March 03, 2018

Liberals “scapegoat” lawful Canadian gun owners after Florida shooting

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

 

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale is promising more rules for lawful Canadian gun owners in the next few years and is taking encouragement from the American calls for gun control after the recent school shooting in Florida.

Goodale told Ipolitics:

“we're working on the final detail right now. It's just about ready to go to the house. I hope to table it in Parliament within the next few weeks.”

Those previously promised reforms include requiring gun retailers to cooperate with police investigations and to keep sales and inventory records - like a registry.

The Liberals previously promised to “tighten up” rules around transport permits for restricted firearms and it would seem that accosting lawful firearms owners will be the only Liberal election promise they may actually keep.

But it’s really not about keeping promises. Since when do Liberals do that anyway? This is about changing the channel away from the Liberals disastrous trip to India and preying on our emotions about the Parkland shooting to do it.

It’s shameless and unfounded.

Watch my video to see why we should all be frightened by a government that takes its policy cues from poorly coached child activists in another country, rather than evidence.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-03-05 02:08:11 -0500
Is that really what you want to compare to America? Well hey, at least it’s not as bad as Brazil.

LOL.
commented 2018-03-05 02:07:17 -0500
Bob Rock yet 710,000 civilians own guns in Japan.
commented 2018-03-05 02:03:47 -0500
Bob Rock funny how many guns your celeb heroes had at the Oscars. FUCKING HYPOCRITES!!
commented 2018-03-05 02:03:04 -0500
Bob Rock that is one more reason to want to own a gun, the government prohibiting self defense does not have your protection in mind. Why does that elude you?
commented 2018-03-05 02:02:09 -0500
Bob Rock did you miss High River? They only went to certain houses and made a mess in their fanatic quest for guns. You trust people like that you are lost.
commented 2018-03-05 02:00:21 -0500
By the way, the same self defense laws also apply to anything that can be used as a weapon, so it’s not a gun only issue. If someone breaks into your house and you feel threatened, you will get charged if you bash their head in with a baseball bat and have to prove that you were defending yourself against being killed yourself.
commented 2018-03-05 02:00:07 -0500
Bob Rock the US is hardly the worst when it comes to gun violence. Brazil has strict gun control and they are far worse.
commented 2018-03-05 01:59:15 -0500
Bob Rock you do realize long gun murders WENT UP after those laws were enacted and Handgun laws have not done a damn thing.
commented 2018-03-05 01:53:59 -0500
Yes, that is mostly hunting and for sport as opposed to self defense and gun porn LIKE AMERICA.

Like British gun culture, Canadian gun culture is also largely represented by sport-shooting and hunting and less on self-defense. Sport-shooting has always been a popular activity for both gun-owners and non-gun-owners in Canada. It is also a bridge and a leeway between American and British attitudes towards firearms. The provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Alberta have large populations of hunters and shooters
commented 2018-03-05 01:49:24 -0500
If you know you are not living in the US and are aware of Canada’s decades long laws, then stop making a case for guns in Canada as if you are American. The second amendment does not apply to you in this country. This is Canada – a country that doesn’t have a hard on for guns.
commented 2018-03-05 01:48:13 -0500
The facts on gun culture:
“According to the United Nations, Canada ranks third among the developed
western coutries (behind the US and Norway) in civilian ownership of
firearms.40 A 1992 survey sponsored by the UN reported that 26% of
Canadians, over 7,000,000 people, own firearms.41 A 1991 Justice
Department telephone survey indicated there were an average of 2.67
firearms in one of every four Canadian Households, with 71% having
access to a rifle, 64% to a shotgun, and 12% to a handgun. They
calculated that there are over six million legally owned firearms in
Canada. Other authorities insist that this estimate is much too low and
that there are at least 20,000,000 rifles and shotguns in Canada; as
many, per capita, as in the United States. 1

Even your much vaunted UN seems to think we have a gun culture in Canada. Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
commented 2018-03-05 01:45:21 -0500
I know I’m not living in the US. My family have been gun owners for decades. SO have many of the hundreds around me. Calling us yahoos doesn’t make it so. Learn something before you spout off your BS.
commented 2018-03-05 01:38:31 -0500
No, we don’t have a gun culture in Canada. We have some gun loving yahoo’s in Canada that think there are living in America and the second amendment applies to them too.

This isn’t some new thing in Canada, so I wonder why some Canadians are complaining about something that has been that way for decades.

No one is coming for your guns. That’s kooky gun nut talk. Taking away one gun will not result into the taking away of all guns. There is no slippery slope there. It’s hyperbole and fear mongering among gun lovers.

We all know which particular assault rifles people are talking about. Don’t be dumb. Someone wanting to kill a bunch of people at once are not going to use the rifle in the video. You will kill far more people with the kind of gun that mass shooters just seem to love.
commented 2018-03-05 01:04:04 -0500
“Assault rifle” Technically it is a selective fire medium caliber firearm. As mentioned anything can be a weapon- gold club, butcher knife. chainsaw etc. Any gun can be an assault rifle if it is used to assault someone. What Bob and Andrew mean by it is any gun that looks unconventional and especially with a pistol grip stock.

Here is an example of a rifle that was used in both world wars to assault Germans, Italians and Japanese. You can buy one in any gun store in Canada and are probably the most common rifle in Canada.

WARNING! This is video is very graphic and shows a rifle being shot very quickly. It may cause limp waisted, lily liveried, panty-waisted socialists to wet their pants. You have ben warned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8
commented 2018-03-05 00:55:59 -0500
BOB ROCK
You are making a false argument. Let’s say you own 20 different kinds of guns: restricting one gun has no bearing on the 19 other guns you own. You can kiss all those guns as much as you want.
________________________________________________________________________________
Until like in Australia and England when they decide that the rest of them have to go as well. Then we kiss them goodbye as well because a bunch of know nothings think they are experts on something they know almost nothing about.

The difference with guns and cars is that there has never been a government or anti=car group who have stated that the would like all guns eliminated from private ownership. So every attempt to ban one type of gun is the thin edge of the wedge and if you hand any honesty you would admit as much.

Furthermore why the fixation one one type of gun? They are all the same really. One is not more dangerous than another. Our genius betters in government have made 25 and 32 caliber handguns prohibited even though they are relative pipsqueaks. I can still own a .50 S&W no problem. What dumbass decided this?

25 ACP muzzle energy: 50-150 ft lbs
32 ACP muzzle energy: 92-270 ft lbs

357 mag muzzle energy: 410-802 ft lbs

44 mag muzzle energy: 513 – 1650 ft lbs

50 S&W muzzle energy: 941- 3032 ft lbs.

All stats taken from ballistics101.com

Even the lowly .22 has up to 360 ft lbs of muzzle energy. There are hundreds of thousands of 22s in Canada with millions of rounds fired every year. They are legal but not a 25 or a 32. Our gun laws make no sense because they are made by people who
a) don’t like guns
b) people who don’t understand guns.

The opinion of people like you who do not at least have an PAL mean nothing and who’ll not be listened to.

In Canada we own all of the above except the first two. Why? On what basis? What genius government expert decided these two are so lethal that that have to be prohibited? Why do people like you trust the government especially a socialist one to make rational laws?
commented 2018-03-05 00:39:11 -0500
Bob Rock they have decided pretty benign guns are bad , why should we trust them not to deny all guns eventually?
commented 2018-03-05 00:37:11 -0500
Bob Rock AR-15 just looks scary, i bet the Florida shooter picked it because it is in the news. Pit Bulls have a bad name right now due to sensationalism and ignorant people.
commented 2018-03-05 00:32:05 -0500
BOB ROCK commented 2018-03-04 15:33:51 -0500

Here, from the Criminal Code of Canada Section 34, is the self-defense provision in view:

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
© the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Bob this sounds good to those who don’t know any better. If you use a gun to defend yourself in your house you will be charged 100% of the time. You will probably win in court but you will be bankrupt for your efforts. Here is the reality:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/05/ontario_man_acquitted_of_charges_in_home_attack_says_case_sets_self_defence_precedent.html

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7411253-hamilton-man-charged-in-shooting-defending-home-son/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/19212/meet-canadian-whos-now-being-prosecuted-self-aaron-bandler

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/im-glad-he-shot-him-newfoundland-man-up-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader

https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/5ilmqu/man_charged_after_pointing_pellet_gun_at_intruder/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/abubakar-kasim/using-force-against-intruders-canada_b_1852161.html

http://edmontonsun.com/2015/01/13/defending-self-defence/wcm/e42c94c2-5cdc-4548-81dd-9a526eba2fbc

Self defense is severely circumscribed by more conditions than are typically found in the United States. A wide range of self defensive weapons (e.g., Mace, pepper spray, small handguns, tasers and stun guns) are prohibited, ownership is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. For all practical purposes, it has been impossible to own a handgun for self protection since 1977. Recent firearms legislation now requires firearms to not only be unloaded when stored in one’s residence but must also be put under lock and key. Judging from news reports, many of those who use a firearm to defend themselves, are charged with one or more criminal violations �� unsafe storage, careless use of firearm, or possession of a prohibited weapon �� and then they have to prove in court that the firearm had been used in self defense.

Another important difference between the United States and Canada is enforcement. Anyone who uses a weapon in self defense is likely to be charged in Canada and have to defend themselves in court, even if the attacker is not injured seriously. The charges may be “possession of a prohibited weapon,” or “careless use/storage of a firearm,” rather than “assault” or “attempted murder.” The Crown apparently is determined to discourage people from forcefully defending themselves.

In Montreal, a citizen who struggled with an robber who placed a gun against his head was referred to the crown prosecutor for possible murder charges after the gun discharged, killing the robber (the Crown considered but declined to prosecute). A store owner who armed himself and arrested four thieves in his store was termed a “vigilante” in the press (Montreal Gazette, “Spectators cheer as vigilante shopkeeper with shotgun goes free,” 9 Aug 95, p. A8). An American couple were barred from Canada for five years, and fined $700, because they had a can of pepper spray to ward off dogs when they were jogging (Montreal Gazette, “Tourism loses its spice,” 8 Jul 95, p. A12)….

Given the Canadian legal climate it is not surprising that the police are not informed of the use of guns for self defense in the overwhelming majority of situations where the gun was not fired. To report such an incident is just asking to be charged with some offense.
http://www.canfirearms.ca/Skeeter/Buckner/Chapter%2010.htm
commented 2018-03-05 00:17:51 -0500
BOB ROCK
We don’t have a gun culture in Canada and thank God for that.
________________________________________________________________________________Obviously we do or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Where I live it it quite prominent. Our gun club has 350 members- mostly so they can shoot handguns which for some inexplicable reason is the only place they can legally be shot. Not on your own property even if you own 10,000 acres in the southern saskatchewan or near the arctic.

The number of non club members far exceeds that club membership.
commented 2018-03-04 20:42:23 -0500
Also, Andrew, If guns were treated as vehicles are today, we’d be able to keep them loaded with ammunition (with the safety on), keep them in a safe, convenient and easily accessible (for the owner) place in our homes (not locked unloaded in a safe, where they are useless as deterrence), and take them almost anywhere. In other words, the reign of criminals and terrorists in North America would be over. Just too logical, eh?
commented 2018-03-04 20:13:44 -0500
‘Assault rifle’ is an anti-gun propaganda term without any technical legitimacy. Any firearm can be used to commit an assault, just any vehicle (i.e. car or truck) can, yet we don’t hear the term ‘assault vehicle’ used by the gunophobes when a terrorist assaults people with a truck. That’s because they are gunophobes, not truckophobes.
commented 2018-03-04 19:52:22 -0500
BOB ROCK what is a “Military Grade Assault Rifle”?
Please explain and give examples, models, make, caliber, action type, rate of fire etc.
I would be very interested in your answers, also explain the term “Military Grade” as pertaining to rifles.
I am willing to lay bets that you can not answer either question properly or correctly.
commented 2018-03-04 18:05:59 -0500
98% of mass murders in the US occur in so-called “gun-free zones”. It almost seems as if criminals didn’t obey the law. The most gun control city in the US, Chicago, has catastrophic gun crime. Liberals are by far the stupidest m0r0ns human society has ever produced. They are absolutely substandard.
commented 2018-03-04 17:06:11 -0500
Andrew, you contradict yourself without realizing it. You state, “the majority of Canadians… don’t have a practical use for guns.”, and then, “preventing tragedies is a better strategy than trying to stop them midway through”. What you and GUNOPHOBES in general don’t understand is that one of the practical uses Canadians and Americans have for guns is to PREVENT TRAGEDIES. It’s called DETERRENCE. Your second statement is quite true, but it completely contradicts your first statement, which is completely untrue, and until GUNOPHOBES wake up, overcome their irrational fear of guns, and realize this, we will continue to suffer these tragedies.

You might have heard of deterrence, although one truly wonders… It’s the reason we haven’t been annihilated by certain hostile foreign powers who have (or soon may have) the means to annihilate us and would love to do so, and constantly remind us of that. But they don’t and won’t, as long as we have credible deterrence, i.e. the means to annihilate them in return. This deterrence keeps us safe from tyrannical, criminal and terrorist regimes that don’t want to be vaporized. Would you have the West unilaterally give up that deterrence and hope for the best? Do so, and we will be annihilated.

Here’s what the history of deaths by guns in the U.S. shows: (a) the victims are almost always people who have no deterrence in the form of comparable firepower at their ready disposal, and (b) the perpetrators know usually where the soft targets are and choose to target them, as opposed to hardened targets, i.e. people armed with guns. Their preferred targets include schools, colleges workplaces, shopping malls, and even military bases in the U.S. where military personnel have (incredibly) not been allowed to carry firearms. Remember Fort Hood, Washington D.C. and Chattanooga? The perpetrators knew those facilities didn’t allow their personnel to carry guns. They NEVER attack where they know they will be fired back at, only where they know they won’t be.

The rational mind learns something from this, namely that deterrence is the key to preventing tragedies, and lack of deterrence is the key to ensuring them. But that strange phenomenon, the gunophobic mind, is not rational with respect to this issue, because the gunophobic mind lives in (a) irrational fear of guns, and (b) denial of the clear fact that: (a) criminals and terrorists with guns + non-criminals and non-terrorists without guns = death and mass death of innocent people; (b) criminals and terrorists with guns + non-criminals and non-terrorists with guns = deterrent prevention of mass tragedies.

Thanks to the cultural Marxist gunophobe mentality now prevalent in the West (other than the U.S. to some extent) we are now in a situation in which we can expect terrorist attacks on a regular basis in various venues, reaching, for example, right up to the Parliament of Canada, as was demonstrated by a TERRORIST WHO CAME WITHIN SECONDS OF KILLING THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER AND MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS CAUCUS. So don’t tell me we don’t have a SERIOUS THREAT OF MASS DEADLY ATTACKS AGAINST CANADIANS!!!

If that terrorist had gotten into the caucus room before he was taken out, it would have been a terrible TRAGEDY (you know, the thing you say you want to prevent?), unless there were at least some people armed with GUNS in that room; then, most likely, some lives would have been lost, but the shooter would have been stopped, saving some lives. It was sheer luck that he was taken out before he got in.

But this really misses the main point, which is PREVENTING THE ATTACKS IN THE FIRST PLACE! What if the terrorist knew that a number of the people in that room would be armed with loaded and ready guns? Then the incident would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. Because terrorist are evil, but not generally stupid enough to hit HARD TARGETS. That is called DETERRENCE. So DETERRENCE IS WHAT PREVENTS TRAGIC ATTACKS and GUNS ARE DETERRENCE that PREVENTS TRAGEDIES.

When will the gunophobes across this country come out of ABJECT DENIAL and realize that the ONLY MEANS OF PREVENTING CONSTANT TRAGEDY ON A MASS SCALE IS DETERRENCE, AND THAT THE ONLY EFFECTIVE DETERRENCE AGAINST TERRORISTS IS THE SURE AND CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE BY THEM THAT THEY WILL DIE IN A HAIL OF CITIZEN BULLETS IF THEY TRY ANY ATTACK.

Enough with your pathetic hand-wringing liberal denial of reality and your rationalization for the subjugation of our people to living in fear in the venues of our daily lives (I cannot go into a mall, a big-box store or an airport anymore without thinking about an escape plan, should a terrorist come in and start shooting), and your GUNOPHOBIC mentality that permits the free reign of armed criminals and terrorists to operate their deadly behavior in deterrence-free zones and protection-free zones. They have had an absolute field day of killing sprees in the Western world in the last number of years, thanks to your ilk, which, as far as I am concerned, are the unwitting enablers of these violent scum.
commented 2018-03-04 15:33:51 -0500
Al,

I was speaking generally since American gun lovers are crying at the thought of AR-15 being banned, meanwhile they still have thousands of other guns that they can use for their protective and hunting needs.

Boo hoo.

You talk as if you live in America. We don’t have a gun culture in Canada and thank God for that.

Here, from the Criminal Code of Canada Section 34, is the self-defense provision in view:

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
© the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.