GLG
Well-Known Member
Is the truth about these right wing extremist groups making you uncomfortable? Don't you think that a warning to legitimate gun advocacy people to watch out for this is a good idea?
Trudeau promises more gun control and goes on the attack against Scheer
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
Is the truth about these right wing extremist groups making you uncomfortable? Don't you think that a warning to legitimate gun advocacy people to watch out for this is a good idea?
Seems alot of effort to try and connect potentially "foreign" investment in a left of centre news source. Vivian Krause would be proud of that approach, IMHO. Good thing that fish farms and the oil sands have no foreign money, eh?
I would instead examine who the author was - and his background: https://windsorstar.com/entertainment/arms-and-the-man-author-a-j-somerset-takes-on-gun-culture
I'm also not saying I agree with more gun law restrictions, necessarily. But I also don't need an assault rifle to hunt with.
I think the better approach is to dive into the stats that the anti-gun lobby is not talking about (see post #12 above) - what is the problem we are trying to solve - and what are the metrics we are using to determine cause and effect?
That way the pro-gun lobby has a voice of it's own and is not stuck trying to defensively respond to shifting the narrative from irrationality after that horse left the barn. I think it is also important to get to the crux of the problem and attempt to solve or mitigate it effectively.
The question(s) I would pose would be: "Does more restrictions on gun ownership and use cause a reduction in gun crime?", and the corollary follow-up question: "if not - what does affect gun crime?".
I would also turn the tools the health profession has onto this issue - since the health profession is often involved in having an opinion on the matter: Hill's Criteria for Causality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria
That way it should be the anti-gun lobby put in the position of being reactive for a switch.
I would instead examine who the author was - and his background: https://windsorstar.com/entertainment/arms-and-the-man-author-a-j-somerset-takes-on-gun-culture
I'm also not saying I agree with more gun law restrictions, necessarily. But I also don't need an assault rifle to hunt with.
I think the better approach is to dive into the stats that the anti-gun lobby is not talking about (see post #12 above) - what is the problem we are trying to solve - and what are the metrics we are using to determine cause and effect?
That way the pro-gun lobby has a voice of it's own and is not stuck trying to defensively respond to shifting the narrative from irrationality after that horse left the barn. I think it is also important to get to the crux of the problem and attempt to solve or mitigate it effectively.
The question(s) I would pose would be: "Does more restrictions on gun ownership and use cause a reduction in gun crime?", and the corollary follow-up question: "if not - what does affect gun crime?".
I would also turn the tools the health profession has onto this issue - since the health profession is often involved in having an opinion on the matter: Hill's Criteria for Causality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria
That way it should be the anti-gun lobby put in the position of being reactive for a switch.
Last edited:
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Hey, since we're talking politics, and were in the process of a Canadian Federal Election, and the USA(democrats) recently considered foreign medaling in US election affairs via social media, I wonder if any of the "anonymous", or not, posters on Canadian issues are not Canadian(s)?
GLG
Well-Known Member
I thought you did read post # 19 and that's why I asked. It's an article from The Walrus.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
What does this article have to do with far right extremists? There is nothing in there that I see relating gun legislation and extremists.
Captain PartyMarty
Crew Member
F#$K that, he's not getting my Ruger Mini-14.
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Silly comment unless that ar 15 you speak of is posting on this forum. lol
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
yes - the "wonder if any of the "anonymous", or not, posters on Canadian issues are not Canadian(s)?" comment was silly isn't it
Well we'll never know about you will we which is precisely the point I'm getting at.
GLG
Well-Known Member
My mistake it was post # 15.
yep - just simply more silliness & distractions...
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
The Vancouver Police Department opposes Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mayor Kennedy Stewart’s goal of banning federally licensed handgun owners and stores from Canada’s third-largest city.
https://thegunblog.ca/2019/09/24/vancouver-police-opposes-trudeau-stewart-calls-for-handgun-ban/
https://thegunblog.ca/2019/09/24/vancouver-police-opposes-trudeau-stewart-calls-for-handgun-ban/
GLG
Well-Known Member
Truth Tracker: What does the Liberals' gun ban really involve?
CTVNews.ca Staff Published Wednesday, September 25, 2019 5:01PM EDT
It’s no surprise that gun control is an election issue or that it is among the most divisive debates underway in Canada.
As expected, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals announced a plan last week to ban “all military-style assault rifles, including the AR-15” and to give the power to municipalities to ban handguns.
That prompted prominent gun rights advocate Nicolas Johnson, who operates TheGunBlog.ca, to write a post Sept. 20 that led with: “Justin Trudeau promised the biggest instant gun bans against hunters, farmers and sport shooters in Canadian history if he is re-elected prime minister.”
In a tweet a few days later, @thegunblog wrote: “Trudeau isn’t banning assault rifles. He is confiscating hunting and sporting rifles from hundreds of thousands of federally licensed men and women who obey the law, no matter how unjust or immoral. Criminal gangs and terrorists will keep their assault rifles.”
That’s sure to get the attention of gun owners, but it’s not accurate, at least not based on what the Liberals have revealed in their campaign promise, says history professor Blake Brown.
“It’s meant to be inflammatory and meant to encourage people to get involved in the election. The goal is create a unified front among gun owners,” he told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview.
Brown is the author of “Author of Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada” and teaches at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax.
First of all, the Liberals have not identified what weapons are in the Liberal crosshairs, so it’s impossible to know how many guns or gun owners would be affected, says Brown.
“But I think it’s fair to say it’s probably not going to affect many farmers or hunters. It could affect some sports shooters who would then have to shoot something with a different loading mechanism,” he said.
It’s also inaccurate to say the ban would be “instant.”
“Gun control legislation takes a very long time. There will be lots of push back from the opposition and the public, so in no way would this be instant.”
The Toronto-based Johnson claims to be: “Canada’s leading media covering gun culture, gun rights, gun politics, gun policy and the firearm industry.”
He says he is “independent and unaffiliated,” and is frequently called upon by news media for his thoughts. Johnson’s post about the Liberal gun promise has been shared a few thousand times on social media, including by members of gun advocacy groups, yellow vesters and other far right organizations, and at least one candidate of the People’s Party of Canada.
It could be that the Liberals will grandfather some users for semi-automatic rifles that are newly banned, says Brown. That would lower the cost of a buyback program in which Trudeau has promised to offer fair market value for assault rifles purchased legally.
CTVNews.ca reached out to the Liberal party to answer questions about when the specifics of a proposed ban will released, including the weapons and penalties, whether some weapons will be grandfathered, and what is the estimated cost of a buyback program.
As of posting this story, there has been no response.
While the Liberal campaign calls it a buyback, gun rights advocates call it confiscation. But Brown says, theoretically, the government could ban a category of weapon and then take them from owners without compensation.
“Of course, a buyback is more palatable.”
Finally, it’s simply not known how many municipalities would enact a handgun ban if empowered to do so by the federal government. Some big-city politicians, including Toronto Mayor John Tory and Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart, have called for a ban, but it’s not clear how widespread that sentiment is across the nation.
It is, to the best of Brown’s knowledge, the first time a federal government has proposed handing over responsibility for regulating a category of guns to municipalities.
But critics say banning handguns will have little effect on gun crime. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are not supportive of a handgun ban, arguing most handguns used in crimes are already illegal, and a ban on something already prohibited makes no sense.
According to the RCMP, there were 2.1 million licensed gun owners in 2017 and 907,362 restricted and 183,068 prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses. The number of restricted guns grew 37 per cent from 659,387 in 2013, while prohibited firearms fell 3 per cent from 188,552 in the same year.
The AR-15 gets a lot of public attention because it’s been used in a number of mass shootings, including those in Orlando, Las Vegas, Parkland, Fla., and Newtown, Conn., but it is only one among a group of firearms called semi-automatic rifles that fire once each time the trigger is pulled. Manual action firearms require that shooters use a mechanism to reload after each discharge. Fully automatic guns, long prohibited in Canada, will continue to fire as long as a trigger is pulled.
It was shooters using semi-automatic rifles who killed 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989 and 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand in March.
In Canada, some semi-automatic firearms are non-restricted, meaning they can be used for hunting and only require a basic gun licence. Other semi-automatics, like the AR-15, are restricted, meaning they must be registered. Owners must hold a more restrictive licence and be authorized to transport their firearms.
Brown contends that many semi-automatics that are based on military gun designs are now marketed as sporting rifles and have become popular among sport shooters and hunters.
Canada’s chiefs of police began arguing for all semi-automatics to be classified as restricted weapons since 1977, calling them “instruments of war” that have “no sporting use.” Several times since, the CACP have warned about their proliferation and urged a ban.
https://election.ctvnews.ca/truth-tracker-what-does-the-liberals-gun-ban-really-involve-1.4610395
CTVNews.ca Staff Published Wednesday, September 25, 2019 5:01PM EDT
It’s no surprise that gun control is an election issue or that it is among the most divisive debates underway in Canada.
As expected, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals announced a plan last week to ban “all military-style assault rifles, including the AR-15” and to give the power to municipalities to ban handguns.
That prompted prominent gun rights advocate Nicolas Johnson, who operates TheGunBlog.ca, to write a post Sept. 20 that led with: “Justin Trudeau promised the biggest instant gun bans against hunters, farmers and sport shooters in Canadian history if he is re-elected prime minister.”
In a tweet a few days later, @thegunblog wrote: “Trudeau isn’t banning assault rifles. He is confiscating hunting and sporting rifles from hundreds of thousands of federally licensed men and women who obey the law, no matter how unjust or immoral. Criminal gangs and terrorists will keep their assault rifles.”
That’s sure to get the attention of gun owners, but it’s not accurate, at least not based on what the Liberals have revealed in their campaign promise, says history professor Blake Brown.
“It’s meant to be inflammatory and meant to encourage people to get involved in the election. The goal is create a unified front among gun owners,” he told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview.
Brown is the author of “Author of Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada” and teaches at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax.
First of all, the Liberals have not identified what weapons are in the Liberal crosshairs, so it’s impossible to know how many guns or gun owners would be affected, says Brown.
“But I think it’s fair to say it’s probably not going to affect many farmers or hunters. It could affect some sports shooters who would then have to shoot something with a different loading mechanism,” he said.
It’s also inaccurate to say the ban would be “instant.”
“Gun control legislation takes a very long time. There will be lots of push back from the opposition and the public, so in no way would this be instant.”
The Toronto-based Johnson claims to be: “Canada’s leading media covering gun culture, gun rights, gun politics, gun policy and the firearm industry.”
He says he is “independent and unaffiliated,” and is frequently called upon by news media for his thoughts. Johnson’s post about the Liberal gun promise has been shared a few thousand times on social media, including by members of gun advocacy groups, yellow vesters and other far right organizations, and at least one candidate of the People’s Party of Canada.
It could be that the Liberals will grandfather some users for semi-automatic rifles that are newly banned, says Brown. That would lower the cost of a buyback program in which Trudeau has promised to offer fair market value for assault rifles purchased legally.
CTVNews.ca reached out to the Liberal party to answer questions about when the specifics of a proposed ban will released, including the weapons and penalties, whether some weapons will be grandfathered, and what is the estimated cost of a buyback program.
As of posting this story, there has been no response.
While the Liberal campaign calls it a buyback, gun rights advocates call it confiscation. But Brown says, theoretically, the government could ban a category of weapon and then take them from owners without compensation.
“Of course, a buyback is more palatable.”
Finally, it’s simply not known how many municipalities would enact a handgun ban if empowered to do so by the federal government. Some big-city politicians, including Toronto Mayor John Tory and Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart, have called for a ban, but it’s not clear how widespread that sentiment is across the nation.
It is, to the best of Brown’s knowledge, the first time a federal government has proposed handing over responsibility for regulating a category of guns to municipalities.
But critics say banning handguns will have little effect on gun crime. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are not supportive of a handgun ban, arguing most handguns used in crimes are already illegal, and a ban on something already prohibited makes no sense.
According to the RCMP, there were 2.1 million licensed gun owners in 2017 and 907,362 restricted and 183,068 prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses. The number of restricted guns grew 37 per cent from 659,387 in 2013, while prohibited firearms fell 3 per cent from 188,552 in the same year.
The AR-15 gets a lot of public attention because it’s been used in a number of mass shootings, including those in Orlando, Las Vegas, Parkland, Fla., and Newtown, Conn., but it is only one among a group of firearms called semi-automatic rifles that fire once each time the trigger is pulled. Manual action firearms require that shooters use a mechanism to reload after each discharge. Fully automatic guns, long prohibited in Canada, will continue to fire as long as a trigger is pulled.
It was shooters using semi-automatic rifles who killed 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989 and 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand in March.
In Canada, some semi-automatic firearms are non-restricted, meaning they can be used for hunting and only require a basic gun licence. Other semi-automatics, like the AR-15, are restricted, meaning they must be registered. Owners must hold a more restrictive licence and be authorized to transport their firearms.
Brown contends that many semi-automatics that are based on military gun designs are now marketed as sporting rifles and have become popular among sport shooters and hunters.
Canada’s chiefs of police began arguing for all semi-automatics to be classified as restricted weapons since 1977, calling them “instruments of war” that have “no sporting use.” Several times since, the CACP have warned about their proliferation and urged a ban.
https://election.ctvnews.ca/truth-tracker-what-does-the-liberals-gun-ban-really-involve-1.4610395
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Remind me again of just how much of Pierre's Idiot Child's Bribe Funding for the media was handed over to CTV?
Might also want to do just a little homework on their "hero" in this article...
Likely a moot point anyway.
There is nt much chance any of the parties will get beyond minority status, and the LIEberal dream of disarming Canadians therefore has less than an icicles' chance in hell of going anywhere this go around.
Simply more BS election promises from one who is incredibly familiar with making, then breaking them.
Nog
Might also want to do just a little homework on their "hero" in this article...
Likely a moot point anyway.
There is nt much chance any of the parties will get beyond minority status, and the LIEberal dream of disarming Canadians therefore has less than an icicles' chance in hell of going anywhere this go around.
Simply more BS election promises from one who is incredibly familiar with making, then breaking them.
Nog
GLG
Well-Known Member
75% of Canadians support a ban on assault style weapons but it seems that the 25% have more say then the rest of us. Scheer wants more weapons not less and if I remember correctly he thought a 25 round magazine for AR-15 style weapons should be legal in Canada.
Last edited:
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Excellent! Now relying on the Media Winner in the Bribing Mess!
Far too obtuse here even for you!
Nog
Far too obtuse here even for you!
Nog
GLG
Well-Known Member
You watch far too much Fox News.Excellent! Now relying on the Media Winner in the Bribing Mess!
Far too obtuse here even for you!
Nog
