Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

loose faith sinks ships? Or loose faith, goes around to all the religions, never staying in the same one for long?

They weren't that bright.

Argh!

If it's of any interest, a podcast interview with a philosopher on gun control.

As I recall the philosopher, Jeff McMahan, had a fairly cold reception here regarding his take on just war theory. I wouldn't bet on a warmer one from those not already convinced by gun control, as the general attitude is that control is an obvious good and McMahan thinks a total or near-total ban is compelling, but I do think it's a useful take on the distinct methods of reasoning employed by both sides of the debate.

Too long; didn't listen:

- Private gun ownership is not necessary for target shooting, as guns can be kept securely at ranges.

- If having lots of guns in the country imperils large numbers of people, the pleasure gained from hunting cannot outweigh the personal security of persons. (Also the pleasure gained from killing other sentient beings is not a morally privileged activity.)

- The argument from self-defence is faulty. The right to own a gun is derivative from the right to self defence, but the latter is derivative of the right to personal security. If it's true that widespread gun possession makes for a society where people are less secure, then the right to personal security is being violated by the right for individuals to own guns. The right to security for all individuals is a more fundamental right than self-defence, and therefore the latter degrading the former cannot be justified on the latter's own terms.

- Attacking the 'root causes' of violence is very difficult. Nobody has a program for how to do that. It's a very long term enterprise. Gun control itself is a way of expressing opposition to a culture of violence.

I've emphasised the above parts as the argument is obviously dependant on those empirical claims. A lot turns on them, as the logic of this sort of gun control argument seems difficult to avoid if they are in fact true.

My personal view has always been a total ban for pretty much these reasons though McMahan expresses them far better than I could. The only exceptions I consider is in rural areas for protection from wild animals (eg. farmers protecting their livestock) and possibly hunting. These are more like concessions I'd be willing give though, as I feel they're about the only acceptable reasons to own a gun. In the case where these exceptions were made I'd argue for some very heavy restrictions on what would be available (basically bolt action rifles and shotguns) along with licensing, registration and storage requirements.

The right to self defense as an extension of personal security is an interesting one I hadn't thought about before.

Ultimately "defeated" by the "personal security AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT" rhetoric.

Two things with regards to this 1) threat from the government isn't creditable, 2) if it was, weapons currently available to civilians is woefully inadequate to defend against the US military. With that firearms are a security blanket and little else against the government and a huge threat to the general safety of the populace. Still not worth it.

I can understand the concern of the gunners, when it comes to looking at 911 response times. A guy in my neighborhood had a random intruder on his property, he called 911 and stayed on the line while waiting for the police. Time for the deputies to arrive: 35 minutes.

The save yourself from the government / overthrow the government stuff is all crazy paranoia IMHO.

That's a problem with the police response system that should be addressed.

Yeah, its a tough one to fix, one can toss a ton of money at the problem to get a huge number of police coverage, but I have a feeling the cost is exponential in nature, especially as you hit the rural areas. What are you going to do, have a police station every 30 miles? That's still a 15 min response time at 60mph.

And then of course, when the cops do show up, the likelihood of them shooting my dogs is much higher than it should be. Or look out if you drive the same vehicle as a cop killer in LA =)


I think the best answer in the long run is to develop non-lethal weaponry that actually works reliably.

A total ban wouldn't work in Canada even though legally they could since owning firearms isn't a constitutional right. Criminals will always get their hands on guns, especially with the world's longest unguarded border with US makes it easier to smuggle firearms. More isolated island countries like the UK and Australia have an easier time banning or having very tough restrictions on firearms.

What about sport shooters? Shooting are legitimate sports in the Olympics. There's competitive shooting like IPSC.

What about hunters? Hunting is part of the foundation of Canada. Canada's oldest company, The Hudson Bay Company, was founded on fur trading.

What about urban people who go camping/hunting in the middle of nowhere Canada (which is most of Canada) and need a firearm to protect themselves from bears or wolves? Under Canadian law, they are legally allowed to have a loaded firearm for defense purposes against predatory animals (the one exception to the law on using a firearm for self-defense).

So basically Canadian gun laws. Although why limit based on the actions? Why not include lever action rifles?

McMahan does address the defence against tyranny argument in the podcast, I just left it out because it was all pretty obvious stuff: personal weapons are no defence against a modern military, military-enforced tyranny isn't a realistic scenario anyway, this attitude is more likely to lead to massacres than be constructive, etc.

While I'm firmly in the gun control camp I'm a bit more ambivalent about a total or virtually total ban, just because the argument expressed by McMahan, which I agree with, is premised on the empirical claim that private ownership makes people measurably less secure. This appears very strong in the context of weak gun control (as it is now) but it's much less obvious in the context of strong regulation surrounding private ownership. That's pretty much what you're saying as regards rural gun ownership, it just seems possible for the same reasoning to a broader application.

To give an example, in a context such as New Zealand, where I live, private ownership of firearms is legal, and in fact quite high given our rural surroundings/history. You must obtain a licence relevant to the sort of gun you want (sporting type, pistols, military-style) and the process of getting one is based primarily on a character and personal situation assessment. You need people to vouch for you, your application will be severely undermined by a violent/criminal history, and you need to convince the police you want a gun for a legitimate purpose, all this involving interviews. You need to attend a safety lecture and pass a written test. Your home will be checked for proper storage conditions, and you can lose your licence for not complying with these. Using firearms is restricted, much more so for pistols (only on certain ranges) and military-style weapons. Importantly self defence is not a valid reason for owning a firearm, and if you use one for this purpose you'd better have an extremely good case for your life having been in imminent danger.

Which isn't to say all this is perfect (there's no universal registration for one) or that this sort of system would work anywhere. We have a population of 4 million, which is a different challenge to 300 million, and nothing comparable to the US in terms of gun culture, much less a gun violence culture. As far as I can tell there were 3 recorded murders with firearms in the last year. Three. Not exactly the same ballpark.

But in principle that sort of approach to firearms regulation, as contrasted with a complete/near-complete ban, I finder harder to fault or be overly concerned about.

So, this guy surprises a burglar crawling in through a window and does what any sensible homeowner oughta: plugs 'im good.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...s-kills-intruder-climbing-through-window?lite

So, not planning much of an investigation, then, officer?

DATELINE Dallas, Texas.

I thought the Castle Doctrine is when your life is immediately threatened and you have nowhere else to go?

No, that's Stand Your Ground. Castle Doctrine is if someone is in your home (or in some jurisdictions, on your lawn), fire away.

Good lord. Heaven forbid someone accidentally going to the wrong address.

Yes, illegal firearms would still be illegal. I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make here.

Honestly, I don't care. Recreational use of guns isn't a compelling enough reason to own one when contrasted with the threat to public safety they represent.

I made allowances for this but if I were emperor, fuck hunting. Also history is a ridiculous reason to base current day policy on, we don't live in the world of a two hundred years ago why should be basing policy on it? HBC isn't involved in a fur trade now so what relevance does that have to anything?

Fuck em, don't go to such places or be aware of the risks if you do. Also the number of actual attacks by bears and wolves on people is minuscule and is less a threat than the weapons would pose. Also people choose to go into the wild and expose themselves to danger, people don't choose to be shot.

That's Stand Your Ground with the addenda that it applies in public spaces, which is an entirely different proposition from your expectations of safety and rights in your home. The Castle Doctrine gets fuzzy in edge cases, as with most things that hinge on perception of threats, but the principle is easy to understand without freaking out about it. Gun control advocates would have much better luck starting elsewhere, because "fuck you, in your own home" has gotten about as much traction as it's ever going to get in the country.

No doubt you are correct as a matter of pragmatism. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

It's not edge cases where The Castle Doctrine gets fuzzy, it's how that principle is applied in certain states. Some have a relatively straightforward "if you honestly believe you or others' are in imminent danger of being killed or grievously harmed, then you may use deadly force" which is more or less what most countries have, just not necessarily specifying the home. Others, however, have additions like "have reasonable reason to suspect another felony, like robbery, is the intent of the intruder" which is very far from reasonable.

I don't know what to say if caring about quite basic distinctions such as these is considered the equivalent of telling home owners they can't protect themselves.

You are in favour of banning firearms. Banning firearms isn't going to solve gun crime, at least not in Canada. Most of the violent crimes in Canada do not involved firearms and those that do the guns are often illegal.

Suicides from firearms in Canada is relatively low compared to that in the US (the average firearm suicide rate per 100,000 population was 3.8 in Canada, compared to 7.3 in the United States) -- about a quarter of all suicides in Canada were committed with firearms (pistols and long-barrel rifles). Gun-related murders have been on the decline in Canada for the past 30 years with gun licensing and other restriction gun control laws.

Gun related crimes aren't higher in urban areas but rather in sparser populated provinces and regions.

How is private ownership of firearms a threat to the public? When was the last time you saw law-abiding gun owner walking around downtown with a non-concealed (and unloaded) shotgun or a long-barrel rifle, even though by law they are legally allowed to? You seem to be painting all gun owners as irresponsible and this is why I have issue with.

Failure to comply with the strict Canadian gun laws could mean jail and seizures of firearms. Drunk drivers can get away with repeat offenses but I don't brand all drivers and drinkers as public safety threats.

The United States' love of guns is partially due to the way their country was founded -- through revolution -- and hence why the pro-gun people keep piping up about needing guns to fight the shadowy threat of "tyranny." However, Canada was founded on hunting and with our vast range of wilderness our connection with gun is through hunting (I personally don't hunt).

Hunting in Canada is heavy regulated -- you need a hunting license and can only hunt the animals you have tags for.

What's with the blame the victim and us-versus-them mentality? Why separate citizens into two categories, urban and rural, for the allowance of firearms? It doesn't take long to leave metro Vancouver to be in bear, cougar, and coyote territory -- my club is located at the top of Burke Mountain (suburb housing development is crawling up it in an alarming pace) in Port Coquitlam and there have been sightings of bears and cougars at the range (ceasefires are called at such sightings and the range officers are armed with shotguns with beanbags to scare off the animals).

Again, why do you say there's a threat of weapon against humans when used for defensive purposes against predatory animals? Canada's strict gun regulations, which involve mandatory gun safety courses, ensures that there are few gun related accidents.

I don't trust fellow drivers but it doesn't cause me to stop walking on the sidewalk or drive around town. And yet drunk driving needlessly kills hundreds of people each year.

Why the hell would VP Biden suggest firing a shotgun into the night/woods without aiming to scare a potential intruder? That breaks the gun safety rule of "Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."

This is my boomstick. You're begging the question.

No, but name something that will lower the number more.

In the US? I don't know. The genie is out of the bottle (over 300 million firearms) and I have no opinion on the 2nd Amendment stuff.

In Canada, I don't think it'll be that significant number considering that most of the gun crimes are done with illegal firearms that are either smuggled from the US or stolen from legitimate gun owners (including police firearms). Smuggling guns from the US is highly profitable for criminals, a $500 handgun from the US would sell about $2000 in the Canadian black market. Gangs prefer handguns (Restricted firearms) and sub-machine guns (Prohibited firearms) because they are easily concealable, unlike long-barrel rifles and shotguns.

According to Statistics Canada the gun-related homicide rate in Canada has been the lowest in 50 years despite a 7% increase in homicides last year.

One way of decreasing gang gun violence is early prevention -- look at disenfranchised youths (poor education, limited life skills, limited prospects for employment) who are at risk of joining gangs and get them into social programs to give them an alternative.

Ha ha, very funny. "Hey Americans, what's the problem? Why don't you just have a less absurd number of guns and also some social programs and while you're at it why don't you get a good healthcare system and some nicer people?" Geez, quit rubbing it in already.

Ending the war on drugs might, mightn't it? Hard to say. I know gang violence is largely for its own sake, but I would think that if the business end of those gangs is primarily drugs they'd have to dry up eventually, right?

There's a vicious gang war here in Vancouver -- the gangs are fighting over turf to sell pot (BC bud) to the US in exchange for guns, which they use to assassinate rival gang members, including their girlfriends and wives. They're getting bolder and have done targeted hits during the day and in crowded public places like restaurants, parking lots, and casinos. If Canada legalized pot a lot of BC's gangs' illegal income would dry up (but that won't happen under the current Conservative government).

You say this as if there were any feasible way to "end the war on drugs". Emphasizing treatment over jail time for addicts is one thing, but how might we handle dealers? Some part of that war will always be active, and that part will involve the portions of the drug problem that cause gang violence to begin with (product and territory).

That said, I think a much more effective means of combating gang violence would be to increase government support for at-risk youth, and for the economically disadvantaged in general.

No I don't! The challenge was "name something that will lower the number [of gun crimes] more [than gun control]." The first and only thing that occurred to me that might hypothetically fit that bill is a complete cessation of the war on drugs. Extremely unlikely, just like comprehensive gun control, but this is a largely theoretical conversation anyway.

Sadly, gun control in general is an entirely theoretical conversation in this country to begin with.

Yeah. The fact that the right feels comfortable combating proposed assault weapon regulations by pointing out how much worse handguns are than assault rifles tells you all you need to know.

In Toronto, the gangs there tend to be kids who are in socialized housing, particularly the infamous Jane and Finch area, which has a lot of low income people of different ethnicities. Unlike organized gang hits, these punks don't care about the people around them and have have shot and killed innocent bystanders in their gang shoot outs in crowded shopping malls, stores, and neighbourhood BBQs.

The Real Toronto, a 2005 documentary on the Toronto street gangs. The kids show off their illegal handguns, which most likely came with the ammo since they can't buy ammunition legally without a gun license.

A Virginia Beach pizza shop owner is showing his support for firearm rights by giving gun owners a 15-per-cent discount to anyone who brings a gun or concealed handgun permit.

Gun ownership has officially become identity politics. How long before the gun obsessed start using the term Firearm-American?

Rhetorical question, right?

Example: My neighbor is an alcoholic. My neighbor is an asshole. My neighbor has a demonstrated temper. My neighbor hates me because a tree. My neighbor owns a gun. Threat level ORANGE.

Isn't that that question the whole uhhh... point of this thread?

Obviously. And by page 57, there should no longer be a need to ask it, but I guess Firearm-Canadians just don't get it.

I'd never heard that story before.

Just reading it has made me dizzy with anger.

Edit: Oddly enough I do remember that episode of Homicide and now I'm annoyed with Homicide for declawing the hard questions of the scenario by having their murdered exchange student dressed like a KISS member and acting all crazy.

I took an intro to sociology class a couple of semesters ago (lol). My professor introduced me to the concept of a primary identity (I think that's the term). It's whatever you mentally fill in the blank in the following with: I am a _________. For whatever reason, firearm owner has become a primary identity. It's IMO partially responsible for the gun but phenomenon, wherein otherwise reasonable people go crazy. To them it's not an abstract question of public safety or weighing legitimately covering public interests. Any movement on firearms is an attack in who they are.

edit: which I guess is basically a longer version of what Jason has said. Firearms have been subsumed into the broader context of culture war and identity politics, to the point where there's not much of an actual policy discussion to be had. From my perspective I'd love to see econometric analysis trying to isolate the impact of firearm ownership rates on public safety because that would be a good starting point for further legislation; from there we could understand the tradeoffs between people's legitimate interests vis a vis hunting, self defense, etc and the public safety implications of gun ownership rates and craft policies in a way that balances the two. Except now it's a culture war issue so GET YOUR GUMMINT HANDS OFF MY MEDICADE or something.