|
Evidence does not support call for gun bans
Opinion: The evidence simply doesn't support calls for gun bans in Canada
According to gun control advocates’ logic, Australia’s buyback should have been followed by a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides. After all, access to legal guns ought to have been greatly diminished John R. Lott, Jr. and Gary Mauser It seems obvious: ban guns and there won’t be any gun crime. After two people were killed and 13 injured in a July shooting in Toronto’s Greektown neighbourhood, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered his government to assess the idea of “a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada.” They are scheduled to finish the assignment by the end of the year. Here is a simple question for Canada to answer: has a single place, anywhere in the world, ever seen its murder rate decline after banning all handguns or all guns? We can’t find such a place. Every single time that guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up — often several-fold. Handgun homicides continued to rise after Canada’s 1995 ban on more than half of all legally registered handguns. Americans tried to completely ban handguns in Chicago and Washington D.C., and saw murder and violent crime soar. Gun control advocates argued that these aren’t fair test cases because criminals could bring in guns purchased outside of city limits. But that argument can’t account for why rates of violence exploded in both places. Murder rates have increased even when all guns or all handguns are banned in entire countries, even entire island nations. Murder rates more than tripled after Ireland’s 1972 ban. In Jamaica, they went up six-fold after a 1975 ban. The reason is simple. When guns are banned, it is law-abiding citizens rather than criminals who turn in their firearms. And criminals can continue buying arms from drug gangs. If governments can’t enforce drug bans, there’s no reason to think that they can enforce gun bans. Australia is a favourite example of gun control advocates, but guns weren’t banned there. The country’s buyback program caused more than 700,000 firearms to be handed in and destroyed, reducing the number of legally owned guns from 3.2 to 2.5 million between 1996 and 1997. But since then, the increase in privately-owned guns has outpaced population growth by a factor of three. The number now stands at 5.8 million. According to gun control advocates’ logic, Australia’s buyback should have been followed by a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides. After all, access to legal guns ought to have been greatly diminished. Gun control advocates would then have predicted a slow increase in firearm deaths as the ownership rate increased again. No such thing occurred. Firearm homicides and suicides were falling for 15 years prior to the buyback, and fell more slowly after the buyback. So there is no evidence that the buyback actually caused the fall, but it may look that way in the absence of historical context. Armed robbery rates rose after the buyback, and then slowly fell back down to pre-buyback levels as gun ownership increased. This is the exact opposite of what gun control advocates predicted. The evidence for gun control is no more hopeful when it comes to preventing mass public shootings. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation defines a mass public shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot to death in a public place, excluding gang fights and guerilla warfare. The murders also cannot have occurred in the commission of another crime such as robbery. Compared to the average country, Canada has been pretty safe from these attacks. Canada has just half a percent of the world population, but it has had an even much smaller share of the world’s mass public shooting deaths. From 1998 to 2012, it had just 0.03 per cent of such fatalities. The same numbers for the U.S. were 4.6 per cent of the population and 1.1 per cent of the mass shootings, so it is also much safer than the average country. Whether we look at all countries or only at developed ones, we find that nations where gun ownership is more common tend to have lower homicide rates and lower rates of death from mass public shootings. That’s because armed citizens are able to defend themselves and stop attacks in crowded, public places. Every single mass public shooting on record in Canada has occurred in areas with gun prohibitions. In the United States, that’s true of 98 per cent of attacks. It’s no wonder, since many mass killers intentionally pick targets where people can’t defend themselves. Police are important in the fight against crime, but they almost always arrive after the crime has occurred. Depriving law-abiding citizens of firearms leaves us all more vulnerable to attacks. National Post John R. Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author most recently of “The War on Guns.” Gary Mauser is professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opi...bans-in-canada |
Too bad common sense and actual facts won't make the Libs back off on their goal for civilian disarmament. Good article though.
|
Evidence and logic have no place in a discussion about firearms.
|
Quote:
|
Use your guns to shoot your TVs.
Problem solved. Your welcome. |
The buzz on Parliament Hill over the past couple of weeks (to the extent there has been any buzz other than the Liberals’ SNC-Lavalin scandal) has been that the federal government now believes an all-out handgun ban might be too expensive.
Since last summer’s tragic shooting in Toronto’s Danforth district, the Trudeau government has been searching for some dramatic gesture to symbolize how much they care. One thing hasn’t changed, though. The Liberals’ justification for new gun controls is still the assertion that the main source of crime guns in Canada is legit owners – people who have licences and buy guns legally, but then “illegally divert” guns to the black market for thieves or drug runners. Perhaps most troubling, there are more than 420,000 Canadians who are banned from owning guns, typically because of previous criminal convictions. But Goodale had to admit recently, the federal firearms computers “do not capture information concerning the illegal acquisition of firearms by prohibited persons.” The Liberals are about to impose more restrictions on legit owners to win votes in Liberal cities and to claim they are taking action to reduce crime. Yet they have no clue – none – how many convicted criminals possess guns or where they got them. Talk about cynical, ineffective policy. https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...icies-continue Nog |
Firearms regulations in Canada have never been about public safety, they have always been about politics. And when you involve the RCMP, all common sense goes by the wayside.
|
How can one government be so clueless ?
From the article The Liberals’ symbolic gesture of choice now seems to be central storage of handguns and rifles, but only in some major cities. If you live in, say, Toronto and you want to own guns, you might be required to deposit them at a federal warehouse except for when you are taking them hunting or target shooting. http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/pictu...ictureid=10655 |
Sadly it is difficult to reason with fearful people, the anti's play to this fear. :confused:
|
The shootings in the US would drop if a mental health check was performed when purchasing firearms. A guy can attempt suicide several times, mutilate all of his neighbors dogs, talk about blowing up a school or a mall. And all this be documented and still be allowed to purchase semi automatic firearms or hand guns. But a guy getting caught with a doobie and getting charged is banned for life from owning any firearm.
Mental health obviously (to me anyway?) Plays a major role in these shootings and behaviours. So why aren't these people being restricted from purchasing firearms? The public should be made aware that these people are the majority in these horrible scenarios and not the person that likes to go plinking and skeet shooting. I'm not sure if Canada does a mental health check but from the info I hear from lots of the shootings is that there were plenty of warning signs before they happen. Now I know this isn't always the case but it does seem to be repetitive. |
Of course the evidence doesn't support banning guns. Why? Their restrictions keep targeting LAW ABIDING firearm owners. When the gubermint mentions the word "ban" all it does is make the stupid citiots and sheeple feel all warm and fuzzy. It never accomplishes anything other than loosing more freedoms.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
IMO industrial safety, unions, and the Liberal government all suffer from the same flaw... they all need to be fighting a battle to continue to flourish as profitable entity. Therefore neither will ever be able to admit that a practical balance has ever been achieved, that the fight has been won, and by extension that they are no longer needed in the same capacity as they once were. As a result, increasingly mundane issues are attacked head on and personal freedom is steadily chipped away at, until the would-be champions increasingly become the oppressors... which is precisely where we now sit. The really scary thought IMO, is once they've wrapped up this imaginary battle against evil, what will be the next BS excuse for their continued existence? Because if there's one thing I've come to understand... this never, ever stops. Not even when the guns are all gone. |
Quote:
However, most of the examples you listed should generate criminal charges, and those charges (which result in a conviction) should prohibit the individual from purchasing firearms legally. Quite a few of the latest mass shootings in the US demonstrate that agencies make mistakes, ignore threats, fail to lay charges where they are appropriate (due to PC pressure), and fail to pass on information (even when they are required to). If the existing processes are followed correctly, there really should be no requirement to add any other new processes to the mix. In most cases holding public agencies accountable for their errors and omissions would resolve a lot of problems. |
Quote:
FML.... |
gun control
Guys, could be some major changes coming for our handguns etc. Doctors in Ontario complaining to many cases of people coming to emergency rooms with gun shots. Doctor interviewed on news this weekend stated most are suicides. It will be a tough fight when it is both police forces and medical doctors proposing more gun control, supporting libs in Ottawa.
|
Doctors kill more people than guns in Canada, with misdiagnosis and wrong meds prescribed...
|
Quote:
https://nationalpost.com/health/insi...ot-of-cover-up |
Not everyone is onside with those beaky sawbones:
http://www.iheartradio.ca/newstalk-1...ners-1.8809242 Cheers, Nog |
‘The Proposal Is a Ban on Private Ownership,’ Government MP Says
https://thegunblog.ca/2019/02/24/the...nment-mp-says/ Starting to get it yet?? Wondering... Nog |
They can propose all they want, and maybe (maybe not) ram it through parliament. Maybe not through the Senate though. They are always going to try though. But for a good indicator, look at Quebec and their long gun registry. The deadline to register is long past, and non compliance is way higher than compliance. At some point gun owners will have to decide if they are obedient serfs, afraid of their Masters, or citizens who elect politicians to work on their behalf and not to oppress them. Interesting times. Let the Richard Noggins propose away. Doesn't mean it will happen, and paper laws doesn't mean a populace will comply. Good on the gun owners of Quebec to not bend over. This story is a long way from over.
|
Quote:
|
Central storage has to be the worst plan this idiot government could come up with, fortunately there are so many holes in the plan it will never happen.
Why would collectors store guns at the shooting range? Couple thousand guns makes a good target for thieves. A lot of small clubs don't even have a building ours is 16 kms. out in the middle of nowhere who's guarding that 24/7? It's all just a desperate call for votes by a sinking fast leader and his minions the gun owners and clubs will drag their feet setting this up until a more sensible government takes over. |
There are firearms ranges/stores that would happily support central storage, need to check them out and avoid them, and tell your friends to avoid them. Just ask them.
|
Nothing supports gun bans unless your on the other side of the fence....then your just an idiot.:scared0015:
|
What will make you safer is targeting the smugglers who supply gangs with illegal guns from the U.S. and hunting down those who use them in crimes.
Blair made a good announcement on Tuesday in giving money to Ontario to fight gangs and guns. Let’s hope he doesn’t ruin it by attacking duck hunters and sports shooters because they are easier targets than gangsters. https://www.kenoradailyminerandnews....c-a08162e8a38e |
PM says there are people trying to create fear, intolerance and misinformation about immigration
It’s ironic that the Liberal government is using the same tactics for gun control,
Inaccurate statistics for handguns and gun incidents no distinction between rifles, shotguns, pellet guns, BB guns, paintball guns, restricted or prohibited all are dumped onto one heading to muddy the waters. CBC promotes the antigun movement instead of being non-biased supporting all Canadians. Bill Blair’s public information sessions by invitation only, stacking the deck ? The online handgun inquiry to be completed by anyone on planet earth as many times as they want. Using victims of crime and their families to promote the Liberal antigun agenda, just grave dancing . We are up against the most deceitful government ever assembled we need them gone in October. |
'Experts' ignore facts when it comes to gun control in Canada
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, Bill Blair, the minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continue to hint at a ban on handguns and further restrictions on rifles and shotguns before this fall’s general election. https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...trol-in-canada |
Evidence supports that we are a knee jerk society that doesn't really attempt to understand why just be reactive not proactive.....ban this, ban that, one sided studies by so called credible people:sHa_sarcasticlol:
|
Sad story of deaths in New Zealand. However as usual going after the gun not the idiot that shot all those innocent people. This could give our libs the story they need to do their dirty deed and go after guns in Canada.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.