Discussions

So we both agree that this was legal. Great  
 
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. That is why I can have the opinion that this should have been handled differently. I voiced that opinion through the petition. If I believed his actions were illegal, I would have contacted the police.  
 
None of this changes the facts that there is no science or logic behind what weapons made the list. The list was derived from fear mongering and misinformation.

The subject of gun control was brought up as a wedge tool for the Liberal's to use for elections. They just needed a grave to dance on, and the N/S mass murder was just what they needed.  
Never mind that none of the guns the shooter used would have been affected by this, or just about any, ban.  
This ban aimed at 9 firearm types, but then went further to prohibit larger caliber firearms as well, despite that none had ever been used in a crime in Canada. In Hollywood movies, sure, but not in reality.  
Among the larger caliber items banned were fairly rare historic weapons, unlikely to ever be used in a crime.  
Personally, I have never been convicted or even charged with a criminal code offense, pay my taxes, and mind my own business. But, somehow, in the middle of a pandemic, I seem to have been identified by the government as a threat or an enemy of Canada. The ban has affected over 100K of material in my collection. And it was done at a time of uncertainty and restriction on movement. And with the promise of more restrictions to follow.  
For those with only "normal" restricted firearms, or simple hunting arms, and think you aren't next, you will be in for a surprise.  
Gun control is the one thing that when it fails, and it has continually failed over all these years, the answer from the gun control advocates will be that it is because they need more of it.

Don't be silly, it takes a bill in the House of Commons to change the Elections Act.  
 
Orders in council can be used to amend existing laws, make appointments, etc.  
 
There is no conspiracy here or anything out of the ordinary when it comes to this government's recent OIC.

it was that easy, what would of stopped Conservatives from using OIC to eliminate elections themselves?  
 
Elections are also part of our Democratic Rights.  
 
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.(2)  
 
And to change that requires an Amendment to the Constitution. As outlined in Part 5 of the Constitution Act of 1982.  
 
https://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html  
 
So getting rid of Elections and out Democratic Rights isn't easy.

in shooting a gun, I never want to see what one does to a person either, I have read about such tragedies.  
But I do wan to say that people who use guns to hunt for meat are okay in my books.  
I do not understand why the feds think that natives people can still use these guns and you are right, this decision fosters hate. Hate is my word not yours.  
I am of First Nation descent and I do not think that our people should be able to keep these types of guns.  
Plus next time there is a stand off with a reserve for whatever reason it is not fair for any police force to think that there is a possibility of FN people having assault style weapons in their hands.  
It seems like Trudeau is always trying to buy votes and this instance is no different, IMO

I don't personally care whether it's an Order in Council or a Private Member's Bill. To me, it's not about the method they use to try to ban legally purchased firearms, it's the fact that they're trying to ban them ...period. I am sick of seeing law abiding citizens have to give up freedoms every time some idiot causes injury or death by misusing a legally available item or using it to commit a crime. To those who ask why anybody needs a gun like these, I'll ask why does anybody need a Corvette, or a sport bike, or a 5,000 watt audio system for that matter? That's not the point. We shouldn't have to justify why we need or want something in order to be allowed to own it. Government should not be allowed to ban something, confiscate it from law abiding citizens, just because someone used a similar item to commit a crime.

Just wanted to say that obviously this is a issue as it is now the largest Petition ever signed in Canada with 175,428 signatures and it was done in 7 days. Still have over 3 months left to sign. That’s based on facts and statistics.

.005% of the population has signed a petition saying they want to keep their toys. It's damned near a movement.  
 
Too bad 80% of the country (80%>:.005%) support the ban.  
 
Why do the people who scream loudest "democratic rights" cry the longest when democratically taken actions are the ones that they want?  
 
Why do the people who insist that there is no science or logic behind the ban refuse to acknowledge the tonnes of science that support stricy gun control? Why do they hand wave the very real logic that supports the ban?  
 
Why do the people who whine most shrilly about "illegal" government procedures has the least understanding of government procedure?  
 
All of the anti-ban arguments boil down to, "This is bad cuz I wanna keep my gunzzzzz!"  
 
They make ludicrous arguements comparing cars - without which modern society would slam to a halt - and guns - without which modern society would continue on unimpeded.  
 
They say, "I'm a lawabiding citizen!" Well, yeah, until you violate a law - then, like it or not, you're a criminal.  
 
"How can they tell a lawabiding citizen like me I can't have my pew-pew? Tyranny!!!!" they blandly intone, either ignoring or ignorant of the very many times that products have been banned because the societal harm outweighed the societal good. When was the last time you saw a set of steel tipped lawn darts. Those got banned and we had 3 sets. Tyranny!!!!  
 
Why can't they just accept that they are in a tiny minority of a minority, and adapt to the very reasonable desires of the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens?  
 
Find some other toys to play with kids.

1. Can you link a source that indicates 80% of the population supports the ban?  
 
2. What science are you referring to when stating that tonnes of science supports this ban.  
 
3 What logic do you see behind a ban that looks at 2 long rifles that are each semi automatic and hold 5 rounds and determine the one with the black stock should be illegal while the one with the wood stalk is fine?  
 
What, on earth, do you mean with your statement saying people are law abiding citizens until they are not? What does that mean and how does it relates to guns in any way.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2020-05-12 19:41:40

1) http://angusreid.org/assault-weapons-ban/  
 
2) Every single study says that limiting access to firearms reduces murder rates, suicide rates, accidental shootings (quite often kids but sometimes Vice-Presidents.)  
 
Well established evidence shows that a "home-protection" gun is multiple times more likely to kill a family member than stop a crime.  
 
3) Ummm.... yeah.... colours and stuff.  
 
The logic is as follows: These weapons serve no societal good and are not needed for the purposes their defenders cite. They are not required for hunting or target shooting.  
 
All available evidence shows that in exchange for providing no meaningful benefit to broader society they cause us to incur financial and social expense.  
 
Given disproportionate expense in exchange for no demonstrable good, logic says that guns should be extremely heavily restricted.  
 
Logic that goes beyond the finish on the stock.  
 
"Law abiding until they're not..." - Every stolen gun on the street came from a "law abiding citizen" abided the law so well that they weren't using their gun safe. Or left it in the car. Bet a whole bunch of them said, "I'm a law-abiding , responsible gun owner."  
 
How many mass shooters - or single shooters - had clean records? Lots. Law abiding until they weren't.  
 
I'm not saying that all, many or most gun owners are irresponsible or unstable. The vast majority are not a problem, but sometimes when you live in a group a few jerks ruin it for everyone.  
 
One last thing, while I think of it. I'm not scared of guns or being shot. Canada has a pretty low gun crime rate (thanks largely to strict gun control.)

"The majority of the illegal guns in Canada used to be smuggled across the border from the U.S., but that seems to be changing. According to police, a growing number of guns are bought legally in Canada and resold on the black market, or made here illegally."  
 
Notice it says most are bought LEGALLY in Canada and resold or made here. That means that peoole who pass Canada's torturous permitting process buy them legally and sell them on.  
 
If you oppose a restriction on the weapons themselves because "guns don't kill people..." what level of oversight, checks and prohibitions would you be willing to subject yourself to in order to be allowed to possess your gun?  
 
Editted to add link to the source of the quote  
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5126228  
 
Edited by Jordanical, 2020-05-12 20:27:18

There is an old saying about gun control, and the ratio of those for and those against.  
The analogy is that of a river. The river of those who are for gun control is very wide, but not very deep. But the river of those who are for firearms ownership is not as wide, but very very deep. And committed.  
 
That is the reason why a petition has the most recorded signatures of any house of commons petition, and in just 7 days. That is the reason that firearms owners will put their money where their hobby is....supporting the firearms lobby groups, and the politicians who will support us. That is the reason why they will financially support any court actions against the ban.  
One problem with the polls about gun control is the lack of knowledge of those voting. Who wouldn't want to see the criminals in this country disarmed....any gun owner would even agree to that.  
There are laws on the books now that would put people who steal firearms into prison for up to 20 years. But it is never used.  
We have a PM who has been accused of groping a reporter, having a sexual relationship with an underage student, interfering with the duties of the attorney general, accepting gifts from a recipient of government funds...the list goes on and on. And this moron wants to virtue signal by stealing my lawfully purchased property in order to get re-elected.  
 
This isn't over.

Just a reminder that this Bill C-71 came into place to ‘protect’ society from the gun wielding criminals out there.. this is false in itself because most gun wielding criminals obtained those firearms illegally.  
 
By putting this gun ban in place it does NOT fix that problem.. as most “Law Abiding Gun Owners” have their guns stored and locked up properly. It IS the Canada/US border system that is weak and needs fixing not a gun ban! The criminals will keep obtaining firearms illegally they way they have been doing so regardless of a ban or not. This ban just allows the civilians to be unarmed against gun wielding criminals.  
 
Please do not lump ALL gun owners together as one and categorized them as criminals or irresponsible. There is a big difference between and gun owner and a criminal using the gun with the intent of harming others..  
 
When you live rurally, and you have a truck of 2-4 guys armed entering your property to rob you, you bet your ass you’d wish you had a gun especially when you have loved ones in your home.. But hey butter knifes are sure intimidating in situations like that.. not to mention RCMP response times are slower as they have lots of kilometres to cover.  
 
There is no need to stereotype gun owners either, if it was something you were passionate about you’d fight for it so there is no need to slam others and make it personal. Everyone has something worth fighting for.  
 
But remember the purpose of this ban was to prevent criminals from having access to these guns and this Bill does not change the intended purpose..

You laugh off a petition signed by over 175 000 people but use a survey of 1578 people to prove a point. Great math  
 
The survey asks about the banning of assault weapons and assault rifles which both have highly varied definitions to many people. It talks about banning the weapons use in L'ecole Polytechnique in 1989. The main reason for that carnage was the high capacity magazines which have been banned since legislation in 1992 and 1996. It also mentioned Nova Scotia. This is a case where the guns are believed to have come from the US as this individual had been banned from owning firearms.  
 
I don't own guns although I am legally entitled to do so. I believe there should be more stringent rules in the US. However, I don't like it when fear is used to make irrational decisions.  
 
If you are saying that all guns should be banned, I can respect that opinion. If you are suggesting that hunting rifle is fine but a gun that shoots the same bullets and can hold the same number of bullets should be banned cause someone says it is assault styled, you've lost me.  
 
It is worth noting that the Ruger mini 14 used at L'ecole Polytechnique is not on the list of banned weapons although it was promised to be.  
 
https://www.scribd.com/document/459370005/Federal-government-banning-military-style-guns#from_e:mbed

"It is worth noting that the Ruger mini 14 used at L'ecole Polytechnique is not on the list of banned weapons although it was promised to be. "  
 
 
The Mini-14 is listed under section 88. However, the 30 round magazine the shooter used has been banned for almost 30 years, and even the possession of it can land you in deep trouble and a criminal record.  
 
This was/is quite a popular rifle for varmint hunting, and for trappers and locals caribou hunting up north.  
 
The 7.62x39 version, the Mini-30 is also banned. That was a popular rifle for deer as well.  
 
Edited by Tanner B., 2020-05-13 11:00:21

I hadn't noticed there were several alphabetical lists for the banned weapons. Thanks for the clarification. The more guns I see on the list, the more I shake my head.

There is a big difference between a statistical sample - a time tested, methodologically rigid system of extrapolation and an internet petition. One big difference is the sample will have been chosen with a systematic determination to avoid bias. Petitions, by definition, explicitly select for bias.  
 
I notice you didn't address any of the facts that you asked for as evidence of a logical and scientific basis for the ban in favour of implying that the whole thing is bunk because one weapon used in one shooting 3 decades ago didn't make the list. Bold strategy  
 
As to the source of the illegal guns, I linked to an article that shows smuggling is a problem, but the majority are straw purchase or stolen (from law-abiding responsible owners)  
 
I don't think all guns should be banned - though I mostly wouldn't o:bject.  
 
How about this, allow one, single-shot, bolt action rifle for hunters during hunting season. Outside of hunting season the rifle is to be locked and stored with law enforcement at the owner's expense.  
 
Rural residents can have a (1) single shot rifle and a shotgun.  
 
Guns for target shooting would be locked up at the range when not being used. Shooters would be allowed to own 1 handgun and 1 long gun.  
 
Possession of a firearm outside of these limits would be subject to a lfetime ban after their lengthy jail sentence.

Now that you have laid out what you think sensible firearm regulation would look like, I can completely respect you position. I don't agree with it but it does make a lot of sense on several levels. There is some logic behind your reasoning and some common sense to your approach that is completely lacking in the new government ban.  
 
Again, I do not agree with you but, on the surface, your proposal has, at least some, thought behind it as opposed to what we just got. I feel your idea comes from a belief plus logic whereas this new ban comes from an agenda plus fear.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2020-05-13 14:37:45

This is a great post but servers only the posters purpose. Yes your vehicle can go very fast but the government of the time has recognized that speed kills, so they have established laws restricting how fast you can go. Yes you have a drivers licence but that license is a privilege, not a right and the government of the time has established laws restricting who can have a license and who can't. I can go on and on but the point being the Government has to decide that keeping the 2/3 of the population safe by establishing some ground rules for the other 1/3, then so be .  
Having a couple or road pops while driving is great. It should be my right as a Canadian to be able to do what I want and when. The government can't me what I can do and what I can't do. It's my body and I am protected by the Chatter of Rights, right. Whoa , hang on. The government recognizes that drinking and driving is a dangerous thing and that people are dying on our roads. This effects all citizens of Canada so they establish laws against drinking and driving.  
 
When I hear people saying things like it's my right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have military style high powered weapons, this is the picture I get. Is this the future of Canada?? Is this what we want??

1. Every condition/restriction you listed for a driver's license applies to a gun license and then some.  
 
2. The firearm in your photo was already illegal in Canada based on magazine size.

It was an interesting read about the survey. You mention 80% of Canadians support a gun ban. I read the results myself and find something interesting. This is based upon 1500 people out of 32 million. Yet 175,000 people want their guns out of 32 million.  
 
Reading the answers to the survey is very interesting. Question #4 - Overall, how well - if at all - would you say you know and understand the laws and regulations regarding owning and storing guns in Canada. 49% don't know much or know nothing.  
 
So 80% of the population supports a ban yet knows very little to nothing about gun ownership. Very interesting.  
 
I like how at least you tried to put forth a make shift proposal. Now I don't know if you hunt or not. If you do I don't understand some of the logic so I will ask. According to your source illegal guns are still majority smuggled but those numbers are changing. There is an increase in making own guns etc. but still smuggling is up there.  
One single shot rifle and for rural people a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The legal amount a gun can currently hold is 5 rounds. I guess I couldn't hunt duck, geese, turkey, etc because I am a city folk and wouldn't be allowed a shotgun? Have you ever had a wild boar come at you after shooting a deer. I would love to see you take down a wild animal attacking you with a single shot only. Have you tried duck hunting ever with a single shot. Would take forever to shoot anything. A rifle if you happen to miss slightly and just wound the animal....well now you are making it suffer as it is running off while you try and load another shell in the chamber.  
Having RCMP holding on to people's guns would be a huge undertaking and paperwork nightmare. Target shooting at a range is just asking to be robbed. Gun ranges can be in remote areas. Could you imagine organized crime getting wind that a range would be storing hundreds of handguns in one place? It would be a buffet for criminals. My guns at home are locked up in a safe, with trigger locks. Ammunition stored in a separate area. The rules and regulations and background checks one has to jump through is amazing.

Thank you, this is so well said.

See, Im sorry, but you are horrible misinformed. The rifle in that picture would very likely be a .223 or at the very most a .308. Assuming this picture is from the US, Im going to go with the idea that its a .223.  
 
What you don't realize, is that the .223 is not a high powered rifle. Its not a military rifle. "Military style" is just the excuse used to be upset with the cosmetic look of a gun. Are you really worried about the fact that the newer modeled guns, most of which are on the list to be banned are made with plastic and polymer rather then wood? Is that what scares people? That's sad.  
 
So, please, you can hate guns, and love the ban, but please, please don't lie to people. If you don't know what things are, or what terminology to use, don't.

Well said.  
 
 
The government loves that most Canadians know very little about firearms in general

Well as of yesterday the CCFR has now officially said they will be filling their lawsuit against the government for violating our Charter of Rights with in the next few weeks. It’s not a win but a great start. They have a very strong team and would not have been willing to waste their money if they did not believe they had a good chance of winning. The law still applies to no buying, selling, transporting or using any of the firearms on the ban list. This lawsuit can last up to 3 years but we stand a good chance of winning and worse case is they prolong it until the Conservatives get voted in and they will have the power to revoke the law. That’s the best news we have had in a long time. The CCFR is a great way to support, as they are working with the Conservatives to fight for us. A great way to support them is to become a member for $40 a year and that gives you a 5 million dollar liability insurance or just donate to support them. As well as I watched a video on Facebook with Larry Maguire speaking to 2 very well educated and respected people that I will not say their names but the one was a ex RCMP for 17 years and now owns a business in Virden as well as the other who has 30 years in with the military and 4 years with the police and they are opposed to the ban and the way it was put threw with no evidence to support it. I started this discussion because I wanted to bring awareness to people who are not a part of the gun community as I think if they were educated they would have a better understanding. Most people who are against guns no little or nothing about a firearm and have probably never fired one. Plus I thought I would finish it off with the fact that we have 197,651 signatures as of now with 3 and a half months remaining to sign the petition.  
 
Edited by Unknown3710, 2020-05-15 18:45:54

RCMP continues to prohibit more firearms in the FRT with no notice or publication  
 
It appears that around 255 new Firearm Reference Table (FRT) changes have been done in secrecy by the RCMP. The affected firearms are not part of the 1500 prohibited by name in the recent OIC on May 1st.  
 
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.  
 
Although the application of this section of the Charter to our circumstances is not guaranteed, this much is clear: what’s gone wrong in this process is that we have been deprived, both as to our freedom to live as we choose, as well as being put at risk of incarceration by this law, in a manner that is fundamentally unjust. We will ask the Court to rule on whether or not the government has the right to deprive us of our liberty, or our property, on penalty of incarceration, on fundamentally irrational grounds.

1) The questions centered on the policy not the specific weapons. The questions were as non-slanted as possible,  
"Do you support or oppose...?" There is no slant to the questions.  
 
2) People that hide behind purely semantic arguments (definition of assault rifle for instance) do so due to a lack of having a substantive argument.  
 
3) Surprisingly the majority of those who claimed to know the most were gun owners. They might have a reason to oppose the legislation outside of o:bjective grounds.  
 
4) Partcipants were members of Angus Reid Forums. Volunteers in the sense of, "They signed up and said they were willing to be part of surveys in general" yes.  
 
Volunteers in the sense of "They volunteered for this specific survey? No."  
 
They would have been asked and been free to participate or not. If they said no then a request would go to someone else that fit that demographic.  
 
5) Methodology and detailed breakdown of the results, as well as caveats, are readily and easily available on the results page.  
 
This all leads me to believe that you either didn't read the pages in any meaningful way or you completely misunderstood everything you read.  
 
I suspect the latter and I suspect it was motivated.  
 
TLDR - One of the most reputable polling firms on Earth: We did a survey here are the results.  
Some Ebrandon guy: You obviously don't understand how to do a survey or the results would have supported my side! Fayk Newz!!1!

The survey and methodology here is the link  
 
http://angusreid.org/assault-weapons-ban/

As stated before, I do understand and respect your POV although I don't really agree with it. But to look at a survey that asks:  
 
"Would you support or oppose Canada having a complete ban on civilian possession of Assault Weapons?"  
 
and suggest that the definition of "Assault Weapons" is little more than a battle of semantics is troubling.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2020-05-16 12:47:41

There is no such thing as a reputable poll or survey. Results are always manipulated.