Gun Control

[Admiral Beez]

The idea of banning assault rifles as put forward by the Libs is a good one. I don't think anybody 'needs' one of these.

Yes, but what is an assault rifle? Fully automatic rifles (i.e. machine guns) are already prohibited. Large magazines for semi-automatic rifles are also already prohibited. Short-barrel rifles that could be used in confinded places are also already prohibited.

Just because your rifle looks like an M-16, doesn't make it an assault rifle.

 

[Brian69]

Re: earlier comments about legal gun owners. I saw that the Toronto Police estimated that about 30% of guns involved in crimes in Canada are actually obtained through Break & Enters - which of course still leaves the majority coming from the states - but 30% is not a small number either.

People who keep a handgun in their house should consider what happens when a young kid looking for drug money breaks in for a VCR - he's just been given a gift.

Interesting stat--30% is indeed not a small number and the onus is on owners to store their firearms properly. However, the numbers on the oft-touted emotional side of the issue (i.e., banning guns because people die) seem to be skewed the other way: guns were illegally obtained and unregistered in 102 of 108 gun murders in 2006. Furthermore, registered guns were used in only 2.27 per cent of Canadian homicides between 1997 and 2005.

Of course, the other funny thing is how often the falling crime rate (especially violent crime and crime involving guns) of the past 20 years or so is touted by opponents whenever the Tories push their safety agenda, e.g., more prisons and tougher punishments, but is conveniently forgotten once handgun hysteria makes an appearance.

 

[Archivist]

It's true that stats get skewed, but "illegally obtained and unregistered" would surely include something stolen from someone's house during a B&E? That seems pretty illegal to me - just because a gun was one legal and registered doesn't mean it remains that way.

 

[Brian69]

If true it would not explain how just over 2% of registered guns were involved in homicides in the first place according to the statscan numbers. It also doesn't jibe with what this columnist is saying: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=5ba0b924-759f-4f8b-8523-e9b386788eee&k=97912&p=2 in that only weapons that can't be identified might have been considered potentially registered at one point.

Apart from owners who never registered in the first place or inadequacies with the registry itself, it appears the only grey area would be with guns in which the serial numbers have been removed, making identification as either registered or unregistered more problematic. However, this isn't as easy to do as it appears, seeing as the serial number is often stamped in more than one place on the gun and not just in plain sight. I just don't see this as enough evidence to justify skewing the numbers back towards a significant number being registered firearms being stolen and used violently against the general public.

The stats belie the emotional arguments about guns being a clear and present danger to the average citizen, with the gun control push being, as that columnist accurately put it, "a victory of symbolism over substance."

 

[Long Island Mike]

Gun Control in Canada...and the USA...

Everyone: Interesting topic on Gun Control in Canada-and how things are different then in the USA.

What is Canada's counterpart to the US NRA and how are they at influence in Canada politically?

I feel that there should be National laws in the USA concerning Guns-especially Handguns-as long as the owners follow these rules:

LICENSE-REGISTER-INSURE just like owning an Automobile.

NYS is a State with somewhat strict gun laws-but since guns can easily be bought in from states with lax laws that can be moot.

People conveniently miss the text -WELL REGULATED- meaning ** RULES AND REGULATIONS ** when mentioning the US Constitution's Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms.

One thing I feel because Guns are so entrenched in US society is that a gun ban on handguns would just not work.

I always want to mention that with the lack of Gun Control in certain US states is that how the NRA wonders how criminals get their guns-and that tired argument that people kill but NOT guns-but they have to realize the Guns make it just so easy...

Observations and insight from LI MIKE

 

[Hank]

If true it would not explain how just over 2% of registered guns were involved in homicides in the first place according to the statscan numbers.

Why not? I don't think it's too crazy to think that registered gun owners (or other people in their homes) may sometimes use their own guns in homicides.

 

[Brian69]

Why not? I don't think it's too crazy to think that registered gun owners (or other people in their homes) may sometimes use their own guns in homicides.

Sure--I'm not arguing against that possibility, but you still have the small figure of approximately 2% to deal with. The operative word is sometimes, and clearly not enough to justify an outright ban when that's not where the real problem lies unless we throw common sense out the window and consider the 2% to be a bigger problem than the 98%.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes, but what is an assault rifle? Fully automatic rifles (i.e. machine guns) are already prohibited. Large magazines for semi-automatic rifles are also already prohibited. Short-barrel rifles that could be used in confinded places are also already prohibited.

Just because your rifle looks like an M-16, doesn't make it an assault rifle.

Personally, as a military guy I have no problem with banning even semi-automatic weapons. Nobody really needs one. I say hunting would be more fair with manual weapons. And up North, what you really need is a shotgun to fend off bears, not a rifle, which aren't automatic.

 

[Voltz]

The real problem with gun crime is the CRIMINALS who use them, not law abiding licensed gun owners. Even if every legal gun in the country is banned criminals will still be able to get just about any gun that they want and they will still use then whenever they want.

That stat of 30% of crime guns coming from B&E's is not true. The percentage of firearms recovered by police that where once legally registered is much closer to 5%, that includes legal owners who voluntarily turned in their firearms because they may not want them anymore. Moreover, any gun that enters the country legally (such as a shipment to a gun store) would be in the firearms database,

Banning "Assault weapons" is yet another stupid and ineffective idea. Just because a gun looks like a "military weapon", or because "no one needs them" is a very weak and reactionary excuse to ban something. First, a bolt-action hunting rifle with a 30 round magazine can be used to cause a lot more damage than a mere 9mm "assault weapon". "Banning" is nothing more than making people feel good.

The $2-billion long gun registry has been completely useless; it has not even helped solve one crime. Other places around the world that have banned firearms have seem their crime rates more than double, Law abiding citizens have hade their legally owned property confiscated while criminals have free reign to do whatever they want.

I have yet to hear one reasonable argument for gun control that is supported by facts, and not driven by politics or emotion.

 

[kEiThZ]

The real problem with gun crime is the CRIMINALS who use them, not law abiding licensed gun owners. Even if every legal gun in the country is banned criminals will still be able to get just about any gun that they want and they will still use then whenever they want.

That stat of 30% of crime guns coming from B&E's is not true. The percentage of firearms recovered by police that where once legally registered is much closer to 5%, that includes legal owners who voluntarily turned in their firearms because they may not want them anymore. Moreover, any gun that enters the country legally (such as a shipment to a gun store) would be in the firearms database,

Banning "Assault weapons" is yet another stupid and ineffective idea. Just because a gun looks like a "military weapon", or because "no one needs them" is a very weak and reactionary excuse to ban something. First, a bolt-action hunting rifle with a 30 round magazine can be used to cause a lot more damage than a mere 9mm "assault weapon". "Banning" is nothing more than making people feel good.

The $2-billion long gun registry has been completely useless; it has not even helped solve one crime. Other places around the world that have banned firearms have seem their crime rates more than double, Law abiding citizens have hade their legally owned property confiscated while criminals have free reign to do whatever they want.

I have yet to hear one reasonable argument for gun control that is supported by facts, and not driven by politics or emotion.

First off, a 30 round mag is illegal in Canada. Second. Who really "needs" a 10 round semi-automatic weapon (the height of what's legal in Canada)? Shotguns and rifles are essential for rural life. Isn't a manual weapon sufficient? And 5 rounds is enough to stop just about anything.

 

[Voltz]

First off, a 30 round mag is illegal in Canada. Second. Who really "needs" a 10 round semi-automatic weapon (the height of what's legal in Canada)? Shotguns and rifles are essential for rural life. Isn't a manual weapon sufficient? And 5 rounds is enough to stop just about anything.

There are no limits on magazines designed for pump-action or bolt-action firearms, or for any firearms that use rimfire ammunition.

Just because someone does not really need something, should it be banned? No one needs a $500 or more golf club, should those be banned as well?

 

[Hydrogen]

Just because someone does not really need something, should it be banned? No one needs a $500 or more golf club, should those be banned as well?

I'll think of that next time a bank is held up with a golf club - regardless of its price.

 

[Voltz]

I'll think of that next time a bank is held up with a golf club - regardless of its price.

Yet another argument based on feel good emotion. Yes, I know that banks are generally not held up with golf clubs, but this absurd notion that simply banning firearms from lawful owners will stop criminals from doing what they do is really out of touch with reality.

If you want to stop crime then you have to go after criminals, not law-abiding citizens. As I said before, if you take away every legal firearm in the country it still WOULD NOT stop criminals from getting and using guns.

 

[afransen]

Or someone is killed on the 401 with one...

 

[Hydrogen]

Yet another argument based on feel good emotion.

Actually, it was just a statement, not an argument.

but this absurd notion that simply banning firearms from lawful owners will stop criminals from doing what they do is really out of touch with reality.

I don't favour a ban on all firearms actually. But since you brought it up, a ban does not automatically mean that all firemarms will suddenly disappear. It's naive to think that. What a supposed ban would mean is that possessing any firearm would be a very grave offense because these items are banned.

If you want to stop crime then you have to go after criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Generally speaking, people do go after criminals. Should law-abiding citizens continue to be law-abiding, they would give up their guns should such a ban ever come into effect - which is highly doubtful.

Somehow, I doubt that an average person's quality of life would be drastically reduced if they didn't have a gun in their home. However, if that person lives out in the country, or way up north, then it's a different story. For example, access to Arctic National Parks sometimes requires knowledge of how to use a firearm, or a guide with a firearm. So I don't see any blanket ban coming soon.