The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Kat Stevens]

I think we should make it illegal to be a criminal. That would fix everything.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=HAGGIS]
This should give the Liberals something to distract the public from SNC Lavalin and a few other files.
[/quote]

Right on time and predicted.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I believe that's completely separate from Bill C-71. Bill C-71 actually can and still may get passed before October... Blair's new gun grab wouldn't have nearly enough time, he even said as much that it wouldn't be happening this time around. With that said, it may be a campaign strategy for them.

It could clear the Senate by May if everything falls into place and the Senate does not vote to change even a word of the Bill: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/22/gun-bill-still-faces-long-haul-as-election-closes-in/

I assume Royal Proclamation would occur before the election kicks off. Regulations can come later by OIC or they can come on day 1. Either way, it's a legislative assassination of loyal law abiding citizens ("legicide") who are not the problem and nothing of substance will be addressed from a criminal use of firearms perspective.

 

[Haggis]

Regulations can come later by OIC or they can come on day 1.

My guess is that the regulations are all ready to go on Day 1.  There will be no delay in implementation as the results have to be visible to the Liberal loyalists before the writ drops.

 

[Haggis]

The Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence sat yesterday and heard testimony from both sides of the C-71 debate.  I won't dissect the veracity of anyone's claims on either side, but I will say that watching Dr. Gary Mauser waving a photo of a moose while declaring that more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.

 

[Loachman]

And far more are killed by medical staff as well.

 

[mariomike]

I will say that watching Dr. Gary Mauser waving a photo of a moose while declaring that more Canadians are killed by moose each year than by lawful firearms owners was epic.

Can't comment on moose fatalities. They never sent us to one.

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.

 

[Haggis]

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.

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.

 

[mariomike]

< 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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

 

[Haggis]

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.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

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.

 

[Haggis]

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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

 

[Loachman]

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.

 

[Haggis]

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..."

 

[mariomike]

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".

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Suicide rates have little to do with method, Japan and South Korea would love to have the US suicide rate per 100,000

 

[ballz]

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.

 

[Loachman]

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".