Lancaster Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 2 hours ago, bishopshodan said: Trudeau unveils details of promised ban on 1,500 ‘assault-style’ firearms https://globalnews.ca/news/6892959/canada-assault-weapon-ban/ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the federal government is banning a range of assault-style guns, with an order that takes effect immediately. He says the order has a two-year amnesty period for current owners, and there will be a compensation program. In an announcement this morning, he cites numerous mass shootings, from Ecole Polytechnique in 1989 to the killings in Nova Scotia last week, as the reasons for the move. 28 minutes ago, Pears said: Oh boy. People who are too blinded by their hate for Trudeau won’t realize this is a good thing. How is it even a good thing? Most gun related crime are from illegal source (eg. US). I'm totally sure criminals and gangs are going to make sure they're compliant with gun laws when out committing crime..... 2 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: Well, they represent a small percentage of people. The vast majority support or strongly support bans. http://angusreid.org/assault-weapons-ban/ Four-in-five Canadians support complete ban on civilian possession of assault style weapons That poll is stupid. Whenever the term "assault weapon" is used, credibility goes out the window. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". If they mean automatic rifles, they're already banned... so it's pointless. If they mean semi-auto.... usually people are just fearful of the aesthetics. A brown "hunting" gun... perfectly okay. Just repaint it black.... suddenly it's an "assault weapon". 51 minutes ago, Down by the River said: I don't know. Do you? Does anyone? This is the point I'm trying to make. We don't seem to have any data on this... yet people want to make really strong conclusions one way or another about whether this is going to be effective. We can debate whether laws should be enacted when data are lacking. I don't think we can really debate whether these laws will definitely be effective/ineffective because the data are not there to support the decision one way or the other. I'm just going to upload this post from earlier... Handguns are always registered 100% (if they are from a legal source), fully automatic rifles are 100% illegal, weapons that are sawed-off are also 100% illegal, and the categories doesn't provide enough info... but probably illegal. So you're only dealing with the category that's rifle and shotguns.... which some may be already registered anyways. Assuming half are restricted and already registered and another quarter are illegally sourced... then that leaves about 5% of all firearms related homicide which your traceability might be useful for. Of course, once you factor in context like maybe the crime was domestic violence/abuse that escalated, guns were stolen, etc.... so it's just literally a handful of licensed gun owners who are bad apples. Maybe like 5 people.... and there are 2+ million licensed firearms owner in Canada.... like 0.00025%. This link is useful... The majority of illegal guns are from the US https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/ 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lancaster said: How is it even a good thing? Most gun related crime are from illegal source (eg. US). I'm totally sure criminals and gangs are going to make sure they're compliant with gun laws when out committing crime..... That poll is stupid. Whenever the term "assault weapon" is used, credibility goes out the window. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". If they mean automatic rifles, they're already banned... so it's pointless. If they mean semi-auto.... usually people are just fearful of the aesthetics. A brown "hunting" gun... perfectly okay. Just repaint it black.... suddenly it's an "assault weapon". I'm just going to upload this post from earlier... Handguns are always registered 100% (if they are from a legal source), fully automatic rifles are 100% illegal, weapons that are sawed-off are also 100% illegal, and the categories doesn't provide enough info... but probably illegal. So you're only dealing with the category that's rifle and shotguns.... which some may be already registered anyways. Assuming half are restricted and already registered and another quarter are illegally sourced... then that leaves about 5% of all firearms related homicide which your traceability might be useful for. Of course, once you factor in context like maybe the crime was domestic violence/abuse that escalated, guns were stolen, etc.... so it's just literally a handful of licensed gun owners who are bad apples. Maybe like 5 people.... and there are 2+ million licensed firearms owner in Canada.... like 0.00025%. This link is useful... The majority of illegal guns are from the US https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/ Ok so I’ll ask you, why should any citizen feel the need to have an assault rifle? Last I checked New Zealand has done pretty well since they banned guns. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 Just now, Pears said: Ok so I’ll ask you, why should any citizen feel the need to have an assault rifle? Last I checked New Zealand has done pretty well since they banned guns. Umm.... "assault rifle" is a made up term. Might as well ask why people should be allowed to own unicorns and leprechauns. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted May 1, 2020 Author Share Posted May 1, 2020 Updated the thread title. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestroyerofworlds Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, Lancaster said: How is it even a good thing? Most gun related crime are from illegal source (eg. US). I'm totally sure criminals and gangs are going to make sure they're compliant with gun laws when out committing crime..... That poll is stupid. Whenever the term "assault weapon" is used, credibility goes out the window. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". If they mean automatic rifles, they're already banned... so it's pointless. If they mean semi-auto.... usually people are just fearful of the aesthetics. A brown "hunting" gun... perfectly okay. Just repaint it black.... suddenly it's an "assault weapon". I'm just going to upload this post from earlier... Handguns are always registered 100% (if they are from a legal source), fully automatic rifles are 100% illegal, weapons that are sawed-off are also 100% illegal, and the categories doesn't provide enough info... but probably illegal. So you're only dealing with the category that's rifle and shotguns.... which some may be already registered anyways. Assuming half are restricted and already registered and another quarter are illegally sourced... then that leaves about 5% of all firearms related homicide which your traceability might be useful for. Of course, once you factor in context like maybe the crime was domestic violence/abuse that escalated, guns were stolen, etc.... so it's just literally a handful of licensed gun owners who are bad apples. Maybe like 5 people.... and there are 2+ million licensed firearms owner in Canada.... like 0.00025%. This link is useful... The majority of illegal guns are from the US https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/ 2 things: 1) If you don't like the question used in the polling, then please provide a poll whose question you do approve of. Is the information incorrect? Are the majority of Canadians against weapons bans? 2) Criminals gonna criminal is not an argument against laws/bans. When someone breaks a law that requires criminal prosecution/fines, do police just pat them on the back and let them go on their way? Or, do the police arrest/fine them? That is the flaw in that argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, Lancaster said: Umm.... "assault rifle" is a made up term. Might as well ask why people should be allowed to own unicorns and leprechauns. All terms are made up. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post inane Posted May 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 1, 2020 Just dropped in to say this is good. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 9 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said: 2 things: 1) If you don't like the question used in the polling, then please provide a poll whose question you do approve of. Is the information incorrect? Are the majority of Canadians against weapons bans? 2) Criminals gonna criminal is not an argument against laws/bans. When someone breaks a law that requires criminal prosecution/fines, do police just pat them on the back and let them go on their way? Or, do the police arrest/fine them? That is the flaw in that argument. It depends on what response the pollsters are trying to elicit. How educated are the people answer the question? There is a huge difference when it comes to those who owns firearms and those who don't. As the old adage goes.... people fear what they don't know. Those who don't know about firearms are generally opposed to it. No surprise... just they're just under-informed. I mean... there has been polls of people supporting a ban on dihydrogen monoxide before.... so it's not hard to craft a question to direct participants to a specific outcome. There are lots of rules on the book that firearms owners has to obey. This is more of a court issue than anything. If I went to the gun range with my AR15, but I left my wallet home in the wrong pocket... I could be sent to prison for up to 2 years. Now some punk with a gun goes shooting at others... some don't even get charged or prosecuted. I mean, there was a shooting at Oppenheimer a couple of months back.... nothing came out of it. The police just said the victim and perp was not cooperative and thus didn't pursue it further. If Canada really want to get serious about gun violence and not just political soapboxing... they would be enforcing rules on actual criminals and spending more to fight trafficked weapons. It's a fact that the vast LAGO are not committing crime.... just the one already ignoring the law. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Down by the River said: I don't know. Do you? Does anyone? This is the point I'm trying to make. We don't seem to have any data on this... yet people want to make really strong conclusions one way or another about whether this is going to be effective. We can debate whether laws should be enacted when data are lacking. I don't think we can really debate whether these laws will definitely be effective/ineffective because the data are not there to support the decision one way or the other. That's fair enough. My opinion is based off the relatively low number of gun deaths in Canada already. And the fact these seem to be done illegally, like in this case with the NS shooter. The picture Trudeau paints of 'military style' rifles being ungoverened is wrong & intentionally misleading for political purpose. And If guns like that are easily available then I agree ban them, but I don't think they are under current law. I don't think it's worth the money focusing on rifles when the laws are already so restricting around them. And considering the economic times we are in. Handguns are where the debate should be if anywhere. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns by quite a margin. (considering the NS guy was driving & shooting ppl I'd imagine he used one aswell), but instead we are spending our money on this political charade. Edited May 1, 2020 by Smashian Kassian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Lancaster said: How is it even a good thing? Most gun related crime are from illegal source (eg. US). I'm totally sure criminals and gangs are going to make sure they're compliant with gun laws when out committing crime..... That poll is stupid. Whenever the term "assault weapon" is used, credibility goes out the window. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". If they mean automatic rifles, they're already banned... so it's pointless. If they mean semi-auto.... usually people are just fearful of the aesthetics. A brown "hunting" gun... perfectly okay. Just repaint it black.... suddenly it's an "assault weapon". I'm just going to upload this post from earlier... Handguns are always registered 100% (if they are from a legal source), fully automatic rifles are 100% illegal, weapons that are sawed-off are also 100% illegal, and the categories doesn't provide enough info... but probably illegal. So you're only dealing with the category that's rifle and shotguns.... which some may be already registered anyways. Assuming half are restricted and already registered and another quarter are illegally sourced... then that leaves about 5% of all firearms related homicide which your traceability might be useful for. Of course, once you factor in context like maybe the crime was domestic violence/abuse that escalated, guns were stolen, etc.... so it's just literally a handful of licensed gun owners who are bad apples. Maybe like 5 people.... and there are 2+ million licensed firearms owner in Canada.... like 0.00025%. This link is useful... The majority of illegal guns are from the US https://globalnews.ca/news/4428617/matt-gurney-toronto-gun-crime-statistics/ You're not, because what about 'other firearms'? Also what about rifles and shotguns that were registered as such but then adapted to be sawed-off? Again not saying that this means that bans will be useful... just to me there are problems with the data. The numbers you present are hypothetical... not really actual data on what the estimated number of prevented/solved homicides would be. To me, if they were going to create the ban, it should be implemented in certain select cities (e.g., Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton) and then compared against other select cities (e.g., Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal) where the ban is not implemented. Might be one way towards actually getting an understanding of the magnitude of the problem. The other 'problem' is that there are so few gun-related homicides in Canada to begin with. Describing changes in the percent of homicides that are reduced/increased can be misleading because Vancouver could experience a 25% increase in gun-related homicide and then when you look at the numbers it was only an additional 5 cases and things regress to the mean the very next year. Edited May 1, 2020 by Down by the River Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: All terms are made up. There are already defined terms, so it's very disingenuous when people ignore them. I mean, should we also call firearms "Projectile Tools"? FYI, the classification in Canada: Non-restricted, Restricted, Prohibited. Do note that classification does not mean it's more dangerous or whatever. Here's a fun game... which of these guns are Non-Restricted, Restricted or Prohibited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 I have a problem with people who think it's "ok" or "right" to confiscate the property of law abiding citizens in the name of "public safety". Completely ridiculous. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, Down by the River said: You're not, because what about 'other firearms'? Also what about rifles and shotguns that were registered as such but then adapted to be sawed-off? Again not saying that this means that bans will be useful... just to me there are problems with the data. The numbers you present are hypothetical... not really actual data on what the estimated number of prevented/solved homicides would be. To me, if they were going to create the ban, it should be implemented in certain select cities (e.g., Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton) and then compared against other select cities (e.g., Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal) where the ban is not implemented. Might be one way towards actually getting an understanding of the magnitude of the problem. The stats available are already imperfect. I mean it doesn't breakdown on whether the guns are legal or not. They just need to really crack down on people actually committing crime. Some guy buying guns to modify them illegally (sawed-off, etc).... really throw the book at them. Give 10-20 years at least. But chances are the case will be delayed, some co-conspirators will probably be murdered, plead down, etc... so they end up serving no time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, Lionized27 said: I have a problem with people who think it's "ok" or "right" to confiscate the property of law abiding citizens in the name of "public safety". Completely ridiculous. Civilians shouldn’t have assault/military style guns in the first place but go off 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Pears said: Civilians shouldn’t have assault/military style guns in the first place but go off They already don't. Automatic rifles are illegal in Canada. Eg. you can't buy an AK-47 in Canada. The problem is when they use non-defined terms, it could be applied very liberally. As a simple exercise, define "sports car". 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, Lancaster said: They already don't. Automatic rifles are illegal in Canada. Eg. you can't buy an AK-47 in Canada. The problem is when they use non-defined terms, it could be applied very liberally. As a simple exercise, define "sports car". If this were the case a gun ban wouldn’t have been implemented now would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, Lancaster said: There are already defined terms, so it's very disingenuous when people ignore them. I mean, should we also call firearms "Projectile Tools"? FYI, the classification in Canada: Non-restricted, Restricted, Prohibited. Do note that classification does not mean it's more dangerous or whatever. Here's a fun game... which of these guns are Non-Restricted, Restricted or Prohibited? I can certainly make some educated guesses but it's difficult for me to definitively say, other than the obvious ones, as I don't have which guns are on the Non-Restricted, Restricted or Prohibited lists memorized. Fortunately though, it doesn't appear the government is basing it's decisions off my ability to make a visual determination. Here's the full list: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6880974-Canada-Gazette-May-1-2020-Part-II.html It's also pretty clear that Trudeau is saying "assault style" as a shorthand because saying the government is banning all variations of the listed guns is a bit of a mouthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 Just now, Pears said: If this were the case a gun ban wouldn’t have been implemented now would it? As I'm trying to get through to you, they are purposely using vague and made-up terms to make it easier to go after different firearms. "Military-style", if they mean automatic weapons are already banned. But then they tag along terms like "assault rifles/weapons" which is a completely made up term with no defined definition. It's like saying we have to ban "sports car".... but what does that really mean? Ferrari... sure that make sense. What about a Mustang? That's a sports car. Does a Civic coupe be considered as a sports car? What about the sedan version of the Civic? What about that Toyota Camry with 200+ HP? So unless there will be actual specifications, any proposal of a ban is just pandering for votes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Lancaster said: They already don't. Automatic rifles are illegal in Canada. Eg. you can't buy an AK-47 in Canada. The problem is when they use non-defined terms, it could be applied very liberally. As a simple exercise, define "sports car". Any gun which has the capability of mowing down people in large numbers needs to go. I don't care what "term" you want to use. Its impossible to predict the nature of mental health, hence making anyone who has these types of a guns a potential risk. Freedom is not worth the massacre that occurred in Nova Scotia. I genuinely feel for you as a law abiding gun owner but I don't believe your hobby is worth the lives of Canadians. I agree with you that we need to target illegal guns. I might be even amenable to some draconian punishment taken against those who traffic guns illegally into this country or those who are found in possession of illegal guns. Take them all out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionized27 Posted May 1, 2020 Share Posted May 1, 2020 14 minutes ago, Pears said: Civilians shouldn’t have assault/military style guns in the first place but go off Who are you to say what I should or shouldn't own simply based on appearance?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now