The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Haggis]

Most people which want to ban firearms in this country tend to have no exposure to them and don't even know what our laws currently are.

Your comment hit a nerve so my reply is a general one, not aimed at anyone in particular.

Our PM doesn't even know the laws so how can we expect joe civvy to know them, either.  Remember when he said you could buy a gun without having to show a licence/  Clearly he meant illegal guns... or did he?

So, here's the nerve.

It's a running and disingenuous joke that most lawful firearms owners know far more about firearms laws that the majority of police/peace officers, and it's true.  But let's put that into some context.

Gun owners have guns as a hobby, be it collecting, target shooting, competing or hunting.  People become immersed in their hobbies and learn them in great detail including the laws that govern them.  So, most serious gun hobbyists take great pains to be well versed in those laws because the punishments for even a simple paper/administrative transgression are quite severe.

Police/peace officers, on the other hand, have to be somewhat versed on more than just firearms laws and they will, by necessity, be very well versed on those laws they deal with most frequently.  Highway Safety Division officers know the traffic and commercial trucking laws.  Guns and Gangs unit officer will specialize in firearms laws and the, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  Border Services Officers (BSOs) will specialize in the Customs Act/Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  (BSOs, for example are responsible for enforcing ninety (90) different acts and regulations.)  And this is on top of everything else they need to stay current on such as agency/service policy, collective agreements and working conditions, healthy work practices, case law, new legislation, use of force and reporting, etc. 

Couple that with the fact that our firearms laws are more poorly written than WalMart  appliance instructions and you can see where confusion can occur.

So, the next time that you, as a law abiding firearms owner, have an interaction with law enforcement, instead of getting on your high horse, maybe try to see things from the officer's position and make the encounter educational.

 

[Fabius]

This could all lead us to making sure everybody is aware of the meaning of 'democracy'. I'm going to assume everybody already gets it.

I don't think everyone understands the meaning of democracy. Respectfully, I don't think it means what you think it does to be honest.

Democracy is typically found in one of two forms. Either Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy.

Direct Democracy is exceedingly rare and exists in no nation state at this time although it exists in several regional forms such as Swiss Cantons. This is what you seem to be referring to when talking about majority rule ala everyone has a direct vote on policy.

The second more common form is Representative Democracy. This can take a multitude of sub forms, usually either some form of parliamentary or presidential democracy.
Canada, like the rest of the Commonwealth, is a Constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

Canadian's do not vote directly on any policy at the Federal or Provincial levels with the exception of when either level calls a referendum. We elect representatives who then vote on policy.
This is a key feature of representative democracies and is a key part in limiting and controlling the excesses of the majority.

Referendums are useful in certain situations and can be used to create a more hybrid form of democracy and for fundamental questions of importance to all citizens belong the authority of our representatives to decide, an example is the Quebec referendums on sovereignty.

All this to say that in Canada, what 50% + 1 of the Canadian population want does not equal anything.  We are not a direct democracy.
Now the argument can be made that our politicians don't act like statesmen and don't do anything but go where the wind blows them, when they should be shaping and steering a consensus but that's a separate discussion.

 

[Donald H]

I don't think everyone understands the meaning of democracy. Respectfully, I don't think it means what you think it does to be honest.

Democracy is typically found in one of two forms. Either Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy.

Direct Democracy is exceedingly rare and exists in no nation state at this time although it exists in several regional forms such as Swiss Cantons. This is what you seem to be referring to when talking about majority rule ala everyone has a direct vote on policy.

The second more common form is Representative Democracy. This can take a multitude of sub forms, usually either some form of parliamentary or presidential democracy.
Canada, like the rest of the Commonwealth, is a Constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

Canadian's do not vote directly on any policy at the Federal or Provincial levels with the exception of when either level calls a referendum. We elect representatives who then vote on policy.
This is a key feature of representative democracies and is a key part in limiting and controlling the excesses of the majority.

Referendums are useful in certain situations and can be used to create a more hybrid form of democracy and for fundamental questions of importance to all citizens belong the authority of our representatives to decide, an example is the Quebec referendums on sovereignty.

All this to say that in Canada, what 50% + 1 of the Canadian population want does not equal anything.  We are not a direct democracy.
Now the argument can be made that our politicians don't act like statesmen and don't do anything but go where the wind blows them, when they should be shaping and steering a consensus but that's a separate discussion.

Ironically Fabius, you have posted exactly what I was thinking, and which I assumed everyone would be fully aware of. So if you're accusing me of thinking something else then why not try to elaborate? I think I made it pretty damn clear when I suggested that sometimes M.P.'s will choose to make decisions by themselves.

Fwiw, all Democracies I know of are a combination of 'Direct' and 'Representative' and I'm pretty happy to keep it that way. Regardless of whether the Conservatives form Canada's next government.

 

[Fabius]

I am confused by your position as you appear to have laid it out. 

An opinion was offered that a significant portion of our citizens are ignorant of our laws, the very laws under debate here. It was noted that something that is popular is not necessarily right. It was offered that informed opinions are more legitimate than uninformed opinions.

You stated that, that is a dangerous argument to make in a democracy. However you have also stated that all opinions are not equal.

You have stated that the majority decide what is right.  Given the conversation, and the lack of definition of what you mean when you say "majority" I have assumed you mean a majority of citizens.

As I laid out that is inaccurate in Canada. We have elected representatives, who we have elected to do what is right and what is best for the country, NOT (in my opinion at least) what is popular.

If you meant a majority of MPs then okay but that is different than what your statements have led me to think. Even then I would still argue that MPs should not simply vote according to what the majority of citizens want. That is a road to ruin.

 

[Donald H]

I am confused by your position as you appear to have laid it out. 

An opinion was offered that a significant portion of our citizens are ignorant of our laws, the very laws under debate here. It was noted that something that is popular is not necessarily right. It was offered that informed opinions are more legitimate than uninformed opinions.

You stated that, that is a dangerous argument to make in a democracy. However you have also stated that all opinions are not equal.

You have stated that the majority decide what is right.  Given the conversation, and the lack of definition of what you mean when you say "majority" I have assumed you mean a majority of citizens.

As I laid out that is inaccurate in Canada. We have elected representatives, who we have elected to do what is right and what is best for the country, NOT (in my opinion at least) what is popular.

If you meant a majority of MPs then okay but that is different than what your statements have led me to think. Even then I would still argue that MPs should not simply vote according to what the majority of citizens want. That is a road to ruin.

And I'm doubly confused on how we disagree on anything? Can we put this in context to the gun control debate?

It makes no difference at all whether soccer moms understand what a weapon was designed to do, how many rounds a minute, muzzle velocity, etc., etc., as that decides on what guns are allowed.

What does matter to the soccer moms, hockey moms, crocheting moms, or whatever moms (and dads) is how little children are being mowed down on the other side of the border. Not even in Canada because they don't care, they see the threat to their children. And so the pro-gun lobby would serve its interests better if it stopped complaining about the moms not being aware of Canada's gun laws and concentrate more on convincing the moms that the gun violence in the US isn't going to come to Canada.

So this is to the point of majorities being able to make decisions in parliament, because there's likely not going to be a referendum offered on the new gun laws. The Liberals will likely win the day and then the pro-gun lobby will be left having to vote them out and elect Conservatives who might be more favourable to their priorities. That is at least, if the Conservatives believe it's a winning strategy to get rid of some gun laws that 70-80% of Canadians support.

 

[suffolkowner]

And I'm doubly confused on how we disagree on anything? Can we put this in context to the gun control debate?

It makes no difference at all whether soccer moms understand what a weapon was designed to do, how many rounds a minute, muzzle velocity, etc., etc., as that decides on what guns are allowed.

What does matter to the soccer moms, hockey moms, crocheting moms, or whatever moms (and dads) is how little children are being mowed down on the other side of the border. Not even in Canada because they don't care, they see the threat to their children. And so the pro-gun lobby would serve its interests better if it stopped complaining about the moms not being aware of Canada's gun laws and concentrate more on convincing the moms that the gun violence in the US isn't going to come to Canada.

So this is to the point of majorities being able to make decisions in parliament, because there's likely not going to be a referendum offered on the new gun laws. The Liberals will likely win the day and then the pro-gun lobby will be left having to vote them out and elect Conservatives who might be more favourable to their priorities. That is at least, if the Conservatives believe it's a winning strategy to get rid of some gun laws that 70-80% of Canadians support.

I'm with Fabius on this, in that I do not understand what you are saying with respect to democracy.
It certainly does matter what soccer moms understand as an illiterate electorate undermines the very basis of our democracy especially when our representatives do not exercise their own authority

The rest of your argument looks like strawman nonsense to me. The "gun lobby" has being putting out all sorts of information for years but it matters not if the audience is not receptive. Most non gun people are still confusing semi automatics with full automatic. I hope the next time the conservatives get in they strengthen gun rights in Canada

 

[Fabius]

In the context of gun control:

1. US laws are different. US culture is different. Due to proximity and media, US problems can be confused with Canadian realities.
2. The Canadian Parliament has passed legislation  (Laws) on firearms which are vastly different and distinct from the laws of the US both federal and state.
3. It is the executive branch of our government who have the responsibility to implement and oversee our law. This includes explaining our firearms laws and how they differ from those to the south and how they are aimed ensuring the safety of soccer moms and kids.
4. The firearms community can reinforce and support the executive branch and our parliament in this explanation but they do NOT have the democratic responsibility to do so in my opinion.
5. This is where both the executive and Parliament MUST shape and steer public consensus.

IF the executive was properly informed AND honest in its depiction of the current firearms laws, there could be a rational discussion of any issues stemming from current laws and the merits in either tightening or loosening firearms legislation.  That is NOT occurring.  The executive branch is equally ignorant of the laws as are soccer moms and are using the issue for partisan points.

Our system devolved authority away from Parliament to the PMO and PCO thereby weakening the individual MPs ability to disagree with the executive and actually have an impact.

This is my perspective.

 

[suffolkowner]

In the context of gun control:

1. US laws are different. US culture is different. Due to proximity and media, US problems can be confused with Canadian realities.
2. The Canadian Parliament has passed legislation  (Laws) on firearms which are vastly different and distinct from the laws of the US both federal and state.
3. It is the executive branch of our government who have the responsibility to implement and oversee our law. This includes explaining our firearms laws and how they differ from those to the south and how they are aimed ensuring the safety of soccer moms and kids.
4. The firearms community has reinforce and support the executive branch and our parliament in this explanation but they do NOT have the democratic responsibility to do so in my opinion.
5. This is where both the executive and Parliament MUST shape and steer public consensus.

IF the executive was properly informed AND honest in its depict of the current firearms laws, there could be a rational discussion of any issues stemming from current laws and the merits in either tightening or loosening firearms legislation.  That is NOT occurring.  The executive branch is equally ignorant of the laws as are soccer moms and are using the issue for partisan points.

Our system devolved authority away from Parliament to the PMO and PCO thereby weakening the individual MPs ability to disagree with the executive and actually have an impact.

This is my perspective.

I am in 100% agreement.

 

[Fabius]

An additional comment/perspective. How does this situation look if we take the gun control specifics out and just look at it as a general policy. Does it seem like a good overall policy that we want to follow for other issues.

1. Canadian public is being highly influenced by an outside power (inadvertently but influenced nonetheless)
2. Canadian public is unaware of Canadian specifics.
3. Public officials ignore Canadian specifics and reinforce the malign although inadvertent influence, though inadvertent or deliberate ignorance. At worst they deliberately misrepresent the situation.
4. Canadian public officials implement unilateral changes via bureaucratic mechanisms to resolve manufactured crisis.
5. Changes specifically and deliberately target a minority segment of society.
6. Minority segment of society deprived of legitimately acquired and owned property, which has been held and used for decades.

I can not understand how any of those points either in isolation or in combination are tolerated and supported.  If that model of action were to be applied to any other situation it would be unacceptable. I would argue that the very party implementing the current changes would vehemently object to this approach (and rightly so) if it were to be applied  to other issues or minorities.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Your comment hit a nerve so my reply is a general one, not aimed at anyone in particular.

Our PM doesn't even know the laws so how can we expect joe civvy to know them, either.  Remember when he said you could buy a gun without having to show a licence/  Clearly he meant illegal guns... or did he?

So, here's the nerve.

It's a running and disingenuous joke that most lawful firearms owners know far more about firearms laws that the majority of police/peace officers, and it's true.  But let's put that into some context.

Gun owners have guns as a hobby, be it collecting, target shooting, competing or hunting.  People become immersed in their hobbies and learn them in great detail including the laws that govern them.  So, most serious gun hobbyists take great pains to be well versed in those laws because the punishments for even a simple paper/administrative transgression are quite severe.

Police/peace officers, on the other hand, have to be somewhat versed on more than just firearms laws and they will, by necessity, be very well versed on those laws they deal with most frequently.  Highway Safety Division officers know the traffic and commercial trucking laws.  Guns and Gangs unit officer will specialize in firearms laws and the, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  Border Services Officers (BSOs) will specialize in the Customs Act/Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  (BSOs, for example are responsible for enforcing ninety (90) different acts and regulations.)  And this is on top of everything else they need to stay current on such as agency/service policy, collective agreements and working conditions, healthy work practices, case law, new legislation, use of force and reporting, etc. 

Couple that with the fact that our firearms laws are more poorly written than WalMart  appliance instructions and you can see where confusion can occur.

So, the next time that you, as a law abiding firearms owner, have an interaction with law enforcement, instead of getting on your high horse, maybe try to see things from the officer's position and make the encounter educational.

My friend who is a RCMP Constable just got his PAL, he didn't really believe me when i had pointed out some of the illogical crap in the Firearm Act. After the course he came back and said "Holy Crap you weren't kidding , what an utterly stupid system"

 

[Eaglelord17]

An additional comment/perspective. How does this situation look if we take the gun control specifics out and just look at it as a general policy. Does it seem like a good overall policy that we want to follow for other issues.

1. Canadian public is being highly influenced by an outside power (inadvertently but influenced nonetheless)
2. Canadian public is unaware of Canadian specifics.
3. Public officials ignore Canadian specifics and reinforce the malign although inadvertent influence, though inadvertent or deliberate ignorance. At worst they deliberately misrepresent the situation.
4. Canadian public officials implement unilateral changes via bureaucratic mechanisms to resolve manufactured crisis.
5. Changes specifically and deliberately target a minority segment of society.
6. Minority segment of society deprived of legitimately acquired and owned property, which has been held and used for decades.

I can not understand how any of those points either in isolation or in combination are tolerated and supported.  If that model of action were to be applied to any other situation it would be unacceptable. I would argue that the very party implementing the current changes would vehemently object to this approach (and rightly so) if it were to be applied  to other issues or minorities.

I disagree with you on the Liberals (or any other political party in Canada for that matter) vehemently objecting if this was applied to other issues as it already is in Quebec with their religious symbols ban (well they still have a giant cross up in Quebec parliament so it isn't about religious symbols, rather whose symbols are being shown). They want the public to think they would, but the reality is all political parties have been pretty silent on what is one of the largest attacks on Canadian rights in modern history because it is good politics in Quebec.

One of the largest flaws in our democracy is the 4 year election cycle. It gives no incentive to long term planning, and instead rewards short term, short sighted approaches to things. My personal solution to that is to elect 1/4 of the parliament every year, essentially forcing political parties to be less drastic, and allowing the public to respond to issues as they arise. It would hopefully usher in more accountability and create a more stable governance. But that doesn't really belong on a gun control thread.

My friend who is a RCMP Constable just got his PAL, he didn't really believe me when i had pointed out some of the illogical crap in the Firearm Act. After the course he came back and said "Holy Crap you weren't kidding , what an utterly stupid system"

I am personally a big fan of education, and I try to expose as many people as I can to firearms ownership, offering to take them to the range, explaining the laws, etc. Most people are shocked when I start explaining it all to them as the amount of almost contradictory, non-sensical stuff in there is hard to keep track of.

 

[Donald H]

I'm with Fabius on this, in that I do not understand what you are saying with respect to democracy.
It certainly does matter what soccer moms understand as an illiterate electorate undermines the very basis of our democracy especially when our representatives do not exercise their own authority

The rest of your argument looks like strawman nonsense to me. The "gun lobby" has being putting out all sorts of information for years but it matters not if the audience is not receptive. Most non gun people are still confusing semi automatics with full automatic. I hope the next time the conservatives get in they strengthen gun rights in Canada

It was a pretty simple message on democracy and Fabius seemed to get it right away. Direct and Representative democracy.

My only reaal point that you could be disagreeing with is that soccer moms aren't ever going to take any interest in Canada's gun laws. Their interest lies in safety for their children and their perceptions from the other side of the border are mainly that guns aren't safe.

If I've missed some point or you think I'm putting up a straw man argument then you're have to tell me what you are thinking.

 

[suffolkowner]

It was a pretty simple message on democracy and Fabius seemed to get it right away. Direct and Representative democracy.

My only reaal point that you could be disagreeing with is that soccer moms aren't ever going to take any interest in Canada's gun laws. Their interest lies in safety for their children and their perceptions from the other side of the border are mainly that guns aren't safe.

If I've missed some point or you think I'm putting up a straw man argument then you're have to tell me what you are thinking.

Well I read Fabius and others as a complete rebuttal of what I felt was your position on Democracy.

I'm not really aware of much direct democratic action in our country we've had the odd referenda when our elected representatives refused to step up to the challenge and assume responsibility but they have been exceedingly rare. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think where we're disagreeing is on the value and importance of an individuals opinion on a matter of which they have little knowledge and have made little effort on to influence public policy and restrict the actions of others in society. I read your earlier post(s) as an argument in favour of "mob rule" the 50 + 1 side of democracy.

The strawman is the idea that the "gun lobby" needs to do a better job of education. It is not any fault of said lobby that our PM/MP's doesn't understand the regulations around firearms or that they vote on issues they don't understand or don't agree with.

The strawman is the idea that uneducated and uninformed opinions bear no consequences for our democracy. They infact undermine the entire democratic principle.

We may just as well have a referendum on the weapons fit for the CSC or our next fighter(acknowledging that Switzerland did exactly that)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It was a pretty simple message on democracy and Fabius seemed to get it right away. Direct and Representative democracy.

My only reaal point that you could be disagreeing with is that soccer moms aren't ever going to take any interest in Canada's gun laws. Their interest lies in safety for their children and their perceptions from the other side of the border are mainly that guns aren't safe.

If I've missed some point or you think I'm putting up a straw man argument then you're have to tell me what you are thinking.

It's the soccer moms in the US that are the biggest group of new buyers of guns, in order to keep their kids safe from thugs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's the soccer moms in the US that are the biggest group of new buyers of guns, in order to keep their kids safe from thugs.

I recall seeing a few articles about shooting in Canada becoming more and more popular with women (and immigrants).

The Liberals really smashed the 3-gun sport in Canada.

 

[Haggis]

I recall seeing a few articles about shooting in Canada becoming more and more popular with women (and immigrants).

A quarter to a third of the new members I train at my club are women or new Canadians and some are have already dumped a lot of money into the sport.

 

[shawn5o]

I disagree with you on the Liberals (or any other political party in Canada for that matter) vehemently objecting if this was applied to other issues as it already is in Quebec with their religious symbols ban (well they still have a giant cross up in Quebec parliament so it isn't about religious symbols, rather whose symbols are being shown). They want the public to think they would, but the reality is all political parties have been pretty silent on what is one of the largest attacks on Canadian rights in modern history because it is good politics in Quebec.

One of the largest flaws in our democracy is the 4 year election cycle. It gives no incentive to long term planning, and instead rewards short term, short sighted approaches to things. My personal solution to that is to elect 1/4 of the parliament every year, essentially forcing political parties to be less drastic, and allowing the public to respond to issues as they arise. It would hopefully usher in more accountability and create a more stable governance. But that doesn't really belong on a gun control thread.

I am personally a big fan of education, and I try to expose as many people as I can to firearms ownership, offering to take them to the range, explaining the laws, etc. Most people are shocked when I start explaining it all to them as the amount of almost contradictory, non-sensical stuff in there is hard to keep track of.

Hi EL

I live in la belle province and you are spot on. We were happy (most all of us in gun ownership) when the registration program went null and void. But that fell away when Red Tory Charest backstabbed us with introducing the Québec Firearms Registry. Anyway, I gave up and sold/gave away my rifles. All I  have left is my 7mm mag (that I built  ;D ) and the Russian SKS. I'm surprised that the Queen's Cowboys didn't ban the SKS.

Cheers EL - Good post.

 

[Donald H]

I think where we're disagreeing is on the value and importance of an individuals opinion on a matter of which they have little knowledge and have made little effort on to influence public policy and restrict the actions of others in society.

I don't know how you can disagree. My position is simply that soccer moms have a vote. You're obviously saying that those soccer moms  should know all the facts before they make a decision on support/non support. And so in a perfect world, yes they should.

Here's a possibility for disagreement: Those soccer moms are going to vote with their gut feeling and it looks like the outcome on the gun issue is running 70-80%.

on a matter of which they have little knowledge and have made little effort on......

Meaning that they have made little effort to understand?

 

[suffolkowner]

I don't know how you can disagree. My position is simply that soccer moms have a vote. You're obviously saying that those soccer moms  should know all the facts before they make a decision on support/non support. And so in a perfect world, yes they should.

Here's a possibility for disagreement: Those soccer moms are going to vote with their gut feeling and it looks like the outcome on the gun issue is running 70-80%.

Meaning that they have made little effort to understand?

I certainly thought your position was a lot stronger than that. At least it read that way to me

And yes there has been little effort put in by gun opponents to understand the issue and no that is not that different than many other issues the difference being that this one directly targets the personal property of others

 

[materialpigeonfibre]

Forgive my impudent tone.
I have heard you can build a slam shot gun from home hardware parts (galvanized gas pipe) for under 20$ canadian! I have heard you can start manufacturing ammunition for 50$!!  I have even heard rumours you can  3D print lowers and use EDM to make barrels(using parts from thrift stores)!!!!  :rofl: I won't link to it because my post will be deleted  (again)

Gun control?

You will only disarm the people who are willing to follow the law and arm those people who aren't.

It's only the Army gals and guys I know who are slightly worried about following the law. All the civies I know are just waiting for the police to knock...

My high school had an airgun shooting range. Probably one of the last in Canada.  My culture is firearms and having a good time.