The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Halifax Tar]

So for the record I am not against some level of gun control. My laws would look something like this.

Still 3 classes of firearms, Non-Restricted, Restricted, Prohibited.

Non-Restricted would be any long gun, provided it isn’t full auto (this includes allowing converted autos to be non-restricted, a semi-auto is a semi-auto). No magazine restrictions. Same rules to get a PAL as current (maybe a little lightening on some of the DV parts as currently someone who is say 50 which had a incident when 16 can now not own a firearm despite likely being a very different person, obviously would have to be case by case).

Restricted would be handguns, you would be required to register it. Otherwise no restrictions other than no carrying in public without a permit and only to and from a lawful reason. There shall be no ATTs though as the lawful purpose covers everything you need to cover there. Shooting on crown land, private property, etc is a lawful reason basically anywhere you can use a long gun you can use a pistol.

Prohibited would be full autos. However if a full auto is converted to semi-auto only then it becomes non-restricted. The only reason I would make the prohibited category is because the public is too wrapped up in what a firearm does and wouldn’t tolerate it otherwise. Only reasons to get a prohibited license are for collectors and gun smiths/manufacturers/dealers.

PALs would not expire and can only be removed by court order for a number of legitimate reasons (criminal conviction, threatening people, proven ties to extremists, etc.). Temporary removal can be justified for arrest, etc. but requires a court follow up shortly after for permanent removal.

Strawbuying or illegally converting to full auto is a life sentence.

I guarantee you doing a change to this system would result in no increase in crime. A reduction in paper crimes. Reduction in bureaucracy. And allow law abiding citizens to carry on with their lives in peace.

We're largely of the same thought.

I would allow for a provision for hunters and trappers to carry a side arm as way to put down wounded animals without having to use a CF rifle cartridge.

And of cour my marksmanship training which seems to be spectacularly popular

 

[Eaglelord17]

In relation to the “capability” discussion.
Recent shooting in South Africa with 12 criminals armed with pistols and an AK47 resulted in fewer dead than in Australia.

Bekkersdal shooting: Gunmen kill nine in South Africa tavern attack

A further 10 people were injured in Bekkersdal after the perpetrators opened fire and "continued to shoot randomly".

www.bbc.com

Here is some stats from the States on mass shootings and casualties. The basic summary is most shootings kill about 5-6 people no matter what is used. There is a slight increase in average deaths with a ‘assault weapon’ (6 vs 5) but that really isn’t that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not enough in my opinion to justify extra strict rules for such a rare event in the first place.

Firearm Type and Number of People Killed in Publicly Targeted Fatal Mass Shooting Events - PMC

This cohort study examines mass shootings in the US to evaluate if assault weapons were associated with a higher number of injuries and deaths.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What matters most isn’t the weapon it is choice of target/location and who is doing it.

Bondi for example was a ‘good’ target location. Mostly unarmed people, no cover, and police in the area only had handguns to respond with. Vagas was a ‘good’ target location as it was plunging fire into a packed stadium designed to make difficult to get in or out (to prevent people from sneaking in).

Most mass shootings take place in malls, etc, where after the first few shots people generally get to cover and it makes it hard for the gunman to track them down and gives police time to respond.