Quote:
Originally Posted by schooner
This is what I struggle with. I am not a gun person in any way, shape or form. Even something like hunting has no interest to me. However, I can respect that some people like hunting, and have the fire arms to do so. Even using weapons at a gun range, which I also do not have interest in, can be justified as sport.
Handguns and assault rifles have no real purpose to the general public. They are designed to kill people with incredible power and efficiency. I just do not understand what purpose they serve outside of police/military application, where they are being used for that exact purpose of killing people with incredible power and efficiency.
I am not sure what anybody could say to change my opinion on that.
|
Addressing the “assault rifle” fallacy first. An assault rifle is not a semi-automatic rifle, which is what has been used by many criminals and subsequently lumped into that category. By definition, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon that fires an intermediate cartridge (Miriam-Webster and US DIA). In order to get an assault rifle in the US, extensive background checks, authorization from local LE, fingerprinting and fees are required. This doesn’t include the generally prohibitive cost and low supply, which can be traced to the 1986 NFA law which heavily regulates FA firearms in the US. In Canada, FA firearms are already classed as prohibited, with no new licenses being issued for possession only, use is already prohibited even for license holders.
Now for the “powerful cartridge” argument. The more common rifles fire a less powerful cartridge than many hunting rifles. AR or similar platform rifles generally fire a 5.56/.223 round, while many “hunting rifles” are chambered for cartridges such as .270, .300, .308. For example, a user of a Daniel Defense M4 (one of the better ARs available) will usually use a 55-62gr 5.56/.223 round; the hunter who is looking to bag an elk might select a 180gr .300 WSM round. There are AR platforms that will use .300 Blackout and .308, but are not as common. So we now have a whole slew of firearms that are more “socially acceptable” due to looks, but use a cartridge with a heavier bullet, higher powder load and deliver more force both at the muzzle and on target (many of which are also semi-auto). That being said, AR style rifles are used to hunt and are quite popular in the US for such uses mainly due to their affordability, light weight and reliability. If Canada did not have the inconsistent classification system that is in place (AR-15 and similar are restricted due to name only), many would be using them to hunt as well.
Handguns are frequently used in competition and for hunting as well. In addition, defending one’s life or the life of another using a firearm is an accepted and legal use in both the US and Canada. While the US has less restrictive carry laws for non-police users, it is possible to carry a handgun explicitly for self-protection in Canada. Again, the rounds fired are smaller, less powerful and have less energy than “hunting” rifle cartridges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
This is actually a very reasonable post, but I have to ask if guns are not the issue, what is? People? We have people in the UK, Canada, etc that don't go on murdering gun sprees to the rate that happens in the US.
|
Ease of access to mental health care, fewer societal issues and less crime overall. A part of that can be attributed to the licensing system in Canada as well.