[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

What Malthus said.

[viper37]

So assault rifle ban. Those of us not currently in Alberta agree this is good thing?

It's pointless and gives a false sense of security to the population.

How many crimes have been commited, over the last 10 years, by legal owners of these weapons?  0.

The problem comes from illegal guns smuggled from the US.  Secure the border, give more than a slap on the wrist to offenders, keep them in jail instead of releasing them after a couple of months for good behaviour and it will be less of a problem.

While living next to the US brings with it many problems, including illegal guns entering the country, it is not accurate to say that guns legally purchased in Canada have not been used by their owners to commit a crime - exhibit A, Marc Lepine purchased the rifle he used at a sporting goods store.

That was 31 years ago.  I did say over the last 10 years.

Controls were tightened, there was a pointless register too.

And right now, the number 1 killer is the handgun.  why no handgun ban?  I thought Toronto had asked for this power to ban handguns in the city...

[viper37]

And now they've made thousands and thousands of legal gun owners criminals if they don't turn in their guns.

So what? That happens with all kind of new laws.

Like when?

Give me an example of a situation where possession of an item that has been legal for decades has suddenly been made illegal.

You'll probably be able to come up with an example, but then you'll realize that it's actually exceedingly rare.

Yes, rare but not unprecedented.  Laws change & you gotta respect them. It sucks when it's not in your favor but that's not a reason to not act. Especially when it comes to gun control.

More people die from drug use every year than by firearms, in Canada.  yet, we have legalized marijuana, and your current party has promoted the legalisation of all currently illegal drugs.

Weird that some killers are ok, and some are not.

[Grey Fox]

Drug prohibitions are racist, especially those enacted on the whims of late Victorian age white protestant man. Fix that mistake first & than re-adjust over time.

Time for our gun policy to be adjusted.

[viper37]

As we all know, the illegal market is made up of guns stolen from legal sources, and guns smuggled in from the US. You can't stop either (any more than you can stop, say, illegal drugs) but you can make it more difficult - the question is whether the cost of such prohibition style measures are worth it.

If we deal in absolute, then this new law is as worthless as the gun registry was.
The idea is to reduce the availability of illegal guns on the market.  And since they come from the US, that what we need is more border security, more police work on our side and increased prison sentences for gun crimes.

The other objection is that this will turn thousands of legal gun owners into criminals overnight. I suggest this is not the case. My understanding is that this will be accompanied by buy-back and grandfathering provisions, to allow current owners to comply.

It's not like the US here, you know.  You can't just walk into a Wal Mart and buy an AR-15 with a magazine sporting 230 bullets that can be fired in one minute.

These are responsible owners, often ex-military, who use it as a past time, to shoot (non human, if I must precise...) targets for sport.  It is a legitimate activity.  One I do not partake in, but it's still legitimate and I see no valid reason to ban it.

This new law is akin to how we control speeding in Quebec.  Most road accidents happen on secondary, single-lane roads, but we enforce the laws on the highways.

This sort of thing isn't unprecedented: the same thing happens every time a regulatory system is tightened on any activity - for example, the introduction of food & drug legislation around the turn of the last century, or on cigarettes. Possession of certain products are outlawed, licensing is required, the concern becomes that previously allowed activities are no longer allowed and that this is too great an imposition on freedom, you can get the prohibited stuff on the black market so what is the point, etc. I'm guessing that many a peddler of patent medicines was annoyed when drug licensing and ingredient prohibition was introduced.  A more directly applicable example is the introduction of pollution controls on cars - suddenly perfectly legal owners had to get their vehicles checked out, and couldn't use them if they failed to pass emission controls.

Increased taxes on cigarettes made it a boon for the black market.

The measures may in some cases be petty or cosmetic, or even not very effective, but the idea is to slowly move social perception in a certain direction - away from widespread acceptance of whatever socially-harmful activity.

I was not aware there was a widespread acceptance of sport shooting with assault rifles.  Given that 80% of Canadians support this silly measure should be a proof of that.

Most Canadians view gun use, outside of target practice or hunting, or for the cops or army, as socially harmful.

So, the idea is, as CC said, to ban all firearms, for target practic, hunting, the cops or the army?   We go back to bows and arrows + lances to hunt deer and moose?

Thus, the idea is that guns should be restricted to those activities alone, in both form and function. These laws are much-derided by gun advocates because the actual function of the gun isn't at issue, so much as the form - they look "scary" or "military-style". To advocates, though, that's the point - there is little benefit, and some harm, to allowing the availability of frightening-looking weapons; they can more easily be used to intimidate, for example — and intimidation isn't considered, by them at least, a legitimate use.

Some people like tatoos and piercing that make them look scary.  Their entire look could be perceived as scary.  Should we discriminate about it?

Bodyguards do look intimidating, that is their job.  Do we outlaw their intimidating looks? 

The people this will harm most are legal collectors of interesting weaponry, but that is a pretty tiny demographic and their hobby is not considered as a particularly significant loss.

Ah, because only a minority practice something, it is totally legitimate to discriminate against them.
Duly noted for further debates on past&current issues...

[viper37]

Drug prohibitions are racist, especially those enacted on the whims of late Victorian age white protestant man. Fix that mistake first & than re-adjust over time.

Time for our gun policy to be adjusted.

Ah.  Because only colored people use drugs, while white people have "higher" moralities.  Right.
I guess Malthus is black? No, wait, he's Jewish and he used drugs.  So, what you're saying is that our drug laws are in fact, anti-semitic in nature?

[Grey Fox]

Yes.

In the specific case of marijuana, it got prohibited before cocaine by white men who used cocaine but not marijuana. Early 20th century drug prohibitions laws are about the fear of others. Especially non-white, non-christian other.

[Valmy]

I thought white people drink so that is why booze was legal while drugs weren't if I have that "disliking drugs is racist" narrative right...I mean except in the US South where we outlawed both.

[crazy canuck]

I thought white people drink so that is why booze was legal while drugs weren't if I have that "disliking drugs is racist" narrative right...I mean except in the US South where we outlawed both.

Not quite.  In Canada much of the impetus for outlawing opium was anti Chinese sentiment and followed the recommendations of a report into anti Chinese riots which occurred in Vancouver.  Plenty of white folks used opium.  But it was the Chinese who supplied and sold it.

[Valmy]

I thought white people drink so that is why booze was legal while drugs weren't if I have that "disliking drugs is racist" narrative right...I mean except in the US South where we outlawed both.

Not quite.  In Canada much of the impetus for outlawing opium was anti Chinese sentiment and followed the recommendations of a report into anti Chinese riots which occurred in Vancouver.  Plenty of white folks used opium.  But it was the Chinese who supplied and sold it.

Ah well I was mostly thinking of the Marijuana issue. Opium probably should be a controlled substance. The Chinese certainly agree on that.

[Barrister]

I thought white people drink so that is why booze was legal while drugs weren't if I have that "disliking drugs is racist" narrative right...I mean except in the US South where we outlawed both.

This is the Canada thread, so I can say I don't think that's true, at least in Canada.  That's because Canada's alcohol prohibition was already in effect!  It was brought in at different times but by the end of the war (WW1) it was prohibited in all provinces.  Looking it up, marijuana was prohibited in 1922, and alcohol was gradually re-allowed over the next few years.

[crazy canuck]

I thought white people drink so that is why booze was legal while drugs weren't if I have that "disliking drugs is racist" narrative right...I mean except in the US South where we outlawed both.

Not quite.  In Canada much of the impetus for outlawing opium was anti Chinese sentiment and followed the recommendations of a report into anti Chinese riots which occurred in Vancouver.  Plenty of white folks used opium.  But it was the Chinese who supplied and sold it.

Ah well I was mostly thinking of the Marijuana issue. Opium probably should be a controlled substance. The Chinese certainly agree on that.

The Chinese at the time certainly did not agree.  Opium has a wide range of medicinal uses and many of the Chinese residents of Vancouver were using it and prescribing it as such.  It can be abused to be sure but banning it completely was a mistake.  Not that the policy makers of the day cared to delve into those sorts of nuances.  It was used by the Chinese and cutting it out forced many of the Chinese who had developed businesses related to opium (and their Chinese employees) - which was likely the point of the law.

You are probably referencing the Opium Wars.  The Chinese at the time living in Vancouver noted the hypocrisy.

[Valmy]

I meant now.

[Malthus]

If we deal in absolute, then this new law is as worthless as the gun registry was.
The idea is to reduce the availability of illegal guns on the market.  And since they come from the US, that what we need is more border security, more police work on our side and increased prison sentences for gun crimes.

The problem with the gun registry was that a huge amount of cash was spent on it, and it was widely ignored. This is the prohibition of a bunch of models of guns. Not nearly as expensive or difficult to enforce.

I agree that border protections are important, but objections like this are a type of "whataboutim" - in this case, 'what about border protection?'. The two things are not mutually exclusive - you can have both. 

These are responsible owners, often ex-military, who use it as a past time, to shoot (non human, if I must precise...) targets for sport.  It is a legitimate activity.  One I do not partake in, but it's still legitimate and I see no valid reason to ban it.

Their identity is kinda irrelevant, though. Are you under the impression the new measure Bam target shooting? They do not - they ban certain models of guns. You can still shoot or hunt with other models.

The imposition on freedom is pretty minor - you can't buy certain models.

[wuote]Increased taxes on cigarettes made it a boon for the black market.[/wuote]

That's my point - any measures taken to regulate anything always tend to provoke the same objections: the black market will benefit, they will only be followed by the law-abiding, etc. Sometimes these are legitimate, other times not so much. Depending on the facts.

I was not aware there was a widespread acceptance of sport shooting with assault rifles.  Given that 80% of Canadians support this silly measure should be a proof of that.

These are not, in fact, "assault rifles" (already banned long ago). These are more properly characterized as 'scary looking rifles'.

The issues on both sides are pretty clear: on the one side, freedom to own what you like, pointing out that they are not functionally any different from 'legal' guns; on the other, pointing out that you can own a 'legal' gun that works exactly the same but which isn't as intimidatingly "military-style", likely time be *mistaken* for an "assault rifle" when (inevitably) some find their way into the hands of criminals.

That, it seems to me, is what the debate is about.

Most Canadians view gun use, outside of target practice or hunting, or for the cops or army, as socially harmful.

So, the idea is, as CC said, to ban all firearms, for target practic, hunting, the cops or the army?   We go back to bows and arrows + lances to hunt deer and moose? [/quote] [/quote]

I think you misunderstand - "outside of" means that target practice and hinting are the acceptable uses.

I myself use guns for target practice! 😉

Some people like tatoos and piercing that make them look scary.  Their entire look could be perceived as scary.  Should we discriminate about it?

Bodyguards do look intimidating, that is their job.  Do we outlaw their intimidating looks? 

This isn't something entirely subjective - you can't actually kill others with the hideousness of your tattoo. 😄

Ah, because only a minority practice something, it is totally legitimate to discriminate against them.
Duly noted for further debates on past&current issues...

You should probably learn the difference between a "minority" and a "legally protected minority" for future debates ... hint: people who collect stuff for a hobby are not a "legally protected minority". 😄

[Monoriu]

First time I have heard about the relationship between opium and Chinese.  I learn something new every day.  When I was in Vancouver, there was still some lingering resentment about historical treatment of Chinese immigrants in Canada.  But the issue most often mentioned was the head tax, not opium.  Chinese are very conservative about drugs.  Very few people will argue that anti-drug laws are bad.