Legal gun owner violence is incredibly rare in Canada. I’d rather focus more resources on illegal firearms.
In a case like this with domestic abuse, the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily with a kitchen knife. The gun isn’t the problem here, the abuser is the problem.
Edit: many firearms traning courses instruct firearm owners to notify police of potential violent or abusive firearm owners. The police can then do a follow up to check in on the gun owners and determine if they are safe enough to continue owning firearms. Many training courses also recomend both partners aquire training and a lisence even if just 1 intends on owning firearms. This increases safety for both partners as they are both aware of the laws and safe handling of firearms.
The family had been worried for years about the abuse and behavior of the abuser. We need more awareness that you can ask the police to check in on someone who you believe to be a danger with firearms.
Legal gun owner violence is incredibly rare in Canada. I’d rather focus more resources on illegal firearms.
FYI:
“But if we look at the studies on this, we find that the vast majority of firearms that are used in shootings both fatal and non-fatal are being purchased legally at one point in time. And then they’re diverted.” (SOURCE)
The same interview also said:
“One of the core findings that they came away with was that gun bans tend to have a very good effect in terms of reducing gun violence rates. So this is not political posturing. This is social science at work. This is researchers surveying 130 peer-reviewed articles and coming away with this conclusion.”
In a case like this with domestic abuse, the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily with a kitchen knife. The gun isn’t the problem here, the abuser is the problem.
This is not true.
Justice Canada wrote in a report that:
“According to Reiss and Roth (1993: 262), the choice of a weapon in violent domestic disputes may well be “the nearest available object that can project force.” In contrast to other types of homicide, the authors concluded, it would seem likely that in domestic disputes “the instrumentality rather than intent contributes most of the firearm’s lethal effect” (Ibidem).” (SOURCE)
It’s been studied and known for decades that guns in the home increases the risk of homicide towards women.
You can come to your own conclusions, but I think the data is quite clear, and public safety should come above all other considerations when it comes to firearms.
This Source clears up that the majority of gun crime is commited with hand guns, which have now been banned. About half the hand guns were originally obtained legally, but very very rarely used by their legal owner. I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime. Banning rifles is unlikely to significantly reduce gun crime. The guns being used are already banned. A legal firearm in the hands of someone without a lisence becomes an illegal firearm. Just like a restricted weapon is illegal for a PAL holder but not for RPAL holders. The focus needs to be on illegal firearms and the flow of firearms from legal sources to illegal sources (theft and black market sales).
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime.
The report says:
“Among incidents in which the firearm had initially been obtained legally, the accused was the legal firearm owner in 44% of cases (24 of 54 homicides).”
44% is not rare!! That’s alarming.
Even more damning is:
"Among the incidents in which the firearm had not initially been obtained legally, or in which the firearm was not legally owned at the time of the homicide, and for which this information was known (49 homicides), the firearm had been stolen from the legal Canadian owner in eight cases, and in five other cases, it had been purchased illegally from the legal Canadian owner.
Furthermore, Stats Canada also states that, “rifle or shotgun” represent 30% of firearm-related homicides, so the number is significant.
I think we do have a problem that needs to be examined deeply by our elected officials.
I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
The fact that you’re trying to bring legal ownership to this discussions means that you are claiming that the origin of guns is an important detail. But at this point we already know that reducing the presence of guns in this world is good, and we already know that making it harder and harder to acquire guns helps reducing the presence of guns. So while true that legality matters in crime statistics, the main point still stands: gun laws can and should be more strict. There’s never going to be a point in time where this sentence is not true, unless guns stop existing.
People drink and drive killing innocent people as well. We haven’t banned all cars and alcohol. It is impossible to stop all deaths but villifying the gun as the worst part of this is disingenuous. This victim was scared for years but never left or searched for help. We need more resources to protect the victims and make help available to them. We can ban guns all we want, it wont stop abusers from being violent. More resources for victims will save more lives and prevent more abuse than just banning guns.
We should move away from cars and alcohol by building up the public transit and active transport while also informing people about the effects of drinking.
A lot of people from the bars drive home drunk because they cannot easily catch a bus or walk home with the car infrastructure we have here.
Banning guns will make murder much more difficult and force the potential perpetrators to reconsider their actions before acting out on them.
A person could just grab their legally acquired gun and shoot anyone they don’t like without a struggle.
I mean…sometimes city people need to stop staring at their crotch and being useless. Go outside, get out in the country, drive to the fucking NW Territories and think about what you just said.
Any competent redneck/welder/machinist(especially him, his isn’t ever gonna jam and will be more accurate)/mechanic/plumber can build a functioning AK 47 in an afternoon. It’s not hard. basic welding skills, knowing how to rivet, and also very few moving parts. They’re literally folded sheet metal and rivets plus a barrel. I am not exaggerating. https://imgur.com/gallery/old-gold-build-own-ak-47-from-shovel-TspVw here’s how
Legal gun owner violence is incredibly rare in Canada. I’d rather focus more resources on illegal firearms.
In a case like this with domestic abuse, the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily with a kitchen knife. The gun isn’t the problem here, the abuser is the problem.
Edit: many firearms traning courses instruct firearm owners to notify police of potential violent or abusive firearm owners. The police can then do a follow up to check in on the gun owners and determine if they are safe enough to continue owning firearms. Many training courses also recomend both partners aquire training and a lisence even if just 1 intends on owning firearms. This increases safety for both partners as they are both aware of the laws and safe handling of firearms.
The family had been worried for years about the abuse and behavior of the abuser. We need more awareness that you can ask the police to check in on someone who you believe to be a danger with firearms.
FYI:
“But if we look at the studies on this, we find that the vast majority of firearms that are used in shootings both fatal and non-fatal are being purchased legally at one point in time. And then they’re diverted.” (SOURCE)
The same interview also said:
“One of the core findings that they came away with was that gun bans tend to have a very good effect in terms of reducing gun violence rates. So this is not political posturing. This is social science at work. This is researchers surveying 130 peer-reviewed articles and coming away with this conclusion.”
This is not true.
Justice Canada wrote in a report that:
“According to Reiss and Roth (1993: 262), the choice of a weapon in violent domestic disputes may well be “the nearest available object that can project force.” In contrast to other types of homicide, the authors concluded, it would seem likely that in domestic disputes “the instrumentality rather than intent contributes most of the firearm’s lethal effect” (Ibidem).” (SOURCE)
It’s been studied and known for decades that guns in the home increases the risk of homicide towards women.
You can come to your own conclusions, but I think the data is quite clear, and public safety should come above all other considerations when it comes to firearms.
This Source clears up that the majority of gun crime is commited with hand guns, which have now been banned. About half the hand guns were originally obtained legally, but very very rarely used by their legal owner. I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime. Banning rifles is unlikely to significantly reduce gun crime. The guns being used are already banned. A legal firearm in the hands of someone without a lisence becomes an illegal firearm. Just like a restricted weapon is illegal for a PAL holder but not for RPAL holders. The focus needs to be on illegal firearms and the flow of firearms from legal sources to illegal sources (theft and black market sales).
The report says:
“Among incidents in which the firearm had initially been obtained legally, the accused was the legal firearm owner in 44% of cases (24 of 54 homicides).”
44% is not rare!! That’s alarming.
Even more damning is:
"Among the incidents in which the firearm had not initially been obtained legally, or in which the firearm was not legally owned at the time of the homicide, and for which this information was known (49 homicides), the firearm had been stolen from the legal Canadian owner in eight cases, and in five other cases, it had been purchased illegally from the legal Canadian owner.
Furthermore, Stats Canada also states that, “rifle or shotgun” represent 30% of firearm-related homicides, so the number is significant.
I think we do have a problem that needs to be examined deeply by our elected officials.
The fact that you’re trying to bring legal ownership to this discussions means that you are claiming that the origin of guns is an important detail. But at this point we already know that reducing the presence of guns in this world is good, and we already know that making it harder and harder to acquire guns helps reducing the presence of guns. So while true that legality matters in crime statistics, the main point still stands: gun laws can and should be more strict. There’s never going to be a point in time where this sentence is not true, unless guns stop existing.
That is not true as shooting at someone is just the pull of a trigger where assaulting with a knife is much more involved and difficult to do.
Edit: That the checkup clearly failed here and the best you can do to prevent the murders is by restricting guns further.
The gun owners are always quick to be in damage control trying to downplay the consequences of having guns in society.
People drink and drive killing innocent people as well. We haven’t banned all cars and alcohol. It is impossible to stop all deaths but villifying the gun as the worst part of this is disingenuous. This victim was scared for years but never left or searched for help. We need more resources to protect the victims and make help available to them. We can ban guns all we want, it wont stop abusers from being violent. More resources for victims will save more lives and prevent more abuse than just banning guns.
We should move away from cars and alcohol by building up the public transit and active transport while also informing people about the effects of drinking.
A lot of people from the bars drive home drunk because they cannot easily catch a bus or walk home with the car infrastructure we have here.
Banning guns will make murder much more difficult and force the potential perpetrators to reconsider their actions before acting out on them.
A person could just grab their legally acquired gun and shoot anyone they don’t like without a struggle.
I mean…sometimes city people need to stop staring at their crotch and being useless. Go outside, get out in the country, drive to the fucking NW Territories and think about what you just said.
angry at the idea of not drinking and catching the bus… lol damn these useless city people, subsidizing fuel for everyone
god you’re a clown
Let’s ban cars too, and knives, and bleach, and umm, anything that can hurt someone if misused. Yeah!
Let’s ban cars too and replace them with bike lanes, buses and trains. But those other things mentioned are bad comparisons.
Any competent redneck/welder/machinist(especially him, his isn’t ever gonna jam and will be more accurate)/mechanic/plumber can build a functioning AK 47 in an afternoon. It’s not hard. basic welding skills, knowing how to rivet, and also very few moving parts. They’re literally folded sheet metal and rivets plus a barrel. I am not exaggerating. https://imgur.com/gallery/old-gold-build-own-ak-47-from-shovel-TspVw here’s how