How many more citizens have to get shot or killed before we take away their guns in Canada?

199 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
How many more citizens have to get shot or killed before we take away their guns in Canada?
NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Nobody else needs to be shot, NR.

Take away their guns!  No, not grandpa's squirrel rifle.  Take away the criminals' guns.  Start with them and work your way down.

MapleInTheEye

Aren't 50%+ of annual gun crimes in Toronto eventually traced back with the serial number and usually is a US-sourced, illegally-smuggled handgun? If we didn't have to live next to the beast next door, we'd have half the problem solved right there.

MegB

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Aren't 50%+ of annual gun crimes in Toronto eventually traced back with the serial number and usually is a US-sourced, illegally-smuggled handgun? If we didn't have to live next to the beast next door, we'd have half the problem solved right there.

I think it is closer to 70 per cent, but that's based on a years old report from Toronto police. Needless to say US gun fetishism does have a real impact on gun violence in Canada. 

Martin N.

Of course it does but if the authorities start jacking up criminals to search for guns, the bleating about 'rights' and 'due process' etc will make them even more timid than they are now. Individual rights need to be balanced with collective security.

I personally have no problem with being stopped and searched because I realize that it is for the common good. Banging on about gun laws will not save one innocent shooting victim but allowing easier searches will.

Paladin1

The majority of illegal handguns come from across the border.

Why that is is because every handgun bought and sold in Canada goes through the RCMP who checks the sellers credentials and also the buyers. Once it's checked out (can take from a week to months) the RCMP contact both parties and give them permission to transfer the gun.

There are a very small number of cases of legal gun owners choosing to sell their restricted firearms to criminals but they're discovered the minute the gun is used in a crime (and found) or when the CFO does an inspection and all of a sudden someone doesn't have the gun they're supposed to have. Guns can also be sourced from break and enters.

 

Perhaps Toronto police should be allowed to stop and search citizens on suspicion of carrying illegal items.

 

 

While reading this sad story of two children shot, I caught another link on the page, from Toronto, of a 13 year old being charged with murdering a 19 year old.  Again maybe more random stop and searches would have prevented this.

 

Quote:

A 13-year-old boy has been charged with first-degree murder following the killing of a cyclist in Little Portugal on Saturday.

Police say Aaron Rankine-Wright, 19, had just left his apartment, and was heading to work on Saturday when he was followed by a dark SUV, intentionally struck, then assaulted and stabbed near Frankish and Sheridan Aves., near Dundas St. W. and Dufferin St.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/15/13-year-old-boy-charged-with...

 

 

NorthReport

Let's just get rid of all guns as human beings are just too stupid!

Paladin1

Ironically you're going to need more guns to take away all those guns.  But I'm sold. Where do we start?

Hurtin Albertan

Guess you could start with some cold dead hands.  That might be a touch on the extreme side though.

Even as a strong supporter of the shooting sports I would still be very skeptical about any stats regarding the origin of crime guns.  In what percentage of gun crimes do the police actually find the murder weapon?  If the gun ends up in the Don River who is ever going to know where it came from?

Maybe it's 70%, maybe it's 50%, nobody has any real idea but they will torture the numbers until they do what they want them to do.

Martin N.

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Paladin1

I'd like to see knives banned too. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bulk-of-illegal-guns-seized-in-bc-from-domestic-sources-study/article37103062/

Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth said Monday police data indicates almost 60 per cent of the guns seized in B.C. were purchased, traded or stolen in Canada.

 

JKR

Paladin1 wrote:

I'd like to see knives banned too. 

Are't knives like switchblades already banned?

I think almost everyone supports some level of gun control, at least to some degree. Outright banning and total confiscation of guns isn't on the radar, except here on Babble. Unrealistic threads like these on gun control on Babble probably serve to weaken the argument for gun control! I think the NRA would actually appreciate a thread like this.

NorthReport

Dp

NorthReport

Who gives a flyin fig what the NRA likes or dislikes!

We don’t need any more research, bullshit articles in the media, or political nonsense.

What we do need to do is get rid of the guns!!!

Just ask any of the students whose school has had a gun attack and they will all tell you the same thing. Our societies need to lose the guns

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Who gives a flyin fig what the NRA likes or dislikes!

We don’t need any more research, bullshit articles in the media, or political nonsense.

What we do need to do is get rid of the guns!!!

Just ask any of the students whose school has had a gun attack and they will all tell you the same thing. Our societies need to lose the guns

The NRA doesn't stand a chance against that message.

Paladin1

JKR wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:

I'd like to see knives banned too. 

Are't knives like switchblades already banned?

They are yes but they're banned because of being associated with gangs and not some sort of  physics. We're adding pocket knives that can be opened with one hand to that list too.

Quote:
I think almost everyone supports some level of gun control, at least to some degree. Outright banning and total confiscation of guns isn't on the radar, except here on Babble. Unrealistic threads like these on gun control on Babble probably serve to weaken the argument for gun control! I think the NRA would actually appreciate a thread like this.

Yup. Gun control is super important. Gun control needs to be based off science, facts and common sense and not politics or scoring votes.

NorthReport wrote:

What we do need to do is get rid of the guns!!!

In the story you posted two people were shot but expected to survive. In the follow up link a child killed someone by stabbing them to death (after running them over with a vehicle). More people are killed in Canada by stabbing than shooting.  So, ban knives too?  Why only guns?

Martin N.

Pogo wrote:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bulk-of-illegal-guns-seized-in-bc-from-domestic-sources-study/article37103062/

Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth said Monday police data indicates almost 60 per cent of the guns seized in B.C. were purchased, traded or stolen in Canada.

 

Hmm. Is that because these seizures were not related to criminal activity but in-home seizures related to other law enforcement activities such as domestic disputes, enforcing court orders etc?

Martin N.

It makes more sense to enforce existing laws rather than regulating everything from box cutters to warning signs with sharp edges that don't have signage warning of sharp edges. 

NorthReport

The knife thingy is just another red herring, another diversion, that has absolutely nothing to do with getting rid of guns, all guns.

gadar

JKR wrote:

The NRA doesn't stand a chance against that message.

The Liberals paid a heavy political price for the botched Gun Registry. The Conservatives would love it if the Liberals to try again. I dont think the current Govt is willing to take that risk. Two of the three major political parties who wont ban guns. That leaves the NDP.

The NDP should put the gun ban in its platform.

Go NDP Go Singh. 

MapleInTheEye

gadar wrote:

JKR wrote:

The NRA doesn't stand a chance against that message.

The Liberals paid a heavy political price for the botched Gun Registry. The Conservatives would love it if the Liberals to try again. I dont think the current Govt is willing to take that risk. Two of the three major political parties who wont ban guns. That leaves the NDP.

The NDP should put the gun ban in its platform.

Go NDP Go Singh. 

 

Why was the registry botched?

Unionist

JKR wrote:
Outright banning and total confiscation of guns isn't on the radar, except here on Babble. Unrealistic threads like these on gun control on Babble probably serve to weaken the argument for gun control! I think the NRA would actually appreciate a thread like this.

JKR, please don't generalize and exaggerate without doing some research into previous babble threads. No one has seriously proposed banning and confiscating all firearms. Don't get excited just because NR gets excited. He'll calm down.

My proposals here over many years:

1. Ban handguns, period. They serve no purpose except killing people. We don't want to kill people.

2. Ban possession/storage of all firearms in (appropriately defined) urban areas. They're not needed there for any legitimate purpose. Hunting is in rural areas, and sport shooting should be rigorously excluded from towns and cities. The state would then create storage facilities where urban owners can check out their firearms when headed for hunting/sport shooting activities.

3. Work toward ending all private ownership (or purchase or sale) of all firearms. The state has a monopoly on ownership - citizens/residents rent.

4. Exception: Indigenous people have hereditary hunting rights - therefore they would not be subject to #3. But everyone would be subject to #1 and #2.

5. Work toward disarming police, with exceptions for special units.

6. No phony "background checks". Yes, some individuals, based on their records, could lose the privilege of owning/renting/using firearms.

7. Offenders would be subject to confiscation, loss of privileges for life, and extremely severe prison sentences. No one should be allowed to play around with deadly weapons. Society needs to take a serious stand and ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

What do you think, JKR?

 

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

The knife thingy is just another red herring, another diversion, that has absolutely nothing to do with getting rid of guns, all guns.

It's not a red herring at all.

 I'm biased of course but lets look at the question; how many more have to get shot or killed before we take away their guns!

Why are we talking about taking away guns? I figure there's two answes.

1. to save lives (which is a pillar of your question); or

2. because we just hate guns and want to get rid of them.

So *IF* the reason why is because we care about lives then banning knives does matter because knives are being used to kill people too.  More people are stabbed in Canada than shot AND the article you posted spoke of two kids being shot and recovering but also a child stabbing a man to death.  If we care about lives then we absolutely should look at knives too.  You may have heard it's a pretty big thing in the UK.

You didn't articulate who's guns you're looking at taking away. Criminals or everyone. I'll assume everyones guns?

Lets say guns are illegal across the board and only criminals have whats left of their illegal guns, and the supply starts to dry up. Stabbings will rise to make up for the loss of guns - so why not target knives (which even WITH guns are responsible for more deaths) along side guns and not afterwards? Think of the lives we can save.

 

Paladin1

gadar wrote:

JKR wrote:

The NRA doesn't stand a chance against that message.

The Liberals paid a heavy political price for the botched Gun Registry. The Conservatives would love it if the Liberals to try again. I dont think the current Govt is willing to take that risk. Two of the three major political parties who wont ban guns. That leaves the NDP.

The NDP should put the gun ban in its platform.

Go NDP Go Singh. 

 

The liberals DID reintroduce a gun registry. It's called bil C71. The only thing is the goverment isn't keeping records themselves. They're making shop owners collect buyers  information, which the police can in turn access.  They're making private sellers call in to the RCMP and check the buyers liscence number and tell the RCMP what kind of gun they're selling them, I think they're asking for the serial numbers too.

So, in a mealy mouth way the Liberals didn't bring back a government gun registry, but there is 100% a new gun registry.

Gun registry doesn't bother me very much. Can be arguments for the positive side of it (just not the one we had). The way the Liberals went about doing it is shady as hell.

 

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Why was the registry botched?

It was estimated to cost a few million dollars to start and run. By the time it was canceled it cost over 2 billion dollars with millions of dollars being dumped into it every year. The database was full or errors and the information couldn't be relied on by the police. There were corruption issues with the employees and a few privacy breaches where hackers got personal information (types of guns & home addresses) of gun owners.

 

gadar

Paladin1 wrote:

The liberals DID reintroduce a gun registry. It's called bil C71. The only thing is the goverment isn't keeping records themselves. They're making shop owners collect buyers  information, which the police can in turn access.  They're making private sellers call in to the RCMP and check the buyers liscence number and tell the RCMP what kind of gun they're selling them, I think they're asking for the serial numbers too.

So, in a mealy mouth way the Liberals didn't bring back a government gun registry, but there is 100% a new gun registry.

Gun registry doesn't bother me very much. Can be arguments for the positive side of it (just not the one we had). The way the Liberals went about doing it is shady as hell.

 

It was estimated to cost a few million dollars to start and run. By the time it was canceled it cost over 2 billion dollars with millions of dollars being dumped into it every year. The database was full or errors and the information couldn't be relied on by the police. There were corruption issues with the employees and a few privacy breaches where hackers got personal information (types of guns & home addresses) of gun owners.

 

I am in favour of keeping track of the gun ownership in the country. The burden should be reasonable on the gunowners though. The suggestion of banning guns in this thread is a non stater with both The Liberals and Conservatives. 

NDP should show the way on gun control as suggested upthread and make banning all the guns a part of their platform.

Go NDP Go Singh

gadar

Unionist wrote:
JKR, please don't generalize and exaggerate without doing some research into previous babble threads. No one has seriously proposed banning and confiscating all firearms. Don't get excited just because NR gets excited. He'll calm down.

My proposals here over many years:

1. Ban handguns, period. They serve no purpose except killing people. We don't want to kill people.

2. Ban possession/storage of all firearms in (appropriately defined) urban areas. They're not needed there for any legitimate purpose. Hunting is in rural areas, and sport shooting should be rigorously excluded from towns and cities. The state would then create storage facilities where urban owners can check out their firearms when headed for hunting/sport shooting activities.

3. Work toward ending all private ownership (or purchase or sale) of all firearms. The state has a monopoly on ownership - citizens/residents rent.

4. Exception: Indigenous people have hereditary hunting rights - therefore they would not be subject to #3. But everyone would be subject to #1 and #2.

5. Work toward disarming police, with exceptions for special units.

6. No phony "background checks". Yes, some individuals, based on their records, could lose the privilege of owning/renting/using firearms.

7. Offenders would be subject to confiscation, loss of privileges for life, and extremely severe prison sentences. No one should be allowed to play around with deadly weapons. Society needs to take a serious stand and ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

What do you think, JKR?

 

Good post. It is posts like this that make coming to these boards worthwhile. Thanks Unionist.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
Outright banning and total confiscation of guns isn't on the radar, except here on Babble. Unrealistic threads like these on gun control on Babble probably serve to weaken the argument for gun control! I think the NRA would actually appreciate a thread like this.

JKR, please don't generalize and exaggerate without doing some research into previous babble threads. No one has seriously proposed banning and confiscating all firearms. Don't get excited just because NR gets excited. He'll calm down.

My proposals here over many years:

1. Ban handguns, period. They serve no purpose except killing people. We don't want to kill people.

2. Ban possession/storage of all firearms in (appropriately defined) urban areas. They're not needed there for any legitimate purpose. Hunting is in rural areas, and sport shooting should be rigorously excluded from towns and cities. The state would then create storage facilities where urban owners can check out their firearms when headed for hunting/sport shooting activities.

3. Work toward ending all private ownership (or purchase or sale) of all firearms. The state has a monopoly on ownership - citizens/residents rent.

4. Exception: Indigenous people have hereditary hunting rights - therefore they would not be subject to #3. But everyone would be subject to #1 and #2.

5. Work toward disarming police, with exceptions for special units.

6. No phony "background checks". Yes, some individuals, based on their records, could lose the privilege of owning/renting/using firearms.

7. Offenders would be subject to confiscation, loss of privileges for life, and extremely severe prison sentences. No one should be allowed to play around with deadly weapons. Society needs to take a serious stand and ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

What do you think, JKR?

 

I agree with your proposed policies and I think your proposals are very well thought out and are on the mark. Unfortunately I don't think my views are representative of the general population's which explains why I frequent a site like babble. However, I do think many other people on the left would support these kinds of proposals. I wish our society would have the necessary social cohesion to implement these kinds of enlightened ideas. Given our current political climate, I'm not sure how these kinds of ideas could be implemented. I think views similar to those of Paladin1 and Martin N. are representative of broad swaths of the population regarding this issue. I think the current political consensus regarding gun control supports maintaining the status quo, but of course I may be wrong. I think an attempt to significantly bolster gun controls would be met by a lot of resistance, especially in rural areas that have a lot of political clout as they are overrepresented in our Parliament. It would be interesting to see what would happen if these kinds of proposals were brought to an NDP convention. My guess is that they would be reworked and watered down at convention to mostly maintain the status quo or they might be buried. But I could be wrong. How do you think your proposals could be implemented?

Paladin1

gadar wrote:

I am in favour of keeping track of the gun ownership in the country. The burden should be reasonable on the gunowners though. The suggestion of banning guns in this thread is a non stater with both The Liberals and Conservatives.

All handguns in Canada and some long rifles of certain styles and barrel lengths are essentially already kept track of and registered by the RCMP.

It's really not that bad. I'm actually happy they keep track of handguns especially, and I like knowing there is positive control on them. Handguns are the favored firearm of criminals because of their size and concealability. I'd like it if every single gun in Canada was registered with the RCMP and tracked. I'd stop short of banning them all together though.

I think one of the biggest push-backs against that from firearm owners is the very real situation of the RCMP deciding that "blue honda civics" (used for comparason) are now illegal and owners must turn them in to the police, without any financial compensation to the owners, or goto jail.  When this was brought up in the past here some members said well too fucking bad but personally I'm not in favor of the police being able to confiscate thousands of dollars of private property from lawful citizens on a whim.

Quote:

NDP should show the way on gun control as suggested upthread and make banning all the guns a part of their platform.

That would be political suicide because there are avid firearm owners in the PC, Liberals and NDP. There's also a lot of non-firearm owners who have no problem with responsible Canadians owning firearms.

Martin N.

JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
Outright banning and total confiscation of guns isn't on the radar, except here on Babble. Unrealistic threads like these on gun control on Babble probably serve to weaken the argument for gun control! I think the NRA would actually appreciate a thread like this.

JKR, please don't generalize and exaggerate without doing some research into previous babble threads. No one has seriously proposed banning and confiscating all firearms. Don't get excited just because NR gets excited. He'll calm down.

My proposals here over many years:

1. Ban handguns, period. They serve no purpose except killing people. We don't want to kill people.

2. Ban possession/storage of all firearms in (appropriately defined) urban areas. They're not needed there for any legitimate purpose. Hunting is in rural areas, and sport shooting should be rigorously excluded from towns and cities. The state would then create storage facilities where urban owners can check out their firearms when headed for hunting/sport shooting activities.

3. Work toward ending all private ownership (or purchase or sale) of all firearms. The state has a monopoly on ownership - citizens/residents rent.

4. Exception: Indigenous people have hereditary hunting rights - therefore they would not be subject to #3. But everyone would be subject to #1 and #2.

5. Work toward disarming police, with exceptions for special units.

6. No phony "background checks". Yes, some individuals, based on their records, could lose the privilege of owning/renting/using firearms.

7. Offenders would be subject to confiscation, loss of privileges for life, and extremely severe prison sentences. No one should be allowed to play around with deadly weapons. Society needs to take a serious stand and ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

What do you think, JKR?

 

I agree with your proposed policies and I think your proposals are very well thought out and are on the mark. Unfortunately I don't think my views are representative of the general population's which explains why I frequent a site like babble. However, I do think many other people on the left would support these kinds of proposals. I wish our society would have the necessary social cohesion to implement these kinds of enlightened ideas. Given our current political climate, I'm not sure how these kinds of ideas could be implemented. I think views similar to those of Paladin1 and Martin N. are representative of broad swaths of the population regarding this issue. I think the current political consensus regarding gun control supports maintaining the status quo, but of course I may be wrong. I think an attempt to significantly bolster gun controls would be met by a lot of resistance, especially in rural areas that have a lot of political clout as they are overrepresented in our Parliament. It would be interesting to see what would happen if these kinds of proposals were brought to an NDP convention. My guess is that they would be reworked and watered down at convention to mostly maintain the status quo or they might be buried. But I could be wrong. How do you think your proposals could be implemented?

My opinion is that I agree substantially with unionist but disagree that further regulation will have the desired outcome due to the same concerns that escalated a few million dollar commitment to a gun registry into a few billion dollar boondoggle.

My main point is to ban personal ownership of hand guns and semi-auto loading rifles and shotguns entirely except for legitimate authority and duly licensed shooting facilities. 

Then enforce current regulations by providing the funding to substantially improve inspection, both human and technological, wherever the threat of procurement of illegal guns exists. 

Because illegal hand guns are a status symbol for the criminal element and a more general penis extension for gun enthusiasts, there will need to be  attention paid to Paladin's astute observations about knives. If guns are denied, another penis extension is required for the anti-social element that craves 'status'.

NorthReport
Unionist

JKR wrote:
 I think views similar to those of Paladin1 and Martin N. are representative of broad swaths of the population regarding this issue. I think the current political consensus regarding gun control supports maintaining the status quo, but of course I may be wrong. 

Only about 1/4 of Canadian households own any kind of firearm. I think the other 3/4 would not be fervent defenders of the right to bear arms. That's simple math, but what do you think? 

JKR wrote:
I think an attempt to significantly bolster gun controls would be met by a lot of resistance, especially in rural areas that have a lot of political clout as they are overrepresented in our Parliament.

The most immediate and significant impact of my proposal would be to ban possession/storage of firearms in urban areas. The aim of eliminating individual ownership I see as more long term. There would be no short-term impact on rural areas at all (except banning handguns). Why would they resist so vigorously? The long-gun registry was more invasive than my proposals. And in Québec - where we've actually asked people and politicians - the long-gun registry is a legal reality. No reported uprisings in the countryside yet.

JKR wrote:
It would be interesting to see what would happen if these kinds of proposals were brought to an NDP convention. My guess is that they would be reworked and watered down at convention to mostly maintain the status quo or they might be buried. But I could be wrong. How do you think your proposals could be implemented?

By a mass movement putting pressure on all political parties - because obviously my proposals would require legislation. I'm pleased to see babblers finding some merit in these proposals, notwithstanding their obviously different partisan political preferences. Maybe I'll take this to my union convention. Certainly it should go to the NDP convention, but after what they did to the young New Democrats' Palestine proposal - and given my memories from decades ago of top-down arbitrary dictatorial control of everything - I have zero confidence that anything would happen there - or even if it did, that an elected NDP provincial or federal government would actually break with tradition and follow convention policy.

Movement. Demands. Pressure. I know no other way. 

NDPP

Disarm the police and reverse Canada's decision to arm the fascist wacko regime of Ukraine.

Unionist

NDPP wrote:

Disarm the police and reverse Canada's decision to arm the fascist wacko regime of Ukraine.

Generally agree, but on the foreign front there's much more to be done than just Ukraine. I thought the discussion of how to deal with guns in Canada has merit in and of itself. What do you think of my proposals, NDPP?

NDPP

I approve. And especially #5. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
4. Exception: Indigenous people have hereditary hunting rights - therefore they would not be subject to #3. But everyone would be subject to #1 and #2.

I'm not actually all that averse to this exception.  But I'm curious why we wouldn't simply respect hereditary hunting rights as they existed before settlers brought guns.  I guess it seems a bit like saying "we respect the right of the Innu to use snowmobiles, as they have for hundreds of years".

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I think Unionist's list of actions to control guns is very sensible, and probably politically feasible as well. I hope something like it becomes a policy for the NDP, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

Paladin1

I have some questions.

Quote:
1. Ban handguns, period. They serve no purpose except killing people. We don't want to kill people.

Silly. Lots of other applications for handguns. There's close to 900'000 restricted firearms in Canada, most of them are handguns. Most of them aren't used for murdering people. Bunch of us were just shooting this last week and weekend and raise quite a bit of money for chairity. No one was killed.

Quote:
2. Ban possession/storage of all firearms in (appropriately defined) urban areas. They're not needed there for any legitimate purpose. Hunting is in rural areas, and sport shooting should be rigorously excluded from towns and cities. The state would then create storage facilities where urban owners can check out their firearms when headed for hunting/sport shooting activities.

The logistics of this seems problematic.

So the federal/provincial government will build large expensive storage facilities staffed and guarded 24/7? All across Canada in every town that's large enough to  be considered an urban center, to accomodate all the guns in the city and surrounding country side? That's a lot of facilities...  How many billions of dollars will that cost to build, how many millions of dollars per year for upkeep? Will larger cities have multiple storage sites? What if someone lives 25 kms east of the city,  the storage facility is 25 kms west of the city and the crown land for hunting is 50 kms east of the city? Will hunters have to drive 250kms in a day just to hunt? Insurance on the guns incase they're stolen or damaged because of poor atmospheric conditions?

Also would there be a time limit on when someone is allowed to use their guns? Are they only allowed to use their guns from 8am to 4pm? What about hunters who hunt for a couple weeks at a time, do they have to turn their guns in every day to be accounted for or can they use them over night?  What happens if someone doesn't turn their gun in when they're supposed to. Will it be a criminal offense? One they can be charged, convicted and sent to jail for? What kind of strain will this put on our police force* ?

Quote:
3. Work toward ending all private ownership (or purchase or sale) of all firearms. The state has a monopoly on ownership - citizens/residents rent.

Will the state buy all these pieces of private property from citizens or will they be expected to hand them over to the government, thousands of dollars out of their pockets? Just give away $300, $3000, $30'000 worth of property. Just give it to the government to turn around and rent out to people and make money off them? Kind of reminds me of the government asking Canadians to let the government keep their tax returns to help balance the budget. But in this case I would give the government my guns so they can make money and rent them out.  Would I get a percentage of the money the government earns off my property? Taxed of course.

Is there a plan to accomodate the employees of all the stores and shops across Canada who will lose their jobs? Or the companies who are out millions of dollars or product? I just did a quick count of firearm and firearm related product companies on a forum I use and counted over 120 businesses. Thats a lot of unemployed people and businesses. That's just one forum, lots aren't on there.

Quote:
4. Exception: Indigenous people have hereditary hunting rights - therefore they would not be subject to #3. But everyone would be subject to #1 and #2.

So would you call in the armed forces to help the police confiscate indigenous Canadians firearms? Because for some reason I don't feel like they're going to give up all their guns to the government to borrow them when they want to hunt. The government locking away their guns and sometimes letting them use them. I wonder who would deliever that tidbit of news to the First Nations and what it would sound like. ......yea nah

Quote:
5. Work toward disarming police, with exceptions for special units.

* I guess you would need these special armed units to go after firearm owners who fail to turn their firearms in after hunting and target shooting.  I can't see our police unions letting unarmed officers confront known-to-be-armed people.

Speaking of which places like the UK that have unarmed police are discovering it doesn't work very well and have been increasing the number of armed police.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/9551123/Two-fem... - Two (unarmed) female police officers shot dead in Greater Manchester

Quote:
6. No phony "background checks". Yes, some individuals, based on their records, could lose the privilege of owning/renting/using firearms.

I'm not sure what a phony background check is. I know in the US there's lots of examples of background checks not working but I'm a big believer in them never the less. I think they should be more intrusive and we need some kind of cooperation between the police and health services to keep track of mentally ill people. Mostly within the realm of firearms but also in general.

Quote:
7. Offenders would be subject to confiscation, loss of privileges for life, and extremely severe prison sentences. No one should be allowed to play around with deadly weapons. Society needs to take a serious stand and ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

Extremely severe prison sentecnes, say, for turning a gun in 3 days late? A week late? Whats extremely severe prison sentences? Because rapists and murders don't seem to have severe sentences to me (when they should). Who exactly are these severe sentences for?

 

This seems like an aweful lot of expensive work to take guns away from over 99.9% of Canadians who don't misuse guns.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
 I think views similar to those of Paladin1 and Martin N. are representative of broad swaths of the population regarding this issue. I think the current political consensus regarding gun control supports maintaining the status quo, but of course I may be wrong. 

Only about 1/4 of Canadian households own any kind of firearm. I think the other 3/4 would not be fervent defenders of the right to bear arms. That's simple math, but what do you think? 

I think a lot of people who don't own firearms have libertarian views so I'm not sure how many people would support or oppose these kinds of proposals. If it was obviously popular the Liberals would already be proposing it. ;b I think the Conservatives would probably try to make it an issue in their favour much the way they made the gun registry an issue and that may be keeping the NDP and Liberals from supporting stronger gun control. Either way, stronger gun control just for urban areas might not be a contentious political issue. Maybe a progressive organization could arrange an opinion poll to show that the public generally supports much stronger gun control? If it was shown that the general public clearly favours much stronger gun control I think the NDP, Liberals, Greens, and BQ could all be brought aboard in support of the kinds of proposals that you mentioned.

Martin N.

There seems to be some depth of emotion regarding 'rights' or 'freedom' regarding gun ownership that is at odds with historic Canadian perspectives.  The entire issue is a canard run amuck based on American cinema and tv. I blame Clint Eastwood.

Just like the dentists and lawyers in western costumes that have never fed a horse out of their hats, the gun crowd gets off on the emotional rush of fondling their Glocks without ever realizing their own inadequacies.

I do not think that the insecure delights of all the gun polishers are worth a single innocent injury, much less demise but the brutal fact is that gun polishers vote and innocent children don't.

I no longer own any guns because when the new regulations came into force I considered the paperwork more onerous than gun ownership was worth. I did have more than a few, including hand cannons but, they were always considered a tool in my backwoods rustic days of roaming the hinterlands.

There is no need for guns in the woods if you have skills but a handgun is handy to have if you are far from home and your horse decides not to like you anymore. I always carried my survival gear on my person but the only thought I had about the handgun was that it kept getting heavier.

Martin N.

NDPP wrote:

Disarm the police and reverse Canada's decision to arm the fascist wacko regime of Ukraine.

Yeah, they all speak Russian already, what do they need arms for?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Just like the dentists and lawyers in western costumes that have never fed a horse out of their hats, the gun crowd gets off on the emotional rush of fondling their Glocks without ever realizing their own inadequacies.

I do not think that the insecure delights of all the gun polishers are worth a single innocent injury, much less demise but the brutal fact is that gun polishers vote and innocent children don't.

...

There is no need for guns in the woods if you have skills but a handgun is handy to have if you are far from home and your horse decides not to like you anymore. I always carried my survival gear on my person but the only thought I had about the handgun was that it kept getting heavier.

I see.  So lucid.

gadar

Martin N. wrote:

I do not think that the insecure delights of all the gun polishers are worth a single innocent injury, much less demise but the brutal fact is that gun polishers vote and innocent children don't.

JKR wrote:

I think an attempt to significantly bolster gun controls would be met by a lot of resistance, especially in rural areas that have a lot of political clout as they are overrepresented in our Parliament.

One gun polisher vote counts more than one non gun polisher vote. That is the problem. If every vote had the same wieght, as it should be, we will be further ahead on gun control. The overrepresentation of the rural vote is a serious issue which nobody wants to address. This overepresentation also has affects many other issues.

Martin N.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Just like the dentists and lawyers in western costumes that have never fed a horse out of their hats, the gun crowd gets off on the emotional rush of fondling their Glocks without ever realizing their own inadequacies.

I do not think that the insecure delights of all the gun polishers are worth a single innocent injury, much less demise but the brutal fact is that gun polishers vote and innocent children don't.

...

There is no need for guns in the woods if you have skills but a handgun is handy to have if you are far from home and your horse decides not to like you anymore. I always carried my survival gear on my person but the only thought I had about the handgun was that it kept getting heavier.

I see.  So lucid.

Evidently......to you. I'm delighted to give you grist for your ever- grinding mill.

Paladin1

Martin N. wrote:

Just like the dentists and lawyers in western costumes that have never fed a horse out of their hats, the gun crowd gets off on the emotional rush of fondling their Glocks without ever realizing their own inadequacies.

I have a small penis and playing with big guns makes me feel better about myself? That is so true and makes so much sense to me now. And I play with Glocks because they're mostly polymer plastic which reflects my plastic, materialistic, easily scratched life :)

But when a woman likes a gun what exactly is she compensating for?

 

 

Martin N.

Paladin1 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Just like the dentists and lawyers in western costumes that have never fed a horse out of their hats, the gun crowd gets off on the emotional rush of fondling their Glocks without ever realizing their own inadequacies.

I have a small penis and playing with big guns makes me feel better about myself? That is so true and makes so much sense to me now. And I play with Glocks because they're mostly polymer plastic which reflects my plastic, materialistic, easily scratched life :)

But when a woman likes a gun what exactly is she compensating for?

A guy with a small penis?

I don't have a degree to back that up. I do, however, have an extensive list of acquaintances that love their guns but can't get laid for love nor money. Perhaps this attraction to firearms could be ameliorated if the sisters offered to take one for the team, so to speak, as a public service, as it were, to put the incels back in the groove before their anti-social tendencies become deadly.

It takes the merest stumble, never mind a leap of logic in regard to the benefits personkind willing reap: happy gun lovers eagerly polishing their weapons and a society released from concern about massacre of innocent non-voters.

One can only swoon with anticipation at the degree to which Mr. Trudeau could lever his persona with a charm offensive on this issue.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
4. Exception: Indigenous people have hereditary hunting rights - therefore they would not be subject to #3. But everyone would be subject to #1 and #2.

I'm not actually all that averse to this exception.  But I'm curious why we wouldn't simply respect hereditary hunting rights as they existed before settlers brought guns.  I guess it seems a bit like saying "we respect the right of the Innu to use snowmobiles, as they have for hundreds of years".

Because  that issue has been long settled by the Supreme Court of Canada. Your racist trope is called the frozen rights arguement.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Of course it does but if the authorities start jacking up criminals to search for guns, the bleating about 'rights' and 'due process' etc will make them even more timid than they are now. Individual rights need to be balanced with collective security.

I personally have no problem with being stopped and searched because I realize that it is for the common good. Banging on about gun laws will not save one innocent shooting victim but allowing easier searches will.

So along with your wilful blindness on climate change you can't get the most basic fact in Canda that when we have instituted laws anywhere to search people they have quickly descended into racial profiling.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
 

Of course it does but if the authorities start jacking up criminals to search for guns, the bleating about 'rights' and 'due process' etc will make them even more timid than they are now. Individual rights need to be balanced with collective security.

I personally have no problem with being stopped and searched because I realize that it is for the common good. Banging on about gun laws will not save one innocent shooting victim but allowing easier searches will.

So along with your wilful blindness on climate change you can't get the most basic fact in Canda that when we have instituted laws anywhere to search people they have quickly descended into racial profiling.

I must admit to having a certain wilfulness in not partaking of hysterical rhetoric directed at consequences in the next century but, as with most fanatical accusations, the dissembling of climate change fact is exceeded only by the spite with which the same are delivered.

oh my! What are the lives of innocent victims who can't vote compared to possibly hurting the feelings of non- whites.

My rational thoughts tend to see the great majority of non- whites as honest, caring human beings who put the lives of innocent victims ahead of any emotional puckishness  about racial profiling.  I don't know all that many persons of colour well but the few I do know tend to dislike having differences of ancestry pointed out only slightly less than they do the smug righteousness of those busybodies who publicly decry such activities.

Paladin1

So in the Uk they had a law where police could "randomly" stop and search anyone they suspected might be carrying a knife (or I presume weapon). The practice was stopped because it was argued that it was racist and people of colour were being profiled and specifically targeted by police.

Recently the mayor of London said they will be bringing this stop and search method back because of all the recent knife attacks going on.

Pages