Justin Time

[Evoex]

Rex Murphy: COVID-19 and our new Government at the Bottom of the Cottage Doorsteps

It’s been something like 40 days now that we've had this new-style Canadian government — coincidentally the number of Ali Baba’s thieves

nationalpost.com

It’s been something like 40 days now that we've had this new-style Canadian government — coincidentally the number of Ali Baba’s thieves

love it.

 

[GreyGhost]

I dont listen to any polls. I don't care what the results are. They are garbage. Have you looked up random? You cannot get a random sample of canadians from a phone book.

Yes, sampling a random subset of a population can be considered applicable. Sampling what is by definition a non-random (and somewhat self-selected group) produces results that only apply to that group. How does that group compare to an actual random sample? I have no idea and nor does anyone else. They choose to ignore it as it doesnt suit their purposes. Polling companies jeed to poll to make money. Admitting that it is now garbage science eliminates their industry.

Just to show how crazy any polling is, 680news.com has had an open poll. Sure the pro-gun people may have used multiple devices to stack the poll, but the anti-gun people had the same opportunity. It is interesting that the results are the exact opposite of the polling presented by JT as proof that this was required.

"Do you agree with the new assault rifle ban?
No 76.5%
Yes 23.5%"

Again, I'm not saying the new one is right either. Both are garbage and mean nothing.

EDIT:
Incorrectly attributed poll to cp24.com, revised to 680news.com

 

[miggs]

Gun poll accuracy be like...

 

[backmarkerducati]

An easy way to look at the polling with a logical twist....

1. The majority of the potential voting population does not own any sort of gun in Canada.
2. The only skin they (non gun owning potential voters) have in the game is the perceived risk of being shot, not a risk of having their guns taken away as they have no guns. The risk (being shot) may be very extremely small, but very extremely small vs zero is still a positive number in their minds. Remember CCW in the USA, the risk of the manly men ever needing it is a statistical anomaly yet they "need it" for protection when out in public by themselves (but statically their wives and of course kids do not), it is just the opposite here--view point wise.
3. Women are more than half the population but have little interest in owning guns themselves.
4. There are also gun owners that support the ban as they are hunters or vintage collectors that are totally not impacted by the list. may not seem like a lot but I know many that feel this is too little too late and really hate what the need a gun to feel like a big man crowd is doing to their hobby. Not much different than how motorcycle riders really hate the stunting idiots, they are torn because like us they may have the same model the idiots have. But some, like cruiser riders do not.
5. The list of people that are really impacted by the ban is small, but they are very vocal.
6. There are also the people that oppose the ban but are not directly impacted in any meaningful way.
7. OICs have been used by the left and the right, so what, Harper used them... drama drama drama hurts credibility fighting drama.

Looking at the above does anyone actually think that the majority of the population is opposed to the ban? If anything you may find the majority thinks it is too little too late.


What amuses me most, are the gun crowd that post up lists of weapons that are just as bad as the ones banned but were not banned. OK, the Liberals don't need to do any research on the next batch. How dumb is that? Hey you banned the R6 but the GSXR600 was not on the list you idiots, damn the GSXR600 is now on the next list.... who is the idiot? Why would they do their own homework?

It is NOT a right in Canada, it is a privilege. When a privilege is abused by the few it may impact everyone that enjoys it!

 

[Brian P]

backmarkerducati, I suspect your assessment is accurate.

Counterpoint, though. A fair number of people who aren't gun owners but who aren't interested in getting shot, realise that the main problem is the illegal stuff coming in from the USA, and thus consider the proposed buyback to be a waste of money that won't solve the main problem.

I don't know how to solve that, although it would surely help if courts threw criminals in the slammer for triple time if their crime involved a gun, as opposed to letting them out cheaply on bail.

 

[JTR]

Just to show how crazy any polling is, 680news.com has had an open poll. Sure the pro-gun people may have used multiple devices to stack the poll, but the anti-gun people had the same opportunity. It is interesting that the results are the exact opposite of the polling presented by JT as proof that this was required.

"Do you agree with the new assault rifle ban?
No 76.5%
Yes 23.5%"

Again, I'm not saying the new one is right either. Both are garbage and mean nothing.

EDIT:
Incorrectly attributed poll to cp24.com, revised to 680news.com

I'd say an open poll is more honest and trustworthy than a directed one.

 

[JTR]

An easy way to look at the polling with a logical twist....

1. The majority of the potential voting population does not own any sort of gun in Canada.
2. The only skin they (non gun owning potential voters) have in the game is the perceived risk of being shot, not a risk of having their guns taken away as they have no guns. The risk (being shot) may be very extremely small, but very extremely small vs zero is still a positive number in their minds. Remember CCW in the USA, the risk of the manly men ever needing it is a statistical anomaly yet they "need it" for protection when out in public by themselves (but statically their wives and of course kids do not), it is just the opposite here--view point wise.
3. Women are more than half the population but have little interest in owning guns themselves.
4. There are also gun owners that support the ban as they are hunters or vintage collectors that are totally not impacted by the list. may not seem like a lot but I know many that feel this is too little too late and really hate what the need a gun to feel like a big man crowd is doing to their hobby. Not much different than how motorcycle riders really hate the stunting idiots, they are torn because like us they may have the same model the idiots have. But some, like cruiser riders do not.
5. The list of people that are really impacted by the ban is small, but they are very vocal.
6. There are also the people that oppose the ban but are not directly impacted in any meaningful way.
7. OICs have been used by the left and the right, so what, Harper used them... drama drama drama hurts credibility fighting drama.

Looking at the above does anyone actually think that the majority of the population is opposed to the ban? If anything you may find the majority thinks it is too little too late.


What amuses me most, are the gun crowd that post up lists of weapons that are just as bad as the ones banned but were not banned. OK, the Liberals don't need to do any research on the next batch. How dumb is that? Hey you banned the R6 but the GSXR600 was not on the list you idiots, damn the GSXR600 is now on the next list.... who is the idiot? Why would they do their own homework?

It is NOT a right in Canada, it is a privilege. When a privilege is abused by the few it may impact everyone that enjoys it!

The USA in general doesn't really have much in the way of federal gun laws. You would need to break it down state by state. If yu want to really play with numbers, go ahead and compare real statistics in free states versus heavily restricted states. Guess where the most violent states lie versus the most free. You might not even be able to guess which are which.

 

[JTR]

backmarkerducati, I suspect your assessment is accurate.

Counterpoint, though. A fair number of people who aren't gun owners but who aren't interested in getting shot, realise that the main problem is the illegal stuff coming in from the USA, and thus consider the proposed buyback to be a waste of money that won't solve the main problem.

I don't know how to solve that, although it would surely help if courts threw criminals in the slammer for triple time if their crime involved a gun, as opposed to letting them out cheaply on bail.

Many states employ this tactic, incredibly stiffer penalties for armed robbery, versus non.

 

[nobbie48]

An easy way to look at the polling with a logical twist....

1. The majority of the potential voting population does not own any sort of gun in Canada.
2. The only skin they (non gun owning potential voters) have in the game is the perceived risk of being shot, not a risk of having their guns taken away as they have no guns. The risk (being shot) may be very extremely small, but very extremely small vs zero is still a positive number in their minds. Remember CCW in the USA, the risk of the manly men ever needing it is a statistical anomaly yet they "need it" for protection when out in public by themselves (but statically their wives and of course kids do not), it is just the opposite here--view point wise.

Re 2, The more vocal the pro gun group is the greater the fear in the anti gun group.

I knew someone who had been adversely affected by alcoholism in her family. Her attitude was if a person couldn't swear off alcohol 100% they were dependent on it and couldn't be trusted. The more you suggested responsible social drinking the more she dug in her heels. The non gun types are susceptible to this thinking.

Of course if a typical NGOPV is asked if they were concerned to the point of buying extra insurance or a $5,000 bullet proof vest they would likely say no. But if it's government money (Which doesn't exist, it's taxpayers money) they're good with it.

 

[JTR]

But if it's government money (Which doesn't exist, it's taxpayers money) they're good with it.

lol none of it is real money. The government has been depositing digital counterfeit money that doesn't exist into my account for the last month. And then we get to pay it back later with real money. Quite a racket, eh?

 

[regder]

Re 2, The more vocal the pro gun group is the greater the fear in the anti gun group.

I knew someone who had been adversely affected by alcoholism in her family. Her attitude was if a person couldn't swear off alcohol 100% they were dependent on it and couldn't be trusted. The more you suggested responsible social drinking the more she dug in her heels. The non gun types are susceptible to this thinking.

This is a very good point. I wouldn't say it's fear, but rather the absence of an actual open discussion.

The second that there is ever any talk of stricter gun regulations, the pro gun crowd digs in their heels and starts talking about tyranny, freedoms, protecting themselves against aliens, etc. The pro-regulation crowd then proceeds to draft regulations to take away the big scary assault things with a possibly misinformed idea of shooty thing A being worse than shooty thing B.

Put the extremists on both sides (I need a rocket launcher to protect my family vs no guns for anyone) on the sideline and you may get some regulations that might be agreeable to both sides.

 

[Evoex]

This is a very good point. I wouldn't say it's fear, but rather the absence of an actual open discussion.

The second that there is ever any talk of stricter gun regulations, the pro gun crowd digs in their heels and starts talking about tyranny, freedoms, protecting themselves against aliens, etc. The pro-regulation crowd then proceeds to draft regulations to take away the big scary assault things with a possibly misinformed idea of shooty thing A being worse than shooty thing B.

Put the extremists on both sides (I need a rocket launcher to protect my family vs no guns for anyone) on the sideline and you may get some regulations that might be agreeable to both sides.

Where is the compromise? If they had gone after hand guns this would have made more sense.

 

[SVeezy]

It is NOT a right in Canada, it is a privilege. When a privilege is abused by the few it may impact everyone that enjoys it!

Problem there is the abuse is by the criminals. Criminals abuse driving privileges all the time but no one infringes on the driving privileges as a result. Just an example.

 

[regder]

Where is the compromise? If they had gone after hand guns this would have made more sense.

I'll be honest, I'm not a gun guy. I don't know the specificity of the current gun regulations. This is where having a reasonable and open discussion is helpful to both sides.

I'm pretty confident in saying that the large majority of Canadians believe in reasonably strict gun control. The discussion needs to go from there to what is reasonable and why.

The second that the pro gun folk drop way out there arguments like "I could kill people with a car or knife, why aren't they banned?" Or criminals don't have any regulations, why should I? It's hard to have a discussion from there.

 

[jc100]

I'll be honest, I'm not a gun guy. I don't know the specificity of the current gun regulations. This is where having a reasonable and open discussion is helpful to both sides.

I'm pretty confident in saying that the large majority of Canadians believe in reasonably strict gun control. The discussion needs to go from there to what is reasonable and why.

The second that the pro gun folk drop way out there arguments like "I could kill people with a car or knife, why aren't they banned?" Or criminals don't have any regulations, why should I? It's hard to have a discussion from there.

we already have strict regulations.....that’s the thing.

 

[Evoex]

I'll be honest, I'm not a gun guy. I don't know the specificity of the current gun regulations. This is where having a reasonable and open discussion is helpful to both sides.

I'm pretty confident in saying that the large majority of Canadians believe in reasonably strict gun control. The discussion needs to go from there to what is reasonable and why.

The second that the pro gun folk drop way out there arguments like "I could kill people with a car or knife, why aren't they banned?" Or criminals don't have any regulations, why should I? It's hard to have a discussion from there.

I don't disagree but we already have this.

How does the government banning weapons we can't even legally purchase make sense?

If there are 2 guns put in front of you and they operate exactly the same mechanically, fire the same size round but one is covered in 'menacing' black plastic, what sense does it make to ban it?

Gun owners could certainly do better on expressing their POV but it's the governments responsibility to educate the public not 'ours'. If the government shirks that responsibility then I can see why owners are frustrated and come off exasperated.

Edit: in thinking about it, I suppose there's some onus on the population to do their own research. Can lead a horse to water and all that.

 

[JTR]

Maybe my misunderstanding is this. Everybody knows that ordinary law abiding citizens aren't going out and doing bad things with guns. Everybody knows that criminals don't have a problem getting guns, even if there were none in Canada to begin with. Everybody knows that criminals are not bothered in the least by any laws whatsoever, let alone gun laws.

So somebody explain their position on disarming the law abiding citizen, at all. Exactly what makes anyone think that disarming the law abiding citizen, stops that problem. Remembering that even if guns were totally banned in ALL of North America, they're still easy enough to get in.

 

[Trials]

I didn't see anything about black plastic gun stocks being banned :/ reference that for me will you.

They did say: "Any firearm having a 20 mm bore or greater" and that was a major boo-boo :/ they just outlawed (some) 12 gauge shotguns.

 

[Evoex]

Maybe my misunderstanding is this. Everybody knows that ordinary law abiding citizens aren't going out and doing bad things with guns. Everybody knows that criminals don't have a problem getting guns, even if there were none in Canada to begin with. Everybody knows that criminals are not bothered in the least by any laws whatsoever, let alone gun laws.

So somebody explain their position on disarming the law abiding citizen, at all. Exactly what makes anyone think that disarming the law abiding citizen, stops that problem. Remembering that even if guns were totally banned in ALL of North America, they're still easy enough to get in.

You're not wrong, it was simply to pander to the base.

 

[Evoex]

I didn't see anything about black plastic gun stocks being banned :/ reference that for me will you.

They did say: "Any firearm having a 20 mm bore or greater" and that was a major boo-boo :/ they just outlawed 12 gauge shotguns.

You got it, 'military grade' was the verbiage, which not only is it not true it's not even a real description. They made it up so the sheep at home would understand.

Also 'assault style' which references rifles fitted with plastic guards, interchangeable sights/scopes and front hand grips.