Re: Guns
 

A bit of double posting going on there!

Re: Guns
 

What animals attack what animals raised by farmers that cannot be prevented from killing by, for example, fencing?

Re: Guns
 

I personally don't have any issues with self harm.

Re: Guns
 

Still waiting for suggestions how we should deal with all the legally obtained arms out there should north america have a sudden personality change and decide to legislate against ownership?

No, nothing?

Seems to me there would suddenly be a lot more guns out there for the less responsible members of society to get their hands on.

Its all very well wringing our hands and shouting how guns are bad. Lets deal with the reality that there are a lot of gun owners out there owning a lot of guns. If you want to get rid of guns you have to round all those weapons up from people that probably dont want to give them up.

Suggestions? Anyone?

Re: Guns
 

Have you ever seen say a large cattle ranch for example? Even with fencing cougars, bears, wolves and the like end up attacking the cattle.

People have more faith in fences then they should, a large wild animal looking to kill, isn't going to be stopped by a fence. Heck doesn't even have to be a large animal, more then one account of coyotes ending up in peoples fenced back yards, and attacking their pets, and sometimes children. If a coyote can get into a fenced back yard in an urban setting, a fence is certainly not going to stop a large predator from attacking.

Not to mention a large ranch is going to include territories of predators such a wolves, bears, cougars and so on.

In BC between private land, and crown land, there is over 20 million acres of land used for cattle, with the average ranch being over 1,000 acres, not talking small pieces of land here.

The largest cattle ranch in BC is 500,000 acres, you honestly think its feasible to keep predators out of that much land with a fence?

"BC is home to Canada's largest working cattle ranch. Douglas Lake Ranch has a cattle herd of approximately 20,000 head and a land base of more than 500,000 acres."

My girlfriends mom's house is fully fenced, and guess what, a bear was in her back yard recently to get to the trash can, climbed right over it.

I am not a gun advocate and see no need for the average person to have one, but I do realize that some people and professions have a valid need for guns.

Re: Guns
 

I live relatively close to a large cattle ranch. I doubt that there are many farmers in Canada that would be able to shoot a cougar when darkness falls. I thought the main reason for farmers being able to have weapons was to enable them to discharge them and intruder being scared off by the noise. I am confident that you can think of a number of devices that could achieve this.

I doubt bears kill many cattle. I suspect that coyotes and cougars kill fewer. Wolves may kill more, I grant you that, but I doubt that they take so many in North America that that alone would be justification for farmers having differing rights to others regarding weapons.

Re: Guns
 

As a law abiding gun owner if the police asked you to return all guns you would, right?

Re: Guns
 

In ontario its more about picking off nuisance animals like groundhogs.

Re: Guns
 

I dont own any guns.


Some would, others would tell them to go **** themselves as happened with the long gun registry.

Re: Guns
 

OK, since you're determined to push this angle, I'll bite.

First, I'll repeat for the record, I am not in favour of banning gun ownership outright.

For effective implementation of a reduction of the number of firearms in (legitimate) private ownership, there are several potential routes.

1. Guns for target shooting to be kept on the premises at gun clubs and ranges, rather than in private residences. Proper and well-inspected security arrangements in place to make sure they stay there.
2. make it much more difficult (illegal?) to sell a firearm privately. Sales and purchases to be permitted only through licensed and regulated stores.
3. Impose an outright ban on firearms other than bolt-action rifles or double-barreled shotguns. Nobody outside military or law enforcement needs a handgun, with the possible exception of competition target-shooting pistols covered under the sporting exemption above. Equally, nobody needs a semiautomatic or automatic weapon of any description. Limiting magazine capacities is a dumb idea, as aftermarket magazines (not in themselves firearms) would be almost impossible to police.
4. Offer compensation for those who turn in firearms. Make it a buy-back program rather than an "amnesty." Put some real money behind the politicians' words.
5. Stop with the grandfathering legislation. If you still have Grandpa's old service weapon, render it inactive (remove firing pin?) or get rid of it (give it to a museum?).
6. Impose serious financial penalties for non-compliance. Offer incentives for reporting of illegally held firearms, either your own or other people's.
7. Acknowledge that a change in attitudes takes time. Commit to a long-term process of public education and gradual acceptance. Think of it in the same terms as seatbelt legislation, or drink-driving legislation: while there are still diehards who ignore these, they're widely accepted as a fact of life and we all move on.

That's off the top of my head. Some are probably silly ideas, there are probably some obvious things I've missed. But to cop out of the whole concept because it's too much effort to think how it might be made to work is allowing apathy to provide an excuse for inaction.

Re: Guns
 

The problem for Canada is, of course, the open border with the US. Canadian gun legislation will not be ideally effective while the US has such a surplus of weapons (as a case in point, marijuana is not legal in Canada while it is in parts of the US, nonetheless there's pot smoking in Canada!) A coordinated approach would be ideal.

Since that's not going to happen I think a multi-pronged approach is needed:

- the Chris Rock policy, tax bullets at the level of alcohol (and drop the tax on alcohol)
- stop issuing new gun licenses
- stop the retail sale of new weapons

All of that can be done by legislation. Then the hard bit:

- government offers cash for guns
- government offers a program whereby the guns of deceased license holders are handed in
- government campaigns to change social attitudes with a view to making gun owners pariahs like smokers.

Many years later there'll be less guns in use. Were you looking for an overnight miracle?

Re: Guns
 

So they're not especially law abiding responsible gun owners after all then. ;)

Re: Guns
 

So, if its all about the known harm of firearms ive a question

Why are the people up in arms about gun ownership not all smoked about tobacco usage as well?

Sure, I can ignore the self inflicted harm aspect of the 10s of thousands of tobacco related deaths, but "Passive Smoking" is thought to be responsible for 600000 deaths a year globally according to reports in The Guardian.

Smoking is associated with over 400 babies a year in the US alone dying of SIDS (thats a lot more than die of gun related causes), why are the anti gun lobby here not not baying to make tobacco illegal to all its many users on the same grounds, because clearly a large number of people are not using it responsibly.

For the same matter, drunk driving kills more every year than guns, maybe we should ban booze for all because of the irresponsible actions of those that cant just get a taxi home. Same principal ater all, punish the many for the sins of the few. No one needs to drink or smoke after all, in fact the negative health impacts of smoking and drinking are rather better established than the negative impact of guns on the life expectancy of their owners.

Re: Guns
 

They may say that why should they play by the rules anymore.

They played by the rules already, then someone chose to move the goalposts;)

Then they may spit out their wad of chewing tobacco and mutter something about "Damn governments not to be trusted" and shuffle off to put some pants on and get the keys to one of their three gun cabinets....

At which point I leg it to my car and beat a hasty retreat to the nearest Timmies.

Re: Guns
 

You are once again missing the point.

For every person here arguing against guns (be it a complete ban or making regulations tighter). They will also have views regarding drunk driving or smoking habits.

This thread or topic is guns, not tobacco and not drunk drivers.

Re: Guns
 

Correct me if Im wrong, but after umpteen pages the argument for more legislation, up to and including an outright ban, would appear to be:

We need more laws to tighten access to firearms considerably because no one really needs them and a significant number of innocent people die because they are used irresponsibly. If this means you cant do something that you have enjoyed doing with no harm to anyone for years, thats too bad, but its for the greater good of society and the random citizens harmed by the misuse of the product that you enjoy so much.

I dont think I am misrepresenting anyone there?

Now, explain to me how you can look at that and not see that the exact same logic has to be applied to tobacco and alcohol as well if you are not to appear to be a hypocrite!

Re: Guns
 

Teaching them how to shoot at a young age is how they get to compete in the Olympics.

Re: Guns
 

From the pictures in the paper, it's an M1A (semi-automatic rifle, but not an assault rifle) and a pump-action shotgun with a collapsible stock he's carrying. On CBC they're saying two rifles, but they're wrong.

Having briefly looked at his facebook page, it was gibberish, so I don't think he's all there.

Personally I think he's gone out into the woods and topped himself, and the reports of people seeing him this morning were wrong. They'd have found him with FLIR by now if he was still alive.

Re: Guns
 

What kind of gibberish was it? What was his beef?

Re: Guns
 

It can and it has.

In the case of Society VS. smokers.

Society in Winnipeg has now deemed it unlawful to smoke A) Indoors at a public/work building, B) On patios C) in personal cars when children are present D) At beaches, E) In parks>

In the case of Society VS. Drunk drivers.

Drunk driving is flat out illegal (blood alcohol content being the filter).

The regulations for smoking has been done - is there still opportunity for review/more restrictions? Yes

The ban on drink driving has been done - can they look at this policy and make it stricter? Yes.

What people are talking about right now in this thread is gun ownership, I am pro gun ownership, I would like to see the regulations constantly reviewed and questioned but would never like to see an outright ban.

Re: Guns
 

You keep making this argument and you don't seem to realize that there is no happy medium (as you said you don't oppose banning guns) where guns are "better regulated" and there are no mass shootings.

It's simply not possible. There have been mass shootings everywhere in the world, regardless of what their gun laws are, including places with really severe gun laws like China and South Korea.

You only have to look at the UK to see what a fool's errand it is, they tightened up the licensing system (which was already really tough) after Hungerford, banned various types of firearm, then a school was shot up in Dunblane, so handguns were banned too, then Derrick Bird went bonkers with a double-barrel shotgun and got a similar body count in Cumbria.

Gun controls don't stop mass shootings. They are too isolated of an event with unique causes. It's not feasible to absolutely ban all guns completely because too many people need them for legitimate purposes so the determined crazy person will always find a way (and there have been several mass shootings with illegally owned guns anyway). Really it's only luck that stops it, such as when people see that someone is going off the rails.

Unless of course you want to live in a police state - but there are police states where mass shootings have happened.

I was just having this discussion with someone and they mentioned there have been no mass shootings in Australia since the Port Arthur shootings in 1996, which were followed by tougher gun laws - yes there has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash...rsity_shooting

I'm totally for having background checks on people buying guns and some basic obvious stuff like that because you don't want to make it too easy for unstable people to get their hands on guns, but that's about as good as you can get it, especially in a free society.

Re: Guns
 

You have to have a firearm licence, both parties to the transaction.

Re: Guns
 

No, because there's clearly a cultural difference between countries.

Re: Guns
 

They reduce mass shootings. So greater control IS the happy medium.

Re: Guns
 

Nothing wrong with owning a semi-automatic rifle and a pump-action shotgun. That's perfectly normal behaviour, if you are the kind of person that shouldn't be let near anything sharp.

I am now going for a beer and a smoke in my garage. No innocent bystanders will be harmed. Unless my garage gets invaded, in which case my Fubar III will lose it's virginity.

Re: Guns
 

Is there really an issue with the number, or type, of weapons in Canada?

Re: Guns
 

It's not inherently dangerous, this is one of the flaws I always think when it comes to people comparing banning guns to say, banning smoking. Smoking when done properly is dangerous. Drinking alcohol can be dangerous. If you use a firearm for hunting properly then no-one gets hurt and it's even less likely on a fixed target shooting range.

This is why there is always an enormous gulf between recreational gun owners and say, people who live in dodgy areas with lots of drug dealers, because neither side can relate to the other's situation.

Re: Guns
 

Pest control, shooting rats, crows, etc.

Re: Guns
 

If my son is sitting in Isla Vista and someone blows tobacco smoke over him, personally I think that is preferable to shooting him.

But what do I know.

Re: Guns
 

I cant tell if you agree with me or not. Mortality rates seem to indicate that the existing passive smoking and drunk driving rules are no more effective at protecting innocent bystanders than the existing firearms rules. Perhaps less so.

Re: Guns
 

Why do those on acreages, or those that live at the edge of urban areas, not need firearms for the same reason? Why are farmers special?

Re: Guns
 

You've got me, I couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Re: Guns
 

Well, I don't disagree with you, I know a lot of people around here go out and shoot on farmer's land, the reason being (a) it gives the shooter somewhere to shoot and (b) the farmer doesn't have the chore of doing pest control, so it's mutually beneficial.

Re: Guns
 

How many mass shootings are there in the UK per 100,000 population?
How many mass shootings are there in the US per 100,000 population?

From the rather haphazard statistics I googled quickly, the number in the US is about 10 times that in the UK, and about double that in Canada.

Again, though, limiting this to a binary relationship between gun ownership and mass shootings is very naive. Expecting there never to be a mass shooting is very naive, regardless of the strictness of gun regulation.

dbd put it well up-thread. American society has decided that losing a few dozen people per year to mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for the gun ownership culture that prevails. The UK decided that it is not. Canada is prevaricating. Plus ca change...

Re: Guns
 

What I'm saying is, look at it from the perspective of the responsible person. Firearms aren't designed or intended to be used to shoot a group of innocent people in the street. So from a mentality standpoint, a gun owner does not understand why you would have a problem with him owning and using guns, after all he has done nothing wrong. Smoking is a different situation because you can make out to people using it legally that is dangerous for them to do it.

Re: Guns
 

People will argue that smoking and alcohol are different somehow because the vast majority of harm from smoking and drinking is self inflicted with the knowledge and participation of the victim.

However, if you look at the numbers for innocent DUI victims and passive smoking deaths they are worse than any numbers you can throw up for firearms.

Hence my position that its hypocritical in the extreme to want to legislate against guns and not apply the same logic to casual access to tobacco and alcohol.

Re: Guns
 

In ways I am agreeing with you but I don't like the defense of one act attacking a completely different act. (They can and should be viewed independently of each other).

Deflection of an argument isn't addressing the issue.

Smokers once said it's alright for you now as this doesn't affect you but when they are done with us it'll be you next. This statement was aimed more at fat people and drunks but perhaps this issue also falls into their warning.

Re: Guns
 

can you say "straw man"?

Re: Guns
 

Well I didn't want to repeat myself but as I pointed out upthread, California has tougher gun laws than Canada does, but the rate of firearm-related homcide is seven times the national average in Canada and four times the rate in Alberta (which has a similar rate of gun ownership to California).

Simply saying that the UK has less mass shootings doesn't establish anything, like I said, the changes in 1988 didn't stop Dunblane and the changes in 1997 didn't stop the shootings in Cumbria. So those specific pieces of legislation don't appear to have worked.

It's not actually established that "more" gun laws do stop mass shootings.

I was going to reply to Shard but I'll reply to you instead - gun laws are not scientific, there's not a causal relationship between gun law A and lower crime rate B. Also you can't just take country A and compare with B because you can prove anything with a sample size of two.

Mass shootings by individuals like this are so rare it's very hard to establish any kind of causal relationship.

If there were, and it were easy to prove, it wouldn't be such a contentious issue and every country in the world would have the same gun laws, but they don't. The NRA does have an argument, like it or not. There are statistics that support their position, for example armed crime has been going down sharply in the US over the last decade or so even though the number of guns in circulation has increased substantially.

What typically happens is someone goes off on a rampage and then a kneejerk law is passed and then it happens again sometime later in a slightly different way - because the reality is that it's very hard to pass a law that is going to have an effect on someone who doesn't care if they die in the process.

It's just as likely that other differences in culture or law could explain different rates of firearm-related crime. Canada is the case in point because it has significantly lower rates but the gun laws can't explain that, so it is likely a cultural factor or something else (better healthcare?)

Like I said if it was easy to pass a law to stop it, it would have been done a very long time ago.

Re: Guns
 

They should be viewed independently, but the same logic should be applied.