The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[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'

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>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?

 

[Kat Stevens]

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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

 

[ModlrMike]

A rather long, but well written piece by the MacKenzie Institute

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.

 

[Furniture]

A rather long, but well written piece by the MacKenzie Institute

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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Saw this today. Better than the cold, dead fingers analogy.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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. :

 

[Haggis]

Consultations are still, technically, underway, but Minister Blair is ready to make his pitch for a ban to Cabinet "within two weeks".  Shared 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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

 

[Infanteer]

Wonder what they'll do after they ban handguns and then some guy shoots up Toronto with a handgun?  :dunno:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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/

 

[Jarnhamar]

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.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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......

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

So true...but can't lose those prison votes...

 

[Jarnhamar]

Probably a glitch.