Throne Speech: Liberals to introduce Gun control measures

[MikePal]

None of it has much to do with safety.

The LGR was construed as a safety measure because the public were told that the registry was being accessed by police before they go into a situation. And the fact that Police Chiefs supported the registry for that use, it allowed the general public to see the LGR as a positive 'safety' thing.

[JBen]

Believe it was initially sold as making the public safer Mike (could be wrong that was a long time ago) and it was only while in it death throes that they started trotted out "how often LEO accessed" as the only/last "somewhat credible defence".

Did it make leo any safer? Save people during domestics? (see who the Culkiers often cite…violence against women, emotionally unstable men..and see why they/we might want to start figuring out why middle aged men), etc etc. Doubt ther are stats that would demonstrate it made leo any safer.

Regardless as Welsh did rightfully point out "politics of fear".
See some death rates 2 vs 17 or 24…and whats killing people and what gets "attention" and what JT thinks. We need more GC, in his words need to make Cda safer….lol

[terrym]

Yes but it automatically scanned the registry for almost any inquiry on CPIC which is why the stats made it look like it was used so much. Have close friends in law enforcement and they always expect every home they enter to be a risk. Keeps them alive. Just because somebody wasn't on the registry didn't guarantee they weren't armed. Not many people who are predisposed to gun crimes were on the registry.

[welsh]

Pleas quote me where I said it was 32.

You didn't. But you did say our suicide rate was approaching your mistaken US firearms death rate of 30, so I made a reasonable inference as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

I'm sorry, but when you say that the suicide rate among males is 24 (wrong) and among females 8 (also wrong) and that this is approaching the US firearms death rate of 30 (wrong again), I can hardly be expected to infer that you actually mean that the actual Canadian suicide rate dwarfs the actual US firearms death rate. I can't move the goalposts for you!

I said and I'll repeat it for you so its nice and easy. The per capita rate for middle aged men is 24 and women 8. Regardless gun deaths are 2….Tell me what is an isn't a public health/safety issue.

Well, first off, that's not what you said, so there's no need to pretend you're repeating it to make it easy when in fact you're correcting your mistake.

Yes, suicide is a public health issue. Public health is, constitutionally, a provincial matter. To suggest the federal government must concentrate on provincial matters to the exclusion of federal matters is, well, not really supportable.

Besides, lots of things kill more people than guns. Alcohol and cars, for example. But that doesn't mean guns should not be regulated. That's a fallacious argument.

So as to not edit. This isn't the one I read a couple weeks ago that put current middle aged per capita rates in Canada at 24 and 8.

Instead of hunting for new sources, refer to the link I posted from StatsCan. The age and gender rates you're looking for are there, and the numbers you posted are roughly correct in the middle-aged bracket.

...with respect to the US and all the nice things we say about their "gun problem"…I don't know if the comparable rates here are 24 (male ma suicide) and 11 (US gun death)….and we want to talk lack of "action"…we have nothing to crow about.

Well, US gun death rate is ~ 4.5 times higher than that in Canada, France, Germany, Austria, Norway, or Sweden -- all developed nations with similar gun ownership rates. Firearms and motor vehicle deaths occur at similar rates in the US; in Canada, the firearms death rate is much lower than the motor vehicle rate. The suicide rates in Canada and the US are comparable; their firearms death rate is much higher.

All this suggests that regulating firearms is necessary, and effective, and that the system we have in Canada works.

[terrym]

That's what I have been saying all along. Our PAL/RPAL and storage laws are effective. Making them more restrictive won't cure health issues. GC is necessary but draconian rules aren't.

[welsh]

That's what I have been saying all along. Our PAL/RPAL and storage laws are effective. Making them more restrictive won't cure health issues.

And fortunately it doesn't seem the Liberals really have much planned, in spite of all the Chicken Little rhetoric we hear. One thing they're promising that seems to have no basis in reality is these enhanced background checks for the RPAL ... I don't see any evidence that there's currently a significant problem there. But we'll have to see what they end up proposing.

[trimmer21]

And fortunately it doesn't seem the Liberals really have much planned, in spite of all the Chicken Little rhetoric we hear. One thing they're promising that seems to have no basis in reality is these enhanced background checks for the RPAL ... I don't see any evidence that there's currently a significant problem there. But we'll have to see what they end up proposing.

I'm just going to throw this out there for comment if you like,but,IMHO,our PAL and RPAL licensing system has probably saved more shyte,crap and corruption for law enforcement and saved more lives than any GC system anywhere in the world more than will ever be known.

[terrym]

And fortunately it doesn't seem the Liberals really have much planned, in spite of all the Chicken Little rhetoric we hear. One thing they're promising that seems to have no basis in reality is these enhanced background checks for the RPAL ... I don't see any evidence that there's currently a significant problem there. But we'll have to see what they end up proposing.

Background checks don't bother me. But again they are kicking the wrong can. People who decide to get an RPAL know damn well that skeletons will be found easily. Banning classes of guns for law abiding and licensed shooters doesn't cure madmen. Making law abiding shooters with legally purchased guns jump through ridiculous hoops just to transport legal firearms won't reduce gun crime. If they had any balls they attack gun crime hard. Not coddle convicts and reduce sentences.

[Gilroy]

"If they had any balls they attack gun crime hard. Not coddle convicts and reduce sentences'

Most gun crime is between gang bangers eliminating each other especially in the GTA. So the general public really don't get that upset.

The USA decided to go real tough on criminals and did their three strikes and your out thing and built all types of new jails. Mr Harper decided to follow suit and built more jails.

This seems to be the WRONG answer and as we see in the USA they are reversing course on both counts.

So I guess we in Canada seem to be doing something right and the sky is really not falling. Could we be doing better ,yes, but no system is perfect and we are very fortunate to be living in Canada under out present gun laws IMHO.

[terrym]

"If they had any balls they attack gun crime hard. Not coddle convicts and reduce sentences'

Most gun crime is between gang bangers eliminating each other especially in the GTA. So the general public really don't get that upset.

The USA decided to go real tough on criminals and did their three strikes and your out thing and built all types of new jails. Mr Harper decided to follow suit and built more jails.

This seems to be the WRONG answer and as we see in the USA they are reversing course on both counts.

So I guess we in Canada seem to be doing something right and the sky is really not falling. Could we be doing better ,yes, but no system is perfect and we are very fortunate to be living in Canada under out present gun laws IMHO.

All of which supports my point that our system works fine and doesn't need to be "fixed". Certainly not by Liberals and anti gun groups.