╌>

Opinion: What we can learn from Canada on gun control

  
Via:  Buzz of the Orient  •  3 years ago  •  9 comments

By:   Opinion by Jooyoung Lee

Opinion: What we can learn from Canada on gun control
Canada's [2019] firearm-homicide rate was less than a sixth of what it was in the US.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Confucius

Confucius


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.

800

© 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.

BB1g0NfC.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=734&y=129

© 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

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    3 years ago
"Even worse, we learned after each of the three shootings that family members and friends had been concerned about these young men."

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. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1    3 years ago

Canada's version of "Trumpsters" fight against Justin's attempts just as hard.

 
 
 
exexpatnowinTX
Freshman Quiet
2  exexpatnowinTX    3 years ago

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.

Standing Guard | What Enforcing The “Laws On The Books” Would Actually Look Like

Link: 
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  exexpatnowinTX @2    3 years ago

Your link produces this message, and I don't think it has anything to do with where I'm located.

Error 1020 Ray ID: 645b2f1f1ff9eb75 • 2021-04-25 22:59:50 UTC
Access denied
What happened?
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. 
Cloudflare Ray ID: 645b2f1f1ff9eb75 • Your IP: 125.86.107.159 • Performance & security by Cloudflare
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.2  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  exexpatnowinTX @2    3 years ago

When I click your link I get this message, and I don't think it has anything to do with where I am located.

Error   1020

  Ray ID: 645b2f1f1ff9eb75 •   2021-04-25 22:59:50 UTC

Access denied

What happened?

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks.

 
 
 
exexpatnowinTX
Freshman Quiet
2.2.1  exexpatnowinTX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2    3 years ago
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.

Standing Guard | What Enforcing The “Laws On The Books” Would Actually Look Like

by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President - Tuesday, April 20, 2021

“There is no honor in buckling to the will of the NRA. This is a change that law enforcement has been asking for and will make it easier to go after gun-trafficking rings.”

—Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) upon introducing the “Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act”

“Criminals get their hands on tens of thousands of guns every year through illegal trafficking. States with weak gun laws often serve as suppliers of guns to states with stronger gun laws. Law enforcement is constrained by insufficient laws to crack down on gun trafficking.”

—Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety

Those statements are total fiction. They are lies that deny the existence of very real and explicit federal statutes providing tough penalties for all imaginable aspects of illegal firearms trafficking. That denial of truth—especially by politicians and law-enforcement officials who know better—reflects a long-existing malfeasance contributing to rising violent crime rates in America’s cities.

In 1997 and as recently as 2015, I addressed the false claims that laws against gun trafficking were “minimal” in this very column. Today, it is worth revisiting because the truth is as powerful now as it was then.

If existing criminal sanctions under long-standing federal law were enforced, here is what would happen to a typical interstate trafficker, whom I will call “Maloney’s gun trafficker.” This habitual criminal is a felon with multiple convictions, a drug user and a fugitive from justice. His “customers” are likewise convicted felons in the illegal drug trade, two are fugitives, and all are from out of state.

Maloney’s gun trafficker takes orders for firearms from his customers—five specific handgun models, one each for his separate criminal buyers. Maloney’s gun trafficker drives to another state, enters the shop of a federally licensed dealer and settles on the five handguns he wants. He fills out the obligatory 4473 and falsely answers a list of questions, swearing under penalty of law that he is the lawful purchaser and that he is not prohibited from gun possession. With his fake ID, he is cleared by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

On the way back to New York, Maloney’s gun trafficker stops off to visit a fellow criminal who fences stolen guns and buys a flashy, engraved 1911—with the serial number obliterated—for himself. Maloney’s gun trafficker then returns to New York City and transfers his five handguns to his drug-dealer “customers,” knowing the guns will be used in crimes of violence involving the drug trade.

So, let’s look at what the gun-ban crowd describes as “weak federal laws,” and how they apply. They are found in the U.S. Code, Title 18, under a chapter titled “Firearms.” I’ll total the penalties under what the gun-ban crowd calls “weak” federal laws.

For starters, it’s a federal felony for a resident of one state to acquire a firearm in another state, except under stringent dealer requirements. Private interstate sales between individuals trading in any firearm is illegal (Sec. 922(a)(3)). The penalty: five years in prison on each count.

Since Maloney’s gun trafficker sells his five guns to five different individuals, each transaction is counted, so his five guns apply in every violation. Here it adds up to 25 years in prison.

It is a federal felony for “any person” to “transfer, sell, trade, give, transport or deliver any firearm to any person” who the person knows, or has reason to know, does not reside in the same state (Sec. 922(a)(5)). The penalty: five years in prison on each count. Five guns: 25 years in prison.

If an out-of-state resident buys from a dealer and makes a false statement in purchasing a firearm, or provides false identification, those acts are federal felonies, five years on each count (Sec. 922(a)(6)). Falsely filling in the Form 4473 is a crime punishable by 10 years in prison per count. Since Maloney’s gun trafficker used fraudulent identification and lied, and swore falsely on his 4473s, three separate crimes occurred under this section. Five guns: 150 years in prison.

It is a federal felony for a convicted felon to buy, receive, transport or possess any firearm or ammunition. Under Sec. 922(g)(1), each action mentioned—purchase, receipt, transporting or possession—is a 10-year federal felony. If applied just to the five guns, that’s 50 years in prison. Receiving the guns from the dealer amounts to 50 years in prison. Transporting the guns to New York City is a 50-year prison sentence. These crimes call for 150 years in prison.

The exact same penalties apply for the same acts committed by a fugitive from justice (Sec. 922(g)(2)). Since Maloney’s gun trafficker is a fugitive, that’s another 150 years in prison. The same penalties apply to known drug users (Sec. 922(g)(3)). So Maloney’s gun trafficker is subject to another 150 years in prison.

Since he has more than three felony convictions, he’s subject to penalties in Sec. 924(e)(1), which provide for a mandatory 15-year sentence on each count. Here alone, Maloney’s gun trafficker should get 75 years with no hope of getting back on the street.

In completing transactions with his “buyers” in New York City, he commits another host of federal crimes. If a violator of the Gun Control Act can be shown as intending to commit a state or federal felony involving the firearm, he has committed an additional federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison on each count (Sec. 924(b)). Five guns: 50 years in prison.

Under Sec. 924(h), “Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence ... or drug trafficking crime ... shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years.” Maloney’s gun trafficker knows his “customers” are violent drug dealers or drug users. Five guns: 50 years in prison.

It is a federal felony for any individual to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to a convicted felon (Sec. 922(d)(1)). The penalty: 10 years in prison on each count. Five guns: 50 years in prison.

It is a federal felony for any individual to sell, or give a firearm or ammunition to a fugitive from justice (Sec. 922(d)(2)). The penalty: 10 years in prison on each count. Two of his customers are fugitives: 20 years in prison.

It is a federal felony for any individual to sell, or give a firearm or ammunition to a person unlawfully using or addicted to a controlled substance (Sec. 922(d)(3)). The penalty: 10 years in prison on each count. All of his customers are drug users: 50 years in prison.

If any violator of the Gun Control Act provisions can be shown as intending to commit a state or federal felony involving a firearm, that individual has committed an additional federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison on each count (Sec. 924(b)). So, here again, Maloney’s gun trafficker is subject to multiple counts of 10-year federal felonies with his five guns, which will be used in numerous crimes by his customers, including mere possession by them as prohibited persons, and mere possession is an illegal act under New York law. This total would be, at the very least, another 50 years in prison.

In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(i) criminalizes transport and possession of a stolen firearm and calls for a 10-year prison term for each offense.

And then there’s the little matter of the scraped-off serial number. 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) covers possession, receipt, shipment, or interstate transport of a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number. Conviction brings five years in prison.

Add it all up, and Maloney’s gun trafficker should be facing a grand total of 1,020 years in prison.

It is an undeniable truth that our criminal-justice system already has more than enough laws on the books to put criminal gun traffickers away for a very long time. Likewise, it is an absolute lie when gun-banners like Maloney, President Biden, Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi say that current gun laws are “weak” or nonexistent.

So why don’t gun-ban politicians ever demand that tough existing laws be enforced? Because their goal is not safety. Their track record clearly shows that they have no interest in protecting anyone, save for the criminals. Their only goal is to malign NRA members and law-abiding gun owners en route to destroying the Second Amendment.
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.2.2  seeder  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  exexpatnowinTX @2.2.1    3 years ago

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?

"This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks."

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.

 
 
 
exexpatnowinTX
Freshman Quiet
2.2.3  exexpatnowinTX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.2    3 years ago
"This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks."

Ok..   you got me on that.  I must surmise they don't want any Communist Chinese hackers messing with them.

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.

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.

But I ALSO read the China Daily to get the other side of the story and I'm sure you don't.

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 .

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4  seeder  Buzz of the Orient    3 years ago

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.

 
 

Who is online


Gazoo
CB


94 visitors