# Politics- Guns- Redundant policy



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Okay, I understand the political value of annoucing gun control in Canada, but they're announcing "new measures" that already exist.









Canada introduces new firearm regulations to ensure gun buyers have valid licence - National | Globalnews.ca


In addition, the legislation expands background checks that would determine eligibility for a firearms licence to a person's entire life, not just the last five years.




globalnews.ca




"Effective May 18, individuals and businesses transferring or selling a non-restricted firearm will need to confirm the recipient’s identity and check the validity of their firearms licence with the registrar beforehand, providing the recipient’s licence number and any other information requested. "

But we've already had this requirement for years.


Buying and selling (transferring) firearms | Royal Canadian Mounted Police



*Non-restricted*
You do not need to register non-restricted firearms. That means you can transfer a non-restricted firearm without contacting the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP). However, the transferor (seller, giver) must make sure that the transferee (buyer, recipient) has a valid PAL. Call the CFP at 1-800-731-4000 to confirm the validity of the transferee's licence before you transfer the firearm.

Do people in Canada think you can just walk into a store and buy a gun?
To legally sell a gun you must ensure the person you are giving it to has a valid license, it's been this way for years.

I know people in the US think you can. (Hint you can't, you need to pass a background check in both Canada AND the US to buy a gun)


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

What a complete waste of tax payers money. This will be the second time the Liberals go down the registry path.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^Reply to post #1: I guess politicians can always find some "work" to do. These aren't "new measures" but closing of loopholes on the existing Bill-71.

Based on article you linked, it specifically says:

_



... The measures announced Wednesday by Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino represent the latest steps toward fully implementing Bill C-71, which received royal assent in 2019.

At the time, the government said it would require sellers to verify the validity of a firearms licence before selling a non-restricted firearm, such as a basic rifle or shotgun.

However, proposed regulations published last year included no obligation on the part of a seller to check with the federal firearms registrar to see if a prospective gun buyer had a valid licence _ an omission that sparked criticism from gun-control advocates. ...

Click to expand...

_ ... ie. there were "loopholes" all around the regulations and they're now tightening it. Anyhow, I think it's useless if these "new" measures are never enforced. Lip-service typical of politicians (and those who ** loves ** playing with politics.

I think the bigger problem is illegal handguns that's running amok on our streets - in every city (small and big). What's the solution?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

This is all about the 116 urban seats in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. These seats will decide the next election just as they decided the last election and the one before it.

Each of these cities are having serious issues with shootings.

The politicos believe this will play well with the voters and cause some angst of the CPC leadership candidates. And it will.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ^Reply to post #1: I guess politicians can always find some "work" to do. These aren't "new measures" but closing of loopholes on the existing Bill-71.
> 
> Based on article you linked, it specifically says:
> 
> ...


There was already regulations in place that required a seller to verify a buyers license. The new regulation go well beyond that requirement and include registration and providing additional personal to the RCMP.

It does nothing to address the illegal movement (smuggling) of firearms. The politicians are too scared to address the real source of the illegal activities.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Gator13 said:


> There was already regulations in place that required a seller to verify a buyers license. The new regulation go well beyond that requirement and include registration and providing additional personal to the RCMP.
> 
> It does nothing to address the illegal movement (smuggling) of firearms. The politicians are too scared to address the real source of the illegal activities.


The thing is they KNOW the problem is illegal guns smuggled from the US.
Even in the US they know the problem is illegal guns.

Law abiding gun owners aren't much of a danger.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals want to show the public they are the party of anti-gun violence.

As long as the Conservatives completely dismiss any regulation on guns, the Liberals have the field all to themselves.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The Liberals want to show the public they are the party of anti-gun violence.
> 
> As long as the Conservatives completely dismiss any regulation on guns, the Liberals have the field all to themselves.


What do you mean dismiss any regulation on guns?

Everyone needs to pass a training course, get a license, get regular background checks, agree to warrantless storage inspections, and we have "red flag laws".
Plus you can't have a loaded firearm anywhere except at a shooting range, or while out hunting.

Gun owners actually want proper regulation.

I don't want people who haven't been trained to have a gun. I actually think it would be a good idea to require police and other law enforcement to pass the firearms license test, in addition to their organizations requirements.
I want background checks to maintain your license.

Things I disagree with.
1. Banning guns because of appearance.
2. Restricting law abiding citizens from the peaceful enjoyment of their hobby/sport.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> But we've already had this requirement for years.


The last change to that RCMP page was a few weeks after C-71 came into force. I don't know if you can see what was changed, but it would not be surprised if it were the C-71 measures. There is a C-71 timeline page:



Former Bill C-71 - What you need to know | Royal Canadian Mounted Police



From what I can see, it looks like maybe rolling out of the reference number system is new. The Sep 2019 requirement was to call and verify, but it was not clear if the CFP maintained a system for tracking the calls to know that a call had been made and a check actually done, after the fact. There's an automated web service, which is likely new too. As of18-May-2022 the seller gets a receipt for making that check so they can prove that they did it properly -- and, I guess, the RCMP can have reasonable grounds to know that they didn't, if they fail to.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> The last change to that RCMP page was a few weeks after C-71 came into force. I don't know if you can see what was changed, but it would not be surprised if it were the C-71 measures. There is a C-71 timeline page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's really just a back door gun registry.
The thing is a gun registry doesn't actually improve anything.

Lets say I'm called to a situation, I check and they say the registry shows no legal guns at that location.
I still should treat it like there might be a gun there anyway.

Having registry info doesn't change the approach of police.

The only reason to have a list of all the guns is if you want to take away all the guns.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Most every car on the road has been registered. Collisions, injuries and road fatalities are a real problem everywhere. Yet, nobody has ever suggested licensing and registration will eventually lead to confiscation. The only people complaining about stricter traffic enforcement are bad drivers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Tostig said:


> Most every car on the road has been registered. Collisions, injuries and road fatalities are a real problem everywhere. Yet, nobody has ever suggested licensing and registration will eventually lead to confiscation. The only people complaining about stricter traffic enforcement are bad drivers.


You see, you're joining licensing and tracking, they're different.
Gun owners are generally for licensing, and training and stricter enforcement.

But they're fearful of confiscation, because that's literally the plan.
They want to have a shopping list of what guns to get from who.

There is really no other reason for a gun registry, we already track every handgun in the country.
But more than half of all gun homicides were handguns.




__





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





How does the registry help? It doesn't.
Really what benefit does the registry have?

Even if they find one of these guns, do you know what they find? 
The vast majority of guns used in crime in Canada were smuggled into the country

The problem is criminals, not guns.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

As a gun owner, the gun laws in this country are ridiculous.

The safest, most reliable and trustworthy citizens in this country are the only ones that legally can own them - and yet, they are so severely restricted and constantly battered as omen children.

Guns are safe if all checks have been done (training, licensing, background checks, mental health checks, references, etc.)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The thing is they KNOW the problem is illegal guns smuggled from the US.
> Even in the US they know the problem is illegal guns.
> 
> Law abiding gun owners aren't much of a danger.


This is kind of the LPC version of mandatory minimum sentencing. Ineffective policy that the government can use to say they are 'doing a thing'.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> This is kind of the LPC version of mandatory minimum sentencing. Ineffective policy that the government can use to say they are 'doing a thing'.


I understand that mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't "work" by some standards, just as consecutive sentencing doesn't "work", but there is a number of factors there.

I don't really support mandatory minimums, but I also don't support serious criminals being let off with limited repercussions and protection of the public.

Mandatory minimums are a poor solution to a problem, but I don't think anyone is really promoting alternatives to our catch and release justice system.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The gun violence problem is "criminals with guns"....imported guns, legal guns stolen from legal gun owners, or legal guns owned by legal owners who never should have been allowed to have a gun.

Guns should be legal for hunting, protection against predators, target practice, or some other lawful reasons, but the guns don't have to be weapons produced for the military to inflict the most possible damage and casualties.

Anyone needing a semi-automatic weapon to hunt deer or moose.....probably shouldn't be hunting.

There should be stiff penalties for any gun crimes, but that will require much more than just changing a law or two.

When punitive mandatory sentences are the law, accused criminals will not plead guilty and demand a full trial by jury......as is their right.

The Crown would be forced to offer lesser offenses in a plea bargain, because the court system is overtaxed already.

To avoid the public appearance that criminals are "getting off easy" every case would have to go to full trial before a jury. To conduct all those trials would require a massive spending of capital to increase detention holding cells, new courthouses, more Crown prosecutors and court staff.

Criminal cases involving full trials already take several years to conclude.

Anyone found "not guilty" after spending years in a detention center would have their lives ruined and have grounds to sue for compensation.

As usual in most things, it isn't as simple as some would make it out to be.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The gun violence problem is "criminals with guns"....imported guns, legal guns stolen from legal gun owners, or legal guns owned by legal owners who never should have been allowed to have a gun.
> 
> Guns should be legal for hunting, protection against predators, target practice, or some other lawful reasons, but the guns don't have to be weapons produced for the military to inflict the most possible damage and casualties.


Yes, and you can't buy automatic weapons anyway so it's a non issue.
The fact that modern firearms "look" military is because the composite ergonomic designs are simply better.

Older surplus military rifles were simply good quality, and available, that's why there are so many in use
98K's are quite popular, while the Lee Enfields & M1 Garands are also well regarded.

The thing that makes a good hunting rifle is the Exact same thing that makes a good military rifle.
Other military weapons aren't really useful for hunting, which is why we don't use them.

That's why automatic rifles and machineguns are prohibited.



> Anyone needing a semi-automatic weapon to hunt deer or moose.....probably shouldn't be hunting.


You don't need one, but it's better, particularly for duck and small game hunting.




> There should be stiff penalties for any gun crimes, but that will require much more than just changing a law or two.


Yes, it would require the judges to actually sentence them to the time that the legislation calls for.



> When punitive mandatory sentences are the law, accused criminals will not plead guilty and demand a full trial by jury......as is their right.
> 
> The Crown would be forced to offer lesser offenses in a plea bargain, because the court system is overtaxed already.


They already do that.



> To avoid the public appearance that criminals are "getting off easy" every case would have to go to full trial before a jury. To conduct all those trials would require a massive spending of capital to increase detention holding cells, new courthouses, more Crown prosecutors and court staff.


That's not the problem, even when the jury convicts, the judges still don't sentence them.



> Criminal cases involving full trials already take several years to conclude.
> 
> Anyone found "not guilty" after spending years in a detention center would have their lives ruined and have grounds to sue for compensation.
> 
> As usual in most things, it isn't as simple as some would make it out to be.


They should speed up trials, but there is a HUGE incentive to delay trials, so they do.
They need to adequately fund it so that innocent people aren't held, and also so guilty people dont' get off.
If the defence can delay the trial long enough, they can get their clients off of ANY crime, including murder.








Alberta murder case thrown out over trial delays; experts warn system on verge of collapse | Globalnews.ca


A shortage of judges and legal aid funding is "choking" Alberta’s court system, a defence lawyer said after a judge threw out a first-degree murder case because it took too long to get to trial.




globalnews.ca


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Anyone needing a semi-automatic weapon to hunt deer or moose.....probably shouldn't be hunting.


The law is based on rights, not what you decide is a need.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is no right to gun ownership in Canada.

With no rights as the starting point of negotiation, people should be thankful they are allowed to own any guns at all.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

^ How do you unlike? I DO NOT like the abovei dislike the above.

Figured it out. But happy to leave my post that I dislike the post above.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> There is no right to gun ownership in Canada.
> 
> With no rights as the starting point of negotiation, people should be thankful they are allowed to own any guns at all.


Wrong starting point.
The correct starting point is if the proposed restriction is reasonable.
Unless something is prohibited, it's permitted, that is the fundamental concept of a free society.

The question is if it is a reasonable restriction, justified by the facts of the situation. Just like EVERY other policy we permit the government to manage for us.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

I actually don't think Justin really wants to buy all the guns in Canada... It wont stop crime, its gonna cost all of us a TON of money with no real impact.

Its a smoke and mirrors game. If he takes the guns he cant stand on his soap box and say 'its all about the guns'

'gun control' is a Liberal favourite... if they take them all then they cant keep pushing the 'Guns' button...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

hfp75 said:


> I actually don't think Justin really wants to buy all the guns in Canada... It wont stop crime, its gonna cost all of us a TON of money with no real impact.
> 
> Its a smoke and mirrors game. If he takes the guns he cant stand on his soap box and say 'its all about the guns'
> 
> 'gun control' is a Liberal favourite... if they take them all then they cant keep pushing the 'Guns' button...


I don't think Trudeau cares about the cost and impact.
He's admitted he doesn't really think about money


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

As with many other policies, I think its more imporant to Trudeau and the Liberals to me VIEWED as doing something, rather than actually DOING SOMETHING...cuz it gets votes...

We should have stricter sentences for gun crime / gun smuggling, etc.. instead they go after law abiding gun owners who have a very low propensity to commit crimes.. BUT these "GUN BAN" and "Making your streets safer" headlines is all the Liberals care for, and thats all they need to do to get guys like Sags to vote for them. 

Everytime Trudeau or Freeland talk all they say is "We got your back"... yet ironically with all their money printing, careless spending and social policies over the last few years all this has done is decimate the rapidly shrinking middle class and destroy the low income household purchasing power and quality of life (while also those who are well off have gained massive wealth over the last few years in their stock/real estate portfolios)... Can you imagine if you are a recent immigrant to Canada living and renting an apartment in Surrey, BC, Kitchener, ON etc... you probably have no hope in hell of ever owning a home, but the Liberal headlines of "Have your back" "we'll keep guns off the street" and we are "fighting climate change" is all they need to do to get canadians to vote for them... unfortunately theyre getting the votes of the people theyre hurting the most and these poor saps dont even know theyre voting in these idiots that are making their lives that much harder..


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Gumball said:


> As with many other policies, I think its more imporant to Trudeau and the Liberals to me VIEWED as doing something, rather than actually DOING SOMETHING...cuz it gets votes...


Let's not pretend it's not a feature or most/all politicians to do things that are ineffective only to appear to be doing something.


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Let's not pretend it's not a feature or most/all politicians to do things that are ineffective only to appear to be doing something.


I dont disagree with you but the liberals seem to have perfected this to an art and to a level of lying and grandstanding to get votes unseen ever before


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How do gun enthusiasts propose to stop the flow of illegal guns into Canada ?

Do they propose that every vehicle entering Canada is completely stripped down and thoroughly searched for weapons ?

Do they realize that would completely shut down our border with the US ?

Tougher sentences for illegal gun possession, "third strike" rules, mandatory sentencing, and the death penalty hasn't stopped gun violence in the US.

Conservatives are "anti" a lot of things, but have no solutions for anything.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> How do gun enthusiasts propose to stop the flow of illegal guns into Canada ?
> 
> ...


 ...they don't and they don't care either.

As long they aren't bundled with those "illegal" (hand)guns owners, it ain't their problem. It's someone else's.

And it's just a matter of time before Canada catches to the USA. Just look at this weekend's shooting in Buffalo, New York, USA, 10 dead for doing weekend shopping - never mind it was a *pure evil "hate"* crime.



> Conservatives are "anti" a lot of things, but have no solutions for anything.


 ... sounds about right. PP is too worry about cryto-coins and lack of freedumb convoys/speeches.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> ...
> 
> Conservatives are "anti" a lot of things, but have no solutions for anything.


Their strategy IS to campaign against any solution.

Where there's a problem, somebody is working on a solution. Where there's a solution, the Right Wing will be there to whine, complain and campaign against it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> How do gun enthusiasts propose to stop the flow of illegal guns into Canada ?


By admitting it is the primary problem and funding enforcement, including a task forces to bust up smuggling rings.

How do Liberals propose to stop the flow of illegal guns?



> Conservatives are "anti" a lot of things, but have no solutions for anything.


They have some plans that might make it better.
Better to work on improvements, than to waste effort on non-solutions.

It's really simple.
Conservatives want to focus resources on illegal guns.
Liberals want to waste resources on legal law abiding gun owners

Which plan is better? The one that is at least ATTEMPTING to focus on the problem.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> And it's just a matter of time before Canada catches to the USA. Just look at this weekend's shooting in Buffalo, New York, USA, 10 dead for doing weekend shopping - never mind it was a *pure evil "hate"* crime.


You could have mentioned any one of the 4 or 5 previous mass shootings in the US in the last few weeks, but then you would have had to admit that they were committed by far left extremists. But it's far easier to cherry pick than to deal with inconvenient facts.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> You could have mentioned any one of the 4 or 5 previous mass shootings in the US in the last few weeks, but then you would have had to admit that they were committed by far left extremists. But it's far easier to cherry pick than to deal with inconvenient facts.


 ... no, I don't even have to mention any previous mass shootings in the US since we, Canada got our own. 

I guess you don't remember nor care to "cherry-pick" our own École Polytechnique massacre in 1989 where the shooter had so much "hatred for women" that he had to mow down 10 "female engineering " students over at the above-named school in Montreal. And guess what, the rifle he used to shoot all those females dead was "legally" obtained. So much for our (Canadian) stringent gun-laws. 

So why don't you crawl back to your far-left extremists mentality tunnel and stay there. 

Besides, why am I suddenly not on your "Ignore" list?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> By admitting it is the primary problem and funding enforcement, including a task forces to bust up smuggling rings.


 ... LOL ... for "taskforces" - your concept is 2 decades behind ... the Guns & Gangs Taskforce (at least in Toronto) has been operating for at least 20 years.



> How do Liberals propose to stop the flow of illegal guns?
> 
> They have some plans that might make it better.
> Better to work on improvements, than to waste effort on non-solutions.


 ... might want to ask the Conservatives your question to give themselves a chance to run the government instead of the Libs.



> It's really simple.
> Conservatives want to focus resources on illegal guns.
> Liberals want to waste resources on legal law abiding gun owners
> 
> Which plan is better? The one that is at least ATTEMPTING to focus on the problem.


 ... so what's the Conservatives' plan on "illegal" guns? I haven't heard so much of a beep - what's an "illegal" gun? what's a handgun? let alone a plan. 

All I hear is support for <theme-of-the-month> with theme thusfar, freedumb speeches, convoys, crypto-coins and the guy who works over at BoC ... LMAO.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... no, I don't even have to mention any previous mass shootings in the US since we, Canada got our own.
> 
> I guess you don't remember nor care to "cherry-pick" our own École Polytechnique massacre in 1989 where the shooter had so much "hatred for women" that he had to mow down 10 "female engineering " students over at the above-named school in Montreal. And guess what, the rifle he used to shoot all those females dead was "legally" obtained. So much for our (Canadian) stringent gun-laws.
> 
> ...


You have to go back over 30 years to find a shooting that fits your far left agenda.

I thought I'd unignore you for a bit to see if you changed, but you're still the same extreme leftist with narrow tunnel vision.

Gun laws only prevent honest people from owning guns. Honest people are not a threat.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't care about illegal guns coming in as much as folks willing to use guns in crimes.
Illegal gun entry means it can never be legally owned here, so does not affect legal owners directly.

But **** heads use very largely only illegal guns in crime.
Sentence and toss the key for even illegal gun possession, and obviously confiscate and destroy the weapon. 
Not for a minor rule infraction on a legally acquired gun stored and used safely

If no other crime commission required for illegal gun possession criminal sentencing, demand for illegal guns is going to slow to a trickle.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Ponderling said:


> Illegal gun entry means it can never be legally owned here


Why not? There's no registration requirement. If its non-prohibited restricted and the owner has a PAL it's all golden -- and I suppose if the guy selling them at the side of the highway calls the RCMP and checks the PAL.

EDIT: sorry, I meant "non-restricted" rather than non-prohibited. I suppose alarm bells would go off when a handgun registration came through on one never imported to Canada -- I don't know how restricted import works.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

gardner said:


> Why not? There's no registration requirement. If its non-prohibited and the owner has a PAL it's all golden -- and I suppose if the guy selling them at the side of the highway calls the RCMP and checks the PAL.


Sorry, silly non gun owner here. 
Oh, that would mean a gun registry for all guns, and not just the long guns that was scrapped
. 
Why don't we turn it on its head.
And have gun lobby lobby gov't for registry of all guns under 30cm long.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is impossible to stop the flow of illegal guns coming from the US, which makes up 85% of the illegal guns entering Canada.

The criminals are crossing at the land borders, using drones, floating them across rivers, heck in some places the Canada/US border is a narrow trail.

The US has to stop the sale of guns to anybody and everybody. They have to shut down gun shows and private sales.

Their lax gun laws based on a Constitutional right created when a gun was a single shot flintlock rifle are not just killing them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Ponderling said:


> Sorry, silly non gun owner here.
> Oh, that would mean a gun registry for all guns, and not just the long guns that was scrapped
> .
> Why don't we turn it on its head.
> And have gun lobby lobby gov't for registry of all guns under 30cm long.


We have a gun registry for handguns (and when they were legal AR-15's)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It is impossible to stop the flow of illegal guns coming from the US, which makes up 85% of the illegal guns entering Canada.


But we should still try to limit it.



> The US has to stop the sale of guns to anybody and everybody. They have to shut down gun shows and private sales.


Why those two?
Are you imagining the "gun show loophole", which doesn't exist. Gun dealers always need to run a background check.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Their lax gun laws based on a Constitutional right created when a gun was a single shot flintlock rifle are not just killing them.


The Constitution gives people rights that the government can't take away. That's why liberals hate it so much. 

Their constitution provides the right to own a gun. The word "need" doesn't appear anywhere in the document and has no validity.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

They reap what they sow.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> You have to go back over 30 years to find a shooting that fits your far left agenda.
> 
> I thought I'd unignore you for a bit to see if you changed, but you're still the same extreme leftist with narrow tunnel vision.


 ... right as it "re-confirms" that you remain as the same troll as before.



> Gun laws only prevent honest people from owning guns. Honest people are not a threat.


 ... right as if only "honest" people likes to own guns. LMAO.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... right as if only "honest" people likes to own guns. LMAO.


Of course dishonest people will find a way to own guns if they want. They always have. How does preventing honest people from owning a gun stop that?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ You tell me since I don't know any of those "honest" people you know who is prevented from owning a gun. LMAO.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> They reap what they sow.


That is the point of accountability.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> They reap what they sow.


Biden is a perfect example of that.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531380601982435332
Good thing I already have my handguns.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Government has tabled the bill to cap the number of handgun (including import and sale). An excellent move!

The next thing that's needed is much harsher penalties for smuggling guns into Canada, serious jail time with no chance of parole.

In combination, those measures will reduce the number of guns circulating on the black market in Canada. Very good to see Trudeau helping protect my freedom to live and enjoy a safe life.

Long live freedom!! Trudeau and the Liberals are defenders of freedom and quality of life.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Additionally, the government will restrict magazines for long guns to carrying 5 rounds. Larger magazines will no longer be legal to sell.

As I mention though, the next step is to make sure that people dealing in the black market face stiff penalties / jail time.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

james4beach said:


> the government will restrict magazines for long guns to carrying 5 rounds.


The restriction is already 5 rounds for semi-automatic, centre-fire long guns. I guess the new regulation covers all long guns, not just semi. Probably a good move as the semi guys would just put a mag sold for a bolt action gun on instead and carry as many rounds as they want.

I still think they're getting the "assault rifle" formula wrong. I would rather see centre-fire semi-autos gone entirely. I don't give a poo if they are black and scary or made with nice polished wood.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The government is being pro-active which is the right thing to do.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

gardner said:


> The restriction is already 5 rounds for semi-automatic, centre-fire long guns. I guess the new regulation covers all long guns, not just semi. Probably a good move as the semi guys would just put a mag sold for a bolt action gun on instead and carry as many rounds as they want.
> 
> I still think they're getting the "assault rifle" formula wrong. I would rather see centre-fire semi-autos gone entirely. I don't give a poo if they are black and scary or made with nice polished wood.


They want to get rid of "military assault rifles", like the 100 year old Lee Enfield.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Gun manufacturers will be swimming in money over next 3 months. Everyone who has been on an edge over getting a gun will now be rushing to the stores while they are still legally allowed to do it. Happens every single time, after every single hint of possibility of tighter control.

I wonder what they are going to do next after this doesn't work?
Make another big public announcement that smuggling will now carry penalty of max 16 years vs 14 and call it a big reform for political purposes?
Ban 3d printers once they realize those are used to manufacture guns by people who don't want to be tracked?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The government is being pro-active which is the right thing to do.


You see this is why you say trust the Liberals, and why I don't trust them.

You see ANY progress to banning guns as good, because you see don't accept they have value.
I want good fact based policy, and their plan is to basically ban all guns one step at a time.

It's pointless discussing with you or them, because it's a bad faith discussion, they don't want them, and they aren't actually looking for solutions.

Look at the data in Canada, lawful gun owners aren't committing crimes, so these measures, other than the piddly amount of new funding, will have virutally no effect on crime.
However It will substantially harm the sporting industry.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ...However It will substantially harm the sporting industry.


 ... the core of the PC's silence stance with guns. Oink, oink.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... the core of the PC's silence stance with guns. Oink, oink.


Trudeau uses a tragedy in another country to push his agenda. Leftists in Canada celebrate.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Gun manufacturers will be swimming in money over next 3 months. Everyone who has been on an edge over getting a gun will now be rushing to the stores while they are still legally allowed to do it. Happens every single time, after every single hint of possibility of tighter control.
> 
> I wonder what they are going to do next after this doesn't work?
> Make another big public announcement that smuggling will now carry penalty of max 16 years vs 14 and call it a big reform for political purposes?
> Ban 3d printers once they realize those are used to manufacture guns by people who don't want to be tracked?


This is a very likely outcome. A big part of the gun issue for Canada is illegal guns not registered guns. In the US they do need to fix things such as wait time and screenings. 3D printers do allow for weapons to be produced easily with difficulty in tracking or tracing. It blows my mind the hurdles one has to go through to do many things in the US but one can get a weapon with little effort. 

Sadly, political agendas and economic greed are given priority over safety of people. Making significant change in the US will be a monstrous task. I am not sure they have the inclination to reverse course. I agree that the solutions provided will not fix the problem. For those that are shooting down the solutions being presented what can be done to make everyone safe. I don't think arming teachers, building prison style schools is the fix. Every security measure brought in has not resulted in a decrease in mass shootings. How do we achieve the level seen in places like Japan and New Zealand. I know the UK has little gun crime either but knife crime is horrendous. However, it's difficult to kill 20-30 people with a shank. Mass shootings in the US have become the norm and occur weekly if not daily.

A shift in mindset is needed. Perhaps I have shared this before but I will again because it is so perplexing to me. I had a conversation with a lady prepandemic who lived in a Canadian border state. She had never been to Canada but had an RV excursion to the across western Canada (in particular Banff) on her bucket list. The only thing that was holding her and her husband back was that they could not bring their guns with them to protect them while they go camping in the mountains. I asked if she meant to protect them from wildlife and she quickly corrected me that they weren't afraid of bears and wolves as they have them where they live. The guns were needed to protect them from muggers, robbers and murderers. As someone who has camped extensively throughout western Canada the thought of being mugged or murdered was the furthest thing from my mind. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

londoncalling said:


> This is a very likely outcome. A big part of the gun issue for Canada is illegal guns not registered guns. In the US they do need to fix things such as wait time and screenings. 3D printers do allow for weapons to be produced easily with difficulty in tracking or tracing. It blows my mind the hurdles one has to go through to do many things in the US but one can get a weapon with little effort.


3D printers are a red herring.

Guns are easily made in a machine shop.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Trudeau uses a tragedy in another country to push his agenda. Leftists in Canada celebrate.


 ... why asked about gun control, PP is gonna to go "oink, oink" if anything (other than air of course) comes out of his mouth.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Apparently now if you get caught with hard drugs in BC you will get to walk away with hard drugs - they won't even get confiscated. 
In the meantime overdoses claim many more lives than weapons do


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Apparently now if you get caught with hard drugs in BC you will get to walk away with hard drugs - they won't even get confiscated.
> In the meantime overdoses claim many more lives than weapons do


Druggies vote for the guys who want to pay them to sit at home on their couch doing drugs.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> 3D printers are a red herring.
> 
> Guns are easily made in a machine shop.


Fair point. Regardless guns are easily accessible and it's very hard to determine how many are out there. The reality is nobody has plausible solutions as to how to fix the issue. Firearm education should be a mandatory requirement for all gun owners. Gun ownership requirements vary by state.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c94d...uc3RvY2FycnkuY29tL2d1bi1sYXdzLXN0YXRlLw&ntb=1 

Regardless the desire to make any realistic meaningful changes does not exist(doesn't matter which political party) and so things will continue as if nothing is wrong.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Get rid of guns and make it legal to have illicit drugs. What a joke.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

The thing is that too many Canadians are Americanized.

The problem with guns in Canada is predominantly illegal guns by unlicensed individuals.

The problem in the US is multifold, but it's easily available guns (legal and illegal), insufficient controls, and poor policing.
I'm not sure how to solve it, but I think better policing would help (note I said better not more)

When you call 911 and they say "yeah we're not coming", of course they want to arm themselves.
Or if you've told a generation that the police will kill you if you call them, of course they'll want to handle it themselves.

We have policing problems here in Canada, but they're not as bad as the US, and we have to stop pretending American problems are ours.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mechanic said:


> Get rid of guns and make it legal to have illicit drugs. What a joke.


Drug abuse of mostly illegal drugs results in more than one OD a day.
Their solution is MORE DRUGS.

They don't care


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just to fire this up, from the CACP (Chiefs of Police)





CACP


Welcome+to+CACP




www.cacp.ca





"However, we continue to maintain that restricting lawful handgun ownership will not meaningfully address the real issue: illegal handguns obtained from the United States that have led to the disturbing current trend in gun violence that is largely related to gangs, street gangs, and more sophisticated organized crime groups. "


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Just to fire this up, from the CACP (Chiefs of *Police)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... care to re-read the statement you posted, in the context of the bolded parts. Duh.

So what's the Guns and Gangs Taskforce doing these days? I hope the Chief of "Polic(ing)" would know considering how much our tax dollars are going to their departments.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... care to re-read the statement you posted, in the context of the bolded parts. Duh.
> 
> So what's the Guns and Gangs Taskforce doing these days? I hope the Chief of "Polic(ing)" would know considering how much our tax dollars are going to their departments.


That's literally the point, the quote even has a colon to separate the two parts.

They state
Restricting lawful handgun ownership will not address the real issue. Then they state what the real issue is.

Police are making the same argument as the "pro-gun" groups.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> That's literally the point, the quote even has a colon to separate the two parts.
> 
> They state
> Restricting lawful handgun ownership will not address the real issue. Then they state what the real issue is.
> ...


 ...that's even worst when the "police chiefs" know and state what the "real issue is". If you really think about it, that's the most absurd statement knowing where it's coming from. Why would the cops be anti-gun when they're the lawful hand guns owners first and foremost. It's like asking does a rat have a long tail? 

The question becomes what do we need the police for then other than paying taxes through our nose for them? instead of knowing what we and they already know - illegal handguns going amok. Btw, this doesn't exclude legal handguns being sold illegally either.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The CAPC supports Bill - C21 Firearms, introduced by the Liberals.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Late to this thread but a shooting sports friend mentioned this new bill to me so I had to take a look.

All I can say is wow, for the most part they really have no idea what they are doing do they? Other than a couple of laws (stricter penalties mainly) the rest won't likely do anything at all except hurt lawful ownership and use. The buy back program will hurt tax payers again just like the old gun registry did ... wasn't that billions of $ wasted?

So in the end this bill will destory all national handgun sports. What does it do to stop illegal handguns?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> So in the end this bill will destory all national handgun sports. What does it do to stop illegal handguns?


Virtually nothing, which is what the Police Chiefs are saying as well.

Really I think it's politics to infuriate their opponents, and please their supporters, while doing nothing to solve the problem, so they can milk it at election time.. yet again.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Which of the proposed measures is so offensive to legitimate gun owners ?

The police chiefs support the bill.



National "freeze" on handguns
 
New "red and yellow flag" laws and expanded licence revocation
 
Combatting firearms smuggling and trafficking
 
Prohibiting mid-velocity 'replica' airguns
 
Coming into Force chart for Bill C-21


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Which of the proposed measures is so offensive to legitimate gun owners ?
> 
> 
> National "freeze" on handguns


This one.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> The police chiefs support the bill.


They support some of the bill BUT not really on the freeze part ...
_
However, we continue to maintain that restricting lawful handgun ownership will not meaningfully address the real issue: illegal handguns obtained from the United States that have led to the disturbing current trend in gun violence that is largely related to gangs, street gangs, and more sophisticated organized crime groups.

CACP_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The freeze is temporary. I think once the restrictions and qualifications are worked out, they can remove the freeze for legal gun owners.

If they don't........then yea, it would be a legitimate complaint. Personally, I see very little risk of mass shootings from a handgun owned by qualified owners.

It is weapons and ammunition capable of nightmarish damage in a very short period of time that concern me the most.

I also have concerns when police are "outgunned", they are reluctant to act when facing a hail of bullets, as apparently happened in Texas.

I mean seriously, some are asking police to go up against a possible group of people with AR15s....a local police versus military unit scenario.

I have read of police in other countries who fear to enter a gang's territory, because of fears of a shootout with them.

There are urban cities in the US where the police or emergency services won't go at night.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> The freeze is temporary. I think once the restrictions and qualifications are worked out, they can remove the freeze for legal gun owners.


The freeze is permanent. According to many this is only the first step towards a complete handgun ban. The only way is could possibly get "undone" would be a federal PC majority win but of course the damage will have already been done.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> The freeze is permanent. According to many this is only the first step towards a complete handgun ban.


 ... and why not? Ban for those who don't need one by profession or trade.



> The only way is could possibly get "undone" would be a federal PC majority win but of course the damage will have already been done.


 ... yes and a fed PC majority win will get this more than "undone". Possibly a complete overhaul to legalize all weapons, moving in the directions of the USA. Hell, Canada might get its own version of the NRA and deem our laws are discriminatory against its citizens for not be able to own a gun.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and why not? Ban for those who don't need one by profession or trade.


Because it's a sport that many responsible people enjoy and doesn't cause any issues.



Beaver101 said:


> ... yes and a fed PC majority win will get this more than "undone". Possibly a complete overhaul to legalize all weapons, moving in the directions of the USA. Hell, Canada might get its own version of the NRA and deem our laws are discriminatory against its citizens for not be able to own a gun.


Don't know where you are getting the above from, the PCs agree more has to be done on the illegal gun issues. Last I heard the PCs even tried to push the good ideas in C-21 into law now if they'd just eliminate the handgun freeze ... of course the Liberals said no.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Because it's a sport that many responsible people enjoy and doesn't cause any issues. ...


 ... just responding to this is sufficient to understand the guns-lovers' mentality.

So it appears there's no other "sport" in this world such that "responsible" gun owners can enjoy? Interesting. And exactly what is that "sport"? Like knowing who can shoot the most bull-eyes at the gun ranges? You know that gets boring after awhile ... unlike formula car-racing, bungjee-jumping, or how about throwing crxps at the table? At least the chances of somebody "else" getting hurt is minimal with the latters ... whereas yes "responsible" gun owners don't ... loses their guns, sell to the blackmarket, shoot some bears or dears for fun (if not people when pissed off) despite the entire country is covered with rats.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... just responding to this is sufficient to understand the guns-lovers' mentality.


Not sure what you are implying by the above, I don't own or have ever shot a handgun. I however have respect for other people that may want to enjoy such a sport if done in a safe manner.



Beaver101 said:


> So it appears there's no other "sport" in this world such that "responsible" gun owners can enjoy?


The point you are missing is there are a number of handgun sports being enjoyed right now that will no longer exist and for no good reason. Even the police are saying the freeze "will not meaningfully address the real issue".

BTW, pistol shooting is even in the Olympics in case you didn't know.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are exemptions in the bill for high level athletes in hand gun sports. There likely will be more exemptions, if the ban ends up to be permanent.

The bill is just being introduced and has to pass through the Senate for revisions and recommendations, before it goes back to Parliament.

The Senate committees would be an ideal forum to address any perceived shortcomings in the bill.

Very few pieces of legislation pass exactly as they were first introduced to Parliament.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... just responding to this is sufficient to understand the guns-lovers' mentality.
> 
> So it appears there's no other "sport" in this world such that "responsible" gun owners can enjoy? Interesting. And exactly what is that "sport"? Like knowing who can shoot the most bull-eyes at the gun ranges? You know that gets boring after awhile ... unlike formula car-racing, bungjee-jumping, or how about throwing crxps at the table? At least the chances of somebody "else" getting hurt is minimal with the latters ... whereas yes "responsible" gun owners don't ... loses their guns, sell to the blackmarket, shoot some bears or dears for fun (if not people when pissed off) despite the entire country is covered with rats.


Why should you get to decide if a sport is suitable? There are plenty of sports that I have no interest in but I don't think that people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Not sure what you are implying by the above, I don't own or have ever shot a handgun. I however have respect for other people that may want to enjoy such a sport if done in a safe manner.
> 
> 
> The point you are missing is there are a number of handgun sports being enjoyed right now that will no longer exist and for no good reason. Even the police are saying the freeze "will not meaningfully address the real issue".
> ...


I'm more pro-gun, but they are destroying shooting sports for a VERY GOOD reason, the ONLY one that matters to them. Political power.

They think it will help them win votes, that's the only reason to put forward mostly do nothing legislation, while simultaneously rejecting legislation that might actually have an impact.

Think about it, they could easily pass some good, unanimously supported legislation, but they'd rather play politics.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Think about it, they could easily pass some good, unanimously supported legislation, but they'd rather play politics.


For sure it is politics ... image and posturing instead of really trying to fix problems.

I remembered a police statement from the last time they tried a bill on banning handguns so I had to dig this up. What does it tell people when the Police say taking guns away from legal owners won't make any difference and they are not the problem.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... just responding to this is sufficient to understand the guns-lovers' mentality.
> 
> So it appears there's no other "sport" in this world such that "responsible" gun owners can enjoy? Interesting. And exactly what is that "sport"? Like knowing who can shoot the most bull-eyes at the gun ranges? You know that gets boring after awhile ... unlike formula car-racing, bungjee-jumping, or how about throwing crxps at the table? At least the chances of somebody "else" getting hurt is minimal with the latters ... whereas yes "responsible" gun owners don't ... loses their guns, sell to the blackmarket, shoot some bears or dears for fun (if not people when pissed off) despite the entire country is covered with rats.


Do you ever post anything useful?

Once again, you're just here to stir the pot. Your whole bit about the black market, shooting bears and deers and people when pissed off really goes to show you understand nothing.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Do you ever post anything useful?


 ... might want to ask yourself that question. Do you? Or you're just jumping in here to stir the pot?



> Once again, you're just here to stir the pot. Your whole bit about the black market, shooting bears and deers and people when pissed off really goes to show you understand nothing.


 ... no, only you understand everything. Don't forget tonight's street meets although you're waaaaay past your age for that.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Not sure what you are implying by the above, I don't own or have ever shot a handgun. I however have respect for other people that may want to enjoy such a sport if done in a safe manner.


 ... I would hope it's done in a safe manner since our streets ain't.



> The point you are missing is there are a number of handgun sports being enjoyed right now that will no longer exist and for no good reason.


 ... my point is ... why have guns as a "sport " event for the general public? You could admit it's all BIG business instead as if owning and shooting off the ranges into paper bull-eyes or maybe into cans if not watermelons are really "sporty". I get you don't find that boring at all ... never mind being productive. UNLESS there're other things in mind for the use of those guns.



> Even the police are saying the freeze "will not meaningfully address the real issue".


 ... and "responsible" "gun owners" would take that at face-value instead of asking "then what does the police (including them chiefs) plan on doing with the continuous "real issue"? I bet "responsible gun owners" say "ain't my problem. I ain't the police, not my job."



> BTW, pistol shooting is even in the Olympics in case you didn't know.


 ... about time they get rid of that "sports" once the guns are completely banned (I would be dreaming on this though).

Btw, even the police (law enforcement) - some of them are so triggered-happy that they'll shoot to kill regardless. In fact, one made it on the news to shoot flat-lined civilian(s) dead to be absolute.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I would hope it's done in a safe manner since our streets ain't.


Not sure where you live but I feel safe on my streets. Even took my dog for a walk after midnight last night before the t-storms rolled in.  



Beaver101 said:


> ... my point is ... why have guns as a "sport " event for the general public?


Because a number of people here enjoy the sport and have for a long time. The police continously say these people are not a safety concern.

You can choose to be anti-gun, that is up to you. You can also choose to support gun laws that the police are saying won't make any difference in gun crimes, sounds like a silly thing to do but again, that is up to you. Personally I'd rather have gun laws that will make a difference and has support from the police. You can also choose to ban sports you find boring, that's very self-centered but your call.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The police officer said that almost 100% of the weapons they seize are from someone who is not legally permitted to own them.

He also said the guns were either "stolen" or "illegally obtained".

It sounds like the security of guns is a problem if they are being stolen from legal gun owners and used in crimes.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> It sounds like the security of guns is a problem if they are being stolen from legal gun owners and used in crimes.


Without knowing the stats on how many legal canadian handguns are stolen each year it's hard to say. If a significant number of handguns are stolen from people's homes then yes, it is something to look at.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Not sure where you live but I feel safe on my streets. Even took my dog for a walk after midnight last night before the t-storms rolled in.
> 
> Because a number of people here enjoy the sport and have for a long time. The police continously say these people are not a safety concern.


 ... I don't know where you live but I live in Toronto. And care to reflect on your subsequent statement below about people who as anti-guns are being self-centered because those illegal guns are coming from the "outskirt of Toronto". Ie. other cities or towns that may include yours. Of course, you don't recall about people being gunned down in Toronto but I do. In fact, several incidents revealed that these goons came to Toronto for target practice claiming they "needed to protect themselves in the big city" just a few years ago. Now it's the car-jacking trend.



> You can choose to be anti-gun, that is up to you. You can also choose to support gun laws that the police are saying won't make any difference in gun crimes, sounds like a silly thing to do but again, that is up to you.. *Personally I'd rather have gun laws that will make a difference and has support from the police.*


... such as? Exactly what gun laws have been implemented that's making a difference? I'm all ears here.



> You can also choose to ban sports you find boring, that's very self-centered but your call.


 ... don't you find it ironic that of all the sports in the world, gun-shooting is the most exciting and anyone who don't find this sport is considered so self-centered being able to shoot someone else dead. No wonder our society is so fvcked up.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... no, only you understand everything. Don't forget tonight's street meets although you're waaaaay past your age for that.


Adults have street meets all the time.

Or do you not recognize cars as a hobby? Maybe racing is not a sport to you, either.

You act as if you were never young once. Which is ironic considering your posts indicate you may not have grown up much.

It's also incredible that you've got the mods wrapped around your finger so you can take personal jabs at people all the time. Not sure how you did it, but kudos to you.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ You were the one who was taking the jab. So what usefulness do you have here? Like I care about your hobbies.

Btw, grown up (aka responsible) adults don't go for street meets to race cars. And don't forget to ask the cops if it's legal to do that.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't know where you live but I live in Toronto.


Winnipeg



Beaver101 said:


> And care to reflect on your subsequent statement below about people who as anti-guns are being self-centered because those illegal guns are coming from the "outskirt of Toronto".


I didn't say that, those are your words*.*
I said ...


cainvest said:


> You can also choose to ban sports you find boring, that's very self-centered but your call.


See the difference, choosing to ban sports (not just gun sports) you find boring would be very self-centered IMO.



cainvest said:


> ... such as? Exactly what gun laws have been implemented that's making a difference? I'm all ears here.


Not sure but would like to hear from police what laws they'd think did (or would) make a difference.



Beaver101 said:


> ... don't you find it ironic that of all the sports in the world, gun-shooting is the most exciting and anyone who don't find this sport is considered so self-centered being able to shoot someone else dead. No wonder our society is so fvcked up.


Again, your words not mine. Don't know why you are choosing to argue and get upset with your own statements.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ You were the one who was taking the jab. So what usefulness do you have here? Like I care about your hobbies.
> 
> Btw, grown up (aka responsible) adults don't go for street meets to race cars. And don't forget to ask the cops if it's legal to do that.


Car meets don't automatically mean people are racing.

The same way that a gunowner is not a killer.

I thought such an astute, responsible and mature individual such as yourself would be able to identify that instead of making a blanket statement.

Also - for the record - cops are some of the most crooked people there are. I have been to car meets where the cops have raced and done burnouts.

Your lack of experience is showing.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Winnipeg
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, those are your words*.*
> ...


 ... ah, I didn't say ban "sports". I said ban gun sports. Aren't we talking about guns-shooting as a sport? Or are you now trying to spin it around and putting words in my mouth and accusing me of being very self-centered with any sport. The truth of the matter is gun-lovers who take on that "hobby" as a sport is the most self-centered 'cause they can't think of the consequences of what a gun can do when it gets in the wrong hands. And please spare me with the "responsible" gun owners bit.



> Not sure but would like to hear from police what laws they'd think did (or would) make a difference.


 ... no, I don't want to hear from the police when you said (below) so I want to hear it from you:

*



Personally I'd rather have gun laws that will make a difference and has support from the police.

Click to expand...

*


> Again, your words not mine. Don't know why you are choosing to argue and get upset with your own statements.


 ... I'm not upset but just that society ain't gonna to improve when we have continuous mentalities like these. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Car meets don't automatically mean people are racing.
> 
> The same way that a gunowner is not a killer.
> 
> ...


 ... ya, my lack of experience is showing so you can tell your whole side life of 30 years of experience.  I know you "got it".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Without knowing the stats on how many legal canadian handguns are stolen each year it's hard to say. If a significant number of handguns are stolen from people's homes then yes, it is something to look at.


The police officer must have been quoting anecdotal evidence, because it appears there is little statistical data on where the guns originate from.

_Of particular concern, there is currently little information available to determine the source of firearms used in crime: for example, whether a gun used in a crime was stolen, illegally purchased or smuggled into the country. _

There are a lot of statistics contained, and one can see why some of the specific new laws were introduced (as in past domestic violence situations).

Other information is somewhat surprising. More gun crimes occur in rural areas ? I would have thought it more likely in large urban areas like Toronto.

In any event, gun crime is relatively low in Canada and the perpetrators are usually caught. I think Canadians want to keep it that way.

We just have to strike the right balance to be fair to legal, responsible gun owners while keeping the guns out of the hands of the irresponsible.

I would rather the government discuss solutions with gun clubs, hunting clubs, outdoor clubs than political parties who just want to agitate.

All the friends I know who own guns and hunt are studiously responsible with their weapons and have no use for people who disregard gun safety.

It makes perfect sense in that.......who wants to go hunting in the woods with people who are careless and have no clue ?






Trends in firearm-related violent crime in Canada, 2009 to 2020


This Juristat article examines the nature and prevalence of firearm-related violent crime in Canada. Trends in firearm-related violent crime between 2009 and 2020 are presented at the national, provincial/territorial and census metropolitan area levels as well as for urban and rural regions...




www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My friends were a very close knit "hunting group" who applied for moose tags all over so they had a chance to hunt together every year.

They let me tag along on trips because I didn't hunt and didn't have a gun, so they didn't have to "babysit" me.

I would ride the back trails on my ATV with them until they stopped and went into the forest. Then I headed back to the camp.

They told me to always keep my orange vest on and ride directly back to the camp for the day.

Do not go wandering around in the woods in case of an angry bear or an idiot with a gun......they told me.

So I would ride back, clean up around the camp, chop some firewood, stoke up the woodstove, relax and start supper when it started to get dark.

They would get back and we had a great time over supper, a few drinks and the telling of a lot of tall tales.

I fully appreciate their love of hunting and the outdoors. They hunted for deer, moose, and turkey together. I only went on the moose hunts with them.

The issue I have with guns.....is some people think everyone is responsible enough to own one. That is simply not the case.

I also know of guys who went hunting with other hunting groups and just liked walking around the woods in a hunting outfit with a gun.

They wouldn't know what to do with it if they had shot a moose. I heard stories of them shooting at the sound of a rustle in the woods.

Guns are serious business for serious people only. Gun ownership should be considered a privledge not a birthright.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... ah, I didn't say ban "sports". I said ban gun sports. Aren't we talking about guns-shooting as a sport?


Handgun sports specifically.



Beaver101 said:


> The truth of the matter is gun-lovers who take on that "hobby" as a sport is the most self-centered 'cause they can't think of the consequences of what a gun can do when it gets in the wrong hands. And please spare me with the "responsible" gun owners bit.


I can't speak for them but I personally don't know any of them that would like to ban a sport they don't take part in. Obviously you can as you state gun lovers don't think of consequences. 



Beaver101 said:


> ... no, I don't want to hear from the police when you said (below) so I want to hear it from you:


no idea, I would want to here from experts in the field (like the police) to make an imformed decision.



Beaver101 said:


> ... I'm not upset but just that society ain't gonna to improve when we have continuous mentalities like these. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


I agree, some mentalities will slow or stop society from improving.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

sags said:


> Guns are serious business for serious people only. Gun ownership should be considered a privledge not a birthright.


Totally agree, guns are serious and a privilege. That's why mandatory gun courses that focus on safety are in place. Rules on handguns are extremely strict in Canada with multiple courses being required and handguns can only be fired at very limited locations which have to be specified beforehand.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Good and keep it that way. If Canadians don't like the current gun rules/laws, they're free to move down south and shoot away.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Good and keep it that way. If Canadians don't like the current gun rules/laws, they're free to move down south and shoot away.


It works both ways. If you don't like the current rules you're free to move away instead of suggesting that sport shooting be banned, or that more onerous rules be implemented.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> It works both ways. If you don't like the current rules you're free to move away instead of suggesting that sport shooting be banned, or that more onerous rules be implemented.


 ...  ... guess you got nothing else to argue with. I'm fine with the current rules and suggesting sport shooting be banned is a suggestion, not the law. And no, it doesn't work both ways here. You're the one who don't like more onerous rules aka laws being implemented in this non-gun-believing nor loving country so you should be the one moving down south "PERMANENTLY" where you can enjoy both your roast and bazookas.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ...  ... guess you got nothing else to argue with. I'm fine with the current rules and suggesting sport shooting be banned is a suggestion, not the law. And no, it doesn't work both ways here. You're the one who don't like more onerous rules aka laws being implemented in this non-gun-believing nor loving country so you should be the one moving down south "PERMANENTLY" where you can enjoy both your roast and bazookas.


I don't own guns and have no interest. Well, if Canada keeps moving left towards dictatorship then I might reconsider gun ownership. I also have no interest in living in the US who supposedly elected a man with advanced dementia who runs stasi-like show trials and likes to inappropriately touch young girls (that is a fact, there is ample video evidence). Although everyone knows Biden's dementia is so advanced that he doesn't make any decisions.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Good and keep it that way. If Canadians don't like the current gun rules/laws, they're free to move down south and shoot away.


Glad you agree and that's what the sport handgun people want, to "keep it that way".


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Glad you agree and that's what the sport handgun people want, to "keep it that way".


 ... then don't whine about any laws update including those you think are "onerous" aka PITA.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... then don't whine about any laws update including those you think are "onerous" aka PITA.


Of course I'll be against any new law that doesn't make sense, like the proposed "freeze on handguns" in C-21.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Of course I'll be against any new law that doesn't make sense, like the proposed "freeze on handguns" in C-21.


 ... so how can you (and I) "agree" to "keep it this way"? You're living in Canada and you know how our rules/laws are. They're gonna to be more stringent whether it makes any sense or not ... to you, the "responsible gun owners". The politicians will do what they think they do best. 

But sadly, the actual folks who can make a difference are the ones who put up their hands and spout these upgraded laws are as useless as they can be. And so? Let's keep it this way, no?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

The previous bill failed ... let's hope the new one does as well. So then it'll be "keep it this way".


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

cainvest said:


> The previous bill failed ... let's hope the new one does as well. So then it'll be "keep it this way".


It will also fail.

Nothing but liberal smoke and mirrors.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How would it fail with a Liberal/NDP majority ?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

If the NDP doesn't agree or get something in return from the Libs for their vote on C-21.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ And what are the chances of the NDP not agreeing on an issue like this? LMAO.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Don't know what the NDP have planned, each party have their own agendas ... it's politics after all.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> If the NDP doesn't agree or get something in return from the Libs for their vote on C-21.





cainvest said:


> Don't know what the NDP have planned, each party have their own agendas ... it's politics after all.


It's an interesting one.
Bloc is anti-gun.

Singh is a big city guy, but the NDP members actually look a bit more rural, so will it be a member vote, or a party vote.

I think it will unfortunately pass, but Trudeau might be keeping it ready for the next election

As much as I hate it, poor gun policy is GREAT big city, ignorant voter politics
Win votes on the issue, while doing nothing about the actual problem.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I don't think NDP will object. They will in the media, but Singh is a 'I don't like it but I will vote for it' kind of guy.
NDP is losing relevance because of it - there is no differentiation


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

We'll get a much better idea once it gets to the third reading.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe some Conservatives will vote for it if they are allowed a free vote.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

Maybe some Liberals will vote against it if they are allowed a free vote. But Trudeau would never let that happen.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Well just for fun, and before it potentially becomes illegal, got a few friends together and shot handguns today. 

Much more difficult than I thought it would be to get a good grouping on target. Big respect to those doing IPSC style shooting competitions that can hit those small targets on the move. 

The two friends that came along today have never been gun owners, one has never even held or shot a gun before. The first thing they said to me when we got off the range is ... we gotta do that again! 

Personally I found it fun but wouldn't consider it as a hobby unless I got into something like IPSC. I will go back just to try a different gun/caliber next time, we all shot 9mm autos today. It's sad that by this time next year that indoor pistol range will likely have to close its doors.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Well just for fun, and before it potentially becomes illegal, got a few friends together and shot handguns today.
> 
> Much more difficult than I thought it would be to get a good grouping on target. Big respect to those doing IPSC style shooting competitions that can hit those small targets on the move.
> 
> ...


Honestly .22lr on spinner targets are a blast.
Up close for handguns, at distance for rifles.

Oh, you gotta try shooting clays.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Honestly .22lr on spinner targets are a blast.
> Up close for handguns, at distance for rifles.
> 
> Oh, you gotta try shooting clays.




Done all the above, no stranger to rifles or shotguns, just my first time shooting a handgun.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Well just for fun, and before it potentially becomes illegal, got a few friends together and shot handguns today.
> 
> Much more difficult than I thought it would be to get a good grouping on target.


Nice!!

It does become quite easy if you use the same gun consistently. Going for a first time is always a challenge.

Glad you guys enjoyed yourselves.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

KaeJS said:


> It does become quite easy if you use the same gun consistently. Going for a first time is always a challenge.


A small bit of first time jitters but I think the big thing is finding a handgun that fits you well. If I was going into the sport I would definitely want to handle/shoot many of them before buying one. 

There is an outdoor IPSC match close by in 10 days, think I'll go watch to see what it's like in person.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Prince Albert, Sask. gun store owner wants answers after city removes baseball diamond ad


The City of Prince Albert has taken down a gun store's sponsorship sign at a community baseball diamond dugout — and the store's owners want it put back.




www.iheartradio.ca





I think council was quick to act and as a result effed up. A knee jerk response which could have been handled better. I also think that a more objective approach would have been an opportunity to promote gun education. Would the ad have been taken down if it was Cabella's?

The business owner was asked for the sponsorship and was helping fund recreational sports. This is not an NRA lobbyist.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> A small bit of first time jitters but I think the big thing is finding a handgun that fits you well. If I was going into the sport I would definitely want to handle/shoot many of them before buying one.
> 
> There is an outdoor IPSC match close by in 10 days, think I'll go watch to see what it's like in person.


Oh, I'd say get a .22lr handgun first, all that kick from centerfire is annoying.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Man charged with killing NY cop released from prison in May


The suspect in the killing of an upstate New York police officer in July was released from prison two months earlier, and could face a life sentence without parole based on new charges a prosecutor announced Wednesday.




www.ctvnews.ca





Hey, but let's continue blaming constitution instead of far left DAs who let murderers walk free


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> Hey, but let's continue blaming constitution instead of far left DAs who let murderers walk free


That's not an accident, it was done on purpose. Just like the man who tried to assassinate a member of Congress and was let out with no bail 12 hours later.

The Democrats WANT civil unrest, murders, arson, and rape. That's the only way they can take away rights under the guise of "safety".


----------

