Gun Club Ban

[bleeding heart]

Here's a thought, since gun owners get high on shooting, replace the bullets with paint balls!!! Wouldn't that be more fun?

Honestly, no, that would not be more fun.

[guyser]

Here's a thought, since gun owners get high on shooting, replace the bullets with paint balls!!! Wouldn't that be more fun?

For the charging bear,cougar or moose , sure.

You?...not so much.

[Guest Derek L]

Bad analogy...Obama's gun control rhetoric is about identical to Romney's.

This is correct………As of yet, Obama’s true actions relating to firearms, is on par with GWB’s………..The last regressive form of legislation (towards gun owners) came from the Clinton administration in ‘94 (Assault Weapons Ban)……..A piece of legislation, since it’s expiry in ‘04, if one looks back at the last 18 years, has had no measurable effect on crime/violence within the United States, either when it was in effect or since it has ended…………The fear is what he’ll do if he’s re-elected…….maybe nothing or maybe further draconian restrictions, whose to say, as he’s been rather mute on the subject………….Hence President Obama’s presidency to date has been the largest catalyst of private firearms sales, more so then even 9/11, in United States history.

[bleeding heart]

This is correct………As of yet, Obamas true actions relating to firearms, is on par with GWBs………..The last regressive form of legislation (towards gun owners) came from the Clinton administration in 94 (Assault Weapons Ban)……..A piece of legislation, since its expiry in 04, if one looks back at the last 18 years, has had no measurable effect on crime/violence within the United States, either when it was in effect or since it has ended…………The fear is what hell do if hes re-elected…….maybe nothing or maybe further draconian restrictions, whose to say, as hes been rather mute on the subject………….Hence President Obamas presidency to date has been the largest catalyst of private firearms sales, more so then even 9/11, in United States history.

"What if" scenarios are sometimes legitimate...but in this case, I see nothing concrete behind them, and imagine it as nothing more than partisan (Republican, in this case) fear-mongering.

Quite successful, perhaps, given the gun sales that you mention.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

"What if" scenarios are sometimes legitimate...but in this case, I see nothing concrete behind them, and imagine it as nothing more than partisan (Republican, in this case) fear-mongering.

Quite successful, perhaps, given the gun sales that you mention.

It’s tough to say really………I’m sure it’s a bit of both……..But none the less, it does have a serious effect on the market, both in terms of price and availability……….The thinking as much being if the fears turn to be founded in reality, it will be “too late” to “stock up”………In reality, the viability of serious gun control measure both in the United States and Canada is a false dichotomy……..“Obama can’t take away what he doesn’t know exists(in people‘s homes)………The same is true in Canada.

I would liken such fears being more realistic in Canada with the possibility of a NDP Government in 2015.……Such “fears” are already driving sales of firearms, ammunition, reloading equipment and firearms replacement parts to crazy levels……..I’ve never seen the availability (or lack there of) to this extent within Canada in all my adult life………

As I’ve said, the biggest driver behind gun sales, is the talk of “gun control”……….Kinda ironic if you think about it………The people who want to restrict private firearms are the reason behind the proliferation of private sales and “stock piling”………

[bleeding heart]

It’s tough to say really………I’m sure it’s a bit of both……..But none the less, it does have a serious effect on the market, both in terms of price and availability……….The thinking as much being if the fears turn to be founded in reality, it will be “too late” to “stock up”………In reality, the viability of serious gun control measure both in the United States and Canada is a false dichotomy……..“Obama can’t take away what he doesn’t know exists(in people‘s homes)………The same is true in Canada.

Sure. But again, what--concretely--are the fears and concerns based upon?

I would liken such fears being more realistic in Canada with the possibility of a NDP Government in 2015.

I agree. On the other hand, the NDP has maintained much of its "other" base, particularly among older voters (who are more apt to vote, anyway): types who are often social cosnervatives, but economic leftists. (It's little understood how many of these people exist in Canada.) These are often rural folk, hunters and gun-owners by inclination...by tradition, in fact.

The NDP is politicvally very cognizant of these supporters...which explains why they've waffled on gun control issues so many, many times.

As I’ve said, the biggest driver behind gun sales, is the talk of “gun control”……….Kinda ironic if you think about it………The people who want to restrict private firearms are the reason behind the proliferation of private sales and “stock piling”………

I think you're right. I think that rhetoric about increasing gun control (quite unneccessary in my view) has a self-defeating effect. (Obviously, that doesn't bother me, however.)

[Guest Derek L]

Sure. But again, what--concretely--are the fears and concerns based upon?

Guilt by association I suppose, both here and the United States, in that typically, the anti-gun folk tend to be “left leaning progressive voters”, or better put, supporters of Obama/NDP, as such said fears find their foundation in said political parties possibly adhering to the wishes of their base.

I agree. On the other hand, the NDP has maintained much of its "other" base, particularly among older voters (who are more apt to vote, anyway): types who are often social cosnervatives, but economic leftists. (It's little understood how many of these people exist in Canada.) These are often rural folk, hunters and gun-owners by inclination...by tradition, in fact.

That might be true, my eldest sister and her husband are both party members and gun owners, but by happenstance, the rhetoric from the party does fall on the negative aspects of “gun control” (From a gun owner’s perspective)

I’m sure we can both agree, the vast majority of gun owners within Canada support the Tories……..

The NDP is politicvally very cognizant of these supporters...which explains why they've waffled on gun control issues so many, many times.

Such as?

[bleeding heart]

Guilt by association I suppose, both here and the United States, in that typically, the anti-gun folk tend to be “left leaning progressive voters”, or better put, supporters of Obama/NDP, as such said fears find their foundation in said political parties possibly adhering to the wishes of their base.

I think you've nailed it here.

It probably makes no difference, however, ultimately: if Obama wins (which is likely) I would actually bet money (and I'm not a betting man, as I consider gambling irrational) that there will be no difference, none at all, to existing gun policy.

As you say, Canadian gun owners are always in a much more precarious position; in fact, the current government notwithstanding, gun rights advocates are better off under American Democrats than Canadian Conservatives.

And it's not, as some people say, a matter of "cultural differences," I don't think; it's a matter of differences in the political culture, if you get my distinction.

Speaking, I admit, only from personal impression, I see no appetite for increased gun control...and I'm of the loony-left!

Very few people give a damn, in my experience. Hell, I'm not a gun-owner myself, so I have no obvious personal horse on the target range. I just don't view legal firearms as an issue.

I mean: at all.

(Interestingly, there is far more appetite for it in the United States, in my view).

That might be true, my eldest sister and her husband are both party members and gun owners, but by happenstance, the rhetoric from the party does fall on the negative aspects of “gun control” (From a gun owner’s perspective)

True. On the other hand, very few people are single-issue voters (if we were, no one could ever get voted in! )

I’m sure we can both agree, the vast majority of gun owners within Canada support the Tories……..

Yeah, I assume so. But part of this is thanks to regional and historical matters, quite outside of the "rights" issue.

For example, here in NB, I've known a heck of a lot of gun owners; and it seems totally unrelated to voting persuasion, at least here.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

I think you've nailed it here.

It probably makes no difference, however, ultimately: if Obama wins (which is likely) I would actually bet money (and I'm not a betting man, as I consider gambling irrational) that there will be no difference, none at all, to existing gun policy.

As you say, Canadian gun owners are always in a much more precarious position; in fact, the current government notwithstanding, gun rights advocates are better off under American Democrats than Canadian Conservatives.

And it's not, as some people say, a matter of "cultural differences," I don't think; it's a matter of differences in the political culture, if you get my distinction.

Speaking, I admit, only from personal impression, I see no appetite for increased gun control...and I'm of the loony-left!

Very few people give a damn, in my experience. Hell, I'm not a gun-owner myself, so I have no obvious personal horse on the target range. I just don't view legal firearms as an issue.

I mean: at all.

(Interestingly, there is far more appetite for it in the United States, in my view).

Sorry for the long time in replying………So long that an Obama win certainly isn’t a lock

I honestly don’t follow your line on Canadian gun owners being better off with US Democrats as opposed to Canadian Conservatives………Do you mean US Dems are more gun “friendly”? I would opine, after the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse under Bush, the repeal of the Long Gun Registry, has been the most “gun friendly” piece off legislation to be passed in the history of Western Democracies………In terms of gun owners, these are the few reversals of draconian anti gun laws ever……

As to the general population “caring”……….I would tend to agree………And am content with that……

True. On the other hand, very few people are single-issue voters (if we were, no one could ever get voted in!

I tend to agree in most cases, unless said single issues have a felt direct impact on said voter……..I’m certain some voted for the Conservatives solely based on their promise to kill the LGR……..As I’d assume some would vote another party promising legalization of pot etc……

Yeah, I assume so. But part of this is thanks to regional and historical matters, quite outside of the "rights" issue.

For example, here in NB, I've known a heck of a lot of gun owners; and it seems totally unrelated to voting persuasion, at least here.

I disagree to some extent on it being a “rights issue”……..On a personal basis, the gun owners within my family (Damn near everyone LOL) complied, well bitching and moaning, with the last Long Gun Registry for the simple fact that we consider ourselves law abiding citizens………..After the fact, when the abuses and confiscations started on the part of the RCMP/Government, the general mood of wilfully complying with this particular law began to wane…….And to be quite clear, the appetite to comply with another registry is hovering around nil……….The general consensus during the LGR, was that for every gun registered, there were another one or two not……..And compliance levels of another LGR would be drastically less then that……….

Even a ban and/or reclassification of semi-auto centerfire rifles and shotguns, similar to what was done in Australia after the Port Arthur “massacre”, would be met with even lower levels of compliance, as such, the price/resale value of said non-restricted firearms has been skyrocketing………In the gun discussion in the technology forum, the price of a surplus, ~60 year old Soviet SKS rifle, when I first brought them up back in the Spring of this year (And during the death throes of the LGR) has went from ~$175 per gun to approaching $300, if you can find one………….Or look at the recent election night shooting in Quebec and the ensuing further calls of further “gun laws”, the firearm used (CZ 858) has went from a ~$700 rifle to a gun that anyone in possession of one (I sold one a few months prior alot cheaper ) can name their sale price, for it’s near impossible to find one in a store across Canada………

Couple this with the discussion I’ve been having with Kimmy in the other thread, just six months ago in British Columbia, a person applying for a new licence or obtaining an Authorization to Transport (required for Restricted Firearms) from the Provincial Chief Firearms Officer would take ~40 days & ~3 days respectively………Now said timeframe(s) are months & weeks……….There is no other explanation for this other than the fact that many more British Columbians are getting firearms licences and restricted firearms……………

I think these above examples demonstrate, that post LGR, the issue of Private Firearms ownership, is such a “single issue” that is or is becoming very important to a great many people, in a relatively short period of time post LGR…………

[bleeding heart]

Sorry for the long time in replying………So long that an Obama win certainly isn’t a lock

I honestly don’t follow your line on Canadian gun owners being better off with US Democrats as opposed to Canadian Conservatives………Do you mean US Dems are more gun “friendly”? I would opine, after the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse under Bush, the repeal of the Long Gun Registry, has been the most “gun friendly” piece off legislation to be passed in the history of Western Democracies………In terms of gun owners, these are the few reversals of draconian anti gun laws ever……

I said "the current government notwithstanding."

The current government is not a typical Canadian Conservative government on matters of firearms.

Your remark, if anything, adds credence to my claim, rather than refutes it.

I tend to agree in most cases, unless said single issues have a felt direct impact on said voter……..I’m certain some voted for the Conservatives solely based on their promise to kill the LGR……..As I’d assume some would vote another party promising legalization of pot etc……

Sure, occasionally. But I think it's rare.

And to be blunt, I would consider both such single-issues voters to be morons.

Edited October 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

I said "the current government notwithstanding."

The current government is not a typical Canadian Conservative government on matters of firearms.

Your remark, if anything, adds credence to my claim, rather than refutes it.

I would add one caveat, in that the current Government, isn’t typical of Canadian Governments……….In that I can’t honestly think of a Canadian Government, in living memory, that has given a segment of the population their “freedoms” back…………..Government in general, doesn’t tend to give things “back” once taken.

Sure, occasionally. But I think it's rare.

And to be blunt, I would consider both such single-issues voters to be morons.

I disagree, I think a given issue that compels an individual to partake in the political process of our country, when without said issue, they’d like demonstrate an attitude of apathy and not bother (voting) taking part, is a plus for our Democratic process……………Or better put, are we better off with the population feeling their involvement in the governance of our country is futile, so why bother.

When the population gives the Government carte blanche control of their lives, then we’re truly in trouble.

As was correctly stated by Mao: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”

Though I highly doubt such a situation would ever arise within Canada, a disarmed populace does make such situation more plausible.

[Guest Peeves]

Miller and his cronies were blown out of office because of the garbage strike and this law is but another piece of garbage left from Miller's administration. It serves no purpose but as a facade for those against gun legitimate gun owners.

[bleeding heart]

I disagree, I think a given issue that compels an individual to partake in the political process of our country, when without said issue, they’d like demonstrate an attitude of apathy and not bother (voting) taking part, is a plus for our Democratic process……………Or better put, are we better off with the population feeling their involvement in the governance of our country is futile, so why bother.

A single-issues voter is asking--begging--for a rotten, terrible government that will throw them their one obssessive bone, and then boot them in the face in a myriad of other ways..

[Guest Derek L]

A single-issues voter is asking--begging--for a rotten, terrible government that will throw them their one obssessive bone, and then boot them in the face in a myriad of other ways..

Is a public that’s disengaged better though? And how many issues should one vote on?

[Guest Derek L]

Is a public that’s disengaged better though? And how many issues should one vote on?

To add, after President Obama’s muddled remarks on gun’s in tonight’s debate………Well just follow the stock prices over the next several weeks of Ruger, Colt, Smith & Wesson and Remington……..

[bleeding heart]

Is a public that’s disengaged better though? And how many issues should one vote on?

The second question is a fair one, and it is a subjective matter, no doubt.

As to the first question: a person who says "he who weakens gun regulations (or legalizes pot) gets my vote" is disengaged.

[Guest Derek L]

The second question is a fair one, and it is a subjective matter, no doubt.

As to the first question: a person who says "he who weakens gun regulations (or legalizes pot) gets my vote" is disengaged.

Well that’s the rub…..Is someone that votes based on ten issues a better voter than someone that votes on seven?

[cybercoma]

To add, after President Obama’s muddled remarks on gun’s in tonight’s debate………Well just follow the stock prices over the next several weeks of Ruger, Colt, Smith & Wesson and Remington……..

As opposed to Romney non-answer about single-moms and drug lords in other countries?

[Guest Derek L]

As opposed to Romney non-answer about single-moms and drug lords in other countries?

Yup. Romney didn’t muse on what sorts of guns people should and shouldn’t have………….And of course, who’s idea was it to arm Mexican drug lords? How supportive of Obama would you be if the next illegal gun used in a shooting in Canada was one of many supplied to the drug cartels by the Obama administration?

In fairness though, Romney did have a slip up on the legal status of automatic weapons……….Their legality is differing amongst the various States, and not a national ban............

[bleeding heart]

Well that’s the rub…..Is someone that votes based on ten issues a better voter than someone that votes on seven?

No...as per our discussion, the rub is whether a single issues voter is better than not voting.

The jury's out on that question, and will forever remain so.

[GostHacked]

Not saying it couldn't happen, but hundreds of cases out of 35 million? Ehh.

I am more than happy to not become a number on that list by defending myself and my home. I am more than happy to not be a victim of an assault or home invasion. I am more than happy to marginalize someone who wants to cause me harm.

In any case it still takes time to get to your guns as mentioned, so you'd be better off defending yourself with a good cast-iron frying pan...

This is where the gun laws and storage laws are a little out of touch with reality. Before the cabinets and trigger locks my dad stored his rifles in the basement. We did not have any problems with accidents or anything like that.

If you're real worried about it you could keep a loaded gun under your pillow at night, to fend off said bogey men. Just make sure it's not the neighbour! More than a few have shot their friends

Some people would rather be a victim.

[betsy]

In the mean time, perhaps the cities of Ontario would want to concentrate on how to deal with the new kind of terrorism - blockades on railroads and roads - that would not only disrupt our economy, not to mention people's lives, but would also inspire other groups to do so.

Edited January 13, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

In the mean time, perhaps the cities of Ontario would want to concentrate on how to deal with the new kind of terrorism - blockades on railroads and roads - that would not only disrupt our economy, not to mention people's lives, but would also inspire other groups to do so.

So we as a western society encourage this kind of behaviour in other countries (like the Arab Spring) but we won't tolerate it on our own soil. Why?

[Topaz]

You know, since the tobacco companies were sued because of all the toxins they put in their products, could the gun producers be sued for manufacturing guns and selling them to the public and maybe the making of bullets? If the guy that killed those kids had a knife, he probably wouldn't have killed so many.

[bush_cheney2004]

Another knife murder-suicide in Canada....so can we sue knife manufacturers too ?