IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
On Gun Control: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx
Hit It & Share Widely Folks!!
Nog
Hit It & Share Widely Folks!!
Nog
Government Seeks Feedback
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
Islander57
Well-Known Member
I filled it out.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Serious flaws in Ottawa's handgun ban consultations
The Trudeau government said they would consult far and wide on banning handguns, they just didn’t specify that it would be world-wide.
Last week the Trudeau Liberals, under Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Bill Blair, launched an online consultation.
Remarkably, given that it is 2018, the online consultation has a number of serious flaws.
Firstly, there is no limit on how many times any individual can fill out the online survey.
Secondly, it isn’t restricted to Canada.
“An honest and serious public consultation survey on the opinions of Canadians shouldn’t be open to anyone from any country,” said Tracey Wilson.
Wilson is VP of public relations for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, a lobby group for gun owners.
“The simplest on polls use technology that prohibits people from doing them over and over. I wonder why Public Safety wouldn’t implement such a simple standard,” Wilson said.
It’s a valid point.
It wouldn’t be hard to fix this but maybe the government doesn’t want to. Tech experts say stopping people from repeatedly filling out the survey or filling it out from outside the country would not be hard.
“Absolutely not,” said one tech expert when asked if it would be difficult to stop the average person from filling out the form over and over again.
The tech, who gets contracts in Ottawa and doesn’t want to be identified, says stopping people from outside the country is also an easy fix.
“Netflix has those kinds of controls. They stop you from watching American programming and make you watch an Anne of Green Gables reboot,” he said.
Meanwhile, Trudeau’s government says they are consulting Canadians.
Truth is, we don’t know who they are consulting.
“We’ve got reports from people all around the world filling in the survey,” Wilson told me.
“Sri Lanka, Cuba, the US, Mexico, Germany. Why is the government of Canada allowing outside opinions to influence legislative considerations?”
It’s a good question and one that the government could not answer.
Several emails and calls to the office of Minister Bill Blair saw questions go unanswered in why the government was wide open, as in world wide open, in terms of seeking input.
Perhaps the answer is found in the statement Blair put out when he announced the consultation last week.
“I am committed to examining all options and hearing all perspectives on this issue,” Blair said.
We just didn’t know it meant the views of people in the United States, Cuba or Sri Lanka.
Or maybe we will be the victim of a Russian hack, it is easy enough to do on the Public Safety website where basic security is apparently optional for a survey.
The Trudeau government said they would study the possibility of a ban on handguns and so-called “assault weapons” but the fix is already in.
The questions are loaded in the survey, the technology is weak.
One of the questions asks, “Should more be done to limit access to assault weapons?”
There is no accepted definition of assault weapon. If I pick up a chair and beat you over the head with it that is technically an assault weapon.
But the Trudeau Liberals point to an old American definition from the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
They say in the survey, “in general, assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire.”
Or …… firearms already illegal in Canada.
You already can’t legally own a large capacity magazine for most rifles.
Why bother telling the public that when you can scare them.
We have a problem with criminals and gangs using guns in turf and drug wars in Canada but police and politicians don’t know how to deal with that.
So politicians are dealing with what they can control, law-abiding gun owners.
There are more than 900,000 handguns registered in Canada — yes handguns are still registered. The owners of those guns are not the source of the criminal problem in this country.
Yet because Justin Trudeau know he can beat them up for political gain and win votes in the next election, they will be the focus on the crackdown on guns.
The gangbangers shooting up your neighbourhood, that can be someone else’s problem.
https://torontosun.com/news/crime/lilley-serious-flaws-in-ottawas-handgun-ban-consultations
The Trudeau government said they would consult far and wide on banning handguns, they just didn’t specify that it would be world-wide.
Last week the Trudeau Liberals, under Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Bill Blair, launched an online consultation.
Remarkably, given that it is 2018, the online consultation has a number of serious flaws.
Firstly, there is no limit on how many times any individual can fill out the online survey.
Secondly, it isn’t restricted to Canada.
“An honest and serious public consultation survey on the opinions of Canadians shouldn’t be open to anyone from any country,” said Tracey Wilson.
Wilson is VP of public relations for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, a lobby group for gun owners.
“The simplest on polls use technology that prohibits people from doing them over and over. I wonder why Public Safety wouldn’t implement such a simple standard,” Wilson said.
It’s a valid point.
It wouldn’t be hard to fix this but maybe the government doesn’t want to. Tech experts say stopping people from repeatedly filling out the survey or filling it out from outside the country would not be hard.
“Absolutely not,” said one tech expert when asked if it would be difficult to stop the average person from filling out the form over and over again.
The tech, who gets contracts in Ottawa and doesn’t want to be identified, says stopping people from outside the country is also an easy fix.
“Netflix has those kinds of controls. They stop you from watching American programming and make you watch an Anne of Green Gables reboot,” he said.
Meanwhile, Trudeau’s government says they are consulting Canadians.
Truth is, we don’t know who they are consulting.
“We’ve got reports from people all around the world filling in the survey,” Wilson told me.
“Sri Lanka, Cuba, the US, Mexico, Germany. Why is the government of Canada allowing outside opinions to influence legislative considerations?”
It’s a good question and one that the government could not answer.
Several emails and calls to the office of Minister Bill Blair saw questions go unanswered in why the government was wide open, as in world wide open, in terms of seeking input.
Perhaps the answer is found in the statement Blair put out when he announced the consultation last week.
“I am committed to examining all options and hearing all perspectives on this issue,” Blair said.
We just didn’t know it meant the views of people in the United States, Cuba or Sri Lanka.
Or maybe we will be the victim of a Russian hack, it is easy enough to do on the Public Safety website where basic security is apparently optional for a survey.
The Trudeau government said they would study the possibility of a ban on handguns and so-called “assault weapons” but the fix is already in.
The questions are loaded in the survey, the technology is weak.
One of the questions asks, “Should more be done to limit access to assault weapons?”
There is no accepted definition of assault weapon. If I pick up a chair and beat you over the head with it that is technically an assault weapon.
But the Trudeau Liberals point to an old American definition from the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
They say in the survey, “in general, assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire.”
Or …… firearms already illegal in Canada.
You already can’t legally own a large capacity magazine for most rifles.
Why bother telling the public that when you can scare them.
We have a problem with criminals and gangs using guns in turf and drug wars in Canada but police and politicians don’t know how to deal with that.
So politicians are dealing with what they can control, law-abiding gun owners.
There are more than 900,000 handguns registered in Canada — yes handguns are still registered. The owners of those guns are not the source of the criminal problem in this country.
Yet because Justin Trudeau know he can beat them up for political gain and win votes in the next election, they will be the focus on the crackdown on guns.
The gangbangers shooting up your neighbourhood, that can be someone else’s problem.
https://torontosun.com/news/crime/lilley-serious-flaws-in-ottawas-handgun-ban-consultations
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
What if we involved the NRA in the survey (on our side obviously)?
Certainly would send a message to Pierre's Idiot Child & his Henchman that leaving the survey open to the world can cut both ways...
Going to try & contact them to see what they might say...
Certainly would send a message to Pierre's Idiot Child & his Henchman that leaving the survey open to the world can cut both ways...
Going to try & contact them to see what they might say...
Islander57
Well-Known Member
Keep them out of any of Canada's business. This group has consistently shown insensitivity to victims of guns violence and their survivors.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Blair’s office dodged questions.
Now I did reach out to Minister Bill Blair’s office for comment on these problems with their survey on October 16. I heard nothing back that day before filing despite two calls and two emails.
Then at 4:30 on Friday afternoon, days after my column was published, I got a response.
Not from the minister’s spokesperson, who has never acknowledged my questions, but from a bureaucrat in the department. Despite these being from the bureaucratic side the lines were clearly political.
They had been put through the process.
Tim, the nice man I had spoken with at the department while trying to track down Blair’s overpaid political flack, told me this online engagement tool was just one method of consulting Canadians.
As for why you can fill it out as often as you want from anywhere in the world, he offered this answer.
It is designed to be an open, anonymous and barrier-free tool that will provide meaningful feedback to the Government of Canada, including from Canadians living and working abroad.
Or Russian or Chinese bots.
Or American gun control advocates working with their Canadian colleagues.
There are so many problems with this survey.
The email went on to ensure me that the technology involved was robust.
It is important to note that there are measures built into the online tool and our server infrastructure that help deter cyber-attacks and ensure that responses have been submitted by a human, instead of computer scripts, commonly used by hackers.
Well colour me skeptical but I didn’t see any of the tools I’m used to seeing to stop bots.
http://brianlilley.com/the-handgun-ban-is-coming-the-consultations-are-a-farce/
Now I did reach out to Minister Bill Blair’s office for comment on these problems with their survey on October 16. I heard nothing back that day before filing despite two calls and two emails.
Then at 4:30 on Friday afternoon, days after my column was published, I got a response.
Not from the minister’s spokesperson, who has never acknowledged my questions, but from a bureaucrat in the department. Despite these being from the bureaucratic side the lines were clearly political.
They had been put through the process.
Tim, the nice man I had spoken with at the department while trying to track down Blair’s overpaid political flack, told me this online engagement tool was just one method of consulting Canadians.
As for why you can fill it out as often as you want from anywhere in the world, he offered this answer.
It is designed to be an open, anonymous and barrier-free tool that will provide meaningful feedback to the Government of Canada, including from Canadians living and working abroad.
Or Russian or Chinese bots.
Or American gun control advocates working with their Canadian colleagues.
There are so many problems with this survey.
The email went on to ensure me that the technology involved was robust.
It is important to note that there are measures built into the online tool and our server infrastructure that help deter cyber-attacks and ensure that responses have been submitted by a human, instead of computer scripts, commonly used by hackers.
Well colour me skeptical but I didn’t see any of the tools I’m used to seeing to stop bots.
http://brianlilley.com/the-handgun-ban-is-coming-the-consultations-are-a-farce/
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Also, while both bans would be entirely useless in controlling crime, they are exactly the kind of politically correct, we-care, virtue-signalling act the Trudeau government loves.
But understand this, such bans would only be symbolic. They would only inconvenience/punish law-abiding guns owners. If the Liberals ban handguns and assault rifles, or if they ban all urban guns, then for sure the only people who will have guns will be the bad guys.
But because they are already law-abiding, Canada’s legal gun owners are not the problem. So clamping down on them will not solve whatever crime problem the Liberals think they are solving.
Conversely, bans won’t stop bad guys from getting guns and using them.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-libs-making-gun-ban-election-wedge-issue
But understand this, such bans would only be symbolic. They would only inconvenience/punish law-abiding guns owners. If the Liberals ban handguns and assault rifles, or if they ban all urban guns, then for sure the only people who will have guns will be the bad guys.
But because they are already law-abiding, Canada’s legal gun owners are not the problem. So clamping down on them will not solve whatever crime problem the Liberals think they are solving.
Conversely, bans won’t stop bad guys from getting guns and using them.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-libs-making-gun-ban-election-wedge-issue
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Before calling for a ban on firearms, Canadians should carefully consider the empirical evidence as well as the secondary consequences. Gun laws must be proven to reduce violent crime or they are nothing more than hollow promises.
https://theprovince.com/opinion/op-...ry-mauser-a-gun-ban-wont-reduce-violent-crime
https://theprovince.com/opinion/op-...ry-mauser-a-gun-ban-wont-reduce-violent-crime
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Bill Blair, has admitted to a privacy breach in an online survey that was advertised to Canadians as “anonymous”. The government recorded the IP addresses of everyone surveyed during the 2018 handgun ban consultations.
The technology to isolate IP addresses of respondents by country exists. There are also mechanisms to block repeated access, so it is a mystery why the government hasn’t implemented any fail-safe procedures in their consultation.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/privacy-breach-in-canadian-handgun-consultations/
The technology to isolate IP addresses of respondents by country exists. There are also mechanisms to block repeated access, so it is a mystery why the government hasn’t implemented any fail-safe procedures in their consultation.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/privacy-breach-in-canadian-handgun-consultations/
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what this has to do with "Saltwater and Freshwater Fisheries Management and Fishing Related Politics" as described in the sub-title for this particular forum. Maybe move it to the General Forum?
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Blair was supposed to be "consulting" Canadians on the matter of these potential bans Canada wide, and taking into consideration comments from all who chose to do so. He has done anything BUT. Instead he has openly encouraged "Public Consultation by Written Invitation" ONLY. One guess who is on the "attend list". Even going so far as to reduce the so-called consultations in Alberta to a completely worthless exercise:
https://firearmrights.ca/en/minister-blair-scales-down-calgary-consulations-no-public/
Even before a good handful of these pseudo consultation meetings has occurred, Blair announces that he has collected all the information needed to formulate his opinion, and therefore recommendations to the government. Not too difficult to ascertain that he likely had his mind made up well before any such "consultations" ever occurred:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/blair-guns-ban-legislation-1.4983849
Funny, myself nor the several hundred other gun owners I know were never asked for their opinion. Guess we didn't mesh with their Agenda...
Nog
https://firearmrights.ca/en/minister-blair-scales-down-calgary-consulations-no-public/
Even before a good handful of these pseudo consultation meetings has occurred, Blair announces that he has collected all the information needed to formulate his opinion, and therefore recommendations to the government. Not too difficult to ascertain that he likely had his mind made up well before any such "consultations" ever occurred:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/blair-guns-ban-legislation-1.4983849
Funny, myself nor the several hundred other gun owners I know were never asked for their opinion. Guess we didn't mesh with their Agenda...
Nog
Last edited:
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
The buzz on Parliament Hill over the past couple of weeks (to the extent there has been any buzz other than the Liberals’ SNC-Lavalin scandal) has been that the federal government now believes an all-out handgun ban might be too expensive.
Since last summer’s tragic shooting in Toronto’s Danforth district, the Trudeau government has been searching for some dramatic gesture to symbolize how much they care.
One thing hasn’t changed, though. The Liberals’ justification for new gun controls is still the assertion that the main source of crime guns in Canada is legit owners – people who have licences and buy guns legally, but then “illegally divert” guns to the black market for thieves or drug runners.
Perhaps most troubling, there are more than 420,000 Canadians who are banned from owning guns, typically because of previous criminal convictions. But Goodale had to admit recently, the federal firearms computers “do not capture information concerning the illegal acquisition of firearms by prohibited persons.”
The Liberals are about to impose more restrictions on legit owners to win votes in Liberal cities and to claim they are taking action to reduce crime.
Yet they have no clue – none – how many convicted criminals possess guns or where they got them.
Talk about cynical, ineffective policy.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...als-cynical-ineffective-gun-policies-continue
Nog
Since last summer’s tragic shooting in Toronto’s Danforth district, the Trudeau government has been searching for some dramatic gesture to symbolize how much they care.
One thing hasn’t changed, though. The Liberals’ justification for new gun controls is still the assertion that the main source of crime guns in Canada is legit owners – people who have licences and buy guns legally, but then “illegally divert” guns to the black market for thieves or drug runners.
Perhaps most troubling, there are more than 420,000 Canadians who are banned from owning guns, typically because of previous criminal convictions. But Goodale had to admit recently, the federal firearms computers “do not capture information concerning the illegal acquisition of firearms by prohibited persons.”
The Liberals are about to impose more restrictions on legit owners to win votes in Liberal cities and to claim they are taking action to reduce crime.
Yet they have no clue – none – how many convicted criminals possess guns or where they got them.
Talk about cynical, ineffective policy.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...als-cynical-ineffective-gun-policies-continue
Nog
CIVANO
Well-Known Member
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
GLG
Well-Known Member
Yea not sure how a guy 250 years ago would think if he saw his country now.
Before you pull the trigger on me .... only posting this for a laugh.
GLG
Well-Known Member
You fellas lost me when your policy for handguns goes there.
POLICY MEMORANDUM
Issue:
CONCEALED OR OPEN CARRYING OF FIREARMS
Policy Memorandum No.:
15-10
Replaces (if applicable):
N/A
To be read with (if applicable):
15-7 (Self-Defence with a Firearm)
Passed by Policy Committee:
16 September 2015
Passed by Board of Directors
23 September 2015
POLICY:
The CCFR believes that concealed carrying of firearms by properly trained, screened, and licenced individuals is a significant benefit to society.
RATIONALE AND DISCUSSION:
Training for authorizations to carry ought to include the following topics, over and above what is taught to obtain a possession and acquisition licence: the law of self-defence and defence of property, the obligation to use safe avenues of retreat, the use of force triangle, shoot/no-shoot judgment training, accuracy and marksmanship. The standard of training should be at least equivalent to that undergone by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police forces or armed security personnel.
The screening for an authorization to carry should be stricter than the screening for a possession and acquisition licence, but the authorization should be “shall issue” unless the government can provide specific and legitimate reasons to deny the authorization. Any denial or imposition of conditions on the authorization should be reviewable by a Court.
Authorizations to carry should be valid for 5 years, subject to a yearly demonstration of proficiency, and should provide the user the option to carry openly or concealed. Those who choose to carry firearms can be trusted to exercise proper discretion as to when to carry openly or concealed (e.g. open carry is suitable in the bush, as a defence against bears and other predators, while concealed carry is suitable to a populated area).
https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-10-concealed-or-open-carry/
POLICY MEMORANDUM
Issue:
CONCEALED OR OPEN CARRYING OF FIREARMS
Policy Memorandum No.:
15-10
Replaces (if applicable):
N/A
To be read with (if applicable):
15-7 (Self-Defence with a Firearm)
Passed by Policy Committee:
16 September 2015
Passed by Board of Directors
23 September 2015
POLICY:
The CCFR believes that concealed carrying of firearms by properly trained, screened, and licenced individuals is a significant benefit to society.
RATIONALE AND DISCUSSION:
Training for authorizations to carry ought to include the following topics, over and above what is taught to obtain a possession and acquisition licence: the law of self-defence and defence of property, the obligation to use safe avenues of retreat, the use of force triangle, shoot/no-shoot judgment training, accuracy and marksmanship. The standard of training should be at least equivalent to that undergone by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police forces or armed security personnel.
The screening for an authorization to carry should be stricter than the screening for a possession and acquisition licence, but the authorization should be “shall issue” unless the government can provide specific and legitimate reasons to deny the authorization. Any denial or imposition of conditions on the authorization should be reviewable by a Court.
Authorizations to carry should be valid for 5 years, subject to a yearly demonstration of proficiency, and should provide the user the option to carry openly or concealed. Those who choose to carry firearms can be trusted to exercise proper discretion as to when to carry openly or concealed (e.g. open carry is suitable in the bush, as a defence against bears and other predators, while concealed carry is suitable to a populated area).
https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-10-concealed-or-open-carry/
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
The CCFR was asked directly by some of their membership to come up with a policy regarding carry permits.
In 2015 they did so, which you posted.
The Policy represents the position of the majority of the Board of Directors.
I would be quite hesitant in suggesting that policy represents the position of the greater majority of handgun owners in Canada as you are insinuating.
It is rather that of one board, who are quite obviously pro-carry.
On a related front, I cannot understand why I can carry my 300 Weatherby Magnum freely in the bush, a rifle capable of inflicting it's deadly influence out to may hundreds of yards, yet cannot be "trusted" enough to carry a 22 pistol under the same circumstances to harvest grouse. Care to comment on that?
Should you do so, please bear in mind that for decades I had a carry permit which included all of the Yukon, NWT, BC, Alberta & Saskatchewan...
Nog
In 2015 they did so, which you posted.
The Policy represents the position of the majority of the Board of Directors.
I would be quite hesitant in suggesting that policy represents the position of the greater majority of handgun owners in Canada as you are insinuating.
It is rather that of one board, who are quite obviously pro-carry.
On a related front, I cannot understand why I can carry my 300 Weatherby Magnum freely in the bush, a rifle capable of inflicting it's deadly influence out to may hundreds of yards, yet cannot be "trusted" enough to carry a 22 pistol under the same circumstances to harvest grouse. Care to comment on that?
Should you do so, please bear in mind that for decades I had a carry permit which included all of the Yukon, NWT, BC, Alberta & Saskatchewan...
Nog
GLG
Well-Known Member
For peats sake Nog you are the one that gave links to the CCFR website. CIVANO then posted this and you liked it. Are you saying you now don't agree with him and you don't agree with CCFR? If the majority of handgun owners don't agree with this then why do you and CIVANO have a different view? I was not insinuating anything but remarking on you two.
GLG
Well-Known Member
What would you tell me if I showed up for fishing on your boat with a 6wt and dry flies and insisted that it was a perfectly reasonable request to use that and not DR rod and trolling gear. Save your handgun to hunt grouse argument for someone else as I don't buy it.
Similar threads
