[CanadianJeff]

While scrapping the long gun registry (how many times did it need to be repeated that criminals won't register guns!) was a good step I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Bart here on the silliness of the laws.

I don't think even the NRA disagrees with the idea that those with mental illness or criminal records shouldn't be permitted to own firearms.

Oops. Immediately after I wrote that sentence I googled to make sure and found the NRA has lobbied multiple times for gun sellers to be totally off the hook if they sell a gun to someone who shouldn't have one by law off the books. They lobbied and won writing such laws in both 1986 and tightened it's grip with another in 2003.

Moving on from that I still think most gun owners understand the support measures to ensure guns stay in responsible hands. Frankly as a non gun owner I don't give two craps if my neighbor owns an ak47 or an auto 9mm. If he's mentally safe enough to own a firearm I hardly see how handing him a bigger gun is suddenly going to turn him into a violent maniac.

[Xort]

Bodah Bodah:

Harper makes it more difficult to obtain assault weapons.
Oh lord, the horror.

Three points, he didn't make anything easier or harder.

Second as I pointed out above I can already obtain a rifle that is next to identical in function of a prohibited rifle, as a non restricted firearm.

Lastly assualt weapon is a nonsense term without any meaning.

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Moving on from that I still think most gun owners understand the support measures to ensure guns stay in responsible hands.

I have no problem with the checks needed to get a license. But I don't understand the police making comment that if we incress the time it's valid to 10 years we can't screen people that have become unfit to have a license. Wouldn't whatever process that happened to that person that made them unfit trigger a check on if they have a firearms license? Also if they are worried about unfit people having a firearm I can't see how a check once in 5 years if sufficent.

Similar I don't understand why I can be trusted to own a restricted firearm, but I need to register a travel plan for it when I want to use it somewhere. That's silly, either I'm trusted to own one and only use it in a legal manner, or I'm not. Having to get a ATT (Authorization to Transport) is saying that I can't be trusted to transport my restricted firearm under my own judgement. But they trust me enough to keep one.

Further to have one firearm be restricted and another with the same features but a slightly different look non restricted is stupid. Although not as stupid as the prohibited, non restricted gap.

The restricted license level should be the extra training required for pistols. If you never want to own a pistol then get a non restricted. If you do, then pay the extra money and get the training which allows you to own a pistol. After that treat all firearms as equal in terms of use, transport, storage and exchange. I don't think the public would be happy to know that I can keep my semi auto shotgun in a lower security storage setup than I can keep my pistols. Either my shotgun is safely stored or it isn't, if it is then why can't I store my pistols like my shotgun? If it isn't then I should store it like my pistols.

[CanadianJeff]

Maybe because 5 years can have a dramatic change on a persons criminal record? Seriously please take 10 seconds next time to think.

The ATT is designed so that the law can alert you to changes in firearm law in the areas you choose to travel with your firearm. Gun laws are not the same all over. Again 10 second rule.

Again the ideas of one gun being illegal and one gun legal has nothing at all to do with my statement of responsible gun OWNERS. I have already stated earlier I find such rules obviously silly.

[Lemmy]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I don't think even the NRA disagrees with the idea that those with mental illness or criminal records shouldn't be permitted to own firearms.

That's a nice theory but useless in practice. Most criminals don't get caught so don't have criminal records. Furthermore, most murderers aren't multiple murderers. So how do you anticipate when they're going to shoot, since they likely never have before?

An even smaller percentage of people with mental illness are identified. So the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people could easily purchase guns because they've never revealed their illness.

[OnTheIce]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

$1:

Documents obtained by the Coalition for Gun Control reveal the committee advising Public Safety Minister Vic Toews wants some prohibited weapons, including hand guns and assault rifles, reclassified to make them more easily available.

Yeah guys that's gonna help with the public perception of the tough on crime bill. Freakin idiots and besides everyone knows you don't need that AK74 for gopher control, you really need a Barrett M82.

Canada has no use for guns to make the 'make-my-dick bigger' crowd feel better as if an assault rifle or powerful weapon makes them more of a man. Spare me the 'freedom' and 'hobby' BS.

Looks like he's going backwards on this. Bad idea.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's a nice theory but useless in practice. Most criminals don't get caught so don't have criminal records. Furthermore, most murderers aren't multiple murderers. So how do you anticipate when they're going to shoot, since they likely never have before?

An even smaller percentage of people with mental illness are identified. So the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people could easily purchase guns because they've never revealed their illness.

I don't see how that changes anything. A lot of murders are crimes of passion, and they can, and will happen, with or without access to a firearm. I'm not sure where you can the information that most criminals don't ever get caught, but stronger restrictions on gun purchases, criminal record or no, won't stop criminals from buying illegal weapons. How does the possibility of criminals using a legally purchased firearm somehow mean that we should unreasonably restrict firearm purchases for law abiding Canadians?

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's a nice theory but useless in practice. Most criminals don't get caught so don't have criminal records. Furthermore, most murderers aren't multiple murderers. So how do you anticipate when they're going to shoot, since they likely never have before?

An even smaller percentage of people with mental illness are identified. So the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people could easily purchase guns because they've never revealed their illness.

I don't see how that changes anything. A lot of murders are crimes of passion, and they can, and will happen, with or without access to a firearm. I'm not sure where you can the information that most criminals don't ever get caught, but stronger restrictions on gun purchases, criminal record or no, won't stop criminals from buying illegal weapons. How does the possibility of criminals using a legally purchased firearm somehow mean that we should unreasonably restrict firearm purchases for law abiding Canadians?

I'm not concerned about criminals' behaviour (by "criminals" I mean career criminals, gangsters, perpetual re-offenders). We know those assholes will commit crimes with guns no matter what we do to prohibit their possession.

But I'm talking about crimes of passion too. I'm talking about the MARJORITY of murders: those committed by people you'd never expect to commit murder, usually out of jealousy or undiagnosed mental illness. Gun control takes away a lot of those murders because those individuals, who are otherwise law-abiding people, would obey the gun prohibition law and not have a gun. You presume law abiding people would not obey the gun prohibition law. Why? It's that easy access to guns that legal gun ownership gives that's the problem. You guys say "gun laws don't stop criminals from having guns." Wrong. Because most gun violence perpetrators aren't criminals until they shoot the first and only person they ever shoot. If gun ownership had been illegal, they wouldn't have had a gun to use and would likely not have ever become a criminal. Like the old saying goes "If someone finds a gun in Act II of the play, it's sure to go off in Act V". You gun nuts just don't seem to get this.

Guns are the most deadly thing you can wield at someone. You say "if they're mad and want to kill, they'll just use a knife". But what percentage of stabbing victims survive versus gun victims? How many people are killed by accidental or nervous/anxious gun shots? More or less than accidental or nervous/anxious knife wounds? How often does someone get hurt or killed as an innocent by-stander in a knife-wielding incident? When people get pissed off or go temporarily insane, grab a knife and threaten people with it, how often does that end in death? Or even injury? What about the guy who snaps and grabs the gun? How often does that scenario end with a dead person?

Guns make bad situations worse. Knives and baseball bats, not so much.

[BeaverFever]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I do wonder however why we paid to have such a committee if the PM is just going to do what he feels will get him elected anyway.

So that Harper can officially reject it on the anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre and thereby soften his image on the gun control file. This smells like a staged event.

[Jonny_C]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So that Harper can officially reject it on the anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre and thereby soften his image on the gun control file. This smells like a staged event.

Very perceptive point.

Now that the registry is dead, there is no longer any impetus for changing firearms legislation. Politicians have no incentive (they see no upside) to doing anything more, and gun owners (like me) have no strong dissatisfaction to pursue.

On the balance we have pretty good (pretty reasonable) gun laws. The gun control crazies will always carp, but the average person is satisfied.

[BeaverFever]

The Gun registry is not dead in Quebec. In fact the same day as the Harper announcment, the PQ government announced that it had received 'rare' all-party support to proceed with a provincial registry. Again, the timing of it all is important as the date of both the Quebec and Harper announcments is the anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, the 9/11 moment of the Canadian gun-control movement and the first such anniversary since the registry was scrapped.

Even if Harper's rejection of his own advisory panel wasn't a set-up from day 1, I'm sure that at some point Harper's advisors must have forseen how events would play out and determined a need to distance themselves from any cultivating any more of a'pro-gun' perception. The feds are stil fighting Quebec in the courts over the province's right to establish a gun registry and the case curently run into the next election cycle. Quebec is always difficult political territory for the CPC and there is widespread support for the registry. Now with Trudeau, a Quebec MP in the Liberal leadership race, I suspect the CPC is trying to mitigate damage to the party from the gun registry issue, which is sure to be a key element of debate in Quebec in the next election.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But I'm talking about crimes of passion too. I'm talking about the MARJORITY of murders: those committed by people you'd never expect to commit murder, usually out of jealousy or undiagnosed mental illness. Gun control takes away a lot of those murders because those individuals, who are otherwise law-abiding people, would obey the gun prohibition law and not have a gun.

How can you account for such a claim? If somebody is at the point where they're so deranged or jealous, they can commit such a murder with or without access to a gun. Hell, it might even be easier, considering they'd just have to grab a large knife from the kitchen, instead of going through with the various safeties most gun owners have to secure their firearms, like trigger locks and gun safes.

$1:

You presume law abiding people would not obey the gun prohibition law. Why?

When did I make that assumption?

$1:

It's that easy access to guns that legal gun ownership gives that's the problem. You guys say "gun laws don't stop criminals from having guns." Wrong. Because most gun violence perpetrators aren't criminals until they shoot the first and only person they ever shoot. If gun ownership had been illegal, they wouldn't have had a gun to use and would likely not have ever become a criminal.

Incorrect. Crimes of passion are not because of the gun, but because of whatever event that triggered the mental break, be it discovering an affair, or the mental illness. Blaming the gun for the crime is a fallacy, since the gun is not what is causing the crime. The gun is the tool in which the crime is carried out. Restricting gun ownership does not prevent crimes of passion. They will still happen with or without firearm access.

$1:

Like the old saying goes "If someone finds a gun in Act II of the play, it's sure to go off in Act V". You gun nuts just don't seem to get this.

Plus that must be a really old setting, and either way, it seemingly relates to fiction. Yes, in a fictional setting, a gun will probably be used if it's introduced. If it doesn't get used, it's a red herring to distract the audience from Colonel Green murdering the butler with the rope. This relates to reality...how? The stats show most police officers never fire their weapon outside of the firing range. Seemingly introducing firearms to human beings does not guarantee their utilization.

$1:

Guns are the most deadly thing you can wield at someone. You say "if they're mad and want to kill, they'll just use a knife".

Or a car, or a hammer, or their bare hands or the many, many other ways you can murder somebody. Are guns one of the most deadly? Sure they are, no doubt about it. Should there be limitations on some firearms, including licensing for those who want to legitimately own a weapon? Of course. Should we ban it? Of course not, much like we shouldn't ban my 1990 Cadillac Fleetwood because I might, one day, drive it onto a crowded sidewalk going 60kph after a psychotic break.

$1:

But what percentage of stabbing victims survive versus gun victims?

I don't know. Much like I don't know the survival rates for being hit by a car at 60kph either, or having somebody beat you with a hammer or a baseball bat. The thing is, the real question is the survivability of a crime of passion, which seems to be the main crux of the issue about why you want firearms banned for law abiding Canadians.

Considering, sadly, I can't find an easy source of information about crimes of passion, by weapon type, and if they were successful or not, I can't answer.

$1:

How many people are killed by accidental or nervous/anxious gun shots? More or less than accidental or nervous/anxious knife wounds?

How many people are killed in vehicle accidents in Canada? Good odds its more than the accidental deaths from firearms.

And the accidental firearm death rate for the United States in 2010...is 600. Tragic? Sure, much like the 32,885 vehicle accident deaths in the United States in 2010 are. That does not justify banning either of them.

$1:

When people get pissed off or go temporarily insane, grab a knife and threaten people with it, how often does that end in death? Or even injury? What about the guy who snaps and grabs the gun? How often does that scenario end with a dead person?

Both are probably comparatively low, but that's an assumption since I'd assume if they aren't actively stabbing or shooting, they're not at the point where they don't care about their lives and are now trying to take as many down with them.

$1:

Guns make bad situations worse. Knives and baseball bats, not so much.

Seriously? A bad situation...say a bar fight...and then toss in a few bats or knives. That surely won't escalate with those new weapons. Nope, those reasonable, drunk assholes will calm down after seeing a baseball bat and realize they're out of control.

While, let's say, the bar owner telling people to calm down while he's holding a shotgun, or two police officers with semi-automatic pistols will quickly calm the situation down. Guns, again, are tools, and they can be utilized to make bad situations worse, or bad situations better. It all depends on the intent of the user.

[Lemmy]

While I appreciate that your response took a good, long time to put together, you didn't make any good points. Access to guns makes dangerous or crazy people extra dangerous. Other tools/weapons generally don't.

Think of that KC Chief's player that killed his girlfriend and himself last week. Without the gun, they're both likely alive today. That sort of case is the type that gun prohibition greatly reduces.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

While I appreciate that your response took a good, long time to put together, you didn't make any good points. Access to guns makes dangerous or crazy people extra dangerous. Other tools/weapons generally don't.

To be more accurate, access to knives and clubs makes people more dangerous, access to guns takes it to a whole other level. There's a reason we don't hear about somebody knifing up a McDonalds. Charles Whitman would have had a lot more trouble killing people if he had to throw knives at them from his tower. Jane Creba would still be alive. (That's the other thing about knives and clubs - they usually harm the intended vic, not the bystanders. Someone being killed by a stray knife thrust are pretty rare.)

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

While I appreciate that your response took a good, long time to put together, you didn't make any good points. Access to guns makes dangerous or crazy people extra dangerous. Other tools/weapons generally don't.

Actually, I did, but your anti-gun bias allows you to ignore them.

$1:

Think of that KC Chief's player that killed his girlfriend and himself last week. Without the gun, they're both likely alive today. That sort of case is the type that gun prohibition greatly reduces.

Except you never explained how that is. He's a freaking football player, he could have killed her by strangling her to death. He might still be alive, sure, since it's a bit more difficult to strangle yourself to death, but I really don't see how she'd be alive if he had the intent to kill her.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

(That's the other thing about knives and clubs - they usually harm the intended vic, not the bystanders. Someone being killed by a stray knife thrust are pretty rare.)

And this is maybe the only legitimate argument made about how a gun can be more dangerous than a knife/club/bat/hammer/other melee weapon. Although you can hit plenty of bystanders if you use a vehicle, or if you're really crazy and make an IED.

However, most bystanders who are hit by stray bullets are being fired by criminals who will obtain firearms anyway! Very few law abiding citizens are going to be using their weapons in a situation where a bystander might get hurt, and, as such, it does not justify restricting legal firearm sales to law-abiding citizens.