Oso planning to go pro
Well I want a tank to show off to my buddies. Or a javelin missile. Or a nuke! I'm responsible so I should be able to have them.Some things are dangerous enough that they need to be kept out of civilian hands. I think everyone would agree with that sentence we just disagree on where that line is. I would put AR-15s on the other side of that line.
The 98% are part of the problem. Not the main one, but the culture of fetishizing guns is the underlying cause of all gun related issues in this country.
(And the jury is most definitely out on how "effective" the 1994 assault weapons ban actually was.)
Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence? Is this what we want here?
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
Sure. But the more stuff you include on the other side of that line, the harder it is for legislation to be passed. You will never get anything passed that includes banning those types of weapons now.
Absolutely not. People have responsibly owned guns for generations. The "underlying cause" is that they are too easily obtained by people who are dangerous, and because of that, we need to make sure that they are not so easily obtainable.
Copying from an earlier post of mine:From the link you provided:A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.A study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law's impact on public mass shootings.[44] Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities. Gius found that while assault weapons were not the primary weapon used in this subset of mass shootings, fatalities and injuries were statistically lower during the period the federal ban was active. The 2018 Rand analysis noted that the federal law portion of this analysis lacked a comparison grouphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#EffectsUniversity of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, author of the book “Rampage Nation,” found that the number of gun massacres dropped by 37 percent and the number of gun massacre deaths feel by 43 percent while the ban was in effect compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed in 2004, those numbers dramatically rose – a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?noredirect=onA 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that, based on data from 1981 to 2017, there were fewer mass-shooting deaths while the ban was in place.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/A 2017 study in the Journal of Urban Health observed that law enforcement recovery of assault weapons fell nationwide while the ban was in base, indicating that they were used in fewer crimes, but increased after the ban expired.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33783360/
Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence? .
4) Peoples We All Agree Shouldn't Have Guns -- Criminals, mentally disturbed individuals and those who have a previously violent past. The problem with any gun control is this is the last group of people likely to be without firearms. It just is. As the supply of firearms goes down because of legislation, the value of firearms goes up and the desire of the underworld to sell them increases exponentially. That's reality, socialism notwithstanding.
Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence?
Cool. I could find studies that doubted its effectiveness too. For instance...https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292345050_The_Tenuous_Connections_Involving_Mass_Shootings_Mental_Illness_and_Gun_Laws"Despite the good intentions behind the ban, its impact on mass killings was negligible.... As shown, the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect. Not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at theirdisposal....Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters."
Gang, there are four types of gun owners in this country, all with very different goals and objectives in owning guns. Legislation that fixes one problem generates serious problems for another.
This is incorrect. As supply of firearms goes down, the price of illegal firearms increases exponentially creating an economic barrier. Who is more likely to be able afford illegal weapons? Collectors/hunters/protectors? Or the mentally ill/criminals? It also makes it exponentially more difficult for people, especially the mentally ill, to be able to find or obtain certain guns. It takes a level or know how and determination that many potential shooters just don't have. Plus it creates multiple opportunities for the police to intervene during the illegal sale of these weapons, meaning we may be able to arrest a future mass shooter as he is buying the weapon rather than after he has killed dozens of children. It also elongates the process, allowing for more people to notice red flags and possibly intervene.Also, hunters, collectors, and protectors can turn into criminals in the blink of an eye.
Brother Wags, and Scoop friends, respectfully,In my experience living in many countries including UK, Russia, China, Indonesia and Singapore, none of those countries - even the most oppressive ones - have armed police. Why? Because the populace doesn't have guns. Gun crime is almost unheard-of... from theft to murder. (OK, they all have armed units of the police that come out in special cases, but Joe Average Cop has only a nightstick and his/her sense of humor to defuse a situation). Gun control can be done.
Hunting is fine. If a family lives below the poverty level and truly hunts for food, then the taxes on firearms could be waived... like food stamps for guns. But with proof, psycho testing, drug testing and all the other requirements in place for all owners. My South African colleagues - who live in a country with a huge hunting industry but strict gun control - are all subject to inspections and a competency test to own firearms. The Aussie solution worked very well. The point is that it's really truly only in the US where any clown can buy a gun and 100 rounds and go kill people all in the same day. The 2nd amendment does not protect that persons rights because they are not part of a well regulated ANYTHING nor is any other average gun owner.
My point: The US government is not exercising it's right to regulate guns under the 2nd amendment and it needs to or these needless shootings will just continue. Use the drivers license comparison, use the abortion comparison, use whatever you want to get there, but get there and fix it. If WE all have not written to our senators this week with our views then WE are part of the problem. I have written to mine and several others.
Brother TAMUHave we revoked the law of supply and demand. The market clearing function is price and the suppliers will find news way to build supply and price at the maximum a hoodlum is willing to pay.Do I understand you correctly that you are prepared to ban all firearms because hunters or protectors might sell to hoodlums?
Sounds like a complete gun ban to me.The new Canadian legislation will also put a “red flag” law in place that will enable the courts to require individuals who are considered a danger to themselves or others to surrender their firearms to law enforcement. Canadian citizens who were involved in domestic violence or criminal harassment acts like stalking will lose their firearm licenses.Is Canada becoming an authoritarian state? Will criticizing a government officials constitute stalking? Will protests constitute criminal harassment? Will any domestic dispute resulting in physical force (throwing a beer at the TV resulting in injury to family member) be considered domestic violence? Is this what we want here?https://marketrealist.com/p/did-canada-ban-all-guns/#:~:text=Did%20Canada%20ban%20all%20guns%3F%20Article%20continues%20below,who%20can%20own%20a%20gun%20and%20gun%20sales.
Is this what we want here?
Yes. Immediately, if not sooner.Also, I love how you ignore the answer immediately given in the article to the question you pose. "Did Canada ban all guns? No, the new gun control measures in Canada won’t ban all guns in the country"
Seems like the hospital shooting is now being escorted out the narrative door…wonder why.
It's literally at the top of the page at CNN.com, Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Yahoo and NPR at this very moment. I'm sure others.https://www.cnn.com/https://www.washingtonpost.com/https://www.npr.org/https://www.thedailybeast.com/https://www.yahoo.com/Your white grievance is pathetic.
You ever notice how I never personally attack anyone here? And except for the Daily Beast, not much information on the shooter, picture, description, etc. You could see why people question media and narrative bias. Just an observation.