# NZ gun law change



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

If this were a USA forum I would have to post this in the 'Hot Button' sub-forum but since this is a Canadian Forum, I think I can post it just in General Discussion.

After the mosque attack in New Zealand, their Prime Minister tabled a bill in parliament to ban all military style, semi-automatic weapons. Not only did she table the bill but the New Zealand parliament passed it in under a week of the mosque attack happening.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-zealand-assault-rifle-ban-why-u-s-wont-follow-suit-1.5066752

Thank goodness we live in Canada.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> If this were a USA forum I would have to post this in the 'Hot Button' sub-forum but since this is a Canadian Forum, I think I can post it just in General Discussion.
> 
> After the mosque attack in New Zealand, their Prime Minister tabled a bill in parliament to ban all military style, semi-automatic weapons. Not only did she table the bill but the New Zealand parliament passed it in under a week of the mosque attack happening.
> 
> ...


Our gun laws are already too restrictive, and not properly enforced.

The problem with guns isn't the 100 year old semi automatic technology, it's bad people having them.
We have incredibly restrictive gun laws in Canada, to legally have a firearm of any type we have significant restrictions.
To get a handgun or "certain scary looking guns", it's even more restrictive.

Law abiding gun owners in Canada aren't the problem.

Almost all gun crimes in Canada are from people violating the law. The news is full of people with criminal records getting caught with guns, or committing gun crimes.
The reports of law abiding gun owners in Canada committing crimes are virtually nonexistant

For those of you who don't know.
It is not legal to transport a handgun (or certain scary guns) unless it is locked up in a container.
If you have a handgun that isn't locked in a box, you're likely committing a crime.

Finally the gun grabbers and their "military style/assault weapons", do they think that the outwards appearance really matters that much?
Painting it black and making it "military" doesn't make a Ruger SR22 more dangerous than a typical shotgun.

I find the whole gun debate a bastion of ignorance. The data is very clear, lawful gun ownership in Canada is not a problem.

It's the known criminals who commit crime after crime that are the problem.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In Ontario hospitals are required to report any patients treated for gunshot wounds.

A report by the Canadian Medical Association revealed there were 355 patients under the age of 25 who received care for gunshot wounds in a recent year. 

Of those patients 25% of the patients died as a result of their wounds. The study also revealed that 75% of the wounds were caused by "accident".

The numbers do not include suicide by use of a gun, which would increase the numbers.

What the study revealed is that gun violence is more prevalent in Canada than most people understand it to be, and there is a large segment of gun owners who are not adhering to the laws regarding the safe storage of guns and ammunition.

The police don't conduct random checks of gun owner's homes to ensure they are adhering to the law, and it only becomes known after an incident occurs.

Clearly the problem isn't responsible gun owners, but those who are irresponsible. Allowing access to more powerful weapons doesn't appear to be a good idea.

https://london.ctvnews.ca/one-child...ury-each-day-in-ontario-study-finds-1.3341983


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

355 in all of Ontario is a rounding error, not a concern. Most likely gang activity which won’t be controlled by more legislation. LA probably has more issues in a week with a smaller population, but keep up the FUD.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Thanks for that article Sags. I wasn't sure what the takeaway was.
I see stats in this article pointing out over 1,000 work-related deaths per year. I think we need more laws to prevent accidents at work, particularly commuting to work. I wouldn't ban work entirely, but we may have to do that eventually.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

We can ban work and just live off government social programs and UBI...no more tax payers, we’ll just run deficits and the budget will balance itself. 

Sags for prime minister!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> In Ontario hospitals are required to report any patients treated for gunshot wounds.
> 
> A report by the Canadian Medical Association revealed there were 355 patients under the age of 25 who received care for gunshot wounds in a recent year.
> 
> ...


Sorry, gun "accidents" are incredibly rare, if you don't point it at yourself, you can't shoot yourself. 
I never point a gun at another person.
When I do point it at myself, I put my finger in the chamber (where the bullet goes) to ensure it isn't loaded. This is taught in the mandatory firearm safety course.
If you "accidentally" shoot yourself, it's either failed suicide or gross negligence. 

Now most importantly is "more powerful weapons", that isn't the debate. It's about the scary looking guns, which is why they keep talking about "assault rifles". 
It's like more modern ergonomics &styling somehow makes the gun more powerful in the minds of gun grabbers.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Accidents can't be that rare, Mr. Matt. Here in Oregon there are billboards that show a child and a gun, with reminders such as "Guns and children don't mix" or "Keep your guns locked up".

And Oregon is a very conservative state that's quite pro-gun. At least two of my coworkers (that I know of) bring their guns to our office. One of them recently told me, in great detail, about his range of weapons from a 9mm through to rifles and shot guns.

I applaud NZ for tightening gun restrictions and I think Canada should further restrict ours too. Let's not forget that the Quebec terrorist and mass murderer had several legally owned guns, with legit licenses. Even in Canada, dangerous weapons are too readily available, and licenses are too easy to get.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Lack of education is also an issue. The reason kids and guns don’t mix is because parents don’t educate their children properly about them. When my kids were young, I taught them to cook, that involved a healthy respect for knives, stoves, appliances, hot water, hot food, etc. All my kids also have carried a knife as it’s a tool we often use, since a very young age. Of course, before they got it they were taught just how dangerous they can be, how to use it property, and that it wasn’t ever to be thought of as a toy. They were also not allowed to “share” it with friends. Same education goes for how to handle guns, animals, vehicles, power tools, etc. If you teach kids right, you avoid “accidents”.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Yeah, except that knives, axes, etc are all tools for other purposes and have been optimized for various utility purposes. Guns are optimized for killing or critically injuring.

As dangerous as a knife is, it has nothing near the danger of a gun when we're talking about accidental or unintentional use. The gangsters or trained attackers who effectively use knives to kill will use specific techniques such as rapid multiple stabs or strategic stabs at certain vulnerable spots. *That's* how a knife kills. Accidents with knives are rarely fatal.

Even if we're talking intentional use, killing with a gun is still much easier. Not having to get close to the victim means the damage is done from a distance, impersonally, like a video game. Did you see any bits of that NZ mass shooter's footage? Horrible stuff but it looks _exactly_ like a video game, and his mind was probably in that zone. Very impersonal, no need to get close to the targets (no touch, no contact). When he's shooting on the street he's just pointing the gun down the sidewalk and blasting away.

For danger to society and public spaces, there's no contest... the gun, especially automatic firing, is uniquely dangerous.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Where I live guns are a tool as well, many people around me have and use them all the time. I choose not to, but if I did, my kids would be taught in a similar manner. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have to teach them most of the stuff I said above, because it’s how they were taught about everything, so it’s how they now approach new “risks”. I’d probably just concentrate on specifics of the gun.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> Where I live guns are a tool as well, many people around me have and use them all the time.


Even though a gun is useful on a farm, something tells me that you don't need a weapon that can fire 50 - 200 shots per minute (as the NZ and Quebec shooters used). Not for hunting, not for defense against wild animals... you don't need it.

Bissonnette had in fact used a semi-automatic weapon that was previously prohibited in Canada. But the Conservatives overruled the prohibition and made the weapon legal once again in 2015. No question the Quebec terrorist can thank the Harper government for giving him access to this efficient killing machine:

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/20/ste...media-to-mosque-attack-for-restricted-status/

Luckily the semi-automatic gun jammed, and the terrorist had to switch to his pistol. Who knows what the death toll would have been if the semi-automatic had not jammed. It's probably the only "lucky" thing that happened that day.

Harper government reversed RCMP's ban on two rifle brands on eve of election



> Political observers say the Conservatives have likely identified gun owners as forming part of their traditional support base and are doing what they can to keep them happy
> . . .
> The Mounties did not respond to a request for comment Thursday, but over the last several days Canadian gun owners have rejoiced on social media


Maybe Bissonnette was one of those guys rejoicing and thanking Stephen Harper, while he sat in front of the mirror cursing immigrants.



> ...They may look like military guns, but they’re just “a modern sporting rifle. … They’re a hoot.”


Yeah what a hoot!!


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Wasn’t talking about nz, we were talking about sags post. The two were different.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

A few decades ago you could leave a gun in your gun rack in your truck... no one would take it ! 

These days, our society has fallen apart - I would hazard to say that the societal moral values have all but bottomed out.

Who really would take a gun to a school / church / mall and go shooting ? Some crazed dingbat. This is a problem in the last 25 Years. I predict that it will become more and more common as our society falls deeper and deeper into the abyss. 

Where are all the normal people? or is a better question, Where are all the crazies coming from ?


* I am a gun guy and think our laws are very restrictive. Problem is :

1-Reality, you will never eliminate guns in Canada - even if you outlaw every last one of them..... just the bad guys will have them.
2-Our gun laws are plentiful and very restrictive. To the point that they are not really even enforceable.
3-Gangs that use guns are indeed the majority of the problem, but our Justice System is not truly punitive in nature and really about rehabilitation. Due to incarceration costs, the govts dont really want to lock anyone up if they dont have to. So bad guys keep getting out. I'd say lock them up.
4-You have better odds of being struck by lightening and winning the lotto vs being shot.... its really not a problem, the media push the agenda for weeks after any event so it seems longer lasting for the desired outcome. Social reprogramming.
5-Someone find a way to reinstall morals and values in our society and people will stop being radicalized / being absolutely crazy.

Seriously never in history has there been a time when people go bonkers and try to kill groups of random people like is happening today. Guns aren't the problem, they are a tool being used by wackos. When guns are eventually outlawed, people will park rental trucks filled with fertilizer by public places and blow things up. Guns, no guns, you cannot stop a lunatic or deranged person..... crazzy = crazzy guns wont matter - its just gonna take 50+ years for everyone to finally see it....

When guns are gone, and people take to vehicle bombing instead, we can start outlawing trucks and cars.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Fun facts:
There are 2.1 million licensed firearm owners in Canada with an additional 3 million in peaceful procession. 
There are around 160 firearm related homicides each year.
There are around 160 injuries from lightning per year. 
Firearm accidents resulting in death are around 10 per year.
Deaths resulting from being struck by lightening are around 9 per year.
250 000 Canadians die each year from various causes.
Death resulting from Medical mistakes are around 24 000 per year. 

This irrational concern is not fact driven. Who are you to tell me what I need or don't need. 

Can anyone honestly, with a straight face, tell me that criminals are going to abide by more laws imposed with regards to prohibiting, registering, requiring authorizations to transport, requiring pieces of paper to be on you at all times during transport? That 2 BILLION dollar registry imposed on 2.1 million licensed owners -- did criminals go out and register their firearms the day it was imposed? Can you tell me with a straight face that you understand the current laws in place in Canada regarding firearms possession, transport, and use? -- Few and far between can. 

This a classic case of a solution looking for a problem. Politicians need to look at root causes and the true problem at hand. It is not licensed, trained, legal, law abiding firearms owners. 

Every day licensed firearms owners are run through the Canadian Police Information Centre every 24 hours as if they are suspected of a criminal offence for as long as they hold a license. Equating licensed firearms owners to criminals is ignorant to say the least. Thinking that imposing more laws is going to remove the likelihood of criminals using firearms in crime is ignorant to say the least. 

Canadian firearms owners are among Canada's most trusted citizens. We are vetted daily unlike those who do not possess a license. 

I'm off to shoot an IPSC match tomorrow....among over 4000 IPSC competitors (alone) in Canada. This is just one sport. Roughly 1.3 million Canadian's are active hockey players in Canada -- and us legal firearm owners out number them by almost a million. Firearm ownership and use in Canada is right up there with Hockey and Tim Hortons coffee. Let us keep our sport in tact. Act on logic and facts.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The report from the hospitals involves children and youth and of the 355 reported cases......75% were due to "accidents".

That is the reported incidents only in Ontario for only 1 year.

I think most people would say that is a problem.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am not against gun ownership. My best buddy is an avid hunter and I used to go moose hunting with him just for the fun of it.

He knows all about guns, makes his own bullets and has a large collection of rifles and pistols. He hunts deer and moose every year for the meat.

He told me the problem is there are too many yahoos with guns. They arrive at the cabin in top of the line brand new gear and haven't got a clue.

He told me a story about moose hunting with a couple of guys. They were hunting along a trail and there was a rustle in the woods.

Immediately both of the guys started firing away in the direction of the rustle. Then they turned to each other and asked......did you see what it was ?

He also told me that yahoos have never shot anything and wouldn't have any idea how to clean the kill or bring it back to camp.

They would shoot the animal and just leave it.

He said he never went out with them again and only hunts with people he trusts with a gun.

I am surprised how strongly some responsible gun owners defend the "rights" of the yahoos.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Are automatic weapons used for competitive shooting ? Is there a valid reason to own a military style weapon ?

I can understand people owning rifles and pistols, and using them to protect themselves in rural areas or for hunting or target shooting, but what do they use automatic weapons for ?


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

sags said:


> Are automatic weapons used for competitive shooting ? Is there a valid reason to own a military style weapon ?
> 
> I can understand people owning rifles and pistols, and using them to protect themselves in rural areas or for hunting or target shooting, but what do they use automatic weapons for ?


Automatic firearms have been prohibited in Canada since 1977. So to answer your question. No. This proves my point about the ignorance regarding firearms and firearm laws in Canada.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

sags said:


> I am not against gun ownership. My best buddy is an avid hunter and I used to go moose hunting with him just for the fun of it.
> 
> He knows all about guns, makes his own bullets and has a large collection of rifles and pistols. He hunts deer and moose every year for the meat.
> 
> ...


Nice story. A drunk driver killed a local family last night. Do you still defend your "right" to drive? Should we ban sober drivers (law abiding drivers) to prevent drunk drivers (criminals)? Again, irrational.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

You don't think of me when you hear the phrase gun culture. You think of criminals. And you equate criminals with gun culture and that gun culture is a subset of criminal activity, when it is not. We are vetted daily. Licensed owners are some of the best law abiding citizens in Canada because we HAVE to be in order to engage in our sport. 

In fact you can't even compete in my sport as an everyday PAL(R) holder. You require additional extensive training, prove competency and must pass certification to a high standard AND even future more, you must continue with on going currency in order to compete. If your currency lapses, you must re-certify. If you are ever disqualified from a match twice in a year you are barred from the sport until you undergo additional training and re-certify. Even then you are under probation and if you are DQ'd even once under probation you are barred again and undergo even further scrutiny in order to re-certify to engage in the sport ever again.

This goes for 3-Gun, 2-Gun, IPSC, IDPA, PPC, iCORE, and MANY other sports. People are very unaware of the many shooting sports in Canada. They are growing every year and are some of the safest firearm owners in WORLD as these are Internationally recognized sports with the same level of standard.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have no concerns about people like you, my buddies, my brother in law or most gun owners.

I have concerns that so many gun owners are being so irresponsible with their guns and ammunition that almost a child a day is wounded or killed in Ontario by "accident".

I have no idea what the answer is but education doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps technology could help with fingerprint technology on the guns themselves.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

sags said:


> I have no concerns about people like you, my buddies, my brother in law or most gun owners.
> 
> I have concerns that so many gun owners are being so irresponsible with their guns and ammunition that almost a child a day is wounded or killed in Ontario by "accident".
> 
> I have no idea what the answer is but education doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps technology could help with fingerprint technology on the guns themselves.


Lets get back to the facts. You are as likely to be struck by lightening as you are to be killed by a firearm in Canada.

Education isn't working because they literally abolished it. Maybe you can recall shooting class and archery in schools at the local range in the basement of the school itself? When educators used to educate about the safe handling and operation of firearms. No wonder education doesn't work -- when you don't actually educate the public.

It take a certain kind of crazy to intentionally shoot some one. No one speak about the number of mental health institution closures in Canada over recent decades. No one speaks about the lack of mental health care provided any more. No one speaks about the mentally unstable literally moving into homes and hotels because we don't have the room or the desire to fund proper care. When they closed London Psychiatric Hospital guess where most patients were sent upon closure? Hotels and old age homes. This is fact. No one speaks about them and their cyclic incarceration for 2 years less a day facilities until they do something so disturbed that they are actually sentenced for full terms. Then we blame an inert object. Yea...it was the guns fault. That's the easy way out with no repair... that will settle the sheep.


The Canadian judicial system is so flawed and lax that we are a nation of rehabilitation and feel that everyone, regardless of mental stability deserves another chance. A Greyhound bus rings a faint bell....


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Ever notice how sags’ facts always seem to come third part you? I do find it ironic they complain about the lack of education. As to his buddy’s story, sounds like it came verbatim out of “travels with Charlie” by Steinbeck. An American writer of course.

Sensationalism is all sags lives for Ag, you should know that by now, facts are not only optional, but actively ignored in most cases.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Speaking of the London Insane Asylum -- More fun facts. 

Hydrotherapy was thought to be therapeutic and was full endorsed by London Psyc up until 1990. We're talking 8 degree C water for upwards of several days to be used as "treatment". Turns out it was a bad idea....and now we have Medical professionals acting as firearms experts trying to influence politicians? These are allegedly well educated people. They really should know better to not speak about things they are not fully versed in. 

Stay in your lane...particularly when your own driving isn't your strong suit.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

We should confiscate sags’ boat, there are some alarming stats out there everyone should be concerned about...

“Canadian Drowning Report 2018

Drowning is the 3rd leading cause of unintentional death for Canadians under 60. According to preliminary data in the Lifesaving Society's 2018 Canadian Drowning Report, Ontario had 93 water-related fatalities in 2017, and 117 in 2016. The highest numbers during 2011-15 were among seniors aged 65 and older (1.8 per 100,000) and young adults aged 20 to 34 (1.5 per 100,000.) 80% of victims were male. The major risk factors contributing to boating-related fatalities include not wearing a personal flotation device (84%), cold water (64%) and consuming alcohol (34%).

The Canadian Drowning Report was prepared for the Lifesaving Society Canada by the Drowning Prevention Research Centre Canada: Canadian Drowning reports

Canadian Drowning Report 2017

Compared with a five-year period between 2005-2009, the water-related fatality rate decreased in most province and territories in 2010-2014. In 2014 there were 428 drowning deaths in Canadian waters, the lowest number in the last 25 years.

The Northwest Territories	-44%
Newfoundland and Labrador	-24%
Nova Scotia	-24%
Yukon	-14%
Nunavut	-13%
BC	-12%
Ontario	-11%
Alberta	-9%
Quebec	-5%
Saskatchewan	+35%
Lifesaving Society Canada: Canadian Drowning reports”


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Not only his boat, but lets ban his golf clubs.

Not once have I ever seen alcohol mixed with firearms at the range. But I will bet my last dollar that I will see a criminal drunk driving around a golf course and then hop in his car to go home after 18. Holes or drinks...which ever comes first. 

Hippocrates.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> We should confiscate sags’ boat, there are some alarming stats out there everyone should be concerned about...


Well maybe start with boats that have automatic (electric) start and ones that look "tactical". 



Just a Guy said:


> Compared with a five-year period between 2005-2009, the water-related fatality rate decreased in most province and territories in 2010-2014. In 2014 there were 428 drowning deaths in Canadian waters, the lowest number in the last 25 years.
> 
> The Northwest Territories	-44%
> Newfoundland and Labrador	-24%
> ...


WTH Saskatchewan ?


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Hell, as a firearm owner of more than 10 firearms I am even considered a second class citizen and seen as a potential criminal. I'm forced to revoke my right to my own private property. My civil rights are less than the average Joe Canada. The firearms act states that no warrant is required in my case and the state is authorized entry into my home and demand an inspection with no warrant, reason, nadda. Many of these tabled bills are not just firearms issue, but a civil rights issues impacting law abiding firearm owners.

If you think Canada's laws are lax, I've got news for you. There is a name for _that _kind of a state.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

cainvest said:


> WTH Saskatchewan ?


Roughriders and Pilser. 'Nuff said! LOL


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

100% of people who breath, eventually die...maybe we should install an air tax until people learn from their mistakes and stop breathing. Man made breath is killing everyone on the planet, yet no one is doing anything about it. 

Sags, pick up the banner and lead us out of the wasteland!

And I didn’t even bring up the effects on the animal population of this planet which is being destroyed...


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Ag Driver said:


> Hell, as a firearm owner of more than 10 firearms I am even considered a second class citizen and seen as a potential criminal.


Speaking of second class citizen .... ever use your PAL when someone requires photo ID? The look on their faces is priceless sometimes.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Registered self contained breathing devices with fingerprint access. Ahh to hell with it. Just ban any oxygen delivering devices. The stats are too high!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Thanks for the comments.

Anyone who doesn't think hundreds of children accidentally shot every year is a problem, it is a reflection on them not me.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The population of Ontario is in the millions, as stated before. 358 people dying from something is very likely to happen and nearly impossible to stop just because of random chance...unlike breathing, there is a serious problem. 

You are right though, the fact that you can’t grasp that concept it a reflection on you and not others.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would be proud to support my statements in a public forum. Would all the posters here be willing to do the same ? I doubt it.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

sags said:


> I would be proud to support my statements in a public forum. Would all the posters here be willing to do the same ? I doubt it.


I support everything I say in writing here and in person. Nowhere did I, or anyone else previous for that matter, insinuate that children dying isn't a problem. What we DID say is that implementing more laws will not solve the problem. Unsafe storage is still criminal. Negligence is still criminal. Criminals will always be criminal. That is the catch 22.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Seems that maybe I should have posted in the 'Hot Button' forum rather than the 'General Discussion' forum. LOL

I am for gun control but I am also for allowing responsible gun owners to own guns. They are not incompatible. The problem is how to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them.

Having grown up in Toronto, there is no doubt in my mind that there are far more illegal guns on the streets than there were in the past. A look at historical gun crime statistics for Toronto will show you that very clearly. There is now practically a shooting every day in Toronto. It's not about arguing about mentally ill people who go on a shooting spree or how many people are shot or die accidentally because guns exist. It's about 'ordinary' if there is such a thing, everyday criminals having access to guns and being willing to use them, not just 'crazies'.

I disagree that implementing more laws will not solve the problem. While it may never completely eliminate criminals using guns, it could certainly make them pause if for example, having a gun while committing a crime got you a mandatory life without parole sentence. Also evidenced by the increase in gun crime in Toronto is a need for laws to make the penalty for distributing illegal guns stronger.

There is no doubt the guns being used in Toronto primarily come across the border from the USA. I saw a documentary recently in which a Detroit resident talked about how he can buy a handgun in Detroit for $200 and sell it in Toronto for $2-3,000. That kind of profit obviously will attract people willing to take the risks. 

Gun control is not incompatible with allowing people to own guns for hunting or competition. What is needed are gun control laws that make sense and are not opposed based on emotion rather than logic. I have yet to see anyone argue a logical reason for owning an AR-15. So while we read comments here that are pro or con as to gun control based on an emotional response, why not try looking at it unemotionally and using some common sense? 

I don't want a hunter's rifle or gun club competitor's handgun taken away from them. So please, leave them OUT of the discussion entirely. I want illegal guns taken away from criminals and penalties that really hurt for those who do get caught with them. Does anyone disagree with that?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> ... Does anyone disagree with that?


No, all good points LTA.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Harper imposed minimum sentencing, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.....

So....now what ?

The Liberals were/are against increased sentences. In fact their omnibus bill 2 years ago decreased sentences for violent crimes..... 

So you tell me what’s next ?

A big magnet that just sucks up guns ? Motivated by eronius firearms statistics ?

Wendy Cukier, had her testimony removed from official Parlamentary record because her ‘facts’ were not able to be corroborated. The anti-gun agenda has a shameful history of making things up to garner favour and generally the sheeple buy it on first glance. They count on the bulk of people being simple minded followers that will believe anything.....

Sad.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

hfp75 said:


> Harper imposed minimum sentencing, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.....
> 
> So....now what ?
> 
> ...


Now we just let the murderers out.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/accused-murderer-set-free-due-to-court-delays-1.3890249

We have to fix the system, and enforce the laws we already have.


FWIW I don't want unreasonable delays, it's insane that a person could spend years locked up without their day in court. But we're letting serious violent criminals out because the Federal government doesn't want to appoint "


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Longtimeago said:


> Seems that maybe I should have posted in the 'Hot Button' forum rather than the 'General Discussion' forum. LOL
> 
> I am for gun control but I am also for allowing responsible gun owners to own guns. They are not incompatible. The problem is how to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them.
> 
> ...


I'll touch on your points. 

Anyone who is willing to point and shoot a gun at someone is mentally ill. I'm not sure how you can't see that. Preservation of life is a natural instinct. It's human nature to preserve life. If you are willing to kill another human being, you are mentally ill. These people are far from ordinary and very much a "crazy".

Mandatory life without parole is not gun control, it is imposing stricter laws. I'm for it. I am against implementing stricter laws on law abiding firearm owners. 

Stricter laws on the illegal importation of firearms is not gun control. It's imposing stricter laws. I'm for it. 

Banning an AR-15 is in no way a logic step. I find it comical that if a platform is used, society and politicians attempt to ban a platform. Why aren't we banning Chevy Express Cargo Van's? That was the platform of choice not long ago. Humans are odd. If a drunk driver kills someone with their Honda Accord, you don't immediately jump to the Honda Accord sitting in everyone's driveway and deem it a weapon. AR-15's are literally modern day sporting rifles with a great action and accessible parts. It also does the exact same thing as any other semi-automatic .223 would....but a modern design. An AR-15 is being targeted because it looks scary. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it does the same thing as any other semi in the world. 

If you don't want competitor's firearms taken away, then leave the emotion out and keep the "scary looking stuff" out of the equation and treat everything equally. I compete with AR's in 3-gun. You started talking in circles and contradicting yourself when you opened up the AR-15 debate. Licensed firearm owners are exactly that. Licensed to pocess and own because they took the required training, passed the exams, gave the reference checks, continue with daily vetting, disclosed previous spouses, disclosed any mental disorders, and so on.

So I agree with you on implementing strict laws against criminals. Lock em up. Make them think twice. Don't punish me due to the mentally unstable.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I just have to say, thanks for the posts Ag Driver ... refreshing to hear from someone that totally gets it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I guess that means the military and police forces are full of the mentally ill, all ex-military and police will have to be incarcerated I guess.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

:rolleyes2:


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Ag Driver said:


> I'll touch on your points.
> 
> Anyone who is willing to point and shoot a gun at someone is mentally ill. I'm not sure how you can't see that. Preservation of life is a natural instinct. It's human nature to preserve life. If you are willing to kill another human being, you are mentally ill. These people are far from ordinary and very much a "crazy".
> 
> ...


i will disagree on two counts, all kind of people who are in no way mentally ill shoot people, policemen do it, soldiers do it and regular everyday people do it defending their families and evil people (who are not mentally ill) do it for all kinds of reasons

you are doing a disservice to people with mental illness by expanding the meaning to include people who kill with guns, human beings all have fundamental aggressive drives that can and do spin into violence and murder

having said that i definitely think we are woefully pathetically underfunding mental health programs and many people that do mass killings are mentally ill

second, i used to be a hang-em-high guy myself and i stll favour strong sentences for gun crimes and especially for repeat offenders (read gang members in this country mostly) but life without parole is inhumane by any measure not to mention that it makes managing prisoners and keeping other prisoners safe much more difficult from a practical point of view


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ag Driver said:


> Why aren't we banning Chevy Express Cargo Van's?


Because this machine is not optimized to kill the maximum number of people in a short period of time. The automatic rifle is.

The AR-15 is targeted because it is a deadly weapon which is optimized to create a large number of dead people. You can use alternatives for target shooting if you want, you will not be deprived of the joy of target or sport shooting if semi-automatics are banned.

Large bombs can also be fun to play with, when done safely. Should we be able to just buy or compose large explosives? No... sometimes you have to deprive yourself of things that are fun and cool.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Fatcat and Just a Guy, do you honestly think that was directed to include service personnel? You've got to be kidding me.

Here I thought we were discussing criminals. I'm in awe that you went to the extreme end of taking things out of context.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> The AR-15 is targeted because it is a deadly weapon which is optimized to create a large number of dead people. You can use alternatives for target shooting if you want, *you will not be deprived of the joy of target or sport shooting if semi-automatics are banned*.


I gather you never looked up the 3 gun sport that he mentioned.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

fatcat said:


> i will disagree on two counts, all kind of people who are in no way mentally ill shoot people, policemen do it, soldiers do it and regular everyday people do it defending their families and evil people (who are not mentally ill) do it for all kinds of reasons
> 
> you are doing a disservice to people with mental illness by expanding the meaning to include people who kill with guns, human beings all have fundamental aggressive drives that can and do spin into violence and murder
> 
> ...


Having dated a girl who lived around the corner from Paul Bernardo, and having personally swam in Lake Gibson, I think the lack of the death penalty is inhumane, and the fact that we let even the theoretical possibility of parole exist is a disgusting affront to human dignity.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

AG, A lot of military people I knew had criminal records of some type...plus they’d kill people. I even know a couple of ex-police with a “record”.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Just a Guy said:


> AG, A lot of military people I knew had criminal records of some type...plus they’d kill people. I even know a couple of ex-police with a “record”.


Neither Police, RCMP, or CF hold PAL's. Apples and Oranges when you are issued a firearm. I'm not sure about CBSA. They have their own permits and licenses. If they have a criminal record, when they release they will never own firearms in Canada. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. Maybe we should ban firearms from Cops too? Did you read the report on the two Niagara Officers that started shooting at each other over an argument? Maybe their hiring practices are wrong for hiring personnel with a record. If you can't even follow the law your self, how can you possibly enforce it. Sounds wrong to me. I wouldn't issue a criminal a firearm. 

I will also note that I am well aware of some of the municipal police force training programs and currency requirements. It is appalling and for the municipal Officers carrying that I know, I would never trust them around a handgun....and these guys carry every day at work. They have more than one flaw.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Ag Driver said:


> Fatcat and Just a Guy, do you honestly think that was directed to include service personnel? You've got to be kidding me.
> 
> Here I thought we were discussing criminals. I'm in awe that you went to the extreme end of taking things out of context.


you said thusly "Anyone who is willing to point and shoot a gun at someone is mentally ill."

don't know why you are slicing your point so thin ? police and military are "anyone"

also, police and many military are often a step or two away from violence merely and simply because of their exposure to it for long periods of time

you are offending the truly mentally ill ....

people who point guns at people and shoot them are more easily explained by simply being evil or being "normal" and being possessed by the need to do an evil thing

people are a mix of good and bad and there is no pure category especially the idea that "criminals" are a separate class


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Having dated a girl who lived around the corner from Paul Bernardo, and having personally swam in Lake Gibson, I think the lack of the death penalty is inhumane, and the fact that we let even the theoretical possibility of parole exist is a disgusting affront to human dignity.


i believe that the death penalty has a place ... i also believe that lwop is cruel and unusual punishment ... as a species we look more perverse when we enact lwop's than when we deliberately and carefully put people to death


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

According to emergency room doctors and trauma surgeons, although the AR 15 is capable of shooting many rounds of ammunition in a matter of a few seconds, it is the ammunition that assault weapons use that creates the horrific damage they are dealing with.

The bullets are small, high velocity, shatter and continue to spin inside a human body. 

Rather than a typical gunshot wound these bullets are described as a grenade going off inside a body. Rather than a single surgeon attending, these wounds require a team of surgeons working simultaneously. In many cases, the bleeding and tissue trauma from AR 15 wounds gives the victim no chance of surviving to the operating room, unlike the wounds from a handgun might.

Assault rifles and their ammunition are specifically designed to cause the most damage possible in the shortest amount of time. 

A simple Google search will reveal the kinds of wounds these weapons create.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Wow, guns are designed to kill people...who’d have thought? The AR-15 was designed to be a military weapon, I always thought the military was into laser tag, and other non lethal things...especially in war situations. 

Good thing we have sags here to enlighten us.

Don’t really know why we’d need doctors to tell us that, but then stating the obvious does sometimes need an “expert” opinion.


----------



## 319905 (Mar 7, 2016)

"There are lots of angry and embittered people in the world who have it in for others. They get fired from jobs, fight with their partners, perpetrate road rage, harbor grudges and plot revenge. These entitled, rage-filled people can be extremely dangerous. Imagine what happens when you take someone with those personality traits and immerse them in an online culture that provides validation and fuel for their hatred, and steers it towards a specific target: fellow students, women, immigrants, ... throw in access to assault weapons, and you have a tragedy waiting to happen."


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> According to emergency room doctors and trauma surgeons, although the AR 15 is capable of shooting many rounds of ammunition in a matter of a few seconds, it is the ammunition that assault weapons use that creates the horrific damage they are dealing with.
> 
> The bullets are small, high velocity, shatter and continue to spin inside a human body.
> 
> ...


The .223 is a varmint round, it was designed to kill gophers and put holes in paper.
A rifle bullet typically has more energy than a handgun, that's because they're packed with more powder.

You want a wound that kills? Shotgun.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Guns were originally designed to kill - yes. In the last 800 years the science of firearms has come a long way. There are people that enjoy using guns and the science of guns - they are not crazy.

There is a SHOP program here in Calgary - Serious Habitual Offender Program. Cops are constantly monitoring these losers. Why not lock them up.

When California created the '3-strike law'. Violent crime in California plummeted..... 3rd Felony in the sate of California ? You will never leave California - on the bright side - its a nice place to live the rest of your days.... 

Criminals commit crimes...... irony there......

Lastly, in 2019, when a gunman (bad-guy) is stopped by a good-guy with a gun..... it NEVER MAKES THE NEWS !!!!!

Have you EVER watched the news when the anchor says - good thing that guy was packing his Korean War 1911 ? He stopped 2 bank robbers. 

It happens, its just never reported AT ALL.....


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

sags said:


> In Ontario hospitals are required to report any patients treated for gunshot wounds.
> 
> A report by the Canadian Medical Association revealed there were 355 patients under the age of 25 who received care for gunshot wounds in a recent year.
> 
> ...


Sags:

The "355 injuries and deaths" per year include a large number of toy guns. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5449242/

The number of deaths is approximately 24 per year. See: https://thegunblog.ca/2017/03/28/qa-with-firearm-injuries-in-youth-researcher-natasha-saunders/


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Bah, don’t ruin sensationalism with facts. Next you’ll want them to prove their statements.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Yes I resurrected this... There were a few similar, but thought that the exact thread didn't really matter. It is the topic matter that is of importance.

Some countries are taking guns away, and there are others that are actually giving them away to people. Take the current situation in the Ukraine for example, the existing Govt has given out in the last few days more AKs than we can count. Over the weekend they gave out 25,000 automatic AK-47/74 to volunteers. 

Yes their situation is different, BUT it is not the gun that is the problem... this situation highlights this chronic misconception. You don't need a gun till you need one !!! When you need one, if you don't have one, its probably too late.

If owning a person killing violent AK is actually the problem the Ukrainians will be shooting themselves soon.

Yes, in modern societies currently there is little need for automatic and semi-automatic weapons. BUT there have been MANY past societies that were modern in their era and ended up falling apart. People should all have A gun, locked up at home. When your health fails, you sell it or pass it along. You never want to, or plan to use it, but the option exists if push comes to shove. History has shown that over time, free people surrender to govt and govts eventually fall apart (many reasons here), people will pay the price. All power hungry politicians want people disarmed. Why ???


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Many families in Switzerland own a gun (part of the national defense strategy). 2 million firearms for 8 million citizens -- they are very heavily armed!

Young men all go into mandatory military training and are provided a gun. They are considered part of the Swiss militia until age 35, along with short periods of mandatory training. Some think that this tradition of keeping the civilians armed was a factor in discouraging invasion by the Nazis.

Remember though, the Swiss men are *properly trained* in gun ownership and usage. They also are given the guns with a military mentality; it's serious business, for defense of the nation. They do have very restrictive gun laws. The training and ownership is tightly regulated. The military rifles kept at home must be dismantled, to prevent accidental shootings and limit the harm in case of theft.

The Swiss aren't dummies when it comes to guns, like the Americans are. So I think a lot of this is about culture. For the Americans, it's all fun and games, with loaded guns kept at home, carrying them with you like a moron, when you go grocery shopping, and teaching children they are toys from a young age.

Or carrying guns in public like a lunatic, something I saw more than once living in the US. You can't do that in Switzerland.

e.g. when I lived in the US, my boss at the time offered to lend me his handgun to shoot at flocks of birds (very noisy in my neighbourhood). I was shocked, and told him I'm not trained to use firearms. But it shows the American mentality... their problem is cultural.

Our big problem in Canada is that we're next door to the US. All their toxic culture flows into our country, plus all kinds of illegal handguns flowing across the border. They are smuggled and sold on our streets. Our gangs imitate American gangs. Our loser kids (I've seen this in suburbs of Toronto) want to be like the American kids, so they get guns -- to feel like tough gangsters.

As long as we're next door to the US we're going to have these problems with guns. I like the way the Swiss do it, but we can't accomplish that with all this American influence. The combination of American culture + large numbers of guns is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I wasn't aware that owning guns in Switzerland is the "norm". Are there any stats (incidents) of the Switzs where its people-with-guns that have gone amok? I'm curious.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

hfp75 said:


> Yes I resurrected this... There were a few similar, but thought that the exact thread didn't really matter. It is the topic matter that is of importance.
> 
> ...
> *All** power hungry politicians *want people disarmed. Why ???


 ... question back: such as? 

Answer to your question: law and order maintenance


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Remember though, the Swiss men are *properly trained* in gun ownership and usage. They also are given the guns with a military mentality; it's serious business, for defense of the nation. They do have very restrictive gun laws. The training and ownership is tightly regulated. The military rifles kept at home must be dismantled, to prevent accidental shootings and limit the harm in case of theft.


Important point is that you need to be properly trained in gun ownership and usage to be licensed in Canada.
The military mentality on guns, IMO is that they're simply a tool.

Simply unloading and locking does more than enough to prevent accidental shootings.

In Canada they typically remove the bolt or bolt carrier, but thats not really "disassembly"




> Or carrying guns in public like a lunatic, something I saw more than once living in the US. You can't do that in Switzerland.


You can't legally carry a gun in public like a lunatic in the US either



> e.g. when I lived in the US, my boss at the time offered to lend me his handgun to shoot at flocks of birds (very noisy in my neighbourhood). I was shocked, and told him I'm not trained to use firearms. But it shows the American mentality... their problem is cultural.


No the problem is that you're not trained in the use of a commonly available tool.
It's no different than someone lending you their car, if you're not trained it's incredibly dangerous.

BTW I'll give everyone a simple gun safety lesson.
1. Never point it at anything you don't want to kill/destroy.
2. Always assume it is loaded.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

I do agree that in Canada we need a culture change as it relates to firearms. Gun safety used to be taught in schools. Now its all so taboo that people enter their 20s and have never held or seen a real firearm and they have no idea what they are or how to respect them. If we conscripted college age people and taught them military use of guns and safety and then let them have a gun this problem would start to be addressed. Yes members of the public take courses, but it should be required for everyone. Instead we portray guns as the enemy. This is not serving us any good. In 30 years we will still have illegally smuggled guns in our gangs..... 

Our current gun agenda is not functional despite the surface appearance.

Basically, the LPC feels that if they can remove the guns from Canada the problem goes away. While this idea has merit, it is not achievable. There is always a car of guns driving into Canada from the States. A law abiding target shooter is not the criminal, the guns are not the issue.

James made some good points, its our culture that has failed guns.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

hfp75 said:


> I do agree that in Canada we need a culture change as it relates to firearms.


Yes, we do, but there are multiple cultures.

There is the ignorant anti-gun crowd. the gun as a tool crowd, and the wannabe criminal use crowd, and the guns are fun crowd.

I think we have to treat all groups respectfully, and educate all of them.



> If we conscripted college age people and taught them military use of guns and safety and then let them have a gun this problem would start to be addressed.


High school aged, you can join the military at 17.



> Yes members of the public take courses, but it should be required for everyone. Instead we portray guns as the enemy. This is not serving us any good. In 30 years we will still have illegally smuggled guns in our gangs.....
> 
> 
> > I don't think we should force people to take gun courses if they don't want to.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> You can't legally carry a gun in public like a lunatic in the US either


Of course you can. There are constantly assemblies and rallies of gun nuts. Some people walk through neighbourhoods, even near schools and university campus, with firearms.

Rittenhouse went to a public protest carrying a military-style weapon, thinking he was rambo or something. I've seen similar things in Oregon with my own eyes... American lunatics wandering around the streets with weapons.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Of course you can. There are constantly assemblies and rallies of gun nuts. Some people walk through neighbourhoods, even near schools and university campus, with firearms.


But they're not doing it like a lunatic.
They are doing it in a way I would not choose to do it, but I also choose not to engage in protests, assemblies and rallies either.

If they're engaging in lawful behaviour, Just because they make different choices than you doesn't mean they're mentally ill. It's not very open minded of you to claim those who have different views are mentally ill, simply because they make different LAWFUL choices than you.



> Rittenhouse went to a public protest carrying a military-style weapon, thinking he was rambo or something. I've seen similar things in Oregon with my own eyes... American lunatics wandering around the streets with weapons.


It looked like a hunting rifle to me, it also appears to look "military style", so it's kind of both. But it is functionally different than similar looking military rifles. 
AR15 pattern rifles are very commonly used in hunting and other sports.

He went to an protest, and brought a firearm for self defense, as did others at that same protest.
Also the important point is that Rittenhouse actually used it to defend against armed attackers, one of whom was carrying a firearm ILLEGALLY.

I'd like to also point out how easy it was for Rittenhouse to safely operate his rifle, despite being assaulted by multiple people, he maintained control and only hit his attackers, no innocent bystanders were harmed. 
Thats exactly what you want in a self defense weapon.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> But they're not doing it like a lunatic.


Again we get insights into your extremist values. You don't think people are lunatics when they wander around the streets with fully loaded automatic weapons?

No, that's lunatic behaviour (whether it's legal or not). I understand that it's legal in the US; that doesn't make it a sane thing to do. There are many insane things a person can do which are lawful.

The Swiss don't do that. Even with all their weapons training and military weapons at home, you won't find the Swiss wandering streets in peacetime dressed like rambo and carrying weapons around. They keep the weapons at home, or maybe do sport shooting, but they certainly don't take loaded weapons on leisurely outings into public.

MrMatt, I've said it before, but you sound a lot like a far-right extremist. You're good at writing polite posts, but you seem to be on a mission to normalize far-right extremist behaviour. Something you've done for years here.

No it's absolutely not acceptable for anyone to go to protests, or hang out on the streets, carrying loaded weapons, in peacetime. Only the police should be able to do this. Nobody in their right mind does this, except for wackos in America, Afghanistan, Syria and various other unstable countries.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ I wasn't aware that owning guns in Switzerland is the "norm". Are there any stats (incidents) of the Switzs where its people-with-guns that have gone amok? I'm curious.


Yeah, the Swiss do have a lot of guns. Although they are tightly controlled, and very well disciplined, it still does result in a higher death rate than the rest of Europe. Here are the stats.

This is the death rate due to firearms, both intentional and non intentional.

Austria: 2.75
*Switzerland: 2.64*
Finland: 2.41
France: 2.33
Norway: 1.48
Italy: 1.13
Germany: 1.04
Denmark: 0.91
Spain: 0.57
UK: 0.20

So clearly the high gun ownership in Switzerland does translate to more deaths, about double the European average. There are just more weapons around. Sometimes people shoot their spouses, sometimes commit suicide. So it's not like all the additional weapons are harmless, despite the best training and best intentions.

By the way the American rate is 12.21 which is about the same as various third world countries and conflict zones, probably somewhat thanks to the kind of thinking exhibited by @MrMatt who thinks it's acceptable to carry a loaded weapon around in public.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Again we get insights into your extremist values. You don't think people are lunatics when they wander around the streets with fully loaded automatic weapons?


No, I don't.
The only people I see doing that, on a very rare basis are police and military.
I don't think they're lunatics for doing their jobs.



> No, that's lunatic behaviour (whether it's legal or not). I understand that it's legal in the US; that doesn't make it a sane thing to do. There are many insane things a person can do which are lawful.


Having a police force isn't lunatic behaviouir.



> MrMatt, I've said it before, but you sound a lot like a far-right extremist. You're good at writing polite posts, but you seem to be on a mission to normalize far-right extremist behaviour. Something you've done for years here.


You've made this claim before.
I don't actually get why, I don't recall the far right pushing for more COVID19 restrictions. Seems I'm quite a bit offside actually.
It also depends on what you mean by "far right". If it's simply holding traditional liberal values. I'd suggest the problem is with you, or the drifting definition of "far right"






Far-right politics - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




The only part I agree with is anti-communism, and in that case only forced communism. If you freely consent to associate in that matter, it's fine with me. My opposition to communism is primarily the requisite human rights abuses to enforce it.

I understand that "far right" seems to be a smear of choice, but lets stick to the issues at hand.




> No it's absolutely not acceptable for anyone to go to protests, or hang out on the streets, carrying loaded weapons, in peacetime. Only the police should be able to do this. Nobody in their right mind does this, except for wackos in America, Afghanistan, Syria and various other unstable countries.


I agree that in Canada this is not acceptable, or legal.

However in the US is it legal and their right to do so, so while I would not do this, and I don't think it's a good idea. It's legal.
If you don't like it, change the law.
The point of our modern legal systems, is to clearly state and enforce acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. By not prohibiting an act, we are implying that that behaviour is legal and to some extent acceptable.

You're arguing with the lawful activities of citizens in another country. That I I recognize the fact that their actitivies are legal in their jurisdiction doesn't reflect at all on my personal values.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Yeah, the Swiss do have a lot of guns. Although they are tightly controlled, and very well disciplined, it still does result in a higher death rate than the rest of Europe. Here are the stats.
> 
> This is the death rate due to firearms, both intentional and non intentional.
> 
> ...


Nice unsourced data there.

But lets take Austria and Switzerland vs UK. (thanks for the suggestion)
But the murder rate in the UK is 14 times higher than either.



https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Switzerland/United-Kingdom/Crime




https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Austria/United-Kingdom/Crime



Why do they have such a higher murder rate in the UK?
You can't blame guns, maybe the problem isn't the availability of firearms.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

As for my view on guns, I think we should have more guns in the hands of more *responsible *people.

Based on published data licenced gun owners commit fewer crimes.
In Canada licenced gun owners commit murder at roughly 1/3 the rate of the general population.








A Presentation to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, The Senate of Canada


This presentation addresses four points: (1) Responsible gun owners are less likely to murder than other Canadians; (2) The police have not demonstrated t



papers.ssrn.com





In the US data shows those with concealed carry permits commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population, and at a lower rate than police.




__





Fact or Fiction? Concealed Carry Permit Holders Will Commit Crimes







shootsmart.com





Just think about that, a citizen with a licence to carry is LESS likely to commit a crime than police. 
Which one do you want to have a gun again?

Yeah, we want these guys to have guns, their alleged cause of their shootout is a bathroom break. 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/parker-1.5443173


Even in Canada we have cops who shouldn't have guns.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Post #73 is the usual spin response to post #71.
Post #74 is a supporting spin to post #73.

Nothing new. Moving on.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

MrMatt said:


> You can't legally carry a gun in public like a lunatic in the US either


The amount of obfuscation and misinformation that comes from your keyboard is bot-like.





__





Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal - CNN.com


A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which weapons have been seen near presidential events.



edition.cnn.com





Guns are obviously part of the problem. Guns are a remote control for mortality. As much as many of us object to the over reach of power by governments, guns are an over reach of power by citizens on a regular basis.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate, if nuanced, argument to an armed electorate being more resistant to fascism.

What we are seeing in the US is that armed citizens are not protecting the country from fascism but have been coopted into a pro-fascism movement. This does reduce the credibility of the guns for freedom argument.

What is lost in all of this, is that there are two specific drivers: 1) Farmers need to be able to occasionally shoot animals which are preying on their herds and hunting is a legitimate activity for many Canadians. 2) There is growing amount of gun crime in major cities. Shooting deaths is far from the only story. Ask any nurse or retail worker if they have seen armed people causing problems and there is a good chance they will indicate they have.

It seems to me, we aren't far from a solution that is a reasonable fit for both of these issues. It may well be in need of adjustment but we don't seem to be too far off.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> The amount of obfuscation and misinformation that comes from your keyboard is bot-like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What misinformation?

Acting in compliance with the law is not "carrying a gun like a lunatic".

You're calling people lunatics for acting in compliance with the law. I'd suggest being a law abiding citizen isn't an indicator for mental illness, but maybe there is a new DSM.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

james4beach said:


> Rittenhouse went to a public protest carrying a military-style weapon, thinking he was rambo or something. I've seen similar things in Oregon with my own eyes... American lunatics wandering around the streets with weapons.


Rittenhouse defended himself from people who were illegally carrying weapons and trying to kill him. That somehow upsets you more than the armed thugs who were trying to kill him.

So your point of view is that attempted murder is okay, as long as it's your side committing the murders.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Guns are obviously part of the problem. Guns are a remote control for mortality. As much as many of us object to the over reach of power by governments, guns are an over reach of power by citizens on a regular basis.
> 
> On the other hand, there is a legitimate, if nuanced, argument to an armed electorate being more resistant to fascism.
> 
> ...


There are multiple approaches that could work.
I would suggest a twofold strategy.
1. Focus on criminals processing and using guns improperly.
2. Stop confusing people by smearing law abiding gun owners.

My issue with the left is that they aren't taking any real action on 1, and instead focusing on confusing people. How many times do they call hunting rifles "automatic assault rifles", or "military assault rifles"
Since so little crime is committed by legal gun owners, I think that continued harrassment is a poor use of resources.

The reality is that legal gun owners really don't cause many problems.
CSSA membership includes $5 million in firearm liability insurance is $45/yr, the insurance is cheap because law abiding gun owners tend to stay out of trouble.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Rittenhouse defended himself from people who were illegally carrying weapons and trying to kill him. That somehow upsets you more than the armed thugs who were trying to kill him.
> 
> So your point of view is that attempted murder is okay, as long as it's your side committing the murders.


I believe that's his position.
He got more fired up about people in the capital buildings than terrorists who actually burned down police stations.

There are a few super partisans on here, and "their side" can do no wrong.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> The amount of obfuscation and misinformation that comes from your keyboard is bot-like.


I've raised the suggestion before that MrMatt is some kind of AI-based right wing propaganda bot. Many of his replies seem almost canned, but certainly a predictable style. The account also perfectly deploys techniques such as what-aboutism, always right on cue. I can usually predict what MrMatt is going to respond with.

I even suggested to MrMatt that he upgrade his software, or tell his handlers that it's a bit too obvious, because the patterns are too heavily repeated.

@MrMatt writes very professionally, and is probably operated by a real human (or two), but my guess would be some assistance from a bot or AI which helps paste in segments. The volume of propaganda he posts at all hours of the day is quite impressive. This could be a Republican operative, far-right operative, or who knows.

I worked at a computer science agency along side people who had tooling that can generate "natural" human text entry. It's very impressive what software can generate these days. It's some of the broader patterns with @MrMatt which make me think this is an operative of some kind. If it's a real human, then he's unbelievably committed to spewing out right-wing propaganda around the clock.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I've raised the suggestion before that MrMatt is some kind of AI-based right wing propaganda bot. Many of his replies seem almost canned, but certainly a predictable style.
> 
> I even suggested to MrMatt that he upgrade his software, or tell his handlers that it's a bit too obvious.
> 
> @MrMatt writes very professionally, and is probably operated by a real human (or two), but my guess would be some assistance from a bot or AI which helps paste in segments. The volume of propaganda he posts at all hours of the day is quite impressive. This could be a Republican operative, far-right operative, or who knows.


Again thanks for the compliments on my writing style.
As for the volume, today is a slow day at work. Also I can type at about 70-90wpm, so that helps.

I do have a style.
I see the claim, I question it and request supporting data.
I provide my opinion with supporting data.
Then I get ad homium attacks. << that seems to be *your "style"*
ie I'm some sort of AI bot, far right, republican operative or something.
I assume that's because the counterargument is weak/nonexistent.

This is despite my liberal values and knowledge of Canada that I don't think most Republicans are aware of
I'm not going to go over that again, but if you go human rights- liberal values you can predict with pretty high certainty my opinion on most issues.
Though some are simply data driven pragmatism,
ie I supported COVID restrictions when it was a serious danger, and I don't support COVID restrictions when it is not a serious danger.

Also I don't understand what your definition of "far right" is, will you provide yours? I've asked serval times.
From wikipedia.
"*Far-right politics*, also referred to as the *extreme right* or *right-wing extremism*, are politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies.[1]"

I'm anti-communist, anti-authoritarian, not an ultranationalist, nor a nativist. I don't really see how I could be considered "far right" by any reasonable person.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> I've raised the suggestion before that MrMatt is some kind of AI-based right wing propaganda bot.


I do not believe MrMatt is AI, although I freely concede a small chance he might be artificial.

Twenty some years ago, I had the opportunity to make many hundreds of American friends. Many of them are still friends, to this day. With only a couple of exceptions, they are all Republicans. Of the Republicans, only a couple are not Trump Republicans.

The point is, what you are reading might seem ridiculous but there are people who think like that. I know a great many. They can start talking in what is basically a word salad (ie: "constitution", "communism", "sheeple", etc) and they end the random word stream with, "... and so that proves that Biden is Hitler." It's comedy in how it hurts the head to think about the contortions they went through to prove black is white but it's out there and it's very common.

I think the odds are that MrMatt is not a bot. He is most likely a man with a perspective that does not align with ours. When you think about it, that ought to be OK.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> The point is, what you are reading might seem ridiculous but there are people who think like that. I know a great many. They can start talking in what is basically a word salad (ie: "constitution", "communism", "sheeple", etc) and they end the random word stream with, "... and so that proves that Biden is Hitler." It's comedy in how it hurts the head to think about the contortions they went through to prove black is white but it's out there and it's very common.
> 
> I think the odds are that MrMatt is not a bot. He is most likely a man with a perspective that does not align with ours. When you think about it, that ought to be OK.


Fascinating. This has really got me thinking.

I just think one should keep in mind this possibility of bots. We're on the internet, everyone is anonymous, and computer software has come a long way. We also know that political entities are now using new tools in social media. It's a new frontier of propaganda and messaging.

One of my friends wrote a Twitter bot for fun. This used somewhat standard python packages for ML (machine learning) and he trained it on his writing style. As a joke, he let his bot take over his Twitter account. For many months, nobody at the office noticed as the posts were very believable and fit his regular style, and *many even made sense*. As is usually the case, the human operator nudges or gives a bit of assistance -- which makes it possible to also stay up with current events. Eventually he revealed that it was a bot, and we didn't believe him. We crowded around his desk and he showed us the software, and had it generate tweets in front of our eyes... that's the point at which we really believed him.

And I'm talking about a crowd of PhDs in computer science. I'm telling ya, the technology has come a long way, and social media is probably full of bots. That doesn't mean that @MrMatt is a bot, but the probability is much higher than 10 years ago.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Fascinating. This has really got me thinking.


Thinking so much, yet you're still unable to define "far-right".

Is it just anything that isn't Trudeau led authoritarianism?


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Walking and seeing someone with a slung long gun or holstered pistol doesn’t bother me in the least.... Im actually safer cause they are there.....


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

hfp75 said:


> Walking and seeing someone with a slung long gun or holstered pistol doesn’t bother me in the least.... Im actually safer cause they are there.....


Then you're going to love Afghanistan, Syria, and cartel-occupied areas of central America. Lots of nice guys to keep you safe!


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Then you're going to love Afghanistan, Syria, and cartel-occupied areas of central America. Lots of nice guys to keep you safe!


Don't forget Texas.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> I do not believe MrMatt is AI, although I freely concede a small chance he might be artificial.
> 
> Twenty some years ago, I had the opportunity to make many hundreds of American friends. Many of them are still friends, to this day. With only a couple of exceptions, they are all Republicans. Of the Republicans, only a couple are not Trump Republicans.
> 
> ...


 ... I would agree MrMatt doesn't have real AI or is an actual bot (maybe likes to imitate a bot?) since he talks from 2 sides of his mouth (as usual) with some twisted logic. Latest example is from his post #83 (quoted here):



> ... _Though some are simply data driven pragmatism,
> ie I supported COVID restrictions when it was a serious danger, and I don't support COVID restrictions when it is not a serious danger. _


 ... since when was Covid not "serious"? And why the need for "restrictions"? Plus how can one support serious and (not) serious restrictions? ????!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Don't forget Texas.


Yeah, don't compare a Texas city vs a gun free city.




__





Crime Comparison Between Austin, TX, United States And Chicago, IL, United States. Safety Comparison.







www.numbeo.com





Austin has half the crime of Chicago.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, don't compare a Texas city vs a gun free city.


I was just adding to j4b's list of places that have a lot of guns. If you are one that is concerned about people walking about with firearms don't go to Texas. I've spent a fair bit of time down there, was never a concern for me.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

This notion of "these guys have a lot of guns and they are safe." Strikes me as nonsense.

First of all, no they are not. Texas has a medium homicide by firearm statistic, not low, and that is when comparing to other states. If you compare it to a country like Finland, they are about 40x higher firearm homicide rate.

Second, the us can't ban guns now. The genie is out of the bottle. If they stop all new gun sales today, it will create a power imbalance between the alt-right nut jobs who have 50 ARs and the Democrats who are just realizing they might need to arm themselves when anarchy sets in after the 2024 election.

Lastly, the idea that guns will come in illegally so no point in banning them is sub moronic. That would be like saying we all speed so there is no point in speed limits. Seriously.

I've been to Texas many times. The state is not totally safe, to say the least, but I don't know anyone who has been shot. Arizona, on the other hand, I know a few. Lol. Guns don't keep me from visiting any state in the us.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Austin has half the crime of Chicago.


Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore...they are all Democrat hotbeds of violence and murder.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> I was just adding to j4b's list of places that have a lot of guns. If you are one that is concerned about people walking about with firearms don't go to Texas. I've spent a fair bit of time down there, was never a concern for me.


I was in the Oregon countryside once, where lots of people have guns. It's Trump land out there.

A rural man pulled out a rifle and pointed it at me. Just because I took a wrong turn and ended up at the edge of his property.

Was I safer as a result of everyone in that county being armed to the teeth? Nope.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I was in the Oregon countryside once, where lots of people have guns. It's Trump land out there.
> 
> A rural man pulled out a rifle and pointed it at me. Just because I took a wrong turn and ended up at the edge of his property.


Well I can't speak on the situation as to having a rifle pointed at you as I wasn't there. Many people in the USA do take guarding their land seriously.



james4beach said:


> Was I safer as a result of everyone in that county being armed to the teeth? Nope.


Why the need for such the extreme exaggeration?
Did everyone there point a gun at you and did you see this arsenal of weapons yourself?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Why the need for such the extreme exaggeration?
> Did everyone there point a gun at you and did you see this arsenal of weapons yourself?


I've been in many parts of the world, and this is the first time in my life someone pointed a gun at me.

The only place this happened was in a region with heavy gun ownership. I think that's noteworthy. It's not like someone points a gun at me every once in a while.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I've been in many parts of the world, and this is the first time in my life someone pointed a gun at me.
> 
> The only place this happened was in a region with heavy gun ownership. I think that's noteworthy. It's not like someone points a gun at me every once in a while.


I understand that one person pointed a gun at you by not why you expanded to "Was I safer as a result of *everyone in that county being armed to the teeth*? Nope." So because of that single persons action, everyone in that county has an arsenal of guns? I just don't see the connection. Does Oregon even have a high level of gun ownership per capita?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> I just don't see the connection. Does Oregon even have a high level of gun ownership per capita?


If I lived in a place where nobody owned guns, then I doubt that anyone would have pointed a gun at me.

Yes, Oregon has one of the higher gun ownerships per capita. It ranks at #15 among the 52 states and the gun ownership rate is _higher than Texas._ What I'm saying is that I've been in many places (generally Canada, Europe, Australia) which generally have very few guns. I've never even seen someone pull out a gun, let alone point one at me.

Then I lived in Oregon, a place that has even *more guns than Texas*. The ownership rate is far higher than anywhere I've lived before.

And someone DID point a gun at me. It's not too big a stretch to think it's related.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

The cities with the most crime, violence, and gun deaths per capita are all run by Democrats. It's not Trump supporters running around killing people, it's people that voted Democrat.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> What I'm saying is that I've been in many places (generally Canada, Europe, Australia) which generally have very few guns. I've never even seen someone pull out a gun, let alone point one at me.


It's all a matter of perspective isn't it. I regularly see people with guns here in MB, especially in the fall. A fair number of them are actually using the guns when I come by them. I've seen far more guns here in MB than all my time in Texas so should I start saying Manitobians are "armed to the teeth"?



james4beach said:


> And someone DID point a gun at me. It's not too big a stretch to think it's related.


Yes, it's a stretch to apply one incident to all people in an area.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> The cities with the most crime, violence, and gun deaths per capita are all run by Democrats. *It's not Trump supporters running around killing people, it's people that voted Democrat.*


 ... like Rittenhouse, correct? ... LMAO from an angry troll on your Ignore list.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Guns are both a problem and a solution. Neither side seem all that interested in acknowledging there are two sides of this coin.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Guns are both a problem and a solution. *Neither side seem all that interested in acknowledging there are two sides of this coin.*


 ...that's only because the wolf on one side sees a sheep on the other.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Yes, it's a stretch to apply one incident to all people in an area.


I'm talking a matter of statistics. Let me give a parallel, hypothetical, but I think it illustrates it.

Let's say: I've never encountered a rattlesnake while walking. In all the places I've lived, it's never happened... except once. That one time it happened, I was walking in Arizona and I ran into a rattlesnake. Now it also turns out that Arizona has one of the largest numbers of rattlesnakes in North America. Statistically speaking it's a rattlesnake-heavy area.

Obviously, there's a connection between me having my only rattlesnake sighting while in a place that was rattlesnake-heavy. Yes of course, through luck, I could have encountered a rattlesnake somewhere else.

But statistically speaking, it's more likely that I would encounter one in "rattlesnake country".

You see what I mean? Similarly, the only time in my life someone pointed a gun at me in a threatening way, I was in "gun country" of one of the most heavily armed states. Yes this could have happened anywhere else, but statistically, it is most likely to happen in "gun country"... and it did!

When in rattlesnake country, or in gun country, there is a higher probability of encountering a rattlesnake or [in my case] malicious use of a gun. My story gave one real example of that statistical expectation materializing.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> If I lived in a place where nobody owned guns, then I doubt that anyone would have pointed a gun at me.
> 
> Yes, Oregon has one of the higher gun ownerships per capita. It ranks at #15 among the 52 states and the gun ownership rate is _higher than Texas._ What I'm saying is that I've been in many places (generally Canada, Europe, Australia) which generally have very few guns. I've never even seen someone pull out a gun, let alone point one at me.
> 
> ...


They might not have pointed a gun at you, but your chances of being a victim of crime are much higher.
That's why I posted the stats, cities like Portland or Austin with more legal guns, have lower crime rates than cities like Chicago.

It's interesting to note that anti-gunners always talk about "gun murder rate", but ignore the "murder rate". The reality is that if there are people able to protect themselves with guns, murder is simply less likely.

FYI, 
Canada happens to have one of the higher gun ownership rates in the world (As do the scandinavian countries)








Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> It's all a matter of perspective isn't it.* I regularly see people with guns here in MB, especially in the fall. A fair number of them are actually using the guns when I come by them.* I've seen far more guns here in MB than all my time in Texas so should I start saying Manitobians are "armed to the teeth"?


 ... that's a revelation - so it's legal to be armed (handguns et al?) in the province of Manitoba? And what are those "fair numbers actually using" them for? To hunt rabbits? If not, I hope those practice shootings are only done on a licensed range.



> Yes, it's a stretch to apply one incident to all people in an area.


 ... not based on J4B's analogy using the law of large numbers.

Let's stick with your example of Texas instead. 

Perfectly legal to carry a handgun which is as enjoyable as American pie. However, no decent and responsible gun-owner would be stupid, if not dumb-assed enough to go flashing one. I know since one of my relative owns one -carries it in the glove-compartment of his vehicle to fend off assailants. Not sure it's for incidents of road rage or high-way robbery or maybe both? Anyhow, told him if he is expecting me to re-visit him, don't show it to me ever again. I'm from Canada, the supposedly gun(s)-hating country.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I'm talking a matter of statistics. Let me give a parallel, hypothetical, but I think it illustrates it.
> 
> Let's say: I've never encountered a rattlesnake while walking. In all the places I've lived, it's never happened... except once. That one time it happened, I was walking in Arizona and I ran into a rattlesnake. Now it also turns out that Arizona has one of the largest numbers of rattlesnakes in North America. Statistically speaking it's a rattlesnake-heavy area.
> 
> ...


Yes, your story is one example that happened one time ... which is fine of course. Again, it's just jumping to a statement of "everyone in that county being armed to the teeth" serves no purpose adding to your story IMO. I could understand you adding that if in that county you saw the majority of people walking about armed ... that would make sense to me. 

Next time I'm out in the forest and I come across someone with a firearm should I pass along the statement "Wow, is everyone out here armed to the teeth?".


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... that's a revelation - so it's legal to be armed (handguns et al?) in the province of Manitoba? And what are those "fair numbers actually using" them for? To hunt rabbits? If not, I hope those practice shootings are only done on a licensed range.


Of course its legal. Never said anything about handguns though ...
They are out there for many reasons, sometimes I stop and talk to them but not always.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Again, it's just jumping to a statement of "everyone in that county being armed to the teeth" serves no purpose adding to your story IMO


It's a reflection of the fact that Oregon has more gun ownership than Texas. It's a very heavily armed area.

By the way I deliberately said "county". Keep in mind states are divided into counties. This particular county --- a rural part of Oregon --- really is very heavily armed. Kind of famous for it around those parts.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ...that's only because the wolf on one side sees a sheep on the other.







  








Sam-Ralph-Time-Clock.jpg




__
TomB16


__
11 mo ago


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

👊


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> They might not have pointed a gun at you, but your chances of being a victim of crime are much higher.
> That's why I posted the stats, cities like Portland or Austin with more legal guns, have lower crime rates than cities like Chicago.
> 
> It's interesting to note that anti-gunners always talk about "gun murder rate", but ignore the "murder rate". The reality is that if there are people able to protect themselves with guns, murder is simply less likely.
> ...


For funsies I downloaded the gun ownership rate by state and the murder rate by state. I averaged the murder rate from 2011 until 2020, which were the stats available. I figured that was fairer than taking a single year's data. There's not a very strong trend but there is a trend to more murders = more guns. Alabama and Alaska are those two outliers, if anyone's wondering.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Spudd said:


> For funsies I downloaded the gun ownership rate by state and the murder rate by state. I averaged the murder rate from 2011 until 2020, which were the stats available. I figured that was fairer than taking a single year's data. There's not a very strong trend but there is a trend to more murders = more guns. Alabama and Alaska are those two outliers, if anyone's wondering.


Sources?

You do realize that there is no actual scientific consensus right now. 


https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2004/12/data-on-firearms-and-violence-too-weak-to-settle-policy-debates-comprehensive-research-effort-needed



The reality is that bad people with guns are a problem, and good guys with guns are not much of a problem.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

My apologies for not including the sources. Sources were Wikipedia for the murder rate, and this for the gun ownership:




__





Gun Ownership by State 2022






worldpopulationreview.com





I didn't say it was a scientific consensus, I just thought it would be fun to put together. I have no dog in this fight. If you take out Alabama and Alaska the trend is actually opposite. 










Even if the trend exists, what's the causation? Are more guns leading to more murders, or is living in a more murder-prone area causing people to buy more guns? I do think it's a thorny question and would be difficult to untangle. 

My personal feelings are that I prefer to live in a place with fewer guns. Guns make me feel uncomfortable. When I go to England and see police with machine guns standing around, that's unnerving. So I'm glad we have stronger gun laws here than in the States. 

If you want to read more in-depth about this topic especially as it relates to the US, I found this really good article:




__





Executive Summary | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press


Read chapter Executive Summary: For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most contentious issues in American ...



www.nap.edu


----------

