[herbie]

$1:

I don't see why anyone really needs a handgun, so I don't see the big deal.

Hold a referendum. 80% of Canadians would vote for them to kick down doors, seize all handguns and lock you up if you're ever even seen with one.
And Doc quoting the incovenience to future Olympic shooters, well I'm sure the other 37,000,000 of us have sympathy for the 12 of them.

[Scape]

housewife housewife:

Personally I would like domestic violence to be reported more and automatically end any hope of buying a gun legally.

I'd add to that anyone with a history of animal abuse be permabanned from owning a gun. That would mean we would actually have to take reporting animal abuse seriously.

Pig farmers for example.

[housewife]

Couldn’t agree more!! We should 100% take animal abuse more seriously. That poor dog I just got was starving apparently it was too hard to figure out a way to feed a chihuahua without letting the rotty eat everything. How the f can you miss the fact that one of your dogs is skin and bones?!?

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

Crimes of passion are not crimes that are a slow boil. We can't legislate against a determined malcontents but we can raise the bar so that the people who are a threat to themselves and others in the moment don't have the option to just pick up a gun and make life changes to temporary problems.

Crimes of passion cannot be solved by legislation. If you take away one means of murder, the passionate will just find whatever is nearby; whether that is a gun, knife, or candlestick in the library.

If you take the prime example, Australia, and compare the murder rate from before 1996 when they banned the ownership of all firearms, you'll see the murder rate is little changed today. People are still slaves to their passions, without guns.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/peopl ... rs/2020-21

I'm not advocating that there be no red light laws, or that people with a history of domestic violence have their gun rights taken away. On the contrary, that is exactly what we need. But broad confiscation does not solve these issues, it masks them in security theater.

Scape Scape:

This is where the focus needs to be as the IS a problem not just in the US but here as well as their gun culture has spilled over. We can't legislate the problem away but we can make changes that will keep the lunatics in check.

Their gun culture has not spilled over here. Their politics however is becoming more pervasive. And who have perpetrated the majority of mass killing in Canada lately? The Neo-Nazis, the Incels, the Intolerant Right. Who brought guns and body armour to the Trucker Protest in Coutts? What does this bill do to address the actual problems we have? Nothing. Am I worried that I might be involved in some random mass shooting, even though I work near the Legislature building? No. Will I feel safer knowing that the legal gun owners will still be complying with the law? No.

Scape Scape:

Much like a guard rail on a staircase keeps you from falling, it's never going to stop you from being pushed from someone determined to do so but for an accident or a simple mistake it will save you. That's what these restrictions are for.

If it were legal gun owners that perpetrate mass shootings, I would agree that steps need to be taken to address that demographic. But one recent mass shooting was done with guns smuggled into Canada, and another was done with a rented van. The Quebec mosque shooter abandoned his rifle with illegal size magazines when it misfired, instead using his Glock pistols. And thanks to the lack of information released by RCMP, we don't know if that pistol was purchased legally. Releasing that information would likely be detrimental to the RCMPs stance than no one should own pistols.

[DrCaleb]

herbie herbie:

And Doc quoting the incovenience to future Olympic shooters, well I'm sure the other 37,000,000 of us have sympathy for the 12 of them.

You asked who was being punished. They are just one example.

If they can take away property for lawful owners, what else can they legislatively confiscate because it's politically convenient?

[herbie]

$1:

If they can take away property for lawful owners, what else can they legislatively confiscate because it's politically convenient?

Your house, your car, any cash they don't like your accounting of... shall I go on?

Honestly describing the inconvenience to an insignificant amount of people is a pretty thin argument. They are NOT taking the handguns away from legitimate owners, the assault rifles they do will be compensated, and just like businesses - collectors don't have constitutional rights to a profit.
You can still hunt with firearms, you can still obtain them if you qualify, you can still bring your handgun to a range and pretend it's more than just simple fun.

[Scape]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm not advocating that there be no red light laws, or that people with a history of domestic violence have their gun rights taken away. On the contrary, that is exactly what we need. But broad confiscation does not solve these issues, it masks them in security theater.

Guns are tools and any tool can be misused. Yet, I don't see power saws being used in mass casualties incidents. Gun have been glamorized by the gun industry to increase sales but the side effect to that was it became prevalent in society with masculinity and identity. Removing guns isn't security theater its holding an industry in check that failed to regulate itself.

Removing guns from general circulation and making gun ownership only for particular vocational requirements is the only choice at this point. Something the gun industry itself should have enacted on their own terms instead of playing with fire to make the gun glamorous to up sales and forcing the government to take action to eradicate the threat of mass shootings.

Yes, there are many responsible gun owners but the industry is NOT AT ALL responsible for repercussions of the tools of the trade. Had Smith and Wesson been held accountable for guns used in mass shootings they would have made changes to gun design and how it was sold but they weren't and they didn't. Every time there is a mass shooting the makers of the guns have their hands red with responsibility. If these were cars there would be laws and recalls. Why are guns above the law?

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

Yes, there are many responsible gun owners but the industry is NOT AT ALL responsible for repercussions of the tools of the trade. Had Smith and Wesson been held accountable for guns used in mass shootings they would have made changes to gun design and how it was sold but they weren't and they didn't. Every time there is a mass shooting the makers of the guns have their hands red with responsibility. If these were cars there would be laws and recalls. Why are guns above the law?

But it's not the companies or the guns being punished, it's the law abiding people. What if we gave everyone a red light ticket just because they owned an expensive car, even if they are driving on green? They might go fast at some point, so they should be punished because the car companies have built an image of speed into their product.

It that the logic we want society to be based on? Or do we want to punish the people who actually do something wrong?

[Scape]

Canadian Court Rules Gun Maker Smith & Wesson Can Be Liable for 2018 Shooting

Law abiding people are also dying in mass shootings. If the common culprit in these shooting are guns then the right of gun ownership for all is under threat.

[DrCaleb]

But the common culprit isn't guns. It's hate.

[Scape]

You can't make hate safe but you can make a gun safe. The onus on that is at the manufactures level, not the individual. We are not living in the wild west 1800's. There are means that can be implemented to make the tools of the trade less accessible to the lunatic fringe who see no regulation as a green flag for their killing sprees.

[herbie]

I gave away my guns years ago when I moved to town. The old FAC expired decades back, if I want a gun again I gotta jump thru all the hoops. So be it.
If I had one, I'd have shot the fucking bear that's been terrorizing the subdivision for 5 years now and they would've taken it away and banned me from ever getting one again.
Shots and bear bangers going off every fucking night and the 3 cops that live in the subdivision don't even stick their heads out the door to see WTF is going on. Conservation places traps that the bear knows are traps and takes them away 24 hrs later. Only work Mon-Fri 9 to 5 and only 1 trap to serve an area the size of Metro Vancouver.
Prefer to hunt pushing a shopping cart and returning meat that tastes like shit.
Did lots of target shooting on my old rural farm and the pellet gun was just as much fun poking holes in paper.
I agree guns are just tools.
Want to hunt with a rifle or shotgun? You got my 100% support. Want a handgun or assault style weapon just cuz you want one - come up with ONE valid reason

[DrCaleb]

Scape Scape:

You can't make hate safe but you can make a gun safe.

How can we know if we don't try? Fixing the symptom won't fix the problem. Making a gun safe from someone who would never use it improperly is a waste of effort.

Let's try applying intense scrutiny to those churning out people who hate other people, and see what that does.

[housewife]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Scape Scape:

You can't make hate safe but you can make a gun safe.

How can we know if we don't try? Fixing the symptom won't fix the problem. Making a gun safe from someone who would never use it improperly is a waste of effort.

Let's try applying intense scrutiny to those churning out people who hate other people, and see what that does.

Doc that sorta sounds like 1984. Unfortunately any plan has to take into account that people would be involved. Lots of things sound good on paper till you add people. We all know that there will be people on the intense security team with visions of ruling the world or at least their part of it. Plus a few with good intentions

[DrCaleb]

housewife housewife:

Doc that sorta sounds like 1984.

I'm not talking about anything new, only acting on what we already have. Things like preventing the drones we've seen that bring guns across the border from the US. In the Ukraine videos, we see soldiers using anti-drone weapons. Does Customs and Border Service have these? How much coastline along the Great Lakes is actually patrolled, and how often?

Dealing with illegal guns should be a lot more important than dealing with the legal ones.

housewife housewife:

Unfortunately any plan has to take into account that people would be involved. Lots of things sound good on paper till you add people. We all know that there will be people on the intense security team with visions of ruling the world or at least their part of it. Plus a few with good intentions

We already have stories about 3%ers and Sons of Odinin the military (look that up if you don't know). We know about ISIS recruiters in Canada. We know about Holocaust Deniers in Canada. We know about extremist groups setting up drug counselling homes, halfway homes for the recently paroled, for the purpose of recruiting the vulnerable.

What is being done about these things? And then there is the whole issue of 4chan. Look at the connection of many recent mass murderers to that site.

I think there are many things that can be done inside the existing system, with existing laws, before we punish a group that has nothing to do with the problem just because another portion of the population sees that group as a problem because they don't pay enough attention to the issue, but just follow political partisan talking points. Consider what I wrote before, that one mass murderer imported his own firearms from the US, and one used a rental van. No known mass murderers in Canada have been licensed handgun owners. Why vilify them? Trudeau banned the use of over 1500 types of rifles just because of the way they look, and left a number of others that are functionally equal still legal.

I think there should be more facts and logic involved in the decisions affecting society, and less emotion.