New Canadian Gun Ban

[eerok]

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. "Assault weapon" is not the same thing as "assault rifle". The latter is a technical military term for a class of selective fire (both semi-automatic and fully automatic) rifles such as the M-16. I suspect that assault rifles have long been prohibited for general ownership in Canada, as they are in the United States. "Assault weapon" is a bull **** made up term with no consistent definition, which often depends on the presence of certain cosmetic features to define it.

Guns designed specifically to kill people, guns that mimic them via cosmetic features, and guns that people mistake for them -- why would the Canadian public need any of these things? So I'd consider your distinction to be one without a difference.

 

[rockinkt]

Guns designed specifically to kill people, guns that mimic them via cosmetic features, and guns that people mistake for them -- why would the Canadian public need any of these things? So I'd consider your distinction to be one without a difference.

What a red herring!
By your reasoning - all firearms should be banned because all firearm designs are based on the concept of killing people.
BTW - nobody would consider a firearm restricted to a 5 round magazine a useful military weapon. Canada has banned ownership of centerfire rifle magazines containing more than five rounds for decades.

Canadian legal firearm owners are required to take a specific firearms training course and then go through a very lengthy and in depth vetting process before being licenced.
Also, each and every legal firearm owner in Canada has their name run through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) every day to ascertain whether they should still be allowed to own firearms.
This latest - and very rare - mass shooting was not done by a person who was legally licenced.
There is also no evidence that any of the newly banned firearms were used by him.
In other words - banning these or any other firearms would not have stopped this insane individual from carrying out his horrific acts.

Here's an idea that may be worth considering: Inanimate objects are by definition unable to commit good or bad deeds. It is the intent of the user that decides whether the inanimate object is dangerous to the public or not.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What a red herring!
By your reasoning - all firearms should be banned because all firearm designs are based on the concept of killing people.
BTW - nobody would consider a firearm restricted to a 5 round magazine a useful military weapon. Canada has banned ownership of centerfire rifle magazines containing more than five rounds for decades.

Canadian legal firearm owners are required to take a specific firearms training course and then go through a very lengthy and in depth vetting process before being licenced.
Also, each and every legal firearm owner in Canada has their name run through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) every day to ascertain whether they should still be allowed to own firearms.
This latest - and very rare - mass shooting was not done by a person who was legally licenced.
There is also no evidence that any of the newly banned firearms were used by him.
In other words - banning these or any other firearms would not have stopped this insane individual from carrying out his horrific acts.

Here's an idea that may be worth considering: Inanimate objects are by definition unable to commit good or bad deeds. It is the intent of the user that decides whether the inanimate object is dangerous to the public or not.

So, if I come at you with a banana?

 

[lionking]

A few of the ones off the Wiki page gives:
Monash University (2002)... as you mentioned
Oakhampton Heights Shooting (2005)... mother shoots 3 family members then herself
Hectorville siege (2011)... 3 killed, 3 injured (neighbors/police officers)
Hunt family murders (2014)... Man kills his wife and children
Wedderburn shooting (2014).... man stabs a boy, then shoots parents
Brighton Siege (2017)... labeled by police as 'terrorism', involved the killing of 1 victim and the injuring of 3 more (including police officiers)

Then of course there are a bunch of non-gun related mass killings (by fire/stabbing/etc.)

Well, before the Port Arthur Massacre, there was
- The hillcrest murders, where the killer used a winchester rifle (not exactly an "assault" weapon)
- Cangai siege (1993).... I couldn't find a full accounting of the weapons used, but at least one victim was killed with a shotgun, so its possible they didn't have assault style weapons
- Central Coast (1993)... also used a shotgun
- Strathfield (1991) ... used a semi-automatic rifle (again, not an 'assault' weapon)
- Surry Hills (1990)... another use of a shotgun

So that is 6 large-scale shootings in ~half decade prior to the stricter gun laws in Australia. Which is admittedly not good.

But of those,
- Roughly half used 'shotguns'
- 2 others used non-assault weapons. (Yes, they were semi-automatics, but I don't think they would be the type covered by Canada's proposed weapons ban. They were the type that would be used for hunting.)

You missed Queen St and Hoddle St massacres, both of which involved semi-automatics. Since these guns were banned there haven’t been any incidents anywhere near the scale of these events, let alone Port Arthur. The gun ban had its desired effect. Were all firearm killings stopped? Of course not. I never claimed they were.

 

[Ranb]

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

Today's ban does not cover handguns, the weapon of choice for gang members. Blair promised Friday to enact legislation down the line to give municipalities the power to ban these firearms.

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.

I read that some of the guns came from the USA. Will they do anything about that?

I've been clicking around a bit but can't find anything on how the ban was enacted. Was it a bill passed by their parliament or a rule enacted by a regulatory agency much like the United States expanded the definition of machine guns during the Bush and Trump administrations?

In the US, various long guns are only owned by individuals without written BATFE authorization at the whim of the Attorney General.

Ranb

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I owned a 30-30 Winchester for hunting caribou when I lived in the north Canadian bush in the 70s, but really, apart from hunting and sport (ie target shooting) I think that guns are a stupid and reckless thing to keep around.

I think that guns for self-defence or any other purpose are at best a dangerous and abominable notion. Civilized people shouldn't anticipate the need to shoot each other, especially in quantity.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police."

-Adolf Hitler, from the book Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944

Chris B.

 

[rockinkt]

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.

I read that some of the guns came from the USA. Will they do anything about that?

I've been clicking around a bit but can't find anything on how the ban was enacted. Was it a bill passed by their parliament or a rule enacted by a regulatory agency much like the United States expanded the definition of machine guns during the Bush and Trump administrations?

Edited to add: Handguns may only be used for sport shooting at an approved range. They are not allowed to be used for hunting.


In the US, various long guns are only owned by individuals without written BATFE authorization at the whim of the Attorney General.

Ranb

The first thing you have to understand is that Canada has very little to do with democracy and at best can be likened to a dictatorship that has elections every 5 years.
The Prime Minister of Canada chooses the cabinet and has full control of who is in or not in his party. He can fire anyone from his cabinet at his whim. He can remove anyone from his party at his whim.
Our current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has done these things in the past and has been censured for breaking ethics guidelines by a duly appointed non-partisan Ethics Commissioner. He has violated ethic codes on three different occasions - the only Prime Minister in Canada's history to even be censured once!
What was done to enact this law was called an "Order in Council". That is when the Prime Minister decides that he/she will bypass any debate or vote by our duly elected parliament by calling a private meeting of the cabinet - who are appointed by him and can be fired by him without any cause - and ask these official lackeys to OK his demand that they ratify his law. Once the joke of a cabinet "vote" is done - bingo bango - you have a new set of rules!

 

[rockinkt]

So, if I come at you with a banana?

Good grief man! I should then have to shoot you as I have been thoroughly trained in the Cleese method of self defence.

 

[angrysoba]

You gave 3 shootings....

- One occurred in New Zealand, not Australia. Pretty sure the Kiwis would be a little miffed to be lumped in with Australia
- The other 2 shootings you mentioned occurred almost a decade apart. Tragic, I'm sure, but I'm not sure if it would be characterized as 'a string of shootings' or something that is 'tearing apart the fabric of Australia'.

From Wiki

There were of course other mass shootings that happened both before and after Australia brought in its stricter gun laws..

The New Zealand shooting was carried out by an Australian! If he had had access to those weapons in Australia, maybe he would have perpetrated his murders there.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here's an idea that may be worth considering: Inanimate objects are by definition unable to commit good or bad deeds. It is the intent of the user that decides whether the inanimate object is dangerous to the public or not.

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.

 

[Norman Alexander]

You gave 3 shootings....

- One occurred in New Zealand, not Australia. Pretty sure the Kiwis would be a little miffed to be lumped in with Australia
- The other 2 shootings you mentioned occurred almost a decade apart. Tragic, I'm sure, but I'm not sure if it would be characterized as 'a string of shootings' or something that is 'tearing apart the fabric of Australia'.

From Wiki

There were of course other mass shootings that happened both before and after Australia brought in its stricter gun laws..

Here you go.

https://www.preciseshooter.com/blog/Politics/Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png

 

[Norman Alexander]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police."

-Adolf Hitler, from the book Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944

Chris B.

Do you think this Hitler chap was right about the untermensch?

And perhaps you might like to explain why it is applicable to this situation, not in the USA, but in either Canada or Australia. Give examples why it applies.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Do you think this Hitler chap was right about the untermensch?

And perhaps you might like to explain why it is applicable to this situation, not in the USA, but in either Canada or Australia. Give examples why it applies.

That's easy. The "people" did not vote for this to happen. That makes this situation: A.One in which the wishes of the few are set into law upon the many, making them "subjugates" of those who have imposed their will upon them, and: B. If the issue of gun control and banishment of firearms were left to a vote of the people I highly doubt the current laws in Canada and Australia would exist.

Now that being said, I couldn't care less if someone chooses to own a gun or not, but I do care when that right is taken from any citizen of the World in their respective Country as a result of an irresponsible act.

I've seen deaths by automobile, heart disease, alcohol intoxication etc. I don't think it's wise to outlaw driving in cars, eating a salty cheeseburger, smoking a cigarette or having a beer. I don't like options being removed from my pursuit of happiness, in the US, I have a right to that pursuit and a gun to protect it.

Wherever you're from, good luck to you and your Countrymen. Perhaps you can place your freedom in the hands of your leaders, I've never been one to trust politicians with mine and I never will.

Chris B.

 

[lionking]

That's easy. The "people" did not vote for this to happen. That makes this situation: A.One in which the wishes of the few are set into law upon the many, making them "subjugates" of those who have imposed their will upon them, and: B. If the issue of gun control and banishment of firearms were left to a vote of the people I highly doubt the current laws in Canada and Australia would exist.

Now that being said, I couldn't care less if someone chooses to own a gun or not, but I do care when that right is taken from any citizen of the World in their respective Country as a result of an irresponsible act.

I've seen deaths by automobile, heart disease, alcohol intoxication etc. I don't think it's wise to outlaw driving in cars, eating a salty cheeseburger, smoking a cigarette or having a beer. I don't like options being removed from my pursuit of happiness, in the US, I have a right to that pursuit and a gun to protect it.

Wherever you're from, good luck to you and your Countrymen. Perhaps you can place your freedom in the hands of your leaders, I've never been one to trust politicians with mine and I never will.

Chris B.

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

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What a red herring!
By your reasoning - all firearms should be banned because all firearm designs are based on the concept of killing people.

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

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.)

 

[Ranb]

.... That is when the Prime Minister decides that he/she will bypass any debate or vote by our duly elected parliament by calling a private meeting of the cabinet - who are appointed by him and can be fired by him without any cause - and ask these official lackeys to OK his demand that they ratify his law. ....

Sounds like it is a bit more cumbersome than the POTUS amending the CFR's then.

 

[Ranb]

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

You're not going to find too many people who agree with you on this forum. Some here say that guns of any kind are only good for killing. Others restrict that to handguns or semi-autos or machine guns. Some people are more generous and give a pass to the kinds of guns they own, but condemn possession of anything else.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If the issue of gun control and banishment of firearms were left to a vote of the people I highly doubt the current laws in Canada and Australia would exist.

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/

Six-in-ten Canadians (61%) say they would support an outright ban on civilian possession of handguns – something being pushed for by some of the country’s largest cities. The support level jumps to three-quarters (75%) when considering a ban on assault weapons.

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.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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.

 

[rockinkt]

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.

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.