Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0  (Read 186129 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 746,192
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,184
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1450 on: September 12, 2020, 19:35:24 »
Not to disagree, but can you post a source for that?

Just what I seen on twitter, where that picture was posted. It does look a lot more than 800 people. It was a hell of a lot more than the last anti protest and impressive considering we are in a pandemic.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 335,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1451 on: September 12, 2020, 23:29:21 »
A lot of the hill is blocked off for construction. Might be there were lesser numbers on the hill and more down below? PPS worries about the parliamentary precinct, not the streets of Ottawa.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 408
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1452 on: September 13, 2020, 07:09:32 »
You got me there EL17

I have no idea why certain calibres are banned. Saturday night specials perhaps?

Well when they banned .25s and .32s they said it was because of Saturday night specials and they were 'inherently inaccurate' calibers. Then they proceeded to put a exemption for if its used for target shooting (.32s in particular are Olympic target shooting pistols). The best part about that bit of stupidity is the Saturday night specials were banned due to the barrel length restrictions, so there was no need to do a caliber one. Just one of the many examples of ineffective and contradictory legislation on the governments part when they made the firearms act.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1453 on: September 13, 2020, 09:17:14 »
The best part about that bit of stupidity is the Saturday night specials were banned due to the barrel length restrictions....

.25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 746,192
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,184
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1454 on: September 13, 2020, 09:48:05 »
.25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.

True with their Saturday night special fears they banned all handguns with a barrel length of less than 105mm and those .25 and .32 calibers. They banned 585,000 handguns in the interest of public safety.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1455 on: September 13, 2020, 12:23:42 »
They banned 585,000 handguns in the interest of public safety.

I would not be at all surprised if the banning of the remainder is announced during the Speech from the Throne in 10 days.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1456 on: September 13, 2020, 12:45:36 »
I would not be at all surprised if the banning of the remainder is announced during the Speech from the Throne in 10 days.

The Liberals know that they need to stay on the side of a clear majority and so won't step beyond those boundaries. I feel that the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight. That won't result in a complete win but it will cut the losses.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1457 on: September 13, 2020, 17:04:03 »
The Liberals know that they need to stay on the side of a clear majority and so won't step beyond those boundaries. I feel that the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight. That won't result in a complete win but it will cut the losses.

Wait....what does that paragraph even mean???

Are you saying they will?  Or they won't?  What will keep them on the side of a clear majority?

Your statement that "the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight" means what? Pro-gun groups should just accept that the future of legal gun ownership and the legally conducted shooting sports in Canada is limited and just give up? 

What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?

BTW, Donald H, I'm still waiting for your proposals on the qualifications you think are needed to regulate gun ownership in Canada. (see reply # 1436 from yesterday)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 17:12:25 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1458 on: September 13, 2020, 18:30:25 »
Wait....what does that paragraph even mean???

I'll try to answer your questions.

Quote
Are you saying they will?  Or they won't?  What will keep them on the side of a clear majority?

I'm saying that I don't think the Liberals will step beyond the boundary that maintains their support on gun control. They know that if they go too far they risk losing the support of most gun owners.

Quote
Your statement that "the pro-gun faction of Canadians must consider popular politics in their fight" means what?

It means that which I've said in my previous answer. And my own feeling is that doesn't include very much support for handguns and assault style weapons. This I judge by reports of them having 70-80% support.

Quote
Pro-gun groups should just accept that the future of legal gun ownership and the legally conducted shooting sports in Canada is limited and just give up?

Pro-gun groups should in my opinion not show bad faith by pushing the envelope. That again is in my opinion what I've said in my last answer. modifying demands on some guns could show good faith and be beneficial.

[quoute]What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?[/quote]

I don't know what either party is going to do about those issues. That could be a good exercise to compare the Liberals' and the Conservatives'  and the NDP's proposals.

BTW, Donald H, I'm still waiting for your proposals on the qualifications you think are needed to regulate gun ownership in Canada. (see reply # 1436 from yesterday)
[/quote]

I'll get back on that.

edit: Sorry, I thought I answered that question but now I see that the reason why I didn't answer is because my comment wasn't about the regulation of gun ownership.

It was me saying that I support shooting sports with some qualifications. Those qualifications are, not killing (socalled) varmints for fun, with the exception of rats. And not shooting wolves if they can be considered as varmints. I may have more qualifications that I couldn't include as part of my support.

Answer me the same question. Where do you stand on killing animals for fun?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 18:39:36 by Donald H »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1459 on: September 13, 2020, 20:06:33 »
I'm saying that I don't think the Liberals will step beyond the boundary that maintains their support on gun control. They know that if they go too far they risk losing the support of most gun owners.
I'd wager that they lost most of that support with the OIC in May. Now, even hunters and farmers don't trust them due to their initial ban on .10 and .12 ga shotguns.

It means that which I've said in my previous answer. And my own feeling is that doesn't include very much support for handguns and assault style weapons. This I judge by reports of them having 70-80% support.

When those 1500 Canadians polled by Liberal friendly pollsters are all in urban areas and asked a loaded question, then, yes, support for an "assault weapons ban" and "handgun ban" are way up there.  So, why not ask this question:

"Do you support the confiscation of legally owned, properly stored and safely used firearms from lawful Canadian owners?"  or "Do you support the banning of lawfully owned handguns which are used only for sport shooting in Canada?"

Pro-gun groups should in my opinion not show bad faith by pushing the envelope.
How are pro-gun groups pushing the envelope?

That again is in my opinion what I've said in my last answer. modifying demands on some guns could show good faith and be beneficial.
The Liberals didn't act in good faith when passing the latest rounds of firearms legislation.  A case in point is the RCMP arbitrarily adding several hundred makes and models to the banned list after the OIC came into force without any oversight, consultation or notification to gun owners.  Why should the Liberals expect good faith in return?

Quote
What are the Liberals going to do about illegal guns and the illegal shooting sports like drug hits, drive-bys and smuggling?
I don't know what either party is going to do about those issues. That could be a good exercise to compare the Liberals' and the Conservatives'  and the NDP's proposals.

Would you think that consistently and diligently enforcing the existing firearms laws, including the Customs Act, and targeting criminals and criminal organizations would be a good start?

edit: Sorry, I thought I answered that question but now I see that the reason why I didn't answer is because my comment wasn't about the regulation of gun ownership.
Far enough.  So you agree, then, that our current suite of firearms laws in Canada are sufficient to regulate civilian ownership?  Do you support the May 1st OIC?  Bill C-71?  Are they/will they be, in your opinion, reasonable and effective in combating the criminal use of firearms in Canada and why?

It was me saying that I support shooting sports with some qualifications. Those qualifications are, not killing (socalled) varmints for fun, with the exception of rats. And not shooting wolves if they can be considered as varmints. I may have more qualifications that I couldn't include as part of my support.

Answer me the same question. Where do you stand on killing animals for fun?
I no longer sport hunt, not because I lost the thrill of it but because my current family and work life makes it very complicated to do so.  But, when I did, I ate what I killed. 

I live in a rural area.  Today I use my firearms primarily for sport shooting (IPSC, IDPA, skeet and sporting clays) and, when needed, for predator control.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2020, 08:46:13 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline shawn5o

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 268
  • "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1460 on: September 14, 2020, 10:04:22 »
A case in point is the potential buyback (compensated confiscation) regime which the Liberals may enact to collect up and destroy the lawfully owned newly banned 1800+ models of firearms. That buyback, if eventually offered, will only apply to lawfully owned guns. No incentive there for criminals to turn in theirs.

What would be the value of the buyback? How will the feds determine fair market value? Since owners cannot use or sell the now prohibited firearms, will it be .10 cents on the dollar? (Extreme but I think you get my drift)
“We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” ― Will Rogers

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1461 on: September 14, 2020, 12:29:44 »
I'd wager that they lost most of that support with the OIC in May. Now, even hunters and farmers don't trust them due to their initial ban on .10 and .12 ga shotguns.

That could be true.
 
Quote
When those 1500 Canadians polled by Liberal friendly pollsters are all in urban areas and asked a loaded question, then, yes, support for an "assault weapons ban" and "handgun ban" are way up there.  So, why not ask this question:

"Do you support the confiscation of legally owned, properly stored and safely used firearms from lawful Canadian owners?"  or "Do you support the banning of lawfully owned handguns which are used only for sport shooting in Canada?"

That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of. If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.

Quote
How are pro-gun groups pushing the envelope?

I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't. Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop. How that pretains to Canada and Canadians is going to depend on public opinion.

Quote
The Liberals didn't act in good faith when passing the latest rounds of firearms legislation.  A case in point is the RCMP arbitrarily adding several hundred makes and models to the banned list after the OIC came into force without any oversight, consultation or notification to gun owners.  Why should the Liberals expect good faith in return?

I'm not familiar with the RCMP's additions. But it's a good question because a police force could tend to be over-restrictive of guns and gun owner's rights. And certainly the politicians would trust them on their preferences.

Quote
Would you think that consistently and diligently enforcing the existing firearms laws, including the Customs Act, and targeting criminals and criminal organizations would be a good start?

I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.

Quote
Far enough.  So you agree, then, that our current suite of firearms laws in Canada are sufficient to regulate civilian ownership?  Do you support the May 1st OIC?  Bill C-71?  Are they/will they be, in your opinion, reasonable and effective in combating the criminal use of firearms in Canada and why?

That's a detailed question that would call for me to do a study of what the OIC contains. I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be?
A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity. This raises the issure of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?

Quote
I no longer sport hunt, not because I lost the thrill of it but because my current family and work life makes it very complicated to do so.  But, when I did, I ate what I killed.

I don't know you and so I have no reason to not believe you. I've asked the same question quite a few times to gun owners and not once have I received an answer of them killing for fun. But I've been there Haggis and I killed for fun.   

Quote
I live in a rural area.  Today I use my firearms primarily for sport shooting (IPSC, IDPA, skeet and sporting clays) and, when needed, for predator control.

I was heavily into gun sports too. Large animal hunting, bird hunting of all varieties, target shooting at a level of precision, Trap clays, reloading, machining cartricges, casting lead, and you name it, I've probably done it.
[/quote]
« Last Edit: September 14, 2020, 12:35:13 by Donald H »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1462 on: September 14, 2020, 14:45:26 »
What would be the value of the buyback? How will the feds determine fair market value? Since owners cannot use or sell the now prohibited firearms, will it be .10 cents on the dollar? (Extreme but I think you get my drift)

As a result of the OIC you cannot transfer/sell any banned firearm within Canada. Fair market value here is zero.  Also, you cannot sell to a foreign buyer if the buyer is in a country that will not allow importation, which even includes the US.  Again, this makes the fair market value zero.

Even if you receive compensation of $0.10 on the dollar, it will likely be deemed taxable.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1463 on: September 14, 2020, 15:28:11 »
That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of.
No, they are unwilling to differentiate between the two because to do so would compromise the agenda that all guns are bad and only the police and military should have guns.

If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.
I believe I have done so.

I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't.
  Al that the mainstream firearms community in Canada wants from their government (blue or red) is to be left alone to practice their sport in peace.  They want the focus to be on criminal use.  Yes, like any community, there are fringe segments (i.e. the concealed carry crowd) but even they simply want to be allowed to legally use (and carry?) firearms responsibly.

Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop.
  That's a hollow comparison as the US has vastly different laws and culture than Canada regarding firearms.

I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.
  Why not?  It is central to the discussion over the past 59 pages of this thread.

I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be?
You have framed my belief in your position with your statement, below,
A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity.
which echoes that of two Liberal MPs who recently said "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'" and another who quipped "lawful gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".
 
This raises the issue of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?

A comparison of Norway and Canada would be more relevant to the discussion.  This shows almost equal rates of gun crimes with Norway taking a 2% lead.  Overlay the gun ownership rates and you will see that the rate of firearms ownership is lower (10%) than in Canada (18.5%) despite having a similar suite of firearms laws.  So, in essence, Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1464 on: September 14, 2020, 15:50:38 »

You have framed my belief in your position with your statement, below, which echoes that of two Liberal MPs who recently said "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'"

I find that very offensive because that in no way frames my position.

Quote
and another who quipped "lawful gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".

That's not the way I would say it but by simple logic it's true. There's no room to debate that but I would guess that the MP who said it was more intent on being inflammatory as opposed to being helpful.
 
Quote
A comparison of Norway and Canada would be more relevant to the discussion.  This shows almost equal rates of gun crimes with Norway taking a 2% lead.  Overlay the gun ownership rates and you will see that the rate of firearms ownership is lower (10%) than in Canada (18.5%) despite having a similar suite of firearms laws.  So, in essence, Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.

I used Norway because it's the extreme, in my understanding, on prison reform and rehabilitation of criminals, and it's success rate has been recorded as outstanding.
I'm really not understanding your comparisons of Norway to Canada, but I can accept that Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.

edit: I got it wrong. Apparently Canadians own about 20,000,000 guns and about 1 million handguns. Americans own more than one gun per person. I haven't been able to find out how many handguns Americans own?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2020, 15:59:31 by Donald H »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1465 on: September 14, 2020, 16:03:03 »
I find that very offensive because that in no way frames my position.
  You asked and I answered honestly.

I'd guess that the MP who said it was more intent on being inflammatory as opposed to being helpful.
Of course he was!  Why let facts get in the way of a bad policy?
 
I used Norway because it's the extreme, in my understanding, on prison reform and rehabilitation of
criminals, and it's success rate has been recorded as outstanding.
Go back to the link I provided and check out their stats for violent sexual offences.  I'd rather be a woman in Canada.

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.

Canada:  34.7 known legal guns per 100 population.
USA: 120.5 known legal guns per 100 population.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1466 on: September 14, 2020, 16:18:13 »
  You asked and I answered honestly.


That which you have accused me of being representative of my position.
Quote
"there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'"

I don't find it productive to continue a discussion on those terms.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 371,966
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,552
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1467 on: September 14, 2020, 16:35:31 »
Quote from: Donald H

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.


I own 9 handguns.  What's your point?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1468 on: September 14, 2020, 19:07:07 »
I own 9 handguns.  What's your point?
That 99 other upstanding Canadians own the other 25.7 guns.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 408
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1469 on: September 14, 2020, 22:34:54 »
Canada:  34.7 known legal guns per 100 population.
USA: 120.5 known legal guns per 100 population.

I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 717
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1470 on: September 14, 2020, 22:47:31 »
I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.

We had more than 20 rifles/shotguns "stored" at my grandfathers/grandmothers place in N.S. in the 70's/80's; any of which were available to the assorted uncles/cousins/grandkids on demand, depending on the season.  My grandfather, who died in the late 70's, would have resisted to his core any federal restrictions on his right to own a weapon; he was a salt of the earth farmer who hunted to feed his family, and killed foxes who got into his barn.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 321,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,377
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1471 on: September 15, 2020, 00:46:54 »
We had more than 20 rifles/shotguns "stored" at my grandfathers/grandmothers place in N.S. in the 70's/80's; any of which were available to the assorted uncles/cousins/grandkids on demand, depending on the season.  My grandfather, who died in the late 70's, would have resisted to his core any federal restrictions on his right to own a weapon; he was a salt of the earth farmer who hunted to feed his family, and killed foxes who got into his barn.


And yet, no one was killed or injured by any firearms. Typical Canadians, eh?

Sadly, media coverage of US gun violence has made us afraid of something nasty that is much, much less likely to happen in Canada. And be careful out there.... like don't fall, or something really dangerous like that...

Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

"Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

Thirty-five per cent more likely to be shot to death than Canadians are to die of a fall.

American firearm death rates are almost three times higher than Canadian death rates of ovarian cancer and Parkinson’s; 42 per cent higher than Canadian prostate cancer deaths; 10 per cent higher than pneumonia."

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1472 on: September 15, 2020, 08:02:06 »

And yet, no one was killed or injured by any firearms. Typical Canadians, eh?

Sadly, media coverage of US gun violence has made us afraid of something nasty that is much, much less likely to happen in Canada. And be careful out there.... like don't fall, or something really dangerous like that...

Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

"Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

Thirty-five per cent more likely to be shot to death than Canadians are to die of a fall.

American firearm death rates are almost three times higher than Canadian death rates of ovarian cancer and Parkinson’s; 42 per cent higher than Canadian prostate cancer deaths; 10 per cent higher than pneumonia."

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

Why are you stating fact in what should be an emotionally driven discussion?  There's no room for the truth in the gun control debate.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 408
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1473 on: September 15, 2020, 10:24:46 »
.25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.

Except they didn't need to ban it on caliber, their barrel length law would have included them anyways. It just goes to show how they didn't understand the legislation they were writing at the time.

Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

"Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

And that argument gets vague and shifty. If you want to do equal comparisons you do a 1 for 1, not add it all together and look at how big the numbers are.

When you remove suicide from the numbers for America you end up with 3.18 deaths per 100,000 which is lower than all the other Canadian causes of death listed. The long gun death rate (which include all those scary firearms like ARs and AKs) is basically the same per capita in the USA as it is in Canada. It is handgun deaths where the difference is. Most of those are in those specific urban gang filled areas.

The USA has a suicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000, which is the same as Canada. It is not a fair comparison to add the firearm murder rate to their numbers and not ours and say look it is higher. Again as I have said before, if you make it more controlled as to who has access to firearms/reduce the numbers available, the firearm suicide rate will go down. However the overall suicide rate stays the same as you haven't addressed why people are killing themselves.

If that article was trying to be fair, based on how they were gathering their numbers for firearms deaths, they would have added together all the cancer deaths to one category as that is what they did for firearms. Cancer deaths would then be 23.8 per 100,000, which is over double the firearm numbers. Just remember there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,151
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1474 on: September 15, 2020, 11:12:17 »
The USA has a suicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000, which is the same as Canada. It is not a fair comparison to add the firearm murder rate to their numbers and not ours and say look it is higher. Again as I have said before, if you make it more controlled as to who has access to firearms/reduce the numbers available, the firearm suicide rate will go down.

Access to firearms, particularly handguns, is far easier in the US where in many cases, handguns are kept loaded and easily accessed due to the fear of violent crime, the "right" to firearms and the patchwork of federal, state and local laws governing storage, use and transportation.  In Canada, it is far harder to access one's legally stored handgun on impulse, in a fit of anger or emotional turmoil.

The guns banned by OIC were not the ones being used in suicides in Canada. Someone wanting to get legal access to a firearms they don't already have to do themselves harm will most probably choose another means as the process takes a while.  The black market, although far more expensive, is an easier and quicker source.  Those contemplating suicide are not going to be too concerned by the cost of the means.  If it's immediately unaffordable, they will choose another means.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.