Your target-shooting brother here. Tell me this. If you were to be convinced to give up your beloved paint brushes, the ones you’ve used and coveted all your long, long (long) life, the ones you sorted through using trial and error to eventually collect your favourites at no small expense, the ones that gave you enjoyment and peace, interaction with like-minded people and camaraderie, the ones you used for decades with zero harm to anyone and then found out the arguments used to convince you were based on biased information that was totally wrong but once you found out it was too late and you could never own paint brushes again, would that be cool with you? It’s ok, I know the honest, unemotional answer. Of course it’s ‘no’. That’s the proposition legal gun owners are looking at right now.
Let’s look at what’s being claimed by one of your ‘infallible’ sources. “50% of guns used in crime were originally legally owned Canadian guns”. This misleading statistic that police and gun control advocates love to repeat is untrue. These numbers were originally claimed after finding a small cherry-picked study in BC a few years ago. In this study there were 783 firearm trace requests made and out of those 229 could be successfully traced and out of those 50% had domestic origins. Try to find that high percentage in an Ontario, Toronto or nationwide study. You won’t. That’s less than 15% of the original request number. It’s more than likely the remaining untraceable firearms weren’t domestic in origin. Granted, 15% is 100% too many but this is but one example of false information feeding the current hysteria.
Then, after citing one case where a criminal sold off his guns over a 5 month period (intimating all of these guns went on to be used in crimes) the ‘reliable’ source goes on to insinuate this means all gun owners are doing the same. I have been a responsible firearm owner for over 40 years and I’ve never met nor heard of a legal firearm owner who would even consider doing this. It would mean jail time and likely a lifetime ban from possessing a firearm, as it definitely should. The ‘cop who would never lie or exaggerate to further an agenda’ claims the 50% number then goes on to say there have been 40 cases of legal guns being sold in the last few years that they have investigated. With 220 gun related crimes in Toronto this year alone I’m not sure what math is being used to come to that 50% conclusion other than the deceptive study he used.
Look, you’d be hard-pressed to find a legal, Canadian firearm owner who wouldn’t agree there is a serious problem with gun related violence in some major cities in Canada, especially Toronto but banning firearms in any given city is a silly, knee-jerk reaction that will have no noticeable effect on violence. The criminals who use guns to perpetrate violence on others will still have a time tested, reliable pipeline for illegal firearms: our gun-happy neighbour to the south. The legal gun owners within the given city, the ones who have owned and used their guns safely and responsibly for years and years unnoticed will be the only ones affected. And the crime will continue.
I find the silence on information regarding the Danforth handgun deafening. Does its origin not mesh with the current narrative? Or (hopefully) are the police just investigating thoroughly before making a statement?
Talk to cops out on the streets and they have a different perspective. One that I share. Profiling and carding people both work to reduce crime! Now that cops are prohibited from these ‘controversial’ practices criminals all know that as long as they don’t openly brandish a concealed firearm or do something illegal right in front of a cop they are free to go about their business without being searched. Criminals basically free to carry firearms and mentally ill people acquiring a firearm are pretty much the gun problem in a nutshell. The Danforth shooter acquired his gun from his brother who, while having been in a coma for the last 18 months, belonged to a street gang and the gun is from the states. Whether legal or not has not been disclosed yet.
Like you Lisa, I would give up my firearms (and they’re worth a fuck-ton more than your paint brushes!) but I would have to be convinced through calm, logical discourse that such a gesture would have a positive effect. I see no evidence of that so far. Spreading lies and bombastic statements to people who may know better is not the way to go. (think Trump-lite).
If the people out there screaming for change want to really make a change and save innocent lives you can make the Canadian roads safer. There are almost exactly ten times the number of innocent men, women and children being killed on our roads every year as there are people from gun violence. Where’s the outrage? These aren’t people involved in crime being targeted for some reason. They are just people from all walks of life going about their day and being killed not through violent intent but through blatant indifference or total incompetence by another driver. All so called ‘accidents’ are preventable. I’m definitely not trying to downplay the topic at hand but if you’re looking to be outraged there’s ten times the bang for your buck.
1. I would pack up my paint brushes and turn them in myself. You are mistaken on that point.
2. Who called the police source “infallible”? Certainly not me.
3. I clearly said that the stats referred to the guns whose origins were traceable.
4. Your evidence is anecdotal. Your experience is AN experience. Police and others who keep stats look at the whole picture.
5. The comparison to driving is just ridiculous. You could make the same argument about ladders (people don’t position them right) and scatter rugs (people place them and others go flying) and tree nuts (they make people choke). We are talking specifically about guns. Items that were developed in order to kill people.
OK then, let’s go point by point.
1. I didn’t ask if you would still pack up your brushes and turn them in. My question was “would you be cool finding out the reason you gave up your beloved hobby was totally based on false premises?” Again, at the risk of answering for you, I would assume any reasonable person would answer “no”.
2. While you didn’t use the actual word ‘infallable’, you insinuated as much in a conversation we had the other day when you asked me “who would know stats better than a cop?”
3. Yes you did say “where traceable” but it still leaves a vast opportunity in this particular case for their use of misinformation. By not being further specific about the origin of your stats you are intimating that they apply to the topic at hand-Toronto, which they do not.
4. Not sure what you’re referring to here. Let me clear something up though. Some branches of some police agencies collect stats but their ‘whole picture’ is strictly limited to the parameters of each set of statistics they collect. As we see in this particular case as in a disturbing number of others, these stats can be easily manipulated by any individual or politician or police officer to further an agenda. If you’re going to rely on statistics for your argument they should at the very least be relevant.
5. My intent wasn’t to compare cars and guns. They are just two things that exist that are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. One much more so than the other. I was comparing peoples’ reaction to each and honestly, I’ve always been mystified how unnecessary loss of life on the roads is just accepted. Weird.
6. Bonus round. I own several firearms. Different kinds, different styles, different calibres, different capacities. Handguns, rifles, shotguns. Regardless of what they or their distant relatives were originally designed for, mine are used solely for target shooting. None have ever been used for anything nefarious or even pointed empty in a direction that could cause theoretical harm if loaded. They are stored safely and legally. None of my neighbours even know I have guns because they’ve never seen them. They’ve never heard them. I’ve never mentioned them. They’re one of my hobbies and I enjoy getting together with like minded friends and putting holes in paper or hearing the satisfying sound of lead hitting a steel target a couple hundred yards away. Gun restrictions or all out bans only affect law abiding people like me.
Oh Lisa – this is such an emotional topic. I have never seen a real gun, nor do I have any desire to. It is so frustrating when people say ” what about banning cars, knives, blunt objects etc because those kill people too”.. but they all have other uses and were not designed to injure and kill, which is the JOB DESCRIPTION of a gun. Maybe knives were invented to kill animals back zillions of years ago, but we do use them in our daily lives for many other things. I too am at a loss for words. Gang members shooting each other is horrible enough, but when a family can’t go out for a Sunday night ice cream there has to be major changes. I also don’t think banning guns will change much because the people doing these horrible acts of destruction don’t care about the law. And putting money into helping people with mental illness is wonderful, but you can’t force help on people.