rangerx

Your problem, not mine. America elected Trump because they got all pissy about political correctness, largely in part because "he speaks his mind" or "tells it like he see's it" and defend it adamantly. Then someone critical comes along and speaks in the same terms, they get all pissy for not being politically correct enough. Thanks for stipulating to my point about double standards, especially when it comes to dealing with serious issues.

Precisely. Likewise, a overwhelming propensity to label anyone critical of the states on any issue as anti-American.

I never said anything of the sort. Did you miss the part where I said rifles and shotguns were not restricted?

It's broadly true and germane to the discussion. Creating the narrative I'm anti-American is false.

Lots of them, thoughtfully. I'm not 100% in agreement on everything, but are well grounded, so I won't add or take anything away because the differences are minor. If anything. perhaps maybe we are over-thinking this, though. So I aside from my position modelling Canadian gun laws, I will offer this simple solution. Log books. In either of our countries, logbooks are mandatory for numerous federally or state (provincial) regulated operations. We demand it of our pilots, truck drivers, radio stations, police officers and so on. We must place placards on dangerous goods when we ship them, so first responders and citizens know what it is. Like mail, they are federal or state documents and must be up to date and accurate. Botched logs are deep trouble, even when no incidents occurred. It's fraud, against the government, no less. Care with dangerous things is not optional or discretionary, it's mandatory and incumbent upon performance. That's why signed contracts supersede hand shakes in the business world and affidavits are binding over promises in the legal world. The three areas of gun control that really have teeth in this country are number of rounds permitted in the load, transportation and tracking. Otherwise, excepting modular guns, the rest are nearly identical, even more liberal (if you can believe that!) as America. We'll ignore number of rounds for now, because it's already a half-assed law in the US (hunting, but not other things) already and not relative to record keeping, but transportation and tracking are. Semi-auto weapons are neither prohibited nor freely permitted. They are restricted. That means if you want to transport it, you must declare where and when before leaving the house (or wherever it's stored). If pulled over by law enforcement, citizens in both countries must be forthright they are carrying guns. The only difference being, an American can be deceptive about their intentions, or say nothing at all. Where the Canadian had better be doing what they declared to be doing. If one has nothing to hide, what's the worry? Inconvenience? The "trampling on poor ol me and my rights" is just a selfish attitude when it comes to using dangerous things in public places. Likewise, when the gun is fired, it's recorded. Not every round, just that day in that place. Logs books impose no barriers to gun use for protection. Here the government maintains it's right to know where all guns are at all times. Will this prevent mass shootings? Of course not, but it does provide for full accountability for one's actions with them in the meantime and sets forth a culture of greater responsibility with the least effort or imposition. Again, what does any lawful owner have to hide? The logs don't have to submitted regularly or at all, if nothing out of the ordinary occurred, so it's not like government is spying on everyone's behavior. To be honest, either of our respective governments could care less what we do with guns (once we get there), so long as it's lawful and safe. When accountability is no longer in question, the rest of the solutions come easily.

It's getting that way. It's easy to sense the latest mass-murder in Florida has opened a lot of eyes. Thoughts and prayers is largely debunked and now is the time to discuss it. Strong leadership doesn't duck an issue by claiming it's not the time, without providing a time and framework for when it is. Weak leadership only does the former and that's what's happening now. I said it before, and I'll say it again, there's a lot more introspect into the correlation of guns and mass murders and there's increasing willingness to discuss and act upon it. Just that alone is a step, a good step. If they rolled the tanks, or censored the forums, I'd be anti-American, but your country is far from that, so I'm sternly critical is all. I will also cite Churchill, who said we can always count on America to do the right thing, but only after all other alternatives have been exhausted. And winter is coming, if you know what I mean. I'm not religious, but heaven forbid the next one is a mandate on the 2nd.

C'mon, let's not be snowflakes here. Sometimes thick skulls need to be told in no uncertain terms that solutions are right in front of them and have been there all along.

1- A person might not volunteer to go in for treatment if they think it means losing their guns. And I was quite clear that not all mental disorders should be disqualifying. Those who can't be cleared shouldn't have guns. Period. They don't already in many cases, so technically you're already half way there and working towards more, which is a step. A good step. 2- No, I'm saying that being indoctrinated to that train of thought is largely an American problem. I'm not saying everyone does it, but there's a lot of "from my cold dead hands" advocates that instills intransigence into people's heads, especially vulnerable ones. If a Canadian volunteers for mental health assistance, the fact he may not be able to own or use guns doesn't (or very rarely) enter into it. They need to forget the guns and get the help they really need. 3- No. I'm saying too many Americans are indoctrinated that guns are an inalienable right and little else, when they're actually quite regulated already in many ways. A mentally unstable person may be more vulnerable, even subservient to other gun nuts. 5- I'm not ranting against America and I'm not anti American. I'm pointing out glaring holes in your society that frustrates the discussion. The mere fact you just did it by demonizing me as something I'm not, proves my point. Doing so resorted to the lowest common denominator, presented as though I have no place in this discussion. Fail. My solution has already been presented. I presented a link to Canadian gun laws. They work, very well. The proof is in the pudding. Far be it America would follow another country's lead on fixing problems, lest they appear weak. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. It's not just the gun violence, but the attitude that goes with it that is every bit as insidious, IMHO. I make no bones about it by speaking in harsh terms, but my attitude pales in comparison to that. If you can't sort that out, that's your problem (and your country's problem), not mine.

Of course, but mental health may go untreated for the sake of guns. Sadly that would contribute to issue of unlawful gun usage and further burden healthcare, not take away from it. Mental illness doesn't always mean dangerous with guns either and I'm sure civil rights leaders and medical professional would agree (in many cases). A lot of so-called gun nuts are just that, nuts, but not dangerous or a threat. Probably just the opposite. Peaceful and protective. Clinical mental health on the other hand needs strict oversight, though. The problem being, the person was indoctrinated to that in the first place, is where the issue lies, IMHO. What does that say about a society that instills those rights ahead of the rights of the patient themselves? Patient health must always be utmost, not the other way around. Like Canada and many other countries, we're taught guns are a privilege, not a right... even though it is. It removes most the arrogance and selfishness from the equation and statistically, we're safer and better for it. It's not political, or at least very rarely. Both of sides of the political spectrum up here are on the same page, for the most part. I just think it's bizarre that America lives in fear of the things they revere the most. Yay, GUNS! There's a good start. It would probably help a lot of other issues too. Not just guns.

I was using it in a humanitarian context of what Americas priorities are being proactive on deemed threats to the country. An extreme measure for a moderate threat on one hand, yet unwilling to invoke even moderate measures to resolve extreme threats on the other.

You can take it as an insult all you like, but it doesn't detract from my opinion that America ought to know better than to be doing this to itself. It's pathetic, sorry to say. My intent is to demonstrate I'm aghast, nothing more. I have a lot of reasons to like America and few to not. It's not fair to disqualify my opinion from the discussion. I'm quite certain I'm not alone in that view and it is germane to the discussion because it underlies the gun issue. It is what we are talking about, if only for a part of it. In fact, it's the prerequisite to even begin resolving the gun issue. A huge part of America is deeply introspective lately, which is really awesome, but it's terribly frustrating when it's falling on deaf ears, getting spun into something it's not and our kids are dying. That's for shame and there can be no denying that.

I'm Nuu chaa nulth. Our people were decimated but not destroyed by European diseases, not government. Your take is too extreme and stipulates to what many are saying here about the discussion being confounded. I'm chocked full of reasons why our people and government have issues, but guns isn't one of them. In the early 1800's my ancestors attacked and massacred the ships Boston (guns) and Tonquin (black powder), solely for guns, ammunition and retribution. Sadly the retribution was native on native and annihilated two nations who live to the south of us. The guns (well blunderbusses and fowling pieces) eventually broke or rusted. The powder got wet, blew up in our faces or was spent. Yet again, the common denominator was the abuse of guns. To even begin to suggest our current gun laws had anything to do with our history misses the point..

A thoughtful reply, thank you. Opinion about the contributors here and a fact about the grand scale of things? If yes, would you also agree that the opposite is true? That being so long as people "stick to their guns", nothing can move forward? If yes, then why mention it at all?

There's audacity for you. I am a first nations person who never lived on the rez. I'm 61 years old, been employed all my life. I own my own property in a small town and operate a shellfish farm and jade mine. Both on first nations territory. Don't preach to me about introspect, when clearly yours is in the ditch.

Wow, obtuse or what? Last time I checked, our native population was vibrant. And there you go telling me what I have to do in my country, while insisting I have no input on yours. You're making this easy. Really easy. Thank you.

Fact or opinion? It's hard to move forward with something like that hanging out there?

Everything I presented in this thread has been thoughtfully presented in a context to how my country deals with gun laws compared to your country AND the double standards that inhibit the discussion. I am from Canada, I presented my country's gun laws as they were written by the government, not my opinion. Yet you have the audacity to call that a dishonest tactic? That's fucking rich, dude. America loves to bash other countries, especially in the way you threatened to bash mine, but your country doesn't take it very well by the way you flipped me off for participating in this discussion with my opinion.

If you cannot deduce where I am from, you haven't been paying attention. Fill your boots with all the off topic derogatory comments about me and my country as you please. I'm sure the mods will have something to say about that.

Oh so your country knows better on every score? Your country doesn't ban immigrants? Gaslight much?

WTF does that have to do with the OP?

People need to be told what not to do. We tell people not to speed, even though the majority of speeders don't cause accidents. Your country bans immigrants even though most don't terrorize. All too often in America if the topic is "we", the response is "me" or visa versa. Double standards and whataboutism. When the failure to recognize the differences between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group, the discussion is confounded. Instead a shithole gets dug. Not one person here suggested a total ban. Your comment is ad hominem and outright false.

The industry feeds into the disparity and that needs to stop.

In America there's a huge disparity between the right to guns and the right to life. When anything supersedes life and liberty , shitholes are created.

I said "one" not you. This isn't personal or an affront. I agree with your principles and suggesting an approach to addressing them because you've admitted being uncertain of solutions. I also agree with your comment that a shotgun is the best weapon of choice for home security.

Again very true, but one must participate in the race, not quit at starting gate and declare the event never happened.