https://oodmag.com/firearm-owner-numbers-rising/
The rising number of Canadian firearm owners increased in 2023 to 2,352,504, continuing the trend. Ontario's PAL holders also increased.
Printable View
https://oodmag.com/firearm-owner-numbers-rising/
The rising number of Canadian firearm owners increased in 2023 to 2,352,504, continuing the trend. Ontario's PAL holders also increased.
Excellent! We will need to continue fighting back against Liberl idiot gun confiscation!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeghanOOD
Entirely the wrong conclusion on this headline, the number of PAL issued does not necessarily equate to firearm ownership increase.
I know a number of people who have a PAL and do not own any firearms, they took the course out of general interest. There are others who have PAL,s only because they were needed for work purposes like armed security guards.
A whole bunch more younger generation have PAL,s and never got around to buying a firearms.
We will not know how many firearms are legally in the hands of Canadians and cannot advocate for them because of the past Conservative policies and abolishing the gun registry.
Another case of be careful what you wish for in case you get it.
How can you better the lives of gun owners if you cannot articulate how large a lobby you represent.
You are sort of right. Though the number of guns owned is a moot point as we all know guns don't elect leaders, people elect Leaders. So to me if there are more pal holders that means there are more gun ownership sympathizers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
In any case post got my spidey sense tingling as I feel its more likely click bait for another con/lib monkey fight. Keep it civil or thread will be shut down faster than a non confidence vote.
That's a foolish argument - that you can't advocate for them because you don't know who actually has how many guns registered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
There is only one reason for a government to know who has what firearms stored where.
Because you have now no registry nobody in the pro gun crowd can say with any certainty how big the group is that they represent and in the same manner the anti gun crowd can make any allegation which now cannot be disputed. Lets say they allege that 50 % of gun owners possess those terrible AR15 or other assault type rifles , now undisputed. Even the government of any political stripe cannot come to the defense of the gun owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
If you feel this way perhaps you should have shut it down at POST #2 WHERE IT DEFINATELY SEEMED TO TURN CLICK BAIT FOR A CON/LIB MONKEY FIGHT.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
If a security guard working for Brinks needs a PAL, that would not imply to me he/she would be a gun ownership sympathizer, they simply need that card for employment.
If governments hammered criminals the same way they uselessly persecute firearm owners,society would be a lot better off. Just sayin'.......
I believe for the vast majority of hunters they have in no way been "hammered" by the government, I still have ALL the firearms I have had for the past 50 years or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
True that! I would like to buy a handgun for target shooting with my restricted permit but unfortunately that's too risky for the public... lolQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Hunters aren't the only people who use firearms. Others have been horrendously impacted by draconian regulations far more than hunters,competition shooters for example all the while giving criminals a literal free reign. Government policy regarding all things firearm related is wrong headed at every level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Oh well we will all be OK when Pierre gets into power, all the handgun guys will get their privilege's restored, our AR 15 weekend warriors will be blasting away at pretend enemy positions at the range.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I am sure he will try and bring in minimum mandatory sentences once again just like Harper did and once again they will get shot down by the Supreme Court. Not to be outdone Doug is promising to build lots of new jails, following the example of the USA some 30 years ago did not work for them and will not work for us.
Another 2 billion dollar boondoggle by the libs where firearms are concerned. Sound familiar. Nothing in this world is certain but i am pretty certain that if 2 billion was spent on stopping/reducing the flow of illegal guns across the border instead of targeting law abiding citizens a whole lot more lives would be saved. But hey why target criminals when we can waste 2 billion harassing law abiding citizens.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...a5aab6f1&ei=48
Who cares if that happens - they are not the criminals causing the problems. Target the criminals - last i checked it was not a crime to use firearms at a range - although maybe you think it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Well said brother!Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
Just because you have all your firearms does not mean others didn't loose theirs .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Not everyone drives a Toyota lol.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
Definitely.. then it wouldn't give reasons for them to punish the non criminal for the criminals actions . We see it all over we pay more or loose out on that ,because of criminals lol. Instead of the law abiding citizens being punished criminals need to be taught a lesson.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
If crime pays make it not pay and do the time they deserve.
Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk
I am afraid your living in a Utopian world, not going to happen. After almost 4 decades in policing in a very busy downtown area a increase in crime and less respect for the Police.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
In that time period we had back to back governments, none of them got the job done despite the best efforts of the police services.
The "legal industrial complex" is a big machine with everybody making out pretty good, the more crime increases the greater need for "pay duty officers" so they are happy. The more crime increases happier lawyers who defend the criminals, happier court officials and judges. The more crime increases the greater the fear of crime, the need for more officers and bigger salaries.
I have given the solution on here for about 16 years, jail must be very harsh and a place you do not want to go to and never return to.
Location for jails so far isolated there is zero chance of escaping and surviving, food and water available as a reward for hard labor.
I am pretty sure there were not many repeat offenders in the Russian Gulag system.
Looks like I am getting carried away with my own ideas of prison Utopia.
With friends like these you don't need enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
An increased gun ownership can result in an increase to the restrictions, which in turn could potentialy result in an incremental loss of priveledges such as the recent restricted gun sales.
We, as gun owners, can follow one of two general paths.
1. We can continue to operate as individuals, jump up and down, and complain when our priveledges are incremnentaly reduced
2. We can join together and show more response to society's gun concerns and lobby the government for a more challenging PAL test, more accountability for gun use/storage, and an increased overal difficulty and cost to the process
In scenario 1 we will gradually loose priveledges, in scenario 2 we keep privledges.
In the US there seems to be an initiative put forth by Matthew McConaughey which the governrment should take action that can save lives without infringing on second amendment rights. He takes an impartial approach which creates inclusion from both sides. Ulitimately, gun ownership is retained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marker
This is a very good post and the problem I see is that gun owners who I agree are very law abiding should have been a little more sensitive to the Canadian publics concern about guns in general.
I advocated on here for years that the gun REGISTRY was a pretty reasonable approach to indicate to the public that we are :
Law Abiding
Are prepared to account for the whereabouts of our guns.
Are prepared to store them properly and report any theft immediately.
But what we saw was an extreme position taken by the various gun rights lobby groups to act as a political force and opposed the registry.
I have not meet any hunters for instance who opposed the registry and the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners did comply and register their guns.
So the money on the registry was already spent, the system was up and running and MOST importantly we looked like A REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE BUCH OF FOLKS.
It was the more EXTREME element IMHO with gun rights views fueled by gun companies and our American cousins and by a POLITICAL PARTY in Canada who decided they needed the registry gone.
I warned everybody on here that the Liberals and gun rights groups would FIGHT BACK and as it turns out got even MORE EXTREME in their demands.
Guess what you got back to back Liberal Governments backed by the anti gun NDP as a result and we have the situation we have today.
We also have Police Services placed in a much more difficult situation to investigate gun crimes and even to RETURN STOLEN GUNS TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNERS when recovered.
Gun owners in Canada will not be standing together as one entity because you have many many sub groups LIBERALS, NDPers, Conservatives, The Bloc.
Divide that again by hunters, target shooters, assault rifle enthusiasts, so no we will not all be rowing this boat in the same direction.
So getting back to the thread if we accept that PAL ownership is up in Canada and most on here accept that means more people own guns, it will be then natural to expect the Police Services to assume you own guns and what the implications of that might mean?
I am a hunter and I am and always was very opposed to the long gun registry!
Mainly because it did nothing to stop the illegal gun trade in Canada...
Its purpose was not to stop the illegal gun trade ONLY, the purpose was to make gun owners accountable for their guns, to ensure safe storage and have a method to trace guns back to their source.Quote:
Originally Posted by bellerivercrossbowhunter
How do officers retrieve guns on a court ordered prohibition if they do not know if the prohibited person now has guns. The registry told them the guns owned and bye and large where they could be located.
If a prohibited person lets say who has been convicted of threatening his ex spouse to shoot her, their is no way now of taking their guns if they do not voluntarily turn them in or even knowing what they own,
sure they have a PAL but the road ends there.
Your home gets broken into and your guns collection is stolen, if you have no serial numbers you can say goodbye to your guns because a description of the make and model will not be enough as most all CPIC checks are done by serial number exclusively.
Your only hope of recovery is a diligent LOCAL officers recognizing a particular description of guns from a particular break and enter or theft.
Your opinion of the gun registry is vastly different from any gun owner I have ever met. More in line to a power tripping cop or lefty politician. Registry was the first step in the liberals confiscation plan and nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Firearm competitors of all stripes are NOT the people dealing drugs and shooting up neighborhoods killing innocent victims or targeting other gangbangers and paying organized criminals to import firearms into the country illegally. They should get ALL firearms returned,especially, the much-maligned,specifically designed for the civilian market semi-auto Armalite rifles so conveniently misnamed and vilified by the alt-leftist media, know-nothing BS artists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
The mere fact that handguns have been registered and strictly controlled since 1938,but,today are proliferating among the criminal element at an alarming rate despite of it, is in-yer-face testament to the futility of any registration system. Ripping up hundreds of millions of dollars on a continuing basis for a useless failed system only serves to show further failed political ideology. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same useless thing over and over again expecting a different result.
In your humble opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyJR
My opinion seems to have been shared by Canadians who voted not once but twice lefty government and reflected the Majority of Canadians views and the gun issue was front and center in both elections.
The registry was an excellent tool for keeping gun owners honest, storing their guns properly and assisting the police in the confiscation of guns from prohibited persons.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The added bonus of tracking guns back to scene scenes and return of stolen guns to owners.
The money was only WASTED when an already UP AND RUNNING system was demolished for Political gain.
I disagree that it was the registry that "kept owners honest" (certainly not that they were an issue in the first place),but,rather the licensing system with it's educational attributes that I truly believe works, without doubt, above all else. As for returning stolen guns to their owners,I submit they could be counted on one hand,hardly justifying wasting taxpayer dollars on a failed program on a continuing basis. We were tossing good money after bad for no tangible result. The registry was useless,then,and it's still useless,now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I have a few LEO's and CBSA in my family and we had the discussion about firearms registry.
If they have to enter a residence or search a vehicle with a search warrant, they always presume a firearm is in the house/car.
Do you honestly think if the person they are after has no registered restricted guns or PAL they will just walk in with guns in their holster!
Boys never try to be logical with a Liberal you will get a headache. lol
I was going to reply again until I read your last sentence, lol. I will save the headache.Quote:
Originally Posted by bellerivercrossbowhunter
Your few LEO,s and CBSA family may not have done that many searches first off and I do agree most Police officers are aware firearms can be anywhere and officers will have guns drawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by bellerivercrossbowhunter
In many cases where a search is going to executed in a home with or without warrant a SWAT team will be in the lead for entry onto the premises.
But the advantage of the registry is that lets say a search is conducted and a registered firearm is not recovered that chances of bail for a suspect are reduced.
A guy gets charged for domestic assault and has a 12 gu registered in his name, do you really think he, getting bail without that gun first being located and in the custody of the police.
Any officers I worked with or trained, not a one of them through getting rid of the registry was a good idea, why would they, it makes their job more difficult.
Therein lies the rub. My experience with us country coppers was the exact opposite. What I heard the most was "show me one crook that's dumb enough to register a firearm that can be traced directly back to themselves". Anything else was nonsense. Likewise,none of our people would ever attend even a simple trespassing complaint and not expect at some point to have a firearm involved because almost every farm,cottage or rural residence had at least one. We always governed ourselves accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Despite that caution you say exists and I believe it does, IMHO far more rural officers in the past have been gunned down in relation to City officers?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Society has really changed and not for the better and easy access to firearms has not helped. Even working in the worse place in the city for the longest number of years I can remember my firearms was holstered most all of the time in hundreds and hundreds of arrests. City officers today are much more aware of the probability of handguns showing up but most criminals even today will leg it even if they are armed, we still do not get many shoot outs like what is witnessed in the U.S.