[Lemmy]

I don't have an anti-gun bias. I own guns.

But you're right, you don't see. He likely didn't have intent to kill her and without the gun likely wouldn't have. That's what guns do. They turn bad situations worse.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't have an anti-gun bias. I own guns.

Really now? Why would you then attempt to tighten restrictions on gun ownership, or at least advocate for it? If you're perfectly competent to own firearms, why can't other law abiding Canadians own them as well, even though you are just as much at risk for having an undiagnosed mental illness, or a mental break?

$1:

But you're right, you don't see. He likely didn't have intent to kill her and without the gun likely wouldn't have.

What evidence do you have of this? If he murdered the girlfriend, he certainly had an intent to kill. Did the gun make it easier for him to kill her, and then himself? Of course, but how, without the gun, can you claim the intent would have not existed?

I'm also going to ignore your little swipe to further polite civil discourse.

$1:

That's what guns do. They turn bad situations worse.

So, unless you never had a bad day, or had a fight with your wife/kids, why hasn't the firearms you owned made a bad situation (the verbal argument with your spouse/children) worse, by you murdering them all in a fit of rage?

[RUEZ]

bootlegga bootlegga:

This is just another issue where Harper, if he wants to remain in the PMO, has to follow a centrist approach and not a party one.

Not only that it's the right decision. I think we have a good balance of gun laws. Hunters have access to what they need, but we also control who can easily access weapons purely meant for killing other humans.

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Really now? Why would you then attempt to tighten restrictions on gun ownership, or at least advocate for it? If you're perfectly competent to own firearms, why can't other law abiding Canadians own them as well, even though you are just as much at risk for having an undiagnosed mental illness, or a mental break?

You're absolutely right. I may snap. So may anyone. Without guns around, we'd all be safer. I'm not campaigning for tighter gun laws. I'm not advocating for that either. All I'm saying is that the world would be safer if that were the case. Just look south. The American experience is all the case-study proof you ought to need.

commanderkai commanderkai:

What evidence do you have of this? If he murdered the girlfriend, he certainly had an intent to kill. Did the gun make it easier for him to kill her, and then himself? Of course, but how, without the gun, can you claim the intent would have not existed?

The evidence is that this thing happens all the time in the USA, girl-boy argument, dead girl, dead boy. It happens at an alarming rate there. Much less here because the lack of guns equals a lack of escalation.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I'm also going to ignore your little swipe to further polite civil discourse.

No swipe at all, dude. You said you didn't get it. I agreed.

commanderkai commanderkai:

So, unless you never had a bad day, or had a fight with your wife/kids, why hasn't the firearms you owned made a bad situation (the verbal argument with your spouse/children) worse, by you murdering them all in a fit of rage?

Because I have hunting weapons, stored carefully in my home. If I were made mad enough, maybe I'd use them. Or maybe I've been lucky. If I'd been allowed to have a hand gun, there'd have been situations in my life where I'd likely have used it. Good thing for at least a couple of people that we aren't allowed to carry them around in this country.

You can argue with me all day long, but if you were right, there wouldn't be an epidemic of gun crime in the USA compared to here. The single biggest difference between Canada and the USA is access to guns. Access to guns means use of guns. There's little to be gained by us dancing around in circles. Your theory isn't supported by statistics. Mine is.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're absolutely right. I may snap. So may anyone. Without guns around, we'd all be safer. I'm not campaigning for tighter gun laws. I'm not advocating for that either. All I'm saying is that the world would be safer if that were the case. Just look south. The American experience is all the case-study proof you ought to need.

The evidence is that this thing happens all the time in the USA, girl-boy argument, dead girl, dead boy. It happens at an alarming rate there. Much less here because the lack of guns equals a lack of escalation.

Even with the high profile cases you might see in the news, like the KC Chief football player, does not mean there are crimes of passion happening in the United States at an alarming rate, or at a rate higher than you might see in Canada. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The percentage of murders that were intimate partner homicides is 14.9% as of 2010 for Canada (89, out of 554), and 10.2% for the United States (1336 intimate murders, out of 12,996 total).

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homici ... fm#intprop

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only about 11% of homicides between 1975 and 2005 were done by an intimate partner. Admittedly, these are the best statistics I could find that might relate to a "crime of passion", but most likely they would involve an intimate partner. Just as importantly, it doesn't bring up any information about if the weapon was legally or illegally obtained.

$1:

You can argue with me all day long, but if you were right, there wouldn't be an epidemic of gun crime in the USA compared to here. The single biggest difference between Canada and the USA is access to guns. Access to guns means use of guns. There's little to be gained by us dancing around in circles. Your theory isn't supported by statistics. Mine is.

We weren't talking about overall gun crime rates. We were talking about crimes of passion committed by those who were law abiding citizens before said crime. I never once that gun crime was not a serious issue in the United States. I was arguing over your "crimes of passion" statements.

[Xort]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

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

Why don't you think a bit too? If I have a change in my criminal status, then part of my conviction should trigger a review of my status for a lot of stuff, which should include my firearms license.

Or are you find with someone convicted of a crime holding onto the license and effectively being able to buy firearms for upto 5 years before anyone bothers to check and see if they should still have that license?

The same should go for a mental health review. If someone is judged to be a risk, then the reviewing authority should be contacting a great many other government bodies to inform them that the ill person is a threat.

$1:

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.

An ATT is for restricted firearms being used on a range. If a law has changed that makes the range unable to operate then inform the range, who will inform members. Not that I agree with the limit on restricted firearms only being usealbe in ranges.

As for the laws being different, each region that has firearms laws should publicly post those rules and it should be up to the firearm owner to check. Which is exactly what happens with non resticted firearms. So why then is it OK for a firearm owner to have to check the rules to shoot an non restricted firearm, but they need to tell someone and get a permit to transport a restricted on due to the potential changes in law? (as you are suggesting).

I'm going to suggest it's another pointless hold over rule that doesn't do anything other than keep a few officer workers busy doing, pointless paper work. If a person can't be trusted to properly use a firearm, then don't license them to start with. Or even better set a nation rule for the locational use of a firearm. Eliminating the need for checking in each legal district for the local rules made up by I'm sure top legal and firearms safety experts.