Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is their not technology these days to transition the sport aspect into using non-lethal tools? Lasers or something? Why does it need to be capable of killing to be used in the sport? Maybe time to innovate a bit if you want it to survive.

That's a fine idea, but that would confine Canadians to only be able to compete in Canada and not against the rest of the world.

If a global change occurred where everyone went into some sort of CO2 powered (simulated recoil, since felt recoil and recoil control is a big part of the sport) and laser actuated target scoring system, then sure.

But that's not going to happen, since the rest of the world is relatively sane and still allows handguns and semi-auto sporting rifles (yes, I'm looking at you EU countries like France, etc.) for sport shooting purposes.

Canada, even well before these two sets of measures in 2020 and 2022, had some of the strictest gun control measures in the world.

[Azure]

Also, I'm still waiting on this great country of ours, and our amazing government who is so concerned about the safety of our citizens, especially when it comes to gun-crime, actually be truthful about the shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead.

But no, instead lets close the ranks and protect our own.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Azure

And to be clear, accidental discharges, theft, etc.....can all be addressed via better training & education around firearms.

Why is not mandatory to train gun safety in school?

I had that conversation with an anti-gun friend lately, and he thought I was crazy. I think all kids should know how to safety and properly use the commonly available firearms, including how they should be stored.

But hey, that would be breeding more pro-gun sentiment, right? And we can't have that.

I say this as a gun owner/user (I would wager on a # of guns basis, I'm near the top for CP users), but that is not a reasonable idea.

There are a huge number of hobbies that require special safety instruction (motorcycles, anything to do with outdoors/bears, water safety), why single out guns to spend a whole bunch of money on?

It's our hobby, we should be the ones bearing the cost of passing it along, and reducing it's impact on society.

The fact of the matter is, if we do our part to safely/properly store our guns, people that shouldn't be coming into contact with them (children for example) shouldn't ever come into contact with them. When I go shooting with someone for the first time, I treat them like a child that has never held a gun before. I take responsibility for making sure, I, and they are safe.

No one that enters my house needs to be versed in gun safety, because they aren't ever going to get to the guns unless I'm the one opening the safe.

If we want to make a compelling argument about why we should be able to own something, we need to do better ourselves, and provide a solution that demonstrates our own responsibility, not say things like "The government should take responsibility for our inability to use these things safely."

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I say this as a gun owner/user (I would wager on a # of guns basis, I'm near the top for CP users), but that is not a reasonable idea.

There are a huge number of hobbies that require special safety instruction (motorcycles, anything to do with outdoors/bears, water safety), why single out guns to spend a whole bunch of money on?

It's our hobby, we should be the ones bearing the cost of passing it along, and reducing it's impact on society.

The fact of the matter is, if we do our part to safely/properly store our guns, people that shouldn't be coming into contact with them (children for example) shouldn't ever come into contact with them. When I go shooting with someone for the first time, I treat them like a child that has never held a gun before. I take responsibility for making sure, I, and they are safe.

No one that enters my house needs to be versed in gun safety, because they aren't ever going to get to the guns unless I'm the one opening the safe.

If we want to make a compelling argument about why we should be able to own something, we need to do better ourselves, and provide a solution that demonstrates our own responsibility, not say things like "The government should take responsibility for our inability to use these things safely."

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Hit the nail on the head. Anyone that comes into my house has no idea that I own firearms. So that's a good thing, both from a safety and op-sec perspective.

Here's a bit of a thought exercise, though, with everything going on in the world.

The only thing that I think would be useful for this country, is for every citizen to maybe take some more responsibility for our national defense. So I would really just advocate for a "territorial defense" type of component in grade 12 where everyone learned to safely operate, disassemble/clean/maintain and reassemble firearms, as well as basic safety and marksmanship skills. Now you can add whatever other component onto that like survival skills etc., but that would be a bonus.

Honestly, this country relies way too much on our cousins down south to come to our aid if SHTF. The Russian war on Ukraine really spells this out in clear terms. You have to have a population that's willing, knowledgable and brave enough to stand up to an invader. Not saying it has to be big bad Russia, but Canada is generally inept when it comes to anything to do with National Defense. And no, let's not lean on the fact that we're in NATO to save our ass if things ever go that way.

It would inevitably fall on the 2.2 million firearms owners to be the second line of defense for this country. Wouldn't it be better to have a population that knows how to be useful in this scenario, however unlikely it is??

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Yeah, I figured you'd do that...

First one was an RCMP incident at their Academy, doesn't count. Most cops don't get their PAL/RPAL anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. IE They're not licensed.

The second one is a public range where it's not clear if the incident was due to a licensed individual or an "unlicensed" renter. Either way, it was an accident.

Third one was during a competition, and it's the only incident of it's type in the living memory of anyone that I've ever competed with. More or less summarized, in the heat of competition, this particular individual broke a well established safety rule, a rule that's there to prevent incidents like this, and he unfortunately paid the ultimate price for his mistake.

So to my point, 1 incident at a competition, more or less ever, doesn't prove or disprove your point. It merely illustrates that 1 accident happened at a shooting competition (which is what I was trying to say to begin with), contrasted with the fact that a competition event at pretty much every single weekend for 9 months of the year in every gun club in the country (1,245 to be exact) makes this number so infinitesimally small that it wouldn't statistically register as a number.

Well you said "without incident". A very quick google searched showed there are incidents. I'm sure there are more if I look, and others not reported. Point is, you are painting a picture that isn't true.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...rget-gun-crime

As usual, a whole bunch of political smoke and mirrors, but little in actual real word substance to fight the actual problem.

Banning the sale of hand guns is just feeding the 'oh rah rah we so tough on guns' sentiment, which of course is perfectly time to take advantage of a terrible tragedy, and its sad that people are actually falling for it.

The Trudeau Liberals have a history of gun legislation that has actually done nothing to reduce the smuggling.

And to be clear, legal firearm owners selling their handguns are not the problem here. Gun smuggling is, but somehow the legal firearm owners are again the target here, and the gun smuggling is getting a big ol' fat slap on the wrist.

Classic Trudeau Liberal stupidity. Amazing that we still have this clown in power.

You are giving no details in what you want done. Just ranting.

Explain what you want to stop smuggling of guns beyond what they did - harsher penalties and more money for enforcement.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Envitro

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Hit the nail on the head. Anyone that comes into my house has no idea that I own firearms. So that's a good thing, both from a safety and op-sec perspective.

Here's a bit of a thought exercise, though, with everything going on in the world.

The only thing that I think would be useful for this country, is for every citizen to maybe take some more responsibility for our national defense. So I would really just advocate for a "territorial defense" type of component in grade 12 where everyone learned to safely operate, disassemble/clean/maintain and reassemble firearms, as well as basic safety and marksmanship skills. Now you can add whatever other component onto that like survival skills etc., but that would be a bonus.

Honestly, this country relies way too much on our cousins down south to come to our aid if SHTF. The Russian war on Ukraine really spells this out in clear terms. You have to have a population that's willing, knowledgable and brave enough to stand up to an invader. Not saying it has to be big bad Russia, but Canada is generally inept when it comes to anything to do with National Defense. And no, let's not lean on the fact that we're in NATO to save our ass if things ever go that way.

It would inevitably fall on the 2.2 million firearms owners to be the second line of defense for this country. Wouldn't it be better to have a population that knows how to be useful in this scenario, however unlikely it is??

If you really want a population that takes an active part in national defense, then what you're really talking about there is mandatory military service.

"Here's how you clean a hunting rifle, and here's how you make sure you don't accidentally shoot someone" isn't going to do anything when it comes to national defense, unless you're worried about a land war/invasion spearheaded by a bunch of guys with as much training as a grade 12 student with basic firearms training.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well you said "without incident". A very quick google searched showed there are incidents. I'm sure there are more if I look, and others not reported. Point is, you are painting a picture that isn't true.

"Without incident" and "Statistically rounding close to zero" are effectively the same thing

24 people die a year being hit with champagne corks (according the google) but I would still accept someone claiming "people open champagne every year without incident" as an accurate statement.

Pedantic is apparently the theme of the day

[Fuzz]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8884692/h...ner_persistant


Press conference on now

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If you really want a population that takes an active part in national defense, then what you're really talking about there is mandatory military service.

"Here's how you clean a hunting rifle, and here's how you make sure you don't accidentally shoot someone" isn't going to do anything when it comes to national defense, unless you're worried about a land war/invasion spearheaded by a bunch of guys with as much training as a grade 12 student with basic firearms training.

So Russia in the first phase of the Ukraine war

I know, I don't disagree, but like I said, it's an interesting thought exercise.
Enough wars have been fought and won by farmers with AK's (i.e. Vietnam, both Afghan wars), so maybe starting at a bit of a baseline up from "farmer with pitchfork" might be of use in a pinch.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Envitro

So Russia in the first phase of the Ukraine war

I know, I don't disagree, but like I said, it's an interesting thought exercise.
Enough wars have been fought and won by farmers with AK's (i.e. Vietnam, both Afghan wars), so maybe starting at a bit of a baseline up from "farmer with pitchfork" might be of use in a pinch.

Sure, and as soon as we share a land border with Russia it might be relevant.
Until then, the list of countries that could launch a land invasion into Canada is pretty short, and the list of countries that we would have a chance against in that scenario, is approximately one shorter.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Sure, and as soon as we share a land border with Russia it might be relevant.
Until then, the list of countries that could launch a land invasion into Canada is pretty short, and the list of countries that we would have a chance against in that scenario, is approximately one shorter.

Sorry, I thought you mean land-invasion like a beach-head, not literal border land invasion.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Ben_in_Canada

When the Prime Minister makes statements like you don't need an AR15 to take down a deer, the masses are going to think people are hunting in Canada with AR15s which is simply not true.

Don’t have much skin in the game with this discussion, but I disagree here. When they say that, people aren’t thinking there’s a bunch of hunters using AR15s to kill deer. The point, I take away at least, is saying exactly what you agree with - these guns aren’t being used for hunting or other practical purposes. They are for killing.

If the bans imposed are to general and include “useful” weapons that aren’t just designed for mass killing, then I think that’s a fair argument , and one I don’t know enough to say anything about, but I’m pretty sure that’s the point when he says things like that.

[timun]

I think the overarching point Ben_in_Canada, Envitro and others are trying to make is that the government is blanket banning certain models based on 'looks' and reputation than actual physical characteristics and capabilities. The AR-15 gets a lot of airtime for being the prototypical "assault rifle", but in reality there are many rifles that are capable of doing the exact same thing. This...



... is a Ruger 10/22. It is capable of doing everything an AR-15 is capable of.

[TorqueDog]

If you ignore the inherent control advantage the pistol grip provides on an AR-15 that a Ruger 10/22 lacks, sure.

[Ben_in_Canada]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Don’t have much skin in the game with this discussion, but I disagree here. When they say that, people aren’t thinking there’s a bunch of hunters using AR15s to kill deer. The point, I take away at least, is saying exactly what you agree with - these guns aren’t being used for hunting or other practical purposes. They are for killing.

If the bans imposed are to general and include “useful” weapons that aren’t just designed for mass killing, then I think that’s a fair argument , and one I don’t know enough to say anything about, but I’m pretty sure that’s the point when he says things like that.

It was a statement designed to mislead the greatest amount of people in the shortest amount of time.
For 2 years now, while my rifles have sat dormant in the safe, missing a dozen or more matches, I've been reading comments on various outlets about how nobody needs automatics, or 30 round magazines to hunt. They talk about high capacity magazines as if they were common place. Making their announcements, Trudeau and Blair were very disingenuous, they made up the term assault style weapon (which is not defined in the firearms act). They never mentioned automatics have been banned for 40 years. The never mentioned centerfire rifles (AR15) have 5 round magazine restrictions. When the Prime Minister makes statements like

These measures will remove dangerous firearms designed for military use from our communities, and help ensure that Canadian families and communities no longer suffer from gun violence.

with no mention of criminals or illegal use (shooting people is against the law) he is painting the owners of these firearms as being violent and dangerous and responsible for for the communities suffering from gun violence. You illustrate this perfectly by twice stating they're made for killing. (Bonus points for Mass killing).

[evman150]

Guns are lame. People who own them for uses other than productive purposes (protecting livestock, etc.) are lame.

Come up with a hobby that doesn't kill people.

[PeteMoss]

No one thinks normal gun owners as violent or dangerous. Whining about that is just a pathetic persecution complex.

They just don't think normal people need handguns or semi-automatic rifles.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by evman150

Guns are lame. People who own them for uses other than productive purposes (protecting livestock, etc.) are lame.

Come up with a hobby that doesn't kill people.

You can't possibly be this ignorant making this statement.

Our hobby/sport doesn't kill people. Wow...

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

No one thinks normal gun owners as violent or dangerous. Whining about that is just a pathetic persecution complex.

They just don't think normal people need handguns or semi-automatic rifles.

Who is normal?

There are a lot of preconceived notions about gun owners being bandied about here, all of which would be out the window if any of you bothered to show up to a match one weekend and see it for yourself.

Normal? Is your doctor normal? What about your accountant? What about your mechanic, or your architect, or the head of IT for a major energy company? What about that international consultant for Big4 firms? Or that entrepreneur that owns five businesses and hustles all day long?

Yep, all sound like pretty normal people to me.