Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

Canada is set to announce it is banning 11 categories of assault rifles and other weapons, including those that have been used in mass shootings.

The new ban will further tighten gun controls that are already stricter than those in the United States.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has long promised to clamp down on firearms, citing a spike in gun crime.​

(Increase in gun crime you? You think? All that mass immigration Canada has taken in over the last 20 years, and now many Canadian cities are looking more like the US, with crime and social problems. Besides that, all this gun crime Trudeau is referring to isn't being committed with the guns he wants to ban)

Officials said the new measures, which will apply to about 125,000 weapons, had been in the works for months and were not directly prompted by a shooting rampage in Atlantic Canada earlier this month.

“We have long been committed to strengthening gun control in this country, including banning military style-assault weapons,” Trudeau told reporters on Thursday.

“There is no need in Canada for guns designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time,” he added, saying an announcement would be made in the coming days...

Among the guns that will be outlawed are the AR-15, the M4, M14, and M16, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, and carbines such as the CZ Scorpion, Beretta CX4 Storm, and Swiss Arms Classic Green.
​

https://archive.vn/ZuclP

 

It is only a matter of time before advocates of greater firearm-related restrictions can no longer hold up the nation of Canada as an example of what can or should be done, as it will eventually resemble the nation of Mexico in terms of violence.

The very fact the nation of Canada is even discussing these proposals, and has apparently been doing so for months, demonstrates the country is not as safe as many would claim.

 

Canada recently experienced its worst mass shooting (22 people dead).

Australia enacted stricter gun control soon after its worst mass shooting in the 1990s. Since then its mass shooting rate has fallen dramatically.

So it sounds like Trudeau is on the right track.

Lives > guns.

 

pfffft!
mass murder still happens in australia, except now the psychos use arson to burn people to death, stabbings & blunt object attacks that have all seen many many people killed at one time...

gun restrictions/bans hasn't slowed the number of mass murders in that country, the numbers of attacks are consistent...

 

False, the mass murder rate has not declined.

 

This is how all gun-banners work, ban a list of guns to make the country safer, when the opposite happens, ban more guns hoping for a different result.

Someone once commented that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is a sign of insanity, a description that fits many of the banners to a T.

 

Isn't it wonderful that Hitler managed to disarm all Jews in Germany making their extermination a cakewalk. (sarcasm, for those inclined to twist things)
I've always maintained that the moment you allow the tyrants to disarm you is the moment you become a willing victim.

Unfortunately if history is any indicator of the future, most Americans will willfully give up their firearms over the next 5 - 10 years depending on who gets elected.

 

Then the nation of Canada, and its current firearm-related restrictions which go far beyond those of the united states, can no longer be held up as examples of what the united states should attempt to do.

Mass killings, however, continue unabated. The method of murder may have changed, but the number of casualties remain unaffected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Since the Port Arthur incident, there have been fourteen incidents in the nation of Australia that have met the four-victim minimum threshold for being considered a mass killing. There have been an additional twelve incidents that were one victim short of qualifying as being a mass killing.

 

The same people who outright refuse to abide by the total prohibitions on illicit narcotic substances, and refused to participate in the healthcare exchange program mandate?

 

Let's see what happens in Canada now after they ban them. I'm going to guess they're going to see a decrease in mass shootings in general.

 

Mass killings, however, will continue unabated. Therefore no meaningful difference will be made.

 

"Mass shootings"

So no other method of killing innocent people concerns you?
Crowds run over by a truck? No problem.
Mass stabbings? No problem
You only care when people die if it was by bullet?

Interesting. because you don't know this, but you're FAR more likely to be hit by a train or get struck by lightning, than die in a "mass shooting"

Hoplophobia is taught to all obedient followers of tyrants....until it comes to the elimination of his foes.

 

Since the Port Arthur incident, the nation of Australia has played host to fourteen separate incidents that meet the definition of a mass killing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Since the same time frame, the nation of Canada has played host to exactly two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

Apparently it is not a matter of firearm-related restrictions making the difference, as the nation of Canada had lesser restrictions while also having less killings.

 

It isn't about crime, to this punk it's about control. Here's hoping very few people comply with this confiscation.

 

Do you grasp for straws because you like straws when you drink, or do you just need them to argue like this?

 

Indeed - a mass shooting is among the every least likely ways you can die.

 

35 people died in the Port Arthur massacre. No mass killing has resulted in as many fatalities since Australia's gun buyback.

Next argument, please.

 

Firstly the ban on assault weapons was NOT put in place with the intention of reducing Australia's total overall murder rate. It was introduced to deal with one specific subset of murders and one specific subset only i.e. that of mass shootings using large capacity semiautomatic firearms. And in that specific crime subset it has been almost entirely successful (1 recent incident involving 4 victims and an assailant armed with a banned firearm that was not handed in during the buyback.)

And while infrequent mass killings have occurred due to other means none have ever reached the level of victims associated with the worst of the shootings.

Furthermore, while the success of the Australian ban obviously upsets so many American firearm owners it does not follow that what worked so successfully here would automatically work as successfully elsewhere be it Canada, the US or some other country. It may, it may not. There are a host of local socioeconomic and legal factors that will be in play not least of which is the manner in which a ban is implemented e.g buy back vs compulsory handover etc.

If I had to guess, in Canada's case I suspect the ban might not be as successful as Australia simply due to 'leakage' across the (very long) land border with the US - one more plus for being an island I guess. But that also doesn't mean their ban won't have a measurable effect or that its not worth trying. It's their country and its their decision. Time will tell.

 

Yes, but in that infamous case, all of the victims were not really killed all at the same time; it was more like a closely spaced in time group of several multiple killing incidents.

So I think if we logically examined what actually happened there, it wouldn't actually make so much sense to ban these type of guns as a reflex go-to response.

Let me repeat again: 35 people did not die in one massacre. It was multiple smaller massacres, committed by the same serial killer on the same day, moving around to different places.

Furthermore, something else to point out, there were also somewhat restrictive laws in place on handguns at the time, which could possibly explain why no one in any of those crowds was carrying.

 

Oh very good. So every school shooting in the US gets divided down into lots of 'little' massacres. Classroom by classroom. Even though they committed by the same gunmen, using the same weapons at the same geographical location. And that makes it sooooo much better than adding them all together. You should right a note to every one of the parents concerned, explaining how its not actually as bad as it looks.

And your final argument ... if everyone carried handguns maybe, no guarantees given, no way of saying for certain, hypothetically speaking etc etc fewer (number unspecified) people might have died at Port Arthur.

Except of course the assailant was armed with an assault rifle which as a class out range, out power, out capacity and generally out shoot handguns, all other factors being equal. So maybe everyone at Port Arthur that day needed to be carrying assault rifles instead. But that also means - since by default you can't tell in advance in any given population who exactly is going to 'go postal' at any given time you are also arming every potential psychopathic, socially isolated, angry, homicidally inclined loser in the country as well.

Sorry but I'm having trouble grasping how exactly how does that scenario actually 'improves' things for us over here?

 

Thus an admission that mass killings have indeed continued unabated in the nation of Australia.

Fourteen incidents in a twenty three year period is hardly a marvelous accomplishment. Simply because they have not reached the same number as the Port Arthur incident does not change anything. No mass shooting in the united states has managed to rival the death toll of Stephen Paddock, despite no firearm-related restrictions being implemented since then. Should such be taken to indicate no new firearm-related restrictions are needed in the united states?

Why has the nation of Canada had so few mass killings compared to the nation of Australia, despite not having the same degree of firearm-related restrictions?

 

Why has the nation of Canada had so many fewer mass killings than the nation of Australia, despite their firearm-related restrictions being nowhere near as strict as the nation of Australia?

 

Mass killings or mass shootings.? As far as shootings go the number (of incidents) are IMO probably so similar enough as to be statistically irrelevant given the similar population sizes. Massing killings? Show me the figures, I am aware of lists of such killings for both countries going back into the 1800s but again I'm not sure if the difference is enough to really be worth commenting on.

Also as far as I am aware our firearm regulations weren't that much different from Canada's as to be a real factor (at least until we tightened ours in the late 90s). We still have access to hunting rifles and shotguns (less than 5 rounds) and pistols which ar licensed individually. There are in fact now more firearms in Australia now than there were before Port Arthur, just different types.

As for mass shootings? I don't know whose total is higher per head of population, Australia's or Canada's? not without doing a lot of research anyway. If Canada does as you put have 'so many many fewer shootings' (and as I said I'd need to see the figures proving this was actually the case) I would hazard a guess at there being a lot of sociological, and historical issues at play. Or it may just be the heat. Who knows?

 

Since both incidents are defined by body count, that being a minimum of four individuals killed in the same incident, not counting the perpetrator, both mass shootings and mass killings are being counted simultaneously, as the only differing factor is whether or not a firearm is used. If mass killings are still being committed, meaning the method of murder is the only thing that has changed, no meaningful change has actually occurred at all, since high body counts are still being racked up.

As to the figures relating to such, the following is presented for consideration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

From the time of the Port Arthur incident, fourteen mass killings have been committed in the nation of Australia, and an additional twelve incidents that were only one death short of constituting a mass killing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

During the same time frame in the nation of Canada, three mass killings were committed.

In the united states, for as long as the incidents have been recorded, the majority of mass shootings in the united states have been committed with handguns, no different than what are available for use in the nation of Australia. Despite grabbing the most headlines for sensationalism purposes, firearms such as the AR-15 are used exceedingly rarely, despite how commonly owned they are. The deadliest school shooting in the united states was committed with two handguns, with magazines limited to ten rounds of ammunition each.

In light of such facts, what is truly preventing another mass shooting from being committed in the nation of Australia, with the firearms that the public has access to?

Not fewer mass shootings, but fewer mass killings. Meaning incidents where firearms were involved and not involved are counted together in the interest of accuracy.

 

You list is incomplete.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ass-shootings-in-recent-history-idUSKBN1KV2BO