America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
Many people in NZ are turning in their guns voluntarily...good to see common sense.Give Peas A Chance…0
-
A no brainer.Bentleyspop said:NZ gets it....
New Zealand's Prime Minister announces ban on all assault rifles following massacre https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch-gun-ban-intl/index.html
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."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
And he’ll win in a landslide in 2020 , remember that old saying “it’s the economy stupid “Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
A no brainer.Bentleyspop said:NZ gets it....
New Zealand's Prime Minister announces ban on all assault rifles following massacre https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch-gun-ban-intl/index.html
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.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
I don't agree with that, whatever the law is they should enforce it.PJ_Soul said:
What are your feelings about sheriffs refusing to follow a law/legislation/bylaw that they don't agree with?mcgruff10 said:
I ll have to do more research on it. Maybe I am missing something.PJ_Soul said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of this law. Guilty until proven innocent.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.0 -
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. "mcgruff10 said:
I m definitely not a fan of this law. Guilty until proven innocent. Big slippery slope.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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.htmlBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Dude... the horse is deadThirty Bills Unpaid said:
A no brainer.Bentleyspop said:NZ gets it....
New Zealand's Prime Minister announces ban on all assault rifles following massacre https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch-gun-ban-intl/index.html
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.
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 not0 -
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, haHughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.html0 -
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...PJPOWER said:
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
Give Peas A Chance…0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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, haHughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.htmlBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.Meltdown99 said:
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...PJPOWER said:
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 -
Happened to me already. I didn't blame the gun, I blamed the person.Meltdown99 said:
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...PJPOWER said:
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.html0 -
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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, haHughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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
California alone has 40 million, more than Canada
We wish it was as simple as some people think it is0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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, haHughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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
Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
what does the number of people in a country have anything to do with reaction to mass slaughter?my2hands said:
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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, haHughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.
https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
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...oftenreading said: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.
https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf0 -
It only banned the importation of them. They could still be sold from person to person and then they made loopholes around the weapons.HughFreakingDillon said:
what does the number of people in a country have anything to do with reaction to mass slaughter?my2hands said:
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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, haHughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.
0 -
if that were true I doubt you'd have any time to post on a message board.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
30 centimetres baby. No wait... 36 centimetres baby!PJPOWER said:
In the US, we measure in inches. In Canada, they measure in centimeters. (Yes, this is a dick joke)mcgruff10 said:
you guys and the god damn metric system. ugh. what the hell is 470 mm?!PJ_Soul said:mcgruff10 said:
Explain to me the restricted weapon access. Do you need a certain level of background checks to get one?PJ_Soul said:Yes, they are restricted weapons here.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.
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: By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I stand corrected.tempo_n_groove said:
It only banned the importation of them. They could still be sold from person to person and then they made loopholes around the weapons.HughFreakingDillon said:
what does the number of people in a country have anything to do with reaction to mass slaughter?my2hands said:
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........HughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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, haHughFreakingDillon said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.
But it can still be done. 2A says nothing about the right to own any type of gun you want.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.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