The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Weinie]

And the people speak:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/people-are-super-frustrated-gun-owners-firearm-activists-march-at-parliament-hill/ar-BB18YmCm?ocid=msedgdhp

 

[Jarnhamar]

And the people speak:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/people-are-super-frustrated-gun-owners-firearm-activists-march-at-parliament-hill/ar-BB18YmCm?ocid=msedgdhp

An estimated 800 gun owners and firearm rights activists assembled on Parliament Hill on Saturday to express their displeasure with the federal government’s gun policies, especially the ban on assault-style firearms announced after the mass killing in Portapique, N.S., in April.

Interesting estimate. CCFR is estimating around 5000.

 

[mariomike]

Interesting estimate. CCFR is estimating around 5000.

Not to argue Gun Politics with you Jarnhamar, but this is what I read,

Organizers claimed 5,000 people flooded the streets of Ottawa for the rally, but the parliamentary security service said the number was closer to 800.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7331295/pro-gun-rally-parliament-hill/

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am no expert but, if the picture above is actually from the rally, that looks alot closer to 5000 people, than 800 (at least on the Sparks St Mall. Maybe they didn’t all go onto Parliament Hill.

 

[Stoker]

I am no expert but, if the picture above is actually from the rally, that looks alot closer to 5000 people, than 800 (at least on the Sparks St Mall. Maybe they didn’t all go onto Parliament Hill.

That is a picture from the march, 700 to 800 was reported as the attendance 32min before the start. Parliamentary Protective Services estimated 5000 plus.

 

[mariomike]

Parliamentary Protective Services estimated 5000 plus.

Not to disagree, but can you post a source for that?

Organizers claimed 5,000 people flooded the streets of Ottawa for the rally, but the parliamentary security service said the number was closer to 800.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7331295/pro-gun-rally-parliament-hill/

 

[Stoker]

Not to disagree, but can you post a source for that?

Just what I seen on twitter, where that picture was posted. It does look a lot more than 800 people. It was a hell of a lot more than the last anti protest and impressive considering we are in a pandemic.

 

[brihard]

A lot of the hill is blocked off for construction. Might be there were lesser numbers on the hill and more down below? PPS worries about the parliamentary precinct, not the streets of Ottawa.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You got me there EL17

I have no idea why certain calibres are banned. Saturday night specials perhaps?

Well when they banned .25s and .32s they said it was because of Saturday night specials and they were 'inherently inaccurate' calibers. Then they proceeded to put a exemption for if its used for target shooting (.32s in particular are Olympic target shooting pistols). The best part about that bit of stupidity is the Saturday night specials were banned due to the barrel length restrictions, so there was no need to do a caliber one. Just one of the many examples of ineffective and contradictory legislation on the governments part when they made the firearms act.

 

[Haggis]

The best part about that bit of stupidity is the Saturday night specials were banned due to the barrel length restrictions....

.25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.

 

[Stoker]

.25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.

True with their Saturday night special fears they banned all handguns with a barrel length of less than 105mm and those .25 and .32 calibers. They banned 585,000 handguns in the interest of public safety.

 

[Haggis]

They banned 585,000 handguns in the interest of public safety.

I would not be at all surprised if the banning of the remainder is announced during the Speech from the Throne in 10 days.

 

[Donald H]

I would not be at all surprised if the banning of the remainder is announced during the Speech from the Throne in 10 days.

The Liberals know that they need to stay on the side of a clear majority and so won't step beyond those boundaries. I feel that the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight. That won't result in a complete win but it will cut the losses.

 

[Haggis]

The Liberals know that they need to stay on the side of a clear majority and so won't step beyond those boundaries. I feel that the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight. That won't result in a complete win but it will cut the losses.

Wait....what does that paragraph even mean???

Are you saying they will?  Or they won't?  What will keep them on the side of a clear majority?

Your statement that "the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight" means what? Pro-gun groups should just accept that the future of legal gun ownership and the legally conducted shooting sports in Canada is limited and just give up? 

What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?

BTW, Donald H, I'm still waiting for your proposals on the qualifications you think are needed to regulate gun ownership in Canada. (see reply # 1436 from yesterday)

 

[Donald H]

Wait....what does that paragraph even mean???

I'll try to answer your questions.

Are you saying they will?  Or they won't?  What will keep them on the side of a clear majority?

I'm saying that I don't think the Liberals will step beyond the boundary that maintains their support on gun control. They know that if they go too far they risk losing the support of most gun owners.

Your statement that "the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight" means what?

It means that which I've said in my previous answer. And my own feeling is that doesn't include very much support for handguns and assault style weapons. This I judge by reports of them having 70-80% support.

Pro-gun groups should just accept that the future of legal gun ownership and the legally conducted shooting sports in Canada is limited and just give up?

Pro-gun groups should in my opinion not show bad faith by pushing the envelope. That again is in my opinion what I've said in my last answer. modifying demands on some guns could show good faith and be beneficial.

[quoute]What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?[/quote]

I don't know what either party is going to do about those issues. That could be a good exercise to compare the Liberals' and the Conservatives'  and the NDP's proposals.

BTW, Donald H, I'm still waiting for your proposals on the qualifications you think are needed to regulate gun ownership in Canada. (see reply # 1436 from yesterday)
[/quote]

I'll get back on that.

edit: Sorry, I thought I answered that question but now I see that the reason why I didn't answer is because my comment wasn't about the regulation of gun ownership.

It was me saying that I support shooting sports with some qualifications. Those qualifications are, not killing (socalled) varmints for fun, with the exception of rats. And not shooting wolves if they can be considered as varmints. I may have more qualifications that I couldn't include as part of my support.

Answer me the same question. Where do you stand on killing animals for fun?

 

[Haggis]

I'm saying that I don't think the Liberals will step beyond the boundary that maintains their support on gun control. They know that if they go too far they risk losing the support of most gun owners.

I'd wager that they lost most of that support with the OIC in May. Now, even hunters and farmers don't trust them due to their initial ban on .10 and .12 ga shotguns.

It means that which I've said in my previous answer. And my own feeling is that doesn't include very much support for handguns and assault style weapons. This I judge by reports of them having 70-80% support.

When those 1500 Canadians polled by Liberal friendly pollsters are all in urban areas and asked a loaded question, then, yes, support for an "assault weapons ban" and "handgun ban" are way up there.  So, why not ask this question:

"Do you support the confiscation of legally owned, properly stored and safely used firearms from lawful Canadian owners?"  or "Do you support the banning of lawfully owned handguns which are used only for sport shooting in Canada?"

Pro-gun groups should in my opinion not show bad faith by pushing the envelope.

How are pro-gun groups pushing the envelope?

That again is in my opinion what I've said in my last answer. modifying demands on some guns could show good faith and be beneficial.

The Liberals didn't act in good faith when passing the latest rounds of firearms legislation.  A case in point is the RCMP arbitrarily adding several hundred makes and models to the banned list after the OIC came into force without any oversight, consultation or notification to gun owners.  Why should the Liberals expect good faith in return?

What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?

I don't know what either party is going to do about those issues. That could be a good exercise to compare the Liberals' and the Conservatives'  and the NDP's proposals.

Would you think that consistently and diligently enforcing the existing firearms laws, including the Customs Act, and targeting criminals and criminal organizations would be a good start?

edit: Sorry, I thought I answered that question but now I see that the reason why I didn't answer is because my comment wasn't about the regulation of gun ownership.

Far enough.  So you agree, then, that our current suite of firearms laws in Canada are sufficient to regulate civilian ownership?  Do you support the May 1st OIC?  Bill C-71?  Are they/will they be, in your opinion, reasonable and effective in combating the criminal use of firearms in Canada and why?

It was me saying that I support shooting sports with some qualifications. Those qualifications are, not killing (socalled) varmints for fun, with the exception of rats. And not shooting wolves if they can be considered as varmints. I may have more qualifications that I couldn't include as part of my support.

Answer me the same question. Where do you stand on killing animals for fun?

I no longer sport hunt, not because I lost the thrill of it but because my current family and work life makes it very complicated to do so.  But, when I did, I ate what I killed. 

I live in a rural area.  Today I use my firearms primarily for sport shooting (IPSC, IDPA, skeet and sporting clays) and, when needed, for predator control.

 

[shawn5o]

A case in point is the potential buyback (compensated confiscation) regime which the Liberals may enact to collect up and destroy the lawfully owned newly banned 1800+ models of firearms. That buyback, if eventually offered, will only apply to lawfully owned guns. No incentive there for criminals to turn in theirs.

What would be the value of the buyback? How will the feds determine fair market value? Since owners cannot use or sell the now prohibited firearms, will it be .10 cents on the dollar? (Extreme but I think you get my drift)

 

[Donald H]

I'd wager that they lost most of that support with the OIC in May. Now, even hunters and farmers don't trust them due to their initial ban on .10 and .12 ga shotguns.

That could be true.

When those 1500 Canadians polled by Liberal friendly pollsters are all in urban areas and asked a loaded question, then, yes, support for an "assault weapons ban" and "handgun ban" are way up there.  So, why not ask this question:

"Do you support the confiscation of legally owned, properly stored and safely used firearms from lawful Canadian owners?"  or "Do you support the banning of lawfully owned handguns which are used only for sport shooting in Canada?"

That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of. If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.

How are pro-gun groups pushing the envelope?

I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't. Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop. How that pretains to Canada and Canadians is going to depend on public opinion.

The Liberals didn't act in good faith when passing the latest rounds of firearms legislation.  A case in point is the RCMP arbitrarily adding several hundred makes and models to the banned list after the OIC came into force without any oversight, consultation or notification to gun owners.  Why should the Liberals expect good faith in return?

I'm not familiar with the RCMP's additions. But it's a good question because a police force could tend to be over-restrictive of guns and gun owner's rights. And certainly the politicians would trust them on their preferences.

Would you think that consistently and diligently enforcing the existing firearms laws, including the Customs Act, and targeting criminals and criminal organizations would be a good start?

I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.

Far enough.  So you agree, then, that our current suite of firearms laws in Canada are sufficient to regulate civilian ownership?  Do you support the May 1st OIC?  Bill C-71?  Are they/will they be, in your opinion, reasonable and effective in combating the criminal use of firearms in Canada and why?

That's a detailed question that would call for me to do a study of what the OIC contains. I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be?
A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity. This raises the issure of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?

I no longer sport hunt, not because I lost the thrill of it but because my current family and work life makes it very complicated to do so.  But, when I did, I ate what I killed.

I don't know you and so I have no reason to not believe you. I've asked the same question quite a few times to gun owners and not once have I received an answer of them killing for fun. But I've been there Haggis and I killed for fun. 

I live in a rural area.  Today I use my firearms primarily for sport shooting (IPSC, IDPA, skeet and sporting clays) and, when needed, for predator control.

I was heavily into gun sports too. Large animal hunting, bird hunting of all varieties, target shooting at a level of precision, Trap clays, reloading, machining cartricges, casting lead, and you name it, I've probably done it.
[/quote]

 

[Haggis]

What would be the value of the buyback? How will the feds determine fair market value? Since owners cannot use or sell the now prohibited firearms, will it be .10 cents on the dollar? (Extreme but I think you get my drift)

As a result of the OIC you cannot transfer/sell any banned firearm within Canada. Fair market value here is zero.  Also, you cannot sell to a foreign buyer if the buyer is in a country that will not allow importation, which even includes the US.  Again, this makes the fair market value zero.

Even if you receive compensation of $0.10 on the dollar, it will likely be deemed taxable.

 

[Haggis]

That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of.

No, they are unwilling to differentiate between the two because to do so would compromise the agenda that all guns are bad and only the police and military should have guns.

If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.

I believe I have done so.

I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't.

  Al that the mainstream firearms community in Canada wants from their government (blue or red) is to be left alone to practice their sport in peace.  They want the focus to be on criminal use.  Yes, like any community, there are fringe segments (i.e. the concealed carry crowd) but even they simply want to be allowed to legally use (and carry?) firearms responsibly.

Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop.

  That's a hollow comparison as the US has vastly different laws and culture than Canada regarding firearms.

I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.

  Why not?  It is central to the discussion over the past 59 pages of this thread.

I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be?

You have framed my belief in your position with your statement, below,

A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity.

which echoes that of two Liberal MPs who recently said "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'" and another who quipped "lawful gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".
 

This raises the issue of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?

A comparison of Norway and Canada would be more relevant to the discussion.  This shows almost equal rates of gun crimes with Norway taking a 2% lead.  Overlay the gun ownership rates and you will see that the rate of firearms ownership is lower (10%) than in Canada (18.5%) despite having a similar suite of firearms laws.  So, in essence, Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.