rangerx

Whataboutism fail.

A very good start, but until you are able to say "we are gun owners, but we know something needs to be done. We are just not sure how to proceed.." is throwing your hands in the air, or just copping out (irrespective of your good intentions). The solution must come from the group at large, not just a collection of some individuals.

It doesn't, but if America claims to be an advanced civil society, they ought to know better.

An outright ban will NEVER happen and is only expressed by the minority of advocates, yet it's the excuse of choice by the gun lobby to never discuss any gun control measure, broadly by default not just the minority. It's also an affront to those gun advocates who want to be reasonable in the discussion too and those people need to admonish, not tolerate it. Loudly, broadly. I have no objection to admonishing total bans. With that kind of intransigence sewn into America's fabric, "persuasion" is just a pipe dream. When extremism rules the day, you've lost, irrespective of which side invoked it. What is it about Americans being freaked out about things that affect them the least, yet silent on things that affect them the most? Bad education, hyper-partisan politics and fucked up priorities, is what.

It's not that black and white though, so long as people choose to be paranoid, delusional, frivolous and dangerous with guns. When everyone keeps throwing it out there as a given and little else, it's a smoke screen and the underlying issues are purposefully never dealt with. Dealing with them does not mean disposing or outlawing them, so any willingness to give them up is only a half measure if the remainder of the population are intransigent. Americans need to get over "they want to take our guns" bullshit any time gun control is discussed. It's broadly idiotic and complicit to more death.

America also needs to get over itself as to how it views other countries gun laws as excessive and over-reaching. If anything, Canada's gun laws are more relaxed in many ways. For example, those with criminal histories may own non-restricted weapons, so long as their crimes were not gun or violence related. Getting caught with a bag of pot as a teenager or stealing a bag of dog food from work ought not detract from the fact the person is a responsible hunter or skilled marksman. Though functional, antique and ornamental guns may be displayed openly, provided they are not readily loadable by unsecured ammo. Long bows (two handed style) are not considered weapons and may be stored with ammo nearby. That even includes cammed bows, so long as they are not configured as one-handed crossbows. Crossbows are regulated like any other long or hand gun, depending on their operation.

Yes, I support better gun control laws, the right to own guns and even semi-automatic weapons. In Canada, a semi-automatic is restricted, but not prohibited so long as some conditions are met. Firstly, they cannot be modified at the mechanism in any manner that can cause it to become automatic or hair triggered. They cannot be modular, military style weapons. Bump stocks and silencers are prohibited. High volume magazines are not prohibited, but restricted to the number of rounds a person can carry. If you are pulled over by the police and they find you have the correct number, you are free to go. If you exceed that number, you're charged and will undoubtedly lose the privilege of owning any restricted firearm permanently. If the weapon was not physically used in the commission of other crimes, you'll usually still be allowed to own non-restricted weapons for hunting, protection and sport. You cannot buy, sell, lend or give a gun away without a permit from the RCMP. You cannot possess or use hollow-point, talon claw or similar types of ammunition. Anyone may reload ammunition, including magnum loads, however only standard OEM components may be used. Tracer rounds are legal, but you better have a good reason for having that gun out after dark, because hunting is not permitted between sunset and sunrise. Unless you are in a fully controlled area, more often than not you'll be charged with the careless operation of a weapon. If someone can hear your shot, they can be hit by your shot, therefore you must prove 100% control of your perimeter. Pot-shots or late night rounds into the old Buick out back can cost you your guns and license because it's frivolous and dangerous, little else. A few years ago, the government attempted to create a long gun registry. It failed. The number of crimes committed with bolt or lever action hunting weapons is minimal and under the current rule set was not a growing problem to the general public. In fact, it was found discriminatory because it posed an unfair pre-determination by police toward lawful license holders versus their spouses during domestic violence incidents. Frivolity and arrogance with guns are what's killing America's kids. America needs to get past those horrible human traits and cease treating those actions as rights.

No, not at all. I'm saying that despite all best intentions, things change. When things change, one must be responsible for the repercussions or negligence generated by it. For example, when people become blind (for whatever reason), we revoke their driver's license so they don't pose a hazard to others. Some may have never had an accident or even a ticket, yet they are prohibited nonetheless. We drew a societal line based upon the opinion of professionals and bring it into law (much like the hunting/conservation measures we discussed earlier). As youth, we learn gun safety and based upon a few tests, then are issued a license once demonstrating proficiency. It's not unreasonable to re-register your driver's license numerous times during one's life time. Why should guns be any different? Likewise, all drivers require insurance for each vehicle driven. A car driven to work has a higher likelihood for accidents because it's driven more. A pickup used to take trash to the dump or boat to the lake on weekends, not so much hence one might opt for skinnier insurance. Using that vehicle for work may be harmless with diligence, but one slip up or in the wrong place at the wrong time will open the driver up to all the liabilities for doing so. Gun owners often like to describe (or boast) distinct purposes for their weapons. A hand gun is useless to your spouse for protection, if you are down at the pond shooting bottles with it. A gun that is declared for protection, ought to be licensed as such. Hence should always remain in the location for which it's intended. Even concealed or open carry is acceptable, so long as the owner is diligent and renews their proficiency regularly. We expect our airline pilots, doctors, drivers and trades people to be actively updating their endorsements to ensure public safety. Why should gun owners be any different? I'm in Canada. My brother owns a pair of dueling muskets. One a flintlock and the other a percussion cap, but otherwise identical stocks and barrels. They've never been fired. They are considered handguns and despite what people tell you about our gun laws, acquiring a permit for them is neither difficult nor expensive. After a simple background check (criminal history) an acquisition permit is issued by the local police. They are restricted to the address of the property licensed. If he moves to another location, he must apply for a transport permit, which also is not expensive or difficult. He will be required to move them within the time frame and will face no difficulty with police if he's pulled over, for any reason, so long as they're not loaded our out of their case. At home, he's not even required to lock them up, as they sit openly on the mantle of his fireplace. Now for the sake of the discussion, let's substitute the muskets for a couple of revolvers. The same rules apply, but here's the kicker... If he were to planning to use those guns to accost someone and is pulled over, he'd be in violation of the law, immediately arrested and the incident is mitigated. It's that simple an I have no issue with it, whatsoever. His guns are ornaments, nothing about them is for protection. Insisting all guns are for protection is a cop-out. Only a few pieces in most collections are suitable for the task. Guns have different purposes though, so it's not unreasonable to have more than one. That means they should be properly licensed and insured for each of the purposes required by the owner. If more than one purpose, additional insurance is required. Cost is an excellent start to curbing gun numbers. Cheapskates abound. Some might think that's burdensome, but that's the price of protecting our citizens. I'm okay with that. I don't view it as a trampling of rights and enjoy the opportunity to be able to acquire any or as many (legal) guns I want at any time. P.S. Semi automatic weapons are restricted, but not prohibited in Canada. Check out our gun laws here. It's neither long, nor complicated, but it does well to protect us from ourselves. Check it out, if you have the time, I'm curious to what you might think is unworkable in your country.

Pretty much every mass murderer had their guns acquired legally, stored safely and transported properly to the scene of the crime. It's when they crack, that their well-gotten otherwise law abiding stash of weapons becomes a deadly arsenal. The mere virtue of allowing, even encouraging this kind of ownership among the masses created the problem. In America, and little where else, guns are inextricably linked to politics. Politics make a lot of people say and do crazy shit. Some at the drop of a hat, some over time. Going "postal" an objective of the disgruntled employee. Senile, deranged or delusional behavior occurs naturally in a percentage of the elderly. Accidents, substance abuse and assaults can cause brain damage. Parasites, poisons or exposure to other toxins can cause abnormal behavior, even temporarily is enough to cause an outburst of violence in almost any individual. If one is a recluse or loner... like many shooters, there lacks red flags raised by peers. Even when flags are raised, they may go unheeded as seems to be the case in the most recent shooting. I've named a few, but there are a multitude of other reasons for people to lose their minds, despite their best efforts. Unpaid debt, cheating partners, unfair treatment, social exclusion or shaming, bad luck, bullying, robbery... the list is endless. There's just to many variables to allow most everyone to stock up personal armories at large.

Yes, yes and yes. You've given me some pause to reconsider some things I've said about your comments in the past. I've been overly harsh, my apologies.

It's a sad day when those who scream the loudest about their rights being violated have the least regard for the rights to life and liberty of the victims and their families. The rights of the individual should never be greater or lesser than the rights of the group. In America, that's gone out the window. Selfishness prevails. Although resources are not the issue with guns, a tragedy of the commons is occurring nonetheless.

Again, I cannot agree more. Our state/province conservation authorities do well to manage these resources (for the most part). I gather your concern is a slippery slope of losing rights which are inconsequential to matters at hand. That's a fair position. However, the current trend of mass-shootings by crazy people has transcended from a slippery slope into an outright avalanche, hence the current play field is not level. Discussing ducks while kids die is beside the point. My taste for duck l'orange can take a back seat to our youth dying needlessly any day of the week. At the end of the day, it's sad we agree to do it for ducks, but not kids.

I don't consider you as gun lobby. You are no different than me in your motivation. I'm from Canada, we are pretty much born with guns in our hands and our ownership per household is very high, yet we don't have the politics defining it. Fellow Canadians like MigL and I disagree on a lot of political points, but when it comes to guns, we see eye to eye because both of us know water, guns, abortion, healthcare and immigration are excellent ways to commit political suicide in this country.

Limiting a shotgun to one round at a time is more often than not a conservation, not a kill-ability issue. Achieving a bag limit is a privilege, not a right conferred by gun rights.

A very rational response, thank you. Here's the thing though. The so-called modular weapons, which are technically designed to be modified are being modified to maximize carnage. Unless one uses a gun to cut down trees, I don't see how these mods are necessary for the public good. One could argue silencers prevent hearing loss, but it's not in the absence of cheaper, more effect alternatives like ear plugs. They are banned because people would use them to a greater degree in the commission of crimes than those who substitute them for ear muffs. Bump stocks serve no purpose other than to workaround otherwise legal guns to attain a quasi-legal automatic feature. Yet the gun lobby is reluctant to ban them outright. Again, the thing is (and not directed at you, personally) admonishing the gun control lobby for technicalities, whilst the gun lobby clings to other technicalities is disingenuous to the discussion.

I agree, for the most part. However, a thirty round modification, ceases to make it a "kids" gun. That would make it a serious adult gun, IMHO. When weapons are modified from their manufactured purpose, gray areas are entered. Would a sawed off shotgun not fit into this category? After all a sawed off shot gun is easy to conceal, access and does greater damage to multiple targets at close range. Which should be the example for the other?

You were the one who brought it up, so to that end, you are correct.

There you go with the gaslighting again.

Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection

My point being, by introducing the assault rifle technicality, set a narrative that anyone who denies a AR-15 is an assault weapon is not fit to be in the discussion of gun control. My sanity is not at bar here, nor is the sanity of others in this discussion. That's why your attempt at gaslighting fails.

It was YOU who introduced the assault rifle/not an assault rifle point into this discussion. Then you edited your post and gaslight anyone else who suggests otherwise.

That kids were assaulted by a rifle. That kids are being systematically murdered by psychopaths with access to dangerous weapons because of a lack of regulation. That anything you don't understand is always someone else's fault. In the last two pages.

Case closed.

Denial, deflection, gaslighting. That's how the gun lobby works. You just demonstrated it, in spades.

When did I say all guns were assault rifles? I didn't but you've just framed it as though I did, merely to detract from the issue. You proved my point.