CanadianGunNutz.com logo, Firearms News and Classifieds in Canada

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 99

Thread: 81 Percent of the Responses Said No Gun Ban

  1. #31
    I have no life Milanczar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cabin boy aboard the Pequod
    Posts
    2,737
    193 days we have to go without a tragedy that they can use as a convenience or excuse.....
    The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run.
    - Moby Dick, Herman Melville

  2. #32
    CGN Regular aum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Montreal area
    Posts
    172
    Same here, its actually surprising to see them back slide. The main concern i have is for who will they vote? The CPC needs to do some serious work to find people that Montrealers will want to back in the elections. So far i havent been impressed by local reps in my area. They need to move as one and start making some real noise if we want to give people an alternative else they will simply stay home.

    Quote Originally Posted by caramel View Post
    One thing is cristal clear they know that minimum 100K votes would swing out with an agressive law, they need all the votes they can get.

    In Québec they are losing serious support on the island of Montréal, never thought ide see that.
    "The Horror. The Horror."
    - Apocalypse Now (1979)
    --------------------------
    CCFR & CSSA Member.

  3. #33
    Uber Super GunNutz scout_289's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,851
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianWolf View Post
    The longer people feel detached to guns, the easier it would be to convince the majority to have them banned. The solution seems to be not to give much power to cities, as the people there are largely detached from the lifestyle of rural peoples.
    You are absolutely correct, the trend is there for everyone to see. If they want to look: h ttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015004-eng.htm

    If your generation (I'm making an assumption here) wants to keep the guns we have or will have after this round with the Liberals is over, then you may want to change from relying totally on the tools of the past. I do not call this success: ht tp://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hist/con-eng.htm timelines are shifted but there's a rough correlation between the two links and the end impact on us. And here's what we did 25 years ago to stop the trend: ht tps://www.producer.com/1998/09/antigun-control-movement-plans-parliament-hill-rally/

    Up to you to carry the torch - here's a starting point: https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ism-is-welcome
    The USA has shown us the way ht tps://afsp.org/afsp-nssf-tremendous-potential-save-lives/

  4. #34
    Member GasCap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    79
    when it's against their narrative it becomes "digital trickery" and "polarizing".
    When you are dishonest, everyone else becomes dishonest

  5. #35
    CGN Regular EHG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Close to my Friends, Closer to my Enemies
    Posts
    577
    Remember this is a UN Globalist agenda. Not just Canada.
    MSM won't cover much of this, but the more they silence the people the more we win. Keep talking about and fight it.
    “Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.” - Aristotle

  6. #36
    CGN Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by bigplinker View Post

    "In contrast, most questionnaire respondents (representing a self-selected group of Canadians) were opposed to a ban."


    Exactly what does 'self selected' mean? Because it sounds like they're spinning it as 135000 responses that aren't representative of democracy.
    IOW people who voluntarily went and took the poll. My opinion is the poll isn't. There was nothing stopping people from voting more than once nor any regional lockout so anyone in the world could take it. This undermines the validity of the poll.

    That said, the wording of the poll was bad and I am glad it didn't turn out the way they wanted. Tin foil hat on, they were glad as well since it is hard to use as a platform later on if they go full retard, instead they like just turning up the heat every once in a while as it makes it look like they are doing something and the Danforth shooting threw a wrench in their plans. Of course they could decide to do it anyways.

  7. #37
    Uber Super GunNutz scout_289's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,851
    Quote Originally Posted by BAAC View Post
    An important thing to note in this study is the numbers of non gun owners who voted against bans.

    Granted, many might be friends and family, but I think the generation that is afraid of guns is dying off. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true.

    The current generation does not fear guns. They have grown up with video games, YouTube and other influences that have disrupted the narrative. They better understand that crime causes crime. Poverty brings crime. Drugs bring crime.

    To me, that's the most revealing part of this study. The anti narrative is the narrative of the radical left. They are losing the mainstream. That's good news, because politicians get elected by the middle, not the fringes.
    Good post! That's a fascinating observation and one I've never seen before. Rather than be a problem in desensitizing people about violence (although I'm sure there's some of that and the NZ shooter seemed motivated to make it real) the exposure to firearms and particularly tacticool may have the effect that you have observed.

    Nice to see some fresh thinking coming onto this site and it seems to be coming mostly from those who have more recently joined us.
    The USA has shown us the way ht tps://afsp.org/afsp-nssf-tremendous-potential-save-lives/

  8. #38
    HELP! I sold my soul to the internet caramel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    17,149
    Quote Originally Posted by aum View Post
    Same here, its actually surprising to see them back slide. The main concern i have is for who will they vote? The CPC needs to do some serious work to find people that Montrealers will want to back in the elections. So far i havent been impressed by local reps in my area. They need to move as one and start making some real noise if we want to give people an alternative else they will simply stay home.
    In the English ridings of Montréal you would paint a pig in red and it would be voted in, now the change is happening in the french ridings of the island, in many of those, there is a rise in CPC popularity.

    When you listen to the news in french much emphasis is put on this fact.
    Canada is an ok place to live. / Ontario is a good place to live. / France is a tasty place to live. / Québec is home. / New Hampshire is paradise. /


  9. #39
    Uber Super GunNutz scout_289's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,851
    Quote Originally Posted by drift1122 View Post
    Ok next step and who to donate to?
    CMHA.
    Habitat for Humanity.
    Food Banks.

    ........ better yet, volunteer your time and let them know that you are a gun owner and are concerned about root causes.

    If 100,000 of us did that the anti movement would be beside itself wondering how to attack lawful gun owners.
    The USA has shown us the way ht tps://afsp.org/afsp-nssf-tremendous-potential-save-lives/

  10. #40
    Uber Super GunNutz scout_289's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,851
    Quote Originally Posted by k_h View Post
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ivided-on-gun/

    A new report summarizing the federal government’s sixth-month examination of a potential handgun ban provides little backing for the idea, instead underscoring the intractable nature of the debate over firearms regulations in Canada.

    The 31-page document released on Thursday captures the government’s attempt to gauge the country’s appetite for a “full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada,” as directed in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to Minister for Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Bill Blair.

    The goal of the report is to reflect the tone of public responses, and not to provide policy direction, but it does temper expectations for a prohibition from Page 1. “Overall, participants were strongly polarized on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms,” states the first key finding in the report, prepared by the communications firm Hill + Knowlton Strategies.

    But Mr. Blair, who crossed the country engaging a range of people from Olympic marksmen to gun-violence victims on the issue, warned against conflating the summary report with the government’s intentions. “I think it’s important to acknowledge there was a great diversity of opinion and disagreement on the issue," he told The Globe and Mail. "I would not encourage people to draw a conclusion from that about what then is the right thing to do.”

    The consultation did find some common ground among the various groups engaged in the firearms debate, mainly around data collection, addressing poverty and other drivers of gun violence, cracking down on gun smugglers and boosting mental-health screening.

    But over all, it suggests any government seeking to pursue a handgun ban in this country will endure a political backlash.

    “The document clearly doesn’t state what the government will do on this issue,” said Blake Brown, author of Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada and history professor at St. Mary’s University. “But there are hints of what it will not do. The executive summary really indicates there is not strong support for a ban.”

    The idea for an all-out ban came after a 29-year-old man opened fire along Toronto’s busy Danforth Avenue on July 22, 2018, killing two people and injuring 13 others.

    In October, Mr. Blair launched a consultation effort on the idea that included eight closed-door round tables with key stakeholders across the country, a call-out for written submissions, bilateral meetings and an online questionnaire.

    The online component took in the greatest volume of responses, with almost 135,000 questionnaires completed. But the open nature of the survey invited digital trickery, with one firearms enthusiast telling The Globe last month that he sent upward of 25,000 submissions using an automation app as way of thwarting what he felt were biased questions.






    The lack of harmony on the notion of a ban is unsurprising given the list of invitees to the roundtable sessions. They included a broad range of groups representing gun enthusiasts, such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights and Lower Canada Arms Collectors Association. Their views were countered by representatives from PolySeSouvient, Coalition for Gun Control and an array of groups calling for tighter regulations on firearms.

    On the anti-ban side of the debate, shooting clubs, retailers, wildlife clubs and most academics said a ban isn’t supported by data and would do little to stop criminals from getting firearms while punishing lawful gun-owners who own handguns and military-style rifles for target shooting.

    Those who supported a ban included some health groups, victim-oriented organizations and women-focused organizations. They argued a ban would reduce harm and help address gang violence. Other written submissions, of which there were around 1,200, stated that the limited recreational benefit of handguns and assault-style firearms don’t justify the greater risk they pose to public safety.

    The report floats several other ideas under consideration by the government, including centralized gun storage, improved screening to detect bulk gun purchases, greater inspection powers for law enforcement and harsher sentences for gun criminals.

    There was general agreement that the government needs to address the root causes of firearm violence, namely poverty, lack of education, unemployment, lack of mental-health support and social exclusion.

    Mr. Blair provided little indication of new policies he may favour.





    The report came out the same day Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz tabled a petition calling for a ban on handguns and “military assault weapons” signed by 20,000 people.

    “We’ve seen time and time again the enormous damage of these weapons, taking lives, leaving grieving families and a shocked city behind to make sense of these tragedies,” she said. "It’s time for action and it’s time to limit the easy access of handguns and assault weapons.”
    No Julie it's time to read the report and digest this: "The consultation did find some common ground among the various groups engaged in the firearms debate, mainly around data collection, addressing poverty and other drivers of gun violence, cracking down on gun smugglers and boosting mental-health screening."
    The USA has shown us the way ht tps://afsp.org/afsp-nssf-tremendous-potential-save-lives/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •