Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

Here's how it worked:





That is: Zero effect.

 

Sorry a lot of the above is incorrect. Firstly BTW at no point did I suggest a ban similar to ours should be imposed in the US, as always what you do in your country is yous business.

Secondly there are now actually more firearms in Australia now than there were before the ban - just different types. Shooting remains a fairly popular pastime, clubs are full and there's not a wiff on the horizon of popular mainstream support for another round of confiscations, largely because gun crime, indeed violent crime in general is stable or declining across the country (on a statistical basis anyway).

I'd have to do some checking but the from recollection incidents where citizens have been called upon to sue firearms to defend themselves at home are few and far between (think zero to single figures per year) across the country. And again as far as I can recall while there is always a Police investigation and there have been rare occasions of charges being laid against the homeowners in such instances I can't think of such a case occurring in recent years.

You have to remember Australia and the US are not always directly comparable in terms of crime figures (at least not easily), there being way different population levels, crime dynamics and socio-economic factors at play.

 

No. I use the term 'appears' advisedly to indicate there may be data of which I am unaware that would change the argument being discussed. This is because unlike you (and anyone under the age of 5) training and experience has taught me that there are seldom any absolutes when it comes to analyzing complex issues subject to change on short notice. Therefore I frame my answers advisedly. It also indicates I'm open minded enough to be corrected if someone can prove my position wrong. You should try this approach some time, you might learn something new.

So the facts stand - as of today the ban is still in place and still no mass shootings with assault rifles, God willing this state of affairs will continue indefinitely. Deal.

 

The "types" of firearms is probably less than a tenth or less of the types of firearms that are available in the U.S. Ergo, the "fairly popular pastime" that you speak of is just a dribble of the sporting use and competition that we enjoy in this country. It's akin to playing Bingo and the prize is a box of Cheez Its.
And "gun crime" and violent crime are one of the same thing. No one says "knife crime", "fist crime", "blunt instrument" crime. All of those are "people crime". Guns don't commit crime. People do. A firearm is just an instrument. And a lot of other factors have brought crime in general down. Cameras and instant communication (some with cameras too) to name a few.

You're either a young High School student or have been living under a rock for a few decades then. Many stories of those innocents who have been defenseless victims because they have no means defend themself(ves) against the criminals that victimize them have made notoriety over the last few decades. Homeowners (or tenants), families, and women are at the top of the list. You still hear them but you and your ilk refuse to put two-and-two together when you hear or see those stories.

Your country being way more homogeneous has a LOT to do with that. Your country will probably change in that aspect in the future. You'll want a means to be able to defend yourself then and you'll rue the day that being able to defend oneself went Bye-Bye in your country.

 

The types available here are pretty much the same as the US barring assault rifles and large capacity shot guns i.e. bolt and lever and bolt and lever action long arms, single barrel, double barrel and a limited number of lever action shotguns, pistols and revolvers. And of course its a dribble compared to the US we have less than 12th the population of the US and despite having a similar land mass are more highly urbanized - which means less people get exposed to shooting as a sport. As far as the rest goes violent crime of all types is in general decreasing, that might change, it might not but its simply not a big driver of firearm purchases over here. Security equipment (alarms, cameras and such yes firearms know. For lots of reasons including no civil war Australia has never had the same kind of gun culture as the US so direct comparisons with out taking things like that into acount are unfair - going both ways.

Nope retired cop. Mostly fights and stabbings are an issue but they usually involve fights in public places (and alcohol) not targeting of civies by crims. You do get a lot of late night armed robberies of convenience stores but again its usually threaten grab and run not attack - most of the time. The big issue over here re; death and injuries is domestic violence and having weapons in the house isn't generally going to help in that situation, at least not help the victim anyway.

We have the same integration problems the US does but again on a smaller scale. As a % we also get more new immigrants from Asian countries than you do (I think) rather than South America - that may make a difference (you might have an opinion on that?). Regardless the first arrivals from any new country struggle and we generally see rises in crime in that group within a generation or so.

After the fall of South Vietnam we got lots of refuges from that region. That first gen? grateful to be here, 2nd gen? resentful of being on the bottom and not fitting so huge spike in Vietnamese crime gangs. 3-4th gen? starting to make it to the top - problems starts to decline. These days our crime syndicates are very multicultural- they'll work with anyone if there's money in it.

All I can say about the rest is things could get worse but so far its not trending that way. Being a long way away from anywhere else is weakness when it comes to trade but it may well be an advantage when it comes to social stability and cohesion. I'll guess we'll see.

 

So... why aren't you even -slightly- fazed by the fact that correlation does not prove causation?

 

No. Because to date I have not seen another theory that fits the observed facts better that the one I proposed. And until such time as somebody else on this thread comes up with one that does do this (and you certainly haven't offered any) it remains the best fit available.

 

So, not only do you believe correlation proves causation, you believe your correlation proves causation premise remains sound until someone demonstrates otherwise.

 

No. I posited a theory that explained the correlation. Just to make it perfectly clear correlations may be indicative of causality or not. Research or statistical analysis in then required to prove causation.

My 'theory' postulated a relationship between two events: the removal of a specific type of firearm - assault rifles from widespread circulation in Australia and secondly the absence of their use in mass shootings since the buyback by identifying a mechanism responsible for the outcome. That mechanism? Simple logistics. Semi-autos are (A) no longer available for public purchase (B) can't be imported without a great deal of difficulty/risk and (C) have no locally based (non-military) manufacturing chain from which to 'leak' into the black market. This means that the (minute) % of the population inclined to use one in a mass shooting has a vastly harder time gaining access.

The statistics on mass shootings while only representing a small data set clearly support the theory. 7 mass shootings involving semi autos in the 25 years or so before the buy back 0 in the 25 years since the buy back.

Now the criteria for the establishment of a cause and effect relationship in any study, anywhere include the following :

1. A strong statistical relationship (In this case -Yes)
   
2. Temporal relationship: The cause must precede the effect. (Again Yes)
3. Consistency: Multiple studies in different locations producing similar effects (Also Yes you can look them up if you want, I have)
   
4. Plausibility: there is a supportable biological mechanism' (death by gunshot) and
   
5. Coherence with known facts.

As far as statistics go when the value of one group of numbers (total mass shootings with semi autos), decreases following the appearance of one single changed variable (the buyback) it is indicative of causation. This is mathematical fact. The other per-conditions for proving causation listed above also hold true.

And once more - none of the above guarantees there will never be another incident involving the use of an illegally obtained semi auto. All it does is demonstrate that the been effective to date in reducing such incidents to a statistically significant degree.

Now I know the whole concept of such bans in anathema to you. But at some point you have to accept the that possibility upon occasion, under certain strict conditions they may be reasonably effective in reducing, if not eliminating a particular subset of shootings.

But you won't of course. Nor will you bother to check if anything I have said above about causation is incorrect.

 

Just so we're clear:
Here, you admit the correlation you cite does not prove the causation you claim.
As I have been saying all along.
Thanks.

 

This ban by Canada is completely useless. Many semi-automatic firearms equally powerful to those that were banned remain unbanned. The mass shooter in Nova Scotia was red flagged by the neighbor in 2013 for beating his wife and having illegal guns, police did nothing. As usual, no gun control laws helped, it was police that dropped the ball by not doing anything about this known, angry, violent man.

Furthermore, a recent journal article in the Journal of Criminology and Public Policy proves that assault weapons bans are completely ineffective, whereas other gun control policies could make a difference. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9133.12487 . This is probably why some places have seen reductions in mass shootings, not due to the bans, but due to stronger vetting, screening and training of gun buyers.

Anyhow, the guns banned are only involved in 1% of gun homicides in Canada. A complete waste of money (600,000,000 dollars for the 'planned' buyback, which will probably get low take-up, like in NZ), which should be re-directed to programs that tackle gangbangers who commit the large majority of gun homicides and major crime in general. Overall, a dumb policy which will wedge the largely gun-ignorant urban Canadians vs. rural Canadians. However, that's exactly what the Liberals do best, divide Canadians for their own political advantage.

 

You might well be right, least ways as far as how well the ban in Canada will work. Unfortunately the effects of complex logistical exercises like this take time to work through a country the size of Canada so it could be 10-20 years before the stats show whether its worked or not - by which time all the money spent on it is long gone.

That said the study you sighted was restricted to the USA so the findings might not be directly transferable to Canada or any other jurisdiction outside of the US. As far as the cost goes? That is certainly a valid constraint so if it is going to cost 600 million CD to purchase all the banned firearms its a valid question to ask how many lives would have been saved if it was spent elsewhere.

 

Which proves you didn't even bother to read what I posted. I'll highlight the relevant section again since you cant cope with long posts...

'correlations may be indicative of causality or not. Research or statistical analysis in then required to prove causation.

Since I've already posted the statistical analysis proving causation you don't have a leg to stand on. Now go way and do some study on the subject. Then if you want to prove me wrong present your own analysis demonstrating how the statistical correlation I identified is not supportive of causation. Oh and your 'proof' has to comply with the 5 principals I noted in post 109 regarding evidence of cause and effect.

 

That's a 50 year span. Do you have a complete list of those said mass shootings involving semi-auto weapons as well as a list of all mass shootings/killings/murders during that same 50 year span that involved any weapon or device? Dates, weapons (if any), and circumstance(s) must be included as well.
Thanx in advance.

Lots and lots of "facts" have been presented in this thread. You don't have Carte Blanche to be the final decider as to what is "compelling facts" or not.
Nor do you get to be the one that sets the "rules" of what makes a compelling argument or not. (See post #109)
Remember that.

 

The new flag of Canada ​

 

Copped when I get a chance I'll post a table I had access to. This table listed all listed mass shootings by firearm type. Please note I only referenced those using semi-autos - because that was the only type I have been talking about this entire thread. I never claimed the ban stopped ALL mass shootings I even listed the one I know of that has occurred after it was imposed (using a large capacity pump action shotgun). I simply stated that in one regard and one regard only (cases where semi-autos were used) the ban appears to have been effective to date. Based on the facts.

And I don't make the rules. Those those principals I quoted were developed and used by scientists and researchers world wide. I simply stuck to them when making my case - something TOG had trouble accepting. Anyone using statistics or figures in an argument has to stick to them no matter what side of any debate they are on.

 

First off, what does "copped" mean?
And it is "facts" that create a flaw in your argument.
This discussion/debate is akin to:
You: If you make toilet paper illegal, people will not wipe their collective asses with toilet paper. Some may be smuggled in occasionally but that would be difficult and rare.

Other Poster(s):If toilet paper was made illegal, people will still wipe their asses using something other than toilet paper.

The discussion/argument is not over a firearm type. The argument is over the definition of what "worked" is and how it applies to using firearms for violent crime.

It seems then that your "principals" enable you to decide what facts are relevant and compelling and what are not.
When one says that the semi-auto didn't work, it generally means that the ban didn't accomplish the goal that it was trying to achieve in the first place.
Down in Australia, mass shootings were a rare occurrence before the ban and they still are after the ban. And the cause for having the ban was to cut down on shootings, correct? What was rare before is still rare.
There are other reasons that violent crime is down in most of the civilized world as well, Australia included. And it's not just due to removing firearms from society. Those other reasons are something (facts) that you fail to factor into the equation. Your "principals" skew your "opinion" but allow you to claim victory in the discussion of this issue.
Possibly the principal for discussion/debate in your Parliament but definitely is in our Congress is based on Roberts Rules Of Order. But it doesn't always happen that way yet things still get accomplished.
So, bottom line, when someone says, "Your firearm ban that you actually had didn't work", they are telling the truth (facts) about the entirety of the issue.
But you can stick to your "principals" all you want if it makes you feel better.

 

Firstly, sorry about the name, it was a simple misspell that's all. Secondly (if you really want to go with the toilet paper analogy?) They've completely misinterpreted my argument as follows:

Me: some types of toilet paper have been banned. And to date no-one has wiped their bum with one particular type of banned toilet paper.
Others: If you make (all) toilet paper illegal people will still use something else.

Both statements are in and of themselves correct. The second statement however does not address the point I am making in mine. More importantly it is not a counterargument to the point I am making. The ban did not seek to remove ALL types of toilet paper nor was its goal to prevent ALL types of 'tissue failure'. Its goal was to prevent failures caused by the specific types of paper covered by the ban. Not other types of toilet paper, not banana leaves and not sand paper.

Again as noted above my argument is not a counter to the point raised by the 'others'. The difference between our positions is that I never claimed my position was a counter to their argument. They did. Noting also that Australian's still have plenty of toilet paper other than the banned types.

There not 'my' principals. I didn't invent them and I am certainly not responsible for them being followed by researchers all over the world. They're used simply because they work and they work, they have scientific merit and reduce the likelihood of errors being made analyzing data/reaching conclusions. I also fail to see how keeping your statements in the correct temporal order (cause before effect), keeping them consistent, plausible, coherent and where stats are used accurate is a bad thing - especially on a debate forum of all places.

So in this case no-matter what other statements people want to make there have simply been no mass shootings using semi-autos since the ban was imposed. And as I keep having to point out to the extend the ban has prevented the use of these particular weapons (and these alone) it has worked - for now at least. The ban was never intended to guarantee there would never be mass killings by other means. To suggest so is wrong at best and deceitful at worst - akin to arguing that drink driving laws don't work because people still die in motor accidents caused by other means like speeding.

Lastly as you noted the fact we have very few such killings to begin with and unique conditions in play may well mean any propose bans elsewhere would not work as well. A fact I noted from the onset. I am also not preaching the universal adoption of assault rifle bans by all other nations, just correcting a misrepresentation of how effective the ban as been here - with regards to one specific subset of weapons. So by all means critique other aspects of the ban, I simply ask any critiques are factually accurate, same way I assume you would if I started spouting off about gun laws in the US and got my facts wrong.

Below is the table I referenced. As far as I am aware only the first one listed (in Darwin) involved a banned weapon. The others were not banned.

 

And yet mass killings are continuing to occur in the nation of Australia on an almost regular basis. The only thing that was changed was the implement used, while the body counts continue to remain in mass killing territory.

No matter how the firearm-related restrictions are rationalized by their supporters, nothing of actual meaning served to change. Thus making any potential outcome meaningless and irrelevant.

 

You have done -nothing - to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the cause you cite and the effect you.
Hint: Statistics can't do this.

All you have is 'law passed = shootings stopped"

 

Your side of this discussion/debate is disingenuous at very best. All you're doing (to me, at least) is taking what I say, spinning it by moving the goal posts of MY words and re-presenting them to your liking. I try to keep things fairly simple and to the point. Maybe by keeping it simple I leave myself open to your "moving the goalposts interpretation".
So let's try this again. I said...

Now, let me be more specific...

As you can plainly see, both arguments are virtually the same. All you have been doing this entire thread is 1. Splitting hairs and 2. Arguing semantics and 3. Moving the goalposts to satisfy what you need to hear and then discuss/argue that point(s) and not the point(s) presented to you. That is, like I said earlier, disingenuous at the very best.

How "Hoity-Toity" of you. Your "rules" simply allow you to split hairs, create circular argument(s) and make it such that your pointless points actually have merit.
The "point" you are trying to make is simply a non-entity in the entirety of the whole issue. Merely a footnote, if you will.

The ban was never intended to guarantee there would never be mass killings by other means? Disingenuous again as the ban was to cut down on the number of mass killings and went so far as to have negative effect(s) on the populus as a whole in other ways. This is an example of a fact that you actually understand yet all you do is split hairs of it, move goalposts of what is being discussed, and spin it to your own satisfaction even though it is disingenuous to do so.

The "other aspects" are relevant yet something you fail (badly) to acknowledge. When someone said, "Your ban didn't work" is telling the factual truth when all "relevant aspects" are concerned. And your "splitting hairs" point is merely a moot point that is only worthy of a footnote in this issue being discussed.

And lastly, I have a question for you. As you said that you are a retired law enforcement professional, did you have weapons at your disposal and were trained and licensed to possess/carry them before you retired? If so, as retired law enforcement in the U.S. generally get to keep possessing firearms after they retire (with certain criteria involved), do you get the same possess/carry entitlements as retired law enforcement personnel do here?

 

Yes, mass killings can occur anywhere using a variety of means. So does cancer, car accidents and domestic violence. Your argument apparently is that 'nothing of actual meaning - changes' which essentially means you should do nothing, ever because some mass killings will always occur no matter what. So why restrict this approach to only one topic - firearms? Why not all the other serious issues I listed? People will always get cancer, die in car accidents or be killed by their partners etc no matter what interventions we put in place. So lets do nothing about them either. Except we don't do that do we? No we work on potential solutions, even partly effective ones and implement if the their impact is likely to be sufficient to be worth the cost.

But firearms are different aren't they? We can't consider any sort of interventions in that case can we, not necessarily outright bans (which BTW would almost certainly be less than fully effective in the US anyway ) but any other kind of intervention at all. Not rules around safety training or secure storage, or national background checks and licensing, or any other kind of regulation. No firearms are the only case where nothing can ever be done thus by default nothing should ever be attempted. Interesting how that line of argument works out so neatly for you.

 

Just... wrong. Will you please go look up the use of statistics in science and the essential role it plays there. Especially in fields like epidemiology and physics, especially quantum mechanics. The latter isn't relevant to the topic under discussion the former most definitely is. In public health statistics are central to determining cause and effect in cases where experimental research can't be accomplished and are a key part of public health planning around the world.

 

No I'm pointing out the stark difference between the words 'some' and 'all'. As in banning some types of toilet paper/firearms/any named thing and banning all types of ...

But right of the top you start with 'Me: If you make toilet paper illegal,'.....and end with 'The discussion/argument is not over a firearm type. The argument is over the definition of what "worked" is and how it applies to using firearms for violent crime.'

I don't know what debate your having but I am literally arguing over a firearm type.

This is a point you seem to have trouble with. So putting aside your fixation with arse wiping for a second will you please stop transposing my argument that a ban on some types of weapon has been effective to date to one where I seem (according to you) to be insisting that a ban on all weapons has or will be effective. Keep to the point which is semi-autos, in Australia.

To summarize the ban effected some types of firearm, not all so this means people over here can and do continue to engage in shooting, as a hobby in large numbers. Obviously deranged individuals who are so inclined can also use firearms in mass shootings. But referencing the table you wanted to see (but haven't commented on) there have been on 3 such killings since the ban, one of which involved a banned firearm and 14 prior to the ban. (I discount Port Arthur itself which massively skews the statistics and was the direct cause of the ban.) Once again no shootings with semi-autos after the ban.

"But, if you ban all forms of toilet paper" there you go again conflating some and all. Point to one post where I said ALL. Otherwise see the above.

No mass killings with semi-autos post the ban. How is that splitting hairs, arguing semantics or moving the goal posts for Gods sake? From my first post I have been completely consistent - the ban to date appears to have been effective in dealing with a specific type of offense committed using a specific type of firearm, for specific local reasons that imply it probably won't be as effective if applied elsewhere. No arguing for a ban on all guns or that a bans will work all the time everywhere.

Now the points presented to me can be summarized as follows;
- you are wrong because bans of guns don't work - ever,
- you are wrong because you can't use statistics to prove your point.
- there's no point in trying someone will always be killed by guns no-matter what you do.

One more time. They are... not .... my ... rules..... They are rules adopted by serious researchers everywhere. So I'm sorry if you appreciate consistency, plausibility and coherency in your debates but most people do.

The numbers don't lie. 7 to nil. If it was soccer game it would be a whitewash. Now there's no guarantee that 'perfect' score will continue however desirable that may be but barring one or two incidents every 20 years or so its still an improvement of the figures pre-ban. And no the ban doesn't prevent mass killings by other means but it is ingenuous to argue that as a reason the ban has failed. The legislation banned certain specific firearms as a means of reducing mass shootings with those firearm. It didn't ban industrial poisons or large vehicles of any of the other, far rarer means of mass killing that have been deployed from time to time.

As for 'hardships imposed on the populous', these were marginal at best. Like thousands of others I was obliged to surrender a firearm and was well recompensed for doing so (I got my money back plus a good % more). As long as the firearm was well maintained most people got the same - the idea was to encourage people to hand them in and good prices helped. I also got to keep other firearms I owned at the time until I sold them later privately.

Yes, I was trained to use and carried firearms of different types. And no the law works differently here. Your 'license to carry' is issued and maintained by your employer and ends when you separate. After that you are just Joe Citizen and must comply with the civilian firearms regs applicable to your home State should you wish to own a firearm. But for the lock down I would be going through that process now since I intend to get back into the sport now I have free time.

 

I don't need statistics. I used your words 'cuz they were enough to prove that you were wrong. And I explained just how you are/were wrong in some detail.