Trudeau's Gun Ban and Buy Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trudeau will follow the NZ example because that’s a requisite for virtue signaling, public policy elevated to the intellectual level of the tide pod challenge.
He would get no “credit” for any policy actually addressing Canadian problems - like gun smuggling - because it’s too local and not trending.
There’s Likes to be mined in “doing the NZ”
 
I can see them coming at it from the other direction and stating what will be allowed with regards to semi-auto...the only really common "sporting" semi auto rifles are the Benelli, the browning and the Remington...these are nice easy on the liberal eyes hunting style rifles....I'll bet they will even go after ruger 10/22s and there variants since so many have been duded up to look soooo scary....there is no bloody way they are gonna let the mini-14 slip through because that's almost as political as the ar-15 and maybe even more so....
 
That is the kind of attitude that separates gun owners. Who gives a damn what gun owners choose to do, play at being tactical or hunt. We are all gun owners and at this rate soon to be ex-gun owners. And I do own and use target , tactical and hunting firearms. Stop name calling and finger pointing. If we don't stick together there won't be anything to fight for
 
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.

Oh FFS, I just wrote a very long reply showing why you are cherry picking one number arnd are incorrect and the board logged me out and I lost it. If i get time later will redo it but you are wrong in your analysis.
 
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.

There is also a possibility that this could be one of those pre-election promises no one is going to deliver on, just like the electoral reform talk in 2015.

Everyone understands that the impact of prohibiting legally owned semi-autos on violent crime rates will asymptotically approach zero in return for X amount of dollars. Unlike NZ, our criminals have a healthy supply of firearms south of the border. Especially now when commercially available drones can deliver the goods without the risks associated with traditional in-person smuggling.

Combating crime requires wisdom and political will that the shiny object chasers do not seem to possess.
 
There is also a possibility that this could be one of those pre-election promises no one is going to deliver on, just like the electoral reform talk in 2015.

Everyone understands that the impact of prohibiting legally owned semi-autos on violent crime rates will asymptotically approach zero in return for X amount of dollars. Unlike NZ, our criminals have a healthy supply of firearms south of the border. Especially now when commercially available drones can deliver the goods without the risks associated with traditional in-person smuggling.

Combating crime requires wisdom and political will that the shiny object chasers do not seem to possess.

Very True. I suspect that the complexity of what is required to enable municipalities the ability to ban handguns independently almost certainly guarantees that it will never happen. For all the issues that have become flaming dumpster fires over Trudeau's inability to engage with premieres, municipal handgun bans are not something that is going to even be worth the effort.

Between pipelines, carbon taxes, opioid crisis and picking up the tab on irregular migration, it would take one hell of a quid pro quo for the right leaning premiers of Alberta, SK, and Qc to give in on municipal handgun bans, which they will then be held responsible for agreeing to.

Banning ARs by OIC is comparatively easy, as long as they permit grandfathering instead of a buy back. The best indication they won't actually do it is that they could have done it at any point in the last four years with the stroke of a pen and they haven't done it.
 
Very True. I suspect that the complexity of what is required to enable municipalities the ability to ban handguns independently almost certainly guarantees that it will never happen. For all the issues that have become flaming dumpster fires over Trudeau's inability to engage with premieres, municipal handgun bans are not something that is going to even be worth the effort.
.

Quite right. However, if they don't get enough of a fight with the AR's, and are successful, handguns will be the next bite they take directly without going through the municipalities.

Banning ARs by OIC is comparatively easy, as long as they permit grandfathering instead of a buy back. The best indication they won't actually do it is that they could have done it at any point in the last four years with the stroke of a pen and they haven't done it.

They've wanted to do it for decades. It might have been political suicide to do so in the first term. Second term, all bets are off. Given the opportunity, they will pull the trigger, so to speak. What would they have to lose at that point?
 
There is also a possibility that this could be one of those pre-election promises no one is going to deliver on, just like the electoral reform talk in 2015.

Definitely true. If scheer promised to tear the firearms act, would anyone believe him? I wouldn't, that's for sure.

Banning AR15s by OIC would let JT make a victory lap while claiming he fulfilled his promise.
 
This is what I just wrote to my local MP:

"I promised months ago that if the Liberals threaten a gun ban, I would donate the cost of a rifle to the Conservative Party*. Well, Trudeau has plainly stated that he wants to steal my AR15 so I have just done that - $400 donation plus a 5-year membership for $50. I sent it through the CPC website so they can decide where it is best to spend the money to defeat the thieving, lying Liberals. I have encouraged my gun-owning friends to do the same. BTW, many people are making donations in an amount with $71 on the end to signify the Liberals last gun control bill C71. Give 'em hell!

Yours in liberty,

[REAL NAME]"

*I wrote a letter to the Liberals and cc'd a few Conservative MP's on it.

Put your money where your mouth is, folks. A $400 donation only costs $100 after you file your taxes.
 
This is what I just wrote to my local MP:

"I promised months ago that if the Liberals threaten a gun ban, I would donate the cost of a rifle to the Conservative Party*. Well, Trudeau has plainly stated that he wants to steal my AR15 so I have just done that - $400 donation plus a 5-year membership for $50. I sent it through the CPC website so they can decide where it is best to spend the money to defeat the thieving, lying Liberals. I have encouraged my gun-owning friends to do the same. BTW, many people are making donations in an amount with $71 on the end to signify the Liberals last gun control bill C71. Give 'em hell!

Yours in liberty,

[REAL NAME]"

*I wrote a letter to the Liberals and cc'd a few Conservative MP's on it.

Put your money where your mouth is, folks. A $400 donation only costs $100 after you file your taxes.
yes sir done ! membership paid to CPC also purchase 1 lower ar 15
 
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.

So true , The Truedope war room could not have planned for a better outcome.
 
I was thinking how easily this buy back thing can back fire....

If they are too cheap with the buy back value on unregistered rifles, I'd bet some guys would just bury the rifle packed in grease or even, just sell it for more, to well... anyone. Then the guns would be exactly where nobody wants them. Especially with low value rifles.

Strictly speaking the highest compliance would be if the buy back price was higher than the normal resale price.

It's bad enough to make everyone give away something they hold dear, but worse yet the over aching insult to our collective character and incur a financial loss in the process.

Watch the stock market for a spike is shovel sales.
 
Last edited:
Cool story. :popCorn:


Classy reply there my firend. Glad to see you wish to engage in a polite and reasoned conversation. I don't have time to re-write all I wrote but let's look at your claims. You committed a classic logical falacy and cherry picked a small number of data data points, preliminary numbers for one single country vs. final numbers and you didn't look at the overall picture and dataset. While you are correct that the final number for one country, Barbados, was revised from $71.2 billion to $55.8 billion. However, if you look at the entire data set, especially the later data set you linked to, you see some were revised upwards. The numbers fluctuated somewhat, likely as funds were moved from one tax haven to another but the overall trend was a significant growth. Also, it's important to look at those countries that are considered tax havens because investments in major Eurpoean countries, the US, Brazil etc are places where legitimate business could be carried out. Looking at the overall foreign investments isn't necessarily accurate or reflective of the problematic portions of that movement of money. But significant funds in countries like Barbados, the Cayman islands, and Luxenbourg are likely just parked in a numbered company for tax evasion. So let's look at the numbers. We can split it up from 2010 to 2016 as the Harper years (since the Liberals didn't come into power until November of 2016). And we can look at 2017 and 2018 data for the Liberals. I've also included average annual growth of those amounts.

Barbados went from $50 billion in 2010 to $60.2 billion in 2016 - a rate of growth of 3.4% per year. From 2016 to 2018 it went from $60.2 to $64.8 billion - a growth of of 3.8% per year.

Cayman Islands went from $24 billion in 2010 to $41.1 billion in 2016 - growth of 11.9% per year. From 2016 to 2018 the numbers went from $41.1 to $39.6 billion - a decline of 1.8% per year.

Luxembourg holdings went from $13.6 billion to $78.9 billion between 2010 and 2016 - a growth rate of 80% per year! between 2016 and 2018 the amount went from $78.9 billion to $90.1 billion - a growth of 7.1% per year.

Bermuda went from $11.2 billion in 2010 to $42.5 billion in 2016 - increasing 46.6% per year. Between 2016 and 2018 it went from $42.5 billion to $47 billion - growing 5.3 % per year.

You can clearly see that while the number continued to grow during the first two years of the Trudeau's tenure, the numbers grew significantly over the Harper years.

The main point that should be understoodis that some people here claim that the Liberals are in the pocket of big business and that the Conservatives aren't about big business and support the little guy. My point is that is BS and that they are both the same. They both support big business equally. During Harper's tenure they reduced the large corporation tax rate by almost 32% . The small business tax rate was only reduced 9%. Despite that significant money was moved into offshore tax havens. Let's assume that all that money from just the four countries above was profits that should have been taxed in Canada. That amounts to $123.9 billion moved off shore and a potential tax bill of almost $18.6 billion that should have been paid.

Now don't get me wrong, the Liberals aren't any better. My issue is the unabashed Liberal bashing and idea around here that the Conservatives are better and hold some sort of moral high ground. I call BS. They both suck. They both lack ethics. The question is which one sucks a bit less. If all you care about are firearms then, sure, I guess the Conservatives are your guys. But if you care about a looming envirnmental crisis, women's rights, social issues etc then I think the Conservatives would be more damaging to our future. I wish there was a viable third alternative to either of these poor choices but there isn't so we are left to try to choose the lesser of the evils.
 
This is what I just wrote to my local MP:

"I promised months ago that if the Liberals threaten a gun ban, I would donate the cost of a rifle to the Conservative Party*. Well, Trudeau has plainly stated that he wants to steal my AR15 so I have just done that - $400 donation plus a 5-year membership for $50. I sent it through the CPC website so they can decide where it is best to spend the money to defeat the thieving, lying Liberals. I have encouraged my gun-owning friends to do the same. BTW, many people are making donations in an amount with $71 on the end to signify the Liberals last gun control bill C71. Give 'em hell!

Yours in liberty,

[REAL NAME]"

*I wrote a letter to the Liberals and cc'd a few Conservative MP's on it.

Put your money where your mouth is, folks. A $400 donation only costs $100 after you file your taxes.

Honestly, that makes you look like an angry and irrational person. It doesn't provide any information or reason why the policy is wrong. As i stated previously, this community would be better served by hundreds if not thousands of gun owners presenting rational and calm arguments to both the politicans and the media. Looking like an angry wingnut is a negative.
 
Classy reply there my firend. Glad to see you wish to engage in a polite and reasoned conversation. I don't have time to re-write all I wrote but let's look at your claims. You committed a classic logical falacy and cherry picked a small number of data data points, preliminary numbers for one single country vs. final numbers and you didn't look at the overall picture and dataset. While you are correct that the final number for one country, Barbados, was revised from $71.2 billion to $55.8 billion. However, if you look at the entire data set, especially the later data set you linked to, you see some were revised upwards. The numbers fluctuated somewhat, likely as funds were moved from one tax haven to another but the overall trend was a significant growth. Also, it's important to look at those countries that are considered tax havens because investments in major Eurpoean countries, the US, Brazil etc are places where legitimate business could be carried out. Looking at the overall foreign investments isn't necessarily accurate or reflective of the problematic portions of that movement of money. But significant funds in countries like Barbados, the Cayman islands, and Luxenbourg are likely just parked in a numbered company for tax evasion. So let's look at the numbers. We can split it up from 2010 to 2016 as the Harper years (since the Liberals didn't come into power until November of 2016). And we can look at 2017 and 2018 data for the Liberals. I've also included average annual growth of those amounts.

Barbados went from $50 billion in 2010 to $60.2 billion in 2016 - a rate of growth of 3.4% per year. From 2016 to 2018 it went from $60.2 to $64.8 billion - a growth of of 3.8% per year.

Cayman Islands went from $24 billion in 2010 to $41.1 billion in 2016 - growth of 11.9% per year. From 2016 to 2018 the numbers went from $41.1 to $39.6 billion - a decline of 1.8% per year.

Luxembourg holdings went from $13.6 billion to $78.9 billion between 2010 and 2016 - a growth rate of 80% per year! between 2016 and 2018 the amount went from $78.9 billion to $90.1 billion - a growth of 7.1% per year.

Bermuda went from $11.2 billion in 2010 to $42.5 billion in 2016 - increasing 46.6% per year. Between 2016 and 2018 it went from $42.5 billion to $47 billion - growing 5.3 % per year.

You can clearly see that while the number continued to grow during the first two years of the Trudeau's tenure, the numbers grew significantly over the Harper years.

The main point that should be understoodis that some people here claim that the Liberals are in the pocket of big business and that the Conservatives aren't about big business and support the little guy. My point is that is BS and that they are both the same. They both support big business equally. During Harper's tenure they reduced the large corporation tax rate by almost 32% . The small business tax rate was only reduced 9%. Despite that significant money was moved into offshore tax havens. Let's assume that all that money from just the four countries above was profits that should have been taxed in Canada. That amounts to $123.9 billion moved off shore and a potential tax bill of almost $18.6 billion that should have been paid.

Now don't get me wrong, the Liberals aren't any better. My issue is the unabashed Liberal bashing and idea around here that the Conservatives are better and hold some sort of moral high ground. I call BS. They both suck. They both lack ethics. The question is which one sucks a bit less. If all you care about are firearms then, sure, I guess the Conservatives are your guys. But if you care about a looming envirnmental crisis, women's rights, social issues etc then I think the Conservatives would be more damaging to our future. I wish there was a viable third alternative to either of these poor choices but there isn't so we are left to try to choose the lesser of the evils.

You need to just stop. I gave you a detailed explanation of why your source was fake news. Barbados was not cherry picked, it was a central player in your sources argument.

What you are now demonstrating is the cognitive fallacy of consistency bias whereby you are ignoring incoming information which contradicts your opinions and you are manufacturing new arguments to defend a position you are unwilling to abandon.

The rest of your post is so completely filled with unverified assumptions and factual errors that thereis no point continuing.

Just go ahead and google when the liberals came to power and then edit all the rest of your errors while you are at it.

If you want to get off your 199b faux tax evasion high horse and discuss what the willis you are talking about regarding womans rights, social issues and envuronment, Id be happy to. Please bring your A game.
 
Does anyone know what rights men have that women don't?

Does anyone know what environmental crisis is looming?
 
Does anyone know what rights men have that women don't?

Does anyone know what environmental crisis is looming?

For your question and the troll post that it is pointed at.

The libs work for women's rights ???
Justine has stated Canada is a gender neutral country. So there are no women's rights.
Women spent the last century working to be seen as a person so they could vote. Now just another peasant.

What environmental crisis?
It's the same crisis tax grab I have been watching since the 70's.
We do have large environmental problems but the money go's to general revenue and never seen again.

Cameron SS you can not win.
The troll is not here to discuss fire arms or facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom