Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0  (Read 41996 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 496,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,153
    • The job.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #250 on: February 26, 2019, 18:34:22 »
< snip> more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.

And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.

ok. Thank-you for the clarification.



Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 275,522
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,554
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #251 on: February 26, 2019, 18:44:08 »
That statistical void is part of the problem.  Bill C-71 is aimed (pun intended) at enhancing the psychological background checks of lawful owners.  If my unhinged spouse/child/other relative/friend/neighbour unlawfully takes my lawfully owned gun and offs himself, Bill C-71 won't prevent that.

And Dr. Mauser was making a comparison between moose caused deaths and homicides by lawful firearms owners.

If you have anyone in your home without a PAL, they should not be able to access your firearms or ammo. Keep your stuff secure, as required by law and dont make it accessable to anyone. My wife had firearms prior to the PAL. They are secured and she will never get them again, until she gets her PAL. She s no idea how to access anything.

Now, that raises another point. No matter how much the CFO badgers her, she cant get at anything. If she could, and does for the CFO, we can both end up in jail. She is oblivious to what is where and how many there are. If she gets her PAL, she gets her guns back.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,695
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #252 on: February 26, 2019, 19:00:13 »
If you have anyone in your home without a PAL, they should not be able to access your firearms or ammo. Keep your stuff secure, as required by law and don't make it accessible to anyone.

Hence my qualification of "unlawfully takes".  My firearms and ammo storage arrangements exceed the requirements of the Firearms Act.  However, in the eyes of Minister Blair and other Liberal MPs, this is still insufficient and my firearms are deemed to be at risk of unlawful use.  Since I clearly can't be trusted, centralized storage is the only solution

My wife had firearms prior to the PAL. They are secured and she will never get them again, until she gets her PAL.
That's awesome incentive, particularly if she wants her guns (her property) back.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 39,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,628
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #253 on: February 26, 2019, 20:05:53 »
I would say that about 90 per cent of the gun fatalities they sent us to were suicides. No idea if they were lawful firearms owners.

Two personal anecdotes.

My uncle who had been suffering from both mental and health problems managed to find a .22 rifle in the attic that everyone had forgotten about and used it to commit suicide.

One of my best friends committed suicide using his legally owned hunting rifle. He was also having problems; alcohol, split with his wife, etc.

Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,695
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #254 on: February 26, 2019, 21:54:34 »
Sorry for your losses, brother.

My uncle who had been suffering from both mental and health problems managed to find a .22 rifle in the attic that everyone had forgotten about and used it to commit suicide.
  I assume the gun was unregistered and he was un-licensed?  C-71 would not have prevented that, nor would, I suspect, the former long gun registry.

One of my best friends committed suicide using his legally owned hunting rifle. He was also having problems; alcohol, split with his wife, etc.
  Our current laws could have prevented this tragedy had someone (family member, co-worker, ex-wife) spoken up and called the local PD or CFO.  But no one wants to be "that guy" who gets a friend or relative "in trouble" even if getting them "in trouble" saves their life.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 275,522
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,554
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #255 on: February 27, 2019, 14:47:42 »
That's awesome incentive, particularly if she wants her guns (her property) back.

It sounds mean and autocratic, but it's for her own protection against an unscrupulous government or Crown prosecutors.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,374
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #256 on: February 27, 2019, 17:03:50 »
Our current laws could have prevented this tragedy

They may have eliminated firearms as a method in this, and similar tragedies, at best.

There are plenty of other methods that are just as lethal, however.

This is why gun grabbers speak about "gun deaths", and not total homicide and suicide rates.

The current legislation may have reduced the number of suicides in which firearms were used, but rope sales easily made up the difference.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,695
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #257 on: February 27, 2019, 17:43:29 »
The current legislation may have reduced the number of suicides in which firearms were used, but rope sales easily made up the difference.

An uncomfortable truth overlooked by those who portray guns as the only suicide method that matters.  "If it saves only one life..."
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 496,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,153
    • The job.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #258 on: February 28, 2019, 07:32:18 »
An uncomfortable truth overlooked by those who portray guns as the only suicide method that matters. 

Hardly the only way. Although not failsafe, certainly one of the more reliable.

Not suitable for a "suicidal gesture".

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #259 on: February 28, 2019, 12:05:52 »
Suicide rates have little to do with method, Japan and South Korea would love to have the US suicide rate per 100,000

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 115,796
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,241
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #260 on: February 28, 2019, 19:19:52 »
Sorry, but I get a little irritated every time these debates switch to suicide.

Was the 1995 Firearms Act about preventing suicide? Is Bill C-71 about preventing suicide? Is the potential handgun ban and "assault weapon" ban (i.e. every restricted weapon) about preventing suicides?

Did suicides spur this debate? Are lawful firearm owners being attacked because the suicide rate is too high? Is it suicide they are talking about when they keep talking about how violent our streets are becoming? Are we discussing the "legally purchased and then diverted to the black market" firearms because those are apparently causing suicide? I never once heard Ralph Gooddale mention suicides in all of this.

There is no doubt that suicides are by far the biggest danger that firearms offer, and that suicide prevention is an important part of firearm policy (probably the most important if preventing death is the goal)... but I can't help but find that bringing the topic of suicide into the fold creates a tangent that takes the heat off of those who are trying to use violent crime, gang violence, homicides, mass shooters, etc, as propaganda to disarm lawful citizens, those are the same people who don't give a damn about how many suicides occur and their rhetoric takes away from the possibility of any reasonable policy measures that could be used to prevent suicide or accidental deaths. Anyone who is concerned about suicides should be as angry as firearm owners with the government's agenda.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,374
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #261 on: February 28, 2019, 20:24:05 »
Hardly the only way. Although not failsafe, certainly one of the more reliable.

Haggis did not say that it was "the only way". He said that it was "the only suicide method that matters".

There is a big difference.

Gun-grabbers do not care about the poor unfortunates that leap from tall buildings, lie down on railway tracks, ram their cars into bridge abutments, or hang themselves etcetera. They only care when firearms are used. And, even then, they don't actually care about the people. They only care that an inanimate object that they unreasonably hate and fear and want to take away from people like me was used, and want them all banned even though restrictions and bans do not affect suicide rates. That is why they use the term "gun deaths" and not "deaths".

Yes, "gun deaths" can be reduced, but overall suicide and homicide rates tend not to be affected by such restrictions and bans.

How many gun-grabbers does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They just pass a law banning burnt-out light bulbs and stumble around wondering why it is still dark.

Sorry, but I get a little irritated every time these debates switch to suicide.

Was the 1995 Firearms Act about preventing suicide?

They claimed that, back then, as partial justification for the legislation - even though they had the same information that we had.

Reductions of deaths and injuries really had nothing to do with it, though. It was always only about votes - and mainly votes in Quebec. They cashed in - and continue to cash in - on the memory of the Ecole Polytechnique tragedy. Emotion over logic.

There is no doubt that suicides are by far the biggest danger that firearms offer

Firearms do not, and cannot, "offer danger". Triggers do not, and cannot, pull fingers.

Absent a human operator, firearms can do nothing at all.

and that suicide prevention is an important part of firearm policy (probably the most important if preventing death is the goal

Firearm policy cannot influence suicide prevention one whit. Firearms legislation is completely impotent as a means of suicide  - and homicide - reduction.

Well, not completely. Restricting possession by honest citizens does not reduce is impotent. Reducing restrictions has proven benefits, however.

The US has seen significant reductions in homicides, rapes, assaults, and robberies in most jurisdictions that have reduced or eliminated restrictions on non-felonious citizens and certain people with adjudicated mental health problems. The "bad" areas - which drive and distort the US national homicide rate - tend to be large, Democrat-controlled cities with extremely- and unreasonably-restrictive policies, and even certain specific smallish neighbourhoods within those cities. There are several states with lower homicide rates than Canada - New Hampshire and Vermont are two such. Either or both are now "constitutional-carry" states, in which no permit is required for either open or concealed carry by citizens with no criminal background or certain categories of mental illness. Nunavut was, for at least one year recently, the territory/province/state in Canada and the US with the highest homicide rate.

Anyone who is concerned about suicides should be as angry as firearm owners with the government's agenda.

Yes - if they cared to study the actual facts and evidence with open minds. Few people understand firearms. Few people have ever handled one, let alone fired one. They are influenced by fictional movies and television programmes, and anti-gun media and government propaganda.

They have been taught to fear what they do not understand. It is called "hoplophobia".

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,592
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #262 on: February 28, 2019, 20:49:55 »
I am not going to enter the gun debate but I will provide a little not-objective, personal observation: Here in Montreal, where anti-gun/gun grabbers have the most sway and where, I suspect, you probably have the lowest gun ownership rates in the country, we have the subway stopped for a few hours for unspecified "technical" reasons (and everybody in Montreal know what those are - jumpers) about twice a week - with all the delays and late arrivals that entails. Yet, when I was a kid and guns were more easily available, you never even had more than one or two of those a year.

I know that is not scientific, but it's a fact. At the same time, the Federal government invested millions in a suicide prevention barrier on the Jacques-Cartier bridge pedestrian walkways. it is now impossible to jump from the bridge to your death in the river below. Yet, that's been up for ten years now and the suicide rate in Montreal didn't drop.

Go figure!

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,374
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #263 on: February 28, 2019, 21:35:09 »
Here in Montreal, where anti-gun/gun grabbers have the most sway and where, I suspect, you probably have the lowest gun ownership rates in the country

I don't think that the ownership rate is significantly different. A lot of Quebeckers love to hunt as much as anywhere else. They don't seem to have been as vocal as owners eslewhere - who are already not vocal enough.

we have the subway stopped for a few hours for unspecified "technical" reasons (and everybody in Montreal know what those are - jumpers) about twice a week - with all the delays and late arrivals that entails.

And the traumatic effect on crews and those who have to clean up the mess.

Statistically, a head-end crewmember (conductor or engineer), will kill at least one person in a twenty-year career.

We got sent to check a section of the CN mainline near the lakeshore on the western edge of Toronto for a potentially suicidal person sometime after midnight one night when I was flying the Police Helicopter Trial. He had been drinking heavily at a local bar, and announced his intentions to his buddies just before leaving. We searched along the tracks for several kilometres in either direction, well beyond the distance that he could have run, let alone staggered, with no sign of him. One of the coppers on the ground had phoned CN, to see when the next train was due past. Buddy would have lain on the tracks for almost 1.5 hours, in the cold, before getting "lucky". The only humanoids that we saw were fishing along the banks of a small stream that passed under a bridge carring the mainline over it. We were astounded that anybody would be fishing at that time (it was, by then, somewhere around 0200), but passed the location to the ground guys. They found our quarry huddled under the bridge - and also told us that the fisherpeoplekind were all Chinese (I still do not know whether or not that was of any significance, or a particular Chinese fishing custom). Buddy was taken to a hospital for observation and treatment, and we all felt pretty good about things.

We found out later that he'd been successful in the same area a few days after we thought that we'd saved him. He'd seemed in a good mood at the same bar, said a cheery goodnight to his friends and, this time, made no mentioned of his intent.

At the same time, the Federal government invested millions in a suicide prevention barrier on the Jacques-Cartier bridge pedestrian walkways. it is now impossible to jump from the bridge to your death in the river below. Yet, that's been up for ten years now and the suicide rate in Montreal didn't drop.

Toronto wasted a few million on an anti-suicide net on the Bloor Street Viaduct across the Don Valley several years ago, which was a popular spot for jumpers (somebody, I think a councillor, had referred to it as a "romantic" location for suicides). This, obviously to all non-experts, was a wasted effort, as there is no shortage of other tall structures around. Or railway tracks, or ropes etcetera. The only part that would have made sense would have been the section that crosses the Don Valley Parkway a few hundred feet below: six lanes with an occasionally-attainable 90 km/hr speed limit. To the best of my knowledge, however, nobody had ever been so inconsiderate as to launch his/herself into a car below, but it would not have been an unreasonable safety precaution.

Offline Jed

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,101
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #264 on: February 28, 2019, 21:47:52 »
Rural Quebec culture is pretty insular. They own guns and be damned if some modi Anglais or Big City gars will tell them what to do.
As the old man used to say: " I used to be a coyote, but I'm alright nooooOOOOWWW!"

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 496,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,153
    • The job.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #265 on: February 28, 2019, 22:49:21 »
Toronto wasted a few million on an anti-suicide net on the Bloor Street Viaduct across the Don Valley several years ago, which was a popular spot for jumpers (somebody, I think a councillor, had referred to it as a "romantic" location for suicides).

The Bloor Viaduct was North America's No. 2 suicide draw. Second only to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

To the best of my knowledge, however, nobody had ever been so inconsiderate as to launch his/herself into a car below,

Oh, they have.

And the traumatic effect on crews and those who have to clean up the mess.

Only bothered me once. Some joker sounded the Operator's horn twice, while my partner and I were crawling under a subway with flash lights picking up the pieces.

Two blasts on the horn was the "Go" signal. Guess he thought it was funny. Not!  :)






« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 22:59:21 by mariomike »

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 275,522
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,554
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #266 on: February 28, 2019, 23:20:03 »
Why do I feel like we did the whole suicide thing already?

Still the same charges, still the same sensible facts in reply?

Nothing has changed has it? Did I miss something?
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 281,976
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,623
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #267 on: March 01, 2019, 03:38:05 »
Did some quick checking, but it's tricky because there seems to be conflicting stats.


In one study I'm seeing that during the 1980s and 90s firearms and hanging were the leading 1st & 2nd (respectively) methods of suicide in Canada with a rate of around 13 cases per 100'000 people.

In the mid and later 2000s it appears that hanging (suffocation) and poisoning were the leading methods used, and the rate dropped to around 11 per 100k.

In nuvavut its between 60 and 70 suicides per 100k.

Other studies suggest that hanging and poisoning were always the leading cause of suicides in Canada.

Two family members I've had commit suicide one was hanging and the other vehicular, the latter having access to firearms and ammunition.


What I find irksome is that anti-gun proponents often seem to try and relate increasing gun control with preventing suicides but their prevention/help concerns don't go beyond gun control debates. Don't use deaths of people you don't otherwise care about to push an agenda.


There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 275,522
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,554
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #268 on: March 01, 2019, 13:05:07 »
Did some quick checking, but it's tricky because there seems to be conflicting stats.


In one study I'm seeing that during the 1980s and 90s firearms and hanging were the leading 1st & 2nd (respectively) methods of suicide in Canada with a rate of around 13 cases per 100'000 people.

In the mid and later 2000s it appears that hanging (suffocation) and poisoning were the leading methods used, and the rate dropped to around 11 per 100k.

In nuvavut its between 60 and 70 suicides per 100k.

Other studies suggest that hanging and poisoning were always the leading cause of suicides in Canada.

Two family members I've had commit suicide one was hanging and the other vehicular, the latter having access to firearms and ammunition.


What I find irksome is that anti-gun proponents often seem to try and relate increasing gun control with preventing suicides but their prevention/help concerns don't go beyond gun control debates. Don't use deaths of people you don't otherwise care about to push an agenda.

That is the forte of many governments.........and news agencies. Dance on the graves of the dead to try bolster a lacking opinion or perspective.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,964
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #269 on: March 01, 2019, 13:24:39 »
Rural Quebec culture is pretty insular. They own guns and be damned if some modi Anglais or Big City gars will tell them what to do.

Ditto Northern Ontario.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 275,522
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,554
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #270 on: March 01, 2019, 13:56:13 »
Ditto Northern Ontario.

Sorry fellas. That feeling is not singular to those two areas. Gun owners right across the country hold that sentiment.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,695
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #271 on: March 07, 2019, 16:10:00 »
The Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence will hold hearings on Bill C-71 again next Monday.  The witness list has yet to be posted.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,236
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #272 on: March 18, 2019, 12:18:02 »
The events in NZ will be used to punish legal gun owners in Canada, done by the same people who say we cannot hold Muslim there or here responsible for the action of other Muslims elsewhere. That disconnect galls us.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,254
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #273 on: March 18, 2019, 14:07:49 »
The events in NZ will be used to punish legal gun owners in Canada, done by the same people who say we cannot hold Muslim there or here responsible for the action of other Muslims elsewhere. That disconnect galls us.

Again, at the risk of thread drift, if it does hapoen in Canada, it will not be sold as punishment. It will be a public safety measure. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians stand to lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in property and many sporting goods stores will cease to exist, is neither here nor there, in the minds of official Ottawa.

Online Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 47,367
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,854
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #274 on: March 18, 2019, 17:06:20 »
Again, at the risk of thread drift, if it does hapoen in Canada, it will not be sold as punishment. It will be a public safety measure. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians stand to lose thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars in property and many sporting goods stores will cease to exist, is neither here nor there, in the minds of official Ottawa.

Looks like we follow the model of most countries. "How to Buy a Gun in 16 Countries"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/02/world/international-gun-laws.html