If you then no cars, alcohol, cigarettes are tightly controlled

It’s very easy for minors to get alcohol and cigarettes.

It can’t be easy. It’s not lawful.


Sent from my completely solar powered iPad using Tapatalk

willhud9 wrote:If you then no cars, alcohol, cigarettes are tightly controlled

It’s very easy for minors to get alcohol and cigarettes.

And yet both have dramatically declined in use in recent decades. And cars have gotten safer and there are fewer abortions, to cite the rest of mrjonno's point. So something seems to be working on those fronts.

willhud9 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I am very much pro-gun.

Stop being pro-gun. Don't be anti-gun either. Dump the ideology, and try to be objective. Consider all the statistics, and all the successes, and all the failures on matters of gun control, both here and abroad, and just try to be sensible. Don't be afraid to learn from other countries. Don't be afraid of change, as more often than not, when cultures change, it's for the better. And for god's sake, try to put yourself in the shoes of people who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

You took a lot of stuff and made it seem as if it responded to me but I don’t know how. I am 100% all for strong gun control. But I am also for allowing people the right to own firearms. I have no support for gun bans nor feel good policies such as targeting magazine sizes or “assault” weapons (which are used in a slim percentage of all gun deaths to be practically negligible statistically).

I am also not afraid of change. I don’t own guns. Any laws passed won’t affect me one bit. And to be perfectly honest I’m not going to lose sleep if I woke up tomorrow and no longer had the right to buy a firearm, but I can see why plenty of people would be upset.

As for the empathy argument that’s an appeal to emotion.

As for your other post. No I’m not an anarchist, but I’m a believer in pragmatic politics. Not wishful thinking. I am also a firm believer in individual rights > collective rights.

Humour me. The empathy argument is an appeal to emotion and therefore not valid, is that your meaning? What then is the 'because I like guns and I want one' argument?

And what is the problem with amending the 2nd ammendment so that only people with registered firearms, with a licence following training can have them? That sales can only be made to licence holders and records of who has what kept? Include sales of adaptations for guns and ammunition. How does that sort of legislation impinge on the ability of "responsible gun owners" to have guns?
Cars weren't initially registered, then they were and licenses required to drive them once it was established that they could be dangerous in inexperienced hands and that it would be handy to be able to track down the owners of cars involved in accidents and/or bad driving which put others at risk etc.

I'm sure many, many drivers have never had an accident or a speed ticket and are perfectly safe behind the wheel but suffer from legislation brought about by those who were problematic.

The constitutional ammendment was with insurrection against corrupt government in mind. Kind of outdated somewhat these days isn't it when the government has jets, drones and helicopter gunships to bring against a serious insurrection? Leaves people with that whiney, " but I like having guns" argument. Well, guns are causing harm. Maybe it's time that the responsible folks who want them do so through a system of legislation just like other potentially dangerous things, and that penalties for those found in possession outside of legislation get spanked in the courts.

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:If you then no cars, alcohol, cigarettes are tightly controlled

It’s very easy for minors to get alcohol and cigarettes.

And yet both have dramatically declined in use in recent decades. And cars have gotten safer and there are fewer abortions, to cite the rest of mrjonno's point. So something seems to be working on those fronts.

and as I’ve said gun control is okay. Gun bans are not okay. We don’t ban the sales of cars, alcohol, or cigarettes, or fast food, or sugary drinks, etc. even though all of these things cost society in terms of life lost and medical cost at higher rates than guns.

We regulate them, sort of. I’m all for strict gun control. Want to make it illegal to carry a firearm? Go ahead. Want to make it illegal to improperly store it? Go ahead.

But I should still have the right to purchase a firearm. Just as I have the right to purchase a car, alcohol, or cigarettes.

Fallible wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I am very much pro-gun.

Stop being pro-gun. Don't be anti-gun either. Dump the ideology, and try to be objective. Consider all the statistics, and all the successes, and all the failures on matters of gun control, both here and abroad, and just try to be sensible. Don't be afraid to learn from other countries. Don't be afraid of change, as more often than not, when cultures change, it's for the better. And for god's sake, try to put yourself in the shoes of people who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

You took a lot of stuff and made it seem as if it responded to me but I don’t know how. I am 100% all for strong gun control. But I am also for allowing people the right to own firearms. I have no support for gun bans nor feel good policies such as targeting magazine sizes or “assault” weapons (which are used in a slim percentage of all gun deaths to be practically negligible statistically).

I am also not afraid of change. I don’t own guns. Any laws passed won’t affect me one bit. And to be perfectly honest I’m not going to lose sleep if I woke up tomorrow and no longer had the right to buy a firearm, but I can see why plenty of people would be upset.

As for the empathy argument that’s an appeal to emotion.

As for your other post. No I’m not an anarchist, but I’m a believer in pragmatic politics. Not wishful thinking. I am also a firm believer in individual rights > collective rights.

Humour me. The empathy argument is an appeal to emotion and therefore not valid, is that your meaning? What then is the 'because I like guns and I want one' argument?

No, just it’s an appeal to emotion. It’s not invalid, as just because someone invoked an appeal to emotion doesn’t negate the point, and to be honest I think Seabass and I have a closer viewpoint than I think he thinks.

I just fail to see what putting myself in their shoes would accomplish. I lost my father to cigarettes and poor diet. I’m not calling for the prohibition of smoking or poor diets due to it. And if I lost someone to gun violence I’d more than likely blame the shooter not the gun. Which is why the laws I’m supportive of are restricting who gains access to the guns, not access entirely. I should be able to take training offered by the state and get certified to have a firearm. That is a right that comes with a lot of responsibilities.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:If you then no cars, alcohol, cigarettes are tightly controlled

It’s very easy for minors to get alcohol and cigarettes.

And yet both have dramatically declined in use in recent decades. And cars have gotten safer and there are fewer abortions, to cite the rest of mrjonno's point. So something seems to be working on those fronts.

and as I’ve said gun control is okay. Gun bans are not okay. We don’t ban the sales of cars, alcohol, or cigarettes, or fast food, or sugary drinks, etc. even though all of these things cost society in terms of life lost and medical cost at higher rates than guns.

We regulate them, sort of. I’m all for strict gun control. Want to make it illegal to carry a firearm? Go ahead. Want to make it illegal to improperly store it? Go ahead.

But I should still have the right to purchase a firearm. Just as I have the right to purchase a car, alcohol, or cigarettes.

But they aren't the same though as restrictions on cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. aren't encumbered by having to work around an outdated constitutional statute.

If you're fine with them all being the same then why do you need the 2nd Amendment? Or maybe you think additional amendments need to be added for cars, cigarettes, and alcohol?

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:If you then no cars, alcohol, cigarettes are tightly controlled

It’s very easy for minors to get alcohol and cigarettes.

And yet both have dramatically declined in use in recent decades. And cars have gotten safer and there are fewer abortions, to cite the rest of mrjonno's point. So something seems to be working on those fronts.

and as I’ve said gun control is okay. Gun bans are not okay. We don’t ban the sales of cars, alcohol, or cigarettes, or fast food, or sugary drinks, etc. even though all of these things cost society in terms of life lost and medical cost at higher rates than guns.

We regulate them, sort of. I’m all for strict gun control. Want to make it illegal to carry a firearm? Go ahead. Want to make it illegal to improperly store it? Go ahead.

But I should still have the right to purchase a firearm. Just as I have the right to purchase a car, alcohol, or cigarettes.

But they aren't the same though as restrictions on cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. aren't encumbered by having to work around an outdated constitutional statute.

If you're fine with them all being the same then why do you need the 2nd Amendment? Or maybe you think additional amendments need to be added for cars, cigarettes, and alcohol?

Because I am of the mindset that the 2nd is referring to a militia. Which traditionally was the average townsfolk but is now the selective services and the government provides the armament of the militia because it can afford it where back in 1787 it couldn’t.

The right to self defense is granted by the 9th, not the second.

monkeyboy wrote:The constitutional ammendment was with insurrection against corrupt government in mind. Kind of outdated somewhat these days isn't it when the government has jets, drones and helicopter gunships to bring against a serious insurrection? Leaves people with that whiney, " but I like having guns" argument.

Been there, done that ...

willhud9 wrote:

Fallible wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Stop being pro-gun. Don't be anti-gun either. Dump the ideology, and try to be objective. Consider all the statistics, and all the successes, and all the failures on matters of gun control, both here and abroad, and just try to be sensible. Don't be afraid to learn from other countries. Don't be afraid of change, as more often than not, when cultures change, it's for the better. And for god's sake, try to put yourself in the shoes of people who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

You took a lot of stuff and made it seem as if it responded to me but I don’t know how. I am 100% all for strong gun control. But I am also for allowing people the right to own firearms. I have no support for gun bans nor feel good policies such as targeting magazine sizes or “assault” weapons (which are used in a slim percentage of all gun deaths to be practically negligible statistically).

I am also not afraid of change. I don’t own guns. Any laws passed won’t affect me one bit. And to be perfectly honest I’m not going to lose sleep if I woke up tomorrow and no longer had the right to buy a firearm, but I can see why plenty of people would be upset.

As for the empathy argument that’s an appeal to emotion.

As for your other post. No I’m not an anarchist, but I’m a believer in pragmatic politics. Not wishful thinking. I am also a firm believer in individual rights > collective rights.

Humour me. The empathy argument is an appeal to emotion and therefore not valid, is that your meaning? What then is the 'because I like guns and I want one' argument?

No, just it’s an appeal to emotion. It’s not invalid, as just because someone invoked an appeal to emotion doesn’t negate the point, and to be honest I think Seabass and I have a closer viewpoint than I think he thinks.

If you don't think there is anything wrong with an appeal to emotion, why did you point it out? I remember past discussions you have had with people, and you made it quite clear at those times that appeals to emotion were not valid arguments, or at any rate were weaker than other arguments. So if you have now changed your view, why? What's different about the gun debate, apart from the fact that your main argument is this time an appeal to emotion?

I just fail to see what putting myself in their shoes would accomplish. I lost my father to cigarettes and poor diet. I’m not calling for the prohibition of smoking or poor diets due to it.

Putting yourself in the shoes of those whose experiences are different from your own can often help to gain another perspective on an issue and broaden your understanding. You did lose your father to cigarettes and poor diet. You did not lose your father to a shooting. Poor diet for now gets pretty much a free pass, because the thinking is that it affects only the self, and not others. Of course this is naive, as there are repercussions for healthcare and heartache for family members, but cigarettes and guns both directly harm others, and are potentially harmful to the self before the self has the ability to make informed decisions which come with increased age. Cigarettes are subject to legislation for that reason. You can do what the fuck you like to yourself, if you are a grown adult. Guns can do more harm to more people and much quicker. Given this, and the fact, as I said before, that you accept infringements upon your total freedom all the time - for example your right to smoke yourself to death any old place you like - without complaint, there is really no leg to stand on regarding stricter regulations for guns and you are left, as we recently discovered, with 'because I like guns and I want one' - a clear appeal to emotion. As I previously said, why should anyone care that you want one? People die because others like guns and want one. Other societies (not governments in unilateral decisions) have decided that their personal wants are outweighed by the right of others to live out their lives without being made dead in a random shooting because didums had a bad day, or the likelihood that the less cerebrally endowed forgot to aim the pointy end away from themselves.

And if I lost someone to gun violence I’d more than likely blame the shooter not the gun.

Are you suggesting others would not also blame the shooter? Just how dim do you think gun control advocates are? We recognise that an individual caused the deaths of over 50 people. At the same time, we acknowledge the simple fact that guns allowed him to do so through a high up, far away hotel window, and that if regulations had been much tighter, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

Which is why the laws I’m supportive of are restricting who gains access to the guns, not access entirely. I should be able to take training offered by the state and get certified to have a firearm. That is a right that comes with a lot of responsibilities.

I'm not keeping up with every post in the thread, but who has been arguing for prohibition on firearms? I thought stricter controls was the desired outcome.

Yeah, the idea of gun bans is an NRA strawman. They like to point out supposed poor outcomes in places like Australia that "banned guns". Not only are their statistics usually the worst cases of cherry picking or outright misrepresentations, they ignore the fact that gun control as practiced overseas in places like Australia does not include gun bans. To aid in trying to keep this discussion free of that bullshit, I offer this photo of my local gun shop.



http://kempseyfirearms.com.au/

Long guns. Nice.

OlivierK wrote:Yeah, the idea of gun bans is an NRA strawman. They like to point out supposed poor outcomes in places like Australia that "banned guns". Not only are their statistics usually the worst cases of cherry picking or outright misrepresentations, they ignore the fact that gun control as practiced overseas in places like Australia does not include gun bans. To aid in trying to keep this discussion free of that bullshit, I offer this photo of my local gun shop.



http://kempseyfirearms.com.au/

But its not a strawman. You have people in this thread who have said there is no reason to have a gun ban them all.

Furthermore, long guns are nice, but again I still feel people should have the right to buy a handgun and handgun bans are not going to be acceptable legislation for me i.e. I will not support them, and I will write my senators to oppose them.

And this is the crux of the matter. You want to see effective gun control and I do as well, but when progressives start swinging at what they want to see gone then its going to bring the NRA and the gun lobby clamping down on their 2nd amendment and refusing to compromise.

In order for progress to happen you have to start small and build your way up. It could eventually get to a ban on the purchase of handguns, but at the moment its not realistic nor is it conducive for an exchange with those who currently own firearms and do not want to surrender them just because some people are scared.

Y'know Will ....you make no points. claiming people are "scared" .....we can read the stats of children killed and maimed in gun accidents and know that it does not need to be that way ......


for the same reasons that dynamite, poisons, drugs and other controlled substances are kept away from easy availability ....handguns are deadly....are proven deadly and have no legimate use outside of law enforcment and target clubs in a modern society.
You go to the club and shoot and leave your weapon there.

Long guns for those that need/want them are not the issue...with the exception of assault weapons

Come on, Will. You can't blame progressives for America's gun problems. Tell me, which progressives in Congress have tried to blanket ban all guns? NONE. Hell, the Dems can't even get Republicans to close background check loopholes, which is something that even most NRA members support!

The American left has been pretty reasonable on the gun issue. Perhaps too reasonable, and too accommodating.

No, you're not going to blame America's gun problems on progressives. It's just too outlandish. It is as ridiculous has blaming Obama for America's race problems.

First of all, here in the UK where I live, there isn't a "gun ban", there merely exist restrictions upon gun ownership and deployment. Even though our gun control laws are among the strictest on the planet, you can still own a gun here if you wish. However, there are conditions attached. Here is the official Home Office guide thereto.

Among the restrictions that apply from that document include:

[1] Prohibition on firearms ownership applicable to those persons who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a criminal offence, of three years or greater duration;

[2] Firearms certificates, when issued, have a limited duration, and must be re-applied for on a regular basis;

[3] The firearms in question must be stored securely, in a manner preventing their access by unauthorised persons, and the security measures in place must satisfy various police criteria;

[4] Upon the death of the certificate holder, all weapons owned by the deceased must either:

[4a] be surrendered to the police;

or:

[4b] become the subject of a firearms licence application on the part of the inheritors thereof, and:

[4c] kept as the inheritor's property only upon successful application for a firearms licence.

Special additional conditions apply to firearms dealers. In addition, there are conditions that must be met by museums maintaining collections of firearms, historic or otherwise.

There are also special provisions for deactivated firearms, such as those that might be in the hands of a collector of historic firearms, that does not wish the weapons to be usable, which upon having been deactivated and certified thus, fall outside the remit of the Firearms Act from that point. If the deactivation status of a particular weapon is in doubt, then the final arbiter on the matter is a court of law, drawing upon the requisite scientific expertise to formulate its judgement.

Likewise, there are provisions for imitation firearms, which differ according to whether the imitation firearm can or can not be converted after manufacture into a functional firearm. there are also extensive provisions within the Act, to cover offences such as threatening another person with an imitation firearm, with intent to commit a criminal offence, and use the imitation firearm for coercive purposes as if it were a real firearm. Provisions also exist for firearms designed, or converted after the fact, to fire blank cartridges only, such as those used as starting guns at sporting events.

In addition, those authorised to perform certification of weapons are required to hold relevant qualifications.

In the case of historic firearms, such as those in museum collections, these may fall outside the remit of the Firearms Act, if conditions such as the following hold:

[1] The firearms in question are corroded or otherwise damaged to the point of being non-functional and non-repairable (e.g., firearms collected from shipwrecks or military aircraft show down over water);

[2] The firearms in question are sufficiently obsolescent, that no ammunition is available for them;

[3] The firearms in question have been rendered inoperable specifically to prevent misuse.

Likewise, inert ammunition used as jewellery, or maintained in collections such as those in museums for educational purposes, are not part of the remit of the Firearms Act.

In addition, a range of exemptions involving devices using explosive propellants exist, including such devices as line casting guns used to provide lifelines to vessels at sea in distress. Exemptions also apply to certain specified military reserve personnel, who for the purpose of the Firearms Act, are considered to be Crown servants, along with specially trained police officers, and a limited range of other personnel.

Then, there is a list of prohibited weapons, which includes automatic weapons, most classes of pump action shotgun, certain guns with specified dimensions smaller than a statutory minimum, along with ammunition such as dum-dum bullets, ammunition delivering chemical agents, armour piercing rounds, or ammunition with an explosive capability on impact. Also prohibited are rocket or grenade launchers, weapons with self-contained gas cartridge systems (thus eliminating assault rifles), and certain related pieces of military hardware.

Incidentally, the law also covers the possibility of 3D printed firearms, which are subject to special controls.

Even a relatively quick perusal of that document will demonstrate that it is comprehensive. But, and I stress this, it does not constitute a 'ban' on all firearms. Those who wish to wade through the minutiae of the Firearms Act 1968 (and its later revisions) may do so here, in order to obtain definitive confirmation of this.

I emphasise once again, that these measures work. Thus far, the sum total of mass shootings in the UK comprises the following list:

Hungerford, 1987

Monkseaton, 1989

Dunblane, 1996

Cumbria, 2010

The Raoul Moat manhunt in 2010 does not count as a 'mass shooting' according to the definition thereof as a criminal firearms incident involving four or more deaths. But even if we include that, the UK has had a grand total of just five mass shootings in a 30 year period. I suspect a good number of Americans envy our statistics in this regard.

Well going back to 1689 - we've has 32 "massacres" in Canada tho about half are single digits and a few by other means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _in_Canada

Notable was the École Polytechnique shootings with 14 killed plus the shooter.

History of firearm laws in Canada[edit]
Controls on civilian use of firearms date from the early days of Confederation, when justices of the peace could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without reasonable cause.[2] Amendments to the Criminal Code between the 1890s and the 1970s introduced a series of minor controls on firearms. In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid-1990s, significant increases in controls occurred. A 1996 study showed that Canada was in the mid-range of firearm ownership when compared with eight other western nations. Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun.[3] As of September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences, which is roughly 5.4% of the Canadian population. The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.[4] In 2005 almost 3% of households in Canada possessed handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that possessed handguns.[5] In 2005 almost 16% of households in Canada possessed firearms of some kind.[5]

Control is tight and inspection frequent ...one of my staff is gun fan and I get the low down on the visits by inspectors...

Individuals who wish to possess or acquire firearms in Canada must have a valid possession-acquisition, or possession-only, licence (PAL/POL); either of these licences allows the licensee to purchase ammunition. The PAL is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:

Safety training: To be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course[23] (CFSC) for a non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course[24] (CRFSC) for a restricted licence; the non-restricted class is a prerequisite to the restricted licence. Each province/territory's chief firearms officer publishes information on the locations and availability of these courses.[25]

Applying for a licence: Currently only one type of licence is available to new applicants, the possession-acquisition licence (PAL). People can request a PAL by filling out Form CAFC 921.[26]

Security screening: Background checks and reference interviews are performed. All applicants are screened, and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants, but final approval time may be longer.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada

ul 23, 2012 - Under the recently passed omnibus crime bill, the penalty for being caught bringing a handgun into Canada is a three-year minimum jail ..

Aug 22, 2016 - Americans trying to sneak guns into Canada stopped at border, CBSA says ... "It is strongly recommended that you not carry your firearm when travelling ... also be seized and the owner will have to pay a penalty to get it back.

Some Americans just don't get it ....and get dinged heavily for it $1500 to $2,000 a gun.

Read more:

Canadian government to American tourists: Leave your guns at home

2 Texans who brought guns across Canadian border are fined, sent home

The first case at St. Stephen, N.B., this summer came May 20. A 69-year-old New Hampshire man admitted he had a .357 Magnum in his glove compartment as border guards inspected his SUV. He was fined $1,500.

Two days later, a 27-year-old Maine woman was charged with failing to declare a prohibited handgun at St. Stephen. She has pleaded not guilty and will face trial in Saint John, N.B., on March 23, 2018, Thorn said.

On June 9, a 66-year-old Tavernier, Fla., man denied having a gun in his motor home — until border officers found a Smith & Wesson 9 mm in a locked safe. He was fined $1,500.

On June 23, a Hampton, Fla., man arrived with two undeclared guns, including a prohibited .25 calibre Raven Arms handgun. He was fined $2,000.

On July 11, there were two cases within hours.

A 59-year-old New Hampshire man heading for Roosevelt Campobello International Park denied having guns while entering Campobello, N.B., from Lubec, Maine, and was targeted for a search.

He told officers he wanted to return to the U.S. but it was too late. Officers found a .38 in a storage case in his motor home, as well as undeclared alcohol and two grams of suspected marijuana. He was fined $2,000.

That same day, a handgun was seized from a 64-year-old Jacksonville, Fla., couple at St. Stephen. It was found, undeclared, in the woman’s suitcase, where her husband had hid it without telling her, Thorn said.

“(The woman) stated that she specifically told her husband not to bring his handgun into Canada,” said Thorn.

The man pleaded guilty, telling Judge Andrew LeMesurier of the New Brunswick provincial court they were coming to Canada to escape the heat.

The judge joked the “heat” found him — and that he should know by now to listen to his wife. The Jacksonville man was fined $2,000.

The Canadian Border Services Agency said such seizures are common.

In 2015, the agency seized seven guns in St. Stephen, up from five the previous year, it said. Nationally, it seized 671 firearms in 2015, 313 of which were prohibited in Canada, mostly in Ontario and B.C.

Last summer, Thorn said border agents seized a gun about once a week at St. Stephen.

On one weekend in August last year, two Texas men separately tried to bring hidden guns across at St. Stephen. On one October weekend, two retirees in their mid-60s from southern states arrived hours apart, both carrying weapons and both denying it.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... uency.html

I think the situation in America cannot be changed; the stable has been so long open the door has fallen off.

Just how would require people to even register their weapons? There are far too many of them. This is exactly what the NRA wanted; to go beyond the point of return.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I think the situation in America cannot be changed; the stable has been so long open the door has fallen off.

Well the situation is unlikely to change in your lifetime Scot, so you'll have the satisfaction of going to your grave safe in the knowledge you won't be proved wrong on this one. And that's the main thing right?