Talk:Gun politics in Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Interesting article this one, and the companion one on the UK - thank you. However I wonder about the phrase "groups that might have opposed gun control becuase of their normal political stance". I think that it has to be realised that it is largely a peculiarity of US society and history that right-wing attitudes go with opposition to gun control; in many other loosely "Western" societies, rightest attitudes are associated with support of a "state monopoloy on violence" position, which naturally leads to support of gun control. This is the general position in the UK, for example (though there is also an urban/rural dimension in Britain). I don't want to start an accidental edit war on this one, which can be highly contentious, but would like to check out other impressions and evidence of how attitudes vary here. seglea 09:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Gun registry additions
I have added a section on gun registry and added to the information that was already here for this topic. I realise this is a politically sensitive issue so have tried to remain as non-partisan as possible, drawing the majority of my information from the 2002 Auditor Genral report. Comments/edits are welcomed, I am certainly not an expert on this topic, just trying to make some sense of it. Pasd 16:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Source?
However, Canada has a violent crime rate approximately twice that of the United States.
Where does that information come from? Must be a per capita figure, does it include the same categories of crimes and so on? Sound suspicious, esp. considering Canada's much lower murder rate... Krupo 19:57, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, of course it's per capita. That's what a rate is--not the number of crimes, but the frequency. I don't know about violent crimes, but I've read from multiple sources that Canada's overall crime rate is higher than that of the United States (and Great Britain's is higher than both). Funnyhat 05:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Upon further examination, my suspicions are deepened. My understanding that the claim in this wiki article is correct: Moore seeks to answer, in his own unique style, the questions of why the Columbine massacre occurred, and why the United States has higher rates of violent crimes (especially crimes involving guns) than other developed nations, in particular Germany, France, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and especially Canada. Going to change that claim in the article now. Krupo 20:34, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
I certainly agree with your removal of the statement: "Canada has a violent crime rate approximately twice that of the United States." However, I'm curious about your comment that "some argue that more violent crimes are instead committed with weapons other than firearms, negating Canada's better position." Some may well argue this, but do they have data to support it? Sunray 08:43, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
- In that case, I'm emboldened to completely remove that last part - I included in in deferrence to the other POV, although I don't support it myself. Seems like it's just made-up, though, eh? Krupo 19:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Actually, I was just going to question that statement. I can't find my sources right now, but the comparision was between Vancouver and Seattle. Point being, if you take racial/ethnic groups (and hence (roughly) socio-economic levels (because of imbedded racism in the US)) into account, Canadians are much more violent (in the firearm homicide) category than comprable Americans.
- ~ender 2005-02-26 08:12:MST
[edit] US stats are incident-based
From the article: "Some mistakenly compare government data directly between the two countries (i.e. 958 per 100,000 for Canada vs 523 per 100,000 for the United States) and conclude that Canada is more violent. This comparison is inaccurate because Canada collects the incidence of reported violent crimes, while the United States collects violent crimes committed."
The UCR is also an incident-based system. In fact, the reporting program is called NIBRS - National Incident-Based Reporting System. [1]
Further clarification is needed to explain the difference in reporting criteria that would account for the disparity in rates. And it'd be nice to have some kind of statistical cite for the info, too. 24.148.249.55 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You cannot compare apples and oranges!
This is an excellent and concise history of gun control in Canada. Ignore the propaganda of the anti-gun lobby. Do your own research. Both the U.K. Home Office and the Australian government publish firearms statistics on the web. Make sure though, that you are comparing similar statistics and not mixing them.
The finding is clear that Canada cannot, based on the realities, support the continuance of the gun registry in it's present form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeister (talk • contribs).
[edit] NPOV/Cleanup
This is a terribly written article, full of bias of every kind. The section 'Commentary' is clearly biased against the gun registry, provided a voice for its opponents and ignoring any supporters. The one sentence with a citation is nothing more than a Conservative's political opinion, not backed by any facts. The section on the Dawson College shooting displays a chronological bias: giving too much prominence to the event just because it happened recently. If any shooting deserves it's own section it would be the Polytechnique massacre. The 'Other' section is again commentary masked as an NPOV. Sentences like 'The murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe...has underscored the futility of the firearms registry and the Firearms Act itself.' express an opinion, not fact. Similarly, the Violent Crimes statistics have no place in this article, and were almost certainly placed there by an pro gun-legislation editor. And the 'Complex Political Situation' tries vainly to guess the motivation of the population in its support or criticism of gun control without citing anything at all. It is nothing more than opinion. Seeing as this is linked from a front page article, it should be cleaned up right away - 3:30 , 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Minimum age to purchase a firearm
This article doesn't seem very clear on what the minimum age to purchase a firearm in Canada is. The only figure stated is 16 more than a hundred years ago, and that's can't still be accurate. --—JeremyBanks Talk 03:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- 18 is the minimum age, I am adding this now. A firearm can be used by someone younger, but not purchased. The minimum age for a minor licence is 12. If you are this age and get a licence, you can borrow an use unsupervised a rifle or shotgun. You may use a firearm if you are under 18 without a minors licence if you are under direct supervision of a licenced adult. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/minor_e.asp
- Hey hey, why not throw my name against that above paragraph and link? I have edited the article, I hope it is acceptable by everyone (or at least by most)Pissedpat 08:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's very interesting. Thanks for your contribution! =] —JeremyBanks Talk 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of section on Dawson College shooting
I just reverted the removal of the section on the Dawson College shooting because I feel it helps to put the laws into perspective. I'd appreciate anybody's input on this. --—JeremyBanks Talk 00:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph "This article states firearms registration laws, the shooters name and no information pertaining to the Dawson college shooting. It has no room in the Canadian Gun politics on Wikipedia." by 24.141.244.29 Does not belong in the article, it belongs in the talk page. Regardless of how I feel about whether it belongs in the article or not the main page in not the location to have quarrels. Personally, I would only recomend leaving the reference to the shooting in the article if the event turns out to have an influence upon Canadian firearm law, and even then, more of a simple reference to the event, not a full description including gun model and description of the weapons action. If this event becomes as much of a turning point as the ecole polytechnique then sure put it in. But as it stands, this event will likely go down in history the same way the taber shooting did, a tragic event that had little effect on the law.Pissedpat 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC
The Dawson Shooting incident does not provide perspective into Canadian gun laws and gun politics in Canada. The article should be in another section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dumby1111 (talk • contribs).
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that this particular article needs to stand the test of time as an overview of Canadian gun politics. Tempting as it might be in the moment, we shouldn't turn this article into a collection and commentary of recent and dramatic crimes that involved firearms. I don't see any reason to include a section on the Dawson College incident any more than the hundreds of other historic crimes committed in Canada that involved a firearm. Down the road, if this incident actually changes the politics of firearms, then we can cite it and include it in the article. For now, it's speculation and/or original research. --Ds13 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've just reduced the Dawson College section to what I believe is relevant to an article about politics. i.e. very little, and no more than most incidents involving firearms, of which there are hundreds. All the details of the offender and the firearm are easily found through the main Dawson College shooting article and don't belong here. I still think having a section for this incident is a slippery slope though, so while this is an improvement, I am still in favor of removing the section altogether. --Ds13 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gun Registry
I am sorry but the neutrality is not in question here, it is clearly and absolutly a non-neutral article. It is best for everyone that no information be presented instead of blatently ussubstatiated and wrong information. Removing:
"The legislation was written primarily to avoid situations such as the Oka Crisis rather than irrational behaviour. Notice that the firearm used in the École Polytechnique Massacre (A Ruger Mini-14) is still non-restricted, yet all firearms used by the natives at Oka are now prohibited. The present law requires all firearms to be registered. The cost of the registry has soared from the original two million dollar cost promised by Allan Rock to nearly three billion dollars. This proved embarrassing for the Liberal Government and has led to increased calls for the registry's cancellation. The Liberal government of the day originally claimed that costs would be recovered through registration fees, however the Ministry later decided to waive the fees in an effort to increase compliance rates. This decision has somewhat contributed to the huge increase in the registry's cost; however, most of the costs of the scandal resulted from poor planning, impossible goals, and money being siphoned off to Liberal supporters as part of what came to be known as Adscam.[citation needed]"
Citation needed is an understatement here. The declaration that the registry is costing nearly $3 billion is unnerving. One article by the CBC has claimed that the over $1 billion figure was inacurate that that nearly $2 billion might be more reasonable when including money set aside to dun the registry for future years. I have never, anywhere outside of this wikipedia article, seen a reference to $3 billion. If the best that can be done to support this is a request that someone else finds a citations, I feel that that is to much on the side of heresay to be part of an encyclopedia. Mentioning the Oka crisis with no citation or sliver of evidence is the same. The subarticle Other is in much the same state.Pissedpat 07:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the the Dawson shooting article reflects tabloid reading material and is a standing insult to the contents of Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dumby1111 (talk • contribs).}
[edit] Licensing
I would like to expand on the actual licensing process here in Canada. Info as to what kinds of tests you must take, what kinds of permits you require. The diferrent classifictions: prohibited, restricted and non-restricted firarms, etc. We are missing a lot of info here. Thoughs anyone??Cavell 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The prohibited class includes multiple sub-calsses: 12.2: Fully Automatic 12.3: Automatics Converted to be Semi-Automatic 12.4: Short-Barrel OIC (The guns in this class don't have prohibited qualities, they just look scary.) 12.5: Long-Barrel OIC (The guns in this class don't have prohibited qualities, they just look scary.) 12.6: Handguns in .25(?) or .32 caliber or with a barrel length under 6" 12.7: Inherited 12.6 Handguns Made before 1947 (Mostly Lugers)
Restricted is handguns or Long-Guns with an OAL length of under 26" or a BBL length of under 18.5" in the case of Semi's
Non-Restricted is anything that isn't Prohib or Restricted.
[edit] The answer?
Full on gun control is never the answer, some of the guns people own have sentimental value to them like they belonged to a loved one. if you take away guns completely the bad guys will still find ways to obtain them. How long will it take to realize this?
- The talk page is only to be used to discuss changes to the article itself. Talk pages are not for general conversation or for someone to write their personal views. Please keep this in mind. Windscar77 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simple -- leave it as it is
It's not possible to write a completely unbiased article on such a debatable subject; it would inevitably have a slant to either a conservative or to a "liberastic" point of view. I prefer it being as is, on the conservative side, -- and clearly, that's how the majority of the Canadian population feels (which is proven by the utter failure of the Gun registry project). The views of the vociferous (and somewhat extremist) gun-control minority should in no way be promulgated here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsizintsev (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] "Futility"
Removed this sentence for obvious POV: "The murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta in 2005 and two RCMP officers in Spiritwood Saskatchewan in 2006, in both cases by well known violent police haters who liked firearms, has underscored the futility of the firearms registry and the Firearms Act itself." Using words like 'futility' are clearly POV. Blotto adrift 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Commentary"
Removed this section. It fits poorly with the flow of the article (such as it is) and consisted mainly of uncited statements. The single cited comment was added to the history section. Also, the name "commentary" suggests POV, as someone is providing commentary on the pervious history section. Gun politics in Australia provides a good template for this page. Blotto adrift 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
