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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

American, but an interesting watch none the less.

 

[Fabius]

Federal government confirms 25 guns collected in 'buyback' pilot, as Quebec pledges support

Federal officials have ramped up their search for police and provinces to help carry it out.

nationalpost.com

 

[Jarnhamar]

To take part, gun owners will register their firearms online. Once registered they turn the firearms in and then wait and hope to be paid.

The problem is once you register your firearm you're obligated to turn it in. You. may get fair value for it, $300 for it, or the pot of money runs out and you get fuck all.

That money is going to go fast. There's around 95,000 AR15s registered in Canada. At $1800 a pop that's $171 million out of $700m
There's a hell of a lot more now-illegal long rifles out there. I've seen estimates at a 1:10 to 1:20 ratio of Ar15 vs other banned semi-autos.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Federal government confirms 25 guns collected in 'buyback' pilot, as Quebec pledges support

Federal officials have ramped up their search for police and provinces to help carry it out.

nationalpost.com

To take part, gun owners will register their firearms online. Once registered they turn the firearms in and then wait and hope to be paid.

The problem is once you register your firearm you're obligated to turn it in. You. may get fair value for it, $300 for it, or the pot of money runs out and you get fuck all.

That money is going to go fast. There's around 95,000 AR15s registered in Canada. At $1800 a pop that's $171 million out of $700m
There's a hell of a lot more now-illegal long rifles out there. I've seen estimates at a 1:10 to 1:20 ratio of Ar15 vs other banned semi-autos.

I talked to a person who took part in this. Big LPC type; very pro Carney. Claims he got 3000$ instantly per rifle. If I remember he gave in 2 or 3.

I just expressed that I was sad that we lived in a country that made him turn in his legally obtained property without having committed a crime.

 

[Harris]

I talked to a person who took part in this. Big LPC type; very pro Carney. Claims he got 3000$ instantly per rifle. If I remember he gave in 2 or 3.

I just expressed that I was sad that we lived in a country that made him turn in his legally obtained property without having committed a crime.

Interesting point. So of the 25 turned in, he was 2-3 of those. So not even 25 different people participated. I wonder how many people vice firearms participated?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting point. So of the 25 turned in, he was 2-3 of those. So not even 25 different people participated. I wonder how many people vice firearms participated?

I will be honest, he is so biased in his support for the LPC and PMMC, and has so much disdain for what's left of the Canadian firearms community I wouldn't put lying past him. I didn't witness anything... Just what he told me.

But what I am earing through sources up in the cape is that that around 10 people took part.

 

[OldSolduer]

I just expressed that I was sad that we lived in a country that made him turn in his legally obtained property without having committed a crime.

Imagine seizing everyone's vehicles because a few drive drunk and kill people, or some murderous bastard deliberately uses a vehicle as a weapon.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Imagine seizing everyone's vehicles because a few drive drunk and kill people, or some murderous bastard deliberately uses a vehicle as a weapon.

One could argue that precedence exists. I wonder what percentage of cars in Canadian are used to commit crimes vs what percentage of firearms are... Might be an interesting stat...

 

[Eaglelord17]

Looking briefly at some of the values, a few rifles are going for much more than what the standard rate was even a few years ago.

For example a AG-42b is valued at 2100$ on that chart which I have never seen sell for more than 1500$ (10 years ago it was around 400$). Or a PTRD which is 5230$ which I had seen for sale about 10 years ago at around 1k. Or the SVT-40 which is 2100$ when a few year ago they were selling for 200$.

Might be a few people taking advantage of the prices just to profit.

 

[Furniture]

Looking briefly at some of the values, a few rifles are going for much more than what the standard rate was even a few years ago.

For example a AG-42b is valued at 2100$ on that chart which I have never seen sell for more than 1500$ (10 years ago it was around 400$). Or a PTRD which is 5230$ which I had seen for sale about 10 years ago at around 1k. Or the SVT-40 which is 2100$ when a few year ago they were selling for 200$.

Might be a few people taking advantage of the prices just to profit.

And some are below what they cost 13 years ago...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Imagine seizing everyone's vehicles because a few drive drunk and kill people, or some murderous bastard deliberately uses a vehicle as a weapon.

Eventually vehicles will all be self-drive and controlled by software written to satisfy legislated guidelines and who knows what kinds of fuel- or mileage-based rationing. Widespread cameras and recognition software that can interpret bodily actions as well as mere facial recognition and tip police to the early onset of some kind of anti-social behaviour are a no-brainer. Cash will be eliminated, and gradually additional transaction information (nature of business, nature of purchase, location, etc) will be collected and sifted by AI tools.

At each point, the usual excuse will be advanced: "we already do all this other stuff and the world didn't end; what is one thing more?" ("Frog boiling".) All only if people keep permitting it. It might sound absurd, but here are a couple of things: all the tech for the short list above already exists, governments are already musing about some of it (eg. elimination of cash); and there is no reason to expect the people nibbling at liberty in pursuit of safety to suddenly say, "Well, that's enough; we've achieved everything we wanted." And attributing pursuit of safety is the charitable view. Some people really do like to be in control, and can be quite iron-fisted and unpleasant about it. Those who doubt me should examine the chickenshit politics of university faculties; strata and other ownership councils; clubs and other voluntary associations.

 

[Lumber]

Imagine seizing everyone's vehicles because a few drive drunk and kill people, or some murderous bastard deliberately uses a vehicle as a weapon.

A better metaphor would be motorcycles, especially sports bikes.

"Why do you need a sport bike? You can't legally go above 110kph (and illegally but acceptably above 130kph), so why do you need a bike that can go 300kph and accelerate to half that in about 2 seconds? They aren't even practical! That vehicle is an unnecessary danger to society. Give it to us."

 

[OldSolduer]

A better metaphor would be motorcycles, especially sports bikes.

"Why do you need a sport bike? You can't legally go above 110kph (and illegally but acceptably above 130kph), so why do you need a bike that can go 300kph and accelerate to half that in about 2 seconds? They aren't even practical! That vehicle is an unnecessary danger to society. Give it to us."

Funny you should mention that. In Manitoba if a car hits a motorcycle and its the cars fault then guess which fund pays for it? The Motorcycle fund. If a motorbike hits the car ...well guess which fund pays.

A lot of people here only ride their bikes occasionally and insure them for that time.

 

[Eaglelord17]

And some are below what they cost 13 years ago...

100%. I stand to lose a fair bit with this law as none of mine if turned in will have a positive return.

For example AR-15 uppers they refuse to pay for. Thats a lot of cash for many people right there.

 

[Haggis]

Québec police have signed on to the gun grab for $12M. You'll likely see very high compliance in QC due to them having a functioning and fairly up-to-date long gun registry. But $12M won't go far.

 

[IKnowNothing]

A better metaphor would be motorcycles, especially sports bikes.

"Why do you need a sport bike? You can't legally go above 110kph (and illegally but acceptably above 130kph), so why do you need a bike that can go 300kph and accelerate to half that in about 2 seconds? They aren't even practical! That vehicle is an unnecessary danger to society. Give it to us."

Makes one think of 3 wheelers in the 80's. Banned for manufacture and commercial sale to stop further proliferation, but not confiscated, and the secondary market was allowed to continue.

 

[Dana381]

Eventually vehicles will all be self-drive and controlled by software written to satisfy legislated guidelines and who knows what kinds of fuel- or mileage-based rationing. Widespread cameras and recognition software that can interpret bodily actions as well as mere facial recognition and tip police to the early onset of some kind of anti-social behaviour are a no-brainer. Cash will be eliminated, and gradually additional transaction information (nature of business, nature of purchase, location, etc) will be collected and sifted by AI tools.

At each point, the usual excuse will be advanced: "we already do all this other stuff and the world didn't end; what is one thing more?" ("Frog boiling".) All only if people keep permitting it. It might sound absurd, but here are a couple of things: all the tech for the short list above already exists, governments are already musing about some of it (eg. elimination of cash); and there is no reason to expect the people nibbling at liberty in pursuit of safety to suddenly say, "Well, that's enough; we've achieved everything we wanted." And attributing pursuit of safety is the charitable view. Some people really do like to be in control, and can be quite iron-fisted and unpleasant about it. Those who doubt me should examine the chickenshit politics of university faculties; strata and other ownership councils; clubs and other voluntary associations.

There was a debate a few years ago on CBC radio about whether self driving cars should be programmed to have ethics.

"To present a sample scenario: if a driverless car with four passengers is heading down the road, and a child runs out in front of the car, should the car swerve into an adjacent wall, likely injuring the car's passengers? Or should the car hit the child, which would injure fewer people?"

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-304-the-rise-of-wildfires-kaepernick-s-protest-trump-lingo-robot-cars-dyslexic-design-and-more-1.3770402/the-ethics-of-self-driving-cars-1.3770423

 

[Brad Sallows]

There was a debate a few years ago on CBC radio about whether self driving cars should be programmed to have ethics.

I always feel better when my life is in the hands of philosophy professors.