Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
Do you have anything to back up your "feel good law" or "no real impact" theory?
I just think you're underestimating how storing them separately would help for the two main stated reasons, and also feel that a law that protects a minority of potential victims is still a worthwhile law that doesn't exclude other laws that might protect a larger number of people. I think the more rules that might protect anyone in the context of gun violence or accidents, the better. Of course I couldn't care less if gun owners are slightly or very inconvenienced by any gun laws.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
To answer #2... well, the same way you enforce the law about keeping guns secured.... Isn't that presumably through education, licensing, safety training, etc? It's more about encouraging the following of the law, not enforcing it? And then, of course, punish those who are found to have not followed said law, which normally happens during unrelated investigations or during the investigation of terrible murders and accidents.
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
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,722
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Easy- you hire half the country to monitor the other half of the country. (In other words- as much as this the concept may have some merit, it totally lacks on a practicality level.)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
this semantics game of accusing someone of bullshit for one word in a sentence is so tiring. should we lambaste all the liberals that cite the "few" numbers of illegal immigrants that have committed murder as a reason why there is no need for a wall? I mean, how insensitive to the FEW murder victims, right?
gimme a break.
Liberals lambast the number of murders committed by immigrants in the context that they’re less likely to murder than the white, native population and the right likes to claim that its an "invasion" or "oh the horror." Maybe the white, native population should get their house in order before creating boogymen? And please show me a post, by a "liberal" claiming its only X number or that they're unsympathetic to a "FEW murders." Semantics or "facts" don't matter. Got it.
facts do matter, which is why your last few posts addressing mace are ludicrous.
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
Oh man, I seriously don't have time to research everything anyone ever claims here - I hope this doesn't happen too often, lol. I took whoever's word on that one. Hey, isn't it any comment's naysayers who are obligated to disprove a statement?... Before we all debate it for several pages?
FWIW... it sounded like a good idea to me!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
Lol. Oh geez
Lol meltdown99, where did you go? You started this, ha
Oh man, I seriously don't have time to research everything anyone ever claims here - I hope this doesn't happen too often, lol. I took whoever's word on that one. Hey, isn't it any comment's naysayers who are obligated to disprove a statement?... Before we all debate it for several pages?
FWIW... it sounded like a good idea to me!
Your lAws are as confusing as ours! Non-restrictive, restrictive and prohibited firearms. Ugh.
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.
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.
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
this semantics game of accusing someone of bullshit for one word in a sentence is so tiring. should we lambaste all the liberals that cite the "few" numbers of illegal immigrants that have committed murder as a reason why there is no need for a wall? I mean, how insensitive to the FEW murder victims, right?
gimme a break.
Liberals lambast the number of murders committed by immigrants in the context that they’re less likely to murder than the white, native population and the right likes to claim that its an "invasion" or "oh the horror." Maybe the white, native population should get their house in order before creating boogymen? And please show me a post, by a "liberal" claiming its only X number or that they're unsympathetic to a "FEW murders." Semantics or "facts" don't matter. Got it.
facts do matter, which is why your last few posts addressing mace are ludicrous.
How so? Are you sticking with women are the only victims of domestic violence gun deaths and that that number is 600?
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
Do you have anything to back up your "feel good law" or "no real impact" theory?
I was going to ask what evidence do you have that it works, but someone already did. I've explained my reasoning many times over the last 2 days. If you want to know, read through it. I don't see the need to explain it again.
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.
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.
Not to mention that Canada seems to think it is okay to lock them unattended in a car (look at the paragraph below the one you circled)...which was a topic of conversation recently too, lol
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
Exactly. Not only that, but it seems like a few times a page on this thread we are compared to other countries and told "why don't you have laws like them?" And I remember the one time I tried to explain the difference between USA and Canada, and the roots of our gun culture you would think I was supporting the Nazi party or something with the crazy ridiculous responses. If anything, this supports exactly what I've been saying for 2 days. You don't need the ammo-gun storage law to have effective gun control.
Well let's not get too excited. Canada DOES have more restrictive firearm laws by far, and that question is still valid. Meltdown's mistake changes nothing when it comes to America having an out-of-control gun violence problem resulting from an extreme gun culture and a lack of restrictions.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
Exactly. Not only that, but it seems like a few times a page on this thread we are compared to other countries and told "why don't you have laws like them?" And I remember the one time I tried to explain the difference between USA and Canada, and the roots of our gun culture you would think I was supporting the Nazi party or something with the crazy ridiculous responses. If anything, this supports exactly what I've been saying for 2 days. You don't need the ammo-gun storage law to have effective gun control.
Plus in Canada automatic weapons (very restrictive like here) and ar-15 s are legal.
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
Exactly. Not only that, but it seems like a few times a page on this thread we are compared to other countries and told "why don't you have laws like them?" And I remember the one time I tried to explain the difference between USA and Canada, and the roots of our gun culture you would think I was supporting the Nazi party or something with the crazy ridiculous responses. If anything, this supports exactly what I've been saying for 2 days. You don't need the ammo-gun storage law to have effective gun control.
Well, we are clear now. By law, you CAN store your firearm and ammo in the same safe...in the USA and in Canada!
Not to mention that Canada seems to think it is okay to lock them unattended in a car (look at the paragraph below the one you circled)...which was a topic of conversation recently too, lol
Not to mention that Canada seems to think it is okay to lock them unattended in a car (look at the paragraph below the one you circled)...which was a topic of conversation recently too, lol
Responsible until they aren’t.
I’m not aware whether or not you can store an #Ptape with them, though, lol
But what... so now all of a sudden Canada and America are looking fairly equal in terms of gun laws to you? That isn't the case at all.
Explain to me the restricted weapon access. Do you need a certain level of background checks to get one? Maybe i should research since you Canadians can not And I do think we are more similar than you think, big difference is the training and mag limits imo.
Well let's not get too excited. Canada DOES have more restrictive firearm laws by far, and that question is still valid. Meltdown's mistake changes nothing when it comes to America having an out-of-control gun violence problem resulting from an extreme gun culture and a lack of restrictions.
I would agree with that. My impression has always been it is more difficult to get a gun in Canada. I've never tried so I don't really know. By no means do I think their laws are lose now.
Comments
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
2. How do you enforce that law?
www.headstonesband.com
2. What PJSoul said.
“Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms”
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-1.html#h-3
www.headstonesband.com
meltdown started this one.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I've explained my reasoning many times over the last 2 days. If you want to know, read through it. I don't see the need to explain it again.
If anything, this supports exactly what I've been saying for 2 days. You don't need the ammo-gun storage law to have effective gun control.
Maybe i should research since you Canadians can not
And I do think we are more similar than you think, big difference is the training and mag limits imo.