America's Gun Violence

1479480482484485502

Comments

  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,040
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,069
    Thank god the Baffoon declared a made up national emergency ..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 6,260
    Thank god the Baffoon declared a made up national emergency ..
    It is not made up
    There is an invasion at the southern border.
    Caravans of criminals and terrorists and diseases and ms13
    OH MY
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,040
    Thank god the Baffoon declared a made up national emergency ..
    It is not made up
    There is an invasion at the southern border.
    Caravans of criminals and terrorists and diseases and ms13
    OH MY
    Wait, you mean they aren't vaccinated?

    Build the wall!!!
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 18,624
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    I think the system works well.  We had a long gun registry at one point as well, that was scrapped by the previous government.  The long gun registry.  It was a disaster financially and only sought to inconvenience farmers and hunters...some have pegged the final cost at some 2 billion.

    Good luck to the US if you guys try that. 

    Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#3bff51b75a1b

    Lost in the discussion: Canada tried it and gave up, discovering like several other nations that attempting to identify every gun in the country is an expensive and ultimately unproductive exercise. Criminals, of course, don't register their guns. And even law-abiding citizens tend to ignore registration when it comes to long guns mostly used for hunting and target shooting.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,040
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,845
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,475
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    I see.  I do not see an issue with that rule, however, I suspect many farmers ignore that rule...in their case, it's for predator control...
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 18,624
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    Oh yeah I don’t agree with that one either.  Otherwise I really like the training part. 

    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,845
    edited March 19
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,040
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,845
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I know that. But kids find shit out sometimes, and not all parents are as careful as others. It's all just about risk prevention.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    it's just like having an alarm system for your home. in addition to the locks on the doors. just added security. 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,040
    PJ_Soul said:

    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I know that. But kids find shit out sometimes, and not all parents are as careful as others. It's all just about risk prevention.
    PJ_Soul said:
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    it's just like having an alarm system for your home. in addition to the locks on the doors. just added security. 
    If kids get in to shit then putting it in 2 different places isn't going to matter.


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    PJ_Soul said:

    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I know that. But kids find shit out sometimes, and not all parents are as careful as others. It's all just about risk prevention.
    PJ_Soul said:
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    it's just like having an alarm system for your home. in addition to the locks on the doors. just added security. 
    If kids get in to shit then putting it in 2 different places isn't going to matter.


    by that logic I should set my home alarm but leave my door unlocked. of course it will matter. two lines of defense! 
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,475
    I get that it makes sense in some cases. There are some very weak and flimsy gun cabinets out there that could be easily broken into. But for me, I have a safe that is extremely difficult to break in to, I would say nearly impossible for a teenager and younger. I do not have the room or money to have a separate one just for ammo. So my two options are to store them together in a place that would require a professional to break into, with a  lot of time and power tools, or store the ammo separately in a less secure location.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
    Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

    So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 
    Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
    I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

    Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 
    That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  
    Background checks is a hot talking point.

    What should a background check consist of?  

    What would you like to see done?

    I am a Canadian.  

    In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

    Firearms Safety Training

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

    You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

    Canadian Firearms Registry

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

    And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

    Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
    I have no problem with any of these.  
    fine with it except this.

    Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.
    What rule?  
    The stored separately from ammo rule. I can't imagine why that would be an issue... I guess home protection??
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I believe in Canada ammo cannot even be in the same room as the gun.  The idea behind that is to hopefully allow a person who is grabbing his gun in anger a few minutes to cool down and hopefully think before acting.  Only a fool sleeps in a house with a loaded weapon and ammo nearby.  I'm sure most of us have lost their cool, maybe got in a heated argument with a neighbour...well in Canada we generally never need to worry about a gun being involved...I'll takes that any day over a shooting incident because of someone blowing snow on someone's yard.

    That's why America will always have gun violence.  You resist common sense solutions.  Where the fuck does most of you live that you need a gun in your nightstand?  Fuck I go to bed most nights with my door unlocked...

    And anyone who enjoys hunting is not being denied the opportunity.  We are making it hard for people who would not normally commit gun violence from acting based on emotions.  The guns laws work in Canada, I worked with plenty of hunters...none I talked to worried about the gun laws...we just have a different mentality than Americans.  
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,040
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I believe in Canada ammo cannot even be in the same room as the gun.  The idea behind that is to hopefully allow a person who is grabbing his gun in anger a few minutes to cool down and hopefully think before acting.  Only a fool sleeps in a house with a loaded weapon and ammo nearby.  I'm sure most of us have lost their cool, maybe got in a heated argument with a neighbour...well in Canada we generally never need to worry about a gun being involved...I'll takes that any day over a shooting incident because of someone blowing snow on someone's yard.

    That's why America will always have gun violence.  You resist common sense solutions.  Where the fuck does most of you live that you need a gun in your nightstand?  Fuck I go to bed most nights with my door unlocked...

    And anyone who enjoys hunting is not being denied the opportunity.  We are making it hard for people who would not normally commit gun violence from acting based on emotions.  The guns laws work in Canada, I worked with plenty of hunters...none I talked to worried about the gun laws...we just have a different mentality than Americans.  
    I have no problem locking up a gun in a safe, right next to the ammo.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Locking up ammo in another room?  Silly.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,845
    edited March 19
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I believe in Canada ammo cannot even be in the same room as the gun.  The idea behind that is to hopefully allow a person who is grabbing his gun in anger a few minutes to cool down and hopefully think before acting.  Only a fool sleeps in a house with a loaded weapon and ammo nearby.  I'm sure most of us have lost their cool, maybe got in a heated argument with a neighbour...well in Canada we generally never need to worry about a gun being involved...I'll takes that any day over a shooting incident because of someone blowing snow on someone's yard.

    That's why America will always have gun violence.  You resist common sense solutions.  Where the fuck does most of you live that you need a gun in your nightstand?  Fuck I go to bed most nights with my door unlocked...

    And anyone who enjoys hunting is not being denied the opportunity.  We are making it hard for people who would not normally commit gun violence from acting based on emotions.  The guns laws work in Canada, I worked with plenty of hunters...none I talked to worried about the gun laws...we just have a different mentality than Americans.  
    I have no problem locking up a gun in a safe, right next to the ammo.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Locking up ammo in another room?  Silly.
    Not so silly when you compare gun violence and accident statistics.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I believe in Canada ammo cannot even be in the same room as the gun.  The idea behind that is to hopefully allow a person who is grabbing his gun in anger a few minutes to cool down and hopefully think before acting.  Only a fool sleeps in a house with a loaded weapon and ammo nearby.  I'm sure most of us have lost their cool, maybe got in a heated argument with a neighbour...well in Canada we generally never need to worry about a gun being involved...I'll takes that any day over a shooting incident because of someone blowing snow on someone's yard.

    That's why America will always have gun violence.  You resist common sense solutions.  Where the fuck does most of you live that you need a gun in your nightstand?  Fuck I go to bed most nights with my door unlocked...

    And anyone who enjoys hunting is not being denied the opportunity.  We are making it hard for people who would not normally commit gun violence from acting based on emotions.  The guns laws work in Canada, I worked with plenty of hunters...none I talked to worried about the gun laws...we just have a different mentality than Americans.  
    I have no problem locking up a gun in a safe, right next to the ammo.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Locking up ammo in another room?  Silly.
    Not so silly when you compare gun violence and accident statistics.
    I agree.  But I've said it before, there are no other people on this earth as paranoid as the average American.  
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,475
    With the exception of hunting accidents, 100% of all other gun accidents result from not obeying the first most basic rule of gun safety- always assume a gun is loaded. Locking up ammo in an underground bunker in your backyard won't protect people from accidents who don't follow that rule.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 18,040
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I believe in Canada ammo cannot even be in the same room as the gun.  The idea behind that is to hopefully allow a person who is grabbing his gun in anger a few minutes to cool down and hopefully think before acting.  Only a fool sleeps in a house with a loaded weapon and ammo nearby.  I'm sure most of us have lost their cool, maybe got in a heated argument with a neighbour...well in Canada we generally never need to worry about a gun being involved...I'll takes that any day over a shooting incident because of someone blowing snow on someone's yard.

    That's why America will always have gun violence.  You resist common sense solutions.  Where the fuck does most of you live that you need a gun in your nightstand?  Fuck I go to bed most nights with my door unlocked...

    And anyone who enjoys hunting is not being denied the opportunity.  We are making it hard for people who would not normally commit gun violence from acting based on emotions.  The guns laws work in Canada, I worked with plenty of hunters...none I talked to worried about the gun laws...we just have a different mentality than Americans.  
    I have no problem locking up a gun in a safe, right next to the ammo.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Locking up ammo in another room?  Silly.
    Not so silly when you compare gun violence and accident statistics.
    Yes it is.  Locked in a safe =safe.

    Not locked in a safe=problems.

    A locked up gun is hard pressed to cause violence or accidents.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,894
    mace1229 said:
    I get that it makes sense in some cases. There are some very weak and flimsy gun cabinets out there that could be easily broken into. But for me, I have a safe that is extremely difficult to break in to, I would say nearly impossible for a teenager and younger. I do not have the room or money to have a separate one just for ammo. So my two options are to store them together in a place that would require a professional to break into, with a  lot of time and power tools, or store the ammo separately in a less secure location.

    And the counter argument to that, of course, is if gun safety is really a priority then that comes first. No one should purchase guns and then claim not to have the money or the room to safely store them. You get the safe storage options in place first, or you don't get the guns. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,826
    mace1229 said:
    With the exception of hunting accidents, 100% of all other gun accidents result from not obeying the first most basic rule of gun safety- always assume a gun is loaded. Locking up ammo in an underground bunker in your backyard won't protect people from accidents who don't follow that rule.

    The idea by separating ammo from the gun is to allow a little cool down as to avoid someone grabbing the gun and using it during a heated dispute.  It also allows the other party in the dispute a head start to get away when they see the person grab the gun...nothing wrong with the law.  Americans need to change their mentality...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,845
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    I honestly don't see the point. I mean, if I have a big safe for guns, why not store ammo there too? Why put it in a place that is easier to get than some place secure enough for guns?
    I think the point is that if a kid finds one or the other (yes, kids will figure out ways to get into locked things sometimes), everything's fine - no harm done. But if they are stored together, the chances of something bad happening go way up.
    A good safe, not a cabinet, a safe, has an additional lock box for ammo.

    A good safe also has a combination that your kid doesn't need to know.
    I believe in Canada ammo cannot even be in the same room as the gun.  The idea behind that is to hopefully allow a person who is grabbing his gun in anger a few minutes to cool down and hopefully think before acting.  Only a fool sleeps in a house with a loaded weapon and ammo nearby.  I'm sure most of us have lost their cool, maybe got in a heated argument with a neighbour...well in Canada we generally never need to worry about a gun being involved...I'll takes that any day over a shooting incident because of someone blowing snow on someone's yard.

    That's why America will always have gun violence.  You resist common sense solutions.  Where the fuck does most of you live that you need a gun in your nightstand?  Fuck I go to bed most nights with my door unlocked...

    And anyone who enjoys hunting is not being denied the opportunity.  We are making it hard for people who would not normally commit gun violence from acting based on emotions.  The guns laws work in Canada, I worked with plenty of hunters...none I talked to worried about the gun laws...we just have a different mentality than Americans.  
    I have no problem locking up a gun in a safe, right next to the ammo.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Locking up ammo in another room?  Silly.
    Not so silly when you compare gun violence and accident statistics.
    Yes it is.  Locked in a safe =safe.

    Not locked in a safe=problems.

    A locked up gun is hard pressed to cause violence or accidents.
    Forgive me if I don't feel inclined to really listen to Americans when it comes to effective gun laws.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sign In or Register to comment.