In Canada, the AR-15 is classified as restricted, but unlike in Florida — where a license is not required to purchase one — those seeking access to such a weapon in Canada must pass a two-day safety course. They must also have authorization from their province’s Chief Firearms Officer to transport the gun to a shooting range, gun show, gunsmith or a few other permitted locations.Yet despite such restrictions, according to the RCMP, the rifle is widely desired by Canadian gun owners.
AR-15 “widely available and in demand” in Canada
There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection." Under limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use "in connection with one’s lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life," says the national police force’s website.
Still, the AR−15 — a brand name for that particular style of rifle — is widely available and in demand, said Insp. Steve Ridout, a spokesman for Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer. That’s in part because the patent for the rifle, which was owned by Colt, ran out years ago, allowing other companies to make their own versions, he explained.
"It’s very popular," Ridout said. "Especially since the patent ran out, there’s lots of variations of it now." Prices listed on various Canadian gun store websites ranged from around $700 to several thousand dollars.
Last month, Tory MP Bob Zimmer even tabelled a petition in Parliament to re-classify the AR-15 in Canada, so that it may be used in the "Canadian cultural practices of hunting in Canada," HuffPost Canada reported.
More than two million Canadians had firearms licences last year, according to an RCMP report. As of December 31, there were a total of 978,347 restricted or prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses in Canada, the report said.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time? You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
I am guessing it is to prevent someone from stockpiling an arsenal in a very short period of time.
buying matching hunting rifles for their kids. jesus christ. sorry if I don't find that endearing.
I don't expect everyone too. But to people who hunt, hunting season is a big deal to them, and a big father-son tradition. Some people take weeks off of work and school to go on a hunting trip. Personally I don;t hunt, but if that is your thing and a father-son thing the dad looks forward to every year, I completely understand wanting to get something special for the occasion.
I have good friends who hunt. at least one of them has taken his kids (or at least his son) out since he was, in my opinion, way too young., saw pics on facebook of his kid proudly holding up a dead prairie chicken, my buddy all smiles in his fatigues. it kind of grossed me out.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time? You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
I am guessing it is to prevent someone from stockpiling an arsenal in a very short period of time.
buying matching hunting rifles for their kids. jesus christ. sorry if I don't find that endearing.
I don't expect everyone too. But to people who hunt, hunting season is a big deal to them, and a big father-son tradition. Some people take weeks off of work and school to go on a hunting trip. Personally I don;t hunt, but if that is your thing and a father-son thing the dad looks forward to every year, I completely understand wanting to get something special for the occasion.
I have good friends who hunt. at least one of them has taken his kids (or at least his son) out since he was, in my opinion, way too young., saw pics on facebook of his kid proudly holding up a dead prairie chicken, my buddy all smiles in his fatigues. it kind of grossed me out.
I think 8/9 years old is a good time to start teaching firearm safety/shooting but to each their own.
In Canada, the AR-15 is classified as restricted, but unlike in Florida — where a license is not required to purchase one — those seeking access to such a weapon in Canada must pass a two-day safety course. They must also have authorization from their province’s Chief Firearms Officer to transport the gun to a shooting range, gun show, gunsmith or a few other permitted locations.Yet despite such restrictions, according to the RCMP, the rifle is widely desired by Canadian gun owners.
AR-15 “widely available and in demand” in Canada
There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection." Under limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use "in connection with one’s lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life," says the national police force’s website.
Still, the AR−15 — a brand name for that particular style of rifle — is widely available and in demand, said Insp. Steve Ridout, a spokesman for Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer. That’s in part because the patent for the rifle, which was owned by Colt, ran out years ago, allowing other companies to make their own versions, he explained.
"It’s very popular," Ridout said. "Especially since the patent ran out, there’s lots of variations of it now." Prices listed on various Canadian gun store websites ranged from around $700 to several thousand dollars.
Last month, Tory MP Bob Zimmer even tabelled a petition in Parliament to re-classify the AR-15 in Canada, so that it may be used in the "Canadian cultural practices of hunting in Canada," HuffPost Canada reported.
More than two million Canadians had firearms licences last year, according to an RCMP report. As of December 31, there were a total of 978,347 restricted or prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses in Canada, the report said.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time? You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
Yeah one a month is really really dumb. In new jersey I can purchase only one handgun a month but can buy as many rifles or shotguns as I want lol. It's another example of feel good legislation.
Last I checked that law existed in California, but only applied to new handgun purchases. You could buy as many used guns or rifles as you wanted.
In Canada, the AR-15 is classified as restricted, but unlike in Florida — where a license is not required to purchase one — those seeking access to such a weapon in Canada must pass a two-day safety course. They must also have authorization from their province’s Chief Firearms Officer to transport the gun to a shooting range, gun show, gunsmith or a few other permitted locations.Yet despite such restrictions, according to the RCMP, the rifle is widely desired by Canadian gun owners.
AR-15 “widely available and in demand” in Canada
There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection." Under limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use "in connection with one’s lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life," says the national police force’s website.
Still, the AR−15 — a brand name for that particular style of rifle — is widely available and in demand, said Insp. Steve Ridout, a spokesman for Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer. That’s in part because the patent for the rifle, which was owned by Colt, ran out years ago, allowing other companies to make their own versions, he explained.
"It’s very popular," Ridout said. "Especially since the patent ran out, there’s lots of variations of it now." Prices listed on various Canadian gun store websites ranged from around $700 to several thousand dollars.
Last month, Tory MP Bob Zimmer even tabelled a petition in Parliament to re-classify the AR-15 in Canada, so that it may be used in the "Canadian cultural practices of hunting in Canada," HuffPost Canada reported.
More than two million Canadians had firearms licences last year, according to an RCMP report. As of December 31, there were a total of 978,347 restricted or prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses in Canada, the report said.
Popular based on what?
You should e-mail the author of the article and ask.
In Canada, the AR-15 is classified as restricted, but unlike in Florida — where a license is not required to purchase one — those seeking access to such a weapon in Canada must pass a two-day safety course. They must also have authorization from their province’s Chief Firearms Officer to transport the gun to a shooting range, gun show, gunsmith or a few other permitted locations.Yet despite such restrictions, according to the RCMP, the rifle is widely desired by Canadian gun owners.
AR-15 “widely available and in demand” in Canada
There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection." Under limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use "in connection with one’s lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life," says the national police force’s website.
Still, the AR−15 — a brand name for that particular style of rifle — is widely available and in demand, said Insp. Steve Ridout, a spokesman for Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer. That’s in part because the patent for the rifle, which was owned by Colt, ran out years ago, allowing other companies to make their own versions, he explained.
"It’s very popular," Ridout said. "Especially since the patent ran out, there’s lots of variations of it now." Prices listed on various Canadian gun store websites ranged from around $700 to several thousand dollars.
Last month, Tory MP Bob Zimmer even tabelled a petition in Parliament to re-classify the AR-15 in Canada, so that it may be used in the "Canadian cultural practices of hunting in Canada," HuffPost Canada reported.
More than two million Canadians had firearms licences last year, according to an RCMP report. As of December 31, there were a total of 978,347 restricted or prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses in Canada, the report said.
Popular based on what?
You should e-mail the author of the article and ask.
That would be one way. An author worth anything would have asked for some sort of evidence, otherwise it’s worth poop.
In Canada, the AR-15 is classified as restricted, but unlike in Florida — where a license is not required to purchase one — those seeking access to such a weapon in Canada must pass a two-day safety course. They must also have authorization from their province’s Chief Firearms Officer to transport the gun to a shooting range, gun show, gunsmith or a few other permitted locations.Yet despite such restrictions, according to the RCMP, the rifle is widely desired by Canadian gun owners.
AR-15 “widely available and in demand” in Canada
There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection." Under limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use "in connection with one’s lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life," says the national police force’s website.
Still, the AR−15 — a brand name for that particular style of rifle — is widely available and in demand, said Insp. Steve Ridout, a spokesman for Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer. That’s in part because the patent for the rifle, which was owned by Colt, ran out years ago, allowing other companies to make their own versions, he explained.
"It’s very popular," Ridout said. "Especially since the patent ran out, there’s lots of variations of it now." Prices listed on various Canadian gun store websites ranged from around $700 to several thousand dollars.
Last month, Tory MP Bob Zimmer even tabelled a petition in Parliament to re-classify the AR-15 in Canada, so that it may be used in the "Canadian cultural practices of hunting in Canada," HuffPost Canada reported.
More than two million Canadians had firearms licences last year, according to an RCMP report. As of December 31, there were a total of 978,347 restricted or prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses in Canada, the report said.
Popular based on what?
You should e-mail the author of the article and ask.
That would be one way. An author worth anything would have asked for some sort of evidence, otherwise it’s worth poop.
My guess is that sales are up compared to other firearms.
Interesting that it's now considered naive to believe that the voter bears responsibility for the consequences of their vote. I guess that's the sort of thinking that explains Trump.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
Then what was your point with that %?
To show that we "all" aren't getting our heads blown off.
I understand that, it makes sense in the context of the comment you were responding to. Thanks for clarifying. But I can also see why people would take it the way they did.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
Approx. 13,000 people getting murdered a year out of a population of 320 million is hardly "while all yours are getting blown off."
I realize that the constitution can be amended but it very hard to do so. And yes men did write the constitution and bill of rights; no 19th amendment yet but I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the conversation.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
Then what was your point with that %?
He was using statistics to show how small of a percentage of the population are effected.
I thought you were fiscally responsible? Imagine that every victim of gunshots, killed and injured, has 20 family and friends? I’m glad your concern is so narrowly focused. And people wonder why this debate doesn’t get anywhere? Fuck us.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
Then what was your point with that %?
He was using statistics to show how small of a percentage of the population are effected.
I thought you were fiscally responsible? Imagine that every victim of gunshots, killed and injured, has 20 family and friends? I’m glad your concern is so narrowly focused. And people wonder why this debate doesn’t get anywhere? Fuck us.
I believe you are being a little dramatic with my simple statement.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
Then what was your point with that %?
He was using statistics to show how small of a percentage of the population are effected.
I thought you were fiscally responsible? Imagine that every victim of gunshots, killed and injured, has 20 family and friends? I’m glad your concern is so narrowly focused. And people wonder why this debate doesn’t get anywhere? Fuck us.
I believe you might have exaggerated your interpretation of my simple statement.
Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
Interesting that it's now considered naive to believe that the voter bears responsibility for the consequences of their vote. I guess that's the sort of thinking that explains Trump.
Nope, that isn't the naive part. The naive part is that you dismiss the notion that something may be political untenable as a cop out. The reality is that people vote based on many factors, and although HFD showed that most voters would be in favor of some form of increased gun control/restrictions (I'm one of them), they vote for candidates who then do nothing about it (either because those candidates don't care enough about the issue, or they know that it will lead to nothing so choose to spend their time and political capital elsewhere). It is naive to think that voters would eschew all other issues, and vote solely based on a candidate's position on gun control. Many voters do, particularly the voters who are opposed to gun control. But for the vast majority of people, there are many, many factors that go into their decision to vote for a candidate. Unfortunately the single issue voter in favor of gun control just doesn't exist at a meaningful scale. So we're left with the reality that many of these gun control proposals are, in fact, politically untenable. Calling it a cop out is a cop out and ignores political reality. If it was currently tenable, we'd see evidence of that. Washington D.C. is a toxic stew and many common sense, reasonable solutions to a variety of problems and issues have no hope of being implemented.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
Then what was your point with that %?
He was using statistics to show how small of a percentage of the population are effected.
I thought you were fiscally responsible? Imagine that every victim of gunshots, killed and injured, has 20 family and friends? I’m glad your concern is so narrowly focused. And people wonder why this debate doesn’t get anywhere? Fuck us.
I believe you are being a little dramatic with my simple statement.
How so? You seem to think 22,500 gun deaths per year is of insignificant cost, solely focused on the cost of lives. Help me understand your statement as to the point you were making.
Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
so statistics are pointless when they go against your view? I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s. That is all. No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.
And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about. I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more. But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.
I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.
When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
so statistics are pointless when they go against your view? I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s. That is all. No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.
And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about. I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more. But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.
Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
so statistics are pointless when they go against your view? I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s. That is all. No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.
And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about. I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more. But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.
I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.
When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.
gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.
should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"
and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference. I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?
Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
so statistics are pointless when they go against your view? I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s. That is all. No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.
And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about. I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more. But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.
Not at all.
I support airport security just as much as I support cleaning up the gun problem in your country. If you can make common sense improvements that decrease risk to the public... then giddy up.
Yes... it's a drag taking off your shoes and waiting in line to catch a plane, but the task is worth it.
Yes... (for some) it's a drag you can't shoot shit with an awesome gun, but the concession is worth it.
* And I rarely hear of survivors of these mass shootings speaking publically about the need to arm themselves better. Most speak to the glaring need for reform. So I respectfully disagree with your 'thirds' assertion.
Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
so statistics are pointless when they go against your view? I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s. That is all. No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.
And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about. I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more. But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.
Not at all.
I support airport security just as much as I support cleaning up the gun problem in your country. If you can make common sense improvements that decrease risk to the public... then giddy up.
Yes... it's a drag taking off your shoes and waiting in line to catch a plane, but the task is worth it.
Yes... (for some) it's a drag you can't shoot shit with an awesome gun, but the concession is worth it.
* And I rarely hear of survivors of these mass shootings speaking publically about the need to arm themselves better. Most speak to the glaring need for reform. So I respectfully disagree with your 'thirds' assertion.
I didn't realize you were talking about mass shootings, I thought you meant overall people injured.
So are you canadian's this vocal in your own country since you can legally purchase an ar-15 there and other "assault" weapons legally?
Before we took steps to safeguard air travel... how many people died in planes taken down by terrorists compared to people landing safely at their destinations?
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
so statistics are pointless when they go against your view? I forgot who brought it up but he/she were just showing that a very very very small part of the population gets killed by firearms in the u.s. That is all. No one is saying it is insignificant rather just a smaller number than people perceive it.
And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about. I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more. But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.
What number do people perceive it to be?
4 no statistical data or links to back that up.
Wouldn’t debating facts be more productive than perceptions or random made up bullshit? I mean, why throw something out there that has no relevance to the debate? Unless it’s to denigrate the debate and exhibit your lack of seriousness to debate the issue? More deflections and distractions.
Comments
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/06/13/news/how-us-gun-laws-stack-canadas-wake-florida-shooting
In Canada, the AR-15 is classified as restricted, but unlike in Florida — where a license is not required to purchase one — those seeking access to such a weapon in Canada must pass a two-day safety course. They must also have authorization from their province’s Chief Firearms Officer to transport the gun to a shooting range, gun show, gunsmith or a few other permitted locations.Yet despite such restrictions, according to the RCMP, the rifle is widely desired by Canadian gun owners.
AR-15 “widely available and in demand” in Canada
There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection." Under limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use "in connection with one’s lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life," says the national police force’s website.
Still, the AR−15 — a brand name for that particular style of rifle — is widely available and in demand, said Insp. Steve Ridout, a spokesman for Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer. That’s in part because the patent for the rifle, which was owned by Colt, ran out years ago, allowing other companies to make their own versions, he explained.
"It’s very popular," Ridout said. "Especially since the patent ran out, there’s lots of variations of it now." Prices listed on various Canadian gun store websites ranged from around $700 to several thousand dollars.
Last month, Tory MP Bob Zimmer even tabelled a petition in Parliament to re-classify the AR-15 in Canada, so that it may be used in the "Canadian cultural practices of hunting in Canada," HuffPost Canada reported.
More than two million Canadians had firearms licences last year, according to an RCMP report. As of December 31, there were a total of 978,347 restricted or prohibited firearms registered to individuals or businesses in Canada, the report said.
www.headstonesband.com
I realize that the constitution can be amended but it very hard to do so. And yes men did write the constitution and bill of rights; no 19th amendment yet but I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the conversation.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://qz.com/1093144/us-gun-violence-costs-an-average-of-2-8-billion-a-year-a-johns-hopkins-study-reveals/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
People had no problem with the elevated security steps because everybody wanted safe air travel and the security measures- as painful as they are- made much sense in the interest of safety.
The statistics pointing out relatively few people die as a result of getting mowed down by a maniac wielding a military grade weapon bought from the grocery store are pointless. They are really pointless when you present them to the survivors.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And I think it depends on what specific survivor you are talking about. I would imagine 1/3 become more anti gun, 1/3 become indifferent and 1/3 arm themselves even more. But that is an opinion and I have no link or statistical data to back that up.
When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
no statistical data or links to back that up.
gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.
should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"
and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?
Not at all.
I support airport security just as much as I support cleaning up the gun problem in your country. If you can make common sense improvements that decrease risk to the public... then giddy up.
Yes... it's a drag taking off your shoes and waiting in line to catch a plane, but the task is worth it.
Yes... (for some) it's a drag you can't shoot shit with an awesome gun, but the concession is worth it.
* And I rarely hear of survivors of these mass shootings speaking publically about the need to arm themselves better. Most speak to the glaring need for reform. So I respectfully disagree with your 'thirds' assertion.
So are you canadian's this vocal in your own country since you can legally purchase an ar-15 there and other "assault" weapons legally?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©