Yay, GUNS!

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I added a link to the full quote. Read the whole thing and take a deep breath.

To be fair, I quoted you before you made the edit.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

To be fair, I quoted you before you made the edit.

You also apparently didn’t notice my use of quotation marks and for some reason thought I was talking directly to you. Either way. It’s worth a read, but you need to click Read More to see it all. 

Edited February 17, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

You also apparently didn’t notice my use of quotation marks and for some reason thought I was talking directly to you. Either way. It’s worth a read, but you need to click Read More to see it all. 

I noticed your use of quotation marks, I assumed you were quoting someone.

And I didn't think you were talking directly to me, I thought you were talking in general to Moon, Zapatos, and I.

I kinda doubt you were aiming it at Ten Oz, and telling him people are dying because of his guns. It's not that illogical.

 

 

I read it. What about it?

 

[John Cuthber]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't want to be rude, but I would appreciate it if you stopped associating us with the death of children.

People who oppose gun control are responsible- albeit, usually indirectly, for the deaths of children.

 

If you are not happy with that, it's your problem.

Even Trump accidentally acknowledged it. when he said that the problem was people with mental health issues- after overturning Obama's legislation restricting the gun ownership  rights of people whose judgement couldn't be trusted 

 

[iNow]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

People who oppose gun control are responsible- albeit, usually indirectly, for the deaths of children.

To be fair...He doesn’t oppose gun control, but likely would support far less control than you. 

[John Cuthber]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

To be fair...He doesn’t oppose gun control, but likely would support far less control than you. 

To be factual; he revoked gun control.

[iNow]

Unsure I follow

[John Cuthber]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

 

Now, I presume that he did that because he was pressured by the pro-gun lobby (whether that's commercial or private).

And if he hadn't done so then a young man with (at least  alleged) mental health problems might  not have been allowed to buy a gun and might not have killed children.

If I'm right about that, then the pro gun lobby's actions led causally to the deaths.

Edited February 17, 2018 by John Cuthber

[koti]

After all the debates are done and everything is said, Its a binary issue at the end - very strict gun law vs. horrible things happening.

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

To be fair...He doesn’t oppose gun control, but likely would support far less control than you. 

 

30 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

To be factual; he revoked gun control.

When you said “he,” you meant Trump. When I said “he,” I meant Raider. The confusion has been clarified.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths.
I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?

Not just in response to you MigL, but...

It doesn't seem to be enough to support gun control. I have to support it in a way that is deemed correct by others, to the extent deemed appropriate by others, and I must have the proper attitude while I'm doing it. I've gone so far as to say "I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives." But that is not enough. As long as those guns are sitting in my gun safe or being fired at a piece of paper, I seem to be "causing unnecessary deaths". If my position doesn't correspond to the position of others I'm seen as intellectually dishonest or laughable, rather than as someone who may simply have a different perspective.

The days of tolerance are long gone when fundamentally agreeing is not enough.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm seen as intellectually dishonest or laughable,

You’re often pretty funny, bit FWIW I’ve known you long enough to with confidence and certainty confirm that you’re neither of those things in the quote

[rangerx]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not just in response to you MigL, but...

It doesn't seem to be enough to support gun control. I have to support it in a way that is deemed correct by others, to the extent deemed appropriate by others, and I must have the proper attitude while I'm doing it. I've gone so far as to say "I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives." But that is not enough. As long as those guns are sitting in my gun safe or being fired at a piece of paper, I seem to be "causing unnecessary deaths". If my position doesn't correspond to the position of others I'm seen as intellectually dishonest or laughable, rather than as someone who may simply have a different perspective.

The days of tolerance are long gone when fundamentally agreeing is not enough.

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.

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, rangerx said:

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.

Your post in response to my statement "but that is not enough" seems to be saying that what is enough is nothing short of a ban on guns. Did I interpret your message correctly?

[rangerx]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your post in response to my statement "but that is not enough" seems to be saying that what is enough is nothing short of a ban on guns. Did I interpret your message correctly?

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.

[StringJunky]

I notice the FBI are getting flak now. Is it justified or is it just deliberate deflection from the issue by parties who don't want things to change; turning them into the fall guys? It seems to me like 'hindsight is a wonderful thing' and, actually, people are getting shot every day, so how are the FBI expected to see through the noise.

Quote

Pressure is mounting on the FBI over the agency's failure to act on a tip that Florida school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz might carry out an attack.

Florida Governor Rick Scott said the agency's director must resign, while Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review, lamenting FBI "failures".

Some of those close to the 17 victims of Wednesday's shooting also voiced dismay at the FBI's actions.               http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43094840

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

8 hours ago, koti said:

After all the debates are done and everything is said, Its a binary issue at the end - very strict gun law vs. horrible things happening.

I'm just 15, but I've learned things are very rarely binary.

Including this.

 

4 hours ago, rangerx said:

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.

 

I've only quoted one line to save on space, pretend I've quoted everything.

 

 

So you support better gun control laws, the right to still own guns, and even semi-automatic guns?

Or is it that Canada still allows semi-automatic guns, but you still don't particularly like that idea?

 

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

If my position doesn't correspond to the position of others I'm seen as intellectually dishonest

Comparing cars to guns and considering the risk benefit analyses to be the same is the bit that is intellectually dishonest.

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

It doesn't seem to be enough to support gun control. I have to support it in a way that is deemed correct by others, to the extent deemed appropriate by others, and I must have the proper attitude while I'm doing it.

In order to be recognised as addressing the problem you have to support gun controls that would address the problem.

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

I've gone so far as to say "I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives."

And, when we point out that giving up your guns would (at least statistically) save lives , you decide not to give them up...

 

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

I've gone so far as to say "I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives." But that is not enough.

If you gave them up as publically as possible saying your doing this under great duress, you might (even probably) start a movement that leads to others doing the same and if enough do your almost certain to save a life (or even thousands); however long the journey we can only get there if/when someone takes the first step. 

Edited February 17, 2018 by dimreepr

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you gave them up as publically as possible saying your doing this under great duress, you might (even probably) start a movement that leads to others doing the same and if enough do your almost certain to save a life (or even thousands); however long the journey we can only get there if/when someone takes the first step. 

What a great idea. Perhaps it needs a popular movement like this to change things. Then the politicians can catch up later (unless they get persuaded to make it a crime not to have weapons!)

[swansont]

On 2/15/2018 at 6:14 PM, rangerx said:

Additionally, the AR-15 isn't even an assault rifle.

Some versions of the AR-15 were banned by the 1994 assault weapons ban.

'Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an "assault weapon."'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.9241ff8b3b3b

 

And, should it come up, remember that the Supreme Court has held (in Heller) that having military-style weapons is not protected under the second amendment.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Not just in response to you MigL, but...

It doesn't seem to be enough to support gun control. I have to support it in a way that is deemed correct by others, to the extent deemed appropriate by others, and I must have the proper attitude while I'm doing it. I've gone so far as to say "I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives." But that is not enough. As long as those guns are sitting in my gun safe or being fired at a piece of paper, I seem to be "causing unnecessary deaths". If my position doesn't correspond to the position of others I'm seen as intellectually dishonest or laughable, rather than as someone who may simply have a different perspective.

The days of tolerance are long gone when fundamentally agreeing is not enough.

You aren't posting about how to solve the problem. You are posting about the way recommendations by others make you a victim. You are disagreeing with my approach much as I am yours yet I've not resorted to pity posts about being alienated. We are all equally entitled to our opinions. You can have yours, some will agree with it and others won't. 

From the posts I have read of yours on the issue the majority of arguments you've made are ones which have been long repeated for decades. Positions that have been respected and tried for decades and the situation has only worsened. The voices of those who own guns and like guns and believe themselves to be safe responsible gun owners are voices that received copious  amounts of influence over this debate. Nothing has gotten better. The arguments and approach you advocate haven't helped. Obviously it is debatable if they've hurt but they clearly haven't helped. Time after time people have bent to their knees and politely asked for the most modest of reforms and been told "over my cold dead body". As John Cuthber linked the current administration rolled back  a regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase guns. That is where we are at; negative progress. 

I intentionally do not discuss my experience with guns in these discussions. Because whenever a gun debates come up many people first rush to qualify themselves by listing the number of guns they have as if being a gun owner legitimizes ones position. We should not have to first either show support for or apologize to gun owners before we can proceed. Politicians are careful to be photographed with guns. It is unique to gun debates. When we discussing abortion the voices of those who have had them do not dominate discussion. To my knowledge there is not a single elected official in Congress who has admitted to being involved with an abortion. Likewise drug debates. We don't start off debate by having everyone first list all the drugs they've done. Yet gun debates always includes people talking about their guns, their training, and etc. It is a self re-enforcing loop.

What I want: a ban on bump stocks to include language that would ban any comparable accessory, universal background checks, law enforcement to be authorized a database to collect information about the distribution and use of guns,  a tax on all guns & ammunition to cover the implementation of changes to policy, and just as there are Congressional committees which regularly meet to discuss ethics, education, Armed Services, and etc there should be one for gun violence. I don't want to ban all guns, collect any ones guns, or stop you from owning guns. I want the modest stuff most approve of passed and then discussion to continue as the industry evolves in response to change.

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I notice the FBI are getting flak now. Is it justified or is it just deliberate deflection from the issue by parties who don't want things to change; turning them into the fall guys? It seems to me like 'hindsight is a wonderful thing' and, actually, people are getting shot every day, so how are the FBI expected to see through the noise.

 

This is an interesting question. When Janet Napalitano was Sec.of Homeland Security she released an assessment indicating a threat from domestic grown extremist groups. Republicans aggressively rebuked the assessment claiming it unfairly criticized conservative groups. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/    

Since that time we have seen a growing amount of violence related to such groups. From right wing militia members killing police officers in Las Vegas during the Bundy ranch standoff, Dylann Roof (Charleston Church) be a white nationalist sympathizers, the tikki torch Nazis in Chancellorsville, and now this shooting in Florida where the shooter had participated in paramilitary training with a white nationalist group it seems that Napalitano was on to something. However just as the President was careful to not be overly critical of the Nazis is Chancellorsville they is a lot of caution among Republicans to treat white nationalist militias as terror groups because those groups are such staunch supporters of theirs. If those groups were labelled as terrorist organizations in Congress law enforcement agencies like the FBI would have for more latitude to track and investigate them. In connecting the dots with respects to Nikolas Cruz his affiliation with white nationalists in combination with other warnings would have set off more red flags. So I do feel the FBI are being scape-goated a bit for what is actually the failure of Congress to act on the assessments they have been provided by experts.  

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You aren't posting about how to solve the problem. You are posting about the way recommendations by others make you a victim. You are disagreeing with my approach much as I am yours yet I've not resorted to pity posts about being alienated. We are all equally entitled to our opinions. You can have yours, some will agree with it and others won't. 

From the posts I have read of yours on the issue the majority of arguments you've made are ones which have been long repeated for decades. Positions that have been respected and tried for decades and the situation has only worsened. The voices of those who own guns and like guns and believe themselves to be safe responsible gun owners are voices that received copious  amounts of influence over this debate. Nothing has gotten better. The arguments and approach you advocate haven't helped. Obviously it is debatable if they've hurt but they clearly haven't helped. Time after time people have bent to their knees and politely asked for the most modest of reforms and been told "over my cold dead body". As John Cuthber linked the current administration rolled back  a regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase guns. That is where we are at; negative progress. 

I intentionally do not discuss my experience with guns in these discussions. Because whenever a gun debates come up many people first rush to qualify themselves by listing the number of guns they have as if being a gun owner legitimizes ones position. We should not have to first either show support for or apologize to gun owners before we can proceed. Politicians are careful to be photographed with guns. It is unique to gun debates. When we discussing abortion the voices of those who have had them do not dominate discussion. To my knowledge there is not a single elected official in Congress who has admitted to being involved with an abortion. Likewise drug debates. We don't start off debate by having everyone first list all the drugs they've done. Yet gun debates always includes people talking about their guns, their training, and etc. It is a self re-enforcing loop.

What I want: a ban on bump stocks to include language that would ban any comparable accessory, universal background checks, law enforcement to be authorized a database to collect information about the distribution and use of guns,  a tax on all guns & ammunition to cover the implementation of changes to policy, and just as there are Congressional committees which regularly meet to discuss ethics, education, Armed Services, and etc there should be one for gun violence. I don't want to ban all guns, collect any ones guns, or stop you from owning guns. I want the modest stuff most approve of passed and then discussion to continue as the industry evolves in response to change.

TBH I side with zap on this, I think perhaps you're approach is over-confrontational and just cements a perception, in the opposition, that this issue is a catch 22; it can't be a paradox because other countries have solved it.

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

it can't be a paradox because other countries have solved it.

The way other countries have solved it would be a nonstarter in the U.S..You suggest I am being confrontational now imagine if I was advocating doing what Australia did in 1996, LOL. The gun control discussion in the U.S. is overly sensitive to specific groups. People are dying. As many people die per year in the U.S. by firearms than in auto accidents. We need to have more bluntness in the debate. The tone of discussion needs to meet the level of the problem. I understand that many of us gun owners consider ourselves well-intentioned. It doesn't matter. We have a serious problem in the U.S. and everyone who votes via electing officials who do nothing or with our wallets is support of the industry share blame. 

I don't see how one side (in this case me) being more worried about alienating the other side (zap) than vice versa is useful. I think we have respectfully listened to more than enough self proclaimed "responsible" gun owners over the decades. Giving a little voice to others can't make anything worse just as continuing down the same rinse and repeat path isn't going to make anything better. 

 

[rangerx]

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

So you support better gun control laws, the right to still own guns, and even semi-automatic guns?

Or is it that Canada still allows semi-automatic guns, but you still don't particularly like that idea?

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.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by rangerx