The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 13,055
- Points
- 1,010
my72jeep said:
Didn't the CSSA get removed from the firearms advisory committee by the Liberals?
- Reaction score
- 13,055
- Points
- 1,010
Thanks for all of the tips so far, guys. Keep them coming!
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,348
- Points
- 1,160
Okay, but 2013 is a statistical low outlier and compares favourably to any year in the last half century. Is it really a good baseline for comparisons against which major decisions are to be made?Jarnhamar said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-goodale-canada-1.4585097
- Reaction score
- 4,838
- Points
- 1,060
Kat Stevens said:
I would think all of our organizations would have seen the light by now. It's time for them to stop trying to protect their little fiefdoms.
We need to tell them, no more dues until we are paying them, to our single united firearms organization..
Everytime the government fucks us, we can't put up any kind of pushback because we're fragmented. With no voice, they don't care.
If even one half of our 2+ million gun owners joined it would be effective. They would pay attention to a one million voice block.
There's not much time left. I fully expect that prior to the 2019 election, we're going to lose some stuff. Big vote getter for gun grabbers and hoplophobes.
If we're not organized under one banner and pooling our resources, it's all over.
Currently, we have the liebrals distracting people with his bullshit gender eradication and a million stupid other things and already the gun bill is forgotten. The next time you hear about it is when it gets steam rolled through the house and senate.
And there's little, in my mind, doubt that the RCMP have already written their laws, vetting them through government lawyers and anything else they need to do to drop it on us the second it gets Royal Accent.
Hell, they MAY even compensate us for our stolen property................with your own money. :
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,549
- Points
- 1,260
MCG said:
Yes. It fits the political narrative.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,641
- Points
- 1,160
I like the CCFR. They seem like the most forward-thinking and inclusive group. their member base is growing very fast. They don't get dragged down and muddled with social media fights and pissing contests and are pretty quick to cut off shit disturbers (many who aren't even members but just like pissing around).
Their short comming in my opinion is that they seem a bit too timid. They don't give me the feeling that they're ready to duke it out with the government and almost feel like they clover leaf issues and don't become entrenched. They're big on firearms education and campaign to attract women, minorities and general non "gunners" to firearms and seem pretty successful at it.
The NFA have a lot of money thanks to how loud they are and people throwing money at them. (also some places automatically donate to them ie you buy a paper magazine subscription and some goes to them). On the surface I find they look pretty good. They're not afraid to go head to head with the government or whomever but a lot of people believe they ultimately follow their own agenda.
There were a couple court cases where their own members took them to court over shady business practices and money. Their president also tried to make a back door deal with the conservatives without consent or including the general member base when Harper was doing that anti-terrorisim bill which would negatively impact gun owners privacy. The NFA was set to speak out about the bill at a hearing but pulled their name out at the last minute (Conservatives dangled changing gun laws in front of them to get them not to testify). The conservatives pulled the Darth Vader-Lando Calrissian move on them. I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure it's at that point that Canada's leading firearms lawyer Solomon Freidman quietly walked away from associating with the NFA. They have a slash and burn approach to criticism by their members such as if you respectfully ask questions that the officials don't like the thread gets deleted and you get blocked. They also don't censure their more vitriolic members on SM who'll post homophobic or racist content.
The other sports groups seem okay. Not very aggressive. I think they get included in meetings more because of that very reason. There's a lot of complaints that the sports and hunting organizations don't really give a shit about firearms outside the realm of hunting like Ar15s and pistols. quite a few of their members seem non-nonchalant about those being banned or outright support it.
If I had to pick one I'd go for the CCFR but I'd want them to come out of their "new kid on the block shell" and step it up a notch or two.
Their short comming in my opinion is that they seem a bit too timid. They don't give me the feeling that they're ready to duke it out with the government and almost feel like they clover leaf issues and don't become entrenched. They're big on firearms education and campaign to attract women, minorities and general non "gunners" to firearms and seem pretty successful at it.
The NFA have a lot of money thanks to how loud they are and people throwing money at them. (also some places automatically donate to them ie you buy a paper magazine subscription and some goes to them). On the surface I find they look pretty good. They're not afraid to go head to head with the government or whomever but a lot of people believe they ultimately follow their own agenda.
There were a couple court cases where their own members took them to court over shady business practices and money. Their president also tried to make a back door deal with the conservatives without consent or including the general member base when Harper was doing that anti-terrorisim bill which would negatively impact gun owners privacy. The NFA was set to speak out about the bill at a hearing but pulled their name out at the last minute (Conservatives dangled changing gun laws in front of them to get them not to testify). The conservatives pulled the Darth Vader-Lando Calrissian move on them. I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure it's at that point that Canada's leading firearms lawyer Solomon Freidman quietly walked away from associating with the NFA. They have a slash and burn approach to criticism by their members such as if you respectfully ask questions that the officials don't like the thread gets deleted and you get blocked. They also don't censure their more vitriolic members on SM who'll post homophobic or racist content.
The other sports groups seem okay. Not very aggressive. I think they get included in meetings more because of that very reason. There's a lot of complaints that the sports and hunting organizations don't really give a shit about firearms outside the realm of hunting like Ar15s and pistols. quite a few of their members seem non-nonchalant about those being banned or outright support it.
If I had to pick one I'd go for the CCFR but I'd want them to come out of their "new kid on the block shell" and step it up a notch or two.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
I was unaware of the NFRs shady side, good to know. Happy I didn't pull the trigger, as it were, on membership.
- Reaction score
- 13,055
- Points
- 1,010
Thanks, Jarnhamar. This is really useful stuff!
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,641
- Points
- 1,160
The NFA had a few provincial leaders, can't remember what they're called but members who get voted in by members of their respective provinces, request access to files and paperwork as per their right according to the NFAs own rules (they noticed the shady stuff going on). They were denied access by the president and his second in command and that's how the court case started. the president ended up "illegally" firing them and replacing them with hand picked (and not voted) members to represent the provinces. That too was contested in court. I'm having a hard time finding a link to the trial cases (members accuse NFA of using member funds to clean up the internet of references to them) but it's mentioned in this link which also talks about the membership upset at the NFA withdrawing from the committee.
And here's the part about the internal lawsuit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-firearms-association-ignoring-questions-about-c-51-members-complain-1.3012700[/quote]
Those 5 members and a few others branched off and formed "NFA Reloaded" but both sides quickly got involved in facebook battles where members would sneak on to the other sides facebook page and shit post or cause drama. NFA was getting very crazy and paranoid about members and were doxxing people, including the NFA president contacting one of the "Reloaded" members boss and tried to get them fired for posting while at work. The NFA second in command would go through peoples profiles and screen shot everything and try to play detective.
I believe a few of the level-headed leadership types (maybe by both groups or just NFA reloaded) broke away and with help started the CCFR which attracted moderate members and appears to completely avoid all the crazy crap.
Caveat alot of the evidence or sources of this stuff seems to be removed.
And of course there was this.
And here's the part about the internal lawsuit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-firearms-association-ignoring-questions-about-c-51-members-complain-1.3012700[/quote]
Those 5 members and a few others branched off and formed "NFA Reloaded" but both sides quickly got involved in facebook battles where members would sneak on to the other sides facebook page and shit post or cause drama. NFA was getting very crazy and paranoid about members and were doxxing people, including the NFA president contacting one of the "Reloaded" members boss and tried to get them fired for posting while at work. The NFA second in command would go through peoples profiles and screen shot everything and try to play detective.
I believe a few of the level-headed leadership types (maybe by both groups or just NFA reloaded) broke away and with help started the CCFR which attracted moderate members and appears to completely avoid all the crazy crap.
Caveat alot of the evidence or sources of this stuff seems to be removed.
And of course there was this.
- Reaction score
- 5,390
- Points
- 1,140
I place more faith in the CCFR for the reasons stated by others as well as the professional, and polished way they conduct themselves with media and government. They don't look or act like crazy gun people, so they help normalize the whole gun ownership thing.
Today I was at TACCM and spoke with both NFA and CCFR people, the CCFR men and women looked and acted like any normal person you'd encounter anywhere in Canada. The NFA guys (all men) looked like the guys that hang out at the gun store BSing and comparing one upping each other about the biggest gun they've ever shot.... I belong to both orgs, but if I was to only belong to one it would be the CCFR without question.
Today I was at TACCM and spoke with both NFA and CCFR people, the CCFR men and women looked and acted like any normal person you'd encounter anywhere in Canada. The NFA guys (all men) looked like the guys that hang out at the gun store BSing and comparing one upping each other about the biggest gun they've ever shot.... I belong to both orgs, but if I was to only belong to one it would be the CCFR without question.
- Reaction score
- 4,838
- Points
- 1,060
So nobody thinks they are pissing away time and money on these different fragments. You feel all these separate organizations can stand up to government? People need to get out of the weeds and take on the big pictiure.
These separate groups with their tiny memberships have been playing this game for 25 years. They have not stopped the government doing what they want.
They have, by extention, we have no voice or influence. None, nada, nyet. The liebrals couldn't have put this together better, if it were them planning how to negate us.
Why do people like Cukier and the polytechnic groups have so much say and influence. They are organized, have people and have money. It's as simple as that. And they keep beating us because we're idiots.
These separate groups with their tiny memberships have been playing this game for 25 years. They have not stopped the government doing what they want.
They have, by extention, we have no voice or influence. None, nada, nyet. The liebrals couldn't have put this together better, if it were them planning how to negate us.
Why do people like Cukier and the polytechnic groups have so much say and influence. They are organized, have people and have money. It's as simple as that. And they keep beating us because we're idiots.
- Reaction score
- 5,390
- Points
- 1,140
The CCFR openly tells people to join the other orgs... I think each org having a smaller focus allows for better coverage of the big picture. You need the NFA types shouting no compromise, but we also need the education and backroom lobbying. CCFR seems more focused on education and making shooting acceptable to the masses. They couldn't do that as effectively if they were under the same banner as the hardliners in the NFA. It's much harder to dismiss a soft spoken guy that looks professional and normal than it is to dismiss the hardliner in a molon labe shirt.
CSSA to my understanding is more about moving behind the scenes, but to be honest I don't know much about them.
CSSA to my understanding is more about moving behind the scenes, but to be honest I don't know much about them.
- Reaction score
- 4,838
- Points
- 1,060
And all their posturing means nothing to the government. The only thing that is going to make us survive is one mass bloc of gun voters united under a single banner. Anything else is a wish and a prayer and only prolongs the inevitable. Not one single of our minor groups is capable financially or have the membership to become anything else than ego stroking for their members.
That, or you might as well get rid of your guns now.
That, or you might as well get rid of your guns now.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Was there not a movement by some to unite all these groups a couple years ago, and due to individual group agendas, nothing came about out of it?
- Reaction score
- 4,838
- Points
- 1,060
Yup, but that was all executive squabbling. Members did not have a say.
It's simple. All organisation's send out a single question.
Do you want the XYZ organization to remain separate or become part of a single organization encompassing all shooters and disciplines?
The clubs, (that's really all they are), will receive their mandate from the members.
If you want to know how it's done, forming a single body of unlike shooters to fight government, I'm sure the NRA would be happy to help.
It's simple. All organisation's send out a single question.
Do you want the XYZ organization to remain separate or become part of a single organization encompassing all shooters and disciplines?
The clubs, (that's really all they are), will receive their mandate from the members.
If you want to know how it's done, forming a single body of unlike shooters to fight government, I'm sure the NRA would be happy to help.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,360
- Points
- 1,160
Not really getting into this debate because I quite literally don't have a dog in this hunt. I own three antique rifles that I haven't fired (or cleaned) in fifty years. They were registered during the big registry event and I really couldn't care less that they were.
What caught my interest was an article in the Ottawa Citizen today that said that Ottawa had just had its 22nd shooting of 2018. That made me raise an eyebrow because I was quite sure that when I left there in 2009 we hadn't had that many in the whole year. Went back and checked and sure enough, Ottawa had 20 shootings in 2009. That rose as follows: 20 in 2010; 25 in 2011; 34 in 2012; 32 in 2013; 49 in 2014; 46 in 2015; 68 in 2016; and 74 in 2017. Back before 2009 the rate was roughly ten per year. Strangely enough, while shootings are increasing steadily, homicides (of all natures) have generally held steady at roughly ten per year with the occasional spike or trough.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Shootings+Ottawa+from+2009+2012/7383926/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/record-number-shootings-ottawa-2017-1.4455323
What the heck is going on? Shootings have quadrupled in eight years and if they continue at this rate for the rest of the year it could well end up going over 90.
I suppose that the simple answer is that there would appear to be more firearms readily available on the street and more people prepared to use them.
:cheers:
What caught my interest was an article in the Ottawa Citizen today that said that Ottawa had just had its 22nd shooting of 2018. That made me raise an eyebrow because I was quite sure that when I left there in 2009 we hadn't had that many in the whole year. Went back and checked and sure enough, Ottawa had 20 shootings in 2009. That rose as follows: 20 in 2010; 25 in 2011; 34 in 2012; 32 in 2013; 49 in 2014; 46 in 2015; 68 in 2016; and 74 in 2017. Back before 2009 the rate was roughly ten per year. Strangely enough, while shootings are increasing steadily, homicides (of all natures) have generally held steady at roughly ten per year with the occasional spike or trough.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Shootings+Ottawa+from+2009+2012/7383926/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/record-number-shootings-ottawa-2017-1.4455323
What the heck is going on? Shootings have quadrupled in eight years and if they continue at this rate for the rest of the year it could well end up going over 90.
I suppose that the simple answer is that there would appear to be more firearms readily available on the street and more people prepared to use them.
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 4,838
- Points
- 1,060
Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the States. They have a gun murder rate that outstrips countries and small wars. The majority of murders are not committed with legal firearms. I'll bet if you want to look it up, that the increase in murders with and without guns, has increased according to police, from gang activity. Imposing more laws on lawful gun owners and reclassifying and/ or confiscating their property will not make criminals with illegal firearms start obeying the law.
If your murder rate in Ottawa, is out of whack with the national norm, then you have a problem and its not guns. It's your municipal government that's to blame. Get them to tighten and enforce fortress laws. Let the police do their jobs, if someone or thing doesn't seem right, they can't even ask the person anything, including for ID. The person can just turn and walk away, like a belligerent on a UN mission.
If your murder rate in Ottawa, is out of whack with the national norm, then you have a problem and its not guns. It's your municipal government that's to blame. Get them to tighten and enforce fortress laws. Let the police do their jobs, if someone or thing doesn't seem right, they can't even ask the person anything, including for ID. The person can just turn and walk away, like a belligerent on a UN mission.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,348
- Points
- 1,160
This idea has been repeated a few times in this site. But, assuming it is true, it would suggest to me that patchwork firearms regulations do not work where there is freedom of movement and no border controls. If a city has more restrictive laws than the state, then criminals have legal access just outside the city. If a state has more restrictive laws than neighboring states, then criminals have easy access just a few hours (or less) down the highway. But if the nation has more restrictive laws than its neighbors, there is border control and the possibility of searches that cut the easy supply.recceguy said:
In my mind, pointing to isolated cities suffering from laxer fire arms controls in neighbouring districts is not proof that regulation does not work; it is proof that patchwork regulation does not work.
Arguably, this would be a desirable conclusion for those wishing to avoid a similar patchwork mess in Canada with provinces and municipalities layering complex regulations, restrictions, and prohibitions on top of already complex federal law.
Unfortunately, this is also one of the areas where the Rand Corporation has determined there is insufficient research for definitive conclusions.
- Status
Similar threads
