Canada bans 1,500 types of assault firearms YES!

[jocal505]

Well, you're going to spend between between CAD$47 million to $756 million (or maybe more) confiscating battlefield .22's and other weapons of war.

As I said, I think you might, if you're lucky, achieve double digit compliance rates. And I mean low double digits.

When that happens, it will indicate to me that gun owners did not, in fact, support the confiscation program.

Popularity does not drive constitutionality, except in Libertarian circles. Did you not read any of Kolbe? Do you not read SAILING ANARCHY?

You are Dogballs, the inspired, high-handed, cheerleader, coach, and inspiration...on felony row. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Which is a WAG right?

Not sure which you're asking about? The cost?

It's a couple of guesses bundled together, apparently.

Applying this to the government dataset, the result is a preliminary cost estimate ranging from $47 million to $188 million (tiered compensation), and $56 million to $225 million for the market value approach. Applied to the CSAAA dataset, the estimate amounts are $158 million to $632 million (tiered compensation), or $180 million to $756 million using market value. 

Those datasets attempt to guess how many covered firearms Canadians own.

They seem to presume a high, or maybe 100%, compliance rate, but a gun that has an unfortunate boating accident will never require any compensation.

As for the compliance rate guess, it's based on looking at compliance rates with other confiscation programs in America and Australia and New Zealand. Low double digits is kinda optimistic but Canadians are easygoing, eh? That's a heck of a lot better than New Jersey is doing, for example.

 

[Zonker]

I was referring to compliance rate. Comparing to the US is foolish. Our gun owning culture is very different. We have no 2nd Amendment. (see below)

Comparing to Australia and NZ might be similar - except we look to our southern neighbours and are thus more exposed to the mass shootings which have become so common there, and I think even some of our gun owners are upset by this. 

If they are fairly compensated (who knows), I think there will be reasonably high compliance. Especially if the penalties for holding on to a banned weapon are high enough. 

You may have missed our Throne Speech last week. The government proposed legislation to allow provinces to ban all handguns in their province. That's offloading a responsibility to other governments because I don't think it will be as politically popular with the assault weapon ban. ~1/2 the gun murders in Canada were with handguns. But progress marches on, if slowly. 

Interesting reasons as to why Canadians own guns:

The previous review touched on the reasons for owning firearms. Based on the findings of three surveys, Gabor reported that about 70 percent of firearm owners said hunting was the primary reason they owned firearms (Gabor, 1994: 12). These findings were since confirmed by ICVS data (Block, 1998) where nearly 73 percent of respondents said they owned firearms to hunt. They also owned them to target shoot (18.4 percent), and because there has always been a firearm in the respondents’ homes (10 percent). Another 7.4 percent of those surveyed collected firearms, and 4.6 percent had them for protection (Block, 1988: 12).

The extent to which Canadians own firearms to protect themselves from criminals or animals is the subject of some controversy. However, survey findings have consistently shown that the proportion of Canadians who state self-defense or self-protection as a reason or their main reason for owning a firearm is very low. Even when those who use a firearm in their job are included in that figure, it is still likely to be lower than five percent (Block, 1998: 12-13; Gabor, 1997:5; Sacco, 1995)

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

was referring to compliance rate. Comparing to the US is foolish. Our gun owning culture is very different. We have no 2nd Amendment. (see below)

Comparing to Australia and NZ might be similar - except we look to our southern neighbours and are thus more exposed to the mass shootings which have become so common there, and I think even some of our gun owners are upset by this. 

If they are fairly compensated (who knows), I think there will be reasonably high compliance. Especially if the penalties for holding on to a banned weapon are high enough. 

Well, your guess might be as good as mine on compliance rates. I think your post reveals why it will be low.

Of course gun owners are upset by violent criminals! We're sort of human too! The big difference of opinion is about whether gun owners are RESPONSIBLE for the actions of violent criminals, which would justify taking their guns away.

By and large, past behavior indicates gun owners do not feel responsible for the actions of criminals and so don't cooperate with the confiscation programs that attempt to hold them responsible.

We've tried endlessly upping mandatory minimums and even using the death penalty, but without a credible threat of being caught, all those hypothetical penalties don't seem to bring compliance with prohibition programs, whether they target guns or drugs.

I've complimented your nation in the past for at least acting like guns are legitimate property for people to own and offering compensation. It is likely to bring a higher compliance rate than our approach of declaring gun ownership a nuisance and taking the guns without compensation. Still, if the compensation is market value, I'd point out that those people can sell their guns for that amount today and choose not to do it. They're likely to continue to make the same choice, IMO.

 

[Zonker]

My brother is an avid gun nut owner and hunter. He runs a shooting range near Whistler for international tourists to come and shoot things when they aren't skiing.

(www.whistlershooting.com - check them out if you are ever in the area. Americans, please ignore. You'll be shocked at the cost of bullets and thus the cost to shoot here)

Anyway he hates Justin Trudeau for the ban, but he already bought new legal guns to replace the banned ones. I'm sure when the compensation/buyback is figured out, he'll be right there turning in the guns and grumbllng about how much they are worth. 

As a whole we are very law abiding society. We may complain about the laws but we typically obey them, even when we think they are stupid. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Yeah, not!!

That's a S&W 22 target pistol.

Is that the "Battlefield Dogballs" he's always going on about us banning?

I'm not sure whether Canadians are allowed to have those, but was pretty specific about the battlefield .22's to be banned and confiscated in your country, since a list was helpfully provided.

It's weird that Canadians can still buy a 10-22 like my wife's battlefield .22.

But whether a .22 is an ordinary .22 or a battlefield .22 just depends on whether it's included in an assault weapons ban, so is location-specific.

 

[Ishmael]

HA!

 

[Keith]

 

[PeterSailor]

Jumped ahead 2 pages in that thread, and Tommy still whining about .22s. Not surprised from someone whose country think Kinder Surprise are more dangerous than guns.

 

[Ishmael]

Jumped ahead 2 pages in that thread, and Tommy still whining about .22s. Not surprised from someone whose country think Kinder Surprise are more dangerous than guns.

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing. I believe the clinical term is "obsession".

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing.

Everyone is saying it!

For those interested more in facts than popular gossip, there are lots of threads in PA where I talk about things other than guns. Grabbers come along and bring up guns and I politely thank them, that's it.

You can go to Cruising Anarchy and see political posts about guns from triggered Canucks like Sloopy and Ish, but you can't find a single post over there where I do the same thing they do.

But I'm the problem. Everyone (who obstinately ignores facts) is saying it.

Seems to me the real problem in this thread is that there are still lots of Canadians with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war that need confiscation and nobody is getting around to it.

 

[Keith]

Everyone is saying it!

For those interested more in facts than popular gossip, there are lots of threads in PA where I talk about things other than guns. Grabbers come along and bring up guns and I politely thank them, that's it.

You can go to Cruising Anarchy and see political posts about guns from triggered Canucks like Sloopy and Ish, but you can't find a single post over there where I do the same thing they do.

But I'm the problem. Everyone (who obstinately ignores facts) is saying it.

Seems to me the real problem in this thread is that there are still lots of Canadians with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war that need confiscation and nobody is getting around to it.

View attachment 480239

 

[Mike in Seattle]

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

View attachment 480239

I saw it the first time.

Asprirational memes are nice and everything, but the whole point of this thread is that there are Canadians who are armed with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war and they need to have those confiscated asap because of the dangers these people are creating.

Maybe you should wait until they're actually disarmed before repeatedly bragging about it?

 

[Keith]

I saw it the first time.

Asprirational memes are nice and everything, but the whole point of this thread is that there are Canadians who are armed with battlefield .22's and other weapons of war and they need to have those confiscated asap because of the dangers these people are creating.

Maybe you should wait until they're actually disarmed before repeatedly bragging about it?

View attachment 480239

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

There is a 2 year amnesty period where the government will buy them from owners.

It didn't go quite that way.

So far, 160 battlefield .22's and other weapons of war have been taken.
 

...

“If an individual or business were to relinquish a newly prohibited firearm or device before the implementation of the taking program, they won’t be eligible for compensation once the program is announced,” the RCMP said this week in response to questions iPolitics asked it last month.

“Government officials are currently in the process of refining requirements and developing program design and implementation options for a taking program,” said the RCMP’s media-relations branch.

“The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) can confirm that, as of Dec. 9, 2021, 18 firearms (formerly classified as restricted) affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC) have been deactivated,” added Sgt. Caroline Duval, the spokesperson who forwarded the Mounties’ response.

“In addition, there have been 142 OIC-affected firearms recorded as surrendered to a public agency for destruction since May 1, 2020.”

...

So it's kind of surprising that as many as 160 were taken, given that no one is yet eligible for any compensation.

 

[Liquid]

It didn't go quite that way.

So far, 160 battlefield .22's and other weapons of war have been taken.
 

So it's kind of surprising that as many as 160 were taken, given that no one is yet eligible for any compensation.

Where in the article does it mention "battlefield .22s"?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Where in the article does it mention "battlefield .22s"?

What an odd question!

The article references firearms "affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC)."

The list was posted back on page 1:

The list can be found on the government of Canada’s site: Canada Gazette

Since I view such lists as shopping lists, I was interested and looked at the guns to be taken.

Just as in civilized countries like Australia, just as in the US Congress, just as in New Jersey, battlefield .22's are "assault weapons" in Canada.

If you're going to try to argue they should not be, you're on your own. I tried and lost.

 

[Zonker]

You can go back years in any Tom thread and see the same thing. I believe the clinical term is "obsession".

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I had a female friend who wore that. It was well named.

The casual acceptance of lies is a weird thing.

I count at least half a dozen "Tom" threads, if that means threads on political subjects that seem to be of interest only to me, on the front page at the moment. Admittedly, that counts an extended troll of randumb, but the rest are actual political issues, just not ones where partisan axes are ground.

You can indeed go back years in any of them and see the same thing: posts about the topic. And occasional interruptions from grabbers who want to emphasize my heresy on the gun issue.

You seem like a reader who may have actually done this, so why the casual acceptance of Ishmael's lie about me?