CCFR Supported Firearm Ownership Poll
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
- Status
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Instead of being in denial about poll outcomes, all of which were conducted prior to the Nova Scotia massacre, I'd be looking ahead to the next battle. A recent Ipsos survey, conducted exclusively for Global News, found that 52 per cent of Canadians polled, living in nine major centres, agreed that all types of guns should be made illegal.
Gun advocates consistently trot out the same old N.R.A. themes: that they are law-abiding, that they have a right to their guns, that they need guns because criminals have them and that any discussion of those things undermines their entitlement, freedom and democracy.
I would be considering the facts. About 74% of Canadians do not own guns. At least 63% of Canadians think handguns should be banned as well as assault rifles. (This number is higher in urban centers.) Most Canadians, even gun owners have a fear of gun violence.
So the politicians are on the right side of this: the majority of Canadians do not want assault weapons, handguns or indeed any guns on our streets. That's democracy speaking. On the subject of rights and entitlement, our Canadian Supreme Court, decades ago, determined that gun ownership was not a right but a privilege.
As law-abiding gun owners, I would expect that you will abide by new laws, just as you did in the past. Get on the right side of this issue by actively supporting greater border security and support law enforcement in getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Perhaps even consider: does anyone really need a hand gun considering they are most often used in violent crimes.
Be proactive instead of arguing poll results, "rights" and the marginal social benefit of civilian gun ownership. Otherwise, the majority may even decide to ban guns altogether.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Where is the evidence that the polls are biased or that we should not believe the polls? Just saying it is a common way to cast doubt without proof. Reminds me of the fella down south that just says fake news and we know how that works.
Same few putting up same data. Do a survey after Canadas biggest mass shooting, what do you expect the answer to be=dumbed down. Ask "Canadians" who, where, what demography if "assault" rifles should be banned. What answer do you think you will get=Dumbed downs. Do they even know the current laws or what an assault rifle is?
How about a truthful survey and a real option to vote on, by a wide range of demographic voters.
The dumbed downs, people taking the survey are educated first, at least enough to know that "assault" rifles are already banned and/or severely restricted in Canada, those who wish to own must have a background check done every 5 years by the RCMP. Must have secure lock up at all times, must accompany said weapons and maximum magazine capacity is and has been for many years 5. Legal licenced owners CANNOT STROLL AROUND A PROVINCE WITH SAID WEAPON IN VIEW AND NOT TRIGGER LOCKED. A large % of crimes in Canada conducted with "assault rifles are illegal weapons and a ban against lawful owners will not change this.
So the survey. Please choose A or B. Only one can be afforded.
A-Do you support private "assault" rifle ownership in Canada? If no the Gov will pay 2 Billion $ to confiscate the already privately owned legal weapons.
B- Do you support the Government providing an extra 2 Billion $ to RCMP, CBA, Mental Health, Women Shelters and other professional organizations, to slow the illegal flow of weapons into Canada and provide more support for those who need help?
Now choose?
If you still think A is the answer you "may be a dumbed down. If you are comparing an Island miles from nowhere to Canada who borders the US to make your point valid, you may be a dumbed down.
You can see that my version of a dumbed down is not someone that does not see things the same as me, a dumbed down is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. That's the Liberal Party of Canada and ALL THE DUMBED DOWNS who think shootings, murders and illegal activities with guns will vanish cause Trudope wants to confiscate our "assault" rifles and pistoles.
Confiscate and make ALL gun ownership illegal in Canada, what dumbed down thinks all guns will magically disappear, gang and criminal shootings will cease???
HM
How about a truthful survey and a real option to vote on, by a wide range of demographic voters.
The dumbed downs, people taking the survey are educated first, at least enough to know that "assault" rifles are already banned and/or severely restricted in Canada, those who wish to own must have a background check done every 5 years by the RCMP. Must have secure lock up at all times, must accompany said weapons and maximum magazine capacity is and has been for many years 5. Legal licenced owners CANNOT STROLL AROUND A PROVINCE WITH SAID WEAPON IN VIEW AND NOT TRIGGER LOCKED. A large % of crimes in Canada conducted with "assault rifles are illegal weapons and a ban against lawful owners will not change this.
So the survey. Please choose A or B. Only one can be afforded.
A-Do you support private "assault" rifle ownership in Canada? If no the Gov will pay 2 Billion $ to confiscate the already privately owned legal weapons.
B- Do you support the Government providing an extra 2 Billion $ to RCMP, CBA, Mental Health, Women Shelters and other professional organizations, to slow the illegal flow of weapons into Canada and provide more support for those who need help?
Now choose?
If you still think A is the answer you "may be a dumbed down. If you are comparing an Island miles from nowhere to Canada who borders the US to make your point valid, you may be a dumbed down.
You can see that my version of a dumbed down is not someone that does not see things the same as me, a dumbed down is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. That's the Liberal Party of Canada and ALL THE DUMBED DOWNS who think shootings, murders and illegal activities with guns will vanish cause Trudope wants to confiscate our "assault" rifles and pistoles.
Confiscate and make ALL gun ownership illegal in Canada, what dumbed down thinks all guns will magically disappear, gang and criminal shootings will cease???
HM
Last edited:
ReelSlim
Crew Member
Oh no you're on to them...lol
baddogg
Crew Member
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I knew it was rigorous but couldnt think of anyone better than you to put it all together for us.Apples to oranges, but then again you probably knew that.
The original AR-15 has not been available for civilian use / ownership for decades.
Why? It was a selective fire (capability to run full automatic) with a large capacity magazine.
Both of which make it illegal in Canada (Prohibited Weapon Status).
The AR-15 itself never saw a single day in the hands of any troops. Ever.
It's cousin the M-16 certainly did, but again, apples and oranges.
The version that was until last Friday available in Canada is semi-automatic only, and magazines are restricted to five rounds.
These were developed intentionally for the sporting market - target shooting, competition, and yes, hunting.
There is a significant difference between a military M-16 and the sporter AR-15.
Ask any soldier which he would prefer to be carrying into battle.
Roger that.
Many of these now banned rifles were previously classed as a Restricted Weapon - the same classification as handguns in Canada.
In order to acquire one, you must pass a rigorous course to get your Restricted Possession & Acquisition License (RPAL).
Then, you are subjected to an intensive background check through the RCMP (CPIC).
That background check is repeated on your behalf DAILY for as long as you hold the RPAL. Yes. Daily.
The rifle (or handgun) in question must be Registered.
So, you apply for said registration to be transferred to you from the current owner / business.
Another background check.
If green-lighted, you are sent a Registration Certificate for said firearm.
Now you need an Authorization To Transport (ATT) the firearm from it's current location to your residence.
Another background check.
To be transported, the firearm must be trigger locked, and further secured in a locking hardshell gun case.
Once at home, the firearm must be secured in an adequate safe as described in related legislation.
Next up, you want to take it to the range.
Another ATT required. Another background check of course.
To the range and back must be in the straightest line possible (as it was previously to bring it home).
No deviations, no stopping to visit uncle Charlie, or grab a candy bar, or whatever.
Straight line, there, straight line back.
Once again, the firearm must be trigger locked, and further secured in a locking hardshell gun case.
VERY stringent. Any non-compliance and you will not only be charged, you will lose the privileged to own ANY firearms, including non-restricted.
The daily background checks are conducted to ensure there is nothing looming that would present cause for concern with you owning any of these firearms.
Reasonable? Yep. Detailed? Yep. Sufficient? Yep.
And something NO criminal is ever likely to embrace.
Again, this is simply NOT about gun or gang violence whatsoever.
It is simply a method for Trudeau to cater to his uneducated urban base, pandering to fears he himself created.
Virtue Signaling at it's finest.
For you see tackling the very real problems of illegal firearm acquisitions, illegal firearm use, mental health issues, and our overly leaky border would require actually coming up with a working plan, and acting decisively towards addressing those goals. Costly. A hell of a lengthy time span required, and not likely to collect the political points he wants in the immediate time-frame desired.
So, so go after the low-hanging fruit.
Target the most rigorously vetted members of society who have well indicated their extreme level of responsibility over the years.
Does it matter that not a single crime or criminal act will ever be effected by this move?
Hell No!
But hey, look, we did something...
Nog
Let this ride out the weekend and oh, look, it has turned into a politically driven discussion complete with most members staunchly aligning and defending their ideology with name calling and generalizations thrown in for good measure. Much like the fish farm debates, this goes nowhere, as there is NO WAY to convince the opposing side that your argument is valid and has merit.
For the record, I do not think this legislation is sound, I do not believe that day to day criminal activity carried out by gangs and organized crime will be positively affected, or that it will prevent crimes such as the tragedy that just occurred in Nova Scotia. The money this wonky piece of appeasement will cost could be put to better use IMO. However, I can also see where the perception that hunters require an assault style weapon to put food on their table is quite a stretch. I haven't hunted in years but in my time as a young man involved in the pursuit, I do not recall lacking food due to the weapon used for that very purpose. In fact, I recall vividly as a boy watching my Dad and Uncles bring down animals without a scope on their guns, let alone require a semi-automatic weapon for the job.
So, there in a nutshell is the diametrically opposed arguments. We can now put this to rest along with the myriad number of other threads just like it. From now on, if you want to discuss gun control laws you will need to do it somewhere else. We have tried to let these conversations exist because we understand that some of our members both fish and hunt, but from now on these types of debates will need to happen on some other platform.
For the record, I do not think this legislation is sound, I do not believe that day to day criminal activity carried out by gangs and organized crime will be positively affected, or that it will prevent crimes such as the tragedy that just occurred in Nova Scotia. The money this wonky piece of appeasement will cost could be put to better use IMO. However, I can also see where the perception that hunters require an assault style weapon to put food on their table is quite a stretch. I haven't hunted in years but in my time as a young man involved in the pursuit, I do not recall lacking food due to the weapon used for that very purpose. In fact, I recall vividly as a boy watching my Dad and Uncles bring down animals without a scope on their guns, let alone require a semi-automatic weapon for the job.
So, there in a nutshell is the diametrically opposed arguments. We can now put this to rest along with the myriad number of other threads just like it. From now on, if you want to discuss gun control laws you will need to do it somewhere else. We have tried to let these conversations exist because we understand that some of our members both fish and hunt, but from now on these types of debates will need to happen on some other platform.
- Status
