The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[mariomike]

Ducks Unlimited was very neutral on the proposed coming gun restrictions and abjectly refused to sign that petition that went around.

I thought their primary mission was wetland conservation and advocacy.  They are not a firearms lobby group.  Seems to me they are being neutral and not taking a position on a policy matter that is outside of their mandate.

As a tax exempt not for profit group their status as such could be at threat if they started getting political.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Opinion piece in Globe and Mail:

Canada’s ‘gun ban’ is not what the government says it is
Robyn Urback

Canada’s new gun “ban” is not a ban.

It might sound like a ban to urbanites who are unfamiliar with Canada’s labyrinth of federal gun regulations, and indeed, the government is quite deliberate in repeatedly using that word to describe its recent actions – “ban.”

But the change announced last week does not, in any meaningful way, represent a major shift in the overall way Canada treats the purchase, storage and use of firearms. So if you’ve been cheering Ottawa’s new gun “prohibition” as the end of the legal sale of military-conceived deadly weapons … well, I’m sorry to tell you this, but you’ve been had. Meticulously misleading government messaging will do that.

Semi-automatic weapons are still legal. Let me say that again. Semi-automatic weapons are still legal.

Firearms in Canada are either prohibited (banned), restricted (legal under certain conditions) or non-restricted. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1978. Not much has changed there.

What changed, last week, was that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the list of prohibited weapons in Canada would be expanded to include a number of previously restricted and non-restricted firearms. He called this a ban on “military-style assault rifles.”

But that’s a designation that has no meaning in Canadian law under the Firearms Act. It is, rather, a made-up, undefined category, useful only in perpetuating the mistaken impression that Canada has banned a whole classification of firearms when it has not.

Again, Canada has not banned semi-automatic weapons. Instead, it has banned nine principal models and their variants, essentially expanding the list of prohibited weapons by roughly 1,500 models. Yet there are still plenty of other semi-automatic weapons – such as the military-style IWI Tavor, which looks just as scary as those newly prohibited – that remain perfectly legal.

Mr. Trudeau and his ministers skirted this inconvenient detail by sticking closely to their line about banning “military-grade assault weapons.” The more accurate way to describe what the government did is to say that it arbitrarily prohibited the sale of some semi-automatics, while preserving the status of others. Yet the government knows the misleading messaging is far more rousing than the precise kind. Already, the announcement has earned the applause of celebrities and American progressive politicians.

Indeed, the government trusts that those to whom this gesture is supposed to appeal won’t really know the difference. That’s why Mr. Trudeau could say last Friday that “you don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer," even though hunters in Canada already weren’t allowed to use an AR-15 (or other restricted firearms) to do so. It’s also why he could talk about banning “guns designed to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time” in reference to semi-automatic weapons, although he was actually describing fully automatic weapons, which were banned decades ago.

I point all of this out not as someone who has any interest in guns or particularly understands their appeal, but as someone who doesn’t like governments seizing upon knowledge gaps in the population to earn political clout.

One could make the case that something – that is, the banning of some semi-automatic weapons under the guise of more generalized action – is better than nothing. But that argument assumes that law-abiding gun owners won’t simply start buying up the semi-automatic firearms the government omitted from its list.

It also assumes that the government hasn’t now squandered what might have been a useful alliance with legal gun owners on promised future plans to crack down on handgun crimes, the purchase of firearms for those who don’t have licences and the illegal smuggling of guns from across the border. Evidence-based policy, which was purportedly the domain of the Liberals once upon a time, would suggest those prospective, to-be-Parliament-approved measures would have a much greater impact on the preponderance of firearms-related gun crimes in Canada.

On guns, as on most things, political capital is not infinite. The government has decided to make a big splash on an arbitrary measure that has incited legal gun owners, yet still preserves the legal status of semi-automatics and also doesn’t touch the guns involved in the majority of crimes involving firearms in Canada. The impulse to want to do something after the mass shooting in Nova Scotia earlier this month is understandable. But deceiving Canadians into thinking the government has outlawed all menacing-looking, military-inspired semi-automatic weapons is not worthy, or righteous, or deserving of any type of applause.

If this government was to expend some political capital on guns, it should do it on measures that will actually make a difference – and not on marginal gestures it can speciously sell as a “ban.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-gun-ban-is-not-what-the-government-says-it-is/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good point MM. I'm sure their members will be satisfied by that logic.


In the mean time Michelle Rempel's petition about this ban got 12,000 signatures in less than 4 hours and seems to have been overloaded.

Liberals keep talking about how 80% of Canadians approve of this ban. It sounds like they're quoting an Angus Reid poll.
"Four-in-five Canadians support complete ban on civilian possession of assault style weapons"

Those 4 in 5 Canadians are out of a 1500 strong poll, always found it weird how that somehow speaks for all Canadians.
It also mentions "the rampage of an assault weapon-carrying murderer who killed 22 people in Nova Scotia last month". That's weird since there's still no definition on what an assault weapon is and as far as I'm aware the type of weapon hasn't been released to the public.

Petition is up to 19,000 signatures in 6 hours?
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2574

 

[Kat Stevens]

Ducks Unlimited was started by a bunch of duck hunters who wanted to preserve wetlands so they'd have lots of places to go and kill ducks. Their altruism was based on selfishness.

 

[mariomike]

Good point MM.

Back at Reply #717 there was a debate about Ducks Unlimited and a petition.

 

[PuckChaser]

Ducks Unlimited was started by a bunch of duck hunters who wanted to preserve wetlands so they'd have lots of places to go and kill ducks. Their altruism was based on selfishness.

Hunters put more money into conservation than most other groups, whats your point? Where do you think the money from all those tags, licences, etc go to every year? If hunting within scientifically designated limits and putting money towards preserving and creating habitats to do that hunting is selfishness, then you and I have different definitions of the term. At the end of the day, habitat is protected.

 

[my72jeep]

Good point MM. I'm sure their members will be satisfied by that logic.


In the mean time Michelle Rempel's petition about this ban got 12,000 signatures in less than 4 hours and seems to have been overloaded.

Liberals keep talking about how 80% of Canadians approve of this ban. It sounds like they're quoting an Angus Reid poll.
"Four-in-five Canadians support complete ban on civilian possession of assault style weapons"

Those 4 in 5 Canadians are out of a 1500 strong poll, always found it weird how that somehow speaks for all Canadians.
It also mentions "the rampage of an assault weapon-carrying murderer who killed 22 people in Nova Scotia last month". That's weird since there's still no definition on what an assault weapon is and as far as I'm aware the type of weapon hasn't been released to the public. (KILLED 9 OF THEM WITH A BIC LIGHTER NOT AN ASSAULT STYAL WEAPON.)

Petition is up to 19,000 signatures in 6 hours?
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2574

 

[PuckChaser]

I haven't even gotten my email verification to confirm my signature on the petition, so I bet the volume crashed the system.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Hunters put more money into conservation than most other groups, whats your point? Where do you think the money from all those tags, licences, etc go to every year? If hunting within scientifically designated limits and putting money towards preserving and creating habitats to do that hunting is selfishness, then you and I have different definitions of the term. At the end of the day, habitat is protected.

Why are you looking to pick a fight with me? I said what I said. That was my point. Go find another leg to hump.

 

[PuckChaser]

Why are you looking to pick a fight with me? I said what I said. That was my point. Go find another leg to hump.

I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm disagreeing with your statement. Don't try to make it personal when its not personal.

 

[suffolkowner]

The vast majority of people in favor of this gun ban do not understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic they just hear automatic and think of what they see in the movies. Comments that I have read online think that everything that was on the list was easily available before May 1st including anti tank weapons. Earlier upthread there was mention of the legality of howitzers which reminded me of some decades ago now I was told that you could own the device or the ammo but not both over 2". I'm not sure how much to believe in that but at the time I was convinced

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm disagreeing with your statement. Don't try to make it personal when its not personal.

What did I say that was incorrect, exactly? Of course hunters have a vested interest in conservation. That's what I said. You asked me my point, then went into a long winded explanation of why I was right. I guess if I had an underlying point it's that DU maybe should weigh in on the issue.

 

[PuckChaser]

What did I say that was incorrect, exactly? Of course hunters have a vested interest in conservation.

Perhaps its the way you worded it that made it sound like hunters can't be conservationists and hunt as well by calling them selfish?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Perhaps its the way you worded it that made it sound like hunters can't be conservationists and hunt as well by calling them selfish?

You're looking for problems that aren't there. Preserving something so that you can benefit from it is selfish. If others benefit from it too, then that's a bonus.

 

[BDTyre]

I haven't even gotten my email verification to confirm my signature on the petition, so I bet the volume crashed the system.

It took a few hours for mine to show up.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Back at Reply #717 there was a debate about Ducks Unlimited and a petition.

Did you sign this new petition?

 

[mariomike]

Did you sign this new petition?

Documents I sign, or do not sign, are none of your business, Jarnhamar.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Documents I sign, or do not sign, are none of your business, Jarnhamar.

I got 300 milpoints for you if you do, friend

 

[mariomike]

I got 300 milpoints for you if you do, friend

You know how to buy me off! 

 

[OldSolduer]

The vast majority of people in favor of this gun ban do not understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic they just hear automatic and think of what they see in the movies. Comments that I have read online think that everything that was on the list was easily available before May 1st including anti tank weapons. Earlier upthread there was mention of the legality of howitzers which reminded me of some decades ago now I was told that you could own the device or the ammo but not both over 2". I'm not sure how much to believe in that but at the time I was convinced

Just a thought but where was this poll taken?

No one asked me or my wife - I'm willing to bet it was taken in Toronto.