America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
Do you have anything to back up your "feel good law" or "no real impact" theory?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.0 -
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. ~ Desiderata0 -
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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 shelf0 -
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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 onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.)mcgruff10 said:
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
facts do matter, which is why your last few posts addressing mace are ludicrous.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
gimme a break.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
1. Statisticsmcgruff10 said:
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?
2. What PJSoul said.0 -
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...:mcgruff10 said:
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?
“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.htmlit 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
Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?PJPOWER said:
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...:mcgruff10 said:
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?
“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.htmlBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Lol. Oh geezPJPOWER said:
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...:mcgruff10 said:
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?
“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.htmlI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?PJPOWER said:
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...:mcgruff10 said:
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?
“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
0 -
Lol meltdown99, where did you go? You started this, hamcgruff10 said:
Lol. Oh geezPJPOWER said:
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...:mcgruff10 said:
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective?oftenreading said:
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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?
“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
0 -
Your lAws are as confusing as ours! Non-restrictive, restrictive and prohibited firearms. Ugh.PJ_Soul said: 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!
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Good oleMeltdown99 said:
I am a Canadian.tempo_n_groove said:
Background checks is a hot talking point.Meltdown99 said:
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.brianlux said:Meltdown99 said:
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...lolbrianlux said:mace1229 said:There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low. So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns. Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done.So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place.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.
What should a background check consist of?
What would you like to see done?
In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms. You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.
Firearms Safety Training
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm
You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff. Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.
Canadian Firearms Registry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.
Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
meltdown started this one.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
How so? Are you sticking with women are the only victims of domestic violence gun deaths and that that number is 600?HughFreakingDillon said:
facts do matter, which is why your last few posts addressing mace are ludicrous.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
gimme a break.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I was going to ask what evidence do you have that it works, but someone already did.dignin said:
Do you have anything to back up your "feel good law" or "no real impact" theory?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sorry, but it’s more than only 600 or so women. It’s telling that you “responsible” gun owners minimize and ridicule the carnage from gun violence.tempo_n_groove said:
No, they were all responsible people looking for a P tape...Halifax2TheMax said:Do these 7 count in your tally or just the estranged wife of the gunman?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/texas-plano-mass-shooting-at-cowboys-watch-party/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/domestic-violence-shooting-deaths-women-husbands-boyfriends
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.
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.0 -
Geez Meltdown, no wonder you're a Ford and Scheer supporter. You've got all your facts fucked up.mcgruff10 said:
Good oleMeltdown99 said:
I am a Canadian.tempo_n_groove said:
Background checks is a hot talking point.Meltdown99 said:
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.brianlux said:Meltdown99 said:
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...lolbrianlux said:mace1229 said:There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low. So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns. Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done.So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place.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.
What should a background check consist of?
What would you like to see done?
In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms. You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.
Firearms Safety Training
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm
You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff. Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.
Canadian Firearms Registry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.
Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.
meltdown started this one.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Meltdown is fake news!
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help