Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celtickerr t1_j04b229 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in AFN votes to reject Ottawa’s gun-control bill, citing potential risk to treaty rights - National | Globalnews.ca by raider1v11

Our homicide rate involving firearms is negligible, and the majority of those homicides that do occur are primarily between gang members or involve indigenous people. Gun control isn't going to ameliorate either of those issues because gangsters don't source their firearms from Canada and indigenous communities won't be policed (where it comes to firearms) regardless of what the law says.

The remainder of Canadians either use firearms for hunting or for sport shooting and are 3x less likely to commit any crime than your average Canadian.

We don't need gun control. We need social services for at risk youth. We need to solve our housing crisis. We need indigenous communities to have economically meaningful employment. I can think of an endless list of possible solutions to violent crime in Canada that will have a higher impact on crime than gun control.

We already have extremely stringent gun control including: -mandatory background checks daily -a licensing process -registration -calling the rcmp for authorization to move restricted firearms anywhere -red flag laws -spot checks on individuals who own a large number of firearms -safe storage laws

The list goes on.

17

TheGarbageStore t1_j07ij71 wrote

You need social services, a solution to your housing crisis, and this bill. There's zero reason why any Canadian should be permitted to own weapons: they bring risk without benefit to a society.

Violence is low because gun control works. It could be even lower. The right number of gun deaths for a society is zero.

−2

celtickerr t1_j07p2ay wrote

There are numerous reasons why Canadians can and should own firearms. Canadians are permitted to own firearms for hunting, for target shooting, for collecting (such as historical collectors), protection from wildlife and in extremely limited circumstances, protection from other people.

People seem to forget that a large portion of Canada is extremely rural or actual wilderness, and people regularly encounter dangerous wildlife where a firearms is the ideal tool to defend themselves with. Canadian conservation officers are equipped with AR10 rifles for the purpose of protection against dangerous animals, not people. There is no reason regular Canadians who live in those parts should not be similarly equipped.

Hunting is a way of life for many Canadians, and is a cultural practice amongst indigenous peoples as well as Canadians, many of whom choose to hunt to connect with their own heritaige, or need to hunt to feed their families.

Target shooting is a safe and fun activity that I partake in regularly with my father, my wife, and my friends. It is a social nexus, gets us outdoors, contributes to the economy, and is a positive impact on society.

Hunting brings value to society. Target Shooting brings benefits to society. People who live in the wilderness not getting mauled by bears, or their livestock not getting slaughtered by coyotes brings value to society.

Taking away firearms from these people will in no way meaningfully make Canada safer. The majority of gun violence in this country is perpetrated with firearms that have been smuggled into the country, and are largely avoidable by adequate social support and other factors I mentioned earlier.

You have population A, legal gun owners, who are extremely unlikely to commit any kind of crime, let alone firearms crime.

Then you have population B, the population that has access to black market firearms, and is responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms related crime in Canada.

Can you see how taking guns away from population A does not address the problem? The population of Canadians that legally own firearms is not a risk for society, statistics back this claim up. By removing firearms from the legal population, you do absolutely nothing to address inner city gang violence, or domestic violence in first nations communities, which are the real drivers of firearms violence in Canada. Not to mention gun control is extremely expensive. Removing firearms from legal owners would cost many billions of dollars, which is money better spent in areas that would actually move the needle on violent crime.

3

TheGarbageStore t1_j07sjc5 wrote

Neither hunting nor target shooting brings any benefit comparable with the societal negatives it also brings. There are ways to deter wildlife that do not require civilians being allowed to possess weapons.

Canada can crack down on both legally owned firearms and illegal firearm smuggling: that's a false dichotomy. It may cost money but a lot of desirable social programs do.

Your position is 100% unjustifiable.

−1

celtickerr t1_j07uti8 wrote

How can you possibly hold the position that hunting holds no value. Hunting is a perfectly legitimate and sustainable way to feed oneself and one's family, regardless of wildlife conservation. Your position is untenable. Name one target shooter responsible for a homicide or violent crime. More people die playing hockey than are killed by target shooters or during target shooting accidents. There are in fact more target shooters in Canada than there are hockey players. There are over 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada and it annually contributes billions to the economy. Christ, more people die from drunk driving yet we don't ban alcohol because people like it.

>Canada can crack down on both legally owned firearms and illegal firearm smuggling: that's a false dichotomy.

It isn't a false dichotomy. Confiscating the lawfully obtained, legally used private property of 2 million Canadians, vs taking meaningful action to reduce the flow of illegal firearms into the country, are two totally separate issues, coming from the same budget. The Canadian government does not have limitless resources. Option one (confiscate guns) is incredibly expensive and will have a negligible effect at best on reducing firearms crime. Option two (increase border security) would be a moderately effective method to reduce the access to firearms for the criminal population. Option three (social supports) isn't even being discussed and would be the best bang for buck Option to address gang or domestic violence. It isn't a false dichotomy but we are dealing with scarce resources (tax dollars, police resources/manpower, pu lic service resources) to accomplish a stated goal. It would behoove the government to choose the most efficient option that doesn't involve forcibly removing property from 2 million Canadians.

3

TheGarbageStore t1_j08hfh8 wrote

Hunting holds no value: we have better ways for citizens to feed themselves and the sustainability is highly suspect. What you have to accept is that every gun death is a preventable death that didn't have to happen, and that there are plenty of legitimate pastimes people can engage in that do not require civilians to possess weapons.

I also don't think gun confiscation will really be all that expensive to implement.

−1

celtickerr t1_j08hx49 wrote

>Hunting holds no value: we have better ways for citizens to feed themselves and the sustainability is highly suspect.

Ah yes, factory farming, so much better

4