Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 137
  1. #21
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    RB did the math of the money they (Liberals) said they would commit to a buyback and the number of guns they say they will confiscate and I believe it worked out to $1000 per rifle.
    I don't remember that.

    Bill Blair, who served as the government's pointman on gun control, said there are about 250,000 of the weapons now legally owned, with an average value of about $1,500 each. The buyback program is expected to cost between $400 million and $600 million, he said.
    -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lib...2019-1.5290950
    $1500 * 250,000 = $375 million.
    Therefore the difference to get it up to $400 to $600 million, is possibly enforcement costs.

    I'm assuming someone in the Liberal campaign did some kind of math. Perhaps they overestimated the cost, perhaps they underestimated the number of firearms. Perhaps they got both right, but then the politicians rounded whichever way they wanted.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Two For Sure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    That won't happen here. RB did the math of the money they (Liberals) said they would commit to a buyback and the number of guns they say they will confiscate and I believe it worked out to $1000 per rifle. That's 50% of the value of mine. I know many are cheaper but I doubt the Liberals will be paying actual values. Probably a flat rate for type (i.e. all AR-15 "variants" are $1000, all SKS's are $150).
    That is the average per rifle but not necessarily what each individual owner will receive. Australia, New Zealand and the UK used similar compensation models for firearms they banned and Canada would be wise to follow their lead. Should the government not treat owners fairly it would end up in court and the Canadian legal precedence when government wants to take property away heavily favors the owners.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    11,185
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    I don't remember that.

    $1500 * 250,000 = $375 million.
    Therefore the difference to get it up to $400 to $600 million, is possibly enforcement costs.

    I'm assuming someone in the Liberal campaign did some kind of math. Perhaps they overestimated the cost, perhaps they underestimated the number of firearms. Perhaps they got both right, but then the politicians rounded whichever way they wanted.
    I seem to recall the post (swore it was yours, maybe I saw it on twitter lol) said that of whatever amount they'd promised (the $400 or $600 million) a certain amount was going to something else other than strictly the buy-back and that had left $200 million for said buyback.


    Quote Originally Posted by Two For Sure View Post
    That is the average per rifle but not necessarily what each individual owner will receive. Australia, New Zealand and the UK used similar compensation models for firearms they banned and Canada would be wise to follow their lead. Should the government not treat owners fairly it would end up in court and the Canadian legal precedence when government wants to take property away heavily favors the owners.
    You have a lot of faith in the Liberals compensating fairly. How on earth could they possibly do that (assuming they want to, and I don't believe that for a second)? Will gun owners be required to provide a receipt? Will they be paying current replacement value or original cost? What about accessories that are rendered worthless after the ban? No, gun owners will not be receiving any sort of fair compensation.
    Dictionary of the future:
    Global Warming was a popular computer simulation game,
    where the only way to win was not to play.

  4. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Doug_M

    firemachine69 (10-17-2019), Gunrunner (10-17-2019)

  5. #24
    Senior Member Gunrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,396
    Again a tip of the hat to Harper, the CPC & c19.
    If the c68 LGR had not been repealed and was up to date and current we'd be turning in those "assault rifles" (AR-15s, Ruger Mini-XXs, SKS ... etc.) RIGHT NOW.

    * there will be NO buyback ... just surrender & confiscation in Canada. The Liberals had Canadian gun owners pegged for sheep after High River.

    Will we prove them wrong or right?
    NFA member
    NRA Life Member
    OFAH member

  6. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Two For Sure View Post
    That is the average per rifle but not necessarily what each individual owner will receive. Australia, New Zealand and the UK used similar compensation models for firearms they banned and Canada would be wise to follow their lead. Should the government not treat owners fairly it would end up in court and the Canadian legal precedence when government wants to take property away heavily favors the owners.
    Canada would be wise to not engage in this kind of virtue signalling, statist, BS!

    I don't care how much they offer me when they are forcing me to hand in personal property I don't want to hand in because I am NOT going to hand it in. I will fight them in court though.

  7. #26
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Two For Sure View Post
    Australia did something similar in the 90's and compensated owners quite fairly for banned guns. The owners took their cheques, often directly, to the nearest gun store to buy the guns they could still own.
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, ďfairĒ about stealing your money, then stealing your property, followed by giving some of your money back; even if it is sufficient money to replace the property with something you didnít want, or you would already have had it instead of what was stolen.

    Gun bans are evil and must never be allowed to stand!
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isnít hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  8. The Following 12 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked

    awndray (10-17-2019), Doug_M (10-17-2019), ESnel (10-17-2019), firemachine69 (10-17-2019), Gunrunner (10-17-2019), infidel29 (10-20-2019), kennymo (10-17-2019), M1917 Enfield (10-17-2019), shootemup604 (10-17-2019), Sinbad (10-17-2019), Suputin (10-17-2019), TheMerlin (10-17-2019)

  9. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,351
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, “fair” about stealing your money, then stealing your property, followed by giving some of your money back; even if it is sufficient money to replace the property with something you didn’t want, or you would already have had it instead of what was stolen.

    Gun bans are evil and must never be allowed to stand!
    WORD! My brother.

  10. #28
    Senior Member Two For Sure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, “fair” about stealing your money, then stealing your property, followed by giving some of your money back; even if it is sufficient money to replace the property with something you didn’t want, or you would already have had it instead of what was stolen.

    Gun bans are evil and must never be allowed to stand!
    Like it or not there is a long history of expropriation of property for "the public good" in Canada and going back into UK history. If the government proceeds with its campaign promise the objective should be make it as complicated, lengthy, politically painful (within the law) and expensive as possible. Slogans aren't going to get the job done.

    The biggest challenge will be convincing the owners of the banned firearms not to be enticed by the compensation. Should the government follow the examples of the UK, Australia and now New Zealand and offer reasonably attractive amounts for guns and accessories then history will repeat itself and the vast majority will take the money and run.

  11. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By Two For Sure

    awndray (10-17-2019), Doug_M (10-17-2019), TheMerlin (10-17-2019)

  12. #29
    Senior Member tdod101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Onterrible
    Posts
    2,957
    You know why they call us gun nuts? Because THEY drive us nuts with asinine policy
    Insert signature here

  13. #30
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,709
    Quote Originally Posted by tdod101 View Post
    You know why they call us gun nuts? Because THEY drive us nuts with asinine policy
    Or, perhaps it is because so many have the following response when confronted by the next step in the disarmament agenda.

    “Guys, how can we minimize the damage?”

    Followed by, “Please sir, I’m a nice guy, my firearms are nice, and my games are nice. Please don’t take them away, but if you must, please rip off my neighbours and give the money to me. After all, I’m a nice guy.”

    Disgusting!
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isnít hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  14. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    Gunrunner (10-17-2019), M1917 Enfield (10-18-2019), Sinbad (10-17-2019), TheMerlin (10-17-2019)

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •