• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Haggis said:
The doctor I posted earlier testified on Bill C-71 and said his testimony would focus on suicide and intimate partner violence, not crime. Last time I checked, intimate partner violence is a crime. Stay in your lane, doc.
Click to expand...
Fuckn bingo.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Suicide by firearm is a red herring. Firearms do not increase or decrease suicides. It is simply a tool some will use. When access to firearms go down, the suicide rate still stays the same, the method simply changes.

Much how the ‘firearm murder rate’ is a red herring argument. Again murder doesn’t go down the method just changes.
Click to expand...
You're correct - there is about 4000 suicides every year in Canada - about 11 per day. Not all of them use firearms. Firearms are an almost sure way to suicide.
 
Canada's suicide rate is not out of whack at all, even with all the remote communities there are. Everyone who brings up guns and suicides, I ask them to explain Japan and South Korea in that context.
 
OldSolduer said:
You're correct - there is about 4000 suicides every year in Canada - about 11 per day. Not all of them use firearms. Firearms are an almost sure way to suicide.
Click to expand...
The biggest contributor to a successful act of self-harm is goal orientation. How bad do you want to succeed?
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Canada's suicide rate is not out of whack at all, even with all the remote communities there are. Everyone who brings up guns and suicides, I ask them to explain Japan and South Korea in that context.
Click to expand...
We have evidence it makes no difference from our own gun laws. When they brought about the safe storage requirements in the 90s along with the PAL, firearm suicide rates did decline. However overall suicide rates didn’t drop, the method simply changed.

There can even be arguments against our current laws in that they can discourage people who are going though depression but own firearms from seeking help as they will take away your property to ‘protect you’. Net result being we might be actually encouraging mental illness in firearms owners as if they seek help there is consequences for that.

It is almost ironic, the people we should be encouraging the most to get treatment for mental illness are the people we actively punish if they do.
 
To add to that thought that we actively punish firearms owners for seeking out mental health supports, here is a outline of how stupid our current laws are.

If someone who doesn't own firearms says they are suicidal, they may receive help. They don't have cops come to their door, and take away the rope on the property even though hanging is the most common method of suicide in Canada. They don't have cops come to the door and take away pills, alcohol, other things you can poison yourself with, even though that is the second most common method. They don't come and take away all the knives even though that might be a risk. But they will come to your house, take away your firearms and make you go through the court system to regain your property. All for the mistake of admitting you need help with your mental health.

So what happens instead? Those that need that help who own firearms are less likely to admit they have a problem due to the real world consequences and are more likely to end up as a suicide statistic instead. Unfortunately you can't even actively gather data on something like this because with the way the laws are currently any firearm owner is going to deny having mental health issues at any point due to the punishment tied in with admitting it.
 
Haggis said:
The biggest contributor to a successful act of self-harm is goal orientation. How bad do you want to succeed?
Click to expand...
As an aside a completed suicide is not a "success". We are trying to change the language of suicide.

BUT you are right - if suicide is your goal how committed are you?
 
Eaglelord17 said:
To add to that thought that we actively punish firearms owners for seeking out mental health supports, here is a outline of how stupid our current laws are.

If someone who doesn't own firearms says they are suicidal, they may receive help. They don't have cops come to their door, and take away the rope on the property even though hanging is the most common method of suicide in Canada. They don't have cops come to the door and take away pills, alcohol, other things you can poison yourself with, even though that is the second most common method. They don't come and take away all the knives even though that might be a risk. But they will come to your house, take away your firearms and make you go through the court system to regain your property. All for the mistake of admitting you need help with your mental health.

So what happens instead? Those that need that help who own firearms are less likely to admit they have a problem due to the real world consequences and are more likely to end up as a suicide statistic instead. Unfortunately you can't even actively gather data on something like this because with the way the laws are currently any firearm owner is going to deny having mental health issues at any point due to the punishment tied in with admitting it.
Click to expand...
Question: when they came up with this policy, was their intent to take take away their guns because an effort to prevent suicide, or to prevent that mentally unhealthy person from using the gun to harm others?

We all see to agree that availability of guns does not reduce the rate of suicide, but does it reduce either the rate of other violent crime, or even if it doesn't reduce the overall rate, does it reduce the level of severity of the outcome? (i.e. same number of domestic assaults, but fewer fatalities?).
 
Lumber said:
Question: when they came up with this policy, was their intent to take take away their guns because an effort to prevent suicide, or to prevent that mentally unhealthy person from using the gun to harm others?
Click to expand...

Both, amongst other reasons.

Lumber said:
We all see to agree that availability of guns does not reduce the rate of suicide, but does it reduce either the rate of other violent crime, or even if it doesn't reduce the overall rate, does it reduce the level of severity of the outcome? (i.e. same number of domestic assaults, but fewer fatalities?).
Click to expand...

Does it ?
 
Lumber said:
We all see to agree that availability of guns does not reduce the rate of suicide, but does it reduce either the rate of other violent crime, or even if it doesn't reduce the overall rate, does it reduce the level of severity of the outcome? (i.e. same number of domestic assaults, but fewer fatalities?).
Click to expand...
Well it would seem that guns don’t reduce the rate of violent crime but the statistics imply that maybe reducing a Liberal government might reduce violent crime in Canada.

Violent crime in Canada had been slowly decreasing until Team Trudeau took over at the helm, then things got consistently more violent, the exact opposite of what they espoused their anti-gun approach would achieve.

Kind of awkward if you ask me.

6F9F6DE9-EFEF-4AD0-BCFD-E5212F4A9D5B.jpeg

www.statista.com

Canada: violent crime rate 2023 | Statista

The rate of incidents of violent criminal code violations in Canada increased by 51.1 incidents (+3.71 percent) in 2023 in comparison to the previous year.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
 
Lumber said:
Question: when they came up with this policy, was their intent to take take away their guns because an effort to prevent suicide, or to prevent that mentally unhealthy person from using the gun to harm others?

We all see to agree that availability of guns does not reduce the rate of suicide, but does it reduce either the rate of other violent crime, or even if it doesn't reduce the overall rate, does it reduce the level of severity of the outcome? (i.e. same number of domestic assaults, but fewer fatalities?).
Click to expand...
Vast majority of shooting both here and in the US are gang/drug related. Long guns in Canada and the US are not a major factor. Even in the US, long guns of all types account on average 400 people (331 million) and for us 56 people (38.25 million) The two deaths by full auto was a gang killing in Kelowna as I recall.

1675271170738.png
 
Lumber said:
Question: when they came up with this policy, was their intent to take take away their guns because an effort to prevent suicide, or to prevent that mentally unhealthy person from using the gun to harm others?

We all see to agree that availability of guns does not reduce the rate of suicide, but does it reduce either the rate of other violent crime, or even if it doesn't reduce the overall rate, does it reduce the level of severity of the outcome? (i.e. same number of domestic assaults, but fewer fatalities?).
Click to expand...
The intent is based off the flawed premise that it would reduce suicides by removing the tool. Like basically every other part of the firearms act it fails to address the problem and tries to over simplify it.

Murder rates haven’t been effected by firearm legislation. It has no real effect on the outcome. In some countries the violent crime rate went up after firearms legislation was enacted though I would still say it more or less has no effect one way or another. We have had countries with large amounts of access to firearms and very little crime and countries with them basically banned but crime is through the roof.

What effects violent crime is more socioeconomic factors, education, opportunity, etc. The hard things to tackle. Hence the need to pretend to do something by going after firearms.
 
If the criminal element thinks they are safe from being shot that will embolden them. Mind you one of our luminaries took nine 9mm and lived.

Coackroaches.
 
Good2Golf said:
So does this mean Trudeau is fixing for an election soon?

www.theglobeandmail.com

Liberals withdraw controversial amendments to gun law

Amendments to Bill C-21 were widely criticized for targeting rifles and shotguns popular with hunters
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, good call. I think you might be correct. Or, at the very least, they are preparing for the possibility. They can get a win with the existing bill, as that is supported by the Bloc and NDP. It wasn't a sure thing with the amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edward Campbell
QC Muslim 1st woman charged under 9/11 terror law for shipping wpn parts to LBN
Replies
2
Views
9K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
Ex-Dragoon
Wierd But Supposedly True News Stories:
Replies
0
Views
6K
Ex-Dragoon
Ex-Dragoon
Mike Bobbitt
Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerrilla (Book review)
Replies
2
Views
11K
Mike Bobbitt
Mike Bobbitt
Back
Top