The most effective arguments being put forward for the list of 1500 weapons that are "banned" in Canada under the recent regulation are: (And by effective I mean persuasive since about 80% of Canadians support the regulation.)
- the guns listed have only one real purpose, killing people. They aren't designed as hunting weapons. They aren't required for shooting targets.
- anyone who wants one of these guns is being challenged with the question "Why do you need this gun?" Generally Canada is freer than the US about most things. The notion being that you have the freedom to do anything until it starts to directly interfere with my freedom. In the case of firearms if you want to hunt, no one has a problem with you having a bolt action hunting rifle or limited magazine shotgun. You need that to hunt. But an AR15? nope. If you can't shoot a deer with a bolt action rifle - your just not a good hunter. The deer aren't shooting back.
So Freeman, the analysis of your reasons for firearms also comes down to a risk/reward .
Do the risks and costs of firearms ownership out way the benefits. Done on a actuarial basis., with actual evidence not based on feelings...
1. Ownership of firearms in a home or business has proven that more people within that household will die or be injured from incidents with those firearms. The times when they become useful in protecting a business or home or very rare. (And with electronic commerce the norm today, actual robberies are becoming rarer. With electronic surveillance, identification and tracking of robberies is easier and easier and leading to more solved cases ... Police say its far safer to relent and give the robbers their money... (If you can't run away).
So I'm not sure #1 is a good idea. In Canada "home invasions" are incredibly rare and usually a result of gang beefs or drug beefs. So the incidence of innocent people having their homes invaded .... well it doesn't happen.
In teh US?
I had the Chicago police run the number on homicides. In 2011, precisely one homicide listed "burglary" as the motive. Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year.
When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious
.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... on/266613/So having a gun for protection versus the potential for harm in the house? Any potential benefit greatly outweighed by the vast increase in risk.
2. The break down in society occurs more often when mobs have access to weapons. i.e. The Tulsa riots probably wouldn't have resulted in 300 deaths but for the presence of a heavily armed populace, with the easy means to act on their hate..
3. Sure. Stand Your ground has resulted in so many innocent deaths by an emboldened populace . Emboldened
by their guns and by the laws which allow the guns to be used with relative impunity.
4. Sure. Because having a hand gun is always going to be an effective way to resist a SWAT Team. All this does is end in death at the hands of the cops. And not just for the armed resistor but sometimes family caught in the cross fire. Many people prefer to put up with arrest and a court appearance over death.
5. Sure. Because armed militias (white power mostly) are considered by the FBI to be the number one threat of domestic terrorism. And because many of the loan wolf terrorists like Dylan Roof have associations (from loose to close) with these groups that encourages their murderous rampages.
Nations that have fewer guns per capita, have fewer gun deaths. Nations that have more restrictive and prescriptive regulations for use of firearms (Like Switzerland) have fewer gun deaths.
None of these nations have seen any threat to their safety, or freedom. (The US actual is less free than many nations with strict gun ownership. Perhaps the notion of gun freedom distracts from recognizing the other restrictions on freedoms?)
On a strictly actuarial basis, gun ownership is a risky proposition. With few, if any, genuine benefits.
If gun ownership need to be justified with actual facts rather than emotions; or misconceptions of reality, it would be sliding downwards - and increased regulation would be acceptable.