the entire Infantry School was sweeping for a lost ELCAN by one of the demo staff. I remember missing our forced rest window for it during Ph III. Your post was a trigger for a memory I had repressed.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on September 24, 2019, 03:04:27

I’ve seen two weapons lost one went overboard in swan lake (nothing comes back out of that place, second one off a bridge in Germany so yes lost does happen.

I believe 100% that loss DOES happen, but at what rate I feel is subject to debate. Had a quick look at your profile, you have 30 some odd years of service? And personally seen 2 weapons lost?

I am not trying to insult, belittle or mock the respective organizations. I just think, maybe x% of firearms reported as lost are actually stolen is all. I originally stated 95%, but I think maybe I was to harsh with that.

Regardless legitimate cases exist. No debate at all, I have been around the block enough to know crap happens.

Abdullah
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 24, 2019, 07:44:40
Anyone who has been DS on a course in Gagetown, Wainwright, Petawawa, Meaford etc has probably had to deal with at least one lost mag at the end of a trace...

And to the folks who say "it's just a mag", it's also a prohibited device under the CC and FA and a controlled asset. How many "lost mags" have been recovered by contractors, scavengers in the trg areas (yes, it happens) or follow-on course and never properly dealt with?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: garb811 on September 24, 2019, 11:03:39
Tangent, but somewhere in that 10-day period the entire Infantry School was sweeping for a lost ELCAN by one of the demo staff. I remember missing our forced rest window for it during Ph III. Your post was a trigger for a memory I had repressed.
It isn't a tangent. If the ELCAN wasn't found, it will be one of those files.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 24, 2019, 11:05:05
And to the folks who say "it's just a mag", it's also a prohibited device under the CC and FA and a controlled asset. How many "lost mags" have been recovered by contractors, scavengers in the trg areas (yes, it happens) or follow-on course and never properly dealt with?

Crap happens when doing the business.  I've dropped mags during quick mag change on an attack and seen some go missing on an attack. Train like you fight and sometimes you just don't have time to put them in the drop pouch. 

Luckily the miltiary isn't beholden to the firearms act, otherwise we would never get any real training done. 

As for lost weapons, funniest one I saw was a Canadian Maple Branch snag a C7 out of the bustle rack of a LAV.  Spent a couple of hours driving around looking for that thieving tree! 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 24, 2019, 12:36:10
Luckily the military isn't beholden to the firearms act, otherwise we would never get any real training done. 

I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that the item is still prohibited when not in the lawful (i.e. duty or training related) possession of a CAF member or other exempted person.  E.g. A troop "loses" a C7 magazine or two on an FTX.  Then, he uses the magazine in his dreaded S&W AR-15 clone on a civilian range.  That magazine is prohibited as it is not lawfully in his possession as he is now subject to the CCC/FA .  That's what I meant.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 24, 2019, 14:29:47
Good side of banning firearms out west.

Less things criminals, burglers and intruders have to worry about being hurt with.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-man-who-fired-warning-shots-at-bandits-is-now-being-sued-for-damages-by-one-of-them/ar-AAHJRjc?li=AAggNb9
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 24, 2019, 14:38:54
Good side of banning firearms out west.

Less thibgs criminals, burglers and intruders have to worry about being hurt with.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-man-who-fired-warning-shots-at-bandits-is-now-being-sued-for-damages-by-one-of-them/ar-AAHJRjc?li=AAggNb9

This is why nobody in Alberta likes or respects the RCMP any more  :nod:

Not really their fault as they are just agents of the state but a little common sense would go a long way.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Mister Donut on September 24, 2019, 15:03:48
I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that the item is still prohibited when not in the lawful (i.e. duty or training related) possession of a CAF member or other exempted person.  E.g. A troop "loses" a C7 magazine or two on an FTX.  Then, he uses the magazine in his dreaded S&W AR-15 clone on a civilian range.  That magazine is prohibited as it is not lawfully in his possession as he is now subject to the CCC/FA .  That's what I meant.

If founnd, a law abiding fire arm owner would put a rivet in that magazine :p
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on September 24, 2019, 21:01:21
 Another promise from JT is to “further strengthen safe-storage laws”. (Which are already rock solid) I'm thinking they are looking seriously into centralized storage. Ranges will have increased costs for facilities and security or close up completely. The costs related to sport or recreational shooting would skyrocket. More costs = less shooters = exactly what the Liberals want.

More importantly, centralized storage makes confiscation oh so easy.....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on September 25, 2019, 09:38:40
I'm thinking they are looking seriously into centralized storage.

Blair specifically mentioned centralized storage at gun clubs and ranges for gun owners in urban areas during an interview on CTV's Question Period. This is because those are the only places where one can legally use them. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on September 25, 2019, 10:13:06
Blair specifically mentioned centralized storage at gun clubs and ranges for gun owners in urban areas during an interview on CTV's Question Period. This is because those are the only places where one can legally use them.

Unless your firearms are non-restricted. Not everyone that lives in a urban area has restricted firearms, or belongs to a gun club.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 25, 2019, 10:22:59
Centralized storage is a throw away COA.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 25, 2019, 10:30:36
We are such a fractured group of people, Canadian Firearms owners.  We have just as much suspicion and mistrust from within as we do for the outside. 

What defence can we mount ?

I am very interested to see what happens if the Liberals manage to pull another majority and pass their plans into legislation and law.  There are allot of key board commandos talking about resistance and vaguely veiled hints of possible violent resistance as well. 

I for see the sale of rifle length PVC piping and caps, strong plastic bags and shovels to skyrocket.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on September 25, 2019, 10:45:13
We are such a fractured group of people, Canadian Firearms owners.  We have just as much suspicion and mistrust from within as we do for the outside. 

What defence can we mount ?

I am very interested to see what happens if the Liberals manage to pull another majority and pass their plans into legislation and law.  There are allot of key board commandos talking about resistance and vaguely veiled hints of possible violent resistance as well. 

I for see the sale of rifle length PVC piping and caps, strong plastic bags and shovels to skyrocket.

The amnesty for the LGR lasted as long as the registry did, one could only hope that there will be non-compliance or owners taking advantage of the 2 year amnesty. If only 10% or 25% of "assault weapons" are turned in, the amnesty will be extended. The only other recourse would be to start a legal protest.

IF the government wants to ban any firearms by OIC, then the firearms act automatically creates grandfathered ownership privileges for all affected owners via 12.8 of the firearms act. If they do this, everyone who holds a registration certificate for these firearms will receive a new registration certificate indicated prohibited status, and should at the same time receive a new license indicating prohibited in some way. If for whatever reason you are not eligible for a prohibited license, or if the government tries to enact that ban without grandfathered privileges, you will receive a seizure notice in the mail, giving you 30 days to comply or file a protest. Filing a protest is free, and involves you requesting a S74 judicial review of the revocation of your certificate. You do not need a lawyer for this. You will be given a court date. Probably 9-12 months away.  You have 9-12 months to find a lawyer, tell them about your actual court date, and pay them for actual advise.

With or without them you will go in front of the judge, plead your case, and the judge will rule that the order was properly enacted, that governments are allowed to make stupid laws, and will order you to comply with the seizure notice. IN other words, you will lose. BUT, then you get to file an appeal. This will cost money. You will NEED a lawyer. This will take at least a year. By this point the court system will be clogged with hundreds of thousands of reviews and appeal requests that the Crown Attorneys will be begging the government to do something or else bona fide criminals will be having their cases tossed due to excessive delays.

2 year amnesty + 1 year wait for court + waiting for an appeal. Hopefully the conservatives will get elected and repeal that nonsense by then.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 25, 2019, 15:22:17
 Taken from the shipbuilding thread:

 “The tribunal was still formulating an official response to the government’s use of the exception, which the Liberal government quietly expanded over the summer without any consultation with industry or experts”

This expansion* of power appears to be a running theme from all levels of Canadian government in many areas- from ship building to gun control.

If the federal government gives municipalities any powers whatsoever in gun control (which many cities are requesting)  they will most assuredly ban most firearms and then seek to expropriate some existing ranges for police training purposes. This might be constitutional overreach, but if a province approves then it can be done.

The only provinces that might push back are in the West, with the exception of BC.

*  silent exercise of raw legal power for political purpose.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on September 25, 2019, 22:35:52


The only provinces that might push back are in the West, with the exception of BC.

I suspect that Ontario under Ford, no friend of John Tory or anything Toronto. might also push back.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on September 28, 2019, 23:47:29
I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that the item is still prohibited when not in the lawful (i.e. duty or training related) possession of a CAF member or other exempted person.  E.g. A troop "loses" a C7 magazine or two on an FTX.  Then, he uses the magazine in his dreaded S&W AR-15 clone on a civilian range.  That magazine is prohibited as it is not lawfully in his possession as he is now subject to the CCC/FA .  That's what I meant.

If he wanted a 30 round mag for his AR, he can just drill out the rivet. A whole bunch simpler and expedient than ******* with the military horseshit over a lost mag.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 29, 2019, 00:23:58
If he wanted a 30 round mag for his AR, he can just drill out the rivet. A whole bunch simpler and expedient than ******* with the military horseshit over a lost mag.

Isn't this prohibited in Canada too? 4 nails and some electrical tape.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_6bHU2Yrt3W0%2FTGDgVzqnmzI%2FAAAAAAAAAok%2FQJ-DG209nJU%2Fs640%2F1.jpg&hash=d3afd373434d11616dd366709ab48eee)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on September 29, 2019, 12:24:06
Absolutely. I often wonder why some people don't understand that prohibition doesn't work.
If it did, we could just make murder and assault illegal...... that would cure the "gun" problem.

Let's put meth and crack cocaine on the list too!! :)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on September 29, 2019, 12:51:09
An interesting read on gun control from Bermuda... and their solution when bans and confiscation didn't work.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-what-bermudas-50-year-old-gun-ban-can-teach-canada/

Quote
It’s become a tragic ritual: Whenever gun violence strikes, there is a conversation about gun control.
And in that conversation, certain “success stories” invariably come up. After 35 people were killed in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur in 1996, Australia banned certain guns, established a registry and implemented tighter restrictions. The firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 per cent in the seven years afterward. Canada, too, is often cited as a haven, especially compared with the United States.
But Canada saw 249 gun-related killings in 2018. And Toronto – where a fifth of those killings occurred – endured another spate of violence this summer evoking fears of 2005’s “year of the gun.”
For people truly looking for a better approach on gun violence, Australia is not a fair parallel. Allowing provinces to decide to implement a handgun ban, along with a prohibition on military-style “assault weapons” – as the Liberal party proposed, in its campaign platform last week – won’t work if that’s the extent of its gun policy. And a better example lies on an affluent island nation that’s closer to home.

In the early 1970s, a spate of high-profile murders in Bermuda – including the assassination of the governor – prompted the government to confiscate firearms, resulting in one of the world’s strictest gun regimes. Today, only certain members of the Bermuda Police Service are authorized to use handguns; all others must receive authorization from the police commissioner, and that’s usually reserved for the military. Members of licensed rifle clubs may possess firearms with a licence that must be renewed annually, and Bermudians cannot keep ammunition at home.
Bermuda, meanwhile, also shifted its economy to focus on international business. It is now the world’s “risk capital,” and the largest underwriter of catastrophe reinsurance to the United States. As a result, it now enjoys one of the world’s highest per-capita incomes.

But despite all these changes, Bermuda was rocked by the worst period of gun violence in its history, spurred by feuding gangs, starting in 2009. By 2010, there was a shooting every 10 days, on average. The murder of Kimwandae Walker was described by police as one of the “most heinous"; he was killed at a school field on Good Friday in front of his children.
It turns out a blunt ban wasn’t enough. Guns weren’t really off the streets; as a hub for air travel, cargo ships, cruise ships and private yachts from the United States, Bermuda remained vulnerable to firearm-smuggling. And the guns found their way to communities affected by deeper traumas and societal inequalities that a gun ban didn’t address.
"We did not realize that in our communities we were taking this dysfunction from generation to generation,” said Wayne Caines, Bermuda’s Minister of National Security, in a phone interview with The Globe and Mail. Amid alcohol and drug addiction problems, abuse, incarceration, and parental absenteeism, he says this particular generation’s dysfunction is manifesting as gang activity.

Other societal forces helped drive young Bermudians to crime, too. Bermuda’s explosion in gun crime coincided with a recession, triggered by the 2008 financial crisis. The country’s gross domestic product declined for five consecutive years, and the unemployment rate in 2010 was 158 per cent higher than it was a decade earlier.
Bermuda’s history of racial segregation and disenfranchisement meant that the crash affected some more than others. The lack of a four-year university there meant that only those wealthy enough to study abroad – or workers who came from away – could access the high-paying, specialized jobs in the reinsurance industry. And so black Bermudians, who make up approximately 55 per cent of the population, disproportionately worked lower-paying and precarious jobs that required less education, in industries that experienced the worst of the shocks: construction, manufacturing and retail services. “For a long period of time, we did not invest in our young men,” Mr. Caines admits.

But to Bermuda’s credit, it has shifted gears. The government conducted a survey of 10,000 students to identify the young people most vulnerable to these crimes; it found that 4 per cent, or approximately 400 students, fit that definition. The Gang Violence Reduction Team began providing mediation and support sessions in schools. A Violent Reduction Unit took aim at anti-social behaviour while offering mediation, de-escalation, and a prison outreach and rehabilitation program. Its Inter-Agency Gang Enforcement Team holds monthly meetings with police and customs officials, as well as with the departments of education and child and family services. They also adopted a few measures that help people avoid the prison-system funnel: mental-health courts, drug treatment courts, and the decriminalization of small amounts of cannabis. The goal was to move away from locking up the majority of black men who commit lesser crimes.
Since then, there’s been a gun-violence miracle. Over the past four years, the Bermuda Police Service has registered a 45-per-cent decrease in gang murders and gun violence. In 2018, Bermuda saw three firearms deaths, down from nine in 2017 and 14 in 2016.

The government did undertake an initial short-term plan to arrest and convict those directly involved in shootings and homicides, Mr. Caines admitted, but insisted that such an aggressive approach alone wouldn’t have solved the problem, and that a more long-term plan was needed to ensure young people stayed connected to society. “We accept and acknowledge that we could have done differently,” he said. "Now we are in the process as a community of coming to grips with some of the failings of our past.”
Canada may not boast Bermuda’s tropical climes, but we share surprisingly similar circumstances. Indigenous, immigrant and refugee families carry unaddressed intergenerational trauma. People of colour, who disproportionately experience poverty, have been historically disenfranchised and marginalized. A Hospital for Sick Children study found that refugee youth had a 43 per cent higher chance of becoming victims of firearms assault than Canadian-born children.

Unlike Bermuda, though, Canada seems unwilling to acknowledge its failings and pursue anything but a gun-violence strategy centred on police action and blunt restrictions.
“Don’t focus on the gun,” Mr. Caines offers up as advice. “Focus on society’s challenge … and put mitigating factors and life-changing factors that allow our young men to get connected to society.”
As Bermuda marches toward an era of zero gun violence, the question remains whether politicians in Canada have the willpower to do the same. The latest round of high-profile gun policy suggests that’s unlikely.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Target Up on September 29, 2019, 12:59:59
Isn't this prohibited in Canada too? 4 nails and some electrical tape.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_6bHU2Yrt3W0%2FTGDgVzqnmzI%2FAAAAAAAAAok%2FQJ-DG209nJU%2Fs640%2F1.jpg&hash=d3afd373434d11616dd366709ab48eee)

Fun fact; brass knuckles are illegal in Canada, but knuckledusters made of 1/2” Lexan are just fine.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 01, 2019, 17:52:54
Seen an article, think it was Toronto sun, that said the gun that was used in the BC murders (an SKS) is the same gun that Trudeau wants to ban.

Read: those murders wouldn't have happened if these assault weapons were banned.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on October 01, 2019, 21:20:05
Seen an article, think it was Toronto sun, that said the gun that was used in the BC murders (an SKS) is the same gun that Trudeau wants to ban.

Read: those murders wouldn't have happened if these assault weapons were banned.

I read the same article. By the same logic, we could reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 02, 2019, 00:11:01
Restricting advertising means no CGN or other firearms forums. No gun shops online, means no ordering over the internet. There is no definition of assault rifles. They can take what they want. Fair market value for buyback? More lies.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: ModlrMike on October 02, 2019, 02:08:24
If you think this is about guns, you're not paying attention:

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda"
"Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world."

- Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister 1998
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on October 02, 2019, 07:11:33
Where are these Canadians killed or injured by 'assault rifles' in Canada?

Last I checked more people have been killed by the Remington 700 in this country than a AR-15 (as far as I am aware not a single person has been killed by a AR-15).

Frankly this whole thing is a joke. Tyranny by majority. A large number of uninformed ignorant people who don't even know what our laws are, think they should be tighter because they are too dumb to understand we are not the US and their news isn't ours.

If we had a serious gun violence issue in Canada we would know. If gun owners were as violent as the media portrays us to be, there wouldn't be any media speaking out against us.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 02, 2019, 10:06:27
If you think this is about guns, you're not paying attention:

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda"
"Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world."

- Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister 1998

Brazil beat us to it. Now look where they are.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 02, 2019, 23:59:00
As of 14 August 2019 there were 75,634 AR15s registered to Canadians.

Is it true there has been a total of 1 murder with an AR15 in Canada? Kevin Leclair?

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 03, 2019, 01:22:44
Everything I've seen has no murders with AR-15s. Didn't really look though.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: my72jeep on October 03, 2019, 06:57:54
One drug guy or a terrorist killed an other druggie of whatever with a ar smuggled in from the US. Back in 1994?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on October 03, 2019, 07:44:15
Seen this floating around FB.

Think this ends with ARs and Handguns ?

(https://scontent.fyaw1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71273722_2457573264328950_7128639941688426496_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQnOVwXWADF95JqdB6PP43gJ8QYfYkzCjWRoe8R8CAsjZ54cLMlxfb-W49A4tYiDS3Y&_nc_ht=scontent.fyaw1-1.fna&oh=1a45e8d030b895e4084fd47fcc3153de&oe=5E384314)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on October 03, 2019, 10:11:56
Seen this floating around FB.

Think this ends with ARs and Handguns ?

(https://scontent.fyaw1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71273722_2457573264328950_7128639941688426496_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQnOVwXWADF95JqdB6PP43gJ8QYfYkzCjWRoe8R8CAsjZ54cLMlxfb-W49A4tYiDS3Y&_nc_ht=scontent.fyaw1-1.fna&oh=1a45e8d030b895e4084fd47fcc3153de&oe=5E384314)

Not a chance!

Your image, coupled with this now deleted tweet from the Polysesouvient group, is shaping the battlespace for full confiscation of everything but single shot long guns..
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Mister Donut on October 03, 2019, 13:01:37
As of 14 August 2019 there were 75,634 AR15s registered to Canadians.

Is it true there has been a total of 1 murder with an AR15 in Canada? Kevin Leclair?

Assuming Leclair was killed with an AR15, they want to ban something that has been used legally 99.99867784329799% of the time.

Pretty sure you can't get stats like that for a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or motor vehicle,
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 03, 2019, 13:25:20
Assuming Leclair was killed with an AR15, they want to ban something that has been used legally 99.99867784329799% of the time.

Pretty sure you can't get stats like that for a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or motor vehicle,

When I searched for the above "sniper rifle story" (which turns out to be from April 2016, see below) the first story in Toronto that came up was a woman being hacked to death with a machete.
https://torontosun.com/news/crime/woman-killed-in-horrific-scarborough-machete-attack

Seems like machetes have killed more people in Canada than AR15s.


The sniper rifle, aka hunting rifle story
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-man-murdered-in-driveway-was-shot-with-a-high-powered-sniper-rifle-from-180-metres-police




Another disgusting story.

Man charged in machete attack arrested in shooting of pregnant woman, boyfriend
“Three men, known to the man and woman, entered the unit armed with handguns,” Const. Jenniferjit Sidhu said Wednesday.

The intruders then opened fire on the man, 23, and woman, 20, while they were in bed and two kids, ages 8 and 4, were asleep in the next room.

The woman, who is three months’ pregnant, was hit in her upper chest but survived. Police say her unborn child was uninjured.


https://www.theobserver.ca/2017/07/05/trio-arrested-in-shooting-of-pregnant-woman-boyfriend/wcm/3bec3fe1-66ba-4030-bf72-fe5f7a4cfe3b


Good thing the Liberals want to make an election promise of taking the AR15 I use on shooting ranges away from me.

Toronto though, that sure sounds like a nice place to raise a family.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on October 03, 2019, 13:52:15
Toronto though, that sure sounds like a nice place to raise a family.

I thought Metro was a good place to live, and a good employer.

So do others,

World Rankings for Toronto
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/toronto-progress-portal/world-rankings-for-toronto/

If you are worried about your personal safety,

Quote
These are the top 10 MOST DANGEROUS cities in Canada 2018:
https://www.iheartradio.ca/virginradio/edmonton/trending/the-top-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada-2018-1.8543815




Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Mister Donut on October 03, 2019, 14:47:51
I thought Metro was a good place to live, and a good employer.

So do others,

World Rankings for Toronto
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/toronto-progress-portal/world-rankings-for-toronto/

If you are worried about your personal safety,

I'm surprised Surrey BC wasn't in the top ten
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 03, 2019, 18:07:06
I thought Metro was a good place to live, and a good employer.

So do others

Quote
If you are worried about your personal safety,


GTA leads Canada in organized crime homicides, Statscan reveals in new gangland data

Jul 28, 2019
A clearer picture of the nation's criminal underworld emerged this week, as Statistics Canada released detailed data on organized crime for the first time in a decade.

Within the report were figures that show more murders linked to gang activity and traditional organized crime happened in the Greater Toronto Area last year than anywhere else in Canada.

Investigators say the new data is a boon for police as they try to figure out which criminal organizations to target. But the local homicide numbers also point to a region that's bucking a worldwide trend as its criminal organizations clash violently in a bid for power amidst increased instability, a leading expert says.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/organized-crime-statistics-1.5226940
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Mister Donut on October 03, 2019, 18:51:23
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71138336_555286498611777_766798107835891712_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_oc=AQmkgfnLDm08A2o3PRXTMR0to4bzpYhDPE9qsxQpZnsVi3uv6vRD5PXtgmFLHs9p6K0&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=d67e665082ccda5dcbd8cac55c1f718b&oe=5E21BAB2)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 03, 2019, 18:58:11
The gun thing really irks me.

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71138336_555286498611777_766798107835891712_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_oc=AQmkgfnLDm08A2o3PRXTMR0to4bzpYhDPE9qsxQpZnsVi3uv6vRD5PXtgmFLHs9p6K0&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=d67e665082ccda5dcbd8cac55c1f718b&oe=5E21BAB2)

Yet law-abiding firearm owners are the ones being vilified.


The reality is that, because we're Canada, as with the weather, if you don't like it just wait awhile....
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on October 03, 2019, 18:59:24
Within the report were figures that show more murders linked to gang activity and traditional organized crime happened in the Greater Toronto Area last year than anywhere else in Canada.

Because there's more people.

Greater Toronto Area ( GTA ) Population 6,417,526 people ( 2016 ).

Province of British Columbia
4.992 million (2018)

Province of Alberta
4.307 million (2018)

Montreal 1.78 million (2017)

Atlantic Canada combined 2.333 million (2016)
( New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island – and the easternmost province of Newfoundland and Labrador combined ).






Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 03, 2019, 22:12:36
Population would only be part of the equation
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Brihard on October 03, 2019, 22:43:37

GTA leads Canada in organized crime homicides, Statscan reveals in new gangland data

Jul 28, 2019
A clearer picture of the nation's criminal underworld emerged this week, as Statistics Canada released detailed data on organized crime for the first time in a decade.

Within the report were figures that show more murders linked to gang activity and traditional organized crime happened in the Greater Toronto Area last year than anywhere else in Canada.

Investigators say the new data is a boon for police as they try to figure out which criminal organizations to target. But the local homicide numbers also point to a region that's bucking a worldwide trend as its criminal organizations clash violently in a bid for power amidst increased instability, a leading expert says.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/organized-crime-statistics-1.5226940

Further down in the article it normalizes gross numbers to the /100,000 population norm used in criminological comparison. Adjusted for population, the GTA’s murder rate is below that of the Vancouver area and Edmonton.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on October 03, 2019, 22:44:24
Adjusted for population, the GTA’s murder rate is below that of the Vancouver area and Edmonton.

Toronto though, that sure sounds like a nice place to raise a family.

For reference,

Quote
Police-reported Crime Severity Index and crime rate, by census metropolitan area, 2018
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190722/t004a-eng.htm

2018 – Crime Severity Index:

Canada 75.0
Toronto 53.6

2018 – Crime rate:

Canada 5,488
Toronto 3,428

Toronto's 2018 statistics would include the van attack on Yonge St. It was the deadliest attack of any kind ( terror or non-terror ) in the city's history.







Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 04, 2019, 13:08:10
Those interested in where violence happens should be drilling down to specific neighbourhoods and communities.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Baden Guy on October 04, 2019, 13:37:49
Those interested in where violence happens should be drilling down to specific neighbourhoods and communities.
Watch local TO news and there is close to a shooting incident every day.
And as Brad says "specific neighbourhoods" are where most of it happens. Unfortunately there are a lot of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. And some of these weapons are used outside these areas. If you hear TO talking about a handgun ban this is what is driving the concern. Shootings are occurring in public areas thruout the city. I live in a suburban TO community and serious gun violence is higher than in any past year I can recall.
Contributing causes ... drugs...proximity to the border !
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on October 04, 2019, 15:09:49
I'm surprised Surrey BC wasn't in the top ten

I suspect Surrey was included in the Vancouver census metropolitan area ( CMA ).

"A census metropolitan area (CMA) consists of one or more neighbouring municipalities situated around a major urban core. A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core. To be included in the CMA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the central urban area, as measured by commuting flows derived from census data. A CMA typically comprises more than one police service."

"Metro Vancouver is a federation of 22 municipalities."

Those interested in where violence happens should be drilling down to specific neighbourhoods and communities.

There are 140 neighbourhoods officially recognized by the City of Toronto, and upwards of 240 unofficial neighbourhoods.

That is City only. Does not include the Greater Toronto Area ( GTA ) Regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham.

If one is looking to "drill down" for a crime hot spot, I think my neighbourhood would be pretty disappointing,

It's the only one that has its own community run Town Hall. It is the only one to have a lake, a river, and a pond as it's natural boundaries. It's very hilly with  winding roads and many mature trees. It was a village until 1967, and we had our own Fire Dept.

Other than at the Legion, you couldn't buy alcohol until after 2000 ( The year. Not the hour. ) Want beer or wine with your spaghetti in a restaurant? Sorry, have a Coke or ginger ale.

Not exactly Mayberry. Not exactly the crime hot spot some might be looking for either.  :)












Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: GK .Dundas on October 04, 2019, 15:25:05
I suspect Surrey was included in the Vancouver census metropolitan area ( CMA ).

"A census metropolitan area (CMA) consists of one or more neighbouring municipalities situated around a major urban core. A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core. To be included in the CMA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the central urban area, as measured by commuting flows derived from census data. A CMA typically comprises more than one police service."

"Metro Vancouver is a federation of 22 municipalities."

There are 140 neighbourhoods officially recognized by the City of Toronto, and upwards of 240 unofficial neighbourhoods.

That is City only. Does not include the Greater Toronto Area ( GTA ) Regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham.

If one is looking to "drill down" for a crime hot spot, I think my neighbourhood would be pretty disappointing,

It's the only one that has its own community run Town Hall. It is the only one to have a lake, a river, and a pond as it's natural boundaries. It's very hilly with  winding roads and many mature trees. It was a village until 1967, and we had our own Fire Dept.

Other than at the Legion, you couldn't buy alcohol until after 2000. Want beer or wine with your spaghetti in a restaurant? Sorry, have a Coke or ginger ale.
If I'm right you live in Port Credit
And you have my Grandad to blame he was a founder of that Legion and the Mayor of Port Credit at roughly the same time.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on October 04, 2019, 15:30:44
If I'm right you live in Port Credit
And you have my Grandad to blame he was a founder of that Legion and the Mayor of Port Credit at roughly the same time.

No. I love Port Credit. But, I live in the former Village of Swansea. "The final frontier before the Borough of Etobicoke". Now incorporated into the City of Toronto.

The Legion was Branch #46. Coincidentally located directly across the street from the village firehouse. How's that for urban planning?

The firehouse is still there. ( A one-truck station. ) But, the legion closed after the area went "wet".
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 04, 2019, 16:55:05
It sounds like Toronto is a lot safer and nicer than I thought. Why do we hear them so much in the news?  Are they blowing the gun and gang violence out of proportion? Sort of a it snowed send in the army response?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on October 04, 2019, 18:00:12
It sounds like Toronto is a lot safer and nicer than I thought.

Not sure it could ever  be safe enough for some.

We explained the residential population. Now, you can add the tourist population,

Quote
Toronto is the leading tourism destination in Canada. In 2017, Toronto welcomed over 43.7 million visitors.
•A record 15.5 million were overnight visitors
•28.2 million same day visitors
•International travellers to Toronto: ◦5.1 million overnight visitors came from international destinations
◦2.9 million overnight visitors came from the U.S.
(Source: Tourism Toronto, 2017).

Most come looking for a good time. Some may get into trouble.

Why do we hear them so much in the news? 

Where do you think Canada's news media is located?

Are they blowing the gun and gang violence out of proportion?

Probably could never  blow it up enough to satisfy some.

Sort of a it snowed send in the army response?

Once. In the 1990's. Worst one I ever worked.

Do you know the effect a snow storm can have on emergency operations in a big city?

Quote
"FDNY EMS has a aprox 5 hour delay to Emergencies. FDNY personal are advised not to do CPR more then 20 min due to high vol of jobs." [ sic ]

FDNY-EMS reported a backlog of 1,300 9-1-1 calls and a 3-hour to 12-hour delay in response to critical cases, including cardiac arrests and heart attacks.

A report of a mother unable to breath. Her daughter called 9-1-1, but could not get through for 50 minutes. A neighbour administered CPR, but EMS was unable to arrive for another 45 minutes, and they still had to walk to her house. The lady did not survive.

A man died of a heart attack after it took paramedics three-and-a-half hours to arrive. It took another 28 hours for a city medical examiner to pick up the body, which had been resting in a bag on a bed.

A 22-year-old pregnant woman started contractions. Because of the ambulance delay, she began walking from her home to the hospital, but couldn't make it. She stopped in a building lobby. 911 was called again at 8:30 a.m. By 4:30 p.m. she had started crowning and 911 was called again. Around 5:20 p.m. police arrived (by foot since driving was impossible) and found the woman attempting to leave and walk to the hospital again. She was brought back inside and the baby was delivered.  Despite the efforts of police and neighbors the baby was lost.

Sources said FDNY-EMS requested a state of emergency be declared, but the Office of Emergency Management denied the request. A Hearing is to be held in early January.

"Family of NYC Woman Who Died in Blizzard Plans $20M Lawsuit:
Suffering a heart attack during the New York City blizzard after Christmas, Yvonne Freeman "never had a chance," her daughter says, because an ambulance took three hours to reach her over unplowed streets. By the time it got there, it was too late.
Now Freeman's family is planning a $20 million lawsuit against the city -- the first blizzard-related wrongful death case.":

NY Daily News:
"...the city is slammed for failing to declare a snow emergency."


To avoid lawsuits, NYC does not hesitate to call in the army.

If you need outside help, ask for it! Otherwise, those you swore to serve and protect will sue the city.




Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on October 12, 2019, 15:41:04
The list of guns banned in NZ including .22cal rimfires Lever Actions. Remember how they told us, they are not coming for our guns and we are paranoid? If you think Canada won't do the same, you are sadly mistaken  https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/prohibited-firearms-and-parts-buy-back-price-list.pdf
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 12, 2019, 18:23:45
The list of guns banned in NZ including .22cal rimfires Lever Actions. Remember how they told us, they are not coming for our guns and we are paranoid? If you think Canada won't do the same, you are sadly mistaken  https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/prohibited-firearms-and-parts-buy-back-price-list.pdf

I checked what two of my firearms are worth according to that list in new condition and it came back $14'250 Canadian.

I paid $3800 Canadian for em both.



Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Chief Engineer on October 12, 2019, 19:46:25
I checked what two of my firearms are worth according to that list in new condition and it came back $14'250 Canadian.

I paid $3800 Canadian for em both.

My FNC para gets me a little under 8K in NZ, probably about $800 here.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 12, 2019, 20:26:55
The internets says $8000 NZD is worth $6691 CDN.

I'd definitely take that off your hands for $800 if that's the case  ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on October 12, 2019, 22:16:34
Ah yes, the knee-jerk reaction of the NZ government.

They fear the mighty Cooey 60 and the venerable Wingmaster 870, along with the ever so deadly Win '94.  :panic:

Think of the children!!! No-one will be able to teach them to enjoy shooting and hunting safely.....   ;D



Again, gun control is not about the guns..... It's about the control.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 16, 2019, 21:16:25
338canada has Ralph Goodale behind in the polls.  Good for gun owners.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: NavyShooter on October 16, 2019, 21:35:39
A portion of my collection rings in at just about $40K according to that list...interesting.

Not that I'm interested in surrendering any of them.

NS
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 18, 2019, 13:08:24
Well this is terrifying.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6044669/liberals-defend-chinese-facebook-ads-on-andrew-scheers-gun-policy/


Quote
Once the Conservatives are in power, these assault rifles will spread to the streets


It's really weird that the ton of military style (theme? Flavored?) firearms already out there that are non-restricted and not tracked by the RCMP aren't flooding the streets, but if it's coming from the LPC at election time it seems like a legit concern.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on October 18, 2019, 14:08:14
Taking a closer look at the NDP and LPC stance on guns.  It is looking more and more like a coalition will form and I`m curious about what they have in common.

A few thing...
 
LPC - Ban military assault style weapons.  Not sure what that is and they don`t seem to know.

NDP - No mention of a ban.  Just that they will work to get them off the street.  Pretty vague.

Both support letting cities ban handguns.  Not even sure how that would work.

I noted one more thing from the LPC:   People in intimate relationships suspected of being violent will have their licenses revoked.  I see a lot of potential for abuse here by vindictive partners.

I suspect the NDP will be fine with the LPC gun violence platform.  They seem more focused on stopping gun violence at the source but I doubt they will oppose anything the LPC is proposing.

I`m not sure what gun owners can do to insulate themselves from this but hopefully they have been looking at it.  I think though it will require the next CPC leader to try and overturn it if they can win next time. (I am being presumptuous but I am fairly certain the CPC will not get a majority, without which they will not be able to govern.)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 18, 2019, 21:29:55
Liberals digging deep lol


(https://i.imgur.com/i6pg62f.jpg)

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 18, 2019, 21:47:30
 Are you telling me that if I vote Conservative, I get an AK-47?

That. Is. Awesome!
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Good2Golf on October 18, 2019, 22:45:48
Are you telling me that if I vote Conservative, I get an AK-47?

That. Is. Awesome!

I’ll take the HK-416! ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Hamish Seggie on October 18, 2019, 23:10:05
Are you telling me that if I vote Conservative, I get an AK-47?

That. Is. Awesome!

A Timberwolf for me. It looks cool.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: AbdullahD on October 18, 2019, 23:12:38
I just want something belt fed :(
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: CBH99 on October 19, 2019, 03:39:13
Liberals digging deep lol


(https://i.imgur.com/i6pg62f.jpg)


Perhaps its just me, and I am feeling pretty apathetic this election - not going to lie.  But it's these types of petty tactics that I find, for myself anyway, work AGAINST the party putting up those kinds of posters.

It's not hard to slander your political opponents, sensationalize minor things, dig up petty dirt on someone & portray them to be the most horrid choice imaginable.  Elementary school kids could probably do an equally good job of running a political campaign if that's the substance of it.


Instead of coming up with posters like that in order to scare people...why not take the time to simply argue what you WOULD do if elected, and how that would benefit people?  Talk about what things you'd like to accomplish and how that might come to be, so people vote for you based on merit and optimism about those plans.

Putting down the other political parties tells me absolutely nothing other than your taking the time to discredit them, rather than taking the time to clearly tell the public what you'd like to do and why, so they vote for you out of affection for your ideas & not sensationalized nonsense about the other parties.


And in the case of the Liberals this time around, if you had just put your foot down & governed well in the first place, you wouldn't have to lay it on so thick come election time.  Instead of trying to buy voters with big election promises, why not just lead in a way that people support in the first place?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 19, 2019, 09:24:39
Great points CBH.

I always scratch my head when people buy into to these 11th hour election promises.

If it was such a big deal why not start dealing with it week one someone is in office.

Speaking of backfiring, the LPC did a bunch of them in chinese targeting Chinese Canadians. I guess to counter the Conservative Chinese ads about Liberals and hard drugs.

The LPC must not have did their homework- Asians in Canada make up a huge, I'd say exploding, demograph of firearm owners and people getting into guns and shooting.

When I seen the ads I laughed and said you dummies.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 23, 2019, 15:32:51
Any ideas where this election leaves the liberal promise of banning firearms?

Few thoughts.

The criteria for what constitutes an assault weapon is pretty open meaning millions of guns could in theory be taken. Easily over a billion dollars. I think I calculated up to 6 or, 7 billion.

Would a minority government be able to pass a law like that which will cost 6 billion?

NDP didn't seem to care that much. Singh spoke about supporting cities and municipalities being able to ban handguns if they wanted but I don't recall much talk about assault weapons.

Quebec instituted their own gun registry but from what I can see there's a very low compliance rate. Like the long gun registry of old, Quebec firearm owners aren't playing ball. Would the Bloc want to escalate the Quebec gun registration into a full firearm ban?

With the #wexit talk what would the optics of a gun ban pushed by the Liberals look like?  I can't imagine western Canada using it as an oppertuity to paint the LPC as trying to disarm them before bullying them. Like Trudeau told Scheer "You're not in Alberta anymore".



Safe to say that promise is put on the back burner or will the Liberals try to use it to their advantage?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on October 23, 2019, 16:38:55
Any ideas where this election leaves the liberal promise of banning firearms?

Few thoughts.

The criteria for what constitutes an assault weapon is pretty open meaning millions of guns could in theory be taken. Easily over a billion dollars. I think I calculated up to 6 or, 7 billion.

Would a minority government be able to pass a law like that which will cost 6 billion?

NDP didn't seem to care that much. Singh spoke about supporting cities and municipalities being able to ban handguns if they wanted but I don't recall much talk about assault weapons.

Quebec instituted their own gun registry but from what I can see there's a very low compliance rate. Like the long gun registry of old, Quebec firearm owners aren't playing ball. Would the Bloc want to escalate the Quebec gun registration into a full firearm ban?

With the #wexit talk what would the optics of a gun ban pushed by the Liberals look like?  I can't imagine western Canada using it as an oppertuity to paint the LPC as trying to disarm them before bullying them. Like Trudeau told Scheer "You're not in Alberta anymore".

Safe to say that promise is put on the back burner or will the Liberals try to use it to their advantage?

I think they will move quick on this.  The NDP will support as they are on the same page more or less.  Quebec's political class has always supported less guns so I doubt the Bloc will oppose it either. 

At least on cities banning handguns.  Banning certain firearms would likely be easy as well as they would leave it to the RCMP to decide I would think.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on October 23, 2019, 18:46:33
Look for an announcement on or near the Ecole Polytecnique massacre date.  As for what will be banned, see the New Zealand list for an idea of how the PM will proceed.

My guess is that the Government will determine that allowing municipalities to enact handgun bans wilt be too cumbersome to administer and result in a patchwork of gun free urban areas with lawless countrysides in between, that a nation handgun ban will follow shortly thereafter.

And if you think the "fair market value" price offered for your confiscated guns will be anywhere near reasonable, forget it.   I foresee that all transfers of newly classified prohibs will be stopped meaning that you won't even be able to sell then to a foreign buyer, thus driving the "fair market value" in Canada to near zero.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on October 24, 2019, 07:24:01
My prediction unfortunately is they are likely to use a OIC to ban rifles they don't like (hence avoiding parliament), and might just forget about the handgun thing. Otherwise they have to risk running it through parliament and that is only risk, not much reward.

The laws required to ban any firearm in the country is already enacted, its surprisingly easy for the government to do so, its just disgusting that they might.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 02, 2019, 10:47:25
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/rcmp-handgun-stolen-at-mall-in-west-toronto-1.4665811


Not sure why someone would keep a handgun in a satchel and goto the mall with it. Shoulda went with a fanny pack.

Those guns look like bricks. I wonder why the RCMP haven't moved to Sigs or Glock.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on November 02, 2019, 12:10:36
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/rcmp-handgun-stolen-at-mall-in-west-toronto-1.4665811


Not sure why someone would keep a handgun in a satchel and goto the mall with it. Shoulda went with a fanny pack.

Those guns look like bricks. I wonder why the RCMP haven't moved to Sigs or Glock.

"Only the Police and Military should be trusted with guns"  ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on November 06, 2019, 07:05:09
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/police-seize-250-guns-200-000-rounds-of-ammo-from-kitchener-residence-1.4669099

Way to go police, you really have caught a dangerous criminal  ::)
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 06, 2019, 08:54:29
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/police-seize-250-guns-200-000-rounds-of-ammo-from-kitchener-residence-1.4669099

Way to go police, you really have caught a dangerous criminal  ::)

Our storage laws seem very ambiguous but 250 guns in the open or easily accessible if that's the case seems irresponsible to me.

He probably could have stuck with 225 guns and bought some trigger locks and safes.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 07, 2019, 00:11:38
Judge rules RCMP weapons serial numbers are not personal information. There must be a story behind this story! https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/gun-serial-numbers-are-not-personal-information-judge-tells-rcmp-1.4673232
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on November 07, 2019, 07:03:29
Our storage laws seem very ambiguous but 250 guns in the open or easily accessible if that's the case seems irresponsible to me.

He probably could have stuck with 225 guns and bought some trigger locks and safes.

Obviously we don't have all the details as to how they were stored, such as was he home (in which case it doesn't have to be stored), where they were, and how they were. But even if it wasn't stored properly, at the end of the day it is a victimless crime.

If I was him I would also be looking at a lawsuit against the police for destruction of property (how they have his personal property stacked like cordwood), and invasion of privacy for the photos of personal property which is all legally acquired and is legally his property. That dummy grenade isn't a licenced or registered item and even if after all this is over his firearms get taken, he will still be allowed to own those. It is also interesting to note how most the media has reported that he had a grenade, this is the only one I saw which reported its dummy status.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 07, 2019, 09:35:11
Obviously we don't have all the details as to how they were stored, such as was he home (in which case it doesn't have to be stored), where they were, and how they were. But even if it wasn't stored properly, at the end of the day it is a victimless crime.


Understanding how flippy floppy our storage laws are, I don't think insecure firearms are a victimless crime. If they're stolen they can very much create victims. It's kind of like saying drinking and driving is a victimless crime as long as you don't crash. Lots of missing information so it's hard to make an informed opinion.


Quote
That dummy grenade isn't a licenced or registered item and even if after all this is over his firearms get taken, he will still be allowed to own those.

Yup. He can also own a flame thrower (for clearing ice and brush), RPG7 and 84mm CG. Just not a blow gun or ninja star. 

M203 style grenade launchers used to be unlicenced but I heard people need a RPAL to buy one now?

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: NavyShooter on November 07, 2019, 10:15:13
You can own a 40mm, but you need to be registered with the Controlled Goods Directorate....there's a post about this on CGN somewhere I saw a while ago.  I haven't been on there in a while.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 07, 2019, 14:20:00
He had them In his dwelling together with ammunition, ostensibly also not stored. Even if he committed no firearms offence, it is certainly reckless or blind to the potential for something to happen.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on November 07, 2019, 15:52:13
Careful about how much you take from media and LEO in regards to Firearms Act violations, I have seen figures as high as 84% for "safe storage" charges withdrawn or tossed. Mainly as people don't understand the Act. if the non-restricted firearms are locked in a room or a closest they are considered stored. also the Act is silent as I recall on the "in use", so if a firearm is in use, then the storage requirements do not apply. The Act also does not speak that much about ammunition. Been a while since I dove into it, but with a "safe" (anything that has been modified to store firearms securely) then yes you can store ammunition with them.   
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 07, 2019, 16:08:58
True enough: as a matter of being a responsible citizen and gun owner though? Locking the front door isn’t going to make the grade of reasonable and prudent behaviour in an urban environment ( and probably nowhere for that matter).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on November 07, 2019, 17:21:45
Well they tried charging a guy for unsafe storage when it took the bad guys 3 days with power tools to break into his safe. The difference now is that there are several good lawyers versed in firearms law. A lot of cases were pleaded that should not have been because the lawyer hired did not know the Act. There is nothing stopping you from going above and beyond and it certainly helps you when you go to court. Fast access is also possible with biometric safes. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on November 07, 2019, 19:39:06
Let's just hope that this case is not another example used by the Government to "prove" that the only safe storage is centralized storage.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Loachman on November 07, 2019, 22:15:19
Well they tried charging a guy for unsafe storage when it took the bad guys 3 days with power tools to break into his safe.

Mike Hargreaves, a firearms instructor who also wrote articles for Blue Line Magazine. I remember this incident well.

Only one article popped up when I (quickly) searched: https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/1yt5l0/charges_dropped_in_mike_hargreaves_unsafe_storage/
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 07, 2019, 22:27:59
Mike Hargreaves, a firearms instructor who also wrote articles for Blue Line Magazine. I remember this incident well.

Only one article popped up when I (quickly) searched: https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/1yt5l0/charges_dropped_in_mike_hargreaves_unsafe_storage/

Thats such a messed up situation. 2 days to burn their way into a safe and he was still charged.


I do recall reading allegations the police had something against him and eledgedly wanted to punish him. Also allegations that the theives had connections to the police or one of the officers.

Not trying to disparage the police but when you consider it took 11 years to drop the charges and the whole 2 days to blow torch their way in = unsafe storage it doesn't seem implausible.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Good2Golf on November 07, 2019, 23:57:19
And yet a Member can lose their service S&W from a Satchel..in a mall....le sigh...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on November 08, 2019, 07:02:47
Understanding how flippy floppy our storage laws are, I don't think insecure firearms are a victimless crime. If they're stolen they can very much create victims. It's kind of like saying drinking and driving is a victimless crime as long as you don't crash. Lots of missing information so it's hard to make an informed opinion.

No its more like saying leaving your car idling with the keys in it is a victimless crime. If its stolen it can very much create victims. That still doesn't make it the fault of the car owner, rather the fault of the criminal who chooses to commit the crime. I also suspect that his home is still more locked up than that, as it likely had the front door locked at least.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Remius on November 08, 2019, 09:42:55
No its more like saying leaving your car idling with the keys in it is a victimless crime. If its stolen it can very much create victims. That still doesn't make it the fault of the car owner, rather the fault of the criminal who chooses to commit the crime. I also suspect that his home is still more locked up than that, as it likely had the front door locked at least.

Your example is a better comparison.

But how would your insurance company react if you left your car idling with the doors unlocked?

Not saying it's right but how many times have criminals successfully sued people for unsafe conditions when they break into things?

But negligence can lead to prosecution.  If I plan an expedition with an inexperienced group and we hit by sudden bad weather and they die am I liable despite it not being my fault? What if my equipment was sub par?  The storm killed them but if I had taken precautions they would all still be alive.

I am not a lawyer nor have I played one on TV so maybe my example (which I poached btw) may not be a good one.

On the flip side, if the storm hit and I lucked out that no one was killed would I still get charged?     
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 08, 2019, 16:47:41
No its more like saying leaving your car idling with the keys in it is a victimless crime. If its stolen it can very much create victims. That still doesn't make it the fault of the car owner, rather the fault of the criminal who chooses to commit the crime. I also suspect that his home is still more locked up than that, as it likely had the front door locked at least.

The firearm community didn't consider this a victimless crime.

RCMP officer, whose gun was stolen from cruiser and used in shooting, remains on duty

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3297483

In fairness I don't remember if this was the case where the police officer was "eatting supper" at midnight at a sports bar when the gun was stolen. But, victimless crime?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 08, 2019, 17:11:18
I can't tell if this is a legitimate website or not.

Quote
Police meet with gang leaders to try and convince them to surrender guns during amnesty

Illegal guns are remaining in the hands of organised crime as gang leaders refuse to give up their weapons.

Police have met with more than 50 gang leaders in an effort to get them to comply with firearm law changes before an amnesty ends.

But it's proving to be fruitless, as the patched members remain "very reluctant", Police Commissioner Mike Bush told the Justice Select Committee on Thursday.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/117242736/police-meet-with-gang-leaders-to-try-and-convince-them-to-surrender-guns-during-amnesty?fbclid=IwAR1u_aV6jSuq6XIVBmbg0OIjtXr7irk0adzBn3UaATmHgPopFkgDNZu1xXI

Thats gotta be some New Zealand version of the Beaverton right?

I mean, criminals refusing to give up guns?

I know from reading forum posts from NZ gun owners they're saying the police are habitually under valuing firearms.  Others have said ammunition is is being banned but no compensation is being offered. Not sure if that's accurate.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: milnews.ca on November 08, 2019, 17:17:22
Thats gotta be some New Zealand version of the Beaverton right?
Looks like it's legit - matching stories from other NZ media ...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on November 09, 2019, 02:29:38
Your example is a better comparison.

But how would your insurance company react if you left your car idling with the doors unlocked?

Not saying it's right but how many times have criminals successfully sued people for unsafe conditions when they break into things?   

And that's between you and the insurance company, that doesn't mean that the person who was victimized deserves to go to jail or have their property permanently taken away because of a criminals actions, or in the case of the gun collector here, a potential criminal action. When you think about it the only real victim here is the man being arrested. No attempts to harm others, no threats made, but the State has deemed it necessary to use force to arrest and take away this mans legally acquired property.

I also don't agree with the ability for criminals to sue when injured in places they aren't legally entitled to be in, another example of punishing the victim.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: GR66 on November 09, 2019, 09:18:29
I think that the discussion about this incident on this site perfectly exemplifies the divide in Canadian opinion over gun ownership.

Those that have been exposed to "gun culture" or whatever you wish to call it note that the collector was legally entitled to own the guns.  There is no indication that this individual had any criminal intent or posed any risk to society.  The debate then revolves around how reasonable our storage laws are and how hard the legal system comes down on what some view as minor infractions compared to the relative slap on the wrist that actual criminals get.

On the other hand, many of the general public that don't have exposure to gun culture simply think WTF?  250 guns???  200,000 rounds of ammo???  What kind of whack-job needs enough weapons and ammo to start WWIII???  And when they hear other gun enthusiasts reacting like "meh, no biggie" they think that they must all be "gun nuts". 

There is a fundamental divide between those that view guns as a tool like any other tool and when used reasonably by a law abiding citizen pose no more risk to society than any other tool and don't deserve any special regulation by the state.  Then there are those that view guns primarily as a weapon that should be strictly controlled to prevent their misuse.  Some lump all guns into this category while some (maybe the silent majority?) accept that there are some legitimate uses for guns (mainly hunting rifles) but don't get why anyone needs a "military-style" weapon or handgun as typically the only time they actually see those types of guns used is by criminals or nut-jobs.

 :2c:
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 09, 2019, 10:24:57
Having a little familiarity with firearms the "oh no military style firearms" narrative really bugs me.

The idea that a gun commonly used for hunting aninals like a 600 pound bear or 1200 pound moose is some how less deadly is ridiculous.

As much as I enjoy owning and shooting handguns they're statistically more attractive and present in criminal activity and shootings. Yet like the US handguns are being ignored over ambiguous and non statistically supported assault weapons.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on November 09, 2019, 16:46:40
Murders in the US by rifles of all types range between 375-400 per year on average. Both Canada and the US should be asking why young males generally going to school are driven to attack groups of people and deal with those social issues openly. Sadly to many scared cows to be examined I think.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 09, 2019, 16:58:33
Murders in the US by rifles of all types range between 375-400 per year on average.

And handguns are in the 8000-9000 range aren't they?
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on November 09, 2019, 19:34:46
About 6,000 https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Mind you this year they have a large "type unknown". The great thing about US stats is that they are generally very detailed and well done all things considered, once you start going into the county level, you can really see that the issues are very geographically contained. Canada is not bad, but not as precise as the US. Canada throws everything but the kitchen sink into the "firearm category" including imitation and pellet guns, this helps to create a worse situation than exists. Also if firearms are at the scene of a domestic incident and are still locked in the safe and never used, they can be counted as a firearm related crime.

from https://thegunblog.ca/facts-stats/
Homicide: (This is 2017 data.) Fatal stabbings exceeded fatal shootings in 7 of the past 10 years. Shooting overtook stabbing as the leading method of homicide in 2016, led by gang murders in Toronto and Vancouver. Note: StatsCan includes flare guns, nail guns, pellet guns and other non-firearms in its totals for “firearm-related homicide.”[/b]

from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-how-the-globe-tried-and-failed-to-find-the-source-of-canadas/
Our access-to-information requests to municipal police forces also came up short: Of the 36 forces across the country from which we requested firearms-tracing data, none were able to provide it.

In almost all cases, we found that police-level tracing information – when it existed – was kept as written reports attached to individual case files. The police forces said they would have to spend hundreds or thousands of hours to find, scan, redact and release each tracing report for the thousands of firearms they seize each year. It could be years before we received the files we’d requested.

The fee estimates were often staggering. The Peterborough Police Service quoted us $4,000 to provide any kind of tracing information. Windsor said it would cost $6,000. Our largest fee estimate came from the Greater Sudbury Police Service, which asked for $26,460 to produce the files.

We eventually changed our requests to accommodate what the police forces felt they were capable of providing in a reasonable time frame, which meant excluding tracing information and focusing on seized and surrendered statistics, which would show us the number and kinds of firearms law enforcement were seizing.

Some police forces refused to release anything at all. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, a provincial police force that is also the local police in St. John’s, denied us outright, as did the Longueuil and Quebec City police forces.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 13, 2019, 17:59:05
This guy had over 850 guns. Police Say all legally owned. Looks like they're be returned to him despite some of them apparently improperly stored.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6163162/heron-gate-home-450-guns/?fbclid=IwAR3hb8d7BCnEh2EomaBEdn0Orz_KavHP5piuoAcIeMBWXN6wTfDHmMuVc6E
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on November 13, 2019, 19:50:33
I'd bet that they don't come back is as good condition as when they left. I'll hazard a guess and say that the owner didn't just have them laying in a heap like in the picture. I'd lose my mind if that's how my property were treated.

If they were stored like that, then that's just not right..
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 13, 2019, 20:07:01
I'm willing to bet he didn't have 850 guns stored with the same care and space me and you store ours. That's a lot of guns dude.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 13, 2019, 21:23:26
This guy had over 850 guns. Police Say all legally owned. Looks like they're be returned to him despite some of them apparently improperly stored.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6163162/heron-gate-home-450-guns/?fbclid=IwAR3hb8d7BCnEh2EomaBEdn0Orz_KavHP5piuoAcIeMBWXN6wTfDHmMuVc6E

Check out that AK front and centre  ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Colin P on November 13, 2019, 21:26:28
I also guess that the Crown Prosecutors said "little hope of successful prosecution". I bet he hired a good firearms lawyer. 
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on November 13, 2019, 21:45:42
Check out that AK front and centre  ;D

Interesting collection for sure. It looks like he has a Sten gun too. Kinda seems all over the place.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 13, 2019, 21:48:02
Interesting collection for sure. It looks like he has a Sten gun too. Kinda seems all over the place.

Not just any AK either, an AK74u.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on December 07, 2019, 18:03:31
All gun owners, not just handgun and restricted rifle owners, should listen very carefully to this video clip (https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=1848702&playlistId=1.4718728&binId=1&fbclid=IwAR3CIdsGBZxl7H6oKhWTspjocGe4HdkJ7mFgmjgbSQ-95lsfakjhAS11YTI) at the 2:08 mark.  This is where Minister Blair, either accidentally or intentionally tips the Government's hand as to it's true intentions towards the ban of  "military style weapons".  When pressed he mentions the ban will cover the types of weapons used in Montreal, Moncton, Quebec City and Fredericton.  Yes, Fredericton, where four people were allegedly killed in August 2018 by a suspect using a bolt action hunting rifle.  Remember this little snippet  (https://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=127924.0;attach=59996)from those who shared the Liberal spotlight yesterday.

Wake up your deer hunter, farmer and collector friends.  They're about to get blindsided in a major way.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Eaglelord17 on December 07, 2019, 19:07:50
I predict this ban shall result in the old Canadian tradition of non-compliance to a large degree.

Before the long gun registry was put into effect there was a estimated 20-30 million firearms in Canada. After the long gun registry was put into effect there was magically about 8 million firearms.

I also predict much like New Zealand, the government is going to learn how ineffective a ban is when the firearms aren't registered to begin with. Confiscation is a two step process, 1 register the firearms, and 2 come and take them away. If you fail to do #1 you end up failing to do #2.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 07, 2019, 19:31:28
Don't forget to register all your firearms online first in order to qualify for the buy back.

That way if you don't like getting $900 for your $3400 rifle they'll just come to your house after the buy back is over and take it for free  ;D
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on December 11, 2019, 09:36:09
Saw this in Radio Chatter. I'll reply in gun politics.

But gun owners aren't on the fringe. Ideologically, they (those who base their political action on this single issue) are firmly entrenched in the middle of the Conservative camp. 

I'm a gun owner. But, not obsessed with them.

My voting priority has always been non-partisan and based on who is best for my career, and retirement. Not my hobbies.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on December 11, 2019, 12:39:11
I have always voted - based on the advice of my union and pension association -what is best for my career, and retirement. Not my hobbies.

YMMV.  :)

At least you're honest, most would try to hide the selfish motivation behind their vote.

I suspect the Liberal ban plan will create further urban/rural divide, as well as increased East/West divide.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 11, 2019, 13:28:45
Quote
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has pegged the figure at close to 250,000 with an average retail price of $1,500 each, pushing the total cost of a buyback program to between $400-million and $600-million.

10-20 million estimated firearms in Canada and only 250,000 estimated "military assault style weapons" which will probably be anything semiautomatic and/or with a magazine?

I think Mr Blair is being disingenuous in order to not scare the public a out how much this will cost.

There's 75,634 AR15s alone registered in Canada. Tens of thousands of ruger mini 14s, maybe even 100,000+

Tons of "assault style weapons" have been approved by the RCMP, many non restricted, important and sold in the last decade or two.

Easy 2 billion for the buy back.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on December 11, 2019, 13:36:41
At least you're honest, most would try to hide the selfish motivation behind their vote.

I don't feel it's "selfish" for working people to feel motivated about wages, health and safety, benefits, pensions and so many other things they worked hard for all their lives.

Our union supported the politicians who supported us.

Sneering at "materialism" was a luxury for idealists, not realists.






Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on December 11, 2019, 13:47:53
I think Mr Blair is being disingenuous in order to not scare the public a out how much this will cost.

I'm sure the Minster will explain how the costs of the buyback will be offset by, for example, making the reimbursement taxable.

There's 75,634 AR15s alone registered in Canada. Tens of thousands of ruger mini 14s, maybe even 100,000+

Easy 2 billion for the buy back.

At a average retail price of $1500, the cost to buy back just the ARs exceeds $113 M.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 11, 2019, 14:00:18
Are accessories included?

I have a $2500 scope on top a $2400 AR15. Another $600 in upgrades.

Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: NavyShooter on December 11, 2019, 15:25:17
You are assuming 'fair market value' will be paid...

I have no such expectation.

The fact that in the 90's, the prohibitions resulted in two classes - grandfathered, or non-grandfathered meant that the non-grandfathered class were required to be handed over...with no compensation.

I am a 'grandfathered' owner of type 12(5) firearms, banned by OIC 13 back in 1992. 

I am not looking forward to the next round...and I fear it's coming soon.

If they do come for my AR's...but leave me with my FN's...that'll be...odd.

NS
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Furniture on December 11, 2019, 16:01:16
I don't feel it's "selfish" for working people to feel motivated about wages, health and safety, benefits, pensions and so many other things they worked hard for all their lives.

Our union supported the politicians who supported us.

Sneering at "materialism" was a luxury for idealists, not realists.

I wasn't sneering, I was pointing out that it's nice to see someone be honest about a selfish motivation. Wages, pensions, and benefits fall under selfish. They don't work toward the greater good of the electorate, they enhance your lifestyle.

I vote for people that don't try to take away my legally purchased private property(selfish), on the basis that taking my stuff from may help shore up their weak vote numbers.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on December 11, 2019, 16:05:23
I bet we see a spike of sales for PVC tubing, end caps and durrable plactic bags in the future...
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on December 11, 2019, 16:26:03
Wages, pensions, and benefits fall under selfish. They don't work toward the greater good of the electorate, they enhance your lifestyle.

Politicians who vote to improve wages, pensions, benefits, working conditions, health and safety etc. are good things for all working people.

Guns may be the favorite political chew toy for some people. For others it may be reproductive rights, the environment, or other social issues they hold firm beliefs about.

The point is, nobody - including a union or people on the internet - has a right to tell anyone how to vote.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 11, 2019, 16:48:56
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't unions take money (earned from members union dues?) and decide which political party *they* feel should be supported/that best supports their members interest and support that party?  Without bothering to ask their membership? Essentially you could be a card carrying conservative member but your union decides they will support and donate to the Liberals. So your union dues go towards a party you're possibly 100% opposed to.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jarnhamar on December 11, 2019, 16:52:48
I bet we see a spike of sales for PVC tubing, end caps and durrable plactic bags in the future...

Thinking the police will decide to search known firearm owners houses just to look for banned items?

I honestly think the last thing the Liberals want us for us to is actually take part in the buy back.

They're guessing many firearm owners will whether down and hide their guns away. Maybe to just keep them, maybe to hope the Conservatives reverse it.
Liberals get liberal points for banning guns but don't have to actually pay for them to be bought.
Win win
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on December 11, 2019, 17:11:01
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't unions take money (earned from members union dues?) and decide which political party *they* feel should be supported/that best supports their members interest and support that party?

Unions have elections. That's when members vote for the representatives they feel best supports their intersts on employment related issues.

This explains the non partisan endorsement philosophy,
https://www.iaff.org/my-resources/programs/politics-legislation/iaff-endorsement-philosophy/
No one, including your union, and especially people / bots on the internet, has a right to tell you how to vote.


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: suffolkowner on December 11, 2019, 17:20:44
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/12/10/gun-owners-wanted-buy-back-plan-for-prohibited-rifles-says-blair/

The above article seems to suggest that the government looks to follow the NZ example much more closely than indicated
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Halifax Tar on December 12, 2019, 09:02:16
Thinking the police will decide to search known firearm owners houses just to look for banned items?

I honestly think the last thing the Liberals want us for us to is actually take part in the buy back.

They're guessing many firearm owners will whether down and hide their guns away. Maybe to just keep them, maybe to hope the Conservatives reverse it.
Liberals get liberal points for banning guns but don't have to actually pay for them to be bought.
Win win

Who knows what will happen.  Might be worth it to disregard and hope the Cons get in and reverse it.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Jonezy76 on December 12, 2019, 09:57:18
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/12/10/gun-owners-wanted-buy-back-plan-for-prohibited-rifles-says-blair/

The above article seems to suggest that the government looks to follow the NZ example much more closely than indicated

New Zealand is sitting at about a 10% compliance rate right now.

Word on the street is that Canadians may follow suit.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Haggis on December 12, 2019, 10:49:30
A Sun editorial yesterday estimated that the Liberals will almost spend twice as much money ($600M over two years) buying back legal firearms than they will spend on fighting gangs and illegal guns ($327 M over five years) ten times more than they will spend to combat smuggling ($60M over five years).
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Brad Sallows on December 12, 2019, 14:35:32
Everyone works hard for all the things in their lives, and everything done at public expense draws from a finite pool.  It's long-established that politics is partly a spoils system.  I don't know of any measures of how much people vote for themselves, versus voting for the general good of society.
Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: mariomike on December 12, 2019, 15:00:42
I don't know of any measures of how much people vote for themselves, versus voting for the general good of society.

I see gains made by working people as a positive thing for the greater good.

We used run into the angry "I pay your salary" types: "I don't have it, so you shouldn't either!" Like it was a race to the bottom.

You couldn't argue with the taxpayers. But, I used to think the better way of looking at it was, "They have it - why don't I?"


Title: Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
Post by: Brad Sallows on December 12, 2019, 15:25:34
Gains made by "working people" these days tend to pretty narrowly be for the "working people".  Everyone wants to earn more money for less work.  Some people can't be ignored when they stop working, and some people can.

Try to imagine a society in which everyone "has it".  No-one who "has it" right now would like it very much, and they'd be right back in line fighting to get "above it".  A couple of times I've suggested to teachers that daycare workers should make about the same money.  "Oh, no.  They don't have to have a university degree."  (Truly.)  The buying power of some higher income is a lot better in a society with a much lower median income than in a society in which everyone earns the same income.

Gun control is just an aspect of that fight (the politics of selfishness) - people who want something, at someone else's expense.  In this case, some people want a little more security.  They are willing to trade away someone else's liberty for that.  But, instead of limiting the liberties of the people committing most of the crimes, or likely to commit most of the crimes, they have focused on third parties.  The only explanations I can figure for that are the politics of cultural enmity, and - again - the politics of selfishness: your recreation must be forbidden because misadventures might deplete the public resources I need when my recreation leads to misadventure.