|
Tackling systemic poverty with government programs would make a bigger dent in gun violence than any kind of further restriction or ban on guns. And sure, you can do both, but you could also leave our gun laws as they are since they seem to be pretty good and just do the other thing that never seems to really end up on the government's agenda for some reason.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
It owns that Jason Kenney is going to sweep the NDP out of Alberta and every province from Alberta to New Brunswick will be Conservative controlled
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Honestly I think our gun laws as-is are fine. We could use stricter enforcement here and there, but the actual laws and licensing process is perfectly good. A few of my friends are "into guns" and after seeing the licensing process and all the hoops they have to jump through it all seems quite reasonable. One of them got around some regulations by buying a 1880's rifle and is making his own ammo for it. But there's basically no ranges in or around Victoria that are actually accessible to normal people, which alone basically kills interest with "guns are cool" types in my city. You have to be super dedicated to your interest in metal tubes to bother with all the legalities and expenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I rest my case then That's bait.gif
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I rest my case then They're jerking themselves off over it because a gun owners' advocacy group started targeting a trauma surgeon for harassment because of their anti-gun stance. Like, can you not read an entire page, or is this just some disingenuous "I'm just wonderin's all" bullshit? Wistful of Dollars posted:That's bait.gif Good point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Use a larger caliber that penetrates better. Duh. No no that's the bear argument all over. You want a smaller pieces so you can put more shots downrange faster and it's smaller so it doesn't hurt so much when the bear shoves it up your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Gun rights advocates are basically terrorists
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Why should guns have rights?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:They're jerking themselves off over it because a gun owners' advocacy group started targeting a trauma surgeon for harassment because of their anti-gun stance. Like, can you not read an entire page, or is this just some disingenuous "I'm just wonderin's all" bullshit? My apologies. I just don't think overreacting and generalising about it is very useful. I've seen this attitude before in this thread, not just in response to crazy gun people. I agree that harassment is not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
THC posted:Gun rights advocates are basically terrorists 10/10 would classify as extremist in secret government surveillance fusion centre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Broadly speaking, gun ownership is one of those things that falls squarely into the "I don't give a poo poo" category for me. I don't think there are any real issues with our current laws, or at least none that I think are likely to be improved. OTOH I am immediately suspicious of anyone advocating reform or looser restrictions, because they are, 100% of the time, exactly the sort of people who should be prevented from owning firearms of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Here, have a bunch of stats on guns in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-gun-facts-crime-accidental-shootings-suicides-1.4803378 Also of note, while it's a common trope to say that Canadian gun crime is done with guns smuggled in from America, the data literally doesn't exist to prove that one way or another, and a lot of crimes are also committed with guns that were originally legally-owned in Canada but then stolen in a robbery. There's also, of course, the fact that the vast majority of people who die by gun are suicides by lawful gun owners, but nobody cares about them when talking about why we should reduce the number of guns in society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Remember that time a gun nut shot up some RCMP officers in New Brunswick and now front line police officers nation wide are armed with C8 Carbines? Cops have had C8 rifles for years before Moncton. And a rifle is a lot better choice for a long gun for them than a shotgun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Okay, well TPS specifically cited the findings of the Moncton inquiry as the reason they were deploying them to patrol officers, so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Broadly speaking, gun ownership is one of those things that falls squarely into the "I don't give a poo poo" category for me. I don't think there are any real issues with our current laws, or at least none that I think are likely to be improved. Pretty much this. Long guns are a rural/urban divide issue that we'll probably never get over. There's no sane reason to loosen the laws on restricted fire arms, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of a benefit to increasing those laws either. Not my thing at all, it wouldn't affect me at all if they were banned - but I live in a city. Lots of people don't. With respect to handguns, I don't get the logic in allowing them at all. As it stands they're already prohibited weapons. Legally they can only be 1) at a licensed range or 2) the home of the licensee. They can't be moved without a special, one time license. They have to be stored locked and away from ammunition (also locked), such that the already shaky "self-defense" justification is a joke. Their legitimate uses are obscure. Whereas harm wise, they kill people every day. Seems like we should just outright ban them and move on (sorry to the dozens of target shooters who use them legitimately).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There's also, of course, the fact that the vast majority of people who die by gun are suicides by lawful gun owners, but nobody cares about them when talking about why we should reduce the number of guns in society. Yeah it's this, and there's a lot of research that this problem is easily solved by removing the firearms from the equation. Given how flimsy the reasoning for gun ownership, I'm all in favor of banning private firearm ownership for that reason alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 20:48
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Maneck posted:Pretty much this. Long guns are a rural/urban divide issue that we'll probably never get over. There's no sane reason to loosen the laws on restricted fire arms, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of a benefit to increasing those laws either. Not my thing at all, it wouldn't affect me at all if they were banned - but I live in a city. Lots of people don't. I feel like there's not a lot that an outright ban would do that more consistently enforcing the current laws wouldn't do. It's already illegal to be in possession of a handgun even with an RPAL except for extremely limited circumstances (transporting it to / from a range while locked in your car), so what additional benefit does a ban provide? There's the argument that legal guns could be stolen, I suppose, but despite the lack of good statistics, it's probably fair to say that it's not significantly harder to smuggle a gun in from the U.S. vs. stealing a gun, so a decreased supply of legal Canadian guns would probably just result in more cross-border smuggling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I feel like there's not a lot that an outright ban would do that more consistently enforcing the current laws wouldn't do. It's already illegal to be in possession of a handgun even with an RPAL except for extremely limited circumstances (transporting it to / from a range while locked in your car), so what additional benefit does a ban provide? Again, 75% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides and the vast majority of those are being committed with legally-purchased and legally-owned firearms. Research also shows that reducing the availability of one method of suicide does not result in an increase of corresponding magnitude in suicide by other means. The gun debate always pisses me off because we're constantly pretending that the only people who die from gun violence are people are are shot by "criminals", i.e. people actively engaged in the commission of multiple crimes, like spree shooters or gang members. That's completely false. The overwhelming majority of people who die from guns die as a result of normal, law-abiding gun ownership, because there's a gun in their house when their depression gets the better of them one day and they decide to shoot themselves, or because there's a gun in their house when they get in a big argument with someone who can't control their temper, and who goes and gets the gun and shoots them. As I said earlier, every gun owner is a law-abiding gun owner until they break the law. The only way to actually prevent the vast majority of gun deaths, which result from unspectacular moments of everyday life, poor mental health, and poor impulse control, is to make it so that there aren't guns in people's houses when those moments occur, and that means heavily restricting or outright banning legal gun possession as well as cracking down on illegal gun possession.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Why is that true for guns but not other things? For example, I read that installing the gates on the Bloor Viaduct didn't affect the number of jumpers across the city overall. I may be completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
xtal posted:Why is that true for guns but not other things? For example, I read that installing the gates on the Bloor Viaduct didn't affect the number of jumpers across the city overall. I may be completely wrong. You are completely wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
The gun suicides are disproportionately farmers right? And farmers have a legitimate excuse to own guns. There's a number of social and economic issues we could work on to hopefully tackle the epidemic of farm suicides, much more practical and effective than taking away the guns. I saw this amazing thread about it yesterday, highly recommended. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1102961388547379202
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Well, it was right when I read it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
THC posted:So is a nonbinding house motion condemning racism. These freaks will latch onto anything Dreylad posted:I mean the Firearms Act already makes exceptions for Indigenous people already. I guess the problem would be making the culture warriors aware of it. Completely banning fire arms for non-natives would definitely mobilize a bunch of currently inert Canadian chuds in a way that current regulations or symbolic condemnations of racism haven't. vyelkin posted:Again, 75% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides and the vast majority of those are being committed with legally-purchased and legally-owned firearms. Research also shows that reducing the availability of one method of suicide does not result in an increase of corresponding magnitude in suicide by other means. Given how most of this thread views rural Canadians this is liable to be received as an argument against stricter gun control measures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
xtal posted:Well, it was right when I read it! It's hardly your fault if they just go changing the facts on you like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
No, all jokes aside I agree the current regime is fine and I think there are much better, more effective and practical ways to combat firearm suicides than taking away farmers' guns
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Radical hot take: it is hard to do suicide by gun if you don't have easy access to a gun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
THC posted:The gun suicides are disproportionately farmers right? And farmers have a legitimate excuse to own guns. There's a number of social and economic issues we could work on to hopefully tackle the epidemic of farm suicides, much more practical and effective than taking away the guns. I saw this amazing thread about it yesterday, highly recommended. Not sure if farmers have a good reason for owning guns, last time I hard about a farmer killing anybody it was some FNs kid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Completely banning fire arms for non-natives would definitely mobilize a bunch of currently inert Canadian chuds in a way that current regulations or symbolic condemnations of racism haven't. Yeah that wasn't me arguing for a law that would surely mobilize the right-wing further, only noting that gun control laws on the books already make some exceptions for First Nations people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Compromise: Farmers can have guns, but only muzzle loading black powder rifles. Also, the police. Ain't no one gonna slam fire one of those into the back of some kid's head by accident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Compromise: Farmers can have guns, but only muzzle loading black powder rifles. Also, the police. I wouldn’t put anything past your average Conservative voter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:Radical hot take: it is hard to do suicide by gun if you don't have easy access to a gun. Well, if you're trying to kill yourself, it's pretty easy to access a gun. Just call 911, say you're experiencing mental distress and they'll come shoot you
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Compromise, ban all guns except for indigenous people that farmers can hire to do their gun things on farms for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
xtal posted:Well, if you're trying to kill yourself, it's pretty easy to access a gun. Just call 911, say you're experiencing mental distress and they'll come shoot you I had a friend that tried to do this recently and the Cops just talked him down and took him a crisis centre for help, but continue being a loving rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:Not sure if farmers have a good reason for owning guns, last time I hard about a farmer killing anybody it was some FNs kid. In rural areas, guns are used frequently but almost never against a human being. When that happens, it makes the news and you hear about it. Colton Bushie was murdered two and a half years ago. Meanwhile, Toronto has lost its mind and is getting days with six different shooting incidents. There's 6.3 million rural Canadians. There's 6.4 million Canadians in the GTA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
THC posted:The gun suicides are disproportionately farmers right? And farmers have a legitimate excuse to own guns. Do they though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
It's for like bears and wild dogs and poo poo isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Do they though? If they keep animals, easy yes. Sometimes animals need to be destroyed, and waiting 6 hours for the vet to come with drugs is needlessly cruel. And even if they don't keep animals, there's wild animals about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Maneck posted:If they keep animals, easy yes. Sometimes animals need to be destroyed, and waiting 6 hours for the vet to come with drugs is needlessly cruel. I really want to see data on the necessity of this though. I'll accept that if your horse broke it's spine or whatever and needs to be put down for humane reasons, that's a good reason to have a pretty dangerous weapon at your disposal. But does it need to be a full calibre semi-automatic firearm? Can it be something else? Same for wild animals. What exactly is the case you're attempting to defend against here? Wild animals attacking you? Wild animals attacking herd animals? How effective are firearms at defending herds? Being out here in ranch county it seems to me that most herds are quite away from people, and so it's dubious to me how realistic the idea of real-time intervention actually is. Are there not alternatives, be it stronger physical barriers to protect your home, or alternative weapons or financial products for protecting your investment in herd animals that avert the need for a firearm? Does the societal cost in suicide even outweigh the losses due to wild animal attacks? Guns are used because that's just how things are done, and people probably want those guns for hunting and amusement and poo poo. That doesn't make them necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Had a friend who was a "camp gunner", basically a hired mercenary to protect surveyors or anyone doing really remote work from wild animals. They're well trained and regulated and absolutely need a gun for their work since their job is primarily to shoot at bears trying to eat your geologists. You load up your first shot with a bear banger, then normal ammo. First shot hopefully spooks the bear, if it doesn't your next shot needs to connect and stop the bear. But if you know your poo poo and know the forest you can generally avoid confrontations with wild animals at all, which is a big part of the training. They'd also set up noise traps and things around the camp to warn for anything entering the perimeter. Just giving all the geologists guns would end up seeing more geologists killed in gun accidents than ever killed by wild animals, so make sure only well trained professionals have access.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I really want to see data on the necessity of this though. I try not to question professionals in their choice of tools, especially farmers, they are after all, out standing in their field.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 23:12
|
|