# Gun Grabbing



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Well after the horrible events in NS, the Liberals aren't going to let that tragedy go to waste.


During a lockdown, when people aren't allowed to travel, an armed gunman was allowed to drive around for 12 hours killing people.
The Police reaction was unacceptable.

1. It was during a lockdown with dramatically less traffic, 12 hours?
2. They used foreign controlled social media (Twitter) to "warn" people. Most people don't use this service.
3. They chose not to use the Canadian Emergency Alert system. 
- Ontario once used this system, in violation of guidelines, to alert us that a grandfather was late returning from a shopping trip with the grandkids.

The government wants to ban assault rifles, which are already prohibited in Canada. Of course nobody has reported what type of firearm was used in this case. If it was legally owned etc.
They're hiding that information. I wonder if the facts would interfere with the policy they want to push forward.

Canadians should have a right to security of person, the police are clearly unable, and unwilling to provide it. To not even use the emergency alert system in this case is negligent and a dereliction of duty. They should be held accountable.

I imagine that if people knew an armed murderer was rampaging, they might have stopped this sooner. 
I propose that properly trained and licenced individuals should be allowed concealed carry, in some areas.

If it saves just one life, it's something we must consider, and in this case a proper response would have saved many.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Much too sensible Mr. Matt. Canadians cannot be trusted with guns. 

Resident with the right to bear arms are citizens. Those denied that right are subjects. We in Canada know where we stand.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> Much too sensible Mr. Matt. Canadians cannot be trusted with guns.
> 
> Resident with the right to bear arms are citizens. Those denied that right are subjects. We in Canada know where we stand.


It isn't like trained licensed individuals are lower risk.
I remember an interesting study that in the US Concealed Carry permit holders have one of the lowest rates of criminal activity.
Lower than pretty much every group, the one that really jumped out was they commit (per capita) fewer crimes than police officers.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Not sure how guns would have helped in this situation. Would you shoot a uniformed RCMP officer?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Not sure how guns would have helped in this situation. Would you shoot a uniformed RCMP officer?


I didn't realize that it was the RCMP shooting up the province.
It's well known that mass shootings typically happen in gun free zones.
Canada is the largest gun free zone in the world.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The PM wants to pass legislation on guns and will meet with the opposition parties to decide how to work out the voting procedure.

The Conservatives will be consulted, even though they won't agree. It won't matter though. The other opposition parties want to make changes.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

It is the police that we needed protecting from. Police that are blindly following orders from our government locking us in our homes. Go to China & work for the communists. The police are in love their pensions more then they care about our freedom. Hopefully the police open their eyes to the BS about the virus & to the fact our freedom is worth more then their fat pension.

In the US there are sheriffs that refuse to go against the constitution & enforce the lockdowns that the governors of some of the states have implemented. These sheriffs understand when the people are armed with guns it is better to leave their freedom alone.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I didn't realize that it was the RCMP shooting up the province.
> It's well known that mass shootings typically happen in gun free zones.
> Canada is the largest gun free zone in the world.


The shooter in this situation was wearing an RCMP uniform. Any bystander would have no way of knowing he was not an RCMP officer. Pretty brave/stupid to shoot first ask questions later with a uniformed police office. So, not sure it would have helped for citizens to have had guns in this case.

USA has lots of guns and more than their share of mass shootings. What happened in NS would barely make the news in the USA because it would be so banal.

Canada is not gun free. There are many millions of guns in Canada.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Strongly considering putting lonewolf on ignore. Haven't ignored anyone yet, but I'm strongly tempted to. I don't need investing advice based on whether mercury is in retrograde and his political insights are not really worth engaging in.

Sorry for the aside.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

:) lonewolf said:


> It is the police that we needed protecting from. Police that are blindly following orders from our government locking us in our homes. Go to China & work for the communists. The police are in love their pensions more then they care about our freedom. Hopefully the police open their eyes to the BS about the virus & to the fact our freedom is worth more then their fat pension.
> 
> In the US there are sheriffs that refuse to go against the constitution & enforce the lockdowns that the governors of some of the states have implemented. These sheriffs understand when the people are armed with guns it is better to leave their freedom alone.


Nobody‘s locked me in my home, just got back from playing catch with my son.

I wonder how those alive today would have handled a major world war. This is obviously not on the same scale....but I simply don’t understand the complaining. My mother left a communist country to come to Canada alone when she was 20......with her grade 8 education she could do wonders informing others what a police state looks like.

Relax...it’s been 6 weeks.....I’ll listen in March 2021 if we’re in the same boat and haven’t experienced any easing of restrictions. We’ve got a minority federal government with plenty of checks on the supposed power grabs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> The shooter in this situation was wearing an RCMP uniform. Any bystander would have no way of knowing he was not an RCMP officer. Pretty brave/stupid to shoot first ask questions later with a uniformed police office. So, not sure it would have helped for citizens to have had guns in this case.
> 
> USA has lots of guns and more than their share of mass shootings. What happened in NS would barely make the news in the USA because it would be so banal.
> 
> Canada is not gun free. There are many millions of guns in Canada.


I know a bystander would have had no way of knowing, since the RCMP withheld the information that there was an active shooter. I hope whoever made the call to withhold critical information during an emergency faces serious reprecussions.

What happened in NS would have been in the top 10 of worst shootings in the US.
It would tied for 6th, Incidentally #6 was stopped by a private citizen with an AR15.

Finally we don't know what kind of weapons this person used.

As far as personal protection, when seconds matter, the police are only hours away!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am taking a guess that Trudeau knows, and that is why he is talking to the opposition to pass legislation.

Just a guess on my part, but I think assault weapons may be the focus of discussion among the politicians.

As to private citizens wearing concealed weapons, I don't think it necessary but if it was, I will be wearing a gun to protect myself against gun owners.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Has anyone ever heard of any other cases where the perp wore a police uniform and had a pretty accurate police vehicle?

unfortunately, we’ve come to learn that the first time a unique attack occurs, it’s almost impossible to defend.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

andrewf said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't realize that it was the RCMP shooting up the province ...
> ...


The uniform and a faked RCMP car used were widely reported on the news reports I saw. 

I suspect the MrMatt is trying to make a different point ... which likely wouldn't change that anyone running across the shooter in uniform and/or while driving the fake RCMP vehicle would hesitate. Without several armed people being able interpret what was happening correctly, it may not have made a difference.










How a real uniform and replica police car helped the Nova Scotia gunman go undetected | Globalnews.ca


The Nova Scotia mass shooter used an authentic police uniform and a replica RCMP vehicle to stay "steps ahead" of investigators, police said.




globalnews.ca


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Money172375 said:


> Has anyone ever heard of any other cases where the perp wore a police uniform and had a pretty accurate police vehicle?


Not in Canada ... but I seem to recall this in other parts of the world.

Most of my searches are coming up with the latest NS shooting so it's hard for me to confirm.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> ... What happened in NS would have been in the top 10 of worst shootings in the US. It would tied for 6th, Incidentally #6 was stopped by a private citizen with an AR15 ...


Yes it would be in the top ten ... and it might jump to tie #6 but the lists I am seeing say it's tied with #7, the Walmart shooting in El Paso, Texas.

The AR15 bit seems to be from #5 First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas. Shooting people in church seems easily identifiable as to who is who.

For #6, Luby's Cafeteria, Killeen, Texas - the shooter is reported to have fataly shot himself while confronting police. For #7, the shooter surrendered himself to Texas Rangers as well as an El Paso motorcycle cop.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I know a bystander would have had no way of knowing, since the RCMP withheld the information that there was an active shooter. I hope whoever made the call to withhold critical information during an emergency faces serious reprecussions.
> 
> What happened in NS would have been in the top 10 of worst shootings in the US.
> It would tied for 6th, Incidentally #6 was stopped by a private citizen with an AR15.
> ...


At what point did even the police know that the shooter was in police uniform with a mock police vehicle?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Yes it would be in the top ten ... and it might jump to tie #6 but the lists I am seeing say it's tied with #7, the Walmart shooting in El Paso, Texas.
> 
> The AR15 bit seems to be from #5 First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas. Shooting people in church seems easily identifiable as to who is who.
> 
> ...


That's only 22, NS was 23, not sure if that's including the shooter.

Re: Sutherland Springs, Stephen Willeford actually got him outside the church.

Despite all the concern raised by gungrabbers, most shootings don't turn into a massive bloodbath.
The people actually drawing tend to be quite restrained.

My point remains, this was a significant mass shooting, even by US standards.
The RCMP completely failed in their duty to protect the public, and were negligent in the refusal to properly advise the public of the risk.

I do NOT think it is appropriate to post public safety messages ONLY on a foreign service that arbitrarily bans individuals from accessing that service, even if they did not violate the terms of use.


----------



## Earl (Apr 5, 2016)

Yep the lack of an emergency alert was a big mess up. I don't have twitter on my phone.

The scary thing is, even if they had sent out an alert I woulda missed it cause I disabled emergency alerts on my phone after being woken up in the middle of the night like 6 or 7 times over the past few months for some missing kids. Maybe I should re-enable it...


----------



## Earl (Apr 5, 2016)

Anyways Wortman was not a legal firearm owner. Still no info on what kind of gun(s) he used.









Nova Scotia Gunman Was Not a Legal Firearms Owner, RCMP Says


The shooter, who killed 22 people over the weekend, should not have had access to weapons, police say.




www.vice.com


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Earl said:


> Yep the lack of an emergency alert was a big mess up. I don't have twitter on my phone.
> 
> The scary thing is, even if they had sent out an alert I woulda missed it cause I disabled emergency alerts on my phone after being woken up in the middle of the night like 6 or 7 times over the past few months for some missing kids. Maybe I should re-enable it...


Yes, I think it is foolish to be sending out amber alerts at 3 am when few are awake. Especially when they have been missing over 12 hours maybe 500km away. Nevermind the fake nuclear accident alert sent in the GTA a while ago.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

This mentally unstable person was,
Banned from murdering people.
Banned from owning firearms.
Banned from impersonating a police officer.

I think more bans should help solve the issue moving forward.

Weekend Rampage In Nova Scotia


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

I just can't understand how anyone who sees the news from the US can come to the conclusion that more people with guns makes us all safer. Mass shootings in Canada are a once in a decade event, whereas it happens multiple times most years down there. And when has a mass shooter ever been stopped by "a good guy with a gun" as the NRA loves to say?

Carrying a gun around with you "just in case" is as logical as strapping a fire extinguisher to your belt "just in case you encounter a fire".


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Joe Black said:


> I just can't understand how anyone who sees the news from the US can come to the conclusion that more people with guns makes us all safer. Mass shootings in Canada are a once in a decade event, whereas it happens multiple times most years down there. And when has a mass shooter ever been stopped by "a good guy with a gun" as the NRA loves to say?
> 
> Carrying a gun around with you "just in case" is as logical as strapping a fire extinguisher to your belt "just in case you encounter a fire".


 The holocaust is probably the best example why gun control is a bad idea.

Right now the whole world is being locked down & we are entering a larger cycle then the war with Hitler. The time for gun control has past. The masses will need to fight for their freedom


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Joe Black said:


> I just can't understand how anyone who sees the news from the US can come to the conclusion that more people with guns makes us all safer. Mass shootings in Canada are a once in a decade event, whereas it happens multiple times most years down there. And when has a mass shooter ever been stopped by "a good guy with a gun" as the NRA loves to say?


Having lived there, I agree. It took me a few years to understand what was going on, but I think I eventually got it. The widespread availability of guns means that whenever you encounter someone bad -- an angry ex, an angry coworker, a robber, etc -- they may have a gun. This is legitimately scary and it really is always on your mind.

As a result, you feel that you should probably get a gun yourself as well. And then there is this spiral that results from it. Because others have guns, you need a gun too. Boy, the gun industry must love that circle of fear!

And for police, it means that any time they interact with ANYONE for any reason, there is a chance the person will pull out a gun and shoot. And so police become, understandably, extremely anxious and trigger-happy. They might pull over someone for a routine traffic stop. But the person could be that "angry ex" from above, and come out shooting.

I strongly prefer the situation in Canada. It's even better in Australia, which has very aggressive gun control. There are fewer people with guns, in total. In any interaction, with anyone, there is a low probability a gun will come out. We also don't get into these spirals of fear and self-arming.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Black said:


> I just can't understand how anyone who sees the news from the US can come to the conclusion that more people with guns makes us all safer. Mass shootings in Canada are a once in a decade event, whereas it happens multiple times most years down there. And when has a mass shooter ever been stopped by "a good guy with a gun" as the NRA loves to say?
> 
> Carrying a gun around with you "just in case" is as logical as strapping a fire extinguisher to your belt "just in case you encounter a fire".


Almost every mass shooter was stopped by a good guy with a gun, or suicide when a good guy with a gun showed up.
Care to name one where the bad guy just decided, "okay that's enough murder"?

The VAST majority of gun crime is committed by people who don't legally possess the gun they're using.
This is the big hole in gun laws.

Apparently the guy in NS wasn't allowed to have a gun.If the laws we have today were actually enforced, this wouldn't happen nearly as much.
Yes sometimes bad guys slip through the cracks and get guns. But exactly how would you have stopped James Forcillo ?

The only things I'm asking are.
1. Enforce the laws we currently have.
2. Any laws should be science based, not emotional reactions.
- Anyone who says "assault rifle" is acting out of ignorance and emotion.
3. Consider that in most of Canada, police are unable to effectively respond.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Seems like there is debate about what qualifies as a school shooting, but the sheer number of school shootings is truly troubling.









Last month was reportedly the first March without a school shooting in years


Most schools have been closed during the coronavirus pandemic.




thehill.com


----------



## Earl (Apr 5, 2016)

:) lonewolf said:


> The holocaust is probably the best example why gun control is a bad idea.


I don't follow? Are you suggesting that if the jews of germany had guns, the nazis wouldn't have been able to kill them?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Earl said:


> I don't follow? Are you suggesting that if the jews of germany had guns, the nazis wouldn't have been able to kill them?


If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany would you have meekly gone with them to the gas chambers or would you have fought for your life? Would you have organized a resistance with others once it became known what was happening or would you have hidden hoping not to be found?

I know what I would have done.


----------



## Earl (Apr 5, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany would you have meekly gone with them to the gas chambers or would you have fought for your life? Would you have organized a resistance with others once it became known what was happening or would you have hidden hoping not to be found?
> 
> I know what I would have done.


Sorry but your logic is absurd. There were entire COUNTRIES (france, poland, etc) that the nazis just rolled over, and those countries had armies with millions of men with tanks. And you think a bunch of jewish civilians would have been able to save themselves if they had guns? Do you see how dumb that logic is?

I am pro gun ownership and I understand that a gun could protect you from a burglar or something like that, but the idea that owning a gun would be able to protect you from an actual army (or even a police force) is ridiculous.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I strongly prefer the situation in Canada. It's even better in Australia, which has very aggressive gun control. There are fewer people with guns, in total. In any interaction, with anyone, there is a low probability a gun will come out. We also don't get into these spirals of fear and self-arming.


Yes, Canada has 50% more murders an additional 6per million people more than Australia.
But they're raping at 17x the rate (their rate is over 270/million higher) we have in Canada.


The problem in Canada is multifold.
1. We don't actually enforce our laws.
2. The criminals aren't sentenced adequately for their crimes.

The vast majority of violent crimes committed in Canada are by people who already have criminal records.
We should put violent criminals in jail, and protect society, but lefties don't like putting people in jail.
Even killer pedofiles like Terri-Lynne McClintic aren't being kept in jail, we have to "help them heal".
Sorry, You rape and kill a kid, anything short of the death penalty is unacceptable.

If we put people in jail for the crimes they actually commit, our crime rate would plummet.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't see what assault weapons have to do with gun rights for legitimate owners.

Simply wanting an assault rife isn't a good enough reason to allow them. Many weapons that somebody may want are already restricted.

Limits on the types of guns, ammunition clips and the types of bullets is fully warranted for the public safety.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I don't see what assault weapons have to do with gun rights for legitimate owners.
> 
> Simply wanting an assault rife isn't a good enough reason to allow them. Many weapons that somebody may want are already restricted.
> 
> Limits on the types of guns, ammunition clips and the types of bullets is fully warranted for the public safety.


There is no consistent definition of "assault rifle". 
In Canada we already banned automatic weapons years ago. Only museums, police/military, and I believe a handful of private collectors can possess them.

I would like an AR15 style firearm, because they're cheap and ergonomic.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Weapons experts can list the types of weapons that are used for legitimate hunting purposes and the government can ban all the rest.

Rather than constantly expanding a list of restricted weapons every time manufacturers make a slight change, there can be a list of allowable weapons.

You want a gun.......submit to a thorough background check, complete the mandatory training, and pick from a list of weapons.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AR15 for what use though? Hunting? Killing bad guys?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I'll explain the 3 cate


sags said:


> Weapons experts can list the types of weapons that are used for legitimate hunting purposes and the government can ban all the rest.
> 
> Rather than constantly expanding a list of restricted weapons every time manufacturers make a slight change, there can be a list of allowable weapons.
> 
> You want a gun.......submit to a thorough background check, complete the mandatory training, and pick from a list of weapons.


The most widely used hunting rifle in the US is the AR15.
It should be legal. 
Can you identify a single characteristc of a firearm that should disqualify it as a hunting or sport shooting firearm?


I'll explain gun categories.

Non-restricted
Shotguns and Some Rifles

restricted
Handguns and some rifles that people find scary looking

Prohibited
automatic firearms
Small handguns
modified guns (ie sawed off shotguns)
more rifles that some people find scary looking.

The sad truth is our gun laws are mostly a PR stunt. There is no sense behind it, other than it looks good to an ignorant audience.
They've banned semi auto hunting rifles because of appearance.


I have a better more effective 2 step plan that would stop the vast majority of gun crime in Canada.
1. If you have a firearm, but no license, you go to jail.
2. If you commit a violent crime, you go to jail.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

3. to get a license, you need to undergo appropriate training/testing on use and need proof of secure storage (gun cabinet, etc.). IMO
4. Anyone with domestic abuse, harassment complaints should have their license suspended and forced to surrender any weapons in their possession (up to search of their premises, IMO).

Thankfully Canada does not have the second amendment, so we can at least be sensible about who has guns.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Too many categories and they are always changing, as manufacturers try to get around laws and make alterations to weapons easy. 

Ban them all.......except for a very limited number of options for hunting purposes only. There only needs to be a couple of choices.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Earl said:


> I don't follow? Are you suggesting that if the jews of germany had guns, the nazis wouldn't have been able to kill them?


When they had guns, they did fight. For example, the ghetto in Poland.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Some historical perspective on homicide might help. the homicide rate in the Middle Ages was estimated to be about 10 x's current homicide rates, and they had no guns then. Homicide isn't about guns. Its about a state of mind in which someone thinks violence is the solution to their problems. Some people, in lieu of violence, go to the authorities with their problems. Others, have the mistaken idea of direct action. It is the direct action folks that are the main problem with violence. We need a culture of solving some types of problems by going to the authorities, in lieu of direct action. This assumes that the authorities are not corrupt. I think you will find that in regions where the authorities are corrupt, crime is higher. Corrupt authorities means people won't trust them, and will solve problems on their own, often with violence. 

When you ban guns, the ones you don't have to worry about turn them in, the ones you do have to worry about keep them. 

Apparently, cars are involved in 90% of all crime. No one says to ban cars. Wonder why.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I'd like to add that in the UK approximately 1998 they banned handguns and added a bunch of other restrictions to other guns. Currently the homicide rate in the UK is about the same as in 1998. Homicide isn't really about guns. Its about a state of mind in which violence is seen as the solution to ones problems.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Every time there's a shooting the left demands more gun control. Yet they never demand tighter borders when an illegal alien kills a citizen. The only deaths that count are the ones they can use to further their agenda.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just came out he didn't have a license.
Maybe, just maybe, if they enforced the laws on criminals, we wouldn't have these problems.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Almost every mass shooter was stopped by a good guy with a gun, or suicide when a good guy with a gun showed up.
> Care to name one where the bad guy just decided, "okay that's enough murder"?


Umm, pretty much all of them, since they usually shoot themselves when they are done killing innocents, they don't get stopped by the NRA's mythical "good guy with a gun". I can't recall ever hearing of one of these guys getting stopped by a civilian, usually they kill themselves or the cops put them down.

I like being in a country where it's really hard for the gun nuts to get their murder toys, and as a direct consequence mass shootings like what occur frequently in the US are very rare here. I don't mind guns that are tools, basically hunting and for farmers, but with those you limit them to very few rounds in the clip and nothing automatic or semi-automatic. Wanting anything more is like wanting plutonium, hand grenades or nerve gas - I don't need to ask if you plan to use them responsibly, just the fact that you want them at all is reason enough not to let you have them.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Can you identify a single characteristc of a firearm that should disqualify it as a hunting or sport shooting firearm?


Well first of all, what justifies having clips that carry more than 5 rounds? If you miss the deer after 3 or 4 shots, you're not getting that one. 

Then there's automatic and semi-automatic - only reason for that is to kill people quicker. For legitimate purposes bolt action is good enough. People used to successfully hunt with single shot muskets. If you need to spray the forest with rounds to hit anything, you shouldn't have a weapon in your hands.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Interesting that Canada is # 7 in gun ownership per 100 people. Out of 220 countries - not sure how accurate the numbers are given the huge number that show as unregistered.

My father and all his neighbours had several guns each. Back when they were acquired there were no permits or training or gun licenses - you just went and bought them. It was the same when I was a young adult. Some they brought back from the war - German lugers - some were acquired as needed for hunting or farm work.
My father and his generation have passed away now. I am sure the sons of those people usually kept the guns when the parent died or went to a seniors residence.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Joe Black said:


> Umm, pretty much all of them, since they usually shoot themselves when they are done killing innocents, they don't get stopped by the NRA's mythical "good guy with a gun". I can't recall ever hearing of one of these guys getting stopped by a civilian, usually they kill themselves or the cops put them down.
> 
> I like being in a country where it's really hard for the gun nuts to get their murder toys, and as a direct consequence mass shootings like what occur frequently in the US are very rare here. I don't mind guns that are tools, basically hunting and for farmers, but with those you limit them to very few rounds in the clip and nothing automatic or semi-automatic. Wanting anything more is like wanting plutonium, hand grenades or nerve gas - I don't need to ask if you plan to use them responsibly, just the fact that you want them at all is reason enough not to let you have them.


You know that's BS.
Sure some are suicides, but even then, that's because good guys with guns are closing in and they don't want to be taken alive.
The clear majority are taken out by a good guy with a gun, that's a fact.

Plus, back to the real issue. 
This guy didn't have a legal gun.
If someone breaks gun laws to get a gun, like this shooter, what will new gun laws do?

"According to Toronto police statistics, 82 per cent of the handguns they seized in 2019 and traced originated in the U.S. "








GTA mayors and police chiefs call for smarter investment on ‘unacceptable’ youth gun violence


Mayors and police chiefs from cross the Greater Toronto Area met at Toronto city hall on Tuesday.




www.thestar.com





Also for all this talk of banning "assault rifles", that isn't their intent. Military assault rifles have been banned for decades. There is no way you're going to legally get an automatic rifle in Canada.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> That's only 22, NS was 23, not sure if that's including the shooter ...


At the time of my post, NS was 22 without the shooter, which is what the US lists seemed to be using as numbers.




MrMatt said:


> Re: Sutherland Springs, Stephen Willeford actually got him outside the church.


Yes ... I wasn't remembering correctly or was remembering the early reports.

The point though is the confusion so I don't think the location makes a difference.

Willeford's daughter told him about a man wearing black tactical gear near the church ... which I doubt is usual church attire. The man could have been a police response but was likely viewed as a suspect as police response that quickly was probably unlikely.

If we want to consider a NS parallel, the report from his daughter would have been of a uniformed Texas Ranger or whatever the local police force was. Would Willeford have assumed the uniformed man was a fake that was a risk or would he have let his guard down?




MrMatt said:


> ... Despite all the concern raised by gungrabbers, most shootings don't turn into a massive bloodbath. The people actually drawing tend to be quite restrained


Maybe ... but there's also examples such as the mother in Florida woken up by the noise of her visiting daughter, returning at 1am who shot and killed the daughter.




MrMatt said:


> ... My point remains, this was a significant mass shooting, even by US standards.


Agreed.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Joe Black said:


> I just can't understand how anyone who sees the news from the US can come to the conclusion that more people with guns makes us all safer ... And when has a mass shooter ever been stopped by "a good guy with a gun" as the NRA loves to say?


Sutherland Springs, Texas is one example. Willeford is a plumber, after all.








The Hero of Sutherland Springs Is Still Reckoning with What Happened that Day


One year ago, after Stephen Willeford disrupted the mass murder at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, he was hailed as the ultimate good guy with a gun, but he's still reckoning with what happened that day—and what his life has become.




www.texasmonthly.com





I can recall a McDonalds attack being stopped in a similar way but I'd have to find the report to make sure it wasn't an off duty police officer or something.


The flip side of the coin is those who thought they being attacked, had a burgler breaking in who killed neighbours, sons, daughters.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany would you have meekly gone with them to the gas chambers or would you have fought for your life? Would you have organized a resistance with others once it became known what was happening or would you have hidden hoping not to be found?
> 
> I know what I would have done.


The question is ... when would you have known and would it be too late?

Keep in mind the Nazi retaliation was brutal. In the Netherlands, burning town records to make it more difficult to find Jews where no Germans died resulted in killing ten Dutch resistance captives. 

Then too, going meekly to the gas chamber makes it sound like there were no uprisings in the camps themselves ... which isn't true. Treblinka had an uprising where camp guards/commanders were killed, the armoury was taken over and both barracks as well as the gas chambers were set ablaze. Auschwitz-Birkenau had their gas chambers blown up.


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> The flip side of the coin is those who thought they being attacked, had a burgler breaking in who killed neighbours, sons, daughters.


Those are exceedingly rare.
In the US approximately 1 million burglaries/year occur with a resident present, with approximately 25% becoming a victims of violence with some thirty thousand rapes.

The biggest risk of having a gun in the home is suicide.

Many unintentional deaths are due to simple negligence. 

If someone was alone and "accidentally killed cleaning the firearm", it was a suicide. There is no way to kill yourself with an unloaded firearm. As former infantry, I can tell you that I do not know of any gun (handgun, rifle, machinegun, rocket launcher etc) that is cleaned loaded. In fact it's actually impossible to clean a loaded firearm.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I wonder why it is that gun control is such a controversial subject and attracts people who want to advocate one extreme or the other using cherry picked examples to 'prove' their point of view.

Whenever this topic comes up, I always think of Switzerland. There you have a country in which, because of it's policy of conscription and armed neutrality, the majority of men between the ages of 19-34 (and some up to 50), all have a fully automatic weapon in their home. Yet they have had only 1 mass shooting in 2001 in the last 19 years. They have the 3rd highest per capita gun ownership in the world.

So let's say I am neutral on the issue of gun ownership. But I am not neutral on the issue of mass shootings. Anyone find that objectionable? How then is it possible for people to even legally own automatic weapons in Switzerland and not result in mass shootings? The answer to that question must surely be the way to go that will give those who want to own guns what they want AND at the same time, give those who don't want to see guns used to kill people indiscriminately, what they want.

The answer is cultural. In the Swiss culture, if you are angry at your employer you do not think to pick up a gun and go shot everyone in the office. etc. Why do people then think that way in the USA? Because the 'wild west' culture where a man dealt out justice as he saw it, at the end of a gun, has never ended.

Why does Canada have fewer indiscriminate shootings? Answer, because we never had a wild west. As Canada was settled, law and police went alongside the expansion. We did not need to dispense our own justice.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Why does Canada have fewer indiscriminate shootings? Answer, because we never had a wild west. As Canada was settled, law and police went alongside the expansion. We did not need to dispense our own justice.


We need a government we can trust, and competent and capable law enforcement.
We have a PM who lies, breaks the law, ignores health officials during a pandemic, and shows a general disdain for the law.
We have judges letting convicted violent criminals out of jail.
We have law enforcement that doesn't enforce existing laws, doesn't (and often can't) respond to emergencies in a timely manner, and is negligent in advising the public of the risks.

The problem isn't a lack of laws, it's a fundamental disrespect of law and justice from the top to the bottom of our democratic institutions.

As far as guns, specifically. 
I want them to enforce the laws before they have more.
This NS shooter should not have had a gun, the vast majority of guns in Toronto crime are smuggled in.

Now I don't expect border guards to find everything, jail guards can't even stop drugs.
But If the law is being broken, I don't want them to harass law abidind citizens.

The government has no intention of banning "assault rifles", they're already banned.
They're not banning "high capacity magazines", they're already banned.
They're simply creating more rules and bureaucracy that harasses law abiding citizens, to create the illusion that they're doing something.

It's really simple, enforce the laws we have now, and lock up violent criminals.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The gun lobby would object the strict rules on guns that the Swiss impose, and wouldn't agree to mandatory military training.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Joe Black said:


> Umm, pretty much all of them, since they usually shoot themselves when they are done killing innocents, they don't get stopped by the NRA's mythical "good guy with a gun". I can't recall ever hearing of one of these guys getting stopped by a civilian, usually they kill themselves or the cops put them down.


You are very subjective. Just cause you didn't hear you think you have proof. 









In Missouri, a Good Guy With a Gun Stepped Up — So Can You | National Review


You can do something about mass shootings.




www.nationalreview.com


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> We need a government we can trust, and competent and capable law enforcement.
> We have a PM who lies, breaks the law, ignores health officials during a pandemic, and shows a general disdain for the law.
> We have judges letting convicted violent criminals out of jail.
> We have law enforcement that doesn't enforce existing laws, doesn't (and often can't) respond to emergencies in a timely manner, and is negligent in advising the public of the risks.
> ...


MrMatt, you may want to live in a perfect world but such a world does not exist.

How many countries have you lived in? How does law and order in Canada compare to those other countries? I would suggest to you that while Canada is not perfect, I know of no better countries to live in overall based on my experience living in half a dozen different countries and visiting dozens more.

Most Canadians have no real idea of just how good they have it here in Canada. But if you disagree with that, you are free to leave MrMatt. The only question I would have is where are you going to go?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> MrMatt, you may want to live in a perfect world but such a world does not exist.
> 
> How many countries have you lived in? How does law and order in Canada compare to those other countries? I would suggest to you that while Canada is not perfect, I know of no better countries to live in overall based on my experience living in half a dozen different countries and visiting dozens more.
> 
> Most Canadians have no real idea of just how good they have it here in Canada. But if you disagree with that, you are free to leave MrMatt. The only question I would have is where are you going to go?


I know people from many countries, Canada is an exceptionally good country by pretty much every standard.

I've actually said that the level of ignorance of the outside world is appalling, but also wonderful. I think it's great that most people in Canada spend their time concerned with silly trivialities and first world problems. << I've said this quite often.
They seriously can't comprehend the daily reality of most of the world. 

I'm going to believe that you've been around and determined Canada is better (because it is). I think it's better here, because we have.
1. A better culture.
2. Better institutions, and a high degree of trust in those institutions.

That being said, Canada isn't perfect, and I'd like them to not make things worse. I'm not going to run away, I'm going to man up, take some responsibility and try to fix it. As a citizen in a democracy that is my responsibility. 

I think the damage that is being done to our democratic institutions is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed. 

I'd prefer one where our country is run with integrity, and people are treated with respect.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Well it looks like they've learned.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcmp-respond-to-possible-shots-fired-in-hammonds-plains-1.5544137


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Well it looks like they've learned.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcmp-respond-to-possible-shots-fired-in-hammonds-plains-1.5544137


But will the people learn? They quickly sent out an alert which turned out to be a non-event. Have that happen a few more times and I'm sure you know as well as I do, that people will then start complaining, 'they need to be sure there is an actual event before sending me an alert at 2am.'

Look what happened when they accidentally sent an alert out in Ontario about a nuclear plant. All kinds of complaints about scaring people for no good reason. 

The ability to send out alerts didn't exist in the past. Now it does and like most new things, it comes with unintended consequences, some good and some bad. You can complain if they don't send you one and you can also complain if they do send you one. Is that a good or bad unintended consequence?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> But will the people learn? They quickly sent out an alert which turned out to be a non-event. Have that happen a few more times and I'm sure you know as well as I do, that people will then start complaining, 'they need to be sure there is an actual event before sending me an alert at 2am.'
> 
> Look what happened when they accidentally sent an alert out in Ontario about a nuclear plant. All kinds of complaints about scaring people for no good reason.
> 
> The ability to send out alerts didn't exist in the past. Now it does and like most new things, it comes with unintended consequences, some good and some bad. You can complain if they don't send you one and you can also complain if they do send you one. Is that a good or bad unintended consequence?


I'm one of the people complaining about the complete disaster the alert system is.
The biggest issue is the arrogant attitude of those running the system.

1. There is no way to provide feedback, and no apparent interest in fixing the system. 
2. They have failed to use the system when needed.
3. They've violated their own guidelines in using the system.
4. They pretend there is no cost to unnecessarily alerts. 
5. There is significant room for improvement.
6. The government is treating my property like it's theirs.

Ideas to improve the system.
1. Allow people to voice their concerns.
2. Develop guidelines and follow them.
3. Provide a reference to a source for further information.
4. Send the alerts only to those possibly impacted by the issue.
5. Unless there is a reason to wake people up, don't send the alert to people who are sleeping.


People are flooding 911 to complain and modifying their phones to block the alerts because they have no other options.
I've contacted my MP, CRTC and Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. I did not even get a form letter response. 
That's a problem, the complete refusal of the responsible parties to even LISTEN to the concerns.

I've met several MPs and MPPs, they all do a pretty good job of nodding and showing the "concerned face". That's actually important. They should at least pretend to care.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> I'm one of the people complaining about the complete disaster the alert system is.
> The biggest issue is the arrogant attitude of those running the system.
> 
> 1. There is no way to provide feedback, and no apparent interest in fixing the system.
> ...


LOL, alerts are part of the world YOU are building MrMatt, they aren't part of the world I built. I don't get them on my phone because my phone does not have wifi enabled. I get them on my tv IF my tv is turned on and I just change the channel if that happens.

I spend no time contacting my MP, the CRTC or the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry about them. I wouldn't even think of doing so. Why would I want to waste my time doing that? I'm not so naive as to think my doing so would change anything.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> LOL, alerts are part of the world YOU are building MrMatt, they aren't part of the world I built. I don't get them on my phone because my phone does not have wifi enabled. I get them on my tv IF my tv is turned on and I just change the channel if that happens.
> 
> I spend no time contacting my MP, the CRTC or the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry about them. I wouldn't even think of doing so. Why would I want to waste my time doing that? I'm not so naive as to think my doing so would change anything.


The alerts don't go through wifi. 
They're a mandatory requirement for the carriers to put in ALL new cell phones

Well I contacted them because I care about people and I want to make Canada better and save lives.

We've already determined you're a selfish old man who doesn't seem to care about my Country or other people.
I know, it's so much work to actually try and make things better, but that's part of being a responsible member of society.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> The alerts don't go through wifi.
> They're a mandatory requirement for the carriers to put in ALL new cell phones
> 
> Well I contacted them because I care about people and I want to make Canada better and save lives.
> ...


I don't know and don't care how they are sent. I don't read messages on my cellphone either, I guess they are sitting in their somewhere. I use a phone to ...............wait for it...........make phone calls. That's all I do with a phone. 

If you want a cause to spend time on and try to make the country a better place, try looking at the ethical affects of the digital age and then try making an impact on that, not spend your time contacting officials about what you see as being wrong with automatic alerts sent to your phone or tv.

I say this to you seriously MrMatt. The digital age is your age, not mine, I think we can agree on that. So if you want to try and make things better, concentrate on understanding that and trying to influence it.

For example,when Mark Zuckerberg was coming up with Facebook do you think he took into account the possibility that besides being a way to stay in touch with friends and family, it would provide a way for people to bully other people to the point of committing suicide? 'Cyber Bullying' did not and does not exist in my world MrMatt. 

Do Amazon, Google, etc. collect data to use for the good of mankind or for the good of profits? Should they be allowed to do so?

Do foreign powers use the internet and social media to influence elections?

Do people have private information hacked and should it be available to be hacked?

These are real issues, emergency alerts are as nothing by comparison.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> I don't know and don't care how they are sent. I don't read messages on my cellphone either, I guess they are sitting in their somewhere. I use a phone to ...............wait for it...........make phone calls. That's all I do with a phone.
> 
> If you want a cause to spend time on and try to make the country a better place, try looking at the ethical affects of the digital age and then try making an impact on that, not spend your time contacting officials about what you see as being wrong with automatic alerts sent to your phone or tv.
> 
> ...


Ahh yes, "not my problem", because you don't want to take responsibility for the problems in the world you claim to have built.

Exactly why is the "digital age" my problem and not your problem?

Now you say cyber bullying doesn't exist in your world? What planet are you on? Do you exist in some other reality?

I like that, don't work on small solvable problems, work on the big nearly impossible ones.
What a way to push for the status quo, and take no responsibility.

I guess I was right, you really don't care about other people


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> I know, it's so much work to actually try and make things better, but that's part of being a responsible member of society.


Why make the effort to improve things when they can just sit back and let the government do everything for them?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Why make the effort to improve things when they can just sit back and let the government do everything for them?


Because I care about my fellow Canadians and take my democratic responsibilities seriously?
It's why I joined the military.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Because I care about my fellow Canadians and take my democratic responsibilities seriously?
> It's why I joined the military.


I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to those who want the government to take care of them. Based on your posts, I'm pretty sure you pull your own weight and more.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to those who want the government to take care of them. Based on your posts, I'm pretty sure you pull your own weight and more.


I know, but that's kind of the issue.
These people don't care about others, they don't want to make things better.

They don't even engage in honest debate.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

The Gazette web site appears to have crapped out. Anyone read the new rules and have more clarity on exactly what they are, versus the wishy-washy info in the news?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Can’t buy, sell, use, trade or import assault weapons. Also sounds like you can’t own them after 2022. Feds will buy them from you.....pending parliamentary approval for funding.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Can’t buy, sell, use, trade or import assault weapons. Also sounds like you can’t own them after 2022. Feds will buy them from you.....pending parliamentary approval for funding.


You haven't been able to buy, sell, use, trade or import assault weapons for decades.

They're hoping to bury the billion dollar cost in with COVID, it's pure political opportunism.

The thing is the vast majority of crimes are committed with illegal weapons, often smuggled in.
NS was committed with illegal guns by an unlicensed person.

The government spends only a few million dollars on stopping illegal guns coming into the country, I saw a stat that the program was only $86M over 5 years.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> You haven't been able to buy, sell, use, trade or import assault weapons for decades.


What‘s new then?......every news source I check quotes the above restrictions as being new regulations.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The only things I'm asking are.
> 1. Enforce the laws we currently have.
> 2. Any laws should be science based, not emotional reactions.
> - Anyone who says "assault rifle" is acting out of ignorance and emotion.
> 3. Consider that in most of Canada, police are unable to effectively respond.


Evidence shows time and time again assault weapons are used in mass shootings. Assault weapons are designed for mass shooting.

You don't need an assault weapon to defend yourself unless it is against a swat team. A shotgun is more than adequate for defense while also far less effective for a mass shooting

Anyone who thinks Canadians should have assault weapons to defend themselves is also thinking with emotion and ignorance


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Assault weapons are banned m3s. Should we ban them again? Isn't that thinking with emotion and ignorance?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good....gun owners have no reason to oppose it then.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> What‘s new then?......every news source I check quotes the above restrictions as being new regulations.


They're taking a bunch of semi auto hunting and target rifles, and banning them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Evidence shows time and time again assault weapons are used in mass shootings. Assault weapons are designed for mass shooting.
> 
> You don't need an assault weapon to defend yourself unless it is against a swat team. A shotgun is more than adequate for defense while also far less effective for a mass shooting
> 
> Anyone who thinks Canadians should have assault weapons to defend themselves is also thinking with emotion and ignorance


1. Define assault weapon.
2. Most shootings in Canada are with illegal handguns smuggled in from the US. 
3. Virtually no violent crime is committed by licenced gun owners. 

Few side points, military rifles (not machineguns) are designed to be rugged, reliable and accurate. The exact criteria you want for hunting or target shooting. 

Machine guns (spray and pray) have been banned in Canada for decades.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

ian said:


> It is a step in the right direction.


Towards dictatorship.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Today marks a sad day for Canadians. Today the Liberal minority government used an order in council to circumvent democratic due process. Canadians have been stripped of what this country has been built under. Today women, children, indigenous people, LGBT, and all others that the Liberals claim to speak for have been silenced.

Remember this day. The day you tasted Dictatorship. The day your vote does not matter. The day your voice will not be heard.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> It is a step in the right direction.


How?

No, they don't enforce the gun laws now.
Virtually no crime is committed by licenced gun owners. It's overwhelmingly people who don't have licenses, and couldn't get them because they fail the background checks.

To stop gun crime, you have to take guns from those who would commit crimes.

The problem with guns is that the people who don't want guns, don't see any "cost" to banning them.

This is just a political stunt, that appears, to the ignorant, to be "doing something". But it isn't based on any facts, it's just "obvious" to the uninfornmed. But based on what I've seen, that's the core liberal supporter.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> 1. Define assault weapon.
> 2. Most shootings in Canada are with illegal handguns smuggled in from the US.
> 3. Virtually no violent crime is committed by licenced gun owners.
> 
> ...


I imagine you would also defend the lax gun laws in the US that allow they to easily flood across the border.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> 1. Define assault weapon.


This has been the sticking point for me. The Gazette is working again now and you can read the new regulations. 90% of it is just a list of manufacturers and models. There are catch alls for anything at all above 20mm cal and for anything capable of a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules that I read to be addressing 50cal long guns.

Personally I was looking for something that would just prohibit any centre-fire semi-auto regardless of how scary looking it is. Perhaps that is the net of the huge list of models named, but I would not be sure unless I went through every one.

There is sure to be extensive gnashing of teeth and howling in outrage. Should give us something other than COVID to talk about for a few days.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Here's the link to the Gazette list: Canada Gazette, May 1, 2020 Part II

Some are a little overboard. It's not like anti-tank rifles are commonly seen in private hands, but I guess they wanted to be comprehensive.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> 1. Define assault weapon.
> 2. Most shootings in Canada are with illegal handguns smuggled in from the US.
> 3. Virtually no violent crime is committed by licenced gun owners.
> 
> ...


I would define an assault weapon as a combat weapon designed primarily for military assault. They are optimized to close with and neutralize multiple armed humans - generally rapid fire, small caliber, lightweight, accurate.

You don't need an assault weapon for hunting unarmed animals. If you think so it is an emotional love of military weapons more than hunting. Skilled hunters who love the hunt can manage with a bow and prefer it for many reasons. Our military rangers are professional hunters and they specified a heavier larger caliber bolt action rifle

Machine guns are not used for the same reason as assault weapons. An infantry section may have 1 machine gun. They are very heavy and inaccurate. Professional operators use assault weapons in semi-auto far more efficiently than full auto which is only a last ditch option (US assault weapons only have 3 round burst full auto is so useless)

People who lust assault weapons are often military wannabees, rejects or failures. It's an emotional void or misplaced enthusiasm. A professional does not need an assault weapon for home defense or hunting.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I imagine you would also defend the lax gun laws in the US that allow they to easily flood across the border.


No, I think US gun laws are even more of a mess.
One of the biggest problems is that each state, and many cities have their own laws.

I think our consistency is much better.

But I heard that Canada is implementing "red flag laws", which is a hot issue in the US.
We ALREADY HAVE "red flag laws".

This ban is really a ban for ignorant Canadians who think we have US style laws.

That being said even Americans don't know that they actually have some decent laws, like background checks etc.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> I would define an assault weapon as a combat weapon designed primarily for military assault. They are optimized to close with and neutralize multiple armed humans - generally rapid fire, small caliber, lightweight, accurate.
> 
> You don't need an assault weapon for hunting unarmed animals. If you think so it is an emotional love of military weapons more than hunting. Skilled hunters who love the hunt can manage with a bow and prefer it for many reasons. Our military rangers are professional hunters and they specified a heavier larger caliber bolt action rifle
> 
> ...


You think the danger is from small caliber, lightweight and accurate guns?
If you're walking around hunting rabbit, you'd likely want a small easy to carry rifle. You don't want a bear gun.

I think the people who want to ban "assault weapons", just want to ban all guns, and they see this as the easy way. They're purposefully ignorant of any redeeming value in choices beyond their silly government dependant downtown Toronto lifestyle.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

So you want an assault weapon to hunt rabbits now? I can catch more rabbits with a wire if that's what you want

C9 LMG is much heavier than an assault weapon especially when you account for ammo and spare barrel. You aren't nearly as agile, you won't move as fast or as far. It's for cover fire or defense not assaulting. SWAT teams aren't carrying LMGs

People who argue assault weapons are the same as hunting rifles want assault weapons not animal meat


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> So you want an assault weapon to hunt rabbits now? I can catch more rabbits with a wire if that's what you want
> 
> C9 LMG is much heavier than an assault weapon especially when you account for ammo and spare barrel. You aren't nearly as agile, you won't move as fast or as far. It's for cover fire or defense not assaulting. SWAT teams aren't carrying LMGs
> 
> People who argue assault weapons are the same as hunting rifles want assault weapons not animal meat


No, I want a small caliber, lightweight and accurate firearm for hunting.






Ruger® SR-22® Semi-Auto Rimfire Rifle w/ Muzzle Brake | Cabela's Canada


• Hammer-forged barrel with barrel support block and muzzle brake• AR-style adjustable ergonimic stock• Rapid-deploy sightsThe autoloading Ruger® SR-22® Semi-Auto Rimfire Rifle combines the reliability of the Ruger 10/22® with the ergonomics and configurability of the Ruger SR-556. The SR-22...




www.cabelas.ca





Thats the least powerful commonly available hunting round, it's light, it's accurate, it's ergonomic and adjustable for different users.
It isn't "designed to kill people".

But I'm sure someone will think "black, scary" and want to ban it.

And yes, I agree that Machineguns, like the C9 are inappropriate for hunting.
They're too heavy, not very accurate.
The fact that they fire a small caliber varmint round, suitable for hunting gophers is irrelvant.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No, I want a small caliber, lightweight and accurate firearm for hunting.
> 
> But I'm sure someone will think "black, scary" and want to ban it.


Ruger 22 isn't designed for a military to shoot people and you know it. 22 is for shooting birds and squirrels

Why you want to assault a bunch of squirrels in semi-auto rapid fire is probably the same reason guys play FPS games.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Ruger 22 isn't designed for a military to shoot people and you know it. 22 is for shooting birds and squirrels
> 
> Why you want to assault a bunch of squirrels in semi-auto rapid fire is probably the same reason guys play FPS games.


If you think an FPS is anything like hunting ......
Hunting is more like a very very slow game of golf

5.56 NATO is a copy of .223, a civilian target round.
Also the AR15 was sold to civilians before the military adapted it and created the M16.

It actually seems that the military is using adapted civilian rifles. Maybe because small caliber, light and accurate firearms are desired by anyone who wants a gun?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Hunting is more like a very very slow game of golf


Great. No need for rapid firing semi-auto tacticool weapons. A bow or bolt action should do just fine

The assault weapons are for the gun lovers, gamers and posers not hunters


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Great. No need for rapid firing semi-auto tacticool weapons. A bow or bolt action should do just fine
> 
> The assault weapons are for the gun lovers, gamers and posers not hunters


You keep saying "assault weapons", just to be scary. I understand, it's political and emotional.

This isn't a scientific and fact based action. I think that's the point, I live in the world of science and facts. You live in an irrational emotional world where feelings matter more than reality.

It's really sad, western democracy used to be about values, ideas, facts and logic.
Now it's some weird mix of ignorance and reality TV.


The simple reality is law abiding gun owners commit very few crimes.
This is the case in pretty much every jurisdiction in the world.
Even in the US, those who are trained and licensed with carry permits, commit fewer crimes.

Common Hunting rifles are rarely used in crimes.
Most gun crime is committed by people who should not have had a gun, with guns that were illegally acquired, often smuggled in from the US.

If Trudeau was serious about gun crime, he'd search for guns being smuggled across the border, and people who should not have guns. But he's not, he's going after the most law abiding people in the country.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> To stop gun crime, you have to take guns from those who would commit crimes.


So how would you define "those who would commit crimes"??

These mass shootings are usually carried out by people who, prior to the shootings, were "law abiding citizens" - The same people Andrew Scheer says are targeted: _"Scheer also took issue with the Liberals asking law-abiding gun owners to follow more laws."_

This is not a new "Law". The law already exists. It is a section of the Criminal Code. It IS a change in the regulations pertaining to that Code. Governments are able to change regulations and do it regularly for all types of laws. The change in regulations expands the list of firearms prohibited under the law to include 1500 additional weapons - these described as assault*-style *weapons.

This appears to be just a small first step. Eliminate the legal trade in these weapons. This will make it more difficult for the "law abiding citizen" to go out and buy one. If that citizen already has one, he/she can keep it for an amnesty period. After that, there will no doubt be additional regulations. Such as keeping a deactivated gun (firing pin removed?) - aimed at collectors, not users. Parliament will have to approve funds, but no doubt a buy-back program will be implemented. Eventually a criminal or a shooter-to-be, will have more difficulty acquiring such a weapon.

None of this will stop guns coming across the border. Law abiding citizens hopefully don't smuggle guns. There are already programs that try to control smuggling, but with all the border crossings it is hard to do - especially for hand guns which are a separate issue. No doubt efforts there will also be stepped up.

We should give the government credit for taking action. In the USA, after a shooting, there are always demands for such action, but nothing gets done.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

agent99 said:


> So how would you define "those who would commit crimes"??
> 
> These mass shootings are usually carried out by people who, prior to the shootings, were "law abiding citizens" - The same people Andrew Scheer says are targeted: _"Scheer also took issue with the Liberals asking law-abiding gun owners to follow more laws."_
> 
> ...


If you have a criminal record, and are found with a gun, go to jail.
If someone has concerns with you possessing a gun, the government can seize your firearms (we HAVE red flag laws)
You can't even renew your firearms license without getting consent from your spouse or "intimate partner".


When you say "assault style". I have an issue with that. 
This is a meaningless term, but what they're basically banning is small caliber, lightweight accurate firearms.

The only "assault style" is that "style", they "look scary". They're no more or less dangerous than other guns.

With the vast majority of guns seized in Toronto coming from the US, there will be no measurable impact from any restrictions until we secure our border.

I think the last big of funding for gun smuggling was $86 million, over 5 years, so $0.50/yr/person.


As far as action, I think it is important to take the correct action.
Put criminals in jail. Sentences are too light, judges simply won't put dangerous criminals in jail.
The Conservatives tried to stop this, but apparently 3 year minimum sentence for carrying a prohibited weapon (like an assault rifle, submachine gun, sawed off shotgun etc) was "unreasonable", and was overturned.

Stop the flow of illegal guns at the border.

So we have the situation today, with a free flow of guns over the border, criminals who don't get sent to jail for committing gun crimes. This is the problem. Very few gun crimes are first time offenses.
The guns sitting in your average hunter or target shooters gun safe aren't hurting anyone.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I find the comments about .22s interesting. Going back in time, I used to have a friend who was into hunting of all kinds. He even built his own crossbow from scratch and owned several rifles as well as bows. I went out with him a few times in my 20s to shoot squirrels and gophers with a .22.

And yes, he had .22 bolt action as well as a .22 semiautomatic. I never thought anything of the difference at the time. It was still 1 shot at a time after all. You can't just keep pulling the trigger as fast as you can, you have to wait for the rifle to end its recoil and you have to re-aim at the target. But I suppose if what you wanted was to shoot at a group of people, you could do so faster with the semiautomatic if you were not so fussy about aiming.

But what interests me is WHY they make .22 semiautomatics now that LOOK like assault rifles. My friend's semi looked much like his bolt action back then. Wooden stock, etc. Not matt black plastic and looking like an 'army gun'. I suppose a lighter weight is an advantage but you can have that without the LOOK of an assault rifle. So why do people want a gun that LOOKS like an assault rifle? Where is the psychology in that?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I have no dog in this race other than I am a hunter. I don't think our city slickers know how silly many of these bans are. Also if you can't kill what you shoot with a bolt action then you shouldn't be out here...that includes shooting rabbits, although who would eat them other than coyotes I don't know.

I think there will be a lot of civil disobedience with this law...I know when the long gun fiasco registration was going on I had 3 unregistered guns...most of my colleagues had more. Pretty sure once the government flips again then semi's will be legal again...good election platform item. These type of laws don't garner future votes,they lose votes.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> I find the comments about .22s interesting. Going back in time, I used to have a friend who was into hunting of all kinds. He even built his own crossbow from scratch and owned several rifles as well as bows. I went out with him a few times in my 20s to shoot squirrels and gophers with a .22.
> 
> And yes, he had .22 bolt action as well as a .22 semiautomatic. I never thought anything of the difference at the time. It was still 1 shot at a time after all. You can't just keep pulling the trigger as fast as you can, you have to wait for the rifle to end its recoil and you have to re-aim at the target. But I suppose if what you wanted was to shoot at a group of people, you could do so faster with the semiautomatic if you were not so fussy about aiming.
> 
> But what interests me is WHY they make .22 semiautomatics now that LOOK like assault rifles. My friend's semi looked much like his bolt action back then. Wooden stock, etc. Not matt black plastic and looking like an 'army gun'. I suppose a lighter weight is an advantage but you can have that without the LOOK of an assault rifle. So why do people want a gun that LOOKS like an assault rifle? Where is the psychology in that?


Ergonomics, the one I linked to had a pistol grip and adjustable buttstock.
Also who cares what it looks like? 
Have you seen the silly things people do to their cars?

As far as "assault Rifle"
This is what they consider an assault rifle 


The Specialists



The thing is, it doesn't even fire bullets large enough for deer.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> So why do people want a gun that LOOKS like an assault rifle? Where is the psychology in that?


Why do people with small engine commuter cars want a spoiler on the trunk?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> Why do people with small engine commuter cars want a spoiler on the trunk?


Downforce


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Money172375 said:


> Downforce


But it's not NEEDED...the very same argument that the anti-gun people are using.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I found the announcement of the gun ban by what's her name, the Deputy PM, interesting. She tied the ban in with feminist goals. It sounded like she said females are helpless and should be dependent upon the nanny state gun bans for protection. That's feminism? What ever happened to the feminist goals of independence and being able to take care of oneself? The White Knight is now the nanny state, but in both cases the girls are helpless. How does substituting the White Knight for the nanny state help feminist goals?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I think the argument is that guns are capable of killing......spoilers rarely do.

i hate these debates. From what I know, countries with less guns have less gun killings. Let’s start getting rid of guns. Any step towards that is a good one in my opinion.

I don’t want to say I have a unique perspective but I lived 40 years in a large urban centre and have since moved to a rural community. Within weeks, my teenage son had learned to skin rabbits and raccoons and went hunting. Guns are certainly a way of life in rural and smaller communities. I appreciate that......I know they hunt to feed their family. I *was* surprised to see pictures of the Arsenal my sons friends family had. Totally unnecessary.

From what I gather, the things that conservative minded people fight against (gay marriage, open gays, gun rights, pro-life) eventually shift towards more liberal ideas. This has proven to be the case in most, if not all, democracies. not Sure if this is changing with the recent rise of populism, but I doubt it.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> But it's not NEEDED...the very same argument that the anti-gun people are using.


Correct. Its not needed and probably at legal speed limits doesn't even work. 

Who needs an Italian sports car that can go 250 miles an hour? or a Camaro that can go 155? If someone breaks the law with a car, they blame the driver, not the car. And no one talks of banning such cars or cars in general. But gun owners are a minority and easy to pick on. Easy to scapegoat.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> When you say "assault style". I have an issue with that.
> This is a meaningless term


Agreed.



> what they're basically banning is small caliber, lightweight accurate firearms.


Not at all. They are designating prohibited a specific set of weapons. All of them look to be semi-auto (or full-auto which, were already prohibited anyway). AFAICS you can still have a plastic Remington 700 in 222 and that will do all that you need for hunting or varminting. It's light and shoots light ammo accurately. But it's not semi. For hunting, I think you'd likely want a 7mm, 308 or 30-06 anyway -- you're only going to use 10 rounds in a whole trip, and who cares if they weigh an extra 300g to carry. 222 and 223 are for target shooting and who gives a s**t how light or heavy the shells are.

Aside from a bunch of semi-autos, they are also explicitly prohibiting some crazy **** that noone has any legitimate need for like 20mm up and 50cal long guns.

That said, I think the new rules are deeply flawed by trying to go after a named list of specific weapons. Here's an example:

Still permitted Century Arms C308 which is a semi auto 308 that looks every bit an "assault rifle", while prohibited is the functionally nearly identical Springfield M1A, that looks like grandads old deer rifle and not much like a military unit.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> I think the argument is that guns are capable of killing......spoilers rarely do.
> 
> i hate these debates. From what I know, countries with less guns have less gun killings. Let’s start getting rid of guns. Any step towards that is a good one in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Prove that "From what I know, countries with less guns have less gun killings."
Where do you get that from? Why do you think you "know" that? 

Reportedly in St. John's Newfoundland 99% of households have at least one firearm. Yet that city has one of the lowest violent crime rates of anywhere in the world. I think you are imagining your "knowledge". 

Lots of bombast and bluster but no references, no proof, no attempt at justification of such knowledge. Just scapegoating a minority group with a hobby you do not approve of. Gee whiz.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The issue is not firearms but the type of firearms.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer: Leyton, Elliott: 9780786712281: Amazon.com: Books


Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer [Leyton, Elliott] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer



www.amazon.com












Elliott Leyton


Author of Hunting Humans, Sole Survivor, and Touched By Fire



www.goodreads.com









Elliott Leyton - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





That book is an informative read.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

ian said:


> The issue is not firearms but the type of firearms.


So after the ban would a tragedy like in NS no longer be possible?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

ian said:


> The issue is not firearms but the type of firearms.


I thought the issue was homicide. 

Understanding homicide has nothing really to do with the method of homicide. Its a deeper issue than the method itself. If one wants to understand "gun killing", one needs to understand killing itself. 

In the UK they banned a type of gun over 20 years ago, yet the homicide rate is the same now. So what was solved?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> The issue is not firearms but the type of firearms.


it's not even that, as many have said it's the "style", if they look "military", they should be banned.

Because banning them on cosmetic appearance makes better photo ops.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The data shows gun related crimes and violence are higher in Provinces where gun ownership is higher.





__





Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2016


This Juristat Bulletin—Quick Fact provides analysis on recent police-reported violent crime involving firearms, including changes since 2009, geographic variations over time and between regions, and the types of firearms involved.




www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Pluto said:


> Prove that "From what I know, countries with less guns have less gun killings."
> Where do you get that from? Why do you think you "know" that?
> 
> Reportedly in St. John's Newfoundland 99% of households have at least one firearm. Yet that city has one of the lowest violent crime rates of anywhere in the world. I think you are imagining your "knowledge".
> ...


Its not that I don’t approve of the hobby. I don’t approve of someone owning a half-dozen or more guns. It seems they just become more accessible them.

this Does appear that we have a high number of guns per capita and rank near the top of gun deaths amongst high income (1st world civilized). 









List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Money172375 said:


> Its not that I don’t approve of the hobby. I don’t approve of someone owning a half-dozen or more guns. It seems they just become more accessible them.
> 
> this Does appear that we have a high number of guns per capita and rank near the top of gun deaths amongst high income (1st world civilized).
> 
> ...


Maybe we‘re all debating the same point.......somehow we need to figure out how to reduce gun violence. Being neighbours to the US perhaps contributes to the problem and more unique solutions needed. Ultimately, the electorate should decide.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think we need to ban camo clothes while we at it...it allows mass murderers to blend into the forests...where..you know...mass murders take place.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Apparently Trudeau's list of 1,500 banned guns was so poorly researched by his "experts" that it included a couple web pages, a Facebook page, and a locksmithing company. Our country is being run by an arrogant fool who thinks he's a dictator:









Trudeau includes website, Facebook group, and locksmith in firearm ban


The fearless source of news, opinion, and activism that you won't find anywhere else.




www.rebelnews.com


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Eder said:


> I think we need to ban camo clothes while we at it...it allows mass murderers to blend into the forests...where..you know...mass murders take place.


Also, in Quebec, it might allow them to blend in with actual police forces. So excellent idea!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It looks to me like the debate is over, unless the Conservatives want to make it an election issue.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> So after the ban would a tragedy like in NS no longer be possible?


Nope
1. He didn't have a license
2. None of his firearms were legally aquired by him.
3. At least some guns were illegally smuggled from the US.
4. They haven't said what types of guns were used, so we don't even know if this change would have an impact even there.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> Its not that I don’t approve of the hobby. I don’t approve of someone owning a half-dozen or more guns. It seems they just become more accessible them.
> 
> this Does appear that we have a high number of guns per capita and rank near the top of gun deaths amongst high income (1st world civilized).
> 
> ...





Money172375 said:


> Its not that I don’t approve of the hobby. I don’t approve of someone owning a half-dozen or more guns. It seems they just become more accessible them.
> 
> this Does appear that we have a high number of guns per capita and rank near the top of gun deaths amongst high income (1st world civilized).
> 
> ...


It isn't clear to me why you focus only on "gun deaths" instead of homicide in general. 
If "gun deaths" went down, but homicide in general stayed the same or went up, would you be happy? 

The UK banned hand guns about 1998, yet the homicide rate is the same now. Yet apparently many are happy with that. Makes it look like its just prejudice against a minority with a hobby as opposed to genuine concern about homicide.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> I have no dog in this race other than I am a hunter. I don't think our city slickers know how silly many of these bans are. Also if you can't kill what you shoot with a bolt action then you shouldn't be out here...that includes shooting rabbits, although who would eat them other than coyotes I don't know.
> 
> I think there will be a lot of civil disobedience with this law...I know when the long gun fiasco registration was going on I had 3 unregistered guns...most of my colleagues had more. Pretty sure once the government flips again then semi's will be legal again...good election platform item. These type of laws don't garner future votes,they lose votes.


I remember getting a call from the CPC leading up to an election trying to rile me up about unjust gun laws. Not sure how they had profiled me as someone sympathetic to them on this issue. I am mostly indifferent about guns and was annoyed with them wasting my time. I'm sure I've been updated in their database as an evil liberal.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Why do people with small engine commuter cars want a spoiler on the trunk?


Spoilers and fartcan exhausts are also obnoxious. I don't really care about spoilers/mods (waste of money) but I think loud exhausts are the noise equivalent of chucking garbage out your car window or leaving your dogshit on the sidewalk. Antisocial stupidity and immaturity.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Reportedly in St. John's Newfoundland 99% of households have at least one firearm.


82% of stats are made up.

You can hardly get 99% of people to agree on anything. I find this hard to believe. You would need 92 year old grannies to own a gun for this to be true.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Spoilers and fartcan exhausts are also obnoxious. I don't really care about spoilers/mods (waste of money) but I think loud exhausts are the noise equivalent of chucking garbage out your car window or leaving your dogshit on the sidewalk. Antisocial stupidity and immaturity.


You got to love coal rollers then.

B.C. 'coal rollers' say they're not out to get environmentalists


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Antisocial stupidity and immaturity.


Mind you, there are these young lads that drive by on Friday or Saturday nights with their car windows open and their new expensive high end sound system turned up full. It's really nice of them to share their music with the entire neighborhood. Only problem we have, is that our house vibrates.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> You got to love coal rollers then.


Seem to be decent young guys in BC.
I have an old diesel. Normally driven very sedately. Seems that sometimes annoys cars behind in a hurry, who then start to tailgate. Suddenly flooring the pedal could give them a whiff of diesel smoke. But, of course, I would never do that...


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Nope
> 1. He didn't have a license
> 2. None of his firearms were legally aquired by him.
> 3. At least some guns were illegally smuggled from the US.
> 4. They haven't said what types of guns were used, so we don't even know if this change would have an impact even there.


So we don't know ....


if an assault weapon ban could have prevented this
if assault style weapon (looks) with potential extra magazine capacity played a role
if an semi-automatic weapon (fast shooting rate) played a role

So on the surface it's a play on current public feeling to push through a law that'll have no effect on this happening again?

If the "fake" RCMP car played a role maybe they should ban crown vic's from public ownership?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> So we don't know ....
> 
> 
> if an assault weapon ban could have prevented this
> ...


But we do know that the laws they are proposing would not have actually changed much if anything.

He used illegally smuggled weapons.
If Canada had a 100% ban on all firearms, he would have still done it.

That's the point.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

agent99 said:


> Seem to be decent young guys in BC.
> I have an old diesel. Normally driven very sedately. Seems that sometimes annoys cars behind in a hurry, who then start to tailgate. Suddenly flooring the pedal could give them a whiff of diesel smoke. But, of course, I would never do that...


I think the issue is when you start do that when you pass cyclists for no reason. That plus the fact that you're bypassing the environmental controls on the vehicle.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> You got to love coal rollers then.
> 
> B.C. 'coal rollers' say they're not out to get environmentalists


I think this practice is essentially criminal assault. Exhaust fumes are highly toxic--why not just throw drain cleaner in someone's face?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Exhaust fumes are* highly toxic*


Highly Toxic??? 

Only if you run an old car in an enclosed space and breath in CO instead of O2. 

Otherwise, at worst, maybe mildly toxic . Every time we drive any of our cars, we emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. 

Most modern cars, including diesels, have a small chemical plant built in that eliminates almost all partly burned fuel, CO and NOx and only emits CO2, water vapour and nitrogen.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

agent99 said:


> Highly Toxic???
> 
> Only if you run an old car in an enclosed space and breath in CO instead of O2.
> 
> ...


Except for the fact that to roll coal, you are disabling those emission controls. So, yes, it is more polluting and more particulates are being released. What else would you think that black smoke is? It's untreated particulates. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1868899


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> I think the issue is when you start do that when you pass cyclists for no reason. That plus the fact that you're bypassing the environmental controls on the vehicle.


I spend a lot of time on my bike these days. Never had that happen to me.

Most modern cars don't emit smoke or fumes. The onboard computers maintain optimal stoichiometric ratio of fuel to air that prevents that regardless of how car is operated. If those controls are not working, your CheckEngineLight will come on. This is partly why they have abandoned emission testing in most jurisdictions.

Most older cars, including my old diesel, don't have emission controls to bypass anyway! Avoid tailgating them 

PS: Black smoke is not pleasant, but carbon is not Highly Toxic!  By the way - I am not defending those Coal Burners who purposely blow out smoke. Can't see what they get out of it. Mind you, many diesel rigs on highways do that, especially when loaded and going up hills.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

This thread has moved from guns to smoke. Will next issue be mirrors?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

agent99 said:


> I spend a lot of time on my bike these days. Never had that happen to me.
> 
> Most modern cars don't emit smoke or fumes. The onboard computers maintain optimal stoichiometric ratio of fuel to air that prevents that regardless of how car is operated. If those controls are not working, your CheckEngineLight will come on. This is partly why they have abandoned emission testing in most jurisdictions.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm aware of the fact that these systems exist and how they work. 
My point is that "coal rollers" are purposely bypassing these systems just to make a statement... which seems to be "I'm a selfish jerk". 
As for diesel rigs, I imagine that's probably due to the extra horsepower required.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Prairie Guy said:


> list of 1,500 banned guns was so poorly researched by his "experts" that it included a couple web pages, a Facebook page, and a locksmithing company.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It looks like the story is gone. I had a quick look over the Gazette entry and while I didn't look up every referenced model, I didn't see anything obviously amiss. Googling "black special" it is hardly surpising that there are numerous hits for random non-gun things, despite that SG-551 "black special" is definitely a gun and fits the pattern of what is being prohibited. I would guess that this article might have gone away if it was badly researched and misleading -- be interested to know if it resurfaces somewhere.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> Highly Toxic???
> 
> Only if you run an old car in an enclosed space and breath in CO instead of O2.
> 
> ...


Lots of toxic compounds in diesel exhaust. The carbon also takes the form of copious pm2.5 particles, which irritate the respiratory system, cause inflammation (including acutely increasing risks of heart attacks) and is able to penetrate the blood brain barrier to accumulate in the brain. It is really nasty stuff. The sooner the world can find a suitable replacement the better. Thankfully, it looks like electric is coming to eat diesel's lunch.

More info on diesel exhaust:





Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust


A fact sheet was prepared by OEHHA and the American Lung Association (ALAC) regarding health hazards associated with diesel exhaust.




oehha.ca.gov


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> More info on diesel exhaust:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is an old link. Written in 2001. Here is an excerpt:


> ARB's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, when fully implemented, will result in a 75 percent reduction in particle emissions from diesel equipment by 2010 (compared to 2000 levels), and an 85 percent reduction by 2020. The plan calls for the use of cleaner-burning diesel fuel, retrofitting of existing engines with particle-trapping filters, and the use in new diesel engines of advanced technologies that produce nearly 90 percent fewer particle emissions, as well as the use of alternative fuels.


Particle emissions were to be reduced by 75% by 2010 and 85% by 2020. This has happened in California as well as here and in USA and in Europe. Particulate filters remove carbon particle and they later get automatically burned to CO2. Many other improvements to modern diesels, too numerous to mention. However, at fuel stations, you will see DEF alongside diesel fuel - used to inject into exhaust where catalyst converts NOx to Nitrogen and water. Fuel is also different these days - much lower sulphur content.

Despite above, diesels vehicle manufacturers are having a hard time meeting the new stringent emission regulations, particularly in Europe. As a result, fewer diesel_ cars_ are being sold.

However, major use of diesel engines is in transportation, agriculture and industry. This because diesels are the most efficient choice. Some of these could be replaced or converted to use diesel engines that will run on alternative fuels.

However, hard to see much sense in using electric power for these very large users of diesel. Large incremental electricity demand would have to be produced by burning fossil fuels. By the time that electricity is distributed to the truck or tractor, overall efficiency lower and as a result, CO2 emissions higher. On top of that, electric trucks would use additional energy, because they would also be hauling their battery packs. Electric vehicles do probably have a place in congested urban areas, but not much for long distance transportation or agriculture.

OK, back to *GUNS - Cross Country Checkup at 4pm will discuss. *


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> However, hard to see much sense in using electric power for these very large users of diesel. Large incremental electricity demand would have to be produced by burning fossil fuels. By the time that electricity is distributed to the truck or tractor, overall efficiency lower and as a result, CO2 emissions higher. On top of that, electric trucks would use additional energy, because they would also be hauling their battery packs. Electric vehicles do probably have a place in congested urban areas, but not much for long distance transportation or agriculture.


This isn't true and hasn't been for some time in most places. Much of Canada has power supply nearly entirely decarbonized and most of what is left is natural gas. Same is true in much of the US. No new coal plants are being built in the US, and many of the existing ones are failing.

Electric trucks are coming, and have very promising economics. You seem to be missing the fact that electric is ~3x the efficiency of ICE, which wastes most energy as heat and cannot recover braking energy. Short haul will be easier to convert, but short haul is most trucking. Long distance and agriculture may take longer to convert (the economics are still quite favourable for long haul), but are probably less urgent because their emissions generally happen where people aren't.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> Particle emissions were to be reduced by 75% by 2010 and 85% by 2020. This has happened in California as well as here and in USA and in Europe. Particulate filters remove carbon particle and they later get automatically burned to CO2. Many other improvements to modern diesels, too numerous to mention. However, at fuel stations, you will see DEF alongside diesel fuel - used to inject into exhaust where catalyst converts NOx to Nitrogen and water. Fuel is also different these days - much lower sulphur content.


Aren't coal rollers bypassing emissions controls on their vehicles to deliberately create as much pollution as possible? I would not be opposed to the penalty being instead of a fine confiscation of the vehicle, and returning it to the owner crushed down to a cube. Maybe they should also be prohibited from owning a diesel powered road vehicle, if they cannot be trusted to operate it in a socially responsible way. A small fine is not appropriate...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Aren't coal rollers bypassing emissions controls on their vehicles to deliberately create as much pollution as possible? I would not be opposed to the penalty being instead of a fine confiscation of the vehicle, and returning it to the owner crushed down to a cube. Maybe they should also be prohibited from owning a diesel powered road vehicle, if they cannot be trusted to operate it in a socially responsible way. A small fine is not appropriate...


Yes, the hardcore ones have modified, and I think vehicle seizure is appropriate.
If you take off the muffler/cat you can have your vehicle seized now.

Just like certain modifications to firearms, ie sawing off a shotgun.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Long distance and agriculture may take longer to convert (the economics are still quite favourable for long haul), but are probably less urgent because their emissions generally happen where people aren't.


Agriculture is ripe for autonomy (tedious driving back and forth) and you could have 100s or 1000s of smaller implements (less soil compaction, easier to transport) in rotation rather than a few large implements designed to minimize the human who need to eat/sleep. Electric is the obvious choice for autonomous agri and it's only a matter of time

The biggest obstacle to long haul is how to pacify a mob of angry uneducated truck drivers with nothing better to do than wreak havoc. Hopefully we get some of the assault weapons out of their hands before it comes to that


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> *This isn't true* and hasn't been for some time in most places. Much of Canada has power supply nearly entirely decarbonized and most of what is left is natural gas. Same is true in much of the US. No new coal plants are being built in the US, and many of the existing ones are failing.


You must not have understood what I said.

Large amounts of *incremental* power generation cannot come from non-carbon sources . If we want to replace all the cars and trucks on the road with electric power by 2030 or even 2050, just do the math. Calculate the total electrical energy that would be needed to replace all the diesel and gasoline fuel used today. Then taking into account relative efficiencies, determine how that power could be generated looking forward, not back.

It cannot be done using solar or wind or hydro. It has to be done using natural gas which of course emits CO2. So what have we gained? Not much, except for cities (where use of cars should be reduced anyway).

Nuclear? Not sure if nuclear improves environment. Site approval, licensing, construction of nuclear plants used to be estimated at 10yrs . Probably longer these days (Even wind turbines took 10yrs in our area just to get approval).



> You seem to be missing the fact that electric is ~3x the efficiency of ICE


You are missing the point that the electricity will be produced by burning natural gas at some efficiency depending on generator design, then transmitted over copper wires where additional heat is lost. By the time that electricity reaches the end user, where there are further losses of efficiency in motors/wiring lights/heating/A/C. The efficiency will not be that much different from that of the diesel.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> You must not have understood what I said.
> 
> Large amounts of *incremental* power generation cannot come from non-carbon sources . If we want to replace all the cars and trucks on the road with electric power by 2030 or even 2050, just do the math. Calculate the total electrical energy that would be needed to replace all the diesel and gasoline fuel used today. Then taking into account relative efficiencies, determine how that power could be generated looking forward, not back.
> 
> ...


Canada generates about 650 TWh of electricity per year.
There are about 300 billion vehicle kms travelled by personal vehicles in Canada. Typical energy consumption by personal EVs is around 0.25-0.3 kWh per KM (high estimate--Tesla Model 3/Y are rated around 0.16KWh/km so this allows for much worse than rated efficiency). That makes for 100 billion kWh or so of electricity required to power personal vehicles. That's 100 TWh. This can mostly be used off-peak by idle capacity (since most EVs can be charged at home, overnight and will store roughly a week's worth of driving in range).

There are about 30 billion kms driven by commercial vehicles in Canada per year. At 2 kWh per km (on the high side--estimated requirement for fully loaded class 8 truck), that's perhaps another 60 billion kWh or 60 TWh. So you could electrify the road vehicles in Canada and increase power consumption by 160 TWh / 650 TWh, or 25%. Much of that could be accommodated by using existing generating capacity off-peak (increasing utilization and financial performance of those assets). 80% of the electric mix in Canada is not fossil fuel, and incremental capacity is not 100% fossil fuel.

This is all besides the fact that the electricity to power EVs is less costly than fossil fuels (even when you strip out fuel taxes), and the performance of electric cars is superior to fossil fuels. Electric class 8 trucks will be fantastic for reliability, maintenance, and performance (can accelerate more like passenger cars, not labour up gradual inclines).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> You are missing the point that the electricity will be produced by burning natural gas at some efficiency depending on generator design,


Even if true, I would much rather the power come from a nat gas plant with emissions scrubbers 100 km away rather from a poorly maintained consumer vehicle inefficiently puffing gas/diesel exhaust and particles in my face from 10 ft away.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe our posties should be packing heat.........





__





The Hard-Drinking, Gun-Toting, Foul-Tempered Former Slave who Became a Legend






www.thevintagenews.com


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Maybe our posties should be packing heat.........


Nah - they won't have any heat if they all convert to the new EV postal trucks 









It's not easy driving electric postal-delivery vehicles


Canada Post's new all-electric delivery vehicles are having start-up problems - literally




www.theglobeandmail.com







> Vancouver's new all-electric Canada Post delivery vehicles are free of emissions, mostly silent – and all too often, undriveable because of drained batteries.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> Nah - they won't have any heat if they all convert to the new EV postal trucks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who knew vehicles would stop working if you forget to refuel them?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Somehow we managed with dozens of different kinds of electric fork trucks and equipment for decades.........3 shifts a day too.

All it required was a battery station and an extra battery for every unit. Change and charge.....continually.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Canada generates about 650 TWh of electricity per year.


I am sure you looked up that data and it is approximately correct for the year the data applied to. But, when will we get to total conversion to EVs? You should project the number of km driven forward to that time. We might have 100million population by then  
Or assume % EVs that will be on road in 10 or 20 years time and then calculate how much energy they will need, including energy for heat and A/C.
Anyway, don't bother with that unless it interests you. I think we have killed this discussion.
Main point I was trying to make, is that most incremental energy capacity in Ontario at least, will have to be produced using natural gas which will produce CO2. Even today in Ontario, a portion of our daily energy comes from natural gas fired generation stations. We have three new ones just down the road!
Anyone interested can monitor Ontario power grid hour by hour! Gridwatch. Right now, energy demand in Ontario is as low as I have seen it on that site. Sunny day so some solar, some wind, gas turned almost all way down, even Hydro turned down. Export higher than normal.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> I am sure you looked up that data and it is approximately correct for the year the data applied to. But, when will we get to total conversion to EVs? You should project the number of km driven forward to that time. We might have 100million population by then


The important thing is the % power increase we would need for EVs. It is the same regardless of population size.



> Or assume % EVs that will be on road in 10 or 20 years time and then calculate how much energy they will need, including energy for heat and A/C.


Irrelevant, all those power consumptions were accounted for in the estimate I provided.



> Main point I was trying to make, is that most incremental energy capacity in Ontario at least, will have to be produced using natural gas which will produce CO2. Even today in Ontario, a portion of our daily energy comes from natural gas fired generation stations. We have three new ones just down the road!
> Anyone interested can monitor Ontario power grid hour by hour! Gridwatch. Right now, energy demand in Ontario is as low as I have seen it on that site. Sunny day so some solar, some wind, gas turned almost all way down, even Hydro turned down. Export higher than normal.


Ontario uses gas for peaker capacity. That may not be something that lasts forever, either. We have lots of power off-peak that we don't use. Even if EVs are 100% nat gas powered (or coal for that matter), they still produce less CO2 and much less localized air pollution than ICE vehicles.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Somehow we managed with dozens of different kinds of electric fork trucks and equipment for decades.......


The Brits have had electric postie vans for years, as well as milk floats (trucks). Good application. Like Fork Lifts, they likely used heavy lead-acid batteries.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> The important thing is the % power increase we would need for EVs. It is the same regardless of population size.


I had given up on this discussion, but that makes no sense. Percentages mean nothing. 
If you have finite amount of Nuclear, Wind, Hydro, Solar and you can only increase that by a small amount, then all additional power will have to come from fossil fuels. Increase needed for EVs could be 15% say in 10 years but 100% in future years.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> I had given up on this discussion, but that makes no sense. Percentages mean nothing.
> If you have finite amount of Nuclear, Wind, Hydro, Solar and you can only increase that by a small amount, then all additional power will have to come from fossil fuels. Increase needed for EVs could be 15% say in 10 years but 100% in future years.


Think about it this way: if we electrify transportation, it will represent ~20% (25%/1.25%) of electric consumption of the population. If Canada grows to be 300 million this would also hold, assuming consumption patterns otherwise remain the same. Your comment on population growth is a red herring, given that new generating capacity will be built to match population growth, and there is no reason to assume it will be fossil fuel plants (when the trend has been towards reduced carbon electric mix).


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Sorry - I am out.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Remember when the Segway was taking over the way people moved in cities? A few still move with these in Honolulu if you can afford the tour price.
The future is pretty murky.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

andrewf said:


> Think about it this way: if we electrify transportation, it will represent ~20% (25%/1.25%) of electric consumption of the population.


If you take the current usage of motor fuel in Ontario and replace that by electricity, it comes out to about 12% of the total generation capacity. Since the generation capacity is rarely all used, if ever, the figure would probably represent closer to 20% of the usual daily production. But the overall system would have to be expanded by that amount, to keep up with the new electric vehicle demands. The calcs below assume the demand is spread over 24H while it would likely peek at night -- but other demands peak at different times, so it's not a big effect. Make of it what you will


```
motor fuel tax rate     $0.147         https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/ft/index.html
            
Ontario fuel tax revenue    776        https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/finances/2019/ofin19_1.html
Q1 2019 days    90       
tax/day    8.62       
Million litres per day    58.65       
            
regular gas MJ/L    32.00        https://www.appropedia.org/Energy_content_of_fuels
            
Megajoules/day    1.877E+09       
            
Engine efficiency    20%        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Gasoline_(petrol)_engines
            
Megajoules/day useful    3.754E+08       
            
auto needs KWH/day    1.043E+08        1 Megajoules = 0.2778 Kilowatt hours
auto needs MWH/day     104,283         

Ontario supply    http://www.ieso.ca/en/Power-Data/Supply-Overview/Transmission-Connected-Generation       
            
nukes     13,009         
gas     10,277         
hydro     9,065         
wind     4,466         
solar     424         
residual     295         
            
Total Megawatts     37,536         
MWH/DAY     900,864         
            
Percent needed for cars    11.58%
```


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> 82% of stats are made up.
> 
> You can hardly get 99% of people to agree on anything. I find this hard to believe. You would need 92 year old grannies to own a gun for this to be true.


You are welcome to get educated.





Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer: Leyton, Elliott: 9780786712281: Amazon.com: Books


Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer [Leyton, Elliott] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer



www.amazon.com


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

m3s said:


> The biggest obstacle to long haul is how to pacify a mob of angry uneducated truck drivers with nothing better to do than wreak havoc. Hopefully we get some of the assault weapons out of their hands before it comes to that


It wasn't long ago that a bunch of kid hockey players were being driven to a hockey game and got t-boned by a truck. Some 14 people killed. If we banned recreational driving those lives wouldn't have been lost. But why is it that no one calls for a ban on recreational driving to save lives? Why do they blame the driver and not the machine? But when it comes to guns, they blame the gun. It is the hypocrisy that gets me. No one will call for a ban on recreational driving because it is a majority activity, and the deaths are accepted. But gun owners are a minority, an easy target for the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Pluto said:


> It wasn't long ago that a bunch of kid hockey players were being driven to a hockey game and got t-boned by a truck. Some 14 people killed. If we banned recreational driving those lives wouldn't have been lost. But why is it that no one calls for a ban on recreational driving to save lives? Why do they blame the driver and not the machine? But when it comes to guns, they blame the gun. It is the hypocrisy that gets me. No one will call for a ban on recreational driving because it is a majority activity, and the deaths are accepted. But gun owners are a minority, an easy target for the tyranny of the majority.


maybe “primary purpose” has something to do with it. This is a debate where I think you’ll rarely change people’s minds. If I leave a bus in my driveway and I take the keys, it’s unlikely my 16 year will hurt someone. If I leave a loaded gun on the driveway, the risks are greater. Recent surveys I’ve seen (confirmation bias alarm!) show Canadians want tougher measures and will likely support the current governments actions. Also seen some news that handguns are being targeted next.

I’ll have to think about if the majority in a democracy can truly be tyrannical. Should be able to stop the “tyranny” at election time.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> Should be able to stop the “tyranny” at election time.


But will it be too late by then?
Remember the loss from the gun registry, we don't get that money back ...


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

cainvest said:


> But will it be too late by then?
> Remember the loss from the gun registry, we don't get that money back ...


the money lost happens with most policies are reversed. costs are sunk. Even when programs are cancelled, there’s often millions to spent in advance to “study” if they should be cancelled.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Pluto said:


> It wasn't long ago that a bunch of kid hockey players were being driven to a hockey game and got t-boned by a truck. Some 14 people killed. If we banned recreational driving those lives wouldn't have been lost. But why is it that no one calls for a ban on recreational driving to save lives? Why do they blame the driver and not the machine? But when it comes to guns, they blame the gun. It is the hypocrisy that gets me. No one will call for a ban on recreational driving because it is a majority activity, and the deaths are accepted. But gun owners are a minority, an easy target for the tyranny of the majority.


That's a ridiculous analogy and totally irrelevant. Vehicle accidents are an acceptable risk as are gun accidents. That doesn't make deliberate killings with guns an acceptable risk and that is what you are trying to suggest, that we should accept the risk.

We are free to choose what risks we are willing to accept or not accept and if the majority of people are not willing to accept the risk of deliberate killings with guns then that's that. We choose to live in a democracy where we try to comply with what the majority deems to be acceptable. IF you want to choose otherwise, you are free to leave. There are plenty of countries where gun laws are not restrictive at all, move to one of them. But in THIS country, the majority are in favour of gun restrictions. Why should a minority be allowed to dictate to a majority?

Government by a majority is not 'tyranny' of a minority. You are free to leave.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Longtimeago said:


> Why should a minority be allowed to dictate to a majority?


That's a great question. Why should a minority government be allowed to dictate a sweeping ban without democratic due process? Why should they be allowed to use an order in council that was never intended for this purpose? Why can a minority government be allowed to silence Canadians and their voting rights and right to democracy? 

GREAT Question!


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Ag Driver said:


> Why should a minority government be allowed to dictate a sweeping ban without democratic due process?


I have little doubt that the move will be supported generously by the NDP and BQ. It is likely that there was a lot of pressure from those quarters to move in the first place.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Longtimeago said:


> We are free to choose what risks we are willing to accept or not accept and if the majority of people are not willing to accept the risk of deliberate killings with guns then that's that. .


I don't have a gun though I appreciate those in Canada that do have a gun & help protect me from government dictatorship. In Nazi Germany they took away the guns before it got crazy. This is the absolute worse time to take away guns when there is talk of needing to be vaccinated for movement & wanting to track our movements. The more citizens that have assault riffles in this environment the better.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> But we do know that the laws they are proposing would not have actually changed much if anything.
> 
> He used illegally smuggled weapons.
> If Canada had a 100% ban on all firearms, he would have still done it.
> ...


I agree. Prohibition never stopped the black market.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

gardner said:


> I have little doubt that the move will be supported generously by the NDP and BQ. It is likely that there was a lot of pressure from those quarters to move in the first place.


Then put it through the democratic process. This back door OIC should never have happened. It is a step towards dictatorship and loss of everything this Country has worked towards with respect to democracy.

This is pretty cut and dry. Firearms aside, every Canadian should be upset due to this simple fact.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> maybe “primary purpose” has something to do with it. This is a debate where I think you’ll rarely change people’s minds. If I leave a bus in my driveway and I take the keys, it’s unlikely my 16 year will hurt someone. If I leave a loaded gun on the driveway, the risks are greater. Recent surveys I’ve seen (confirmation bias alarm!) show Canadians want tougher measures and will likely support the current governments actions. Also seen some news that handguns are being targeted next.
> 
> I’ll have to think about if the majority in a democracy can truly be tyrannical. Should be able to stop the “tyranny” at election time.


Why would you leave a loaded gun in the driveway? And why would you compare that to a bus where you keep the keys? In Canada all guns have to be locked in someway when stored.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Ag Driver said:


> That's a great question. Why should a minority government be allowed to dictate a sweeping ban without democratic due process? Why should they be allowed to use an order in council that was never intended for this purpose? Why can a minority government be allowed to silence Canadians and their voting rights and right to democracy?
> 
> GREAT Question!


Because they are the party in power and have the support of the BLOC (at a minimum).


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Ag Driver said:


> Then put it through the democratic process. This back door OIC should never have happened. It is a step towards dictatorship and loss of everything this Country has worked towards with respect to democracy.
> 
> This is pretty cut and dry. Firearms aside, every Canadian should be upset due to this simple fact.


upset at the supporting parties, not just the government in power.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> That's a ridiculous analogy and totally irrelevant. Vehicle accidents are an acceptable risk as are gun accidents. That doesn't make deliberate killings with guns an acceptable risk and that is what you are trying to suggest, that we should accept the risk.
> 
> We are free to choose what risks we are willing to accept or not accept and if the majority of people are not willing to accept the risk of deliberate killings with guns then that's that. We choose to live in a democracy where we try to comply with what the majority deems to be acceptable. IF you want to choose otherwise, you are free to leave. There are plenty of countries where gun laws are not restrictive at all, move to one of them. But in THIS country, the majority are in favour of gun restrictions. Why should a minority be allowed to dictate to a majority?
> 
> Government by a majority is not 'tyranny' of a minority. You are free to leave.


Well there have been in recent times deliberate deaths by deliberately running people over in US and Canada. 
Selected minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority by legislation. It is not a novel thought. 

Gun accidents have been used as a reason to ban guns, but car accidents never prompted anyone to try to ban cars. MADD never advocated banning cars or booze. But taking guns away from law abiding people is often seen as a solution to criminal use of guns. That's what is ridiculous.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

"In times of emergency, a government may issue legislation directly through Orders in Council, forgoing the usual parliamentary procedure."

What part don't you understand? There is no required support from any party. This minority government issued legislation directly through OIC without democratic due process. This is scary folks.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

we need a poll question that captures the essence of the debate and then close this thread down.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Ag Driver said:


> "In times of emergency, a government may issue legislation directly through Orders in Council, forgoing the usual parliamentary procedure."
> 
> What part don't you understand? There is no required support from any party. This minority government issued legislation directly through OIC without democratic due process. This is scary folks.


I understand. I assume the _ability_ to issue legislation directly through OIC was granted by parliament, so the government is using the powers available to them.

and I’ll continue to argue that there is broader support for the governments actions behind closed doors. If the other parties were truly against this, we’d be hearing more.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Using powers available to them in an inappropriate manner without any actual thought going into the legislation. Just sweeping bans. So far sweeping that some shotguns, bolt action rifles, facebook groups, websites and a locksmith numbered company are deemed as banned "assault weapons". The sale, purchase, transport of these websites and facebook groups included on the list are illegal.

Are you telling me that this legislation was vetted or looked at with any detail AT ALL if these things got on the list? Again. This is scary folks. Incompetent governments circumventing democratic due process to suit their agenda.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In today's news conference, Trudeau said the government is working with the NDP and Bloc on drafting the final legislation.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

The Criminal Code has already been amended. I am already considered a criminal and have 2 years to comply. Actual criminals on the other hand are laughing...because the code _still _does not apply to them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> That's a ridiculous analogy and totally irrelevant. Vehicle accidents are an acceptable risk as are gun accidents. That doesn't make deliberate killings with guns an acceptable risk and that is what you are trying to suggest, that we should accept the risk.
> 
> We are free to choose what risks we are willing to accept or not accept and if the majority of people are not willing to accept the risk of deliberate killings with guns then that's that. We choose to live in a democracy where we try to comply with what the majority deems to be acceptable. IF you want to choose otherwise, you are free to leave. There are plenty of countries where gun laws are not restrictive at all, move to one of them. But in THIS country, the majority are in favour of gun restrictions. Why should a minority be allowed to dictate to a majority?
> 
> Government by a majority is not 'tyranny' of a minority. You are free to leave.


Most murders in Canada don't use firearms.





Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide


Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide (total methods used; shooting; stabbing; beating; strangulation; fire (burns or suffocation); other methods used; methods used unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2021.




www150.statcan.gc.ca





Also 3/4 of auto accidents aren't "accidents", if you're driving drunk, it wasn't an accident.

The problem is criminals, they're the ones murdering and killing people with guns, cars, knives, baseball bats, and illegal drugs.

The majority argument is flawed.
1. Trudeau did not get a majority, in votes, or seats.
2. The people who want restrictions don't even know what restrictions they want.
3. If a simple majority is all it takes for something to be ok that leads to lots of problems. Not respecting individual rights is the first step to very bad things.
If 2 people vote to take money from a third, that's still theft. Voting on it doesn't make it right.
If we vote that racism is ok, does that mean it's ok?

There are lots of countries that already have much stronger gun laws than Canada, if you didn't like the laws here, you should leave instead of trying to change them.
I'm a native born Canadian, I shouldn't have to leave because some narcisist wants to buy votes by picking on me.
I wonder if there are any other political figures that falsely demonized a group of people and blamed them for the problems in their society. I can think of several, none of them are good.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau won the election on an election platform of gun control. The debate was held in the last election. Time to move on.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> It wasn't long ago that a bunch of kid hockey players were being driven to a hockey game and got t-boned by a truck. Some 14 people killed. If we banned recreational driving those lives wouldn't have been lost. But why is it that no one calls for a ban on recreational driving to save lives? Why do they blame the driver and not the machine? But when it comes to guns, they blame the gun. It is the hypocrisy that gets me. No one will call for a ban on recreational driving because it is a majority activity, and the deaths are accepted. But gun owners are a minority, an easy target for the tyranny of the majority.


There were lots of calls to improve road safety. As now there are calls to improve gun safety. Whether any of those policies would help is another matter. But it takes more hoops to own and operate a truck than to do likewise with a gun.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

gardner said:


> If you take the current usage of motor fuel in Ontario and replace that by electricity, it comes out to about 12% of the total generation capacity. Since the generation capacity is rarely all used, if ever, the figure would probably represent closer to 20% of the usual daily production. But the overall system would have to be expanded by that amount, to keep up with the new electric vehicle demands. The calcs below assume the demand is spread over 24H while it would likely peek at night -- but other demands peak at different times, so it's not a big effect. Make of it what you will
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


You don't think we could absorb most of the additional requirement off peak? Shouldn't be all that hard with TOU pricing.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

sags said:


> Trudeau won the election on an election platform of gun control. The debate was held in the last election. Time to move on.


 He didn't tell the rest of the story of locking us in our homes, giving our tax dollars to the corrupt WHO, Having the media promote propaganda to kill our economy & working on a vaccine that has funding by a billionaire that wants to reduce the population.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

:) lonewolf said:


> He didn't tell the rest of the story of locking us in our homes, giving our tax dollars to the corrupt WHO, Having the media promote propaganda to kill our economy & working on a vaccine that has funding by a billionaire that wants to reduce the population.


Can't trust that Trudeau character--he didn't even tell us that there was going to be a global pandemic a couple of years after the election... tsk tsk


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> That's a ridiculous analogy and totally irrelevant. Vehicle accidents are an acceptable risk as are gun accidents. That doesn't make deliberate killings with guns an acceptable risk and that is what you are trying to suggest, that we should accept the risk.
> 
> We are free to choose what risks we are willing to accept or not accept and if the majority of people are not willing to accept the risk of deliberate killings with guns then that's that. We choose to live in a democracy where we try to comply with what the majority deems to be acceptable. IF you want to choose otherwise, you are free to leave. There are plenty of countries where gun laws are not restrictive at all, move to one of them. But in THIS country, the majority are in favour of gun restrictions. Why should a minority be allowed to dictate to a majority?
> 
> Government by a majority is not 'tyranny' of a minority. You are free to leave.


Agreed. A better analogy is the french truck terrorist attacks. Plenty of cities are taking measures to protect public places from vehicle attacks, sometimes obvious (concrete barriers or bollards) to more subtle: apparent planter pots that are really reinforced barriers a tank would have a hard time getting past. Unfortunately, it is not possible to put in place the same kinds of protections against mass shooters.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

andrewf said:


> Can't trust that Trudeau character--he didn't even tell us that there was going to be a global pandemic a couple of years after the election... tsk tsk


 There is no evidence that the world economy should have been shut down for something less deadly then the flu


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Less deadly than the flu ?


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

sags said:


> Less deadly than the flu ?


COVID certificate of vaccine identification is the new miracle cure no one dies of a heart attack any more. Pay hospitals money for treating people with COVID & change the way the death certificates are filled out all of a sudden everyone only dies of COVID.

We need a vaccine against government. The government kill millions of people with wars & killing people with their response to the over hyped fake Pandemic.

Through vaccine they can reduce the population. "Innovating to zero, Bill Gates Ted talk" might want to watch the video
Check out Martin Armstrong website read some of his blogs & videos to get an understanding of what is really going on


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Ag Driver said:


> Then put it through the democratic process. This back door OIC should never have happened.


You should read the Firearms Act. It specifically calls out that the regulations implementing it -- such as setting out what is/isn't permitted/restricted/prohibited and all the other details -- are established by order in council. There is no change to legislation. Just an adjustment of the regulations in accordance with the formula set out in the legislation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> You should read the Firearms Act. It specifically calls out that the regulations implementing it -- such as setting out what is/isn't permitted/restricted/prohibited and all the other details -- are established by order in council. There is no change to legislation. Just an adjustment of the regulations in accordance with the formula set out in the legislation.


The point is they're banning hunting rifles, which they're allowed to do.

However there is a convention that the regulations should only implement the details of the act, they shouldn't change the intent of the initial legislation. Saying "the intent was for the public good", so any regulation is acceptable.

For example, if they banned internal combustion engines under the regulations of the Highway Traffic Act, as it sits now. You could say that's regulatory overreach as that was not the intent of the act.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People upset an order of council was used, can be comforted with the knowledge the Liberals, NDP, Green, and Bloc are working together on new legislation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> People upset an order of council was used, can be comforted with the knowledge the Liberals, NDP, Green, and Bloc are working together on new legislation.


Doing the wrong thing now isn't excused by the claim they'll do the right thing later.

The reality is this change doesn't make anyone safer, and does nothing to address the Liberal failure on gun crime.
They had a majority government, they could have done anything they wanted.

They didn't appoint judges, they didn't put criminals in jail, they didn't fund anti smuggling or anti gang policing.

They spent their time talking about banning/limiting single use plastics, which are now being even more widely used, because of the health concerns, the same concerns they were minimizing before COVID19.

They're just trying to distract from their failures.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Unfortunately our opposition party is MIA and leaderless...unprecedented when the party in power is a minority with 32% of the popular vote. A large fail for politics & Canada.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

gardner said:


> You should read the Firearms Act. It specifically calls out that the regulations implementing it -- such as setting out what is/isn't permitted/restricted/prohibited and all the other details -- are established by order in council. There is no change to legislation. Just an adjustment of the regulations in accordance with the formula set out in the legislation.


They _can _be established by OIC. This recent ban was not the intent or purpose of OIC's in general. In a democratic society we bring forth Bills to the table in front of parliament for debate to change legislation. But, we can all thank JT's father. JT is a chip off the old corrupt block. There have been many governments table Bills to amend the criminal code and firearms act successfully and unsuccessfully using democratic due process. The RIGHT way. 

Pierre Trudeau in 1970, for the first time in Canadian history the government gave itself the authority to restrict or prohibit, through OIC, any firearm" ... not commonly used in Canada or hunting OR sporting purposes.

So why are hunting rifles, shotguns, and locksmith companies on the list? Why rifles that are restricted to anything BUT shooting sports being prohibited? 

OIC's are decisions made at the Cabinet level and therefore undergo no parliamentary review and are secret. Neither the public not the Parliament (outside of the members of Cabinet) are aware of them until they are issued in the name of the Canadian Government. For a minority government to instill such a power, particularly when done under "emergency" orders, citing events that happened over 3 decades prior....this is scary. 

Your Canadian liberties and freedoms were eroded in 1970 from his father and even further more from this puke today.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Well it gets worse, this OIC bans the vast majority of shotguns in Canada.
All 10 gauge, and most 12 gauge, including the Remington & Mossberg pumps which are very popular.

Apparently Trudeau and Blair think this is an "assault rifle"
https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/rem...pump-action-shotgun-with-hardwood-stock#close


They really are incompetent.
Too bad we don't have some sort of parliment to review changes to laws.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Ag Driver said:


> They _can _be established by OIC. This recent ban was not the intent or purpose of OIC's in general.


I think you miss the point. The way the Firearms Act is written, the actual regulations -- and in particular in this case, what is permitted/restricted/prohibited -- CAN ONLY be established by OIC. Even were there a public debate or some sort of vote, unless the Firearms Act was rewritten, the actual change HAD TO BE via order in council.

The fact that it was done more or less on the QT is a thing for sure. I do understand, though. They signaled pretty broadly, as did the NDP, that this sort of thing was in the party platform. So that is reasonably fair warning. I think that keeping the implementation under wraps and having it come into force immediately was a calculated effort to avoid panic buying (or panic selling) amongst the gun owning community. My personal opinion is that was a wise move. YMMV.

It's easy for me to say because I do not have a couple grand tied up in guns that are now prohibited and I am not forced to splash out another grand to buy another non-restricted gun just so that I can resume my hobby.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> I think you miss the point. The way the Firearms Act is written, the actual regulations -- and in particular in this case, what is permitted/restricted/prohibited -- CAN ONLY be established by OIC. Even were there a public debate or some sort of vote, unless the Firearms Act was rewritten, the actual change HAD TO BE via order in council.
> 
> The fact that it was done more or less on the QT is a thing for sure. I do understand, though. They signaled pretty broadly, as did the NDP, that this sort of thing was in the party platform. So that is reasonably fair warning. I think that keeping the implementation under wraps and having it come into force immediately was a calculated effort to avoid panic buying (or panic selling) amongst the gun owning community. My personal opinion is that was a wise move. YMMV.
> 
> It's easy for me to say because I do not have a couple grand tied up in guns that are now prohibited and I am not forced to splash out another grand to buy another non-restricted gun just so that I can resume my hobby.


You miss my point.
The regulations should only implement and clarify the scope of the law.

Their OIC is banning most shotguns, and several bolt action hunting rifles.
Blair bans 12-gauge, 10-gauge shotguns and hunting rifles!


I'm not saying what they did was illegal, it most likely was legal.

I AM saying that it is not appropriate for the regulations to exceed the intent of the underlying legislation.

I do not believe that the intent of the legislation, at any time, was to ban pump action shotguns, or bolt action hunting rifles.
If they want to ban shotguns and hunting rifles, they should be required to pass a new law.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> The regulations should only implement and clarify the scope of the law.


But that's what they did: they clarified the scope of "prohibited firearm". Clearly in a rather effectual way, but still, it did not change the law per se.



> Their OIC is banning most shotguns, and several bolt action hunting rifles.
> Blair bans 12-gauge, 10-gauge shotguns and hunting rifles!


The main bore of even 10ga is just under 20mm. The only point where it would be wider than 20mm would be at the threads for the choke, if the choke were removed. It will be interesting to see if the last 60 mm of the barrel is going to be the deciding factor for the purposes of the new rules. I think the CSAAA is overplaying this, but their legal opinion seems reasonable enough to me.

The hunting rifles mentioned are those chambered for 460 weatherby that are caught up by the 10kj rule. These are not super common.

I predict that they will change the rules to allow even 10ga shotguns by increasing the prohibited bore to 22mm or so, or maybe saying something about removable chokes not counting. I also predict that the 460 weatherby will remain prohibited. I guess we'll find out.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> But that's what they did: they clarified the scope of "prohibited firearm". Clearly in a rather effectual way, but still, it did not change the law per se.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree, they "clarified" the scope to include an entire class of firearms that were never intended to be prohibited.

I do believe the CSSA is sensationalizing it, however it is a literal interpretation of the order as written.

I think this is more incompetence than malice, but I really wouldn't put much past Trudeau and Blair.
Blair isn't that stupid, he knows that the problem is illegal guns.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Trudeau won the election on an election platform of gun control. The debate was held in the last election. Time to move on.


Guns are already controlled. Its the criminals who are not controlled. For example, out of control serial killers who strangle their victims use cars to stalk their victims and then use cars to dump the bodies in remote areas. We should take your car away otherwise a criminal might use it. Computers are used to hack into businesses and steel credit card info to be used for fraud. They should take your computer equipment away otherwise a criminal might use it for crime. 

Taking things away from everybody that criminals use is counter productive. Don't you get that?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I believe that the majority of voters will have no issue with this. Particularly when they see the photos of the banned products. Certainly a small group of people will be going off the deep end about erosion of our rights and liberties. Just as there were years ago when seat belt legislation for automobiles was brought in. I believe that when most people see the photos of those guns their first reaction will be ' why would anyone need or want one of these', not oh this is a curtailment of my personal liberty.

And there will be the usual group of politicians who want to jump on this in order to get their names in the media since it is a dry spell, media wise, for them. Michelle Rempel being the latest..clearly hoping to move media attention from her travels to Oklahoma to the gun issue.

At the end of the day, whatever one's feeling on the subject, polls show that Canadians are in favour of this and certainly do not draw a dotted line between this and our liberty. My suggestion for those that do is take yourself off to a few countries where personal liberty is indeed non existent of greatly curtailed. Then you will see what curtailment of personal liberties really looks like.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> There were lots of calls to improve road safety. As now there are calls to improve gun safety. Whether any of those policies would help is another matter. But it takes more hoops to own and operate a truck than to do likewise with a gun.


You don't know what you are talking about. This is just blustering.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> I believe that the majority of voters will have no issue with this. Particularly when they see the photos of the banned products. Certainly a small group of people will be going off the deep end about erosion of our rights and liberties. Just as there were years ago when seat belt legislation for automobiles was brought in. I believe that when most people see the photos of those guns their first reaction will be ' why would anyone need or want one of these', not oh this is a curtailment of my personal liberty.
> 
> And there will be the usual group of politicians who want to jump on this in order to get their names in the media since it is a dry spell, media wise, for them. Michelle Rempel being the latest..clearly hoping to move media attention from her travels to Oklahoma to the gun issue.
> 
> At the end of the day, whatever one's feeling on the subject, polls show that Canadians are in favour of this and certainly do not draw a dotted line between this and our liberty. My suggestion for those that do is take yourself off to a few countries where personal liberty is indeed non existent of greatly curtailed. Then you will see what curtailment of personal liberties really looks like.


Their "assault rifle" ban also includes muzzle loaders.

Keeping us safe, buy banning the military assault rifles of 1812!
Weapons of War of 1812 - Cannons, Muskets, Swords etc.


The point is that there is no data to suggest this action will help.
The Liberals are so anti-science it isn't funny.

Are they going to get to banning nerf and staple guns before they get serious about the gun crime problem in this country?
They're wasting energy on crap like this, instead of taking action to prevent the next N.S. Shooter.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I really do not think the majority of Canadians care or appreciate the differences. They look at this and cannot comprehend why anyone would want these firearms. That is the basis of their opionion.

The challenge I see is that fewer and fewer people seem to be aware of how our country is governed. They do not understand the difference between legislation, orders in council, and regulations. They have no clue about the BNA Act, separation of powers, or even our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a shame. Between that, and the media cross over from the US, some seem to actually believe that in Canada we have the right to bear arms etc. etc and taking away the right limits our freedom. And then some of the ridiculous post and share on Facebook and twitter simply amplify this.

There is a reason why the NRA gave up their goal to influence Canadians and Canadian politicians years ago. It does not wash with voters.Our country evolved, it was not the result of a revolution. Nor did we have a civil war.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Since the UK banned hand guns around 1998, and have very tight gun control as well, I check their violent crime stats from time to time to see what's up. 

1) 
*Knife crime: Fatal stabbings at highest level since records began in 1946*








Knife crime: Fatal stabbings at highest level since records began in 1946


The biggest increase in knife crime victims is among young men and boys, official figures show.



www.bbc.com





2) 
*Crime figures: Violent crime recorded by police rises by 19%*








Crime figures: Violent crime recorded by police rises by 19%


The number of homicides - including murder and manslaughter - also rose by 14%.



www.bbc.com





3) 
*Gun crime highest for a decade for four police forces*








Gun crime highest for a decade for four police forces


More than one in five victims of firearms offences, excluding air weapons, was aged under 20.



www.bbc.com







The idea that you take guns away from law abiding people then violent crime will drop, and criminals will behave well appears to be very flawed. The goal of more and more gun control is simply to win a popularity contest.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

ian said:


> The challenge I see is that fewer and fewer people seem to be aware of how our country is governed. They do not understand the difference between legislation, orders in council, and regulations. They have no clue about the BNA Act, separation of powers, or even our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a shame. Between that, and the media cross over from the US, some seem to actually believe that in Canada we have the right to bear arms etc. etc and taking away the right limits our freedom.


I'll agree about ignorance as to how our country is governed. 

Without seeking to delve into the niceties of lawmaking, I'll disagree somewhat about failure to understand the difference between legislation, orders in council, and regulations. Are not the latter two simply forms of subordinate legislation? As for the BNA Act, the younger crowd might fail to recognize it by that appellation, since In 1982, it was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867.

And, sadly, Canadians lack the right to bear arms. They fail to recognize that, much like a muscle that atrophies with disuse, any right that goes unexercised for many years devolves into a privilege, and eventually can even be redefined as a crime. Any "rights" Canadian gun owners have enjoyed have slowly been eroded, on the road to total prohibition. When I was a kid, many Canadian homes had a gun rack in a den, basement room, or somewhere. At the end of a hunting or shooting day, guns were cleaned and returned to the gun rack. Often with the ammunition stored in a cabinet forming part of the rack. No locks or anything. None needed. All of that has now become the heinous crime of "careless storage".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You don't need a gun to hunt deer. All you need is a van with headlights and a horn.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)




----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> I'll agree about ignorance as to how our country is governed.
> 
> Without seeking to delve into the niceties of lawmaking, I'll disagree somewhat about failure to understand the difference between legislation, orders in council, and regulations. Are not the latter two simply forms of subordinate legislation? As for the BNA Act, the younger crowd might fail to recognize it by that appellation, since In 1982, it was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867.
> 
> And, sadly, Canadians lack the right to bear arms. They fail to recognize that, much like a muscle that atrophies with disuse, any right that goes unexercised for many years devolves into a privilege, and eventually can even be redefined as a crime. Any "rights" Canadian gun owners have enjoyed have slowly been eroded, on the road to total prohibition. When I was a kid, many Canadian homes had a gun rack in a den, basement room, or somewhere. At the end of a hunting or shooting day, guns were cleaned and returned to the gun rack. Often with the ammunition stored in a cabinet forming part of the rack. No locks or anything. None needed. All of that has now become the heinous crime of "careless storage".


We have very few actual "rights" in Canada.

As far as the laws, I believe that parliment should make laws, and the regulations and orders should be the details of implementation or operation.

For all those cheering this, I think opening this door is bad. Regulations and orders should not alter legislative intent.

What if the next government, through an order in council, defines human to include a fetus, or some other method, such that an abortion is now first degree murder? Will you then be clearing such a clarification?

What if they decide that a life sentence is really life, and to ensure the sentence is carried out, in full, they now to execute the offenders.

Personally I'm pro abortion and pro death penalty. But I think in both cases, such OIC would be inappropriate.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Most likely we get a Conservative government next election and they'll make short work of a lot of this nonsense. Banning assault rifles is a fine thing but to include guns most people own and make them criminals for owning it will be political suicide outside of bubbles like Toronto & Vancouver.

Harper made a lot of hay about the Lib's long gun registry back in the day...perhaps O'Toole can again if he ever crawls out from under his bed like the rest of our politicians...excepting than Kenney,Legault,Ford and Moe of course.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Eder said:


> ...
> Harper made a lot of hay about the Lib's long gun registry back in the day...perhaps O'Toole can again if he ever crawls out from under his bed like the rest of our politicians...excepting than Kenney,Legault,Ford and Moe of course.


And, if some can crawl out from under the bed, maybe some can be taken down from their posts. I refer, of course, to the proverbial "post tortoise", explained to me thus:

While stitching a cut on the hand of a 75 year old farmer, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Justin Trudeau and his role as the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party running the country.

The old farmer said, “Well, as I see it, Justin Trudeau is like a ‘Post Tortoise’.” Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post tortoise’ was.

The old farmer said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that’s a post tortoise.” The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain.

“You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, he’s elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of dumb *** put him up there to begin with.”


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

No political party would ever be elected pledging to make the banned guns legal again.

Such a policy would be as toxic to the political aspirations of the PCs as saying they would overturn abortion or gay rights.

The next PC leader will spend more time pledging what they won't do.........than what they would do if elected.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Based on the recent Conservative Leadership bozo eruption, the new leader might spend his time discussing his transgender bathroom issues. Far more important that the current medical or financial crisis it would seem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> No political party would ever be elected pledging to make the banned guns legal again.
> 
> Such a policy would be as toxic to the political aspirations of the PCs as saying they would overturn abortion or gay rights.
> 
> The next PC leader will spend more time pledging what they won't do.........than what they would do if elected.


Unfortunately I think you're right.
In Canada, there is very little support for private gun ownership, or law enforcement.
I'm afraid we're going down the same high crime path of UK and other countries that have "successfully" banned guns.

The main problem is that the Canadian voter is ignorant on the issues. Trudeau really understands how uninformed people are, and he's completely happy lying to the people if it will help him stay in power.

I think he might even half believe that by banning people who don't commit crimes, from possessing firearms which aren't used in crimes, will somehow reduce crime.
It's the same logic that allows him to go to the cottage, violating the guidance of 3 different levels of governments (one of them being the one he runs), yet with a straight face tell people he's following the guidance from the health authorities.

I'm not sure if he's really that stupid, or if he's simply a narcissistic sociopath.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Unfortunately I think you're right.
> <snip>
> I'm not sure if he's really that stupid, or if he's simply a narcissistic sociopath.


I believe his behaviour indicates the latter.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/12-gauge-shotguns-firearms-charter-challenge-1.5559402





> A spokesperson for Blair confirmed Wednesday that the choke will not be considered when measuring a firearm's bore diameter.
> "The regulation introduced on May 1 does not prohibit 10 and 12 gauge shotguns. The regulation for 10 and 12 gauge is based on their standard size, both under 20 mm. [ ... ]
> In accordance with acceptable firearms industry standards, the definition for bore diameter explicitly states that is after the chamber, but before the choke in shotguns. "


So I think common shotguns are indeed off the hook. I doubt they will permit the 460 weatherby though.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> Their "assault rifle" ban also includes muzzle loaders.


Really? How so?

The muzzle loaded rifles I'm familiar with are ~50 cal -- under 20mm -- and have muzzle energies comparable to a 303 -- way under 10kj. And they are not semi-auto -- obviously. None of the individual manufacturer/model combinations I saw were muzzle loaders.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

gardner said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/12-gauge-shotguns-firearms-charter-challenge-1.5559402
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps the .458 Winchester Mag will squeak through. But not the .500 Nitro Express.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/12-gauge-shotguns-firearms-charter-challenge-1.5559402
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A tweet isn't a change in law.

Even then, they'll twist it however they want, they have several interpretations that violate the text and intent of the law.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> Perhaps the .458 Winchester Mag will squeak through. But not the .500 Nitro Express.


Going by wikipedia, 500 nitro express has a muzzle energy in the 8kj range. 458 winchester magnum in the 7.5kj range. I suspect they are both unaffected.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

gardner said:


> Going by wikipedia, 500 nitro express has a muzzle energy in the 8kj range. 458 winchester magnum in the 7.5kj range. I suspect they are both unaffected.


Thanks gardner. I am much relieved! Not that I own weapons chambered for either round. My elephant hunting days are over. Come to think of it, they never started.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> A tweet isn't a change in law.


Perhaps a tweet with royal assent?


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> A tweet isn't a change in law.


No, but it could be a clarification of the intent, which is all I'm reading from it. And he made the statement in press interviews as did the unnamed "spokesperson".



> Even then, they'll twist it however they want, they have several interpretations that violate the text and intent of the law.


The key detail in the shotgun thing is that the "forensic standard" for measuring a barrel is that it is with the removable choke removed. I suspect that this is mainly in relation to measuring the length of the barrel, in relation to the pre-existing rules on barrel length (you can't shorten less than some length). The presence of a removable choke might create ambiguity in the length measurement, therefore the measurement is taken without the removable choke.

Now, in the presence of new rules without prior established "forensic standard" for verification, it could well be reasonable for such authorities as the chief firearms officer to set out the standard for verification.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> Perhaps a tweet with royal asset?





gardner said:


> No, but it could be a clarification of the intent, which is all I'm reading from it. And he made the statement in press interviews as did the unnamed "spokesperson".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They banned the extended 10/22 magazines, despite them being in compliance with both the wording and the intent of the legislation.

If the literal text of the law (/regulations) isn't enough, I wouldn't risk relying on what some politician tweeted as a legal defense.

This is the same minister who tweeted that this would reduce gun crime. If he's willing to lie about that, he'll lie about anything.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Corrigendum:

I am embarrassed to have noted in Matt's quote that I spoke of royal "assent" when I intended to say royal "assent". I have edited accordingly.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> Corrigendum:
> 
> I am embarrassed to have noted in Matt's quote that I spoke of royal "assent" when I intended to say royal "assent". I have edited accordingly.


Well darn, now you're going to lose your Princess Points!


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> Well darn, now you're going to lose your Princess Points!


Oh dear, I was afraid of something like that. My worst fear realized.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

The ban will reduce gun deaths. . . I support it and don't think it goes far enough. Canada has more than triple the gun deaths of other G20 countries. Let then ban come into effect and analyze the data.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> The ban will reduce gun deaths. . . I support it and don't think it goes far enough. Canada has more than triple the gun deaths of other G20 countries. Let then ban come into effect and analyze the data.


Based on what logic?

Virtually no shootings in Canada are done with the guns being banned.
I've never heard of a single murder in Canada or the US with the high powered big game guns they just banned.

The vast majority of guns used in crime are smuggled in from the US, Toronto seizure numbers indicate some 90+% are smuggled from the US.

Since this gun ban won't reduce the supply of guns, how will it reduce gun crime?
The reason they use US guns, is they're cheap and easy to get.

If we got the illegal US guns out of our country, we'd have far fewer guns.
If we got the criminals off the streets, we'd have less crime of all types.

This ban doesn't address
1. The guns actually used in crime
2. The people committing crimes.






__





Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide, inactive


Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide (total firearms; handgun; rifle or shotgun; fully automatic firearm; sawed-off rifle or shotgun; firearm-like weapons; other firearms, type unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2018.




www150.statcan.gc.ca




Maybe the government should try and get those illegal handguns off the streets of Toronto?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People don't need all these weapons and the better way to approach it is to ban ALL guns, except for a few legal ones......maybe 5 would do.

A few different calibre hunting rifles, a shotgun or two.....and ban everything else.

A gun registry of all licensed gun owners should also be adopted.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I have a question. Around 25% of Canadian households contain a gun. That's households, not 25% of the population, so it's less than 25% of people overall.

Now my assumption is most of them are for hunting or target shooting and a few are maybe just collectors. My question is, how many of those who have the guns will actually be affected by the new gun restrictions? What percentage of households actually have guns that are now going to be illegal? It certainly can't be all 25% of households where there is a gun. So is it 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%?

It seems to me that most arguing against gun control do so based on what they see as the government taking away their 'rights'. But what about the rights of the MAJORITY who want gun control and are telling their elected representatives to take away YOUR right to own certain kinds of guns? Is this a democracy governed by the will of the majority or is it not? Amid concern over spread of gun violence, majorities support ban on handguns, assault weapons - Angus Reid Institute

Bringing up things like, it's people who kill, not guns or the guns used in crime are illegal not legal guns, is IRRELEVANT to the question of what do the majority of people want in regards to gun control. Stopping illegal guns at the border,etc. is an entirely different subject and NOT an EXCUSE to allow gun ownership of guns of certain types by those who want to own them legally but are now being told they cannot.

This is a democracy and regardless of how much a minority may not like it, the majority rules. If you do not want to have the majority make decisions that you feel affect you personally, I'll say again, you are free to leave the country.

I personally don't care if some people want to own guns. I'm fine with a hunter having a shotgun and a deer rifle. I'm even fine with a target shooter owning a handgun that is used in his/her 'hobby'. As far as I know, none of the new restrictions will affect those people and what they want to do on their weekends. So who is it that are complaining?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> I have a question. Around 25% of Canadian households contain a gun. That's households, not 25% of the population, so it's less than 25% of people overall.
> 
> Now my assumption is most of them are for hunting or target shooting and a few are maybe just collectors. My question is, how many of those who have the guns will actually be affected by the new gun restrictions? What percentage of households actually have guns that are now going to be illegal? It certainly can't be all 25% of households where there is a gun. So is it 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%?
> 
> ...


We already have handgun and assault weapons bans.
We don't enforce them, and are left with lots of illegal weapons being used in crimes.


Legally owned Hunting rifles, like the ones they're banning, aren't being used for crimes. I've already posted links to the statscan data on this.
As far as not impacting people, the AR platform rifles are very popular for target shooting, there are thousands of them in Canada for target shooting. These are now banned, basically because of aethstetics.

If the majority thought it was okay to discriminate based on skin colour, gender, race, sexual orientation, would that be okay?

I think this article summarizes it 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-gun-control-politics-1.5556541


The Liberals aren't treating gun owners fairly. 
They are implementing ineffective and arbitrary laws to please an ignorant vote block, and refusing to address the real problems.

The real problem is that there are a lot of people using illegal guns in downtown Toronto and other big cities.
They don't put them in jail, they're not trying to stop the flow of illegal guns.

A target rifle at the range, or a hunting rifle in the forest isn't murdering people in downtown Toronto. 
FWIW, it's already illegal to have a loaded firearm anywhere in the city of Toronto. Has been for years.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> This is a democracy and regardless of how much a minority may not like it, the majority rules.


This is a problematic line of reasoning. It is important for the rule making take into account the interests of minorities and deal with everyone fairly. The mere fact that "the majority" likes a rule does not guaranty that the rule is fair to everyone, and legitimizing the reasoning is not a road to a tolerant and egalitarian society. It is important to take into account the people affected and their concerns, listen to and evaluate their arguments. We have a history of incredibly stupid "majority rule" laws that we are well clear of, and I am not interested in going back to policies like banning homosexuality.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> People don't need all these weapons...


People don't need an 8 cylinder car unless they're towing something heavy.
People don't need a house bigger than 1000 square feet.
People don't need 2 or more TVs.
People don't need XXX

We could go on forever about which needs should be banned. And you'll be fine with banning needs until you're personally affected. But by then it will be too late.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> A gun registry of all licensed gun owners should also be adopted.


The PAL system gives us that already.




__





Licensing | Royal Canadian Mounted Police






www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca





Interestingly, the dude in NS last month, according police, did not have a PAL and was not legally allowed to own/possess any firearms.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

gardner said:


> This is a problematic line of reasoning. It is important for the rule making take into account the interests of minorities and deal with everyone fairly. The mere fact that "the majority" likes a rule does not guaranty that the rule is fair to everyone, and legitimizing the reasoning is not a road to a tolerant and egalitarian society. It is important to take into account the people affected and their concerns, listen to and evaluate their arguments. We have a history of incredibly stupid "majority rule" laws that we are well clear of, and I am not interested in going back to policies like banning homosexuality.


I think it's fair gardner and I take it that you don't. That makes it one and one. But there are more who think like I do than there are who think like you do, so that makes it say 75/25 on handguns and 60/40 on assault like rifles. The majority rules.

That you don't think it is 'fair' is just an OPINION. It is a subjective evaluation, not an objective one. I don't think it is fair that there are not bicycle lanes on all streets and highways. I don't think it is fair that I cannot smoke my pipe in a bar or restaurant anymore. I don't think it is fair that we are currently giving money to middle class people who foolishly have not saved any money to fall back on.

There are all kinds of things anyone can think of that aren't 'fair' in their opinion but we all get overruled by the majority on some of them gardner. None of us live in a perfect world of our own. Gun ownership is allowed for the minority that want to own them in Canada gardner, that's fair enough for me in regards to taking into account the 'interests of the minority'. Now how about letting me (the majority) decide which ones you can own, isn't that fair?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> A gun registry of all licensed gun owners should also be adopted.


Why?
If they're a law abiding gun owner, the gun is in a safe and a non issue in the interaction.

If they're a criminal, the wouldn't be in the registry anyway.

We've had a handgun registry for almost a century, if it stopped crimes, how are all those Toronto shootings happening?


In any interaction, the police should assume that some parties are armed. 
A gun registry should change nothing about the interaction.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> But there are more who think like I do than there are who think like you do


Careful. If you read my posts you will see that I have personally advocated for the legitimacy of the new rules and also for _stricter_ (and more logical) rules. My personal OPINION is very much on side with you and the supposed (and likely real) majority. I believe guns should be more strictly regulated, the number and types of guns permitted should be greatly reduced. Guns of all types should be individually licensed and subject to inspection and verification. Possession of illegal guns should be aggressively investigated and enforced, particularly at borders. Huge and painful civil liability should attach to the missuse of any gun and mandatory insurance of guns against civil liability should be required -- with all the additional market and actuarially driven functional rules that would entail. That's my opinion and you might even get a majority of voters to back it.



> Now how about letting me (the majority) decide which ones you can own, isn't that fair?


My point here is that in a clash of opinions, majority rule is not automatically fair. In fact it is very like to be discriminatory and possibly unfair in the extreme. The mere fact that the majority is in support of the rules does not make them fair. And unfair and unreasonable rules can be a huge problem. I'm not saying that you should not be in favour of, or advocate for gun control measures - only that you should be careful about the logic you use to support them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> Careful. If you read my posts you will see that I have personally advocated for the legitimacy of the new rules and also for _stricter_ (and more logical) rules. My personal OPINION is very much on side with you and the supposed (and likely real) majority. I believe guns should be more strictly regulated, the number and types of guns permitted should be greatly reduced. Guns of all types should be individually licensed and subject to inspection and verification. Possession of illegal guns should be aggressively investigated and enforced, particularly at borders. Huge and painful civil liability should attach to the missuse of any gun and mandatory insurance of guns against civil liability should be required -- with all the additional market and actuarially driven functional rules that would entail. That's my opinion and you might even get a majority of voters to back it.
> 
> 
> 
> My point here is that in a clash of opinions, majority rule is not automatically fair. In fact it is very like to be discriminatory and possibly unfair in the extreme. The mere fact that the majority is in support of the rules does not make them fair. And unfair and unreasonable rules can be a huge problem. I'm not saying that you should not be in favour of, or advocate for gun control measures - only that you should be careful about the logic you use to support them.


I can agree with a lot of your position, it is logical.

However, let me inject some facts.
Firearm insurance is dirt cheap. $5 million dollars, for $9.95, if you're a member (at $35/yr), and other groups have similar insurance. But we're talking less than $50/yr for $5 million in coverage. I think that shows how little actual risk there is.








Insurance


NFALI (NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION’S LIABILITY INSURANCE) DO YOU KNOW YOUR COVERAGE? Both individuals and clubs need insurance, if they are engaged in the shooting sports. FOR CLUBS, THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THEY CARRY




nfa.ca




I know ranges where insurance is mandatory, they typically add it to your membership fee to make it easier to track, and $10 is a pretty typical rate.


As far as "more strictly regulated". What is the current shortcoming with legislation?
1. You must pass a background check and spousal consent every 5 years.
2. CFO and police can inspect storage at any time, without a warrant.
3. You need to pass a written and practical firearms safety test to get a license.
4. Handguns need a separate licence, there is a registry.
5. Firearms can be seized if a concern is raised (in the US they call this Red Flag laws). 
- It isn't unusual for the

The issue is that virtually all gun crime is committed by people without licenses, and guns that were never legally in the country.

Other items of note, but this is somewhat Ontario specific.
1. You can't have a loaded firearm in any city.
2. All ammunition sales are recorded.

I think the real majority have no idea what firearms laws are. I think if they understood the laws they'd be less concerned with law abiding gun owners, and more upset with the lack of enforcement.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Based on what logic?
> 
> Virtually no shootings in Canada are done with the guns being banned.


The logic is in the statistics, 13,168 gun deaths in Canada from 2000 to 2016. These weren't faked deaths. We are so far above the statistics of other countries. 

Gun Ban coming into effect.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> As far as "more strictly regulated". What is the current shortcoming with legislation?


In my OPINION:

Guns should be individually licensed and registered no matter what kind. There should be a yearly fee -- and something not insignificant like $50/year and you should have to bring your gun to someone who will verify the serial number, your certificate of insurance and the functional safety and rules compliance of the gun. Similar to car ownership.

Centrefire semis should be prohibited. Maybe semi-auto shotguns, I'm not sure. Anything that by design can shoot more than twice in four seconds might be a good target.

Anything with a removable, extendable, modifiable magazine should be prohibited, regardless of action type. Merely pinning the clip is no good at all.

I think handguns should be entirely prohibited, not merely restricted.

The rationale is that I want to disincentivise ownership for non-compelling reasons. Anyone who really needs a long gun can get one and maintain their use of it. But someone who just wants to feel like their dick is four feet long when they shoot it at a picture of a Osama bin Laden will hopefully not find it convenient enough.

I want to greatly reduce the destructive capacity of weapons that are legally available. Things that can fire multiple highly lethal rounds in rapid succession are too dangerous for civilian use, IMO. Civilian availability of handguns is already strictly for dick-extension "reasons" and I am totally comfortable prohibiting that.

But that doesn't address the goal of reduced gun violence directly, it only serves to stem the tide of social normalcy of otherwise purposeless weapons. To go after illegal weapons is tough when it is the American social norms and the obscene proliferation of weapons in the states that drive everything. When they put Glocks in the bottom of cereal boxes and any idiot can untraceably toss it across the border, it's hard to see how molding the social normalcy of purposeless weapons is going to have a direct effect on the availability of weapons to those who PLAN to use them.

It could, theoretically, stem the availability and destructiveness of weapons that could be involved in accidental and unplanned "crime of passion" or mental crisis incidents. Which I would take.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> People don't need an 8 cylinder car unless they're towing something heavy.
> People don't need a house bigger than 1000 square feet.
> People don't need 2 or more TVs.
> People don't need XXX
> ...


What is your stance on illicit drugs, I wonder?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There needs to be a boundary on which weapons can be owned by the general public and which not. Should anyone be able to make anthrax, bombs, etc? After all, bombs don't kill people, bombers kill people. Any boundary is going to seem a bit arbitrary. We can't go to the extreme of banning knives and forks, as many things could become improvised weapons. And individual homicide is unlikely to be dependent on guns as people who want to kill another will find a way. It is mass killings where you need highly effective weapons. I doubt this guy would have been able to kill 22 people with a hunting knife.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> In my OPINION:
> 
> Guns should be individually licensed and registered no matter what kind. There should be a yearly fee -- and something not insignificant like $50/year and you should have to bring your gun to someone who will verify the serial number, your certificate of insurance and the functional safety and rules compliance of the gun. Similar to car ownership.
> 
> ...


Your proposal would ban most legal gun ownership.

It seems that you don't like guns, and don't see any valid reason to have one.

We know it wouldn't stop or reduce violent crime in general or even murder and gun crimes. 
I appreciate your concern for "crime of passion", or mental crisis. But these are exceptionally rare.

It is important to note that during a divorce it is common to seize firearms, and firearms may be seized from people who are reported to have mental concerns.

Shooting sports (target and hunting) are some of the safest and most highly regulated sports in the country. Given the exceptionally low risk from law abiding gun owners, I don't see any reason to apply more restrictions to them. There is a reason that liability insurance is so incredibly cheap.

I'm glad we agree it is important that we enforce our gun laws.
I would like to see minimum sentences of 5+ years for possession of a loaded handgun outside a licensed range.
Unlawful possession of any firearm should be 5+.

Unfortunately courts have ruled that even 3 years for illegal possession of a prohibited weapon (ie fully automatic, sawed off shotguns, and "scary looking") is "unreasonable" and hence unconstitutional.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> People don't need an 8 cylinder car unless they're towing something heavy.
> People don't need a house bigger than 1000 square feet.
> People don't need 2 or more TVs.
> People don't need XXX
> ...


People don't need to smoke marijuanna, it hurts the user, and people around them. 
Based on the science we should ban possession and consumption.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> Your proposal would ban most legal gun ownership.


Some for sure, but I am not convinced it would ban most. It would certainly make most ownership more expensive and cumbersome, and make a lot more people think carefully about what they own and why.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> People don't need to smoke marijuanna, it hurts the user, and people around them.
> Based on the science we should ban possession and consumption.


Same could be said of table sugar.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Same could be said of table sugar.


Actually there is no legitimate need for HFCS or refined sugar.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Canada has tried different governments with relaxed gun rules both Liberal and Conservative. Both were unable to reduce gun deaths significantly. Despite increased amounts of funding for police and for the border. 

It's easiest and most effective to *ban guns except for the active military and police*. Plenty of countries have Gun Bans and have far lower gun deaths than Canada. 

The Ban from Trudeau doesn't go far enough. Though in 2024, another batch of electoral seats will be awarded with a big chunk going to Urban Centres. This trend won't be stopped and Conservatives will be boxed out of the cities if they make it an election issue.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Canada has tried different governments with relaxed gun rules both Liberal and Conservative. Both were unable to reduce gun deaths significantly. Despite increased amounts of funding for police and for the border.
> 
> It's easiest and most effective to *ban guns except for the active military and police*. Plenty of countries have Gun Bans and have far lower gun deaths than Canada.
> 
> The Ban from Trudeau doesn't go far enough. Though in 2024, another batch of electoral seats will be awarded with a big chunk going to Urban Centres. This trend won't be stopped and Conservatives will be boxed out of the cities if they make it an election issue.


Mexico has strict gun control and they don't enforce it, they have lots of violent crime.
Gun bans don't actually drop the violent crime rates.

The issue is that it's gun CRIME, all this stuff seems to ignore the crime aspect.
So they'll go, they ban guns, and the crime will continue to crime, because they don't actually care.


The police know banning guns won't work.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387



Bill Blair knows that this will have no effect on crime, he should be ashamed of himself.

I understand I'm on the wrong side of the demographics, we've got a bunch of ignorant city dwellers, and their votes win elections. Yes I live in a city, (suburbs actually). 

The government has a responsibility to act fairly for the benefit of all Canadians. Not to engage in antagonistic legislation to score political points.
Of course I'm calling on deaf ears, we know that Liberals don't care about ethics.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Mexico has strict gun control and they don't enforce it, they have lots of violent crime.
> Gun bans don't actually drop the violent crime rates.
> 
> The issue is that it's gun CRIME, all this stuff seems to ignore the crime aspect.
> ...


Singapore, South Korea, Japan, China are all Examples and advanced economies with far lower gun deaths than us and tougher gun control. Most of Europe has lower gun deaths than we do. . . You happened to choose a Narco Government(Mexico) in your rebuttal. Point is Canada is Triple the gun deaths of similar countries and they gotta do something to reduce the number

This decision was for the benefit of the country. Most of the people are in support of it. And other political parties i bet support it as well. . . . Conservatives had a majority government for ages and ages, which I even voted for previously and still were able to reduce gun deaths. Let's try a new system and new approach. 

Lower Gun Ownership = Lower Gun Deaths


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Lower Gun Ownership = Lower Gun Deaths


But we're not talking about "Gun Ownership"

The government isn't taking away the illegal guns, that's the problem.

Law abiding Gun Owners don't kill people, There is a reason the police are against these gun bans.

Ever wonder about that? What do the police know about gun laws that your average Toronto voter doesn't?


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> But we're not talking about "Gun Ownership"
> 
> The government isn't taking away the illegal guns, that's the problem.
> 
> ...


The majority of gun deaths are with LEGAL guns. 

You don't think banning 1500 types of guns will reduce gun ownership? Tons of guns will be removed from circulation and can no longer be sold. 

This is a stepping stone toward a wider firearms ban.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Ever wonder about that? What do the police know about gun laws that your average Toronto voter doesn't?


I don't think you can speak for all Police across Canada. Everyone has different views even inside the profession. Bill Blair wasn't a Yoga Instructor before he was made a Minister. He was Police Chief of the Largest City in the nation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> The majority of gun deaths are with LEGAL guns.
> 
> You don't think banning 1500 types of guns will reduce gun ownership? Tons of guns will be removed from circulation and can no longer be sold.
> 
> This is a stepping stone toward a wider firearms ban.


1. You're mixing gun deaths with gun crime. Good attempt to sideline the argument though.

2. I don't think banning 1500 guns from law abiding owners will substantially reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation. Most of the guns seized in Toronto are illegal, because it's easier to get an illegal gun than a legal one. Most of the guns being banned aren't used in crimes anyway, because they're not well suited, sawed off guns and handguns are much more common.

3. Yes, it's a stepping stone towards a wider firearms ban.




Fain87 said:


> I don't think you can speak for all Police across Canada. Everyone has different views even inside the profession. Bill Blair wasn't a Yoga Instructor before he was made a Minister. He was Police Chief of the Largest City in the nation.


No there is an association for that.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/police-chiefs-handgun-ban-1.5247387



Yes I know he was a Police Chief, of the city with a large amount of gun crime, committed mostly by illegally smuggled guns.
He clearly knows that the problem isn't legal guns. That's the most infurating part. He knows better, but still stoops to cheap political acts, than actually working to solve the problem.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

A few years ago I bought a concealed carry permit at a gun show in Arizona just for fun...I used the address of my campsite. I could have bought any handgun I wanted off the back of a truck there, no paper work or back ground check.. I'm pretty sure this is how I'll get my weapons once I decide to turn to a life of crime.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I think a big part of the issue of trying to debate guns and gun crime is that different issues are always being debated in the one debate.

What kind of guns do any civilians actually need to own? A fully automatic AR-15? No and there are probably very few Canadians at least who would try to argue that they should be allowed to own one of those. 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes but it is people who get a gun who kill people. So if you remove the guns, you remove the ABILITY of people to kill people WITH guns. I don't think anyone can dispute that logic either.

Most criminals use illegal guns. Correct and this is the usual reason used to argue that removing guns from the law abiding citizens makes no sense. That's also true.

Those are what usually get argued about. However, the real issues are much harder to address and so it is easy to keep just going around in circles on the usual 3 typical topics above. 

I've mentioned before that a large percentage of men 18-55 in Switzerland have fully automatic assault rifles in their homes. Yet they don't have any real problem with mass shootings or even a higher than average number of say someone killing their spouse with one. Why is that? The answer is in the culture and the mental health care sytem. 

Very few mass killers do not exhibit clear signs before they go off the rails completely and start shooting. But our mental health care system fails to identify them in time.

Although to a lesser degree than our neighbour, the culture of solving your problems at the end of a gun has 'leached' into Canada to a degree. A Swiss might beat his wife up but the idea of taking his assault rifle and shooting her simply doesn't occur to him. 

Finally, we have criminals and guns crossing our border all too easily. That is a separate topic from what should be done about gun ownership by citizens in general. It shouldn't be being debated in the same thread since all it does is muddy the waters.

1. How to deal with guns in the general population. One topic.
2. How to deal with criminals and guns. Second topic.

What our governments of any political party continue to do is pay lip service to gun control whether for or against it while at the same time, COMPLETELY ignoring the real issues. Mental health care and cultural norms in the case of the general public. Access to guns and punishments when caught with them, in the case of criminals.

Which one of those two actual issues do you want to debate?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In foreign countries where gun ownership is high, there is also mandatory service in the military.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> A few years ago I bought a concealed carry permit at a gun show in Arizona just for fun...I used the address of my campsite. I could have bought any handgun I wanted off the back of a truck there, no paper work or back ground check.. I'm pretty sure this is how I'll get my weapons once I decide to turn to a life of crime.


You "bought" a concealed carry permit? So what...I can "buy" a driver's license or a passport in another name with my picture on it but that doesn't make it legal.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> You "bought" a concealed carry permit? So what...I can "buy" a driver's license or a passport in another name with my picture on it but that doesn't make it legal.


Clearly, you do not understand carry permits in the USA and Arizona in particular. Not only can a non-resident get a permit, anyone over 18 can 'open carry' a gun or over 21 'concealed carry' a gun WITHOUT even having a permit. Having a permit is about letting you carry in other states. If you have an Arizona permit you can 'concealed carry' in 37 other states as well under 'reciprocity' recognition of the state permit.








Arizona Gun Laws | GunsToCarry Guide


Get the latest facts and data for all the Arizona gun laws in 2018. Comprehensive guide that looks at reciprocity, where you can carry, and much more. Learn the facts and stay safe.




www.gunstocarry.com





Entirely LEGALLY Prairie Guy. Here in Canada, most people really don't realize just how much of a cowboy culture still exists in the USA.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

And in case you are wondering what the requirements are to BUY a handgun, here they are:

_"there is no permit, background check or firearms registration required when buying a handgun from a private individual. A purchaser must be at least 18 years old to buy a gun from a private individual. The minimum age to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer is 21. "_

Quote taken from here: Arizona Concealed Carry Gun Laws & CWP | USCCA CCW Reciprocity Map

You will also see in that link that Arizona is a 'stand your ground' state. That means you do not have to 'retreat' if threatened, you can immediately defend yourself. What that translates to is your lawyer tells you to say, 'I was in fear of my life and defended myself', to justify shooting your neighbour over a fence dispute or something. That simple phrase, 'in fear of my life' is legally enough to justify shooting someone. You don't even have to actually be in danger of losing your life, you just have to PERCEIVE yourself as being in danger of losing your life. How can anyone prove you didn't perceive yourself as in danger of losing your life? So if you claim it in a 'stand your ground' state, you will probably be acquited.








What you need to know about 'stand your ground' laws | CNN


Cases of self-defense aren't always simple -- especially in states with a "stand your ground" law. Here's what you need to know about them.




www.cnn.com





In contrast, here in Canada you are expected to first attempt to retreat before you can turn to the attack and use 'reasonabe force' to try and defend yourself. That's much harder for your lawyer trying to defend you to show you did and allows the prosecution much more chance of showing you used 'unreasonable force' AFTER having attempted to retreat and then being forced to defend yourself. Big difference indeed.

The USA really is still the wild west you know.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> 1. You're mixing gun deaths with gun crime. Good attempt to sideline the argument though.
> 
> 2. I don't think banning 1500 guns from law abiding owners will substantially reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation. Most of the guns seized in Toronto are illegal, because it's easier to get an illegal gun than a legal one. Most of the guns being banned aren't used in crimes anyway, because they're not well suited, sawed off guns and handguns are much more common.


I'm not mixing up anything. Man, you're just hyper-focused on one aspect of the total gun death figure. You're ignoring Suicide, Accidental deaths, Spousal homicide etc. 

Total Number of Gun Deaths is the statistic used to assess public policy. Dead is Dead. If there was 1,000 accidental gun deaths each year then we'd need public policy to address that also. 

Gun Culture in Canada through a variety of different prime ministers (chretien, harper, paul martin, mulroney) couldn't get the number of gun deaths down to an acceptable statistic. 

I personally think we should go stricter and just copy Japan or Singapore's approach to gun control. Both countries crush us in the statistics for gun deaths.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> I'm not mixing up anything. Man, you're just hyper-focused on one aspect of the total gun death figure. You're ignoring Suicide, Accidental deaths, Spousal homicide etc.
> 
> Total Number of Gun Deaths is the statistic used to assess public policy. Dead is Dead. If there was 1,000 accidental gun deaths each year then we'd need public policy to address that also.
> 
> ...


Suicide happens irrespective of available methods. Several countries with strict gun laws have high suicide rates.
Accidents? Virtually none.

Spousal homicide? I'd be surprised to hear that legal guns were used. If a spouse has concerns, they seize guns immediately.

I think we should enforce the laws we have.
The problem is a lack of enforcement.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Suicide happens irrespective of available methods. Several countries with strict gun laws have high suicide rates.
> Accidents? Virtually none.
> 
> Spousal homicide? I'd be surprised to hear that legal guns were used. If a spouse has concerns, they seize guns immediately.


Increased access to guns increases suicide and thoughts of suicide. Harvard and a bunch of leading Universities all found that. Guns and suicide: A fatal link

You had a variety of governments to try it your way. If the Harper or Mulroney governments succeeded in reducing Gun deaths, I'd be okay with the rules we had 2 weeks ago. But I didn't see the needle moved and it's not likely Andrew Scheer could have reduced it either. . . Due to the failures of the previous governments
, a different approach is needed.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> You "bought" a concealed carry permit? So what...I can "buy" a driver's license or a passport in another name with my picture on it but that doesn't make it legal.


It was legal for me to use in Arizona if I so chose. No picture, my name on it, just a form filled out by hand.

Oh... the Cretin gov didn't succeed in reducing gun deaths either even though they made criminals out of most gun owners. I like how you skipped that silly period,..your liberal is showing lol.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Everybody knows that fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

gardner said:


> My point here is that in a clash of opinions, majority rule is not automatically fair. In fact it is very like to be discriminatory and possibly unfair in the extreme. The mere fact that the majority is in support of the rules does not make them fair. And unfair and unreasonable rules can be a huge problem. I'm not saying that you should not be in favour of, or advocate for gun control measures - only that you should be careful about the logic you use to support them.


Your point is valid for human rights concerns(gender, religious freedom, freedom from discrimination) where Tyranny against the majority is a concern. It's not applicable to types of Gun Models. 

For simpler concerns that don't involve human rights, the Democratic majority should be used.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

sags said:


> Everybody knows that fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.


Most believe but a sizable minority does not believe this.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think they probably "know" it too.

It is an inconvenient truth that doesn't fit with their desire to have guns regardless, so they don't admit they know it.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

[QUOTE="Eder, post: 2088258, member: 32020
Oh... the Cretin gov didn't succeed in reducing gun deaths either even though they made criminals out of most gun owners. I like how you skipped that silly period,..your liberal is showing lol.
[/QUOTE]

Chretien had pretty liberal gun laws. So I wouldn't use him as an example of strict gun control. 

In Canada, it's far too easy to buy a gun. Simple test anyone can pass, basic background check, fees, and you got yourself a gun. . .* There's no requirement that owning a gun is needed to be part of your occupation*. You can be unemployed or working at Mcdonald's and still be given a firearms license as long as you pass the test and background check and pay the fees.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The *registry* was *introduced* by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1993 to keep Canadians safe from crazy hunters murdering everyone. How is making us all criminals for non compliance a pretty liberal gun law?
Thank God Harper booted it after making the removal an election promise...this time around hopefully we can remove this nanny state gov as well...


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

From vote perspective I believe that this can only help the Liberals or be neutral at best. I do not think this will even be a blip of an issue on the next election. It is hardly an issue now with the vast majority of voters. Other, far more important and pressing issues to concern themselves with. Given the current contenders for the Conservative leadership it looks highly likely that Trudeau will get a majority next time out.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Increased access to guns increases suicide and thoughts of suicide. Harvard and a bunch of leading Universities all found that. Guns and suicide: A fatal link
> 
> You had a variety of governments to try it your way. If the Harper or Mulroney governments succeeded in reducing Gun deaths, I'd be okay with the rules we had 2 weeks ago. But I didn't see the needle moved and it's not likely Andrew Scheer could have reduced it either. . . Due to the failures of the previous governments
> , a different approach is needed.


1. Suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

2. Harper introduced mandatory sentences, which the courts threw out. There is a systematic failure in the Canadian justice system to enforce the law. Trudeau is letting murders out because he can't be bothered to appoint judges.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Eder said:


> The *registry* was *introduced* by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1993 to keep Canadians safe from crazy hunters murdering everyone. How is making us all criminals for non compliance a pretty liberal gun law?
> Thank God Harper booted it after making the removal an election promise...this time around hopefully we can remove this nanny state gov as well...


A registry is mickey mouse compared to a Ban. That's why Chretien can't be considered to be tough on guns. It does little to stop Crimes of Passion like Spousal homicide or Suicide. 

Bans are more effective.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> 2. Harper introduced mandatory sentences, which the courts threw out. There is a systematic failure in the Canadian justice system to enforce the law. Trudeau is letting murders out because he can't be bothered to appoint judges.


Harper, whom I voted for previously before Introduced mandatory minimums and they were in place for awhile before it was struck down. While It was in place, we didn't see an improvement in the Stats. . . And besides every political party has to abide by the Courts and Charter. Not just the conservative party. It's a reality for every political party. To suggest a political party comes into power and ignores the law & courts is Absurd. 

Harper did some good things I liked(e.g. Introduced TFSAs) but he was terrible on Gun Deaths.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Fain87 said:


> Your point is valid for human rights concerns(gender, religious freedom, freedom from discrimination)
> [ ... ]
> For simpler concerns that don't involve human rights, the Democratic majority should be used.


If you haven't already, have a gander at Jay Nathwani's opinion piece:


https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-gun-control-politics-1.5556541





> The effects of this style of governing can be pernicious: if people feel that they are being punished simply because they lack political clout, they will trust their fellow citizens less.


Some of what he argues is the normal hogwash. But he does point out the odd way they came up with their list of weapons, pointing out that "centre-fire semi-autos" would have been a more logical class of weapons to specify. A point I have made also. But the final analysis is that the government is antagonizing a class of folks who feel like the rug is being pulled out from their hobby/passtime for no good reason. I have no doubt that some folks really do feel that way -- there are those in my family who I know do feel that way.

I do agree that this is not a human rights issue: it is not about who you are or who you're related to or spend time with. It will affect almost noone's livelihood in any way. It affects only what some people own, and circumscribes what can only be a hobby for those affected.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> A registry is mickey mouse compared to a Ban. That's why Chretien can't be considered to be tough on guns. It does little to stop Crimes of Passion like Spousal homicide or Suicide.
> 
> Bans are more effective.


Suicide hasn't been a crime for decades.
It's 2020, not 1971.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Harper, whom I voted for previously before Introduced mandatory minimums and they were in place for awhile before it was struck down. While It was in place, we didn't see an improvement in the Stats. . . And besides every political party has to abide by the Courts and Charter. Not just the conservative party. It's a reality for every political party. To suggest a political party comes into power and ignores the law & courts is Absurd.
> 
> Harper did some good things I liked(e.g. Introduced TFSAs) but he was terrible on Gun Deaths.


He tried to put dangerous criminals in jails.
The courts don't want to do this.

The problem isn't the laws, it's the lack of enforcement, and a failure to protect people.
The vast majority of crime is committed by repeat offenders.

If you're carrying an illegal, loaded handgun in Toronto, I don't see why you should ever be let out of jail.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Wow...if the majority of Canadians feel like this I need a new country....


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Suicide hasn't been a crime for decades.
> It's 2020, not 1971.


Man, you realize people are working to reduce it, even if it's not a crime.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> He tried to put dangerous criminals in jails.
> The courts don't want to do this.
> 
> The problem isn't the laws, it's the lack of enforcement, and a failure to protect people.
> ...


Each party has to work within the rules of the Bill of Rights/Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When Court ruled against, Harper didn't even try to fight it and change the Charter. 

Thinking a new government is exempt from the Courts and rule of law is lunacy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Man, you realize people are working to reduce it, even if it's not a crime.


Yes, that's why I'm for improved mental health care, and other steps that will reduce suicide. But there is a huge stigma against mental illness, and even needing some help.

I actually want to make things better. I don't support "feel good' initiatives that won't make things better, and even may make things worse. 

The experts on gun crime thing this ban is a bad idea. 
The data doesn't support it
The police chiefs don't support it.
Several police forces across Canada (including Ottawa) don't support it.

It's simply a cheap political shot to gain a few votes.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Eder said:


> Wow...if the majority of Canadians feel like this I need a new country....


Just wait till the 2024 Electorial Seats get awarded. Majority is going to Urban centres. . .Gun Rights advocacy in Canada is becoming a fringe movement.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Just wait till the 2024 Electorial Seats get awarded. Majority is going to Urban centres. . .Gun Rights advocacy in Canada is becoming a fringe movement.


I agree, and it's very unfortunate.
When a large portion of the population is being treated unfairly, it's not good.

We have a government making laws based on what buys votes, not what's in the best interest of the country.
Though I don't approve of everything they did, Mulroney and Chretien actually did take on major challenges, even if it was politically difficult. 

What frustrates me the most is that people should be livid about the failure of the Trudeau government to even make a serious attempt at reducing gun crime. Gun crime is a serious issue, and even now, he's not making any effort to reduce it.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

People are not happy with Trudeau. No question. The challenge is this is unhappiness is more than eclipsed by the dismal performance of Andrew Scheer and by the almost comical goings on with the Conservative leadership contest. Not to mention that it is only their 'B' and their 'C' players (to be very generous) who are in the contest.
Not a healthy situation for Canadian politcs to be sure.

Thanks to Scheer and to the leadership comedy, the Trudeau Liberals are, as I understand it, up 19 points in the polls since the election. Totally unheard of.

The gun issue is a complete non starter for the Conservatives. They will get support....but only in those ridings which they will win anyway. In Quebec,the Maritimes, 416/905 it will not play. Or perhaps worse. There is no cheese for them with this, only potential downside IMHO. That is IF, unlike the last election, they actually decide to come up with a platform other than than on transgender bathrooms and abortion.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> People are not happy with Trudeau. No question. The challenge is this is unhappiness is more than eclipsed by the dismal performance of Andrew Scheer and by the almost comical goings on with the Conservative leadership contest. Not to mention that it is only their 'B' and their 'C' players (to be very generous) who are in the contest.
> Not a healthy situation for Canadian politcs to be sure.
> 
> Thanks to Scheer and to the leadership comedy, the Trudeau Liberals are, as I understand it, up 19 points in the polls since the election. Totally unheard of.
> ...


I agree, the CPC seems to be stuck in the same camp as the US democrats.
We both have the worst leaders (Trump & Trudeau) in recent history, yet the opposition can't seem to find a decent candidate.

No offense to those at least trying, but Peter MacKay is the Hilary Clinton of Canada. He's not as evil, but he just isn't inspiring.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Just wait till the 2024 Electorial Seats get awarded. Majority is going to Urban centres. . .Gun Rights advocacy in Canada is becoming a fringe movement.


This typical smugness may change the outcome in 2021


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Suicide happens irrespective of available methods.


You'd think, but suicide is often more of a momentary lapse. Not having an easy method at hand of ending your life makes a difference.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I watched a segment on '60 Minutes' last night that was talking about 'ghost guns'. Another eye opener as to where people can LEGALLY get guns without any problem at all.








Ghost Guns: The build-it-yourself firearms that skirt most federal gun laws and are virtually untraceable


Under federal law, they require no background check or serial number, making ghost guns a growing weapon of choice for criminals.




www.cbsnews.com





When I was a youngster, I like many others liked to build plastic models of cars, planes, boats. Now you can buy a 'kit' online, have it delivered to your door and make your own guns just as easily. Because you have do do some filing and drilling of a few holes, they are not a 'gun' under the law until AFTER you have done that work for yourself.

Watch the video.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I'm more sad than surprised.

A former member of the military told RCMP that the NS shooter had illegal weapons, and they didn't even investigate.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-shooting-nova-scotia-firearms-gun-violence-1.5567330

If the police have reports from reputable people that a person is violent, with illegal weapons and that's not enough to even go look, what chance to we have?


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> told RCMP that the NS shooter had illegal weapons, and they didn't even investigate.


I read that story too. It is sickening. I wonder if complaints from neighbours is generally enough to get a search warrant? The police would have to actually look around a bit to suss out weapons, not necessarily just ask at the door. And that would likely require a warrant. I wonder if the AG made it really easy to get a warrant specific to illegal firearms, such that the police could barge in and sniff around, specifically for firearms and nothing else, would that power please us?

When the fire martial has the power to inspect your smoke alarms for compliance with the legal requirement, what legal power does she rely on? Could a power like that be enough to follow up on firearms complaints, I wonder?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I suspect that the new firearms regulations are no longer in most voters line of vision. It is over. Even the Conservatives are smart enough to let it go. Sure there will be some MP's still trying to make this an issue within their ridings however I suspect, as ever, the real purpose is to get some media attention in their local area.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Article by a Veteran advocating for increasing the ban on guns. 



https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-gun-control-handguns-1.5532173


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Excellent article that I think most Canadians would agree with.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Article by a Veteran advocating for increasing the ban on guns.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-gun-control-handguns-1.5532173


yawn
As a veteran I disagree with these bans on civilian firearm ownershipt

I think if the police did their job, and enforced the laws,, we wouldn't have these problems.

Look at NS, it's a prime example, a violent dangerous person had illegal weapons, and the police did nothing.

They didn't even investigate the illegal weapons.

It's one thing to have a law, but the near complete lack of enforcement is disheartening.
Why are criminals allowed to roam free with guns, but law abiding members of society can't enjoy sports like target shooting or hunting?


As far as these people shooting themselves in the foot with handguns, clearly they weren't trained.
If you don't put your finger on the trigger, it is very unlikely you're going to shoot yourself or anyone.
There is no reason, other than incompetence, to put your finger on the trigger of a gun as you take it out of the holster.

Most ranges do not allow users to use a holster, until they take a "holster course" for this reason. There is a reason fireams accidents are virtually nonexistant in Canada.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Actually a rather silly article that few capable of independent thought would agree with. Are we supposed to accept that because he's a "veteran" (how impressive) he is endowed with some divine insight?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> Actually a rather silly article that few capable of independent thought would agree with. Are we supposed to accept that because he's a "veteran" (how impressive) he is endowed with some divine insight?


Of course, it's confirmation bias.

In my experience the typical veteran actually knows an AR15 isn't a C7 (or M16, or M4)
Also they're not scared of law abiding citizens with guns.

Even the police chiefs are against the continued harrassment of law abiding gun owners.
It's just ignorance and cheap city politics, combined with a failure of law enforcement.

Much easier to blame law abiding gun owners, than to actually investigate criminals.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> Actually a rather silly article that few capable of independent thought would agree with. Are we supposed to accept that because he's a "veteran" (how impressive) he is endowed with some divine insight?


Actually Veterans & Police are bigger contributors to the Gun Deaths than your average citizen. Suicides rates have been elevated in those groups for as long as stats have been around. The Ban is for a lot of Veterans' own good despite whether they voted for the change or not. 

There's a case to be made for a stricter firearm ban than the one in place already. The latest developments are a more incremental step in the right direction.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The latest Angus Reid poll shows that Canadians support the Liberals gun legislation. 









Four-in-five Canadians support complete ban on civilian possession of assault style weapons - Angus Reid Institute


Fewer, but still two-in-three, also say they support a ban on handguns May 1, 2020 – With the Trudeau government poised to ban some “assault style” weapons, it finds significant




angusreid.org


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Actually Veterans & Police are bigger contributors to the Gun Deaths than your average citizen. Suicides rates have been elevated in those groups for as long as stats have been around. The Ban is for a lot of Veterans' own good despite whether they voted for the change or not.
> 
> There's a case to be made for a stricter firearm ban than the one in place already. The latest developments are a more incremental step in the right direction.



Yes, suicide rates in high risk jobs are elevated, we've known for decades there is a mental health crisis in those jobs.
Interesting that you don't mention gun crime, or overall deaths, or murders.
This is a common trick, you purposesly self select a datapoint that itself is misleading.
If we got rid of 100% of all guns, except those possessed by legitimate police and military while on duty, then 100% of gun deaths would be by police/military. So what's your point?

Secondly suicide isn't a crime, and the gun ban on "assault rifles' doesn't do anything about that anyway. A single shot shutgun, which isn't banned, is likely the best tool for that job anyway.

I'd like to point out that US data shows licensed CCW/gun owners have a lower crime rate than pretty much every group, including police.
Canadian data shows a similar trend.
Licenced law abiding gun owners commit crimes at one of the lowest rates in the country, and virtually none of the gun homicides in this country are from licensed gun owners. 

FYI, insurance companies don't even care if you have a gun in the house, for liability or life insurance. Statistically it simply isn't a factor in Canada. Everyone who understands gun stats knows this stuff.

There is a case to be made for everything, but could we at least start enforcing the laws?
I have a question, if the police do not enforce the current gun laws, how will more laws, change anything?
At some point we have to ENFORCE the laws we have.

NS would have never happened, except for a massive failure to enforce the law, and the police to do their job.
I would argue that the actions of the police in NS were criminally negligent, and that's the problem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

If anyone is interested, here is a "Conservative" opinion on the latest gun restrictions.

A violent person without a licence gets illegally smuggled guns.
This is in violation of multiple laws and is reported to the police.
The police do not enforce the very strict gun laws we have.
The violent person murders several people.
Public outcry to "do something".

Government doesn't take any action that informed parties, such as the police, border guards or firearms experts recommend.
Government passes illogical regulations that would not have prevented the recent crime, and are unlikely to prevent crime in the future, but will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Conservatives are furious about another expensive Government program, that isn't expected to have a significant impact on the root problem.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Brief video taken from the Canadian Film board documentary, "The Man who Studies Murder". 
Explains why Newfoundland has almost the lowest crime rate in recorded history despite the fact almost every household has firearms.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, suicide rates in high risk jobs are elevated, we've known for decades there is a mental health crisis in those jobs.
> Interesting that you don't mention gun crime, or overall deaths, or murders.
> This is a common trick, you purposesly self select a datapoint that itself is misleading.
> If we got rid of 100% of all guns, except those possessed by legitimate police and military while on duty, then 100% of gun deaths would be by police/military. So what's your point?
> ...


Man, you're still not getting it. Your solution is mandatory minimums that won't pass under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when you know 100% that a conservative majority government wasn't even able to get that implemented and make it stick.

You are cherry-picking the data to isolate only on gun crimes(20-25%) whereas I'm pointing out ALL gun deaths which include Suicides, Accidental and Homicides (100%)

The Ban itself isn't perfect as there's many firearms that are overlooked and excluded but it's a good step.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The rifle that Canadian Rangers chose. They live off the land, so they know what they need to hunt.





__





T3x ARCTIC


When Canadian Rangers were choosing their new rifle, the T3x Arctic beat all of its rivals. Canadian Rangers operate in some of the toughest conditions in the most remote areas of world and they chose the T3x because it combines second to none weather resistance and performance.




www.tikka.fi


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain87 said:


> Man, you're still not getting it. Your solution is mandatory minimums that won't pass under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when you know 100% that a conservative majority government wasn't even able to get that implemented and make it stick.
> 
> You are cherry-picking the data to isolate only on gun crimes(20-25%) whereas I'm pointing out ALL gun deaths which include Suicides, Accidental and Homicides (100%)
> 
> The Ban itself isn't perfect as there's many firearms that are overlooked and excluded but it's a good step.


That isn't "my solution".

In the NS case, they didn't even investigate. They simply aren't enforcing the current laws we have.

If law enforcement actually enforced the laws we had, and judges put violent criminals in jail, we'd experience a massive reduction in violent crime. If you're violent and a danger to society, you should be in jail. I'm sorry that some overeducated morons think this is "unfair", but they're wrong.

If the law was enforced in NS, 23 people would be alive today. That's a simple fact.


I'm not the one cherry picking data, you're the one who is selecting a specific data measure that proves your point.
If you remove every single legal civilian firearm in Canada, you're still left with most of the gun crime.
If you remove every single illegal firearm (which they're not even trying to do), you'd still have police gun deaths (that's the stat YOU chose)

Looking at the UK, even a massive near complete ban on firearms, they still have too many homicides, and other violent crimes.


Suicide is a completely separate issue, lots of high suicide countries have low gun ownership, lots of high gun ownership countries have low suicide rates. The gun suicide argument is just a red herring.

Back to what I hope we can agree on.
1. Violent people should not have access to firearms. 
2. If a person is suspected of committing a crime, such as illegally possessing or using firearms, it should be investigated.


----------

