As said before i have no problem with the public owning guns...except large clip assault types. Canada has it right with the background checks. I think carrying handguns in the bush should be an easy permit to acquire. The pro and anti gun crowds should both realize that criminals will always find the guns that are easily available and the police will have to deal with that every day, no matter what the rules are. However it would be in the best interest of the pro gun crowd to except and welcome the kind of workable restrictions that keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill of the world. These mass shootings only fire up the anti gun people and the most fanatical of them will always ask for a complete ban. If you don't except common sense restrictions then the killings will continue and the pressure for a complete ban will too.
Gun Control in US and Canada
- Thread starter tincan
- Start date
tincan
Well-Known Member
Meet the press article and interviews, including Bloomberg, Feinstein, among others - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...einstein-dan-malloy-and-more-sunday-talk.html
hooktender68
Well-Known Member
I have an alarm on my house made by SAKO.........lol anyone who wants it is more'n welcome to try an get it! lol
hunting feeds my family. I do not buy chemicalized meat full of steroids to make them grow fast, antibiotics to kill all the garbage in it, dyes and colors to make it look like something it is not! I kill and eat healthy hand picked animals and fish and guns are part of that.
hunting feeds my family. I do not buy chemicalized meat full of steroids to make them grow fast, antibiotics to kill all the garbage in it, dyes and colors to make it look like something it is not! I kill and eat healthy hand picked animals and fish and guns are part of that.
hooktender68
Well-Known Member
I agree that there is no real need for those guns in the general public. They are restricted in Canada and you are not allowed to be in possion of high capacity clips for them. Unlike the states where it apears you can own some pretty wild firepower and go out and play withit when and where you want. Im a bit of a redneck myself and have played with an AR15 with a 30 round clip before, and I find it pretty neat blowing the hell out of some target as fast as you can pull the trigger. However, at the end of the day, there is no need for them, they are made for war and dont belong in the hands of the general public. Chances of being attacked by a heard of rampant deer where that gun would come in handy are slim.
baddogg
Crew Member
@ Nog, I totally get it
@ the rest of the responses, I get that too
I'm thinking there will be very few that respond saying they own guns to protect themselves.
I believe therein lies the main difference between us Canucks and our Southern neighbours.
Do you think that factors into the number of guns per capita in the USA compared to Canada?
As per Wikipedia in 2007(accuracy?)
USA 88.8 per 100 persons
Canada 30.8 per 100 persons
@ the rest of the responses, I get that too
I'm thinking there will be very few that respond saying they own guns to protect themselves.
I believe therein lies the main difference between us Canucks and our Southern neighbours.
Do you think that factors into the number of guns per capita in the USA compared to Canada?
As per Wikipedia in 2007(accuracy?)
USA 88.8 per 100 persons
Canada 30.8 per 100 persons
Dave S
Active Member
Some of the lives lost in this tragedy. My heart goes out to their families. I only hope something positive will come from this.
http://news.ca.msn.com/victims-of-connecticut-school-shooting#image=1
http://news.ca.msn.com/victims-of-connecticut-school-shooting#image=1
Bows Up
Well-Known Member
The oft quoted maxim is guns don't kill people, people kill people. The US is faced with fixing their people because their are just too many of these horrible tragedies.
Medical system, license screening, mindset, first person shooter video games, the media, their constitution.... I do not know. Something makes our southern friends vulnerable in a way that we, thankfully, are not.
If they banned guns in the US they use bombs, knives or sticks. Gun control is not the answer.
I am gun owner.
Medical system, license screening, mindset, first person shooter video games, the media, their constitution.... I do not know. Something makes our southern friends vulnerable in a way that we, thankfully, are not.
If they banned guns in the US they use bombs, knives or sticks. Gun control is not the answer.
I am gun owner.
fish stalker
Active Member
I shoot, I dont hunt, im a member of a gun club. Ive taking guns camping for protection. Not that I thought id need it but I stay in camp by myself sometimes and its peace of mind.
I do believe stricter gun control in the states will eventually slow violent crimes.
I was comparing stats earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_by_country
I do believe stricter gun control in the states will eventually slow violent crimes.
I was comparing stats earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_by_country
hooktender68
Well-Known Member
[]How bout this then......... spoons dont kill fish, people kill fish! Maybe they should stop making such leathly efficient spoons! They probably should not be so readily available to the public! I think there should also be a tighter screening process to keep these potentialy lethal spoons away from people like me! Why do they alow me to keep buying these spoons? Dont they ever wonder what I am going to go out and do with them? How come nobody monitors how many I have? Why do I need so many anyhow? Noone even checks in with me periodically after I purchased them to see if I am still fit to operate them.Sure I passed the test to get them at the time to get them, but what about now? One thing is certain, if i didnt own these spoons, there should would be alot more salmon around! Maybe they could figure out a way to regulate the purchase of the hooks?! Spoon would not work all that well without that. People would probably get bored throwing the spoon at a fish to try to kill it!! Maybe people would just start laughing more!
Attachments
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
After reading this thread on the iFish board from Orgeon, I can only come to one conclusion Until the Americans get over the Second Amendment and get real and acknowledge what they are doing to their country-- these killing will continue. I cant believe the attitudes of some down south. Its not "God Bless America" any more. Its "God HELP American" And if things ever get as bad here--- I am moving to New Zealand.....
http://ifish.net/board/showthread.php?p=4377395#post4377395
http://ifish.net/board/showthread.php?p=4377395#post4377395
Englishman
Well-Known Member
You are correct CL. Nothing will ever change in the States because the Constitution has assumed biblical significance to most and the founding fathers are infallible prophet/god like figures. No matter those founding fathers could never have imagined the power and range of today's weapons. No matter that they could not have imagined the carnage now occurring.
The whole thing appeals to the same religiosity gene in people the makes them accept without question ludicrous religious beliefs and cults. It is not something that can be discussed and challenged on a rational basis. The "gods" have spoken and the "holy word" is written. Nothing, but nothing will get them to change their mind on this one.......
Last edited by a moderator:
finaddict
Well-Known Member
Well they ARE pretty lethal looking spoons. Maybe I could confiscate just a few of them ;-)
I don't think anyone with any brains is seriously talking about banning guns in the U.S. so the argument from BowsUp is just plain silly. In particular, the argument that if guns aren't available people would just use bombs, sticks or knives is particularly silly - I'd much rather face an assailant with a stick or a knife than one with a gun. Also I note that there was an incident in China a week or so ago in which some guy also went crazy at an elementary school and attacked kids with a knife. Interestingly, the guy attacked about the same number of kids (23 vs. 20). This story had a very different outcome than the one in Newtown as every one of those kids survived. (see - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...shed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/).
Now while I certainly wouldn't suggest that the U.S. be as restrictive as China with regard to guns (or most anything for that matter), I do believe that some form of sensible regulation would be appreciated by many. There is absolutely no need for assault weapons, automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons to be available for personal ownership. There's absolutely no reason why each gun owner shouldn't have to get a license and be tested on basic safety of guns use. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have a waiting period for gun ownership. There's no reason why we shouldn't require owners to keep their guns safely locked up. There's no reason why we should restrict the mentally ill from owning/access guns when possible.
However, every time we start to talk about sensible regulation in the U.S. we get two predictable and meaningless gut responses from the NRA and other gun advocates.
1) The slippery slope argument - "Where do we draw the line? If they take away my assault weapon how long will it be before they come after my hunting rifle?, etc. - To me this argument is a non starter as we have many sensible regulations in other areas of law and those are not taken to the absurd. E.g. we balance getting someplace in a hurry with safety by setting speed limits. We don't ask, "If they only let me drive 65MPH this year, won't they slow me down to 25MPH next year?". We accept that there is a reasonable balance on motor vehicle speed. We also accept that operation of a motor vehicle requires some practice, a test, a knowledge of the law, some basic safely knowledge and a license.
2) The proposed regulations won't work or can't be enforced - These arguments typically take the form of "If guns are made criminal, then only criminals will have guns" or "Those who use guns illegally don't obey the law". However there are many counter arguments to this type of thinking. First we're talking about sensible regulation, not a ban on all guns. Second, many homicides and accidental gun deaths can be prevented simply by properly securing guns and ammunition. Third, some homicides could be prevented by waiting periods that prevent a person from obtaining a gun in a moment of anger. Most importantly, the fact that not all will obey a law isn't a good argument against a law. For example, we know many people don't obey the speed limit but most do and it makes us collectively safer.
Two other points -
1) while the second amendment to the U.S. constitution is interpreted to mean that private gun ownership is assured, it's worth noting that the 2nd amendment reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For some reason, the first half of that phrase (which seems to imply that the founders envisioned well regulated militias at the state level), is typically left out of discussions.
2) There is abundant evidence that more guns correlates with higher rates of homicide - see for example - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
If Americans could just have the kind of common sense, low volatility discussions that I frequently see Canadians engaged in, I think progress could be made here in the U.S. and I think we could enact some sensible and responsible regulations. However, we're now completely trained as a nation to turn everything into an argument (as opposed to a rational debate) and our arguments often take the lowest possible form. Hence, I'm not optimistic that we'll see change down here.
Now while I certainly wouldn't suggest that the U.S. be as restrictive as China with regard to guns (or most anything for that matter), I do believe that some form of sensible regulation would be appreciated by many. There is absolutely no need for assault weapons, automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons to be available for personal ownership. There's absolutely no reason why each gun owner shouldn't have to get a license and be tested on basic safety of guns use. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have a waiting period for gun ownership. There's no reason why we shouldn't require owners to keep their guns safely locked up. There's no reason why we should restrict the mentally ill from owning/access guns when possible.
However, every time we start to talk about sensible regulation in the U.S. we get two predictable and meaningless gut responses from the NRA and other gun advocates.
1) The slippery slope argument - "Where do we draw the line? If they take away my assault weapon how long will it be before they come after my hunting rifle?, etc. - To me this argument is a non starter as we have many sensible regulations in other areas of law and those are not taken to the absurd. E.g. we balance getting someplace in a hurry with safety by setting speed limits. We don't ask, "If they only let me drive 65MPH this year, won't they slow me down to 25MPH next year?". We accept that there is a reasonable balance on motor vehicle speed. We also accept that operation of a motor vehicle requires some practice, a test, a knowledge of the law, some basic safely knowledge and a license.
2) The proposed regulations won't work or can't be enforced - These arguments typically take the form of "If guns are made criminal, then only criminals will have guns" or "Those who use guns illegally don't obey the law". However there are many counter arguments to this type of thinking. First we're talking about sensible regulation, not a ban on all guns. Second, many homicides and accidental gun deaths can be prevented simply by properly securing guns and ammunition. Third, some homicides could be prevented by waiting periods that prevent a person from obtaining a gun in a moment of anger. Most importantly, the fact that not all will obey a law isn't a good argument against a law. For example, we know many people don't obey the speed limit but most do and it makes us collectively safer.
Two other points -
1) while the second amendment to the U.S. constitution is interpreted to mean that private gun ownership is assured, it's worth noting that the 2nd amendment reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For some reason, the first half of that phrase (which seems to imply that the founders envisioned well regulated militias at the state level), is typically left out of discussions.
2) There is abundant evidence that more guns correlates with higher rates of homicide - see for example - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
If Americans could just have the kind of common sense, low volatility discussions that I frequently see Canadians engaged in, I think progress could be made here in the U.S. and I think we could enact some sensible and responsible regulations. However, we're now completely trained as a nation to turn everything into an argument (as opposed to a rational debate) and our arguments often take the lowest possible form. Hence, I'm not optimistic that we'll see change down here.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's sad to see how that mentality has continually crept into politics in both the US and Canada as we all suffer
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
aYup, methinks you have something there alright.
In Canada firearms are largely viewed as either tools for hunting or high end toys for sporting purposes. Rather few regard them as necessary for protection, and the majority that do are thinking in terms of protection against four-legged intruders in the bush. Of course here I am referencing Legal Owners, as I am pretty certain there are those in the criminal element that feel the need to own them for either "protection" from their colleagues/enforcement or as an aid in perpetrating their crimes.
Conversely in the US, the majority that own firearms do so out of a feeling of insecurity - as a form of protection against some Evil whether actually perceived, unknown or downright fantasy.
Yes, there are a great many who own them for the exact same reasons as most Canadians, however the stats (and corresponding sales of defense type weapons and ever increasing concealed carry permit issuance) strongly suggest they are actually in the minority.
I am not all that surprised by that given the historic culture of the US & firearms. God Guns & Guts made America What It Is. Make My Day Laws and perhaps the most heavy of influences - the Right to Bear Arms have been instilled in the citizenry so deep, for so long, that most simply accept at as The Way It Is. And By Christ, if the potential mugger/rapist/burglar/murderer might be packing, it's your God Given Right to defend yourself with as much firepower as you can physically handle. In short, the people are scared. Scared of being caught without a sufficient response to an armed confrontation. So, they pony up and latch onto what gives them comfort when contemplating that situation - most choose a gun.
Two obviously different cultures. Two obviously different approaches to firearm use and reasons for ownership. Myself, I much prefer what we have up here!
Unfortunately I do not believe the US is going to do anything of significance any time soon to address this highly undesirable situation:
That and so much more are HUGE Obstacles to overcome. One can wish them all the best in this pursuit, and I do. But unfortunately I truly believe practical and meaningful US gun control progress has about as much chance of being realized in our lifetimes as the proverbial Icicle in Hell...
Cheers,
Nog
i have no idea how you penetrated the minds and hearts of the majority of US gun owners, amazing feat to say the least.
in spite of the fantasy analysis you posted, there is plenty that could be done with little to no impact on the legitimate gun owner hunter. those who think they can pop an intruder have not briefed themselves on just what a bag of trouble they would be in for killing another human being. the 2nd ammendment was a result of the war of 1776 and breaking away from the crown. one of the reasons this succeeded was the citizenry was armed so naturally the framers included that sentence. what is always focued on is 'the right to bear arms' the beginining of the sentence 'an armed militia', the real intent here, is conveniently glossed over.
shuting down unregulated sales at gun shows, instituting a waiting period, closing phantom sales, and arming mexicans with bulk purchases along that border are all simple steps to start the process. getting all 'assault' types of weapons, yes we all know what they are, off the street with the high cap magazines is also something that can be done. do you really think you need a 40 round clip for your glock???
but, with Obama beating up on Boner regarding taxes, i don't expect much movement on this from the WH.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
LOL! You'll note I also said: Yes, there are a great many who own them for the exact same reasons as most Canadians, however the stats (and corresponding sales of defense type weapons and ever increasing concealed carry permit issuance) strongly suggest they are actually in the minority.
True my perceptions come from a bit afar. That said, I have more than a little "working knowledge" of the current US situation. The vast majority of my Family resides in the US - which includes literally hundreds of firearm owners. And although I but rarely visit any more (far preferring the relative "quiet" up here) I am in constant contact with them. Many are in the Military, almost as many in Enforcement. My perceptions are based on what they pass along to me, not simply from the occasional (VERY) news item from Down Yonder. Could be we are all mistaken... but I more than kind of doubt that...
You make some Damn Fine Suggestions! And I happen to agree with them all.
Unfortunately I also tend to agree with your final one: "I don't expect much movement on this from the WH"
Cheers,
Nog
