# I'm Baaaaaaack



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

In my previous thread which turned out to be about Healthcare it was mentioned many times about the US's high Gun crime. I was curious as to what your gun control in Canada is like. Is it more restrictive or less restrictive. Gun Control is quite different from place to place in the US and I realize it is hard to put in black and white. But in general are the citizens for or against gun control? Me being the Free Market Freak that I am am against gun control. 

P.S. I had quite a bit of positive feedback in Private messages. I will try not to overreact this time.  

MAC > PC


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Yay, Dudireno, welcome back. There are two worlds for guns in Canada. Urban and rural. Guns in cities are usually not a good idea as they are too commonly used in crimes. Guns in rural areas are common and not usually a problem (and can be a necessity). Canadians don't seem too uptight about gun control but there again, very few people have large collections and gun crimes are a small fraction of what you guys seem to endure. We don't have assault rifles in common circulation.

The government has a gun ownership registration database. So far its cost more than a billion dollars and even gun-control advocates are pissed off. The point of the registry is not at all clear since criminals aren't exactly known for pre-registering their intent.....

I think we actually own more guns per capita than Americans but we are not allowed to carry hidden guns and in cities the only people armed are police, security guards and the odd gang-member. Most of our guns are rifles and hand guns are much rarer. Gun owners often opt to store their guns at the rifle club. Equalizing for ownership, we experience many fewer deaths from guns than in the US. The biggest reductions are in domestic disputes.

Personally, I hate guns and see absolutely no reason to own one if you live in an urban environment. If you live in the country, the vast majority of people who own guns are responsible, know how to service and use their weapons and are careful to protect them. Most of the guns used by criminals are smuggled from the US (yet another reason against the idea of a gun registry).

(from Vienna - where guns are also mainly found in the country).


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Glad to see you back! Short answer is this in my opinion. Canadians are strongly for gun control in the case of Handguns and assault weapons. Canadians are split about hunting rifles and control of them. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get any type of license in Canada, although, I am in no position to be clear on just what those hoops may be.
Someone else should and will probably fill that in.
Remember, Guns don't kill people, guns help people kill people.
I personally, am strongly against gun ownership unless you are a hunter or a farmer. There is just no need for them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Hi Dudireno,
Nice to have you back. 

To answer your question (and remember my politics are closer to Libertarian than most), I'm for gun control.
I don't need a semi-automatic weapon to go duck hunting....


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Sorry, better point out that I think the registry is a farce. As far as laws for ownership, people are few and far between against those.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

For decades Canadians in the west have owned and used long guns for both sport and protection from predators. Hand guns have been registered in Canada since the thirties.

And what is now the weapon of choice by gang members and criminals? Hand guns smuggled in mostly from the U.S.

Edmonton has recorded more gang related killings in recent years than I care to count. Nearly all of them with illegal hand guns. A few with their second favourite weapon, a knife.

Long guns never have and never will be used in the commission of the majority of crimes for one simple reason. They can't be concealed.

The shot guns, deer rifles and small calibre pest control rifles are not now, nor have ever been a problem. The gun registry is targeting innocent gun owners who use their guns for what they were intended. To hunt or to eradicate pests thereby protecting their livestock.

The gun registry is and will continue to be not only a failure, but a colossal waste of time, effort and more importantly tax dollars.

The Liberal government are just blind and continue to pour money down a black hole. In fact one direct result of the legislation, has been to drive millions of long guns underground. I have given up counting how many people I know personally who have done just that. Those guns remain hidden, but available if the need arises. That in itself makes the gun registry truly scary.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I agree with your assessment Sinc. The confusion of many urban Canadians (of which i am one) is that the registry is related to who can own guns. One has nothing to do with the other. While, in spirit, the registry may have sounded reasonable, it has turned into a massive boondoggle.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

in my opinion the only guns that should be available for purchase in Canada are hunting rifles, no hand-guns


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

The bottom line for me is that many innocent people have lost their lives or lives of loved ones from handguns. Their right to live is more important in my books than the rights of those wanting to own a gun simply because they should be allowed under law. I see no good reason to own or even manufacture an assault weapon such as a handgun (unless you're a police officer) which obviously will not be used for hunting activities. As far as rifles go, I'm not a hunting advocate, but don't have a problem with hunting as part of ones livelihood or culture. I guess the killing for "sport" idea is a whole other thread topic - one that I'm not even going to attempt to start!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*Deptl of Justice Canada gun stats*

Dept. of Justice Canada gun stats


----------



## MacNoob (Oct 29, 2004)

Eukaryotic said:


> T. I see no good reason to own or even manufacture an assault weapon such as a handgun)


Well, a handgun isn't an "assault weapon" because there isn't any definition in law of what an "assault weapon" is; generally the term is used by the media to identify "a rifle that looks scary (but is actually no more dangerous than any other)."

So far as reasons to own a handgun:

How about this:

http://www.issf-shooting.org/championships/olympic_games.asp
(or many other to which I could direct you).

In order to purchase a legal firearm in Canada you need a Posession and Acquisition License; to get the license is a similar procedure to obtaining a passport. This allows you to purchase long guns but nothing fully automatic. You also need the license to purchase ammunition.

To purchase a handgun you need the PAL plus special handgun permit from the RCMP, specifying why you need the gun (eg, "sport target shooting"); then you need a permit for wherever you are going to transport it ("transport permit") which allows it to be moved from one specific place to another (typically between home and approved range). So it's onerous to legally purchase/own a handgun.

In neither case are full auto weapons allowed, and there is another list of 'prohibited' weapons - many of which are identified because they are 'scary looking' or there is a perception of danger (eg. Ruger Mini-14, any .25 and .32 cal handgun).

re original question: I'm FOR strong OWNER control. Nutballs and criminals should not be allowed to own guns. Period. I'm AGAINST registration. Criminals will not register their guns. And once the gov't has decided I'm not a threat, why does it matter what guns I own? The billions could be better spent elsewhere.

MacNoob


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

MacNoob said:


> Well, a handgun isn't an "assault weapon" because there isn't any definition in law of what an "assault weapon" is; generally the term is used by the media to identify "a rifle that looks scary (but is actually no more dangerous than any other)."


Granted, I don't know the correct definition of "assault weapon". You got me on that. I'm still not convinced, and I doubt I'll ever be, that there's a practical reason for a citizen to own a handgun - period. Even if shooting is an Olympic sport.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*More Proof Long Guns No Threat:*



> Almost all Canadian households with a firearm possessed a long gun (95.1%). These households represented 19.2% of all Canadian households. In contrast, 12% of Canadian gun owning households possessed a handgun and this represented 2.3% of all Canadian households. Only about 2.2% of Canadian households owned both a handgun and a long gun.


So, according to the government's own web site, one in five Canadians have a long gun, but only 2% have a handgun.

Persecuting 95% of us for the sins of perhaps .001% is ludicrous.

The fact still remains there are millions of guns gone underground. Does that make you comfortable with your Liberal government's decision to register long guns?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

It sounds as if canada has stricter laws on guns. I know you can own handguns in urban areas. It is different from city to city. Some cities you are allowed to wear concealed guns as long as you register as one. But having a concealed weapon without a permit is a crime. 

I personally am not against ownership of guns. I know our FBI reports over 750,000 crimes are stopped each year by private individuals who own guns. I also know that the city with the highest crime rate also has the strictest gun laws Washington DC. Cities and states that allow citizens to carry guns have lower crime rates. I realize now I am going to have to come up with those stats. So I will sometime. Maybe tommorrow. Gun control only puts the guns in the hands of criminals and out of the hands of honest citizens. Besides I am affraid of a nation where its citizens are unarmed and the state is armed. 

I personally see no need to own guns. The only reason to own a gun in my opinion is for sport. I don't even see the reason to hunt. I see no pleasure in hunting. But to each his own. Its fn to shoot clay targets with a shotgun. If I felt seriously threatened each day I would consider carrying a gun. 

Gun laws don't accomplish what is intended. Punish the crime not the gun owner. Hey I'm from the backwoods in Oregon of course I am against gun control.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dudireno good to see you baaaack! Nice to also see you do not have to debate “the rest of us” in this thread. 

In Canada, Guns are controlled federally. I want to point out that in Canada that all guns ie. long rifle, shotgun and pistols have to be locked up unloaded in the home (or anywhere for that matter) for storage and ammunition has to be locked up in a separate location from the weapon. 

I want to remind everyone that the reason for the Gun Registry is a direct result of the Montreal Massacre. 

I wonder if the Gun Registry boondoggle may have more to do with government waste/malfeasance as with the Sponsorship Scandal. Hard to believe that the money spent so far, was spent on offices, wages(benefits) and overtime given the size of the workforce in Maramichi.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

BigDL said:


> I wonder if the Gun Registry boondoggle may have more to do with government waste/malfeasance as with the Sponsorship Scandal. Hard to believe that the money spent so far, was spent on offices, wages(benefits) and overtime given the size of the workforce in Maramichi.


I'm with ya on that one. How in the world could it cost that much. However, the gun registry would not have prevented the Montreal situation.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Whats this Montreal thing?


----------



## SkyHook (Jan 23, 2001)

.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

For your perusal.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

source of PDF (gun) file stats?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> For decades Canadians in the west have owned and used long guns for both sport and protection from predators. Hand guns have been registered in Canada since the thirties.


SINC,
Not just in the West. This is true of virtually the entire country in rural and semi-rural areas.

While I see the need for weapons and their users to be registered and licensed, I cannot see how the Gun Registry as currently operated is supposed to help with crime: assuming that was the goal.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Wow! Norway, Canada, Switerland, Finland, France, New Zealand, Belgium, Sweden, W Germany all have higher suicide rates than the US. Did anybody else notice that? The US's homicide plus suicide rate is lower than many other countries. 

Not only that Ireland has one of the lowest % of households with guns. But 50% of homicides are committed with guns and low suicide. Italy has low % of households with guns but over 50% of homicides are with guns. And again low suicide rate. Whats the deal?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Although a high suicide rate is not a good thing, I don't think that suicide rates have too much to do with homicide rates, except for the cases of murder-suicides, which I would guess would be a much smaller subset of the numbers.

The fact that the United States homicide rate is almost double the next highest country, Northern Ireland, which has this wee problem with domestic terrorism, and vastly higher than any other country, would be a concern for me if I was still living in the USA. However regrettable, I don't think I would too concerned about my personal safety with the high suicide rate if I was living in Finland or Switzerland. 

Although merely anecdotal, when I was living in California for 4 years, I witnessed a very angry man chasing another man down the street with a handgun, while everybody on the street dove into a doorway. I also had two friends there who were mugged with guns pointed at them, one friend who had a gun pointed at him in traffic by someone who didn't like his driving and knew one person who was robbed while working in a store and tied up by a criminal with a handgun. My feeling while living there was that handgun crime could happen anywhere, at any time. Not a good feeling.

I have never witnessed a handgun in public in Canada or any other country other than on a policeman's hip. I do know of a friend of a friend who was beaten to death in Vancouver, with a baseball bat. Again, only my experience. 

Canada's homicide is also far too high for my liking, being number 4 on that list, although still only 1/3 of the USA's.

I'd like to know the source of those numbers, too.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> Not only that Ireland has one of the lowest % of households with guns. But 50% of homicides are committed with guns and low suicide. Italy has low % of households with guns but over 50% of homicides are with guns. And again low suicide rate. Whats the deal?


I don't really understand your surprise at the relationship. And like what Applesauce said, what does suicide rate have to do with anything?

E


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Yea a source would be good. 

"wee problem with domestic terrorism" LOL. I didn't really think about that. 

You do realize that in the US those stats are inflated in some areas and I would say quite normal in others. Take for example Portland Oregon. Population is about 500,000 and they have about 50 murders a year. That is 10 for every 100,000.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Suicide rate doesn't have anything to do with anything really. Just noticed. You explain to me why when most of the murders are being committed with guns there is low suicide rates. And why are suicide rates so much different. I mean come on didn't you expect the US to be higher? some of those countries more than double the rate. There has got to be a couple of reasons why that is.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Unrecognized vehicular suicide is a factor. With insurance policies voiding coverage on suicides you can bet there are many that go unrecognized and get paid out. Also drug overdoses and age related/chronic illness events that are actually suicides but not recognized as such.

http://www.fathers.bc.ca/suicide.htm

Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic

By Glenn Sacks

San Diego Union-Tribune (1/11/02)



> Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the past decade--as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II. America is in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents. All Americans recognize that our country is rife with violent crime, but few know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

So why do you think it is higher in other countries?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I would say that data ub the "gun.pdf" is pretty much wrong.

I would really like to find out where it come from. With a little research, I came upon:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap&int=-1
Canada ranks 44 out of 62 for per capita murder rates.
The US is 24th...


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Yea but those stats still say those same countries have higher suicide rates. 
US kill each other other countries kill themselves. 

That really makes me wonder why.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

oops most of those same countries


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> So why do you think it is higher in other countries?


There are all sorts of reasons why suicides are higher in certain countries, and nothing to do with guns. In many northern countries, such as Iceland, rates of alcoholism and suicide are high. Theory being that the extreme seasonal changes (e.g., little sun in winter months) influences behaviour. 

But anyway, and with all due respect, I'm not sure I follow what your argument is exactly.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I really wasn't tying this with my gun control stance. Just thought it would be higher in the US. Because personally I don't think high homicide rates in the US are due to guns. In this country there is definitly a correlation between states that allow there citizens to carry guns and lower crime. Thats really my whole argument. Similar communities, cultures, laws, and locations. Different crime rates with the the ability of citizens to carry guns. I just don't see how comparing murder rates with guns in the US to that in Sweden has any pinpoint accuracy. Then again the culture in New York is quite different than Oregon. Different crime rates as well. I really think you have to compare similar cultures, religions, and populations. It is just really off base to compare a country with 300million people to countries with a couple million.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Hmmm...so which would you pick as the sole factor? The gun law (i.e., allowing citizens to walk around armed), or, as you also mentioned, culture? You touched on the fact that New York or maybe Ohio would have a different culture than say Alaska, Oregon, or Montana. Are you really so sure the lower murder rates have more to do with allowing citizens to freely tote guns around? I suspect it has more to do with being brought up in certain environments, both in the home and in the community. 

E


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

Could you post a link to the data that shows an inverse correlation between guns and crime rate? Is this all crime, violent crime, robbery, etc. What about the incidence of crime using a weapon? The reason I ask is that you use this as your prime argument but when you compare crime rates between the US and Canada, we are not allowed to carry concealed weapons, have similar percentages of gun ownership yet have significantly lower crime rates (especially violent crimes). The same holds true of the UK. If there is a relationship, it perhaps is due primarily to culture and is almost entirely US-specific. While the right to bear arms is protected by your constitution, I would posit that this right has failed to make Americans safer - even from themselves. BTW, do you support the death penalty? Do you think it is an effective deterrent?

I would also note that in both our countries, gun-related deaths are primarily gang and narcotic-associated so its difficult to generalize.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Europe has 450 million people in a smaller land mass and adding ALL the gun deaths together isn't even close to the US rate.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Here is the one I found quickest. 

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...ove_url=http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi/nra.html

I understand that you guys want proof and you demand it. You hold yourselves to the same standards. But you know I just don't want to have to prove it all the time. You can find this information all over the place. It is well documented in many books and I really don't have the energy to find the books. I hear this stuff on the radio where they give me sources and I just don't keep a running tab of all the bits of information I acquire in my head. I know I am being unreasonable it is just my rant.

I really am beginning to see that canada is quite a different culture. Because I agree you would think that our murder rates would be the same based on all the reasons I stated in previous posts.

I truly think that murder rates are high in urban areas in the US. Particularly gang related areas. A young black man has a particularly lower life expectancy rate than a white man based primarily on murder rates. If you don't believe me look it up. Because I know its true. Our inner city schools cannot control the students. I am not scared to walk around in my state. However, when I went to school in Los Angeles there were places you just didn't go. They were unsafe. Some areas are just plain violent.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> I truly think that murder rates are high in urban areas in the US. Particularly gang related areas. A young black man has a particularly lower life expectancy rate than a white man based primarily on murder rates. .


Or in Winnipeg- 3 gun related deaths (two of them involving teenagers- all three involving aboriginal males-in THE PAST FOUR DAYS!
Ever since the US sattelite feeds started airing here in Winnipeg (late 1980's) a culture of gang violence has grown exponentially each year. I do not find this correlation exceptional- Winnipeg is extremely cold, and the rate of TV absorption here over the winter must be higher per capita than most other places in the world. The gun control legislation has not done much for our city, it seems.
James


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Yea Movies, TV, and music. But honestly I think in the most violent areas it has nothing to do with TVs and Movies. Its true our rotting culture could be spreading your way.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

it seems that in the most violent areas that the precursor to violent activity is economic disparity. This becomes the de-facto narrative of 'da hood' which is, in turn marketed as a lifestyle choice to kids in suburbia.
the shame of this is that the spin off effect is to draw attention away from the real problems- poverty and homelessness, despair at their actual point of origin- to focus in on the inconsistencies of these behaviours occuring in a suburban environment
James


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

OK Your losing me now.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

I asked for a link and you provided one - thank you. However, it was from the pro-gun lobby: "This information is presented as a service to the Internet community by the NRA/ILA."

There are, of course, lobby groups on the other side:
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

As well as academic studies (that appear unbiased):
http://dmsweb.badm.sc.edu/chappell/brownbag/CrimeAndConcealedGunLaws.PDF

I found the following statistic difficult to reconcile with the idea that firearms make for a safer society: "Out of 30,708 Americans who died by gunfire in 1998, only 316 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms." In addition, the data that supports a drop in crime rates in States with concealed weapon statutes are largely from a single study (by a Professor Lott).

I'd say the correlation is far from being proven but clearly the NRA likes to think it is. Regardless of the statistics (statistics, damn statistics), the idea that escalation of threat is a way to reduce crime is hardly progressive. More guns equals more deaths by firearms. That correlation is clear.

BTW, I appreciate the link you posted. We should all back up our assertions.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

what I mean, in a nutshell, is that real problems of economic disparity exist in impoverished urban environments that in fact are glamorized by those who live in more wealthy areas (by way of lifestyle choices)- think of all those teenagers who buy or d/l gangsta rap records because they think it actually says something about THEM- the **** only hits the fan when those wealthier areas start to experience problems that are born out of an environment that they conciously seek to disassociate from...
James


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

You can believe what you want. There are lots of stats out there. Here is another quick one with hundreds of sources. Not just lott. You have to decide for yourself what you believe. 

I'm glad you liked the link. 

I think stats can say whatever you want them to say. And frankly I am unimpressed by your links. I don't expect you to be impressed with mine. I think we can both agree that they aren't changing each others mind. I think they are rather pointless. Yours give you a fuzzy feeling inside and so do mine.

Lets also consider it philosphically. You would agree I have a right to defend myself right? If so why do you feel you or anybody else has the authority to tell me how I can and can't defend myself? I personally don't feel you have the right to tell me how to live my life. If I feel I am safer with a gun and it makes me feel better I should have the right to pursue my own happiness right? As long as I don't use it to hurt or threaten another person I feel you have no say.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Canada is a strange place when it comes to things like gun laws. Lots of urban residents in big cities; think Chicago where it's illegal to own a handgun.

Then there's a significant minority of people who live in some rural and rather remote areas; you're on your own and you need a firearm, if only to use once a year to scare off a bear. Natives in Northern Canada eat nothing but game; I've been to reserves where there was no meat of any kind for sale in the otherwise well stocked grocery stores.

But, law is national in Canada; there is no such thing as variance from state to state. There is also no such thing as misdemeanor charges in Criminal Law in Canada; theft of a pack of gum is a felony, as you would call it, and there is no way to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor.

A gun law is a near perfect example of the compromises you have to deal with when there is a national criminal law and you live in the second largest nation on earth by area; there is no way it will suit everyone, no matter if it's wide-open Wild West or pure Urban Violence Control.

Where I'm from, nearly everyone owns a gun. A lot of people own handguns. In a place like Toronto, that would be relatively rare.

The short answer goes something like this:
There has been some form of gun control in Canada since the 1930's (prohibition of automatic weapons). Although nobody really knows the answer, good guesses are that about 10 million guns are in Canada, a country of 30 million people.

Since the 1970's a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) has been required to own or carry a gun, or to buy ammunition. Handguns have to be registered, but are not difficult to get if you're a law-abiding citizen. To get an FAC, a police background check is mandatory. Criminal records for violent crime will prevent you from getting one.

In the late 1990's, a law was passed requiring all guns to be registered, including "long guns". The background checks are still there, but you must pass a Firearms Safety Course to own a gun, which is a new requirement. You have always (in Saskatchewan, at least) had to have the FSC to get a hunting permit, so most people did that already years ago. However, the course I took was no longer recognized (I took mine when I was 14, at the City Police Station), so I had to do it again. No biggie, a few hours and you're done.

Also, you need your wife or girlfriend's signature on the application to get a permit (anyone you've lived with "romantically" in the previous 5 years). You can see an attempt to make the urban and rural split work with that last one; I don't know anyone whose wife or GF said no, but I can imagine it happening in Toronto or other big cities.

Once you apply and get the new permit, it's yours unless it's revoked for some good reason. You don't need a separate permit for each gun you own.

I know lots of people with handguns and I could buy one tomorrow if I wanted. You can't carry concealed anywhere, and you need a "Permit to Convey" to carry one from place to place. Generally, you get a permit to allow you to drive to the range and back, and you can do whatever on your own property (rural areas).

Guns must be kept in a secure, locked area, cannot be stored loaded, and ammunition and firearms must be stored in separate, locked areas of your home.

If you have a handgun in your car under a permit to convey, it must be inoperable (trigger lock, etc). Long guns as well must be inoperable (eg bolt removed, in a case) when transporting, but you don't need any permits to convey a long gun. Clips for long guns cannot be capable of holding large numbers of rounds; most people just put a pop rivet at the appropriate spot or have a plug installed if it's tube fed.

Judges can prohibit an offender from carrying, using, purchasing or owning a firearm or ammunition for 5 years at sentencing. For the most part, law abiding firearms owners aren't bothered much, but that could be different in some parts of the country (like big cities). I know people who were convicted of offenses like transporting without a permit and were given fines in the range of $200; they got to keep their handguns.

You can't hunt with a handgun anywhere in Canada; barrels must be minimum 18 inches or so to hunt and a full stock must be on the weapon.

Guns account for relatively few murders in Canada; stabbing and beatings predominate. Having said that, murders by firearms are higher than anywhere else in the world, pretty much, except the USA. About 550 people are murdered, by all methods, in Canada in a year.

Although it's not impossible to get unregistered or otherwise illegal handguns, they're relatively rare. If you're determined, it's as easy to smuggle them from the US as it is to smuggle anything else; which is to say it's not easy but can be done.

Where I live, the Police and the Provincial Attorney-General have stated publicly that they will not direct officers to charge people under the latest gun laws. In Ontario, it's another story; you might say the law was designed to please them and not us. And so far, no-one has been charged here, unless it was for something they would have been nailed for before the new law came into place.

Since a national government can be elected almost entirely with Ontario votes, the rest of the country sometimes gets ignored during election time. And so it was with the last gun control bill.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The "Right to defend yourself" exists in Canada but it's not as liberally interpreted as in some parts of the US.

You have the right to use reasonable force. Even the Police have to follow that; shooting the unarmed suspect could send a cop to jail as well.

What that more-or-less means is if the bad guy threatens you or some other innocent person with a firearm, go ahead and shoot.

If you find him in your house and he's unarmed, he had better be alive when the cops get there; if he's dead with a gunshot wound you're going to jail for Manslaughter; probably will get 3 years, and you won't be hunting with your buddies for the first 5 years after you get out.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

I think the stats speak for themselves in terms of the numbers of people killed in self defence vs those killed by firearms in general. The fact that you may feel safer with a gun is fine except when you are sitting next to me - because my safety is reduced under that circumstance. It's the freedom of the individual vs the freedom of society. I choose to live in Canada for many reasons - one of them being the knowledge that I and my family are safer here (but there are many others). That's my personal choice. I visit the States a lot and I have many American friends. Each to his own.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

I know for me that I would not feel any safer with a gun in the house. Not only that, but I'm not confident I'd be able to use it, or deal with the consequences that might follow if I had to. I think that America really does have a gun culture, likely stemming from having it written in to the Constitution. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather club an intruder over the head with a lamp base than point a gun at them. 

E


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Not only that, but I'm not confident I'd be able to use it, ..."

You cannot own a firearm in Canada without knowing how to use not only it, but other guns of different design. Passing the Firearms Safety Course is mandatory.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> source of PDF (gun) file stats?


Oops. Sorry. Not good form to ignore the source.
http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/homemain.pdf
GUN AVAILABILITY AND VIOLENT CRIME:
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Note by the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit,
Research and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

gordguide said:


> " ... Not only that, but I'm not confident I'd be able to use it, ..."
> 
> You cannot own a firearm in Canada without knowing how to use not only it, but other guns of different design. Passing the Firearms Safety Course is mandatory.


Let me clarify:

Pull the trigger and cap someone (e.g., an intruder). Just sayin I don't think I'd be able to shoot another person.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

In all the years I used firearms, I never once pointed it in the direction of a person. Matter of fact it never even crossed my mind. While I do know how to use a gun, I cannot think of a situation that would cause me to actually squeeze the trigger. 
(No one who knows what they are doing with a firearm "pulls" a trigger.)


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Dudireno,
> 
> I think the stats speak for themselves in terms of the numbers of people killed in self defence vs those killed by firearms in general. The fact that you may feel safer with a gun is fine except when you are sitting next to me - because my safety is reduced under that circumstance. It's the freedom of the individual vs the freedom of society. I choose to live in Canada for many reasons - one of them being the knowledge that I and my family are safer here (but there are many others). That's my personal choice. I visit the States a lot and I have many American friends. Each to his own.


That is the stat you like the most?

The idea is that you protect yourself and never have to actually shoot it. Criminals don't want to mess with people who have guns.

So in your opinion just the fact that a gun is around reduces your safety? You could say that about thousands of things. How about sitting next to a propane tank? What about a bon fire? What about a knife? How about driving at night? Would you say all these things reduce your safety?

I personally don't feel the need to carry a gun. I just don't think I have the right to tell someone else that they can't.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> Criminals don't want to mess with people who have guns.


A criminal does not know who has a gun and who doesn't. I'd feel safer having a big dog around the house than a gun in the bedside table.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

The simple fact is that the number of firearms-related deaths in the USA is way higher than in Canada (on a per capita basis). The only significant difference between our countries regarding gun stats is that handguns are restricted here. It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Moreover, the cops don't assume everyone is packing so they tend not to draw as often as in the States. Propane tanks are not carried by people and although world is full of risks, having a few million handguns around seems ridiculous to me as a mechanism of defense. My apologies, but I just don't get it. I'm all for freedom of the individual, but not at the risk of innocent people.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Dudireno,
> 
> I'm all for freedom of the individual, but not at the risk of innocent people.


Well here it is again why stop with guns. What about cars, drugs, food, cigarettes, swimming pools. Cars kill more people than guns. Are these people innocent?

Why should the government be able to use guns?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*It Ain't Necessarily So!*

Dudireno, while your country treats gun laws quite differently that ours, you should be aware that a very large number of Canadians are immigrants who have absolutely no idea of the gun culture we had prior to their arrival.

Their desire to change our culture is sometimes misunderstood, not only by Americans, but by many who were born here, or have resided here for many years longer than those who advocate change. That is also becoming an issue that will one day have to be resolved.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Dudireno said:


> Well here it is again why stop with guns. What about cars, drugs, food, cigarettes, swimming pools. Cars kill more people than guns. Are these people innocent?


I think to compare a gun, which is manufactured for the purpose of inflicting serious or fatal injuries, to a car, is missing a fundamental aspect of the argument. 

I agree, a car can be utilized as a weapon and used irresponsibly, but it is not manufactured for that.


----------



## MacNoob (Oct 29, 2004)

Eukaryotic said:


> I think to compare a gun, which is manufactured for the purpose of inflicting serious or fatal injuries, to a car, is missing a fundamental aspect of the argument.
> 
> I agree, a car can be utilized as a weapon and used irresponsibly, but it is not manufactured for that.


The guns I own are manufactured specifically for making small round holes in paper at a distance of 10m... nothing else.

As opposed to other guns which are manufactured for the purpose of breaking clay targets tossed into the sky...

Or others that are made to knock down round metal plates, five in a row...

Any one of these could be used to inflict 'serious or fatal injuries' if used irresponsibly, but that is not the intended use, nor would they be incredibly effective for that use. Unfortunately, the media propagates that the purpose of the 'evil firearm' is only to kill/injure.

MacNoob


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

So the intent of why it is manufactured is the issue now?

OK how about cigarettes? What are their intentions? What about Alcohol? Does alcohol serve a wonderful purpose in society? There is more death in the US from drinking and driving then from guns. Maybe we should take alcohol out of the hands of citizens because it is a threat to society. Innocent people are dieing. Well one reason is because we tried that. The other reason is freedom is more important. I am not willing to give up my freedom because some stat says 8,000 people are murdered from firearms in a country with 300million. Fighting the cause of gun deaths through laws and force is the wrong way to handle this. Education, training, and awareness. Fund raising, advertising, and education will go alot further then criminalizing honest citizens for an opinion you disagree with.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc, I don't think there is a huge clash between immigrants and "multiple generation Canadians" in terms of gun culture. While the immigration mix has shifted from largely western european to largely asian and eastern european, Canadian society has never had the same type of gun culture as the US. Europeans also do not have an American gun culture. As far as I am aware, handgun ownership hasn't been considered a right here for over 100 years. Maybe this is more of an issue in Alberta?

Dudireno, if you are unable to distinguish between an object designed with the primary function of inflicting serious or fatal damage when used as intended and the other objects on your list, you might want to start putting a pack of cigarettes into a holster.


----------



## avalonian (Jun 26, 2003)

In Canada, owning a handgun for personal protection is unacceptable; licences will never be granted on that basis. A gun in the home increases the risk of injury – accidental or deliberate - to its owner and their loved ones, outweighing its capacity to protect. Furthermore, under the tremendous strain caused by fear, all but the most experienced marksmen aim highly inaccurately. A few millimetres of barrel shifting can translate into feet at the target.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I think driving to a bar carries alot more risk than carrying a handgun. Its proven according to you standards. More people kill with a bottle of whisky and a car than they do with guns.

Its not that I am unable to distinguish the difference its that you are not consistant with issues. I am told there is no pupose for a gun, manufactured intentions are terrible, and they kill thousands of people. When I offer products that kill more people, have terrible intentions, and serve no meaningful purpose accept to destroy peoples lives I am suddenly ignorant. It sounds as if you are unable to compare similarities. The facts are a gun serves far more purposes than a cigarette or alcohol. Cigarettes and Alcohol put a far greater strain on society than do guns in terms of helthcare services. Are you going to make alcohol illegal? That would be consistant on your part. You probably drink now and then and so therefore are trying to rationalize why its different than guns.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Sinc, I don't think there is a huge clash between immigrants and "multiple generation Canadians" in terms of gun culture. While the immigration mix has shifted from largely western european to largely asian and eastern european, Canadian society has never had the same type of gun culture as the US. Europeans also do not have an American gun culture. As far as I am aware, handgun ownership hasn't been considered a right here for over 100 years. Maybe this is more of an issue in Alberta?
> QUOTE]
> 
> My point is that immigrants who do not understand western gun culture, and who by and large live in large Canadian cities, are easily swayed by interest groups to support failed legislation like gun control.
> ...


----------



## avalonian (Jun 26, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> The facts are a gun serves far more purposes than a cigarette or alcohol. [...] You probably drink now and then and so therefore are trying to rationalize why its different than guns.


Personally, I only take a bullet after meals. It's just recreational, I assure you.  

A gun is an object that can be used AGAINST others. Smoking is illegal in indoor public spaces. It is illegal to give away alcohol for free.

You are right about guns serving more purposes than cigarettes and alcohol though. Guns can be used to kill yourself AND others. Guns are manufactured and exported to militias and regimes around the globe as a political manoeuvre. Guns can be used to threaten others, to cause fear, to force people to act against their will. Guns can facilitate genocide.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Alcohol increases promiscuity, child abuse, spousal abuse, psychiatric disorders, disorderly conduct, health issues, and decreases overall quality of life. It can make your life flat our miserable. 

Lets make guns illegal becasue we can prevent genocide in our home country and abroad.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno, it is you who is confusing the issues. Handguns are, by your very own admission, meant to kill or maim people - or is your argument now that concealed weapons are used for shooting ducks? Smoking kills many more people than guns but it usually ends up killing the cigarette "owner". We're consistently reducing the threat to non-smokers through 2nd hand smoke through legislation. Likewise, we have strict laws to reduce drunk-driving. More can be done, admittedly. 

These comparisons are not relevant to the issue of handguns and crime. A handgun, by your definition, is useful only when it can be used to shoot a person (presumably in "self defense"). The remarkably small number of occasions (~300) per year where this happens compared to the total number of firearm deaths makes the benefit to risk ratio indefensible in any modern society with the notable exception of the USA. Americans are the exception, not the rule!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Although it's often used as a debating tactic, it's a logical fallacy to start talking about alcohol, cars, bad tempers or the phases of the moon when the subject is guns.

Since the purpose of the tactic is to get someone to change subjects, or to argue against a hypothetical situation or perhaps a straw man fallacy rather than the actual matter at hand, it's in bad form to bite.

But, wheat the hell, I'm in the mood and this topic isn't going to change any laws, court cases, or people's behavior (it's frivolous if that's your intent; use a forum where it matters instead, like the legislature or the courts).

Cars and Guns
I can kill a man with a gun and not be guilty of murder. Let's use the example of an unintended accident.
I can kill a man with a car and not be guilty of murder. We can also use the example of an unintended accident here.

I can kill a man with a gun, and be found guilty of murder. I intended to kill him, and picked up a gun to do so.
I can kill a man with a car and be found guilty of murder. I intended to hill him, and used my car to do so.
The key is intent and the result of that intent, and the tools I choose to carry it out are irrelevant as far as my guilt or innocence is concerned.

Drinking and Guns
I can kill a man with a car while drunk and driving. The penalty is identical to a murder conviction. The Crown does not need to prove intent; it is implied by by actions and the statute says that is tantamount to intent.
I can kill a man by any other means while drunk (perhaps I beat him to death in a rage). The penalty is murder and drinking absolves nothing.

Any other thing and Guns
I can kill a man with negligence. The charge is Criminal Negligence Causing Death, and the penalty is identical to murder.

The Crown can choose from the charges Murder (premeditation, reckless disregard for the consequences of your actions, carrying out an act when you know death is a likely outcome, or a fatal assault on an officer of the court, the law, or the justice system) and Manslaughter (where you could have avoided the outcome but instead, for whatever reason, including anger, continued).

Note that both are murder convictions; as are Impaired Driving or Criminal Negligence Causing Death, they just differ by the way each charge is defined in the Criminal Code.

The only other difference is Manslaughter carries a finite sentence while with Murder the penalty is perpetual; ie "for life".

In all the above cases, I could perhaps only injure the person. Doesn't change a thing; the Attourny-General can choose from the charges of Impaired Driving causing Bodily Harm, Criminal Negligence causing Bodily Harm, Assault, Assault with a Weapon, as the case may be. Whatever. There is no difference in the penalty between these charges given similar circumstances, conditions, events or result.

There is a lawful use of alcohol, tobacco, cars, guns, bad moods and the baby's bath water. In each case they may be used harmlessly, harmfully or fatally, with and without intent. If you want to charge the person or corporation that made them available, the burden of proof remains the same. The same goes for how they are used.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

gun control advocates want to take away as many guns as possible. The reasoning is because they increase the chances of death since the US has more gun murders. That is the logic I am presented with here. 

So if that is the logic it is totally comparable for me to say that the presence of alcohol increases the chances of driving impaired and peoples lives are at risk. In fact drunk driving kills more people than guns. Therefore making alcohol more of a risk than a gun. But nobody wants to take away alcohol. 

How is that not comparable?

Your logic is more guns equals more death. Therefore it is equally logical to say more alcohol equals more death. 

Think about it. You are allowed to drive your car to a place and drink alcohol and then drive home. But I should not be allowed to carry a handgun because innocent lives will be more at risk? Drunk driving kills more than guns. Give me a break.

This is getting boring. I am not changing anybodies opinions. And you sure won't change mine. I will read all your rebuttals but I probably won't respond anymore. Not trying to be rude. Just tired of talking guns.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> This is getting boring. I am not changing anybodies opinions. And you sure won't change mine. I will read all your rebuttals but I probably won't respond anymore. Not trying to be rude. Just tired of talking guns.


Let us know when you come baaaaack again.


----------

