In response to U.S. gun carnage, Canada to enact tough laws

[tower912]

Everybody talks about it.   

[MU82]

Everybody talks about it.

It's a classic "I'm chicos, the white victim" strawman.

[WarriorFan]

So it's common sense for an 18-19-20 year-old American to serve in the U.S. military, often being highly trained in the use of guns and other more dangerous weapons, but not able to buy a gun of any kind?

Sure... if they want to shoot, join the military.  If not, don't. 

[WarriorFan]

a) make a drug and psych and medical test required before one can get a license to buy a gun (medical test because lots of hunters die of heart attacks due to the exertion of walking while hunting being their only annual exercise)
b) gun license cost $10,000 per gun, per year
c) guns must be stored at a safe storage facility
d) you must apply 2 weeks in advance to get your gun from the storage facility
e) you must return your gun timely to the safe storage facility
f) $100 tax on bullets (each one) and shells UNLESS bought at and used at a licensed range or game expedition
g)Offer $10,000 per gun for return of guns for those who don't want to pay the new gun license fees

After a few years of the above, there will be very few guns, very few shootings, and then we can talk about disarming the police (like most other civil countries) so they stop shooting people.

[rocket surgeon]

a) make a drug and psych and medical test required before one can get a license to buy a gun (medical test because lots of hunters die of heart attacks due to the exertion of walking while hunting being their only annual exercise)
b) gun license cost $10,000 per gun, per year
c) guns must be stored at a safe storage facility
d) you must apply 2 weeks in advance to get your gun from the storage facility
e) you must return your gun timely to the safe storage facility
f) $100 tax on bullets (each one) and shells UNLESS bought at and used at a licensed range or game expedition
g)Offer $10,000 per gun for return of guns for those who don't want to pay the new gun license fees

After a few years of the above, there will be very few guns, very few shootings, and then we can talk about disarming the police (like most other civil countries) so they stop shooting people.

  a) this should be in teal
  b) this is not going to do anything to deter or prevent those who want to perpetuate evil with guns
  c) your conclusion is a big fallacy-the black market will love you though

if you were really serious about getting positive results, you would be a little bit more serious about remedies most could abide by.

    i'd START by increasing the punishments of those who abuse/break the laws we presently have. 

   1) felons with guns
   2) felons with guns in restricted areas. 
   3) uzi machine guns and machine pistols and the like
   4) anyone caught with a gun whose ID has been altered or scraped off

  you start with just these 4 things and you will see the number of shootings drop...i said start.  until many of the reasonably minded pro gun people see some serious attempts, you will not see anything

"disarming the police" ???  i'm sorry, but this is beyond idiotic.  you do realize MUPD was initially disarmed?  they became armed for a good reason-for their safety and the increased safety of the students, right?

[rocket surgeon]

It's all over the news. Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you should pay attention instead of spending so much time building strawmen.

And last I checked, Chicago was in America so I think it is inclusive of Jockey's statement.

what we missed was uncle joe and dr jill visiting these mass shootings as well.  innocent children getting shot/killed too often in the inner cities due to evil people with guns

[MU82]

we need more guns, roQQet. more, more, more!!

[The Sultan]

what we missed was uncle joe and dr jill visiting these mass shootings as well. 

I see we found your talking point AND your excuse for inaction.  Congrats!!!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

if you were really serious about getting positive results, you would be a little bit more serious about remedies most could abide by.

    i'd START by increasing the punishments of those who abuse/break the laws we presently have. 

   1) felons with guns
   2) felons with guns in restricted areas. 
   3) uzi machine guns and machine pistols and the like
   4) anyone caught with a gun whose ID has been altered or scraped off

  you start with just these 4 things and you will see the number of shootings drop...i said start.  until many of the reasonably minded pro gun people see some serious attempts, you will not see anything

We already do this. We incarcerate more people than China and Russia combined. By itself, increased incarceration doesn't work. In fact, I'd argue it contributes to the gun problem in places like Chicago. We need to try something else. Plus, how many mass shooters would this have stopped? I can see the argument for why it helps in intercity gun violence (though I think long term it increases it), but I don't think any of the shooters in Buffalo, Uvalde, Las Vegas, Parkland, Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. had previous arrests for gun related crimes.

Tertiary prevention is important, but it is reactive. It requires that a crime already be committed meaning damage has already been done. We need to look to primary prevention as well.

[The Sultan]

1. Background checks to get a gun license.
2. Allow 18 year olds to buy single shot handguns, rifles and shotguns
3. If they go three years without incident, they can get apply for and get a license for AR-15's and the like
4. Come down hard on illegal gun transfers.  Immediate reporting of all guns stolen, etc.  Repeat offenders get their license revoked.
5. Give judges the ability to temporarily revoke licenses and have the guns removed from the home.

All of this can be done within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment. 

[lawdog77]

We already do this. We incarcerate more people than China and Russia combined. By itself, increased incarceration doesn't work. In fact, I'd argue it contributes to the gun problem in places like Chicago. We need to try something else. Plus, how many mass shooters would this have stopped? I can see the argument for why it helps in intercity gun violence (though I think long term it increases it), but I don't think any of the shooters in Buffalo, Uvalde, Las Vegas, Parkland, Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. had previous arrests for gun related crimes.

Tertiary prevention is important, but it is reactive. It requires that a crime already be committed meaning damage has already been done. We need to look to primary prevention as well.

I think what Rocket is getting at, is that prosecutors drop the gun charge quite often,  like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

Edit doing some googling, it looks like at some articles from Philly and Indy, about 1/2 the gun charges are dropped. No, it wont prevent the mass shootings, but it might prevent quite a few other shootings.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think what Rocket is getting at, is that prosecutors drop the gun charge quite often,  like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

I don't think that's what Rocket was getting at

[lawdog77]

I don't think that's what Rocket was getting at

What? you don't think Rocket believes the gun charge on Rittenhouse should have stuck?

[MU82]

1. Background checks to get a gun license.
2. Allow 18 year olds to buy single shot handguns, rifles and shotguns
3. If they go three years without incident, they can get apply for and get a license for AR-15's and the like
4. Come down hard on illegal gun transfers.  Immediate reporting of all guns stolen, etc.  Repeat offenders get their license revoked.
5. Give judges the ability to temporarily revoke licenses and have the guns removed from the home.

All of this can be done within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

This would be a very nice start, 251.

I also like red-flag laws (which I think is kind of where you're going with 5); waiting periods; no guns that can fire off X number of rounds in Y number of seconds (I'm not versed enough to know what's acceptable, but surely there must be a number); no bump stocks.

Also things that wouldn't infringe on 2nd Amendment "well-regulated" rights.

[WarriorFan]

1. Background checks to get a gun license.
2. Allow 18 year olds to buy single shot handguns, rifles and shotguns
3. If they go three years without incident, they can get apply for and get a license for AR-15's and the like
4. Come down hard on illegal gun transfers.  Immediate reporting of all guns stolen, etc.  Repeat offenders get their license revoked.
5. Give judges the ability to temporarily revoke licenses and have the guns removed from the home.

All of this can be done within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

It would be a start, but what the heck do you need an AR-15 for? 
Much easier to just tax guns and ammo into oblivion.  No 18 year old could buy a gun if it cost $10k and no-one would be shooting 40 rounds a minute if each one cost $100.  At least they would go into the school and shoot just one person because that's all they could afford.. Yes, that is exactly how senseless this whole discussion is!!!

[jesmu84]

How about the mass shootings in Chicago over the weekend that killed way more people? Why don't these get as much attention?

I'm glad you brought this up.

As you know, more guns in circulation result in higher amounts of gun-related death. This includes mass shootings like schools as well as gang activity.

As you know, gun control measures would hopefully decrease guns in circulation. If nothing else, at least by creating barriers to entry for either legal or illegal obtaining.

So I'm sure you'd agree that we need to implement some amount of gun control to reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths.

Otherwise, we're just going to have to accept the gun-related deaths in our country as a consequence to the freedom of easily obtained guns.

[JWags85]

It would be a start, but what the heck do you need an AR-15 for? 
Much easier to just tax guns and ammo into oblivion.  No 18 year old could buy a gun if it cost $10k and no-one would be shooting 40 rounds a minute if each one cost $100.  At least they would go into the school and shoot just one person because that's all they could afford.. Yes, that is exactly how senseless this whole discussion is!!!

Because you didn't say AR-15.  You said all guns and ammo would be subhect.  You just destroyed the hunting industry (something that countries with strict gun control like Canada or the UK still have in plenty).

I'm not pro-gun and agree with basically all of the common sense measures that Fluff suggested (and would be fine with no AR-15s period) but your suggestions are as ridiculous as people on the other side who think nothing should be done at all.

[Merit Matters]

I'm glad you brought this up.

As you know, more guns in circulation result in higher amounts of gun-related death. This includes mass shootings like schools as well as gang activity.

As you know, gun control measures would hopefully decrease guns in circulation. If nothing else, at least by creating barriers to entry for either legal or illegal obtaining.

So I'm sure you'd agree that we need to implement some amount of gun control to reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths.

Otherwise, we're just going to have to accept the gun-related deaths in our country as a consequence to the freedom of easily obtained guns.

Right, but Chicago has some of the toughest gun control in the country and clearly that doesn't matter. It's a more of a cultural, local policy and politicians and mental health issue. No fathers in the home, no respect for life, etc.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Right, but Chicago has some of the toughest gun control in the country and clearly that doesn't matter. It's a more of a cultural, local policy and politicians and mental health issue. No fathers in the home, no respect for life, etc.

Do you think most of these guns are coming from Chicago? Or from Indiana which is literally a few stops down on L?

[Pakuni]

Right, but Chicago has some of the toughest gun control in the country and clearly that doesn't matter.

This old canard.
Chicago's gun laws are remarkably effective at controlling what they can control, i.e. things that occur within the city limits. What they can't control are the gun shops in the suburbs, as well as Indiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi, etc. that are all too happy to participate in the iilegal trafficking of guns in to Chicago, Detroit and other urban areas, where they are used in crimes. More than 60 percent of the guns recovered in criminal investigations in Chicago come from out of state.

It;s not evidence that gun control/Chicago's laws don't work. It's evidence that it needs to be addressed on a federal level.

[The Sultan]

It would be a start, but what the heck do you need an AR-15 for?

Everyone owns a lot of things they don't "need" but they get joy from.  If someone wants to responsibly own an AR-15...or ten of them...to show off in pictures or shoot off at ranges, that's fine by me.  I would have no interest in that, but others do.

And on top of that, this is where gun control advocates get into trouble and start mentioning ideas that have no potential to be adopted.  98% of the people who own AR-15s aren't the problem.  It's keeping them out of the hands of the 2% that's the issue here.

[WarriorFan]

Because you didn't say AR-15.  You said all guns and ammo would be subhect.  You just destroyed the hunting industry (something that countries with strict gun control like Canada or the UK still have in plenty).

I'm not pro-gun and agree with basically all of the common sense measures that Fluff suggested (and would be fine with no AR-15s period) but your suggestions are as ridiculous as people on the other side who think nothing should be done at all.

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.

[Pakuni]

Everyone owns a lot of things they don't "need" but they get joy from.  If someone wants to responsibly own an AR-15...or ten of them...to show off in pictures or shoot off at ranges, that's fine by me.  I would have no interest in that, but others do.

If someone wants to show off their rocket launcher in pictures or shoot it off on a range, why not let them?

And on top of that, this is where gun control advocates get into trouble and start mentioning ideas that have no potential to be adopted.  98% of the people who own AR-15s aren't the problem.  It's keeping them out of the hands of the 2% that's the issue here.

I mean, we had an effective assault weapons ban in this country for a decade, but sure, no potential to be adopted.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

What nobody talks about is the black supremacist driver who mowed down people in Waukesha. Or the black on black gang mass shootings in Chicago every day. Why don't both get as much attention? We know why, just don't know why it's not called both ways.

Awwwww, you poor racist snowflake. Your tears are delicious.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Everyone owns a lot of things they don't "need" but they get joy from.  If someone wants to responsibly own an AR-15...or ten of them...to show off in pictures or shoot off at ranges, that's fine by me.  I would have no interest in that, but others do.

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.

And on top of that, this is where gun control advocates get into trouble and start mentioning ideas that have no potential to be adopted.  98% of the people who own AR-15s aren't the problem.  It's keeping them out of the hands of the 2% that's the issue here.

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.