The “multiple firearms charges” part suggests that not all those guns were legally owned.
Maybe for long arms, definitely not true for handguns, which have very high hurdles to ownership, and very strict conditions about storing and transporting. You can’t transport a handgun just anywhere; it can only leave the house for a legitimate reason (target range, servicing, etc), it has to travel in a locked box, and any ammunition has to travel in a separate locked box. There are plenty of rules I’m probably forgetting here. The effect of this:
Canadian homicides per year: about 500. Of those, 150 are gun homicides. Among the gun homicides, about 2/3 of those are by handguns, which are already one of the most tightly regulated things you can own in Canada. Anyone attempting to use a handgun in a crime in Canada has already broken some serious rules before the gun gets pointed. In other words: it’s unlikely that more than half these handguns were legally owned, and they were absolutely not legally operated even before the trigger was pulled. (source: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr06_2/rr06_2.pdf )
Canadian car deaths last year: about 2000.
In other words: tightening Canadian gun laws is unlikely to have a big societal effect. The low-hanging fruit has already been picked.
By contrast, tightening US gun laws to about “half a Canada”, would have a tremendous effect; plenty of low-hanging fruit there (about 11,000 gun homicides to about 35,000 car deaths; the Canadian equivalent would be around 2,600 gun homicides to that many car deaths).
Full disclosure: I don’t own a gun, and have zero interest in owning one. I have lived in Canada and I live in Australia, where gun laws are tighter than in Canada. I prefer the Australian rules. Personally, I don’t see a need for any civilian to own a handgun, nor any gun capable of firing more than one round per second, nor any magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds. I do see the benefit for farmers to carry guns as tools.
lots people with gun collections in every rural part of Canada lots of rednecks too. when we were children we had a dog a named blizzard .the neighbour’s had a dog named whiskey that walked with a drunk limp just like it’s owner. whisky tore up our yard and ate our cat’s kittens. and caused mayhem with our other neighbours cattle as well so they shot whiskey . a few days days later while taking turns mowing the lawn on a riding lawn mower we heard a loud report and didn’t think much of it till we realized blizzard was nowhere to found. I searched for her for three days definitely had a good look around the barn across from whisky’s owners owners property. on the fourth day we found her in that spot with a clear trail through the tall grass coming from said neighbours’ property. dumped there where they knew we played as children our blizzard dead bloated from three days of decomposition with an exit wound the size of a basket ball. as we stood gathered around dead blizzard the brother in law of whisky’s owner’s the one who was staying at property the one who had done the deed at behest of the owners (they thought we shot whiskey) drove up the long rural drive way of their property. we all hurled insults my mother shout why would you do this I screamed “murderer” he walked from his truck to the house standing tall with chin up like he was some kind of f-ing soldier didn’t even glance at us , real f-ing cowboy type. it was of some hollow comfort to learn that whiskies owners a couple year’s later drove off the road in a blizzard. he suffered sever brain damage and couldn’t feed himself the rumour was that he was drunk and she spent several hours trying to sober him up before calling the ambulance as she was worried about the insurance money. I don’t if that was true but I did hear the rumour.
I think the liability insurance should be attached to ammunition, and structured so that bullets found in a gunshot victim pay for the associated health care. Mostly an issue in the US where victims of gun violence can be bankrupted by medical fees.
Lets’ turn that question around: how many irresponsible owners does it take before one starts to think that maybe something could be done? Not even ‘should’ yet, just ‘could.’
I hate seeing this attitude of “well, if gun regulations couldn’t prevent this one instance of a determined gentleman, then gun regulations won’t prevent any deaths at all.”
it’s like wanting to tear down handrails on verandas because cousin lou tripped over a rug.
In contrast, here’s the US version (tl;dr guy out illegally shooting at night in a somewhat populated area gets confronted by someone who thinks they shouldn’t be doing that; shooter kills guy who confronts him; gets off scott free.)
Aristotle noted that the people who wanted high government office probably were not the best people to have it. He suggested that the offices might be arranged via a lottery.
If the same rules apply here, people should not own guns, but the state doles out guns and ammunition at random.
Even with rules that are onerous compared to the US, it doesn’t change that automobiles don’t just require passing a test to get a license but also eventual re-testing, mandatory insurance, have a lot of usage restrictions and many ways to lose the license, on top of automobiles themselves having substantial laws regarding their design, manufacture, sale, maintenance and registration (not to mention that even our public spaces have been designed for automobile safety).
When comparing guns to cars, the tendency is to compare licensing or death tolls, but the first ignores the vast majority of restrictions put on cars, the second absurdly ignores frequency of usage and how much regulation of automobiles has cut down the death toll. The death rate per mile driven is now only about one-fourteenth of what it once was, thanks entirely to regulation.
Excellent question! I don’t own guns, but I grew up around them. This is all based on my recollection, so take it with a few grains of salt.
Guns in Canada are for hunting (not handguns), target shooting (competitive and amateur), farming (predator or invasive species culling), and collecting (like stamps or classic cars). Like any culture, it’s more complicated than a one-sentence summary, but that’s a broad-strokes picture of gun culture in Canada, and other countries outside the US. It’s not a universal explanation, obviously - “culture” means a bunch of people, and you get all kinds.
Talking to friends cousins, uncles, and my dad about guns, I don’t recall anyone ever talking about a benefit being home defence. “Stopping power” never came up, ever. It just wasn’t on anyone’s mind.
I believe the closest equivalent in the US is archery. Bows and arrows aren’t usually sold in the US for self-defence. It’s not a bad parallel to guns in Canada.
For people living in remote places in rural Canada, typically farmers and ranchers, this is kind of an issue. Many of these areas the RCMP or OPP is hours away. No one says they are acquiring a firearm for home defense as that is not considered an acceptable reason, but I think it is a consideration never the less. The Coulton Boushie shooting illustrates a case of this nature. The shooter used a handgun that was described as “for scaring coyotes away” and target practice; the man he shot had a .22 rifle. The shooter, Gerald Stanley, was subsequently charged with multiple firearms offences, but they all related to storage of long guns at his farm…I believe they were not locked up. There were no charges relating to the use of the handgun as he claimed it was loaded and available at the time due to his intending to do target practice. I should say that I am not alleging anything wrt Stanley’s intent, just that this case illustrates the nature of firearms law in Canada, at least to someone like me with no particular legal knowledge. Gerald Stanley was acquitted of charges related to the shooting.
That is true. But when someone, say, crashes their car during a street race, they chalk it up to that person being an idiot. Not a sarcastic “Oh, must be one of those ‘responsible car owners’ I keep hearing about.”
Every time time shit like this happens, some use it as a chance to lump everyone in with bad actors. Especially in Canada where the standards are pretty high.
Really? They do a back ground check and get letters from people you know stating you are responsible enough to drive a car? I ask this in all sincerity, because as far as I understand it, it seems much easier to get a drivers license there then a firearms license. Heck I can go visit and drive on my US license, but couldn’t go visit and buy a gun there.
At any rate - the point was that it is pretty well regulated, especially compared to the US.
Yes - it does beg the question if this person was just circumventing the law altogether. In which case, clearly not a responsible citizen, period.
That analogy doesn’t hold though, because cars are extremely well regulated and nobody is using “responsible car owners” as an argument to prevent further regulation.
I really think pro-gun folks should let go of all their car analogies. Every inch of a car has government regulations attached to it. It takes years to get a new bumper or headlight design approved. Every single car owner must prove they have been trained and are in sufficient physical health to operate one. Every single car is required to have extensive insurance covering all manner of property damage, personal injury, and liability. Every inch of roadway has hundred of laws governing exactly how cars should be operated. We have roving armies of police specifically devoted to enforcing all of the above. You’d be hard pressed to find something better regulated than cars. It’s why there are “only” 30-40k deaths a year from them. They are incredibly deadly machines so society has figured out we’d better control the hell out of them to minimize the harm. Good thing cars didn’t happen to exist when The Constitution was written, or who knows what batshit SCOTUS interpretations we’d have about them right now.
They don’t have to because no one holds bad drivers/idiots on the road as the “norm”. Just like they don’t blame access to alcohol as the problem with people who get drunk and violent/stupid. Because most people are familiar and use those things everyday.
They understand the minority who misuse them are not a direct reflection of the majority of users.
