America's Gun Violence

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

Those stats always sound worse than they actually are. that is true with pretty much anything

HughFreakingDillon said:

Godfather. said:

so you don't believe we could lose our gun's ? just a few right..... losing any gun rights is too many.

Godfather.

nope. not going to happen. the thing you and many others don't seem to understand is that simply having tighter resctrictions on obtaining guns, making it safer for everyone, has nothing to do with losing any rights. your right to own a firearm is not being infringed upon.

Most gun owners would not be against gun registration or valid restrictions on obtaining one. Maybe I'm wrong, but its just my perception that some of the guidelines are just plain stupid which would lead many to believe the laws are written by either someone who knows nothing about guns, or purposely writing lame laws just to make it more difficult even for lawful gun owners.

Feinstein had one of the dumbest comments in the article referenced above (and I doubt there is any context that would make it seem any less dumb), and is known as completely anti-gun to any gun owner in California, and most gun owners believe if she had the ability would remove the right to own guns. She is responsible for several gun laws that are just pointless. She even claimed some of the bans were because the features make the gun look mean (or something very close to that, I'm sure you can Google the exact quote if needed).If you could ban something based just on looks, Keith Richards would never be allowed in this country.

Pointless gun laws would be some features that make a gun illegal like a "shroud that is attached to the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand." So something that prevents the barrel from burning me makes it illegal? You really only need to fire a few rounds for some guns to get hot, not some shooting spree. Sounds more like a safety feature than a weapon of mass murder to me.

Or the fact I have to take a gun safety test every 2 years to purchase a gun. Sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I get to keep all the guns I already own, can use them whenever, could even apply for concealed permits, but unless I pay another $50 to take the safety test again I cant purchase a another one. Seems like a pointless obstacle to me designed to reduce gun sales.

Or a limit of 1 new handgun per month. Again, at the surface you may think why do you need to buy more than 1 a month. But this law only applies to new guns, I could buy 25 used guns and it wont matter. Or sometimes a gun store will have a good sale or a rebate on a gun and I'd like to get a second because its a good deal. Cant do it if its new, even if I already own 20 guns. Doesn't seem logical to me. Again, seems more like it is designed to hurt the business of gun manufactures than anything else, especially since it only applies to new guns. Even a used gun has to go through a gun dealership and they still hold it for the waiting period, so it could just as easily be applied to used guns, but it isn't.

I'm all for registering guns, doing away with the gun show loopholes (which haven't existed in CA in decades) restrictions on high capacity magazines, control armor piercing bullets and things like that. But pointless gun restrictions are often viewed as a method to reduce gun owner's rights and their ability to purchase guns.

excellent post and lots of good info. thank you.

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Those stats always sound worse than they actually are. that is true with pretty much anything

HughFreakingDillon said:

Godfather. said:

so you don't believe we could lose our gun's ? just a few right..... losing any gun rights is too many.

Godfather.

nope. not going to happen. the thing you and many others don't seem to understand is that simply having tighter resctrictions on obtaining guns, making it safer for everyone, has nothing to do with losing any rights. your right to own a firearm is not being infringed upon.

Most gun owners would not be against gun registration or valid restrictions on obtaining one. Maybe I'm wrong, but its just my perception that some of the guidelines are just plain stupid which would lead many to believe the laws are written by either someone who knows nothing about guns, or purposely writing lame laws just to make it more difficult even for lawful gun owners.

Feinstein had one of the dumbest comments in the article referenced above (and I doubt there is any context that would make it seem any less dumb), and is known as completely anti-gun to any gun owner in California, and most gun owners believe if she had the ability would remove the right to own guns. She is responsible for several gun laws that are just pointless. She even claimed some of the bans were because the features make the gun look mean (or something very close to that, I'm sure you can Google the exact quote if needed).If you could ban something based just on looks, Keith Richards would never be allowed in this country.

Pointless gun laws would be some features that make a gun illegal like a "shroud that is attached to the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand." So something that prevents the barrel from burning me makes it illegal? You really only need to fire a few rounds for some guns to get hot, not some shooting spree. Sounds more like a safety feature than a weapon of mass murder to me.

Or the fact I have to take a gun safety test every 2 years to purchase a gun. Sounds reasonable at first, until you realize I get to keep all the guns I already own, can use them whenever, could even apply for concealed permits, but unless I pay another $50 to take the safety test again I cant purchase a another one. Seems like a pointless obstacle to me designed to reduce gun sales.

Or a limit of 1 new handgun per month. Again, at the surface you may think why do you need to buy more than 1 a month. But this law only applies to new guns, I could buy 25 used guns and it wont matter. Or sometimes a gun store will have a good sale or a rebate on a gun and I'd like to get a second because its a good deal. Cant do it if its new, even if I already own 20 guns. Doesn't seem logical to me. Again, seems more like it is designed to hurt the business of gun manufactures than anything else, especially since it only applies to new guns. Even a used gun has to go through a gun dealership and they still hold it for the waiting period, so it could just as easily be applied to used guns, but it isn't.

I'm all for registering guns, doing away with the gun show loopholes (which haven't existed in CA in decades) restrictions on high capacity magazines, control armor piercing bullets and things like that. But pointless gun restrictions are often viewed as a method to reduce gun owner's rights and their ability to purchase guns.

excellent post and lots of good info. thank you.

The safety test they require is completely pointless and is a joke. Its about 20 or 25 questions of things like "You should always load a gun before cleaning it. True or False" If you cant pass that test you should immediately be admitted into an institution. And is why I believe it is there to deter the sale of a gun and earn extra money in the process rather than solve any real gun problem.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to requiring a class and a license to own a gun. You have to in order to drive a car. A 4 hour class that teaches you hands on how to clear a jam with a live round, clean a gun, check that gun is unloaded and earn a license at the end of it that is good for life. If you've been shooting with a newbie before, you will see how useful some of this information is. And would actually solve a small portion of the gun problem.

Go Beavers

It's crazy how were still able to drive with all those regulations and laws connected to it.

mace1229

Go Beavers said:

It's crazy how were still able to drive with all those regulations and laws connected to it.

That's actually debatable. Sometimes I wonder how some of these people can legally be allowed to drive.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Go Beavers said:

It's crazy how were still able to drive with all those regulations and laws connected to it.

I'm a good driver at high speeds. Why should I be punished because of some spazzes out there that aren't?

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

It's crazy how were still able to drive with all those regulations and laws connected to it.

I'm a good driver at high speeds. Why should I be punished because of some spazzes out there that aren't?

Well now that you're talking about it... there are plenty of illegitimate drivers' licenses out there, at least in Vancouver. There are a lot of Chinese people here, and there is a BIG racket among them when it comes to paying to get a drivers' license that they aren't qualified to get. They pay thousands of dollars to Chinese driving instructors to pass their driving tests even though they can't even change lanes without getting in an accident.

PJPOWER

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

come on. it's only referencing the requirement to register and regulate anything that is potentially a threat to human safety, not comparing what those actual effects are.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

I love a good gun/car analogy. Especially when the pro-gun person introduces it in a discussion and slowly tries to back out of it.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

come on. it's only referencing the requirement to register and regulate anything that is potentially a threat to human safety, not comparing what those actual effects are.

There are plenty of things that can be deemed a threat to human safety. Do you think that the only reason cars are registered is because they are a safety concern? Not all vehicles even have to be registered...farm vehicles, etc.
I agree, though, gun/car analogies make poor arguments. I would say, though, that your risk of death is probably higher driving in your car that conceal carrying a gun...but that's merely speculation on my part.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

come on. it's only referencing the requirement to register and regulate anything that is potentially a threat to human safety, not comparing what those actual effects are.

There are plenty of things that can be deemed a threat to human safety. Do you think that the only reason cars are registered is because they are a safety concern? Not all vehicles even have to be registered...farm vehicles, etc.
I agree, though, gun/car analogies are probably not a good argument.

not to the same social scale. at any given time how many cars are on the road a mere few feet away from pedestrians? and a foot between each car whizzing around at 60 km per hour? especially in winnipeg on fucking ICE. sure, there are a lot of things that are a danger to humans, but not to that same extent. but everyone is in such a goddamn rush, we won't ever go back to horse and buggy. I'd actually be fine with that. although I'd have to use a lot more vacation time to get to the cottage and back.

obviously a big portion of registering is safety, but also revenue.

Go Beavers

I think car registration started because of safety issues. There were a huge number of deaths and drivers would just bolt. Maybe an auto historian could chime in on the issue?

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

I think car registration started because of safety issues. There were a huge number of deaths and drivers would just bolt. Maybe an auto historian could chime in on the issue?

I wish they'd bring back bicycle registration. too many asshole cyclists out there that you can do nothing about.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

I think car registration started because of safety issues. There were a huge number of deaths and drivers would just bolt. Maybe an auto historian could chime in on the issue?

I would guess that rampant motor vehicle theft and taxation were probably the main causes, with the latter being the highest priority...seeing as how those not used on public roads do not need to be registered, regardless, apples and oranges when compared to firearms.

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

I didn't post an analogy. I told a story about how people get their driver's licenses erroneously in Vancouver... Are there people in the USA who get their gun licenses in the same way? I have absolutely no idea if they do or not, so I certainly wasn't offering up a gun analogy. FYI, the stupid pro-gun/car comparison as an argument for gun safety and lack of regulation is one of the dumbest thing ever and doesn't follow logic.

PJPOWER

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

I didn't post an analogy. I told a story about how people get their driver's licenses erroneously in Vancouver... Are there people in the USA who get their gun licenses in the same way? I have absolutely no idea if they do or not, so I certainly wasn't offering up a gun analogy. FYI, the stupid pro-gun/car comparison as an argument for gun safety and lack of regulation is one of the dumbest thing ever and doesn't follow logic.

Was not specifically referring to you...

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Funny how the same people that say they are annoyed by gun/car analogies are using...gun/car analogies...

I didn't post an analogy. I told a story about how people get their driver's licenses erroneously in Vancouver... Are there people in the USA who get their gun licenses in the same way? I have absolutely no idea if they do or not, so I certainly wasn't offering up a gun analogy. FYI, the stupid pro-gun/car comparison as an argument for gun safety and lack of regulation is one of the dumbest thing ever and doesn't follow logic.

Was not specifically referring to you...

Who were you specifically referring to then? If no one in particular, I think my 2 cents were warranted.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

One thing is clear and can't be disputed, a very high majority (>90%) of mass shootings in the US over the last ten years were done in declared "gun-free zones".

There aren't gates in gun free zones where everyone gets inspected. Buy a gun in a non gun free zone and take it to a gun free zone.

That is an ignorant statement to make. Gun free zones exist to strengthen penalties for carrying weapons.

mcgruff10

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

One thing is clear and can't be disputed, a very high majority (>90%) of mass shootings in the US over the last ten years were done in declared "gun-free zones".

There aren't gates in gun free zones where everyone gets inspected. Buy a gun in a non gun free zone and take it to a gun free zone.

That is an ignorant statement to make. Gun free zones exist to strengthen penalties for carrying weapons.

yeah but the point is if you are a "law abiding citizen" you respect gun free zones and don't carry within them. criminals know this and exploit it.

Gern Blansten

mcgruff10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

One thing is clear and can't be disputed, a very high majority (>90%) of mass shootings in the US over the last ten years were done in declared "gun-free zones".

There aren't gates in gun free zones where everyone gets inspected. Buy a gun in a non gun free zone and take it to a gun free zone.

That is an ignorant statement to make. Gun free zones exist to strengthen penalties for carrying weapons.

yeah but the point is if you are a "law abiding citizen" you respect gun free zones and don't carry within them. criminals know this and exploit it.

I really doubt that criminals think that much into it. Gun free zones are made mainly to make penalties worse...in order to discourage crime.