The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Maxman1]

Here's what I think the liberals should do instead that I think would be more effective at achieving actual "effect" (reducing gun violence), appeasing the anti-gun lobby, and assuaging gun owners.

Instead of mandatory buy back that can't be properly funded, make it a voluntary buy back at full value of the fire arms.

Here's why.

We know, and Carney isn't stupid so I'm pretty sure he knows, that most lawful fun owners aren't the problem. But, there is a risk that the guns owned by lawful gun owners get stolen and become used in crime. However, "serious" lawful gun owners (the ones who don't want to give up their guns) are also some of the most ardent at safeguarding their guns. Their guns are less at risk of being stolen and used in crime. The real risk are those who take their ownership less seriously (maybe they've "grown out of guns", maybe they've moved to an area where using there guns is no longer convenient, etc). Make an ad campaign targeting these individuals, and offer them full compensation for their guns.

You still get to appease the anti-gun crowd, and you remove (some) of the guns that might actually end up in crime, and you avoid pissing off gun owners with mandatory and sub-market value buybacks.

Or, how about don't, and use the money you would have wasted on that stupidity and spend it on actually effective measures like improved CBSA funding to combat smuggling, and bring back mandatory minimums for actual criminal misuse of firearms (which was removed by Trudeau for literally no reason)

 

[Jarnhamar]

Here's what I think the liberals should do instead that I think would be more effective at achieving actual "effect" (reducing gun violence), appeasing the anti-gun lobby, and assuaging gun owners.

I like your idea. Give gun owners an opportunity to recoup (most of) their money. Some of us don't shoot as much anymore and some people have unused guns they would happily turn in for cash. I have a few I would turn in to the government vice sell if I was getting an appropriate value for.

Writ large "appeasing" the anti-gun lobby immediately moves this from being about public safety to politics and vote-buying. The public safety minister himself admitted the whole thing was bullshit.

Carney's "just shut Quebec up" is weak through and through. It's cowardly. If The LPC cared about public safety they would concentrate their effort where it's needed. E.g:

Police seize 35 firearms, $2M in drugs in raids in Cornwall, Ottawa, Akwesasne​

 

[Lumber]

Or, how about don't, and use the money you would have wasted on that stupidity and spend it on actually effective measures like improved CBSA funding to combat smuggling, and bring back mandatory minimums for actual criminal misuse of firearms (which was removed by Trudeau for literally no reason)

Because they have to do something that will appease the anti-gun lobby.

 

[Lumber]

Writ large "appeasing" the anti-gun lobby immediately moves this from being about public safety to politics and vote-buying.

Yes I thought we all established this years ago? My hope is that the idea I proposed would achieve both. Neither very well, but that's better than literally nothing which is what I think the current plan provides.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yes I thought we all established this years ago? My hope is that the idea I proposed would achieve both. Neither very well, but that's better than literally nothing which is what I think the current plan provides.

Me and you have. The Liberal Party is remaining disingenuous about this being about public safety. Sadly many of their supporters are believing it.

 

[Maxman1]

Because they have to do something that will appease the anti-gun lobby.

No. They don't. The anti-gun lobby isn't voting for anyone else.