Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0  (Read 21428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cld617

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 91
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #175 on: October 12, 2018, 16:40:12 »
Since when did semi auto qualify for assault status?

Since it became the most convenient definition to benefit the predetermined outcome.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,554
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #176 on: October 12, 2018, 17:16:45 »
It certainly has a "zero sum" flavour about it.

The fact that the last firearms related question is, "Are there any other comments you would like to share with respect to limiting firearms?" would indicate that the fix is in.
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -3325.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,277
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,266
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #177 on: October 13, 2018, 01:26:06 »
I suppose we could hope they drop a writ before this gets moving through Parliament. Then it could die on the floor. They can't really campaign until the writ is dropped so the longer they wait, the less campaigning he can do. And I'm pretty sure the PM wants to campaign as much as possible. Hopefully, they'll want this as an election issue to get the gungrabber vote. All this is just spit balling and wishful hoping.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 267,676
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,319
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #178 on: October 13, 2018, 03:57:48 »
Jarnhamar, the policy paper attached to the survey is actually pretty good. It notes (amongst other things) that the US Assualt weapons ban had no real effect on violent crime in the US; that violent crime is on a general decline in Canada but that the vast majority of gun violence is gang related and there is not really any good data that legal gun ownership is problematic.

So basically, this Government is trying to solve that does't exist.

Spread the word- every gun owner needs to fill his survey out!

Thanks, I should have read it in hindsight.

I'll jump on board and fill out the survey as well but I still think the Liberal government will only hear what it wants to hear. If enough responders want guns taken away from lawful owners they'll run with the results like they did that erroneous report from the random Toronto police detective.
If the survey goes against what they want to hear then they'll spin it one way or another and just approach the issue from a different angle.

The survey is set up to target lawful gun owners along with criminals, it's pretty blantent in it's bias.

I guess there's a small victory in denying them a small piece of propaganda.

I mentioned a while ago I was pleasantly surprised the Liberals seemed to be leaving gun owners alone and wondered if they were holding the issue as an ace up their sleeve for closer to election time. Thinking I was right.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -3325.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,277
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,266
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #179 on: October 13, 2018, 23:15:33 »
E-petition, sponsored by Michelle Rempel, against a handgun ban.

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-1883
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline ontheedge

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 65
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #180 on: October 14, 2018, 00:09:18 »
I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,065
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #181 on: October 14, 2018, 00:42:25 »
I noticed that this e-petition has over 13,000 signatures.

The one above it sponsored by Robert Falcon Oullette calling for the ban of all private firearms? 39 signatures.

Keep up the good work, everyone. Pass the word to your fellow firearm enthusiasts!

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 267,676
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,319
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #182 on: October 14, 2018, 07:54:26 »
Mrs Rempel brings up an interesting point.
Quote
Bill C-71 contains no mention of the words “gang” or “organized” crime anywhere

There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,526
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #183 on: October 14, 2018, 08:19:59 »
I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??

Not entirely true.  QR$O 19.10 reads:

"No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:

a.  combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
b.  sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
c.  obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces."

So, as this petition does not relate to the Canadian Forces specifically, you're in the clear.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 10:43:22 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline ontheedge

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 65
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #184 on: October 14, 2018, 11:20:59 »
Thanks for the help!
Okay there was another petition going on several years ago allowing soldiers to carry concealed firearms. I guess that also borders on an authorized petition since perhaps the request is a change in the criminal code not a CAF issue directly...

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 486,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,817
    • The job.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #185 on: October 14, 2018, 11:35:18 »
I read in one of the regulations that members of the CAF are not allowed to sign petitions. Anyone in the know about this??

Signing a Petition? Go or No Go?
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=109788.0

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #186 on: October 15, 2018, 15:48:08 »
The petition site won't let you sign in from a government computer.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 211,009
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,728
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #187 on: October 15, 2018, 17:19:24 »
Aaaaaaaaand the inevitable outcome:

Strong support for handgun ban
Women more likely than men to back prohibition

There is strong support among Winnipeggers for a Canadawide handgun ban.

Three-quarters of respondents to a Probe Research poll, which was commissioned by the Free Press and CTV, said "urgent action should be taken on banning handguns in Canada."
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -3325.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,277
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,266
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #188 on: October 16, 2018, 02:31:37 »
.
+300
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #189 on: October 16, 2018, 08:01:24 »
.

What's this called... a red herring? My point is that this is a flawed argument. Yes, you can build a gun in shop class, but the meme implies that if you were to ban guns, former gun owners would start making their own guns en masse. I highly HIGHLY doubt that. How many of the thousands and thousands of gun owners in Canada have the skill, knowledge, capacity and desire to actually make their own guns? I'm going to guess that that number is EXTREMELY small.

Thus, the meme implies that "if you can't get a 100% solution, don't bother." No solution is ever a 100% solution, but we still do something.

To be clear, I'm not expressing support for or against any gun laws; I'm just playing devils advocate and ripping apart what I think is a sh*tty argument in a sh*tty meme.  :sword:

And to be more clear, I actually am against a handgun ban, and like someone said earlier on, gun owners/enthusiasts of all types need to all be on the same page, or they will slowly whittle away until one day you can only own a bolt action center fire rifle with a 1 rounds magazine that can only be used to hunt and must have a trigger lock on it until you get to your blind...
-300 « Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 08:07:42 by Lumber »
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 267,676
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,319
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #190 on: October 16, 2018, 08:46:35 »
Approximately 795,000 restricted guns in Canada. Handguns, revolvers, ar15s and such.

Let's say all those are banned. Pistols run from $400 to $1600 on average so let's say $1000 each. Restricted rifles on average $800 to $2500.

So let's say each of those 795,000 guns are worth $1500.
Do we think the government will come up with $1'192'500'000 to pay gun owners for the guns they turn in?


And that's just restricted guns.

A very large portion of the 10-20 million estimated guns in Canada are non-restricted and would fall under the "assault weapon" definition.  Two of mine do and run $3300 each. 

If we lowball and say there's only 5 million assault weapons at $1500 a piece is the government going to add another $7'500'000'000 to the $1'192'500'000 compensation package?


Or are Canadian firearm owners going to be out $8'692'500'000?

And don't forget the 4'500 firearm and ammunition businesses across Canada that will suffer lay offs and closings. Or practically all of the 1'400 target ranges that would probably close up.


There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #191 on: October 16, 2018, 08:59:02 »
Or are Canadian firearm owners going to be out $8'692'500'000?

First, we need to tackle the really important question, which is, why do you use apostrophes in your numbers instead of commas? Seriously, just curious.

Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.

I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets their guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.

Second, they invite people to voluntarily hand in their weapons with a tax deduction based on (ideally) the market value of the weapon, or (more likely) a set amount per weapon (and let's not start a discussion about "how do you assess the value of a custom rifle?". I don't have real answers here, I'm just spit-balling).

Cheers,
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 10:11:10 by Lumber »
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,526
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #192 on: October 16, 2018, 09:43:28 »
I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.

The Liberals pander to the millennial and urban elite crowd.  That's their support base.  Both crave instant gratification. Grandfathering, in my case, means that my guns will remain in my possession for (hopefully) another 30+ years.  That's not acceptable to those that want guns off the street "NOW!".  Confiscation will be the only way to satisfy them.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Online Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 522,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,674
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #193 on: October 16, 2018, 09:59:11 »
First, we need to tackle the really important question, which is why do you use apostrophes in your numbers instead of commas? Seriously, just curios.

Second, if there is any compensation, I would hazard a guess that it would be a set amount, like $100 per gun, regardless of how much you paid for. But that's just a guess.

I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.
Why, indeed.
-300

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 22,487
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 323
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #194 on: October 16, 2018, 10:04:32 »
I think a more workable and therefore more likely solution would be to first, make all current guns prohibited, and remove the right to pass along your existing weapons to family members. In the short term, no one gets there guns taken away, but in the long term, your children will have to surrender your guns to the police for destruction once you die.

The  flaw I see with this idea is a pretty serious one. Your proposed plan would instantly make all firearms legally worthless, but would create the opportunity for a massive illegal market. The government doesn't know how many, or what type of non-restricted firearms people own. The vast majority of people wouldn't do it, but there are those that would be so offended by the government devaluing their property that they would look to recuperate the lost value somehow. If people decided to start selling their non-restricted firearms under the table to friends, and friends of friends the likelihood that firearms would start ending up in criminal/less than desirable hands greatly increases.


Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #195 on: October 16, 2018, 10:13:48 »
The  flaw I see with this idea is a pretty serious one. Your proposed plan would instantly make all firearms legally worthless, but would create the opportunity for a massive illegal market. The government doesn't know how many, or what type of non-restricted firearms people own. The vast majority of people wouldn't do it, but there are those that would be so offended by the government devaluing their property that they would look to recuperate the lost value somehow. If people decided to start selling their non-restricted firearms under the table to friends, and friends of friends the likelihood that firearms would start ending up in criminal/less than desirable hands greatly increases.

Hey it's not MY proposed plan, it's the plan of the hypothetical future government that exists in my head...

Anyways, as with making your own guns in shop class, I highly HIGHLY doubt that law abiding gun owners (the ones getting the shaft) would risk being caught involved with ILLEGAL WEAPONS TRAFFICKING, no matter how mad they are.

"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #196 on: October 16, 2018, 10:22:28 »
I would say a good half of the people I knew who were gun owners had a unregistered firearm or two during the long gun registry. I suspect any ban will be on new guns and new gun owners, as the cost of seizing guns is massive. The good news is it would give time for a Conservative government to overturn the law. But what a mess it would create.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #197 on: October 16, 2018, 10:30:41 »
Why, indeed.

'You makin' fun of me, kind Sir?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 22,487
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 323
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #198 on: October 16, 2018, 10:52:32 »
Hey it's not MY proposed plan, it's the plan of the hypothetical future government that exists in my head...

Anyways, as with making your own guns in shop class, I highly HIGHLY doubt that law abiding gun owners (the ones getting the shaft) would risk being caught involved with ILLEGAL WEAPONS TRAFFICKING, no matter how mad they are.

Forgive me for assuming that the words you had written as a possible government COA was you plan.  ;)

You'd likely be surprised how many people failed to comply with the registry, we all would really because there was no enforceable way to ensure it was correct apart from door to door searches. Those searches didn't happen so there is no accurate figure on compliance.

People don't like being pushed around by people in suits, siting in a office half a continent away. Some of the 2 million+ firearms owners would likely sell firearms illegally if that was the only way left to get value from their property. Nobody wants to wake up one morning to find that tens of thousands of dollars of their legally owned property is now illegal and worthless.
+300

Offline Jed

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,057
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #199 on: October 16, 2018, 11:35:17 »
The first rule of fight club is we don’t talk about fight club will be the modus operendi.
As the old man used to say: " I used to be a coyote, but I'm alright nooooOOOOWWW!"