The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Haggis]

For the most part handguns are difficult enough to find on the black market and we don't have the same guns everywhere problem the US does.

Illegal guns can be had within hours in most urban centres for under $500 cash.  Want an 'untraceable' one, it'll cost you about $1500.

What if all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were treated the same way as handguns WRT all being registered with the RCMP and require RCMP approval and facilitation of transferring.

What if I told you that somewhere, someone has a copy of the former LGR just waiting to be uploaded after C-17 passes? Government records are never really "destroyed" unless it's done to protect the government.

It may not be a popular opinion among gun owners but I actually think the RCMP registration/transfer process works.  What do you (or anyone else) think?

I actually agree with you in this regard.  My main beef with C-71 is that the system we have now works very well for law abiding gun owners.  But, just like in the senior ranks of the CAF, politicians and bureaucrats like to have that "leading change" bubble ticked off on their PER, whether that change is good, proper and required, or not.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Illegal guns can be had within hours in most urban centres for under $500 cash.

I've heard they're harder to obtain which is one of the reasons a lower level gangs share guns between them use dead drops but the $500 is just as believable.

Want an 'untraceable' one, it'll cost you about $1500.

i'd prefer GPS enabled  ;D

What if I told you that somewhere, someone has a copy of the former LGR just waiting to be uploaded after C-17 passes? Government records are never really "destroyed" unless it's done to protect the government.

We've seen that of course.

I don't see how the LGR would really assist police officers.  I sold all but two of the guns I registered years ago. We weren't required by law to keep track of who bought what after the LGR was dismantled so the info seems mostly useless to me?

I actually agree with you in this regard.  My main beef with C-71 is that the system we have now works very well for law abiding gun owners.  But, just like in the senior ranks of the CAF, politicians and bureaucrats like to have that "leading change" bubble ticked off on their PER, whether that change is good, proper and required, or not.

I've also read gun owners in Canada are statistically more law abiding than non gun owners.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I've conversed with a number of gun owners who hold on to this belief that gun ownership will be deregulated and gun owners won't need to possess a licence to own guns. At the very minimum licenses are cash grabs for the government and the government loves it's money. Need a license for everything these days. I don't see it happening.

I don't see it happening either. I've never heard of anyone that ever thought it was all going away. At that though, I am satisfied with the the basics of what we have. I would like some of the restricted rifles designations lifted. The 'assault rifle' argument is hyperbolic horse hockey. There isn't a single valid arguement for any of the reasons, whether large capacity mags or pistol grips. I'm good with the handgun registration system. I would like the class system reviewed. I've never had any real problem with transfers back and forth.
Confiscation will accomplish nothing. Except piss off millions, pull scarce resources from cops while they run around collecting magazines, cause people to do things they would never do otherwise and put lots and lots of people in danger of one sort or another. Attacks won't stop or diminish, theyll just become more savage, bloody and terrifying.

I am also a believer that every person that has or carries firearms, except military, should have a PAL course.
Permits for handguns? Sure, as long as I can take it to any range set up for it and to anywhere else related to the handgun, like a gunshop or smith or to the border.

 

[Haggis]

I've also read gun owners in Canada are statistically more law abiding than non gun owners.

That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of another group of sports enthusiasts/hobbyists who stand to lose their hobby, their property and possibly their freedom and end up with a criminal record for even a minor transgression of the often confusing and poorly conceived laws of our passion.  or any other law, for that matter.  Defend yourself in a domestic assault?  You're prone to violence.  Lose your guns.  (If you think I made that up, it happened to a relative.  Yes, he eventually got his guns back, almost three years later,  but he was guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the Firearms Act.)

And what other legal segment of the sporting/hobby community stands to be criminalized at the stroke of a pen from a government who panders to vocal special interest groups?

 

[Jed]

That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of another group of sports enthusiasts/hobbyists who stand to lose their hobby, their property and possibly their freedom and end up with a criminal record for even a minor transgression of the often confusing and poorly conceived laws of our passion.  or any other law, for that matter.  Defend yourself in a domestic assault?  You're prone to violence.  Lose your guns.  (If you think I made that up, it happened to a relative.  Yes, he eventually got his guns back, almost three years later,  but he was guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the Firearms Act.)

And what other legal segment of the sporting/hobby community stands to be criminalized at the stroke of a pen from a government who panders to vocal special interest groups?

That, in my way of thinking is a very key point. This result is very unjust, grossly unfair and non democratic.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's because they have more to lose from non-compliance with the law - any law - than, say sport anglers or dirt track racers.

While I dont disagree we, firearms enthusiasts, have everything to lose I don't think that is the reason. 

Simply put criminals have no interest in spending the time or capital it takes gain the ability to walk into a store and legally buy firearms and ammunition.  Not to mention the licencing process would preclude most of them anyways, think back ground checks and references.

Its my opinion that the reason legal firearms owners aren't the cause of any significant gun crime in Canada is:

1) Those seeking to legally obtain firearms don't have a preclusion or background of criminal behavior to begin with, and;

2) Our current licencing program is effective in deterring and weeding the bad apples out.

I would change two things though:

1) The PAL/RPAL courses should have implemented a practical marksmanship portion with additional fees to cover the expenses, and;

2) The AR platform should be moved to the non-restricted catagory, as its position in the restricted catagory is based solely on aesthetics and not about functionality or capability.

 

[Haggis]

An article in today's G&M shows the results and, more importantly, calls into question the methodology and reliability of the recent on-line poll commissioned by Minister Blair.

I believe that, as a result of one person's ego-driven statement to the G&M, the "gun lobby" has lost the ethical high ground in this fight.

 

[Jed]

An article in today's G&M shows the results and, more importantly, calls into question the methodology and reliability of the recent on-line poll commissioned by Minister Blair.

I believe that, as a result of one person's ego-driven statement to the G&M, the "gun lobby" has lost the ethical high ground in this fight.

While I believe it would be impossible to expect everyone in the firearms community to have the same opinion. It wouldn’t matter one way or the other. The Liberal machine would continue to gaslight the issue for their own purposes.

 

[Haggis]

The Liberal machine would continue to gaslight the issue for their own purposes.

Having ethically conducted poll results in favour of the regulatory status quo with more emphasis on illegal guns would have made it much harder for the Liberals to gaslight the issue.  We have lost that.  The entire result is suspect.  Even if the questions were slanted towards the achieving the government's aim and roundly opposed, it's now clear that (at least) one side in the debate has deliberately influenced the results.

On the good news (?) side, there is increasing chatter of amending Bill C-71, possibly to include bans, which should result in it going back to the House for a vote then returning to committee for further study.  This would push it beyond the writ being dropped and it would die on the order paper.  Not a bad thing, IMO.

 

[TimneyTime]

the fact the RCMP chose to put these words in bold suggests something else is going to happen between now and 2021: "The Order will provide protection from criminal prosecution for illegal possession of these firearms until February 28, 2021, while the Government implements measures to address continued possession and use.

I'm not sure what was so dangerous about those particular firearms that they had to table them for prohibited firearms anyhow?  Seems like random tooling by the Liberals, to me.

 

[TimneyTime]

Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?  I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.

 

[Haggis]

I'm not sure what was so dangerous about those particular firearms that they had to table them for prohibited firearms anyhow?  Seems like random tooling by the Liberals, to me.

First off, the RCMP jumped the gun (pun intended) and were forced to revise the text of the website you referenced.  They have been called to task on that as Bill C-71 has not yet passed.

Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?

This is, for the most part, true.  It's highly uncommon for the MSM to challenge the "facts" trotted out by gun control advocates, such as the "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced", which has been thoroughly disproven.  Some gun control advocates have proposed drastic measures against gun owners and threatened them with violence should they not comply.

I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.

The AR has a bad rep thanks to the MSM, never mind how many lives it's saved and how many good guys/gals have used it to defend others.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Does it seem like the people pushing gun control are more violently attacking gun rights, than the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are attacking people with guns?  I can't even bring up AR-15s where I work without someone seeing red and exploding all over me.  It's really sad.

That is because the medium is the message and the message is false fake news, proceeding with a communist agenda for their benefactors and bosses.

 

[FSTO]

First off, the RCMP jumped the gun (pun intended) and were forced to revise the text of the website you referenced.  They have been called to task on that as Bill C-71 has not yet passed.

This is, for the most part, true.  It's highly uncommon for the MSM to challenge the "facts" trotted out by gun control advocates, such as the "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced", which has been thoroughly disproven.  Some gun control advocates have proposed drastic measures against gun owners and threatened them with violence should they not comply.


The AR has a bad rep thanks to the MSM, never mind how many lives it's saved and how many good guys/gals have used it to defend others.

Heard that quote today by a Dr who is a gun control advocate on Anthony Fury's radio show this morning (Canada Talks on Sirius). He said nothing to the good Dr to refute that claim.

 

[Haggis]

Heard that quote today by a Dr who is a gun control advocate on Anthony Fury's radio show this morning (Canada Talks on Sirius). He said nothing to the good Dr to refute that claim.

My point is made.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I've said it before. If you are sitting on a firearms panel for legislation., everyone there should be PAL restricted trained and have at least one good range session under their belt.

It is the norm rather than the exception, that we deal constantly with those that have no idea what the laws are. Firearms owners, by default are the best experts at that.

I'm including police in this also. There are huge amounts of hunters and shooters that have been stopped, searched, harassed and penalized because the officer that was carrying as part of the job has no civilian arms and no PAL. They only try think about firearms laws when a situation is encountered. Even shooters carrying copies of the RCMP rules of transport and storage guidance memo, have not been able to assuage the ire of certain RCMP. Typically, at the station, the Desk Sgt usually prevails with some common sense and education of the officer. If they had the same training as firearms owners, maybe the mistakes would diminish. If councils and boards and committees, had the training, we might not have as much animosity when they finally understand. Unfortunately, most have no interest of becoming educated and are comfortable in their belief that firearms sneak out at night and kill people while the owner sleeps.

 

[TimneyTime]

Gun Control Explained by Rowan Atkinson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwKThyMmi7I

There's a reason this is categorized as comedy.

The reality is that a criminal in Canada can break into your house, and if the judge feels like it... if you defend yourself, and injure the criminal, you can be charged as well.  Because the law is truly blind, and there was an incident of violence on your behalf.

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There's a reason this is categorized as comedy.

The reality is that a criminal in Canada can break into your house, and if the judge feels like it... if you defend yourself, and injure the criminal, you can be charged as well.  Because the law is truly blind, and there was an incident of violence on your behalf.

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

The only thing a homeowner can do is harden his home, but many local laws prevent that. Or you can run, after you herd all the family out of danger. Or you can have your kids traumatized while the perps beat you and the wife. If you're in bed and the bad guys kick in the door, you have seconds to react. If unarmed, your only recourse is option three and hope you get squeamish assailants. You're either dead or beat, but you shouldn't get charged. I say shouldn't because the Crown appears to have their own thoughts that home invaders aren't the problem, the people that chase them out with guns are.

Call 911, because when seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. To Serve and Investigate.

 

[TimneyTime]

The only thing a homeowner can do is harden his home, but many local laws prevent that. Or you can run, after you herd all the family out of danger. Or you can have your kids traumatized while the perps beat you and the wife. If you're in bed and the bad guys kick in the door, you have seconds to react. If unarmed, your only recourse is option three and hope you get squeamish assailants. You're either dead or beat, but you shouldn't get charged. I say shouldn't because the Crown appears to have their own thoughts that home invaders aren't the problem, the people that chase them out with guns are.

Call 911, because when seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. To Serve and Investigate.

Also, taxpayers have to pay for expanded police protection, while if firearms were allowed as a deterrent to home invasion... as in you can get killed if you break into someone's house... I'm pretty sure criminal b&e would decline rapidly.

Fun fact:  in 2012, Winnipeg was more dangerous per capita in terms of violent crime than Compton.

 

[Haggis]

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

Honestly, what's wrong with "reasonable force"? Do you understand the concept of reasonable force?

Reasonable force is not proportional force.  It is force that is reasonable in the circumstances.  It is dependent on situational factors, such as the abilities of the victim and individual perceptions as per CCC s 34(2).  For example, a smaller person may have to use very violent, disproportionate force to defend themselves against a bigger aggressor.  This force is reasonable, because proportional force would not have resulted in an adequate defense and the victim reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death and was able to articulate those fears.

I have no problem with reasonable force.  Anything more may subject me to civil or criminal liability.