Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture. I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”. This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties. It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
so basically what this article is saying that their system of government is set up to avoid mass lobbying and political corruption, superior to that of the US.
but hey, those genius "forefathers". HAHA
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture. I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”. This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties. It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
Less populated states having an undue or oversized representation in Congress and the NRA more than happy to do their bidding. If all you (you in the general sense) card carrying NRA members cancelled your memberships and lobbied your elected representatives at the state and federal level, we'd have meaningful change that might not result in bans. But its too complicated and not worth the effort. Nothing can be done.
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
I think you just didn't get it.
Cool. Explain it to me.
Not sure if that was serious or not, but where we go. I have some problems with this study, but I think the outline of it is okay. Basically they looked at 106 actual incidents (case), looked at the rate percentage of those where the guns were kept locked, loaded, how ammo was stored, etc. Then took 480 other samples (control) and collected the same data. Theoretically if the case group had a higher percentage of unlocked firearms and ammo then you can conclude that the difference is attributed to the storing methods.
The problem is how they defined some of the terms. A child in the house meant that a child visiting 2 times a year or more....so basically everyone, according to this study, would qualify as having a child live with them.... Another problem was how they defined a child. In this study a child was 20 years or younger. Well, you can buy a long rifle at 18, so that doesn't make any sense. Why have a study that about proper storage and keeping guns away from adults who are legally allowed to buy, own and store them themselves? It also didn't consider different methods of locking up firearms. It looks like it considers a cable lock and a fire safe the same thing.
So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective.
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
I do spreadsheets and formulas all day long, do takeoffs from a stack of prints and can build anything from a set of drawings but I will have to read this again...
So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective.
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
No, not good enough for the reasons I've pointed out 3 times now. 20 is not a child. Visiting 2 days a year does not qualify as having a child live with you. These things make me question the integrity of the study. I also saw no distinction between types of locks and gun storage, it was just either labeled locked or unlocked. There is a massive difference between types of gun locks and their effectiveness.
Show me a study where guns and ammo were both kept in a fire safe and kids (actual kids, not adults old enough to buy guns themselves) still had access to both guns and ammo and I would be interested.
And no one has argued about safe storage of guns, I think everyone agrees on that. It is whether or not storing ammo in a gun safe with guns is effective.
Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture. I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”. This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties. It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
Less populated states having an undue or oversized representation in Congress and the NRA more than happy to do their bidding. If all you (you in the general sense) card carrying NRA members cancelled your memberships and lobbied your elected representatives at the state and federal level, we'd have meaningful change that might not result in bans. But its too complicated and not worth the effort. Nothing can be done.
Who is to say that the card carrying NRA members (not me for the record) do not lobby state and federally elected representatives? Just might not be for the changes you wish for. Straw man much?
So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective.
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
If anything, this study is meant to start the conversation, not be definitive proof of anything. And for the record, I think we are splitting hairs with all of this safe storage debate anyways. The greater concern are those that do not practice any kind of safe storage.
So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective.
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
So people shouldn’t question the validity of the design of studies?
There’s a difference between discussion and dismissal, and particularly dismissal without understanding what the study design actually is.
Then help them understand the design of the study. You seem to be dismissive of their concerns of the study with no real retort other than “they don’t understand”. What is it that they don’t understand in reference to the concerns they have mentioned? “They just don’t get it” is not much of a counter argument.
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
I think you just didn't get it.
Cool. Explain it to me.
Not sure if that was serious or not, but where we go. I have some problems with this study, but I think the outline of it is okay. Basically they looked at 106 actual incidents (case), looked at the rate percentage of those where the guns were kept locked, loaded, how ammo was stored, etc. Then took 480 other samples (control) and collected the same data. Theoretically if the case group had a higher percentage of unlocked firearms and ammo then you can conclude that the difference is attributed to the storing methods.
The problem is how they defined some of the terms. A child in the house meant that a child visiting 2 times a year or more....so basically everyone, according to this study, would qualify as having a child live with them.... Another problem was how they defined a child. In this study a child was 20 years or younger. Well, you can buy a long rifle at 18, so that doesn't make any sense. Why have a study that about proper storage and keeping guns away from adults who are legally allowed to buy, own and store them themselves? It also didn't consider different methods of locking up firearms. It looks like it considers a cable lock and a fire safe the same thing.
A child or youth younger then 20, ie up to 19. That would fit any reasonable definition of child or youth, so I don’t understand your concern about that age range.
The study looked at homes where children or youth might have access. I don’t have an issue with looking at homes where children are periodically even if not all the time, and since having children there less often would tend to lower the numbers of incidents, I’m not sure why you’re objecting, either.
The whole point of the study was looking at a group vulnerable to accidents and suicides, that of children and teens. It’s just nitpicking to say that it’s invalid because you could buy a gun at 18. The fact that the study population is up to 19 isn’t an accident, it deliberately includes that group.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
however, australia, and now new zealand, are excellent examples of how reactions to these events should unfold. the US is the only country that does nothing about it.
New Zealand has under 5 million residents, Australia is under 25 million........
California alone has 40 million, more than Canada
We wish it was as simple as some people think it is
So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective.
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
So people shouldn’t question the validity of the design of studies?
There’s a difference between discussion and dismissal, and particularly dismissal without understanding what the study design actually is.
Then help them understand the design of the study. You seem to be dismissive of their concerns of the study with no real retort other than “they don’t understand”. What is it that they don’t understand?
I’ve already explained the study design, and answered other questions.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective.
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
So people shouldn’t question the validity of the design of studies?
There’s a difference between discussion and dismissal, and particularly dismissal without understanding what the study design actually is.
Then help them understand the design of the study. You seem to be dismissive of their concerns of the study with no real retort other than “they don’t understand”. What is it that they don’t understand in reference to the concerns they have mentioned? “They just don’t get it” is not much of a counter argument.
you might be mixing up two posters. often did respond with an explanation on how the study works after being asked about it. dignin was the one that stated "you don't get it".
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective.
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
So people shouldn’t question the validity of the design of studies?
There’s a difference between discussion and dismissal, and particularly dismissal without understanding what the study design actually is.
Then help them understand the design of the study. You seem to be dismissive of their concerns of the study with no real retort other than “they don’t understand”. What is it that they don’t understand in reference to the concerns they have mentioned? “They just don’t get it” is not much of a counter argument.
you might be mixing up two posters. often did respond with an explanation on how the study works after being asked about it. dignin was the one that stated "you don't get it".
Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture. I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”. This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties. It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
Less populated states having an undue or oversized representation in Congress and the NRA more than happy to do their bidding. If all you (you in the general sense) card carrying NRA members cancelled your memberships and lobbied your elected representatives at the state and federal level, we'd have meaningful change that might not result in bans. But its too complicated and not worth the effort. Nothing can be done.
Who is to say that the card carrying NRA members (not me for the record) do not lobby state and federally elected representatives? Just might not be for the changes you wish for. Straw man much?
Yea,
straw man much:
Vegas,
58 dead
Orlando,
49 dead
Virginia
Tech, 32 dead
Sandy
Hook, 27 dead
Sutherland
Springs, TX, 25 dead
Killeen,
TX, Luby’s, 07/18/1984, 21 dead
Marjory
Stoneham, 17 dead
San
Beradino, 13 dead
Binghamton,
NY, 13 dead
Columbine,
13 dead
Borderline
Bar & Grille, 12 dead
Washington
Navy Yard, 12 dead
Aurora,
CO, 12 dead
Pittsburgh,
11 dead
Santa
Fe, TX, 10 dead
Charleston,
SC, 9 dead
Etc.,
etc., etc.
334
dead, countless wounded, innumerable affected. Little action taken to stem the
carnage
New
Zealand, only 50 dead. Immediate action taken to stem the carnage. Yea, straw
man much.
Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture. I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”. This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties. It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
Less populated states having an undue or oversized representation in Congress and the NRA more than happy to do their bidding. If all you (you in the general sense) card carrying NRA members cancelled your memberships and lobbied your elected representatives at the state and federal level, we'd have meaningful change that might not result in bans. But its too complicated and not worth the effort. Nothing can be done.
Who is to say that the card carrying NRA members (not me for the record) do not lobby state and federally elected representatives? Just might not be for the changes you wish for. Straw man much?
Yea,
straw man much:
Vegas,
58 dead
Orlando,
49 dead
Virginia
Tech, 32 dead
Sandy
Hook, 27 dead
Sutherland
Springs, TX, 25 dead
Killeen,
TX, Luby’s, 07/18/1984, 21 dead
Marjory
Stoneham, 17 dead
San
Beradino, 13 dead
Binghamton,
NY, 13 dead
Columbine,
13 dead
Borderline
Bar & Grille, 12 dead
Washington
Navy Yard, 12 dead
Aurora,
CO, 12 dead
Pittsburgh,
11 dead
Santa
Fe, TX, 10 dead
Charleston,
SC, 9 dead
Etc.,
etc., etc.
334
dead, countless wounded, innumerable affected. Little action taken to stem the
carnage
New
Zealand, only 50 dead. Immediate action taken to stem the carnage. Yea, straw
man much.
There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low. So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns. Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done.
So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place.
Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay. I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.
Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms. No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons. Even just one of those is a big goal. Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved.
That is so true. That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal. Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.
Background checks is a hot talking point.
What should a background check consist of?
What would you like to see done?
I am a Canadian.
In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms. You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.
You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff. Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.
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.
Good ole meltdown started this one.
Geez Meltdown, no wonder you're a Ford and Scheer supporter. You've got all your facts fucked up.
Let's get one thing straight. I did not vote for Ford or Sheer, I will be voting Sheer in 2019, I am in no way a supporter of him or any politician. My resolve that politicians are right there with lawyers, insurance salesmen and bankers as some of the lowest life form among us has not changed, but politicians are the absolute lowest of scum. I made a mistake. It's also quite possible that the laws were changed at some point under Harper. It still wouldn't be a bad idea.
I did say Scheer because I knew that you currently plan on voting him in 2019 for some reason (obviously - he wasn't on the previous ballot). But apologies, I really did think that you actually said you voted for Ford in the last provincial election at some point, so sorry for getting that wrong... Where'd I get that idea at all? Did you maybe express your support for him now in general? I dunno.
Anyway, I was just teasing you. Mistakes happen. I agree it would be a good idea, and I was a little disappointed when I found out it wasn't the case! Yes, I'm happy to blame it not being a law on Harper, lol.
And FWIW, a LOT of politicians are scum. NOT all of them. I hope you leave room in your feelings about them to allow for the special rare ones who are actually very good people with truly very good intentions. They do exist... and we need to make sure we spot them when they're up for election and not let our general negative feelings about politicians blind us to a great opportunity to vote for them.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.
Did you spend the time to read this? It's all over the place...
They did 106 case studies of shootings. That is what they studied. All shootings.
If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?
Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
I think you just didn't get it.
Cool. Explain it to me.
Not sure if that was serious or not, but where we go. I have some problems with this study, but I think the outline of it is okay. Basically they looked at 106 actual incidents (case), looked at the rate percentage of those where the guns were kept locked, loaded, how ammo was stored, etc. Then took 480 other samples (control) and collected the same data. Theoretically if the case group had a higher percentage of unlocked firearms and ammo then you can conclude that the difference is attributed to the storing methods.
The problem is how they defined some of the terms. A child in the house meant that a child visiting 2 times a year or more....so basically everyone, according to this study, would qualify as having a child live with them.... Another problem was how they defined a child. In this study a child was 20 years or younger. Well, you can buy a long rifle at 18, so that doesn't make any sense. Why have a study that about proper storage and keeping guns away from adults who are legally allowed to buy, own and store them themselves? It also didn't consider different methods of locking up firearms. It looks like it considers a cable lock and a fire safe the same thing.
A child or youth younger then 20, ie up to 19. That would fit any reasonable definition of child or youth, so I don’t understand your concern about that age range.
The study looked at homes where children or youth might have access. I don’t have an issue with looking at homes where children are periodically even if not all the time, and since having children there less often would tend to lower the numbers of incidents, I’m not sure why you’re objecting, either.
The whole point of the study was looking at a group vulnerable to accidents and suicides, that of children and teens. It’s just nitpicking to say that it’s invalid because you could buy a gun at 18. The fact that the study population is up to 19 isn’t an accident, it deliberately includes that group.
Because that is old enough to buy a gun. That is why it doesn't make sense in this study. Why include people who are old enough to buy guns in a study about keeping access away from children? I mean, according to this study they could have interviewed a 19 year old, who lives by himself and legally owns a gun, and it would have qualified as a child in the house with access to a gun. Or someone who is 21 and lives by himself and has a 19 year old friend visit twice and that counts as a child living in the home with a gun. Does that make sense to you? And I 100% agree that number was deliberate and not by accident. I already said that. Why it was deliberate is the question.
And I would disagree that fits any reasonable definition of a child or youth. You are legally considered an adult, have all the responsibilities as an adult, serve in the military and so on. The things you can't do is drink, gamble and buy a hand gun (not rifle though). So considering a "child" up to 20 is pretty extreme. I've never once heard a 19 year old referred to as a child. Until I read this study.
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
I don't think that is really the main message of most people. They're really more suggesting that America do fucking SOMETHING instead of nothing, and sharing their own country's laws as an example of some things that America could take into consideration... if only they'd do ANYTHING. America absolutely 100% does have to look to many other nations' gun laws when considering how best to fix their own and to learn from example, but America seems quite unwilling to do this (which is confirmed by some in this thread), and that is a big huge problem IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
I don't think that is really the main message of most people. They're really more suggesting that America do fucking SOMETHING instead of nothing, and sharing their own country's laws as an example of some things that America could take into consideration... if only they'd do ANYTHING. America absolutely 100% does have to look to many other nations' gun laws when considering how best to fix their own and to learn from example, but America seems quite unwilling to do this (which is confirmed by some in this thread), and that is a big huge problem IMO.
Dude, its clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me. You don't know anything about what I believe or do. Just stop.
Should I quote your “facts” of only 50 women a month for 600? It’s a pretty insensitive view point. Stop minimizing the carnage of gun violence and I’ll stop calling you out on it.
He never used "only" so please stop misquoting him.
The “facts” he used to back up his number of domestic violence victims only referenced women and appeared to dismiss the number of 600 victims as insinificant.
I don't know why, but I'll try one last time then I'll just have to give up on getting through to some people. I never minimized anything. I'll try to break it down as much as I can one last time. It was stated that ammo should be stored separately to allow victims of domestic violence an extra 15 seconds to escape a heated argument before getting shot. I did not agree with that logic, if a gun is stored and locked properly I don't think it is going to make a difference. Then I added why make laws that to protect only a small group, why not make laws that protect everyone against guns, including those 600 women killed every year? Make laws that make it easier to take guns away from those in a violent relationship, support the abused more, strict background checks. registration and accountability for guns. All of which would not only protect those victims better than having a separate box to open, but also help protect thousands more as well. Since then others have said it is to prevent kids from getting both guns and ammo. And while I still believe the safest place in my house is my gun safe, and therefore no one is getting guns or ammo, I can at least recognize the logic in that. The reality is if someone gets ammo because it was stored with a gun, then the guns weren't properly stored to begin with. SO making separate laws on ammo isn't going to save a singe life. If someone stores their guns so a kid and access it, are they really going to make their ammo more secure? If they lock their guns up properly, no kid is getting to it. As someone else already said, it would just be a "feel good" law, and a tally mark for another victory that has no real impact.
Now explain how that is minimizing anything? Actually, on second thought, please don't.
And yet, requirind ammunition to be stored separately from guns is used effectively elsewhere, so there’s that.
The easier it is for people to make the wrong decision in a moment of anger, the more likely they are to make that decision. The harder it is to make it, the more road blocks in the way, the more likely they are to rethink during that time.
1. How do you measure whether or not it is effective? 2. How do you enforce that law?
Evidently Canada doesn’t even enforce this and it isn’t even law...so this whole conversation is pointless...: “Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearms” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html
so all gun laws should be the same no matter the culture or country?
Not following? This whole thing started because someone said that the US needs to have laws like Canada that requires people to store ammunition and guns separately...which isn’t even the case in Canada.
fair enough. But my position has always been it honestly doesn't matter what the laws are in Canada, or anywhere else. the culture is wildly different in the US. Canada has laws that work for us. I'm sure if there was multiple mass shootings those laws would be addressed if it was found that they were inadequate in any way.
I completely agree, which is why it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people argue “well so and so did it, so it will work in the US too”. Especially the Swedes, ha
I don't think that is really the main message of most people. They're really more suggesting that America do fucking SOMETHING instead of nothing, and sharing their own country's laws as an example of some things that America could take into consideration... if only they'd do ANYTHING. America absolutely 100% does have to look to many other nations' gun laws when considering how best to fix their own and to learn from example, but America seems quite unwilling to do this (which is confirmed by some in this thread), and that is a big huge problem IMO.
Exactly 2dz kids Newtown , zero laws ...
That's not exactly true. Plenty of new gun laws were passed in connecticut, just not the u.s.
https://apple.news/AoCGJwxLrR76F8CkwFEj7yA I guess it’s dangerous to have a gun in your pocket what could go wrong , any of you gun owners here walk around with your pistol in pockets...
https://apple.news/AoCGJwxLrR76F8CkwFEj7yA I guess it’s dangerous to have a gun in your pocket what could go wrong , any of you gun owners here walk around with your pistol in pockets...
Senseless... Why, why, why was there a real gun in a music video? Why did he have one? How did something in his pocket go off and hit him in the face?!?
https://apple.news/AoCGJwxLrR76F8CkwFEj7yA I guess it’s dangerous to have a gun in your pocket what could go wrong , any of you gun owners here walk around with your pistol in pockets...
https://apple.news/AoCGJwxLrR76F8CkwFEj7yA I guess it’s dangerous to have a gun in your pocket what could go wrong , any of you gun owners here walk around with your pistol in pockets...
Senseless... Why, why, why was there a real gun in a music video? Why did he have one? How did something in his pocket go off and hit him in the face?!?
fucking moron. thankfully his mistake didn't cost anyone else their life.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Comments
but hey, those genius "forefathers". HAHA
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Evidence presented.
But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design.
I have some problems with this study, but I think the outline of it is okay. Basically they looked at 106 actual incidents (case), looked at the rate percentage of those where the guns were kept locked, loaded, how ammo was stored, etc. Then took 480 other samples (control) and collected the same data. Theoretically if the case group had a higher percentage of unlocked firearms and ammo then you can conclude that the difference is attributed to the storing methods.
The problem is how they defined some of the terms. A child in the house meant that a child visiting 2 times a year or more....so basically everyone, according to this study, would qualify as having a child live with them....
Another problem was how they defined a child. In this study a child was 20 years or younger. Well, you can buy a long rifle at 18, so that doesn't make any sense. Why have a study that about proper storage and keeping guns away from adults who are legally allowed to buy, own and store them themselves? It also didn't consider different methods of locking up firearms. It looks like it considers a cable lock and a fire safe the same thing.
Show me a study where guns and ammo were both kept in a fire safe and kids (actual kids, not adults old enough to buy guns themselves) still had access to both guns and ammo and I would be interested.
And no one has argued about safe storage of guns, I think everyone agrees on that. It is whether or not storing ammo in a gun safe with guns is effective.
The study looked at homes where children or youth might have access. I don’t have an issue with looking at homes where children are periodically even if not all the time, and since having children there less often would tend to lower the numbers of incidents, I’m not sure why you’re objecting, either.
The whole point of the study was looking at a group vulnerable to accidents and suicides, that of children and teens. It’s just nitpicking to say that it’s invalid because you could buy a gun at 18. The fact that the study population is up to 19 isn’t an accident, it deliberately includes that group.
Yea, straw man much:
Vegas, 58 dead
Orlando, 49 dead
Virginia Tech, 32 dead
Sandy Hook, 27 dead
Sutherland Springs, TX, 25 dead
Killeen, TX, Luby’s, 07/18/1984, 21 dead
Marjory Stoneham, 17 dead
San Beradino, 13 dead
Binghamton, NY, 13 dead
Columbine, 13 dead
Borderline Bar & Grille, 12 dead
Washington Navy Yard, 12 dead
Aurora, CO, 12 dead
Pittsburgh, 11 dead
Santa Fe, TX, 10 dead
Charleston, SC, 9 dead
Etc., etc., etc.
334 dead, countless wounded, innumerable affected. Little action taken to stem the carnage
New Zealand, only 50 dead. Immediate action taken to stem the carnage. Yea, straw man much.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Because that is old enough to buy a gun. That is why it doesn't make sense in this study. Why include people who are old enough to buy guns in a study about keeping access away from children? I mean, according to this study they could have interviewed a 19 year old, who lives by himself and legally owns a gun, and it would have qualified as a child in the house with access to a gun. Or someone who is 21 and lives by himself and has a 19 year old friend visit twice and that counts as a child living in the home with a gun. Does that make sense to you?
And I 100% agree that number was deliberate and not by accident. I already said that. Why it was deliberate is the question.
And I would disagree that fits any reasonable definition of a child or youth. You are legally considered an adult, have all the responsibilities as an adult, serve in the military and so on. The things you can't do is drink, gamble and buy a hand gun (not rifle though). So considering a "child" up to 20 is pretty extreme. I've never once heard a 19 year old referred to as a child. Until I read this study.
I guess it’s dangerous to have a gun in your pocket what could go wrong , any of you gun owners here walk around with your pistol in pockets...