Who hunts with a Remington 742?

[Smokinyotes]

I’m kind of at a loss as what to do next, in the past I’ve wrote emails, I’ve wrote paper letters, signed petitions, donated a few G to different organizations and lawsuits. No use writing my MP because it is Dane Lloyd and everyone knows his position on any of these bans.
Liberals are going to continue being liberals and screw the law abiding and run the country into the ground.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by cody j

I knew they walked among us but never figured the number to be that high, I’m kinda suprised. Gun owners who support gun bans are worse than anti gun people in my opinion

They do walk among us, but I believe those numbers as much as I believe the Convoy protesters were using children as human shields. Polls are only as accurate as the questions, and canned responses, that are offered. It's like the old 'when did you stop beating your wife' question. They manipulate people to get the results they want.

Like Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics (polls).

[cody j]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

They do walk among us, but I believe those numbers as much as I believe the Convoy protesters were using children as human shields. Polls are only as accurate as the questions, and canned responses, that are offered. It's like the old 'when did you stop beating your wife' question. They manipulate people to get the results they want.

Like Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics (polls).

Yeah, you’re right, probably some odd questions and answers to get the results they wanted

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

They do walk among us, but I believe those numbers as much as I believe the Convoy protesters were using children as human shields. Polls are only as accurate as the questions, and canned responses, that are offered. It's like the old 'when did you stop beating your wife' question. They manipulate people to get the results they want.

Like Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics (polls).

As I pointed out, they used the term "assault rifles" but assault rifles have been prohibited for decades, they used that term, because it sounds scary and evil. Then they divided the results into support or oppose, obviously some people don't fall into either, they don't care, so if they asked who strongly opposed the bans, and then classed everyone else as supporting the bans, they could make it look as though more people support the bans.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Well there you go, firearms owners tghat are not opposed to the bans, because their firearms are not on the list YET!

And yes, I realize that the poll is flawed, because Assault rifles have been banned for decades, and the the results only include two options, support or oppose, so anyone not strongly opposed is likely listed as being in support of the bans. But the fact is, that some firearms owners, actually support the bans, and that won't change until their firearms are banned.

If you look at the PDF I attached, you will see that the options were strongly support, support, oppose and strongly oppose. The graphic just displays the totals. The PDF also shows the question that was asked.

Based on my experience, I would suggest these numbers are closer to reality than a lot of people would like to believe.

ARG

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

If you look at the PDF I attached, you will see that the options were strongly support, support, oppose and strongly oppose. The graphic just displays the totals. The PDF also shows the question that was asked.

Based on my experience, I would suggest these numbers are closer to reality than a lot of people would like to believe.

ARG

And yet again, I will point out that they used the term "assault " weapon, and most people don't know what an assault rifle is, let alone the fact that they have been prohibited for decades. And again, there is no "no opinion" or "don't care"

And looking at the tables at the bottom, the people that know the least about our firearms laws, are the ones that most strongly support bans. The least knowledgeable people on the topic, are the easiest to get their desired result from.

[Salavee]

It's just another poll . Sample size less than 1600 participants . Skew it any way you want. just like the pollsters. Was this poll taken in Toronto area or Alberta
or ??.A sample poll size that small, on any subject related to Firearms, doesn't get much attention from me... especially when it relates to "assault" style rifles.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Mulehahn

The Benelli M4 doesn't even have a detachable magazine and it's apparently on the list. The stock SKS doesn't either and they are permanently pinned at 5, they were lso slipped into the list. I doubt it ends here.

The SKS is going to be VERY controversial, for reasons that are very topical at the moment.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by buckman

The SKS is going to be VERY controversial, for reasons that are very topical at the moment.

And that could be a good thing, or a bad thing, good if it causes pushback, bad if the result is an exception based on race.

[Mulehahn]

The question was literally "would you support or oppose Canada having a complete ban on civilian possession of assault weapons?"! The question is clear; do you support banning and confiscating firearms?! It doesn't matter what the definition of "assault weapon" is or if 10 people were asked or 10,000. 45% of current gun owners who were polled said yes. It doesn't matter why; it doesn't matter if affects them or not. Almost half of gun owners are willing to give up their access to guns because they look scary.. That "grandpa's old lee Enfield" is just as dangerous as any AR platform but that didn't matter.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Mulehahn

The question was literally "would you support or oppose Canada having a complete ban on civilian possession of assault weapons?"! The question is clear; do you support banning and confiscating firearms?! It doesn't matter what the definition of "assault weapon" is or if 10 people were asked or 10,000. 45% of current gun owners who were polled said yes. It doesn't matter why; it doesn't matter if affects them or not. Almost half of gun owners are willing to give up their access to guns because they look scary.. That "grandpa's old lee Enfield" is just as dangerous as any AR platform but that didn't matter.

And the fact is that the word "assault" was specifically chosen to try and get people to say that they support the ban. Had they said " semi automatic " firearm, the number supporting the ban may have been half or less. And if they asked the question at an Eastern university , like Ryserson, the number supporting the bans would be much higher, than if they asked at say a Legion hall in Saskatchewan. The numbers do depend a great deal on who is asked, and how the question is asked.

[Twisted Canuck]

It's a manipulation. Gun owners support you not beating your wife anymore too. It's all about the way the question is asked.

If I was doing the poll, and asked gun owners if they support being manipulated by politicians to ban semi automatic rifles that are designed for varmint shooting and 3 gun competitions, I'm sure we would get a different answer.

Polls aren't meant to inform you of public opinion. Polls are done to influence public opinion. Pollsters make big money for influencing people. They don't get paid for gathering information.

[densa44]

Remember 1/2 the people that they are polling are women who are often the victims of gun violence.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by densa44

Remember 1/2 the people that they are polling are women who are often the victims of gun violence.

The liberals wanted to show as much support as they could for the bans, so the people polling would have chosen their demographics to provide those results. So the logical choice would be a large eastern city like Toronto, or the ultimate, students of a University like Ryerson, where the students know little to nothing about our firearms laws, and have been subjected to social programming by lunatics like Cukier. These people don't think for themselves, and are easily influenced , so they are the ones that will provide the results that the liberals want, and the people polling know that.

[raised by wolves]

Earlier in the thread was a comment on bolt actions being next. Now I can't recall when Trudeau commented on this topic, but I do remember very clearly that during an interview early in his tenure, he commented on single shot firearms being a possible future path.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by raised by wolves

Earlier in the thread was a comment on bolt actions being next. Now I can't recall when Trudeau commented on this topic, but I do remember very clearly that during an interview early in his tenure, he commented on single shot firearms being a possible future path.

What if they were to allow multiple shot mags and semi autos for hunting purposes or target shooting but limit the criminals to single shots
Or, what about not allowing the criminal to have guns period and if they do then send them to jail for a very long time, maybe something like Commit a crime with a gun and you automatically go away for 25 yrs no parole.I wonder if that would have any effect on gun crime

[cody j]

Originally Posted by raised by wolves

Earlier in the thread was a comment on bolt actions being next. Now I can't recall when Trudeau commented on this topic, but I do remember very clearly that during an interview early in his tenure, he commented on single shot firearms being a possible future path.

If all anyone had was single shots, they would want them too.

[colroggal]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

What if they were to allow multiple shot mags and semi autos for hunting purposes or target shooting but limit the criminals to single shots
Or, what about not allowing the criminal to have guns period and if they do then send them to jail for a very long time, maybe something like Commit a crime with a gun and you automatically go away for 25 yrs no parole.I wonder if that would have any effect on gun crime

People often use Great Britain as an example when talking about gun control working. What they fail to mention is the strict mandatory minimum sentences for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, often for anyone associated with the crime. 4 guys break into a house, one has a gun, all 4 get the minimum. The other 3 guys tell the 4th guy to leave his gun at home.

How often do we hear about any gun related charges being dropped or overlooked. Same dude is caught 6 months later during a gun prohibition with a gun, the charge only pleaded away again.

What works is having effective laws and enforcing them.

Colin