OTTAWA — A prominent gun control group is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney to swiftly implement Liberal election promises on firearms and avoid the foot-dragging that left many pledges under the previous government unfulfilled.
Am I misunderstanding, or is the article you linked from 1995? I have a feeling a lot has changed with fireams related homicides since then. Especially with the advent of firearms being built out of a bunch of disparate parts.
Few recent Canadian mass shooters had criminal records of any kind, for example, and most obtained their weapons legally (although the Portapique killer did not).
the remaining 20 to 25 per cent of firearm deaths that are not suicide, the data is unclear but appears to follow the Canadian homicide pattern of 31 per cent resulting from family violence. The presence of a gun in a household struggling with heavy drinking, domestic violence and other stresses is inherently intimidating and deadly.
The family violence crisis is not just about deaths; it’s also about the health of the home environment. Thousands of Canadian women and children are forced to seek shelter from violence and abuse every day, while many more live in fear.
The northern and rural regions of all provinces experience significantly higher homicide rates than southern and metropolitan regions.
So although the overall picture is complex, the dominant themes are remarkably clear. Given the driving patterns of self-harm and gun violence, a phased-in reduction of easy access to weapons is likely to yield significant results over time. This isn’t controversial, as it’s worked for many other countries for decades.
Thank you for providing this information. Your previous link really didn’t paint the image I think you wanted to.
I think a lot of the disconnect woth people is that a lot of Canadians are faced with what they perceive as a lot more grave issues endangering peoples lives. And it differs between provinces and even as your links state municipal vs rural areas.
I think because we don’t have the constant threat of mass shootings the likes of the USA, those in areas less impacted by fire arm deaths are more apathetic. Or maybe just view it as we’ve done enough.
Obviously governments should have the capacity to deal with multiple issues at once, but I think people really get caught up in the “why are you worrying about this, when X thing is way more dangerous.”. It might come off as whataboutism, and often times it can be, but I think k its just as easy to say that person hasn’t been as broadly effected by guns and someone else.
Am I misunderstanding, or is the article you linked from 1995? I have a feeling a lot has changed with fireams related homicides since then. Especially with the advent of firearms being built out of a bunch of disparate parts.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/06/02/opinion/surprising-truth-about-gun-deaths-canada
Thank you for providing this information. Your previous link really didn’t paint the image I think you wanted to.
I think a lot of the disconnect woth people is that a lot of Canadians are faced with what they perceive as a lot more grave issues endangering peoples lives. And it differs between provinces and even as your links state municipal vs rural areas.
I think because we don’t have the constant threat of mass shootings the likes of the USA, those in areas less impacted by fire arm deaths are more apathetic. Or maybe just view it as we’ve done enough.
Obviously governments should have the capacity to deal with multiple issues at once, but I think people really get caught up in the “why are you worrying about this, when X thing is way more dangerous.”. It might come off as whataboutism, and often times it can be, but I think k its just as easy to say that person hasn’t been as broadly effected by guns and someone else.
Why not ban alcohol instead?
Here’s more whataboutism. Stay on the topic at hand.