# Canadians sue Smith & Wesson gun manufacturer



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I was very pleased to see that victims of the Danforth Avenue shootings are suing Smith & Wesson here in Canada.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-action-lawsuit-against-gunmaker-smith-wesson

In 2000, Smith & Wesson agreed to incorporate 'smart technology into new design guns, that would not allow their use by anyone other than the legal owner. The gun used in the Danforth shootings was introduced in 2005. Obviously, after that agreement. 

'Coincidentally', in 2005, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that shields gun manufacturers and sellers from litigation resulting from unlawful or unauthorized misuse of a firearm. Well, isn't that just great for gun makers. 

But, that is in the USA and Canada has no such shield for gun makers. So far Smith & Wesson are not commenting on the lawsuit. It should make for an interesting case if/when it ever gets to trial. I do hope those suing will not settle out of court.

What do you think, should gun makers be held to account for what their product results in?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This is a good point. If car manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by their vehicles, I suppose gun manufacturers should be as well. Maybe the cost to society of gun use should be internalized in the cost of guns.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

andrewf said:


> If car manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by their vehicles, I suppose gun manufacturers should be as well.


Car manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by their vehicles? I have not heard of this, when did this happen?


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

Longtimeago, why do you think it is appropriate for gun makers to be held liable for the ultimate consequences of their products?

If I amputate a finger while using a table saw, should the saw company be liable because it is not using "SawStop" technology? 

If someone goes to fill a jerry can of gas, then uses that in an arson, should the fuel station be liable? Should the refiner or driller be held liable?

If I have a cramp while picking up a bowling ball and drop it on my foot while wearing sneakers, should the bowling ball manufacturer be liable? Should the sneaker company be liable? Should the company that sells hand sanitizer than I used two hours ago be liable? The cafe that served me lunch for possibly causing me the cramp? The gym that I joined for possibly causing me that cramp?

Is that what you are advocating? Does that resemble a society that you want to live in?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

So a mentally ill person gets an illegal gun smuggled into the country.
Yet its the manufacturer that is at fault. 

So despite warnings, breaking several laws, they are held liable for the improper use of their product. 

When someone is stabbed, do they hold Henkel responsible? Why not? 
Knives we're invented to cut and kill, stabbings are a common misuse of knives, we should hold them liable.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Good...now that precedent has been set I can sue the public school system for teaching people that it's okay to vote Liberal.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Probably better to ban all guns except for a few approved hunting rifles.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

sags said:


> Probably better to ban all guns except for a few approved hunting rifles.


Lots of people like to target practice (I'm one of them but don't have a gun) and it's actually a sport. Banning is not the answer - you'll just be hurting the law abiding citizens and the criminals will get guns anyway.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Probably better to ban all guns except for a few approved hunting rifles.


Probably best to simply enforce the laws we have.

There are very few gun crimes in Canada, and virtually none of them are with legally obtained firearms.

In this specific case the police new this guy was dangerous, yet he still managed to get an illegal gun.
Lets focus on that first.

Don't forget the guy who was arrested and had a gun in the back of a police car.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

If the penalties were a little more meaningful for crimes, maybe the offenders might have some deterrent. Blame the gun manufacturer.....how ridiculous


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mechanic said:


> If the penalties were a little more meaningful for crimes, maybe the offenders might have some deterrent. Blame the gun manufacturer.....how ridiculous


Or if they enforced the laws.
The thing is we've had a pretty strong ban on handgun possession in Canada, but people ignore it.
If they simply enforced it, we wouldn't have a problem.

Making a new law tightening restrictions won't change anything, because the people who are breaking the current laws will break the new laws too.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The gun used in the Toronto Danforth shooting was stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan in 2016.

A gun legally for sale in Saskatchewan ended up being used for the shootings that killed 2 and wounded 13 others in Toronto in 2018.

If the handgun was banned, it wouldn't have been sitting in a gun shop for sale.

If guns are less available they will be more difficult to steal and acquire.

The law restricts the availability of other things to prevent unauthorized use.......illegal drugs, for example.

Smart technology has been available for guns for a long time. It is only the NRA gun lobby that prevents it.

The gun makers and lobby groups don't want any restrictions of any kind on firearms.

They continually play "cat and mouse" games with the weapons and ammunition they develop and sell, and the government is always one step behind them.

So instead of continually having to add to the list of restricted weapons or alterations, ban them all with a few exceptions for hunting and self protection in rural areas.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...oting-victims-lawsuit-gun-maker-smith-wesson/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is some old wisdom..........adapt to change or change will be forced upon you.

The change is coming. People are fed up with the gun lobby and all the same excuses while mass shootings continue in their streets and on news headlines.


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

"while mass shootings continue in their streets and on news headlines."

Sags, are you sure you are watching Canadian news? Are you confusing Canadian news with maybe US news or Iraqi news? How many mass shootings have you recounted?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I think some people are missing the point of 'smart technology' and an agreement to use it.

The gun used in the Danforth shootings was as sags says stolen from a legal gun shop. I'm not suggesting the manufacturer or the gun shop should be held responsible for who then got their hands on the gun and used it to kill people.

All I am suggesting is that IF the 'smart technology' had been in place as the manufacturers had agree to put in place, the gun would not have WORKED. If you want to compare it to say the auto industry, it is like a car manufacturer agreeing to equip cars with brakes and then NOT doing so. Should we not then be able to hold the auto manufacturer accountable for what they did NOT do, when the car is involved in an accident that kills someone?

Smart technology for guns is available, why then not use it? Read what it is all about BEFORE making comments. 
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/what-is-smart-gun-technology


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

Longtimeago, plenty of "technology" exist that attempt to try to solve plenty of real or imagined problems. Have you installed a breathalyzer-interlocked ignition device in your vehicle? Have you installed GPS telematic devices on all your vehicle to make sure all your family members are respecting the posted speeds, are stopping at stop signs, etc? Have you installed a CO2 fire suppression system in your car? Do you drive a tracked vehicle in winter? What if your regular wheeled vehicle skid and hurt someone else on the road? Better drive a tracked vehicle. 

Firearms have been around more than half a millennium. Modern handguns for more than a hundred years. Automatic weapons for more than a hundred years. If you see gun violence as an urgent problem today, might it be possible that it's not the physical items themselves that's the problem?

I'm not saying just because things have been one way historically that things should be always that way. But let's be clear on what we are rationally trying to achieve. Are you advocating that moving forward all future handguns and long-guns have some sort of electronic interlock? What do you propose happen to existing firearms? What happens when the technology to spoof/disable the interlock becomes commonplace (have you read the articles about people's car fobs being remotely used to steal their own car from their driveways)? Might it not be more worthwhile to go after the people who break into stores and steals the guns? The people who are using them in the streets?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> I do hope those suing will not settle out of court.
> 
> What do you think, should gun makers be held to account for what their product results in?


I share that hope. They should be forced to go to trial and have the lack of merit of their case declared publicly. Then they should be saddled with the most punitive award of costs the court can mete out. 

If we are going to float completely daft propositions of liability, why then single out firearms manufacturers? I think motor vehicles kill more innocents annually. Although andrewf says they now pay for those deaths, I think that is simply fake news. BS. And duct tape is well-known to be used in kidnappings/rapes/murders. Let's hope that 3M or whoever makes that stuff is held to account. And the makers of sharp objects? Make 'em pay! 



andrewf said:


> This is a good point. If car manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by their vehicles, I suppose gun manufacturers should be as well. Maybe the cost to society of gun use should be internalized in the cost of guns.





cainvest said:


> Car manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by their vehicles? I have not heard of this, when did this happen?


Me too. I missed that one. I trust andrewf will return to this thread and provide some backup material.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The gun used in the Toronto Danforth shooting was stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan in 2016.
> 
> A gun legally for sale in Saskatchewan ended up being used for the shootings that killed 2 and wounded 13 others in Toronto in 2018.
> 
> ...


Whole slew of crimes there, maybe the problem is the criminal?
How many people are killed by cars operated in violation of the law?

When you say "Smart Technology" is "available", I don't know what you mean.
The biometric or chipped systems don't actually work reliably, making them unsuitable for actual use.

I think the best "Smart Technology" is lock up violent criminals.


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

Can you believe there is a 3M duct tape factory in London, Ontario? Shame. Shame.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Smart technology for guns is available, why then not use it? Read what it is all about BEFORE making comments.
> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/what-is-smart-gun-technology


Apparently this is what stopped it ...
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/new-jersey-law-backfired-for-smart-gun-technology/32484/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Gun legislation is a top priority for the Liberals. The only question is if their legislation will go far enough to satisfy their supporters.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Gun legislation is a top priority for the Liberals. The only question is if their legislation will go far enough to satisfy their supporters.


Legislation is just words.
To address this problem they have to do something.

When they change the laws it's going to have nearly no impact, because they're not enforcing them on the criminals anyway.

Just like every mass shooting in the US, they propose a bunch of laws that won't address the problem.


How about we have the following.
To have a gun in Canada you must.

1. Have a background check.
2. Have references
3. Get the approval of your spouses and other partners
4. Take a training program.
5. Permit warrantless searches at any time to confirm firearms are secured in accordance with the law.
6. Make it illegal to have a loaded firearm, in or near any building that is not itself a firing range.
- near any road or highway, unless in the far north.
7. For small firearms such as handguns. Make it illegal to have it inside a locked box unless at the firing range.
8. Illegal to posses a firearm without a license
9. For handguns require a separate permit to transport it to another location. And have a documented reason to move it.

Things like city bans on handguns aren't going to accomplish anything.
It's already illegal to have a loaded gun anywhere in the city of Toronto.

The reality is the anti-gun crowd doesn't think there is any reason to have a gun at all, and I've heard calls to disarm the police.

They don't want guns, and no amount of reason or logic will change their mind.
It's an emotional position with no real basis in logic.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> They don't want guns, and no amount of reason or logic will change their mind.
> It's an emotional position with no real basis in logic.


This pretty much sums it up...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> How about we have the following.
> To have a gun in Canada you must.
> 
> 1. Have a background check.
> ...



what total nonsense

to carry out the above ^^ canada would need a new division of either DOD or RCMP or both. New battalions, regiments & armies of qualified inspectors trained & licensed to carry firearms, who will have the manpower plus the time to police every household. every cupboard, every closet, every storage box, every locker, every spouse, every partner, every close friend, every workplace, every building as well as the total insides of every vehicle in the whole of canada.

bref, the above suggestions are beyond ridiculous.

what would work is to ban assault weapons in cities & suburbs. Rural residents continue to keep firearms for hunting & protective purposes. 

the real crime crisis IMHO is in rural areas where breakin crimes are increasing in every province. Rural areas urgently require more police & RCMP protection. The safety of isolated rural farmers is a national emergency, not just in canada but in every country in the world. 

in a worst case scenario, rural farmers have to defend themselves, but the results are certainly alarming since shooting at other human beings is not something that any farmer is trained to do, nor can he be expected to carry out this task efficiently. Witness the coulton boushey case, where an invasion situation at an innocent farmstead quickly went out of control & the result was a dead teenager.

imho canada needs to pay attention to new ways to control growing rural crime. Manpower should focus on rural issues, not on ways for urban police to pry into millions of pantry storage cupboards just in case the homeowner is storing a loaded firearm behind the flour & sugar sacks.

i totally agree that criminals & deranged persons will not be deterred by strict gun control laws. But strict gun control laws will promote an urban climate that is far less favourable to assault weapon portability. They will make it easier for urban police to spot & arrest violators.






> Things like city bans on handguns aren't going to accomplish anything ...
> 
> It's an emotional position with no real basis in logic.


alas, _yours_ is the emotional position with no logical basis


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

The left hates guns because it makes it too hard for them to force people into socialism, communism, or the gas chamber. Look what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nazi Germany when the guns were taken away by the left.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Or we could look at what happened in Japan.........where there are 127 million people and less than 10 gun deaths a year.

They start with a foundation of total prohibition on gun ownership. People wanting a gun enter into required investigations before they are allowed to buy a shotgun or an air gun.

They have almost totally eliminated gun violence.

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun...most-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Or we could look at the US...the most violent cities with the most gun deaths are all run by Democrats and the safest ones are run by Republicans. Eliminate Democrats and gun deaths will plummet.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> The left hates guns because it makes it too hard for them to force people into socialism, communism, or the gas chamber. Look what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nazi Germany when the guns were taken away by the left.


Nazi germany and the gas chamber was on the extreme right, not the left.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Eliminate Democrats



PG/aka tygrus/aka bass player gets nuttier & nuttier by the day


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

sags said:


> Or we could look at what happened in Japan.........where there are 127 million people and less than 10 gun deaths a year.
> 
> *They start with a foundation of total prohibition on gun ownership. People wanting a gun enter into required investigations before they are allowed to buy* a shotgun or an air gun.
> 
> ...


Sags, you do realize the part in bold applies exactly in Canada as well, right? You provide all the requested information to the RCMP, including acknowledgement by your spouse and references to contact. They run a background check and any additional investigations they see fit. Additionally, you undergo daily screens of your name against municipal police records, etc.

The illegal use of lawfully owned firearms by licensed gun owners is not and has never been a problem. Yes, there are licensed owners who funnel their purchases into the underground market. That is an issue for law enforcement to investigate, not to punish all users with a blanket ban. Just as even though some Toyota pickup trucks and SUVs ended up being used by ISIS in the middle east, one does not ban the sale of all Toyota vehicles. 

In any case, let's compare some numbers:
Canada gun deaths (residents only) from 2000 - 2016: 13,168, or 775 per year. Of these, 75% were suicides. 21% were homicides [not by law enforcement] or were cause undetermined. That works out to 163 per year.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...crime-accidental-shootings-suicides-1.4803378


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

nobleea said:


> Nazi germany and the gas chamber was on the extreme right, not the left.


Nope...the Nazis were on the left. They even included "socialist" in their name.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kelaa said:


> Sags, you do realize the part in bold applies exactly in Canada as well, right? You provide all the requested information to the RCMP, including acknowledgement by your spouse and references to contact. They run a background check and any additional investigations they see fit. Additionally, you undergo daily screens of your name against municipal police records, etc.
> 
> The illegal use of lawfully owned firearms by licensed gun owners is not and has never been a problem. Yes, there are licensed owners who funnel their purchases into the underground market. That is an issue for law enforcement to investigate, not to punish all users with a blanket ban. Just as even though some Toyota pickup trucks and SUVs ended up being used by ISIS in the middle east, one does not ban the sale of all Toyota vehicles.
> 
> ...




there are degrees of opposition to gun ownership. What i strongly support in urban & suburban areas are bans on assault weapons. Long guns, modified pistols, etc. These i believe are already prohibited but stronger measures should apply, even including police watchfulness on social media, when possible, where excessive boasting, bragging, or preoccupation with the "grandeur" & the righteousness of assault weapons shows itself (there has been at least one instance of this in cmf forum over the years).

urban & suburban areas are well policed, there is no need for assault weapons in the hands of untrained local residents. In all urban communities i am familiar with, there is a strong social stigma against any resident who claims he needs to own a firearm, unless he happens to be an avid game hunter.

however, all of the avid game hunters i know have country houses & it is there that they store their shotguns, never at their city residences.

rural areas within a few hundred km of cities tend to be relatively heavily populated, what with cottage country, river & oceanfront vacation properties, agrotourism & many farmers who also commute to part-time jobs in town.

in these zones, hunting season has gone out of control, with driveby thugs in cars shooting at domestic farm animals for sport. Thus my sister's sweet pony for her children was shot dead by what the entire farm community calls "lawless assassins" in automobiles, while the pony calmly grazed in full view in his meadow. There was no mistaking him for any kind of wild game animal.

residents of the same zone in the Townships also stay inside during hunting season, because there have even been isolated instances of human beings being shot by mistake, the so-called "hunters" are so crazy aggressive.

when it comes to very remote rural areas, it's true that residents need guns for hunting & protective purposes, but even there the safety is shaky, as witness the coulten boushey case. Farmers are not trained to shoot at human beings so their real safety on isolated farms can be precarious in these years of rising remote rural crime. Canada needs to re-think this situation & learn how to manpower extra RCMP & provincial security for remote rural residents.


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

Humble_pie, I think one way to build more support is to be clear about the end goal. Start with the problem to be addressed, the approaches to address those problems, and the likely-hood of success balanced by the costs and consequences. I understand different parties involved are advocating different things, ranging from status quo, to bans of handguns and semi-autos, to blanket ban, etc. But here in Canada, as in the US, I suspect many are reluctant to support any change for the fear that it will only be the beginning of more changes. Essentially all the guns available for retail sale were previously approved for sale by the RCMP firearms program. People accepted higher prices, reduced choices, technical modifications, storage and transport rules to comply with the law, with the implicit understanding that the law was meaningful and in support of some overall positive societal goal. But by arbitrarily changing the law without a clearly articulated reason, people lose that respect for the law. Whatever the next steps might be, whether it is centralized storage, telematic-enabled safes, some sort of ban, additional design/technical prohibitions, one cannot keep moving the goal posts. 

---------------------
Since your sister's home is in a farm community, what is the likelihood that additional urban and surban gun control would have made a difference? I note that on farms, farmers are permitted to shoot pests at will and not subject to hunting regulations. And shooting on private land is not controlled unless in contravention of municipal by-laws and hunting regulations. 

---------------------

Bill Blair spent months engaging the public on this. A ban might be the simplest thing to do enact, but it won't be effective in itself and it'll certainly have the most effect on current gun owners. 

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2019-rdcng-vlnt-crm-dlg/index-en.aspx#aa
"
*Overall Key Findings*
There are polarized views on a potential ban and limiting access: Overall, participants were strongly polarized on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms. The stakeholder views expressed in two of the engagement channels - the in-person dialogues and written submissions - provided a variety of perspectives both opposed to and in support of a ban. In contrast, most questionnaire respondents (representing a self-selected group of Canadians) were opposed to a ban.

*Target crime and focus on enforcement*: Many participants felt strongly that a ban would target law-abiding owners, rather than illicit firearms, and would not greatly impact crime reduction (particularly gang violence). As a result, many called for enhanced enforcement capacity for law enforcement and border services, as well as harsher punishments for firearms trafficking and gun-related crime.

*Address underlying causes of firearm violence*: One point of consensus among the diverse perspectives is the need to address the socioeconomic conditions that can lead to gun violence, which requires more support for community-level programs and initiatives. These factors include poverty, a lack of education or employment opportunities, lack of mental health supports and social exclusion.

*Collect and share relevant data on gun crime*: There is a need to improve the ongoing collection and sharing of data on gun crime, particularly in terms of sources of illicit firearms and the types of crime being committed. It was expressed that data is critical for supporting law enforcement and border agencies efforts, as well as informing policy and legislation.

*Willingness for collaboration with the firearms community/industry*: Many stakeholders representing various aspects of the firearms community want the opportunity to be more engaged and to collaborate with the federal government to develop solutions on this issue. 

*Need a multi-faceted approach*: A wide range of approaches and ideas were discussed, which suggests that a multi-faceted approach is needed to address this issue – rather than implementing a ban in isolation.
"


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Prairie Guy said:


> Nope...the Nazis were on the left. They even included "socialist" in their name.


Nope they weren't. Regardless of what was in their name, they were firmly on the right.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

"As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.” Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kelaa said:


> Since your sister's home is in a farm community, what is the likelihood that additional urban and surban gun control would have made a difference? I note that on farms, farmers are permitted to shoot pests at will and not subject to hunting regulations. And shooting on private land is not controlled unless in contravention of municipal by-laws and hunting regulations.



i believe you might not have read what i posted. Perhaps i could repeat.

the animal shot to death was a household pet, a pony that my sister kept on the farm for her young children to ride.

the pony was grazing peacefully, in full view of the road, in his meadow next to the country road. He was killed by a gang of what the entire community calls "lawless assassins" who were driving by in a car, on the public country road, looking to randomly shoot farm animals & even humans to death because those thugs think shooting to kill out of moving cars is a fun pastime.

they shoot while the car is moving & then they flee immediately. Possibly they do not even know whether the animal they have shot in its field is dead or not. In every case the farm family is not able to get the license number.

of course the farmers learn to keep their animals out of sight & themselves never walking outside during hunting season in the Townships. These measures, however, do not stop the coulten boushey style farm invasions, which are occurring in rural areas all over canada.

as for the rest of your post, it is entirely possible to intellectualize forever. And to keep calling for more & more studies. And to procrastinate while the urban mass killing repeat themselves every few months.

what i personally would like to see - speaking as a montreal resident and a good friend at the time of engineering students at the Ecole Polytechnique where the biggest gun killing in canadian history took place 30 years ago - is a social climate that is massively against promiscuous & casual use of firearms in urban areas. A climate where women will neither date nor marry partners who boast about their personal guns & how they like to go to firing ranges, when they have zero professional need to ever come within 10 kilometres of a deadly weapon.

cigarette smoking was gradually eliminated, in part by massive social disapproval. Frivolous & promiscuous ownership of guns can also be massively disapproved. Restrictive urban gun bans would help in this matter. We need to bring about a climate in which it would be considered that a city resident who needs to flourish or brag about his weapon is someone who is not quite right in the head. This would make it easier for police to find the bearers of illegal weapons. 

once again, i agree that there will always be some criminals who will find a way to procure illegal firearms & these parties will definitely kill. But urban gun bans plus a highly restrictive social climate could have stopped Marc Lepine at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1989. Urban gun bans plus a highly restrictive social climate together with increased police surveillance of social media would have found & stopped Alexandre Bissonnettre before he killed at quebec city in 2017.

these years, i cannot think of a single gun massacre where the killer was not prepped, assisted by others & fully visible in the internet prior to his deadly attack, if only the police had had enough manpower to look.


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

I read what you wrote. You said you believed some sort of ban is called for in urban and sub-urban areas. You also said you sister's pony was shot in their farm community. I don't believe you are referring to an "urban farm". So I'm asking, under what circumstances or gun control scenario, will there be no firearms available such that your sister's pony is never shot? I'm asking if the urban/sub-urban ban you support would have made any difference. 

Yes, I believe a shift in the cultural view can help. As can a reduced reluctance to be a "snitch" or "rat" when your neighbors or friends do something unsafe or irresponsible or are a threat. But it is also important for the law to be meaningful for people to respect it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> what total nonsense
> 
> bref, the above suggestions are beyond ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Actually I listed the current gun laws in Canada. 
So as much as you might think they're "beyond ridiculous" they are the current law in Canada.

As far as banning "Assault Weapons", fully Automatic firearms are prohibited in Canada, and they have been for decades.
I don't think there is anything wrong with someone who lives in downtown Toronto bringing his gun from the cottage home so it can be stored safely.
Just keep it locked up.

My "emotional position" is that the proposed new laws don't actually do anything to solve the problem.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

nobleea said:


> Nope they weren't. Regardless of what was in their name, they were firmly on the right.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
> 
> "As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.” Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."


Snopes?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Some people always seem to think that everything has to be an either/or question or an absolute 100% answer to an issue. 

The question here was about 'smart technology' for guns which control who can actually fire a weapon. It doesn't stop someone who can fire it from killing someone, it doesn't stop someone with a 'non-smart' weapon from killing someone, etc. etc. But it DOES stop that gun from being used by anyone other than the owner.

In other words, it REDUCES the chances of that gun being used to kill someone. It doesn't matter if 99 other guns can be used, it takes that one gun out of the equation. It is ONE step that can be taken to reduce gun crime. It is not the only step and it does not solve the problem 100% but it REDUCES it. Any step that can be taken that reduces gun crime has to be a good thing.

There is NO logical argument against doing it.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> There is NO logical argument against doing it.


Sure there is ... the cost doesn't outweigh the benefit.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Some people always seem to think that everything has to be an either/or question or an absolute 100% answer to an issue.
> 
> The question here was about 'smart technology' for guns which control who can actually fire a weapon. It doesn't stop someone who can fire it from killing someone, it doesn't stop someone with a 'non-smart' weapon from killing someone, etc. etc. But it DOES stop that gun from being used by anyone other than the owner.
> 
> ...


The thing about "smart technology" is that it can also prevent the firearm from discharging when needed.

What good is a gun that you can't depend on? 

The only people that think "smart guns" are a good idea are those who don't want anyone to have guns in the first place.

The logical reason against "smart guns" is it makes guns unreliable, and puts lives at risk.



I find it interesting that you state there is "no logical argument against it". 
This is a typical problem today, people are unable to understand or comprehend that there could be a different point of view.
If you literally can't even appreciate that another point of view could logically exist, you're really unable to have a debate. 

Myself I do understand that there are logically and likely well meaning arguments that oppose my opinion. I might not agree with various aspects or their conclusions, but I can recognize that others can have valid and logical opinions that differ from my own.

I think most honest differences in opinion simply come down to differential weighting of the various trade offs that are required for any position.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There aren't many instances that someone can use a gun to defend themselves. Canada doesn't have a "stand your ground" law and the legal use of a firearm is very narrow.

My wife sat on a jury for a guy charged with murder after he shot a man breaking down the front door of his home. The intruder was drunk and determined to come inside.

The man charged shot him with a shotgun. The only reason the guy was found not guilty was because he had no back door to his home and no way to retreat.

In most cases a person who shoots someone else is charged with a crime. There are few legal defenses available for shooting someone.

Hunting, target practice and protection against animals is about the only legal use for firearms in Canada.

A shotgun, 22 caliber rifle, large caliber rifle and a air pistol are all that are needed for those activities.

Ban everything else like Japan does.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

They don't enforce the ban we have today.
What makes you think a new ban is going to change anything.

The funny thing is that the lefties who don't want to enforce laws seem to want even more laws.
If we actually enforced laws, and got rid of the multi-crime discount (ie concurrent sentencing), the number of victims would plumment.

You've got to understand the vast majority of crimes is committed by a very small number of scumbags. 
If we just kept dangerous criminals in jail, we'd all be better off.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> A shotgun, 22 caliber rifle, large caliber rifle and a air pistol are all that are needed for those activities.
> 
> Ban everything else like Japan does.


Let's apply your reasoning to other things. I don't think people who believe that climate change is a threat should be allowed to take vacations that require air travel or own a home larger than 600 square feet. But rather than ban those things for everyone, we'll just ban them for the climate alarmists. If it proves to be viable over a couple decades, then maybe we can roll it out for everyone else.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Nope...the Nazis were on the left. They even included "socialist" in their name.


North Korea has "democratic" in its name...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Slayerino said:


> Names don't mean ****...


True, like countries that have United in their name for example.


----------

