An effective response would include selective urban ban with stronger enforcement of existing laws. CSSA seems to prefer that gun owners get reassured their guns are fine because random shooting casualties are in cities.
Perhaps people with an exaggerated level of fear for personal safety and/or belief in conspiracy theories shouldn't be able to acquire them. I don't understand the resistance to registering a firearm when it is purchased. We do it with cars. If firearm registration returned we would either register or sell the long guns we have. No biggie.
Identifying people with anger issues at a young age and working with them to have acceptable outlets would go a long way towards curbing violence across society.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-liberal-handgun-ban-caucus-divide-1.4819711
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Weight loss is more than calories in and calories out. Research using a pool of 10,000 participants. People tend to gain weight back. Differ...
-
We were in Edmonton so I took the opportunity to visit the Microsoft Store, check out the Go and finally purchased it. I knew there was a ... -
Have you checked out your google info? Now much clearer! https://www.androidcentral.com/google-account-page-android-updated-new-ui-and-featu...
I think some of the problem is that people can acquire weapons and then depart the path of mental stability.. in which case they're now armed (in some cases to the teeth) and unstable..
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's need or desire to own a weapon that won't show some form of instability (other than for hunting/farming).
I agree and part of the solution should be coping tools for dealing with frustration and anger.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, the only folks carrying around handguns are those who have gone through not one, but TWO levels of certification - the regular PAL program AND the Restricted PAL.
ReplyDeleteBecause handguns are restricted in Canada, with a lengthy list of requirements when transporting them outside of your home, like they can only be transported to and from an approved gun range - and you technically aren't allowed to make ANY stops on that journey. (Unless things have changed drastically in the 7/8 years since I last took the PAL program to get my license.)
So there are the lawful handgun owners - and there are the criminals who won't be affected by any change in legislation. It just becomes burdensome for legal owners. The registry, again, only really affects the legal gun owners.
So go 'full ban' - the people using them for crime will STILL use them for crime - because they weren't concerned with the legalities in the first place. All this will do is raise the voices of those legal owners who will start screaming about governments "confiscating our legal firearms, what will they take from you next?"
(Full disclosure, I don't actually own any firearms, even though I was licensed to ... didn't renew it. But I was raised around them, know how to use them, and spent a time shooting competitively in my youth.)
Yeah - stronger enforcement with focus on urban areas, I feel, make more sense than new laws.
ReplyDeleteDoesn’t matter what you do, you will never get rid of guns. You will just know where less of them are because people will stop registering them.
ReplyDeleteI agree, guns will never be gone. They don't require a lot of maintenance, enough people are in favour of them and they are portable so they could never all be confiscated. At this time, all handguns in the wild in Canada are either illegally attained or illegally stored. Those should all be destroyed when "found". All long guns used in a crime (including poaching) should also be destroyed. And ammunition should be very difficult to attain and taxed like cigarettes and/or alcohol.
ReplyDeleteCass Morrison good luck with that. Not gonna happen. Just like when the government was taking peoples gold, they buried it. If people want to keep their guns, you will not find them. It’s a waste of money.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is not going to happen hunky dory ? The government isn't going to uphold the current hand gun law? Implement stronger deterrents like destroying/disabling weapons confiscated as part of a criminal investigation? Taxing ammunition? Why not? Why do gun owners feel people who have nothing to do with firearms have to pay with their lives to protect firearms owners?
ReplyDeleteCass Morrison to protect themselves from IRRESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS. Responsible gun owners are the ones who will suffer and only them. Plus what are you going to do with the guns people are making on 3D printers? Anything done by the government in the form of taxes, destroying guns will only hurt responsible gun owners. You take away their guns and they will start getting them illegally from the illegal gun owners and you will have to spend more money to find them more illegal guns and responsible gun owners will sit in jails while the illegals will have ALL the guns. And you won’t find them. Where do you go from here? You are going to make responsible gun owners into illegal gun owners. Just like smoking. Now smokers are finding underground illegal cigarette dealers. Where does it end? People will always find a way. They always do.
ReplyDeleteAnd then people who would not normally get guns will have to to protect themselves from more illegal guns on the street and they will go to illegal gun dealers to get them because of the hassles of getting a registered gun. Now we have a bigger problem.
ReplyDeleteSo your solution is to do nothing; to protect the "rights" of gun owners instead of people walking around. Let the minority rule because they have more effective weapons of violence.
ReplyDeleteCass Morrison what exactly do you want to do? What you are suggesting only punishes the good people come up with something that does not infringe on the Rights of decent people. Why do you want to punish goodness only to leave evil in total control? I don’t have a solution but what you are presenting is not a solution that helps with illegal gun control. You are punishing good decent responsible people. I’ll brain storm with you but what have we got. I am not going to punish good people for doing the right things. It’s wrong.
ReplyDeletehunky dory You never answer how does destroying a gun used in a crime penalizes responsible gun owners. As a RESPONSIBLE GUN owner I would expect guns stolen from me then used in a shooting crime to be confiscated and possibly destroyed. I would also retrieve them if I had to abandon them during an evacuation and the police collected them to prevent them from being stolen.
ReplyDeleteI feel I have consistently offered solutions but as a good faith response I will list them here for a final time.
1) Stronger enforcement of existing acquisition laws
a. heftier fines for people found to be not storing guns as mandated by current law
b. more resources for monitoring goods coming into Canada to prevent entry
c. destruction of firearms used in any shooting event that causes a death. In the case of self defense it is likely you're close enough to use the gun as a bludgeon or far enough to run away. (run, hide, fight is a thing)
d. easier to use security footage for pursuing criminals
2) Education including
a. community building around positive aspects
b. anger management from a young age (I think this is already happening a lot)
c. firearms safety for situational awareness and easier compliance with existing laws.
3) taxing ammunition similar to alcohol, cigarettes for cross border shopping
4) Registration and insurance - like cars. I don't fear my car being taken away because I have plates on it even though I will be penalized by laws for mis-use of my vehicle. If I sell or buy a vehicle privately, if I want to use it on public roads, I get plates. I don't understand why other gun owners don't feel the same.
If I felt unsafe in my community and couldn't move, I would rely on security cameras and a safe room rather than being able to hurt or kill someone with a gun.
Cass Morrison If I was living somewhere I didn't feel safe, and couldn't leave, odds are I also have insufficient resources to have any form of access to a safe room. In said example, a firearm (even a rifle) has a significantly lower cost to acquire. What's the going rate on a safe room these days? How do you get one installed in an apartment that you don't own? You can still have a gun in that scenario.
ReplyDeleteJust playing devil's advocate on this. Besides, there are so many more ways to hurt/kill an intruder/attacker than just guns, if you're creative.
When I think of safe room, I think of isolated home owners who would hunker down in safety until assailants left or the police came. In an apartment (and urban/suburban) buildings I think of escape routes. I take RUN, HIDE, FIGHT seriously🙂
ReplyDeleteI always remember when a guy I lived with inherited a black powder rifle. He told me if someone broke in grab any of the guns on the rack and...swing at the person. They are heavy enough to hurt them badly. We have fire extinguishers all around the house. I would consider those as reasonable defensive weapons, heavy for swinging, sprays stuff for distance. Cheap and unregulated for home use.
Cass Morrison Cass I believe in everything you say but to me it’s not a solution. I don’t believe in the government to fund this cause, and it will take money, lots of it. As far as cops go, I refer you to what they did in High River to the RESPONSIBLE gun owners. Cops can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteI know what they did in High River to responsible gun owners. They took guns out of abandoned houses to prevent looters from getting them then gave them back to the responsible owners who came to claim them. I want current laws to be enforced much stronger and guns destroyed.
ReplyDeletePeople are shit - that's why guns should be more difficult to access. That SK farmer who killed someone with a handgun got a minor slap on the wrist for improper storage of a hand gun. I'm sure he thinks he's a responsible gun owner even though he couldn't be bothered to actually store that handgun in accordance with Canadian law. That gun should have been destroyed and him put in jail for having an illegal handgun.
Cass Morrison those responsible gun owners in High River had to fight to get their guns back. And those cops broke into homes to get them. If that farmer would not have had his gun, he and his family would be dead, and that is a FACT. Colton Boushie did have a rifle and would have used it. It was laying beside him with his finger prints on it. The farmer was justified, native or not. Marijuana will soon be legal and the paperwork and dispensaries wanting to get into my personal medical records will keep me with my dealer. So there’s that as well. Registering anything with the government is a mistake. Sorry. Until cops learn to be respectful of responsible people and credit them for being responsible, they are not to be trusted.
ReplyDeleteSo you think people who run towards thieves in a moving vehicle are sensible. And a farmer who illegally stores a loaded handgun is a responsible gun owner. This is why people argue there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone can enter a home and see a gun it's a target to looters. A responsible gun owners would take guns with them or make sure they're well hidden. As for getting guns back - you have to prove they're yours. If you don't want to register it's a lot harder to prove.
You really think gun owners being inconvenienced is way more important than people getting killed.hunky dory . Gotcha.
edited to remove inflamatory comment. Closed thread because I think a responsible gun owner would be willing to have their gun destroyed or disabled if it was used in a violent crime