Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2018, 02:31 PM
2 Tollers 2 Tollers is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,444
Default 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

Last edited by 2 Tollers; 10-11-2018 at 02:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:36 PM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 5,105
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:46 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,772
Default

Well they leave lots of boxes for comments. So I commented away. It does seem to try and make something happening a forgone conclusion.
__________________
Hope is a powerful medicine.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:03 PM
kidd kidd is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 629
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:20 PM
Ken07AOVette's Avatar
Ken07AOVette Ken07AOVette is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 17,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bat119 View Post
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
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????
__________________
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck
I wasn't thinking far enough ahead for an outcome, I was ranting. By definition, a rant doesn't imply much forethought.....

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:03 PM
guysmiley guysmiley is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 176
Default

My comments were not kind.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:25 PM
Muller Muller is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 111
Default

Apparently you can submit multiple entries.
Just saying .......
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:27 PM
Scott N's Avatar
Scott N Scott N is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muller View Post
Apparently you can submit multiple entries.
Just saying .......
Probably because the decision has already been made, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:33 PM
Big Grey Wolf Big Grey Wolf is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,617
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:34 PM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 5,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muller View Post
Apparently you can submit multiple entries.
Just saying .......
I think this is a smoke and mirrors deal if it was serious there would a log in or something.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:44 PM
Scott N's Avatar
Scott N Scott N is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,322
Default

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)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:28 PM
Stinky Buffalo's Avatar
Stinky Buffalo Stinky Buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A bit North o' Center...
Posts: 6,409
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:34 PM
Ranets Ranets is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 314
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:51 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default

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.....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:59 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf View Post
Well they leave lots of boxes for comments. So I commented away. It does seem to try and make something happening a forgone conclusion.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:05 PM
hermn8r hermn8r is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 27
Default

These new proposed laws are not going in a good direction for law abiding gun owners in Canada...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:05 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,988
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:28 PM
Puma Puma is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 214
Posts: 1,374
Default 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.

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:28 PM
Stinky Buffalo's Avatar
Stinky Buffalo Stinky Buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A bit North o' Center...
Posts: 6,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranets View Post
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.
Yup.

Or we save some bucks and outsource our penal system to a 3rd world country. That may cut back on recidivism...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:47 AM
binrat binrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 10
Default

Finished as well.
Not going to end well for gun owners.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-12-2018, 06:53 AM
dmcbride dmcbride is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bazeau County East side
Posts: 4,006
Default

What a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-12-2018, 07:12 AM
treeroot treeroot is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 111
Default

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)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-12-2018, 07:30 AM
dmcbride dmcbride is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bazeau County East side
Posts: 4,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeroot View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:07 AM
2 Tollers 2 Tollers is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeroot View Post
Just so everyone is aware.. Some of these questions are designed to shoot yourself in the foot.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:23 AM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 5,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcbride View Post
The Liberals are pushing that Narrative.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun...tics-1.4779702
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
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:42 AM
ward ward is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 425
Default

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 ?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:34 AM
Big Sky's Avatar
Big Sky Big Sky is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,543
Default

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?)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-12-2018, 03:20 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeroot View Post
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)
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?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-13-2018, 07:40 AM
beltburner beltburner is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 442
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-13-2018, 09:45 AM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,425
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.