The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

This study focused on the period between 2000 and 2022, and by "public" mass shootings they limited it to circumstances where there was the intent to simply cause mass murder of random people, as opposed to say, a target gang shooting that killed a bunch of people. However, you're right; I was able to find one public mass shooting in the 2000-2010 period in Canada, the Dawson College shooting n 2006.

The rest of my post was cut off sorry. Yeah the dates seemed a bit cherry picked (like the Liberals pointing to 2015 as proof violent crime was dropping in Canada), but also especially since there were a few notable mass shootings in the late 80's and 90's, some of which initiated stricter gun control.

I would agree, but then the deeper and much harder to answer question is: does widespread gun ownership naturally lead to idolization of gun use in crime/murder/mass shootings?

Not necessarily.

California has experienced the highest number of mass shooting incidents in the US, meanwhile they also have the strictest gun control measures and coming in as the 6th state with the least reported firearm ownership.

Missisippi, Wyoming, and Idaho have the least restrictive gun control measures in the US.

Missisippi rates moderate to high among states with higher rates of mass shootings historically. Wyoming and Idaho are practically nil.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would agree, but then the deeper and much harder to answer question is: does widespread gun ownership naturally lead to idolization of gun use in crime/murder/mass shootings?

I think your question is answered every year from Sept - Dec all across Canada.

Hundreds of thousands of people are walking through the woods dressed like oranges, carrying rifles. Every year we don't seem to have that out break of gun fights that the theory that the concentrated proliferation of firearms is believed to cause.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I dont recognize that point. The job of the LEOs is to move in the direction of danger. Just like that is the crowns expectation of us.

FFs your job is to run into the burning building.

While reasonable measure for job safety, say bunker gear and ceramic plates, are reasonable for the right jobs. We cannot and should not remove the expectation that these highly professionals move towards the danger and if required take the appropriate violent action and give the required sacrifices.

I think that's exactly what they should do too. I don't believe they're legally obligated the same way we are. I seen a debate before and I recall it included an argument about Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting life and security of the person which included officers.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think that's exactly what they should do too. I don't believe they're legally obligated the same way we are. I seen a debate before and I recall it included an argument about Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting life and security of the person which included officers.

For the salaries and benefits they are getting, they should be as obligated as you or I are. But that's wishful thinking, I believe you are correct.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The rest of my post was cut off sorry. Yeah the dates seemed a bit cherry picked (like the Liberals pointing to 2015 as proof violent crime was dropping in Canada), but also especially since there were a few notable mass shootings in the late 80's and 90's, some of which initiated stricter gun control.



Not necessarily.

California has experienced the highest number of mass shooting incidents in the US, meanwhile they also have the strictest gun control measures and coming in as the 6th state with the least reported firearm ownership.

Missisippi, Wyoming, and Idaho have the least restrictive gun control measures in the US.

Missisippi rates moderate to high among states with higher rates of mass shootings historically. Wyoming and Idaho are practically nil.

I think your question is answered every year from Sept - Dec all across Canada.

Hundreds of thousands of people are walking through the woods dressed like oranges, carrying rifles. Every year we don't seem to have that out break of gun fights that the theory that the concentrated proliferation of firearms is believed to cause.

@Lumber I happen to live in a town where almost every single household happens to have firearms. There are probably more firearms per capita per household than almost anywhere else in the province/Country. It's also a place where it's so safe that people don't even lock their doors.

Now the kicker is that any of the shootings and crime are 99% committed by Indigenous with one particular Reserve (there are 3 within a stones throw of the town and 1 has major issues with crime and rampant social problems).

Of course, saying that, what are we to do about it? If you ask the Government, we should all give up our guns while the ones actually committing the crime should be allowed to keep theirs?

I am friends with a number of police officers here, all of them would say that a confiscation program here wouldn't work. There aren't anywhere near enough police to even try to enforce such a program. They also know where the problem is but don't really have much ability to do anything about it.

The Provincial Indigenous Police Force up here is also a very capable Force, they went 26 years without a single officer involved shooting of a suspect, which was only broken last year after an armed standoff in Deer Lake.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Of course, saying that, what are we to do about it? If you ask the Government, we should all give up our gums while the ones actually committing the crime should be allowed to keep theirs?

How would we hold our teeth in ?

I need that, thank you

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

How would we hold our teeth in ?

I need that, thank you

Sausage fingers and a small cellphone are a terrible combo!

 

[Haggis]

Professionally, I'd say there's an argument to be made that a shooter like yourself armed with a long rifle which your familiar with and a shotgun can be just as deadly, if not more so, than some asshole getting their hands on an automatic gun blasting away on full auto.

Did you see that shooting in BC a little while ago where someone blasted away at someone else with a full auto? I think an AK? Didn't kill anyone.

During the Oka and Akwesasne events in 1990, thousands of rounds were fired by all factions, less the CAF and LEA's. Many were fired from automatic weapons with full capacity magazines. Hundreds each night at and around Akwesasne, resulting in two deaths and some property damage. Marksmanship has never been the forté of the criminal.

 

[Lumber]

Y'all will probably enjoy this. I had a really good chuckle:

 

[Eaglelord17]

Not an equal comparison. The vast majority of the gun ownership in Switzerland is for sport shooting. They have a HUGE culture of sport shooting. There are thousands of gun shooting clubs. Children at a young age attend camps on gun maintenance and safety. They take responsible gun ownership seriously. They don't have open or concealed carry. You can only travel from your home to a shooting range and back with the gun, you can't take it shopping, you can't buy guns in the supermarket on a whim.

Compare that to the US, where in some states it's the wild west. Not only do you not need any training or permit to carry, some states have passed laws banning future legislations from ever enacting such laws.

So, I agree party, but would say guns to have an effect on crime, in that if you add guns without supporting legislation on responsible gun ownership, you get... well... <points broadly at the United States>.



It's only stupid if you honestly believe it will reduce gun violence, and not that it will reduce the perception of potential gun violence. Calming the masses is far more important than actually protecting the masses.



I disagree that your claim that it would minimize damage. To be fair, I do not think you would see a HUGE minimization across the board, because like you say, someone can still do a lot of damage with a bolt action or pump shotgun, or could switch to a vehicle or knife. However, as mentioned above, studies have demonstrated that their is an idolization of mass shooters, and in that specific context, restricting access to certain firearms could reduce the damage. The shooter in the Quebec City mosque shooting, for example. He was young an not as experienced as you, and I doubt he could have fire 22 rounds a minute (with any kind of accuracy) form a bolt action. In the narrow spaces of mosque, he would have a hard time fending off those trying to stop him while swinging around a long rifle that needs to be cocked after each shot. A semi-automatic pistol was ideal for the situation he was in; he was able to quickly put numerous rounds into several spread apart people then finish them off later. And if guns were completely banned (not something I'm advocating for to be clear) and he had no access to any guns, I don't think would have switched to a vehicle or knife rampage (again, just my opinion based on what I read about him).



Again I would challenge the assertion here that seems to say that if you took away all the guns, every mass shooter would switch to a vehicle and kill as many if not more people. If a gun law could prevent 10 mass shootings, but of those 10 mass shootings 4 turned into vehicle rampages and 2 turned into knife rampages, should we not consider the gun law at least partially effective?

You can’t just disregard Switzerland because the data isn’t in your favour. Again literal military rifles in most households (the exact types already banned because it is ‘too dangerous’) and yet the crime doesn’t match.

We aren’t the States, so trying to use the most extreme example to push more legislation on us is fear mongering. Canada doesn’t have a gun problem and realistically we never have. Up until 1978 Canadians could legally buy full autos with no issue (same process as buying a pistol at that point). Yet we never had the issues the States have. Crime has fallen consistently with or without any gun law changes we have made (actually climbing in recent years in-spite of all the laws).

I don’t care about calming the masses, I care about facts. The fact is you are talking about punishing millions for the actions of a very few.

I wouldn’t consider these laws partially effective as you stomped on the rights of millions to ‘maybe’ have a effect on the damage caused in a mass casualty situation. And I say ‘maybe’ because generally speaking our mass casualty situations with a firearm tend to have similar death rates to most American ones despite having vastly different laws.

As to being unsure if they will switch to vehicles, the time is changing and it has already happened.

3 major vehicle attacks in Canada in the last 10 years.

Vancouver (11 dead), London ON (4 dead), Toronto (10 dead).

You’re assuming that these people don’t want to kill others and that a gun is what is causing it. The reality is they want to kill people and it just is a tool to do so. Remove tools from the box and they find another tool, or like Mortman just get it illegally.

A. Removing long guns doesn't prevent all suicides that were previously by firearm. Ridiculous assumption. It might prevent a small number that aren't willing to use another method. It might cause a small number of attempts to fail. But 100%? Silly.

B. A suicide, while tragic, is not a multi-faceted public safety event causing danger to lives beyond the suicidal, it does not put the lives of responding law enforcement in danger.

The whole "if you're not willing to do everything about everything you can't do anything about anything" is a ridiculously childish and regressive stance that ignores almost everything about how humans make decisions and manage risk on a day to day, minute to minute basis.

Do you think the prohibition on automatic weapons and explosive devices is reasonable?

Suicide rates don’t change when firearms are removed, the method used changes thats it. Arguing for gun control to reduce suicides is about the worst argument there is.

As to explosives being banned, that makes sense as it is indiscriminate, whereas a firearm isn’t. Firearms are personal level weapons, explosives are area.

Banning full autos really doesn’t actually add up if you look into it. The reality is there is over 3k in civilian hands currently and we have no issues. It is also very easy to make most firearms full auto mechanically. Just doesn’t change much.

I am more scared of someone with a semi than a full auto as they are more likely to use a semi effectively. If they are skilled with a full auto reality is they will be skilled with anything they use and will do a ton of damage whether or not it is a manual firearm, semi or fully automatic.