America's Gun Violence

Stickman12 said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Really? The mere sight of a gun in the holster of a trained professional makes you uncomfortable?

I understand that a lot of people are anti-gun but that seems overly sensitive.

Maybe it's just the crazy, weirdo, gun nut American perspective in me that makes it seem odd.

No, not in a holster. All cops in Canada have guns. I said bearing arms. I.e. standing there holding big ass assault weapons in their hands. Many of them. At a Remembrance Day ceremony.

Even so. I fail to see the issue. They are trained professionals.

They probably looked scary

Guns are scary. If you don't think so, you probably don't respect them enough.

I remember a long time ago walking back to our hotel in Puerto Vallarta: we walked by the Corona outlet... there was an armed guard with an ak47. He wasn't smiling and I had a sober thought: his decision making is all that stands between me walking by or me becoming Swiss cheese.

Served in the military where there were times I literally had to hold and sleep with my M16, which IS an assault weapon. Was trained and educated on how the rifle assembled, disassembled, functioned, trained to troubleshoot malfunctions. The rifle was a tool, just like my boots, shovel, and flashlight were. It served to protect myself, my fellow soldiers, and innocent people who could not protect themselves. Respect for firearms is something that is not lacking. Firearms are not scary if you educate yourself on them. What is scary, as your illustrated in your example, are the PEOPLE who posses them and are not educated, trained, responsible and respectful. Those PEOPLE are dangerous regaurdless of their choice of weapon, not the weapon itself.

I understand this argument and it does stand to logic; however, it falls down for me at the point where, as you said, PEOPLE access these very deadly tools and use them against other people.

The current legal format for purchasing and owning weapons fails.

The current legal format makes it illegal for felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship to own guns.

The laws we already have aren't being enforced.

I'm absolutely sure you know (as I have said so to you before) that at a gun show, swap meet, or private sale, I can sell handguns and tactical rifles to any person I choose without regard for whether or not they are "felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship".

You say enforce the laws that exist, don't make new ones...those laws allow me to sell handguns to gangbangers. Legally.

It is against the law for anyone to transfer a firearm or ammunition to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.
It is against the law (with rare exceptions) for anyone to transfer a handgun to a non-dealer who resides in another state.
It is against the law for a non-dealer to transfer any firearm to a non-dealer who resides in another state.

If you search for this, it's not hard to find. Just because you break the law and do not get caught does not mean you haven't broken the law

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

Really? The mere sight of a gun in the holster of a trained professional makes you uncomfortable?

I understand that a lot of people are anti-gun but that seems overly sensitive.

Maybe it's just the crazy, weirdo, gun nut American perspective in me that makes it seem odd.

we assume well trained and proficient. not always the case.

similar to this , what do you call the person who finished last in their class at med school?

Does the RCMP have problems with their officers gunning down civilians at public functions? Has that ever happened?

I'd say the RCMP are far more disiplined to start with coupled with a diiferent national mindset.

the image portrayed or at least perceived by me is one that starts with how they can serve or be of service vs here with "respect my authority"

That being the case for the RCMP, I guess I really don't understand why people would object to the fact that they are armed.

mcgruff10 said:

People on these forums crack me up. Anti gunners make fun of pro gun because they want "assault weapons", stock up, hoard ammo or prepare because they don't trust the government. Same people feel worried/scared/intimated because the government trains individuals to carry actual assault weapons in public.

rgambs said:

Stickman12 said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Really? The mere sight of a gun in the holster of a trained professional makes you uncomfortable?

I understand that a lot of people are anti-gun but that seems overly sensitive.

Maybe it's just the crazy, weirdo, gun nut American perspective in me that makes it seem odd.

No, not in a holster. All cops in Canada have guns. I said bearing arms. I.e. standing there holding big ass assault weapons in their hands. Many of them. At a Remembrance Day ceremony.

Even so. I fail to see the issue. They are trained professionals.

They probably looked scary

Guns are scary. If you don't think so, you probably don't respect them enough.

I remember a long time ago walking back to our hotel in Puerto Vallarta: we walked by the Corona outlet... there was an armed guard with an ak47. He wasn't smiling and I had a sober thought: his decision making is all that stands between me walking by or me becoming Swiss cheese.

Served in the military where there were times I literally had to hold and sleep with my M16, which IS an assault weapon. Was trained and educated on how the rifle assembled, disassembled, functioned, trained to troubleshoot malfunctions. The rifle was a tool, just like my boots, shovel, and flashlight were. It served to protect myself, my fellow soldiers, and innocent people who could not protect themselves. Respect for firearms is something that is not lacking. Firearms are not scary if you educate yourself on them. What is scary, as your illustrated in your example, are the PEOPLE who posses them and are not educated, trained, responsible and respectful. Those PEOPLE are dangerous regaurdless of their choice of weapon, not the weapon itself.

I understand this argument and it does stand to logic; however, it falls down for me at the point where, as you said, PEOPLE access these very deadly tools and use them against other people.

The current legal format for purchasing and owning weapons fails.

The current legal format makes it illegal for felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship to own guns.

The laws we already have aren't being enforced.

I'm absolutely sure you know (as I have said so to you before) that at a gun show, swap meet, or private sale, I can sell handguns and tactical rifles to any person I choose without regard for whether or not they are "felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship".

You say enforce the laws that exist, don't make new ones...those laws allow me to sell handguns to gangbangers. Legally.

It is against the law for anyone to transfer a firearm or ammunition to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.
It is against the law (with rare exceptions) for anyone to transfer a handgun to a non-dealer who resides in another state.
It is against the law for a non-dealer to transfer any firearm to a non-dealer who resides in another state.

If you search for this, it's not hard to find. Just because you break the law and do not get caught does not mean you haven't broken the law

I don't have to do ANYTHING to verify any of those points. If I don't ask, and they don't tell, I haven't broken any law.
Any regulation that operates on the honor system is the same as no regulation at all.

jnimhaoileoin said:

dudeman said:

oftenreading said:

dudeman said:

oftenreading said:

dudeman said:

oftenreading said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Really? The mere sight of a gun in the holster of a trained professional makes you uncomfortable?

I understand that a lot of people are anti-gun but that seems overly sensitive.

Maybe it's just the crazy, weirdo, gun nut American perspective in me that makes it seem odd.

No, not in a holster. All cops in Canada have guns. I said bearing arms. I.e. standing there holding big ass assault weapons in their hands. Many of them. At a Remembrance Day ceremony.

Even so. I fail to see the issue. They are trained professionals.

mickeyrat brings up a good point which I agree with, but even if all of these individuals holding the guns are trained professionals the concern stands. Many of us (I would hazard a guess it's most of us, but I don't know that there are any stats on this) don't want to have these weapons present at such events. Their presence completely changes the atmosphere, and for the vast, vast majority of times we don't need them. There is really no need to give in to this assumption that such weapons are necessary or desirable.

So, you are concerned about people charged with the safety and protection of your citizens having guns? Even though they are trained?

Asked and answered.

So you must really object to private ownership of guns by civilians.

In case you aren't familiar with the typical usage of "asked and answered", it means that I have already provided my answer, not that you get to provide your own answer for me.

I'm plenty familiar with your response. And, I'm not trying to provide an answer for you.

Maybe it's the difference between our cultures but I can't imagine why one would object to military and law enforcement officers being armed. If one does make such objection, it must be unfathomable for civilians to be armed.

I understand and respect your position, I was just hoping for a little more of your perspective so that I could better understand.

If it helps, I can explain my discomfort at seeing our Gardaí (police) armed. We have never had an armed police force, only specially trained assault teams have been armed and very occasionally deployed to areas like Limerick which have had some issues with gang violence. So when I see an armed Garda, it makes me nervous and uncomfortable because it suggests a level of danger that is unfamiliar to us in Ireland. For the Gardaí to feel the need to arm themselves, it tells us that there is something to fear, so it is the implication of the gun that worries me as much as the idea of them using it. I trust both our government and our police force and I know that they will not use armed force unless they believe it to be absolutely necessary.

dudeman said:

mcgruff10 said:

People on these forums crack me up. Anti gunners make fun of pro gun because they want "assault weapons", stock up, hoard ammo or prepare because they don't trust the government. Same people feel worried/scared/intimated because the government trains individuals to carry actual assault weapons in public.

There's no way that I can understand the intricacies of this argument.

rgambs said:

Stickman12 said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Really? The mere sight of a gun in the holster of a trained professional makes you uncomfortable?

I understand that a lot of people are anti-gun but that seems overly sensitive.

Maybe it's just the crazy, weirdo, gun nut American perspective in me that makes it seem odd.

No, not in a holster. All cops in Canada have guns. I said bearing arms. I.e. standing there holding big ass assault weapons in their hands. Many of them. At a Remembrance Day ceremony.

Even so. I fail to see the issue. They are trained professionals.

They probably looked scary

Guns are scary. If you don't think so, you probably don't respect them enough.

I remember a long time ago walking back to our hotel in Puerto Vallarta: we walked by the Corona outlet... there was an armed guard with an ak47. He wasn't smiling and I had a sober thought: his decision making is all that stands between me walking by or me becoming Swiss cheese.

Served in the military where there were times I literally had to hold and sleep with my M16, which IS an assault weapon. Was trained and educated on how the rifle assembled, disassembled, functioned, trained to troubleshoot malfunctions. The rifle was a tool, just like my boots, shovel, and flashlight were. It served to protect myself, my fellow soldiers, and innocent people who could not protect themselves. Respect for firearms is something that is not lacking. Firearms are not scary if you educate yourself on them. What is scary, as your illustrated in your example, are the PEOPLE who posses them and are not educated, trained, responsible and respectful. Those PEOPLE are dangerous regaurdless of their choice of weapon, not the weapon itself.

I understand this argument and it does stand to logic; however, it falls down for me at the point where, as you said, PEOPLE access these very deadly tools and use them against other people.

The current legal format for purchasing and owning weapons fails.

The current legal format makes it illegal for felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship to own guns.

The laws we already have aren't being enforced.

I'm absolutely sure you know (as I have said so to you before) that at a gun show, swap meet, or private sale, I can sell handguns and tactical rifles to any person I choose without regard for whether or not they are "felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship".

You say enforce the laws that exist, don't make new ones...those laws allow me to sell handguns to gangbangers. Legally.

It is against the law for anyone to transfer a firearm or ammunition to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.
It is against the law (with rare exceptions) for anyone to transfer a handgun to a non-dealer who resides in another state.
It is against the law for a non-dealer to transfer any firearm to a non-dealer who resides in another state.

If you search for this, it's not hard to find. Just because you break the law and do not get caught does not mean you haven't broken the law

I don't have to do ANYTHING to verify any of those points. If I don't ask, and they don't tell, I haven't broken any law.
Any regulation that operates on the honor system is the same as no regulation at all.

The fact that you are ignorant of the laws pertaining to legal sale and transfer of firearms only proves the point that the current laws aren't being enforced.

I think we are in agreement that this is a problem.

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Really? The mere sight of a gun in the holster of a trained professional makes you uncomfortable?

I understand that a lot of people are anti-gun but that seems overly sensitive.

Maybe it's just the crazy, weirdo, gun nut American perspective in me that makes it seem odd.

No, not in a holster. All cops in Canada have guns. I said bearing arms. I.e. standing there holding big ass assault weapons in their hands. Many of them. At a Remembrance Day ceremony.

Even so. I fail to see the issue. They are trained professionals.

Yeah, that's my point: Canadians are different in their mindset about it. RCMP wielding assault weapons at a ceremony is offensive to Canadians, and alarming. We don't think of guns in the same way as Americans do. And while guns are indeed scary and dangerous, our lack of gun culture is not about guns looking scary. It's because we are actually not scared, and therefore don't feel that we need to be oppressed by guns. We don't want that kind of fear, and gun culture creates that kind of fear.

Stickman12 said:

rgambs said:

Stickman12 said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Stickman12 said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Really? The mere sight of a gun in the holster of a trained professional makes you uncomfortable?

I understand that a lot of people are anti-gun but that seems overly sensitive.

Maybe it's just the crazy, weirdo, gun nut American perspective in me that makes it seem odd.

No, not in a holster. All cops in Canada have guns. I said bearing arms. I.e. standing there holding big ass assault weapons in their hands. Many of them. At a Remembrance Day ceremony.

Even so. I fail to see the issue. They are trained professionals.

They probably looked scary

Guns are scary. If you don't think so, you probably don't respect them enough.

I remember a long time ago walking back to our hotel in Puerto Vallarta: we walked by the Corona outlet... there was an armed guard with an ak47. He wasn't smiling and I had a sober thought: his decision making is all that stands between me walking by or me becoming Swiss cheese.

Served in the military where there were times I literally had to hold and sleep with my M16, which IS an assault weapon. Was trained and educated on how the rifle assembled, disassembled, functioned, trained to troubleshoot malfunctions. The rifle was a tool, just like my boots, shovel, and flashlight were. It served to protect myself, my fellow soldiers, and innocent people who could not protect themselves. Respect for firearms is something that is not lacking. Firearms are not scary if you educate yourself on them. What is scary, as your illustrated in your example, are the PEOPLE who posses them and are not educated, trained, responsible and respectful. Those PEOPLE are dangerous regaurdless of their choice of weapon, not the weapon itself.

I understand this argument and it does stand to logic; however, it falls down for me at the point where, as you said, PEOPLE access these very deadly tools and use them against other people.

The current legal format for purchasing and owning weapons fails.

The current legal format makes it illegal for felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship to own guns.

The laws we already have aren't being enforced.

I'm absolutely sure you know (as I have said so to you before) that at a gun show, swap meet, or private sale, I can sell handguns and tactical rifles to any person I choose without regard for whether or not they are "felons, people with mental illness, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the military and those who have renounced their citizenship".

You say enforce the laws that exist, don't make new ones...those laws allow me to sell handguns to gangbangers. Legally.

It is against the law for anyone to transfer a firearm or ammunition to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.
It is against the law (with rare exceptions) for anyone to transfer a handgun to a non-dealer who resides in another state.
It is against the law for a non-dealer to transfer any firearm to a non-dealer who resides in another state.

If you search for this, it's not hard to find. Just because you break the law and do not get caught does not mean you haven't broken the law

I don't have to do ANYTHING to verify any of those points. If I don't ask, and they don't tell, I haven't broken any law.
Any regulation that operates on the honor system is the same as no regulation at all.

Well then you would be the poster child for an irresponsible gun owner. Every private gun sale or trade that I have done has included a bill of sale that includes a signature that has the same questions as a NICS background check. Sure people can deceive and lie but taking that route proves that there was some diligence and a paper trail on that firearm. Using the argument that I did not ask or did not know would probably not work out good for you in court if the person you sold to was unqualified and the firearm was used in a crime.

In 2014, Washington became the first state to enact a law requiring background checks on private sales by voter initiative.1 The law requires private buyers and sellers to conduct a firearms transaction through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). The FFL must process the transaction as if the dealer were selling the firearm from his or her own inventory and comply with all federal and state laws regulating firearms dealers, such as performing the required background check on the purchaser (see the Washington Background Checks section).

rssesq said:

they came and took your buds granddad's rifle? they should try dealin with Hastings street instead of worrying about confiscating honest people's rifles in Vancouver. imo
And one can really use a rifle up there what with all the moose attacks, lmao

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I was at my buddy's cottage over the weekend. I noticed the shotgun that used to sit above the fireplace was gone. He said that when his dad died, his dad being the only registered firearms user, the cops came and took it and gave my buddy a tax receipt for a charitible donation. this would have made national headlines in the states. my buddy was like "yeah, makes sense".

This is why the second amendment needs updated. If you want to own a gun, then register. I love that idea. If you're not registered, you don't own a gun.

And for you "my right to bear arms shall not be infringed" crowd, it would be like getting your driver's license. When you turn 18, you take a 24 hour class and you're registered. See, it's that easy. Oh, so if your illiterate you can't own a gun you ask? Yes, you can, when you learn to read. Get over it.

soooooo one must learn to read before owning or registering a firearm......well then it would make perfect sense to apply the same law or reasoning when registering to be come a citizen of the united states or when registering to vote or drive a car, welfare or any government assistance......but most of all becoming a citizen of the United States......isn't that the law now ? at least being able to speak English ?.......sure could of fooled me.

Godfather.