The Great Gun Control Debate

[NavyShooter]

31 school shootings....with 20,000+ laws already on the books....in various levels of government, local, municipal, state/provincial, national/federal....and not one of those laws has the ability to STOP someone from going nuts and shooting a bunch of other people.

Trying to legislate control of an individual's moral compass is impossible. 

No law will prevent it. 

The laws that have been produced in the aftermath of these tragedies have been aimed not at attempting to impact the moral compass of the people who commit the crimes, which, we all know is impossible anyhow, instead, the laws are aimed at the people who already follow the laws...and further restrict our use of our legally owned firearms.  And therefore, when the next tragedy happens, people point at the laws they've made, and say they must make them stronger, because somehow, that must be the solution.

When in fact, the laws, and those who follow them, are not the solution at all.

And yet, they try.

And because they do not address the REAL cause, they will fail.  And those of us who can look at it without the emotional imperative to *DO SOMETHING* getting in the way, can realize that.

So, we who can foretell the failure of more laws, are in a state of knowing sorrow that we will, again, be blamed when (not if, but when) the next one of these happens, and that the next knee-jerk reactionary laws will....again....fail to halt this.

And so, the circle with draw tighter, ever more and more restrictive, to ever less and less result, and the individuals responsible will never be held accountable, but those of us who abide within the laws are given the blame.

NS

 

[PMedMoe]

Food for thought....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not coming to a CBC news outlet anytime soon....


PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6186552-PoliceOne-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/


These men and women — most of whom actually work the street — have a front row seat to see gun violence in America. They put their lives at risk when they do their jobs, actually coming face-to-face with violent encounters involving firearms.
Related Articles:
Why a closed-minded approach won't work11 key findings from officers' perspectives Cops support simple, straightforward solutions
Related Resource:
PoliceOne's 2013 Gun Policy & Law Enforcement Survey Results: Executive Summary
Related content sponsored by:

And when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence and large scale shootings, most cops say a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” isn’t the answer.

More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime.  This is an overwhelming response by those whose job it is to actually deal with this issue on the front lines.

Instead, it is interesting to note that armed citizens show up frequently as a deciding factor in reducing the carnage from a mass murder situation; proactive choices dominate over gun and magazine restrictions and bans.

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).

For those who chose the option of casualties being avoided altogether, I took this to mean the deterrent effect of a show of force prior to an event would stop a potential predator from carrying out his murderous intent in the first place.

What checks the sociopath from completing his act is fear. Fear of the unknown or known gun carrier who is going to punch his ticket to hell right then and right there. This has an immediate effect on reducing violent criminal activity.

Cops on the street know the value of officer presence and being ready to go. Criminals see it too, and stay in check. I know from my own street experience how being in shape, being well prepared along with a sharp uniform appearance kept things from escalating time and time again.

More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.

Yet, with a few notable exceptions, most teachers and school officials are opposed to this measure. Overcoming this kind of resistance will be a major roadblock to making our schools safer.

In addition, the survey asked, “On a scale of one to five — one being low and five being high — how important do you think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall?”

Three quarters of you (75 percent) answered either four or five, with more than 50 percent answering five.

What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public? The most popular answer among respondents – at 29 percent – was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians,” while 20 percent choose “more-aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons.”

More armed guards/paid security personnel (16 percent) and improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers (14 percent) were the other two preventative measures most selected in the poll.

Clearly we have a majority of our gun carrying, member officers who feel that armed citizens are an asset in reducing violent crime and not a liability. This will be refreshing news for armed citizens who wonder about police attitudes in general on concealed carry.

From all ranks, from Sheriffs and Chiefs on down, the vast majority (95 percent) say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime. 

This is in sharp contrast to my own home state of Colorado, where the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police stood in support of the magazine ban and other restrictions while many Sheriffs bluntly said in the press that they would not enforce any bans on magazines or so called assault weapons.

I will allow myself one personal observation. If you want to disarm yourself, that is your choice. The following quote is a favorite of mine and something to keep in mind when you make that choice.

“Sheep don’t tell wolves what’s for dinner.”

 

[OldSolduer]

The reason big city and federal officials support gun control is simple : funding.

You come out against gun control, well maybe that project you want Chief, won't get funded.

My two cents.

 

[jpjohnsn]

Food for thought....

My thoughts turn to how much of that isn't true in Canada.  Other than when Brinks shows up for pick-ups or deliveries, I don't even remember seeing guns at banks.  My wife used to work at a jewellery store and even the mall cops didn't carry. None at office buildings nor at factories. 

 

[PMedMoe]

My thoughts turn to how much of that isn't true in Canada.  Other than when Brinks shows up for pick-ups or deliveries, I don't even remember seeing guns at banks.  My wife used to work at a jewellery store and even the mall cops didn't carry. None at office buildings nor at factories.

More American based, I'll admit, but still....

 

[The Bread Guy]

The reason big city and federal officials support gun control is simple : funding.

You come out against gun control, well maybe that project you want Chief, won't get funded.

My two cents.

My own two cents:  most people in Canada (~4 out of 5) live in urban areas, so guess how the "popular support"/national polling goes?  Very different view of guns in Toronto/Vancouver/Ottawa than in more rural (and less voter dense) places where safe gun use tends to be a larger part of the culture.

 

[mariomike]

I don't even remember seeing guns at banks. 

In Toronto, guns were removed from banks after a T-D Bank employee at Dundas and McCaul was killed on May 19, 1955 by a ricocheting bullet meant for a robber. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Here in BC all banks were required to have guns. Not sure when this was withdrawn. My friend kept coming across revolvers with one side of the cylinder worn away, seems the mangers kept them in a drawer and as they opened and closed the drawer, the gun slide around. I am fine with an organization requiring their employees to have guns for protection, but you need some basic gun handling course and a yearly practice at the minimum.

 

[cupper]

Even down here in the US you rarely if ever see armed guards in banks. Never in Jewlery stores (except maybe ultra high end stores where none of us could dream of shopping). Only office buildings where government offices are (and you still have to go through TSA level screening). No factories (except firearms manufacturers).

 

[KevinB]

Even down here in the US you rarely if ever see armed guards in banks. Never in Jewlery stores (except maybe ultra high end stores where none of us could dream of shopping). Only office buildings where government offices are (and you still have to go through TSA level screening). No factories (except firearms manufacturers).

Depends on where you are.

Heck the McDonald's near my place in Fl has a Armed Guard...

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Depends on where you are.

Heck the McDonald's near my place in Fl has a Armed Guard...

I think that's more so that no one is tempted to peek and see what's really in the chicken mcnuggets.

 

[muskrat89]

Even down here in the US you rarely if ever see armed guards in banks

Nearly every bank I have been in, in the Phoenix metro area has had an armed private security officer on duty, or an off-duty PD. (It is common practice to use offduty Police Officers in Arizona for everything from weddings to events to static security posts. They get to wear their regular duty uniform w/ sidearm, etc. My Church is big enough that we have a security team (i'm on it) and 3 Sherriff's Deputies (off duty, in uniform, paid by Church) at every service

 

[GAP]

Feds restore long-waived gun licence fees, expect $18 M annually in revenue
By: Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press 04/14/2013
Article Link



OTTAWA - The Conservative government is ending a seven-year waiver on gun licence renewal fees next month in an effort to collect about $18 million annually from firearms owners.

New changes to the firearms regulations were quietly posted in the Canada Gazette on the weekend that restore the $60 licence fee for non-restricted weapons.

The Conservatives brought in a two-year waiver on the fees in May 2006 and had extended it every year until now.

"The government will not renew the current fee waiver in the current climate of fiscal restraint," said the Canada Gazette post, dated April 13.

Two other measures that the government says are designed to encourage compliance with firearms regulations will be extended by one year, however.

Gun owners who let their possession-only licences expire have been allowed to re-apply since 2008 without having to pay to go through a firearms safety course, as the regulations require. That break continues to May 2014.

And an amnesty on criminal charges for failing to licence or register non-restricted weapons for people "who were taking steps to comply with these requirements" has also been extended.

The Canada Gazette notes that although the long-gun registry was ended by legislation last year, it remains in effect by court order in Quebec. And the amnesty provisions are pitched as a means of keeping Quebecers registering those rifles and shotguns.

"Accordingly, the extension of the Amnesty Order would encourage compliance by owners of non-restricted firearms with the licensing requirements across Canada, and in Quebec, with the registration of non-restricted firearms," states the government document.

The Conservatives ended the long-gun registry last spring for a savings of about $2 million annually, a figure confirmed in documents prepared for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews but never publicized by the government.

Last September the Conservatives began phasing back in the higher $80 licence fee for restricted and prohibited weapons that had been waived.

In May 2012 Conservative MP Candice Bergen told the House of Commons that the fee waivers were being phased out, but she framed it as the government providing "extra time" for people to renew their five-year licences at no cost.

"This is good news for law-abiding gun owners and good news for taxpayers," she said at the time.

According to the Canada Gazette, non-restricted gun licences alone are expected to bring in $18 million in additional revenue each year.
end

 

[PuckChaser]

Unfortunately thats the world we live in. Licences for everything with 5 year renewal terms. At least its still cheaper (for non-restricted) than driving in Ontario. And I trust the firearms owners more...

 

[NavyShooter]

And the joy of becoming a criminal for failing to renew your license....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's the next fight, getting the Firearm Act out of the Criminal code

 

[The Bread Guy]

Feds restore long-waived gun licence fees, expect $18 M annually in revenue
By: Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press 04/14/2013
Article Link

OTTAWA - The Conservative government is ending a seven-year waiver on gun licence renewal fees next month in an effort to collect about $18 million annually from firearms owners.

New changes to the firearms regulations were quietly posted in the Canada Gazette on the weekend that restore the $60 licence fee for non-restricted weapons.

The Conservatives brought in a two-year waiver on the fees in May 2006 and had extended it every year until now.

"The government will not renew the current fee waiver in the current climate of fiscal restraint," said the Canada Gazette post, dated April 13 ....

In case you're interested, here's a link to the Canada Gazette posting - also attached if link doesn't work for you.

 

[Loachman]

Licences for everything with 5 year renewal terms. At least its still cheaper (for non-restricted) than driving in Ontario.

That driver's licence fee allows one to drive on a network of public roads.

If a firearms licence allowed me access to a network of public ranges, I'd be somewhat more accepting of one.

One does not need a driver's licence to simply own a car, though; one will not go to jail for simple ownership of a car without a licence.

 

[cupper]

This could be a game changer for politicians. It will be interesting to see how they react, (or proact).

World's first 3D-printed gun makes its debut

The gun is capable of firing standard handgun rounds, even though it's essentially a plastic weapon.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57582725-76/worlds-first-3d-printed-gun-makes-its-debut/

Many believe that the future of printing is in 3D, which enables companies and even novices to design whatever they want and "print" it into a real-world device.

Now, a group has a proof-of-concept that such a dream could be a reality. Only this device is a gun.

Defense Distributed, a Texas-based group working toward nonprofit status, has given Forbes images of what is being called the world's first 3D-printed handgun. The gun is capable of firing standard handgun rounds and is made entirely of plastic, except for a nail that's being used as a firing pin and a six-ounce piece of steel that's designed solely to allow the gun to be detected by metal detectors.

Cody Wilson, head of Defense Distributed, announced plans to produce a 3D-printed gun last year. It took just eight months for Wilson and others in Defense Distributed to produce the gun they call the "Liberator."

According to Forbes, the gun is capable of connecting to different barrels, allowing for various calibers of ammunition. After the organization can ensure that it's working properly, it plans to publish the CAD files and details on its mechanics to its Web site to share with the public.

As one might expect, given the recent rash of gun violence, Wilson's creation has caught the attention of some who say that 3D printing can be used for other means than creating a gun. Stratasys, a company that produces 3D printers, took back their device from Defense Distributed last year after the company discovered the printer was being used for gun development. There's also talk among lawmakers of adding a 3D-printing provision to the U.S. Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires that all guns are capable of being detected by law enforcement tools.

Defense Distributed plans to release more details on its handgun in the coming weeks.