2nd Amendment: In the home only?

Zonker

Super Anarchist
9,268
5,196
Canada
More likely, it will _increase_ as the criminals lose fear of a homeowner or small shopkeeper shooting his arm off.
That isn't really a thing here anyway. Small shopkeepers just don't keep a gun behind the counter. It's illegal.

About 6% of the population has a gun license but estimates of about 11% actually own a gun. Probably a lot of them are "dad's old hunting rifle" they still have or that they inherited sort of thing because you only needed a license for about 20 years. In the far north almost all families have a rifle for hunting.

We do have burglary and the very rare home invasion but I can't think of ANY time I've read of Canadian homeowner using a gun to shoot a criminal breaking into their house.

I read a study some time ago about "why do Canadians own guns?" Hunting was the reason something like 89% of the people gave. About 5 or 6% said "self defense".

So if you make it harder and more costly to get a pistol, it doesn't mean criminals won't have them. It just means they will be less likely to have them. Which is a good thing.
 

Zonker

Super Anarchist
9,268
5,196
Canada
I think it's about 1/3. Yup. ~30%


But it's mostly handguns which is a bit surprising. I guess "home defense" is their reason.

1660150848246.png


If the amount you can trust a citizen depends on his wealth, I suppose that's true.
I don't quite understand your point. In Australia, where guns are even more heavily regulated than Canada, crimes with guns are fairly uncommon. The high cost of buying illegal guns does seem to be a deterent to criminals getting them. They have bills to pay too.
 

Mike in Seattle

Super Anarchist
4,219
478
Latte land
In the far north almost all families have a rifle for hunting.
These people are ;
(1) among the least likely to be professional criminals,
(2) will be harmed by loss of food availability.

So if you make it harder and more costly to get a pistol, it doesn't mean criminals won't have them. It just means they will be less likely to have them. Which is a good thing
Zonk, you know that criminals don't buy their guns from a store.
They know that any kind of background check will get them busted.
, and we talked about this in another thread


Black market guns show up in our cities,
, and they are smuggled across the border into your cities


Anyone have the US stats/estimates?
CA vs USA stats are a meaningless distraction in this discussion of Mandatory Buyback
 

Zonker

Super Anarchist
9,268
5,196
Canada
Zonk, you know that criminals don't buy their guns from a store.
They know that any kind of background check will get them busted.
Yes, exactly.

By banning legal handguns the cost of a black market gun increases. Which may put it out of the reach of the average petty criminal.

The drug dealers can afford black market guns and are price insensitive consumers. We're trying to reach the people on the low end of the demand curve who don't really see the need to pay $2000 for a pistol.
 

veni vidi vici

Super Anarchist
2,107
435
Yes, exactly.

By banning legal handguns the cost of a black market gun increases. Which may put it out of the reach of the average petty criminal.

The drug dealers can afford black market guns and are price insensitive consumers. We're trying to reach the people on the low end of the demand curve who don't really see the need to pay $2000 for a pistol.
You must work for the fascist regime in Kanada
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
By banning legal handguns the cost of a black market gun increases. Which may put it out of the reach of the average petty criminal.

The drug dealers can afford black market guns and are price insensitive consumers. We're trying to reach the people on the low end of the demand curve who don't really see the need to pay $2000 for a pistol.
So you want to "reach" poor people and make the choice that's best for them? How noble.

Thing is, gun ownership is a right down here. Try to imagine if someone suggested "reaching" poor people and making it more expensive and difficult for them to vote. For their own good, of course. Just as poor people don't know how to defend themselves, they don't know how to vote properly and might vote for an orange man. It happens.

Do you see how this sounds to those of us who don't pick and choose, but want to protect ALL of our rights?

It sounds, as I said, like you trust rich people with their rights, but not poor ones.

On any other issue, a chorus of voices would now point out that poor people are often minorities. I've mentioned several times in this thread how minorities are systematically abused by law enforcement on this issue. Silence. We have a whole Black Lives Matter movement about that subject, but it seems that while black lives might matter, gun grabbiness matters a whole lot more.

That's why it's fine for you to suggest making the exercise of rights expensive and difficult for poor people, many of whom are minorities. Their rights don't matter all that much.
 

Zonker

Super Anarchist
9,268
5,196
Canada
I am talking about criminals here in Canada. Rich or poor. Poor criminals won't be able to afford black market guns.

Canada banning handguns has nothing to do with US gun rights. Unless you're worried about us setting a bad example.
 

silent bob

Super Anarchist
8,583
1,204
New Jersey
Yes, exactly.

By banning legal handguns the cost of a black market gun increases. Which may put it out of the reach of the average petty criminal.

The drug dealers can afford black market guns and are price insensitive consumers. We're trying to reach the people on the low end of the demand curve who don't really see the need to pay $2000 for a pistol.

What he's saying is "Only Criminals will have guns!"
 
So you want to "reach" poor people and make the choice that's best for them? How noble.

Thing is, gun ownership is a right down here. Try to imagine if someone suggested "reaching" poor people and making it more expensive and difficult for them to vote. For their own good, of course. Just as poor people don't know how to defend themselves, they don't know how to vote properly and might vote for an orange man. It happens.

Do you see how this sounds to those of us who don't pick and choose, but want to protect ALL of our rights?

It sounds, as I said, like you trust rich people with their rights, but not poor ones.

On any other issue, a chorus of voices would now point out that poor people are often minorities. I've mentioned several times in this thread how minorities are systematically abused by law enforcement on this issue. Silence. We have a whole Black Lives Matter movement about that subject, but it seems that while black lives might matter, gun grabbiness matters a whole lot more.

That's why it's fine for you to suggest making the exercise of rights expensive and difficult for poor people, many of whom are minorities. Their rights don't matter all that much.
1660263081481.png
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
Appeals courts have some rethinking to do



So what kinds of weapons should the people have if they form a militia? Those least useful in military service! Hey, it makes as much sense as indoor militias.

The 9th Circuit wants to delay thinking about Young v Hawaii as much as possible.

...

As those who have observed this fight, and commented on it over the years, have noted, the Ninth Circuit is actively hostile to exercising Second Amendment rights. It is not an exaggeration to say the Ninth Circuit actively dislikes the concept of a right to keep and bear arms.


Instead of telling Hawaii to follow the standards put forth in Bruen, the Court remanded Young back to the District court, essentially telling George Young to start all over from ten years ago, albeit, with a new understanding from the Bruen decision.


A strong dissent, written by Judge O’Scannlain, and joined by Judges Callahan, Ikuta, and R. Nelson against the seven-member majority of the eleven-member en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, points out the needless delay created by this maneuver. From the dissent, p. 12:


Today we shy away from our obligations to answer the straightforward legal questions presented on appeal and to provide guidance to the lower courts in our Circuit. And in doing so, we waste judicial resources by sending the parties back to square one at the district court. The parties have waited a decade to resolve this litigation, and Young has waited over ten years to exercise his constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Because we opt not to decide this simple case, we force Young to wait even longer.

A cynical observer, such as this correspondent, might consider delaying the point of the maneuver.
...

Especially a cynical observer who recalls the kicking and screaming when DC and Chicago were gradually forced to abandon their gun bans. Here we go again.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,544
1,710
Punta Gorda FL
NY City is kicking and screaming too, while engaging in a bit of pointless posturing.

As of yesterday, "gun-free zone" signs now adorn roughly 36 blocks of Midtown Manhattan, from 40th St. to 53rd St., between 6th and 9th Avenues, in what has rather expansively been deemed Times Square.

Though many New Yorkers have perhaps fantasized about shooting the vendors who hawk Lion King tickets, or taking aim at tourists in cargo shorts who seem too enthusiastic about the M&M store, Times Square was not up until this point a place rife with crime stemming from lawful gun owners. As such, this move should probably not be viewed as New York politicians using a data-based approach to solve an actual problem, but rather as a reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which in June overturned a New York law requiring that those seeking concealed carry handgun licenses demonstrate to authorities that they have "proper cause" to do so.

...
Still, declaring 36 blocks of Manhattan off-limits for those who wish to carry presents all kinds of hurdles for lawful gun owners. It also arguably goes against what the justices writing for the majority in Bruen already said on the matter: "Put simply," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas, "there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department." Though 36 blocks is a far cry from the whole island of Manhattan, it'll be interesting to see if such a broad designation holds up in court, especially as "Times Square" has traditionally been defined much more narrowly, as roughly a five-block cluster between 42nd and 47th St.
...

Makes the worry that SCOTUS will do away with all their pointless restrictions seem more than a bit overblown.
 
Top