The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

Seems like a strange question since I've already said I don't own a gun and have no interest in owning a gun, I can't see how I would have the option.  I suppose if someone was in my house and about to attack my family and one magically appeared, I would use it.

No one should own an AR15 because they're just used for killing people and killing people is illegal.
But you would use an AR15, to kill someone.

 

[stellarpanther]

No one should own an AR15 because they're just used for killing people and killing people is illegal.
But you would use an AR15, to kill someone.

Lol... I was typing a reply wondering what you were getting at and I knew it would be something like that.  I'm glad you agree with me that, no one should own an AR15 and I've been saying that since this conversation started.  If someone was threating my family, I would use whatever I had available.  In my post I said if one magically appeared.  Since that isn't going to happen, I might just end up using a butter knife from the drawer or hit him in the head with the alarm clock or maybe just throw his *** down the stairs and call the police.  I guess either way the police are getting called but you know what I mean.
 

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=stellarpanther]  I'm glad you agree with me that, no one should own an AR15[/quote]

That's a 1/10 effort I'm afraid. I think every
(Heinlein) citizen should own an AR15. It should be your civic duty to be armed  :rules:

If someone was threating my family, I would use whatever I had available.

I think most people would, even those who want to ban guns.
Which I think is funny.

 

[stellarpanther]

That's a 1/10 effort I'm afraid. I think every
(Heinlein) citizen should own an AR15. It should be your civic duty to be armed  :rules:


I think most people would, even those who want to ban guns.
Which I think is funny.

I don't know, your post was clear.  No one should own and AR15 you said, you were very clear.  :arid rifleman: :sarcasm:

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

You make a good points.  I also noted in your other post on this topic that the shooter, while likely to be acquitted will still be stuck with expensive legal bills. I have no idea what that amount could be but I would assume it could be pretty high for the average person.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that sometimes just a charge is enough to ruin a persons life.  I can imagine a murder charge even if acquitted could be tough on a person afterwards.

If you hire a lawyer who's actually any good, a murder trial could cost $100,000 or more I expect. Peter Khill's trial was 12 days in front of the jury, plus then you need to factor in preparation time, and he probably ran a preliminary inquiry before that. He was acquitted but I'm sure it cost him a LOT.

You're also correct that a murder charge would be very stressful to deal with.

It's a fact that even if it's a completely "righteous" shooting, there's a high probability of being "punished by the process". That said, I'd still rather be alive and have my family alive and deal with those issues. But I agree with you, there's no way I'd arm myself to go confront guys rifling through my car like Peter Khill, Gerald Stanley, and Edouard Maurice did (all acquitted or charges withdrawn) ... I'd just let them have my car/its contents and call police/my insurance company. Nothing I own is worth it. But to protect myself or my family, different story.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You're safer not having a gun in the house for self defense.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/

Having a gun in the home increases the chance for accidental injury, homicide, and suicide, all of which have been shown to outweigh the potential protective benefits of firearms.

This has been a pretty well known fact for a long time.

Actually they do not increase the suicide rate at all. They just change HOW people commit suicide. When Canada brought in the safe storage requirements and licencing our FIREARM suicide rate went down, however the OVERALL suicide rate remained the same, people just changed how they kill themselves. Instead of shooting themselves they hung themselves etc. Attached is a chart showing suicide per capita in Canada from 1950-2009. I know the key dates for firearm laws, none of them made any difference. The argument can even be made that our current laws hinder mental health for firearms owners as if you admit to having suicidal thoughts they will take your firearms away from you, meaning that people are not likely to report having problems. Which in turn leads to small problems becoming bigger. Unfortunately you cannot get numbers for my point as no firearm owner will admit it or not due to the threat of losing their property.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/chart/11696-02-chart1-eng.htm

In regards to accidental injury, that is only a factor when firearms are left loaded and unlocked around the house. Since that isn't legal in Canada those statistics are invalid for Canada as well.

The USA's gun violence problem isn't actually related to firearms, it is related to people. The USA has always had a much higher gun violence problem than Canada, even though up until 1978 our laws were looser than theirs. If you want to tackle gun violence in the States you need to tackle the social issues that fuel it, and that is much harder than the myth of saying we banned this type of property and now we are safe. Countries like Switzerland are great examples of extremely armed populations who have next to no crime due to the fact they lack the social issues which cause them (drugs, social inequity, etc.).

 

[Donald H]

Actually they do not increase the suicide rate at all. They just change HOW people commit suicide. When Canada brought in the safe storage requirements and licencing our FIREARM suicide rate went down, however the OVERALL suicide rate remained the same, people just changed how they kill themselves. Instead of shooting themselves they hung themselves etc. Attached is a chart showing suicide per capita in Canada from 1950-2009. I know the key dates for firearm laws, none of them made any difference. The argument can even be made that our current laws hinder mental health for firearms owners as if you admit to having suicidal thoughts they will take your firearms away from you, meaning that people are not likely to report having problems. Which in turn leads to small problems becoming bigger. Unfortunately you cannot get numbers for my point as no firearm owner will admit it or not due to the threat of losing their property.

Thanks for your reasoned reply. You may have a point on suicides other than a gun but it doesn't change the statistic on people being safer without a gun for self defense.

Countries like Switzerland are great examples of extremely armed populations who have next to no crime due to the fact they lack the social issues which cause them (drugs, social inequity, etc.).

That is very true of other countries as compared to the US. My aim is not to dwell on the problems the US has with their over-abundance of guns, combined with social issues. but to use their example as that which would be socially irresponsible for Canada. Changing and/or relaxing laws on handguns should be considered by all Canadians as completely out of the question.

And as to my personal starting point on assault rifles in Canada? I think the issue nearly solves itself because we lack the social ills that drive a lot of people to want to own one, use one on a range, or even walk down main street carrying one. Exceptions may exist but IMO the exception would require a valid explanation.

 

[QV]

Thanks for your reasoned reply. You may have a point on suicides other than a gun but it doesn't change the statistic on people being safer without a gun for self defense.

That is very true of other countries as compared to the US. My aim is not to dwell on the problems the US has with their over-abundance of guns, combined with social issues. but to use their example as that which would be socially irresponsible for Canada. Changing and/or relaxing laws on handguns should be considered by all Canadians as completely out of the question.

And as to my personal starting point on assault rifles in Canada? I think the issue nearly solves itself because we lack the social ills that drive a lot of people to want to own one, use one on a range, or even walk down main street carrying one. Exceptions may exist but IMO the exception would require a valid explanation.

So wouldn't it be more productive to fix the social issues that lead to the problems rather than target gun laws that won't change anything?  The answer seems so obvious, I can't imagine why our elected class would want to do what they are now doing (making gun laws more strict while considering legalizing hard drugs).  What possibly could the motivation be for that? 

 

[Donald H]

So wouldn't it be more productive to fix the social issues that lead to the problems rather than target gun laws that won't change anything?  The answer seems so obvious, I can't imagine why our elected class would want to do what they are now doing (making gun laws more strict while considering legalizing hard drugs).  What possibly could the motivation be for that?

When you introduce legalizing hard drugs to the conversation, you introduce the question of whether or not that would be socially responsible change? Huge topic!

But back to guns. Relaxing laws on handguns would change a h--- of a lot of things.

 

[Eaglelord17]

When you introduce legalizing hard drugs to the conversation, you introduce the question of whether or not that would be socially responsible change? Huge topic!

But back to guns. Relaxing laws on handguns would change a h--- of a lot of things.

Like what? I can think of plenty of things which make no sense in our handgun laws which if removed would have no effect whatsoever on anything other than getting rid of some bureaucratic jobs.

For example if they removed the ATT system and just made a list of places that is legal to bring a Restricted firearm (such as the range, gunsmith, gunshow, border crossings, to a new residence, transported to a new owner, lend to a friend, etc.) there would be no difference whatsoever. It is just a waste of time for all parties as you already possess the firearm and if your going to do something illegal with it, you are not going to ask permission to do so.

If they allowed people to shoot restricted firearms in the same places you can shoot a non-restricted firearm there would also be no difference, people are basically already doing that with antique firearms, and surprise there isn't a pick up in crime. In fact a restricted firearm is generally safer to shoot in most areas as they tend to be lower powered than a non-restricted firearm (i.e. pistol ammo has a much shorter range).

If you wanted to talk about concealed carry, provided you put in place the proper training and requirements you wouldn't see any difference in crime stats. A cop or soldier is just a citizen who has some extra training and that job. There is no reason why your average citizen if they wanted to get use of force training, a restricted licence, and a competency test couldn't effectively concealed carry a firearm. Odds are they would actually be safer than most police as many firearms owners shoot more regularly than most cops do. Having been in a situation where I wished I was armed, I personally think it is ridiculous the government has basically prohibited citizenry from defending themselves  (including the banning of less lethal options such as pepper spray) well they themselves walk around with armed guards. I understand this isn't a popular viewpoint in Canada, and likely won't be seen again in this country, however a citizen who has taken all the training, has no criminal record, and is a upstanding member of society would be no risk to the public. The people committing the crimes don't do any training, usually have a criminal record, no licencing, yet they are still walking around armed anyways. The only thing that would change is now there is more good guys armed as well.

 

[shawn5o]

You're safer not having a gun in the house for self defense.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/

This has been a pretty well known fact for a long time.

Hi Don others on this  thread

Here's a link from 2018 on What Do We Know About Firearms in Canada?: A Systematic Scoping Review

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=sociologypub

Its not conclusive, however, its a good start (I think) about suicides, violence, etc.

 

[shawn5o]

Some commenters say that  the AR15 should be banned because you can't hunt with them or ...

Question: Why are First Nations exempted from the legislation ref AR15s?

 

[Stoker]

Some commenters say that  the AR15 should be banned because you can't hunt with them or ...

Question: Why are First Nations exempted from the legislation ref AR15s?

Subsistence hunting I would imagine. Up until 1977 the AR15 was non restricted firearm in Canada and was able to brought hunting.

 

[Ostrozac]

Subsistence hunting I would imagine. Up until 1977 the AR15 was non restricted firearm in Canada and was able to brought hunting.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the semi-automatic AR15 restricted by order in council in 1992, and non-restricted prior to that date?

1977 was, I believe, the date of the introduction of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (now known as the Possession and Acquisition Licence).

 

[Stoker]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the semi-automatic AR15 restricted by order in council in 1992, and non-restricted prior to that date?

1977 was, I believe, the date of the introduction of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (now known as the Possession and Acquisition Licence).

You maybe right on that date, so really a pretty recent thing.

 

[Donald H]

Hi Don others on this  thread

Here's a link from 2018 on What Do We Know About Firearms in Canada?: A Systematic Scoping Review

https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=sociologypub

Its not conclusive, however, its a good start (I think) about suicides, violence, etc.

Hi Shawn, and thanks for your effort to post the link. I'm sorry but I'm not inclined to read such a lengthy pro-gun piece as that but I 'am' interested in hearing of individual talking points on gun control or lack of.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Thanks for your reasoned reply. You may have a point on suicides other than a gun but it doesn't change the statistic on people being safer without a gun for self defense.

That is very true of other countries as compared to the US. My aim is not to dwell on the problems the US has with their over-abundance of guns, combined with social issues. but to use their example as that which would be socially irresponsible for Canada. Changing and/or relaxing laws on handguns should be considered by all Canadians as completely out of the question.

And as to my personal starting point on assault rifles in Canada? I think the issue nearly solves itself because we lack the social ills that drive a lot of people to want to own one, use one on a range, or even walk down main street carrying one. Exceptions may exist but IMO the exception would require a valid explanation.

Hold up... Are you insinuating that those that currently own or would like to own an AR platform, for what ever legal reason, have some sort of social ill ?

 

[Donald H]

For example if they removed the ATT system and just made a list of places that is legal to bring a Restricted firearm (such as the range, gunsmith, gunshow, border crossings, to a new residence, transported to a new owner, lend to a friend, etc.) there would be no difference whatsoever.

My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:

For example if they removed the ATT system and just made a list of places that is legal to bring a Restricted firearm (such as the range, gunsmith, gunshow, border crossings, to a new residence, transported to a new owner, lend to a friend, etc.) there would be no difference whatsoever.

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

:cheers:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

:cheers:

Not really.  You would have no business being in a mall parking lot (or really just about any parking lot), with your handgun in the car, if you were on your way to the range.  Cops aren't stupid: they can use Google maps, too, to see if you are (more or less) on a direct route from your house to a designated destination.

The current ATT system is designed to be an irritant and thus deter people from owning firearms.  It does nothing for firearms safety.

 

[shawn5o]

Hi Shawn, and thanks for your effort to post the link. I'm sorry but I'm not inclined to read such a lengthy pro-gun piece as that but I 'am' interested in hearing of individual talking points on gun control or lack of.

yeah, it is long, howver, the report irself is only 25 pgs. The rest of the report is references