Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
No, no, feel free to decide that the EEE-vil NRA is responsible for everything you fear.
Because the one thing you have in common with such shining intellects as coldstream and JLM is there is exactly one cause for every phenomenon.
I think once you acquire the strong desire to kill someone, gun ownership is a moot point. You can drop a person almost as fast with an axe, a rock or a bow & arrow or some arsenic. There are actually lots of sneakier ways than a fire arm.
I don't know how old Hoid is, but sometimes he tends to get his 'facts' mixed up. He might entertain going for testing! 
I'm forced to disagree. A substantial portion of homicides, possibly the majority, are either acts of sudden rage or battles between rivals (who may or may not be criminals). The sheer ease of killing someone with a gun, as opposed to a bludgeon or blade, disposes of time for reflection and makes quick kills far easier.
I do not address mass shootings, because for all the horror and headlines, they are a tiny fraction of homicides.
I'm not 100% sure how it works in Canada, but from my understanding, if a person told the police that he considers himself a threat, the state can refuse to issue him a license. I don't know the details of this though. For example, would that affect his ability for life or just for a set period of time? If for life, that could deter a person from telling anyone especially if he thinks his problem is more due to temporary circumstances. That's where I think having a clearly-defined policy could help. For example, if he knows that he could legally self-exclude himself for five years autorenewable under threat of a heavy fine, then he knows it's not permanent and so if he feels that his present circumstances could make him dangerous, he might be more willing to self-exclude himself with the assurance that it will not affect him permanently.
While it's true that the underaged, ex-cons, and people with known mental-health problems can be excluded, the problem again is with those who are off the radar. How do we encourage them to self-exclude?
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Mahatma Gandhi
Which very much down grades the meaning of violence. One of the problems of hyperbole, it weakens the subject of that being hyperbolized.
AS much as I hate to repeat myself repeatmyself, again and again, and again, some people are slow to get with it.
But then, the last thing you nazi, commie, globalist, genocidal fakenews tyrants want is "democracy".
1% to be exact...yet they get the headlines and they are used to promote gun bans......
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare
so disproportionately stripping firearms away from tiny non violent law abiding citizens is probably not helping 1 iota
LILLEY: Trudeau's gun ban idea misses the mark
Brian LilleyMore from Brian Lilley
Published: May 22, 2019
Are the Trudeau Liberals ready to spend more than $100 million to seize the guns of law abiding gun owners?
Certainly sounds like it.
This past weekend on CTV’s Question Period, Bill Blair, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, said he and the rest of the government were willing to look at using an order from cabinet to ban certain guns in Canada.
“I think there is no measure that I think we can rule out that will legitimately contribute to greater safety for our citizens,” Blair said when asked if he would use an order-in-council to ban guns.
He was asked several times if he would use this measure instead of legislation and said time and again that the government would.
Think about that for a moment, the government saying they would outlaw previously-legal property, not through debate and legislation, but via a closed-door meeting.
An order-in-council requires as few as four cabinet ministers meeting in secret to issue such a directive.
These orders are normally used for appointments, like putting Trudeau’s nannies on the government payroll or increasing the salaries of appointees.
They are not used for measures that would normally require legislation.
“This is never what an order-in-council was intended for. It is appointments and extraordinary acts of government,” said former Conservative attorney general Peter MacKay.
“It’s an unprecedented effort that goes well beyond any sort of legislative democratic exercise and allows for little if any debate.”
The Liberals have played with the idea of instituting a handgun or “assault weapon” ban for some time, but so far have avoided bringing forward legislation.
After an extensive consultation that sought the views of all sides on this issue, the government released a paper showing 81% did not want a gun ban to be instituted.
Now Blair is openly talking about that.
“They had four years to this. This is electioneering,” MacKay said.
He’s not wrong.
The Liberals have been falling in the polls for months and are now looking for anything that could get their base excited enough to come out and vote for them.
The gun community believes that if the Trudeau Liberals decide to go for any type of gun ban it will target the AR-15 rifle.
The AR-15 is the most popular sporting rifle in North America, and is wildly popular with target shooters and was sold as a hunting rifle in Canada in the 1960s and 70s.
According to estimates there are between 66,000 and 86,000 AR-15s in Canada, some say there could be many more.
If the government were to ban them they would either have to “grandfather” current owners and allow them to keep the rifles or buy them out.
At an average price of $1,600 per rifle, that would see the government paying gun owners as much as $137 million.
And that doesn’t include the extras.
“It’s also every magazine for it, the ammunition, the optics, the loading equipment,” said Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.
Bernardo has heard the claims that the AR-15 will be targeted, and isn’t happy the government may use a cabinet directive to ban the popular rifle.
“It’s beyond the scope of an order-in-council,” Bernardo said.
It also misses the mark.
As Professor Garry Mauser of Simon Fraser University has shown using government data, licenced firearms owners are the least likely people to be involved in violent crimes.
We have a real problem with gun violence in our cities perpetrated by criminals, and taking guns away from those following the rules will do little to fix this problem.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-gun-ban-idea-misses-the-mark
Brian LilleyMore from Brian Lilley
Published: May 22, 2019
Are the Trudeau Liberals ready to spend more than $100 million to seize the guns of law abiding gun owners?
Certainly sounds like it.
This past weekend on CTV’s Question Period, Bill Blair, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, said he and the rest of the government were willing to look at using an order from cabinet to ban certain guns in Canada.
“I think there is no measure that I think we can rule out that will legitimately contribute to greater safety for our citizens,” Blair said when asked if he would use an order-in-council to ban guns.
He was asked several times if he would use this measure instead of legislation and said time and again that the government would.
Think about that for a moment, the government saying they would outlaw previously-legal property, not through debate and legislation, but via a closed-door meeting.
An order-in-council requires as few as four cabinet ministers meeting in secret to issue such a directive.
These orders are normally used for appointments, like putting Trudeau’s nannies on the government payroll or increasing the salaries of appointees.
They are not used for measures that would normally require legislation.
“This is never what an order-in-council was intended for. It is appointments and extraordinary acts of government,” said former Conservative attorney general Peter MacKay.
“It’s an unprecedented effort that goes well beyond any sort of legislative democratic exercise and allows for little if any debate.”
The Liberals have played with the idea of instituting a handgun or “assault weapon” ban for some time, but so far have avoided bringing forward legislation.
After an extensive consultation that sought the views of all sides on this issue, the government released a paper showing 81% did not want a gun ban to be instituted.
Now Blair is openly talking about that.
“They had four years to this. This is electioneering,” MacKay said.
He’s not wrong.
The Liberals have been falling in the polls for months and are now looking for anything that could get their base excited enough to come out and vote for them.
The gun community believes that if the Trudeau Liberals decide to go for any type of gun ban it will target the AR-15 rifle.
The AR-15 is the most popular sporting rifle in North America, and is wildly popular with target shooters and was sold as a hunting rifle in Canada in the 1960s and 70s.
According to estimates there are between 66,000 and 86,000 AR-15s in Canada, some say there could be many more.
If the government were to ban them they would either have to “grandfather” current owners and allow them to keep the rifles or buy them out.
At an average price of $1,600 per rifle, that would see the government paying gun owners as much as $137 million.
And that doesn’t include the extras.
“It’s also every magazine for it, the ammunition, the optics, the loading equipment,” said Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.
Bernardo has heard the claims that the AR-15 will be targeted, and isn’t happy the government may use a cabinet directive to ban the popular rifle.
“It’s beyond the scope of an order-in-council,” Bernardo said.
It also misses the mark.
As Professor Garry Mauser of Simon Fraser University has shown using government data, licenced firearms owners are the least likely people to be involved in violent crimes.
We have a real problem with gun violence in our cities perpetrated by criminals, and taking guns away from those following the rules will do little to fix this problem.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-gun-ban-idea-misses-the-mark