Trudeau's Gun Ban and Buy Back

[RK99]

I see you still believe in the system?

If rational adults with higher education and years of experience in politics tell blatant lies on record, in parliament and on TV, for me it means:

1. They are liars.
2. They have an agenda.
3. They are sure they can get away with anything.

You can keep blowing smoke up their asses, hoping they will fly.

They are liars and criminals, getting away with it just because they are the ruling elite.

All politicians are liars. Liberal, Conservative, NDP etc. The system is what we have to work in. Imagine if politicians and news outlets all received thousands of well written, cogent letters with rational arguments. That could very well have an impact. The paranoid rambling in exhibit here certainly won't help.

What facts are the right ignoring regarding gun control?

I wasn't talking about gun control. The right holds many irrational and ill informed positions on other topics.The point is that trying to paint the left as irrational and the right as rational is wrong. Humans of all persuasions carry cognitive biases.

 

[RK99]

Right. So in which class did you learn about 199 Billion dollars in offshore tax havens? Or is that a claim that you don't intend to back up with a fact?

Just like your ridiculous accusation about corporate fraud under the Harper government, your well intended letter also includes certain made up facts that you couldn't possibly substantiate.

Its a bit disingenuous to go on about people ignoring facts and letting emotion drive their decision making when you have a strong track record of making up your own 'facts'.

Google wasn't really a thing until I after I'd graduated university. Its a marvelous thing that took me all of 30 seconds to learn.

And while yes I agree with you that people seem to be losing their ability to make decisions that are well informed by valid and relevant facts, so too people are losing their ability to detect to discredit BS when they hear it. Two sides of the same the coin.

Fortunately, as citizens, we don't actually have to do the complicated hard work of forming policy based on solid evidence, and we certainly aren't the ones that need to do the especially hard work of research and fact finding. All the average Joe needs to be able to do is to demand that politicians show their math, publish their facts, and let the intelligent public come to the same conclusion as the politicians.

TO you credit, you did do that to a certain degree in your letter, and you did it politely. For that, credit where credit is due.

And this I think is where we really undermine the liberals, both to themselves, and the public. IN listening to all the liberal politicians defend C71 and these bans, all you need to ask if: "have you even read the bill that you claim to support" have you reviewed the available evidence yourself and come to your own conclusion that this bill will achieve its aims?" Even if the Liberals won't admit to you, you can see it in their eyes when they realize that they don't actually have a clue what they are talking about.

You also rightly pointed out that doing the wrong thing carries with it a significant opportunity cost of not doing the right thing.

Here you go. The numbers apparently came from Statistics Canada. You could look this stuff up yourself...

https://www.taxfairness.ca/en/news/canadian-tax-havens-reach-199-billion

And to be fair, I think I may have said it was $199 billion in that year but that was the total reached in that year.

 

[HemiTO]

The closest way to end liberal reign is with a conservative vote, not vote splitting with the CPC fringe party lead by someone who goes to bed with his biker girl and wakes up leaving confidential documents at her place. You cannot be serious?

Sorry sir, but I'm pretty sure you have your political parties mixed up and you're thinking about the PPC (People's Party of Canada) and not the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada).

 

[Cameron SS]

Here you go. The numbers apparently came from Statistics Canada. You could look this stuff up yourself...

https://www.taxfairness.ca/en/news/canadian-tax-havens-reach-199-billion

And to be fair, I think I may have said it was $199 billion in that year but that was the total reached in that year.

Yeah, to be fair, you were completely wrong.

Thanks for the solid reference. This proves both of our points about peoples ability to separate fact from BS perfectly.

Also, let's not forget that despite Harper drastically cutting the corporate income tax rate during his tenure, big companies moved $199 billion into offshore tax havens in 2015 alone. That number was growing every year since the Harper government was elected.

First, your claim is illogical. Cutting the corporate tax rate is what eliminates the need for off shore tax havens. Raising tax rates under the liberals is what incentives offshoring of capital.

But Let's dig in. I took your advice and looked it up myself. From the source you provided in the first line:

Assets officially held by Canadian corporations in the top ten havens reached $199 billion dollars last year. This is up from $187 billion in 2013.

So $12 billion. Not $199 Billion.

Now because you are a smart guy, and read the whole article, why not dig a little digger and check their facts. When someone hot links something as an attempt to show a reference, click the link and see where it goes. Their 'math' is a link to their own website with another story of compiles numbers, that again links to a statscan Cansim table. Interesting, the Cansim table they reference does not include any of the data they claim it does.

The cansim table they link shows foreign investment, of all types. Claiming that all foreign direct investment is done for tax evasions purposes in disingenuous, because in general, Canadian Companies earning profit off of foreign investments must pay taxes on those profits. The fact that Stats Can knows about these investments through CRA data specifically contradicts the claim that this is "Tax evasion". If it was tax evasion, the government wouldn't know about it.

And yet, the faux article goes on to try to make this link by offering a quote from... Dennis Howlett, Executive Director of Canadians for Tax Fairness. Remember, this is a website called "Canadians for Tax Fairness". So in other words, this undated article without identifying any author quotes the head of its own organization as expert in their illogical argument about tax evasion.

If you simply google 199 billion corporate offshore tax havens, like this you find 6 fringe news sites before you find an actual news story from a real media outlet, the first two of which are unrelated. Eventually you get to a CBC article of the same name, which as it happens is simply a paid placement of a press release where the same Canadians for Tax Fairness submitted their article to the CBC and got it published. WHich happens more than you think.

So because attention to details matter, when you look at the 2015 Data that this story relies on, you will note that in the column that shows Canadian investment abroad for Barbados as 71.2 Billion in 2014, you will note that beside the 2014 there is a little P. Wonder what that means? At the bottom of the page it says preliminary. Since its not 2015 any more, you can check to see if that preliminary number was revised. Lets look. Sure enough, the 71.2 Billion number was revised to 55.8, which means that this outrageous increase in offshore investment in Barbados was actually a decline of 13.5% from 2013.

This entire article was based off preliminary data that hadn't been finalized.

And no analysis is complete without a cross comparison. So lets compare offshore investing under the 3 years of CPC governance to the last three years of Liberal governance.

Based on verified numbers, the increase in foreign investment from 2010 to 2013 was just over 19%. Thank you CPC.
By Comparison, the increase in foreign investment from 2015 to 2018 was 23%. Thank you Liberals.
Coincidentally, the liberals had higher corporate tax rates than the CPC, and subsequently had more money going offshore, which is basically what everyone even passingly familiar with tax policy would have predicted.

So if your plan is to use total foreign investment as a proxy for offshore tax havens in order to slag on the Harper, which is a poor plan that doesn't doesn't even make sense, then it was still worse under Trudeau than under Harper.

To quote Master Luke Skywalker,

This is how you dispel junk science and fake news. This is how you defeat the policy-based-evidence-making of those who put political agenda in front of honest problem solving. It doesn't take much skill, education or intelligence. Just genuine curiosity, and effort. Reading comprehension helps.

And this is what everyone needs to do more of. More fact checking and thoughtful analysis, less of taking the word of uncredible unverified sources at face value and then regurgitating it to their echo chambers ad nauseum.

PS, if you paid for your education, you should ask for a refund.

 

[ramjet]

More hilarity. Those people were motivated because they had no option. It was either fight, or literally starve to death.

You will not stand your ground against the RCMP. You know you won't. Put Rambo back in your pants, clowns.

Keep lickin' them boots, just might keep you out of the gulag of the deplorables.

 

[rethius]

PPC still polling around 3%. If those votes would go to the Conservatives they would be close to 40% and in majority government territory.....just sayin.

It’s bang on. Every vote to PPC, however you see it, is a vote for the libs or a ( god forbid) lib minority.

As Sun Tzu said...
“If his forces are united, separate them”

No wonder they let Maxime attend the debate.

 

[kodiakjack]

Yeah, to be fair, you were completely wrong.

Thanks for the solid reference. This proves both of our points about peoples ability to separate fact from BS perfectly.



First, your claim is illogical. Cutting the corporate tax rate is what eliminates the need for off shore tax havens. Raising tax rates under the liberals is what incentives offshoring of capital.

But Let's dig in. I took your advice and looked it up myself. From the source you provided in the first line:



So $12 billion. Not $199 Billion.

Now because you are a smart guy, and read the whole article, why not dig a little digger and check their facts. When someone hot links something as an attempt to show a reference, click the link and see where it goes. Their 'math' is a link to their own website with another story of compiles numbers, that again links to a statscan Cansim table. Interesting, the Cansim table they reference does not include any of the data they claim it does.

The cansim table they link shows foreign investment, of all types. Claiming that all foreign direct investment is done for tax evasions purposes in disingenuous, because in general, Canadian Companies earning profit off of foreign investments must pay taxes on those profits. The fact that Stats Can knows about these investments through CRA data specifically contradicts the claim that this is "Tax evasion". If it was tax evasion, the government wouldn't know about it.

And yet, the faux article goes on to try to make this link by offering a quote from... Dennis Howlett, Executive Director of Canadians for Tax Fairness. Remember, this is a website called "Canadians for Tax Fairness". So in other words, this undated article without identifying any author quotes the head of its own organization as expert in their illogical argument about tax evasion.

If you simply google 199 billion corporate offshore tax havens, like this you find 6 fringe news sites before you find an actual news story from a real media outlet, the first two of which are unrelated. Eventually you get to a CBC article of the same name, which as it happens is simply a paid placement of a press release where the same Canadians for Tax Fairness submitted their article to the CBC and got it published. WHich happens more than you think.

So because attention to details matter, when you look at the 2015 Data that this story relies on, you will note that in the column that shows Canadian investment abroad for Barbados as 71.2 Billion in 2014, you will note that beside the 2014 there is a little P. Wonder what that means? At the bottom of the page it says preliminary. Since its not 2015 any more, you can check to see if that preliminary number was revised. Lets look. Sure enough, the 71.2 Billion number was revised to 55.8, which means that this outrageous increase in offshore investment in Barbados was actually a decline of 13.5% from 2013.

This entire article was based off preliminary data that hadn't been finalized.

And no analysis is complete without a cross comparison. So lets compare offshore investing under the 3 years of CPC governance to the last three years of Liberal governance.

Based on verified numbers, the increase in foreign investment from 2010 to 2013 was just over 19%. Thank you CPC.
By Comparison, the increase in foreign investment from 2015 to 2018 was 23%. Thank you Liberals.
Coincidentally, the liberals had higher corporate tax rates than the CPC, and subsequently had more money going offshore, which is basically what everyone even passingly familiar with tax policy would have predicted.

So if your plan is to use total foreign investment as a proxy for offshore tax havens in order to slag on the Harper, which is a poor plan that doesn't doesn't even make sense, then it was still worse under Trudeau than under Harper.

To quote Master Luke Skywalker,

This is how you dispel junk science and fake news. This is how you defeat the policy-based-evidence-making of those who put political agenda in front of honest problem solving. It doesn't take much skill, education or intelligence. Just genuine curiosity, and effort. Reading comprehension helps.

And this is what everyone needs to do more of. More fact checking and thoughtful analysis, less of taking the word of uncredible unverified sources at face value and then regurgitating it to their echo chambers ad nauseum.

PS, if you paid for your education, you should ask for a refund.

 

[1-trident-1]

there is no right to property in the charter. theft by law enforcement is legal.

 

[Returnfire]

I just wandered over to the PC website, bought the family a membership, made a donation, and placed an order for a lawn sign.

The Liberals need to be put to pasture.

I’ve got almost 13 years as a Police Officer so far. I’ve taken guns off of bad guys. I’ve seen people shot more times then I care to remember.

This proposed legislation is nothing more then pandering to people who know nothing about gun crime, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference in any of the crime I’ve seen.

The Liberals know these facts too. Their motives are disingenuous and have nothing to do with fighting violent crime and everything to do with deceiving the gullible public. All this comes at the cost of leaving good people, law abiding people, to swing in the wind.

Also, I will not participate in the theft of other people’s, GOOD PEOPLES, privately owned property. Not after I’ve worked so hard to protect those same people, and their property, for so much of my career.

Trudeau is a cheat, and a lier.

I would like to thank you for your service and agree 100%. What irritates me the most about this agenda the left wing is pushing makes sport shooters like myself and all legal gun owners the focus of preventing gun violence instead of the criminal.

 

[tommy tong]

Serious question to the legal experts
Should the ban be enforced are there modifications that can be made to the AR platform that would bypass the assault rifle classification

 

[BAAC]

Serious question to the legal experts
Should the ban be enforced are there modifications that can be made to the AR platform that would bypass the assault rifle classification

The lower is restricted, unfortunately. There are companies that make NR receiver sets (Macabee SLR comes to mind) that take all the AR parts, but you're pooched with your current lower.

Keeping in mind that most ARs are registered as complete rifles. I expect a flurry of reg cert changes to 'My AR is just a lower now' if this ever goes through. I would keep all my uppers and parts... For future considerations.

Anyone please let me know if I'm wrong on that...

 

[Cameron SS]

Serious question to the legal experts
Should the ban be enforced are there modifications that can be made to the AR platform that would bypass the assault rifle classification

Impossible to answer until we see proposed wording of legislation that will effect the ban. Classic liberal, lots of promises, light on the details.

I suspect they will take the easiest route and simply move currently NR firearms and registered restricted firearms listed by make and model to the prohib class via the OIC prescribing certain firearms as NR, RES and Prohib, and at the same time will have to write some legislation that amends the firearms act in order to authorize the planned buy backs.

If they are prohibiting based on make and model, then no modifications would save a firearm from prohibition, except for deactivation, which is an unacceptable option to most people.

A more challenging way to go, but a more scientifically justifiable way to go, would be to amend the criminal code definitions of NR, RES and Prohib to include technical functions such as semi auto, pistol grips, box max, bayo lugs, telescoping butts, etc as being the basis of classification. THis is similar what NZ had pre MSSApocalypse, and many ARs were able to avoid classification under that system by conversion to bolt action, or by using single piece non telescoping grip stocks. Like this.

I don't think they will go that route. It will require too much to understand a subject matter that they clearly have no intent of trying to understand. ..Whats clear from Blair's statements is that they have a firm number of affected firearms in mind. Which means they have either A) a list of firearms models and known quantities, or B) a working definition of MSAR and an estimate of the number of firearms within that definition. Blair has publicly talked about makes and models. He has never publicly talked about a working definition.

I am also not for one second convinced that they will actually do a buy back. Personally I think the only reason why they are talking about a buyback is to throw cold water on the buying spree. Under grandfathering regime, people have an incentive to buy now. Under a buyback, everyone knows you will take a financial loss and lose the gun (If you comply), so buy backs put a strong disincentive to buying the gun now. But In the end I believe they will prohibit and grandfather. But they will talk about buy backs right up until bitter end.

in 1995, the liberals genuinely believe their own BS when they thought the Firearms Act would cost only 2 million dollars. Chretien was a relatively good money manager, or wanted to be, and never would have signed off on something if he knew up front it would cost the 3-4 billion that it has cost so far too date. With this buy back, they are already admitting it will cost close to a billion, and thats a low ball based on an undefined "defined military style assault rifle". What they aren't talking about yet, which is a big landmine that will hit them later, is if they create a compensation regime for firearms prohibited by the fed, they are also opening the door to compensation for city dwellers who suffer handgun prohibitions at the hands of municipalities wanting to ban handguns locally as well.

So to reiterate, there is likely no way for you to save your AR under the current gun control program contemplated by the liberals, but we can't know for sure until we see draft legislation. In the mean time, put your thoughts and energies into how you will help a non liberal, and preferably pro gun candidate win the election in your home riding, so that we can prevent any draft legislation from even getting written.

 

[BAAC]

I am also not for one second convinced that they will actually do a buy back. Personally I think the only reason why they are talking about a buyback is to throw cold water on the buying spree.

Now that is a very interesting theory. Makes total sense.

 

[Cameron SS]

The lower is restricted, unfortunately. There are companies that make NR receiver sets (Macabee SLR comes to mind) that take all the AR parts, but you're pooched with your current lower.

Keeping in mind that most ARs are registered as complete rifles. I expect a flurry of reg cert changes to 'My AR is just a lower now' if this ever goes through. I would keep all my uppers and parts... For future considerations.

Anyone please let me know if I'm wrong on that...

You are right about most ARs being registered as complete rifles. I don't expect there to be a flurry of re-registrations until after its too late.

You can't be wrong when you are speculating about possible futures. As I just said, we have to see the wording. ARs account for less than 35% of the total number of guns that Bill Blair wants to ban, so it could very well be that they want everything even remotely like an AR, and may ban any modular receiver platform that is substantially compatible with AR parts.

The government also has the power to prohibit any gun related object via designation as a prohibited device. If they want to get nasty they could designate AR uppers and/or barrels as prohibited devices, the same as they did for short handgun barrels in 98.

One thing is certain, is that Trudeau and his team are utterly incompetent, and they will make a mess of whatever they do. And using history as a guide, while they may prohibit, and may grandfather/compensate, they will commit nothing to enforcement, and those who don't comply will simply be ignored and glossed over.

 

[Cameron SS]

Now that is a very interesting theory. Makes total sense.

And admittedly its just a theory, but based on the following.

Australian buyback was a total fail, that recovered less than 1/3rd of subject firearms.
NZ buy back is failing as we speak.
US buybacks when tried have been a joke.
The notion of using taxpayers dollars to pay off gun owners in order to destroy property doesn't sit well with a far larger group of taxpaying Canadians than just gun owners, and even anti's don't love the idea.

The liberals were completely caught off guard when their milquetoast C71 pissed off everybody, and probably have no interest in doing that again. All pain, no gain.

And the most important reason why I believe in this theory is that the Liberals haven't talked buy backs in their 50 year history with gun control, until literally the week that the story came out about the AR/handgun buying spree.

And that was a buying spree that started last summer after they first started talking about a ban which, in the context of C71, was presumed to included grandfathering.

PS, its now September, where is my 2018 commissioner of firearms report already? I want to know how many restricted Firearms Bill Blair sold last year.

 

[peterbing]

Impossible to answer until we see proposed wording of legislation that will effect the ban. Classic liberal, lots of promises, light on the details.

I think this is the worst part about their policy. We have no idea what they're actually banning.

 

[BAAC]

And admittedly its just a theory, but based on the following.

Australian buyback was a total fail, that recovered less than 1/3rd of subject firearms.
NZ buy back is failing as we speak.
US buybacks when tried have been a joke.
The notion of using taxpayers dollars to pay off gun owners in order to destroy property doesn't sit well with a far larger group of taxpaying Canadians than just gun owners, and even anti's don't love the idea.

The liberals were completely caught off guard when their milquetoast C71 pissed off everybody, and probably have no interest in doing that again. All pain, no gain.

And the most important reason why I believe in this theory is that the Liberals haven't talked buy backs in their 50 year history with gun control, until literally the week that the story came out about the AR/handgun buying spree.

And that was a buying spree that started last summer after they first started talking about a ban which, in the context of C71, was presumed to included grandfathering.

PS, its now September, where is my 2018 commissioner of firearms report already? I want to know how many restricted Firearms Bill Blair sold last year.

Lol... I think he might be up for some sort of industry award.

I've been thinking about that buy-back promise. Like you said, it's so out of character that there has to be something to it.

But, as you've mentioned, it all comes back to compliance, no matter what they do. They have to be a little afraid of the massive non-compliance. This could so easily turn into a lose-lose for them.

 

[Jmcc]

I think this is the worst part about their policy. We have no idea what they're actually banning.

they are only banning if they get elected.

"Only you can prevent gun bans" <in my best Smokey The Bear voice>

 

[Milanczar]

There is likely not going to be as much payout even if there is any buyback.

As it would only apply to 'legally owned' firearms as for example there would be created proof of ownership and other challenges.

It is easy to apply filters and interpretations on how those criteria are established that now without the official LGR (which would be sweet revenge for them to throw in our faces) a lot of owners would fail and receive Nada.

The sum involved is small compared to a lawsuit costs so most would just give up when told their handwritten bill of private sale is invalid or asked for additional proof.

They would walk out with an empty firearm case and empty pocket.

Bonus would be those firearms would be classified as illegal and retrieved from legal owners.

This perfectly ties in and provides more of their fake evidence that legal firearm owners are sources of 'illegal' firearms for when they go after the handguns next.

Of course then there are other not so minor losses which no payout will cover.

Nothing for:

Your ammo.
Your storage and security.
Your reloading material and equipment.
Your scopes and gear and accessories.

 

[Cameron SS]

There is likely not going to be as much payout even if there is any buyback.

As it would only apply to 'legally owned' firearms as for example there would be created proof of ownership and other challenges.

It is easy to apply filters and interpretations on how those criteria are established that now without the official LGR (which would be sweet revenge for them to throw in our faces) a lot of owners would fail and receive Nada.

The sum involved is small compared to a lawsuit costs so most would just give up when told their handwritten bill of private sale is invalid or asked for additional proof.

They would walk out with an empty firearm case and empty pocket.

Bonus would be those firearms would be classified as illegal and retrieved from legal owners.

This perfectly ties in and provides more of their fake evidence that legal firearm owners are sources of 'illegal' firearms for when they go after the handguns next.

Of course then there are other not so minor losses which no payout will cover.

Nothing for:

Your ammo.
Your storage and security.
Your reloading material and equipment.
Your scopes and gear and accessories.

For a decade the liberals pushing the gun agenda in the party have been invoking Australia as the buy back model. Now they have a more recent example in NZ, and I suspect they may copy that model rather than reinvent the wheel. Because after all its clear the liberals are lazy and have no one on their team who actually understands the gun file.

TO reiterate what happened in NZ, guns had to be turned in first, in order to be appraised, and money would be paid out after.
No one was giving the choice of refusing to surrender if they didn't like the valuation. NO one could know what their valuation would be prior to surrender.
Surrender ranged from 25% to 95% of PRE tax Purchase Price. So if you bought your gun 20 years ago, no inflation adjustment was given to your purchase price, and no matter what you lost the tax.

Both the Aus and NZ buy backs covered not just the Rifles, but parts and accessories that were rendered useless by the ban. IE if you have an AR 15 action wrench that is useless without an AR, both AUS and NZ would have bought it back. Australia even took back ammo, holsters, magazines, etc.

Lastly both countries took in everything that was offered, regardless of legality of the firearm, as long as the owner was a legal owner.

If the gov starts doing buy backs, which will be slow on the uptake, the first time a gun owner looses a gun without compensation due to paper work or gets charged for something not being registered, compliance will drop to 0 in a heart beat.

I'm sure that no matter what they try to do, they will make a mess of it.