• 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

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
339
Points
980
suffolkowner said:
To continue with this slight derail. I am not against a GST increase, it remains one of my greatest disappointments that Harper followed through on that instead of other tax reforms. Of course it's a questionable bet that any increase in the GST would be offset by a reduction in income taxes

Not expecting a reduction in income tax, would be happy with no change to income tax and a bump in GST. EuroVATs are in the high-teen/low-20s %, so a return of GST to 7 or even further to 8-10 would be in line with European VAT and would also be enough on all tax payers alike that even the base the Liberals pander to would feel enough pain to not just support them blindly like in times past.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
980
Good2Golf said:
Not expecting a reduction in income tax, would be happy with no change to income tax and a bump in GST. EuroVATs are in the high-teen/low-20s %, so a return of GST to 7 or even further to 8-10 would be in line with European VAT and would also be enough on all tax payers alike that even the base the Liberals pander to would feel enough pain to not just support them blindly like in times past.

But that still has an impact on your disposable income. Income taxes are a hot button issue, consumption taxes, not so much, so easier to get buy-in. Add in an increase in deductions to CPP, EI etc, it is quacking and walking like a duck.

I would prefer some governmental spending restraints personally.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
339
Points
980
Weinie said:
I would prefer some governmental spending restraints personally.

You and me both, Weinie! :nod:  I just think the LPC needs to have the “enough virtue signalling is enough, you’re impacting our QOL” for their base, not just the evil center-to-right folks...
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
2
Points
180
Weinie said:
But that still has an impact on your disposable income. Income taxes are a hot button issue, consumption taxes, not so much, so easier to get buy-in. Add in an increase in deductions to CPP, EI etc, it is quacking and walking like a duck.

I would prefer some governmental spending restraints personally.

I think that income taxes especially for the large proportion of Canadians are a negative drag on productivity. While some spending restraint would be appreciated especially for this government. I am not unduly concerned about the amount of Covid spending/stimulus but rather the manner in which the government has decided who gets what.

The problem with spending restraint is that it still requires competent management to exercise it something that is lacking across many institutions and corporations not just government. We will probably end up with our emergency supplies dumped in  the landfill again while the true waste remains untouched
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
In a desperate attempt to steer this back on topic, the PM received a briefing note mere days after the shooting and before the May 1st OIC outlining that all the Nova Scotia shooter's firearms and magazines were illegally obtained.  Yet, the ban went ahead using this crime as one example of why it was needed. So much for evidence based governance.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
74
Points
530
Again, Blair has announced another initiative, Red Flag laws, that is already on the books. It sounds like the liberals may be running short on ideas to cater to their base. Rephrasing and rejigging what we already have. Unfortunately most people, unless they're owners, don't  know these laws already exist. It causes confusion and panic. What I see is a tightning. Will anonymous tips will be used for a reason to confiscate?
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
The RCMP's new union, the National Police Federation, has just published it's policy statement on Gun Violence and Public Safety in Canada..

They policy clearly states:

"Costly and current legislation, such as the Order in Council prohibiting various firearms and the
proposed “buy-back” program by the federal government targeted at legal firearm owners, does not address these current and emerging themes or urgent threats to public safety.

It also does not address:
• criminal activity,
• illegal firearms proliferation,
• gang crime,
• illegal guns crossing the border or
• the criminal use of firearms.

In fact, it diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms."


Even though he won't care, because the Liberals know better than front line LEOs, I doubt this will be well received in the Minister's office.

 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
38
Points
280
Haggis said:
Even though he won't care, because the Liberals know better than front line LEOs, I doubt this will be well received in the Minister's office.

It may not be well received by the Minister, but it may explain why the government has been fixated on trying to arrange an outsourced contract to run the buyback program, if the union and the rank and file of the RCMP are that convinced that it’s a dumb idea and a waste of resources.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
Ostrozac said:
It may not be well received by the Minister, but it may explain why the government has been fixated on trying to arrange an outsourced contract to run the buyback program, if the union and the rank and file of the RCMP are that convinced that it’s a dumb idea and a waste of resources.

So far they have failed to find a scapegoat contractor to take on this project. 
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
59
Points
530
Haggis said:
The RCMP's new union, the National Police Federation, has just published it's policy statement on Gun Violence and Public Safety in Canada..

They policy clearly states:

"Costly and current legislation, such as the Order in Council prohibiting various firearms and the
proposed “buy-back” program by the federal government targeted at legal firearm owners, does not address these current and emerging themes or urgent threats to public safety.

It also does not address:
• criminal activity,
• illegal firearms proliferation,
• gang crime,
• illegal guns crossing the border or
• the criminal use of firearms.

In fact, it diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms."


Even though he won't care, because the Liberals know better than front line LEOs, I doubt this will be well received in the Minister's office.

Wow... I'm pretty surprised to see that. I know the RCMP have to execute what their told to execute, but it seems to me the RCMP has been enthusiastic about it... perhaps just their "leadership." To see that from their union is definitely a surprise for me.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
502
Points
860
ballz said:
Wow... I'm pretty surprised to see that. I know the RCMP have to execute what their told to execute, but it seems to me the RCMP has been enthusiastic about it... perhaps just their "leadership." To see that from their union is definitely a surprise for me.

Why the surprise? It’s a union of 20,000 serving police officers from across the country, working in literally every aspect of policing from border integrity, organized crime, drugs and street gangs, forensics and weapons tracing, domestic violence investigations, and so on. Who better to have a no-BS picture of what works and what doesn’t in terms of trying to curb gun violence? Not to mention, having lost members in Mayerthorpe and Nova Scotia to illegally owned firearms.

I guess this also answers the question as to whether the Mounties’ new union will involve itself in politically contentious issues when it crosses their arcs.
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
50
Points
330
Brihard said:
Why the surprise? It’s a union of 20,000 serving police officers from across the country, working in literally every aspect of policing from border integrity, organized crime, drugs and street gangs, forensics and weapons tracing, domestic violence investigations, and so on. Who better to have a no-BS picture of what works and what doesn’t in terms of trying to curb gun violence? Not to mention, having lost members in Mayerthorpe and Nova Scotia to illegally owned firearms.

I guess this also answers the question as to whether the Mounties’ new union will involve itself in politically contentious issues when it crosses their arcs.

Bad firearms laws have created a mistrust of police in the group who normally would be supporters... Anytime I'm transporting firearms I worry about an overzealous constable ruining my day, and potentially my finances.

 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
502
Points
860
I've not seen many actual cops out on the road doing police stuff who are enthused about the new gun laws. It does little to concretely impact crime, and that's blatantly obvious.

The laws as they already exist - flawed as they are - give sufficient legal tools to deal with firearms crime. The issue is investigative resourcing, and turnstile courts. Toronto police have been getting more active in publicizing cases of offenders released on bail after repeat firearms offences.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
Brihard said:
Toronto police have been getting more active in publicizing cases of offenders released on bail after repeat firearms offences.

While Edmonton's Deputy Chief is blaming lawful gun owners and the Trudeau government for the rise firearms crime.  He "thinks" that with no compensated confiscation plan in place and likely nothing in the future, owners of newly prohibited firearms are selling them to criminals in order to see even a minimal profit for the loss of their property.  I'd love to see his evidence of this.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
254
Points
880
https://firearmrights.ca/en/re-s-74-nullification-decision-alberta-new-decision/

The feds suffer a defeat in Alberta Court over S.74 “nullifications”.

To say that the Court took a dim view of the Federal submission in response to Mr Stark would be an understatement.

The OIC is looking more and more unconstitutional by the second...
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
85
Points
530
SeaKingTacco said:
https://firearmrights.ca/en/re-s-74-nullification-decision-alberta-new-decision/

The feds suffer a defeat in Alberta Court over S.74 “nullifications”.

To say that the Court took a dim view of the Federal submission in response to Mr Stark would be an understatement.

The OIC is looking more and more unconstitutional by the second...

Can you expand on this ?  I did read the article but I am simple storesman and there are allot of multi-syllable words there
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
254
Points
880
As I understand it, the Firearms Act allows the CFO to revoke firearms licenses for certain reasons, but, under s74, they must give you at least an opportunity to appeal.

When the OIC was issued on 01 May, they used the word “nullification” (which does not appear anywhere in the Firearm Act) probably in attempt to avoid thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of appeals which could tie up the courts well into the 2100s.

The Alberta Judge said (basically) “not so fast, federal government. What you have done with this OiC offends natural justice and is frankly, a mess”.

Firearms owners do not get many wins in court. This was a win and starts to assemble a case 5hat this whole OiC was unconstitutional from the get go...IMHO.

If you go to youtube and look for Runkle of the Bailey, he has an excellent summary.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
85
Points
530
SeaKingTacco said:
As I understand it, the Firearms Act allows the CFO to revoke firearms licenses for certain reasons, but, under s74, they must give you at least an opportunity to appeal.

When the OIC was issued on 01 May, they used the word “nullification” (which does not appear anywhere in the Firearm Act) probably in attempt to avoid thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of appeals which could tie up the courts well into the 2100s.

The Alberta Judge said (basically) “not so fast, federal government. What you have done with this OiC offends natural justice and is frankly, a mess”.

Firearms owners do not get many wins in court. This was a win and starts to assemble a case 5hat this whole OiC was unconstitutional from the get go...IMHO.

If you go to youtube and look for Runkle of the Bailey, he has an excellent summary.

Thank you! I sure hope the OIC get cut down or scrapped, whatever. 
 
Top