Justin Time

[PrivatePilot]

However I couldn't disagree more. Having an entire block/town/province, legally licensed/trained with a firearm for whatever the reason does not put us on the same stage as the USA. What separates us is 2 fundamental things, their constitutional right to more or less walk around with it wherever they please and our culture.

Two points:

- There are lots of US states where open carry is prohibited and gun controls are actually fairly tight, well...by USA standards, anyways.. New York State is a good example. However, despite all that they still have almost 2 million gun owners in the state, and drastically higher crime rates as well.

- The culture argument is valid today. But will it be in another 20 years or however long? There is no doubt there's a certain percentage of the Canadian population who want to be like 'Murica when it comes to their enshrined rights to weaponry. Culture can slowly be chipped away at as well - look again at the USA where "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" was a thing up until the last few decades (and more recently, in the last *cough* 4 years) down there. The culture is shifting to one of "Murica first, **** yeah".

 

[jc100]

The biggest issue with a poll like that is the same issue I had with the Brexit referendum. Namely people voting in the poll were not fully aware of the existing regulations surrounding firearms in Canada just like many voting in Brexit weren’t fully aware of just what European Union involvement really meant. It becomes a poll voting purely on knee jerk reactions.

 

[GreyGhost]

The biggest issue with a poll like that is the same issue I had with the Brexit referendum. Namely people voting in the poll were not fully aware of the existing regulations surrounding ding firearms in Canada just like many voting in Brexit weren’t fully aware of just what European Union involvement really meant. It becomes a poll voting purely on knee jerk reactions.

And very leading questions. If I ask you "will canada be safer with no private guns", the answer is probably a very very slight yes (but gets recorded as yes). If I instead ask "The government is investing 1,000,000,000 in gun control, do you think this should be spent 100% of removing legal firearms from circulation or should it be spent on illegal weapons or a combination of the two" you get a very different answer to the same basic question. Even with a random selection of respondents (which they don't have), I can make the results into whatever I want by playing with the questions.

 

[jc100]

Two points:

- There are lots of US states where open carry is prohibited and gun controls are actually fairly tight, well...by USA standards, anyways.. New York State is a good example. However, despite all that they still have almost 2 million gun owners in the state, and drastically higher crime rates as well.

- The culture argument is valid today. But will it be in another 20 years or however long? There is no doubt there's a certain percentage of the Canadian population who want to be like 'Murica when it comes to their enshrined rights to weaponry. Culture can slowly be chipped away at as well - look again at the USA where "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" was a thing up until the last few decades (and more recently, in the last *cough* 4 years) down there. The culture is shifting to one of "Murica first, **** yeah".

That argument doesn’t really hold water...if we do ever go down the path of fully emulating our southern neighbours then surely whatever government is in power that enables that will just repeal the firearms laws. You can’t play what-ifs if there’s no real evidence to support it. There’s plenty of evidence to support not ever going down the path to practically no controls though (from our southern neighbours).

There's not much justification based on hard evidence for what has just happened besides favourable optics for the liberal party. Pushing legislation through at this time, in this way only seems to underline that point. I would have had more respect for this legislation if they had simultaneously stated that there was going to be a massive injection of cash for border services to seal smuggling routes. They took the lowest hanging fruit though.

 

[Evoex]

That argument doesn’t really hold water...if we do ever go down the path of fully emulating our southern neighbours then surely whatever government is in power that enables that will just repeal the firearms laws. You can’t play what-ifs if there’s no real evidence to support it. There’s plenty of evidence to support not ever going down the path to practically no controls though (from our southern neighbours).

There's not much justification based on hard evidence for what has just happened besides favourable optics for the liberal party. Pushing legislation through at this time, in this way only seems to underline that point. I would have had more respect for this legislation if they had simultaneously stated that there was going to be a massive injection of cash for border services to seal smuggling routes. They took the lowest hanging fruit though.

But wait, there's 86 million ear marked for just that.

?

 

[crankcall]

sealing smuggling routes would create some drama, large number of things pass through native/indiginous property, largely exempt from Federal influence, another favorite project of the Liberal party.

 

[killvino]

The biggest issue with a poll like that is the same issue I had with the Brexit referendum. Namely people voting in the poll were not fully aware of the existing regulations surrounding firearms in Canada just like many voting in Brexit weren’t fully aware of just what European Union involvement really meant. It becomes a poll voting purely on knee jerk reactions.

and the way they word questions, have you seen some of the polling questions and answer choices?
taken from the poll linked previously Four-in-five Canadians support complete ban on civilian possession of assault style weapons - Angus Reid Institute:
QG3. Should more be done to limit access to assault weapons? Yes No Not sure/can’t say
Assault weapons as defined: fully-automatic, select-fire, high capacity firearms. These are already illegal in Canada.

QG5. There has been some discussion about a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada. In general, assault weapons are semi-automatic guns that hold a lot of ammunition and are designed for rapid fire.
Our semi-auto rifle maximum capacity is 5 rounds, they don't define what 'a lot' is but I am assuming 5 is not. So again, we don't have any of these in Canada.

Just shows that the problem is that general public don't know anything about Canadian gun laws.

 

[GreyGhost]

and the way they word questions, have you seen some of the polling questions and answer choices?
taken from the poll linked previously Four-in-five Canadians support complete ban on civilian possession of assault style weapons - Angus Reid Institute:
QG3. Should more be done to limit access to assault weapons? Yes No Not sure/can’t say
Assault weapons as defined: fully-automatic, select-fire, high capacity firearms. These are already illegal in Canada.

QG5. There has been some discussion about a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada. In general, assault weapons are semi-automatic guns that hold a lot of ammunition and are designed for rapid fire.
Our semi-auto rifle maximum capacity is 5 rounds, they don't define what 'a lot' is but I am assuming 5 is not. So again, we don't have any of these in Canada.

Just shows that the problem is that general public don't know anything about Canadian gun laws.

And back to QG3, the definition of an assault weapon in QG5 is clearly misdefined. An assault weapon is a real defined thing and it's not that. I'm surprised they didn't use "scary black gun" in their questionaire as that is closer to their definition of what they were targeting.

As for the rapid fire comment, people should watch some of the ridiculous single action piston shooters. Frig me. Most full-automatic weapons would have significant trouble achieving that fire rate.

 

[nobbie48]

Show me a single poll that doesn't have huge selection bias conducted in the past 10 years. The vast majority that I have seen are telephone polls. Who here has a telephone number listed in a public directory? How were the 1600 selected distributed throughout the country? I have no idea how that affects the results, but I am 100% sure that no poll conducted in the recent past is worth the paper it is written on. It is a marketing piece and has no more validity than a straight ad.

Who answers every telephone call anymore? Call display and if I don't know you, you don't even get a hello. People that answer every call are a subset and therefore not a reliable base for a survey.

 

[jc100]

sealing smuggling routes would create some drama, large number of things pass through native/indiginous property, largely exempt from Federal influence, another favorite project of the Liberal party.

I wasn’t going to go there. This is a piece of the puzzle though.

 

[nobbie48]

And very leading questions. If I ask you "will canada be safer with no private guns", the answer is probably a very very slight yes (but gets recorded as yes). If I instead ask "The government is investing 1,000,000,000 in gun control, do you think this should be spent 100% of removing legal firearms from circulation or should it be spent on illegal weapons or a combination of the two" you get a very different answer to the same basic question. Even with a random selection of respondents (which they don't have), I can make the results into whatever I want by playing with the questions.

Powerful points. Part 2 of the question should be "How much are you willing to pay for the change?" Suddenly a yes becomes a "Let me think about it."

Everyone seems to think that there is a mystical "Someone" who is going to pick up the tab. Someone should fix the roads, ban guns, clean the air and water. The only money the government has is the money they take from us.

 

[jc100]

Who answers every telephone call anymore? Call display and if I don't know you, you don't even get a hello. People that answer every call are a subset and therefore not a reliable base for a survey.

Who lists their cell # anywhere and don’t forget the number of people who no longer have land lines. There’s all sorts of issues with modern polling now and it isn’t limited to this firearms issue. Polling influences political reaction more and more these days so its a target for lobbyists to influence polls. Sponsor bias is a huge problem.

 

[PrivatePilot]

You can’t play what-ifs if there’s no real evidence to support it.

Works for a lot of people in the pro crowd, so why not?

Who answers every telephone call anymore? Call display and if I don't know you, you don't even get a hello. People that answer every call are a subset and therefore not a reliable base for a survey.

Nailed it.

The only people sitting at home with a landline phone that they rush to answer everytime it rings (and don't care about the CID, or perhaps, even have it) are likely to be in a more conservative demographic - IE, old people.

Theres an incredibly strong argument that can be made that this alone would skew the survey results.

 

[jc100]

Right now there’s plenty of other things going on to take attention away from how much cash the government is spending. It’s going to be a very different story when people start to pay their bills afterwards and watch others get cash back for ”assault” weapons from the government and especially so if the gang issue in Toronto and elsewhere hasn’t changed.

 

[jc100]

Works for a lot of people in the pro crowd, so why not?



Nailed it.

The only people sitting at home with a landline phone that they rush to answer everytime it rings (and don't care about the CID, or perhaps, even have it) are likely to be in a more conservative demographic - IE, old people.

Theres an incredibly strong argument that can be made that this alone would skew the survey results.

The only “pro” crowd that harps on about what ifs to any extent are the fringe element. The lunatic preppers, the “from my cold dead hands” crew, the ones that drool thinking about wandering around malls with body armour and firearms festooned over their person. Just like in every argument though there’s a relatively silent majority that are just plain normal people. Unfortunately the fringe on every side shout the loudest.

 

[GreyGhost]

Who lists their cell # anywhere and don’t forget the number of people who no longer have land lines. There’s all sorts of issues with modern polling now and it isn’t limited to this firearms issue. Polling influences political reaction more and more these days so its a target for lobbyists to influence polls. Sponsor bias is a huge problem.

With cell phones you also have the issue of many households having multiple phone numbers. I'm not sure how this influences the randomness and applicability to the distribution. I suspect (but could be wrong) that there are more phone numbers per urban family than rural family.

 

[jc100]

With cell phones you also have the issue of many households having multiple phone numbers. I'm not sure how this influences the randomness and applicability to the distribution. I suspect (but could be wrong) that there are more phone numbers per urban family than rural family.

some people actually sign up for surveys too....there’s probably a “type” that does that so I’m not so sure how random of a sampling that would be.

 

[GreyGhost]

Works for a lot of people in the pro crowd, so why not?



Nailed it.

The only people sitting at home with a landline phone that they rush to answer everytime it rings (and don't care about the CID, or perhaps, even have it) are likely to be in a more conservative demographic - IE, old people.

Theres an incredibly strong argument that can be made that this alone would skew the survey results.

I think we can all agree that polling is garbage and has no place in a rational discussion. There are so many sources of error that the results really mean nothing (other than for marketing/political purposes). If you want real data, conduct a referendum and you get much closer to a real answer of how people feel (although still highly affected by wording).

 

[800over]

Show me a single poll that doesn't have huge selection bias conducted in the past 10 years. The vast majority that I have seen are telephone polls. Who here has a telephone number listed in a public directory? How were the 1600 selected distributed throughout the country? I have no idea how that affects the results, but I am 100% sure that no poll conducted in the recent past is worth the paper it is written on. It is a marketing piece and has no more validity than a straight ad.

If i have to type any slower.....do you know what the word random means? It isn't my job to learn for you. Look it up if you don't understand or stop talking about the poll. Talk about how you think guns should be legal.....you cannot change that a large majority of Canadians support a ban on what comes to mind when someone says the word assault rifle. You may disagree....but that has nothing to do with the poll. So the poll is way off it is only 70% or 65% still a huge majority.

And now apparently all polls are wrong because you don't agree with the results? pick an argument

 

[800over]

some people actually sign up for surveys too....there’s probably a “type” that does that so I’m not so sure how random of a sampling that would be.

Unfortunately what you typed is correct.....and a complete red herring....you can sign up to receive surveys for like food etc....but not this type of poll. If i ******* have to explain what random means holy ****.