The Great Gun Control Debate

[Jarnhamar]

In addition, even armed civilian bystanders with good intentions of stopping a shooter can wind up exacerbating already violent situations, as nearly happened in the Giffords shooting.

The old CCW permit holder turning a school yard into a mass killing ground blood bath  eh?

Great stuff.

I'll take my chances being armed and counting on my accuracy rather than counting on the criminal not feeling like shooting me in the head like its GTA5, thanks anyways.

 

[Kilo_302]

I'm sorry, but this post of yours is just so full of crap. I am very intimate with Detroit and what you are trying to espouse as some sort of expert is pure bovine scatology. Your simply parroting what the rest of the ignorant people of this continent believe. You, obviously, know nothing about Detroit and should hold your tongue until you, at least, have a passing knowledge of how the city works.

Not surprised by your comments though. Everything you've posted in this thread is agenda driven and of as much a dubious nature as your understanding of Detroit.

If you're so vehemently opposed to my post, why don't you correct me instead of using (and this a term you're quite fond of) "ad hominem attacks"?

Are you denying that there are under served neighbourhoods in Detroit? Areas where emergency service response times are extremely slow? Are you not willing to engage any of the stats in the papers I posted?

What is this "passing knowledge" I am missing? Please enlighten me. I really don't want to be lumped in with the rest of the "ignorant people on this continent."  :facepalm:

As for being agenda driven,  facts have a known liberal bias.  :

 

[Lumber]

As for being agenda driven,  facts have a known liberal bias.  :

Shots fired.

But I am curious for recceguy to elaborate on what was incorrect about your post (me being completely ignorant on most of what you guys are arguing debating about).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Lets think about this one line

Instead, study after study has shown that more guns leads to more killings.

How many guns in the US? - about 300-350 million

How much ammo?- around 2010 ammo sale peaked at 12 billion rds a year for North America, not including military purchases

So the homicide trend is.....falling http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/murders-in-u-s-cities-again-at-record-lows/


https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/november/crime-statistics-for-2013-released/crime-statistics-for-2013-released

 

[Kilo_302]

Lets think about this one line

Instead, study after study has shown that more guns leads to more killings.

How many guns in the US? - about 300-350 million

How much ammo?- around 2010 ammo sale peaked at 12 billion rds a year for North America, not including military purchases

So the homicide trend is.....falling http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/murders-in-u-s-cities-again-at-record-lows/


https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/november/crime-statistics-for-2013-released/crime-statistics-for-2013-released

The homicide rate is definitely falling, that's undeniable. It's much the same in Canada, and Western Europe. That's attributable to numerous factors, but it's a leap to suggest it's due to  higher rates of firearm ownership because it's a trend that's occurring outside of the US as well. The legalization of abortion is often cited, as is the unleading of gasoline (strangely enough), more effective policing, an aging population, less alcohol abuse. This data is all readily available online. However it's pretty difficult to find empirical evidence that gun ownership reduces crime anywhere. Most studies (this is the latest and the most comprehensive) of violent crime and gun ownership show the opposite.

 

[Lumber]

Virginia TV reporter, photographer killed in shooting during live interview

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html

Hide ya' kids.

 

[George Wallace]

Virginia TV reporter, photographer killed in shooting during live interview

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html

Hide ya' kids.

Unfortunately, this is not something new or unusual; in that there are many mentally challenged people out there who for whatever reason will find reason to attack celebrities from political, media, or entertainment fields.  It has happened all around the world.  Assassination attempts on political figures.  Attacks on media personalities.  Attacks and home invasions of entertainment personalities.  One unfortunate Canadian example is the Brian Smith story, where the murderer still shows little or no remorse. 

 

[larry Strong]

Apparently a disgruntled employee.

 

[Kilo_302]

Unfortunately, this is not something new or unusual; in that there are many mentally challenged people out there who for whatever reason will find reason to attack celebrities from political, media, or entertainment fields.  It has happened all around the world.  Assassination attempts on political figures.  Attacks on media personalities.  Attacks and home invasions of entertainment personalities.  One unfortunate Canadian example is the Brian Smith story, where the murderer still shows little or no remorse.

Right, so the point should be "let's make it harder for them to get their hands on guns."

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Right, so the point should be "let's make it harder for them to get their hands on guns."

The point is did prohibition stop alcohol consumption?  Those who want will get.....

 

[George Wallace]

Right, so the point should be "let's make it harder for them to get their hands on guns."

You are big on statistics and studies; what is the percentage of 'legal' gun owners committing these crimes compared to 'illegal' gun owners? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sounds like another good thread is heading for the toilet?

 

[Kilo_302]

The point is did prohibition stop alcohol consumption?  Those who want will get.....

You are big on statistics and studies; what is the percentage of 'legal' gun owners committing these crimes compared to 'illegal' gun owners? 

I don't have those figures readily on hand, looking through a few reports so I can steer you directly to those numbers (they're very dense).

Most crimes committed with guns are committed with "illegal" guns, in the sense that the person committing the crime is not the legal owner. However, the larger problem is that a society awash in guns makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on them. This results in more gun crime, a fact that has been borne out by many studies.

There are also instances where someone with criminal intentions CAN get a gun legally, in the heat of the moment. A cash transaction at a gun show for example is entirely legal, and not traceable at all. So a mentally ill person as you alluded to above George, can go buy a Glock for $500 cash in a handshake deal. Is this not something that should be illegal?

Mandatory background checks, an assessment of mental health would go a long way in preventing gun crime, but we also need to look at ways to reduce the number of guns at large. This is ground that has been trodden over repeatedly, but the US is unique in advanced countries in having such a high gun crime rate. It's simply because it has a higher rate of gun ownership. Direct correlation.

Now, we can debate whether or not individual freedom trumps safety. That is a legitimate discussion. But it's becoming clear that the discussion can no longer be, " more guns make us safe." Mountains of data show otherwise. A gun in the home (legal or not) exponentially raises the chance of suicide, homicide and accidental death. I agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But in a well armed society, you turn a domestic spat into a murder, a moment of severe depression into a suicide, and a firing into a potential mass shooting.

Yes we need to invest in better care for the mentally ill, but that's also a form of government in our lives, and the pro-gun lobby is largely based on reducing that footprint. We can't have it both ways.

 

[Kilo_302]

Sounds like another good thread is heading for the toilet?

Well if you classify a debate (and that word is in the title of the thread curiously enough) as being in the toilet, then yes, that's where we're headed. Do join us.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There are also instances where someone with criminal intentions CAN get a gun legally, in the heat of the moment. A cash transaction at a gun show for example is entirely legal, and not traceable at all. So a mentally ill person as you alluded to above George, can go buy a Glock for $500 cash in a handshake deal. Is this not something that should be illegal?

Mandatory background checks, an assessment of mental health would go a long way in preventing gun crime, but we also need to look at ways to reduce the number of guns at large. This is ground that has been trodden over repeatedly, but the US is unique in advanced countries in having such a high gun crime rate. It's simply because it has a higher rate of gun ownership. Direct correlation.

You'll see no gun show transactions of that kind in Canada.

Buyer and seller need to have RPALS.

PALS & RPALS are issued after mandatory background checks, including questions on mental health, are done by the RCMP.

The transaction must be authorized by the Provincial CFO before a transfer is made.

The buyer needs to apply to, and wait for a hard copy of an Authorization To Transfer, from the CFO before he can take possession and move the pistol, and only and initially to his registered domicile.

The above could take from days to weeks before the buyer is allowed possession of his pistol.

So no, you can't go to a gun show and say "Here's $500" and walk away with a handshake and a pistol.

This thread tries as much as possible to reflect what we do in Canada. Not the States or anywhere else. It tries to keep things focused on Canadian gun owners and Canadian laws that affect those owners.

 

[c_canuk]

my 2 cents...

Banning material goods does not stop criminals from producing and distributing those goods; It incentivises them to do so.

The harder it is to get something the more the black market will pay for that item. This makes the distribution of contraband more profitable. This is a fact, it is not disputable.

A secondary effect is that the only people who will have those goods are criminals. By arranging a system that only criminals are armed, you create an imbalance that also incentivises home invasions and other violent crime.

People don't kill because they have a gun, they kill because they have intent to kill. This is also a fact, and is not disputable. The fact that Canada has millions of gun owners and fewer than 400 gun related homicides a year is proof. The fact that a minuscule amount of those 400 homicides per year are with legally owned fire arms is further proof. Banning Guns will not stop the majority because those guns are already banned yet they were used in the commission of a crime.

The idea that banning guns will reduce homicide is a fallacy which is illustrated in study after study. Banning Guns does have an effect on reducing shootings, in some cases. However, violent crime and murder is unaffected or increases when this happens. to reiterate, people don't kill because they have a gun, they kill because they have the intent to kill and the gun is just the first tool they grab.

Areas that make it easy for the law abiding to own firearms have low amounts of violent crime, areas that have high restrictions have more violent crime.

The biggest mass murder in US history was a fire bombing. Not a mass shooting.

Guns being the popular tool might actually be reducing the number of fatalities in these events. There are many ways someone could create massive casualties with common household goods or even a pickup truck.

Also note that the "assault weapons" like the ar-15 platform that grabbers want to ban because "they were only designed for killing" are designed to maim. they are designed to maim because of the idea that wounded people are more likely to tie up more resources on a battle field than the dead. Non restricted Hunting rifles and shotguns are more likely to be fatal.

The whole anti gun movement is fueled by irrational fear from the ignorant who refuse to educate themselves, lies dressed in statistical clothing, willfull ignoring of actual real live examples, and an unwillingness to move beyond the infantile "if there were no guns, there would be no shootings" which is stupidly simplistically true and completely irrelevant.

There will always be guns and even if there weren't people aren't driven to kill because they have a gun, they are killing because they have intent.

That intent will be played out with another tool if guns weren't available. Attempting to change the variety of tools available to those with a killers intent doesn't solve anything if it were even possible. The intent remains.

The intent to kill is the problem, and that problem is already diminishing yearly.

Depriving ~5 000 000 the ability to own firearms for personal use, in a futile attempt to prevent 4-8 homicides committed with legally owned firearms, while doing nothing to reduce intent is morally bankrupt.

The risk of being killed by a legally owned firearm is so significantly small that it's asinine to even discuss. Death by heartattack on a golf course is responsible for more deaths yearly, so why does this discussion take up so much of our time.

Criminals are going to Criminal, focus on that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The homicide rate is definitely falling, that's undeniable. It's much the same in Canada, and Western Europe. That's attributable to numerous factors, but it's a leap to suggest it's due to  higher rates of firearm ownership because it's a trend that's occurring outside of the US as well. The legalization of abortion is often cited, as is the unleading of gasoline (strangely enough), more effective policing, an aging population, less alcohol abuse. This data is all readily available online. However it's pretty difficult to find empirical evidence that gun ownership reduces crime anywhere. Most studies (this is the latest and the most comprehensive) of violent crime and gun ownership show the opposite.

but if guns were the issue it would continue to raise or least remain stable. Look at the number of guns and ammo, the message is clear. Availability of guns is a minor issue in the scheme of things.

 

[Kilo_302]

You'll see no gun show transactions of that kind in Canada.

Buyer and seller need to have RPALS.

PALS & RPALS are issued after mandatory background checks, including questions on mental health, are done by the RCMP.

The transaction must be authorized by the Provincial CFO before a transfer is made.

The buyer needs to apply to, and wait for a hard copy of an Authorization To Transfer, from the CFO before he can take possession and move the pistol, and only and initially to his registered domicile.

The above could take from days to weeks before the buyer is allowed possession of his pistol.

So no, you can't go to a gun show and say "Here's $500" and walk away with a handshake and a pistol.

This thread tries as much as possible to reflect what we do in Canada. Not the States or anywhere else. It tries to keep things focused on Canadian gun owners and Canadian laws that affect those owners.

Right I am familiar with the PAL system in Canada, as I'm currently in the process of getting one. I went on the US tangent because of the today's shooting and the story that was posted, but will keep it to Canada from here on in. Incidentally, I think our current gun laws do the job quite nicely, outside of a few idiosyncrasies here and there.

 

[Kilo_302]

but if guns were the issue it would continue to raise or least remain stable. Look at the number of guns and ammo, the message is clear. Availability of guns is a minor issue in the scheme of things.

I disagree. The falling crime rate affects all kinds of crimes, not just violent ones. What guns do is transform crimes or incidents where you wouldn't expect a fatality, and dramatically increase the likelihood of a fatality/serious injury.

The broader trends you're referring would by definition have to be included in this latest data, or any data on crime. And the falling crime rates have been explained (as I mentioned above) by a series of other variables.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Inequality contributes, so the US has the highest rate of shootings, but it doesn't tell the whole story. People want the freedom to own guns, I get it. But the price seems to be a proportionately higher instance of gun violence.

Why do you keep making up stuff?  The US murder rate is very low on a world scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Note that Mexico has twice the murders of the US with 1/3 the population.