Does Canada Have a Gun Problem?
Posted Jun 6, 2017, 2:15 AM UTC
24251
As someone who isn't pro gun in anyway, no we don't have a gun problem.
And no, I'm not watching that video.
17†
So your weighing in on a conversation about a educational video about Canadian gun laws but refuse to watch the video? That sounds rather absurd.
25
[removed]
0†
"I know I'm right so I refuse to broaden my horizons by even entertaining new information!"
14
But if you watch the video you can have evidence to back up your opinions :p
8
You are going off on a 'I am very smart' tangent but basing it entirely off argument-stoppers. Your criticism is insubstantial and there is no reason for anybody to listen to you, whether or not what you are saying is correct.
1†
There's no need to watch the video to come to the conclusion that we don't have a gun problem. Homicides, and particularly gun homicides are not abnormally large beyond the average rich Western nation's rates.
I however think that it's a powerful argument to keep the laws AS THEY ARE. We don't have a gun problem partially because we have non-idiotic gun laws. There's enough pro-gun people out advocating for absurd loosening of the law like making handguns non-restricted, which I cannot argue against enough. We do not need more handguns in this country.
What I do think is that the RCMP's classification is often based on looks or other non-substantive metrics. That's a convincing argument, and I would agree with having that changed. Or at least the RCMP should refund guns it confiscates at the original sale price.
EDIT: Oh look the pro-gun fanatic downvoting begins.
-10
We don't have a gun problem partially because we have non-idiotic gun laws.
Actually our gun laws are spectacularly idiotic and I think are a great example of why firearm legislation has nothing to do with violent crime rates (which have been declining for decades while gun ownership has been climbing for decades).
So while I'm not saying more guns = less crime, I am saying that it's pretty obvious that more guns do not equal more crime.
Our laws are both stricter and weaker than the US, depending on state. They are incredibly circular and tough to follow and the exact same firearm can fall under all three different classifications all depending on what factory it was built in.
That doesn't even get into the lunacy of magazine laws, antique firearms or the "I don't like the look of that" method of classifying what fits in which category.
We also have a restricted firearm registry that has existed since 1934 and has never once been used to solve a crime. I know maintaining a registry for almost 100 years can't be cheap.
12
So while I'm not saying more guns = less crime, I am saying that it's pretty obvious that more guns do not equal more crime.
It's not at all obvious. There is no simple line to draw where you could make that determination. There's a possibility that less guns would equal less crime, though the numbers would have to drop a lot beyond the increases seen as of late. There are also problems specific to guns that are constantly on highlight in America, though it's important to note that handguns are primarily the guns used in crime. Handguns are mainly the problem. Shotguns and rifles are relatively rarely used to harm people, so if shotgun or rifle ownership goes up that's not as much of a concern.
Our laws are both stricter and weaker than the US, depending on state
That's totally irrelevant. I don't see the point you're making at all. That makes US gun laws bizarre, not ours.
That doesn't even get into the lunacy of magazine laws,
Doesn't seem crazy to me.
We also have a restricted firearm registry that has existed since 1934 and has never once been used to solve a crime. I know maintaining a registry for almost 100 years can't be cheap.
This is exactly the thing I was referring to in my original post. The restricted registry exists for a very good reason. It's to keep handguns out of people's hands. I would never advocate removing it.
-3†
[deleted]
8
Neither restricted or non restricted status would allow me to strap and walk in your big cities.
Actually, believe it or not I don't think there is technically anything illegal about walking down Young Street with an 870 on a sling across your back.
It's a terrible idea, and you will likely be arrested or shot, but I don't think there is anything technically illegal about it.
I know I'm 100% clear to have my shotgun "riding shotgun" in the cab of my truck with me as long as I'm with it. Again, wouldn't go through a city like that but I routinely go places like that during hunting season here locally (I live fairly rurally).
3
I know what the restricted, non-restricted, and prohibited classifications mean.
2
Do you agree with the arbitrary prohibition of the blaze 47? How do you feel about only being able to take restricted firearms to the range? What about removing barrel length restrictions and focusing on over all length? These are all things that could be improved without any risk to the public. We shouldn't ignore things and say they are fine.
2
It's right in my post:
What I do think is that the RCMP's classification is often based on looks or other non-substantive metrics. That's a convincing argument, and I would agree with having that changed.
2
[deleted]
1
You should I think you'd agree with this pro-gun ownership message
3
It's as useless as you think, but at least it's mercifully short
1
We have a "not enough guns" problem.
17
That's the only gun problem I have!
5
How do you figure? What is the problem exactly?
0
From what I gathered watching the video, we may have some sort of lightning god problem. We're going to need a lot more firearms if we want to take on Zeus.
9
might need something bigger like artillery pieces
1
I'd prefer more guns. 2nd amendment style.
12
I'd rather not have everyone have to worry that some unstable person might have a gun on them at all times. I'm much happier knowing almost no one carries a gun around in public in Canada. Much much safer this way. Fuck the American system.
-2†
I'd like to have security in knowing that if the government became totalitarian, or tried to become totalitarian, half the population would have the means to fight back.
1†
I guess I just don't think about crazy unlikely possibilities like that.
4
I'm not disagreeing that it isn't incredibly unlikely, but worse case scenarios are pretty much always that way.
I would be curious to know how my Venezuelans thought their country would be in this condition 10 years ago.
3
It's always a possibility. "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."
1
Ethnic Japanese and first nations don't like to think about it either. Also be sure to avoid any consideration of bill c-16 and Ontario's bill 89. We have to give solipsism a chance.
1
Do you believe that is a legitimate course of action?
Not just that the Canadian Government could become tyrannical, but that civilians armed with small arms could successfully topple the government?
Because neither seems likely. And even if the government did become tyrannical, I have a feeling a good portion of the military and their stockpiles would also turn against them.
1
In the event that it doesn't, yes, I believe that 50% of a population being armed would present a significant difficulty to the government. They can't very well bomb them - that would be destroying their own resources. And guerilla warfare is extremely effective. Look at the IRA, the Taliban, Al Qaeda. Why do you think the west is hesitant to engage in a land war against ISIS? Apart from the political draw backs, the way in which ISIS would be capable of guerilla defence against NATO forces would make the job extremely difficult. When you try to occupy a city or town where half the population is rebellious and half is docile, but who don't know which is which, that's an impossible situation. Every single house can harbour an ambush. Superior technology =/= automatic victory.
2
Presenting arms as talismans of evil is a tactic best left to tabloids and the CBC.
Unstable people generally don't conceal their weapons, but criminals can and surely do; yet even with an onslaught of organised crime virtually pouring into Canada since our government practically left the door open to Hell's Angels decades ago, nowhere in Canada is like Chicago, or LA, or Washington D.C.
Meanwhile, states like New Hampshire share our border, have a crime rate well below Canada's national average, and will even issue concealment permits to foreign nationals.
1
But why have laws based around freedom and facts when you can just use emotions?
11
What it boils down to is that the legal gun owner is not the problem. We follow the laws that apply to safe storage, transport etc. Deal with the criminals who use firearms in the commission of crimes. It's gotten to the point where police won't even identify certain communities where shootings are an issue for fear of being called racist. Each time the answer is to punish the legal owners.
10
Nothing to disagree with in this video at all -- our biggest problem is actually medical malpractice.
9
Toronto's African American community has a gun violence problem on the quick rise.
6
African American
Black US immigrants are showing an increase in street gun usage?
3
No. What Canada does have is a refugee problem.
1†
What's your horror story with a refugee?
5†
[deleted]
-9
Oh, which part of Canada did this occur in?
16
I don't know what the poster said, with the post being deleted, but the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history (Air India) and the biggest planned attack (Toronto 18) were masterminded by those who arrived as refugees and immigrants. That does not justify closing the borders, but lets not be Pollyanna about it.
4
[deleted]
-8
They're not Canadian. You said Canada has a refugee problem.
But what's YOUR horror story? What has one done to you?
10
[deleted]
2
Yeah gonna need a source for this.
4
[deleted]
0
Selection bias much?
I'm pretty sure Robert Pickton was as Canadian as big government conservatives and apple pie.
3
This should be the most talked aboot problem, todaye
1
I'd like to keep our gun laws as they are since this video argues rather well that they are working. Why fix it if it's not broken?
1†
Canadian gun laws do work rather well, most gun owners do not have issues with the system in general. What they could use is some simplification and streamlining.
20
The core problem most gun owners seem to have is in regards to the RCMP being able to determine on a whim what is acceptable and being able to change it without compensation and often with little warning.
19
And most of the changes that they make have no basis in fact or reality. Arbitrarily banning guns because they look too scary is a big example.
6
Or banning magazines that have been legal for decades because they happen to fit in a new gun.
1
Our firearms laws are broken, CCFR has many videos to explain why. But many our laws emotions and not facts, firearms are banned based on colour or wording not on function.
9
Hell, half them aren't even emotion but weird double downs and patch's because the people who wrote the laws don't have the slightest concept on how firearms operate.
It would be the same concept of having a bunch of people who have never driven a car, or even know what one is other than they "go places" writing MOT and vehicular laws.
Except instead of that idea being written off as insane lunacy, we went ahead and did exactly that.
8
I've heard that argument before, but whatever we're doing is apparently working...
EDIT: Whoops, meant to reply to the same comment as you.
-3
It depends on your definition of "working" I guess.
Violent crime in Canada has been falling at a fairly steady, constant rate since somewhere circa 1970.
When you plot all firearm legislation along this path (Canada had very, very little in the way of gun control before 1977 when the FAC was introduced) there is no corresponding drops in crime that go along with introduced legislation.
Also, firearm ownership in Canada has been rising for decades and the violent crime rate continues to plummet. We have more guns than ever before in this country and less crime than ever before. I'm not saying that more guns = less crime (although there are some very solid studies that point to just that), but I am saying that it's pretty clear that more guns do not equal more crime.
Also, to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge on firearms, our laws make literally no sense.
In fact, in Canada the EXACT SAME rifle can be prohibited, restricted or non restricted based solely on the stamp on the side of the gun. The best part? The gun we are discussing is the AK-47, one of the most demonized firearms on the planet.
There are also the magazine restriction lunacy, the fact that the government essentially REFUSES to properly define a "safe" so that the RCMP can throw unsafe storage charges at literally everyone along with a whole bevy of backwards, circular laws that even the people who created them can't follow.
The Liberals have been discussing gun control recently and it's very clear that they don't even understand the laws that they themselves introduced in 1995 as a vast majority of their "focus" has been on introducing measures that already exist, if not already in duplicate.
I mean, if you don't even know the laws you yourselves have put in place, should you really be creating new ones? Especially when after 4 decades of increasing gun control and billions of dollars spent we can't point to a single measure that has actually done a single thing to improve public safety?
9
I've heard that argument before, but whatever we're doing is apparently working
That's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is an assumption that ultimately doesn't hold up.
Canada does have lower violent crime rates than the US. Canada had lower violent crime rates 30 years ago too, by basically the same margin. Introducing stricter gun laws isn't what made the difference. It also doesn't make sense to suggest looser gun laws are the root of the problem in the US. The regional variations in crime rates are a lot more dramatic in the US, and so do the gun laws. Much of the country is as a safe as any other developed country, while some parts are on par with central America. But the gun laws don't correspond to that. In fact the safest part of the US also has some of the most permissive laws in the country.
8
So if something is not doing its job (protecting the public) and is hindering legal firearm ownership then your okay with it? You must love C-51
1
Because they are full of stuff that actually as no affect and are needlessly complicated.
2
Exactly. Sure there are some odd restrictions that could be fixed but otherwise I want things kept the same. We don't want the kind of gun violence the US has to come over to Canada and we don't want to have to live in fear that nearly every person around us might be carrying a gun and one bad emotional episode for them could turn deadly. Better to be cautious than to let a hobby get out of control.
1
Clearly we should ban medicine.
0
Well stupid people are still leaving them in their cars here in medicine hat Alberta, and children and criminals are breaking into said cars for change, then stealing the guns, and ammo. Just happened down the block 3 nights ago. Guy had 2 rifles in his car with over 100 rounds of ammo all stolen.
-2
Then he was storing his gun illegally, he will get in trouble. And if there is some sort of gun theft epidemic (doubtful) then maybe we need to look at firearm transportation requirements, not ban more guns on the grounds that they look scary. That's what's been happening.
2
Education is key with firearms. People need to be educated, and have serious penalties like never being able to own a gun ever for breaking firearm laws. Not removing them from everyone's possession.
2
Yep, zero tolerance for unsafe use is perfectly reasonable.
2
Nope.
Guns can be locked in cars assuming they are in something that surrounds them on all 6 sides and are not loaded.
1
That is only applicable during the "transportation" of firearms, not "storage".
0
Nope.
When transporting a non-restricted firearm it only has to be unloaded and must have a PAL holder with it. If there are people present but no one has a PAL then it is unlawful possession, or if the firearm is simply alone in the vehicle then it is considered a storage container.
When storing a non-restricted firearm in your vehicle; it simply has to be out of sight, rendered unable to fire (trigger lock or locked case), and the vehicle must be securely locked.
http://firearmslaw.ca/gun-law-resources/firearms-storage-transportation/
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm
- Lock non-restricted firearms and locked containers carrying restricted or prohibited firearms in the trunk or in a similar lockable compartment.
- If the vehicle does not have a trunk or lockable compartment, put firearms and firearm containers out of sight inside the vehicle and lock the vehicle.
- If you are in a remote wilderness area and cannot lock your non-restricted firearms inside your vehicle, unload them and put them out of sight. Attach a secure locking device to the firearms unless they are needed for predator control.
Just because people broke into your car and stole your gun doesn't mean it was improperly stored. It might have been, but they don't always go hand in hand.
The law just says that a non-restricted firearm has to be unloaded and locked out of sight within the vehicle. Or else needs to be out of sight with a trigger lock if in a wilderness area where you cannot lock your vehicle.
Knowledge is power, and knowing is half the battle.
1
[deleted]
-9
I wouldn't exactly call the CCFR a YouTube spamming channel, they don't have a ton of videos and more focus on education and familiarization for those that aren't aware of Canadian gun laws or gun culture.
9
Their raison d'etre is to inform the Canadian public as a whole the state of firearms rights in Canada. People who legally own guns are treated very poorly when it comes to criminality, and property rights, and fredom of movement, even though statistically they are Canada's most law-abiding demographic. If you could make an argument of who should be allowed to own firearms in a society who would allow it, the gun owning demographic is already a top choice; no criminal history, solid relationships, good character references, no history of mental illness, plus being able to maintain that status as long as you want to own guns.
6
I would answer yes, to some extent there's a problem. I know someone who does, or did own a handgun. One of the people who vouched for him on his paperwork, was an employee of his, and she felt pressured or obligated to do so.
He's impulsive and immature, sold a lot of weed (including to high school kids,) and was basically not a fit and responsible person. He didn't have a gun safe, and, as far as I know, little or no followup was done as to what he was doing with his handgun (redneck target shooting, as far as I know, if there were other things, I don't know.)
So yes, the system could be improved.
-21
If this person poses a risk and is engaging in illegal activity you can report them to the RCMP by calling the Canadian Firearms Program. That will allow the system to work.
28
That would be something, but there should be a little more oversight...it would not take more than a couple of minutes with this person to figure out they're not a good candidate.
When it comes to handguns, it should be like applying to adopt a child.
-20
What kind of oversight? The program is administered by the rcmp. Our records are reviewed daily. He can't buy his way out or intimidate his way out of this. Your entire story is bunk.
20
It's absolutely true, but believe what you want.
-2
Handguns aren't particularly dangerous devices in and of themselves. The lore around them does make prople contextualize them as being particularly scary.
Again, if you have genuine worry about somebody who has a firearm in their possession, you should call and report them. If they have an attitude you don't jive with, then that might be another issue. An anonymous tip is more than enough justification for an interview, and inspection of his firearm storage.
Also a safe isn't a legal requirement to store handguns. They must be stored unloaded, trigger locked, in a locked sturdy case that is difficult to break into.
10
That (about the safe) makes no sense. So a burglar can just take the case with them, and open it at their leisure.
-1
There's something called continuous eligibility screening for PAL holders. It runs each PAL holders name though a national law enforcement database every single day. If something comes up they act upon it.
However, again, if you feel that this person is a public safety risk which can be backed by tangible evidence you should report it to the CFP. 1-800-731-4000
6
So basically what your saying is your friend lied for her boss on a federal application to allow him to buy guns? Sounds like she was in the wrong for helping him cheat the system. Guns are not a joke to any responsible gun owner. She allowed him to get his hands on firearms because she valued her own job over the safety of others.
Edit, how is target shooting redneck? It is a sport that requires quite a bit of concentration and technical know how as well as many calculations of ballistics and wind if done at long ranges. Your conclusion saying most gun owners are rednecks because they go target shooting doesn't do anything for your argument.
25
Target shooting is one thing, shooting TVs and stuff you might expect eight year olds to do with BB guns is another. You're drawing that conclusion. There are hunters and champion target shooters in my extended family; this is something else altogether.
-1
I don't think it was just her job, she felt physically intimidated. Plus, she's suffering an illness that I won't go into, that could affect her judgement.
I only found out some of this second hand, or after the fact, because gun owner knew I wouldn't play along.
-3
So she was physically intimidated by someone and felt it was a good idea to help that person get a gun? You realize how stupid that line of thinking sounds
19
You realise how you sound right now, don't you? Shame on you.
-7
Layer upon layer of bullshit. Give up your half cocked attempt at an abti-gun argument. You're either lying about the whole thing, or are a horrible coward that is too scared to report this alleged "bad guy" to the RCMP.
3
I am genuinely amazed at the childish drivel I'm hearing. Why would I make any of this up? As I said, the RCMP know plenty about the guy, and have done nothing. They know he's dealt drugs to high school kids. So me putting myself on the radar to the RCMP is going to do nothing.
If the screenings were meaningful, he wouldn't have gotten his permit. That's all I'm saying. I worry about all of you as stable individuals, the way you've gotten yourselves worked up.
-1
Did you report him to the RCMP? You suppose to if what you just said is true.
9
If you want to maintain the draconian restrictions on restricted weapons, then yes.
Though he seems like the kind of situation that should he acceptable (aside from the drug dealing).
What is the problem with "redneck target shooting"?
Assuming you aren't shooting at people and you have a backstop, why shouldn't you be allowed to shoot restricted weapons on a farm?
8
He doesn't have a backstop. He's a drug dealer, irresponsible, and overall, not a person I want owning a firearm.
Redneck target shooting being TVs, electronics etc, not in a designated range, for much of it. So, not controlled, not safe, littering, vandalism, plus he's either drunk or high most of the time.
He kept a replica pellet pistol under his desk at work, and at times, other staffers told me he sometimes kept his shotgun under there.
So sure, the paragon of responsible gun ownership.
I don't think those regulations are draconian. There are some weapons regular people really don't have a need to own, and if they're permitted to, they have to follow the regulations set down. Unfortunately, they're not enforced.
-1†
1 - So report him.
Your entire argument is "I know a guy breaking the law but I didn't report him, so the system is broken"
Besides, if this drug dealer is already breaking the laws, what makes you think he wouldn't break them in other situations?
Also that isn't "redneck target shooting" that is "jackass target shooting" for which you gave no description and expected us to know what you meant.
2 - Why shouldn't people be able to shoot restricted weapons on their own property? Especially under the circumstances where potentially more dangerous non-restricted guns are currently fired?
3 - What isn't draconian about forcing a person to register the weapon, become part of a gun club, and only allow them to fire it at ranges such as that gun club?
What is your reasoning for your belief?
That a criminal you know doesn't obey the law? Would you expect otherwise?
That you think people don't need certain guns? People don't need certain vehicles, don't need certain foods, don't need to take part in certain sports.
People technically don't need any guns, so why should we allow any of them?
More importantly, why should we be basing legislation on what other people think people "need".
11
For reasons I've already explained, I couldn't report him at the time. The system is broken, inasmuch as the most cursory of investigations would have revealed his unsuitability. My instigating an investigation into his suitability would almost certainly identify me as the person who reported it. Whilst I don't care that much about my own personal safety, I do care about the safety of those I care about. I don't absolutely know if the guy's violent, but I do know that he's impulsive, immature, and has unbelievably poor judgement. So I consider him dangerous for those reasons, and I can't directly prove what he's been up to with these arms.
You made a really big assumption he uses his weapons on his own property. He does not, or at least I hope he doesn't, because it's tiny and urban. He goes on public property, occasionally to a range, but mostly out in the bush. Some government, some private, I doubt he's picky. Do you think he actually puts any though into where his bullets that miss his targets go?
As for the 'draconian' (they aren't, they're sensible) rules, handguns are made to kill people. At a stretch, they can be used for target shooting. Since the former is not something we countenance, the restrictions seem reasonable to me (guess why, I hear he takes his handgun out into the bush as well.)
Your comparison to foods, vehicles and sports is spurious, and ill-considered. Those things have utility. Handguns in Canada do not, as we (thankfully) do not have the doctrines prevalent in the US.
0
"The system could be improved" will never cease to remain a valid criticism of all systems; although I can see how the apparent danger of firearms might persuade you to be more critical of this particular one, the actual data available suggests resources could be better allocated elsewhere.
8
Thank you. An intelligent and civil comment. I knew there was one there somewhere.
I do hold things and people to a high standard, and in this situation, particularly.
0
When you fill out the form as a reference, immediately before you sign your name, they provide a number to call should you have safety concerns about the individuals application. This person whom was coerced into signing should have read the form and called that number afterwards when it was safe to do so. It may not even be too late.
6
She didn't want to make waves, and she absolutely felt an obligation as an employee. Employees should be ineligible.
Her medical condition might preclude her taking steps now, and I don't even know if the guy still owns the handgun. He told me he'd sold it; however, he's a pathological liar, and would tell a lie like that to get someone off his back, as naturally as most people would take a breath.
3
I know the type of person. I have one in my life and I know the frustration dealing with pathological liars.
A medical condition shouldn't exclude someone from raising a safety concern but I understand why someone may be apprehensive in this scenario. Really I just wanted to point out that there is a provision for discreetly reporting concerns.
Making employees ineligible is an interesting step, one I think I'd agree with. I don't think it should be a close relative either.
1
[deleted]
We don't have a gun problem. I knew that.
Thanks for taking one for the team.
takes 1:42 to say "no".
Thanks !!
Well yeah, because we have fairly effective gun control, though less effective than places like the UK, but more effective than the US.
Our gun control is effective however it's extremely punitive, at times bordering on draconian and inexcusably arbitrary.
It's also debatable on how effective it is at all considering there has been no correlation to increased gun control measures with a corresponding drop in violent crime rates. In fact number of firearms (both restricted and non) have been climbing while violent crime rates continue to fall.
So never before have you been safer in Canada, and never before have Canadians owned so many firearms.
And the same thing has also happened in the US. In fact their gun laws have gotten less restrictive in the last 25 years or so while the murder rate has more than halved.