Gun Control

[sobrohusfat]

... fewer guns = less gun violence...

Tell that to the Swiss. ...its a cultural issue.

We are Canadians.
That did mean something once-upon-a-time.

[Glacier]

Tell that to the Swiss. ...its a cultural issue.

We are Canadians.
That did mean something once-upon-a-time.

[mikest2]

...and that's the crux of the issue when trying to discuss with the anti-gun snowflakes. They think that making things illegal will stop criminals. They lack the grey matter to even recognize their own cognitive dissonance.

That's a lot of words for stamping your feet and proclaiming that you're right dammit and anyone who isn't convinced by your argument is dumb. It's typical of people who are on the losing side of an argument to dismiss their opposition with name-calling and claiming that they're incapable of understanding, when really they just disagree with you.

I understand the issue. I grew up with guns in the house. I took a gun handling course in a public school when I was 13. I get that shooting is fun, hunting is fun and productive. I totally reject the idea that anyone in Canada needs a gun for self defence (and truly, our laws have always reflected that), and furthermore think that's a dangerous path to go down. I don't think banning all guns is necessary, nor do I think doing so would eliminate gun crime, but I think that some firearms lift right out and plenty of other alternatives are available. The go-to argument that the criminals who really want guns will always be able to access them has a grain of truth, but the thing that the pro-gun crowd can never overcome is the simple, common sense fact that fewer guns = less gun violence. Less gun ownership and rigorous gun acquisition requirements mean fewer accidental shootings, handling accidents and fewer irresponsible people who have no business owning guns, owning guns. Ironically, one of the things that works against the pro-gun lobby in this country, imo, is the success of the gun industry in the USA and the frightening example of what unfettered gun ownership looks like. That many of the crime-related guns come to this country from the states only reinforces the argument that their gun policies are an extreme example of messed-up and we're best not to move in that direction at all. That guns are illegally imported isn't a gun control issue, it's a border control issue.

The "pro gun lobby" is not asking for the "unfettered gun ownership". Our regulations (you should read and understand them) are very restrictive already and all we firearms owners want is to leave the regs as they are. We are not the problem.

[Sparki55]

The "pro gun lobby" is not asking for the "unfettered gun ownership". Our regulations (you should read and understand them) are very restrictive already and all we firearms owners want is to leave the regs as they are. We are not the problem.

With "these people" it's almost like the people who own Gus are asking for there to be no laws. It's the opposite, we're asking for no more ridiculous laws to be thunk up.

[mikest2]

The "pro gun lobby" is not asking for the "unfettered gun ownership". Our regulations (you should read and understand them) are very restrictive already and all we firearms owners want is to leave the regs as they are. We are not the problem.

With "these people" it's almost like the people who own Gus are asking for there to be no laws. It's the opposite, we're asking for no more ridiculous laws to be thunk up.

Yup, the problem is criminal use of firearms, and it's hard to believe that anyone is stupid enough to think that more government regulation is going to be respected by criminals. They don't respect our laws now, do you really think they are going to change their mind tomorrow as the government lowers the mandatory sentences for crimes involving firearms. The Libs want that criminal vote !

[mikest2]

...and that's the crux of the issue when trying to discuss with the anti-gun snowflakes. They think that making things illegal will stop criminals. They lack the grey matter to even recognize their own cognitive dissonance.

That's a lot of words for stamping your feet and proclaiming that you're right dammit and anyone who isn't convinced by your argument is dumb. It's typical of people who are on the losing side of an argument to dismiss their opposition with name-calling and claiming that they're incapable of understanding, when really they just disagree with you.

I understand the issue. I grew up with guns in the house. I took a gun handling course in a public school when I was 13. I get that shooting is fun, hunting is fun and productive. I totally reject the idea that anyone in Canada needs a gun for self defence (and truly, our laws have always reflected that), and furthermore think that's a dangerous path to go down. I don't think banning all guns is necessary, nor do I think doing so would eliminate gun crime, but I think that some firearms lift right out and plenty of other alternatives are available. The go-to argument that the criminals who really want guns will always be able to access them has a grain of truth, but the thing that the pro-gun crowd can never overcome is the simple, common sense fact that fewer guns = less gun violence. Less gun ownership and rigorous gun acquisition requirements mean fewer accidental shootings, handling accidents and fewer irresponsible people who have no business owning guns, owning guns. Ironically, one of the things that works against the pro-gun lobby in this country, imo, is the success of the gun industry in the USA and the frightening example of what unfettered gun ownership looks like. That many of the crime-related guns come to this country from the states only reinforces the argument that their gun policies are an extreme example of messed-up and we're best not to move in that direction at all. That guns are illegally imported isn't a gun control issue, it's a border control issue.

Let's throw a little logic in here for a moment. The leading cause of death in Canada is impaired driving. Problem solved if we take away everyone's car.

[crookedmember]

Why we have strict gun control in Canada and the civilized world and always will.

The mother didn't even have the chance to return fire.

[mikest2]

Why we have strict gun control in Canada and the civilized world and always will.

The mother didn't even have the chance to return fire.

Yup. can't happen here if you abide by our regs, you should read up on those regs that we legal, law abiding firearms owners follow. It helps in presenting an intelligent argument.
Just a FYI, The US is a different country with way different laws. Keep grasping those straws though, it is amusing.

[Fancy]

Yup. can't happen here if you abide by our regs, you should read up on those regs that we legal, law abiding firearms owners follow. It helps in presenting an intelligent argument.
Just a FYI, The US is a different country with way different laws. Keep grasping those straws though, it is amusing.

crookedmember wasn't grasping at straws but appeared to imply Canada has the strict gun controls - US doesn't and US pays the price.

[mikest2]

Yup. can't happen here if you abide by our regs, you should read up on those regs that we legal, law abiding firearms owners follow. It helps in presenting an intelligent argument.
Just a FYI, The US is a different country with way different laws. Keep grasping those straws though, it is amusing.

crookedmember wasn't grasping at straws but appeared to imply Canada has the strict gun controls - US doesn't and US pays the price.

Guess I'm getting used to sarcasm, my apologies crookedmember !

[36Drew]

That's a lot of words for stamping your feet and proclaiming that you're right dammit and anyone who isn't convinced by your argument is dumb. It's typical of people who are on the losing side of an argument to dismiss their opposition with name-calling and claiming that they're incapable of understanding, when really they just disagree with you.

And your next paragraph is a whole lot of useless diatribe that really only shows you have no clue at all what you're talking about.

I understand the issue.

You don't seem to understand the issue in the least.

I grew up with guns in the house. I took a gun handling course in a public school when I was 13. I get that shooting is fun, hunting is fun and productive.

Good for you. I am sure that you also have had driver's education, first aid, perhaps a rope-tying course and maybe even a knife-safety course. The scouts have badges for those. You earned one - good job, kid.

I totally reject the idea that anyone in Canada needs a gun for self defence (and truly, our laws have always reflected that), and furthermore think that's a dangerous path to go down.

There is not a word in that sentence that I disagree with, and I doubt anyone in this thread or forum will disagree with. Guns are not for self defence. They are tools for hunting and sport.

I don't think banning all guns is necessary, nor do I think doing so would eliminate gun crime, but I think that some firearms lift right out and plenty of other alternatives are available.

I don't think anyone needs an 840+ horsepower vehicle that is capable of launching from 0-100kph in 2.3 seconds for anything other than racing. But hey - some people absolutely love driving around in their Challenger Hellcats. Who the hell are you and I to tell them what they can and can't own/operate so long as they're licensed, insured, and follow the law?

Let's unpack what you've just said.

I don't think banning all guns ...would eliminate gun crime

So you can agree that gun crime is not directly correlated to or caused by gun ownership.

but I think that some firearms lift right out and plenty of other alternatives are available.

...but you want to ban guns that you, personally, have a distaste for and feel others shouldn't be allowed to own them.

The go-to argument that the criminals who really want guns will always be able to access them has a grain of truth

It has far more than a grain of truth. While stats-can is on record stating that the police do not report the origin of all guns used in all gun crime, but they do know that all the handguns that gangs use are either stolen or imported. Theres zero ability to trace those origins at the moment.

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/commit ... _ppt_e.pdf
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-sco ... -1.5579971

but the thing that the pro-gun crowd can never overcome is the simple, common sense fact that fewer guns = less gun violence.

Prove it. Go find some facts to back up your - as yet - unsubstantiated argument.

rigorous gun acquisition requirements

How much more rigorous do you want our gun acquisition requirements to be in Canada? How are they not rigorous enough? What holes exist in them that seem to be a challenge for you?

mean fewer accidental shootings, handling accidents and fewer irresponsible people who have no business owning guns, owning guns.

How many handling accidents per year do we have? How many licensees do we have in Canada that should have their PAL/RPAL revoked and their firearms seized? Provide some examples.

Ironically, one of the things that works against the pro-gun lobby in this country, imo, is the success of the gun industry in the USA and the frightening example of what unfettered gun ownership looks like.

There is not a licensed firearm owner in this country that will be calling for looser licensing laws. Every single person I've encountered who has a PAL or RPAL fully understands our licensing regime, accepts it, and supports it as an example of how well licensees are monitored and how easy it is for a license to be revoked from someone who shouldn't have one.

That many of the crime-related guns come to this country from the states only reinforces the argument that their gun policies are an extreme example of messed-up and we're best not to move in that direction at all. That guns are illegally imported isn't a gun control issue, it's a border control issue.

....and here's the cognitive dissonance.

"many of the crime-related guns come to this country from the states"
"That guns are illegally imported isn't a gun control issue, it's a border control issue"

See my previous post that you got so offended over.


To take a bow to Bill Maher: New Rule. Before we enact more useless legislation that only further frustrates and potentially criminalizes otherwise law-abiding citizens - without actually stopping criminals - the government/RCMP/CBP/courts stop being so damned lazy and actually do the job they've hired to do and enforce the laws they already have.

[Gone_Fishin]

I think that some firearms lift right out and plenty of other alternatives are available.

Okay, let's assume you're in control of banning firearms that you think shouldn't be allowed in Canada.

Which of these two would you ban, and why?

[Nedroj]

I think that some firearms lift right out and plenty of other alternatives are available.

Okay, let's assume you're in control of banning firearms that you think shouldn't be allowed in Canada.

Which of these two would you ban, and why?

Id also like to ask if he would ban this rifle or not.



Because under JT's new laws, this classic hunting rifle went from being non-restricted (ie can be used for hunting) to being outright banned as in it is now not even allowed to be used at a licensed gun range for sport shooting.

[GordonH]

I think that some firearms lift right out and plenty of other alternatives are available.

Okay, let's assume you're in control of banning firearms that you think shouldn't be allowed in Canada.

Which of these two would you ban, and why?

#1) looks more of traditional hunting rifle/hunter of wild game.
#2) looks more like a want to be soldier/hunter of humans.

[Catri]

Let's throw a little logic in here for a moment. The leading cause of death in Canada is impaired driving. Problem solved if we take away everyone's car.

That's not logic, that's whataboutism. It's also wrong, impaired driving is not the leading cause, or even a leading cause of death in Canada...not even close. When you just make stuff up like that it doesn't add credibility to your argument.