Well said Justin, well said. Better gun laws are needed to prevent more tragedies like we had recently.
What laws would have prevented the tragedy in Nova Scotia? And does what happened justify screwing over law-abiding citizens?
What the fuck do you need an assault rifle for?
The idea that anything should be banned because there is no "need" for it is irrational and undemocratic.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-gun-control-handguns-1.5532173
Well, that was a load of bullshit. And a lot of the commenters seem to agree with me.
Is there any specific statement or set of statements In the article you can argue against? Remember, this is a Canadian article about a Canadian law, so no right to bear arms here.
The right to bear arms is an inherent human right, not some privilege granted by governments.
There is no conceivable reason why an ordinary person needs to own a handgun. No reason whatsoever.
Apparently, needing a gun to defend oneself is inconceivable to this guy. Canada is a big country, and there are a lot of areas where it could take the police hours to respond to a call for help. And that's before you get into the questionable decisions the RCMP made before and during this tragedy.
Likewise, the term "shooting yourself in the foot" is not just a metaphor. Military medics know well that when you draw a pistol in a panic, the first round sometimes goes through your foot. Or an innocent bystander. If you keep it tucked into your waistband, it will go through something else, but that's another story.
Because no civilian has any idea of what proper trigger discipline is.
The more guns in society, the more gun deaths.
Statistics say otherwise.
Legal guns have a way of being stolen and becoming illegal.
You mean like
the 173 guns reported stolen from the Canadian police between 2005 and 2019? And keep in mind: those are just the ones known to have been stolen.
And even a law-abiding gun owner can cross over to the dark side under stress, delusion and paranoia.
Yeah, let's restrict people's rights based on what they
might do in the future. That's not authoritarian at all!
People who rave about owning these devices of death are often referred to as "gun enthusiasts." This makes about as much sense as "poison gas enthusiasts" or "land mine enthusiasts." Collecting and slavering over devices which are primarily designed to kill people is not normal.
Why do you prefer ad hominem attacks over statistical analysis? Could it be that you'd lose if you focused on the facts?
A suggested scenario:
1. A total and absolute ban on handgun sales, and on handgun ownership by private citizens. (With long prison terms for violation.)
2. Restriction of long guns to bolt-action rifles and limited-magazine shotguns.
3. Firm enforcement of minimum sentences for possession of any restricted weapon, and even more stringent penalties for anyone committing a crime with a firearm.
4. Exemptions, under strict controls, where subsistence hunting is a way of life.
OK then, what will these laws do about all the illegal guns already on the streets? Or those being smuggled in? Would these laws have done anything to prevent the tragedy?
Not to mention that's a tall order. 1 in 4 Canadian households own at least one gun, and Canada has over 13 million guns in total. The idea that guns aren't important in Canada and can be banned en masse without causing major problems is hopelessly naive. Doing this would be very expensive, and probably wouldn't actually accomplish anything. That money could be put to much better use getting the economy started again.
All this for something that's an infinitesimally small cause of death in Canada. Only around 165 firearm homicides occur each year in Canada according to Statistics Canada. Almost all of those are gang-related and use illegal firearms. In comparison, drunk driving kills at least 1,250 people in Canada every year according to MADD Canada. That's the most drunk driving deaths per capita in the developed world. Maybe you should try prohibition, hosehead. Didn't work down here, but considering you're so sure you can get a gun ban to work despite the many times they've failed, you might have better luck with it.
Add to this a heightened border vigilance against guns coming from the United States, and not only will gun crime decrease, so will accidental deaths and suicides.
Why are you treating this like an afterthought? This should be prioritized over gun restrictions, if they are to be considered at all. Imagine what you are allowed to do being determined not by your own conduct, but by the actions of criminals over whom you have no control.
