wait wait wait... if you dont think we could ever get as low as canada in gun deaths, why would you name it as the goal?
My state of Oregon. In the 1990's the murder rate in Oregon was steadily rising. In 1994 the murder rate in Oregon reached 4.9 per 100,000. Also in 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 11, one of the toughest anti-crime measures ever passed in the U.S. Measure 11 provided for mandatory minimum sentences for certain violent felony crimes, with no ability for a judge to reduce the sentence, no time off for good behavior, and no early parole. If you got sentenced to 25 years, you serve every day of it. Measure 11 applies to all offenders convicted of one of the listed crimes, regardless of their previous record, meaning that it applies to first time offenders as well. The very next year, 1995, the murder rate dropped, and by 1999, the murder rate had dropped down to 2.7 per 100,000. That is a 45% drop. It has never reached 3.0 since, and the current murder rate fluctuates from year to year from 2.1 to 2.8 since 2010. So there's one example for you.
do you think people whose real goal is political paybacks will ever stop as long as the NRA supports pro gun candidates?
Its a tough question but it brings up a fair point. If you want to reduce all car deaths drop the speed limit to 5 mph. But that is clearly unreasonable. So what is a reasonable level of gun control that balances rights with the desire to reduce gun deaths. That is why I don't focus on a number but just support reasonable laws. Though many will ague over what is reasonable I think a lot (not all though) of what Canada has is reasonable.
that question is bogus because you are assuming, without proper support, that those schemes actually prevent people from dying. I deny that any of those stupid laws, on the balance, make us any safer. I also wonder why people like you are so invested in laws that only apply to the group that is least likely to cause gun violence while not advocating laws that target the group that causes 80% or more of the gun violence
When comparing these gun laws, did you see where handguns are considered “restricted weapons”? Don’t get caught with a handgun outside your home. Don’t use a gun for self defense or you will be charged with a crime. Compact pistols are prohibited. A key difference in Canada is around carrying weapons. Unless you have a job that requires you to carry a firearm, such as guarding money, you aren’t going to get a permit to carry a restricted weapon…e.g. a handgun. (Non restricted weapons are different since they are primarily used for hunting, although there are still rules around that.)
Enforcement of criminal laws pertaining to violent offenders is not under federal jurisdiction. We need DAs that don’t negotiate with violent felons and push for max penalties under the law. An incarcerated violent criminal creates no victims.
Toronto had 73 murders last year. That's a rate of 4 murders per 100,000. My state of Oregon was at 2.8 last year.
so with heller how can we ban handguns as they do in Canada and self defense is guaranteed by the second amendment. that is not the case in Canada
Incarceration works in every state in the country. If you released all prisoners from prison tomorrow, how do you think it will effect our crime rates? Put on your logic hat.
No, it's not called the Ceasefire program in Oregon. It's just Measure 11. Here's a link about it, but there's tons more of course on the net. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_11_(1994) The crime rates were taken from this link: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/orcrime.htm
your contrarian claims are not really relevant we have Heller Canada bans lots of handguns Canada's gun banning laws would run afoul of heller since many of the guns they ban are both in common use in this country and not unusually dangerous QED
