We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So let's use the same logic okay?

The rate of deaths for those on chemo is higher than those not on chemo. So chemo must cause more deaths therefore nobody should take chemo.

I'm not following. This feels like why can't I have a death star logic.

 

Great article.  This stuck out to me.

Quote:

The second feature is the city's high level of gang activity, and that gangs are both adept at procuring guns illegally and prone to involvement in shooting incident

So even with strict gun control gangs are able to easily procure guns. I believe it.  Targeting gangs seems like a better economy of effort than dreaming up more gun control ideas which will by and large only effect law abiding citizens.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

To summarize:  if they're adept at procuring guns illegally, how would making guns illegal prevent them from procuring guns?

Sean in Ottawa

Both of you read the article and you can see the answers-- just stop skip reading for something you can take out of context and you might see the big picture.

The article does not at all support your point of you Paladin -- it explains why your point is nonsense.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 -- it explains why your point is nonsense.

I don't think it is.

I think losing your keys in a field but looking for them under a lamp post because you can see better is nonsense.

If you want to reduce violence committed with firearms then go after who is committing that violence and how they are getting their firearms. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 -- it explains why your point is nonsense.

I don't think it is.

I think losing your keys in a field but looking for them under a lamp post because you can see better is nonsense.

If you want to reduce violence committed with firearms then go after who is committing that violence and how they are getting their firearms. 

 

You seem to be evading rather than just missing the point.

The argument that the article makes is that gun control cannot work in a small geographic area when they are easily available right beside it. In other words it is not a municipal project. As well, as I pointed out, each city is unique and to compare one place with one result to another makes no sense especially when you have in Chicago a city that needs gun control becuase it has a gun violence problem. Gun control might be helping and they might still have the worst of the violence becuase of other factors -- it could be worse without it. And the article explains some of that.

I have to conclude from your recent responses that you are not interested in a conversation -- you just want to try to take out of context words that might appear to support your position. It was rather silly to do that from an article that really points out why your position on Chicago made no sense. You can rearranged stuff out of context for ever if you are not interested in an honest engagement but this is not really a good use of time for you or me so we can end this here.

Paladin1

Fair enough, I appreciate you candor and patience Sean. 

And in my closing engagement with you in the context you just spoke about above I do see the point how one could say Chicago's gun control is easily circumvented by availability of firearms next door. 

That however fails to explain how entire states with the least amount of gun control has the least amount of violent firearm crime. Clearly firearms are easy to come by in whole states with very little control (such as not even needing a freaking licence).

 

Perhaps gun control should be more thoughtful than limiting a 15 bullet magazin to 10 bullets or targeting guns based on cosmetics.  The gun used to assault the Canadian parliment (after murdering a citizen) was designed in the 1800s.

My stance on gun control, which I do feel we need, has never been a call of duty free for all but rather changing our approach and how we view what constitutes as gun control (ie, limiting magazines or name brands).  North American gun control is powered by emotion and the media, not by technical facts. 

I posted a link a couple weeks ago to a proposed firearms ban down in the US which saw hundreds of guns targeted, guns I've never even heard of in 31 years of shooting and being a "gun nut", yet the gun Marc Lepine used (which has also been used in a number of shootings in the states) was strangely not on the list of guns to be banned. It was exempted by name in point of fact.  Something to think about.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

 

That however fails to explain how entire states with the least amount of gun control has the least amount of violent firearm crime. Clearly firearms are easy to come by in whole states with very little control (such as not even needing a freaking licence).

 

You see statements like this is why I have been so frustrated in this conversation and felt that it has not been an honest one.

First, you yourself acknowledged that a number of gun control measures were done badly. It is illogical to argue that a bad implementaiton reflects badly on an idea. If it was implemented badly it means that a proper implementaiton has not happended and you cannot deem it a failure.

Second, you apparently did not understand my chemo argument-- although I thought it was clear. The point is made clear in the article, however. I will put this in universal terms to show you out of the context of gun control how wrong this entire line of thinking is. The arguments are made that a mitigation method does not work becuase those who try to mitigate have more of the problem than those who haven't tried to mitigate. Think about that. Those who choose to mitigate a problem do so becuase they have a serious case of it whereas those who do not choose to mitigate may not either 1) becuase they do not believe in in the response OR 2) becuase they simply do not have the problem to that degree if at all. The seriousness of a problem creates the public demand for the mitigation.On average given the two reasons, those who mitigate are still likely to have more of the problem than those who do not.

So with Chemotherapy: People who use chemotherapy are more likely to die of cancer than those who do not use chemotherapy. It is not becuase it does not help, but rather becuase it is people with cancer who are most likely to use it. Since it mitigates but does not completely solve the problem, even after mitigation, more people will die on chemo than who have never used chemo. Yet chemo remains the best hope to mitigate the problem.

Now looking to gun control: we have two issues:

1) the gun control is not a cure but a mitigation and this mitigation has not been applied well both due to poor control decisions (which you covered) and becuase it is so local that evading the control is a minor inconvenience (a point the Chicago article mentions).

2) the example you are considering includes Chicago a city that has a violent gun problem and has for a long time fed by many factors making the city not comparable. The reason Chicago has gun control efforts in place (as limited and only partially effective as they may be) is because they have a gun problem. It is not the reverse as you seem to suggest that they ahve a gun problem due to their efforts to control guns.

People have decent critical thinking can see these for themselves. Those who have an open mind in a discussion will see these things when theya re pointed out. Only an extremely biased, fixed, close-minded person (on this topic) would have this presented to them and still ignore it. These are not difficult concepts to come up with -- never mind understand once they are explained.

I said I would give up this conversation becuase you seem so buried in the gun propaganda that you are not seeing this. As well you keep polarizing the discussion to the removal of guns debate which is the paranoid NRA propaganda used to fraudulently combat efforts to license and control rather than ban firearms. This NRA propaganda keeps equating licence, regulation, registration and the banning of only the most extreme fire-power guns, as an attack on the gun culture.

Let me say this: I think that extreme positions are the greatest attack on any moderate position. In other words it is this propaganda laden attempt at polarization that is the greatest threat to the more reasonable uses of guns. The irresponsibility of fighting reasonable limits to firepower, to ownership of those who cannot safely own, as well as requirements for safe storage and sale, registration, regulation and licenses are the real threat to the reasonable gun owner you claim to champion.

I wouild say the same if we have car enthusiasts claiming that they should be able to drive at 200km/hr on city streets and not require any laws, registration or licensing for cars or pollution control. They would be the ones threatening my reasonable use of my car and not the people calling for rational public policy around car use.

Unfortunately the vast majority of gun advocates do not understand this and they discredit themselves with patently faulty and illogical arguments, attempts to polarize the debate and extreme positions that take no account of the public interest or safety.

In this sense, you do your cause far more damage than I could ever do. The reality in both the US and Canada is that the gun lobby is so logically bankrupt that it is fundamentally dishonest about its positions and has a practice of arguing illogical positions until people are exhausted. I do not say that I know you did this consciously but this has been the effect of your argument here and the ultimate realization that you cannot be reached. And here you are raising a completely refuted statement and saying it was not addressed. It was.

And this is why I do not want to debate what I have just said -- because, I have already debated this and you claim it has never been said. You are ignoring what is being said.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As well you keep polarizing the discussion to the removal of guns debate which is the paranoid NRA propaganda used to fraudulently combat efforts to license and control rather than ban firearms.

...

I think that extreme positions are the greatest attack on any moderate position.

Presumably the two extreme positions in a discussion like this would be:

1.  there should be no restrictions on guns

2.  gun ownership should be banned outright

Looking at this thread (or any of the many others like it) have you actually seen ANYONE taking and defending position number 1?

OK.  Then how about position number 2?

Where is the extreme position that's derailing the discussion really coming from?  The "zero regulations" folk, or the "zero guns" folk?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well considering my more than 20 years experience in the CF, and re-qual every year a part of "shoot to live", I see no reason at all why Civillians in Urban areas need weapons for any reason. As for farmers and people living up north, not withstanding anecdotes, I wish someone would do a study to determine actual need. I don't buy that anyone needs  a weapon without a really good reason other than their say so or "because it's their right". I'm sick of being told about rights. Lets have a real discussion.

6079_Smith_W

I don't really want to get into the discussion too far, since we have hashed this over a few times, but having dealt with a few animals dying in a lot of pain, I have no problem with people out in the country generally, and farmers in particular, owning guns. Being around and working with animals is enough need in my books; I'd go so far as to say it is irresponsible to not have one. No need for a damned study when you are an hour or so away from any vet.

Personally I also don't have a problem with hunters owning guns, whether they live in the city or not, even though I know a lot of them can be ignorant boneheads

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't really want to get into the discussion too far, since we have hashed this over a few times, but having dealt with a few animals dying in a lot of pain, I have no problem with people out in the country generally, and farmers in particular, owning guns. Being around and working with animals is enough need in my books; I'd go so far as to say it is irresponsible to not have one. No need for a damned study when you are an hour or so away from any vet.

Personally I also don't have a problem with hunters owning guns, whether they live in the city or not, even though I know a lot of them can be ignorant boneheads

I agree.

And that last point you referenced was an out-of context argument (not your fault) where I said that I was not sympathetic to guns in an urban environment) The red herring of where you live and all that came later. Sleeping in the city with it locked up and taking your gun to the country is not what I meant or said.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
As well you keep polarizing the discussion to the removal of guns debate which is the paranoid NRA propaganda used to fraudulently combat efforts to license and control rather than ban firearms.

...

I think that extreme positions are the greatest attack on any moderate position.

Presumably the two extreme positions in a discussion like this would be:

1.  there should be no restrictions on guns

2.  gun ownership should be banned outright

Looking at this thread (or any of the many others like it) have you actually seen ANYONE taking and defending position number 1?

OK.  Then how about position number 2?

Where is the extreme position that's derailing the discussion really coming from?  The "zero regulations" folk, or the "zero guns" folk?

Actually there are a lot of generalized attacks on regulation as a whole in this thread -- mostly using twisted facts and faulty logic.

So while the argument may not be not to have regulation and control it is that regulationand control are ineffecitve and wrong. I don't care to split the hair you are splitting.

6079_Smith_W

Okay. I was just going by Arthur's point, though.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Okay. I was just going by Arthur's point, though.

Okay sorry -- I thought you were addressing the argument earlier in the thread.

I think Arthur's point speaks to a question of priority value -- if we do not place a high value on access to guns then we do what we can to satisfy the desire for those who want guns but we do not sacrifice the public safety for this vallue. Other values justify greater public risk.

Most of us thinks if you have a reasonable regulation and control structure then these are permissible.

Of course I am open to the gun lobby convincing me that all regulation is bad and does not work -- in which case then ban them altogether.

If they like the public protection -- registration, licensing and limits on firepower etc. great. Otherwise if they want to make the case that you cannot control guns at all then I am open to saying if you really beleive that then just ban them.

It is up to the gun lobby to prove that guns can be managed safely in our communities not up to others to prove that gun control works. As a prerequisite to having guns available it is up to the gun lobby to prove control can make their presence safe -- or,  just ban them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't care to split the hair you are splitting.

I'm not splitting a hair.  I'm suggesting that people ARE in fact calling for an outright ban on all guns for all citizens.

But you want to tell Paladin1 that if he addresses that, he's just repeating a paranoid NRA talking point invented to derail serious discussion.

Does the notion of an outright ban merit consideration (by us, by Paladin1, by whomever) or is it just divisive nonsense?  What's YOUR response when someone says "nobody should ever have a gun!!1!"?

6079_Smith_W

If I can make an attempt at cutting the gordian hair, the fact that there are some who advocate a gun-free society doesn't change the fact that there is no serious political movement that stands a chance of banning all gun ownership, so I also file it in the paranoid bin.

Problem is, at the time the Liberals first brought in the new firearms legislation they certainly didn't to anything to calm that paranoia when they put Allan Rock in charge of it, given his comments that he thought only the military and police should have firearms.

And Sharon Carstairs didn't help either with her comment about C-68 not being about gun control or crime control, but about the social re-engineering of Canadian society.

In what was probably a gratuitous move to play to their base and needle their opponents, they were responsible for creating that myth even more than the Reformers who latched on to it.

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well I'm not calling for an outright ban. I'm just saying that I am tired of this whole discussion becoming one about rights. Right to what? Why would you need a weapon if not for some kind of defense? And I am saying "need". I've fired all sorts of weapons in my time in the Service and was always happy at the end of the day at the range when it came time to "hand them back". I wanted nothing to do with them and hoped I'd never have to use them. Go look at a target and the hole it makes. If that doesn't convince you how deadly these things are I don't know. In the CF we were "Trained" in their use, tested and monitored. We were recruited based on our suitabllity to be in the service with access to weapons. A civillian can purchase a fire arm, "get trained", and then possess that weapon at will. There is no retesting, no pyschologoical evaluation, nothing. I don't trust my neighbours on either side of me or across the street to exercise good judgement in a "moment of adversity", or for that matter, pretty much anyoe else. All you have to do is look at the excessive use of stun weapons here in Canada and the shootings in the US to reasonably question how well we do when it comes to giving potentialy deadly weaponary to "people trained in their use". Nope. We have become far too numb to the idea of personal possesion of firearms and this needs to change. I have umpired Baseball or Refereed Football. The idea of these "parents" possessing weapons, based on the behaviour they have displayed at the playing field, scares the hell out of me. Getting a firearm is far too easy. This needs to change.

ETA: By the way, in all my time in the Service, I can truthfully say I met plenty of people where I guestioned how they got in, and who in their right mind decided they should be given a weapon.

6079_Smith_W

@ Arthur

Actually there is worse than no psychological testing; the government expects you to self-diagnose stuff like depression, alcoholism and suicidal thoughts, and declare all sorts of sensitive personal information that supposedly tells them (cops, not doctors) whether you are a risk.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't care to split the hair you are splitting.

I'm not splitting a hair.  I'm suggesting that people ARE in fact calling for an outright ban on all guns for all citizens.

But you want to tell Paladin1 that if he addresses that, he's just repeating a paranoid NRA talking point invented to derail serious discussion.

Does the notion of an outright ban merit consideration (by us, by Paladin1, by whomever) or is it just divisive nonsense?  What's YOUR response when someone says "nobody should ever have a gun!!1!"?

You are hair splitting when you consider that the attack on gun control goes through this thread in one post after another or in the content of linked articles.

People asking for reasonable gun control are responded to like they are asking for a ban and this is the general tactic of the gun lobby as well as the specific direction of this thread. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who keeps trying to pretend you are arguing from a differnt point of view. It is the old straw man  argument and it is tiresome.

Now you ask how I feel about guns and a ban. You having been throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery through the whole thread -- why don't you actually read the posts? -- I have been specifically clear on that point already.

That said I will make it easier for you and answer the question: If it comes down to a conflict of rights public safety vs gun owners -- I would be on the side of public safety. However, unlike the gun lobby, I do think that the public safety can be met with reasonable licensing, regulation, banning of some of the most lethal (rate of fire and size of payload).

It is the gun lobby doubling down on this -- they are the ones saying that you cannot have guns in a controlled context. They are the ones attacking regulation not trying to improve it. Their point is you have to choose between a ban or an almost no-regulation environment. Put like that I'll take the ban. But they are the ones arguing that we cannot license, regulate, control and address the most lethal weapos. They are the ones trying to polarize the debate to have it all rather than compromise. And we have a stream of agument and quotes suggesting the same from gun advocates in this thread.

The notion of an outright ban is most often introduced by the gun lobby claiming that this is what those wanting gun control are trying to do -- or by claiming that no regualtion, license or control can work. When they win their argument, people make the choice from the extremes -- and many don't choose the gun lobby extreme position but prefer the ban.

If I accepted what they say about regulation, licensing and control of the most lethal -- damn right I would call for a ban. But I don't accept that extreme point of view and so am calling for the controls.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'm pretty sure I've seen Paladin1 say that he supports controls on guns -- albeit effective controls, evidence based, rather than calls to emotion.  And I support controls too, basically the same as him.  And you support controls.  So really, I don't know exactly how far off any of our opinions are.

But I also understand why Paladin1 might also make reference to calls for the outright ban of all guns for all citizens -- because some people ARE calling for that.  But I don't actually see the converse (people asking for no controls at all).

So yes, let's go with registration (implemented sensibly).  Let's have long "cooling off periods".  Let's have background checks.  Let's have some limits on the power of the guns we allow, and let's keep banning those guns that are actually used in gun crimes.  Add my signature to that petition.

But that "moderate" point of view, in the context of this thread and many of the comments in it, is akin to me (or you, or Paladin1) calling for ethically raised livestock, and a reduction in the amount of meat we eat, in a thread about veganism.  That's not going to satisfy a vegan.  They're not going to meet us in the middle.  The discussion won't be over just because the three of us can agree to that.  And if you think that's "disruptive" then look at which side is actually doing that disrupting.  Do you imagine that it would be the meat-eaters (calling for an all-meat diet) or the vegans?  Who would really be polarizing that discussion?  Who's really polarizing this one?

NorthReport

Most people don't want to hear more arguments about pro or con "killing guns" control. They have already made up their mind. Some folks take a bit longer than others to make up their mind on the issue. Slowly but surely though more and more people are moving in the direction of "killing guns" control. At some point it appears that the bottom may fall out of the support for "killing guns". 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What kind of controls, NorthReport?  Imagine you're writing the new laws; be specific.

Sean in Ottawa

I don't see support from Paladin for gun control in practice -- instead I see the posting of one article after another form the gun conrtol lobby attacking control. Perhaps this is one of the cases whare you say you are in favour in order to get licence to oppose it at every turn. This thread has as much right wing gun lobby drivel as a lot or GOP sites would have -- posted by Paladin. Not sure if you actually load up the links and read them when you say stuff like this.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Maybe he's not just arguing with you.  It's not just the three of us here, after all.

Quote:
I don't see support from Paladin for gun control in practice -- instead I see the posting of one article after another form the gun conrtol lobby attacking control.

Are they attacking any and all forms of sensible, evidence-based control?  Or attacking some private member's bill to ban plastic grips?

Because I have to agree with him that a plastic grip doesn't actually make a gun any more deadly, nor any more likely to be used in the actual gun crimes that we're actually supposed to be talking about.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Maybe he's not just arguing with you.  It's not just the three of us here, after all.

 

We are done here-- go play your games with someone else. Thanks.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'mma stay and keep participating in this thread.  Thanks.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'mma stay and keep participating in this thread.  Thanks.

ANother straw man -- I said someone else not somewhere else.

With some people being obtuse is an art form. I like a different kind of art.

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Go look at a target and the hole it makes. If that doesn't convince you how deadly these things are I don't know.

Not being a smartass here but a pen makes the same hole and "damage" as a bullet from an assault rifle on a paper.

Quote:

In the CF we were "Trained" in their use, tested and monitored. We were recruited based on our suitabllity to be in the service with access to weapons. A civillian can purchase a fire arm, "get trained", and then possess that weapon at will. There is no retesting, no pyschologoical evaluation, nothing.

CAF members aren't given a psyche test before joining. They're interviewed and redflagged by recruiters for saying silly things but recruiters hardly have PHDs.  I would argue that a civilian firearm owner is better trained than the majority of the military when it comes to firearms (as you mention, many military members only touch a rifle once a year and it can even be done on a computer screen now). Some civilian firearm owners shoot once a week, maybe more. 

Having been on both ranges myself, civilian and military, I would humbly argue civilian ranges are often more safety oriented. If you do something dumb on a military range you get yelled at, maybe kicked off for the day. In a civilian range you run the risk of losing your membership, which can cost over $1000 (with that year + waiting period I spoke about).

Civilians can also be reported to the chief firearms office if someone felt there was a mental health issue where as the CFO and police get involved.

Quote:
The idea of these "parents" possessing weapons, based on the behaviour they have displayed at the playing field, scares the hell out of me. Getting a firearm is far too easy. This needs to change.

Parents being assholes at a sports game isn't a good reason for me not to own a firearm, especially when the number weapon used in homicides is blunt objects. Like baseball bats.

NorthReport wrote:

Most people don't want to hear more arguments about pro or con "killing guns" control. They have already made up their mind. Some folks take a bit longer than others to make up their mind on the issue. Slowly but surely though more and more people are moving in the direction of "killing guns" control. At some point it appears that the bottom may fall out of the support for "killing guns". 

The record sales of firearms in the US and Canada, including record numbers of new shooters and firearm owners tells me you're 100% wrong.  Any time Obama spoke about gun control the shelves would empty of firearms and ammunition, that's why people are calling him the best firearm salesmen the US has ever seen.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not being a smartass here but a pen makes the same hole and "damage" as a bullet from an assault rifle on a paper.

When I was a kid, in Sarnia, I shot target once a week at my local YMCA.

I can vouch for the assertion that a .22 short round, such as we shot, makes a hole about 1/5" in diameter.  The paper target didn't get a six-inch, sucking chest-wound hole, nor did it scream "HELP ME, for the love of God!!"

Quote:
Go look at a target and the hole it makes. If that doesn't convince you how deadly these things are I don't know.

So, it made a hole in newsprint at 20 metres?  Or what did I miss when I looked at that hole, in newsprint?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK then.  But what shall we do about a device that can pierce newsprint at 20 metres?????  Look at that hole!1!  It's the same size as the thing that made it!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK then.  But what shall we do about a device that can pierce newsprint at 20 metres?????  Look at that hole!1!  It's the same size as the thing that made it!

No. Nice try. Crappy 22 makes you an expert? I dont think so Tim!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Go look at a target and the hole it makes. If that doesn't convince you how deadly these things are I don't know.

So, it made a hole in newsprint at 20 metres?  Or what did I miss when I looked at that hole, in newsprint?

You really are an Ass Magoo.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

There is no reason that so many civillians have weapons. They have no need for them. I am sick and tired of this frame that somehow we have to accept thiis as accurate. I dont trust my neighbours to make good choices and the fewer that have a weapon, the better.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No. Nice try. Crappy 22 makes you an expert? I dont think so Tim!

OK.  What size hole does a .44 round make in newsprint?  About 44/100ths of an inch?

What about a .50 calibre round?  Does it make a hole about a half inch in diameter?

Nevermind, for the moment, that they can each easily penetrate newsprint. 

I guess I'm not sure what horror we were supposed to see when you challenged us to go look at "the hole it makes. If that doesn't convince you how deadly these things are I don't know."  Ya, it makes a hole in a piece of newsprint.  Can you expand on this?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
No. Nice try. Crappy 22 makes you an expert? I dont think so Tim!

OK.  What size hole does a .44 round make in newsprint?  About 44/100ths of an inch?

What about a .50 calibre round?  Does it make a hole about a half inch in diameter?

Nevermind, for the moment, that they can each easily penetrate newsprint. 

I guess I'm not sure what horror we were supposed to see when you challenged us to go look at "the hole it makes. If that doesn't convince you how deadly these things are I don't know."  Ya, it makes a hole in a piece of newsprint.  Can you expand on this?

Look you clown, all yoou have to do is look at the hole to apprecaite the damage it doe to a body. That was my point. For a guy who think he's a genius, I never thought I'd have to spell it out to you. After all, you're smarter than me, right? Clown.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I have a three-hole punch that makes a similar hole in a piece of paper.

mark_alfred

What are Canada's current gun control laws?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I have a three-hole punch that makes a similar hole in a piece of paper.

Good for you! I'm proud of you! Good boy!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I have a three-hole punch that makes a similar hole in a piece of paper.

Good for you! I'm proud of you! Good boy!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Did I mention that it's triple-barrel?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Reuben Bolling on pro-gun evidence and logic.

Cartoon

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

There is no reason that so many civillians have weapons. They have no need for them.

Hunting. Collecting. Target shooting. Sport shooting. Self-defense.

Firearms are responsible for around 11'000 homicide deaths per year in the US (mostly handguns).  Homicides from blunt objects, which the number 1 weapon is a bat, is 16'000.

Do you think we should ban baseball bats?

 

 

mark_alfred wrote:

What are Canada's current gun control laws?

Forgive me for citing wikipedia but this is accurate in so far as I can see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Laws_and_regulations

 

 

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Reuben Bolling on pro-gun evidence and logic.

I think accidental deaths from dogs knocking over guns is up there too.  Extremely sad though when irresponsible firearm owners leave theur guns laying around and someone dies as a result.

Sadly Canada's own storage laws are weird and geared more toward deterence than secure storage.

 

 

 

Paladin1

I'm quite certian I, along with many other law abiding Canadians, will be loosing a number of firearms in the near future. I'm just hoping for some kind of compensation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-rifle-upgrades-semi-automatic-1.340...

 

Quote:

Rifles converted to automatic fire an increasing risk, RCMP internal report warns

Tests on 11 types of rifles and 1 pistol suggest many can be turned into fully automatic weapons

The number of military-style firearms that can be temporarily jury-rigged to become automatic weapons has increased "dramatically" in Canada over the last decade — and so has the public-safety risk.

That's the stark conclusion of an internal RCMP laboratory report on improvised methods for upgrading semi-automatic weapons, and for illegally altering magazine clips to allow for rapid continuous fire.

    The lab report notes that Criminal Code regulations designed to thwart makeshift upgrades may not apply to newer generations of weapons, creating a legal void.

    What the article doesn't mention is that one of those types of rifles is "semi-automatic military style rifles" which encompases a whole hell of a lot, including those $3000 and $4000 rifles I mentioned earlier that have been used in zero crimes. If the inner parts are from a design the military ised in 1890 for a bolt action rifle that still constitutes as a "military type action" and fair game.

     

    I found this pretty interesting.

    Quote:
    The testing was prompted by Bourque's statement to police that he had considered using an improvised technique to turn his rifle into an automatic weapon.

    So Bourque considered trying to turn his rifles into automatic weapons. It's probably picking fly shit out of pepper but he used a Norinco M305 and Norinco AR15.  The former is a .308 caliber which is very difficult to use when on full auto, he probably would have missed every shot. Norinco is a Chinese made knock off, their craftsmanship is pretty shoddy and those rifles are prone to exploding in someones hands.  I wouldn't fire a Norinco on full auto for $500.  

    Anyhow, he *considered* doing it which convieniently promoted the RCMP to start testing firearms again and being terified at the outcome.   At least if Borque had actually made the firearms into fullautos and used them then Canada would have had at least one firearm crime committed with a full auto.  The RCMP are stull trying to scare people and push that FULLAUTOS are terrifying and use the threat of it to ban more firearms. Good on them if you're pro-gun control stance is basically just banning firearms from civilian ownership. I should also mention Borque who scared the RCMP into this study, found trying to turn his gun into a full auto was unreliable and ineffective.

     

    They go on to talk about how easy it is to upgrade weapons to fire full auto, that's not exactly true. It's very easy to damage and mangle your firearm when attempting it because you're drilling and cutting stuff out of the guts of the trigger mechanisim.  Modern firearms are pretty finicky. Just for example my $1200 pistol was rendered useless because a piece of a spring the size of half a kiwi seed broke off. It's more tricky than just watching a youtube video, making some drill marks are banging away on full auto.  The methods they're talking about turning weapons into fullauto killing machines have been around for years. Still no shootings (probably because it's a stupid way to try and hit something)

     

    They do mention something intelligent here.

    Quote:
    "Large capacity magazines are widely available for the military and paramilitary firearms, and although limited in capacity by law and generally reduced to five shots by a pin or similar modification, the original capacity is typically readily restorable."

    So basically the large capacity magazine limits are easily circumvented and only respected by law abiding citizens whom using large capacity magazines pose no threat.

     

    Instead of worrying so much about someone upgrading a rifle to fullauto the RCMP should look at ways of preventing criminals from getting firearms. (sadly one method would infact be banning and confiscating firearms from legal gun owners to prevent criminals from stealing them).

     

     

    Editing to add an article I just found.

    Calibre Magazine on the above RCMP story.

    Quote:

    INCONSISTENCIES IN RCMP STUDY DATES PROVE POLICE PLAYING POLITICS Calibre Staff January 15, 2016

    The RCMP have released more details from their Feasibility and Practicality of Improvised Full Automatic Fire study first discussed in October. Although a copy of the report has not been made available to Calibre as yet, we have requested it through the Access to Information office, but the CBC has additional details.

    The long and short of the CBC article is the allegation that 11 rifles and one handgun can be converted to fully automatic fire through an improvised technique referred to by Moncton shooter Justin Bourque. Bourque claims to have considered using the technique while planning his shooting spree, but even the mentally unhinged Bourque found it too unreliable and ineffective to employ.

    However, that hasn’t stopped the RCMP from considering the technique a grave concern to public safety, and the report has been forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, Ralph Goodale. According to the CBC article, Goodale’s office responded to the report thusly: “We will work with all levels of government, our stakeholders and the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to move forward on this commitment.”

    Not surprisingly, the study of a technique introduced to the RCMP by a deranged psychopath is rife with inconsistencies, as the RCMP report alleges that the availability of firearms that can be improvised to fire in a fully automatic condition is a new problem, saying “The restricted and prohibited firearm provisions of Criminal Code regulations were last updated in 1995, and there are presently numerous models of military and paramilitary firearms on the Canadian market which are outside the scope of the Criminal Code regulations, many being non-restricted in classification” and “The Canadian introduction of new types of military and paramilitary firearms not mentioned in the Criminal Code regulations, nearly all with large capacity magazines sizes, started circa 2005 and has accelerated since.”

    That claim runs amiss of the RCMP’s own classification data, as the RCMP claim that the Norinco M305 used by Bourque (designed in the 1930s, imported into Canada in the 1980’s) and even more tellingly, the Ruger Mini 14 (designed in the late 1960s and first imported in 1973) used by Polytechnique shooter Marc Lepine are both among the 11 rifles found to be susceptible to this improvised technique. But both firearms were extant in Canada in 1995, during the initial creation of the Criminal Code regulations, and both firearms were studied, tested, examined and classified by the RCMP as non-restricted in that process. Neither have been significantly updated since nor have their magazines been revised. Until we receive a copy of the report from our own ATIP request, we cannot confirm the identification of the other 11 rifles on the list, but given the volume of new FRT entries issued for legitimately new rifle designs we suspect the majority of those 11 rifles were similarly classified in 1995.

    As a result, the only conclusion one can reach from the incorrect statement that this issue stems largely from firearms imported and classified under Harper’s Conservatives, is that the RCMP are hoping to win the sympathies of the Liberal government by pinning this perceived problem on the previous Conservative government. By claiming rifles classified by their own firearms program in 1995 somehow became problematic in 2005, the RCMP are essentially sidestepping any culpability themselves, while simultaneously discrediting the former government.

    But all that said, the biggest issue is that the entire report is essentially the study of a complete non-issue, as Criminal Code Section 102(1) clearly states that converting a firearm to fully automatic status is entirely illegal. Additionally, the insinuation that the RCMP would like to act upon the outcome of this report due to the fact that “the public safety threat posed by improvised conversion to full automatic fire has correspondingly increased,” makes little to no sense since their claim that this “threat to public safety” has been festering since 2005 seems to run contrary with the number of violent shootings involving fully automatic rifles grabbing headlines since 2005: None.

    Sean in Ottawa

    Paladin1 wrote:

    I'm quite certian I, along with many other law abiding Canadians, will be loosing a number of firearms in the near future. I'm just hoping for some kind of compensation.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-rifle-upgrades-semi-automatic-1.340...

     

    Quote:

    Rifles converted to automatic fire an increasing risk, RCMP internal report warns

    Tests on 11 types of rifles and 1 pistol suggest many can be turned into fully automatic weapons

    The number of military-style firearms that can be temporarily jury-rigged to become automatic weapons has increased "dramatically" in Canada over the last decade — and so has the public-safety risk.

    That's the stark conclusion of an internal RCMP laboratory report on improvised methods for upgrading semi-automatic weapons, and for illegally altering magazine clips to allow for rapid continuous fire.

      The lab report notes that Criminal Code regulations designed to thwart makeshift upgrades may not apply to newer generations of weapons, creating a legal void.

      What the article doesn't mention is that one of those types of rifles is "semi-automatic military style rifles" which encompases a whole hell of a lot, including those $3000 and $4000 rifles I mentioned earlier that have been used in zero crimes. If the inner parts are from a design the military ised in 1890 for a bolt action rifle that still constitutes as a "military type action" and fair game.

       

      I found this pretty interesting.

      Quote:
      The testing was prompted by Bourque's statement to police that he had considered using an improvised technique to turn his rifle into an automatic weapon.

      So Bourque considered trying to turn his rifles into automatic weapons. It's probably picking fly shit out of pepper but he used a Norinco M305 and Norinco AR15.  The former is a .308 caliber which is very difficult to use when on full auto, he probably would have missed every shot. Norinco is a Chinese made knock off, their craftsmanship is pretty shoddy and those rifles are prone to exploding in someones hands.  I wouldn't fire a Norinco on full auto for $500.  

      Anyhow, he *considered* doing it which convieniently promoted the RCMP to start testing firearms again and being terified at the outcome.   At least if Borque had actually made the firearms into fullautos and used them then Canada would have had at least one firearm crime committed with a full auto.  The RCMP are stull trying to scare people and push that FULLAUTOS are terrifying and use the threat of it to ban more firearms. Good on them if you're pro-gun control stance is basically just banning firearms from civilian ownership.

       

      They go on to talk about how easy it is to upgrade weapons to fire full auto, that's not exactly true. It's very easy to damage and mangle your firearm when attempting it because you're drilling and cutting stuff out of the guts of the trigger mechanisim.  Modern firearms are pretty finicky. Just for example my $1200 pistol was rendered useless because a piece of a spring the size of half a kiwi seed broke off. It's more tricky than just watching a youtube video, making some drill marks are banging away on full auto.  The methods they're talking about turning weapons into fullauto killing machines have been around for years. Still no shootings (probably because it's a stupid way to try and hit something)

       

      They do mention something intelligent here.

      Quote:
      "Large capacity magazines are widely available for the military and paramilitary firearms, and although limited in capacity by law and generally reduced to five shots by a pin or similar modification, the original capacity is typically readily restorable."

      So basically the large capacity magazine limits are easily circumvented and only respected by law abiding citizens whom using large capacity magazines pose no threat.

       

      Instead of worrying so much about someone upgrading a rifle to fullauto the RCMP should look at ways of preventing criminals from getting firearms. (sadly one method would infact be banning and confiscating firearms from legal gun owners to prevent criminals from stealing them).

      Your right to have a killing machine easily upgradable to an even more efficient killing machine is of less interest to me than the protection of the public from such very efficient killing machine.

      Your suggestion that this right of yours to your killing machine is more important to me than public safety certainly makes me hope that those in the RCMP will take the side of the public over yours.

      The argument that we should just trust you because you are safe has got to be the most ridiculous possible given the information you shared here. You are basically saying that the protection from a fully automatic is not worth it if you might lose your killing machines. There is a word for that -- selfish.

      If it seems like I have absolutely no respect and instead a mountain of disgust for your position -- that that would be completely accurate

      If your killing machine can so easily be changed to an illegal killing machine then havng it taken off the shelves AND out of homes is the right response.

      Now if you have a concern about the design of your killing machine that you will lose it because it is too easy to convert to something you did not intend to own -- then please file a legal action against the manufacturer of said killing machine rather than suggesting that we should ignore possible upgrades to your killing machine in search of other public protection (that is likely less effective) becuase you feel that you should be trusted with that killing machine.

      The majority of the people of Canada are likely more interested in their safety than your ownership of whatever number of killing machines you have.

      Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

      Quote:

      Your right to have a killing machine easily upgradable to an even more efficient killing machine is of less interest to me than the protection of the public from such very efficient killing machine.

      Your suggestion that this right of yours to your killing machine is more important to me than public safety certainly makes me hope that those in the RCMP will take the side of the public over yours.

      The argument that we should just trust you because you are safe has got to be the most ridiculous possible given the information you shared here. You are basically saying that the protection from a fully automatic is not worth it if you might lose your killing machines. There is a word for that -- selfish.

      If it seems like I have absolutely no respect and instead a mountain of disgust for your position -- that that would be completely accurate

      If your killing machine can so easily be changed to an illegal killing machine then havng it taken off the shelves AND out of homes is the right response.

      Now if you have a concern about the design of your killing machine that you will lose it because it is too easy to convert to something you did not intend to own -- then please file a legal action against the manufacturer of said killing machine rather than suggesting that we should ignore possible upgrades to your killing machine in search of other public protection (that is likely less effective) becuase you feel that you should be trusted with that killing machine.

      The majority of the people of Canada are likely more interested in their safety than your ownership of whatever number of killing machines you have.

      Weren't you just complaining about the polarization of this discussion?

      Sean in Ottawa

      Mr. Magoo wrote:

      Quote:

      Your right to have a killing machine easily upgradable to an even more efficient killing machine is of less interest to me than the protection of the public from such very efficient killing machine.

      Your suggestion that this right of yours to your killing machine is more important to me than public safety certainly makes me hope that those in the RCMP will take the side of the public over yours.

      The argument that we should just trust you because you are safe has got to be the most ridiculous possible given the information you shared here. You are basically saying that the protection from a fully automatic is not worth it if you might lose your killing machines. There is a word for that -- selfish.

      If it seems like I have absolutely no respect and instead a mountain of disgust for your position -- that that would be completely accurate

      If your killing machine can so easily be changed to an illegal killing machine then havng it taken off the shelves AND out of homes is the right response.

      Now if you have a concern about the design of your killing machine that you will lose it because it is too easy to convert to something you did not intend to own -- then please file a legal action against the manufacturer of said killing machine rather than suggesting that we should ignore possible upgrades to your killing machine in search of other public protection (that is likely less effective) becuase you feel that you should be trusted with that killing machine.

      The majority of the people of Canada are likely more interested in their safety than your ownership of whatever number of killing machines you have.

      Weren't you just complaining about the polarization of this discussion?

      I am not polarizing -- I am calling them what they are.

      I still support the middle option of regulation, registration, licenses, and banning of the most lethal only.

      I am not calling for an outright ban.

      Sean in Ottawa

      Mr. Magoo wrote:

      Quote:

      Your right to have a killing machine easily upgradable to an even more efficient killing machine is of less interest to me than the protection of the public from such very efficient killing machine.

      Your suggestion that this right of yours to your killing machine is more important to me than public safety certainly makes me hope that those in the RCMP will take the side of the public over yours.

      The argument that we should just trust you because you are safe has got to be the most ridiculous possible given the information you shared here. You are basically saying that the protection from a fully automatic is not worth it if you might lose your killing machines. There is a word for that -- selfish.

      If it seems like I have absolutely no respect and instead a mountain of disgust for your position -- that that would be completely accurate

      If your killing machine can so easily be changed to an illegal killing machine then havng it taken off the shelves AND out of homes is the right response.

      Now if you have a concern about the design of your killing machine that you will lose it because it is too easy to convert to something you did not intend to own -- then please file a legal action against the manufacturer of said killing machine rather than suggesting that we should ignore possible upgrades to your killing machine in search of other public protection (that is likely less effective) becuase you feel that you should be trusted with that killing machine.

      The majority of the people of Canada are likely more interested in their safety than your ownership of whatever number of killing machines you have.

      Weren't you just complaining about the polarization of this discussion?

      I am not polarizing -- I am calling them what they are.

      I still support the middle option of regulation, registration, licenses, and banning of the most lethal only.

      I am not calling for an outright ban.

      NorthReport

      First gun controls such as background checks, etc. then a registry, and eventually an amnesty to turn them all in after that they would be illegal. The police would need to substantially reduce their arsenals too. The days of the Wild West are long gone.

      Mr. Magoo wrote:

      What kind of controls, NorthReport?  Imagine you're writing the new laws; be specific.

      Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

      How do you explain why the vast majority of them never kill anyone?

      To say that if 0.003% of guns kill someone then "they're killing machines, that's just what they are" kind of beggars belief.

      6079_Smith_W

      Magoo, I've been calling them killing machines pretty consistently throughout this thread.

      Some people use them as toys for shooting at targets, but really their only purpose is to kill. It is just as much an argument for their importance as it is for their banning, IMO.

      It is the only valid reason I can think of for allowing people to have something that has been used to kill and maim so many people. Nothing polarizing about it. It is exactly what it is. I'd suggest that people who aren't mature enough to get that probably aren't mature enough to own a deadly weapon in the first place.

       

       

      Pages