In response to U.S. gun carnage, Canada to enact tough laws

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Well I want a tank to show off to my buddies. Or a javelin missile. Or a nuke! I'm responsible so I should be able to have them.

Some things are dangerous enough that they need to be kept out of civilian hands. I think everyone would agree with that sentence we just disagree on where that line is. I would put AR-15s on the other side of that line.

Sure.  But the more stuff you include on the other side of that line, the harder it is for legislation to be passed.  You will never get anything passed that includes banning those types of weapons now.

(And the jury is most definitely out on how "effective" the 1994 assault weapons ban actually was.)

The 98% are part of the problem. Not the main one, but the culture of fetishizing guns is the underlying cause of all gun related issues in this country.

Absolutely not.  People have responsibly owned guns for generations.  The "underlying cause" is that they are too easily obtained by people who are dangerous, and because of that, we need to make sure that they are not so easily obtainable. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

BTW, I would add to my list that the only place that guns should be able to be purchased is through a licensed gun shop.  No private sales.  No pawn shops.  And if people engage in a sale outside of a licensed shop, the seller is in line for strict penalties as well as the buyer.

[muwarrior69]

Sounds like a complete gun ban to me.

The new Canadian legislation will also put a “red flag” law in place that will enable the courts to require individuals who are considered a danger to themselves or others to surrender their firearms to law enforcement. Canadian citizens who were involved in domestic violence or criminal harassment acts like stalking will lose their firearm licenses.

Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?

Is this what we want here?

https://marketrealist.com/p/did-canada-ban-all-guns/#:~:text=Did%20Canada%20ban%20all%20guns%3F%20Article%20continues%20below,who%20can%20own%20a%20gun%20and%20gun%20sales.

[Pakuni]

(And the jury is most definitely out on how "effective" the 1994 assault weapons ban actually was.)

Copying from an earlier post of mine:

From the link you provided:

A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.

A study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law's impact on public mass shootings.[44] Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities. Gius found that while assault weapons were not the primary weapon used in this subset of mass shootings, fatalities and injuries were statistically lower during the period the federal ban was active. The 2018 Rand analysis noted that the federal law portion of this analysis lacked a comparison group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects


University of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, author of the book “Rampage Nation,” found that the number of gun massacres dropped by 37 percent and the number of gun massacre deaths feel by 43 percent while the ban was in effect compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed in 2004, those numbers dramatically rose – a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?noredirect=on

A 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that, based on data from 1981 to 2017, there were fewer mass-shooting deaths while the ban was in place.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

A 2017 study in the Journal of Urban Health observed that law enforcement recovery of assault weapons fell nationwide while the ban was in base, indicating that they were used in fewer crimes, but increased after the ban expired.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7


The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33783360/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?

Is this what we want here?

No. No (unless criticizing includes repeated threats of violence or trespassing). No. Yes (though I'm not sure what your example was, are you saying that one spouse threw a beer can at the TV, it bounced off the TV and hit the other spouse and that lone incident somehow led to them pressing charges? Cause that has never happened). 1000% Yes.

[dgies9156]

Gang, there are four types of gun owners in this country, all with very different goals and objectives in owning guns. Legislation that fixes one problem generates serious problems for another.

1) Hunters -- These are the people the NRA used to represent. This is most of Wisconsin, which hunts deer, birds, wolves, squirrels and any other non-human life form. It's a combination of a sport and social event that is deeply woven into the fabric of many parts of non-coastal America. For the most part, hunters are well-trained in how to use firearms, are very careful about protecting and securing their firearms and all of their firearms are licensed. These are the responsible gun owners and while their firearms are occasionally pilfered, they're so securely locked up that most are not.

2) Collectors -- These are gun owners who collect firearms. Their hobby may have started with a revolutionary war musket or a civil war artifact or maybe even war booty grampa collected in World War II. More recently, these folks have everything from Glocks to Uzis. They claim they just want to look at them, but most are functional and many pieces in their collections are illegal if they're operational. This is the group that, candidly, scares me the most because they're in a gray area between having large stashes of both legal and illegal weaponry for collectables and being able to put those collections to use. I'd love to see some kind of gun control aimed at this group of people and limiting the size of firearms collections. It will never happen because both collectors and the people who serve collectors are at the core of the NRA.

3) Protectors -- Living in Florida, these folks scare the bejabbers out of me. Their weapons all are permitted and legal. Purse packing women are everywhere, spurred on by 10 minutes a night of violent crime reports on local news. This is the strongest emotional explanation for a gun -- "I'm protecting my family and my home." I have a friend of mine who lives outside Fairbanks and who carries a pistol when walking from his home to his workshop to scare off wayward moose and bear. He doesn't shoot them, but fires into the air. Many in the rural west are miles from the nearest police officer and need some type of gun for protection. But, in urban areas where the police are minutes or seconds away, the protection line loses merit. The problem with gun control is that the rural residents have a legitimate need for some firearms. Urban residents generally don't, given the ubiquity of their police departments. It's extraordinarily difficult to separate this group for purposes of legislation as taking the gun out of a hand of someone in Miami may mean doing the same in rural Fairbanks. I do have a problem with the enormous number of conceal carry permits passed out in Florida and the ability to get one basically if you can write your name and suffer through a gun training class. Heck, we even have gun shops in Florida "just for women" (sell lighter and easier to handle weapons, some of which are in pink).

4) Peoples We All Agree Shouldn't Have Guns -- Criminals, mentally disturbed individuals and those who have a previously violent past. The problem with any gun control is this is the last group of people likely to be without firearms. It just is. As the supply of firearms goes down because of legislation, the value of firearms goes up and the desire of the underworld to sell them increases exponentially. That's reality, socialism notwithstanding.

Look, these are the obstacles to "sensible" gun control. We all want Group 4 targeted and many of us would like Groups 2 and 3 targeted for de-weaponization. I'm all for it but I don't ant hunters to  lose out because of a problem they didn't create and while I am very concerned about Protectors overdoing it, I also recognize the need in many parts of this country to have firearms available as a deterrent.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sure.  But the more stuff you include on the other side of that line, the harder it is for legislation to be passed.  You will never get anything passed that includes banning those types of weapons now.

Yes it makes more difficult and that doesn't mean I wouldn't take smaller steps in the interim. However, I think we will see a ban on AR-15s pass in my lifetime. Unfortunately dozens, possibly hundreds more children will likely need to die before it happens.

(And the jury is most definitely out on how "effective" the 1994 assault weapons ban actually was.)

See Pakuni's post. All measurables point to the ban being effective at reducing casualties in mass shootings and those numbers getting worse when the ban expired.

Absolutely not.  People have responsibly owned guns for generations.  The "underlying cause" is that they are too easily obtained by people who are dangerous, and because of that, we need to make sure that they are not so easily obtainable.

And we have always had a problem with gun violence. The difference is the proliferation and effectiveness of these weapons has increased. Your underlying cause is the more pressing concern and needs to be addressed but that doesn't mean there isn't a deeper level of causation. The 98% are also overrepresented in our government which is keeping any level of gun control from moving forward.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Copying from an earlier post of mine:

From the link you provided:

A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.

A study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law's impact on public mass shootings.[44] Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities. Gius found that while assault weapons were not the primary weapon used in this subset of mass shootings, fatalities and injuries were statistically lower during the period the federal ban was active. The 2018 Rand analysis noted that the federal law portion of this analysis lacked a comparison group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects


University of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, author of the book “Rampage Nation,” found that the number of gun massacres dropped by 37 percent and the number of gun massacre deaths feel by 43 percent while the ban was in effect compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed in 2004, those numbers dramatically rose – a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?noredirect=on

A 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that, based on data from 1981 to 2017, there were fewer mass-shooting deaths while the ban was in place.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

A 2017 study in the Journal of Urban Health observed that law enforcement recovery of assault weapons fell nationwide while the ban was in base, indicating that they were used in fewer crimes, but increased after the ban expired.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7


The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33783360/

Cool.  I could find studies that doubted its effectiveness too.  For instance...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292345050_The_Tenuous_Connections_Involving_Mass_Shootings_Mental_Illness_and_Gun_Laws

"Despite the good intentions behind the ban, its impact on mass killings was negligible.... As shown, the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect. Not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at theirdisposal....Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters."

[Pakuni]

Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence? .

It's routine for police in this country to confiscate firearms from people arrested for domestic violence.
And federal law prohibits firearm possession for people convicted of domestic violence.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

4) Peoples We All Agree Shouldn't Have Guns -- Criminals, mentally disturbed individuals and those who have a previously violent past. The problem with any gun control is this is the last group of people likely to be without firearms. It just is. As the supply of firearms goes down because of legislation, the value of firearms goes up and the desire of the underworld to sell them increases exponentially. That's reality, socialism notwithstanding.

This is incorrect. As supply of firearms goes down, the price of illegal firearms increases exponentially creating an economic barrier. Who is more likely to be able afford illegal weapons? Collectors/hunters/protectors? Or the mentally ill/criminals? It also makes it exponentially more difficult for people, especially the mentally ill, to be able to find or obtain certain guns. It takes a level or know how and determination that many potential shooters just don't have. Plus it creates multiple opportunities for the police to intervene during the illegal sale of these weapons, meaning we may be able to arrest a future mass shooter as he is buying the weapon rather than after he has killed dozens of children. It also elongates the process, allowing for more people to notice red flags and possibly intervene.

Also, hunters, collectors, and protectors can turn into criminals in the blink of an eye.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?

LOL

[Pakuni]

Cool.  I could find studies that doubted its effectiveness too.  For instance...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292345050_The_Tenuous_Connections_Involving_Mass_Shootings_Mental_Illness_and_Gun_Laws

"Despite the good intentions behind the ban, its impact on mass killings was negligible.... As shown, the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect. Not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at theirdisposal....Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters."

So what you're telling me is that a ban on assault weapons didn't prevent people from using other weapons?

Also, what you (and this study) ignore is that while the frequency didn't change much, the severity/casualties/deaths did.
I would argue that's a good thing.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Cool.  I could find studies that doubted its effectiveness too.  For instance...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292345050_The_Tenuous_Connections_Involving_Mass_Shootings_Mental_Illness_and_Gun_Laws

"Despite the good intentions behind the ban, its impact on mass killings was negligible.... As shown, the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect. Not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at theirdisposal....Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters."

This study only focused on frequency of mass shootings, not casualties per. Yes, if assault weapons are not available, mass shooters will turn to other less effective weapons. While preventing a mass shooting altogether is a better outcome, lowering the amount of casualties is still a worthy goal.

[YaBlueIt]

Gang, there are four types of gun owners in this country, all with very different goals and objectives in owning guns. Legislation that fixes one problem generates serious problems for another.

By "serious problems" do you mean having to fill out a little extra paperwork, completing a background check, or having to go through a waiting period in order to purchase a gun?

I'm very curious to hear what serious problems would arise that outweigh the benefits of curbing gun violence. Most proposals being made would be an inconvenience at worst to responsible gun owners.

[dgies9156]

This is incorrect. As supply of firearms goes down, the price of illegal firearms increases exponentially creating an economic barrier. Who is more likely to be able afford illegal weapons? Collectors/hunters/protectors? Or the mentally ill/criminals? It also makes it exponentially more difficult for people, especially the mentally ill, to be able to find or obtain certain guns. It takes a level or know how and determination that many potential shooters just don't have. Plus it creates multiple opportunities for the police to intervene during the illegal sale of these weapons, meaning we may be able to arrest a future mass shooter as he is buying the weapon rather than after he has killed dozens of children. It also elongates the process, allowing for more people to notice red flags and possibly intervene.

Also, hunters, collectors, and protectors can turn into criminals in the blink of an eye.

Brother TAMU

Have we revoked the law of supply and demand. The market clearing function is price and the suppliers will find news way to build supply and price at the maximum a hoodlum is willing to pay.

Do I understand you correctly that you are prepared to ban all firearms because hunters or protectors might sell to hoodlums?

Brother YaBlueIt:

Are you related to Vida Blue?

I'm certainly not arguing against background checks, registration and waiting periods, which we have now. I am arguing that if you are advocating getting guns out of the hands of civilians, eliminating certain types of weapons (i.e., handguns) or taxing the daylights out of ammunition (which has been proposed here), then we have serious cause and effect problem with certain law-abiding gun owners that outlined above.

[JWags85]

Brother Wags, and Scoop friends, respectfully,
In my experience living in many countries including UK, Russia, China, Indonesia and Singapore, none of those countries - even the most oppressive ones - have armed police.  Why?  Because the populace doesn't have guns.  Gun crime is almost unheard-of... from theft to murder.  (OK, they all have armed units of the police that come out in special cases, but Joe Average Cop has only a nightstick and his/her sense of humor to defuse a situation).  Gun control can be done.

I don't want to divert the conversation too much, but I have no interest in the US becoming like Russia/China/Indonesia/Singapore where it comes to ruling its citizens and the oppressive nature of law. 

Hunting is fine.  If a family lives below the poverty level and truly hunts for food, then the taxes on firearms could be waived... like food stamps for guns.  But with proof, psycho testing, drug testing and all the other requirements in place for all owners.   My South African colleagues - who live in a country with a huge hunting industry but strict gun control - are all subject to inspections and a competency test to own firearms.  The Aussie solution worked very well.  The point is that it's really truly only in the US where any clown can buy a gun and 100 rounds and go kill people all in the same day.  The 2nd amendment does not protect that persons rights because they are not part of a well regulated ANYTHING nor is any other average gun owner. 

Now youre jumping around.  So Hunting is only allowed by the poor for basic survival?  If a normal, responsible middle class citizen wants to hunt, they need to pay $10K a year and schedule their hunts 2 weeks in advance?

I have no problem with competency tests and inspections like SA, great.  But thats very different than your exorbitant taxing and fee structure meant to price guns out of any normal person's hands.

My point:  The US government is not exercising it's right to regulate guns under the 2nd amendment and it needs to or these needless shootings will just continue.  Use the drivers license comparison, use the abortion comparison, use whatever you want to get there, but get there and fix it.  If WE all have not written to our senators this week with our views then WE are part of the problem.  I have written to mine and several others.

Absolutely.  Regulate, inspect, train, restrict certain guns.  All good things.

$10K annual fees.  Guns stored at off sight locations. $100 bullets.  Thats the kind of way out of bounds nonsense, from people that see no need or use for guns at all personally which precludes them from processing the safe and responsible use of them by millions of people, that derail conversations completely.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Brother TAMU

Have we revoked the law of supply and demand. The market clearing function is price and the suppliers will find news way to build supply and price at the maximum a hoodlum is willing to pay.

Do I understand you correctly that you are prepared to ban all firearms because hunters or protectors might sell to hoodlums?

Didn't say anything of the sort. Strictly speaking AR-15s and their like. The much more likely outcome of banning these weapons is that mass shooters will turn to less efficient weapons to carry out their atrocities. It won't stop mass shootings, but if 9 10 year olds die instead of 19, that's a worthwhile win.

[Jockey]

Sounds like a complete gun ban to me.

The new Canadian legislation will also put a “red flag” law in place that will enable the courts to require individuals who are considered a danger to themselves or others to surrender their firearms to law enforcement. Canadian citizens who were involved in domestic violence or criminal harassment acts like stalking will lose their firearm licenses.

Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?

Is this what we want here?

https://marketrealist.com/p/did-canada-ban-all-guns/#:~:text=Did%20Canada%20ban%20all%20guns%3F%20Article%20continues%20below,who%20can%20own%20a%20gun%20and%20gun%20sales.

Get your talking points from QAnon?

Guns more important to you than dead kids?

Weapons of war should be banned and ALL guns should be licensed and tax just like cars.

[Merit Matters]

Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.

[brewcity77]

Is this what we want here?

Yes. Immediately, if not sooner.

Also, I love how you ignore the answer immediately given in the article to the question you pose. "Did Canada ban all guns? No, the new gun control measures in Canada won’t ban all guns in the country"

[noblewarrior]

Yes. Immediately, if not sooner.

Also, I love how you ignore the answer immediately given in the article to the question you pose. "Did Canada ban all guns? No, the new gun control measures in Canada won’t ban all guns in the country"

Gun stores in the Canadia frontier sold out of hand guns the day after Castro's love child (this is a troll) made this announcement.  All criminals, I'm sure.  There's a need and a demand for individuals to be able to defend themselves... from other ill intended individuals and governments.   

[Pakuni]

Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.

It's literally at the top of the page at CNN.com, Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Yahoo and NPR at this very moment. I'm sure others.

https://www.cnn.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.npr.org/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/
https://www.yahoo.com/

Your white grievance is pathetic.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.

Here's CNN's live update page since you can't seem to find it on your own: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/tulsa-oklahoma-hospital-shooting-06-02-22/index.html

If you are just talking about what people are paying attention to, sorry 19 dead 10 year olds is more shocking and more abhorent than 4 dead adults. Both are tragedies but you could understand why the average joe might pay more attention to one than the other.

But I see that this is yet another case a man being able to legally buy an AR-15 and shortly afterwards (same day in this instance) go on a rampage. We can never know if increased gun control could have prevented this, but I see a reasonable argument that a mandatory waiting period may have allowed this individual time to cool down, have second thoughts, or display enough red flags that someone else would be able to intervene.

[Merit Matters]

It's literally at the top of the page at CNN.com, Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Yahoo and NPR at this very moment. I'm sure others.

https://www.cnn.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.npr.org/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/
https://www.yahoo.com/

Your white grievance is pathetic.

You ever notice how I never personally attack anyone here? And except for the Daily Beast, not much information on the shooter, picture, description, etc. You could see why people question media and narrative bias. Just an observation.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You ever notice how I never personally attack anyone here? And except for the Daily Beast, not much information on the shooter, picture, description, etc. You could see why people question media and narrative bias. Just an observation.

A dumb one...but sure.