Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[Acme]

...

As to law. I reviewed an early post. I take back "criminal negligence" on the hooks thing. If a gun on hooks is legal in some states, there's no criminal intent. However, I will replace that with "negligence, gross negligence, reckless endangerment or contributing to a minor" when accidents happen.

As I noted and quoted from my gun manual in post #410, numerous states have exactly these kinds of criminal liability laws on the books.

I went on to suggest a federal law of the same nature is a good idea.

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

As I noted and quoted from my gun manual in post #410, numerous states have exactly these kinds of criminal liability laws on the books.

I went on to suggest a federal law of the same nature is a good idea.

 

I stand corrected, thank you. I couldn't agree more, a federal law along these lines is reasonable and prudent.

[overtone]

How can "well regulated" not involve government?

Because of the meaning of the term in English, more commonly used in that sense in the 18th century but still used today in many contexts. It's just a matter of knowing what the term means. In this context it has little or nothing to do with any political government. Governmental regulations are for government military - militias are not government military. The word "regulated" does not refer to bureaucratic regulations only, anyone's, far less is it limited to government regulations.

 

It's the other way around - government "regulations" are a derived term, from the general meaning of putting in good order and setting up well.

 

It's like a well-appointed kitchen - nothing to do with government appointments in particular. It's like a governed engine - its governor has nothing to do with officialdom.

 

A well regulated militia, like a well regulated ship, or a well regulated mining operation, or the like, is fully and appropriately equipped. That's why the right to bear arms is connected with the term "well regulated" - the intent is to guarantee the ability to raise a properly equipped militia at security's need. (Or more significantly, to prevent the Federal government from disarming the regular citizenry - a preliminary to tyranny familiar to the much abused Scotch-Irish who fought the Revolution and founded the country) In order to raise a well-regulated militia at need, that people be ready to take up arms with their neighbors and respond to threats, obviously regular citizens have to have the appropriate weapons in their possession and ready to hand. It's not rocket science.

 

This is all covered - several times - in the previous pages of this thread and in many other places.

Edited September 19, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

 

Au contraire, mon frère. I made it quite clear.

 

I am a scientist, by academia and trade. I'm quite certain, I know the difference, as such I'll consider that as berated.

Scientist but not a lawyer right? So by your own standard what is your opinion worth?

In fact, all you've discussed is your version of the letter of the law, from an amateur viewpoint (you're not a lawyer, right?), with a questionable (if not entirely absent) version of the spirit of the law. Gun advocates don't have exclusive interpretation on either point, so what you say only stands at face value, not necessarily reality. Nowhere have you repudiated irresponsibility under any moral authority nor offered proactive steps for resolution.

So you really think defendants get convicted when they follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. Canada must have interesting courts proceedings. I can just hear the prosecutors closing arguments. "Sure the defendant showed that he followed the letter of the law, but he just didn't follow the vibe." That might convince the courts in Canada, but I doubt they would in the US.

By the way, I love your country and visit it often. British Columbia has many great motorcycle adventures and wonderful hot springs.

Likewise, you were asked to support several points with scientific facts by other posters and an administrator, but continue skirting the issue.

No, I was asked to provide a definition for the term well regulated. Scientific facts may help you pass a law, support your position about a law, or help you get a law changed, but they have no bearing on a laws that are in place. Laws are what they are.

By the way, you can always read DC v. Heller to find out what well regulated means. But since you won't read it, here it is.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

 

Nothing there about controlled by government. So people need to own arms so they know how to shoot them. A simple amendment with simple meanings.

As to law. I reviewed an early post. I take back "criminal negligence" on the hooks thing. If a gun on hooks is legal in some states, there's no criminal intent. However, I will replace that with "negligence, gross negligence, reckless endangerment or contributing to a minor" when accidents happen.

First, it wasn't me that recommended putting guns on hooks. It was overtone that said "Some of my relatives kept a shotgun on nails over the kitchen door (overlooked the garden and chicken coop)". Use the search engine at the top of the page to look it up. Seems like a reasonable thing for a farmer with a chicken coop to do. Protecting your next meal from the fox is a form of self defense.

I am happy to see you concede that such a practice is not criminal. I concede that it may lead to negligence after an accidental shooting. Negligent homicide even. That fact leads to deterrence of such practices for most except in time of need.

Where I am sure you and I part ways is that DC v. Heller makes such practices legal in every state. If I could only convince you to read DC v. Heller yourself. But I guess by not reading it you can deny it exists.

Edit ----------------------------------------------

On a happy note. Dick Heller is back at it again.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-one-gun-a-month-law-in-district/2015/09/18/137fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

Edited September 19, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

I'm not quite sure why you would think "all firearms" would not include handguns simply because the phrase also states "including rifles and shotguns."

That's not my interpretation. I simply made a mistake when reading it. Thank you for correcting me.

 

That said, you continue to argue as if the Heller decision is absolute, yet it passed only by the narrowest margin possible. That means future challenges may not be decided the same way and you'd be well advised to introduce a degree of uncertainty into your stance.

 

We can do better in how we as a nation approach firearms. We should do better, and other nations with whom we share this oblate spheroid have provided good examples of how "better" can be achieved. They've also all done so without falling victim to the sorts of tyranny and loss of freedom and endless home invasions you seem to think would necessarily ensue were it not for your bedside pistol and current court protection from locks and safes.

 

Leaving aside for the moment questions of law and constitutionality, though, is there no single regulation or protection you'd join some of the rest of us others in supporting? Is there any single change or one improvement in the current status quo you'd be willing to implement and stand behind?

Edited September 19, 2015 by iNow

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Scientist but not a lawyer right? So by your own standard what is your opinion worth?

So you really think defendants get convicted when they follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. Canada must have interesting courts proceedings. I can just hear the prosecutors closing arguments. "Sure the defendant showed that he followed the letter of the law, but he just didn't follow the vibe." That might convince the courts in Canada, but I doubt they would in the US.

By the way, I love your country and visit it often. British Columbia has many great motorcycle adventures and wonderful hot springs.

No, I was asked to provide a definition for the term well regulated. Scientific facts may help you pass a law, support your position about a law, or help you get a law changed, but they have no bearing on a laws that are in place. Laws are what they are.

By the way, you can always read DC v. Heller to find out what well regulated means. But since you won't read it, here it is.

Nothing there about controlled by government. So people need to own arms so they know how to shoot them. A simple amendment with simple meanings.

First, it wasn't me that recommended putting guns on hooks. It was overtone that said "Some of my relatives kept a shotgun on nails over the kitchen door (overlooked the garden and chicken coop)". Use the search engine at the top of the page to look it up. Seems like a reasonable thing for a farmer with a chicken coop to do. Protecting your next meal from the fox is a form of self defense.

I am happy to see you concede that such a practice is not criminal. I concede that it may lead to negligence after an accidental shooting. Negligent homicide even. That fact leads to deterrence of such practices for most except in time of need.

Where I am sure you and I part ways is that DC v. Heller makes such practices legal in every state. If I could only convince you to read DC v. Heller yourself. But I guess by not reading it you can deny it exists.

Edit ----------------------------------------------

On a happy note. Dick Heller is back at it again.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-one-gun-a-month-law-in-district/2015/09/18/137fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

 

As a scientist, opinion has no bearing. Science is based on testable facts not ideology. Water expands when it freezes and breaks the container, hose, block etc. that it's in. That really sucks to finance or convenience, but my opinion on that matter is meaningless in chemistry or physics.

 

As to law, I'm no lawyer. Therefore my opinion is not different than yours where others are concerned, but I can tell you I have ten years under my belt as the representative of a class action in the USA. 9th Circuit - State of Oregon and Appellate Court in San Francisco (I will cite, if you insist) In that ten years, other than under deposition in chambers, never spoke a single word in open court. So basically, I learned to listen, learn, read, comprehend maritime law as it applies international incidents. BP and Exxon are tough customers, but we prevailed. To this day, I consult with law firms, industry and organizations on the precedents of that action. I have a history with a reasonable grasp of the law in both mine and your countries. Debating you is easier than swatting flies.

 

No, I don't think defendants get convicted when they follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. I'm saying kids get killed when gun owners are negligent and any proactive solutions or changes to the letter of law are based on the spirit. In fact, it's the prerequisite, as in the public interest. As to the rest of your statement "Canada must have interesting courts proceedings. I can just hear the prosecutors closing arguments. "Sure the defendant showed that he followed the letter of the law, but he just didn't follow the vibe." That might convince the courts in Canada, but I doubt they would in the US." is delusional nonsense.

 

Yes indeed, the law is the law. Negligence seems lost on you though, as though it's automatically excusable because guns were involved.

 

You are dead wrong, again on regulation, That's no opinion, it's fact.

 

Regulation:

 

noun

1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.

2. the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

Ignore #1 all you want, it's NOT going away any time soon.

 

You are also dead wrong on "inalienable"

 

in·al·ien·a·ble

inˈālēənəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: inalienable

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

I don't read anywhere in the law or the meaning of the word, where this cannot be regulated. High cap clips, permits etc.. are ... government (I'll spell it for you) r. e. g. u. l. a. t. i. o. n. s., with standing in law. DC v Heller is not a catch-all precedent. In fact, it's scope is greatly limited. The use/lack of gun locks is a tiny fraction of a much bigger picture that has yet to be discussed, so long as you keep parroting it. By the way, legal precedents are not science, it's law. You've been asked, many times to back up your claims with scientific facts, not opinions on how law reads.

I agree with you, the right to bear arms is inalienable to law abiding citizens. Your country takes that right away from criminals, so no matter how you look at it, it's alienation. Surely you don't mean to suggest all criminals should be allowed to carry guns, do you?

Did you know that my right to bear arms is inalienable too? Nobody can take my guns. I'm allowed to keep them because of the simplest of property laws, not some ambiguously worded amendment that's been the crux of discord or fodder for willful ignorance and carnage for centuries. No, you guys just had to be different, now it's paid for in domestic blood, young and old.

 

Yes, British Columbia is a wonderful place. I really hope for your sake, and ours... you leave your guns at home when you visit. Do you feel safe when you're here? Do you realize more than half of the declared/undeclared guns seized are brought in by Americans were permitted on the other side? Is that responsible gun ownership? Those who openly declared them are often given the benefit of the doubt as to charges, after all they didn't hide anything, but it's still illegal. The weapon is never returned, it's destroyed.The traveler will usually be allowed to proceed into or return to Canada with no restrictions. That's pretty fair, I'd say considering they were negligent in researching our laws or presumed only their laws apply while here. I'M AN AMERICAN, GODDAMMIT!!! pfft. Those who get caught with undeclared guns, go to jail. Once their time is served, deported with a lifetime ban on re-entry.

 

And no, I read DC v Heller, word for word and understand it for what it is and why it was tested. However, your take on it is dubious, IMHO, even a stretch (not on locks, evidently), on the issue in general. I don't look upon it as an excuse or a consequence incidental to the accidental or negligent usage of firearms, though. Hence the latter part of your comment, "But I guess by not reading it you can deny it exists" is just more nonsense.

[overtone]

They've also all done so without falling victim to the sorts of tyranny and loss of freedom and endless home invasions you seem to think would necessarily ensue

That isn't universally, or even largely, true. The record of the many countries featuring a disarmed citizenry over the past couple of hundred years is not reassuring - including very recent situations in Latin America, close to home. And of course there is the historical fate of the major disarmed populations of the US, still unfolding - the blacks and reds.

 

 

I'm allowed to keep them because of the simplest of property laws, not some ambiguously worded amendment that's been the crux of discord or fodder for willful ignorance and carnage for centuries.

Speaking of willful ignorance, have you corrected your ignorance regarding the wording of that 2nd Amendment, or is your impression that it is vague still somehow based on "well regulated" implying government regulations. and "militia" implying a standing force of men at arms, possibly involved in law enforcement?

 

No, you guys just had to be different, now it's paid for in domestic blood, young and old

What we had, for difference, was frontier wars and plantation slavery and a country pioneered and founded by the Scotch Irish - a long-abused population with a recent and raw memory of what disarmament meant to the less respected subjects of the British Empire.

 

And the blood, while inexcusably tragic and far too prevalent, is not as enormous or critical a problem as gun control advocates seem to be wedded to proclaiming - for a country with 80 million children and hundreds of millions of guns lying around, not even the child accident rate is all that high. Most Americans are not living in fear of anyone's gun.

 

It's not an emergency, in other words. And it's not even clear that the best bang for the buck in reducing the blood is in gun control - better drug laws and health care for the mentally ill look more promising, have a large arena of benefit outside of gunshot injury, and are without Constitutional handicap.

 

Edit in: a comment on the origins of the Constitutional provisions in the US, from Wiki:

 

 

Because the Scotch-Irish settled the frontier of Pennsylvania and western Virginia, they were in the midst of the French and Indian War and Pontiac's Rebellion that followed.^[44] The Scotch-Irish were frequently in conflict with the Indian tribes who lived on the other side of the frontier; indeed, they did most of the Indian fighting on the American frontier from New Hampshire to the Carolinas.^[45][46] The Irish and Scots also became the middlemen who handled trade and negotiations between the Indian tribes and the colonial governments.^[47]

Especially in Pennsylvania, whose pacifist Quaker leaders had made no provision for a militia, Scotch-Irish settlements were frequently destroyed and the settlers killed, captured or forced to flee after attacks by Native Americans from tribes of the Delaware (Lenape), Shawnee, Seneca, and others of western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country.^{[citation needed]} Indian attacks were taking place within 60 miles of Philadelphia, and in July 1763, the Pennsylvania Assembly authorized a 700-strong militia to be raised, to be used only for defensive actions. Formed into two units of rangers, the Cumberland Boys and the Paxton Boys, the militia soon exceeded their defensive mandate and began offensive forays against Lenape villages in western Pennsylvania

Edited September 19, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

That isn't universally, or even largely, true. The record of the many countries featuring a disarmed citizenry over the past couple of hundred years is not reassuring

Agreed, which is why it's helpful not to truncate my quote so as to change the context and intended point.

 

Once more, what I said, in context:

 

"We should do better [in how we as a nation approach firearms], and other nations with whom we share this oblate spheroid have provided good examples of how "better" can be achieved. They've also all done so without falling victim to the sorts of tyranny and loss of freedom and endless home invasions you seem to think would necessarily ensue were it not for your bedside pistol and current court protection from locks and safes."

 

 

it's not even clear that the best bang for the buck in reducing the blood is in gun control - better drug laws and health care for the mentally ill look more promising

Interestingly, they're not mutually exclusive. We just might...bear with me now, I know it's a stretch...I'm just spitballing here and coming in from way out in left field...don't mean to muddy the waters with wild irrational fantasy...but we just MIGHT try doing both. Whoa! I know, right?!? Edited September 19, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Leaving aside for the moment questions of law and constitutionality, though, is there no single regulation or protection you'd join some of the rest of us others in supporting? Is there any single change or one improvement in the current status quo you'd be willing to implement and stand behind?

Before we can start such a journey we have to decide where our current starting place is. Unless someone posts before I complete, this will be post 659, and this discussion has still not reached a consensus on where we are starting from. We are still quibbling about the meaning of words used in our founding documents, the constitution, and the second amendment of the bill of rights. Furthermore, some like you, continue to suggest that 5 to 4 Supreme court rulings should have little bearing on the debate. Until this is resolved little progress can be made to your goal for more regulation to reduce child deaths by firearms.

 

Perhaps you should publicly state were you think we stand with regard to our guaranteed constitutional rights based on our founding documents, the second amendment, impacting supreme court rulings, and the debate we have had to this point. Perhaps that would move things along.

 

As an example of confusion on the meaning of words I give you Pearl.

 

 

You are dead wrong, again on regulation, That's no opinion, it's fact.

 

Regulation:

 

noun

1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.

2. the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

Ignore #1 all you want, it's NOT going away any time soon.

 

Above Pearl insists that the word Regulation defines the word regulate. While above, the word regulate simply helps define the word regulation. The word regulate stands on its own in definition #1. Can laws be passed with the intention of putting conduct in good order? Sure. Are regulations required to put a militia in good order? no. Regulation does not define the word regulated. So all Pearl has to do is click on the word regulate (or regulated) from his own post to find out what word regulate means. Once that definition is provided he can select the most appropriate definition from the provided list of definitions. Not the one he likes the most. To determine the most appropriate definition, one needs to look at how the word was used and the historical context of its use by the author. One would think that a scientist with knowledge about the law would understand that.

You are also dead wrong on "inalienable"

 

in·al·ien·a·ble

inˈālēənəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: inalienable

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Here Pearl provides the the definition of the word inalienable as if I am in disagreement with this definition. I am not. Sure my firearms may be taken from me or freely given away by me. But my right to to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away from or given away by me or any other human being. It is an inalienable right.

 

Is there any single change or one improvement in the current status quo you'd be willing to implement and stand behind?

I have made a suggestion. I suggested that children in k through 12 public schools receive mandatory gun safety training. This training would of course have to be age or grade appropriate. For example kindergartner's simply need to be taught to not touch guns, run away from them, and tell and grown up about the gun. I believe this would save the lives of some children. You never know where a child may find a gun. At a friends house, or simply on the street when thrown away by a criminal. You have pointed out many times how many guns Americans own. This number continues to increase, particularly when gun control is mentioned. This makes training children gun safety all the more important.

Edited September 19, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

"I have made a suggestion. I suggested that children in k through 12 public schools receive mandatory gun safety training. "

So, guns in schools make kids safer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

I have made a suggestion. I suggested that children in k through 12 public schools receive mandatory gun safety training. This training would of course have to be age or grade appropriate. For example kindergartner's simply need to be taught to not touch guns, run away from them, and tell and grown up about the gun. I believe this would save the lives of some children. You never know where a child may find a gun. At a friends house, or simply on the street when thrown away by a criminal. You have pointed out many times how many guns Americans own. This number continues to increase, particularly when gun control is mentioned. This makes training children gun safety all the more important.

 

 

Oh, a suggestion! Thank you!

 

I'm all for education, but throwing this into the laps of kids as not be more diligent ourselves on every other issue isn't going to fix anything.

I was 15 when I got my "hunter safety course" and could buy, own, use a gun. That is a reasonable age. Any younger is a parental issue, which is where America failed it's children, miserably. These things need no regulation, or government involvement, only takes common sense, but it's in the FACTS (see below), not my opinion, that Americans fail that test miserably by putting ideology and amateur interpretations of law ahead of common sense. 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the American border, yet we have nowhere near the death rate on any level. Yet, think of us as wrong. You guys are your own worst enemy.

 

Kids can be taught, but they're not rational.

 

When I was kid, the police came to the school one day with a film about the dangers of blasting caps. Despite what was said and what we should do if encountered, what was the first thing we did when got out of school that day?.. kids went looking for blasting caps.

 

Besides that, the partisanship in your country is so over the top, almost never to agree on the even simplest of issues, by default. No less this one. The party of "no", period. The NRA, neocons, gun nuts et al would never agree to the discussion, even if wedged to comply, it would take another two hundred years just to decide when to begin when to start, then another decade to discuss the language, then another hundred years after that to remove X clause and add Y clause. Only to arrive at yet another ambiguous conclusion, that had nothing to do with the issue in the first place.

 

It's a good suggestion, albeit greatly flawed because we are only talking about kids killing kids, but lets assume it to be sound for a moment. How would this prevent death from the collateral damage of criminals?

 

Would you agree this is only a step, not a sole solution to underlying issue?

 

So far I see no willingness to give anything up. "I don't have to, because the law says I don't have to", only fails the test and perpetuates the carnage.

 

I've said it before, if a terrorist killed a kid, you'd be screaming from the rooftops. Hypocrisy, is not lost in America.

 

 

We just might...bear with me now, I know it's a stretch...I'm just spitballing here and coming in from way out in left field...don't mean to muddy the waters with wild irrational fantasy...but we just MIGHT try doing both. Whoa! I know, right?!?

 

That says it all.

 

Thank you, that made my day

Canada United States

 

% of Homocides by firearm ---------- 32 ---------------- 60

# of Homocides by firearm ---------- 173 ------------- 9,146

Homicide by firearm rate/100k pop -.51 -------------- 2.96

Average firearms per 100 people -- 30.8 ------------ 88.6

Total firearms ---------------------- 9,950,000 - 270,000,000

 

We have one third the guns, but only one sixth the death rate.

 

By a rate of 200%, Americans cannot properly handle their guns when compared to Canadians.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls

[overtone]

Interestingly, they're not mutually exclusive. We just might...bear with me now, I know it's a stretch...I'm just spitballing here and coming in from way out in left field...don't mean to muddy the waters with wild irrational fantasy...but we just MIGHT try doing both. Whoa! I know, right?!?

You could have just quoted me making that observation pages and pages ago - without the exclamation points, or the bullshit innuendo, btw.

 

I offered it as part of a approach to gun violence reduction that would avoid the apparently ineradicable jam the irrational and intractable extremists have created in the public discourse over directly restricting the management of guns.

 

We're dealing with a public discourse dominated by people who think they have a Constitutional right to go out drinking in bars with a loaded firearm on their hip, and people who refuse to acknowledge the standard meanings of English words and the authority of the Constitution if such interfere with their proposed gun restrictions. We're faced with people who want to significantly reduce gunshot suicide by making guns unavailable for suicide in the US, and people who think automatic background mental health checks at gun sales are a slippery slope to Stalinist oppression; rather than being shunted to the margins they have taken over the public debate.

 

Pulling on the shoelace is not going to help with that knot - in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

By a rate of 200%, Americans cannot properly handle their guns when compared to Canadians.

I predict that attempting to transform Americans into Canadians by force of law will turn out badly. Just a guess. Edited September 19, 2015 by overtone

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

 

We're dealing with a public discourse dominated by people who think they have a Constitutional right to go out drinking in bars with a loaded firearm on their hip, and people who refuse to acknowledge the standard meanings of English words and the authority of the Constitution if such interfere with their proposed gun restrictions. We're faced with people who want to significantly reduce gunshot suicide by making guns unavailable for suicide in the US, and people who think automatic background mental health checks at gun sales are a slippery slope to Stalinist oppression; rather than being shunted to the margins they have taken over the public debate.

 

Pulling on the shoelace is not going to help with that knot - in my opinion.

 

Agreed. All this pigeon-holing leads nowhere.

 

Extremism is alive and well on either side of the coin.

 

Most of us are down the middle in reality.

 

I'm a pro-gun centrist. Yet, I'm accused of being on the wrong side of the law by waitforufo's assertion. That brand of bigotry and nonsense is used to label the moderate opponent as extreme, irrational or hysterical. Oh yes, there are plenty of those to the left of me who play the same game but generally falls on deaf ears as unworkable. (Hippy-dippy stuff, if ya know what I mean) Ignoring them is not dangerous, but ignoring foot stomping, flag waving gun nuts is.

 

Most Canadians feel they are "well regulated" by our government for the most part. That's a thing which comes from a state of well being, not because somebody said so.

 

I fought the long gun registry in Canada. For a few years, all hunting rifles had to be registered in the same manner as hand guns in the USA. Hunting rifles make for so-so protection devices, especially when compared to the alternatives. It made the RCMP's work harder, not easier. It turned out to be highly discriminatory in cases of domestic violence where the spouse (or other resident) of the permit holder was the instigator. When called to attend, the police would be advised the occupant was in possession of firearms, and as such were the precautionary approaches with guns drawn on the lawful person on the floor with his hands up, before a word was spoken. In some cases, the permit holder was killed by accident.

 

We failed our own people by doing that. We got rid of the law entirely, rather than worded into something to be perverted by alarmists. Even though a law was imposed then repealed, the actual death rate itself didn't change during that period. With that, I'd be the first to admit (long before reading DC v Heller) some restrictions are ill-thought/written, but that does not mean they all are, as many would have us believe.

 

As a child, we learned guns are for hunting, not people. While that may not be entirely the case, it was the premise from which practically every man, woman and child in this country acts upon. In the USA, children are taught that guns are for people, threats, rights (insert purpose) and least of all, hunting.

 

I've been in shooting tournaments with Americans. Not to be mean, but the average American couldn't hit a bull in the ass with handful of rice at 2 paces. Put a gun in their hand, the first thing that comes to mind they need to shoot someone. The shakes are reflected in the scores. I cleaned up a tournament in the Orange County gun club, even though I had never held a .38 until the previous day.

 

Our Canadian forces, in the coalition in Afghanistan are primarily snipers or field engineers. For example, the Canadian Army 2002 sniper team that saw two soldiers (Arron Perry/2,310 m and Rob Furlong/2,430 m) set consecutive new records, also made a number of kills at 1,500 m that are not counted. A Brit, Corporal of Horse (CoH) Craig Harrison leads, with highest best American at 4th position.

 

Please don't mistake these points as off-topic. I'm only demonstrating underlying "stigmas" that go along even with the proper use of firearms in America, that needs to be addressed if the issue is to move along.

[overtone]

 

 

Oh yes, there are plenty of those to the left of me who play the same game but generally falls on deaf ears as unworkable. (Hippy-dippy stuff, if ya know what I mean) Ignoring them is not dangerous, but ignoring foot stomping, flag waving gun nuts is.

I don't think ignoring the extremists on the authoritarian side is safe - the US is oddly vulnerable to Prohibition and Drug War laws, huge government surveillance operations directed at its own citizens, that kind of thing. It's kinda like the whole country were emerging with difficulty from some era in which it had been fundamentally and structurally dedicated to oppressing and exploiting by force a major fraction of its own population, with all of the internal vigilance and ready resort to coercion or violence against one's neighbors that implies. Obviously a silly notion, but it maybe describes the mood or attitude for the stranger and Canadian.

 

At any rate, emotional and statistically misleading rhetoric about children being killed all over the place and selfish people not caring about them does not the centrist identify. In the US.

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

 

I predict that attempting to transform Americans into Canadians by force of law will turn out badly. Just a guess.

 

 

We have no interest in that. We're allies. Each others greatest trade partner. The longest unsecured border in the world.

 

Neither faction considered a wall like in the south. Neither are falling over themselves trying to sneak into each other illegally.

 

We're reciprocal on numerous trade, licensing and legal agreements. Each respect intellectual property rights. Many northern American cities accept our money, as we do yours. Most banks accept either, though often hard to get CDN in the US. (not that it's even needed)

 

We're definitely not interested in inheriting the unresolveable social and political issues.

 

You see, we agree in principle on just about everything else. Yet by a crappier death rate, siege mentality, and exceptionalism, you've fooled yourselves into thinking it's better, but it's not. I only need to look at the stats, the facts and science and history behind it to know. Despite what anyone says, no one can tell anyone otherwise, without overlooking or distorting those facts. There are a hundred other countries I'd rather live, than USA.

 

I'll give America kudos for one big thing though. Generosity. Very often in international disasters or events, the USA is first on the scene with relief, to rescue, to rebuild. Immunization, disease prevention etc., excellent. By the end, almost always the largest contributor. Good on you guys! We do our very best to help with you in those times. To those ends, I'm proud we've stormed the beaches together and remain friends.

 

My heart-of-hearts is sad on the gun issue, though. It's a hideous debacle to anyone on the outside looking in. It only gets worse, not better. Denial is pandemic.

 

 

Actually, we had a war once and kicked your @ss, then burned down the White House.

 

Not sure they teach it in your schools, so here's a link:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

 

It wasn't until a couple of years later when you prevailed, but only from the south... we held the north.

 

Actually another thing they probably don't teach in American schools, America lost more wars than they've won, and were late for a few of the big ones.

 

America couldn't even secure one the smallest countries in the world, Iraq.

 

Americans had one civil war. A second doesn't seem unlikely at the rate you're going. And THAT is a security concern to us. We end usually up with your draft dodgers and that's okay because they're usually given to be peaceful, but the next time around, genuine refugees and criminals might not be so easy to separate.

 

 

(a little off topic, but in response to an off-topic comment)

 

At any rate, emotional and statistically misleading rhetoric about children being killed all over the place and selfish people not caring about them does not the centrist identify. In the US.

 

 

There you go with "the problem doesn't exist, it's your fault" mentality. Fail.

Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

I joined this thread to discuss the topic, but by your rules, can't speak for children. The attempt to pervert my compassion into your hysteria, fails miserably.

 

Likewise, I submitted a simple table of known facts from a confirmed source. The PREREQUISITE of this forum, You can't refute them, so you've labeled them misleading as to impress them as wrong.

 

Sooooo, transparent.

[overtone]

I predict that attempting to transform Americans into Canadians by force of law will turn out badly. Just a guess.

We have no interest in that. We're allies. Each others greatest trade partner. The longest unsecured border in the world.

We were discussing the gun control laws proposed for the US - Canada would have no force of law in the US. The thread topic? I'm pointing out that the contributions of American personal character to gun violence are not solvable by force of law - Canadians, for all kinds of reasons, are not as fearful and gun violent and criminally inclined and so forth as Americans, and this is something the American law cannot address with any likelihood of good results.

 

 

 

Yet by a crappier death rate, siege mentality, and exceptionalism, you've fooled yourselves into thinking it's better, but it's not. I only need to look at the stats, the facts and science and history behind it to know. Despite what anyone says, no one can tell anyone otherwise, without overlooking or distorting those facts. There are a hundred other countries I'd rather live, than USA.

Gun violence reduction. Thread topic. Get a grip.

 

There you go with "the problem doesn't exist, it's your fault" mentality. Fail.

What problem, exactly, does that poster think I am claiming doesn't exist?

 

It was in response to this: "At any rate, emotional and statistically misleading rhetoric about children being killed all over the place and selfish people not caring about them does not the centrist identify. In the US. "

Edited September 20, 2015 by overtone

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Why do gun control advocates have such weird difficulty reading standard English prose with comprehension?

 

That's just berating. Nothing else.

 

I contributed real stats, from a confirmed source.

 

You've dismissed those facts as emotional, rhetorical and misleading all on one breath. Spin fail x3.

[Endy0816]

 

There are a hundred other countries I'd rather live, than USA.

 

Hate to say it but I've considered this fact myself.

 

You've got everybody and their brother shooting themselves/others accidentally, from gun instructors on down to little kids. Then you have guns ending up in the hands of the criminals/disturbed. Often facilitated by legal gun owners either directly via straw purchases, stolen from their homes, or just something little Timmy has grabbed because he's upset with his classmates. Then there's the police angle. The cops are armed because the criminals may be armed. The mere presence of a firearm has been shown in studies to increase aggression(on both sides). So yeah, you have a situation ripe for you and yours ending up shot deliberately or accidentally(even if you don't own a weapon). All of which seems to be the exact opposite of claimed benefits.

 

All the evidence suggests that if you are human, you stand a good chance of making a mistake and when holding a deadly weapon, one impossible to correct. Since you can't not be human, the smart thing to do seems to remove the deadly weapons from the equation.

 

I ever have any kids crawl out of the woodwork I would have to seriously consider whether I would want them to grow up here. Maybe somewhere out in Timbuktu but I don't know about mainstream Americana.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Gun violence reduction. Thread topic. Get a grip.

 

In my defense, you did steer it that way. @baitandswitch

 

 

I predict that attempting to transform Americans into Canadians by force of law will turn out badly. Just a guess.

 

 

And acknowledged it.

 

 

 

(a little off topic, but in response to an off-topic comment)

 

So as to demonizing me with "get a grip" FAIL.

[overtone]

 

That's just berating. Nothing else.

 

I contributed real stats, from a confirmed source.

 

You've dismissed those facts as emotional, rhetorical and misleading all on one breath. Spin fail x3.

 

 

Sorry about the berate - edited it out too late.

But the point is emphasized - I dismissed no facts. I labeled your misleading and emotional presentation of these facts as not "centrist". And that somehow confused you.

 

And here's where the misleading and emotional rhetoric gets us:

 

 

You've got everybody and their brother shooting themselves/others accidentally, from gun instructors on down to little kids. Then you have guns ending up in the hands of the criminals/disturbed. Often facilitated by legal gun owners either directly via straw purchases, stolen from their homes, or just something little Timmy has grabbed because he's upset with his classmates. Then there's the police angle. The cops are armed because the criminals may be armed. The mere presence of a firearm has been shown in studies to increase aggression(on both sides). So yeah, you have a situation ripe for you and yours ending up shot deliberately or accidentally(even if you don't own a weapon). All of which seems to be the exact opposite of claimed benefits.

Now the claimed benefits may be delusion, but so is this sense of living in some kind of free fire zone in the US. Just because we have an insane level of gun violence compared with civilized Western countries doesn't mean it's a looming daily threat to us all. If you are not criminal, or suicidal, or vigilante, fond of playing with your guns while drunk, or shacking up with somebody who is, the civilian risk of you or your children getting shot or shooting anyone in the US is negligible. With a small side flag there for black male 15 - 25 living in one of the bad city ghettoes.

 

Yes it's a serious problem, this shooting of people in the US. But there are much bigger ones, in this country. The absence of high levels of gun violence in Canada is attractive - but the unlocked front doors are more significant indicators of general sanity.

Edited September 20, 2015 by overtone

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

 

 

the civilian risk of you or your children getting shot or shooting anyone in the US is negligible.

 

Apology accepted.

 

So the highest rate in the world is negligible then?

 

You folks seem to have an affinity for saying dumb $hit, then coming back a day later and saying something entirely different as to what you meant.

 

That's why most of us outsiders have learned not to take Americans at face value in general, or with a grain of salt at best. Especially in ideology or gun laws.

 

As to the other quote. Those are not my words. The name was removed and appears as though I said it.

 

I'm not suggesting it's intentional, only that it be corrected, please.

[overtone]

So the highest rate in the world is negligible then?

It isn't the highest rate in the world, and it is negligible. Americans who are not members of those few groups described have several much more threatening circumstances in their lives than their neighbor's guns, if any.

 

An ordinary American taking on gun control and gun violence with a clear view is performing an act of charity or duty - dealing with a mess that is at bottom somebody else's problem. The situation is crazy, but it's not particularly threatening to most people, and it's easily avoided by most people. So the noise factor is just discouraging.

 

You folks seem to have an affinity for saying dumb $hit, then coming back a day later and saying something entirely different as to what you meant.

Your illiteracy and inability (it sounds more like unwillingness) to follow the meaning of simple English sentences is not our problem. You jump into the thread late, you further interrupt the long-delayed useful part of the discussion with bs that's been dealt with a dozen times already, you don't bother to comprehend the responses, and you talk about other people posting dumb shit. Hello?

 

 

 

Apology accepted.

 

So the highest rate in the world is negligible then?

 

You folks seem to have an affinity for saying dumb $hit, then coming back a day later and saying something entirely different as to what you meant.

 

That's why most of us outsiders have learned not to take Americans at face value in general, or with a grain of salt at best. Especially in ideology or gun laws.

 

As to the other quote. Those are not my words. The name was removed and appears as though I said it.

 

I'm not suggesting it's intentional, only that it be corrected, please.

Edited September 20, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Your illiteracy and inability (it sounds more like unwillingness) to follow the meaning of simple English sentences is not our problem.

 

 

 

How many times have you been asked to clarify your “simple English sentences”?

 

 

You jump into the thread late

 

 

 

Stop with this fallacious irrelevance, please.

 

 

you further interrupt the long-delayed useful part of the discussion

 

 

 

Pot just called, wants a word. Alternatively you could post something useful, you know make a start.

[StringJunky]

 

 

...

Pot just called, wants a word...

LOL!

[overtone]

 

 

Pot just called, wants a word. Alternatively you could post something useful, you know make a start.

Like post 332?

 

Or would one of the other twenty or so similar posts from me, starting in the first dozen pages and continuing at two or three page intervals ever since, be easier for you to handle?