The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jed]

You know, there is one thing I notice missing in all the firearms control discussions (and to me that is likely because the Canadian media is mostly biassed in favour of the "control" crowd): The differences in National Psyche between Canada and the US.

To my mind, that is in itself the greatest difference between the two nations that explains why our gun violence is much much lower than the US one and really not that significant in overall World wide comparison

In the US, the founding myth are the bloody war of independence  against the British, then the Wild West and it's sharpshooter and the need for everyone to be armed against one another. That Wild West permeated all their police/military and even "gang" movies, etc., which are basically all remakes of the "Shooting at the O.K. Coral" In short, in the US, people see guns as a requirement of protection against other people, and consider their primary use as being for shooting people.

In Canada, we have never really felt such need. Our founding myth are not wild people but wild nature. Our guns are for hunting, to sustain ourselves, and for protection not against one another, but against wild animals likely to hurt us in the woods and to remove threat from these same animals against our herds. Canadians simply don't consider their guns as a safety device for their personal security from other Canadians. And that, to me, explains why we very seldom use them against other people.

Interesting generalization. In my opinion there is some truth to this but the sentiment is rapidly evolving. As media becomes more evasive and city population  grows and strays apart from rural roots, Canadians start to want the need of personal protection. They know they are the first line of defence to protect themselves and their loved ones.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Protect yourself from a criminal and you become a criminal is the Crown stance.

 

[Haggis]

If anyone is looking for a gun org in Canada to join I highly recommend the CCFR.

I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.

Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.

Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".

Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.

The liberal narrative has moved on. We're white nationalists now. Along with the Yellow Vests.

 

[Haggis]

I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course.

You know me personally and you know I'm not like that.  As you stated, some participants in this conversation are very polarized to take an all-or-nothing approach to the issue.  it'e either "Canadian Second Amendment NOW" or "No Guns in Canada NOW"

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never.

  We have CCW now, but it's very limited in scope and numbers (less than 1000 nationwide)

Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably.

Yes, but many want it "just because" and not because they need it. They fail to realize that carrying a firearm outside of a training/competition environment is an awful responsibility which opens you up to considerable civil and legal liability should you act in any way inappropriately.  I have very firm views on the general practice of civilian CCW both in the US and here.  But that's for another discussion

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm a member of neither simply because the public/social media rhetoric of the membership - not leadership - of both organizations casts a pall of instability over lawful/law abiding gun owners writ large.  I support their advocacy against C-71 and the upcoming (if the liberals win in October) gun bans.  I support their assertions that magazine capacity limits for legal owners is idiotic.  And I support their push for the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution.  I don't don't support their advocacy for Second Amendment type rights, civilian concealed carry, "stand your ground' laws  or castle doctrine in Canada.

Canadain gun rights organizations need to start working together for the common goal and adopt the motto of 33 CBG, "The Wolfpack": "Strong Alone - Stronger Together".

I couldn't agree with you more.  I find their facebook groups very toxic and I find I have little in common with allot of the participants. 

I find it hard to reason supporting these organizations because of the polarizing posts made by members. 

Personally I have very little issue with our current firearms laws with the exception being what you have already stated and I dream of the day when the AR platform is made NR.  But I know that is probably never going to happen. 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

We have CCW now, but it's very limited in scope and numbers (less than 1000 nationwide)

Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that? The reason I ask is that over the years the numbers I heard were much, much lower that that.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I know more than a few judges who have them, and some for good reasons. In fact, all for good reasons as it is the one imperative requirement for such permission. Similarly, many Police investigators and Crown attorneys who worked on various gang, drug cartels and other organized crime files get such permit for the rest of their lives. About 1000 in Canada as a whole sounds about right to me, but be certain you will find no statistics on it for obvious reasons.

 

[AbdullahD]

Understandable. I really like the CCFR because of what I felt was a non-polarizing attitude and behavior, especially across social media. I've noticed in some of my conversations with gun owners is that we can agree on 99 items but if I'm for licensing and they're against then I'm basically an enemy, throw gun owners under the bus and probably a liberal plant. It can be exhausting conversations. I'm not suggesting you're like that at all, of course. I just try not to get too wrapped up about singular items.

Will Canada ever see CCW? Never. Do a lot of gun owners want CCW? probably. That puts the CCFR, for example, in a position of being pro or against CCW. When they lean one way the other side erupts. I'd rather time and effort into education campaigns to mitigate anti-gun advocates pushing the narrative that gun owners are white racist male conservatives.

Jarnhamar, I think Mr.Giltaca and by extension the ccfr have really done a good job by pushing education instead of the childish rhetoric of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd.

I find the CCFR is far more presentable at the dinner table then the NFA and as such, I do intend to donate to them.. but I agree with was it Haggis? That said that the membership of both groups does leave some to be desired. So while I follow on YouTube, I cant on fb really.

Abdullah

 

[Jarnhamar]

No disagreement here. Social Media is a double-edged ball.

 

[Haggis]

Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for that? The reason I ask is that over the years the numbers I heard were much, much lower that that.

The last FIRM number I saw was 678 from 2015.  I've been told by reliable sources that it has gone up since then, with a spike seen after the shooting of a high profile Toronto lawyer in 2016.  So, my statement that the number is "under 1000" is as accurate today as anything you'll get from the Government.  ;D

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The last FIRM number I saw was 678 from 2015.  I've been told by reliable sources that it has gone up since then, with a spike seen after the shooting of a high profile Toronto lawyer in 2016.  So, my statement that the number is "under 1000" is as accurate today as anything you'll get from the Government.  ;D

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Furniture]

Jarnhamar, I think Mr.Giltaca and by extension the ccfr have really done a good job by pushing education instead of the childish rhetoric of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd.

I find the CCFR is far more presentable at the dinner table then the NFA and as such, I do intend to donate to them.. but I agree with was it Haggis? That said that the membership of both groups does leave some to be desired. So while I follow on YouTube, I cant on fb really.

Abdullah

This is essentially the same way I think of the CCFR, and the NFA as well.

Just so people are clear, the FB group for the CCFR has many posters/members that aren't actually CCFR members, just people that follow the updates and drama. I'll also point out that I have yet to see an organization made up of people that I agree with on every point, all the time. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with myself all the time...

I suggest joining, or at least donating to the CCFR or CSSA to help them keep up the good fight against the anti-firearms crowd. Both suggested organizations present themselves well, and show the public that all firearms owners aren't crazies. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

From Glen Motz, MP for Medicine Hat

"Quietly, the Liberals put out the results of their handgun ban consultation. Overwhelmingly, Canadians do not support a ban on legally acquired handguns. Of the 130k+ responses, 81% said no to further handgun restrictions. Two out of three Canadians who do not currently own any firearms said they did not support a handgun ban. Of note, a majority of women and urban residents are also opposed to the ban"

 

[The Bread Guy]

And for a bit more detail, here's the report, with some more results/highlights below.

(I guess MP Motz or his staff don't use Google News much if they think the engagement report was released "quietly" - here's what's out there as of this post)

 

[Jarnhamar]

Should Canada track race when it comes to crime like the US does? To include crimes committed with firearms/weapons, by race?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Here's an interesting statistics coming off those slides:

While many "elites" and MSM, particularly here in Quebec (where they drag out the Polytechnic shooting every chance they got) are "en bloc" behind further restriction - if not outright ban of handguns and assault weapons, the provided stats would indicate that Quebecers are the ones least in favour of such ban. The percentage of Quebecers who want such step is the group with the lowest level of support from all provinces. interestingly enough, it appears that Ontario is the big driver, with the highest number who want such further restrictions - though still not a majority - and just because of the weight of Ontario in population number, they probably skew the results heavily.

All in all, we will now see if the Liberals govern for their clique's socialistic views or on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent.

P.S.: I believe the results actually depict the fact that Canadians don't generally perceive that there is any gun violence problem in Canada, save the occasional bout here and there, so they don't see this as an issue. It flies in the face of the oft repeated mantra of the MSM decrying the power of Canada's "gun-lobby". IMHO, not only is there not a gun lobby in Canada (unlike in the US), but we rather have the reverse: there is a strong Anti-gun-Lobby which is trying to push their agenda even though, as we now see, Canadians feel no interest in the issue or need to bother with it.

 

[Kirkhill]

There must be a wheen o' a lot o' Cameronians in Indiana

IN lawmakers OK guns in schools when building is used by, or attached to, a house of worship


APRIL 25, 2019 DAN CARDEN - THE TIMES

Hoosier lawmakers gave final approval Monday to pro-gun legislation just days before the National Rifle Association hosts some 80,000 gun rights advocates, including President Donald Trump, in Indiana’s capital city for the NRA’s national convention.

House Enrolled Act 1284 opens the door for more Hoosiers to carry guns in school buildings where guns generally are forbidden except by special permission of local authorities.

Under the plan, which would take effect July 1, any person legally authorized to carry a firearm may possess it in a school building when the building is being used by a church or other house of worship.

Similarly, a gun owner could bring his or her weapon into any church or religious building that’s connected to a school, so long as the religious institution permits guns within its facilities.

Supporters of the measure said churches that believe their members should be free to carry guns while worshiping shouldn’t have that right denied just because the church holds services in a school building, or because the sanctuary is connected to a school.

On the other hand, state Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, who opposed the measure, said, “I can’t believe that we’re going to have people sitting in church, with firearms, expecting to defend the entire church.”

However, the legislation also provides that if a Hoosier uses a gun in self-defense — whether at a church, school, home or anywhere else — the shooter cannot be sued for civil damages if the person shot was committing a forcible felony or causing serious bodily injury to another person.

The proposal’s immunity against civil damages even applies to lawsuits filed by any surviving relative or the estate of the person injured or killed by a gun owner acting in self-defense.

In addition, the measure makes Indiana’s four-year handgun carry license into a five-year license, and eliminates the $10 application fee and $5 license fee for a five-year license, starting July 1, 2020.

It passed the Republican-controlled House, 64-17, and the Republican-controlled Senate, 37-7, and now goes to Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb to likely be signed into law.

———

© 2019 The Times (Munster, Ind.)

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/04/in-lawmakers-ok-guns-in-schools-when-building-is-used-by-or-attached-to-a-house-of-worship/?utm_campaign=alt&utm_source=amn&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3YCBtnv_VGZIbyDJIA5bD0kt1DLCeuX7ydVHh4jb6MdeoxSmX1bEUFweI

Sunday 15th of May is Cameronian Sunday, the nearest to the 14th of May on which the regiment was both raised (1689) and disbanded (1968).

As ever the services are held in the village of Douglas South Lanarkshire, home of the legendary Douglas family who raised the regiment in Covenanting Times.

The day starts at 9 30 am with the raising of the regimental flag, 10 am church service at St Brides Church, 2 pm service at the memorial cairn in the form of a Cameronian Conventicle, piquets at four points of the compass and the all clear given to Minister of no enemy in sight, the service, sermon and hymn proceeds.

"No enemy in sight!"

 

[Haggis]

Interesting. Thanks.

Last week, gun rights advocate and researcher Dennis R. Young received a final reply to an ATIP request for the number of Authorizations to Carry in Canada.  In their initial reply, the RCMP refused to disclose the number of ATCs issued for "protection of life" (e.g. concealed carry) saying that to do so could pose a risk to those persons.  Mr. Young complained to the Information Commissioner.  As a result, the RCMP revised their reply and now state that the number of ATC in Canada specifically for protection of life is ONE.

Speculation is rampant on social media as to who "The ONE" is.