Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Kiwirob
Topic Author
Posts: 12962
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sat May 02, 2020 7:25 pm

Assault-style weapons are banned in Canada effective immediately, the country's prime minister said Friday.

Discuss.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/world/ca ... index.html
 
ACA772LR
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:55 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sat May 02, 2020 7:51 pm

I think it’s a great idea
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sat May 02, 2020 8:21 pm

They couldn't do that in the US, as there are bears, moose, and coyotes which you need an assault rifle to defend against. Further, without assault rifles I doubt Canada could resist a move by the British monarchy to make Canadians her subjects, owing allegiance to the crown into perpetuity.

This is the beginning of tyranny!
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
Newark727
Posts: 2023
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sat May 02, 2020 8:28 pm

So wait, what's actually being banned here? Semi-automatic actions, or "assault style" weapons? If it's the former, sure, you can hunt just as well with revolvers or bolt-actions. But if it's the latter, you're probably just inviting the gun rights pedants to keep on splitting hairs over pistol grips, magazine sizes, folding stocks, and Christ knows what else.
 
dmg626
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:47 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 1:07 am

Newark727 wrote:
So wait, what's actually being banned here? Semi-automatic actions, or "assault style" weapons? If it's the former, sure, you can hunt just as well with revolvers or bolt-actions. But if it's the latter, you're probably just inviting the gun rights pedants to keep on splitting hairs over pistol grips, magazine sizes, folding stocks, and Christ knows what else.


What does hunting have to do with it?
 
dmg626
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:47 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 1:10 am

Newark727 wrote:
So wait, what's actually being banned here? Semi-automatic actions, or "assault style" weapons? If it's the former, sure, you can hunt just as well with revolvers or bolt-actions. But if it's the latter, you're probably just inviting the gun rights pedants to keep on splitting hairs over pistol grips, magazine sizes, folding stocks, and Christ knows what else.


What does hunting have to do with it?
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 1:33 am

Yet, there is one conspicuous firearm missing from the list. I own one and think it's a fine weapon. Any problem in the real world can be solved with it. Any serious firearms aficionado would know what it is. Others don't need to know since they just get their panties in a bunch.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2023
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:03 am

dmg626 wrote:
What does hunting have to do with it?


Legitimate civilian use of firearms. You don't need an assault rifle to do it.
 
dmg626
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:47 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:34 am

Newark727 wrote:
dmg626 wrote:
What does hunting have to do with it?


Legitimate civilian use of firearms. You don't need an assault rifle to do it.


So hunting is legitimate but personal protection isn’t ?
 
Newark727
Posts: 2023
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:46 am

dmg626 wrote:
So hunting is legitimate but personal protection isn’t ?


If you need an AR-15 for personal protection either you're in an active warzone, or you are wrong. So no.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 3:05 am

Country had mass shooting. Country decides that it's not very nice and so takes a measure to lower the likelihood of such an unpleasant event happening.

Other country has many shootings nearly every day. Other country decides that nothing can be done, so nothing is done, so many shootings still happen. Other country has shocked Pikachu face. Thoughts and prayers, that's the solution!
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 4:28 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Country had mass shooting. Country decides that it's not very nice and so takes a measure to lower the likelihood of such an unpleasant event happening.

Other country has many shootings nearly every day. Other country decides that nothing can be done, so nothing is done, so many shootings still happen. Other country has shocked Pikachu face. Thoughts and prayers, that's the solution!


Well, there ARE many fine people on both sides, right? :lol:

I love how the same idiots who say gun bans can't work have no problem legislating drug bans and mandatory sentencing. Now that's worked like a charm!
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
Kiwirob
Topic Author
Posts: 12962
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 5:43 am

johns624 wrote:
Yet, there is one conspicuous firearm missing from the list. I own one and think it's a fine weapon. Any problem in the real world can be solved with it. Any serious firearms aficionado would know what it is. Others don't need to know since they just get their panties in a bunch.


Ruger 10/22?
 
TSS
Posts: 3658
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 8:02 am

LyleLanley wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Country had mass shooting. Country decides that it's not very nice and so takes a measure to lower the likelihood of such an unpleasant event happening.

Other country has many shootings nearly every day. Other country decides that nothing can be done, so nothing is done, so many shootings still happen. Other country has shocked Pikachu face. Thoughts and prayers, that's the solution!


Well, there ARE many fine people on both sides, right? :lol:

I love how the same idiots who say gun bans can't work have no problem legislating drug bans and mandatory sentencing. Now that's worked like a charm!


Two totally different things, dude. Drugs are clearly the work of Satan. Haven't you ever heard marijuana referred to as "The Devil's Lettuce"? :stirthepot:

Newark727 wrote:
So wait, what's actually being banned here? Semi-automatic actions, or "assault style" weapons?


That was my question.

Newark727 wrote:
If it's the former, sure, you can hunt just as well with revolvers or bolt-actions. But if it's the latter, you're probably just inviting the gun rights pedants to keep on splitting hairs over pistol grips, magazine sizes, folding stocks, and Christ knows what else.


Pedantic though it might be, if you're going to ban something then you need to very specifically define in unambiguous terms what it is you're banning, otherwise a case could be made that two-shot Derringers are "assault style" weapons because it is quite possible to hit someone with one by throwing it at them (in many cases you'll get better target accuracy that way than you would by actually firing a two-shot Derringer as well) thereby committing assault.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 9:03 am

Good. It's about time.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
JJJ
Posts: 3718
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 9:19 am

"Police say they believe the gunman acquired at least some of his weapons in the US."

Good luck enforcing the law with the neighbors down South selling them to anyone.

Still without more details about exactly which features are going to be banned the discussion is moot.

I presume they'll be going the route of banning semi-auto high capacity long guns. Either both features or making one exclusive from the other.

This can lead to quirks like the bolt-action ARs sold in the UK or the limitation tubes and 3-round magazines we have over here.
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 11:08 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Country had mass shooting. Country decides that it's not very nice and so takes a measure to lower the likelihood of such an unpleasant event happening.

Other country has many shootings nearly every day. Other country decides that nothing can be done, so nothing is done, so many shootings still happen. Other country has shocked Pikachu face. Thoughts and prayers, that's the solution!


Canada's gun ban would have done literally nothing to prevent their most recent mass shooting even had it been on the books before that shooting happened. But, they are free to take knee-jerk actions if they wish. Just glad that they share a border with us but not a government with us.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 11:56 am

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yet, there is one conspicuous firearm missing from the list. I own one and think it's a fine weapon. Any problem in the real world can be solved with it. Any serious firearms aficionado would know what it is. Others don't need to know since they just get their panties in a bunch.


Ruger 10/22?
No.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 12:18 pm

N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Country had mass shooting. Country decides that it's not very nice and so takes a measure to lower the likelihood of such an unpleasant event happening.

Other country has many shootings nearly every day. Other country decides that nothing can be done, so nothing is done, so many shootings still happen. Other country has shocked Pikachu face. Thoughts and prayers, that's the solution!


Canada's gun ban would have done literally nothing to prevent their most recent mass shooting even had it been on the books before that shooting happened. But, they are free to take knee-jerk actions if they wish. Just glad that they share a border with us but not a government with us.


Taking actions to reduce the likelihood of a horrible crime is a much better step than effectively doing nothing. Collectively the USA decides that the thousands of homicides, mass shootings and suicides are worth the 'freedom' to have guns, so no changes are made. It would be nice if the people who do not feel any change needs to be made could not act shocked when people die in large numbers, and instead of praying as if they're making a difference, they can just be indifferent and cold, which is more in tune with what's actually happening.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 12:19 pm

N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Country had mass shooting. Country decides that it's not very nice and so takes a measure to lower the likelihood of such an unpleasant event happening.

Other country has many shootings nearly every day. Other country decides that nothing can be done, so nothing is done, so many shootings still happen. Other country has shocked Pikachu face. Thoughts and prayers, that's the solution!


Canada's gun ban would have done literally nothing to prevent their most recent mass shooting even had it been on the books before that shooting happened. But, they are free to take knee-jerk actions if they wish. Just glad that they share a border with us but not a government with us.


Taking actions to reduce the likelihood of a horrible crime is a much better step than effectively doing nothing. Collectively the USA decides that the thousands of homicides, mass shootings and suicides are worth the 'freedom' to have guns, so no changes are made. It would be nice if the people who do not feel any change needs to be made could not act shocked when people die in large numbers, and instead of praying as if they're making a difference, they can just be indifferent and cold, which is more in tune with what's actually happening.
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 12:28 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Country had mass shooting. Country decides that it's not very nice and so takes a measure to lower the likelihood of such an unpleasant event happening.

Other country has many shootings nearly every day. Other country decides that nothing can be done, so nothing is done, so many shootings still happen. Other country has shocked Pikachu face. Thoughts and prayers, that's the solution!


Canada's gun ban would have done literally nothing to prevent their most recent mass shooting even had it been on the books before that shooting happened. But, they are free to take knee-jerk actions if they wish. Just glad that they share a border with us but not a government with us.


Taking actions to reduce the likelihood of a horrible crime is a much better step than effectively doing nothing. Collectively the USA decides that the thousands of homicides, mass shootings and suicides are worth the 'freedom' to have guns, so no changes are made. It would be nice if the people who do not feel any change needs to be made could not act shocked when people die in large numbers, and instead of praying as if they're making a difference, they can just be indifferent and cold, which is more in tune with what's actually happening.


You can be horrified about an event without proposing solutions that in hindsight wouldn't have even stopped that event from occurring. Also, you can be horrified about an event without proposing "solutions" that would be detrimental to people who had nothing to do with that event. I find it horrible whenever I read about a fatal car accident on the news, but I'm not out there advocating for my neighbor's Corvette to be confiscated because it is capable of dramatically exceeding the speed limit.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12326
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 12:34 pm

N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Canada's gun ban would have done literally nothing to prevent their most recent mass shooting even had it been on the books before that shooting happened. But, they are free to take knee-jerk actions if they wish. Just glad that they share a border with us but not a government with us.


Taking actions to reduce the likelihood of a horrible crime is a much better step than effectively doing nothing. Collectively the USA decides that the thousands of homicides, mass shootings and suicides are worth the 'freedom' to have guns, so no changes are made. It would be nice if the people who do not feel any change needs to be made could not act shocked when people die in large numbers, and instead of praying as if they're making a difference, they can just be indifferent and cold, which is more in tune with what's actually happening.


You can be horrified about an event without proposing solutions that in hindsight wouldn't have even stopped that event from occurring. Also, you can be horrified about an event without proposing "solutions" that would be detrimental to people who had nothing to do with that event. I find it horrible whenever I read about a fatal car accident on the news, but I'm not out there advocating for my neighbor's Corvette to be confiscated because it is capable of dramatically exceeding the speed limit.


Silly straw man - military-grade rifles are not transport vehicles.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 12:37 pm

N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Canada's gun ban would have done literally nothing to prevent their most recent mass shooting even had it been on the books before that shooting happened. But, they are free to take knee-jerk actions if they wish. Just glad that they share a border with us but not a government with us.


Taking actions to reduce the likelihood of a horrible crime is a much better step than effectively doing nothing. Collectively the USA decides that the thousands of homicides, mass shootings and suicides are worth the 'freedom' to have guns, so no changes are made. It would be nice if the people who do not feel any change needs to be made could not act shocked when people die in large numbers, and instead of praying as if they're making a difference, they can just be indifferent and cold, which is more in tune with what's actually happening.


You can be horrified about an event without proposing solutions that in hindsight wouldn't have even stopped that event from occurring. Also, you can be horrified about an event without proposing "solutions" that would be detrimental to people who had nothing to do with that event. I find it horrible whenever I read about a fatal car accident on the news, but I'm not out there advocating for my neighbor's Corvette to be confiscated because it is capable of dramatically exceeding the speed limit.


Their solution probably lowers the likelihood of a similar event happening, taking steps to avoid something that hasn't happened yet is better than waiting for such an event to happen first.

The car analogy comes up often, but it is still a terrible comparison. To drive a car, you need to demonstrate that you can operate the car, drive it safely on the roads and thus get a licence, then be insured. It is regulated, and safety improvements are constantly rolled in if issues arise. Yes, accidents happen, but that is a consequence of going fast in a metal box, the car at least provides individual mobility. What is the point of guns besides to kill, injure, or threaten either of the above?

Can you imagine a scenario where there is a known problem, but the people in charge do not take action and so people keep dying? We saw 346 people die in 737 MAX crashes, that is considered absolutely unacceptable, and airlines will not be permitted to fly it until Boeing demonstrate that is is sufficiently safe. When it comes to guns in America, no amount of dead people is enough to encourage any change so unsurprisingly, people still die in their thousands. But hey, they have 'freedom'.
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 12:41 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

Taking actions to reduce the likelihood of a horrible crime is a much better step than effectively doing nothing. Collectively the USA decides that the thousands of homicides, mass shootings and suicides are worth the 'freedom' to have guns, so no changes are made. It would be nice if the people who do not feel any change needs to be made could not act shocked when people die in large numbers, and instead of praying as if they're making a difference, they can just be indifferent and cold, which is more in tune with what's actually happening.


You can be horrified about an event without proposing solutions that in hindsight wouldn't have even stopped that event from occurring. Also, you can be horrified about an event without proposing "solutions" that would be detrimental to people who had nothing to do with that event. I find it horrible whenever I read about a fatal car accident on the news, but I'm not out there advocating for my neighbor's Corvette to be confiscated because it is capable of dramatically exceeding the speed limit.


Silly straw man - military-grade rifles are not transport vehicles.


Military grade rifles are already essentially banned in Canada (and the United States).
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 12:46 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

Taking actions to reduce the likelihood of a horrible crime is a much better step than effectively doing nothing. Collectively the USA decides that the thousands of homicides, mass shootings and suicides are worth the 'freedom' to have guns, so no changes are made. It would be nice if the people who do not feel any change needs to be made could not act shocked when people die in large numbers, and instead of praying as if they're making a difference, they can just be indifferent and cold, which is more in tune with what's actually happening.


You can be horrified about an event without proposing solutions that in hindsight wouldn't have even stopped that event from occurring. Also, you can be horrified about an event without proposing "solutions" that would be detrimental to people who had nothing to do with that event. I find it horrible whenever I read about a fatal car accident on the news, but I'm not out there advocating for my neighbor's Corvette to be confiscated because it is capable of dramatically exceeding the speed limit.


Their solution probably lowers the likelihood of a similar event happening, taking steps to avoid something that hasn't happened yet is better than waiting for such an event to happen first.

The car analogy comes up often, but it is still a terrible comparison. To drive a car, you need to demonstrate that you can operate the car, drive it safely on the roads and thus get a licence, then be insured. It is regulated, and safety improvements are constantly rolled in if issues arise. Yes, accidents happen, but that is a consequence of going fast in a metal box, the car at least provides individual mobility. What is the point of guns besides to kill, injure, or threaten either of the above?

Can you imagine a scenario where there is a known problem, but the people in charge do not take action and so people keep dying? We saw 346 people die in 737 MAX crashes, that is considered absolutely unacceptable, and airlines will not be permitted to fly it until Boeing demonstrate that is is sufficiently safe. When it comes to guns in America, no amount of dead people is enough to encourage any change so unsurprisingly, people still die in their thousands. But hey, they have 'freedom'.


You don't need to "demonstrate" anything to drive a car. You simply need to place the key in the ignition and off you go. People can and do unlawfully drive vehicles just like this man unlawfully purchased his weapons.

Guns have a number of uses....hunting, self-defense, target shooting, sporting events (i.e. skeet and target shooting). Unlawfully using a gun is no different than unlawfully using a car or a knife or an airplane.

Rifles of any kind kill less people in the United States each year than blunt objects like baseball bats and balled fists. So, if we are interested in banning things to "save lives", "assault" rifles would be far down that list, well below things like sports cars, cheeseburgers, alcohol, and swimming pools.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 1:24 pm

N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:

You can be horrified about an event without proposing solutions that in hindsight wouldn't have even stopped that event from occurring. Also, you can be horrified about an event without proposing "solutions" that would be detrimental to people who had nothing to do with that event. I find it horrible whenever I read about a fatal car accident on the news, but I'm not out there advocating for my neighbor's Corvette to be confiscated because it is capable of dramatically exceeding the speed limit.


Their solution probably lowers the likelihood of a similar event happening, taking steps to avoid something that hasn't happened yet is better than waiting for such an event to happen first.

The car analogy comes up often, but it is still a terrible comparison. To drive a car, you need to demonstrate that you can operate the car, drive it safely on the roads and thus get a licence, then be insured. It is regulated, and safety improvements are constantly rolled in if issues arise. Yes, accidents happen, but that is a consequence of going fast in a metal box, the car at least provides individual mobility. What is the point of guns besides to kill, injure, or threaten either of the above?

Can you imagine a scenario where there is a known problem, but the people in charge do not take action and so people keep dying? We saw 346 people die in 737 MAX crashes, that is considered absolutely unacceptable, and airlines will not be permitted to fly it until Boeing demonstrate that is is sufficiently safe. When it comes to guns in America, no amount of dead people is enough to encourage any change so unsurprisingly, people still die in their thousands. But hey, they have 'freedom'.


You don't need to "demonstrate" anything to drive a car. You simply need to place the key in the ignition and off you go. People can and do unlawfully drive vehicles just like this man unlawfully purchased his weapons.

Guns have a number of uses....hunting, self-defense, target shooting, sporting events (i.e. skeet and target shooting). Unlawfully using a gun is no different than unlawfully using a car or a knife or an airplane.

Rifles of any kind kill less people in the United States each year than blunt objects like baseball bats and balled fists. So, if we are interested in banning things to "save lives", "assault" rifles would be far down that list, well below things like sports cars, cheeseburgers, alcohol, and swimming pools.


Measures are taken to crack down on unlawful drivers, no such measures are in place to reduce the possibilities of mass shootings and homicides. Supporters of gun rights have even advocated the idea that guns are the solution to mass shootings, but that is closing the door after the horse has bolted.

Sports cars, cheeseburgers, alcohol and swimming pools? Just whataboutery. Generally a good idea to combat all of them. Every other developed country manages it, so I'm sure the USA can take a decent shot at it.

According to statistics, in the USA:

- 38,800 people died in car accidents in the USA in 2019 (all vehicles, not sports cars)
- Around 4000 die each year from drowning, in the sea and swimming pools
- 88,000 die from alcohol each year.
- Around 15,000 die each year from shootings.
- I can't find a figure for cheeseburgers, but cheese burgers do not usually kill you, especially not in moderation.

At least with the cars, drownings, alcohol and cheeseburgers they are accidents for which you can take measures to keep yourself safe. The same doesn't apply to guns, as people can and do get shot just because they are unlucky enough to get caught. Often people won't have had a choice in whether they live or not.
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 1:31 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

Their solution probably lowers the likelihood of a similar event happening, taking steps to avoid something that hasn't happened yet is better than waiting for such an event to happen first.

The car analogy comes up often, but it is still a terrible comparison. To drive a car, you need to demonstrate that you can operate the car, drive it safely on the roads and thus get a licence, then be insured. It is regulated, and safety improvements are constantly rolled in if issues arise. Yes, accidents happen, but that is a consequence of going fast in a metal box, the car at least provides individual mobility. What is the point of guns besides to kill, injure, or threaten either of the above?

Can you imagine a scenario where there is a known problem, but the people in charge do not take action and so people keep dying? We saw 346 people die in 737 MAX crashes, that is considered absolutely unacceptable, and airlines will not be permitted to fly it until Boeing demonstrate that is is sufficiently safe. When it comes to guns in America, no amount of dead people is enough to encourage any change so unsurprisingly, people still die in their thousands. But hey, they have 'freedom'.


You don't need to "demonstrate" anything to drive a car. You simply need to place the key in the ignition and off you go. People can and do unlawfully drive vehicles just like this man unlawfully purchased his weapons.

Guns have a number of uses....hunting, self-defense, target shooting, sporting events (i.e. skeet and target shooting). Unlawfully using a gun is no different than unlawfully using a car or a knife or an airplane.

Rifles of any kind kill less people in the United States each year than blunt objects like baseball bats and balled fists. So, if we are interested in banning things to "save lives", "assault" rifles would be far down that list, well below things like sports cars, cheeseburgers, alcohol, and swimming pools.


Measures are taken to crack down on unlawful drivers, no such measures are in place to reduce the possibilities of mass shootings and homicides. Supporters of gun rights have even advocated the idea that guns are the solution to mass shootings, but that is closing the door after the horse has bolted.

Sports cars, cheeseburgers, alcohol and swimming pools? Just whataboutery. Generally a good idea to combat all of them. Every other developed country manages it, so I'm sure the USA can take a decent shot at it.

According to statistics, in the USA:

- 38,800 people died in car accidents in the USA in 2019 (all vehicles, not sports cars)
- Around 4000 die each year from drowning, in the sea and swimming pools
- 88,000 die from alcohol each year.
- Around 15,000 die each year from shootings.
- I can't find a figure for cheeseburgers, but cheese burgers do not usually kill you, especially not in moderation.

At least with the cars, drownings, alcohol and cheeseburgers they are accidents for which you can take measures to keep yourself safe. The same doesn't apply to guns, as people can and do get shot just because they are unlucky enough to get caught. Often people won't have had a choice in whether they live or not.


You can't honestly argue that "measures are in place to stop unlawful driving" and then argue on the other hand that no measures are in place to stop homicides. Most homicides in the United States are the result of gang violence, drug-related violence, or domestic violence. Gang bangers and drug dealers are already prohibited in most cases from owning firearms, so there are indeed measures in place to combat those crimes, just like there are measures in place to prevent drunk driving.

Guns have been used to stop mass shootings in the past. Personally, if I'm locked inside a building with someone who is intent on killing me, I'd rather be able to defend myself than just sit helpless and wait for a bullet, but I can understand if you'd feel differently.

If you dive a bit deeper into the gun fatalities in the United States, you'd find that most of the deaths are suicides, and most of the remainder are a result of gang or urban violence which is typically carried out by people who can't legally own guns in the first place. So, once again, if we are in the business of trying to "ban" things to make life safer, guns would be far down the list, well-behind most cars, swimming pools, cheeseburgers, alcohol, and a whole host of things. A swimming pool isn't going to save your life, but guns save countless lives each year (there are either tens of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses each year in the United States, depending on the source you use). Also, there are plenty of people who can and do die in accidents just because they are unlucky enough to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6268
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:04 pm

N583JB wrote:
If you dive a bit deeper into the gun fatalities in the United States, you'd find that most of the deaths are suicides, and most of the remainder are a result of gang or urban violence which is typically carried out by people who can't legally own guns in the first place.


I would like to see your sources, because my research still indicated a person is 10x more likely to die of a gunshot wound if that person owns a gun. A significant percentage of gunshot deaths are accidental shootings by mis-handling guns. By people with conceal carry permits, NRA gun safety training, or family members killed by improperly stored guns.

Even deaths which are classified as homicides, the number of stranger-stranger shootings is a much smaller percentage than the number of shootings by family members or long time acquaintances.

An AR-15, anything with a 20 round magazine, etc are not Personal Defense/ Home Security weapons. They are OFFENSIVE weapons. When I used an M-16, you might want to say it was in defense. The ROE said it was to be fired in defense. But the second I was in a situation which allowed me to use the weapon, it was my immediate goal to take offensive control of the situation. To make the other poor dumb SOB to die for his country.

If you want something for personal security, you buy a 12 gauge shotgun. Because you can actually HIT a target with a shotgun, and the limited range minimizes the risk of friendly fire. The records I've seen show that people using handguns and long barrel single round weapons are horribly inaccurate in high stress situations. That includes trained police officers. The number of rounds fired per hit is horrible, and the number of innocents hit by inaccurate fire is high.

That's why people want high capacity magazines, high rate of fire weapons - because in their heart they know that they really cannot hit a target firing at them. It doesn't take a 50 round magazine to take down a shooter. It takes two or three rounds, MAX, of disciplined fire. A shotgun greatly increases the chances of accurate fire. Nothing else does. PERIOD.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:09 pm

N583JB wrote:

You can't honestly argue that "measures are in place to stop unlawful driving" and then argue on the other hand that no measures are in place to stop homicides. Most homicides in the United States are the result of gang violence, drug-related violence, or domestic violence. Gang bangers and drug dealers are already prohibited in most cases from owning firearms, so there are indeed measures in place to combat those crimes, just like there are measures in place to prevent drunk driving.



In every other developed country, the homicides resulting from gang violence, drug violence or domestic violence caused by guns are much, much lower. Every other developed country. The USA is the only outlier. You are yet to provide a good explanation for this. Why are the gun deaths so much higher only in the USA?

Guns have been used to stop mass shootings in the past. Personally, if I'm locked inside a building with someone who is intent on killing me, I'd rather be able to defend myself than just sit helpless and wait for a bullet, but I can understand if you'd feel differently.


I'll agree that guns are the best way to stop a shooter once the shooting has started, but if a shooting has started then guns have already failed to be a deterrence. Other countries simply do not have to worry about being in a mass shooting anywhere near as often.

[/quote]If you dive a bit deeper into the gun fatalities in the United States, you'd find that most of the deaths are suicides, and most of the remainder are a result of gang or urban violence which is typically carried out by people who can't legally own guns in the first place. So, once again, if we are in the business of trying to "ban" things to make life safer, guns would be far down the list, well-behind most cars, swimming pools, cheeseburgers, alcohol, and a whole host of things. A swimming pool isn't going to save your life, but guns save countless lives each year (there are either tens of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses each year in the United States, depending on the source you use). Also, there are plenty of people who can and do die in accidents just because they are unlucky enough to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.[/quote]

The 15,000 figure excludes suicides.

I just showed figures that swimming pool deaths were drastically lower, but I digress. Some figures for how many are killed by the above would be helpful. Like I said to you before, there doesn't have to be a priority list tackled in order, the means are there to tackle all of them. No one is suggesting that we ignore the others and focus only on gun violence.

I don't like your implication that it's OK that problems exist mostly in gangs and such, that's not a reason to do nothing, laws should be about helping everyone as much as possible.

Guns may save some lives each year, but doubtful that it's more than the cost. 15,000 a year is a lot, but the most comprehensive list of situations where someone with a gun stopped a shooting provided maybe a dozen examples over a 20+ year timespan.

Also: few suggest banning guns, they suggest tighter regulations, so that fewer people more likely to do harm get them, but people who need them get them. Evidently not enough is being done now because - as I have stated multiple times to you - the USA is the only developed country where gun problems are this severe.
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:28 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
If you dive a bit deeper into the gun fatalities in the United States, you'd find that most of the deaths are suicides, and most of the remainder are a result of gang or urban violence which is typically carried out by people who can't legally own guns in the first place.


I would like to see your sources, because my research still indicated a person is 10x more likely to die of a gunshot wound if that person owns a gun. A significant percentage of gunshot deaths are accidental shootings by mis-handling guns. By people with conceal carry permits, NRA gun safety training, or family members killed by improperly stored guns.

Even deaths which are classified as homicides, the number of stranger-stranger shootings is a much smaller percentage than the number of shootings by family members or long time acquaintances.

An AR-15, anything with a 20 round magazine, etc are not Personal Defense/ Home Security weapons. They are OFFENSIVE weapons. When I used an M-16, you might want to say it was in defense. The ROE said it was to be fired in defense. But the second I was in a situation which allowed me to use the weapon, it was my immediate goal to take offensive control of the situation. To make the other poor dumb SOB to die for his country.

If you want something for personal security, you buy a 12 gauge shotgun. Because you can actually HIT a target with a shotgun, and the limited range minimizes the risk of friendly fire. The records I've seen show that people using handguns and long barrel single round weapons are horribly inaccurate in high stress situations. That includes trained police officers. The number of rounds fired per hit is horrible, and the number of innocents hit by inaccurate fire is high.

That's why people want high capacity magazines, high rate of fire weapons - because in their heart they know that they really cannot hit a target firing at them. It doesn't take a 50 round magazine to take down a shooter. It takes two or three rounds, MAX, of disciplined fire. A shotgun greatly increases the chances of accurate fire. Nothing else does. PERIOD.


Sources, sure. Going by the most recent data I was able to find, there are around 33,000 gun deaths annually in the United States, and 21,000 of those were suicides. 11,000 were homicides, and several hundred were accidental. (Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/).

Of the 11,000 gun homicides, 600+ involved people killed in robberies and burglaries. 432 involved people committing known narcotics felonies. 700 involved gangland violence. 76 involved love triangles. For nearly half of the gun homicides, the cause was not known (source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... ble-11.xls).

Given that there were less than 500 accidental firearms deaths in the United States and over 300,000,000 firearms in circulation, your odds of being accidentally killed by your firearm are extremely low. If you store and handle your firearm properly and safely, your chances of being killed accidentally by that firearm are essentially zero.

A 12 gauge shotgun may be great for home defense, but it is not a concealed carry weapon nor is it a weapon that you can keep in your car. Moreover, given that you only get 5 or 6 shots with one before you have to reload, it maybe be useful for a single intruder at short range but not for multiple intruders at once. The AR-15 and similar-style rifles have been used several times in recent occasions to repel multiple home invaders or criminals at once.

Two or three rounds may be enough for a well-trained shooter or someone who is ex-military, but it is not enough for your average Joe or Jane. I agree that 50 round mags are excessive. You mentioned earlier that it takes police officers many shots to bring someone down in a lot of instances, and those are people who are well-trained in firearms usage and who are used to encountering extremely stressful situations. Two or three shots isn't going to cut it for the woman who is home alone and is terrified, particularly when it can often take 10+ shots to bring someone down.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:31 pm

Review the stats, here’s the easiest place, but the FBI puts out lots. Accidents are rare, 505 in one recent year, suicides are rising and 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US. Rifles are rarely used, about 300 out of 12,000 homicides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:34 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:

You can't honestly argue that "measures are in place to stop unlawful driving" and then argue on the other hand that no measures are in place to stop homicides. Most homicides in the United States are the result of gang violence, drug-related violence, or domestic violence. Gang bangers and drug dealers are already prohibited in most cases from owning firearms, so there are indeed measures in place to combat those crimes, just like there are measures in place to prevent drunk driving.



In every other developed country, the homicides resulting from gang violence, drug violence or domestic violence caused by guns are much, much lower. Every other developed country. The USA is the only outlier. You are yet to provide a good explanation for this. Why are the gun deaths so much higher only in the USA?

Guns have been used to stop mass shootings in the past. Personally, if I'm locked inside a building with someone who is intent on killing me, I'd rather be able to defend myself than just sit helpless and wait for a bullet, but I can understand if you'd feel differently.

I'll agree that guns are the best way to stop a shooter once the shooting has started, but if a shooting has started then guns have already failed to be a deterrence. Other countries simply do not have to worry about being in a mass shooting anywhere near as often.

If you dive a bit deeper into the gun fatalities in the United States, you'd find that most of the deaths are suicides, and most of the remainder are a result of gang or urban violence which is typically carried out by people who can't legally own guns in the first place. So, once again, if we are in the business of trying to "ban" things to make life safer, guns would be far down the list, well-behind most cars, swimming pools, cheeseburgers, alcohol, and a whole host of things. A swimming pool isn't going to save your life, but guns save countless lives each year (there are either tens of thousands or millions of defensive gun uses each year in the United States, depending on the source you use). Also, there are plenty of people who can and do die in accidents just because they are unlucky enough to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The 15,000 figure excludes suicides.

I just showed figures that swimming pool deaths were drastically lower, but I digress. Some figures for how many are killed by the above would be helpful. Like I said to you before, there doesn't have to be a priority list tackled in order, the means are there to tackle all of them. No one is suggesting that we ignore the others and focus only on gun violence.

I don't like your implication that it's OK that problems exist mostly in gangs and such, that's not a reason to do nothing, laws should be about helping everyone as much as possible.

Guns may save some lives each year, but doubtful that it's more than the cost. 15,000 a year is a lot, but the most comprehensive list of situations where someone with a gun stopped a shooting provided maybe a dozen examples over a 20+ year timespan.

Also: few suggest banning guns, they suggest tighter regulations, so that fewer people more likely to do harm get them, but people who need them get them. Evidently not enough is being done now because - as I have stated multiple times to you - the USA is the only developed country where gun problems are this severe.


Several things here. First, there are more guns in the United States than there are people. Even if every gun was outlawed tomorrow, criminals would still be well-armed and they would likely continue to be well-armed for the rest of our lifetimes, because guns are so plentiful. So, there is no putting that genie back in its bottle.

Second, no one is saying that it is OK that gangs and urban areas have gun problems. But, those problems can be solved by enforcing the existing gun laws without adding a single new law. If John is a convicted felon and illegally carries a .45 on him wherever he goes, then John needs to be arrested and that gun needs to be taken off of the street. If John's neighbor Jim has never committed a crime in his life and lawfully carries a 9mm on him wherever he goes because he is afraid of John and his friends, then Jim needs to be left alone.

Lastly, I posted a link to FBI statistics that showed roughly 11,000 gun homicides each year in the United States. This is in contrast to between tens of thousands (low end estimate) and millions (high end estimate) of defensive gun uses each year in the United States. It seems as if guns are more useful as a defensive weapon than an offensive one.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:46 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
An AR-15, anything with a 20 round magazine, etc are not Personal Defense/ Home Security weapons. They are OFFENSIVE weapons. When I used an M-16, you might want to say it was in defense. The ROE said it was to be fired in defense. But the second I was in a situation which allowed me to use the weapon, it was my immediate goal to take offensive control of the situation. To make the other poor dumb SOB to die for his country.

If you want something for personal security, you buy a 12 gauge shotgun. Because you can actually HIT a target with a shotgun, and the limited range minimizes the risk of friendly fire. The records I've seen show that people using handguns and long barrel single round weapons are horribly inaccurate in high stress situations. That includes trained police officers. The number of rounds fired per hit is horrible, and the number of innocents hit by inaccurate fire is high.

That's why people want high capacity magazines, high rate of fire weapons - because in their heart they know that they really cannot hit a target firing at them. It doesn't take a 50 round magazine to take down a shooter. It takes two or three rounds, MAX, of disciplined fire. A shotgun greatly increases the chances of accurate fire. Nothing else does. PERIOD.
Just a few points---an AR15 and an M16 are two entirely different weapons. It's like saying that a NASCAR Toyota Camry is the same as a road legal model.
You're obviously not familiar with shotguns. They have a couple of major drawbacks. First, they have very heavy recoil. Second, they have to be aimed, just like any other gun. If the shot spreads 3 inches at 15-20 feet, you're doing good. Finally, even though they have to be aimed, they have very bad sights, making accurate shots hard.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6268
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:47 pm

While the numbers of the two above posters may show that my research might be a little old, they do not support the position that high capacity weapons are useful in either defensive situations, or more importantly - actually decrease the likely hood of involvement of gun violence.

Multiple shooters - that is simply not supported by any evidence as a credible threat to the homeowner/ private individual. Now it the person is involved in criminal activity, bringing them into daily contact with people operating outside the law - that may be a credible threat.

Gang violence is largely gang upon gang. Not gang upon private individuals.

N583JB wrote:
You mentioned earlier that it takes police officers many shots to bring someone down in a lot of instances, and those are people who are well-trained in firearms usage and who are used to encountering extremely stressful situations.


You would be surprised at the relativity low training levels of the 'average' police officer. As incident after incident shows, police officers has a small, but minor, ability to make correct difficult decisions under high stress. And police organizations are absolutely horrible at peer review and retraining after an officer is involved in high stress situations, even those not involving firearms usage.

A key problems is that individual level personality and reactions are dealt with in an accusatory manner, not as peer review retraining. Officers are continually allowed to develop 'unsatisfactory' methods of dealing with the public whom they are supposed to preserve and protect. This lack of training is as much a factor of the poor levels of funding by the public as the way the system is built.

And the public perception by many that police officers are there to harass the public rather than help is a major contributor to the problem. The best piece of advice my father ever gave me is to never argue with a cop. A judge is the person who gets paid to listen to my arguments.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:50 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
[
I would like to see your sources, because my research still indicated a person is 10x more likely to die of a gunshot wound if that person owns a gun. A significant percentage of gunshot deaths are accidental shootings by mis-handling guns. By people with conceal carry permits, NRA gun safety training, or family members killed by improperly stored guns.
Anybody else see the irony here? First, he demands to see someone else's sources, then he doesn't give any for his own "research".
As far as "trained police officers", if you only knew how little training most cops get or do on their own, you'd be very afraid to have them armed. The average gun enthusiast shoots more than most police.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:54 pm

N583JB wrote:
Several things here. First, there are more guns in the United States than there are people. Even if every gun was outlawed tomorrow, criminals would still be well-armed and they would likely continue to be well-armed for the rest of our lifetimes, because guns are so plentiful. So, there is no putting that genie back in its bottle.


So... the problem is so bad and so far gone that there's no way back. That's absolutely appalling.


Second, no one is saying that it is OK that gangs and urban areas have gun problems. But, those problems can be solved by enforcing the existing gun laws without adding a single new law. If John is a convicted felon and illegally carries a .45 on him wherever he goes, then John needs to be arrested and that gun needs to be taken off of the street. If John's neighbor Jim has never committed a crime in his life and lawfully carries a 9mm on him wherever he goes because he is afraid of John and his friends, then Jim needs to be left alone.


You're not saying it's OK, but you used that as a riposte to the high numbers. As a side note, earlier you claimed that most of the homicides were a result of gang/drug violence, yet your own figures give 1132 homicides caused by those out of 11,000...

If neither Jim nor John needed guns and so neither had them, that'd be better. If Jim needed a gun and could show that he has no criminal record and no sign of becoming a mass killer, as well as the necessary precautions to prevent accidental use, then he should be allowed to have a gun.


Lastly, I posted a link to FBI statistics that showed roughly 11,000 gun homicides each year in the United States. This is in contrast to between tens of thousands (low end estimate) and millions (high end estimate) of defensive gun uses each year in the United States. It seems as if guns are more useful as a defensive weapon than an offensive one.


It's also in stark contrast to every other country where the numbers of gun deaths, gun use and gun defences are far lower! It'd be interesting to see where you get your figures from.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6268
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 2:57 pm

johns624 wrote:
Just a few points---an AR15 and an M16 are two entirely different weapons. It's like saying that a NASCAR Toyota Camry is the same as a road legal model.


Yes they are different weapons. However the number of AR-15 type weapons converted to be capable of M16 type usage involved in mass shootings is very high, and not expensive. And the NRA considers it my and your RIGHT to be able to purchase openly without any background check to make the conversion to full automatic.

johns624 wrote:
You're obviously not familiar with shotguns. They have a couple of major drawbacks. First, they have very heavy recoil. Second, they have to be aimed, just like any other gun. If the shot spreads 3 inches at 15-20 feet, you're doing good. Finally, even though they have to be aimed, they have very bad sights, making accurate shots hard.


No, not very familiar. Only owned and used them for about 57 of my 67+ years of life. Got my first 22 for Christmas when I was 10. Got my first squirrel the next day. Got my first 20 gau about two months later. Even a .410 is better than a 9mm in my opinion in a high stress situation like the supposed 'threat' of home invasion.

And what I see is that most gun owners have multiple weapons.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 3:05 pm


Multiple shooters - that is simply not supported by any evidence as a credible threat to the homeowner/ private individual. Now it the person is involved in criminal activity, bringing them into daily contact with people operating outside the law - that may be a credible threat.


With all due respect, there are numerous examples that prove you wrong-

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/us/flori ... index.html

https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/1 ... -invasion/

https://okcfox.com/news/local/wagoner-c ... arrow-area
 
N583JB
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 3:11 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Several things here. First, there are more guns in the United States than there are people. Even if every gun was outlawed tomorrow, criminals would still be well-armed and they would likely continue to be well-armed for the rest of our lifetimes, because guns are so plentiful. So, there is no putting that genie back in its bottle.


So... the problem is so bad and so far gone that there's no way back. That's absolutely appalling.


I wouldn't really call it a "problem", just a reality. There are 300,000,000+ guns in the United States, and around 11,000 of those are used to commit homicides each year. So, 99.99% of them aren't hurting anybody and are being used for their intended purposes.


Second, no one is saying that it is OK that gangs and urban areas have gun problems. But, those problems can be solved by enforcing the existing gun laws without adding a single new law. If John is a convicted felon and illegally carries a .45 on him wherever he goes, then John needs to be arrested and that gun needs to be taken off of the street. If John's neighbor Jim has never committed a crime in his life and lawfully carries a 9mm on him wherever he goes because he is afraid of John and his friends, then Jim needs to be left alone.

You're not saying it's OK, but you used that as a riposte to the high numbers. As a side note, earlier you claimed that most of the homicides were a result of gang/drug violence, yet your own figures give 1132 homicides caused by those out of 11,000...

If neither Jim nor John needed guns and so neither had them, that'd be better. If Jim needed a gun and could show that he has no criminal record and no sign of becoming a mass killer, as well as the necessary precautions to prevent accidental use, then he should be allowed to have a gun.


Of note, over 4,000 (nearly half) of those shootings listed had a cause that was undetermined or not reported to the FBI. Also, Jim already has to show that he has no criminal record in order to buy his gun. I'm not sure how Jim would provide proof that he would meet your other two requirements, though.


Lastly, I posted a link to FBI statistics that showed roughly 11,000 gun homicides each year in the United States. This is in contrast to between tens of thousands (low end estimate) and millions (high end estimate) of defensive gun uses each year in the United States. It seems as if guns are more useful as a defensive weapon than an offensive one.


It's also in stark contrast to every other country where the numbers of gun deaths, gun use and gun defences are far lower! It'd be interesting to see where you get your figures from.[/quote]

Here's an interesting column about DGU (defensive gun use) statistics. The long and the short of it is, we don't really know how often they are used in self-defense, but it appears to be more often than they are used to harm people-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/ ... 36e23c299a
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 3:19 pm

N583JB wrote:
I wouldn't really call it a "problem", just a reality. There are 300,000,000+ guns in the United States, and around 11,000 of those are used to commit homicides each year. So, 99.99% of them aren't hurting anybody and are being used for their intended purposes.


I'd call it an absolutely massive problem, but then maybe it's just because I see thousands of deaths every year as being pretty bad. A 2 decade long war costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars was started over the deaths of fewer than 3000!

Of note, over 4,000 (nearly half) of those shootings listed had a cause that was undetermined or not reported to the FBI. Also, Jim already has to show that he has no criminal record in order to buy his gun. I'm not sure how Jim would provide proof that he would meet your other two requirements, though.


True enough, but either way, a far cry from 'most of the remainder [of homicides] are a result of gang or urban violence which is typically carried out by people who can't legally own guns in the first place.'

Switzerland has high levels of gun ownership but fairly tight regulations, maybe they can be asked for assistance.


Lastly, I posted a link to FBI statistics that showed roughly 11,000 gun homicides each year in the United States. This is in contrast to between tens of thousands (low end estimate) and millions (high end estimate) of defensive gun uses each year in the United States. It seems as if guns are more useful as a defensive weapon than an offensive one.


Here's an interesting column about DGU (defensive gun use) statistics. The long and the short of it is, we don't really know how often they are used in self-defense, but it appears to be more often than they are used to harm people-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/ ... 36e23c299a


Seems that there are quite a few uses of guns being used defensively. Whether that balances out the thousands of deaths or thousands of times that people have crimes committed against them with guns but no death resulting (armed burglary and such), I'm not sure. Still pretty certain that it's only a problem in the USA...
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6268
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 3:22 pm

N583JB wrote:

Multiple shooters - that is simply not supported by any evidence as a credible threat to the homeowner/ private individual. Now it the person is involved in criminal activity, bringing them into daily contact with people operating outside the law - that may be a credible threat.


With all due respect, there are numerous examples that prove you wrong-

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/us/flori ... index.html

https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/1 ... -invasion/

https://okcfox.com/news/local/wagoner-c ... arrow-area


The first instance is not a 'multiple' shooters incident. Two is more than one. But as noted ONE shot was fired. The type of weapon used was not significant. The calm accurate fire was the deciding factor.

Second instance is the 'typical' gang on gang violence you described, despite the inaccurate headline.

The third instance is the proper use of a weapon in home defense.

But the key point is that we disagree, and neither of us will substantially change the opinion of each other, or anyone else. And neither of us really has a valid point regarding the decision of Canada to ban certain weapons. It is their country, and their right to make such laws and rules as they choose.

And our right to disagree, or agree.
Last edited by rfields5421 on Sun May 03, 2020 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 3:23 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
Yes they are different weapons. However the number of AR-15 type weapons converted to be capable of M16 type usage involved in mass shootings is very high, and not expensive. And the NRA considers it my and your RIGHT to be able to purchase openly without any background check to make the conversion to full automatic.


No, not very familiar. Only owned and used them for about 57 of my 67+ years of life. Got my first 22 for Christmas when I was 10. Got my first squirrel the next day. Got my first 20 gau about two months later. Even a .410 is better than a 9mm in my opinion in a high stress situation like the supposed 'threat' of home invasion.

And what I see is that most gun owners have multiple weapons.

No, there aren't a "very high" number of AR's converted to full auto. That ended in 1986. I don't believe there's ever been a legal full auto weapon used in a shooting. You can't just "convert" them. The machining required would take a trained machinist who could build the whole gun.
Have you ever patterned a shotgun at 15-20 feet? I didn't think so. Did you know that buckshot or slugs will penetrate drywall better than the M193 load used by an AR? I didn't think so. Why would anyone use a 410 for protection when, for hunting, it isn't really recommended for anything bigger than a rabbit?
 
JJJ
Posts: 3718
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 4:06 pm

N583JB wrote:

If you dive a bit deeper into the gun fatalities in the United States, you'd find that most of the deaths are suicides, and most of the remainder are a result of gang or urban violence which is typically carried out by people who can't legally own guns in the first place.


That's true of any developed country.

Most gun deaths are suicides and the rest the result of gang and domestic violence. Take those out and the US is still left with a disproportionally high firearm murder rate and also an overall murder date.

The US is a massive outlier.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 4:31 pm

Does anyone realize that this wide ranging gun ban wouldn't have stopped the mass killing that prompted it? He didn't legally own the guns he had and may have smuggled them into the country after buying them illegally. I also find it "interesting" that I haven't seen any news reports saying what he actually used. That way, they can just ban everything.
 
Kiwirob
Topic Author
Posts: 12962
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 6:17 pm

johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yet, there is one conspicuous firearm missing from the list. I own one and think it's a fine weapon. Any problem in the real world can be solved with it. Any serious firearms aficionado would know what it is. Others don't need to know since they just get their panties in a bunch.


Ruger 10/22?
No.


Then you missed two because it’s not on the list either.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 7:31 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yet, there is one conspicuous firearm missing from the list. I own one and think it's a fine weapon. Any problem in the real world can be solved with it. Any serious firearms aficionado would know what it is. Others don't need to know since they just get their panties in a bunch.


Ruger 10/22?


AK 47
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 7:33 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Ruger 10/22?
No.


Then you missed two because it’s not on the list either.
I consider any .22 rimfire as a fun/target gun. Not something that someone would use for nefarious purposes. The one I was referencing was the M1 Garand. I get in arguments all the time with younger gun owners who only know the AR and think the Garand is an antique. I tell them that, in the real world, not their fantasy one, there are very, very few problems that 8rds of properly aimed 30/06 can't solve. The same could be said for the .303 Enfield with its 10rds.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 7:37 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yet, there is one conspicuous firearm missing from the list. I own one and think it's a fine weapon. Any problem in the real world can be solved with it. Any serious firearms aficionado would know what it is. Others don't need to know since they just get their panties in a bunch.


Ruger 10/22?


AK 47

That was already banned, along with other like the FN FAL and some H&Ks.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 8:34 pm

johns624 wrote:
WildcatYXU wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Ruger 10/22?


AK 47

That was already banned, along with other like the FN FAL and some H&Ks.


I see. So that's why is it not on the latest list.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, C402, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2225
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Canada Bans Semi Automatic Weapons

Sun May 03, 2020 9:42 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Multiple shooters - that is simply not supported by any evidence as a credible threat to the homeowner/ private individual.
With all due respect, there are numerous examples that prove you wrong-

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/us/flori ... index.html

https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/1 ... -invasion/

https://okcfox.com/news/local/wagoner-c ... arrow-area

The first instance is not a 'multiple' shooters incident. Two is more than one. But as noted ONE shot was fired. The type of weapon used was not significant. The calm accurate fire was the deciding factor.

Second instance is the 'typical' gang on gang violence you described, despite the inaccurate headline.

The third instance is the proper use of a weapon in home defense.

I was slightly underwhelmed by the fact that one incident was from 2019, another from 2018, and the third from... 2017.
I'm not sure that one event per year really justifies 300 million guns.
Nothing to see here; move along please.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Dutchy, JJJ, stl07, System07, tommy1808 and 52 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos