Yay, GUNS!

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

1. I'm not sure I follow. How does restricting those with mental health problems from having guns mean they won't be able to get treatment? Also, obviously I'm not going to stop someone who has ADHD from getting a gun, or dyslexia. I'm talking people who can't be cleared by a psychologist as safe to have a gun.

2. So you disagree with the current steps because it's about indoctrination? 

3. So the right to restrict dangerous people from having guns, means they're instilling the right to own guns before the rights of the patients themselves? Again. Not sure I follow.

4. Good for you. 

5. This isn't a rant against America, which yes I know you're very Anti-American, but you don't need to drag it into every discussion. 

 

Since you don't agree with the steps, and feel they won't succeed, what is your solution then?

Agreed.

Looking at the current solution we're working on though, do you think it would help prevent an event like this from happening again?

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.

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

All owners licensed. Renewals every 2 years. 

Licensing requires passing of tests and agreements to follow laws and immediately report stolen weapons. Tests will involve shooting competence, stoarsge safety, and also will have written component to confirm awareness of annual gun death numbers and costs.

Along with a license, ownership requires insurance, payments go to those affected by gun violence. 

Any individual cannot own more than three total weapons. No weapon can carry more than six bullets. A shotgun, a rifle, perhaps a handgun. That’s it.

If more weapons than three are owned, they must be stored securely at a gun range (not in the home) and each time they get checked out it will result in an entry to a federal database. That database will use AI to run an immediate scan against social media activity. Any risks indentified will result in a visit from a field agent. Weapons must be checked back in and total time out of locker recorded.

Any household with children require all guns to be placed in a safe and/or be trigger locked. 

Purchase of rapid fire guns requires a good reason and that reason must be annually approved by a panel of three judges. Reason must be better than “they’re cool and I like to show off.” Rentals of rapid fire weapons at gun ranges allowed under licensure.

All weapons must imprint a unique stamp on the ammunition fired so it can be easily tied back to the owner. 

Ammunition must have a luxury tax, like cigarettes and booze. Creation of your own ammo requires license and tracking. 

No sales at gun shows or online. Passing down through family requires mayor to approve. There has to be a paper trail.

Like driving, must have adult present to shoot until 18 years old. Cannot own your own until 21, unless part of the military. 

Any expulsion from school results in mandatory counseling. Any domestic abuse involving police results in immediate suspension of gun privileges for 6 months. Any violent act suspends gun privileges for 12 months. Any breaking of any these rules above suspends gun privileges for 3 years minimum.

Any official found helping to break these rules gets immediately stripped of office, fined, and potentially jailed. 

There are countless other ideas. These are just a few I could easily remember after a long tiring day of cutting down brush and dead trees with a handsaw. 

I am really pessimistic that much of this will ever come to pass as long as the Constitution reads as it does. The reason I say this is because included there seem to be so many barriers to to be able to exercise a Constitutional right; mandatory counseling, luxury taxes, suspension of the right, and others that you mention. Some even remind me of of what abortion rights activists object to when conservatives create barriers to abortion, such as forcing people to be aware of the number of gun deaths before letting them buy a gun (forcing someone seeking an abortion to view pictures of aborted fetuses, or go to counseling first). 

Of course if conservatives can implement barriers to abortion, it stands to reason that liberals can implement barriers to guns. But to make significant progress I believe we need to achieve a broad based change of attitude, and I cannot think of what will be the impetus for that.

19 minutes ago, rangerx said:

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.

I know you keep saying you are not anti-American and I'll take you at your word. But these comments you keep making give the opposite impression.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Some even remind me of of what abortion rights activists object to when conservatives create barriers to abortion, such as forcing people to be aware of the number of gun deaths before letting them buy a gun

As I suspect you already understand, it’s a negotiation. I’m hardly going to compromise my ideal state until the other side compromises theirs. I’m not rigid or ideological about this. Opening salvo and whatnot. Common sense, etc. Raider asked me what I’d recommend, so I took 20 or 30 seconds to think about it and recommended it. 

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

to make significant progress I believe we need to achieve a broad based change of attitude, and I cannot think of what will be the impetus for that.

Especially if the repeated and consistent murders of our kids in their schools isn’t getting it done. 

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I know you keep saying you are not anti-American and I'll take you at your word. But these comments you keep making give the opposite impression.

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.

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Especially if the repeated and consistent murders of our kids in their schools isn’t getting it done. 

I remember being surprised how quickly gays made significant progress in this country. They were suddenly winning significant support from the public, and winning significant cases in the Supreme Court, but I don't remember there being any specific event that preceded the change. For me it just seemed to come out of the blue.

Perhaps something similar will occur with respect to gun laws. Maybe all the killing will reach a tipping point for the public and we'll see a similar, sudden turn for the better.

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

As I suspect you already understand, it’s a negotiation. I’m hardly going to compromise my ideal state until the other side compromises theirs. I’m not rigid or ideological about this. Opening salvo and whatnot. Common sense, etc. Raider asked me what I’d recommend, so I took 20 or 30 seconds to think about it and recommended it. 

It was a great list. I just suddenly had a sinking feeling as I read through it, anticipating that most changes that will really make a difference are going to be so very difficult to achieve. 

15 minutes ago, rangerx said:

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.

You really seem to have no idea what others may find offensive.

Edited February 19, 2018 by zapatos

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

All owners licensed. Renewals every 2 years.

Agreed. I personally suggest the license isn't a universal one. If you want to own a handgun, you have to have a handgun license, etc.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Licensing requires passing of tests and agreements to follow laws and immediately report stolen weapons.

Agreed entirely.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Tests will involve shooting competence, storage safety, and also will have written component to confirm awareness of annual gun death numbers and costs.

 

I'm not sure about shooting competence. If you mean you have to be good at hitting your target, I feel like that's a bit moot to the point. My main goal in gun control is to save lives from intentional homicide. Shooting competence doesn't really play a factor, you shouldn't be shooting at someone in the first place. However, storage safety and written component to confirm awareness of gun deaths are perfectly fine to me. I'm a bit hesitant on the storage safety, but I'm perfectly willing to let the compromise because I believe that's just a knee-jerk reaction on my part.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Along with a license, ownership requires insurance, payments go to those affected by gun violence. 

I'd disagree with the insurance portion of this. Mainly because it doesn't seem like it'll affect gun violence that much, and if the money goes to those affected by gun violence it'd have to be something the government ran. Which would be expensive, to say the least. I like the idea of money going to those affected by gun violence, however, I disagree if it should be pulled from insurance on all guns.

However, I'd agree on having insurance for any weapons that carry more than 6 bullets and/or are semi-automatic.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Any individual cannot own more than three total weapons. No weapon can carry more than six bullets. A shotgun, a rifle, perhaps a handgun. That’s it.

I disagree with this. Having a limit on weapons seems again, like a moot point. In a mass shooting, you only shoot one weapon at a time. Additionally, there are many more guns for hunting then just 3. There are different gauges for shotguns, different calibers for rifles, same for handguns, etc. Additionally, what about families? Is it per person in the family? How does age play into this role?

Also, I disagree with the idea you can't own a weapon with more than six bullets. I don't oppose having a much higher standard of licensing and background checks for owning one though. And threatening social media posts automatically disqualify you from obtaining such weapon for life. But, I do disagree that they should be outright banned.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If more weapons than three are owned, they must be stored securely at a gun range (not in the home) and each time they get checked out it will result in an entry to a federal database.

That database will use AI to run an immediate scan against social media activity. Any risks indentified will result in a visit from a field agent. Weapons must be checked back in and total time out of locker recorded.

Gun range is out of the question, as stated in previous points. However, as I stated before a much higher vetting process for more than 3 guns is acceptable to me. 

As for the federal background check database, I'd agree with that. 

I'd also add, anyone selling weapons must perform a background check from the federal database(which the AI will run scans on social media for) and all that. It should also state if this person actually has the mental fitness check as well.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Any household with children requires all guns to be placed in a safe and/or be trigger locked. 

Agreed. Very much agreed.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Purchase of rapid fire guns requires a good reason and that reason must be annually approved by a panel of three judges. Reason must be better than “they’re cool and I like to show off.” Rentals of rapid fire weapons at gun ranges allowed under licensure

Disagreed. The licensing for the weapons, in my opinion, should be higher, and already getting background checks and mental fitness checks are enough in my opinion.

Again, I'm trying to limit the number of homicides, not make sure everyone has a valid reason to have the gun.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

All weapons must imprint a unique stamp on the ammunition fired so it can be easily tied back to the owner. 

They already do, it's called a ballistic fingerprinting. However, being able to be tied back to the owner with a stamp would mean every single gun across the united states would have to be collected, and then modified. This would cost well into the billions, especially for collectible guns like flintlocks, muzzleloaders, etc. There is no way you'd get me to agree to make gun owners to pay for that, nor to tax everyone to pay for it. 

Should all new guns being sold into the market be ballistic fingerprinted so they can be traced? Yes. All current guns? Very expensive and very controversial.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Ammunition must have a luxury tax, like cigarettes and booze. Creation of your own ammo requires license and tracking. 

I'd disagree with this. Mainly because it seems more like an attempt to restrict weapons rather than save lives.

However, I'd be willing to compromise. Rather than have insurance on weapons paying victims of gun violence, I'd rather ammunition be taxed and used to pay victims of gun violence.

It'd raise much more money, be much cheaper to do, and in my opinion, much more efficient. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

No sales at gun shows or online. Passing down through family requires mayor to approve. There has to be a paper trail... a 3rd party who becomes responsible for safe transfer.

I believe you should be allowed to sell at gun shows. You should still have to do the licensing regardless. 

Passing down through family I feel would be an exception. A simple submission of a paper stating transfers of gun ownership, and that the person receiving the gun already has a license should be enough. And then just have the county/city/district secretary just run a background check on the person who received the gun to confirm the license. It'd be a federal crime to lie on the paperwork, so it'd be much simpler to do this. And less restrictive.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Like driving, must have adult present to shoot until 18 years old. Cannot own your own until 21, unless part of the military. 

2

I feel it should be like driving, where unless you have a license you have to have an adult present.

The license should be at 18 years old, not 21. However, saying you have to wait until a certain age is fine with me.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Any expulsion from school results in mandatory counseling. Any domestic abuse involving police results in immediate suspension of gun privileges for 6 months. Any violent act suspends gun privileges for 12 months. Any breaking of any these rules above suspends gun privileges for 3 years minimum... permanently in extreme cases.

Mandatory counseling I'd disagree with. There are expulsions from school for fighting, truancy, etc. It's not always about mental health breakdowns.

However. I have no problem with saying that if you're expelled from school, you'd require mandatory counseling to obtain a gun license. 

As for domestic abuse, I'd say it should only be for the perpetrator. I'd disagree with punishing the victim. 

I'd agree with the 12-month suspension for violent acts. 

I'd also add that if it results in a trial which results in jail time, you permanently lose the right to own a gun.

And I'd also agree with the 3 years minimum in addition to the current punishment for breaking these rules.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Any official found helping to break these rules gets immediately stripped of office, fined, and potentially jailed. 

 

Agreed.

 

Okay. I've addressed each point.

I've made compromises on my side.

Your turn.

If you agree with my compromises being adequate enough for the time being, I'll draft this into a mock bill type of thing so you can see how it'd look as a law.

Then we can discuss how to advocate it, support it, etc.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps something similar will occur with respect to gun laws. Maybe all the killing will reach a tipping point for the public and we'll see a similar, sudden turn for the better.

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.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

what about families? Is it per person in the family?

You really need to start reading more closely before launching into a reply, brother. You even quoted me: “Any individual cannot own more than three total weapons.”

 

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

You really need to start reading more closely before launching into a reply, brother. You even quoted me: “Any individual cannot own more than three total weapons.”

 

I did read that.

However, you also talked about if an individual owns more then 3 guns they have to have it at a gun range.

I assumed that you mentioned that because you didn't want stockpiles of more than 3 guns not being properly stored.

If that was the case(sorry for assuming) a family of 5 could have 15 guns stockpiled, and it wouldn't have to be at a gun range based on your definition.

So that was my mistake. I assumed you were worried about the amount of weapons in one place, rather then how many an individual owned.

 

 

I'll wait until you haven't posted for a while, to prevent cross-posting.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Raider5678
Added the crossposting line.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

As for domestic abuse, I'd say it should only be for the perpetrator. I'd disagree with punishing the victim. 

Never intended to imply otherwise. 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

assumed that you mentioned that because you didn't want stockpiles of more than 3 guns not being properly stored.

If that was the case(sorry for assuming) a family of 5 could have 15 guns stockpiled, and it wouldn't have to be at a gun range based on your definition

Good point. Let’s amend: Any individual cannot own more than three total weapons, any household more than five.

As for most of your objections, I read most of them quite simply as you saying, “Nope,” and will be transparent with you here and share that I currently have zero intention of responding. 

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'd disagree with the insurance portion of this. Mainly because it doesn't seem like it'll affect gun violence that much

Money is a big motivator. Most of us drive more safely to avoid our insurance premiums rising after an accident. 

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I disagree with the idea you can't own a weapon with more than six bullets.

I don’t care. You haven’t demonstrated the need. 

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

As for most of your objections, I read most of them quite simply as you saying, “Nope,” and will be transparent with you here and share that I currently have zero intention of responding. 

 

I'm not sure I follow. I provided what I'd compromise with, my reasoning for it, and what I'd offer in return.

Some of them were simple changes like simply saying rather than 21 years of age, make it 18. And rather than saying up until 18 years old, making it that it's unless you have a license (which would still be at 18). 

You stated to Zapatos that this was an opening salvo, where you'd be willing to compromise.

So, given that I provided my reasoning for the objections, the least you could do is at least tell me why you don't agree with it rather than dismissing what I've said as "Nope."

Because I assure you, I put considerably more thought into it than "Nope," and would appreciate your own reasoning.

 

 

Earlier you claimed gun owners aren't willing to compromise as much as gun control advocates. Make true to your statement, and at least provide reasoning.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm trying to limit the number of homicides, not make sure everyone has a valid reason to have the gun.

Perhaps you don’t realize this, but they’re extremely related, especially once we begin talking about modular weapons, assault weapons, and rapid fire weapons. 

27 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Mandatory counseling I'd disagree with. There are expulsions from school for fighting, truancy, etc. It's not always about mental health breakdowns.

Amazingly, counseling is quite helpful in those situations, too. 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Earlier you claimed gun owners aren't willing to compromise as much as gun control advocates.

No, I didn’t. Again, please start reading more closely. 

[Raider5678]

Just now, iNow said:

Perhaps you don’t realize this, but they’re extremely related, especially once we begin talking about modular weapons, assault weapons, and rapid fire weapons. 

Assault weapons, modular weapons, and rapid-fire weapons are very rarely used in homicides except for mass shootings.

And in mass shootings, a throughout background check and mental fitness check would have disqualified every single mass shooter that I can think of as of now from obtaining a modular weapon, assault weapon, or a rapid-fire weapon in the first place under the gun control methods I previously mentioned.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Assault weapons, modular weapons, and rapid-fire weapons are very rarely used in homicides except for mass shootings.

Was your intent to reenforce my position? Because you just did. They’re deadly toys. They’re not required. For anything but death. Your argument is basically, “fuck you, they’re fun, I like them.” My response? That’s no longer good enough. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Was your intent to re8nforcd my position? Because you just did. 

They’re toys. They’re not required. Your argument is, “fuck you, they’re fun, I like them.” Not good enough. 

I'm attempting to make it so that whatever gun control methods we come up with, don't simply get a "Screw you, I'm never going to agree to that" from the entire right wing side.

Making a regulation that you have to have a valid point(which literally nobody will be able to come up with if target shooting isn't considered valid) effectively bans anyone from having them. That will never pass.

 

Again, my attempt is to utterly limit the amount of gun violence. If I didn't care about making it reasonable, I would simply ban guns in their entirety and gun violence would drop dramatically.

But that would never pass now, would it?

 

So. Let's refrain from curse words, take a deep breath, and debate in a method that does not involve fingerpointing and insults.

[iNow]

Screw you, I'm never going to agree to that

Kidding aside, I’m not the type of guy who plays to the polls. I’m the type of guy who influences them. 

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Screw you, I'm never going to agree to that

An all or nothing mentality isn't going to get anything done.

 

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

An all or nothing mentality isn't going to get anything done.

 

Did you miss the joke?

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Okay. I've addressed each point.

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.

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by rangerx

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

I am really pessimistic that much of this will ever come to pass as long as the Constitution reads as it does.

You mean is read as it current is? Different courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment different ways. That is one of the reasons the Federalist Society was created and Republicans took such an absolute position against Merrick Garland. 

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

It's getting that way. It's easy to sense the latest mass-murder in Florida has opened a lot of eyes.

I felt this way after Sandy Hook and then absolutely nothing happened. After Las Vegas all that happened was a surge in the sales of bump stocks and AR-15s. It is ironic in way. After every mass shooting gun and ammunition sales spike. Gun enthusiast anticipate something will change so they rush out and load up while they can but then nothing changes. The ironic part being they don't expect their arguments to be success but then they are, they don't expect their position to hold but then it does. Despite all the debate it seem everyone is actually believes stricter gun laws should or inevitably will come. 

[swansont]

22 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Guns are freely available on the black market (lets ignore for the moment stupid shit like gun show sales, stopping that is a high priority already) if you want a gun getting a gun doesn't involve gun dealers, it doesn't involve background checks or whether or not you are sane. It involves you have enough money to buy a gun from someone who has a gun to sell.

"freely available" has a fairly nebulous definition here. If it's really expensive, then it's not all that available unless you have the money. And if access to the desired type of gun is restricted, it becomes even less available. They will not be freely available.

How do the guns get to the black market, anyway? We're talking about guns that are legally manufactured and sold at some point.

18 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Forgive my ignorance. Do the same companies produce military guns as well as civilian ones?

If so, how  much market share does ech sector have?

If they get millions from domestic gun sales, but billions from military ones  then a boycott won't work.

Customer base is very different. 200 million or so adults, some fraction of which buy guns, and the rest are potential customers. 2 million or so military (active and reserve)

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

 I know you keep saying you are not anti-American and I'll take you at your word. But these comments you keep making give the opposite impression.

How is that anti-American? It's objectively true that other countries have had success with the measures that they've taken, and the US has not attempted these measures. We've abandoned something that we did that helped — the assault weapons ban. It reduced mass murders, and they jumped back up in rate after the ban expired.

"Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths."

[Raider5678]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Did you miss the joke?

Yes, I quoted him a few minutes after, before he added the second line.

I then went to bed.

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

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.

12

Lying to a police officer is a crime, in both Canada and America. Again, we'll take your word for it, but your posts seem very Anti-American.

 

As for the logbooks, they sound fine to me for Semi-Automatic weapons and pistols. I'm not sure of the necessity for rifles, shotguns, etc.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

How is that anti-American? It's objectively true that other countries have had success with the measures that they've taken, and the US has not attempted these measures.

I didn't find "Far be it America would follow another country's lead on fixing problems, lest they appear weak" to be either objectively true or on topic.

[rangerx]

54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I didn't find "Far be it America would follow another country's lead on fixing problems, lest they appear weak" to be either objectively true or on topic.

It's broadly true and germane to the discussion.

Creating the narrative I'm anti-American is false.

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Again, we'll take your word for it, but your posts seem very Anti-American.

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by rangerx

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I didn't find "Far be it America would follow another country's lead on fixing problems, lest they appear weak" to be either objectively true or on topic.

Humility doesn't appear to be a strength in America which may explain why so many want guns.