Contra Stephen's comment, civilian firearm ownership IS highly restricted already. Canada has all the "common sense" gun laws that Americans talk about, and much beyond.
However, acquiescing to all this has put licensed gun owners in a difficult position. They're often scapegoated for a host of social ills that have little to do with them. There never seems to be a point at which gun laws are good enough; it's a ratchet that tightens indefinitely.
Since politicians have limited ability or desire to address the drug-and-gang-related violence behind the majority of firearm homicides, what they do instead is add regulatory measures that are easy, visible, and popular, regardless of efficacy. Reclassifying particular guns is one of those gimmicks.
It's noteworthy that the government has not even tried to offer a serious cost-benefit analysis of their latest prohibition of certain models. It's obvious why: the policy is a sop that was rushed out to show something was being done after the Portapique massacre (which, incidentally, neither the "assault weapon ban" nor Stephen's more draconian proposal would've prevented).
You'll notice similar stirrings in Canada after US mass shootings, too. This is an even weirder dynamic, since the laws there are quite different and most of the hardware of concern (30-round magazines, bump stocks) was banned here eons ago. Depressing as it is, gun policy is a wedge issue, and playing on Canadians' fears is effective politics.
"The majority of firearm homicides" in Canada are not due to "drug-and-gang-related violence."
"Although homicide by firearm frequently receives prominent media attention, the majority (79%) of firearm-related deaths in Canada are caused by suicide. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death in young people in Canada, and suicide by firearm carries the highest case fatality of all methods." Source: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/42/E1253
You're right about that first part. I was trying to make a point that the type of firearms crime that is on the rise (in some Canadian cities) over the last few years is categorically different from long gun crime that the government has chosen on.
In any case, my claim was just plain wrong. My bad.
You can certainly make an argument for restricting firearms to prevent suicide, but this is quite a different thing from the government's policy proposals. To the extent they have a rationale at all, it appears to be crime prevention.
The evidence regarding gun control is clear. Civilian firearms ownership should be highly restricted. Semi-automatic firearms should be outright banned. Beyond 'toy' value, there's no rational or responsible case for civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms.
Storage of firearms at private residences should be banned, too. Firearms should stored in guarded, public armories where owners can check out their guns and ammunition on an as-needed, time limited, geographic-limited basis.
There may be a case for special dispensations, but for most firearms owners, especially in urban and suburban areas, firearms are 'toys.' No rational, responsible case can be made for a person living in Toronto or Kelowna having a GSG MP40 9mm semi-automatic rifle they can use to kill their family, their neigbour's family, and themselves before someone can call 911.
Most gun deaths in Canada are suicide. Having a firearm in a residence, also, increases the risk of a person murdering their spouse. Firearms should not be stored in private residences or places of business.
By the way, I have a Firearms Licence (Possession - Acquisition) that doesn't expire until 2024.
The evidence regarding gun control is far from clear. Crimes are being committed with illegal handguns, not the guns that are currently legal in Canada. Your assertion that guns are unnecessary and are simply toys could be easily be applied to many areas of Canadian life. Who really needs a personal watercraft or snowmobile? Marijuana has negative health effects - why should you have access to it? Reality TV shows have no redeeming value, so we should only watch culturally upstanding material like opera. You want to curtail a personal freedom with little or no rational justification, and that’s a rather dangerous path d down.
Just so it's in this exchange, the difference between firearms and personal watercraft, snowmobiles, marijuana, and reality TV shows is that the former (firearms), when used as directed, are intended to kill or injure, the latter when used as directed are not intended to kill or harm people. That's the crucial difference.
And to be clear, a drug like marijuana is messing with your brain's neurochemistry and can cause effects like psychosis and hyperemesis. There really isn't a bright line here, other than that you think guns are icky. I'm not a gun owner, and I'm appalled by the US gun culture, but I'm very hesitant to set a precedent where governments can decide what you own or what you do based on their perceived utility.
This is not about 'perceived utility.' The government hasn't called firearms toys. I did and do. The issue isn't utility. The issue is the danger firearms pose to people. There are already well-established precedents in firearms legislation about 'what you own or what you do.' By the way, in terms of utility, firearms' utility is well-established. They're very good at killing, which is their intended use.
Contra Stephen's comment, civilian firearm ownership IS highly restricted already. Canada has all the "common sense" gun laws that Americans talk about, and much beyond.
However, acquiescing to all this has put licensed gun owners in a difficult position. They're often scapegoated for a host of social ills that have little to do with them. There never seems to be a point at which gun laws are good enough; it's a ratchet that tightens indefinitely.
Since politicians have limited ability or desire to address the drug-and-gang-related violence behind the majority of firearm homicides, what they do instead is add regulatory measures that are easy, visible, and popular, regardless of efficacy. Reclassifying particular guns is one of those gimmicks.
It's noteworthy that the government has not even tried to offer a serious cost-benefit analysis of their latest prohibition of certain models. It's obvious why: the policy is a sop that was rushed out to show something was being done after the Portapique massacre (which, incidentally, neither the "assault weapon ban" nor Stephen's more draconian proposal would've prevented).
You'll notice similar stirrings in Canada after US mass shootings, too. This is an even weirder dynamic, since the laws there are quite different and most of the hardware of concern (30-round magazines, bump stocks) was banned here eons ago. Depressing as it is, gun policy is a wedge issue, and playing on Canadians' fears is effective politics.
"The majority of firearm homicides" in Canada are not due to "drug-and-gang-related violence."
"Although homicide by firearm frequently receives prominent media attention, the majority (79%) of firearm-related deaths in Canada are caused by suicide. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death in young people in Canada, and suicide by firearm carries the highest case fatality of all methods." Source: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/42/E1253
A thought. Perhaps when discussing this issue we should agree on the facts. Can you agree to the facts in this government publication? https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00016-eng.htm
You're right about that first part. I was trying to make a point that the type of firearms crime that is on the rise (in some Canadian cities) over the last few years is categorically different from long gun crime that the government has chosen on.
In any case, my claim was just plain wrong. My bad.
You can certainly make an argument for restricting firearms to prevent suicide, but this is quite a different thing from the government's policy proposals. To the extent they have a rationale at all, it appears to be crime prevention.
*has chosen _to focus on_, rather.
The evidence regarding gun control is clear. Civilian firearms ownership should be highly restricted. Semi-automatic firearms should be outright banned. Beyond 'toy' value, there's no rational or responsible case for civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms.
Storage of firearms at private residences should be banned, too. Firearms should stored in guarded, public armories where owners can check out their guns and ammunition on an as-needed, time limited, geographic-limited basis.
There may be a case for special dispensations, but for most firearms owners, especially in urban and suburban areas, firearms are 'toys.' No rational, responsible case can be made for a person living in Toronto or Kelowna having a GSG MP40 9mm semi-automatic rifle they can use to kill their family, their neigbour's family, and themselves before someone can call 911.
Most gun deaths in Canada are suicide. Having a firearm in a residence, also, increases the risk of a person murdering their spouse. Firearms should not be stored in private residences or places of business.
By the way, I have a Firearms Licence (Possession - Acquisition) that doesn't expire until 2024.
The evidence regarding gun control is far from clear. Crimes are being committed with illegal handguns, not the guns that are currently legal in Canada. Your assertion that guns are unnecessary and are simply toys could be easily be applied to many areas of Canadian life. Who really needs a personal watercraft or snowmobile? Marijuana has negative health effects - why should you have access to it? Reality TV shows have no redeeming value, so we should only watch culturally upstanding material like opera. You want to curtail a personal freedom with little or no rational justification, and that’s a rather dangerous path d down.
Just so it's in this exchange, the difference between firearms and personal watercraft, snowmobiles, marijuana, and reality TV shows is that the former (firearms), when used as directed, are intended to kill or injure, the latter when used as directed are not intended to kill or harm people. That's the crucial difference.
And to be clear, a drug like marijuana is messing with your brain's neurochemistry and can cause effects like psychosis and hyperemesis. There really isn't a bright line here, other than that you think guns are icky. I'm not a gun owner, and I'm appalled by the US gun culture, but I'm very hesitant to set a precedent where governments can decide what you own or what you do based on their perceived utility.
This is not about 'perceived utility.' The government hasn't called firearms toys. I did and do. The issue isn't utility. The issue is the danger firearms pose to people. There are already well-established precedents in firearms legislation about 'what you own or what you do.' By the way, in terms of utility, firearms' utility is well-established. They're very good at killing, which is their intended use.