New Canadian Gun Ban

[rockinkt]

Speaking of red herrings...

I don't think anybody is claiming that guns, of their own volition, kill people. But they do facilitate the act of killing. And some types of guns in particular make it much easier to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time.

What you are saying has nothing to do with the situation in Canada.
In Canada the banned firearms only look more dangerous than the semi-automatic firearms used for hunting that are not banned. That is due to decades old magazine bans for centerfire rifles holding more than five rounds. Five round magazines are not a design that is makes it much easier to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time.

Also, this ban will do nothing to stop a person from acquiring illegal firearms from the US as our borders are almost free flow for contraband. Statistics show the vast amount of firearms used in criminal activity are sourced from the US so the easy access will remain.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Perhaps you didn't read this part of the commentary by the pollster at the link you shared:

While the government survey found close to four-in-five Canadians saying they did not believe more should be done to limit access to handguns or assault weapons, ARI found nearly the opposite.

I did, yes. I also continued reading, seemingly unlike you.

The Angus Reid Institute survey was taken by 1,525 respondents across the country and is proportionally representative of Canadians from each region of the country. The data is also weighted to 2016 Census proportions for demographics such as age, gender, education and income level etc., to ensure the responses accurately reflect public opinion.

The Government of Canada survey was taken by a much larger sample, with 134,917 total responses. Anyone was invited to take part in the survey, and as such, demographic bases tend not to reflect an approximately representative population sample. For example, 61 per cent of respondents identified as male – 11.5 percentage points above census levels. The percentage identifying as female was 30 per cent, a full 20 points lower than the population average.

The government survey also placed no limits on how many times a person could fill out the survey. One Quebec resident claimed to have used software to send more than 25,000 responses during the survey window. For these reasons, among others, the two identical questions yield wildly disparate responses.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What you are saying has nothing to do with the situation in Canada.

It has to do with the comment of yours that I quoted. Nice moving of the goalposts, though.

 

[rockinkt]

Well, no, they're not. Many firearms are designed for hunting animals or for target shooting at mimics of animals.

All firearms used for hunting and target shooting are based on firearms that were originally designed for war. Semi-automatic firearms holding 4 or five round magazines are very common in hunting and target shooting.
All of the firearms that were banned in Canada have magazines that hold 5 rounds or less of centerfire ammunition as the laws banning magazines that hold more than 5 rounds of centerfire ammunition for a semi-automatics have been banned for decades.

I've read here before that some towns fill up with armed men in the hunting season, but there isn't any related gun violence. People who buy types of guns not designed or specialised for shooting people do not appear to be a part of the problem. (I accept that people who are a problem might opportunistically use such a gun, if that's the gun they can get.)

The use of these types of newly banned firearms in criminal activities in Canada is extremely rare. There were 56 total "homicides" (which include suicides) in 2018 using either rifles or shotguns. There were more homicides in that same year done with knives or blunt objects.

There has never been a mass shooting or murder in Canada linked to an AR-15 rifle. The only mass shooting that used a ruger Mini-14 was 31 years ago back when the use of large magazines was allowed.

The ease of acquisition by criminals of any type of firearm from the US is a known fact in law enforcement in Canada. That is why this type of ban or a handgun ban in Canada is not supported by the Canadian Association of The Chiefs of Police, The RCMP, and most municipal or provincial police forces because it will do nothing to stop violent people from acquiring them.

 

[rockinkt]

It has to do with the comment of yours that I quoted. Nice moving of the goalposts, though.

The thread is about laws in Canada. The laws in Canada highly restrict the acquisition and storage of firearms in Canada and the magazine capacity. The fact that large magazines in Canada have been banned for almost 30 years makes the firearms that we are discussing in this thread not the same as those with large capacity magazines.

 

[rockinkt]

I did, yes. I also continued reading, seemingly unlike you.

Did you read this?
Those with more self-professed knowledge of Canada’s gun laws are more comfortable with the current procedure for acquiring a license and firearm. This group is also more likely to say Canadian gun laws overall are too strict – 37 per cent say this. Those with no knowledge are nearly three-times as likely to say the laws are not strict enough compared to the most well-informed (54% to 20%)
The opinions of uninformed people are worthless and should be ignored when matters of policy or laws are discussed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The thread is about laws in Canada. The laws in Canada highly restrict the acquisition and storage of firearms in Canada and the magazine capacity. The fact that large magazines in Canada have been banned for almost 30 years makes the firearms that we are discussing in this thread not the same as those with large capacity magazines.

I was addressing the specific comment you made. That you consider your own comment to be off-topic is none of my concern.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Did you read this?
Those with more self-professed knowledge of Canada’s gun laws are more comfortable with the current procedure for acquiring a license and firearm. This group is also more likely to say Canadian gun laws overall are too strict – 37 per cent say this. Those with no knowledge are nearly three-times as likely to say the laws are not strict enough compared to the most well-informed (54% to 20%)
The opinions of uninformed people are worthless and should be ignored when matters of policy or laws are discussed.

Another shifting of the goalposts. I was addressing the specific claim you made.

 

[zooterkin]

Well done Canada.

Australia banned guns like that 20 years ago and the fabric of society remains intact.

Not that the fabric of Australian society was really at any risk from guns like that...

A bit of a non sequitur, there.

The statement was that the fabric of society was not damaged by removing the guns, not that they were removed to preserve it (even if that was a factor). Not the same thing.

 

[zooterkin]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131

So why would Canada not ban handguns? Surely the person who thinks a semi-auto rifle is not suitable for hunting believes the same about handguns? Or is handgun hunting a thing in Canada? I understand that there are already limitations on handguns in Canada.

This type of legislation tends to be in response to an incident, rather than pre-emptive, so I'm guessing there hasn't been a major shooting incident in Canada using handguns. They are pretty much banned in the UK (yes, I know there are exceptions).

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Guess what? It’s not a right in most countries of the world. Don’t judge other nations by warped US standards.

Now that's not very nice. After I wished you and yours good luck you insult my Country. That chip is showing.

IT's certainly easier to base your opinions on things you suppose than it is to base them on data.

http://angusreid.org/gun-control-handgun-ban/



So you're right, the current laws in Canada wouldn't exist. They'd be more restrictive.

I am amused, though, by the idea that someone expressing the opinion that it's a bad thing when human beings shoot other human beings en masse is literally Hitler.

Well if you base your opinions on polls I hate to tell you this but some of those things are a bit dishonest. A poll can be slanted any direction you want it to go with ease. The ballot box is the only true poll of the people.

And it's not amusing that human beings kill one another. I find it highly distasteful but that's the human condition. You can outlaw guns but they'll use knives, you can outlaw knives and they'll use hammers, if you outlaw hammers they'll use rocks. How will you rid the Earth of rocks? No, taking away objects that can kill is not the answer, limiting personal freedoms and rights to pursue happiness is not the answer. Teaching good mental health and strong family values would be a much better solution than limiting personal freedoms.

As far as Hitler, by his own words he would agree with keeping arms from the citizens and with keeping that decision made by one individual rather than a vote by the people. What's more is that his words can't be interpreted any other way so if the shoe fits........

Chris B.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well if you base your opinions on polls I hate to tell you this but some of those things are a bit dishonest

I didn't base my opinion on a poll. I posted a poll as an indicator of what the Canadian public thought.

And it's not amusing that human beings kill one another.

I didn't say that was what was amusing, either.

Man, there's some serious (deliberate?) reading comprehension issues from some quarters in this thread.

I find it highly distasteful but that's the human condition. You can outlaw guns but they'll use knives, you can outlaw knives and they'll use hammers, if you outlaw hammers they'll use rocks. How will you rid the Earth of rocks?

I'm sure this sounded good in your head.

No, taking away objects that can kill is not the answer, limiting personal freedoms and rights to pursue happiness is not the answer. Teaching good mental health and strong family values would be a much better solution than limiting personal freedoms.

I wasn't aware that the two were mutually exclusive.

As far as Hitler, by his own words he would agree with keeping arms from the citizens and with keeping that decision made by one individual rather than a vote by the people. What's more is that his words can't be interpreted any other way so if the shoe fits........

LITERALLY HITLER, I tell you!

 

[eerok]

Certainly the new gun ban won't stop Canadians from hurting each other, but it affirms the value of human life, and it comes with no cost. Public availability of military-style weapons isn't necessary. Gun culture isn't necessary. Getting rid of these things is no loss, and it's done more good than harm wherever it's been implemented IMO.

I see it as more of a symbolic gesture than a practical measure, but it's one that I support.

 

[Ranb]

Certainly the new gun ban won't stop Canadians from hurting each other, but it affirms the value of human life, and it comes with no cost. ....

This sounds like it's being said by a person who does not own the guns they are coming after.

While I've read something about compensating people for the loss of their property, I doubt it will come close to the amount of money they put into their firearm in some cases.

 

[eerok]

This sounds like it's being said by a person who does not own the guns they are coming after.

While I've read something about compensating people for the loss of their property, I doubt it will come close to the amount of money they put into their firearm in some cases.

I could've been clearer. I meant by "no cost" that Canadians will still be able to hunt and use shooting ranges. I know a lot of hunters, and I don't know one who owns a gun that's being banned, but of course some will be affected.

 

[AnonyMoose]

My $.02 worth:

I think all firearms should be banned from civilians with the exception of standard issue hunting rifles (bolt/pump action rifles that can't hold more than 3 bullets/shells). Anything more than that is ridiculously unnecessary. If you can't take down a deer in your first or second shot, you shouldn't be out there hunting and your damn hunting license should be revoked. Period.

The assumption is this: If you have a firearm that holds more than 3 bullets, it's because you intend to use more than 3 bullets. If you intend to use more than 3 bullets, you are a potential danger to society en masse (and/or the animal kingdom) and thus, should not be in possession of any firearm. In fact, every single bullet loaded into a weapon is there because it's meant to be used at some point (willfully intended or not).

Guns are manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only: to mortally wound. They are not toys. They are not meant to be handled by the kiddies, they are not meant to be flashed around in front of our buddies as a means of phallic-ular prowess, they are not meant to be casually slung over our shoulders like a harmless Gucci purse while we browse the soup aisle in Walmart. You can't use it to hammer a nail, you can't use it to carve yourself a nice thick steak, you can't use it to shave your legs, you can't use it to hit a home run, you can't use it to take the family on a weekend trip to the beach. To repeat, guns can only be used for one thing: to mortally wound/take a life.

Ergo, guns need to be dealt with accordingly by the laws of a civilized society. And if the laws of said civilized society aren't restrictively regulated enough to keep guns tightly controlled by the proper authorities, then said laws need to be changed, and they need to be changed immediately. For far too long, people have been treating modern-day guns (read: not muskets) like they're nothing but a fun tool to play with (read: Nerf football)... but the neverending mass shootings (read: high volume, low timeframe massacres) are proof that they are not.

Laws need to constantly change/adapt/evolve alongside the constant changing/evolving of technologies and societies. And if those laws aren't being changed accordingly? Then we have a failure of leadership in our countries. Period.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Well, for the US it's a nice case study.
If Canada in the next two to three years descends into a dystoptian totalitarian hellscape where 'they' come to lift law abiding citizens out of their beds for voicing their opinions, private property is abolished and armed gangs of thugs rob defenseless people, banning weapons designed solely for killing lots of humans quickly is indeed a bad thing.

If on the other hand life pretty much goes on as normal and those that like to hunt recreationally can still do so, maybe some form of gun control is possible even on the american continent, just like the rest of the western democracies without immediate societal collapse.

The Australian assault weapon ban (actually, it was a buy-back scheme) went into place in 1996. Put in place by a conservative government. Since then we have had nothing but rampant normality. it's been hell! We have even won shooting medals at subsequent Olympic games, despite the crippling handicap of being allowed have properly licensed guns. It's so bad that our cross-eyed militia-style mass-murder type have to go overseas to get their hardware and wreak their havoc.

Where is our freedom to have our own mass-kill shootings with the machine-gun of our choice in the privacy of our own homes, I ask you!

 

[Norman Alexander]

As far as Hitler, by his own words he would agree with keeping arms from the citizens and with keeping that decision made by one individual rather than a vote by the people. What's more is that his words can't be interpreted any other way so if the shoe fits........

Chris B.

Because Hitler was talking about subjugation of the "lower races", not the general populace. He certainly didn't want the "higher" Aryan race, of which he considered himself the best example, to go about unarmed. quite the contrary. He fully expected they would have to defend themselves against the mass uprisings of Jew and Slav, come to take what was rightfully Aryan supremacy as given by God.

But in the USA, many of these shouty gun-totin' types are definitely pseudo-Aryan, antisemitic, pro-fascist, pro-Hitler as well. They are the guys Hitler would have (and did) arm against the untermensch. They are the people most opposed to "dun tuk ur gunz". They are not the lower classes, the underdogs.

So this repeated Hitler meme indicates some sort of weird warping of historical understandings. You might want to go back and read up a LOT more on antisemitism and the National Socialist theories and its history. You might be cheering for the wrong team there.

Also, we have MORE freedom in our country now than you have in yours. For a start, we don't have to carry or use gawd-given gunz all day just in case someone comes to take them or our freedoms away while we are down the 7-11 getting milk. That makes the neighbourhood a LOT safer.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Because Hitler was talking about subjugation of the "lower races", not the general populace. He certainly didn't want the "higher" Aryan race, of which he considered himself the best example, to go about unarmed. quite the contrary. He fully expected they would have to defend themselves against the mass uprisings of Jew and Slav, come to take what was rightfully Aryan supremacy as given by God.

But in the USA, many of these shouty gun-totin' types are definitely pseudo-Aryan, antisemitic, pro-fascist, pro-Hitler as well. They are the guys Hitler would have (and did) arm against the untermensch. They are the people most opposed to "dun tuk ur gunz". They are not the lower classes, the underdogs.

So this repeated Hitler meme indicates some sort of weird warping of historical understandings. You might want to go back and read up a LOT more on antisemitism and the National Socialist theories and its history. You might be cheering for the wrong team there.

Also, we have MORE freedom in our country now than you have in yours. For a start, we don't have to carry or use gawd-given gunz all day just in case someone comes to take them or our freedoms away while we are down the 7-11 getting milk. That makes the neighbourhood a LOT safer.

Jesus, what a twist you've attempted.

Supporting gun rights for everyone as I do is not a position Hitler held by his own words. You are allying yourself with a Nazi philosophy and defining those who defy that philosophy of being in your words: "shouty gun-totin' types are definitely pseudo-Aryan, antisemitic, pro-fascist, pro-Hitler" That position is insanity in my view.

To think that all Canadians can't be trusted to own firearms... That this new law is the only thing keeping them from mass killings. I didn't know Canadians were that unstable. If that truly is the case, I'd have to agree with you, a trip to the local 711 there is probably much safer now.

Chris B.

 

[Ranb]

I think all firearms should be banned from civilians with the exception of standard issue hunting rifles (bolt/pump action rifles that can't hold more than 3 bullets/shells).

Trapdoor and break actions are acceptable also?

Anything more than that is ridiculously unnecessary. If you can't take down a deer in your first or second shot, you shouldn't be out there hunting and your damn hunting license should be revoked. Period.

What about other recreational shooting activities?

The assumption is this: If you have a firearm that holds more than 3 bullets, it's because you intend to use more than 3 bullets.

I have these kinds of firearms and I do use more than three rounds in rapid succession.

If you intend to use more than 3 bullets, you are a potential danger to society en masse (and/or the animal kingdom) and thus, should not be in possession of any firearm.

I am not really a danger to anyone at a rifle range while competing or just plinking. Can't hunt animals at the rifle range either.

In fact, every single bullet loaded into a weapon is there because it's meant to be used at some point (willfully intended or not).

Of course they are.

Guns are manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only: to mortally wound. They are not toys.

Or put holes in paper; knock down metal targets. You are familiar with the Olympic games? Nine shooting events (not including air pistol/rifle) with firearms in the summer games. The modern pentathlon uses a laser pistol that simulates a projectile. The winter games have several biathlon events that use rifles.

They are not meant to be handled by the kiddies,

The shooting sport are enjoyed by many families with their children. Some children also compete at high levels.

Ergo, guns need to be dealt with accordingly by the laws of a civilized society. And if the laws of said civilized society aren't restrictively regulated enough to keep guns tightly controlled by the proper authorities, then said laws need to be changed, and they need to be changed immediately.

Gun are controlled rather strictly in most countries including the USA. Look at how fast Trump enacted his gun grab.