Legal gun owner violence is incredibly rare in Canada. I’d rather focus more resources on illegal firearms.
FYI:
“But if we look at the studies on this, we find that the vast majority of firearms that are used in shootings both fatal and non-fatal are being purchased legally at one point in time. And then they’re diverted.” (SOURCE)
The same interview also said:
“One of the core findings that they came away with was that gun bans tend to have a very good effect in terms of reducing gun violence rates. So this is not political posturing. This is social science at work. This is researchers surveying 130 peer-reviewed articles and coming away with this conclusion.”
In a case like this with domestic abuse, the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily with a kitchen knife. The gun isn’t the problem here, the abuser is the problem.
This is not true.
Justice Canada wrote in a report that:
“According to Reiss and Roth (1993: 262), the choice of a weapon in violent domestic disputes may well be “the nearest available object that can project force.” In contrast to other types of homicide, the authors concluded, it would seem likely that in domestic disputes “the instrumentality rather than intent contributes most of the firearm’s lethal effect” (Ibidem).” (SOURCE)
It’s been studied and known for decades that guns in the home increases the risk of homicide towards women.
You can come to your own conclusions, but I think the data is quite clear, and public safety should come above all other considerations when it comes to firearms.
This Source clears up that the majority of gun crime is commited with hand guns, which have now been banned. About half the hand guns were originally obtained legally, but very very rarely used by their legal owner. I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime. Banning rifles is unlikely to significantly reduce gun crime. The guns being used are already banned. A legal firearm in the hands of someone without a lisence becomes an illegal firearm. Just like a restricted weapon is illegal for a PAL holder but not for RPAL holders. The focus needs to be on illegal firearms and the flow of firearms from legal sources to illegal sources (theft and black market sales).
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime.
The report says:
“Among incidents in which the firearm had initially been obtained legally, the accused was the legal firearm owner in 44% of cases (24 of 54 homicides).”
44% is not rare!! That’s alarming.
Even more damning is:
"Among the incidents in which the firearm had not initially been obtained legally, or in which the firearm was not legally owned at the time of the homicide, and for which this information was known (49 homicides), the firearm had been stolen from the legal Canadian owner in eight cases, and in five other cases, it had been purchased illegally from the legal Canadian owner.
Furthermore, Stats Canada also states that, “rifle or shotgun” represent 30% of firearm-related homicides, so the number is significant.
I think we do have a problem that needs to be examined deeply by our elected officials.
I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
The fact that you’re trying to bring legal ownership to this discussions means that you are claiming that the origin of guns is an important detail. But at this point we already know that reducing the presence of guns in this world is good, and we already know that making it harder and harder to acquire guns helps reducing the presence of guns. So while true that legality matters in crime statistics, the main point still stands: gun laws can and should be more strict. There’s never going to be a point in time where this sentence is not true, unless guns stop existing.
FYI:
“But if we look at the studies on this, we find that the vast majority of firearms that are used in shootings both fatal and non-fatal are being purchased legally at one point in time. And then they’re diverted.” (SOURCE)
The same interview also said:
“One of the core findings that they came away with was that gun bans tend to have a very good effect in terms of reducing gun violence rates. So this is not political posturing. This is social science at work. This is researchers surveying 130 peer-reviewed articles and coming away with this conclusion.”
This is not true.
Justice Canada wrote in a report that:
“According to Reiss and Roth (1993: 262), the choice of a weapon in violent domestic disputes may well be “the nearest available object that can project force.” In contrast to other types of homicide, the authors concluded, it would seem likely that in domestic disputes “the instrumentality rather than intent contributes most of the firearm’s lethal effect” (Ibidem).” (SOURCE)
It’s been studied and known for decades that guns in the home increases the risk of homicide towards women.
You can come to your own conclusions, but I think the data is quite clear, and public safety should come above all other considerations when it comes to firearms.
This Source clears up that the majority of gun crime is commited with hand guns, which have now been banned. About half the hand guns were originally obtained legally, but very very rarely used by their legal owner. I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime. Banning rifles is unlikely to significantly reduce gun crime. The guns being used are already banned. A legal firearm in the hands of someone without a lisence becomes an illegal firearm. Just like a restricted weapon is illegal for a PAL holder but not for RPAL holders. The focus needs to be on illegal firearms and the flow of firearms from legal sources to illegal sources (theft and black market sales).
The report says:
“Among incidents in which the firearm had initially been obtained legally, the accused was the legal firearm owner in 44% of cases (24 of 54 homicides).”
44% is not rare!! That’s alarming.
Even more damning is:
"Among the incidents in which the firearm had not initially been obtained legally, or in which the firearm was not legally owned at the time of the homicide, and for which this information was known (49 homicides), the firearm had been stolen from the legal Canadian owner in eight cases, and in five other cases, it had been purchased illegally from the legal Canadian owner.
Furthermore, Stats Canada also states that, “rifle or shotgun” represent 30% of firearm-related homicides, so the number is significant.
I think we do have a problem that needs to be examined deeply by our elected officials.
The fact that you’re trying to bring legal ownership to this discussions means that you are claiming that the origin of guns is an important detail. But at this point we already know that reducing the presence of guns in this world is good, and we already know that making it harder and harder to acquire guns helps reducing the presence of guns. So while true that legality matters in crime statistics, the main point still stands: gun laws can and should be more strict. There’s never going to be a point in time where this sentence is not true, unless guns stop existing.