The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Fabius]

I see your counter point. And if I thought this is where it all ends you might be right. But its not, not even close.

This is key. For the proponents of gun control no risk is acceptable, no utility is acceptable. Gun regulations in 2014 had achieved a degree of stability and social consensus. The LPC and Poly have destroyed that consensus, if was not lawful owners that did that.

There always is an expectation that lawful citizens will give up more property because, pick your justification. There is no indication that Poly, the Government nor the LPC are negotiating in good faith.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You are fixated on capability as determined by risk vs utility.
Okay, what technical components increase risk?
How are we defining risk? Risk to what?
How do we manage risk? What are the mechanisms by which we can mitigate risk? Ie licensing vs banning.

How are defining utility? Utility to who? Hunters, Farmers, trappers, sport shooters, historians, collectors, home owners, young, old, ?

Hunters very much want to act like their firearms aren't just as capable as military styled firearms when school shootings and mass shootings are being discussed. Their apathy towards sport shooters plight will shoot them in the ass when their bolt actuon "sniper rifles" and close range shotguns are on the list next.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hunters very much want to act like their firearms aren't just as capable as military styled firearms when school shootings and mass shootings are being discussed. Their apathy towards sport shooters plight will shoot them in the ass when their bolt actuon "sniper rifles" and close range shotguns are on the list next.

I understand the sentiment but know that not all of us are like that. And some of us know we are all one in the same.

 

[suffolkowner]

In context, a hunting gun is one whose mix of traditional use and functional characteristics place it too low on the the "risk" and too high on the "utility" axes to be a politically viable target for further restriction/ banning in the eyes of the overall public.

In legislative terms: any gun that is used for hunting that is not prohibitted as:

• is not a handgun
• discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner; and
• was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.

Yeah but are firearms designed for magazines? For magazines of 5 rds?
How does the firearm know what magazine is used? I wonder if most of these firearms are designed with 5 rd magazines or just sold that way in certain markets?

 

[IKnowNothing]

You are fixated on capability as determined by risk vs utility.

Let's restate that. I acknowledge that the locus of the debate rests in societal perception of risk vs. utility, and accept that there is certain societal consensus that a large aspect of the "risk" associated with firearms is determined by capability.

Okay, what technical components increase risk?
How are we defining risk? Risk to what?

Good questions. Starts with acknowledging the societal consensus surrounding capability, specifically around rate and volume of fire- a critical mass of society has decided that there is a point on the curve where they are unwilling to accept the "risk"* created by the ability to lay down a certain volume of fire. To argue against that critical mass might as well be trying to push back the tide with a 4x8 sheet of plywood (doing so with a hand tied behind your back by reality based on your acceptance/ agreement with the LEO SME's professional opinion on the matter).

* or accepting enough of the existence of the risk that they're unwilling to fight against regulation

At present, that increased risk as driven by volume of fire capability is being defined by proxy by the functional characteristics that drive it- SA, capacity, reloading mechanism. Would there be value in defining that volume in terms of rounds per unit of time?

How do we manage risk? What are the mechanisms by which we can mitigate risk? Ie licensing vs banning.

Also great questions. Subverting poly and getting favourable answers to them requires meeting society for the discussion at hand.

How are defining utility? Utility to who? Hunters, Farmers, trappers, sport shooters, historians, collectors, home owners, young, old, ?

Utility to society. It's a frustratingly nebulous concept. Is it actual societal benefit? Enjoyment by individuals in society? How do you equate small utility to many vs. great utility to few? What's the utility of vice like drinking that's a net negative but has enough mass of enjoyment behind that keeps it from being banned? No hard answers, just relationships that play out through time.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good questions. Starts with acknowledging the societal consensus surrounding capability, specifically around rate and volume of fire-

There is no universal or settled societal consensus on where the acceptable threshold lies.

To argue against that critical mass might as well be trying to push back the tide with a 4x8 sheet of plywood

That's just a persuasive metaphor implying inevitability.
In reality gun policy has changed directions before, Opposition has successfully altered or delayed legislation, and Governments respond to electoral pressure, not just abstract consensus.

(doing so with a hand tied behind your back by reality based on your acceptance/ agreement with the LEO SME's professional opinion on the matter).

Many frontline officers publicly oppose or criticize model-based bans, OIC processes, claims about “assault-style” definitions. There is no monolithic LEO consensus.

 

[IKnowNothing]

There is no universal or settled societal consensus on where the acceptable threshold lies.

Fair. I went back and changed to "critical mass" in one place. It's not a true consensus.
By the way, If you agree that there's an acceptable threshold but disagree with where to place it you're tacitly agreeing that the spectrum of difference exists.

That's just a persuasive metaphor implying inevitability.
In reality gun policy has changed directions before, Opposition has successfully altered or delayed legislation, and Governments respond to electoral pressure, not just abstract consensus.

You mean like when the reaction to Chiang's amendment stopped your slippery slope dead in it's tracks in December 2022/Q1 2023?

Many frontline officers publicly oppose or criticize model-based bans, OIC processes, claims about “assault-style” definitions. There is no monolithic LEO consensus.

I didn't say there was. I've never said anything in defense of model based bans, OIC processes, or "assault style". Those are your windmills to tilt at.

I pointed out that a specific SME commented on the fact that in their professional opinion the situation at Bondi would have been made worse by the shooters having access to more capable firearms, and I pointed out the quoted poster agreed with said assessment.

 

[Fabius]

@IKnowNothing
What do you recommend?
How do you envision gun control?
How do you envision changing the conversation with Poly and the LPC?
Are you satisfied with the current regulations? What would you change?

I get the sense that you fully support banning all semi automatic magazine fed firearms because they are more capable.
Capable of what is a question, given we saw what non semi automatic weapons can do.

Do you prioritize regulating tools vs licensing legitimate uses?

Does the risk of non semi automatic weapons as exhibited in Australia outweigh their utility in your opinion?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I pointed out that a specific SME commented on the fact that in their professional opinion the situation at Bondi would have been made worse by the shooters having access to more capable firearms, and I pointed out the quoted poster agreed with said assessment.

It probably would have. Maybe there would be 20 dead instead of 15. Or 51 dead like at Christchurch or 6 dead a la Quebec city. Leading with a UHaul or IEDs could have increased the death count too.



Can we circle back to a previous comment I made which you may have missed? On average 640 Canadians complete suicide ever year with firearms, the majority of those firearms being being long guns. That's over twice the yearly homicide rate involving firearms in Canada. In the last 10 years there is an average of 4-5 mass shooting deaths per year.


In other words for every 1 mass-shooting death in Canada there are approximately 128 to 160 firearm suicides.

Do you think we should ban rifles and shotguns since they are the firearm most used (70% to 80%) in suicides in Canada?

 

[OldSolduer]

In other words for every 1 mass-shooting death in Canada there are approximately 128 to 160 firearm suicides.

Do you think we should ban rifles and shotguns since they are the firearm most used (70% to 80%) in suicides in Canada?

Where did you get your data?

FYI there are about 4500 deaths from suicide each year.

 

[IKnowNothing]

@IKnowNothing
What do you recommend?
How do you envision gun control?

Caveat- this is what I see as a best case forward, not what I would like in a vacuum.

1. Accept that there will be increased regulation compared to pre 2020.
2. Use the legislative definition in C-21 as a jump off point to define what that is going to look like
   1. Engage meaningfully with said definition and try to improve it, future proof it against encroachment, and create codified carveouts to protect as much as possible as NR (SKS etc)
   2. Codify Protection against future executive regulatory encroachment above and beyond said definition (Ban banning by OIC)
3. Reverse all OIC's and reissue classification list based solely on the definition established in 2.1, no name or furniture based classification
   1. Have firearms that run contrary to the definition (that don't meet the pre bill C21 prohib threshold) be classed as restricted rather than prohibited, provide 5 year amnesty period for current owners to up their license. Make eligible for sale and transfer and use as Restricted class firearms.

How do you envision changing the conversation with Poly and the LPC?

In my opinion you don't change the conversation with Poly, you provide the more reasonable, informed voice and engage meaningfully with government so that they (Poly) seem completely unreasonable to the electorate at large and get tuned out.

Are you satisfied with the current regulations? What would you change?

No. Lots. See above.

I get the sense that you fully support banning all semi automatic magazine fed firearms because they are more capable.

Nope- but I don't think papering over the capability difference is the path forward. I don't think you can win long term by telling people the sky is purple.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Where did you get your data?

FYI there are about 4500 deaths from suicide each year.

Aggregated data compiled from a few sources like Public Safety Canada and House of Commons web pages.

Keep in mind I'm referring to suicides completed with firearms only.

 

[OldSolduer]

Aggregated data compiled from a few sources like Public Safety Canada and House of Commons web pages.

Keep in mind I'm referring to suicides completed with firearms only.

Thank you. Appreciate it. If I recall correctly suicide by firearms are about 25% of all completions.

 

[Eaglelord17]

At present, that increased risk as driven by volume of fire capability is being defined by proxy by the functional characteristics that drive it- SA, capacity, reloading mechanism. Would there be value in defining that volume in terms of rounds per unit of time?

I can fire 22rds a minute on a target at 100m with a fixed magazine bolt action made in 1914. At the end of the day if someone wants to harm someone it doesn’t matter what type of firearm they have. Only whether or not they legally should have been able to acquire it.

If it is about ‘risk’ to society a lorry truck will generally do more damage than a full auto will. Yet we don’t discuss how to deal with that.

Firearms are the low hanging fruit, a easy scapegoat. Bad people will do bad things, no matter what laws you put in place. If someone is truly motivated little restrictions won’t stop them.

None of our firearms laws put in place in the last 50 years have changed the crime rate. It did make some self righteous people feel good but otherwise just harmed the citizenry by removing legal choices from them.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I can fire 22rds a minute on a target at 100m with a fixed magazine bolt action made in 1914.

A. How many with a 30rd box fed semi? How many hours of practice to get to that fraction?
B. Plywood -> Tide.

 

[Harris]

I can fire 22rds a minute on a target at 100m with a fixed magazine bolt action made in 1914. At the end of the day if someone wants to harm someone it doesn’t matter what type of firearm they have. Only whether or not they legally should have been able to acquire it.

If it is about ‘risk’ to society a lorry truck will generally do more damage than a full auto will. Yet we don’t discuss how to deal with that.

Firearms are the low hanging fruit, a easy scapegoat. Bad people will do bad things, no matter what laws you put in place. If someone is truly motivated little restrictions won’t stop them.

None of our firearms laws put in place in the last 50 years have changed the crime rate. It did make some self righteous people feel good but otherwise just harmed the citizenry by removing legal choices from them.

Eurika, I have the solution. Ban all Firearms like the UK. While not a total ban, it's close enough:
Weapons subject to a general prohibition (requiring special Home Office authority) include:

• Most handguns (firearms with a barrel under 30 cm or overall length under 60 cm), with narrow exceptions for certain antique, muzzle-loading, or historic firearms.
• Automatic or burst-fire firearms (machine guns).
• Most semi-automatic or pump-action rifles (other than those chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges).
• Firearms disguised as other items (e.g., walking sticks).
• Weapons designed to discharge noxious liquids, gases, or other substances (e.g., stun guns, CS gas).

Oh wait, sneaky buggers found a different way to kill people:
Knife Crime Key Statistics & Trends (England & Wales, ~2024/25)

• Offences: Around 53,000 knife/sharp instrument offences recorded, a slight dip from the previous year but higher than a decade ago.
• Homicides: Sharp instruments used in nearly half of homicides (262).
• Hospital Admissions: Over 3,500 hospital episodes from sharp object assaults.

And damn them, they figured out how to stab more than one person too (Back to 2021. Earlier dates in the link): (List of mass stabbings in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia):


All that to say, banning one thing just leads to another method.

 

[GR66]

In my opinion you don't change the conversation with Poly, you provide the more reasonable, informed voice and engage meaningfully with government so that they (Poly) seem completely unreasonable to the electorate at large and get tuned out.

The only way to really change the public conversation about gun control is to get a grip on gun crime. As long as there are daily stories on the news of random shootings on the streets Joe & Jane public are going to be concerned about guns. What type of guns they are and whether they are legal or illegal guns won't really matter. It's an uphill battle fighting gun control as long as the largely non-gun owning majority urban public keeps hearing about people being shot on the streets.

 

[Eaglelord17]

A. How many with a 30rd box fed semi? How many hours of practice to get to that fraction?
B. Plywood -> Tide.

Does it matter? If my intent is to kill I have the means.

You need to address why people want to kill or who has access not the type. I am as safe with a full auto as I am with my single shot musket as I don’t intend to use them on people.

Basing leglislation on a exceptionally rare event usually involving one nut job isn’t going to change much for anyone. Again I can do more damage with a truck yet you’re refusing to discuss banning them.

It also doesn’t matter how many rounds you can put down range as the majority of the time people scatter quick and find cover. Only in rare situations is that not a option (think Las Vagas, Pulse night club, Bondi). By the same regard when someone takes that much time to figure out those types of targets a truck or other option with similar thought process would have the same if not worse effects.

 

[Lumber]

I can fire 22rds a minute on a target at 100m with a fixed magazine bolt action made in 1914.

Good for you. I can fire 30 rounds in about 6 seconds from a semi-auto, and there's less chance of me coming off aim from taking my hand off the trigger to cock the bolt. Also, you've got tons of experience. Can someone with less experience and practice pull off the same?

Basing leglislation on a exceptionally rare event usually involving one nut job isn’t going to change much for anyone. Again I can do more damage with a truck yet you’re refusing to discuss banning them.

It also doesn’t matter how many rounds you can put down range as the majority of the time people scatter quick and find cover. Only in rare situations is that not a option (think Las Vagas, Pulse night club, Bondi). By the same regard when someone takes that much time to figure out those types of targets a truck or other option with similar thought process would have the same if not worse effects.

Oh well I guess since we cant stop someone from using a knife or a car for mass kurder, we shouldn't bother trying to stop them from using a gun! While we're at it, let's bring back fully automatics and hand grenades for public use. Sure, they could be used to cause mass casualties, but people are still commiting those atrocities anyways, so what's the point?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I can fire 30 rounds in about 6 seconds from a semi-auto,

Accurately or dumping the mag?

Oh well I guess since we cant stop someone from using a knife or a car for mass kurder, we shouldn't bother trying to stop them from using a gun! While we're at it, let's bring back fully automatics and hand grenades for public use. Sure, they could be used to cause mass casualties, but people are still commiting those atrocities anyways, so what's the point?

That’s a misrepresentation of the point. The argument isn’t that we shouldn’t try to prevent attacks. His argument appears to be that rate of fire is rarely the limiting factor in mass casualty events, which I agree. Extreme scenarios like Las Vegas are outliers, and focusing on them leads to overbroad rules that do little to reduce realworld harm. Cars, knives, and other means show that attackers intent, target selection, and opportunity often matter more than mechanical capability. Again, the average death toll in the US during mass shootings with AR15s (and similar rifles) is 11, not 30 or 60 or 150.

Symbolic restrictions that have minimal impact is a waste of time. Don't confuse questioning efficacy with rejecting regulation. We need to advocate for policies that actually work.