The Great Gun Control Debate

[Bzzliteyr]

Yeah. that's one thing I noticed as well. You're trying to claim this is a National event? I mean Quebec is recognized as a nation so maybe that's who they were aiming this at? They're worried about that new legislation with registration and serial numbers, I can totally understand that.

Go on r/Canadguns on reddit, there's some pretty butthurt guy in the thread about the event. Most others are smart enough to see how this was a bad idea from the get go. It's actually scary to see how that guy is thinking. Makes me realize we're not immune against Trump like zombies in Canada.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Shrek, you got your "National" confused.

This group is trying to rally against the proposed Quebec government gun registry that the provincial government wants to introduce as a replacement for the extinct Federal one, even though the Supreme Court said they had no right to the Federal data, Harper destroyed it and as a result they would have to build it from scratch (Yeah! That's gonna be cheap!).

Anyway, you should know by now that in Quebec, "national" is used to refer to the provincial government, while the one in Ottawa is referred to as the "Federal" government. That is why, for instance, Quebec City refers to itself as the National Capital.

Quebec must be a Nation, because PM Harper said so.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Except the information from the gun registry wasn't destroyed like the government ordered. High river Alberta is an example of how the information was secretly kept by the RCMP.


The timing and location of the protest was pretty stupid. So stupid in fact that I'd almost think it was a "Medusa magazine" style move by antigun proponents.

I've read that during the last long gun registry less than 50% of Quebecers were estimated to have registered their firearms, I can't see it being more effective this time around.

I've read brilliant idea that gun owners were trying to get off the ground.. An open carry protest with non-restricted firearms at parliament Hill. Glad that fizzled out.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I've read brilliant idea that gun owners were trying to get off the ground.. An open carry protest with non-restricted firearms at parliament Hill. Glad that fizzled out.

And we wonder why they don't take some of us seriously...

 

[coyote489]

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/12/03/poll-suggests-canadians-back-urban-gun-ban/

Came across this today. Seems like a pretty inaccurate poll to me, only reaching out to just over 2000 Canadians... how does that even come close to a representation of what we really think. Just another group trying to take the good gun owners rights away.

 

[PuckChaser]

2000 is a typical poll number, hard to get more than that to answer the phone.

 

[coyote489]

2000 is a typical poll number, hard to get more than that to answer the phone.

Yah I understand that, I just find it comical when the media gets hold of polls like this then state "most" Canadians agree with said statement asked in that poll. I understand that polls are nearly impossible to execute at larger scales. A total ban on firearms in urban areas would be an extremely difficult task, being that a lot of Canadian gun owners live in urban areas. Let's just hope this topic stays at being a poll and does not turn into legislation in the future.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention:

Statistics Canada has defined urban areas using the same methodology based on population size and density since the 1971 Census. An urban area was defined as having a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. All territory outside an urban area was defined as rural area. Together, urban and rural areas covered the entire nation.

So the person on the phone is unlikely to know the legal definition of Urban area and likely thinks city.

 

[pbi]

Not to mention:

Statistics Canada has defined urban areas using the same methodology based on population size and density since the 1971 Census. An urban area was defined as having a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. All territory outside an urban area was defined as rural area. Together, urban and rural areas covered the entire nation.

So the person on the phone is unlikely to know the legal definition of Urban area and likely thinks city.

That strikes me as an almost random and somewhat irrelevant definition that StatsCan is using. It would result in small towns and villages being called "urban" which by any other definition I doubt they would.

In my opinion, something like 100,000 population is a truer definition of "urban". Which would still probably produce very similar results in terms of opinion polling, since (for example) if you add up all the municipalities in Ontario with 100,000 or more population, you will come to a total that represents the overwhelming majority of the population.  In Manitoba, as another example, Winnipeg at over 700,000 represents easily more than half of the provincial population of about 1,200,000.  Edmonton and Calgary are probably similar in Alberta.  The end result is the same: most Canadians live in cities.

So, properly conducted polls in those centres would likely reveal what "most people" in that province feel about something, if that is a valid basis for policy.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Not sure if you've been tracking but they have/are going to change the definition of "crime guns" which should skew the results of future stats in regards to guns related to crimes.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What's a crime gun?

 

[Kat Stevens]

One where the bullets come out of the skinny end.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That strikes me as an almost random and somewhat irrelevant definition that StatsCan is using. It would result in small towns and villages being called "urban" which by any other definition I doubt they would.

In my opinion, something like 100,000 population is a truer definition of "urban". Which would still probably produce very similar results in terms of opinion polling, since (for example) if you add up all the municipalities in Ontario with 100,000 or more population, you will come to a total that represents the overwhelming majority of the population.  In Manitoba, as another example, Winnipeg at over 700,000 represents easily more than half of the provincial population of about 1,200,000.  Edmonton and Calgary are probably similar in Alberta.  The end result is the same: most Canadians live in cities.

So, properly conducted polls in those centres would likely reveal what "most people" in that province feel about something, if that is a valid basis for policy.

I live in a village that splits the StatsCan definition perfectly PBI: Total population: 1600. The "village" (i.e. the urban portion) has about 1100 people over almost exactly 2 square Kms, the rest of us live in the country part, which is more than 26 square Kms. The difference between "urban" or "rural" for us? (1) 50 Kph vs 80 Kph  ;D, and (2) Pick your mail in the community box or at the Post Office vs Get it in you roadside mailbox on your Rural Route delivery. Again  ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

Canadians love guns.

WolverineSupplies got an order in of WK180-C rifles (never even heard of it before) and they sold out. 1,000 of them in 75 hours.

Despite the liberals stance on firearms it's nice that they haven't made any sweeping decisions on guns, so far. The RCMP is still approving a surprising number of "scary looking military style firearms" as non-restricted.

 

[angus555]

Canadians love guns.

WolverineSupplies got an order in of WK180-C rifles (never even heard of it before) and they sold out. 1,000 of them in 75 hours.

Despite the liberals stance on firearms it's nice that they haven't made any sweeping decisions on guns, so far. The RCMP is still approving a surprising number of "scary looking military style firearms" as non-restricted.

Wow..and it's gas piston with many ar-15 parts. Extra-scary looking :nod:

 

[Loachman]

https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/ProductDetail/KODWK180CONLINE_-Kodiak-Defense-WK180-C-5-56-Nato-18-6--Non-Restricted-Retractable-Stock-Black-#?sortValue=0

 

[NavyShooter]

Note - from my readings (only a few) on this rifle.  It is NOT approved by the RCMP....it is simply a Made in Canada AR-180B with some local flavour to let you add more standard AR-15 parts and bits to it.

It was never submitted for inspection, because it is not a new rifle.  Or so they say.

I think it's great, and if I hadn't just pulled the trigger on a new lathe, I might have been tempted to get in on the first 1K.

NS

 

[Altair]

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-have-stopped-americas-worst-mass-shooters

Interesting look on how if America had Canadas gun laws how many people wouldn't be dead right now.

Virtually every gun used in an American mass shooting is legally available for purchase in Canada. Despite this, Canada doesn’t come close to suffering the same rate of mass shootings as the United States.

Whenever Americans discuss gun control, it’s only natural that they look to the policies of their much less bullet-riddled northern neighbour. But even Canadian law can only do so much.

Below, an analysis of just what Canadian firearms policies could have done to stop some of America’s worst mass shootings.

First, some basics

Nobody legally buys a gun in Canada without first taking the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Then, they have to submit an application for a Personal Acquisition License (PAL), where they’re screened by the RCMP for risk factors such as criminal history and mental health. All of the shootings in this list involve what Canada classifies as “restricted firearms”: Handguns and many types of semi-automatic rifles that can only be legally owned for the purposes of target shooting. With very few exceptions, private firearms are not sold as “weapons” in Canada. The only legal reason for owning a firearm in Canada is as a tool to kill animals or as a piece of sporting equipment to shoot paper targets. This is in sharp contrast to the United States, where gun ownership is closely correlated with self-defence.

Columbine High School massacre (1999)

Victims: 13 killed
Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.

There were four firearms used in the massacre: An Intratec TEC-DC9 semiautomatic pistol, a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun. The semi-automatic pistol is prohibited in Canada, which means it cannot be legally owned except under special conditions. Nevertheless, it’s still possible to buy restricted firearms in Canada that have the same capability as a TEC-DC9, albeit with a smaller magazine. At first glance, gun laws would seem to be a moot point in the Columbine massacre because the shooters obtained their guns illegally from friends. Notably, the man who sold them the TEC-DC9 was later convicted and jailed for selling a handgun to minors. However, before they were given to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, all four firearms were originally purchased anonymously from unlicensed sellers at Colorado gun shows. These types of sales are not permitted in Canada.

Virginia Tech massacre (2007)

Victims: 32 killed, excluding perpetrator
Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.

This shooting involved two handguns; a Walther P22 and a Glock 19. Both guns are available as restricted firearms in Canada, and it wouldn’t be too difficult for a licence-holder to buy sufficient quantities of ammunition. But shooter Seung-Hui Cho showed a clear history of mental illness, including diagnoses of severe anxiety disorder and severe depressive disorder. As a student at Virginia Tech, he often submitted course work that contained explicit references to violence. It is reasonable to assume these would have made him ineligible for a PAL. The Canadian screening process is not airtight, of course. Filing a PAL is much like submitting a tax return: A criminal can simply lie and cross their fingers that nobody notices. Organized crime already knows this, which is why Canada has a documented problem with “straw man” purchases: A criminal successfully obtains a restricted PAL and proceeds to buy up scores of handguns for distribution to criminal networks. Notably, of 402,138 new or renewed PALs granted in 2016, only 336 were rejected due to factors that would have described Cho

Fort Hood shooting (2009)

Victims: 13 killed
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.

The Fort Hood shooting was perpetrated with a single semi-automatic handgun with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds. Semiautomatic handguns with the same firepower are available in Canada, albeit with magazines containing a maximum of 10 rounds. The shooter, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, had been investigated by federal authorities for links to terrorism. This would likely be enough for the RCMP to restrict his ability to possess restricted firearms. However, Hasan was in the military, which may have opened up avenues to obtaining firearms illegally. Notably, a 1984 mass shooting attack on Quebec’s National Assembly was conducted with stolen military firearms. Cpl. Denis Lortie, a Canadian Armed Forces supply technician, killed three people using two C-1 machine guns stolen from CFS Carp, site of the so-called Diefenbunker. The military has since reformed their weapons-handling protocols.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012)

Victims: 26 at school, excluding shooter
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe.

Shooter Adam Lanza had an established history of mental illness, in addition to a diagnosis for Asperger’s syndrome. This, coupled with Lanza’s extreme withdrawal from society, makes it extremely unlikely he would even decide to undergo the PAL screening process. However, the shooting was perpetrated entirely with firearms taken from the collection of his mother, an avid firearms enthusiast. The two guns used in the massacre, the Bushmaster XM-15 and a .22-caliber Savage Mark II rifle, are sold in Canada and would not be out of place in any respectable gun collection. However, if she were in Canada, Lanza’s mother would have been required to store her firearms in such a way that they were inaccessible to her son, whose age at death was 20. This isn’t the case in Connecticut, where there is nothing inherently illegal in storing loaded firearms within easy reach of an unlicensed co-habitant. Lanza also would have had a much lower rate of fire if he had been in Canada. The Bushmaster used by Lanza was equipped with 30-round magazines. In Canada, where semi-automatic rifle magazines are limited to five rounds, Lanza would have needed to reload six times as often during the massacre.

Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting (2012)


Victims: 12
Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.

The three guns used to attack cinema-goers at a screening of The Dark Knight were a Smith & Wesson variant of an AR-15, a Remington 12-gauge 870 shotgun and a 40-caliber Glock handgun. All of these firearms are available for legal purchase in Canada. Shooter James Holmes had no criminal record but he was extremely withdrawn, anxious and told his psychiatrist that he had a preoccupation with killing others. It’s unlikely he would qualify to pass the PAL screening process, or even tried. One hard-to-quantify effect of Canadian firearms screening is how many unstable individuals simply never bother to apply. The application form asks applicants to specify their conjugal status, for instance, and implies that police will be calling up exes. “Anyone with an angry ex isn’t going to get a (possession licence) for example,”one firearms instructor told the National Post. Canada has anonymous hotlines by which friends or neighbours can call a Canadian’s firearms licence into question. Canadian Firearms Safety Course instructors are also told by RCMP to report any students in their classes who seem suspicious. A bit Orwellian, perhaps, but it’s one of several ways in which Canada is able collar the kinds of would-be mass murderers with clean criminal records that U.S. law finds so hard to stop.

Orlando nightclub shooting (2016)

Victims: 49 killed
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.

The Sig Sauer .223 and Glock 17 used in the shooting are available in Canada, albeit with reduced magazine capacities. Shooter Omar Mateen also held a Florida Statewide Class G Firearms License for his work as a security guard, which requires attending a safety course. However, Mateen had previously been investigated for connections to terrorism, which in Canada should have sunk his PAL application. It’s also worth noting that Mateen only became a gun owner a week before the attack. In Canada, becoming a gun owner takes between two and eight months — far too long for an impatient ISIS-inspired mass murderer. Of course it’s always possible that if a shooter is planning an illegal act, they can simply obtain an illegal firearm. But it’s worth contrasting the Orlando shooting with Canada’s own worst example of a lone wolf Islamist shooting attack. When Michael Zehaf-Bibeau decided to storm parliament, the best illegal gun he could obtain was a lever-action Winchester that reloads about as slow as a revolver. This made it dramatically easier for law enforcement to shoot and kill Bibeau soon after he was inside parliament’s Centre Block.

Las Vegas shooting (2017)

Victims: 58 killed, excluding shooter
Could it have happened in Canada? Probably.

Canadian gun laws may have proved particularly powerless to stop the United States’ deadliest mass shooting. Perpetrator Stephen Paddock had no criminal record, no history of mental illness and investigators have still not found a single scrap of evidence that he was contemplating or planning a mass shooting. In the 12 months before the massacre, Paddock legally purchased 55 firearms as well as a variety of bump stocks, an accessory that speeds up the firing rate of a semiautomatic rifle. Throughout, he took calculated steps to evade suspicion and complicate any subsequent investigation of the crime. For a criminal as dedicated to mass murder as Paddock, it’s reasonable to assume that Canadian screening would have provided an obstacle, but not a barrier. The only real difference in Canada would be that Paddock’s arsenal would have had a much lower rate of fire: No bump stocks and much smaller magazines. For an experienced shooter, however, these technical limitations can ultimately make very little difference.

Sutherland Springs church shooting (2017)

Victims: 26 killed, excluding shooter
Could it have happened in Canada? No.

Shooter Devin Kelley was found guilty of domestic assault in a 2012 U.S. Air Force court martial. In Canada, this type of conviction would immediately strip him of any ability to purchase and own firearms. Indeed, it should have done so in the United States, but the military neglected to pass details of his conviction to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Investigation Services Division, where it should have turned up in a background check. A weakness of U.S. gun laws is that they’re overseen by a patchwork of law enforcement agencies. In Canada, all gun owners are uniformly monitored by the RCMP. And as most Canadian gun owners would agree, the Mounties require very few excuses to suspend a firearms licence. Uniformed police themselves are routinely written up for minor firearms charges, and one firearms instructor contacted by the Post told of a student who had his licence suspended simply for being at a party where an assault had occurred.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School

Victims: 17
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.

Shooter Nikolas Cruz did not have a criminal record at the time he purchased his firearms. However, Cruz has such a lengthy history of threatening behaviour that nobody who knew him has been particularly surprised at the events of this week. Cruz’s social media posts were particularly explicit about his wishes to become a school shooter and the FBI had been alerted to his behaviour. In Florida, even if authorities were aware of Cruz’s risk factors, none of it would have been a barrier to him acquiring a firearm. But in Canada, if PAL screeners find out, it’s plenty evidence to deny an application. Another factor in Canada is that law enforcement requires much less evidence to place citizens under a peace bond that can deny their access to weapons. In the U.S., this generally requires a conviction, which isn’t any help when so many mass shooters (including everyone on this list) do not have prior criminal records. There’s still no guarantee that Canada could have stopped a devoted school shooter such as Cruz, of course, but many more things would have needed to go wrong for it to happen.

TL;DR

Columbine, prevented.

Virginia Tech, prevented.

Fort Hood, maybe

Sandy Hook, maybe

Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting, prevented

Orlando nightclub shooting, prevented

Las Vegas shooting, not prevented

Sutherland Springs church shooting, prevented

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, prevented.

 

[pbi]

But, Ecole Polytechique was not prevented: 14 dead, more than a goodly number on that list. Nor was Mayerthorpe nor Moncton, in which armed police officers were gunned down.

I believe in reasonable gun control laws: they are part of a civilized society. We control the sale and use of automobiles and dynamite, so why not guns? But I think it's a mistake to say that gun laws alone are the answer, or their absence the cause. I would also ask:

-how well do we detect the signs of mental illness, and how much are we able to do about it?;

-how well do we control our borders? (I've heard, for example, that the percentage of sea containers actually inspected at Canadian ports of entry is about 20%-what's in the other 80%?)

-what is society's cultural view of lethal violence? Is it a terrible crime to shoot someone, or a casual action or "I'll shoot him if I bloody well feel like it"?; and

-is there some kind of political or social meaning attached to owning weapons?.

None of these hold all the answers, but neither does gun control alone.

 

[Remius]

So it seems that this latest event could have been prevented.  And not because of a lack of gun control.  The FBI effed up.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/parkland-shooting-fbi-tipster/index.html