Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Apr 2020, 11:12 am

See, mass shooting can happen in places there aren't mass shooting. Who knew?

What type of weapon was used?

Perhaps the laws need to be even stricter in Canada.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Apr 2020, 12:19 pm

Given that Canada has one-sixth the number of gun deaths per capita than the US...I think we might not be a good country to give them gun regulation advice.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Apr 2020, 1:19 pm

Not saying their numbers are outrageous. Just saying that the mentality that it does not happen "here" is far-fetched.

The "Northern Utopia" is anyting but.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Apr 2020, 8:09 am

bbauska
Perhaps the laws need to be even stricter in Canada.

Responding to questions from the media amid renewed calls for stricter gun laws, Trudeau said he made serious commitments during the last election campaign regarding tightened gun control, and his government was on the verge of introducing legislation to ban assault-style weapons across Canada when the pandemic resulted in the suspension of Parliament. He said his government plans to pick up where it left off as soon as it has the opportunity to do so.
“We have every intention on moving forward on that measure and potentially other measures when Parliament returns,” he said.
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair also faced questions about when and by what parliamentary mechanism that legislation might be tabled or introduced, but would not offer specifics on the timeline or process, saying only that it is his intention to bring in legislation as soon as possible.
“The actual schedule on bringing forward that legislation, that is still to be determined because we are in somewhat uncertain times in Parliament, but it does not in any way imply we are any less committed to taking the steps that are necessary to keep Canadians safe and strengthen our gun laws,” he said.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/ ... o701QX37cI
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 May 2020, 11:58 am

bbauska
What type of weapon was used?

Perhaps the laws need to be even stricter in Canada.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudea ... -1.5552131
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 May 2020, 6:23 am

rickyp wrote:bbauska
What type of weapon was used?

Perhaps the laws need to be even stricter in Canada.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudea ... -1.5552131


One of those issues where I align with Ricky. Canada is creating new laws to limit future deaths. I wish the US would do the same, in accordance with our Constitution.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 May 2020, 11:15 am

The regulation announced is largely political optics. But its a first step.
In effect a person can keep one of the listed weapons for 2 years, legally. They just can't use it. For two years they will have the ability to either sell it to a foreigner legally or turn it in for a bounty. (Which has yet to be established) However there is no law that means they must turn the weapon in. They just can't use it anywhere. Critics say, that it needs more teeth...
Plus, the fact is that 90% of weapons used in crimes in Canada are smuggled in from the US. Including the rifle and pistols used in Nova Scotia. No one has really figured out how to effectively cut the flow of these weapons off, and this regulation does nothing in regards to this flow either.
Still, if anybody does take a listed weapon to a gun range or hunting, it can be seized by police. So there's something.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 May 2020, 9:21 pm

I do strongly believe in gun control. I think the government can and should put limits on the power of guns to limit the ability of one person to gun down 20, 30, 40, 50 people at one time. I also think that in public only law enforcement and perhaps a few carefully screen people who have shown an individualized need for concealed carry should have guns. I think the people who showed up at the Michigan State House to intimidate the governor with guns are disgusting

Having said that, I can think of five good reasons (not necessarily talking about the Constitution here) for guns:

(1) Protection of yourself and family at work (if you own a jewelry or liquor store say) or at home;
(2) Protection in case society breaks down in a disaster and laws stop being enforced...;
(3) In general, as a statement to your fellow man that you will not be messed with. You dont want to infringe on others...but you will not be infringed upon yourself. The first one says if someone actually does something that would justify lethal force, you would be prepared. Here we are more talking about a deterrent effect to anyone who thinks you are fair game. If someone is thinking of committing a crime against you, now they got to factor in you got a gun. And hopefully, that deters. If not, see (1).
(4) in case the government becomes truly oppressive, they are not going to be able to take you away in the middle of the night without your being able to protest...
(5) To be able to combine with your fellow man to resist a government that becomes repressive and ignores the Constitution and become totalitarian

President Trump and this pandemic...have introduced the real possibilty of a future government not obeying the rule of law, trampling over individual rights, and truly becoming oppressive (not the made up bs the right-wing milita types have been talking about for 30 years). And thus he has certainly convinced me of the need for the 2nd Amendment...

Again, things would have to get far, far worse for 4 and 5 to be a possibility. But I think a gun should be available to citizens to protect our Constitutional rights if a president decides to institute a totalitarian government. I never even considered that a possibility...but recent events have changed my mind
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 May 2020, 9:21 pm

I do strongly believe in gun control. I think the government can and should put limits on the power of guns to limit the ability of one person to gun down 20, 30, 40, 50 people at one time. I also think that in public only law enforcement and perhaps a few carefully screen people who have shown an individualized need for concealed carry should have guns. I think the people who showed up at the Michigan State House to intimidate the governor with guns are disgusting

Having said that, I can think of five good reasons (not necessarily talking about the Constitution here) for guns:

(1) Protection of yourself and family at work (if you own a jewelry or liquor store say) or at home;
(2) Protection in case society breaks down in a disaster and laws stop being enforced...;
(3) In general, as a statement to your fellow man that you will not be messed with. You dont want to infringe on others...but you will not be infringed upon yourself. The first one says if someone actually does something that would justify lethal force, you would be prepared. Here we are more talking about a deterrent effect to anyone who thinks you are fair game. If someone is thinking of committing a crime against you, now they got to factor in you got a gun. And hopefully, that deters. If not, see (1).
(4) in case the government becomes truly oppressive, they are not going to be able to take you away in the middle of the night without your being able to protest...
(5) To be able to combine with your fellow man to resist a government that becomes repressive and ignores the Constitution and become totalitarian

President Trump and this pandemic...have introduced the real possibilty of a future government not obeying the rule of law, trampling over individual rights, and truly becoming oppressive (not the made up bs the right-wing milita types have been talking about for 30 years). And thus he has certainly convinced me of the need for the 2nd Amendment...

Again, things would have to get far, far worse for 4 and 5 to be a possibility. But I think a gun should be available to citizens to protect our Constitutional rights if a president decides to institute a totalitarian government. I never even considered that a possibility...but recent events have changed my mind
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 May 2020, 9:21 pm

I do strongly believe in gun control. I think the government can and should put limits on the power of guns to limit the ability of one person to gun down 20, 30, 40, 50 people at one time. I also think that in public only law enforcement and perhaps a few carefully screen people who have shown an individualized need for concealed carry should have guns. I think the people who showed up at the Michigan State House to intimidate the governor with guns are disgusting

Having said that, I can think of five good reasons (not necessarily talking about the Constitution here) for guns:

(1) Protection of yourself and family at work (if you own a jewelry or liquor store say) or at home;
(2) Protection in case society breaks down in a disaster and laws stop being enforced...;
(3) In general, as a statement to your fellow man that you will not be messed with. You dont want to infringe on others...but you will not be infringed upon yourself. The first one says if someone actually does something that would justify lethal force, you would be prepared. Here we are more talking about a deterrent effect to anyone who thinks you are fair game. If someone is thinking of committing a crime against you, now they got to factor in you got a gun. And hopefully, that deters. If not, see (1).
(4) in case the government becomes truly oppressive, they are not going to be able to take you away in the middle of the night without your being able to protest...
(5) To be able to combine with your fellow man to resist a government that becomes repressive and ignores the Constitution and become totalitarian

President Trump and this pandemic...have introduced the real possibilty of a future government not obeying the rule of law, trampling over individual rights, and truly becoming oppressive (not the made up bs the right-wing milita types have been talking about for 30 years). And thus he has certainly convinced me of the need for the 2nd Amendment...

Again, things would have to get far, far worse for 4 and 5 to be a possibility. But I think a gun should be available to citizens to protect our Constitutional rights if a president decides to institute a totalitarian government. I never even considered that a possibility...but recent events have changed my mind
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 May 2020, 7:12 am

Freeman,
We may disagree with the reasons that would cause #4, but I completely agree with your 5 reasons. That is exactly why I carry.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 May 2020, 8:33 am

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.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 May 2020, 9:32 am

As usual, you dont really read other people's arguments because I said I clearly supported regulations of guns that are too powerful...so you are arguing against a strawman. I also said I dont believe in guns being taken out in public so your "stand your ground" argument" is inapplicable. You analyze (4) and (5) under existing conditions when they refer to a situation when a totalitarian regime has taken over the government. I'm sorry, but I think being armed is better than not being armed if there is civil disorder and laws not being enforced (reference to a slaughter of blacks by racist whites in the '20s isnt a particularly convincing counter-example). As for (1), yes, suicide is the likeliest use of the firearm. But at least that is something you have control over.

When you dont read other people's arguments carefully--instead of doing a RickyP skim--your arguments become pointless. Your arguing against points that were not even made...

Not to mention the fact that it is quite annoying...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 May 2020, 1:01 pm

freeman3
You analyze (4) and (5) under existing conditions when they refer to a situation when a totalitarian regime has taken over the government
.

Existing conditions exist.
Your conditions are imaginary. Fantasy.
Your imagined resistance to tyranny through armed resistance is fantasy as well.
We live in the real world where actions have consequences. The consequences of gun ownership is greater risk of gun deaths and injuries in the society generally. And specially in the families of gun owners.
Try and explain how we get to your imaginary conditions without first having guns as they exist...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 May 2020, 1:25 pm

Why do I have to? I mean, I'm not advocating thst people be able to keep an assault rifle at home and clearly the Constitution protects the right to have some kind of firearm at home. Anyway, one thing Trump and this pandemic have demonstrated is how fragile democracy is in the US right now. Were struggling to get through this...what happens when we have a much worse one? There is a powder keg of anger in this country just waiting to go off from a lot of the Trump base.