I mean... that is for any progressive country grounded in sensibility and reasonable intelligence.
You know... the type of country that wouldn’t elect a fat f**k known for cheating people, dodging the draft and proceeding to insult prolific war heroes, empathizing with nazis, possessing an overtly racist attitude, adultery, soliciting prostitutes, getting pissed on, and say (because the list is endless and there really needs to be one more item) unable to take a shit without getting toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe prior to a public showing.
I mean... that is for any progressive country grounded in sensibility and reasonable intelligence.
You know... the type of country that wouldn’t elect a fat f**k known for cheating people, dodging the draft and proceeding to insult prolific war heroes, empathizing with nazis, possessing an overtly racist attitude, adultery, soliciting prostitutes, getting pissed on, and say (because the list is endless and there really needs to be one more item) unable to take a shit without getting toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe prior to a public showing.
Yee Haw! Git ‘er dun.
And he’ll win in a landslide in 2020 , remember that old saying “it’s the economy stupid “
I m definitely not a fan of this law. Guilty until proven innocent.
I don't interpret that in such a way. Unless there is a trial involved, that concept doesn't apply IMO. But either way, in this context it's simply about putting public safety ahead of individual rights, which I'm all for, and in most cases, so are Americans in general as far as I can tell. And with the obvious dangers brought to the public when it comes to people who shouldn't have guns having guns, this kind of legislation makes all the sense in the world to me.
I ll have to do more research on it. Maybe I am missing something.
What are your feelings about sheriffs refusing to follow a law/legislation/bylaw that they don't agree with?
I don't agree with that, whatever the law is they should enforce it. But of course they've been doing that for years with marijuana and nobody complained, so that sort of opened up the doors for this.
I m definitely not a fan of this law. Guilty until proven innocent. Big slippery slope.
I wasn't sure, so I clicked on the reference in the article. This is what it claims the law states "The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. " So it is not guilty until proven innocent, it just lowers the bar to be proven guilty. I think I would be okay with that, from my understanding it is basically lowering it to the level of a civil suit, not a criminal case, and it is just temporary. Its not like someone can walk into a court house and file a petition, there needs to be some evidence, actually a preponderance of evidence, as I've learned from Judge Milian on The People's Court, just means more likely than not. Depending on the process that follows and how long the "temporary" status is, this could be a good thing.
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.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I mean... that is for any progressive country grounded in sensibility and reasonable intelligence.
You know... the type of country that wouldn’t elect a fat f**k known for cheating people, dodging the draft and proceeding to insult prolific war heroes, empathizing with nazis, possessing an overtly racist attitude, adultery, soliciting prostitutes, getting pissed on, and say (because the list is endless and there really needs to be one more item) unable to take a shit without getting toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe prior to a public showing.
Yee Haw! Git ‘er dun.
Dude... the horse is dead
You think America is full of fat dumb racists, we get it bro... your condescension and stereotyping is as much the problem as the average maga voter, whether you realize it or not
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.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
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
You do realize that laws do change from time to time. But if you seriously think your guns laws are sufficient, you are so wrong. Hate to say it, dude, odds are that you or someone you care about is going to get caught up in gun violence...just don't complain about gun laws when that happens. Your attitude contributes to the problem...
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.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
however, australia, and now new zealand, are excellent examples of how reactions to these events should unfold. the US is the only country that does nothing about it.
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
You do realize that laws do change from time to time. But if you seriously think your guns laws are sufficient, you are so wrong. Hate to say it, dude, odds are that you or someone you care about is going to get caught up in gun violence...just don't complain about gun laws when that happens. Your attitude contributes to the problem...
Was just having a little fun with you, dude. I do realize that laws change over time, but you were the one saying that this particular law that turned out not to be a law was effective. Because I feel that the burden of proof is on you now (and I really just don’t care to spend another day on the topic), can you post a link to show that what you stated was ever law or any stats showing it made a difference? Remind me where I stayed that any of our laws are sufficient? There are definitely things that I think should be changed. You are full of all kinds of fake.
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
You do realize that laws do change from time to time. But if you seriously think your guns laws are sufficient, you are so wrong. Hate to say it, dude, odds are that you or someone you care about is going to get caught up in gun violence...just don't complain about gun laws when that happens. Your attitude contributes to the problem...
Happened to me already. I didn't blame the gun, I blamed the person.
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.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
however, australia, and now new zealand, are excellent examples of how reactions to these events should unfold. the US is the only country that does nothing about it.
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........
California alone has 40 million, more than Canada
We wish it was as simple as some people think it is
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.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
however, australia, and now new zealand, are excellent examples of how reactions to these events should unfold. the US is the only country that does nothing about it.
But there is a lot being done and changes made after these incidents that fall more in line with the US culture, people here (the AMT)just don’t like to hear about those changes and are narrow “ban” minded. Yes, firearm law changes are harder to implement in the US due to our systems at hand, which could also be considered a cultural difference. You cannot tell me that changes at sporting events, schools, concerts, etc never happen after these incidents. Hell, 30 years ago, people were still hanging their firearms in car gun racks in the school parking lots and people were allowed to keep them in dorm rooms for example. Gun culture, laws, and society have changed a lot (again, maybe not in the manner that strict gun control supporters agree with), but to say “nothing is ever done” is a bit of a false statement.
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.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
however, australia, and now new zealand, are excellent examples of how reactions to these events should unfold. the US is the only country that does nothing about it.
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........
California alone has 40 million, more than Canada
We wish it was as simple as some people think it is
what does the number of people in a country have anything to do with reaction to mass slaughter?
what about all the other countries with vastly bigger populations than the US? does the reason then shift to another reason the US can't react like they do?
how is banning AR-15's not simple? it was done before, and then the law expired. it can be done.
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
I imagine that most of the incidents occurred when none of the above were implemented. It annoys the hell out of me when I hear of people keeping them in their night stand unprotected (especially if they have kids in the house). There is such great technology out there for securing your guns that there is no excuse not to. I’m not sure how a law would be enforced to ensure everyone complied (police are not going to go door to door to “audit”), but stiffer legal consequences when incidents occur might be a deterrent. Is there any country that makes you lock up firearms and ammo separately? Canada doesn’t...
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
however, australia, and now new zealand, are excellent examples of how reactions to these events should unfold. the US is the only country that does nothing about it.
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........
California alone has 40 million, more than Canada
We wish it was as simple as some people think it is
what does the number of people in a country have anything to do with reaction to mass slaughter?
what about all the other countries with vastly bigger populations than the US? does the reason then shift to another reason the US can't react like they do?
how is banning AR-15's not simple? it was done before, and then the law expired. it can be done.
It only banned the importation of them. They could still be sold from person to person and then they made loopholes around the weapons.
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.
I don't think we are even close to similar in either way, but like I always say, it's the American gun culture that really makes the most difference by far, and in that way we are worlds apart.
Anyway, here is a link to the RCMP website where it defines these things:
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
however, australia, and now new zealand, are excellent examples of how reactions to these events should unfold. the US is the only country that does nothing about it.
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........
California alone has 40 million, more than Canada
We wish it was as simple as some people think it is
what does the number of people in a country have anything to do with reaction to mass slaughter?
what about all the other countries with vastly bigger populations than the US? does the reason then shift to another reason the US can't react like they do?
how is banning AR-15's not simple? it was done before, and then the law expired. it can be done.
It only banned the importation of them. They could still be sold from person to person and then they made loopholes around the weapons.
I stand corrected.
But it can still be done. 2A says nothing about the right to own any type of gun you want.
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.
I don't think we are even close to similar in either way, but like I always say, it's the American gun culture that really makes the most difference by far, and in that way we are worlds apart.
Anyway, here is a link to the RCMP website where it defines these things:
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
Yes, of course I read it. It’s called a case control study. It’s an accepted method of research, particularly when one can’t do a prospective randomized control study, which of course you can’t with this issue, as you would be telling one group of people not to safely store their guns and then following up to see what happens, which is obviously unethical.
The “cases” are matched with controls.
The study methodology is sound.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
The issue I had was I didn't see any definition of what was "locked" or "stored." If all I used was a cable lock, then I'd probably store my ammo separately and lock it up, since those cable locks can be cut with some heavy-duty pliers. Or a gun cabinet that a heavy-duty screwdriver can get you in, sure I'd lock it up separately too. But I think they lumped all types together with a fireproof gun safe type. And also, it looks like they considered a child in the home with a gun if there was a child visiting 2 or more days a year. That has to skew the data a little, who doesn't have a kid visit 2 days a year? So that is pretty much going to exclude no one and consider every gun owner as a house with a child. Or did I read that wrong?
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.
I don't think we are even close to similar in either way, but like I always say, it's the American gun culture that really makes the most difference by far, and in that way we are worlds apart.
Anyway, here is a link to the RCMP website where it defines these things:
I mean... that is for any progressive country grounded in sensibility and reasonable intelligence.
You know... the type of country that wouldn’t elect a fat f**k known for cheating people, dodging the draft and proceeding to insult prolific war heroes, empathizing with nazis, possessing an overtly racist attitude, adultery, soliciting prostitutes, getting pissed on, and say (because the list is endless and there really needs to be one more item) unable to take a shit without getting toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe prior to a public showing.
Yee Haw! Git ‘er dun.
Dude... the horse is dead
You think America is full of fat dumb racists, we get it bro... your condescension and stereotyping is as much the problem as the average maga voter, whether you realize it or not
Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture. I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”. This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties. It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
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.
I don't think we are even close to similar in either way, but like I always say, it's the American gun culture that really makes the most difference by far, and in that way we are worlds apart.
Anyway, here is a link to the RCMP website where it defines these things:
Comments
I mean... that is for any progressive country grounded in sensibility and reasonable intelligence.
You know... the type of country that wouldn’t elect a fat f**k known for cheating people, dodging the draft and proceeding to insult prolific war heroes, empathizing with nazis, possessing an overtly racist attitude, adultery, soliciting prostitutes, getting pissed on, and say (because the list is endless and there really needs to be one more item) unable to take a shit without getting toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe prior to a public showing.
Yee Haw! Git ‘er dun.
But of course they've been doing that for years with marijuana and nobody complained, so that sort of opened up the doors for this.
So it is not guilty until proven innocent, it just lowers the bar to be proven guilty. I think I would be okay with that, from my understanding it is basically lowering it to the level of a civil suit, not a criminal case, and it is just temporary. Its not like someone can walk into a court house and file a petition, there needs to be some evidence, actually a preponderance of evidence, as I've learned from Judge Milian on The People's Court, just means more likely than not. Depending on the process that follows and how long the "temporary" status is, this could be a good thing.
www.headstonesband.com
You think America is full of fat dumb racists, we get it bro... your condescension and stereotyping is as much the problem as the average maga voter, whether you realize it or not
www.headstonesband.com
California alone has 40 million, more than Canada
We wish it was as simple as some people think it is
what about all the other countries with vastly bigger populations than the US? does the reason then shift to another reason the US can't react like they do?
how is banning AR-15's not simple? it was done before, and then the law expired. it can be done.
www.headstonesband.com
https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
www.headstonesband.com
But it can still be done. 2A says nothing about the right to own any type of gun you want.
www.headstonesband.com
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
The “cases” are matched with controls.
The study methodology is sound.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And also, it looks like they considered a child in the home with a gun if there was a child visiting 2 or more days a year. That has to skew the data a little, who doesn't have a kid visit 2 days a year? So that is pretty much going to exclude no one and consider every gun owner as a house with a child. Or did I read that wrong?
Half full. Half full.
And I didn’t know that. Thanks!