The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Halifax Tar]

No. Like I said it's hypothetical. But I abhore "absolute" statements, and as much as I think arbitrary laws are frustrating, are they truly "unethical" if there is potentially a real benefit to society writ large, even if its effects are entirely "perceptual"? (i.e. if a new gun law never actually reduced the frequency and severity of gun violence, but had a measurable and significant effect on the emotional state of the population (i.e. made them feel safer and happier), then would that actually be an unethical thing for the government to do? Would it actually be something they have a responsibility to do as a moral obligation to provide prosperity to the people?)

Yes, IMHO, its unethical for the Gov to remove previously legal private property for feelings.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No. Like I said it's hypothetical. But I abhore "absolute" statements, and as much as I think arbitrary laws are frustrating, are they truly "unethical" if there is potentially a real benefit to society writ large, even if its effects are entirely "perceptual"? (i.e. if a new gun law never actually reduced the frequency and severity of gun violence, but had a measurable and significant effect on the emotional state of the population (i.e. made them feel safer and happier), then would that actually be an unethical thing for the government to do? Would it actually be something they have a responsibility to do as a moral obligation to provide prosperity to the people?)

If a government passed laws restricting the freedom of movement and freedom association of a group people based upon their religious or ethnic background, in order to make the rest of Canadian society safer, do they also have moral obligation to do so?

I am being deliberately inflammatory to make a point- governments should be exceedingly cautious when about to restrict rights and privileges of sub-sets of the Canadian population.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Yes, IMHO, its unethical for the Gov to remove previously legal private property for feelings.

With respect- immediate criminalization, seizure and confiscation (especially by executive regulation rather than legislative means) is an entirely different ball of wax from a forward looking restriction of access

If a government passed laws restricting the freedom of movement and freedom association of a group people based upon their religious or ethnic background, in order to make the rest of Canadian society safer, do they also have moral obligation to do so?

Which reveals the "who not what" as an absolute quagmire to implement

 

[Jarnhamar]

With respect- immediate criminalization, seizure and confiscation (especially by executive regulation rather than legislative means) is an entirely different ball of wax from a forward looking restriction of access

Would you support a restriction of access that would save hundreds of Canadian lives per year instead of a measley 4 or 5?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Would you support a restriction of access that would save hundreds of Canadian lives per year instead of a measley 4 or 5?

If this is on your suicide red herring, no.

 

[Lumber]

That is data of America. To counter your argument I bring Switzerland which has a military issued rifle in most households yet has next to no crime.

Therefore firearms don’t have a effect on crime, positively or negatively.

Not an equal comparison. The vast majority of the gun ownership in Switzerland is for sport shooting. They have a HUGE culture of sport shooting. There are thousands of gun shooting clubs. Children at a young age attend camps on gun maintenance and safety. They take responsible gun ownership seriously. They don't have open or concealed carry. You can only travel from your home to a shooting range and back with the gun, you can't take it shopping, you can't buy guns in the supermarket on a whim.

Compare that to the US, where in some states it's the wild west. Not only do you not need any training or permit to carry, some states have passed laws banning future legislations from ever enacting such laws.

So, I agree party, but would say guns to have an effect on crime, in that if you add guns without supporting legislation on responsible gun ownership, you get... well... <points broadly at the United States>.

Most gun crime in the States is in a few specific ghettoized areas. You remove those from the stats and they generally are around the same amount as Canada.

I am not against some levels of gun control, but the stupidest parts are when they focus on what you own, not who owns it.

It's only stupid if you honestly believe it will reduce gun violence, and not that it will reduce the perception of potential gun violence. Calming the masses is far more important than actually protecting the masses.

Measures that have a positive effect are preventing criminals and the mentally ill from owning, registration of handguns (thereby preventing straw buying), and basically thats it. Everything else has no real effect on crime and if your goal is ‘minimizing damage’ in a mass casualty situation it doesn’t change anything. Again a truck is deadlier than a rifle in those cases.

I disagree that your claim that it would minimize damage. To be fair, I do not think you would see a HUGE minimization across the board, because like you say, someone can still do a lot of damage with a bolt action or pump shotgun, or could switch to a vehicle or knife. However, as mentioned above, studies have demonstrated that their is an idolization of mass shooters, and in that specific context, restricting access to certain firearms could reduce the damage. The shooter in the Quebec City mosque shooting, for example. He was young an not as experienced as you, and I doubt he could have fire 22 rounds a minute (with any kind of accuracy) form a bolt action. In the narrow spaces of mosque, he would have a hard time fending off those trying to stop him while swinging around a long rifle that needs to be cocked after each shot. A semi-automatic pistol was ideal for the situation he was in; he was able to quickly put numerous rounds into several spread apart people then finish them off later. And if guns were completely banned (not something I'm advocating for to be clear) and he had no access to any guns, I don't think would have switched to a vehicle or knife rampage (again, just my opinion based on what I read about him).

The 2016 Nice attack killed and injured (87 dead 458 wounded) more with a lorry than the deadliest mass shooting in history (2011 Norway attack, 77 dead 320 wounded, most the wounded were by bomb, 8 of the dead were by that same bomb).

Again I would challenge the assertion here that seems to say that if you took away all the guns, every mass shooter would switch to a vehicle and kill as many if not more people. If a gun law could prevent 10 mass shootings, but of those 10 mass shootings 4 turned into vehicle rampages and 2 turned into knife rampages, should we not consider the gun law at least partially effective?

 

[Jarnhamar]

If this is on your suicide red herring, no.

I don't see how it is a distraction. Over 600 deaths per year compared to 4 or 5.

That's an infantry battalion getting wiped out vs 1x bad car accident. A demonstrably larger gap than between fatalities caused by non-military style fire arms vs military style firearms in mass shooting incidents.

I can make some easy assumptions why non military style long gun owners don't want to discuss that but I'll move on.

 

[QV]

The public doesn’t get to arbitrarily restrict rights and freedoms just due to their own ignorance.

Canadians have the right to ‘Life, Liberty, and security of the person’. All these laws in my opinion violate that as they have no data supporting any of their gun control measures being effective. My rights don’t end because a majority wants it to.

You don't have property rights. Firearms are property. As to your right to security, the state's argument is that is met through a policed and (excessively) regulated society.

I don't agree with any of that, FWIW. I'm a big fan of US Constitutional rights.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I don't see how it is a distraction. Over 600 deaths per year compared to 4 or 5.

A. Removing long guns doesn't prevent all suicides that were previously by firearm. Ridiculous assumption. It might prevent a small number that aren't willing to use another method. It might cause a small number of attempts to fail. But 100%? Silly.

B. A suicide, while tragic, is not a multi-faceted public safety event causing danger to lives beyond the suicidal, it does not put the lives of responding law enforcement in danger.

The whole "if you're not willing to do everything about everything you can't do anything about anything" is a ridiculously childish and regressive stance that ignores almost everything about how humans make decisions and manage risk on a day to day, minute to minute basis.

Do you think the prohibition on automatic weapons and explosive devices is reasonable?

 

[Halifax Tar]

With respect- immediate criminalization, seizure and confiscation (especially by executive regulation rather than legislative means) is an entirely different ball of wax from a forward looking restriction of access

I have no idea what you're on about.

Compare that to the US, where in some states it's the wild west.

You're not going to like the politics of the places in the US that are the wild west. They are democrat, urban and have strict gun laws.

I would 100% safe walking around Cheyenne Wyoming where its an open carry state. I would not feel the same in Chicago.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You don't have property rights. Firearms are property. As to your right to security, the state's argument is that is met through a policed and (excessively) regulated society.

I don't agree with any of that, FWIW. I'm a big fan of US Constitutional rights.

We are largely on the same page here.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I have no idea what you're on about.

Taking legally acquired property via OIC is fundamentally a different issue and discussion than proper democratic/ legislative channels rendering said property no longer legal to acquire moving forward

 

[Halifax Tar]

Taking legally acquired property via OIC is fundamentally a different issue and discussion than proper democratic/ legislative channels rendering said property no longer legal to acquire moving forward

Potato Potato, you're still taking my property. What ever method you use will only grow resentment.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Potato Potato, you're still taking my property. What ever method you use will only grow resentment.

Not letting people buy certain things anymore isn't the same thing as taking them away. Unless your definition of personal property includes things you haven't acquired yet.

acquire vs. possess

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not letting people buy things anymore isn't the same thing as taking them away. Unless your definition of personal property includes things you haven't acquired yet.

acquire vs. possess

What of the people already own said property, and said property ?

 

[Jarnhamar]

A. Removing long guns doesn't prevent all suicides that were previously by firearm. Ridiculous assumption. It might prevent a small number that aren't willing to use another method. It might cause a small number of attempts to fail. But 100%? Silly.

A small number you say?

It’s true some people may attempt suicide by another method if firearms are restricted, firearms are still the most lethal method.

The internet says the case fatality rate is over 80% for firearms vs. <5% for many other methods (e.g., poisoning, cutting).

Therefore, restricting firearm access substantially reduces the likelihood that a suicide attempt will be fatal, even if substitution occurs.

Suicide attempts are often impulsive. Studies show people denied immediate access to firearms often delay or reconsider, and many do not attempt again or survive using less lethal means.

Restricting firearms creates a window for intervention, significantly lowering fatality rates.

Australia’s 1996 gun buyback led to a reduction in firearm suicides by 80%. That's not a small number. This demonstrates that removing access to firearms saves lives, even if not all suicides are prevented.

The scale of impact is huge. Even if banning long guns does not prevent every suicide, it addresses a far larger category of deaths than mass shootings.

I don't agree with going down that path but the logic is sound. To ignore it is to care less about the lives of people suffering from mental health illness than other citizens.

B. A suicide, while tragic, is not a multi-faceted public safety event causing danger to lives beyond the suicidal, it does not put the lives of responding law enforcement in danger

The risks to the lives of responding LEOs and First Responders is a great point.
Also a point, harder to commit suicide by cop without a gun.

Do think a the prohibition on automatic weapons and explosive devices is reasonable?

Depends. Statistically speaking automatic weapons are very rarely used in shootings, all of which being illegally owned when done so. Prior to their banning in 1978 there were no major shooting incidents with them. Statistically, for homicide in Canada hammers and fists are deadlier.

Professionally, I'd say theres an argument to be made that a shooter like yourself armed with a long rifle which your familiar with and a shotgun can be just as deadly, if not more so, than some asshole getting their hands on an automatic gun blasting away on full auto.

Did you see that shooting in BC a little while ago where someone blasted away at someone else with a full auto? I thibk an AK? Didn't kill anyone.

All that said the prohibition on automatic weapons doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Same with explosives, even though there's easy ways to make it at home.

Should we ban house wives and house husbands from buying bleach, ammonia, and chlorine?

What about a bulldozer?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The risks to the lives of responding LEOs and First Responders is a great point.

I dont recognize that point. The job of the LEOs is to move in the direction of danger. Just like that is the crowns expectation of us.

FFs your job is to run into the burning building.

While reasonable measure for job safety, say bunker gear and ceramic plates, are reasonable for the right jobs. We cannot and should not remove the expectation that these highly professionals move towards the danger and if required take the appropriate violent action and give the required sacrifices.

 

[IKnowNothing]

What of the people already own said property, and said property ?

Grandfathered in some way.

A small number you say?

...

I don't agree with going down that path but the logic is sound. To ignore it is to care less about the lives of people suffering from mental health illness than other citizens.

With respect - having lost 1 classmate and two teammates (all of whom I considered friends at points) to non-violent firearm suicide prior to the age of 25, I cannot continue to respond to this thread of discussion and maintain the decorum expected on this website.

All that said the prohibition on automatic weapons doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Same with explosives, even though there's easy ways to make it at home.

This admission is evidence that you are doing your own risk - utility calculus, coming up with your own threshold. This validates the public discourse that surrounds there being one.

Should we ban house wives and house husbands from buying bleach, ammonia, and chlorine?

What about a bulldozer?

Risk - utility calculus.

 

[Lumber]

You don't have property rights. Firearms are property. As to your right to security, the state's argument is that is met through a policed and (excessively) regulated society.

I don't agree with any of that, FWIW. I'm a big fan of US Constitutional rights.

The US lots its credibility to provide any kind of logical and informed decisions regarding gun laws when they banned Kinder Surprise because they are deemed "too dangerous".

 

[Jarnhamar]

I cannot continue to respond to this thread of discussion and maintain the decorum expected on this website.

That's unfortunate.

The US lots its credibility to provide any kind of logical and informed decisions regarding gun laws when they banned Kinder Surprise because they are deemed "too dangerous".

But we banned ninja stars, blow guns, and nunchucks