In my previous post on gun control, I discussed the changes that I think need to be made in Canada. This section will be about why I think these changes need to be made, and my next post will primarily be a FAQ to debunk many of the myths being spread by the pro-gun lobby.
Some might say my anti-gun stance makes me a lefty, but it is possible to be both a conservative and in favour of tougher gun laws (except in places like the US and a few other countries). Margaret Thatcher banned semi-automatic weapons after the Hungerford massacre in the UK in 1987, while in Australia John Howard banned them after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Both leaders were solid conservatives. In Canada, support for tougher gun laws used to enjoy popularity across the political spectrum up until the Reform Party emerged in the ‘90s. As someone who has long been a strong critic of the Reform Party and wishes the Conservatives would return to their Progressive Conservative roots, this makes a lot of sense.
Why Gun Control Works
Many factors determine murder rates, and gun control is by no means the only thing we should consider. As such, I cannot claim with 100% certainty that tougher gun laws will lower murder rates, but based on evidence, there is a high probability that would be the case. Like most laws we make, few are clear cut, most have benefits and risks, and when considering the cost/benefit analysis, one needs to exercise judgement on what is the best option. Below are some reasons I think gun control is important and necessary:
- Background checks and vetting have clearly shown to help reduce the chance of guns ending up in the wrong hands, but vetting is not 100% accurate, so there is always a chance someone will slip through the cracks. This is why I believe weapons with few redeeming features should be banned outright, even if there is only a small chance that it will be used improperly.
- For weapons that have legitimate uses such as hunting rifles, the issue becomes about weighing the risks vs. the benefits. Reasonable people can disagree on when the risks outweigh the costs.
- More guns owned means more weapons for criminals to potentially steal. Getting a gun on the black market is a lot harder than most think. You need strong connections and since most criminals are inadmissible to the US, smuggling one across the border is not easy, either. Reducing supply, alongside tougher border control is the solution.
- Economics 101 teaches you that when you reduce supply, prices will rise; holding all things equal, reduced supply also means less use. Banning smoking in many public areas is a good example of this, one of the reasons why smoking rates are much lower today than they were when it was permitted in most public places.
Likewise, Canada’s restrictive liquor laws as compared to most European countries is one reason why why our alcohol consumption rates are lower. Of course, there are many benefits from the alcohol industry in terms of jobs and it is not particularly harmful when consumed responsibly. However, there are still restrictions, which is why in Canada you cannot pick up a bottle of vodka at your local corner store like you can in many other places. Simple economics show a similar trend with guns; the more hoops you make one go through to get a gun, the less likely someone who shouldn’t have one will get it. It is not just in theory but also in practice that tougher gun laws work. Of the developed countries, the US has by far the most permissive gun laws and by far the highest murder rate. Conversely, Japan has some of the strictest gun laws and lowest murder rates. When Australia brought in tighter gun laws in 1996, they saw their murder rate fall by 59%. New Zealand had a much lower murder rate historically, but in recent years, Australia’s is lower and that can be attributed to the fact that they tightened their gun laws, while New Zealand did not. Tougher gun laws in both Finland and Germany have also seen big drops in murder rate as of late. Of course, there have been some exceptions; the handgun ban in the UK in 1997 resulted in higher murder rates over the subsequent five years, but that was largely attributed to a lack of enforcement. When enforcement was stepped up, murder rates fell, and now the UK has only 27 gun murders as compared to around 80 previously. In fact, the city of Toronto has more gun murders than all of the UK. The evidence clearly shows that tougher gun laws, when all else is held constant, will reduce murder rates.
We must also consider the social engineering front. Governments have a job to try and influence the creation of a better society. Although some on the right may hate the idea of social engineering, all governments do it to some degree. For example, strong stances against racism and homophobia have made both less socially acceptable and they are much less prevalent today than in the past. Likewise, tougher smoking laws have made smoking less socially acceptable; 50 years ago about 60% of the adult Canadian population were smokers and today only 15% smoke. Similarly, taking a tough approach on gun control sends a strong message that gun ownership should not be normalized and helps us steer away from developing a strong gun culture like in the US. If one of the goals of government is to create a more peaceful and compassionate society, tougher gun laws will help move us in that direction.
As I will discuss in my next post, some believe being able to own a gun is a sign of freedom, but I would argue this is incorrect. If you take the libertarian approach to freedom, that we should have as little government as possible, then perhaps that is true, but if you take a more liberal approach that one’s actions have impact and influence on others, one can argue more guns means less freedom. Guns cause death, and this contravenes the most fundamental freedom: the right to live
92 thoughts on “Why We need Tougher Gun Laws: Part II”
What a crock of bovine excrement
What parts are wrong or like many gun owners do you just prefer to ignore anything that debunks the argument. The reality is while not 100% conclusive, evidence strongly shows tougher gun laws reduce murder rates.
Wow…. how many credible sources would you need to see that refute your theory? You have been drinking the Koolaid. You should be encouraging everybody to own a firearm because that segment of society is statistically the lowest with regard to any crime committed. That’s because we’re taught ethics, accountability, self-control, respect and emphasise good behaviour. You should be advocating gang control, not gun control. Are you sure you’re not Wendy Cukier in drag?
Most gun owners are not the problem, but it is not 100%. Dawson shooter, Moncton shooter, Quebec City Mosque shooter, and Ecole Polytechnique shooters were licenced gun owners. Likewise guns get stolen too, so restricting access won’t stop all murders but if it saves even one life it is worth it. Owning a gun is a privilege not a right and unlike say cars which serve a strong benefit to society, gun ownership does not. I am not as per my earlier post asking for an outright ban, that would be impractical, but I do think we need to bring in further restrictions and more importantly gun ownership should not be normalized or encouraged.
So, since an motor vehicle, owned and operated by a licensed owner, has been used many times to kill and maim, we should ban automobiles? Please don’t tell me that the analogy isn’t the same. Comments like yours are not well thought out. As with any invention at any time in history, an object designed for good can and has been used for bad. A classic example, cell phones. How many people have been killed due to distracted driving? Get to the root of our issue: we said it in 1994 as we marched on Parliament Hill, and we’re saying again now, it needs to be crime control, not gun control. I hope you are never faced with a knife, bat, chain or any other object in the hands of a criminal, because you wasted your valuable time lobbying against the object, not against the criminal. “Even if it saves just one life”….. OMG, I hate that stupid statement because we would have nothing. Everything at some time has been used as a weapon. Even a person’s hands. Guess we should ban mankind….. or is that personkind? Justin, help us out with the politically correct term, will you please?
Intent matters and automobiles were created to get from point A to point B, firearms were created to kill. It is about doing a cost benefit analysis and for automobiles the benefits far outweigh the costs. For certain firearms (not all, but some like AR15) there are few benefits and many costs thus why I believe it is quite reasonable to ban it. Focusing on the person ignores the fact we’ve had multiple shootings by licenced gun owners such as Dawson Shooting, Moncton shooting, Quebec City Mosque shooting, and Ecole Polytechnique shooting. It’s not as easy as dividing people into good guys and bad guys, people who have no criminal records can snap or develop a mental health issue which makes them unsafe to own a gun.
>This is why I believe weapons with few redeeming features should be banned outright, even if there is only a small chance that it will be used improperly.
Translation: A barely trust you with a single barrel break action shotgun, all other guns are scary!
This is pure statist bullshit.
No I think it is quite reasonable. Owning a gun is a privilege in Canada not a right and I believe the default for all firearms should be prohibited and only those with a legitimate use should be permitted. We have many government restrictions on many things, we are not a libertarian country. As for statist, governments restrict all kinds of things so all countries are to varying degrees statist. Considering how dangerous firearms are and unlike other products their primary purpose is to kill, I believe it is quite reasonable to impose harsh restrictions on owning them.
Who decides what constitutes a redeeming feature Is is judged by how it looks, what caliber it is, how much fun it is to shoot? Scary is subjective and fear is usually based on ingnorance and lack of education.
Can we say the same about cars? Who in their right mind would want 300 horsepower, that vehicle was designed to break the law. Well how about the beauty, the engineering , the enjoyment of the visceral experience. All that is true of firearms as well.
Redeeming features are In the eye of the beholder. If you don’t have any knowledge of the subject your uneducated opinion is useless, harmful and dangerous.
Sure it is in the eye of the beholder and with automobiles in the case of Ontario those with governors removed can be destroyed. We also ban certain knives like switchblade knives and other weapons like brass knuckles. I wouldn’t describe myself as ignorant on this, I have researched a fair bit and you guys just don’t like my opinion. I am about saving lives and since it has been shown that easy access to guns means more murders that is why I want to restrict access while also ban ones that have little use beyond killing a lot of people quickly. We ban fully automatics so it is simply a matter of where one draws the line.
” I am about saving lives and since it has been shown that easy access to guns means more murders that is why I want to restrict access while also ban ones that have little use beyond killing a lot of people quickly.” Which is why the US murder rate today is HALF of what it was 30 years ago, all while millions more firearms are on the market, more people than ever have CCW licences, and people with those licences have a better safety record than the POLICE, right?
While the number of guns has risen, the number of households owning guns has actually fallen, otherwise fewer people are buying guns. CCW is a ridiculous idea and saying they are safer is simply untrue especially considering a number of states have constitutional carry which means anyone can get a licence, while most are shall issue and only a handful are may issue. The US murder rate is still way higher than any other industrialized country while their overall crime rate is not so I am not interested in trying something that has failed there. Gun control works well in Australia, works in UK and their problems are due to police force cuts not gun laws, while Japan who has super strict gun laws has very few murders. I realize having Japanese style gun laws is probably a step too far but still shows on balance gun control works. In addition every industrialized country has seen similar drop in murder rates regardless of gun laws due to an aging population, so I think comparing the US to others at any given time is a better indicator.
Except that you can’t argue with the RESULTS, can you? Every state that has passed a CCW law saw their murder rate DROP, not rise, so something is clearly askew in your assumptions. Additionally, those segments of the US population that own the most guns are also the least likely to commit a murder with them, and CCW holders are 1/3 as likely to commit a violent crime as sworn police officers are. The anti-gun mindset is one where you realize that YOU shouldn’t be trusted with a potentially-dangerous item, therefore, you think everyone else also shouldn’t be trusted with those items. And, when you split out the US murder and gun ownership rates by cohort, one thing clearly stands out; the murder rate among young black males. That cohort owns somewhere around 3% of all guns in the US, but commits HALF of all US murders, while the murder rate among the portion of the population that owns ~80% of all guns in the US has a murder rate barely above the Canadian average (1.9 vs. 1.7).
Wrong, murder rates have fallen in some, but in Missouri when they loosened gun laws, murder rates shot up by 25%. In constitutional carry states as long as you have no serious criminal record you get a gun so saying those are safer is complete nonsense. Maybe in May issue states where they are strict about whom they issue them to. Also as for the race part, that is simply untrue. Alaska and Wyoming are very rural and white and have lots of guns and both have significantly higher murder rates than Canada has. It’s true most murders are committed by young males, that is generally the case in all countries as younger men have highest levels of testosterone so naturally most violent and that is why gun control studies control for various factors. Explain why Japan, Australia, or UK have lower murder rates and they all have stricter gun laws while the US despite your excuses has by far the highest murder rate in the developed world. In fact I think chart #4 is quite indicative of why tougher gun laws are needed https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
“Explain why Japan, Australia, or UK have lower murder rates and they all have stricter gun laws…”
Your turn – explain Chicago’s gun death toll.
Chicago’s handgun ban was overturned by the courts in 2010 and thus their gun laws are far more permissive than Canada although still stricter, that is the state of Illinois than most states. The reason it didn’t work is you need border controls for gun control to work. Indiana has very permissive gun laws so one just has to ask someone they know in Indiana to buy it. It would be like Toronto banning guns, but Markham having very loose gun laws. For gun control to be effective, must be national which it is in Canada, but is not in the US although they do have some federal rules.
There were 799546 CCW permits as of 2017 and 368 firearm deaths in Indiana the year before, POP 6.7M.
There were 243245 CCW permits as of 2017 and 944 firearm deaths in Illinois the year before. POP 12M.
If it was as simple as “open” borders, why are there not more deaths in Indiana with all them guns out on the streets?
There are many factors however Indiana has a murder rate of 6.0, while Illinois is 7.8, both above the US average of 5.35 and way above Canada’s 1.68. The last thing Canada needs to do is learn from either of those states who have significantly higher murder rates than we do.
Wrong yourself; Missouri passed its “shall issue” law in 2003; the average murder rate for the 10 years prior to 2003 was 8.4 per 100,000, while the average murder rate for the 10 years following 2003 was 7.0. It’s been a while since I had a Statistics course (to go with my degree in Criminology), but I’m almost positive that 7.0 is lower than 8.4, how about you? Next, race is the single biggest component of the explanation for US murder rates, as a look at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports will demonstrate; as far back as we have reliable data, black Americans have been committing HALF of all US murders, and those murders are concentrated among males under the age of 35. That cohort makes up around 3.5% of the US population as a whole, so why are they committing half of all murders? They certainly don’t own half of all guns in the US (in fact, they wouldn’t own 5% of all guns in the US, even if they each had THREE). To start with, 70% of all black children in the US are born to single mothers, and those murders are overwhelmingly committed as part of the drug trade. As a group, black Americans have a murder rate of over 11 per 100,000 (between that of Botswana and Mexico), while hispanic Americans (who own guns at THE SAME RATE as black Americans, but have nowhere near the same rate of broken families) have a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000. In the middle, white Americans, who own 80% of all guns in the US, have a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000. Japan, with a gun ownership rate of 3 guns per 1000, has a murder rate identical to that of Iceland, with a gun ownership rate of 317 per 1000, so there’s clearly a problem in your hypothesis. Similarly, the UK and Australia, with prohibitive gun control laws, have the same murder rate as New Zealand and Germany, which allow ordinary citizens to own and use those mean-looking firearms that get your knickers in such a twist.
Here is the reference in Missouri https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence “One study, for example, looked at Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its law requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, which in effect repealed the state’s background check requirement. This study found that after 2007, Missouri’s homicide rate jumped by 25 percent. No other changes in law or circumstance appear to be able to explain the increase.” so not related to CCW directly, but does show problem with loosening gun laws.
It is true murder rate is higher amongst African-Americans, but even amongst whites, murder rate is still well above Canada’s. US murder rate is 5.35, Canada is 1.68 and only two states are below that of Canada, while all 50 states are above Quebec and Ontario so that itself doesn’t fully describe the reason.
Iceland has fairly restrictive gun laws despite its high gun ownership rate, their gun laws are even more restrictive than Canada although not as restrictive as Japan. Germany and New Zealand also have fairly restrictive gun laws and in the case of Germany generally more strict then Canada while New Zealand similar so you could make the case tougher gun laws have diminishing returns, but moving to US style gun laws is a horrible idea.
It also comes down to what type of society we want to live in. I don’t particularly like the way the United States is going and don’t want to live in a society where people are all walking around with guns. I like the fact when I go out, I know asides from the police and a few security jobs, people won’t be carrying guns and I like the fact that in my neighbourhood probably few if any households own firearms. There is no harm in tougher gun laws, while possible benefits, so lets give it a try.
Why would Missouri’s murder rate jump so far AFTER their CCW law changed? Methinks it has nothing whatsoever to do with guns in the first place, but a whole hell of a lot to do with the meth epidemic that was going through the midwest at the time; and since drug addicts are prohibited from owning or buying a gun legally in the first place, how is that supposed to be a justification for stealing anyone else’s freedoms? When you compare states and provinces, it is very clear indeed that there is no relation between “gun control laws” and those jurisdictions’ murder rates; otherwise, all Canadian provinces would have similar murder rates, and there wouldn’t be such a vast range in the US, or examples such as Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire (all of which also trust their citizens with full autos). Next, can you name even one country that has the same sort of demographic situation as the US, where a miniscule fraction of a specific cohort is committing half of all murders? I notice you didn’t break the US murder rate down by race (which the UCRs do), and those figures prove that your assertion is wrong. Can you explain how Iceland’s laws are supposed to be responsible for the same low murder rate as Japan’s DESPITE the fact that practically every dwelling in Iceland will have a firearm and ammunition available? Do unstable people suddenly become well-adjusted and rational when politicians put pen to paper, or do you think there just might be something more to it? If “gun control” had the sort of effect that you’re claiming, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Switzerland would all have vastly disparate murder rates, but they don’t. Next, you still haven’t addressed the fact that ordinary US citizens who have CCW licences (~6% of the population) have LOWER rates of violent crime than the POLICE do (you remember, the same ones that you don’t seem to have any trouble at all trusting to not go on murderous rampages?) Canada had all the “gun control” laws it needed more than a century ago when we were trusted to live and act like responsible adults, instead of free-range taxpayers to be fleeced by all levels of government whenever they want to fund a new pet project. I can’t control what YOU do, but I certainly can control what I do; you, rather than being able to control yourself, want to be able to control everyone else. And finally, you might want to ask the many, many people who actually USE firearms in self-defence; somewhere between 500,000 and THREE MILLION Americans per year use guns to protect themselves, which vastly out-numbers any and all criminal usage. I’m sure they’re very grateful that you’ve decided that they should be willing victims because of your hoplophobia, but I doubt they’d be willing to go along with your nonsense. If you actually believed your “if it saves only one life” prattle, what about their lives? For that matter, in the Canadian context, guns wouldn’t even be on the radar as far as “saving lives” goes. You’d be pushing for the abolition of tobacco (45,000 per year), alcohol (6,000 per year), vehicles that can go faster than 100 km/hr (2000 per year), boats, snowmobiles, and swimming pools (~500 per year), and showers and bathtubs (~45 per year), a long time before you got to the 10-15 murders committed by legal firearms owners.
As I’ve mentioned gun control is not the only factor, but it doesn’t change the fact if you loosen gun laws and hold everything else constant, murder rates will rise. Scientific studies control for other variables and that is why the academic studies that were not sponsored by the gun lobby have shown tighter gun laws reduce murder rates https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives . It is studies like this not one’s sponsored by the gun lobby who cherry pick stats I look at.
As for freedom, we are not a libertarian country so there are limits to freedoms. Canada only allows so much freedom as it neither infringes on another’s rights and/or it is not harmful to a society as a whole. Because guns are created for the purpose primarily of killing people which does take away a fundamental right, that is why we restrict them as no amount of restrictions are full proof, but greater ones reduce the chances. Also because high level of gun ownership is bad for society as a whole that is another reason we restrict them. I believe Canada is a far better country to live in than the United States and while there are many reasons for this, we should be very careful about adopting anything the US does unless it is also done in other developed countries and delivers positive results.
It must have been an oversight that you omitted the following sentence in your quote re: Missouri study: “Of course, there are limitations to the studies being analysed here. For starters, all of them were observational, which meant that researchers couldn’t control for variables. That’s a problem, because there are a whole lot of other factors in society that influence gun deaths outside of gun law, and by simply looking at the data after the fact, those patterns aren’t always obvious.” Did you get that? The studies you cite are unverified. You are seriously outgunned in this debate. Please forgive the pun.
“As I’ve mentioned gun control is not the only factor, but it doesn’t change the fact if you loosen gun laws and hold everything else constant, murder rates will rise.” Kindly provide proof of this assertion, otherwise you are simply making shit up. We have 50 separate ongoing experiments in the US right now that prove you’re wrong, and study after study shows that state and federal “gun control” laws have no discernable effect; ie. when the murder rate in the US rises or drops, the murder rate in Canada ALSO rises or drops, and it happens in either country irrespective of whichever “gun control” laws are passed by either country.
I mentioned in my previous posts there are limitations with anything and in fact most government policies the evidence is not 100% clear cut, it is rather taking the best evidence and going from there and overall the evidence clearly points that all things considered gun control does tend to work. I would rather try what is likely to work even if not 100% certain. Also it depends on how you view gun ownership. If you view it as a right like many here seem to, then yes you need conclusive proof, but if like me you view it as a privilege, then all you need is evidence it might help while no evidence suggesting it will be harmful.
““As I’ve mentioned gun control is not the only factor, but it doesn’t change the fact if you loosen gun laws and hold everything else constant, murder rates will rise.” Kindly provide proof of this assertion, otherwise you are simply making shit up. We have 50 separate ongoing experiments in the US right now that prove you’re wrong, and study after study shows that state and federal “gun control” laws have no discernable effect; ie. when the murder rate in the US rises or drops, the murder rate in Canada ALSO rises or drops, and it happens in either country irrespective of whichever “gun control” laws are passed by either country.”
How about this https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2 or this https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/2/17050610/guns-shootings-studies-rand-charts-maps or this https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ . They may be wrong is doing studies is always difficult with so many variables, but I prefer to take my chances on what will likely work rather than what likely won’t. I certainly hope conceal carry never finds its way into Canada.
You mean you have such an irrational hatred and fear of something you don’t understand that you want your likes and dislikes forced on everyone else; one of the hallmarks of a “free’ society (not that Canada even approaches such) is that people’s rights end where their neighbour’s nose begins, not “Eeew, that makes me uncomfortable”. The actual evidence from the United States is that ordinary citizens who have been vetted by the system pose LESS of a public safety issue than POLICE OFFICERS do, and, if they ever do have to use a gun in self-defence, they are more likely than the police to target the actual aggressor, and less likely to shoot bystanders by accident. There is a large enough statistical sample to reach those conclusions because the pool of CCW holders is twice the size of the pool of police officers.
Nothing tyrannical about what I am asking, Australia, Japan, and UK have gun laws as tough or tougher than I advocate and they are still liberal democracies. UK under Thatcher in the late 80s banned semi-automatics and banned handguns in the late 90s under Tony Blair. Australia under John Howard banned semi-automatics and severely restricted handgun ownership. Guns are meant to kill and despite your protestations the evidence as I’ve shown shows easy access to guns means more murders. CCW will not make us safer and I like most Canadians I am not even interested in entertaining that idea. Its not about imposing my wants on you personally, its about doing what is best for society as a whole as in Canada we are not a collection of 36 million individuals but rather a society where our actions effect others. We are forced to pay taxes and depending on your income could be close to half your income and if you don’t pay you go to prison, which is a violation of one’s rights. But if we had no taxes we wouldn’t have roads, schools, hospitals, police, and military and many other things thus that is why rights have limits and in the case of gun ownership there is zero right whatsoever to own one in Canada.
“Guns are meant to kill and despite your protestations the evidence as I’ve shown shows easy access to guns means more murders.” It means no such thing, as Iceland proves; 40% of Icelandic homes have a firearm (close to that of the US), so why do they have a murder rate the same as Japan? It clearly isn’t “access”, otherwise they would have the same murder rate as the US. And the basis behind any ‘gun control” law is politicians deciding that the people they are supposed to be working for are too stupid and dangerous to be allowed to control their own lives, including the ability to protect themselves. In my books, that means that the same people who are forcing us to pay for their armed security are saying “My life is important enough to me that it should be protected as effectively as possible, but you peons are disposable, and should accept being victimized simply because your lives aren’t as important to you.”
Iceland has 30 guns per 100 people which is about the same as Canada not the US. Also in Iceland over 99% are rifles and shotguns which I am not advocating a ban on. Handguns are only legal for competitive target shooters so even stricter than our laws which simply require one to join a gun club. Semi-automatics are only permitted for big hunters abroad but cannot be legally discharged anywhere in Icelandic territory unlike Canada where many are either non-restricted or restricted and only a minority are prohibited. Gun control is done for two reasons: 1. It works 2. The majority want it. You seem to have very anti-democratic attitudes which is basically it is my right to own a gun and to Hell with what the rest of the Canadian public thinks. That is not how we operate in Canada. Each one of us gets one vote and as long as those wanting tougher gun laws are the majority that is what will happen. Only Charter rights are off limits to the tyranny of the majority and gun ownership is not a charter right. A lot on this board seem to have opinions similar to the GOP which fewer than 20% of Canadians support or Libertarian party which struggles to get 1% of the popular vote.
But still the same number of HOUSEHOLDS have access to a firearm, which leads me to wonder why they aren’t killing each other at the same rate as the US is; those guns are still as accessible, and are you seriously suggesting that someone killed with a bolt action isn’t as dead as someone killed with a semi-auto? Second, he evidence suggests that the only thing that “gun control” does is to prevent the very people that aren’t going to commit any sort of crime to begin with (gun or no gun) from owning a particular piece of property that is involved in significantly FEWER deaths each year than alcohol, tobacco, etc. You clearly ARE suggesting a tyranny of the majority, which is hardly the sort of “freedom” that “free” countries re supposed to embody.
I am not sure what the household rate is in Iceland, but I do know in the US there are 120 guns per 100 people in Canada it is 35 while Iceland it is 30. Now perhaps maybe unlike Canada and the US most only have one firearm as opposed to a full arsenal. As for type of gun, yes it matters as long rifles and shotguns are primarily used for hunting and due to the difficulty of concealing less likely to be used for murder than say a handgun which is easily concealable. Getting a handgun licence in Iceland is extremely difficult and asides from competitive target shooters pretty much banned. Semi-automatics make it easier to commit mass shootings and those two are next to impossible to get in Iceland unlike in the US where a simple NICS background check is sufficient and if bought from a private dealer no background check required at all, while in Canada depending on which type it is, most are either non-restricted so only require a PAL or restricted so require an RPAL.
As for tyranny of the majority, we have the Charter to protect rights and we as a country have decided owning a gun is not one which is the case in all but three countries globally. We are not authoritarian, but neither are we libertarian either, we are a liberal democracy.
Switchblades and brass knuckles are not banned because they pose a greater threat. They are banned based on looks and the flavor of govt at the time. They are no more and no less dangerous than any other object that can cut/stab or be struck by.
There is no difference with firearms either. Classifications and bans were done simply to show that something was being done, despite there being no actual logic.
Wrong, the rule with knives is length of blade and rule you need two hands instead of one so one cannot easily open them. I agree the classifications seem arbitrary but the solution is to move ones similar to an AR15 to restricted or prohibited not to move AR15 to non-restricted. You do not need a semi-automatic with detachable magazines to hunt, to easy to do a mass shooting with thus why some are restricted and even prohibited. Also looks matter as the types attracted to scary looking guns are more likely to be violent or tough guy types. Pit bulls are not dangerous in themselves, but people who want vicious dogs are more likely to buy them so same thing.
As I said, the knife ban has nothing to do with being of a greater lesser threat. Length of blade is BS as a short or long blade can do no more or less damage. Switchblades and the sort are no more dangerous. It’s just the emotional state the lawmakers decided on. A fixed blade vs a switchblade are the same expect one takes longer to access (switchblade)
Manually-opened or ‘one-handed’ opening knives, including spring-assisted knives, that do not fall within the categories listed as prohibited weapons definition are legal to own and use, however importation of many of these items has been banned by the CBSA.
So CBSA won’t allow them into the country but they are still in the country and legal to own/use. How did they get here? Companies import them. CSA is only stopping private purchases. There is no law saying we cannot have them unless the law specifically identifies one of the many types and illegal simply because they think it is dangerous based on a convoluted thought process.
I can carry a rock legally. I can conceal carry a rock, legally. Rocks were among the first weapons used by humans. I just can’t go around killing/assaulting people with it. See how the laws work? Possessing something does not make it dangerous unless you also possess the mindset to use it for illegal purposes.
It’s about drawing the line somewhere. Should we be allowed to own fully automatics? Bazookas? Grenade launchers? Nuclear bombs? Or are you one of those types who think people should be able to own whatever they want? I don’t want to live in a country where people can own anything they want. This is just making excuses.
The Norinco 305 has a detachable magazine does that mean we should ban that too ? Or maybe the svt ?
Yes they would be banned. Detachable magazines make it too easy to commit a mass shooting as the rivet to limit it to five bullets can easily be drilled out and if you have a full stack of them one can change magazines in about 2 seconds. UK and Australia ban these so why can’t we?
Because we are not the UK or Australia?
You still think banning something prevents illegal possession and use. Don’t repeat the same bring line that the black market is not easily accessed. The ‘black market’ is simply anything not sold, legally, in a store.
And we are not the United States either, but as a sovereign country we should look at what works and what doesn’t. Gun control has worked well in UK and Australia, failed miserably in the US. It doesn’t prevent illegal possession but as mentioned it still has a positive impact in reducing murder rates even if small. Yes maybe only a 10% reduction, but that is better than nothing and any life saved is worth it.
“and any life saved is worth it.” So, why aren’t you willing to embrace the same sort of prohibitionist mindset when it comes to OTHER causes of death (alcohol, tobacco, speeding, etc.)? It seems to me that the deciding factor here isn’t the “lives saved”, but the fact that you have an irrational phobia about firearms.
I do have a strong dislike of firearms and I am proud of that. Firearms are meant to kill, other objects are not. I am not calling for an outright ban, just Australian or British style gun laws both which are liberal democracies with high standards of living. Never mind on the issue of semi-automatics it was John Howard in Australia and Margaret Thatcher in UK who brought in the ban and both were staunch conservatives too so not even leftists. I’ve seen the failure lax gun laws have had in the US and is much as you try to twist the facts, it doesn’t change the fact the US has by far the highest murder rate of any developed country and I don’t want us to go down that path.
An irrational phobia doesn’t seem to me to be the sort of thing to be “proud” of, and firearms have exactly the uses that their owners put them to. Unless you quiver in fear at the thought of someone driving down the street being able to kill you with the flick of a wrist, I don’t see why you would do the same for someone being responsible for their own safety, and the US experience shows that CW holders have a BETTER public safety record than sworn police officers do. Howard was a CINO (apparently, much like yourself), and Thatcher was dragged into an ignorant display of virtue politics by the media, so damn the fact that they used millions of non-criminal citizens as convenient scapegoats. Last, the reason the US has such a high murder rate is because they are paying the price for slavery, as the murder rate among black Americans is almost six times that among white Americans, despite the fact that the latter own almost 80% of all guns in the US, and the former own less than 8%.
Seeing as how I am unable to reply directly to Miles’ response to you, I’ll drop this here.
“Firearms are meant to kill, other objects are not.”
That is precisely why other objects are far more dangerous than guns. When you become so complacent of the dangers of something in an effort to vilify something else, that other object becomes more dangerous. Discounting all other things that can kill simply because they were not created, designed or built to kill. They may not have been built that way but they have become such objects and kill more than guns for the main reason that there are much more stringent laws and penalties surrounding lawful possession of firearms.
That he is unable to fathom those real dangers because he’s focused on such a small part of the cause of death and injury. He only wants to save “one” person or a small number of people. There is no interest in preventing the majority of deaths.
Firearms are NOT meant to kill. That may have been an original intent but we have found other uses for them.
Stacey Cherwonak – Being a hoplophobe is something I suspect vast majority of Canadians are. As the most compassionate country on earth and a country that prides itself in being liked and being polite it makes a lot of sense that most Canadians would dislike an object whose primary purpose is to kill. Maybe you should get out more in urban areas and talk more to others as you will find most are even more anti-gun than I am. As for CCW holders being safer show me the stats as I find this tough to believe especially in constitutional carry states. Maybe in may issue or no issue states where concealed carry licences are issued sparingly but not in states where anyone can get one. John Howard was pretty right wing, cut taxes, reduced the size of government, privatized several state owned enterprises and supported George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, hardly something of CINO. Also the first foreign leader to congratulate Harper when he won in 2006 and a huge fan of him. Margaret Thatcher supported tougher gun laws as that is what most Brits wanted. Even the police don’t carry guns in UK and the idea of strict gun laws enjoys widespread support in the UK across the political spectrum. I am actually a former Progressive Conservative and a huge fan of Brian Mulroney who tightened gun laws with C-17 which made semi-automatics converted to automatics illegal and brought in magazine limits of 5 for long guns and 10 for handguns. It is true I despised the Reform Party, but I am a Canadian conservative not an American conservative and the Reform Party tried to import American style conservatism which I am not interested in. As for the reference to slavery, are you implying Blacks are naturally more violent because if so, I will ban you from this site as I have zero tolerance for racists. As for Blacks being more violent, that is the same reason as First Nations, they have faced a lot of discrimination and are an oppressed group and if they were not treated like second class citizens in the past and to a lesser extent today, their crime rate would be similar to whites.
For Stacey Chernowak – Is this article referring to the same Stacey Chernowak https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mounties-launch-search-of-firearms-labs/article1074943/. If so I am not interested in listening to a convict. If someone else with the same name I apologize for the confusion.
Tony – Firearms still remain primarily to kill. I do not advocate a full ban on all firearms although I must say I think our country would do just fine if no one owned them, but I don’t advocate that. As someone who eats meat, I am okay with someone who wishes to own one to hunt for food, although I oppose trophy hunting. I also as per earlier post support farmers owning them for pest control. The other reason is target shooting and while no fan of that, I recognize that is a legitimate reason but only active target shooters who regularly attend target shooting events should be permitted to own handguns. Everyone else should be prohibited from owning them. But as for semi-automatics with detachable magazines, I see no purpose other than to kill a lot of people quickly which is why much like fully automatics, I believe they should be prohibited.
Being irrationally afraid of something you know nothing about is NOTHING to be proud of, and the US experience proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CCW holders have a better safety record than police officers do; they are less likely to shoot the WRONG people in self-defence, they are less likely to commit a crime of violence, and they are more likely to stop a violent attacker immediately without anyone else being harmed. Those are all positives in my book, so, unless you have an irrational fear of your fellow citizens, what are the downsides? They certainly aren’t committing the sort of slaughter that you seem to be terrified of, and the people that ARE committing those murders are out of the legal market to begin with, and get firearms in the exact same black market that they get their drugs from. Maybe if you can explain a law that will keep them from getting their hands on illegal drugs, we could try it on guns? As it is, you are doing the equivalent of suggesting a prohibition on prescription drugs because a fraction of a percent of the population might abuse them, and imagining that it’s somehow going to stop them from importing or manufacturing all the cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, or carfentanyl they can possibly sell. It is naivete in the extreme, and will do NOTHING to disrupt the black market. Both the UK and Australia had long periods of low murder rates before their bans, a mass murder committed by a lone deranged individual, and then they returned to the same low murder rates they saw prior to the bans, so what, exactly did those bans do, other than punish ordinary citizens for the actions of a mad man? Nothing at all, but logic isn’t what drives phobias like yours, is it? For the purposes of my argument, you can substitute “left-handed Albanians” if you’d like, since the race is unimportant; what IS important is that we can look at a specific cohort and see if their murder rate is higher or lower than others’, and if their gun ownership rate is higher or lower than others, and see if those factors are related. In the US experience, they are clearly NOT related, since the cohorts committing the most murders are NOT the cohorts owning the most guns, and the cohorts owning the most guns are NOT the cohorts committing the most murders. Inf act, the cohorts owning the most guns have murder rates in line with most of western Europe and Canada.
Nothing wrong with a phobia of an object whose primary purpose is meant to kill. I think the majority of Canadians hate guns because we are a compassionate peaceful society and guns stand for the opposite of whom we are. As for CCW being safer, show many the stats from an independent study not one sponsored by the NRA. And no I do not trust my fellow citizens being allowed to walk around with guns, we are not a libertarian society, we are a liberal democracy that is somewhere in between libertarianism and communitarianism thus why government doesn’t control everything, but we do impose restrictions on what people can do if they are seen as harmful to society. UK and Australian bans weren’t the only factors, but I look at the big picture and rather than look for excuses, if something works well in one place, while fails in another that is what I think we can try. If we try stricter gun laws and it fails, we can always switch back, but I would rather give it a try as little evidence it will be harmful and plenty it might be beneficial. And as I’ve said many times there is no whatsoever to own a gun in a Canada and you can wish it was a right all you want, but it is not.
There is no evidence gun control has ever lowered overall homicide rate.
In Australia, ironically, after they implemented the gun buy-back, overall homicide rate fell slower than in the USA at the same time, which had of course not implemented any gun buyback.
Please cite evidence and facts instead of this “common wisdom” BS.
Actually Australia saw a pretty big drop if you read below https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/ and a Harvard study on gun control has shown https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ also access to guns makes a difference. Yes there are many factors, but doesn’t change the fact gun control works. More importantly as per my earlier blog I would rather gun laws be too restrictive than not restrictive enough. There is zero harm if they are too strict, but plenty if too lax.
Gun control has had no bearing on lowering crime or homicide. Canada has seen a decline of homicide and crime since the 1970s at a steady rate. The gun control implemented did nothing to change the outcome.
In Chart 2 we see that 1974 and 1976 were the years of the highest homicide in the country. It ratchets down and down from a 3.0 to a 1.7 per 100,000 people.
In Chart 3 from 1996 we see a huge upswing of gang-related homicides despite the continuing downward trend of homicide in Chart 2.
Gangs are the issue as they are killing each other and those that get caught in the crossfire.
Even Chart 4 shows a downward trend in use of firearms that hit a high point of almost 1.0 per 100,000 and declined since.
Gun control had no hand in any of those instances, and even with handguns being the primary weapon in terms of guns among the criminal element you are talking about a registration for handguns that dates back to 1934. A registry that didn’t curtail or stop gun use to almost hitting 1.0 per 100,000. Despite almost 60 years of a registry from 1934 to 1991.
Further Senator Don Plett would disagree with much of your statements and shows a lot of the same statistics I have posted here.
Canada has the most porous border in the world, and two additional access points from two of the largest oceans. If humans can be trafficked by the tens if not hundreds of thousands yearly, those smuggled people require food, water, shelter, oxygen, clothing, warmth, sleep, and medicine (when applicable). Whereas firearms can be disassembled and reassembled with interchangeable parts from the same make and model of firearm and without needing to provide all of the basics needed by humans.
The Canadian border and the ATF have no idea how many firearms have been smuggled from the US to Canada or from any other nation to Canada. The Border Agency is at a complete disadvantage when only about 2-3% of shipping containers are opened and checked physically.
There are many factors that affect murder rates and as mentioned gun control is not the only thing by any means, but saying it has no impact is false. Usually to have an impact reforms have to be major not minor as mentioned in this article https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives . Will the changes stop all murders, not at all, but even a 10% reduction is better than nothing and since owning a gun is a privilege not a right the burden of proof falls on those wishing to own one, not those who wish to ban them, otherwise those wishing to own them need to either show zero harm or a positive benefit. In the case of semi-automatics with detachable magazines and handguns they have not done either.
Yes. There are many factors that affect these rates but there seems to be no interest in actually tackling those.
I believe in tackling all the issues it is not one or the other. Gun control is just part of the puzzle not all of it, but that isn’t an excuse to do nothing.
You’re better off legalizing all drugs (end the drug war) and freeing up economic opportunity for people. An end to minimum wage would enable younger individuals to pursue work instead of joining a gang to sell drugs in order to earn a quick buck. Using the money wasted on policing drugs to instead helping those on drugs, while allowing for safe sale of safe to use drugs.
For what should we expect to happen when you have 20 something males with no job prospects? No income outside of welfare? No community connections? On top of it all, 16 hours a day to themselves? This is of course presuming they are sleeping for 8 hours and they don’t all play video games. They’ll likely engage in criminal activity out of boredom. Be it vandalism, dealing drugs, attacking/robbing people, or property damage. These activities when they form gangs make up the vast majority of those crimes in relation to firearms.
The conference held in Ottawa on Guns and Gangs point to multiple issues, yet ultimately gun homicide is such a small portion of the violent crime at large. The one contention to be had is what is considered a gun offence, as it can get a little muddy. If a firearm is present on the property/vacinity during a crime(regardless of use, even if it is locked up) it gets tacked onto the stats as ‘violence with a firearm.’ There needs to be more definitions to square away what constitutes a gun crime as opposed to gun crime due to the mere presence of a firearm. Even there you’ll find BB/Airsoft falling into that category if a BB/Airsoft gun is used to intimidate, threaten or attempt to harm another in the act of a crime.
The burden of proof is already provided each and every day with PAL holders as they go through continuous background checks every single day. They are not background checked when purchasing firearms, they have background checks run on them regardless of firearm ownership from morning till night. So the burden of proof is on those wishing to ban firearms to prove that the PAL holders are a danger to the public at large. 2.2 million of these PAL holders is evidence enough that legal firearm owners are not the problem. A large portion of those 2.2 million Canadians own semi-autos. Be it a rifle, shotgun, or a handgun. They are not the problem and the restrictions do nothing to thwart the crime you wish to deal with. They harm virtually no one and provide a positive benefit of tax dollars for purchases of firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories, and hunting permits and equipment for hunting. Which in turn keeps the animal populations in check and a portion of that money ensures conservation of the natural habitat.
Your gun control measures also do nothing to contend with our porous borders and those wishing to smuggle firearms from around the world. While showing no cost benefit analysis as it pertains to restricting those 2.2 million firearm owners.
As for Australia, and I preface this that the source looks at only the numbers/statistics and what the numbers say.
The numbers tell a different picture of a crime/death rate going down before Port Arthur and continued to go down at the same rate after Port Arthur. The gun control measures did not have a correlative effect in the way you think it did. If it did as you state it had you’d have seen a drop even more drastically than the 7 year period before Port Arthur.
I am not suggesting gun control is the only thing, there are other measures to it is not either or as you try to suggest. As for PAL holders being no danger, that is definitely true in the vast majority of cases, but some do slip through the cracks and considering no checks a 100% proof we have to decide where to draw the line. That is why we ban fully automatics and have magazine limits. Reasonable people can disagree where to draw the line, but I draw it where I do as I want to stop mass shootings like Ecole Polytechnique and the Quebec City mosque shooting which were both licenced gun owners and both with semi automatics with detachable magazines. You can hunt without those, you don’t need those to hunt. My belief is for legitimate uses of firearms ownership, a person should use whatever firearm will be the least harmful to achieve what they want to. When hunting it is caliber not number of bullets you can fire off in one minute that matters. As for economic harm, environmental regulations are damaging to businesses, but should we scrap those because it might hurt some businesses? I would argue not. Regulations are about balance that yes understands the benefits businesses bring from jobs they create and economic activity, but also realizes where there are harms we try to minimize them. And most successful businesses can find ways to be profitable anyways even with greater regulation. There are almost no gun manufacturers in Canada to begin with so if people bought fewer guns, they would spend it on other goods, quite possibly ones made in Canada which would create even more jobs. 90% of firearms in Canada are non-restricted and there are plenty of rifles and shotguns without detachable magazines so the only gun stores and gun ranges that would go under are those barely scrapping by to begin with.
“…we have to decide where to draw the line. That is why we ban fully automatics and have magazine limits. Reasonable people can disagree where to draw the line, but I draw it where I do as I want to stop mass shootings like Ecole Polytechnique and the Quebec City mosque shooting which were both licenced gun owners and both with semi automatics with detachable magazines.”
When 99.99% of the legal firearm owners harm no one you are still harming 99.99% of the people with laws looking to deal with (if even this amount) 0.01% of legal firearm owners. I can understand you draw the line differently, yet semi-autos or not it wouldn’t have changed for at least 7 of those deaths in Ecole Polytechnique if say a bolt, pump, or even lever-action was to be used. All three of those actions can hold more than 5 rounds (depending on calibre). Even if he was to use a .22lr (which is there isn’t a mag restriction outside of named firearms) it would have had the same effect.
As for the Quebec Mosque his rifle jammed on the first shot and he had to take time go and get his handgun. Which were still limited to 10 rounds and he was able to reload without hassle. Lowering capacity just results in either a) more magazines and practice in reloading magazines or b) popping the restrictive pins/bars and having full capacity. If someone is going to violate the law and commit a mass shooting they will not care about following the law in their effort to harm/kill others.
“You can hunt without those, you don’t need those to hunt. My belief is for legitimate uses of firearms ownership, a person should use whatever firearm will be the least harmful to achieve what they want to. When hunting it is caliber not number of bullets you can fire off in one minute that matters.”
Sometime follow up shots are necessary when hunting or defending yourself against a predator. In the heat of the moment dealing with a charging animal a person is as only good as their reaction and the training put into cycling an action. A semi-auto may still jail or fail a person, yet if proper maintenance and good ammunition/magazines are used they’ll have follow up shots every time.
As for calibre, most hunting rifles use very large and devastating calibers. These are to put down an animal as humanely as possible. If a buffalo/elephant round will take down a 500-1000lb animal with ease, it will go through a car, and it can go through a person. The amount of damage is lethal. Hunting rifles are also meant for precision accuracy to ensure a one shot kill. Semi-auto give up some accuracy (as accuracy is still up to the user) in order to get follow up shots.
“Regulations are about balance that yes understands the benefits businesses bring from jobs they create and economic activity, but also realizes where there are harms we try to minimize them. And most successful businesses can find ways to be profitable anyways even with greater regulation. There are almost no gun manufacturers in Canada to begin with so if people bought fewer guns, they would spend it on other goods, quite possibly ones made in Canada which would create even more jobs.”
There are a number of gun manufacturers in Canada. Most gun smiths are technically manufacturers and there a great deal of custom shops that work on various firearms. Ranging from hunting to target shooting, and competition. There are also a number of ammunition manufacturing companies and more incoming. I’d sooner see more legal operations than illegal, which more and more are appearing who produce cheap and easily made automatic sub-machine guns.
People are not chess pieces and they don’t just drop their wants(demand) just because a good is no longer available. All you’ll be doing is generating a greater demand and there will be a portion of those people who will want a firearm more so than they do in caring about the law saying they cannot. We also have to take statistic data into consideration. Before the implementation of the PAL system we had the FAL system. With the FAL system there was about 5 million FAL holders. With the implementation of the PAL (and the total phase out of the FAL) you had half left over. There was not an exodus of over 2 million Canadians to the US, nor were there 2 million Canadians giving up their very expensive firearms.
What that leads us to see is that we are dealing with at least 2 million Canadians who are in violation of the law. We know they are not supplying firearms to the criminal elements with the amount of sourcing and tracking of firearms in Canada showing the majority are from the US. That means on top of the 2.2 million PAL holders (99.99% are not causing harm), we are looking at another 2 million Canadians that while in violation of the law are harming no one in their ownership of firearms and ammunition.
There have few, and I mean a very few instances of mass shootings happening in Canada. It is tragic when it occurs, yet it rarely occurs. Even when things were less restrictive before Ecole, you saw rare instances of such things happening. It would be one thing if we saw dozens if not hundreds of cases as a result of lax regulations. Yet that is not the case at hand.
This is still taking into consideration that we had licensing in the time that many of those shootings occurred, and registration of handguns to name just two particular regulations. A great deal of these instances (involving firearms) were people who were not legal in owning a firearm, showed signs ahead of time that were not acted upon.
It is still very rare, and historically rare.
Gamil Gharbi had an FAC. That was the old, ineffectual ‘licensing’ system which required almost nothing to get. Totally different system and scenario. Besides, he purchased the gun with the express intent on killing women. This was not a good example of a licensed gun owner going bad and killing people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given how ‘ineffectual’ that licensing system was, you’d have thought that there would be many times more mass shootings in general.
One mistake is one too many. My ideal would be a complete ban on all guns, but I realize that is neither pragmatic nor realistic, so I am asking for tougher gun laws that will hopefully reduce murder rate, but also reduce gun ownership rates too. I don’t think a complete gun ban will happen in my life time and certainly wouldn’t support one at the moment (even though my ideal society would be a gun free one), but there is no reason we cannot and should not strive for better.
You are trying to control what can’t be controlled. As though by eliminating firearms from society you’ll remove the potential for murderous intent in people. When history has been paved with the blood of many people who were conquered, and murdered. Many of whom were incapable of defending themselves back in a time where the strongest won. With firearms you change it to the strongest being brought down by even the weakest.
Your “one mistake is one too many” is a day late and a dollar short. You cannot hope to ever eliminate hurt, pain, grief, or sorrow. You are tackling the ends and not the source of the problem that enables firearms to become the ends you want to stop. Your ideal society fails on the premise of ideology found in the hubris of Plato, when you should look to Aristotle at reason and reality.
For following such ideology is the same path taken (if in your part smaller) by the likes of Lenin and Stalin to force people to conform to their ideal society. With anyone not conforming to be enslaved or killed.
The idea you need an armed citizenry to prevent tyranny is nonsense as there is no correlation between guns and freedom https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/owning-guns-doesnt-preserve-freedom/275287/ . Owning a gun makes one less not more safe so it does not help the weak. I understand eliminating guns will not eliminate all murders and I am not even asking to eliminate guns just tougher gun laws like Australia and UK have both which are liberal democracies just like Canada. US has a lot more guns than us, yet unless you are a rich white male, its a worse society to live in. They have much higher crime rates, lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, income inequality through the roof (too much equality is a bad thing, but so is too much inequality), more racism. Also there is more political corruption and they are less democratic. They engage in gerrymandering while some states try to engage in voter suppression all things we do not do. In fact if anything a gun loving society is a more paranoid one and that is not what we need in Canada.
“The idea you need an armed citizenry to prevent tyranny is nonsense as there is no correlation between guns and freedom”
For better or worse you have the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Texas resistance against the Mexican Army, you have numerous examples where had it been a battle of blades, spears, and armour we’d be talking about completely different results. It was the United States fighting with guns and their continuous efforts against highly trained foot soldiers with French assistance.
Also, see Battle of Athens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 Where you have WWII Veterans technically steal gov’t property to force their local gov’t to step down with force. This didn’t happen over night, and it stemmed from years of corruption, police brutality and voter intimidation. A literal mini revolution against a corrupt democracy.
As per freedom and firearms, I don’t claim that firearms are the single biggest answer to freedom. I merely stated that “With firearms you change it to the strongest being brought down by even the weakest.” That doesn’t have to be the taking down of a tyrannical gov’t. That can be a woman keeping a male attacker at bay. A firearm evens out and grants advantage on the playing field for those too weak to defend themselves through physical might. That cannot be denied. Even in the instance of both parties having firearms, those looking to intimidate and attack more often than not flee when the defending party fights back with their own firearms.
If you remove the 4 major cities where this crime occurs you bring the US down to rate of gun homicide on par with Canada. Again, you have to tackle the root of the problem. Not the end means.
“In fact if anything a gun loving society is a more paranoid one and that is not what we need in Canada.”
Citation needed on that statement as being “fact” instead of being your opinion. It isn’t paranoia if you fear the gov’t will confiscate your firearms when they explicitly call for it. It isn’t paranoia to say you want to ban all firearms when you have stated that quite literally in previous comments. Paranoia is fear of what can never happen, yet you fear it will happen. I’m looking at history, and I’m looking at the words and actions taken by those that go out of their way to enact gun control.
In a fragile democracy or dictatorship you may have a point although note most of the arms in those cases are usually illegally purchased and often governments abroad will provide arms to the rebels they wish to help. In Canada we have the Charter of rights and Freedoms, the courts, and elections. As for it evening the weak with the strong, that is completely untrue. Households that own a gun are more likely to get killed than those that don’t and what you are advocating is essentially conceal carry which is more or less prohibited in Canada (except in very limited circumstances, I believe only 2 Canadians have a CCW licence) and is a very risky and dangerous idea that we should not entertain.
As for governments confiscating guns, one of the fundamental components of a democracy is for governments to be able to act on the public’s wish unless they violate one’s rights and owning a gun is not a protected right in Canada nor should it be. As such if the government chooses to ban a certain class of guns, they can either grandfather existing owners which is what is normally done or confiscate them for monetary compensation as both UK and Australia did. Both are permissible within our democracy. Even the US from 1994-2004 had the Assault weapon ban which banned many weapons I would like to see banned here too and this is a country which has a constitutional right to own firearms unlike Canada. In fact polls show over 60% of Americans want the AR15 banned and this is in a much more pro-gun country than Canada. So unless you look at rights through a libertarian lens, there is nothing unreasonable about what I am advocating and libertarianism is very much a minority viewpoint held by a small minority in Canada, not a large number of Canadians.
Not one citation of real proof of what you claim above. Correlating smoking to firearms was a feeble attempt to prove a point, in my opinion. Not even on the same spectrum.
-background checks only provide evidence that may prevent a potential criminal from LEGALLY making firearms purchases. It does nothing to stop criminals. It is impossible to do a background check on someone making a black-market purchase. How does a “redeeming feature” prevent illegal usage? Are you aware of the definition of that word?
-legitimate-use firearms, such as hunting rifles already have controls. You want to hunt with a rifle, get a license, get your background check, buy your gear, get your hunting license, go hunting. These are allowed by law. What more does a ‘reasonable’ person require to ensure that the the unstated costs outweigh the risks of hunting?
-More guns means more available for criminals to potentially steal? That’s obvious. That goes with everything on this planet. Are you aware that until automobiles were invented, not a single one had been stolen previous? As to your weak point regarding smuggling and access to black market firearms, all you need to do is do a Google search of the last few years for smuggled firearms and see exactly how many have been easily brought across and how they get them across and how many they figure are still getting through. They are not being carried across by known criminals. Read the news. Read the police press releases. How are criminals getting all these firearms that are illegal in Canada if not for smuggling and black market purchases?
-Supply and demand: reduce the number being smuggled, drives criminals to steal more locally, as has been seen. Theft is illegal. Break and enter is illegal. The Govt is trying to reduce the penalties for these crimes with Bill C75. Now criminals are being treated better for the crimes they commit to steal guns and will no longer have to worry so much about their actions. Is this how we want to do things now? Make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to own stuff because criminals will steal. By the way, we are making it easier for them to steal so you should give up more stuff.
Now, according to the Office of National Statistics in the UK, homicide rates increased 14% since 2008 and all other crime increased as well. However, as long as you like the fact that homicide by gun has decreased and traded for another method, that’s fine. It’s better to have knife crime, right?
Appendix Table 7: Offences currently recorded as homicide by whether a firearm was used and whether it was licensed, year ending March 2010 to year ending March 20171,2,3
England and Wales
Principal method of killing was shooting by firearm
Lic’d firearm Unlic’d firearm Unknown if lic’d firearm No firearm Total homicides
Apr ’09 to Mar ’10 4 21 16 554 595
Apr ’10 to Mar ’11 14 26 20 573 633
Apr ’11 to Mar ’12 8 27 5 486 526
Apr ’12 to Mar ’13 3 24 2 514 543
Apr ’13 to Mar ’14 3 17 9 492 521
Apr ’14 to Mar ’15 4 14 3 490 511
Apr ’15 to Mar ’16 1 18 6 543 568
Apr ’16 to Mar ’17 2 29 1 677 709
Source: Homicide Index, Home Office
1. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics
2. As at 16 November 2017; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and the courts, or as further information becomes available.
3. Firearm licensing data was introduced in the Homicide Index in 2009.
4. Year ending March 2011 includes 12 victims of the Derrick Bird shooting.
If you notice, the stats go up and down each year, just like in Canada, whether a gun is used or not.
I see all my editing was undone in the chart.
“background checks only provide evidence that may prevent a potential criminal from LEGALLY making firearms purchases. It does nothing to stop criminals. It is impossible to do a background check on someone making a black-market purchase. How does a “redeeming feature” prevent illegal usage? Are you aware of the definition of that word?”
Getting a gun on the black market is not as easy as some think, you need good connections so if we had no background checks you would have a lot more murders. It’s why most legally purchased guns in the US used in murders are private sales which don’t require a background check, not those bought from an FFL where they do require one.
“legitimate-use firearms, such as hunting rifles already have controls. You want to hunt with a rifle, get a license, get your background check, buy your gear, get your hunting license, go hunting. These are allowed by law. What more does a ‘reasonable’ person require to ensure that the the unstated costs outweigh the risks of hunting?”
You don’t need an AR15 or other military style semi-automatics to hunt. It is caliber of the bullet not magazine that matters. At most you need two shots since if you miss the animal is probably gone, if you hit it, it either dies hopefully on the first shot or if wounded, you reload and shoot it a second time.
“More guns means more available for criminals to potentially steal? That’s obvious. That goes with everything on this planet. Are you aware that until automobiles were invented, not a single one had been stolen previous? As to your weak point regarding smuggling and access to black market firearms, all you need to do is do a Google search of the last few years for smuggled firearms and see exactly how many have been easily brought across and how they get them across and how many they figure are still getting through. They are not being carried across by known criminals. Read the news. Read the police press releases. How are criminals getting all these firearms that are illegal in Canada if not for smuggling and black market purchases?”
And that is why we dost cost benefit analysis. Cars are meant to get from point A to point B not to kill. Most criminals are repeat offenders meaning they would be inadmissible to the US, only those who are first time criminals or never caught could enter or those who enter illegally. Never mind getting a gun legally in the US is easy if an American, but if not an American you need to find an American to buy it for you as you won’t pass a NICS background check if at an FFL dealer and at most gun shows you don’t need a background check if a private dealer, but do you have to show your driver’s licence to prove you are a resident of that state. 30% of guns seized cannot be traced and that is because serial # is removed and there is a good chance they are domestic sourced as they don’t want the guns traced to anyone.
“Supply and demand: reduce the number being smuggled, drives criminals to steal more locally, as has been seen. Theft is illegal. Break and enter is illegal. The Govt is trying to reduce the penalties for these crimes with Bill C75. Now criminals are being treated better for the crimes they commit to steal guns and will no longer have to worry so much about their actions. Is this how we want to do things now? Make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to own stuff because criminals will steal. By the way, we are making it easier for them to steal so you should give up more stuff”
It is quite reasonable to make it tougher to own because it may get stolen. Guns are dangerous products and should not be easily available. C-75 was passed due to court rulings as previous Harper tough on crime laws violated the Charter so the only way to not pass C-75 would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause and that is very risky and should be avoided except in extreme circumstances. Also longer jail sentences don’t tend to work except for repeat or dangerous offenders, rehabilitation does for first time offenders.
“Now, according to the Office of National Statistics in the UK, homicide rates increased 14% since 2008 and all other crime increased as well. However, as long as you like the fact that homicide by gun has decreased and traded for another method, that’s fine. It’s better to have knife crime, right?
Appendix Table 7: Offences currently recorded as homicide by whether a firearm was used and whether it was licensed, year ending March 2010 to year ending March 20171,2,3
England and Wales”
UK has a murder rate of 1.2 which is still lower than Canada of 1.68 and well below the US of 5.35. Also much easier to survive a knife attack and you can only kill one person at a time with a knife not multiple and likewise only at close range whereas you can kill someone with a gun from over 100 feet away. Murder rates have risen there due to cuts in police forces by 20,000. The last major overall of gun laws in the UK was in 1997 and murder rate today is lower than it was in 1997.
“Getting a gun on the black market is not as easy as some think, you need good connections so if we had no background checks you would have a lot more murders. It’s why most legally purchased guns in the US used in murders are private sales which don’t require a background check, not those bought from an FFL where they do require one.”
That is incorrect. Otherwise there would not be so many guns smuggled into Canada and out on the streets. Police would not be finding as many guns as they are. You do not need ‘good connections’, you just need ‘a’ connection and those are not difficult to find. Or, as many seem to do, they just steal one. Discuss Canadian issues, not US issues. guns used in the US to kill do not affect our stats.
“You don’t need an AR15 or other military style semi-automatics to hunt. It is caliber of the bullet not magazine that matters. At most you need two shots since if you miss the animal is probably gone, if you hit it, it either dies hopefully on the first shot or if wounded, you reload and shoot it a second time.”
Your opinion has nothing to do with fact. I commented on your ‘hunting rifle’ comment, not a non-existen AR-15 comment. Don’t change the narrative. What does it matter what gun is used to hunt or what calibre? As long as the kill is made effectively and humanely, it’s done. There are legal limits to what a firearm can carry during hunting so magazine size means nothing. You want better laws but they already exist. You want to ban stuff because you simply want to ban stuff. Lawful people will typically follow the law or be penalized. That is true with EVERY law. Laws are there to provide penalties, not stop people from doing bad things.
“And that is why we dost cost benefit analysis. Cars are meant to get from point A to point B not to kill. Most criminals are repeat offenders meaning they would be inadmissible to the US, only those who are first time criminals or never caught could enter or those who enter illegally. Never mind getting a gun legally in the US is easy if an American, but if not an American you need to find an American to buy it for you as you won’t pass a NICS background check if at an FFL dealer and at most gun shows you don’t need a background check if a private dealer, but do you have to show your driver’s licence to prove you are a resident of that state. 30% of guns seized cannot be traced and that is because serial # is removed and there is a good chance they are domestic sourced as they don’t want the guns traced to anyone.”
Again, you evade the topic and discuss a whole bunch of US issues and discuss irrelevant topics. Banning in Canada will not stop smuggling or change the black market (apart from having non-domestic sources only). Smuggling brings in thousands of guns. Those guns are not affected by the ban or the laws or your opinion. As for the inability to trace guns, where did you get the 30%? Do you know why many of them can’t be traced? 31% of crime guns in the past 10 years are tasers, air rifles/bb guns, paint ball, replicas and toys. They don’t have serial numbers and typically can’t be traced anyways. That’s right from the Toronto Police Servies ATIP.
“It is quite reasonable to make it tougher to own because it may get stolen. Guns are dangerous products and should not be easily available. C-75 was passed due to court rulings as previous Harper tough on crime laws violated the Charter so the only way to not pass C-75 would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause and that is very risky and should be avoided except in extreme circumstances. Also longer jail sentences don’t tend to work except for repeat or dangerous offenders, rehabilitation does for first time offenders.”
Now you’re just plain trolling. Make tougher laws because someone might steal an object but give lesser penalties because “Harper”. C-75 is a slap in the face of the Canadian people. Rehabilitation just keeps them out of jail so they can re-offend faster. Guns are only as dangerous as the person who uses it for illegal purposes. You want to bring human rights into this? What about the rights of those who haven’t done anything wrong being penalized for the acts of criminals? We’re tired of hearing you wax poetic regarding our “privileges” that can be taken away. I am now expected to give up my hobby/sport because some fatherless punk decided to steal guns and rob/kill? Guns are not just for killing. Their sole purpose is not for violent means. You simply won’t accept that fact and that makes you wrong.
“UK has a murder rate of 1.2 which is still lower than Canada of 1.68 and well below the US of 5.35. Also much easier to survive a knife attack and you can only kill one person at a time with a knife not multiple and likewise only at close range whereas you can kill someone with a gun from over 100 feet away. Murder rates have risen there due to cuts in police forces by 20,000. The last major overall of gun laws in the UK was in 1997 and murder rate today is lower than it was in 1997.”
You mentioned the UK in your original article about how things are reduced. I showed stats, from the UK, showing how they are increasing and all you can say is that the rate are lower than Canada (and the US, yet we are not dealing with the US as our laws have no effect on them). The rates between UK and Canada are close to negligible! There is no proof that it’s easier to survive a knife attack vs being shot. Especially since intentional homicide by gun is in the low double digits while all other homicide methods (another chart shows breakdown by edged weapons) are high, triple digits. Also, you can only kill one at a time with a gun as well, unless the bullet goes thru the first person so that theory is out. edged weapon attacks and killings have skyrocketed in the UK and are climbing in Canada. Stabbing being the second most popular method of homicide for decades. 201 stabbings vs 223 shootings in 2017.
One day you might actually answer what is being asked. You are still clueless when it comes to firearms and firearms issues.
“That is incorrect. Otherwise there would not be so many guns smuggled into Canada and out on the streets. Police would not be finding as many guns as they are. You do not need ‘good connections’, you just need ‘a’ connection and those are not difficult to find. Or, as many seem to do, they just steal one. Discuss Canadian issues, not US issues. guns used in the US to kill do not affect our stats.”
Could you easily get an illegal gun? It’s not as easy as some think and the fact remains a significant although not majority of guns are legally purchased in Canada. While the fact many come from the US is a problem, that is more evidence why we need tougher gun laws as US shows the dangers with loose gun laws.
“Your opinion has nothing to do with fact. I commented on your ‘hunting rifle’ comment, not a non-existen AR-15 comment. Don’t change the narrative. What does it matter what gun is used to hunt or what calibre? As long as the kill is made effectively and humanely, it’s done. There are legal limits to what a firearm can carry during hunting so magazine size means nothing. You want better laws but they already exist. You want to ban stuff because you simply want to ban stuff. Lawful people will typically follow the law or be penalized. That is true with EVERY law. Laws are there to provide penalties, not stop people from doing bad things.”
Just pointing out I am not advocating banning all hunting firearms. I support a ban on all semi-automatics with detachable magazines so it is harder to commit a mass shooting. The idea you can divide people into law abiding and non-law abiding is silly, the Dawson Shooter, Moncton shooter, Quebec City Mosque shooter, and Ecole Polytechnique shooter were all law abiding gun owners until they were not, which is why only guns absolutely necessary for hunting should be allowed.
“Again, you evade the topic and discuss a whole bunch of US issues and discuss irrelevant topics. Banning in Canada will not stop smuggling or change the black market (apart from having non-domestic sources only). Smuggling brings in thousands of guns. Those guns are not affected by the ban or the laws or your opinion. As for the inability to trace guns, where did you get the 30%? Do you know why many of them can’t be traced? 31% of crime guns in the past 10 years are tasers, air rifles/bb guns, paint ball, replicas and toys. They don’t have serial numbers and typically can’t be traced anyways. That’s right from the Toronto Police Servies ATIP. ”
Another excuse. Just because it won’t solve everything doesn’t mean we do nothing.
“Now you’re just plain trolling. Make tougher laws because someone might steal an object but give lesser penalties because “Harper”. C-75 is a slap in the face of the Canadian people. Rehabilitation just keeps them out of jail so they can re-offend faster. Guns are only as dangerous as the person who uses it for illegal purposes. You want to bring human rights into this? What about the rights of those who haven’t done anything wrong being penalized for the acts of criminals? We’re tired of hearing you wax poetic regarding our “privileges” that can be taken away. I am now expected to give up my hobby/sport because some fatherless punk decided to steal guns and rob/kill? Guns are not just for killing. Their sole purpose is not for violent means. You simply won’t accept that fact and that makes you wrong.”
Learn about the law and the constitution. The courts struck down Harper’s laws as they violated the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. By contrast courts have ruled more than once there is no right to own a gun. You may like the way our laws work, but politicians should follow them and changing the constitution over this is plain silly. I prefer to listen to the academic experts rather than gun owners as they’ve studied this in detail and their studies show long sentences only make sense for those who cannot be rehabilitated, for most criminals jail just makes them into more hardened criminals. US locks up more people than anyone else yet has more crime. And for you saying this is irrelevant, no it is not; we learn from what works and what doesn’t work in other countries. As for giving up your hobby, you don’t have absolute rights. You don’t have the right to fire off a machine gun so within any civilized society there are limits and that is something we decide collectively while still respecting constitutional rights. Guns can be used for other purposes than killing, but they were invented to kill and that is their primary not sole purpose.
“One day you might actually answer what is being asked. You are still clueless when it comes to firearms and firearms issues.”
Typical arrogant attitude from many in the gun lobby. You know what I do, I look around at what works and what doesn’t and Australia, Japan and UK seem to work pretty well while US has not and I am not interested in moving in that direction, that is not my Canada.
It’s not arrogance. It’s knowing the facts over the emotions. You are clueless wrt forearms because you have no desire to know more than you think you do.
Am I part of the gun lobby? Yes. As one of the 2.2M firearms owners in Canada, we are the gun lobby. We need to be able to fight for our hobby, our sport and our possessions. We practice peaceful and lawful use. We despise criminals and we very much dislike the govt and persons like yourself who think they can legislate us out of our private interests because criminals do bad things.
Making statements that you prefer to listen to academic experts rather than gun owners show’s your true ignorance as we have a great deal of academics who are firearms owners and they produce factual studies and reports that show this is not about guns.
I don’t have the right to fire off a machine gun. That is correct. That is not a discussion point because machine guns are illegal in Canada even though they have never been used in a crime.
If not being a criminal until you are a criminal is one of your go-to points, I suggest the entire country is screwed up because we have 36M+ criminals waiting to happen. How will we ever survive? We should pull the pin and blow the place because that’s a lot of crime waiting to happen. I hope you don’t approach everything with that logic. Maybe I should not walk to the mailbox because my neighbor, who is not a robber, until he is one, might come over and take my wallet from me.
Wrong, I’ve read the firearms act, I am aware of the general rules. Not every detail, but enough to know the general rules and you just don’t like my opinion that we should have tougher gun laws. Not all of the 2.2 million gun owners are opposed to C-71 or a ban on hand guns. We make laws based on what is best for society and sometimes that may cause inconvenience for some, but to function as a society we sometimes need to do this. I don’t like paying taxes, but I realize without paying taxes we wouldn’t have roads, schools, hospitals, military so sometimes for the greater good we have to give up what we would like. I feel laws are best made by people who don’t have a stake in it rather than those who do. The reality is gun owners will oppose bans on any weapon they own no matter how overwhelming the evidence is thus why we have experts who look at all the evidence and decide accordingly. Your final comment is just plain silly, its about balance as we don’t live in a black and white world and we make try to find the best balance.
I did not say Firearms Act, I said Firearms. Reading the Act alone just gives a person words to look at. It means something totally different when you actually own/use firearms. Rules of the road mean nothing unless you drive.
I don’t like your opinion because you think more laws mean things will be better. You cannot make a law that people WILL obey. You make laws that will allow you to penalize those who DON’T obey.
Laws are words. Words cannot stop something from occurring. How many laws will it take to stop criminals and gangs from killing, stealing, assaulting? Is there a magic number? You seem to think that by banning lawful possession of certain firearms that this will reduce the crimes committed by those who pay no heed to laws.
If people who made laws had no stake in it, the laws would be even more convoluted. If you don’t understand something, you can’t make a fair and balanced law. Having someone, somewhere in the process who has a clue is needed. If you don’t know what your laws will affect, you are making it worse.
My final comment is no more silly than a gun owner not being a criminal until they are.
One of the things about making a law is to ensure they are fair and not biased too heavily to one side. If we let gun owners write them we will have much looser gun laws than is both desirable or what most want and we need to avoid this. I also I have fired a gun and that has not changed my view one bit. As for saying people won’t obey the law, what a silly comment, why have any laws at all. The reason we have laws is for that very reason. The reality is getting a gun on the black market is not as easy as one thinks, but also prices tend to be really high so a mafia member probably will have no trouble getting one, but a regular street thug probably won’t have the connections or be able to afford it. People will undoubtedly without guns find other ways to try to kill people, but a gun is more effective tool to kill people. You cannot kill 50 people at once with any method other than a semi-automatic or automatic. You cannot kill someone 100 feet away with anything other than a gun or perhaps a bow and arrow, but no one walks down the street with a bow and arrow, while its very easy to conceal a gun. With a knife you can only kill one at a time at close range and also when trying to stab you the person can fight back whereas they cannot with a gun.
Those that have a stake in it should be consulted, but that also means consulting those on the other side too such as the police and victims of gun violence not just gun owners, gun manufacturers and those in the gun business. When making corporate regulations, you don’t just consult the corporations who are obviously going to want as few laws as possible, you consult them for sure, but also the consumers too who would be negatively affected by lack of laws and find the best balance.
Laws only keep the law-abiding in check. Hence why criminals are by definition criminals. They are guilty of breaking a law. Laws are tricky and can be abused and used to control and hurt those who are otherwise non-violent and innocent people. You’ll always have those that wish to thwart, violate, or break the law. That is the nature of some people and those that hold disregard to laws as it pertains to their self-interest.
To then punish the rest for the actions of a few is to say that the majority of people are responsible for the individual actions of the serial killers, the rapist, the murders, the robbers, the thieves, the predators, the child abusers.
Except we are all individuals and bear responsibilities primarily with our individual actions, and not those actions of others.
Using this argument why bother having laws at all. That is a silly statement, we have laws for that precise reason. Some people will never do anything wrong regardless of rules as they have strong moral code. Some will break the law no matter what, so this is about changing the rate not stopping all murders. And making it harder to get guns makes it harder for those with intent to kill to do so thus why we have them and should strengthen them. As for law abiding gun owners, it comes down to this, is owning a gun a right or a privilege. If you believe it is a right then sure we should only impose restrictions if there is solid proof it will reduce murder, but if you like me and most Canadians and our governments of all stripes see it as a privilege not a right then the burden falls on gun owners to show it will not be a risk, not on those who wish to restrict gun ownership.
Every time someone suggests why having any laws at all, you know they don’t understand the issue.
MrGeoxen didn’t say or imply getting rid of all laws. You are simply imparting your desire to feel superior over this person by ignoring what was said and redirecting. Laws are necessary. Not all laws are beneficial. People will disobey them from time to time and that only means they require more enforcement, more methods of dissuading crime and ways of keeping citizens lawful. More laws do not mean more people will obey. It just means more laws for someone to disobey or accidentally disobey.
The original statement said nothing of rights and privileges. You keep interjecting your bs into this when it has no bearing.
No wonder so many people do not wish to engage in discussions with you. They get fed up with your limited scope of conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I realize even the gun lobby isn’t saying no law, but I am saying I feel our gun laws as I’ve explained in my blog are not strict enough. Will it cause an inconvenience to gun owners, yes it might, but I really don’t care. Owning a gun is a privilege not a right so if it will have any positive impact even if minor it should be done. The only question is the cost to taxpayers and if that is too high then maybe not done. It comes down to values and what type of society we want to live in and I want to live in a society where fewer people own guns. I realize a complete gun ban is not pragmatic or realistic, but I feel tougher gun laws will reduce the number of people who own guns and that will create many positive impacts not just in a somewhat lower murder rate, but also socially in terms of what type of society we have as I explain in the social engineering section.
Except if we take the premise to the point of “less guns will mean less gun crime” you’ll just be shifting the method of the murder. Resulting in higher instances of stabbings and so forth. Which is a slippery slope before we become like the UK with knife control laws.
You can still have laws that punish people’s abuse of an implement (say a firearm) without having to punish those that wish to own a firearm. Legality shouldn’t be the question, its the intent and end use of the implement that we are worried about. If someone owns a firearm and never hurts anyone (legal or otherwise in accordance to current law) with it they are not the problem.
The issue with the current system right now is people get a plea bargain that removes a lot of the punishment for illegal possession or use of a firearm. The courts do this to cut down time and cost in prosecuting a criminal they know that committed the crime. They also use this to try and coax information out of gang members or criminals who may know something about larger operations. As such the regulations on firearms are basically thrown out of the window in the courts case as they are not being used to charge someone with a crime. This isn’t the case every time, yet it happens more often than we hear of someone being charged with a firearm regulation violation.
Our prisons are overflowing in Canada, we do not have the capacity to hold people. Then you have Bill C-75 which is looking to streamline and make this go even faster. It also lowers time for various crimes committed including illegal firearm possession and use. All to process the massive backlog there is right now. People should not be going to prison for the simple possession of a drug, firearm, or anything that in of the possession of that item harms another. It is ridiculous to think we should put someone in prison for the potential damage that person may cause. That is pre-crime charges at that point and sets a bad precedent going forward. For that makes anyone and everyone guilty of potentially harming another person, whether they realize it or not.
Meanwhile you have the Crown actively dropping viable self-defence cases as the prosecution has no case to bring to a jury to find the defendant guilty of committing a crime. Plus the Crown is fearful of allowing a jury to ultimately say the defendant is innocent and set the precedent of self-defence in Canada. Yes, I’m talking about cases that involve someone using a firearm to defend themselves and/or their property. There have been those cases where it is clearly legitimate, and the courts just bankrupt the defendant in their fight for innocence of wrong doing.
It’s not about punishment, its about creating the type of society we want. I like most Canadians (if the polls are correct) want it to be harder to own gun and fewer people to own guns. Owning a gun is a privilege not a right and the fewer people you owning them, the easier it is to make tougher gun laws if the need arises. The more people you have owning them, the tougher it is do so. As explained it will have some minor positive benefits, but more importantly I believe it will create a better Canada if we have fewer owning guns. Since we are somewhere between a collectivist and individualistic society this is quite reasonable. What I am asking for is not the most restrictive gun laws on earth, so nothing wrong with trying to learn from what works well elsewhere.
Except it is punishing people for enjoying a sport or hobby that they want to enjoy. To have the freedom to purchase and own what they want. All you have proven in what you say is to allow your mask to slip. You are not about a safer Canada, just a perceived one. As though without firearms (or a great deal less) in Canada (except where you deem there to be exceptions in gov’t) this projected fear you have in the back of your head will simply disappear. You can be absolved of this idea that Canada resembles the US in any way possible. You want a replication of European nations who are not “tarnished” by the backwaters you view as the United States. For how dare they own firearms. For if they didn’t have so many it would be the blanket of security for your worrying mind.
You sir have hoplophobia, an irrational and unfounded fear of firearms. Given the statistical likelihood in Canada you are plenty safe.
The problem in “creating the type of society we want” is you’ll have those that won’t fit the cookie cutter mold you want. There will always be a small group of people who naturally rebel to conformity. Only for time to make that outsider group the new conformist group and norm. Resulting in another group being the “punks” as you might call them.
Culture wax and wanes and is not entirely controllable. The more you try to suppress cultural attitudes you dislike the more underground they’ll go. You won’t eliminate them, you’ll only suppress them for a time while they incubate away from the normal society at large. Then they’ll come back in ways you couldn’t even begin to imagine or fathom. With bitterness and resentment from those outsiders you hoped to suppress.
Canada has a higher standard of living in general, we have less poor people than ever before, Canada is doing much better than it has in decades. Firearms weren’t the reason for that increase, nor have they done anything to hold us back. Regardless of your intent or desire it is still punishing people who have done nothing to deserve such punishments. Let people be free to live their lives. To fail, to succeed, to suffer and to celebrate, to grieve and to love. People are not to be controlled, you’re just marching us into George Orwell’s 1984 of lies, deception, and ignorance.
mrgeoxen – Freedoms have limits even section 1 of the charter says there are limits and in fact the courts have ruled in more than one case there is no right to own a gun whatsoever in Canada so restricting gun ownership or even banning it does not violate our Charter. Of the approximately 190 countries on earth, only 3 (US, Mexico, and Guatemala) is there a right to own a firearm and in the latter two it is heavily restricted as Guatemala simply states it is legal unless prohibited by legislation while Mexico simply allows one to own a gun in their home, not to carry it anywhere else. No international organization, not the UN, not the EU, or any human rights organization considers gun ownership a fundamental right. I am not asking Canada to be authoritarian, I am simply asking for common sense gun laws as we are not a libertarian society but rather a liberal democracy where we allow people quite a bit of freedom to live their lives as they want but within reasonable limits. Australia and UK have similar gun laws to what I am asking and they are both liberal democracies with large amounts of freedom, while the US which seems to have gun laws you favour or at least has fewer restrictions has far more social ills than we do.
“Freedoms have limits”
Then it becomes a question of who decides those limits. If you think that the elites care what the mass populace thinks you are delusional. The elites will do what they want, when they want, how they want. Trudeau called for “Electoral Reform” and decided against it. Trudeau stated that his administration will be “fact and evidence based” when he is throwing millions of dollars around in areas that do not deserve the money or are not priorities for Canadians. Yet throws the veterans under the bus and states “we just don’t have the money.” Yet reaches out to Trevor Noah to give a charity he discussed $50 million? Excuse me, that is ludicrous. If you can’t see that politicians do not care about the masses at large (except to get them elected with false promises) than you are naive.
“there is no right to own a gun whatsoever in Canada so restricting gun ownership or even banning it does not violate our Charter”
I don’t care, it is private property that has been paid for, been taxed, and 99.99% of the people who legally own them harm no one in the process. The courts can pound sand.
“Of the approximately 190 countries on earth, only 3 (US, Mexico, and Guatemala)”
Private property is private property. Good luck going door to door to collect millions of firearms. The restrictions impose do not stock people from acquiring firearms illegally.
“No international organization, not the UN, not the EU, or any human rights organization considers gun ownership a fundamental right.”
I don’t care what those organisations think. They can say that access to pencils and paper is a fundamental right. It means nothing. Those organisations are bloated waste of time and money. You have countries who head the UNHRC were member countries continuously abuse people based on those Human Fundamental Rights they are supposed to protect. The UN is a pay to play program, and is laughing joke. The EU are also a laughing joke, where you have Germany granted so much power and say on what happens in EU nations. All channelled through Brussels. One of the biggest claptraps in human history.
” I am not asking Canada to be authoritarian,”
I don’t care about what it is you’re asking. I care about the results of those policies. Policies that have historically been more authoritarianism and gov’t control over the people. I’d suggest a Conservative book for your Conservative mind. James Burnham’s “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom”
“…a liberal democracy where we allow people quite a bit of freedom to live their lives as they want but within reasonable limits.”
Again, see above on who gets to determine those “reasonable limits.” Letting someone have arbitrary power over you doesn’t end nicely.
“Australia and UK have similar gun laws to what I am asking and they are both liberal democracies with large amounts of freedom”
Meanwhile the UK forces people to pay for a license for each television set, computer monitor in order to fund the BBC. You fail to have a license and fail to pay it you can be heavily fined and go to jail. The UK where they have more police monitoring online conversations lest someone say something “offensive.” The UK where you need to prove you are of age to buy cutlery. The UK where farmers who use single shot .22lr rifles to defend their property after numerous attacks and robberies gets thrown into prison. While the actual criminals either get a slap on the wrist or walk freely.
The amount of freedom in the UK and Australia compared to Canada makes Canada look like the United States in comparison. There is no real freedom in the UK and Australia is making similar mistakes.
Meanwhile Australia can’t stop home made machine guns within their own country, and neither can the UK. After all, it was one of their citizens who proved how easy these home made machine guns can be made and published a book that is available online for free.
“while the US which seems to have gun laws you favour or at least has fewer restrictions has far more social ills than we do.”
The US also have far more people than Canada, Australia or any other EU nation. They also have some of the most diverse demographics, and political spectrum around. While being the richest nation in the world. Mexicans aren’t running away from Mexico to go to the US because Mexico is strict on firearm ownership. They go to the US for the riches and benefits despite the “social ills” that the US has more of.
If the US was as bad of a place as you make it out to be, you’d see far more people leaving the US to get away from the social ills. Instead you see the opposite.
“Then it becomes a question of who decides those limits. If you think that the elites care what the mass populace thinks you are delusional. The elites will do what they want, when they want, how they want. Trudeau called for “Electoral Reform” and decided against it. Trudeau stated that his administration will be “fact and evidence based” when he is throwing millions of dollars around in areas that do not deserve the money or are not priorities for Canadians. Yet throws the veterans under the bus and states “we just don’t have the money.” Yet reaches out to Trevor Noah to give a charity he discussed $50 million? Excuse me, that is ludicrous. If you can’t see that politicians do not care about the masses at large (except to get them elected with false promises) than you are naive.”
That is why we have democracy and why constitutions are made by consensus. We would have anarchy if we let each individual decide what is the appropriate level of freedom. We are a society, not an island to ourself and our actions impact others. I don’t like Trudeau either and next year the electorate will get a chance to judge his performance, but I respect in a democracy sometimes you get what you want sometimes you don’t.
“I don’t care, it is private property that has been paid for, been taxed, and 99.99% of the people who legally own them harm no one in the process. The courts can pound sand.”
Property rights don’t give you the right to own whatever the Hell you want, like all rights they are limits to them, that is what allows us to be a civil society. As such you are taking the individualistic attitude that only your rights matter not its impact on society as a whole and that is not how we operate in Canada. We as a country reject libertarianism and instead favour liberal democracy.
“I don’t care what those organisations think. They can say that access to pencils and paper is a fundamental right. It means nothing. Those organisations are bloated waste of time and money. You have countries who head the UNHRC were member countries continuously abuse people based on those Human Fundamental Rights they are supposed to protect. The UN is a pay to play program, and is laughing joke. The EU are also a laughing joke, where you have Germany granted so much power and say on what happens in EU nations. All channelled through Brussels. One of the biggest claptraps in human history.”
When almost all groups don’t see gun ownership as a fundamental right, maybe its worth taking notice. I don’t share your strong hatred of the elites. Sometimes they are wrong, but more often than not they are right and when wrong that can be fixed through elections. The UN is imperfect and flawed, but it is better to have nations working together than fighting. The EU has many problems, but Europe has never gone 70 straight years without a war in its history and if you look at the disaster Brexit is turning out to be, I would argue the EU for all its flaws is still better than not having it even though it does require serious reform. Also in the EU, most countries at least in Western Europe, less so in Eastern Europe, share similar values in liberal democracy and the rule of law but do not take the libertarian attitude the US leans towards.
“I don’t care about what it is you’re asking. I care about the results of those policies. Policies that have historically been more authoritarianism and gov’t control over the people. I’d suggest a Conservative book for your Conservative mind. James Burnham’s “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom”
Nonsense, courts and elections are what protects our democracy not your libertarian fantasy of a minimalist government. Government should be as small or as large as the electorate wants it and when its get too big like it did in Ontario, we turf the government for one that favours smaller government while if people want a more activist government like they did in 2015 federally, then that is what we get. You are just one of 36 million people and for a society to function it is about compromise and consensus and deciding what the greatest number of people want which is why we have elections.
“Meanwhile the UK forces people to pay for a license for each television set, computer monitor in order to fund the BBC. You fail to have a license and fail to pay it you can be heavily fined and go to jail. The UK where they have more police monitoring online conversations lest someone say something “offensive.” The UK where you need to prove you are of age to buy cutlery. The UK where farmers who use single shot .22lr rifles to defend their property after numerous attacks and robberies gets thrown into prison. While the actual criminals either get a slap on the wrist or walk freely.”
BBC is no different than the CBC, only difference is how it is funded. A society in order to function requires taxes and taxes are in a sense of reduction of freedom yet without taxes we wouldn’t have roads, schools, hospitals, police, military etc. Are our taxes too high, I would say somewhat, but you still need them. As for not being allowed to defend property, everyone has the right to live and we thankfully unlike the US don’t have castle doctrine laws. Even criminals have rights too. If I were offered a job in the UK and got immigration clearance, I would happily take it, but if offered one in the US and immigration clearance too, I would decline it and wouldn’t accept one until it changes and seeing the backlash to Trump that might come sooner than later as staunchly right wing policies have little support amongst non-whites and also less support amongst millennials too.
“The amount of freedom in the UK and Australia compared to Canada makes Canada look like the United States in comparison. There is no real freedom in the UK and Australia is making similar mistakes.”
That is complete nonsense. True they are not libertarian countries, but that is a good not bad thing. In fact if you look at the Cato Institute’s freedom index, https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new you will notice Canada at 8.57, UK 8.50, US 8.39, Australia 8.06 so all fairly close overall. If you look at personal freedom, Netherlands comes in first and it has fairly restrictive gun laws while on economic freedom, Hong Kong comes in first and it has very strict gun laws.
“The US also have far more people than Canada, Australia or any other EU nation. They also have some of the most diverse demographics, and political spectrum around. While being the richest nation in the world. Mexicans aren’t running away from Mexico to go to the US because Mexico is strict on firearm ownership. They go to the US for the riches and benefits despite the “social ills” that the US has more of.
If the US was as bad of a place as you make it out to be, you’d see far more people leaving the US to get away from the social ills. Instead you see the opposite.”
Population is irrelevant, it is per capita. Japan has a big population yet tough gun laws and very low murder rate. Canada is every bit as diverse as the US and in fact Toronto is one of the most diverse cities on earth yet our murder rate is much lower. True many Mexicans are moving to the US, but that number has fallen dramatically and in fact in recent years it is more Central Americans. US is a better country to live in than Mexico, agreed, but it is worse than Canada, worse than Australia and New Zealand and worse than all Western European countries save the Mediterranean ones and worse than Hong Kong and Japan. You might favour a more libertarian society, but in reality no society like you advocate exists, not even the United States.
“Households that own a gun are more likely to get killed than those that don’t”
Yeah, that’s why we hear about a large portion of the 2.2 million Canadians with guns in their homes being killed by their own guns. That study has been discredited and disproven. The basis of the information is flawed. I’ve had firearms for over 5 years and the firearms have not been a danger to myself.
That is the same as saying “household with knives are more likely to see injury or death with knives than those that don’t” It is a BS statement and has no validity.
I’d suggest looking up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Lee_Malcolm and her book “Guns and Violence” Looking specifically at the history of gun control, gun ownership, and violent crime in England.
“As for governments confiscating guns, one of the fundamental components of a democracy is for governments to be able to act on the public’s wish unless they violate one’s rights”
This basically tells me that you are ok with gov’t seizing people’s homes, their bank asset, etc on no other basis than “governments to be able to act on the public’s wish.” For if 70% wish that 30% of the population have everything taken away from them it’d be legal, and the 30% and any rights they hold made null and void. As it has gone through a legal process of “gov’t acting on the public’s wish.” Given as a component of a democracy is majority rule (aka mob rule) you are ok if 70% of the population deems the other 30% no longer has the right to live and thus are ok with murdering that 30%. Except it technically wouldn’t be murdering since it was a vote of 70% verses 30%. Making it a suicide on the part of the 30% who just didn’t vote hard enough.
Read “Anatomy of the State”, I’ll link to the free one hour audio book here: https://soundcloud.com/misesmedia/anatomy-of-the-state-murray-n-rothbard
“In fact polls show over 60% of Americans want the AR15 banned and this is in a much more pro-gun country than Canada.”
Again, you would be in favour (based on previous statements you have made) of 60% of the American population dictating how the other 40% can live and what they can own. That is a slippery slope and one that leads to very bad consequences.
“…there is nothing unreasonable about what I am advocating”
I don’t care through what lens you view this through, minority or not. To dictate what people can own, and what they can do is wrong. Unless what they do and what they own in of itself hurts others you cannot dictate how they live their lives. That is your end goal, and it will come to bite you back. The irony is that you cannot, nor will you see it coming.
Actually multiple studies show having a gun in the house increases the chance of death. Many are accidents while true a lot are suicides too. Yes people can find other ways to commit suicide but a gun is quick and painless. In terms of tyranny of the majority, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect against that and owning a firearm is not a Charter right as much as you may wish it was. As for confiscating property, the rules are governments can do that so long as they provide monetary compensation. I would like it if a government confiscated my property, but I also understand that disallowing this would create many problems. If you want to build a highway, it will likely cut through people’s property so many of our major highways especially in more populated areas wouldn’t exist if your idea of property rights was used. Even the US which has property rights in its constitution still allows for expropriation.
“I don’t care through what lens you view this through, minority or not. To dictate what people can own, and what they can do is wrong. Unless what they do and what they own in of itself hurts others you cannot dictate how they live their lives. That is your end goal, and it will come to bite you back. The irony is that you cannot, nor will you see it coming.”
I am not trying to dictate everything you do, we simply as a society have rules and limits, we are not a libertarian society and very few Canadians want us to be one. You guys who want unlimited rights can scream all you want, but as long as the vast majority don’t want this, we aren’t going to go there. And considering no country on earth takes this approach, I hope we don’t go down that road. I am all for more freedom, but all things have limits, freedom is not unlimited.
Except a handgun ban has worked reasonable well in UK and has worked great in Japan. Nonetheless as per my earlier post I am willing to carve out a narrow exemption for competitive target shooters so I wouldn’t go for a complete handgun ban, but owning one would be even more restrictive and more limited than it currently is. Collecting would no longer be an acceptable reason to own one and for target shooters one would have to be a member of a club for a certain period before they could get a licence, would have to attend so many events every year to maintain it and would be limited in the number they can own unless they have approval from the public safety minister. This would bring us in line with many other developed countries that don’t have a complete handgun ban, but make owning them very difficult. Yes I understand we don’t make it easy, but we could be stricter. There is no limit to how many handguns one can own and that needs to end.
Japan has NEVER had a very huge ownership of firearms (aside form the military). Totally different culture and very different history. They are a very controlled society. They didn’t just decide to ban firearms one day. They never let anyone do much of anything unless the state saw it was in their own best interests. Japanese law from 1958, “no person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.” That has changed to allow shotguns and air rifles and they have sword registries.
They have their boot heels firmly on their citizens and have for centuries. Their successes are not feasible unless you wish to have that controlled of a society. (of course you do). The case of Japan is weak and not even comparable in the slightest.
The UK is not like us either. We may be former colonists but we moved away from their repressed culture. The UK banned guns because criminals were using them and the police were not. It seems so much easier to ban something than to actually tackle an underlying issue.
Maybe you can continue to mention Australia as well. They never had any really serious gun issues to start with. They just felt it was best to prevent their citizens from having guns. Attacks using guns were going down anyways so they just rode that wave and said getting rid of guns fixed the problem! But it didn’t. Shooting still happened, the incidents still dropped IAW previous trends.
The Brits were conquerors and did not like their subjects having the methods of rebellion of self-defense.
Canada and the US stand out as very different from all those you keep mentioning. However, criminals and gangs are still causing problems, with or without guns.
While I agree we a different than Japan, it doesn’t change the fact what they have works. I am not suggesting going that far. As for UK, actually in many ways UK tends to allow greater freedom as Canada unlike the US was based on peace, order, and good government and strongly rejected the Jeffersonian ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are countless examples throughout Canadian history, most which I oppose which suggests Canadians do like a high degree of government control. Be it trying to ban private payment for medically necessary services, making it up until 2012 illegal to sell wheat and barley to anyone but the CWB if you lived in the Prairies. A ban on purchasing private auto insurance for residents of BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The once punchcards for booze purchases where government tracked alcohol purchases and placed interdictions on those they felt were drinking too much. I could think of many others, so the idea our ideals of limited government and freedom are distinct from the Brits and similar to the US doesn’t stand up to facts. Most of those restrictions I mentioned would never fly in the UK and in fact many wouldn’t even fly in Japan. Note I oppose most of the above restrictions, but just saying our culture tends to be fairly communitarian rather than individualistic and Canadians tend to have a high degree of deference towards government unlike Americans. There are pockets particularly Alberta which took a more libertarian approach, but on balance much of the country has not.
Dude.. you sure kicked the hornet’s nest with this one… Had to scroll down a good minute to write this One thing I’d like to point out is with the murder rates and gun control. This isn’t a concrete law and the correlation between healthy economy and murder rates by far a better indicator. Same with many other crimes. I’m sure you know that already but I just wanted to point it out. Disclaimer: I am a former gun owner about to have an expired license (which is fine with me).