Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

The shooter in Canada was not legally allowed to own guns. He did not have a firearms license. He used two assault weapons in the shooting which came from the US. The lax gun laws which US gun apologists support made it easier for him to get guns and victimize others. Still feel good about yourself?

 

My point was the massacre could still almost just as easily have been done with guns that were not banned (and will be unlikely to ever be banned, or at least certainly most gun control proponents won't publicly admit to wanting those to be banned at this point in time). Use some honest common sense here.

So what? Are you going to make the argument that we need to implement gun control on a global scale, under some type of one-world government, for the ostensible good of the entire world population?
These arguments never stop. Gun control doesn't prevent a massacre, and then the knee-jerk response is we need even more gun control.

And then we can look in some poor countries like the Philippines where poor villagers out in the jungle are laboriously making their own semi-automatic guns by hand, as an underground cottage industry, probably not because it would be impossible to illegally smuggle them in, but because they are too poor to pay for them to be illegally smuggled in. They have to have something to defend their villages from the muslim terrorist militants lurking out in the jungle out there, because when the Philippine army forces come in, they have been given instructions to shoot everyone on site, anyone they suspect could be a muslim militant, and ask questions later.

Well, the question we need to ask and honestly look at is how much would banning these type of guns actually slow them down?

 

Noted.

However the article indicates, during the same post-Port Arthur time period, there were only nine incidents in the nation of Canada, whereas there were fourteen in the nation of Australia, and an additional twelve incidents that were one victim short of being classified as mass killings.

 

Then ultimately what good will the new firearm-related restrictions in the nation of Canada do, if it is apparently so easy for such to occur?

Only citizens of the united states with no disqualifying criminal record can legally purchase and own firearms in the united states. Citizens of the nation of Canada cannot legally purchase firearms from the united states, nor can they legally transport them across the border back into the nation of Canada. To do such is a felony offense, for which there are no exceptions.

The matter aside, if the firearm-related restrictions of the united states are truly so lax, that even foreigners can freely acquire them without issue, exactly what good will the new firearm-related restrictions in the nation of Canada ultimately do?

 

Well a hypothetical example: suppose there's a massacre where the perpetrator goes classroom by classroom, selects just a few victims in each classroom, and then moves on. There might be an interval of 2 or 3 minutes between each of these classrooms. In the first room, there are 5 victims, in the next room another 3, maybe 2 in the hallway immediately after that.
Banning these type of "assault weapons" probably wouldn't have really prevented deaths in this case.

I think if we actually look at the majority of these massacres, most of them do not involve all the people getting killed at once in one exact area or within a timespan of less than 2 minutes.
The perpetrator could have had plenty of time to reload, change guns, etc, between each area, without slowing them down much compared to the timelines of these massacres that have been documented.
In the case of the Port Arthur massacre, which you cited, the perpetrator almost seemed to be leisurely taking his time and enjoying himself, like he wasn't in any huge hurry.

(Although in all fairness, maybe the argument could be made that, psychologically, if these deranged people actually had to carry the weight of multiple guns around with them, and have to go to the trouble of reloading in the midst of their killing spree, they might enjoy the experience less and be less inclined to casually kill so many?)

 

It's kind of like gambling in casinos, in their state of mind if the gambler actually has to do any work to place each bet, they are much less likely to gamble their money as many times, even though that is completely illogical.
Someone with a food eating addiction might hide sweets from themselves and place them in a harder to access place, so they will be less likely to grab it on impulse, since it will take some extra work and be less convenient to eat it.

 

In that case shouldn't you feel morally obligated to support stricter gun control in the US? Canadian lives matter.

 

"Less than two weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in Canada’s history, more than 1,500 types of guns will be banned...

"The penalty for violating the Criminal Code sections under which the weapons are made illegal is a prison sentence of up to five years....

"Trudeau said the government plans to introduce a bill to Parliament that would allow it to compensate gun owners through a buyback program. In the Liberals’ re-election platform they estimated that the program would carry a $250-million price tag....

"While the published submission estimates that about 90,000 restricted guns would be affected, federal officials who spoke to reporters on Friday suggested that 105,000 now-banned weapons owned by 72,000 firearm owners would be impacted."
https://ipolitics.ca/2020/05/01/can...udeau-promises-a-buyback-program-will-follow/

$250 million for only 105,000 guns.... it sounds like Canadian gun owners will be well-compensated.

 

Ultimately for what matter? The united states will never have the same firearm-related restrictions as the nation of Canada is attempting to implement, meaning the united states will always be of a lesser, more easily exploited status when held up in comparison. There are currently hundreds of millions of unregistered, untraceable firearms in private circulation that can never be connected to any particular individual at any given time. Even the nation of Canada could not address such, as it chose to simply mandate the registration of newly purchased firearms which could be tracked. There are presently untold millions of unregistered firearms in the nation of Canada, just as in the united states.

Federal and state-level firearm-related restrictions already hold that only citizens of the united states may actually purchase and own firearms. What more can be done on the matter beyond such? Holding that ineligible individuals who cannot legally purchase firearms in the united states, must apply for permits to own and purchase firearms they are legally prohibited from purchasing and possessing?

Then let them demonstrate such by exercising greater control of their own border. It is not the obligation of one nation to change its own laws to try and prevent violence in a foreign nation it has no jurisdiction over.

 

The firearm used in the latest mass shooting was supposedly acquired from the united states in an illegal fashion. How will the above serve to address such? What will serve to prevent new firearms from being smuggled into the nation of Canada?

 

Nice post hoc fallacy you have there.
Fact is, Canadians have regular access to firearms effective for use in mass shootings, and always will.

Another post hoc fallacy.

 

You really need to brush up on your understanding and use of logical fallacies. As per Wikipedia 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' relates to a fallacy involving the belief that 'since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X'

If there is no correlation between X & Y then you do have a post hoc fallacy. If however there is a correlation between X & Y then there is no post hoc fallacy.

The statement that you are criticizing infers that the intention of the bill enacted by the Australian Parliament following the Port Arthur Massacre was designed to deal with only one sub set of crime - i.e. crimes committed with the types of weapons listed in the bill. I also pointed out that since its introduction there had only been once such crime committed in Australia. So where exactly is the post hoc fallacy?? One case after the ban. Many more cases before the ban.

In other words as per my comment above there is a clear correlation between the ban and the absence of attacks using these weapons afterwards.

Or to put it more simply for you. If you require apples to make apple pies and there is a sudden reduction in the supply of apples you will not be able to make as many pies as you could before. Can you? Or is that example also a 'post hoc fallacy'. Same thing with the ban on semi autos then. You can't use what you don't have. Is that clear enough for you?

I also made it quite clear BTW that the fact the ban has (to date) worked here is no guarantee that it would work as well if implemented elsewhere.

And finally at no point did I state the ban had a significant impact in terms of Australia's overall homicide rate or gun crime in general. The ban on semi auto firearms had only a marginal impact (at best) on these issues. Several studies have been done looking into this question and no strong correlation has ever emerged.

So my statement on the effectiveness of the ban stands correct. In Australia, under then prevailing local conditions the ban did what it was intended to do - no more than that and no less. This is a fact whether you like it or not.

Now as to the the question of whether it was worth the cost and effort of enacting in terms of outcomes? That can be debated by others should they wish to do so.

 

The post hoc fallacy being referred to is the claim the firearm-related restriction in question served to prevent any further Port Arthur-type incidents from occurring in the nation of Australia, when there is simply no evidence that can be used to support this claim as being factually correct. Mass shootings were already in the process of decreasing in the nation of Australia at the time, meaning the firearm-related restriction in question was introduced during the downward glide and was simply given credit for what was already occurring.

 

Um... no.
You argue that the laws are responsible for the lower rates of mass shootings - that X caused Y - because after the laws were passed, the mass shootings fell.
Put another way, you argue that correlation proves causation.
Thus - post hoc fallacy

Long story short:
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws you cite and the effects you claim.

 

Your post is a perfect refutation of your own argument. It was illegal for the shooter to have possession of the firearms he used. Yet he still had them. Trying to deflect to the US is just that, a deflection. Prohibition does not work, and has never worked.

 

Canada lives don't matter to me, at least they don't matter more to me than my own life or the life of my family. There are no firearm restrictions that could be implemented that would have prevented this shooting, therefore enacting further restrictions is not warranted, let alone legal here in the US.

 

Wrong - there is a clear correlation. As I noted previously - you cant use something if you don't have access to it. 700 thousand firearms including the vast bulk of auto and semi-and long arms held in private hands were handed/purchased by the government. At the same time a ban was imposed on importing new ones. So there is a clear correlation - no apples, no pies. Explain that away and you might have a point. And remember I never claimed the ban had an impact on anything other than that one specific crime type.

As far as a decrease in mass shootings goes, sorry the sample size is to simply too small to tell (12 or so since the 1980s) There isn't a statistician anywhere who would back you up on that claim. Don't believe me? Go find one. A larger sample size like the US for instance maybe you could crunch the numbers and plot a trend. In our case the number of incidents are so few its not possible to tell. It would only take one extra or one fewer incident to throw the results. What is clear is that the murder rate in Australia overall including those using firearms was and is decreasing. But that is a different point entirely to what I argued.

 

You misread my post. I did not say 'because after the laws were passed, the mass shootings fell.'

What I said was that following the passing of the laws banning auto/sem-auto weapons there were no more mass shootings involving auto/semi-auto weapons. Therefore in that respect they worked. As I said before you can't kill someone with something you don't have!

Since then, to date there has been one and only one mass shooting in Australia using a banned weapon (not handed in) and I think two others that didn't involve banned weapons.

So to be absolutely clear my statement remains valid. Mass shootings involving semi-autos etc have (to date) been eliminated as a risk factor in Australia because of the laws in question. I also made in quite clear there was no guarantee the same thing would apply if similar laws were imposed elsewhere.

 

Correlation does not prove causation.
Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws you cite and the effects you claim.

 

See post #44.

 

Incorrect, one of the greatest factors is stealth, someone carrying concealed can get the one up on an active shooter easily by positioning themselves where they cannot be seen, but have a clear shot of the shooter, fire a couple of rounds and move to another location if needed to shoot again.

 

Surprise is certainly an element in mass shootings, well any shooting really. No-one stands around waiting to get shot unless of course they're wearing a blindfold and have just been offered one last cigarette.

However its an element that loses its utility very rapidly once the first few shots have been fired. The worst mass shootings have generally involved large numbers of people constrained from exiting the scene by the geography of the shooting space or otherwise by the sheer number of people present at the time. And of course the shooter can then 'go mobile'. In those type of situations after surprise has vanished IMO the characteristics of assault weapons come into there own as discussed.

The exception of course is that particular subset of such crimes where the nut job concerned has specific targets in mind (usually family members) and travels from location A to B to C to carry out the crime. In this case pistols are just just as effective for the reasons you cited. However where its a case of killing as many people a possible as quickly as possible?

 

Pardon me, but you seem to have trouble grasping the point I made or if you prefer the difference between the number 'zero' and any other number in a set of items. So to break it down one more time.

If I own or can access 10 assault rifles I can use 10 (or less) rifles to commit a crime - were I inclined to do of course. If I own or can access 9 assault rifles I can use 9 (or less) rifles.. and so on down the count.

Now when I get down to just 1 assault rifle (and only 1) that one rifle is the only assault rifle I can use because I have access to no others.

And so we come to the point I keep trying to get you to understand. If I own or can access zero (0) or if you prefer nil, zip, cero assault rifles I cannot use any assault rifle at all to commit a crime. Because there are none.

And this is the point you seem to have trouble grasping. In Australia they passed laws preventing the private ownership of such rifles and purchased all the then existing stock. They also passed laws preventing anymore being imported. As a result the available pool of assault style rifles has been reduced down to numbers approaching zero.

As a result, in this country, at this time, the rare individuals inclined to commit mass shootings have no access to assault rifles. As I have said multiple times they cannot use what they don't have.

Now there might, at some future time be another mass shooting in Australia (God forbid) using an assault style rifle but if so it would have to be with a rare buried firearm or one that was smuggled in. But it as been 25 years since the last such incident and so far so good the laws are working as intended. So even then one isolated incident won't disprove my point that the law is, in this case working as intended.

This is because no law anywhere can ever be perfectly enforced, all the time. And if that is the only argument anyone can raise about Australia's gun laws - that some point they fail then those people are also arguing that there should be no laws at all, anywhere, anytime. Because in the end all laws fail to achieve their intended purpose at some point.

And so my argument stands. Here and now the laws have worked. They prevent, (as far as humanly possible) people committing mass murder using assault rifles. Which is all I ever said they did. And please, I never said they prevented people from committing mass murder by other means including other types of firearm. Nor have I ever said that because the laws worked here they will work as well in Canada or anywhere else. Our geographic isolation gives us an advantage in that regard.

Finally I realize this must be a nightmare scenario for you to consider but you cant 'magic' these results away simply by typing the words 'post hoc' every time the topic comes up. So from now on its your turn to come up with concrete proof I am wrong.

 

Won't be long til Canadians are coming to the US to hunt because it'll be illegal there.

 

Your probably drawing a long bow there. Hunting is a big pass time north of the border and no-one in any of the major parties has even hinted at such a proposition, largely because they want to keep their seats.