Yes. I think they should be concerned. 22 people being mowed down with some ease should be concerning to us.
I think there are many things that should be more concerning to us. Canada has a very low number of firearms deaths per year, and when we get to the end of this year, even with the 22 killed in Nova Scotia, it'll still be a very low number.
Also, should be pointed out that the killer didn't shoot 22 people in one session. As I understand it there was a mass shooting (7 victims) followed by a series of single-victim murders. And I gather they aren't even sure how many were killed by shooting and how many were killed in fires. This was someone driving a police car and dressed as a police officer... he could very easily take his victims by surprise, and could have probably killed them just as easily with a knife, club, or single-shot weapon.
People are concerned about mass shootings because of an irrational amount of media hype that has given people a very distorted perception of the size of the problem. Like terror attacks, it's a topic that makes people very emotional but doesn't actually cause much death.
Yes. Legal guns made illegal. That’s how this would work. The $12B is your number. I have no idea what the real number would be.
There are over 2 million gun owners in Canada, and an estimate of about 12.7 million guns. The very large majority of those are NOT single-shot. Assuming an average price of $1000 per gun gets us to $12 billion quite easily, before we even get to administration and enforcement costs.
I think it might save more than a few.
Maybe if we were willing to spend an even larger amount of money and act in an even more draconian fashion we could reduce the number even further. As firearms homicides in Canada are so few to start with, and that most are committed with handguns, and that most of those handguns are sourced from the US, I think you're already far past the point of diminishing returns. "The Squid Plan" isn't rational.
Easy access to “legal” guns means access to illegal guns is easier too. Why can’t you go out and easily get an automatic weapon On the black market in this country? Because they haven’t been available for decades. It’s not impossible, but it’s not easy either. That same thing would happen eventually to handguns and guns with magazines under The Squid Plan.
The vast majority of guns in Canada are typical hunting firearms-- bolt action rifles and shotguns. And yet these constitute a small portion of guns used in homicides. Despite the vast number of Elmer Fudd shotguns in Canada, that isn't what the gangsters in Toronto are using to shoot each other.
And of homicides that are committed with long guns, the vast majority are single-victim killings, not mass shootings. Depressed farmer shoots his wife before shooting himself, that sort of thing. These could be just as easily committed with a single shot gun as any other.
Do you think that government money is unlimited? Do you think that given the enormous expense you're proposing vs the very minimal number of lives that might be saved, the money could be better spent in other ways?
No and no. I think this would be a very good program and would help more than you think it would.
You seriously don't think there are better uses for $12 billion than stopping possibly a handful of deaths? One example I already gave you was that Naloxone kits and outreach/treatment facilities for addicts would save far more lives for far less money.
Expensive? Sure. But we can do it with a 1% GST hike. That’s not so bad.
In a year that the government has spent an unprecedented amount of money dealing with the pandemic, I think proposing to spend billions of dollars on a project of such doubtful value is incredibly foolish.
Divisive? Well... why would it be divisive? This is what I don’t get. The Squid Plan would still allow hunters to hunt and shooters to shoot. What is divisive about that?
You don't get why taking away people's firearms would be divisive? Take away someone's favorite rifle and tell them to go buy some government-mandated piece of crap that's annoying to use if they want to continue to shoot? Many of these are family heirlooms that have been in the family for generations, some are collector's items or antiques. You really don't get that people would be upset at having to surrender their firearms?
Also, what are people going to shoot with? There aren't actually many single-shot hunting rifles, because nobody likes single-shot rifles. Maybe the government could step in and fill that void with the "Justin-12" shotgun, the "Justin-1" centerfire rifle, and the "Justin-22" rimfire rifle. These delightful government-approved guns would take 2 minutes to load to reduce the chances of them being used in a mass shooting! They could be made of high-vis yellow plastic and have safety regulations printed on the stock, along with a picture of our fearless leader. I can imagine this would be very popular with hunters and shooters.
Total BS argument. I now many, many people who live in grizzly areas who have grizz in their yards who don’t have guns and don’t start blasting at bears when they show up.
Cougars? You’re more likely to be shot by your neighbour thinking you’re a bear than to be attacked by a cougar.
People hike in areas with cougars and bears with nothing but granola bars and a little bell and virtually none of them are eaten.
Nice try.
And you're more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a mass shooting in Canada, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to spend billions of dollars to prevent it.
Also, why are you nanny-state people so confident in telling other people what they need or don't need?
Members of my family have lived in rural areas for a long time, and have used firearms for hunting as well as for animal protection. That includes protecting the chickens from predators like coyotes, or shooting the badger that maimed one of the dogs. They didn't have a grizzly on their doorstep, but one of the neighbors did.
-k