• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0


our tax dollars hard at work if it ever happens. 3 years later and still waiting
There was only $181M allocated to the compensated confiscation plan this year, to develop an IT solution to make it work. Several sources have said the amnesty will be extended once again.
 
There was only $181M allocated to the compensated confiscation plan this year, to develop an IT solution to make it work. Several sources have said the amnesty will be extended once again.
extend it until the Conservatives get in as it looking promising for them right now
 
Its likely better for them politically to keep stretching it out then to try and confiscate at this point.

There is no real threat from the owners of these firearms so no need to actually confiscate, its all political. Since its all political, what better political tool than the claim the Conservatives will roll back that law and de-prohibit those firearms? If you don’t vote Liberal then it shall be as though none of that happened and we don’t want those dangerous firearms on the street do we?
 
Its likely better for them politically to keep stretching it out then to try and confiscate at this point.

There is no real threat from the owners of these firearms so no need to actually confiscate, its all political. Since its all political, what better political tool than the claim the Conservatives will roll back that law and de-prohibit those firearms? If you don’t vote Liberal then it shall be as though none of that happened and we don’t want those dangerous firearms on the street do we?
That said, I think they’re beginning to feel some heat with the continuously increasing violent crime rate that *hasn’t a single lawful firearm owner implicated, so JT risks being savaged by PP with a “show me a single case where a lawful firearms owner committed a violent act that contributes to the turnaround to increasing violence since you become Pm in 2015!”
 
Last edited:
That said, I think they’re beginning to feel some heat with the continuously increasing violent crime rate that was it a single lawful firearm owner implicated, so JT risks being savaged by PP with a “show me a single case where a lawful firearms owner committed a violent act that contributes to the turnaround to increasing violence since you become Pm in 2015!”
See that message is too complex for the people who support gun control measures. Those that don’t support gun control measures already know that. That message just appeals to the crowd.

What they see is crime is going up. They see shootings are going up. Shootings involve guns. Therefore banning guns gets rid of the shootings. Even though we know that has nothing to do with it.

Most who support the gun control measures do not know our gun laws. They want laws that are by and large already in place because they get most their info from the States.

The Liberals want to tie the Conservatives with the Republicans in the States because they know that scares about 60% of the population, which translates into votes away from the conservatives. Even though there is massive differences with the Conservatives and Republicans in platform and function.

Gun control is a easy measure to try and directly compare the two together. And with the way the average voter chooses to remain uninformed, easy to leverage to their advantage.
 
In this subject the anti people are inadequately knowledgeable about existing laws and the subject matter; and deeply emotionally invested into their position. Its a bad mix.
Red and Yellow flag laws already exist. Anyone can contact their police or provincial CFO to report a firearms safety concern with a licensee, who then gets their say in court. C-21 makes it so prohibition orders can be granted without the subject being aware or given the chance to refute the evidence on which the order may by based.

Magazine capacity restrictions already exist. C-21 creates offences that build upon existing offences. Possessing an "overcapacity" magazine is an offence now. C-21 proposes that modifying a legal magazine so it's now "overcapacity" will be illegal.

C-21's limited handgun exemption, intended to protect Olympic shooting, will ultimately kill the sport as it eliminates the feeder sports by attrition.

It's a bad bill.
 
That said, I think they’re beginning to feel some heat with the continuously increasing violent crime rate that *hasn’t a single lawful firearm owner implicated, so JT risks being savaged by PP with a “show me a single case where a lawful firearms owner committed a violent act that contributes to the turnaround to increasing violence since you become Pm in 2015!”
While I generally agree with most of what is said in this thread, this highlighted portion is part of an argument that never rings true to me. Yes, individuals using firearms in an unlawful manner are rarely law abiding firearm owners, or individuals who obtained the firearm used legally. However, at some point, that firearm was in the possession of a legal owner, either an individual or a company producing or selling these firearms.
So how are these firearms getting from their legal owners to individuals committing the crimes?

Theft - most certainly, but how many of these thefts were assisted through the legal owner not adequately protecting these firearms from theft.
The bad apples - legal firearm owners selling their weapons to individuals who either shouldn't be allowed to possess them, or not properly transferring them.

I believe that there is a mindset among a certain part of Canadian society who truly believe that by allowing fewer guns into the country in general will result in fewer making it into the hands of the "bad guys". While I don't see myself aligning with that part of society, I can see where the mentality comes from. Its the same thought process used on drugs for years. Ban all drugs and the problem will go away, except it didn't.
 
While I generally agree with most of what is said in this thread, this highlighted portion is part of an argument that never rings true to me. Yes, individuals using firearms in an unlawful manner are rarely law abiding firearm owners, or individuals who obtained the firearm used legally. However, at some point, that firearm was in the possession of a legal owner, either an individual or a company producing or selling these firearms.
So how are these firearms getting from their legal owners to individuals committing the crimes?

Theft - most certainly, but how many of these thefts were assisted through the legal owner not adequately protecting these firearms from theft.
The bad apples - legal firearm owners selling their weapons to individuals who either shouldn't be allowed to possess them, or not properly transferring them.

I believe that there is a mindset among a certain part of Canadian society who truly believe that by allowing fewer guns into the country in general will result in fewer making it into the hands of the "bad guys". While I don't see myself aligning with that part of society, I can see where the mentality comes from. Its the same thought process used on drugs for years. Ban all drugs and the problem will go away, except it didn't.
Let us not forget the longest undefended border in the world. Don't underestimate smugglers - their innovation and knowledge of the border weak points and human frailties are probably bordering on encyclopedic.
 
Let us not forget the longest undefended border in the world. Don't underestimate smugglers - their innovation and knowledge of the border weak points and human frailties are probably bordering on encyclopedic.
No, I don't discount smuggling, but even those weapons had to have belonged to a legal owner somewhere right?
 
While I generally agree with most of what is said in this thread, this highlighted portion is part of an argument that never rings true to me. Yes, individuals using firearms in an unlawful manner are rarely law abiding firearm owners, or individuals who obtained the firearm used legally. However, at some point, that firearm was in the possession of a legal owner, either an individual or a company producing or selling these firearms.
So how are these firearms getting from their legal owners to individuals committing the crimes?

Theft - most certainly, but how many of these thefts were assisted through the legal owner not adequately protecting these firearms from theft.
The bad apples - legal firearm owners selling their weapons to individuals who either shouldn't be allowed to possess them, or not properly transferring them.

I believe that there is a mindset among a certain part of Canadian society who truly believe that by allowing fewer guns into the country in general will result in fewer making it into the hands of the "bad guys". While I don't see myself aligning with that part of society, I can see where the mentality comes from. Its the same thought process used on drugs for years. Ban all drugs and the problem will go away, except it didn't.
They searched 3% of the incoming cargo and found 1300 guns. Now likley most of that was already flagged for searches due to intelligence, but you can estimate that likley 3-5,000 guns make it over the border illegally every year.
 
While I generally agree with most of what is said in this thread, this highlighted portion is part of an argument that never rings true to me. Yes, individuals using firearms in an unlawful manner are rarely law abiding firearm owners, or individuals who obtained the firearm used legally. However, at some point, that firearm was in the possession of a legal owner, either an individual or a company producing or selling these firearms.
So how are these firearms getting from their legal owners to individuals committing the crimes?

Theft - most certainly, but how many of these thefts were assisted through the legal owner not adequately protecting these firearms from theft.
The bad apples - legal firearm owners selling their weapons to individuals who either shouldn't be allowed to possess them, or not properly transferring them.

I believe that there is a mindset among a certain part of Canadian society who truly believe that by allowing fewer guns into the country in general will result in fewer making it into the hands of the "bad guys". While I don't see myself aligning with that part of society, I can see where the mentality comes from. Its the same thought process used on drugs for years. Ban all drugs and the problem will go away, except it didn't.
Could you provide an example of a violent crime in Canada from 2015 onwards where the assailant made use of a fire arms stolen from a Canadian legal firearm owner?
 
Does this count? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mani...winnipeg-shooting-that-injured-girl-1.3288752

There was another similar situation recently but i'm unsure if that firearm was actually used in a crime.
Well LE are going to have firearms regardless, so I wouldn't count that at least when considering the context of the original question.

There is a huge market for illegal guns in both the US and Canada, we have Straw Purchase laws down here, but a lot of felons still get guns from girlfriends etc.
 
Before I say too much here. I am no longer a gun owner in Canada or any where else. Living in the US for almost 7 years has made me change my mind about legal gun ownership. Not for me anymore. I accept that it is just no longer fun for me. So before anyone jumps on me for my next statements or thoughts.(Besides I miss the fact the army no longer pays for my ammo usage )

Lets look at gun ownership and compare it to car ownership and drivers license.

Any Province in Canada, you can get your learners permit and start driving at 16 ( Ontario with the graduated program it is kind of different but the same ideas.)

Johnny Bloggins go down to the Driver's test center, slaps down the fee to write the test. Johnny Blogins passes the test. Within the next year or so he may take the drivers ed courses and passes, ( but not forced to take it, unless he wants the insurance break ) 17 comes and he goes and passes the full license program, and the MTO ( Ontario ) gives him a full authority to drive with only weight restrictions, drinking and driving rules etc.
There is no horse power restriction, no travel restrictions, no police checks, he can drive coast to coast to coast if he can afford the gas and food, if he wants.

Johnny Blogins is now 65 and retired and his wife decide to sell their home, and join the RV life style and cruise in their 48 foot RV and drive coast to coast to coast, and then travel in the US. No one checks to see if he can drive that RV, dotted the line and pay the bill and off they go.

Jonny Blogins can do just as much damage with his high powered sports car, or his over sized pick up truck, or his RV. But because he passed the test when he was 16 he can drive without any checks on skill or rules of the road again till 75 or 80 depending on the Province he retires to.

Johnny Blogins takes the same $125 he was going to spend on drivers testing, and instead spends it on a gun safety program, he passes the courses with flying colours, aces all the tests. Johnny Blogins cannot go out to the local gun store and buy the single shot .22 or the shot gun, or even a deer gun to hunt with good old dad till Johnny Blogins submits to a police back ground check, and pays some more money for fun of having a mini police investigation into his life. Then if Johnny Blogins passes the investigation and background check and gets his PAL, he can go buy the firearm of his choice. Restricted a whole other ball game, more courses, more police checks, and transportation rules etc. And to top it off if Johnny Blogins decides he wants to divorce and it is time to renew his PAL or RPAL the police can will contact his ex wife to see if she has any issues with his renewals.

In 2019, 249 people were killed by guns in Canada. In 2019, 1762 people were killed in traffic accidents.
2018, North York 11 killed, 16 injured. ( Vans can kill just as many people as a gun can in the right conditions)

Since 2006, there have been 76 people killed in 17 mass shootings in Canada. Mass shooting being counted as more than 2 victims.
Canadians own an estimated 7.1 Million guns, or 245 guns per 1000 people.

I do not think Canadians should fear the average legal gun owner, my last gun sat in a case, trigger locked, in a closet, never left the house and killed anyone or anything for over 20 years.

The Government of Canada has picked on the easiest target ( pun intended) and made them out to be evil people and they should all rot in hell because they are evil. These evil people are known as legal gun owners. Who took all the courses, follow all the rules, on storage, transport, border crossings, ammo storage, paying the fees for renewals. But the Government of Canada is picking on them because they know where the guns are, they know who owns them, they know where they store them. Most of all because this group of evil people will give up the black super scary looking weapons upon demand so they may be allowed to keep the less scary weapons. I feel for the legal gun owners, I respect the fun of blasting paper, tin cans, water melons , steel plates, and the animals in season.

The Government of Canada is going after them evil people because it is easier than going after the criminals with the illegal weapons, the converted semi to full autos, the illegal handguns, the modified weapons such as the sawed off shotguns, the shorten barrels on long guns to make them more cancelable for robberies. Because this would actually involve using police investigations and money that might make a real difference when taking illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. Charge the offenders, give a real jail sentence, no plea bargains, but this is unfair because of the criminal was raised or past abuse or whatever excuse the defence lawyer comes up with that makes the sentence look like too harish of a punishment.

Time for real gun control and real punishment for illegal guns. Stop making law abiding Canadians out to be evil and making them criminals.
 
Back
Top