[riku_iki]

> to a logic and data based restriction approach

and what would data tell why guns have to be restricted?

Some questions:

- what the fraction of gun crimes are commited by law-abiding citizens, which would be actually subject of restrictions?

- is number of casualties high compared to casualties from knife fights, over-doze, obesity, and car accidents because of speeding

Is there data for this question which would back restricting populations from having tools of self defense against tyrannic government(could happen in Canada too one day) and make it high priority for society compared to other problems?

[watwut]

No crime is ever committed by law abiding citizen, by definition. That being said, lawfully acquired guns are routinelly used in crimes.

Plus, they make gun owning men (specifically) much more successful at killing themselves.

Plus they cause accidents.

Guns are waay more likely to be used by tyrants supporters then by anybody else. Case in point, republicans support president dismantling democracy and own more guns.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

The best take of the current US situation is still "NRA fails to live up to its only reason for existing and doesn't stand up to the tyrannical government"

[mindslight]

It was clear they were full of shit when they didn't stand up for Kenneth Walker, which was the exact fucking night time home defense scenario they're always fantasizing about.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

Yeah.

I mean its been obvious to many they're full of shit for decades, but that was the 'If anyone still thinks they aren't full of shit after this" line...

[blackeyeblitzar]

> lawfully acquired guns are routinelly used in crimes.

They are literally almost never used in crime. So “routinely” is false. In fact, I would guess that 99.9% of lawfully acquired guns in America are only ever used in lawful ways.

> Case in point, republicans support president dismantling democracy

Democracy is not being dismantled. If you’re an American citizen, you still have the right to vote however you want. You can still say what you want and publish what you want. You can protest if you are doing so in legal ways.

If anything, the end of massive censorship in social media, like was seen in the last 10-15 years, is helping democracy. Now you can actually share ideas freely and not get your content or account banned. And the elimination of wasteful spending of taxpayer money on political nonprofits is also helping democracy by not having the government bias politics through this loophole.

[watwut]

You are wrong in both points.

Plus the worry now is executive actively harming companies and opposition. Retaliating against companies, against law enforcement, breaking laws while doing both, attacking press and stomping on people's rights. Not some kind of flimsy complaint your account was banned after you harassed several people.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

>They are literally almost never used in crime.

It absolutely depends on the type of crime. Domestic murders most often happen with 'legal' guns north and south of the border.

Other crimes, specifically 'aggravated' crimes that involve a weapon however lean the other way where guns are mostly 'illegal' in some way (stolen, smuggled, person doesn't have the right to have due to criminal record or otherwise depending on state/country).

Both domestic and aggravated crimes happen enough that you can justify the use of 'routinely' in both cases. Its ALSO completely true that most legally acquired guns are only ever used legally.

>Democracy is not being dismantled.

- Legal visa holders being deported for criticizing the government - Foreign nationals invited to conferences in the US denied at the border for criticizing the government - Government officials stating they will go against legal/judicial orders - Executive over-reach specifically to remove checks and balances and ensure what remains of government agencies and its staff are loyal to the person, not the president or the country. - Violating multiple laws, overstepping the bounds of the executive office specifically designed to protect democracy and assuming powers of the legislative and judicial branches - Attacking Judges for implementing the law/doing their jobs as part of the above - Professionally and personally threatening members of the legislative branch, state governors and others if they oppose the acts of the President.

Democracy and what democratic protections you have is absolutely being dismantled right in front of you.

>If anything, the end of massive censorship in social media, like was seen in the last 10-15 years, is helping democracy.

I just logged back into facebook after a few years haitus. The majority of what was on there was provably false / fake. Its worse than it ever has been. This is SUCH a benefit to democracy (hint, its not).

While I will agree there has been overreach on censorship, the pendulum swing the other way on top of the enshittification of the internet and the introduction of AI means the average citizen is now less informed and more propagandized than ever. Add in the failings of the US education system and the abysmal literacy rate...

An educated and informed population is bedrock of democracy, checks and balances are its framework. The US foundation has crumbled and its buildings are on fire.

[ygjb]

Not to be too glib, but rather than citing a theoretical need to stage an uprising, why not measure something more direct and practical, like the number of mass shootings. Some stats - https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-...

Yes, a tyrant could take over, but the only credible threat Canada has had of that since the second world war has been our most powerful ally 'joking' about annexing us. A well-armed militia wouldn't really help to stop that given the difference in equipment and headcount between the Canadian military, and the US military.

If Canadians decide that Canada needs one, we should implement a method to drive enrollment in the the Canadian Army Reserves, or implement a home defense militia that folks could enroll and participate in with a guarantee that they couldn't be deployed outside of Canada (I was in our armed forces, and would not join a volunteer unit that could be deployed overseas, but would immediately sign up for one that was only legally allowed to be deployed domestically for defense).

[hmmm-i-wonder]

Agreed!

As a Canadian, I'd love to see a resurgence of Cadets, Reserves and other methods of training civilians in proper gun use, self defence and methods to integrate with militias/military command in the event we need to domestically defend ourselves.

We are smack in the middle of 2 former enemies, which in their current trajectory will become allies while making us one of their new enemies... We need to have a serious national conversation about that.

[riku_iki]

> like the number of mass shootings. Some stats

I think your link doesn't have actual mass shootings number, my bet is that majority of fire arm homicides are commited by some small caliber hangguns (unlikely to be restricted) in domestic violence setting. Wikipedia says that massshooting casualties are only 0.2% of gun deaths in USA.

[ygjb]

My point was really that American style gun rights are not popular in Canada, and the theoretical tyrannical government isn't an adequate justification.

You can argue the merits for or against, but more than 60% of Canadians support outright bans on firearms, and more than 80% support bans on 'assault' weapons.

This is not a hugely controversial topic in Canada; personally I support hunting, and recognize the utility of firearms as someone with a rural upbringing. I also support very strict gun controls and regulation, and I don't agree that there should be a right to bear arms - it's a privilege that should be earned, and well defended through testing and responsible ownership.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

Its usually not hugely controversial, but there is that small minority here too...

Some points I feel compelled to make:

About 52% of URBAN voters support outright firearm bans but that number goes down when rural is added. I've always believed regulations for urban and rural environments should be different when it comes to firearms.

The vaguely defined "assault" weapons clarification always draws criticism so i'm going to avoid it. Personally I support banning fully automatic weapons, concealed/shortened shotguns, high capacity drum magazines, bump stocks and other items that exist to increase lethality in ways that cannot be justified for sport or hunting purposes. I also support restricting handguns, restricting magazine sizes, and other regulations. Most people that are against assault weapons I personally talk to agree the looks aren't the problem its the capabilities. Tacticool is fine, any gun being used for a crime will be scary. My point is that there is a lot that can and can't be included in 'assault' weapons, and everyone has their own list of what they do and don't think applies, so that 80% number isn't homogonized on what they are supporting.

We both 100% agree its a privilege that should be earned not a right. Testing and responsible ownership are requirements of keeping that privilege. Steps need to be taken to ensure that volatile domestic or mental health situations that are known to police and communities aren't left to fester with easy access to weapons. We also need to focus on illegal guns crossing our border from the south.

[bellgrove]

> Is there data for this question which would back restricting populations from having tools of self defense against tyrannic government(could happen in Canada too one day) and make it high priority for society compared to other problems?

The US has these tools and a dictator upending the country and yet these tools are not being utilized.

[riku_iki]

half of the country supports him, so he is not really dictator.

[acdha]

It’s a third, but also that’s not a criteria for “dictator” – the term refers to unchecked power, and while over time that tends to build resentment it’s not a given. This is especially true when they favor certain religious or ethnic groups where the beneficiaries like the dictator and everyone else does not.

[riku_iki]

Its up to discussion if current president's power is really unchecked.

[acdha]

Sure, but that’s what makes someone a dictator, not whether they poll well.

[riku_iki]

Poll is an actual check, that his actions are aligned with what population wants from him. Laws and institutions are always not perfect, and all governments violated some rules.

[dragonwriter]

Popular dictatorships—as most tend to be, at the beginning—are still dictatorships.

What makes a dictator is a ruler unconstrained in practice by law.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

>and what would data tell why guns have to be restricted?

We have banned, restricted, and unrestricted classifications. There are good arguments for fully automatic weapons, concealable shotguns and handguns being at least restricted, and for fully automatic and concealable weapons to be completely banned. I'm not going to rehash the arguments, because frankly we're likely going to disagree on most of them and neither of us are going to benefit from rehashing the debate. There are many arguments and viewpoints, but the salient fact is 85% of Canadians view the arguments and decide gun control under some logical framework is needed and support it, while Americans largely take the opposite side which can be traced to cultural and other differences between the countries.

That being said, the fact that the majority of non-domestic gun crimes are done with restricted/banned weapons that are being illegally imported from the states demonstrates a few things.

1. restricting access to those weapons is in fact the correct approach 2. internal restrictions need to be accompanied by stricter border enforcement due to the prevalence of guns and gun culture south of the border. Making it difficult to get legally needs to be superseded by making it incredibly difficult to get illegally first/foremost.

If anything good is coming from the current political nonsense, Canada's stepping up border protection has actually made Canada safer from US drugs and guns illegally crossing the border north, while having almost no impact on the traffic south as Canada Border agents don't stop or search traffic moving south without specific requests from US officials (something most Americans seem to misunderstand about border crossings)

>Is there data for this question which would back restricting populations from having tools of self defense against tyrannic government

Is there data comparing the known and predictable harms to a population having open and unrestricted access to weapons (see the impact of US social problems exacerbated by gun culture vs other countries) vs the concept that it would in fact help in 'self defense against a tyrannical govt'?

Frankly the 'standup against a tyrannical govt` argument has held little weight for decades as modern militaries and equipment vastly outclasses what any civilian can and will have even in the US. A proper democracy with checks and balances will serve far better than any number of civilians with military purpose weaponry, in fact the argument more so applies to a strengthened education and judicial system to ensure tyrants can't bloviate their way into power and remove all checks and balances.

[riku_iki]

> and equipment vastly outclasses what any civilian can and will have even in the US.

not really. In urban setting, it is still the same soldier on foot with rifle, unless military decides to level all cities in the country.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

We will have to disagree on this.

>unless military decides to level all cities in the country.

See Gaza, most of eastern Ukraine. The existence of armoured equipment, air support, satellite monitoring and encrypted/EW resistant communications means civilian resistance is all but irrelevant.

Civilians co-operating with an organized, funded and supplied military is one thing, but on their own its a laughable concept at best.

[simne]

> See Gaza, most of eastern Ukraine. The existence of armoured equipment,... means civilian resistance is all but irrelevant.

I cannot say anything about Gaza.

But I live in Kyiv, Ukraine, and I have lot of talks with civilian resistance, from about 2012 (yes, Euro-2012 significant).

And I could say, map of occupied Ukrainian territory is very close to map of least pro-Ukrainian civilian activity.

I could state exactly - territory where pro-Ukrainian civilian activity (mostly in form of various Non-Government Organizations), was high before war, stay under control of Ukrainian government, but territory where previous power just physically destroyed civilian activity was lost.

Exceptions are Kharkiv and Odessa, where anti-Ukrainian Organizations was very powerful, but they appear very early and pro-Ukrainian forces successfully neutralized them.

What I mean saying about physically destroyed civilian activity, for example The deportation of the Crimean Tatars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat...

[riku_iki]

I see your examples as in opposite direction.

In Ukraine, militia with rifles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Defence_Forces_(Uk...) dug into the ground and stopped invasion of 1M army with thousands of armored vehicles, absolute superiority in artillery, airforces, tactical missiles and 100B annual budget.

In Gaza, Israel with all tech advantages struggles to efficiently police relatively small urban area for 70 years already.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

Yes the Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles".

Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles on their own made little impact to the speed of russian advances however, which after multiple defeats and setbacks led to the formation of that defence force.

Gaza is a whole can of worms in many ways, but its a shining example of a civilian group with access to arms being completely unable to stop a superior local force from driving over them multiple times when they have the desire and political backing.

Which is exactly the point. A bunch of untrained sport shooters and hunters with more guns than they can personally use at once and no supply lines for ammunition or anything else aren't going to stand for any length of time against an organized military, especially on the military's home soil.

More realistic scenarios in any case are full civil war and the military itself splitting and civilians join sides as reserve forces to back them. in which case civilians having blanket access to arms before hand doesn't have any significant bearing on.

All of this is hypothetical, and ultimately comes down to the argument for unrestricted access to guns being 'so we can stand up to a tyrannical government' falls short. You are welcome to disagree, and that's OK with me. My country is largely in line with my sentiment and sees gun ownership as a privilege not a right, one that comes with restrictions balancing the safety of our society. You do you, we will do us.

[riku_iki]

> Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles".

I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped advancements, because it is still extremely difficult to clear infantry which dug into the ground.

> A bunch of untrained sport shooters and hunters

A bunch is not, but in US number of gun owners is not "a bunch".

> but its a shining example of a civilian group with access to arms being completely unable to stop a superior local force from driving over them multiple times when they have the desire and political backing.

Sure, superior in tech and numbers force can "run over" aka walk on the streets, while being regularly shot from the windows in urban area, and it was with 5x superiority in population. Now imagine dictator tries with say 100k loyalists establish his rule in country with 350M population?

[simne]

> Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles

This is myth. Ukrainian war began in 2014 and all adequate Ukrainians learned books about war or have some training, and this was very respectful form of pastime.

Plus, many Ukrainians just served in military from 2014 consciously, this was great patriotic boom.

To be honest, I think, if Ukrainian science and education was reformed before war 2022, we would be much better prepared and would not lost additional territories. But unfortunately, we hear from our governments constant "don't critic us, or Putin will attack", and this is hard to broke circle.