The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

Mrs Rempel brings up an interesting point.

Bill C-71 contains no mention of the words “gang” or “organized” crime anywhere

 

[Haggis]

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.

 

[ontheedge]

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...

 

[mariomike]

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/threads/109788.0

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The petition site won't let you sign in from a government computer.

 

[ModlrMike]

Aaaaaaaaand the inevitable outcome:

Strong support for handgun ban
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."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

.

 

[Lumber]

.

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...

 

[Jarnhamar]

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.

 

[Lumber]

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,

 

[Haggis]

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.

 

[Journeyman]

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.

 

[Furniture]

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.

 

[Lumber]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[Lumber]

Why, indeed.

'You makin' fun of me, kind Sir?

 

[Furniture]

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.

 

[Jed]

The first rule of fight club is we don’t talk about fight club will be the modus operendi.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Jed]

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'