Opinion: What we can learn from Canada on gun control
By: Opinion by Jooyoung Lee
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Opinion: What we can learn from Canada on gun control
In the last month, we have witnessed a barrage of mass shootings across the United States. In each of three shootings -- in Indianapolis , Boulder , and Atlanta -- we learned that the suspects bought guns legally. Even worse, we learned after each of the three shootings that family members and friends had been concerned about these young men.
© Andrew Harnik/AP FILE - In this March 24, 2018, file photo, Isabel White of Parkland, Fla., holds a sign that reads "Americans for Gun Safety Now!" during the "March for Our Lives" rally in support of gun control in Washington, that was spearheaded by teens from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School after the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Fla. President Biden faces an uphill battle as he tries to push for more state laws that would allow authorities to temporarily disarm people who are considered a danger to themselves or others. State lawmakers, governors of both parties and former President Donald Trump embraced the so-called red flag laws after the 2018 mass shooting in Florida. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
You can't read these news stories and believe that US gun laws are working. There are plenty of ways to circumvent background checks through private sellers and other loopholes . When they are actually required, the criteria used to identify high-risk people prove inadequate to keeping guns out of their hands. A recent FBI study shows that 75% of mass shooters between 2000 and 2013 either bought their guns legally or already possessed them.
Buying a gun from a licensed dealer in America is too easy. Prospective gun owners fill out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Form 4473 , which asks whether they have been convicted of a felony, involuntarily hospitalized by court order, or dishonorably discharged from the military, among other questions about their personal history. Dealers then share this information with the National Instant Criminal Background Check system , and a decision is typically relayed within minutes. These checks are not exhaustive enough and the suspects in the recent shootings in Indiana, Boulder and Atlanta sailed through this system, even though they had documented personal struggles, mental health histories or family members and friends who flagged them as unwell.
© Geoff Vendeville Jooyoung Lee
As an American living and working in Canada, I've had a chance to see a better system at work. Gun control laws aren't perfect in Canada, and there are ongoing problems with gun violence north of the border, but the system up here is better at keeping guns out of the hands of people looking to use them for violence. This is evident in Canada's firearm-homicide rates, which are a fraction of what they are in the US. In 2019, Canada's firearm-homicide rate was less than a sixth of what it was in the US .
Canada's federal licensing system is a big reason for this disparity. Buying a gun in Canada is like getting a driver's license. You have to apply for a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) -- a process that involves a variety of background checks with a minimum 28-day waiting period for new applicants who do not have a valid firearms license. You have to take a safety training course. You have to provide personal references who can vouch for your character. You have to renew the license every five years or else you can be charged with unauthorized possession under the Firearms Act and Criminal Code.
Not only does this process help identify high-risk people at the time of purchase, it also provides a way for law enforcement to keep tabs on gun owners, whose lives continue evolving after they buy a gun. The Canadian system acknowledges that a person might experience trauma, suffer from acute mental illness and go through other life changes that would put them at risk of using a gun to commit violence against others or themselves. The US system is a one-time snapshot of a person's life before they buy a gun. Licensing and renewal in Canada provide an evolving picture of a person's changing risk profile over time.
Currently, 14 states in addition to DC have some form of licensing law; of those, 10 states have licensing in the form of "permit-to-purchase" requirements, which typically require prospective gun owners to apply directly to a state or local law enforcement agency to obtain a purchase permit first. Research by Kara Rudolph, Elizabeth Stuart, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster shows that Connecticut's 1995 "permit-to-purchase" handgun law was associated with an estimated 40% decrease in firearm-related homicides in the first decade it was in effect. Similarly, removing licensing requirements is associated with increases in suicides with firearms. A study by Cassandra Crifasi, John Speed Myers, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster found that firearm suicides went up 16% after the removal of "permit-to-purchase" handgun laws in Missouri.
Talks about implementing a federal licensing system gained some traction a couple years ago when New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker introduced the Federal Firearm Licensing Bill , which would have expanded the criteria used to screen prospective gun buyers. Under this plan, attorneys general would have more information about prospective gun owners and could deny licenses to people who violate stalking restraining orders, as well as gun traffickers and people with histories of making threats of violence. Even though the National Rifle Association might try to tell you differently, these are not controversial early steps in a massive gun grab. These are modest expansions of a failing background check system. Unfortunately, this bill died in the Senate.
In the wake of so many mass shootings, it's easy to feel like there is no way out of this tragic mess. But there is a way forward. It begins with admitting that the current instant background check system isn't working. It then requires a system that takes into account how people's lives change over time and how their risks of committing violence ebb and flow with these changes. A federal licensing system is a modest start.
.
BUZZ NOTE: Comments are subject to the Confucius group RED RULES which can be accessed by clicking on the Confucius group avatar at the top right of this page.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
I've mentioned that before - I've said that invariably the family of a mass murderer is going to say, to defend their loved one, he/she had mental problems, so if they knew this and knew he/she had a gun WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY REPORT IT??? And even when they DID report it, I've read of cases where the officials did fuck all about it. Why? Because America has a gun culture, and guns are LOVED in America, and in fact, at this point they are NEEDED in America. Now we'll see the comments here by the gun lovers, who will say the Second Amendment allows us to be gun lovers, or it's people who are the problem, not the guns, or there are more people who are killed with knives or cars than guns, and the only one I acknowledge is logical is that "we need them to protect ourselves from so many who have illegal guns like criminals, etc." because that probably is at this point correct, which is why I said they are needed. There is no doubt in my mind that the Trumpsters and Republicans and conservatives are going to fight reasonable gun control laws like the controls Canada has TOOTH AND NAIL. Watch it happen, I know I'm not wrong.
Canada's version of "Trumpsters" fight against Justin's attempts just as hard.
Before we get into new laws to be ignored, what say you that we actually enforce those we already have, and modify HIPAA laws to allow those facts to be included in the NICS database.
If anyone is interested in how those laws would work instead of being ignored to get a plea deal on grossly reduced charges, try this article. I know people will despise the writer, but what the writer indicates is in fact the truth and is quite telling as to what can happen to offenders if the violation(s) is not ignored.
Your link produces this message, and I don't think it has anything to do with where I'm located.
When I click your link I get this message, and I don't think it has anything to do with where I am located.
I tend to believe it most certainly does have everything to do with where you're located. I know numerous people from multiple countries around the world that have had no problem. Of course, none of them have to deal with a dictatorship that censors everything the people of their country see, hear and read.
I have cut and pasted the entire article just for you.
You are completely wrong about the "censoring" of that article. You are simply reiterating America's present ignorance and hatred of China, but I think that after almost 15 years of living in China I have a more intelligent understanding of it. You are wrong for two reasons:
1. I am a lot more familiar than you with what message comes up on my computer screen when something is censored, and the reason I made the point I did about what I saw is that it is totally different, and in fact seems to indicate that the censorship was at source. What do YOU think this line from the message I quoted above means?
2. I am also a lot more aware than you of what DOES get censored here, and the subject matter of the article is NOT something that the Chinese censors would consider even a minutely sensitive matter. People don't have guns in China, there are no mass murders or gun violence and violence such as a knife attack IS reported by the media here. Only the military, bank money delivery van guards and special police SWAT teams have guns. Even bank guards don't have guns. Regular police do not have guns, and unless a very unusually successful smuggle has been perpetuated the people do not have guns. Guns were found and confiscated from the Uyghur terrorists years ago and are displayed in a museum.
Yes, there IS censorship here, I cannot open Facebook or Twitter and I really don't give a damn that I can't. I do miss YouTube and Wikipedia although there are alternatives here like bilibili and Bing, but every day I read the CTV NEWS(Canada Television News) website, and the MSN American and World compendiums of multiple American and other western new sources (none of which are censored), and I can even read the FOX NEWS web site but normally I don't because of garbage like Tucker Carlson. But I ALSO read the China Daily to get the other side of the story and I'm sure you don't.
Ok.. you got me on that. I must surmise they don't want any Communist Chinese hackers messing with them.
Which is the reason the people live under the subjugation of their Communist dictators. Submit or be imprisoned or die. Not very good options if you ask me.
Oh, you DO have guns, but it's only the military and police to control you.
You've got to be fucking kidding!!!
China Daily ( simplified Chinese : 中国日报 ; traditional Chinese : 中國日報 ; pinyin : Zhōngguó Rìbào ) is an English-language daily newspaper owned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party .
Yeah, it's true that the people not having guns like Americans does mean the people can't start a war against their government, but then I happen to know that, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, NOT YOURS, that the people in the China mainland are happy, except for a small faction, a MINORITY of Uyghurs for wanted to separate from China in Xinjiang and committed terrorist acts. I'd say the VERY VERY VAST majority of Chinese people look aghast at the mass gun violence in America and are glad they are in China. I know I do. Why are the people here happy? Because their life is improving every single day, I've been here almost 15 years and I've seen it happening WITH MY OWN EYES, and I'm NOT a Communist.
No I'm NOT kidding - I have NO respect for anyone who refuses to even consider the other side of what they are programmed to believe. I guess I have to tell this story again. On my very first day in law school, the Dean gave the first lecture. One of the things he said was that if we refuse, or are incapable of learning and understanding the OTHER side of a legal argument that we are promoting or defending as well as our own side of that argument, then we might just as well quit law school today.