A Proposal for Firearms Legislation in Canada

[August1991]

In the wake of the events in Virginia, it seems timely to resurrect a proposal I made before here.

I think the following represents a useful compromise that would have for effect to reduce the dangers of firearm use in Canada.

In rural areas, subject to control for storage and purchase of weapons and ammunition, we should allow small-calibre semi-automatic weapons with a maximum of five rounds and single bore long guns in homes. In urban areas, all legal firearms (shooting pistols and so on) should be stored in gun clubs.

We should forbid all other types of firearms and increase penalties for their possession, use or sale.

We should abolish the long gun registry.

I think this is a reasonable compromise between legitimate gun users and people who want gun control. It would also achieve the benefits of gun control at reasonable cost so that more funds could be applied to enforcement.

It also mirrors legislation in Australia.

[geoffrey]

In the wake of the events in Virginia, it seems timely to resurrect a proposal I made before here.

I think the following represents a useful compromise that would have for effect to reduce the dangers of firearm use in Canada.

In rural areas, subject to control for storage and purchase of weapons and ammunition, we should allow small-calibre semi-automatic weapons with a maximum of five rounds and single bore long guns in homes. In urban areas, all legal firearms (shooting pistols and so on) should be stored in gun clubs.

We should forbid all other types of firearms and increase penalties for their use or sale.

We should abolish the long gun registry.

I think this is a reasonable compromise between legitimate gun users and people who want gun control. It would also achieve the benefits of gun control at reasonable cost so that more funds could be applied to enforcement.

It also mirrors legislation in Australia.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people that follow the gun laws aren't the ones shooting people. Putting more restrictions on guns won't do anything. The gangsters killing each other in the streets and people that go on school shootings don't register their guns and comply with purchase laws.

The causes of violence in the US are a certain mentality in many places and communities, years of ethnic tensions and class issues. Not guns.

Being said, as I former gun owner (I have no use to own a gun all year around, I hunt every two years at best) and a holder of a PAL, I wouldn't have a gun in my house ever in the city. Not a chance, there is no reason for it. Here I agree with August. Keeping guns at a gun club or other remote storage location would reduce alot of unneccessary gun incidents.

My family owned many guns coming from a rural background, but my father never had them at the house, we kept them stored securely elsewhere. I grew up with a respect for firearms, knowledge of firearms, but also the knowledge that they don't mix wtih modern society so well.

Many suicides and domestic murders are committed because of quick and easy access to firearms. Having a 15 minute drive to your gun, where you need to speak with people to get it, gives some time to think things through (and having a person be able to notice signs of intoxication, ect.). A rational person does not commit murder. Having no access to it in the middle of the night would help as well.

I recommend this approach to any gun owners on this forum, no matter how good your temper is. There's no reason to have a gun in your home, store it elsewhere (rural people excluded)!

[August1991]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people that follow the gun laws aren't the ones shooting people. Putting more restrictions on guns won't do anything. The gangsters killing each other in the streets and people that go on school shootings don't register their guns and comply with purchase laws.

That argument makes no sense.

You are arguing that since people speed, there is no point in having speed limits. Or since people park illegally, there's no point in having no parking signs.

I'm not saying that gun legislation will eliminate gun violence. But it will reduce it. This is particularly true if enforcement and penalties are greater.

----

The compromise that I suggested above means that we would abolish the long gun registry. I happen to think that the registry is a waste of money. But in the current political context, I think the Tories are going to lose votes on guns and the registry and it may be one factor of several that will deny them a majority. In the case of guns, this is truly unfortunate because the Conservatives are the most serious about crime control.

Nevertheless, I think the compromise in the OP would be the best way to reduce gun incidents in Canada while at the same time allowing legitimate gun-users fair access.

[Figleaf]

As a liberal, I believe I should be able to trust my fellow citizens with potentially dangerous devices, up to a point. As a citizen, I should be trusted with any device that is not inherently dangerous. By inherently I mean that it would be dangerous even if I am not negligent, reckless or malevolent. Like radioactive substances, wild animals, or gaseous poisons.

[August1991]

As a liberal, I believe I should be able to trust my fellow citizens with potentially dangerous devices, up to a point. As a citizen, I should be trusted with any device that is not inherently dangerous. By inherently I mean that it would be dangerous even if I am not negligent, reckless or malevolent. Like radioactive substances, wild animals, or gaseous poisons.

You sound like the kind of person who will be liberal until you get mugged. IOW, it is one thing to be a theoretical liberal and quite another to understand the meaning of a liberal society.

Returning to the OP, the pressure for Draconian gun legislation is only a tragic event or two away. Those who want to maintain access to firearms, particularly people in rural areas, better get a handle on a workable and politically defendable compromise.

In Canada, the attitude to guns is becoming like the attitude to cigarettes.

[blueblood]

As a liberal, I believe I should be able to trust my fellow citizens with potentially dangerous devices, up to a point. As a citizen, I should be trusted with any device that is not inherently dangerous. By inherently I mean that it would be dangerous even if I am not negligent, reckless or malevolent. Like radioactive substances, wild animals, or gaseous poisons.

You sound like the kind of person who will be liberal until you get mugged. IOW, it is one thing to be a theoretical liberal and quite another to understand the meaning of a liberal society.

Returning to the OP, the pressure for Draconian gun legislation is only a tragic event or two away. Those who want to maintain access to firearms, particularly people in rural areas, better get a handle on a workable and politically defendable compromise.

In Canada, the attitude to guns is becoming like the attitude to cigarettes.

Now for the rural side of things...

It just goes to show that urban people should not be owning firearms, they have absolutely no use for them. I'll blast the odd coyote, racoon, skunk, bear, seriously messed up cow, moose/deer for venison meat. That sort of thing. We just don't have serious crime out in the rural areas, gun laws that are passed just inferiorate us, why should we be punished because city boys can't be responsible with firearms? Rural people have hunting rifles and shotguns which only hold 5-6 shells tops, we have no use for say a C8 or AK-47.

City people should have their guns flat out confiscated, they don't have animal predator/pest problems. If they want to hunt, an outfitter will gladly provide them with an appropriate rifle. City people buying firearms for protection is flat out scary as that means you are buying a gun to kill somebody not something.

Rural people have been responsible firearm owners since the frontier days and will continue, it's part of our "culture"

[gc1765]

You are arguing that since people speed, there is no point in having speed limits. Or since people park illegally, there's no point in having no parking signs.

There is a difference: Laws against speeding or illegal parking make it possible to catch people for speeding or parking illegally (and thus serve a purpose). Does the gun registry (I assume that's what geoffrey means when he says restrictions) help catch people for gun crimes?

[Remiel]

I live in the country, and out here I am pretty comfortable knowing that a good number of my neighbours own rifles, probably several. I would not be very comfortable if I were living in the city, knowning that were true of my neighbours.

I don't think city people should have to rent rifles to go hunting, but some kind of out-of-home storage would be good. For collectors, I would ban ownership and storage of antiquated ammunition for old firearms, but not the guns themselves. A gun without a bullet is just a fancy bludgeoning weapon (unless of course it has a bayonet).

[blueblood]

I live in the country, and out here I am pretty comfortable knowing that a good number of my neighbours own rifles, probably several. I would not be very comfortable if I were living in the city, knowning that were true of my neighbours.

I don't think city people should have to rent rifles to go hunting, but some kind of out-of-home storage would be good. For collectors, I would ban ownership and storage of antiquated ammunition for old firearms, but not the guns themselves. A gun without a bullet is just a fancy bludgeoning weapon (unless of course it has a bayonet).

You can buy ammunition for guns that are over 100 years old still, they still make model 94 30-30 ammo. It's been demonstrated time and again that city people are typically not fit to own guns. Most city people go to outfitters when they go out to the country for hunting, for them it's like a vacation, for me it's a walk out the door and a stroll out in the ravine. Where is a city person going to encounter a coyote, or other varmint? They don't, it's just asking for bad news having them have guns.

[B. Max]

'blueblood' date='Apr 17 2007, 12:28 AM' post='208817']

You can buy ammunition for guns that are over 100 years old still, they still make model 94 30-30 ammo. It's been demonstrated time and again that city people are typically not fit to own guns. Most city people go to outfitters when they go out to the country for hunting, for them it's like a vacation, for me it's a walk out the door and a stroll out in the ravine. Where is a city person going to encounter a coyote, or other varmint? They don't, it's just asking for bad news having them have guns.

That's really a poor line of thinking. The majority of city people are not a danger, they are in danger. There is just as much reason, maybe more for someone in the city to own a gun for protection. Just as I would carry a gun in the bush for protection. Today was an excellent demonstration of no one having any protection. One has a right to defend themselves.

[Wilber]

I live in the country, and out here I am pretty comfortable knowing that a good number of my neighbours own rifles, probably several. I would not be very comfortable if I were living in the city, knowning that were true of my neighbours.

I don't think city people should have to rent rifles to go hunting, but some kind of out-of-home storage would be good. For collectors, I would ban ownership and storage of antiquated ammunition for old firearms, but not the guns themselves. A gun without a bullet is just a fancy bludgeoning weapon (unless of course it has a bayonet).

By all accounts the shootings in Virginia were committed with a pair of semi automatic hand guns. I know of no incidence where one of these mass killings was committed with an antiquated firearm so am at a loss when it comes to understanding what banning their ammunition would accomplish.

[FTA Lawyer]

Returning to the OP, the pressure for Draconian gun legislation is only a tragic event or two away. Those who want to maintain access to firearms, particularly people in rural areas, better get a handle on a workable and politically defendable compromise.

In Canada, the attitude to guns is becoming like the attitude to cigarettes.

Draconian gun legislation is the "perfect storm" scenario for a whole bunch of repeats of the Mayerthorpe tragedy.

The government (non-partisan) has no idea how many tens of thousands of un-registered firearms are out there right now in spite of the registry...in the hands of people who will never use them to harm anyone...but just try to take them away.

I'm serious. The cigarette analogy is way off when it comes to rural Canadians. They are far more likely to subscribe to the "out of my cold dead hands" catch-phrase of the NRA.

The OP is not an outrageous suggestion for a compromise...but I keep coming back to Geoffrey's sentiment. The people following the law already are the only ones who can be affected by additional laws. Your speeding example has it wrong...it's not that Geoffrey and I say wipe out speeding laws...what we're saying is, making it more illegal to speed isn't going to change anything. Similarly, issuing permits to allow drivers to go the speed limit will not help either.

No matter what you do, the problem is illegal guns. Ban guns altogether...illegal guns will be your problem. Allow semi-auto rifles for rural people at home and only gun club ownership for cities...illegal guns will be your problem.

What people seem to perpetually fail to grasp is that Canada has one of the most strict regimens for lawful gun ownership...and has had since the late 70's (and earlier for handguns). In practical terms, there's no such thing as lawful gun ownership for personal protection in Canada. Locked in a safe separate and apart from the ammo does you no good if an intruder comes into your house.

More cops with more resources on the street is the best way to help reduce these instances of gratuitous gun violence...not more laws to supplement the massive set of laws we already have.

FTA

[blueblood]

'blueblood' date='Apr 17 2007, 12:28 AM' post='208817']

You can buy ammunition for guns that are over 100 years old still, they still make model 94 30-30 ammo. It's been demonstrated time and again that city people are typically not fit to own guns. Most city people go to outfitters when they go out to the country for hunting, for them it's like a vacation, for me it's a walk out the door and a stroll out in the ravine. Where is a city person going to encounter a coyote, or other varmint? They don't, it's just asking for bad news having them have guns.

That's really a poor line of thinking. The majority of city people are not a danger, they are in danger. There is just as much reason, maybe more for someone in the city to own a gun for protection. Just as I would carry a gun in the bush for protection. Today was an excellent demonstration of no one having any protection. One has a right to defend themselves.

No, that is a poor line of thinking. The only thing they are in danger of is themselves. Owning a gun just for protection from another person is textbook irresponsible firearm ownership. People who think like that should not be given guns in the first place. In Canada owning a firearm is a privelege not a right. Maybe if the cops hands weren't tied, they'd be able to go after the street gangs and H.A. who stockpile illegal guns. But lots of 1st degree murders are comitted with legal guns. Giving everyone guns and a having a protect yourself attitude will turn this country into the wild west of the late 1800's and I don't think we want to go there. Responsible firearm owners out in the country are paying the price because city dwellers want to arm themselves to the teeth from "threats" and are proving time and again to be irresponsible firearm owners.

[B. Max]

No, that is a poor line of thinking. The only thing they are in danger of is themselves. Owning a gun just for protection from another person is textbook irresponsible firearm ownership.

That's really as far as I'm reading. Tell it to the 30 some that got it today in virgia.

[beatenwoman2005]

geoffrey' date='Apr 16 2007, 07:26 PM' post='208765']

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people that follow the gun laws aren't the ones shooting people. Putting more restrictions on guns won't do anything. The gangsters killing each other in the streets and people that go on school shootings don't register their guns and comply with purchase laws.

The causes of violence in the US are a certain mentality in many places and communities, years of ethnic tensions and class issues. Not guns.

Many suicides and domestic murders are committed because of quick and easy access to firearms. Having a 15 minute drive to your gun, where you need to speak with people to get it, gives some time to think things through (and having a person be able to notice signs of intoxication, ect.). A rational person does not commit murder. Having no access to it in the middle of the night would help as well.

People kill people.....

There was a time not so long ago that I worried for my son's life and my life because of an abusive relationship I was in. I can tell you I feel for certain that if the fellow who was abusing me had access to a gun, I would not be here today.

There is this concept in society, it is the attitude that we need weapons to protect ourself from those who would harm us... The question is not about gun control and who should have one, or limiting only certain people to use guns... The question should be why do we feel we require them? I felt I required one because I was not being protected, that was the only time in my life where I felt that i may have had the need for one. Instead of getting a gun and taking shooting lessons, I removed myself to feel safe.

We no longer have to hunt to survive, we have farms, we have all forms that provide us with our needs, and we need each other to provide for each other. If people want to wield a gun and feel the "SPORTING" edge of killing Bambi grab an action shooting game to play on your computer, or play station.

We no longer have to fight a physical war, we have computer's that can take away everything we own by someone who could live on the moon for all we know.

April 16th, 2007 is a dark sad day, North America as a whole continent is facing VIOLENCE as a growing trend, it is not shrinking it is growing and all people look to do is try to "justify" having weapons?

The only monsters I believe we have as human beings are those who are not heard. We are all too consumed with our own lives to care about what could possibly be going wrong across the street, with a friend, with a co-worker, or even with a relative.

Everyone needs to feel safe and have Validation without weapons.

For whatever reason people commit violence it (I Feel) is due to them having the feeling of being powerless, either from their childhood (ghosts in the closet) or because of a situation they have tried to deal with, but no one has heard them or recognized the problem.

We have to validate each other by listening, and watching and have the ability to recognize a problem and deal with it as understanding adults, do you need a weapon for this? Guns should not be around at all, in doing so you eliminate the possibility of tragedies.

GUNS Suck.......

[blueblood]

No, that is a poor line of thinking. The only thing they are in danger of is themselves. Owning a gun just for protection from another person is textbook irresponsible firearm ownership.

That's really as far as I'm reading. Tell it to the 30 some that got it today in virgia.

So people should be carrying guns to class? I'd hate to see what would happen concerning a dispute over a girl. Why did that guy who shot up the class buy a gun in the first place? What happened today proves my point.

[B. Max]

So people should be carrying guns to class? I'd hate to see what would happen concerning a dispute over a girl. Why did that guy who shot up the class buy a gun in the first place? What happened today proves my point.

Actually what happened today was over a girl. So I guess you don't have a point. In fact you never did.

[blueblood]

geoffrey' date='Apr 16 2007, 07:26 PM' post='208765']

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people that follow the gun laws aren't the ones shooting people. Putting more restrictions on guns won't do anything. The gangsters killing each other in the streets and people that go on school shootings don't register their guns and comply with purchase laws.

The causes of violence in the US are a certain mentality in many places and communities, years of ethnic tensions and class issues. Not guns.

Many suicides and domestic murders are committed because of quick and easy access to firearms. Having a 15 minute drive to your gun, where you need to speak with people to get it, gives some time to think things through (and having a person be able to notice signs of intoxication, ect.). A rational person does not commit murder. Having no access to it in the middle of the night would help as well.

People kill people.....

There was a time not so long ago that I worried for my son's life and my life because of an abusive relationship I was in. I can tell you I feel for certain that if the fellow who was abusing me had access to a gun, I would not be here today.

There is this concept in society, it is the attitude that we need weapons to protect ourself from those who would harm us... The question is not about gun control and who should have one, or limiting only certain people to use guns... The question should be why do we feel we require them? I felt I required one because I was not being protected, that was the only time in my life where I felt that i may have had the need for one. Instead of getting a gun and taking shooting lessons, I removed myself to feel safe.

We no longer have to hunt to survive, we have farms, we have all forms that provide us with our needs, and we need each other to provide for each other. If people want to wield a gun and feel the "SPORTING" edge of killing Bambi grab an action shooting game to play on your computer, or play station.

We no longer have to fight a physical war, we have computer's that can take away everything we own by someone who could live on the moon for all we know.

April 16th, 2007 is a dark sad day, North America as a whole continent is facing VIOLENCE as a growing trend, it is not shrinking it is growing and all people look to do is try to "justify" having weapons?

The only monsters I believe we have as human beings are those who are not heard. We are all too consumed with our own lives to care about what could possibly be going wrong across the street, with a friend, with a co-worker, or even with a relative.

Everyone needs to feel safe and have Validation without weapons.

For whatever reason people commit violence it (I Feel) is due to them having the feeling of being powerless, either from their childhood (ghosts in the closet) or because of a situation they have tried to deal with, but no one has heard them or recognized the problem.

We have to validate each other by listening, and watching and have the ability to recognize a problem and deal with it as understanding adults, do you need a weapon for this? Guns should not be around at all, in doing so you eliminate the possibility of tragedies.

GUNS Suck.......

I feel for you that you were in such a horrible relationship, men who conduct themselves in such a manner have no class and no honor and do not deserve to be referred to as men.

Did you try going to the police? That guy should be in jail, society has no place for people like him. I'm more familiar with the RCMP, if the officer gave you the cold shoulder, one call to a Staff Sargeant or an Inspector would have seen that officer doing latrine duties for the musical ride for the rest of his career and probably that ex of yours in the klink. An officer's #1 job is to protect life, and as your life was probably in danger, to sluff that off is a derilection of duty and should be severely punished.

[blueblood]

So people should be carrying guns to class? I'd hate to see what would happen concerning a dispute over a girl. Why did that guy who shot up the class buy a gun in the first place? What happened today proves my point.

Actually what happened today was over a girl. So I guess you don't have a point. In fact you never did.

And if he never had a gun in the first place no one would have died.

[geoffrey]

And if he never had a gun in the first place no one would have died.

There are definitely rules about having firearms in your dorm. He was breaking the law to have the guns there. Making a law doesn't end the crime, it's foolish to think that way.

[B. Max]

And if he never had a gun in the first place no one would have died.

But he did. The 911 perps never had a gun that we know of, and a hell of lot more died. Maybe if we didn't have planes, buildings, box cutters Arabs, no one would have died.

[Charles Anthony]

In our current State of affairs, people comfortably yield so much control and power. However, they do not demand that public areas be protected. Bizarre.

Anyway...

In Canada, the attitude to guns is becoming like the attitude to cigarettes.

Tim Hortons banned smoking in their restaurants long before it was legislated.

Every time I go into a nightclub, I am patted down for weapons.

I think this is a reasonable compromise between legitimate gun users and people who want gun control. It would also achieve the benefits of gun control at reasonable cost so that more funds could be applied to enforcement.

I have a different proposal: take the regulation of guns out entirely from federal jurisdiction and leave the municipalities to decide how to deal with guns themselves.

There is just as much reason, maybe more for someone in the city to own a gun for protection. Just as I would carry a gun in the bush for protection. Today was an excellent demonstration of no one having any protection. One has a right to defend themselves.

Amen.

More cops with more resources on the street is the best way to help reduce these instances of gratuitous gun violence...not more laws to supplement the massive set of laws we already have.

Amen. It is a wonder to me that people do not demand more armed police patrolling the streets. Theoretically, they should have the power to do so and no valid excuse not to do so.

I have posted this elsewhere:

We should be looking at fighting, preventing and defending ourselves against crime, instead of chasing after dead people AFTER their crimes are committed. More police on the streets would be a start.

Gun Registry - Gun Crime Measures

Giving everyone guns and a having a protect yourself attitude will turn this country into the wild west of the late 1800's and I don't think we want to go there. Responsible firearm owners out in the country are paying the price because city dwellers want to arm themselves to the teeth from "threats" and are proving time and again to be irresponsible firearm owners.

Wait a minute.

Your distinction is hard to accept because the territorial barriers between "country folk" and "city dwellers" are gradually fading.

Although I disagree with its conclusion, this post adds a refreshing tinge to the thread:

Everyone needs to feel safe and have Validation without weapons.

For whatever reason people commit violence it (I Feel) is due to them having the feeling of being powerless, either from their childhood (ghosts in the closet) or because of a situation they have tried to deal with, but no one has heard them or recognized the problem.

Unfortunately, the existance of guns makes it easier for bureaucrats to de-personify crime.

[Figleaf]

As a liberal, I believe I should be able to trust my fellow citizens with potentially dangerous devices, up to a point. As a citizen, I should be trusted with any device that is not inherently dangerous. By inherently I mean that it would be dangerous even if I am not negligent, reckless or malevolent. Like radioactive substances, wild animals, or gaseous poisons.

You sound like the kind of person who will be liberal until you get mugged. IOW, it is one thing to be a theoretical liberal and quite another to understand the meaning of a liberal society.

You sound like the kind of person who fancies the highflown rhetoric of a liberal society but fundamentally you don't understand the principles that underpin it.

If the general citizenry cannot be trusted to behave responsibly, what kind of society are you building? Answer: A police state.

[August1991]

The people following the law already are the only ones who can be affected by additional laws. Your speeding example has it wrong...it's not that Geoffrey and I say wipe out speeding laws...what we're saying is, making it more illegal to speed isn't going to change anything. Similarly, issuing permits to allow drivers to go the speed limit will not help either.

No matter what you do, the problem is illegal guns. Ban guns altogether...illegal guns will be your problem. Allow semi-auto rifles for rural people at home and only gun club ownership for cities...illegal guns will be your problem.

It is both illegal and legal guns that are causing problems. The gun used in Dawson College was legallly owned and registered.

My point is quite simple and it shouldn't be difficult to grasp since it's the basis of our legal system: we must impose penalties for illegal behaviour.

The 911 perps never had a gun that we know of, and a hell of lot more died. Maybe if we didn't have planes, buildings, box cutters Arabs, no one would have died.

You've chosen to take your argument one way. I could take it the other way. Should we legalize tactical nuclear weapons and RPGs? We have to draw a line.

And BTW, it is difficult to get on board an aircraft with box cutters now.

If the general citizenry cannot be trusted to behave responsibly, what kind of society are you building? Answer: A police state.

I don't see the "general citizenry" as a single mass. Instead, we live in a society with millions of individuals - very different from one another. Some of these people are dangerous - but that doesn't mean that they don't respond to incentives.

[Remiel]

I have a different proposal: take the regulation of guns out entirely from federal jurisdiction and leave the municipalities to decide how to deal with guns themselves.

I do not think that that is fit as a solution, but perhaps half of a solution. The federal government should still have the say in what legal weapons come into the country, as well as military grade weapons. You could leave regulation of other weapons to municipalities. Personally, not my choice, but an interesting idea.