The Great Gun Control Debate

[Lumber]

A candlestick is designed to hold candles, but a murderer can use it to bash in a victim's head.  Again, the candlestick was not designed with lethality in mind.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Someone can absolutely murder someone with a candlestick, a pencil, a big black rubber cock (ref:lock stock and two smoking barrels). But you try and kill me with with a gun, you're going to have a much easier time then with a candle stick.

In the heat of the moment if you are so mad at someone you want to kill them, you have a much higher chance of success with a gun than a... pencil.

 

[George Wallace]

Again, I respectfully disagree. Someone can absolutely murder someone with a candlestick, a pencil, a big black rubber cock (ref:lock stock and two smoking barrels). But you try and kill me with with a gun, you're going to have a much easier time then with a candle stick.

In the heat of the moment if you are so mad at someone you want to kill them, you have a much higher chance of success with a gun than a... pencil.

:

Do you know how many things in the room you are sitting in, can be used by someone to kill you.  Many of them very efficiently and quietly.  Many of them just as quick and deadly as a bullet. 

Stop with the BS.

 

[c_canuk]

Well I would just again point to the report I posted yesterday that shows a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. It specifically addresses c_canuk's point about guns REDUCING violence. Neither of us are specialists, but the most comprehensive study on the issue so far shows that gun ownership is linked to a higher rate of firearm related deaths. I don't see how one can argue against that until they pull out a report that shows different.

If there are guns and people with intent to use them violently, you will have gun crime. I have no issue with this idea. I have an issue with the idea that reducing gun crime by banning guns will result in less total murders and violent crime. I have an issue with the idea that you can actually get rid of guns, and not just make them illegal. If cocaine can still be smuggled into the country while billions has been spent trying to stop it, why would we be any more successful with guns?

There has been an increase in the amount of guns available and the violent crime rates have fallen. I agree that this is due to societal shifts and is not a correlation between more guns = less crime.

That said however, that the amounts of guns have increased and crime has fallen has completely invalidates your provided report. If there were a correlation as the report claims, then the violent crime rate would have increased or should have shown a less steep decline compared to areas where guns have not become more plentiful, and there is not. The only conclusion the report makes is that if guns are available, murderers will use them.

This is a useless fact. It is irrelevant. The report does not illustrate removing guns reduces overall homicide and other violent crime. the tool of the killer is irrelevant.

This report is no different than stating countries with loosly regulated cars have more car accidents than those that ban car ownership. In fact it's less relevant because car accidents happen without intent, while murder is intentional.

The idea that if we take the guns away, then there will be less overall violent crime is false. It doesn't work and has never worked. No form of prohibition has ever worked. There are several studies and real world examples that show this idea does not reflect reality.

It is stupidly obvious that if guns are available, those with intent will use them. This is no suprise, no one is arguing that there is not a link between availability of guns and numbers of gun crime.

Reducing guns may reduce gun crime, it does not remove other violent crime. If one has intent, lack of one tool over another will not remove the intent.

Most violent gun crime in Canada is committed with guns that are already illegal. So how does making them all illegal do anything to reduce violent crime? I submit that is does not. But what it does do is incentives gun running as the black market will flourish just like every other example of prohibition in history, and robbery due to reduced risk of victims being able to defend themselves.

Taking away legal avenues to obtain the tool, does not remove the intent. The intent will have the perpetrator get one illegally, or grab another tool. This has been shown multiple times. Our own country's crime statistics illustrate this perfectly.

The report does not address this. It is a lazy simple statistical analysis that concludes that A country is more likely have gun crime if guns are readily available, compared to a country where it's harder to get them". Well... No shit. :

 

[Lumber]

:

Do you know how many things in the room you are sitting in, can be used by someone to kill you.  Many of them very efficiently and quietly.  Many of them just as quick and deadly as a bullet. 

Stop with the BS.

It's not BS! To steal an argument from many people (albeit slightly skewed), if having a gun makes it easier to defend yourself from someone else, then it is also easier to defend yourself if the person attacking you doesn't have a gun!

Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others. The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time.

 

[c_canuk]

Again, I respectfully disagree. Someone can absolutely murder someone with a candlestick, a pencil, a big black rubber **** (ref:lock stock and two smoking barrels). But you try and kill me with with a gun, you're going to have a much easier time then with a candle stick.

In the heat of the moment if you are so mad at someone you want to kill them, you have a much higher chance of success with a gun than a... pencil.

What would seem more of a threat to you, someone walking into a room with a drawn pistol, or holding a candle stick?

if the person were composed, you'd think nothing of letting them come within arms reach of you with a candle stick. one swing and your done. With a pistol you're more likely to recognize the danger immediately and try to evade. Pistols are harder to aim at 10' than a candle stick is to swing. A lot louder too.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what tool they use, and the fact that when guns are used, they are typically already illegal shows that making them illegal does nothing to deter their use.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others. The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time.   Wrist-slashing has a much lower lethality rate, comparatively. 75% of all suicide attempts are by self-poisoning, a method that is often thwarted because the drug is nonlethal or is used at a nonlethal dosage. These people survive 97% of the time.[4]

Also, on what authority/expertise do you purpose that "most suicide attempts are please for attention."?

Meanwhile in almost gun-free Japan- http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/09/04/national/japans-suicide-rate-exceeds-world-average-who-report/

 

[Lumber]

What would seem more of a threat to you, someone walking into a room with a drawn pistol, or holding a candle stick?

if the person were composed, you'd think nothing of letting them come within arms reach of you with a candle stick. one swing and your done. With a pistol you're more likely to recognize the danger immediately and try to evade. Pistols are harder to aim at 10' than a candle stick is to swing. A lot louder too.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what tool they use, and the fact that when guns are used, they are typically already illegal shows that making them illegal does nothing to deter their use.

I was referring more to crimes of passion, second degree murder, etc. But I agree with what you're saying.

Making them illegal wouldn't keep criminals from using illegal firearms. But making them illegal makes them harder to get. Guns aren't like growing pot; you need some serious technical equipment and know-how to produce them (lets not even get into 3D printing).

Now, in the US, unless they collected and destroyed all 300 million guns, then all of this is for moot. But if you took a society that had little or no guns, and made it very hard to procure them, then there would be fewer total guns moving around, which means fewer guns for criminals to obtain illegally.

No?

 

[Jed]

I was referring more to crimes of passion, second degree murder, etc. But I agree with what you're saying.

Making them illegal wouldn't keep criminals from using illegal firearms. But making them illegal makes them harder to get. Guns aren't like growing pot; you need some serious technical equipment and know-how to produce them (lets not even get into 3D printing).

Now, in the US, unless they collected and destroyed all 300 million guns, then all of this is for moot. But if you took a society that had little or no guns, and made it very hard to procure them, then there would be fewer total guns moving around, which means fewer guns for criminals to obtain illegally.

No?

This is about Canadian Gun laws. Do you really think we have a great abundance of guns out there totally ready to be picked up by any Tom, Dick and Harry?  We don't.

Stop talking in circles and getting way off point in your arguments. You are just pissing off legitimate and responsible gun owners.

 

[George Wallace]

This graphic could be thrown out as part of your argument against illegal guns.

The graphic really could also be a red herring.  It refers solely to gun related deaths.  Gun related deaths would include all deaths, not just those due to gun violence in the commissioning of a crime (includes murder), but also suicide, accidental death (kids playing with loaded guns, someone cleaning a loaded weapon), and hunting deaths. 

We could probably use a similar graphic to show deaths related to automobiles for every 100,000 people and likely see similar results by population.  The graphic would include all deaths; vehicular homicide, accident, suicide, etc.

 

[cld617]

It's not BS! To steal an argument from many people (albeit slightly skewed), if having a gun makes it easier to defend yourself from someone else, then it is also easier to defend yourself if the person attacking you doesn't have a gun!

Is this actually how you think statistics work? You need to examine correlations between firearm ownership and homicide, not firearm ownership and firearm homicide.

Now, in the US, unless they collected and destroyed all 300 million guns, then all of this is for moot. But if you took a society that had little or no guns, and made it very hard to procure them, then there would be fewer total guns moving around, which means fewer guns for criminals to obtain illegally.

Why are you functioning in make believe land, come back to reality. You're never going to put a stop on the influx of firearms being illegally imported from America to Canada. Root social causes are the avenue to success and prevention, not legislation and tough on crime approaches.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Safety courses costs could be tax deductible at least. The government and gun groups could set levels of protection and you met a level, like “gold” that could save you money. Already statistically speaking, gun owners in Canada are 3 times less likely to be involved in violent crime, so we are already saving the government money in many ways. Let’s not forget the impact that sports like mountain biking has on paid and volunteer rescue services, or the environmental degradation. It would be far better for everyone if the government bought back the bikes and gave out trap guns. 

As for illegal guns entering Canada, CBSA reported sometime ago they recovered 1300 guns from the cargo they inspected. They only inspected 3% of the incoming cargo, so you are looking at a potential of 43,000 illegal guns a year if the rates stayed the same.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This thread is not about suicide, what happens in other countries, who has the highest murder rate, etc.

It's about Canadian gun laws, period.

If you cannot stick to the thread subject, please go elsewhere.

If you are too lazy to read ALL the posts in this thread, and realize that these points have already been discussed at length, please do so before posting again.

Canadian gun owners & Canadian firearms laws. That's it.

Please stay on track. Posts outside of those two parameters may be deleted as off subject tangents.

---Staff---

 

[Lumber]

This thread is not about suicide, what happens in other countries, who has the highest murder rate, etc.

It's about Canadian gun laws, period.

If you cannot stick to the thread subject, please go elsewhere.

If you are too lazy to read ALL the posts in this thread, and realize that these points have already been discussed at length, please do so before posting again.

Canadian gun owners & Canadian firearms laws. That's it.

Please stay on track. Posts outside of those two parameters may be deleted as off subject tangents.

---Staff---

The original post was about the $2-Billion dollars spent on Gun Registry, and it was started in 2003.

If we're not allowed to let the discussion ebb and flow and expect it to remain rigid over a 13 year period, then maybe we should lock the thread and split the thread starting some point of a few pages years ago.

This is good discussion. But fine, I'll stay within those narrowly defined requirements:

Canadian firearms laws: I like 'em. Let keeps 'em that way. Tough on crime laws won't help, IMO. Criminals aren't buying guns the legal way; they're either stolen from law-abiding gun owners or imported from the United States (crap, that doesn't break the rule about keeping it Canadian centric, does it?). The only real way to deal with gun violence in Canada is to deal with the underlying cause of the violence, such as social and economic innequality.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canadian firearms laws: I like 'em. Let keeps 'em that way

That statment I can't agree on. The FAC system did everything at a lesser cost. You could roll back the gun laws to 1962 and not affect the crime rate significantly.

 

[Jarnhamar]

This thread is not about suicide, what happens in other countries, who has the highest murder rate, etc.

It's about Canadian gun laws, period.

If you cannot stick to the thread subject, please go elsewhere.

If you are too lazy to read ALL the posts in this thread, and realize that these points have already been discussed at length, please do so before posting again.

Canadian gun owners & Canadian firearms laws. That's it.

Please stay on track. Posts outside of those two parameters may be deleted as off subject tangents.

---Staff---

I was going to post something about this if I could just make a quick point on it.

As with many many issues, we need to stop looking at other countries, especially the US, to compare ourselves to.  Canada is Canada, not the US, not Australia not Sweden or Japan.
It's almost sickening to constantly see so many Canadians living in the shadow of the US. From politics to firearms to everything else. "We don't want to be like the US!"  Start being Canadian and stop being not-American.


Back to Canada.

Our firearm laws aren't based in science or historical examples. They are a product of the government trying to keep both sides happy and cater to the all mighty vote.
You can target shoot in the woods with an anti-tank bullet but not an anti-squirrel bullet if it's in an AR15 platform. Ridiculous.
In stead of concentrating on banning this gun or that gun (such as the RCMP banning .22LR rifles based on looks) we need to concentrate on keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and keeping criminals off the streets longer. Kick immigrants out who get caught committing crimes with firearms.

I have a "few" thousand dollars worth of firearms and I know how easily those can be lost. I guarantee I am more observant of the laws than your average non-firearm owning Canadian.

Hypocritically, look at Tom Mulcair. Anti-gun stance and wants to ban pistols and semi-autos, that doesn't stop him from surrounding himself with armed police carrying pistols.

Drug dealers plant drugs inside the bodies of human beings, and they build and use frigging submarines to smuggle drugs in. If you think fewer legal guns in Canada will reduce the number of illegal guns here then you don't understand how the black market or supply and demand works.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The only real way to deal with gun violence in Canada is to deal with the underlying cause of the violence, such as social and economic innequality.

I need to address this even though it's off topic............I have worked in a jail for 27 years now.  Your catch-all phrase above is so far from the reality of crime it is laughable.  Though it does collect votes and keep money flowing to all kinds of 'programs' for folks to collect some free cash.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Canadian firearms laws: I like 'em. Let keeps 'em that way.

Why?

I have to go to a special range to use an AR15 however I can take what amounts to an improved AR15 anywhere on crown land, how does that make sense?
A rifle built off the isralie assault rifle with a 18.6" barrel can sit in my closet on the floor of my truck and I'm fine but if it has a 18" barrel I would go to jail for the same thing?  transporting a pistol in a $7 cheap plastic case from Canadian tire plastic case is considered secure and the difference between jail or not?

Our firearm laws are retarded dude.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Why?

I have to go to a special range to use an AR15 however I can take what amounts to an improved AR15 anywhere on crown land, how does that make sense?
A rifle built off the isralie assault rifle with a 18.6" barrel can sit in my closet on the floor of my truck and I'm fine but if it has a 18" barrel I would go to jail for the same thing?  transporting a pistol in a $7 cheap plastic case from Canadian tire plastic case is considered secure and the difference between jail or not?

Some of our firearm laws are retarded dude.

TFTFY

I like some of the laws, specifically the requirement for a firearms safety course and the need to be be licensed and provide references although this isn't fool proof as a "don't tread on me" moron like Justin Bourque was still able to get a firearms license.

Rather than creating more bureaucracy, the government should look at simplifying the laws with the follow-on being actually enforcing them properly.  The laws should be based on logic and not stupid emotion.  If the firearms centre actually did what it's supposed to and properly screened a moron like Justin Bourque, he probably wouldn't have been able to get a gun.  Nope they'd rather go after a guy like Ian Thomson who did nothing wrong other than defend himself from a bunch of thugs.

The whole Restricted/Non-Restricted crap needs to go away, a firearm is either G2G or it's a prohibited weapon, get rid of the stupid grey areas in the laws. 

Ditto the ATTs which it seems we have had some progress on.  The government also needs to acknowledge that not everyone lives in Toronto and there are many reasons someone might need a rifle/shotgun/handgun (animal protection anyone?).

 

[Lumber]

[quote athor=Lumber]
The only real way to deal with gun violence in Canada is to deal with the underlying cause of the violence, such as social and economic innequality.
[/unquote]

I need to address this even though it's off topic............I have worked in a jail for 27 years now.  Your catch-all phrase above is so far from the reality of crime it is laughable.  Though it does collect votes and keep money flowing to all kinds of 'programs' for folks to collect some free cash.

Sorry, I should have stayed in my lanes. I should have ended with "the underlying causes of violence" as I have no expertise wrt the underlying causes of violence (other than Lag...).

Given your experience, what is your opinion on the underlying cause of violence?

Why?
...
Our firearm laws are retarded dude.

I've read about them and I agree that all of those technicalities are a bunch of claptrap. The acquisition laws, such as the requirement for a firearms safety course and the need to be be licensed and provide references are like. As a non-gun owner, all of those stupid technicalities don't matter to me. I've seen first hand the effort required into actually obtaining a firearm. In 28 years of life, I know very few people who own guns, I've never seen an illegal gun, never been present when a gun was fired (other than in the military obviously, but seriously, never, not even hunting or sport shooting), never known a victim of gun violence, never once worried about people having guns on the street. So as far as I know or care, I'm happy happy with our gun laws.

 

[Kilo_302]

I need to address this even though it's off topic............I have worked in a jail for 27 years now.  Your catch-all phrase above is so far from the reality of crime it is laughable.  Though it does collect votes and keep money flowing to all kinds of 'programs' for folks to collect some free cash.

Bruce your experience working in a jail might colour your perceptions a bit. Are you denying that socioeconomic factors play a role in crime? I'm sure you have day to day experiences that most if not all of us have NEVER experienced, but that doesn't mean inequality and economic conditions have no bearing on crime. It also doesn't mean you can dismiss decades of evidence-based public policy. I mean, really.