Fed Gov - Online Engagement Survey -- handguns and semi-automatic firearms
 

The feds have released an on-line survey tool as an engagement mechanism for the review that Bill Blair is undertaking on handguns and now semi-automatic -large capacity firearms. Link is provided below

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/c.../index-en.aspx

semi-automatic -large capacity firearms?

Does Bill know about the magazine limit?

Did the survey, kind of would like you to cut off an arm or a leg type of deal

Well they leave lots of boxes for comments. So I commented away. It does seem to try and make something happening a forgone conclusion.

survey
 

The Canadian Government put out a survey that references the US Dept of Justice's definition of an "assault weapon" as a basis for much of the survey questions? Why am I not surprised?
kidd

Wow you nailed that one.

The two about 'consequences for law abiding owners' peed me off and got them blasted. Why would law abiding citizens face consequences????

My comments were not kind.

Apparently you can submit multiple entries.
Just saying .......

Probably because the decision has already been made, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks :mad0100:

My comments were not pretty. What a waste of time , I told them I already need to open 9 locks before I get my handgun to the range and can actually fire a shot at a target, how much more restricted do guns need to be before we are beyond reason.

I think this is a smoke and mirrors deal if it was serious there would a log in or something.

Just finished it too, like everyone else says, what a terrible survey. It's all geared for the result that they want. One of my comments was about how much political capital is the government willing to give up? None of us are going to turn our firearms in willingly, it will cost the feds a fortune in court costs I think. Is that worth it even to the Liberals? (yes, that is a rhetorical question if anyone is wondering)

Finished it too - looks like they got their impression of firearms classification from an Arnie movie.

My comments were not unkind, but definitely to the point.

Maybe just add 5 years no parole if a firearm of any type is present during the enactment of any crime, if someone is injured or the weapon is discharged add 10 years and if someone is killed life25 these would be added to whatever the initial charge is and the only "people" affected are the criminals. To me this seems much more logical than punishing legitimate gun owners/enthusiasts.

Nothing but a "feel good" survey, when did the Liberal government (Quebec) ever give a dam what the citizens of Canada thought about anything especially guns. You get a chance to have a little rant, blow some steam but that's it.

Now when they do exactly what they were going to anyway they can proclaim that they asked Canadians what they wanted and that is what they did. The Liberals outright lie, and lie a lot when it comes to firearms.

Good news is when these useless POS Liberals get punted to the curb and the UPC get in, the focus on guns and gun violence will be directed at gangs and the illegal smuggling and use of guns where it should be.

As with most things the Liberals have done, their attack on legal gun owners have made them look like nothing but uneducated fools.....

Yup, let me guess... you said no, and commented even though they asked you to comment if you said yes.

So.......... do you think our comments were automatically deleted?

These new proposed laws are not going in a good direction for law abiding gun owners in Canada...

The US definition of an assault rifle really upset me. Plus, it included reference to "large capacity" ammunition magazines, that are already prohibited in Canada.

How can any data from that question be legit now? What percentage of people that said yes, had issues with mag capacity?

Very dishonest. A question designed to get the result they want.

Guns
 

Remember... the Liberals think that all semi autos are evil assault rifles .

The PUBLIC consultation meetings are by invitation only !?! Nice democracy we live in.

:thinking-006:

Yup.

Or we save some bucks and outsource our penal system to a 3rd world country. That may cut back on recidivism...

Finished as well.
Not going to end well for gun owners.

What a joke.

Just so everyone is aware.. Some of these questions are designed to shoot yourself in the foot. For example

Where should we focus efforts to limit handguns?
a) Legally-owned handguns
b) Illicit handguns
c) Both legally-owned handguns and illicit handguns
d) Neither legally-owned handguns nor illicit handguns
e) No opinion

If you pick Illicit handguns as an answer, the government will turn this around and say that the majority of handguns used in crimes were obtained legally and then either stolen or sold to get into the hands of a criminl and therefore to reduce the illicit handguns used is crimes we need to shut down the sale of legally purchased handguns (handgun ban)

The Liberals are pushing that Narrative.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun...tics-1.4779702

Agreed The questions are worded in a fashion that no matter what the answer the data will be able to be manipulated to an outcome which most likely has already been drafted.

I used the dialogue boxes for comments in case a future FIOP request wants to look at the complete survey results

I will be sending a copy of this leader of the opposition and see if he follows up on the poor quality of the survey.

The Liberals are pushing we can't have nice things because someone will steal them, isn't this a failure of the justice system?

After N. Battleford RCMP recovered some stolen items they requested people send them lists of stolen items for recovery they were so overwhelmed with lists the RCMP requested people stop sending them.

Liberals are soft on criminals but hard on the law-abiding

I am stunned they are actually asking citizens whether they should focus on legal or illicit forearms ! Do they really need us to tell them ?

Submitted my responses. LOTS of comment for them to read and then ignore.

The Coles notes version.

Increase jail time and fines for smugglers and people convicted of gun crimes.
Increase scrutiny by Border Services/customs.
Increase surveillance at known smuggling hot spots. eg St Lawrence River

Laws that place a burden upon law abiding gun owners will have no effect on the illegal use/trade of firearms.

Make gang membership less desirable.
Increase recreational opportunities for youth.
Increase job opportunities for youth. ( Why are there so few kids who work at Wendy's etc any more?)

Are you kidding??????????????how does e) with an explanation shoot yourself in the foot? Did you seriously think that you HAD to pick an answer?

That entire survey is aimed at the American gun laws; not ours.
What is wrong with the government that they don't even know their own laws?

On the one hand it is definitely geared towards someone who is not a shooter. Even if they are not agains't handguns and (horrors) AR style rifles, it is worded in such a way that it will fit the mandate to limit ownership of these firearms.
On the other hand you can use the comment box to get exactly how you feel across...using reason and logic. You can damn well bet that those who go ballistic in their comments are only going to fuel the 'gun owners shouldn't be trusted with these firearms' agenda...so don't go out of your way to sound like a lunatic.
As to the ability to fill it out over and over...I filled it out about 15 times on every computer at work. Pretty sure the fed's are sophisticated enough to see multiple entry's coming from the same IP address.
And for those saying it's a shame not worth filling out...the old saying 'if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem' applies.