- Reaction score
- 2,058
- Points
- 1,160
Apparently that's the reason why the Anti's want the SKS banned now so people don't go out and buy one with the compensation money.
The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
North Star
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 53
- Points
- 330
Based on recent diplomatic events, it's a bit funny that some may spend their compensation money on crap Chicom imports.
- Reaction score
- 4,317
- Points
- 1,190
Did I mention I was a "proud progressive"? I don't recall that, and I don't think I would label myself as such. Progressive? Sure, but getting more and more conservative with my age. Though I'm actually an enigma in that my time in the navy did not endear me toward soup (though I love a good Seafood Chowder).
I think what you, and many on here, fail to appreciate is just how much of a non-issue gun ownership is for the vast majority of Canadians. The latest numbers I could find indicate that up to 26% of households have guns, but in terms of individuals, only about 7% of Canadians own guns. So, already there isn't that many Canadians who really care about gun ownership. Now the mistake I think you and others on here are making is assuming that those 7%, which is already a pretty small number, are a monolithic block that are all hardcore Liberal hating, pro-property, pro-gun absolutists; they are not. Included in this number are supporters and/or votes of every party. Included in this numbers are people who probably AGREE with the Liberal policy. Included in this number are probably even those who agree with the position that semi-automatics have no real use-case and are fine to see them go bye bye. So, if you remove THOSE people form the 7%, and then just look at the Liberal voting gun owners who are left, how many are there actually who would "be embarrassed" by this policy?
Now, you probably do have supporters from even non-gun owners, who think this buy-back program is utter bullshit, and that taking away legal guns from harmless and law-abiding gun owners won't do shit to help with gun violence, but it's not enough to make a "splash" in the Liberal calculus.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 3,124
- Points
- 1,090
tyranny of the majority
- Reaction score
- 12,864
- Points
- 1,160
I'm being a dick and lashing out. Sorry. You didn't phrase it as a proud progressive.
You're simply right about many Canadians just not caring. And even if they don't have a dog in the fight and don't support what the Liberals are doing, their ambivalent.
Emotionally, I hope this decision fucks Liberal & left-wing voters somehow (without loss of life, that is). But pragmaticly speaking the country will just move on.
Carney showed his true colours here and took the cowards way out. I'm not surprised but I am disappointed.
- Reaction score
- 4,317
- Points
- 1,190
I'm still holding out hope that, either by honest coincidence, or by Machiavellian planning, Carney claims to have finally looked at the same numbers as we are (i.e. this many guns, this much money available) and goes, "What the hell, this makes no sense, sorry Poly, policy reversed", but I'm not holding my breath.
- Reaction score
- 18,436
- Points
- 1,160
Numbers mean squat. If it was purely numbers, no one would give a sh*t about gays and such as they represent a even smaller subset
- About 1.3 million Canadians (4.4% of those 15+) identify as part of the 2SLGBTQI+ community, with youth representing a larger proportion than in the general population.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,378
- Points
- 1,040
That math doesn't compute. In any household where there is a gun, there must be, by definition, at least one individual who owns the said gun. Last Statscan numbers say 15 millions households in Canada, for a 40 millions population. That would put the households with guns in the 18-20% range and that's only if in each household, there is only one gun owner, which is unlikely as many couple are either both hunters or both sports shooters.
On the other hand, as we know, large numbers of farming / country households own guns, which reduces by that much the number of city / suburbs households where you find guns. And that's unfortunately where the votes are.
I always get a chuckle (but shouldn't really) when I hear politicians mention "We are taking those guns off the street". This is not Texas. We don't have people driving around displaying their long guns in a rack on the back window of their pickup trucks. When I ask anti-gun nuts the following question: "When was the last time you saw someone in Canada, other than cops, walking around town with a long gun in his hands?" I invariably get the answer" "Well I've never seen one but I know they are there because the government says so."
- Reaction score
- 4,317
- Points
- 1,190
Yes but the difference is in the 2nd area of support: those who aren't members of the group but support it. When it comes to "gay marriage", it relates to an activity that just about everyone in this country participates in: love and marriage. With gun ownership, not so much.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,727
- Points
- 1,040
Anyone else starting to see a very clear offramp for the entire thing, between what's going on domestically and internationally.
www.thestar.com
Archive
Toronto police refusing to help with Carney governmentβs gun buyback, minister says
In an interview with the Star following a weekend launch of the national program, Anandasangaree, a Scarborough MP, said the Toronto Police Service has "expressed that they do not want
www.thestar.com
- Reaction score
- 9,052
- Points
- 1,160
Anyone else starting to see a very clear offramp for the entire thing, between what's going on domestically and internationally.
ArchiveToronto police refusing to help with Carney governmentβs gun buyback, minister says
In an interview with the Star following a weekend launch of the national program, Anandasangaree, a Scarborough MP, said the Toronto Police Service has "expressed that they do not want
We need Ford to copy provincial firearms policy from Alberta and Saskatchewan and enact it into law. Ontario has more gun owners and almost half Canada's population. Non compliance from Ontario should pretty well put the theft of this private property at an end.
Or we can have a spring election, and get rid of the marxists.
- Reaction score
- 12,864
- Points
- 1,160
Anyone else starting to see a very clear offramp for the entire thing, between what's going on domestically and internationally.
ArchiveToronto police refusing to help with Carney governmentβs gun buyback, minister says
In an interview with the Star following a weekend launch of the national program, Anandasangaree, a Scarborough MP, said the Toronto Police Service has "expressed that they do not want
Government is lying to people again.
There are approximately 95,000 AR15 models alone. There's a lot of firearm owners who have 1 or 2 AR15s, and half a dozen or more non-restricted turn prohibited firearms. Also lots without AR15s but a bunch of non-restricted turn prohibited firearms.
I wonder if the police services in Ontario refused to officially take part in the buy back just so their officers can get a bunch of extra cash working off-duty. From an employer perspective that's pretty thoughtful of them.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 22,613
- Points
- 1,260
Off duty cops that go along with the gun grab when their parent organization refuses to me is unethical.
How far have we sunk?
How far have we sunk?
- Reaction score
- 4,045
- Points
- 1,040
My prediction is that there will be massive non-compliance with non-restricteds (based off how much a failure the long gun registry was).
Restricteds is a whole other story.
I suspect after March depending on how much buy in there was will determine what they will do. The easiest thing to do is just grandfather everyone who has it and doesnβt want it to be expropriated, just register it like the 12.2,12.3,12.4, etc.
Lots of buy in means full steam ahead. Very little buy in means time to rethink the strategy.
Restricteds is a whole other story.
I suspect after March depending on how much buy in there was will determine what they will do. The easiest thing to do is just grandfather everyone who has it and doesnβt want it to be expropriated, just register it like the 12.2,12.3,12.4, etc.
Lots of buy in means full steam ahead. Very little buy in means time to rethink the strategy.
- Reaction score
- 12,864
- Points
- 1,160
Anyone who bought and sold a non-restricted firearm wasn't required to keep records of the sale. I suspect there will be a lot of people who can't recall who they sold X or Y to.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 5,538
- Points
- 1,160
I got the email, lol.
Oh well, no, non, nyet, nein, δΈ , γγγ and nah.
Oh well, no, non, nyet, nein, δΈ , γγγ and nah.
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,399
- Points
- 1,140
A lot will depend on how the police unions approach this paid-duty scheme. Since it won't come out of department's budgets nor impact the number of front line officers available for regular policing and their members will profit from it, I expect there will be a lot of buy-in.
However, will this paid duty be funded out of the money intended to be used for paying compensation? Or is there a new bag of money under Nathalie's desk to cover these costs?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 19,768
- Points
- 1,260
I didnt approve the use of my picture for that thumbnail...
D
Deleted member 175000
Guest
I know y'all don't love my opinions- but please hear me out on this.
I think mass non-compliance is trap, and walking into it is major strategic mistake. Think about it, everything about the situation points to the government not wanting large scale compliance. Many individual compensation values are too low. The program is underfunded, likely by an order of magnitude. They're actively warning of "first come first served." They still don't have a tight plan to actually recover any major volume.
So they've actively made compliance as unattractive as possible, and are failing to budget or plan for implementation of mass compliance. In my opinion writing all the above off as a giant FU from the anti's is a very risky underestimation of the opponent.
Why?
From the perspective of the PMO it (mass non-compliance) lets them pay lip service to the anti's, go through the motions as cheaply as possible and hopefully move on to focus on the serious economic and geopolitical issues of the day. ( Insert cynical George Bush on aircraft carrier meme here). Maybe they're forced to find a couple hundred million extra to magnanimously (cynicism) respond to "encouraging, higher than expected uptake." Maybe they're forced to empower a small taskforce to keep the anti's off their back. But above all else they get to move on having "done the thing"
Conversely, widespread compliance blows the issue wide open. It creates a massively eyewatering price tag for compensation*- or the prospect of a class action lawsuit to avoid such. It makes them confront the logistical issue of actually implementing the confiscation and destruction of millions of firearms- without the support of the provinces or major police forces. Frankly- it creates leverage to make them want to find an off ramp- some combo of registration and /or grandfathering. And the strategy can go beyond that into full on malicious compliance. They say first come first served- what if everyone submits at the same time? A - system crashes due to unplanned volumes (more egg), B- harder to justify not paying out.
*IMO CCFR should mirror the registry and calculate A- the value at listed comp, and B the value at FMV to prepare for the class action lawsuit and prevent ensure transparency of data.
From the perspective of the hardcore anti's widespread non-compliance is losing a battle to win the war. The PMO might be happy to move on, but they won't be. They'll spin the non-compliance and build a narrative that the non-compliance is proof that the "law abiding gun owner" is a myth, and that none of us can be trusted. They'll have the gun lobby's own figures and claims to point to as evidence of just how many now prohibited firearms are in so many hands- how widespread the "issue" is. They'll push for the task force detailed in the CCFR video posted by @Lumber, using all the tools at their disposal come after us/you. But above all else they will wait until god forbid if/when a major shooting or two is committed with a firearm on the list. Then they will stand up on their soapbox and scream for all to hear that it could have been prevented but for the criminals formally known as "law abiding gunowners" who refused to comply with the law- then they go for the knockout punch.
Food for thought.
I think mass non-compliance is trap, and walking into it is major strategic mistake. Think about it, everything about the situation points to the government not wanting large scale compliance. Many individual compensation values are too low. The program is underfunded, likely by an order of magnitude. They're actively warning of "first come first served." They still don't have a tight plan to actually recover any major volume.
So they've actively made compliance as unattractive as possible, and are failing to budget or plan for implementation of mass compliance. In my opinion writing all the above off as a giant FU from the anti's is a very risky underestimation of the opponent.
Why?
From the perspective of the PMO it (mass non-compliance) lets them pay lip service to the anti's, go through the motions as cheaply as possible and hopefully move on to focus on the serious economic and geopolitical issues of the day. ( Insert cynical George Bush on aircraft carrier meme here). Maybe they're forced to find a couple hundred million extra to magnanimously (cynicism) respond to "encouraging, higher than expected uptake." Maybe they're forced to empower a small taskforce to keep the anti's off their back. But above all else they get to move on having "done the thing"
Conversely, widespread compliance blows the issue wide open. It creates a massively eyewatering price tag for compensation*- or the prospect of a class action lawsuit to avoid such. It makes them confront the logistical issue of actually implementing the confiscation and destruction of millions of firearms- without the support of the provinces or major police forces. Frankly- it creates leverage to make them want to find an off ramp- some combo of registration and /or grandfathering. And the strategy can go beyond that into full on malicious compliance. They say first come first served- what if everyone submits at the same time? A - system crashes due to unplanned volumes (more egg), B- harder to justify not paying out.
*IMO CCFR should mirror the registry and calculate A- the value at listed comp, and B the value at FMV to prepare for the class action lawsuit and prevent ensure transparency of data.
From the perspective of the hardcore anti's widespread non-compliance is losing a battle to win the war. The PMO might be happy to move on, but they won't be. They'll spin the non-compliance and build a narrative that the non-compliance is proof that the "law abiding gun owner" is a myth, and that none of us can be trusted. They'll have the gun lobby's own figures and claims to point to as evidence of just how many now prohibited firearms are in so many hands- how widespread the "issue" is. They'll push for the task force detailed in the CCFR video posted by @Lumber, using all the tools at their disposal come after us/you. But above all else they will wait until god forbid if/when a major shooting or two is committed with a firearm on the list. Then they will stand up on their soapbox and scream for all to hear that it could have been prevented but for the criminals formally known as "law abiding gunowners" who refused to comply with the law- then they go for the knockout punch.
Food for thought.
Similar threads
