All good and valid points, but I strongly suspect the Trudeau Liberals will go for the wedge anyway because the only demographic that matters to them is the urban vote, which is a demographic largely uninformed on this issue. This allows them to spin it as they wish. Besides, all that border control and gang-focused stuff is hard, and these guys don't "do" hard stuff.
My only hope is that for ONCE, the CPC War Room has the gun legislation talking points at the ready and able to diffuse the wedge strategy of the Liberals.
For starters, public safety is of real concern right now, but handguns are a very small part of the problem. Muggings, stabbings, home invasions, car jackings and unprovoked attacks on streets point to far bigger threats that need attention. The Liberals don’t want to talk about these problems, so turn the tables and reverse the wedge in their direction for once.
Until Trudeau can show me how confiscating legally purchased, registered and properly stored handguns and rifles from responsible owners in Northern Alberta is going to reduce crime in the GTA he will continue to demonstrate he has no idea about the problem, he just tells the gun control lobby what they want to hear and ties that misinformation into progress on crime rates!
The gun issue is one of identity rather than about safety. To want to ban guns is a political tribe identifier more than anything. This of course was imported from the US as so much of our elite opinion and thought is.
Perhaps local control to reflect local norms would be a decent compromise. After all, why should rural Southern Alberta have to live under the same gun laws as in Montreal? We aren't the same culture with the same concerns.
I think this won’t move the needle much - the Trudeau Libs have basically tapped out the demographic that responds to scaremongering about guns (neurotic urban/suburban women AKA Karens).
"20 per cent of Canadian gun owners thought pellet guns, BB guns, and manual-action firearms such as bolt-action rifles should be illegal". That's ridiculous. Something waaaaaay off there.
I think that he's just unnecessarily confusing the issue. The EKOS amateurs bungled the construction of the poll ... and so he just blithely let it ride.
Your overview of polling is very insightful and certainly applies to many polls - particularly of a political nature currently. It's also a reasonably useful measure of 'knowledge' of whatever issue is being polled. Most issues are far more complex than polls can capture.
Buy a premium M1 Garand ... lots a great military history there too! And designed by a guy from Quebec! Some serious Can-con, right there. Pablo would have approved when he was our Culture Czar.
Issue poll results should always be taken with a bucket of salt, especially on such a hot button topic. So many people are misinformed on guns. Semi-automatic shotguns are pretty common for hunting, for example. What's an "assault-style firearm"? Is it just a scary looking gun?
The author thinks that EKOS has the more likely correct numbers on gun ownership, namely just 20 per cent own only one gun, and 33 per cent have more than five. I would think gun ownership would have a Bayesian distribution with the mode being one. Six guns is a lot of guns and it is hard to believe a third of all gun owners have at least that many.
Especially so in the case of handgun owners ... I purchased my first handgun (a Smith & Wesson Model 61 for $52.50) when I was in 3rd Year university, and (52 years later) my most recent purchase was just last year ... a sweet little Norinco Olympia at a clear 'em out fire-sale price of $199.95!
I think back in time at the end of Parliament before Christmas rise in 2022. The dithering, misdirecting and downright fibs by the Liberals peddling their new gun control bill blew up in their faces and a “pause” was announced to regroup.
The wonderful editors at The Line suggested that the Liberals had gone to the gun control well once too often and finally got trapped by their own cleverness.
Parsing through the polling information in this article, I think about The Line comments from last Christmas about gun control and if lessons were learned and if the wedge tactics have run out of steam? If the Liberals are looking at similar information, continuing to pursue it would seem to be a save the furniture tactic to hold on to a diminishing urban base.
today's Toronto Star -- "Four people in hospital after overnight shootings in Cabbagetown, Toronto police say. Two victims are in hospital with life-threatening injuries, while two others are in critical condition. "
I suspect that the demographic that is likely to be swayed by this bit of Liberal virtue signaling, believes that no one should ever have a firearm, in an urban setting, or, perhaps, anywhere at all. So, for them, “the facts” don’t really matter.
However, anyone concerned about gun crime - in Toronto at least - could profitably begin with a Google search: “Google image,” “shooting” “Toronto”. Because that shows the human face of gun crime, (shooters and victims), which is both gang-related and linked to identity-communities that are difficult to police – identities that also provide some of the “social glue” that sticks these gangs together.
On the other hand, as we know from the “carding controversy” there is a lot squeamishness about even keeping track of “who’s who” on the streets, let alone tying to determine whether they are armed. So, it is hard to imagine any additional scrutiny of illegal guns, despite their obvious impact on those communities. And despite the spillover effects, like the death of innocent passers-by.
Indeed, I suspect that unless the law of search and seizure is modified (which would require using the “notwithstanding clause”) so that unlawful weapons can be treated like asbestos (i.e. like a pernicious agent, that is proactively rooted out, whether or not anyone is “penalized”), then there is little that can be done to stem the proliferation of handguns that are flowing through our porous borders.
I doubt that stiffer sentences will work; and, anyway, that, too, would require the use of the notwithstanding clause. Plus a clear-eyed consideration of who is likely to be jailed and, just as important, how quickly they will get out. For some will have noticed how often those on parole or on bail, are also illegally-armed.
I sometimes wonder: what if the guns were just admitted into evidence, despite any problems with the search – perhaps compensating the miscreant with some damages for the breach of his “rights” or “privacy”? Might a jury decide that?
However, idle musing aside: no progress is likely to come from the Liberals, who have vowed never to use the “notwithstanding clause” for anything.
Moreover, any decision to actually cracks down on illegal weapons is likely to pose real tradeoffs in respect of civil liberties and will also likely have a disparate impact on particular identity groups, where the possession of a handgun has acquired a cultural resonance or is the tool of an illicit trade.
From reading other posts it is clear that Tim Thurley is an apologist for the gun lobby. He is entitled to his opinion but understand Tim that a large majority of the population would like to see much tighter gun controls. I am a strong Conservative, active in the party, and I find much of what you say and claim to be mere sophistry.
I wrestled with responding, as much as Tim anguishes to be fair and balanced in every article he presents on this theme. Tim truly wishes to consider all perspectives and has spent years researching the topic.
Now that you have dispensed with your ad hominem and personal opinion, perhaps you would be kind enough to present a fully researched rebuttal that your peers can critique. The floor is yours. You indicate that you have clarity.
Perhaps you could begin by being kind enough to clarify the relationship between being a strong, active Conservative and your finding of sophistry, and move on to defining "other posts" more rigorously.
In the theoretical world the numbers shouldn't have anything to do with a person's feelings. Unfortunately logical policy design is from the real world numbers that complicate data interpretation. That is exactly what some actors take advantage of.
As Tim pointed out, the more engaged your are in an issue, and the more knowledgeable you are about it, the less likely you are to give a flippant, emotional, or brush off the pollster answer to get back to your chores.
All good and valid points, but I strongly suspect the Trudeau Liberals will go for the wedge anyway because the only demographic that matters to them is the urban vote, which is a demographic largely uninformed on this issue. This allows them to spin it as they wish. Besides, all that border control and gang-focused stuff is hard, and these guys don't "do" hard stuff.
My only hope is that for ONCE, the CPC War Room has the gun legislation talking points at the ready and able to diffuse the wedge strategy of the Liberals.
For starters, public safety is of real concern right now, but handguns are a very small part of the problem. Muggings, stabbings, home invasions, car jackings and unprovoked attacks on streets point to far bigger threats that need attention. The Liberals don’t want to talk about these problems, so turn the tables and reverse the wedge in their direction for once.
Until Trudeau can show me how confiscating legally purchased, registered and properly stored handguns and rifles from responsible owners in Northern Alberta is going to reduce crime in the GTA he will continue to demonstrate he has no idea about the problem, he just tells the gun control lobby what they want to hear and ties that misinformation into progress on crime rates!
The gun issue is one of identity rather than about safety. To want to ban guns is a political tribe identifier more than anything. This of course was imported from the US as so much of our elite opinion and thought is.
Perhaps local control to reflect local norms would be a decent compromise. After all, why should rural Southern Alberta have to live under the same gun laws as in Montreal? We aren't the same culture with the same concerns.
Life sentences without parole are illegal and besides, criminals don't think they will ever be caught.
If these draconian laws were brought in, expect every traffic stop with a gun in the car to involve a firefight
I think this won’t move the needle much - the Trudeau Libs have basically tapped out the demographic that responds to scaremongering about guns (neurotic urban/suburban women AKA Karens).
"20 per cent of Canadian gun owners thought pellet guns, BB guns, and manual-action firearms such as bolt-action rifles should be illegal". That's ridiculous. Something waaaaaay off there.
No kidding. Something is majorly wrong.
Ummm ... I'd always thought that revolvers were handguns. And I'm 74 and 12(6).
I think he’s just distinguishing between magazine fed vs revolver fed pieces.
I think that he's just unnecessarily confusing the issue. The EKOS amateurs bungled the construction of the poll ... and so he just blithely let it ride.
Rule #10 - Be precise in your speech.
Your overview of polling is very insightful and certainly applies to many polls - particularly of a political nature currently. It's also a reasonably useful measure of 'knowledge' of whatever issue is being polled. Most issues are far more complex than polls can capture.
I really miss my FN-C1 😢
And I am urban Ontario with a masters degree.
Buy a premium M1 Garand ... lots a great military history there too! And designed by a guy from Quebec! Some serious Can-con, right there. Pablo would have approved when he was our Culture Czar.
Sorry to hear that Dean ( the C1 not the degree). Did you let your 12-5 lapse or was it during service in CF.? There are precious few live
ones out there now . A few ex OPP and some in museums (ours).
Steve, I’m a former 2RCR
Issue poll results should always be taken with a bucket of salt, especially on such a hot button topic. So many people are misinformed on guns. Semi-automatic shotguns are pretty common for hunting, for example. What's an "assault-style firearm"? Is it just a scary looking gun?
The author thinks that EKOS has the more likely correct numbers on gun ownership, namely just 20 per cent own only one gun, and 33 per cent have more than five. I would think gun ownership would have a Bayesian distribution with the mode being one. Six guns is a lot of guns and it is hard to believe a third of all gun owners have at least that many.
Guns are a hobby. Hobbyists rarely have just one item in a collection.
Especially so in the case of handgun owners ... I purchased my first handgun (a Smith & Wesson Model 61 for $52.50) when I was in 3rd Year university, and (52 years later) my most recent purchase was just last year ... a sweet little Norinco Olympia at a clear 'em out fire-sale price of $199.95!
That was a steal of a deal. Good for you.
I foudn this Pew study of our American friends. 29% of gun owners, own 5 or more guns:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
Makes me think I too was misinformed on guns.
"I would think" now there's a clue as to what is " hard to believe"..Bayes notwithstanding.
Assault style rifles are what you see painted on the side of transport trucks driven by Kalistani ex-pats.
Rabbit hole indeed.
I think back in time at the end of Parliament before Christmas rise in 2022. The dithering, misdirecting and downright fibs by the Liberals peddling their new gun control bill blew up in their faces and a “pause” was announced to regroup.
The wonderful editors at The Line suggested that the Liberals had gone to the gun control well once too often and finally got trapped by their own cleverness.
Parsing through the polling information in this article, I think about The Line comments from last Christmas about gun control and if lessons were learned and if the wedge tactics have run out of steam? If the Liberals are looking at similar information, continuing to pursue it would seem to be a save the furniture tactic to hold on to a diminishing urban base.
P.S. A typical Friday Night in downtown Toronto:
today's Toronto Star -- "Four people in hospital after overnight shootings in Cabbagetown, Toronto police say. Two victims are in hospital with life-threatening injuries, while two others are in critical condition. "
I suspect that the demographic that is likely to be swayed by this bit of Liberal virtue signaling, believes that no one should ever have a firearm, in an urban setting, or, perhaps, anywhere at all. So, for them, “the facts” don’t really matter.
However, anyone concerned about gun crime - in Toronto at least - could profitably begin with a Google search: “Google image,” “shooting” “Toronto”. Because that shows the human face of gun crime, (shooters and victims), which is both gang-related and linked to identity-communities that are difficult to police – identities that also provide some of the “social glue” that sticks these gangs together.
On the other hand, as we know from the “carding controversy” there is a lot squeamishness about even keeping track of “who’s who” on the streets, let alone tying to determine whether they are armed. So, it is hard to imagine any additional scrutiny of illegal guns, despite their obvious impact on those communities. And despite the spillover effects, like the death of innocent passers-by.
Indeed, I suspect that unless the law of search and seizure is modified (which would require using the “notwithstanding clause”) so that unlawful weapons can be treated like asbestos (i.e. like a pernicious agent, that is proactively rooted out, whether or not anyone is “penalized”), then there is little that can be done to stem the proliferation of handguns that are flowing through our porous borders.
I doubt that stiffer sentences will work; and, anyway, that, too, would require the use of the notwithstanding clause. Plus a clear-eyed consideration of who is likely to be jailed and, just as important, how quickly they will get out. For some will have noticed how often those on parole or on bail, are also illegally-armed.
I sometimes wonder: what if the guns were just admitted into evidence, despite any problems with the search – perhaps compensating the miscreant with some damages for the breach of his “rights” or “privacy”? Might a jury decide that?
However, idle musing aside: no progress is likely to come from the Liberals, who have vowed never to use the “notwithstanding clause” for anything.
Moreover, any decision to actually cracks down on illegal weapons is likely to pose real tradeoffs in respect of civil liberties and will also likely have a disparate impact on particular identity groups, where the possession of a handgun has acquired a cultural resonance or is the tool of an illicit trade.
From reading other posts it is clear that Tim Thurley is an apologist for the gun lobby. He is entitled to his opinion but understand Tim that a large majority of the population would like to see much tighter gun controls. I am a strong Conservative, active in the party, and I find much of what you say and claim to be mere sophistry.
I wrestled with responding, as much as Tim anguishes to be fair and balanced in every article he presents on this theme. Tim truly wishes to consider all perspectives and has spent years researching the topic.
Now that you have dispensed with your ad hominem and personal opinion, perhaps you would be kind enough to present a fully researched rebuttal that your peers can critique. The floor is yours. You indicate that you have clarity.
Perhaps you could begin by being kind enough to clarify the relationship between being a strong, active Conservative and your finding of sophistry, and move on to defining "other posts" more rigorously.
The numbers in the polls don't care about anyone's feelings. Canada already has some of the tightest gun control in the world, among other things.
This naive notion that a benevolent government can protect people from themselves and create a better world is utter Canadian nonsense.
In the theoretical world the numbers shouldn't have anything to do with a person's feelings. Unfortunately logical policy design is from the real world numbers that complicate data interpretation. That is exactly what some actors take advantage of.
As Tim pointed out, the more engaged your are in an issue, and the more knowledgeable you are about it, the less likely you are to give a flippant, emotional, or brush off the pollster answer to get back to your chores.