Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
Handgun sales are already incredibly restricted in Canada and the overwhelming majority of people (including gun owners) are fine with that. It's when the government floats ideas that do nothing for public safety or try to pass off 2+ million people as a waiting threat that people tend to get irritated. Our laws force criminals to turn to the black market to obtain firearms while letting those of us who practice a hobby while following the law do so.
|
I don't understand your point here. Isn't that exactly what these sorts of laws are designed to do? It seems to be addressing only a portion of the problem - once you've cut off easy access to legal firearms for organized crime (I'm going to stop saying 'gangs' because gangs implies we're worried about a bunch of black teenagers on street corners. The problem is organized crime) then your law enforcement has to prioritize going after said black market. Which is no doubt fraught with peril, but nobody makes someone become a cop. That's the job. I would be happy if increased firearm restrictions also came with an increase in funding for actual police work, ie taking down the crime syndicates that supply this black market.
Quote:
|
If someone floated the idea of mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms, the first people to support it would be firearms owners. Criminals showing the abject disregard for public safety should be facing the strictest punishments possible, the challenge is getting those punishments past the courts. Things like smuggling firearms, selling firearms to unauthorized people, selling prohibited firearms, possessing firearms when unauthorized and using a firearm during the commission of a crime should all be charges that carry severe sentences. We should also look at eliminating concurrent sentences. What use is it when someone is found guilty of a dozen firearms charges but can serve them all at once?
|
Mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional and don't address the problem of organized crime. And longer sentences are not necessarily the answer - if you're going to imprison people, the government should be taking proactive steps to ensure people don't reoffend. The conversation of prison reform is for a different thread.
Quote:
|
As for justification for legal ownership, people use handguns every day in Canada for target shooting, competition, collecting of significant pieces and protection of life (Canada does issue permits for concealed carry and for protection from wildlife). If it were allowed, many would also use handguns for hunting and pest control.
|
All you have to do is look to the south for all the stupid things people do with guns when 'it's allowed'. They bring semi-automatic rifles to Wal Mart. That's crackers.
I understand what people use handguns for. I don't see why one would need a handgun for protection from wildlife; a shotgun seems like a far better tool for that job, given how difficult it is to actually hit a wild animal with a handgun.
I also don't accept that pest control is an acceptable use of a handgun. You can do that with a small calibre rifle - I have friends that love to pass the days sniping gophers in the countryside.
Concealed carry is absurd. Unless you're in private security or law enforcement, you don't need a weapon on you at all times in this country. You just don't.
Quote:
|
Firearms are dangerous, they should be regulated and like any other object, can be misused. Our current laws do a pretty good job at striking a balance between keeping those who shouldn't have access to them from having easy access and allowing those who do operate within the framework laid out by the government to participate in a huge amount of legal activities. If more laws are needed, they should be targeted towards eliminating the illegal use of firearms, but no proposals that do this have been put forward as of late.
|
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms...a.php#Overview
According to Statistics Canada, the 2011 rate of 0.46 firearm homicides per 100,000 was the lowest in 50 years. They attribute this primarily to the decrease in homicides via handgun, though they note that 2/3 of all firearm homicides in 2011 were still committed by handgun.
They don't provide a breakdown of organized crime connections, but it's probably fair to say that not all 158 people murdered by guns in 2011 had ties to organized crime. What is more likely is that someone, likely a law abiding citizen, got mad, had a handgun, and killed someone.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/cont...n-control.html
In 2016, there were 223 firearm related deaths. By and large, these are not mob-related.
"A study in rural New Brunswick and PEI found that two-thirds of the women whose homes had firearms said knowing firearms were present made them more fearful for their safety and well-being, and 70 per cent said it affected their decisions whether to tell others about or seek help for abuse they received."
If you tighten gun control restrictions, you will keep more women alive. You will allow more people to escape domestic violence, and you will require fewer government resources to help these people put their lives back together.
A desire to waste gophers does not trump that. Every gun owner is law abiding until the moment they aren't, and unfortunately that moment usually results in a body. And often, it's a woman who trusted the man who killed her.
Organized crime is a boogeyman that doesn't actually affect the majority of Canadians. Domestic abuse does.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...60121b-eng.htm
Reducing the number of firearms that can be used in domestic incidents is reason enough to increase the restrictions. Especially considering handgun registration has shot up dramatically since 2015.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3356614/a...broke-records/