81 Percent of the Responses Said No Gun Ban

[skatemike77]

I really want to hammer the point here.

There was pessimism when the consultation came out. Some people lamented "it won't make a difference" and indirectly promoted "inaction" and "indifference".

Imagine your boss keeps telling you your work doesn't make a difference and the company is doomed - do you think your company will be successful and you will have a bright future with this company?

Participation DOES make a difference. Politics NEVER ends. It is a CONTINUOUS process.

The result of this consultation shows that participation does make a difference. Everyone needs to "believe" to have a chance to win, to get results.

x2.

[Chuckbuster]

"Polarized" because the results did not match their narrative. Had the results been in their favour they would have been trumpeting the "overwhelming will of the majority", from the treetops.

[Nestor]

"It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." Joseph Stalin

...and we are already there.

[southwest maddog]

I am not much of an activist but I did fill in the online questionnaire and now I am glad I did. Thanks to all who support our community.

[Cameron SS]

Yes, their decision was made a long time ago. They just hoped for more support than they received so that it would make it easier to push their agenda. They'll try anyways.

Their decision to not move forward with a Ban? The liberals have spent the last four years doing the least amount possible on the gun file. THey have been talking a good game about a ban, hoping that talking about will satisfy the anti crowd. C71 was carefully crafted to do the bare minimum to satisfy promises in the 2015 election campaign.

This pessimism is not warranted, and you do us all a disservice by spouting it. The results of this "study" was an absolute success for us. Lets be positive about it, so we can acknowledge our efforts, and put it in the win column. Next time they do a study like this (which they probably wont) we need to double down and come out stronger.

Your negativity simply risks undermining our own success.

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.

OR it could simply be gun owners who didn't want to admit to owning a gun on a government website that is logging IP addresses.

This generation is certainly more fearful of guns than ever. And that is because they are fearful of everything. Despite being the safest generation in the history of mankind, they are also the most anxious, nervous and depressed. Fortunately, they are more afraid of other people then they are of things. So at the end of the day they at least know the difference between inanimate objects, and criminals. Bullies taught em that.

But this only happens because every gun owner got off their butt and participated in the consultation, instead of being pessimistic and arguing against the political process. It is skewed but if you don't play you don't get paid!

Yes, and this win, while good for us, should not tempt us into letting the government get away with the fact that they were trying to use this open and unscientific consultation to stand as a substitute for credible research into the causal relationship between civilian firearms ownership and criminal violence.

Letting an opinion poll dictate policy is simple pure unbridled populism at its worst. From the party that was supposed to bring you science and evidence based policies. In classic liberal doublethink: "The results are in and the science says the Mob wants Barabus..."

"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.

Self selected means simple that the respondents volunteered to participate, and as such, are not a representative sample of the population. As opposed to a randomly selected, or a carefully selected representative sample.

Scientifically speaking, the 135,000 responses are NOT representative of democracy, but then the decision to vote is also "self-selected", and yet the liberals don't seem to have any problem with that.

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.

CMHA, Habitat and Food banks will absolutely nothing to help gun owners. IF you want to support those organizations, do it on THEIR merits, not because you think it will in any way benefit gun owners.

Also, most charities have internal policies about who they will public accept gifts from, in order to avoid being drawing into politically contentious debates. Most of those big public charities are also filled easily triggered social justice warriors who would easily be made uncomfortable by some big gun owner waving his checkbook around.

Give to the charity if you want to, just don't expect anything good for our community to come of it.

CCFR more than any other organization is in the trenches of the media spot light doing the lords work representing us. While not without their own mishaps and on a steep learning curve of a new organization, I can think of non better than they to put your gun rights advocacy dollars to work. CSSA close second.

NFAs lawyers don't need any of my money.

Would’ve been a slam dunk, but now the antis will always be able to seed some doubt as to the accuracy of the results...

They would have done that anyways. And in another story both the respondent in question and the government drones running the consultation indicated that the duplicate submissions were removed and the 134k number is pretty accurate.

I can't believe they left it so open to manipulation by accident.

It wasn't by accident. It was built in on purpose so the could undermine their own study if they didn't like the outcome. The fact that the liberals are actually taking the results at face value should tell you that they lack the will to press forward a ban that they now know to be hugely unpopular, and instead are trying to tell the Antis to sit back down while stopping short of coming out as pro-gun.

The liberals have been skirting a knife edge for four years, trying desperately to gain ground in the west and rural areas while not saying anything too bold to risk their hold onto Toronto and Montreal.

I don't recall if this study asked where you lived, but it would be interesting to see a regional breakdown of responses.

130k is not bad in a community of 2 million. I'd love to see that way higher but it's more noise than gun owners have made in the past. Had it been 20k, we'd be in #### now.

81% of 134K is 108K pro gun, anti ban respondents. That is in comparison to 86K who signed the anti C71 petition. Certainly a good turn out, and we need to keep the ball rolling.

If 100K people used one clear voice to send an email to all senators telling them to vote against C71, the bill would be dead in the water.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Thank you to all the CGN members who sent in letters and filled in the online questionnaires. The effort paid off big time. No matter how much the government and CBC in this article want to spin it against us gun owners, numbers DO NOT lie! And this only works because everyone put in 30 minutes to make it happen!

Canadians 'polarized' on prospect of a handgun ban, says government-commissioned report

Polarized? Come again? I'd say the respondents formed an absolute majority over 4 out of 5 is incontrovertible.

[jg007]

Polarized? Come again? I'd say the respondents formed an absolute majority over 4 out of 5 is incontrovertible.

yup, must be taking the definition literal "to break up into opposing factions or groupings".
the opposing factions or groups are "4 oppose for every 1 in favor"

jg

[AZG]

CCFR more than any other organization is in the trenches of the media spot light doing the lords work representing us.

hmmm ... "the lord's work' ... hmmm ... Something's off. Are you refering to the same lord who said 'he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'? ... I see a difference. Same lord? Really?

[CLW .45]

Amazing that with 81% opposed the MSM is spinning this as if the country is divided on the issue.

That isn’t spin.

The 81% are the great unwashed who just don’t count.

[Candu]

I am also pessimistic on the government’s response.