The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

Can you elaborate on what I am dead wrong on?  While most gun owners are honest, law abiding people, I still don't believe certain weapons should be in hands of the general public.  Based on what I've read and from a few people I've spoken to in the past who are hunters, these are not the types of rifles used to hunt.  I don't see why they should be allowed.

Far as I can tell AR15s have been used in 2 murders by criminals in 40 years. First was a drug user using an illegally owned AR15 to shoot another druggie some 20 years ago. The second was probably used by the shooter in Novascotia. The thing with that is it didn't matter what kind of gun he had because he was dressed like a police officer so walked up to people in cars or houses and murdered them.
2 shootings (with murders) in 40? years in Canada, in both shootings the type of gun didn't matter.

Statistically insignificant.

As for hunting, an AR15s bullet is too light to hunt 150 pound deer with in many parts in Canada. It's considered inhumane because it doesn't do a good job killing the animals. We use them for target shooting and sports.

"Hunting rifles" are used to effectively shoot and kill 700+ pound Grizzly bears and 1500 pound moose.
An AR15 can maybe effectively hit someone out to 300 meters. A hunting rifle can easily hit twice that range. Some hunting rifles with heavier calibers can hit something 4-5 times that.

Hunting rifles aren't less dangerous than AR15s. Given things like range, penetration, bullet weight and energy, in a lone gunman/active shooter scenario, I'd say they're more dangerous.

If your only argument is because they're not used for hunting in Canada  they should be banned then their is no counter argument I can think of other than an indifferent good for you.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can you elaborate on what I am dead wrong on? 

Sure.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/127924.1225.html

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Honest question ... why is it more acceptable to you to have a leftist wing nut who doesn't respect other peoples' personal rights, than a "religious wing nut" who doesn't respect a different group of other's peoples' personal rights?

It's not as if the Liberals under Justin Trudeau's leadership are social libertarians. They just disrespect the rights of different groups. Yet this is somehow acceptable to most.

Apologies for taking a while to get back to you, I've been busy with work. 

I don't think we should conflate personal rights with property rights.  Firearms ownership is not a personal right.  Firearms are pieces of property and like many pieces of property, the Government can regulate it and do with it, as they see fit.  Firearms is one of those areas that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Government to want to regulate it, just like they regulate many other things. 

This doesn't mean that I am happy at all with what the Government has done WRT recent events governing firearms because for one thing, it has made my personal property worthless (I am a firearms owner) and also because I don't agree with their interpretation; however, that does not mean that I disagree with their inherent right to regulate firearms.

Do I view this issue as an issue that is as important as Abortion or Same-Sex Marriage though?  Not even in the same stratosphere.  I may be out a couple of thousand dollars as a couple of my firearms are now real expensive paper weights but my personal rights are not really affected by this.  Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage?  Those are issues that can have lifelong consequences for people and take a physical, mental and great fiscal toll on people.

Will the Liberals recent decisions WRT firearms weigh in my decision of who I vote for in the next election?  It certainly will but it is one of a number of factors.  I would love to see a Political Party in Canada that is fiscally responsible BUT also socially progressive (think Progressive Conservative).  Both the LPC and CPC suffer from cognitive dissonance in a number of platform areas to the point that I don't think either one really holds a monopoly on stupidity.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Far as I can tell AR15s have been used in 2 murders by criminals in 40 years. First was a drug user using an illegally owned AR15 to shoot another druggie some 20 years ago. The second was probably used by the shooter in Novascotia. The thing with that is it didn't matter what kind of gun he had because he was dressed like a police officer so walked up to people in cars or houses and murdered them.
2 shootings (with murders) in 40? years in Canada, in both shootings the type of gun didn't matter.

Statistically insignificant.

As for hunting, an AR15s bullet is too light to hunt 150 pound deer with in many parts in Canada. It's considered inhumane because it doesn't do a good job killing the animals. We use them for target shooting and sports.

"Hunting rifles" are used to effectively shoot and kill 700+ pound Grizzly bears and 1500 pound moose.
An AR15 can maybe effectively hit someone out to 300 meters. A hunting rifle can easily hit twice that range. Some hunting rifles with heavier calibers can hit something 4-5 times that.

Hunting rifles aren't less dangerous than AR15s. Given things like range, penetration, bullet weight and energy, in a lone gunman/active shooter scenario, I'd say they're more dangerous.

If your only argument is because they're not used for hunting in Canada  they should be banned then their is no counter argument I can think of other than an indifferent good for you.

I do believe the NS shooter's firearms were all illegally obtained as well.  So he simply ignored firearms laws, which is the bog standard thing for a criminal to do... you know, ignore laws.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Apologies for taking a while to get back to you, I've been busy with work. 

I don't think we should conflate personal rights with property rights.  Firearms ownership is not a personal right.  Firearms are pieces of property and like many pieces of property, the Government can regulate it and do with it, as they see fit.  Firearms is one of those areas that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Government to want to regulate it, just like they regulate many other things. 

This doesn't mean that I am happy at all with what the Government has done WRT recent events governing firearms because for one thing, it has made my personal property worthless (I am a firearms owner) and also because I don't agree with their interpretation; however, that does not mean that I disagree with their inherent right to regulate firearms.

Do I view this issue as an issue that is as important as Abortion or Same-Sex Marriage though?  Not even in the same stratosphere.  I may be out a couple of thousand dollars as a couple of my firearms are now real expensive paper weights but my personal rights are not really affected by this.  Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage?  Those are issues that can have lifelong consequences for people and take a physical, mental and great fiscal toll on people.

Will the Liberals recent decisions WRT firearms weigh in my decision of who I vote for in the next election?  It certainly will but it is one of a number of factors.  I would love to see a Political Party in Canada that is fiscally responsible BUT also socially progressive (think Progressive Conservative).  Both the LPC and CPC suffer from cognitive dissonance in a number of platform areas to the point that I don't think either one really holds a monopoly on stupidity.

I am somewhat similar to you in viewpoint. Firearms can and should be regulated in Canada (in fact, they have been for decades). Up until this year, we had a regulation regime that, while not without irritants and illogical elements, I thought generally did a pretty reasonable of balancing rights and responsibilities.

That was until the Liberals figured they could play to their base after the NS shooting and unilaterally ban by OIC, entire categories of firearms. All without resorting to Parliament.

A government that can do that, can do anything. If they thought changing the firearms regulation regime in Canada was such a hot and popular idea, do it the right way: introduce a bill, debate it, vote on it. At least then, whatever changes get made have the approval of Parliament, instead of (apparently) being cooked up overnight by the PMO and RCMP HQ.

 

[QV]

Apologies for taking a while to get back to you, I've been busy with work. 

I don't think we should conflate personal rights with property rights.  Firearms ownership is not a personal right.  Firearms are pieces of property and like many pieces of property, the Government can regulate it and do with it, as they see fit.  Firearms is one of those areas that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Government to want to regulate it, just like they regulate many other things. 

This doesn't mean that I am happy at all with what the Government has done WRT recent events governing firearms because for one thing, it has made my personal property worthless (I am a firearms owner) and also because I don't agree with their interpretation; however, that does not mean that I disagree with their inherent right to regulate firearms.

Do I view this issue as an issue that is as important as Abortion or Same-Sex Marriage though?  Not even in the same stratosphere.  I may be out a couple of thousand dollars as a couple of my firearms are now real expensive paper weights but my personal rights are not really affected by this.  Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage?  Those are issues that can have lifelong consequences for people and take a physical, mental and great fiscal toll on people.

Will the Liberals recent decisions WRT firearms weigh in my decision of who I vote for in the next election?  It certainly will but it is one of a number of factors.  I would love to see a Political Party in Canada that is fiscally responsible BUT also socially progressive (think Progressive Conservative).  Both the LPC and CPC suffer from cognitive dissonance in a number of platform areas to the point that I don't think either one really holds a monopoly on stupidity.

I've always believed there should be a well defined right to property.  Because of the progressive left movement which I fear would abuse government powers, I am now much more in favour of having property rights enshrined in our charter somehow.  I don't know how or if that is possible, I understand it certainly won't happen under the current government. 

 

[stellarpanther]

Sure.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/127924.1225.html

The only thing I can assume is meant by Chief Engineer saying I am still wrong is that he thinks I'm wrong about people my belief about people owning AR15's.  That link doesn't prove me wrong.  I read an article last night that stated 78 percent of Canadians want those types of weapons banned.  The Canadian and Ontario Chiefs of Police want them banned as well.  No need for them in my opinion.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

I am confident in my opinions but my opinion on many topics are often supported my expert in the specific field.  In this case the police amongst many believe these weapons have no business being in the hands of the general public.  I never clamed to be an expert on weapons but I don't think a person needs to be to have an opinion.  I have been guilty of inappropriate posts and being insulting which I shouldn't.  That said, most people don't like hypocrites which is what I see of some mbr's here.

Citing the O.A.C.P. is simply an appeal to authority. And the O.A.C.P. apparently relies on their own authority without backing up their position with any facts, data, or even political ideology, they simply state: "Ontario’s police leaders support a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In our view, these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military and law enforcement." (http://www.oacp.on.ca/Userfiles/Files/NewAndEvents/OACP%20Statement_Control%20of%20Firearms%20in%20Canada%20and%20Impact%20of%20Gun%20Violence%20on%20our%20Communities%20-%20Sept%202019.pdf)

Since they do not explain WHY they take that position, I don't know why ... but it certainly is not because AR-15s or other "military designed assault rifles" have been used in crimes or pose a danger to society as already outlined by others in this thread. If these items are not being used in crimes and are not dangerous, then we are left with purely ideological reasons divorced from logic and facts. That is not a good reason to ban things "because we don't like them".

WHY is there no place in Canadian society for certain firearms? No one ever explain why other than that "we don't like them".

I would argue that there's no place in Canadian society for cars that can drive faster than 100 km/hr. There actually is data to show that "speed kills". And why does one need a vehicle that is capable of breaking the law (I don't believe its legal to drive over 100 km/h anywhere in Canada)? Far FAR more people die in motor vehicle accidents every year than involving firearms. Take illegal firearms out of that equation and firearms ownership is actually one of the safest pastimes available.

 

[stellarpanther]

Citing the O.A.C.P. is simply an appeal to authority. And the O.A.C.P. apparently relies on their own authority without backing up their position with any facts, data, or even political ideology, they simply state: "Ontario’s police leaders support a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In our view, these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military and law enforcement." (http://www.oacp.on.ca/Userfiles/Files/NewAndEvents/OACP%20Statement_Control%20of%20Firearms%20in%20Canada%20and%20Impact%20of%20Gun%20Violence%20on%20our%20Communities%20-%20Sept%202019.pdf)

Since they do not explain WHY they take that position, I don't know why ... but it certainly is not because AR-15s or other "military designed assault rifles" have been used in crimes or pose a danger to society as already outlined by others in this thread. If these items are not being used in crimes and are not dangerous, then we are left with purely ideological reasons divorced from logic and facts. That is not a good reason to ban things "because we don't like them".

WHY is there no place in Canadian society for certain firearms? No one ever explain why other than that "we don't like them".

I would argue that there's no place in Canadian society for cars that can drive faster than 100 km/hr. There actually is data to show that "speed kills". And why does one need a vehicle that is capable of breaking the law (I don't believe its legal to drive over 100 km/h anywhere in Canada)? Far FAR more people die in motor vehicle accidents every year than involving firearms. Take illegal firearms out of that equation and firearms ownership is actually one of the safest pastimes available.

Please go back and read post #525, there is an edit on the bottom showing they have been used.  As well, for some reason the RCMP have not officially stated an AR15 was used in Nova Scotia shooting spree, many sources have privately said it was one of the weapons used.  IMO, the only firearms that should be allowed are hunting rifles.  No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them.  If people want to shoot them, they can join a gun club and lets have the gun clubs own these weapons so that people can use while on the premises.  This is my opinion and I understand others may have a different belief.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Please go back and read post #525, there is an edit on the bottom showing they have been used.  As well, for some reason the RCMP have not officially stated an AR15 was used in Nova Scotia shooting spree, many sources have privately said it was one of the weapons used.  IMO, the only firearms that should be allowed are hunting rifles.  No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them.  If people want to shoot them, they can join a gun club and lets have the gun clubs own these weapons so that people can use while on the premises.  This is my opinion and I understand others may have a different belief.

I actually saw that ... I don't consider twice in the sixty or so years AR-15s have been around to be statistically significant.

Ok, so you've stated your opinion ... perhaps I missed it but WHY do you think hunting rifles should be the only legal firearms?

Again, there's "no need" for many things. I cited vehicles that drive faster than 100 km/h. Why does anyone need a sports car that can drive well over 200 km/h? If they want to drive them, they can join a car club that lets car enthusiasts use such vehicles while on their private track.

Many things are "not necessary". So how does the fact that something is "not necessary" = a reason to make it illegal?

 

[stellarpanther]

I actually saw that ... I don't consider twice in the sixty or so years AR-15s have been around to be statistically significant.

Ok, so you've stated your opinion ... perhaps I missed it but WHY do you think hunting rifles should be the only legal firearms?

Again, there's "no need" for many things. I cited vehicles that drive faster than 100 km/h. Why does anyone need a sports car that can drive well over 200 km/h? If they want to drive them, they can join a car club that lets car enthusiasts use such vehicles while on their private track.

Many things are "not necessary". So how does the fact that something is "not necessary" = a reason to make it illegal?

The AR15 and similar weapons were designed to kill people and since it's illegal to kill people we shouldn't have them.  Your example of vehicles that can drive faster 100km/h (NB allows 110 km/h) is a good one and it's an example of something that doesn't make sense.  They should be equipped with a tamperproof governor allowing a little room so you can safely pass someone not going the speed limit but we don't need vehicles that can go as fast as they do. 

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

The AR15 and similar weapons were designed to kill people and since it's illegal to kill people we shouldn't have them.  Your example of vehicles that can drive faster 100km/h (NB allows 110 km/h) is a good one and it's an example of something that doesn't make sense.  They should be equipped with a tamperproof governor allowing a little room so you can safely pass someone not going the speed limit but we don't need vehicles that can go as fast as they do.

Well, I give you credit for consistency. Most people who think firearms should be illegal are fine with fast cars, so I respect your view.

I obviously disagree that we can/should make everything that is dangerous illegal. There are many reasons for that and this is supposed to be the CPC Leadership discussion so perhaps not the best place to go into detail on that. I think that, in short, the only way to make a completely safe society is to make an intolerably totalitarian society where life would not be worth living.

Arguably, hunting rifles are more effective at killing people than the AR-15 and related platforms. Is it a wood stock that makes something less offensive, or simply the intention when manufactured? Is something like the STAG 10 OK because while it looks like an AR-15 you can get it chambered in .308 or 6.5 Creedmoor which absolutely can be used for hunting and a lot of people do use them for hunting. I know at least one hunter who used to be opposed to "black guns" but after taking a STAG 10 hunting is now "converted" to their usefulness as hunting rifles. I don't know what the manufacturer's intent in building them is but I guess they're built for hunting. I actually believe that AR-15s are intended for target shooting.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The AR15 and similar weapons were designed to kill people and since it's illegal to kill people we shouldn't have them.  Your example of vehicles that can drive faster 100km/h (NB allows 110 km/h) is a good one and it's an example of something that doesn't make sense.  They should be equipped with a tamperproof governor allowing a little room so you can safely pass someone not going the speed limit but we don't need vehicles that can go as fast as they do.

I think you're on to something. While we're taking all these steps to control citizens we should ban certain words or phrases from being typed out on the internet. Like in children's computer games where they can't type swear words.
Maybe only allow Canadians to use certain cell phones?
How else should we regulate and control Canadians lives?

 

[stellarpanther]

I think you're on to something. While we're taking all these steps to control citizens we should ban certain words or phrases from being typed out on the internet. Like in children's computer games where they can't type swear words.
Maybe only allow Canadians to use certain cell phones?
How else should we regulate and control Canadians lives?

Wow...

 

[shawn5o]

Please go back and read post #525, there is an edit on the bottom showing they have been used.  As well, for some reason the RCMP have not officially stated an AR15 was used in Nova Scotia shooting spree, many sources have privately said it was one of the weapons used.  IMO, the only firearms that should be allowed are hunting rifles.  No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them.  If people want to shoot them, they can join a gun club and lets have the gun clubs own these weapons so that people can use while on the premises.  This is my opinion and I understand others may have a different belief.

Hi SP

Good msg and I have to say its good. I just wanted to point out that handguns are used more often than rifles ref homicide.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510007201

I don't think it would be a good idea (it does have merit) to store your firearms at the gun club. Wouldn't the gun club(s) be targeted for robbery when bad guys want to do some shopping? I know its a stretch to say that but stranger things have happened.

Cheers

 

[stellarpanther]

stellarpanter, I would say handguns could be used for self defence reasons. With this ban, where it may or may not reduce the amount of guns aquired illegally, I think that law-abiding and responsible citizens should be able to use this weapon system in the event of self defence.

I do think people should be able to protect themselves but the way our laws are and I think it would be the same regardless of the party in power, if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.  I knew someone who stabbed a person in the hand after he saw the person look in his child's bedroom, this father was charged because according to the police and prosecutor, he intruder didn't actually threaten the child or anyone else and you can't use that kind of force to protect your property.  If he would have used a gun, the guy would probably be dead and this father in prison.  I don't know all the details but the case was apparently tossed on a technicality. This was about 12 years ago.

 

[LiveFightMove]

I do think people should be able to protect themselves but the way our laws are and I think it would be the same regardless of the party in power, if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.  I knew someone who stabbed a person in the hand after he saw the person look in his child's bedroom, this father was charged because according to the police and prosecutor, he intruder didn't actually threaten the child or anyone else and you can't use that kind of force to protect your property.  If he would have used a gun, the guy would probably be dead and this father in prison.  I don't know all the details but the case was apparently tossed on a technicality. This was about 12 years ago.

I'm not completely sure, but I think it's if you shoot someone in the back? I could be wrong.

When I first read about the person looking into the child's bedroom I imagined them already being inside the house? Not sure the details, but if the father pointed a Glock in their face, I'm sure they'd run, and then call the cops. Or if they were outside peeking inside the child's bedroom, fire a warning shot, then call the cops.

This could go on forever... I respect your opinion. I know you just want safety for Canadians, as do I.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=stellarpanther] if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.
[/quote]

Thankfully that's not accurate. Canada has some pretty robust self defense laws and examples of people not going to prison for self defense. Here's a short clip from a lawyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB2Z8yreRbY&app=desktop

 

[shawn5o]

Here's an an article ref MP O'Toole's view on firearms. Sensible in my view. Via email


The CSSA Congratulates Erin O'Toole on his victory as the new Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Canada is a nation with proud rural and outdoor traditions. Learning to hunt or target shoot with a family member is a way of life for millions of Canadians and must be respected. Firearm owners, be they hunters, farmers or sport shooters are among the most law-abiding citizens in Canada.

An O'Toole-led Opposition will:

Oppose efforts to reverse the former Conservative government’s policy advances on firearms, including the Trudeau government’s new proposals to confiscate legal firearms.

Oppose regulations that do not advance public safety and instead penalize law-abiding firearms owners. This includes the arbitrary reclassification of firearms and magazines.

An O’Toole government will update Canada’s firearms legislation to ensure that it is evidence-based and focuses on keeping Canadians safe, not demonizing those Canadians the Liberals do not like.

The Proposed legislative changes will:

Conduct a review of the Firearms Act with participation of law enforcement, firearms owners, manufacturers, and members of the public, and then update legislation by introducing a simplified classification system and codifying it in law, so that it is clear what types of firearms fit into each category and classification decisions can, therefore, be made quickly, and with the public and firearms owners having confidence that they are not arbitrary. The legislation will also – for the first time – contain definitions of currently ambiguous issues like the term “variant”.

Harmonize rules for discharging firearms on your own property so that restricted firearms are treated the same as non-restricted, where the local municipality allows the discharge of firearms.

Mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions and put final authority for classification decisions back in the hands of Cabinet.

Focus the resources of the federal government on criminals engaged in the trafficking and use of illegal firearms instead of imposing more layers of bureaucracy on law-abiding Canadians.

Amend firearms laws to ensure that no administrative expiry could lead to criminal charges or the seizure of a licence holder’s firearm(s). Until an expired licence is renewed, it would remain illegal for licence holders to acquire new firearms or ammunition.

Support specialized illegal firearms enforcement led by the CBSA and RCMP working closely with American authorities in the United States, to target smuggling operations before illegal firearms reach the border.

Develop a suicide prevention strategy that encourages people – including legal firearms owners – to seek help when they need it. The current system actually discourages firearms owners from seeking help, due to the fear that the police will show up at their door, and the Trudeau government is making this worse, putting lives at risk.

The CSSA believes that Erin O'Toole will be an outstanding leader for Canada, and we strongly encourage our membership to support him in his efforts to bring a Conservative majority government to the House of Commons.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

I do think people should be able to protect themselves but the way our laws are and I think it would be the same regardless of the party in power, if you shoot someone in your house, you will probably go to prison.  I knew someone who stabbed a person in the hand after he saw the person look in his child's bedroom, this father was charged because according to the police and prosecutor, he intruder didn't actually threaten the child or anyone else and you can't use that kind of force to protect your property.  If he would have used a gun, the guy would probably be dead and this father in prison.  I don't know all the details but the case was apparently tossed on a technicality. This was about 12 years ago.

In my view, it is actually very unlikely for someone to actually be convicted of defending themselves inside their own home. They will most likely be charged and have to pay a lawyer lots of money and go through the stress of the court process, but they will most likely be acquitted in the end. Just consider a few recent cases where people were acquitted:

R. v. Peter Khill - summary of facts from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on his case: [6] Mr. Khill and his then girlfriend, now wife, Millie Benko, lived in a single-story house in a rural area near Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Khill was asleep at about 3:00 a.m. on February 4, 2016 when Ms. Benko woke him up and told him she had heard a loud banging. Mr. Khill listened and heard two loud bangs. He went to the bedroom window. From the window, he could see his 2001 pickup truck parked in the driveway. The dashboard lights were on indicating, to Mr. Khill, that some person or persons were either in the truck or had been in the truck
...
[7] ... Mr. Khill loaded the shotgun he kept in the bedroom and, armed with the shotgun, went to investigate the noises.

[8]        Using techniques he had learned as an army reservist, Mr. Khill stealthily made his way through his house, ending up at the front door of the breezeway connecting the house to the garage.
…
[10]      Mr. Khill said in a loud voice, “Hey, hands up.” Mr. Styres, who apparently had not seen Mr. Khill, began to rise and turn toward Mr. Khill. As he turned, Mr. Khill fired a shot. He immediately racked the shotgun and fired a second shot. Khill said he thought the deceased had a gun and was reaching for it.

Mr. Khill was acquitted by a jury. I'm not sure that I would have acquitted him ... sneaking up on a guy who's ransacking your truck and shooting him twice when he turns around does not seem like a reasonable use of force. Personally, while I think people should have wide latitude to defend themselves inside their homes, if someone was stealing from my car I'd call police but otherwise let them have whatever is in my car. Neither my life nor the thief's life is worth whatever is in my car.

But the point is he was acquitted. Also there's the case of Gerald Stanley, also acquitted. I could give lots of other examples, but it seems that unless the case is very clearly not one of self defence (like repeatedly striking someone once they're already unconscious, or stabbing someone in retaliation for them saying something offensive) people are most likely to be acquitted. In the case of your friend, I suspect that there was more to the story than what you heard if he was convicted.