Action: Public Safety of Canada Online Gun Ban Consultation

[cycoblade]

Should more be done to limit access to handguns?
Yes
No
No opinion
If yes, what should be considered?
The process to acquire a restricted firearm in Canada is quite thoroughly vetting as it is.

The US Department of Justice has used the following description: “in general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire.” Footnote1
Should more be done to limit access to assault weapons?
Yes
No
No opinion
If yes, what should be considered?
First of all, this is Canada, what is the Canadian definition of an assault weapon?
Secondly, our magazines are already limited to 5 rounds, thereby negating "high capacity".
Finally, rapid fire refers to an automatic rifle, which are prohibited in Canada already.

Where should we focus efforts to limit handguns?
Legally-owned handguns
Illicit handguns
Both legally-owned handguns and illicit handguns
Neither legally-owned handguns nor illicit handguns
No opinion
What is likely to be the most effective? What might the consequences be for law abiding Canadians?
The solution here is to stop the illegal importation and sales of any weapon through increased policing and border inspections.

Restricting access to firearms for law abiding firearms owners will not reduce firearms crimes at all but will negatively affect many businesses built on or around sport shooting.
Where do you believe efforts to limit assault weapons should be focused?
Legally-owned firearms
Illicit firearms
Both legally-owned firearms and illicit firearms
Neither legally-owned firearms nor illicit firearms
No opinion
What is likely to be the most effective? What might the consequences be for law abiding Canadians?
Again, in Canada, assault weapons are already prohibited and thereby do not apply to this forum.
That being said:
The solution here is to stop the illegal importation and sales of any weapon through increased policing and border inspections.
Restricting access to firearms for law abiding firearms owners will not reduce firearms crimes at all but will negatively affect many businesses built on or around sport shooting.

With respect to limiting handguns, assault weapons, and other firearms in the illicit market, in which of the following areas do you think efforts should be focused? [check all that apply]
Theft from businesses and individuals
Straw purchasing (i.e., a legal purchase that is then diverted to the illicit market)
Smuggling
None of these – no efforts are required
No opinion
Other [Please indicate below]
Other
What strategies are likely to be most effective?
An increase in border inspectors to more thoroughly inspect incoming shipments for illicit firearms.
An increase in police officers to more thoroughly investigate reported firearms thefts.

Are there any other comments you would like to share with respect to limiting firearms?
The limiting of firearms will only affect law abiding firearms owners and will in no way limit the number of illicit firearms as criminals do not respect our laws and obtain their firearms through other means.
The punishment for having an illicit firearm or committing a crime with an illicit firearm should be expanded and increased to make the idea of having an illicit firearm completely unappealing.

[Kiljoy]

Those questions are so loaded. It practically begs you to say "stop illicit guns" and "ban handguns and semiautomatic assault rifles". Its a disgrace. When all is said and done I bet we will hear from The Liberals that "95%" of the people surveyed believe something needs to be done and now I have a mandate!"

I put down nothing needs to be done for either legal or illicit firearms and if you are doing something go back to the old rules. And gave my opinion as to why. Banning firearms and continued attacks on law-abiding sportspeople, hunters, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts, and gun owners, is a red-herring and if they want to stop gun violence, start with the gangs and police the porous border that allows anybody to walk across.

I do not agree that there is an epidemic of gun violence and any laws being broken are being broken by criminals anyways.

[TheMerlin]

Misses and I both did this bs consultation. By the way did anyone notice that the government more or less kills the Australian and UK gun ban argument? In the engagement paper PDF (which you can only get to at the end of the survey) there is this gem on page 6 under “International Experience”

“Jurisdictions differ in their approaches to controlling handguns and assault weapons. For example, Australia and the UK have both enacted bans that limit or prohibit handguns. Federally, the US enacted a federal ban on assault weapons, but this ban expired in 2004 and no federal legislation to renew or replace the ban has since been enacted. In all cases the data does not conclusively demonstrate that these handgun or assault weapon bans have led to reductions in gun violence, though some studies drew other conclusions.”

[scout3006]

The US Department of Justice has used the following description: “in general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire.”

I love how they use a totally wrong description of an "assault weapon" from a US law that was canned 14 years ago.

[Smcx]

I mentioned that firearms related deaths are far less that drug related deaths, or impaired driving deaths. I told them to do actual policing and to target real criminals. Maybe they would actually catch some drunk (soon to be high) divers as well.

[Cameron SS]

why

Because of this thing called google analytics.

It is possible for some spirited government drone to identify that tens of thousands of people completely the public consultation navigated directly from Canadian Guns Nutz, and then delete those records on a presumption of being bogus.

If you navigate to the government website by manually typing the link in a new browser you are denying them this information.

[win94luver]

Responding to this consultation is about 100 times more important than any petitions or letter we can send to the public safety minister, or any of the online polls held endlessly by news sites.

This consultation is probably going to be the singular basis for whether or not the government embarks on a handgun band.

Be clear, and do not let yourself be constrained by their questions. Use the provided text boxes explain why you think a handgun ban is the wrong solution. Edit your stuff for typos and clarity. Support your claims with good references if you can.

Duplicate submission from the same IP address will likely be flagged and deleted.

It is vital we share this with as many gun owners as you know. Clubs, ranges, businesses, etc. Share the link on social media. encourage as much participation as possible.

Can't believe some people are actually giving this latest example of Liberal any credibility whatsoever.
Please PM me because I own a bridge over San Francisco Bay I'd like to sell you.

[Gummo]

I wonder if we should claim we do not own firearms to give our submissions more credibility...

[Cameron SS]

Can't believe some people are actually giving this latest example of Liberal any credibility whatsoever.
Please PM me because I own a bridge over San Francisco Bay I'd like to sell you.

I am not giving the process any credibility. The questions are flawed and constrained towards a certain outcome right out of the gate.

All I am saying is that more than anything else, the liberals will use this consultation to justify further action, and it should not be ignored.

Take your pessimism and defeatist attitude and take it for a drive over that bridge.

[Cameron SS]

I wonder if we should claim we do not own firearms to give our submissions more credibility...

Integrity is a matter of personal taste, but for maximum effect you should identify as a non-binary-man/woman/not sure from Quebec who identifies black-Asian Metis immigrant.