The Great Gun Control Debate

[Jed]

it's harder to make a working bomb than pull a trigger.

Discuss.

What is there to discuss?  It’s harder to pull a trigger than to light a match.  It still takes a fair bit more to round up an AR15 with equipment and ammo and cause death. Obviously it is not as simple as pulling a trigger.

 

[Altair]

And there is your problem. Don't spend time trying to convince inanimate objects what to do. Or getting rid of them. Do you know how many stabbings take place in schools? In 2014 a kid took a knife to 20+ of his schoolmate. The knife didn't have the problem, the kid did. Ban knives?

It is the same as the shootings. It is not the firearm, it's the users mental condition. What you want is thorough backgrounds checks, a wait period and licensing regulations to ensure a person is capable of handling one.

Just like we have in Canada.

I would also tack an automatic, 25 year sentence, no parole or good behaviour, a full 25 years, to anyone caught with or using an illegal firearm. Right now, gangbangers and unhinged nutbars are the cause of the problems and increases that Goodale is trying to prove. Not law abiding, licensed and trained gun owners. I, and every other gun owner in Canada, are checked on a daily basis in the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), because I own a firearm. No other citizen, criminal or otherwise, receives that kind of scrutiny from law enforcement and government other than gun owners. Yet we are the ones preyed on by the government. Not the criminals and not the mentally incapacitated. Imagine, if all the money (millions and millions) that the liebrals have wasted on trying to control a piece of machinery, had gone into mental health care instead.

You need priorities and trying to take away all guns in today's society is an impossible and ludicrous solution that will end up costing billions with very little effect to those that want to break the law. I the meantime, you push mental health off the table and feed it scraps to the detriment of all society.

I never once said don't deal with mental health,  it should be addressed.

My concern is the potential damage a mentally unstable person can do can do.

And while guns are inanimate objects,  don't act like they are all created equal. Some are far more deadly than others.

M60
Rocket propelled grenades
M249
Famas
AK47
Glock 17
Katana
Switch blade
Scissors
Pencil.

All inatimate objects.  All perfectly safe in the hands of someone who doesn't want to do harm to others. All deadly in the hands of someone who does want to do harm go others.

But some are far more deadly than others in the hands of those who intend to harm others. My goal would be to keep the more deadly ones out of the hands of those who can do harm. Now some people, criminals especially,  would get their hands on some of those anyways. But others,  especially those who have mental health issues,  only get their hands on weapons due to availability.

That's not to say ban everything I listed. Hell,  with proper gun control,  let someone have a M249.  As I've said in the past, this is not to say that I don't think people should have guns. I don't think people who are mentally ill should have guns. I don't think people with a record should have guns. I don't think people should be able to get guns so quickly, sane or not. I think guns need to be stored more stringently, so that a unstable family member cannot access them as easily to do harm to others. I don't think that a patchwork system of tracking who can and cannot have a gun is the best way to go about it, especially when information not passed from one agency to another results in people slipping through the cracks. I don't think accessories that turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons is a wise idea when there is a ban on fully automatic weapons.

Those are some simple common sense actions that would stop a lot of gun violence. Gun violence being some of the deadliest violence.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I don't think accessories that turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons is a wise idea when there is a ban on fully automatic weapons..

Just a small point. Bumpfire stocks don't create fully automatic firearms, they can only mimic it. There is still a skill to using one effectively, and at the end of the day they really aren't anymore dangerous than a semi automatic firearm (I would argue less dangerous as you can't aim effectively and you would go through ammo quicker, it is literally only a novelty). I can also do the same thing with a belt loop, a piece of string, or really good finger control.

The Vegas shooting was so horrific not because of the bumpfire stock but the vantage point into a packed open area which was designed to make it difficult for people to get in or out of (to prevent people from sneaking in). The reality is bumpfire stocks are a red herring which won't have a single effect on gun crime in the USA.

Here is some videos showing it done without any modifications to the gun, its a lot easier than people think. Overall these techniques are novelties as the amount of training you would need to be effective would be absurd, and its much easier to become effective with just using semi-automatic firearms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64
^ guy using finger to bumpfire a standard AR-15 and AK-47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI86T8RghWY
^ guy using belt loop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43P8PHKTny0
^ guy using string

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Altair] 

M60

[/quote]

M60E4.  You can pick one up in Virden Manitoba.  $21'000

https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/ProductDetail/DEOM60E4_-Desert-Ordnance-M60E4-7-62-Nato-22--Barrel-Semi-Auto-Non-Restricted-

 

[Jarnhamar]

But this is awesome.

A Democrat running for some Congress position decides to virtue signal by cutting an AR15 in half. Only instead of cutting it in half she cut the barrel off.  Which or course is illegal since it makes it a short barrel rifle.

Good thing she didn't post it on Facebook since it's probably a felony and that's video proof. 

Just kidding,  she did.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28027/watch-democrat-under-investigation-appearing-break-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
:rofl:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

M60E4.  You can pick one up in Virden Manitoba.  $21'000

https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/ProductDetail/DEOM60E4_-Desert-Ordnance-M60E4-7-62-Nato-22--Barrel-Semi-Auto-Non-Restricted-

Yeah the whole list that Altair posted is prohibited or completely unavailable to a regular civilian with the Glock being restricted and the scissors and knives. Another immaterial post backed by immaterial examples. I,m sorry but, I'm  not discussing ridiculous hypatheticals anymore.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yeah the whole list that Altair posted is prohibited or completely unavailable to a regular civilian with the Glock being restricted and the scissors and knives. Another immaterial post backed by immaterial examples. I,m sorry but, I'm  not discussing ridiculous hypatheticals anymore.

Yup, more guns are scary. 

I wouldn't disagree that some guns are more effective (at killing) than others in certain circumstances but there's also other factors which is why when you look at the majority of school and work place shootings the type of firearm doesn't seems to play a role in the number of deaths.

The Parkland shooter still had an obscene amount of interactions with the police and no one did anything. He literally said I want to be a school shooter, I'm going to shoot up a school. Under his real name.

AR15 argument is politics.

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/377351-baltimore-mayor-faces-off-with-laura-ingraham-over-anti-gun-violence-march-in

Kids are political tools. This school is laying off teachers, cutting funding to different departments and I've even heard they can't afford to turn heat on sometimes but they're paying for 60 bus's for kids to goto an anti-gun rally.  I similar stories all over.

 

[Altair]

Yeah the whole list that Altair posted is prohibited or completely unavailable to a regular civilian with the Glock being restricted and the scissors and knives. Another immaterial post backed by immaterial examples. I,m sorry but, I'm  not discussing ridiculous hypatheticals anymore.

all are inanimate objects.

All are safe in the hands of someone who doesn't want to do harm to others and are of sound mind.

Simple concept really.

 

[Altair]

Yup, more guns are scary. 

I wouldn't disagree that some guns are more effective (at killing) than others in certain circumstances but there's also other factors which is why when you look at the majority of school and work place shootings the type of firearm doesn't seems to play a role in the number of deaths.

The Parkland shooter still had an obscene amount of interactions with the police and no one did anything. He literally said I want to be a school shooter, I'm going to shoot up a school. Under his real name.

AR15 argument is politics.

When I say gun control,  I've never said ban the AR 15. Not once.

But keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns.

Why is there pushback when people say increase background checks,  stop people with mental health issues from purchasing a gun,  keep guns locked away better so family members cannot access them, increasing wait times for someone to purchase a gun,  and having a central agency to approve gun licenses for people?

At the end of the day,  people will still get their AR 15s,  as long as they meet all the requirements.  The requirements being there so mentally ill people and people who mean to harm to others don't bring down the reputation of respectable responsible gun owners.

Its madness that you guys think increase scrutiny of who can own a gun equals banning guns.  In my post I said I don't care what gun someone owns as long as they are proven to a responsible gun owner. How is that controversial? 

The only people who benefit from your stance are people like the parkland shooter who can still buy a gun,  own a gun despite saying he wanted to be a professional school shooter. Utter madness.

 

[Jed]

When I say gun control,  I'm never said ban the AR 15. Not once.

But keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns.

Why is there pushback when people say increase background checks,  stop people with mental health issues from purchasing a gun,  keep guns locked away better so family members cannot access them, increasing wait times for someone to purchase a gun,  and having a central agency to approve gun licenses for people?

At the end of the day,  people will still get their AR 15s,  as long as they meet all the requirements.  The requirements being there so mentally ill people and people who mean to harm to others don't bring down the reputation of respectable responsible gun owners.

Its madness that you guys think increase scrutiny of who can own a gun equals banning guns.  In my post I said I don't care what gun someone owns as long as they are proven to a responsible gun owner. How is that controversial? 

The only people who benefit from your stance are people like the parkland shooter who can still buy a gun,  own a gun despite saying he wanted to be a professional school shooter. Utter madness.

Either you are blissfully unaware how difficult and regulated it is to currently obtain any kind of firearm licence in Canada or in the US for that matter, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it?

People push back because it is simply not easy to legally aquire a firearm.

 

[Jarnhamar]

When I say gun control,  I've never said ban the AR 15. Not once.

But keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns.

Okay. I agree, keep guns out of hands that shouldn't have them. But you see just as well as the rest of us that when gun control proponents start talking the loudest voices are calling for certain guns or items to be banned. Like the anti-ar15 crusade in the states.  You brought up a list of items with varying "degrees of danger".  It seems you're still looking at it from a reactive instead of preventative model.    You essentially  suggested lives were saved by a kid trying to use a bomb instead of AR15.

  Why is there pushback when people say increase background checks,  stop people with mental health issues from purchasing a gun,  keep guns locked away better so family members cannot access them, increasing wait times for someone to purchase a gun,  and having a central agency to approve gun licenses for people?

I agree with those.  The storage one is tricky, especially if someone has firearms for home defense. It's really a personal responsibility and shouldn't be mandated.

Its madness that you guys think increase scrutiny of who can own a gun equals banning guns.

I'm not seeing that.

The only people who benefit from your stance are people like the parkland shooter who can still buy a gun,  own a gun despite saying he wanted to be a professional school shooter. Utter madness.

Please explain my stance to me.

 

[Altair]

Either you are blissfully unaware how difficult and regulated it is to currently obtain any kind of firearm licence in Canada or in the US for that matter, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it?

People push back because it is simply not easy to legally aquire a firearm.

I know how hard it is to get a firearm in canada. I don't think canada needs to do much in terms of gun control. Mostly just try to keep illegal guns off the street in our biggest cities.  Our jihadist could only get his hands on a level action rifle.  That to me says our system is working.

But one cannot say the same of the USA. It's far to easy to aquire a gun in the states.

Think about this.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan,  Adam Lanza, James Holmes,  Omar Mateen,  Devin Kelley, Nikolas Cruz would not have been able to legally aquire firearms using Canadian laws.

Maybe they could have acquired them illegally,  but if they could not,  how many lives are saved right there? Do note,  many of the rifles they used are available in canada as well,  but canada does a much better job keeping them out if the hands of those with criminal records and the mentally ill.

But those guns are not banned,  like everyone who cries about gun control here seems to think. Gun control does not equal banning guns.

 

[Altair]

Okay. I agree, keep guns out of hands that shouldn't have them. But you see just as well as the rest of us that when gun control proponents start talking the loudest voices are calling for certain guns or items to be banned. Like the anti-ar15 crusade in the states.  You brought up a list of items with varying "degrees of danger".  It seems you're still looking at it from a reactive instead of preventative model.    You essentially  suggested lives were saved by a kid trying to use a bomb instead of AR15.

lives were saved by someone trying to use a bomb instead of a AR 15. The odds of someone making a working bomb are lower(by what degree of magnitude I do not know) than someone using a working AR 15.

Does this mean ban the AR 15? No.  Because there are many other guns that can do the same or similar. No,  just control who can have access to those guns. Gun.  Control.

 

[Jed]

I know how hard it is to get a firearm in canada. I don't think canada needs to do much in terms of gun control. Mostly just try to keep illegal guns off the street in our biggest cities.  Our jihadist could only get his hands on a level action rifle.  That to me says our system is working.

But one cannot say the same of the USA. It's far to easy to aquire a gun in the states.

Think about this.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan,  Adam Lanza, James Holmes,  Omar Mateen,  Devin Kelley, Nikolas Cruz would not have been able to legally aquire firearms using Canadian laws.

Maybe they could have acquired them illegally,  but if they could not,  how many lives are saved right there? Do note,  many of the rifles they used are available in canada as well,  but canada does a much better job keeping them out if the hands of those with criminal records and the mentally ill.

But those guns are not banned,  like everyone who cries about gun control here seems to think. Gun control does not equal banning guns.

A fact that is forever ignored by the gun grabber minded people.  What are your personal interests? Maybe you really love guitars?  How would you like it if every few years when a Liberal Government comes to power, the first item on the agenda is to start scheming a way to take away your axe?

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Altair] . Gun control does not equal banning guns.
[/quote]

Like the Swiss Arms rifle the RCMP was attempting to ban without compensation to owners for their $4000 piece of property?


Some people might also be concerned the RCMP used information they were ordered by the government to destroy to confiscate property. People's privacy and property concerns aren't trivial.

 

[Jed]

Like the Swiss Arms rifle the RCMP was attempting to ban without compensation to owners for their $4000 piece of property?


Some people might also be concerned the RCMP used information they were ordered by the government to destroy to confiscate property. People's privacy and property concerns aren't trivial.

Or the great RCMP Gun grab in High River AB

 

[Altair]

A fact that is forever ignored by the gun grabber minded people.  What are your personal interests? Maybe you really love guitars?  How would you like it if every few years when a Liberal Government comes to power, the first item on the agenda is to start scheming a way to take away your axe?

So the solution would be taking the lead in finding a better solution.

The anti gun people are trying to use a hacksaw to solve a problem that can be better solved with a scalpel.

The pro gun people are saying responsible gun owners aren't doing these crimes,  thus they should not be punished, but are doing so in a manner that is allowing everyone to keep their guns. In other words,  proposing no solution to the problem.

The middle ground here is to allow responsibility gun owners to keep their guns,  while putting in place barriers to those who have mental health issues and criminal records.

The problem I see is that one group, the anti gun group,  fights every single attempt to move in that direction under the blanket of "banning guns".

And it's not fair to Canadian gun owners,  who operate under a different,  more responsible set of rules,  but as long as the conversation is raging in the states, there is going to be some spill over into Canada.

The best bet for gun owners in both countries is for the pro gun types get on board with finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those who want to do harm to others.  It is those individuals who give gun owners a bad name,  and fuel the crusade to get ride of all guns.  Get those people out of your ranks and see the sea of change in public attitude towards gun owners.

 

[Jed]

So the solution would be taking the lead in finding a better solution.

The anti gun people are trying to use a hacksaw to solve a problem that can be better solved with a scalpel.

The pro gun people are saying responsible gun owners aren't doing these crimes,  thus they should not be punished, but are doing so in a manner that is allowing everyone to keep their guns. In other words,  proposing no solution to the problem.

The middle ground here is to allow responsibility gun owners to keep their guns,  while putting in place barriers to those who have mental health issues and criminal records.

The problem I see is that one group, the anti gun group,  fights every single attempt to move in that direction under the blanket of "banning guns".

And it's not fair to Canadian gun owners,  who operate under a different,  more responsible set of rules,  but as long as the conversation is raging in the states, there is going to be some spill over into Canada.

The best bet for gun owners in both countries is for the pro gun types get on board with finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those who want to do harm to others.  It is those individuals who give gun owners a bad name,  and fuel the crusade to get ride of all guns.  Get those people out of your ranks and see the sea of change in public attitude towards gun owners.

Bingo. Give the man a cigar.  By the way, removing all wayward gun owners from society is about as easy as preventing Doug Ford or Ms Wynne being elected as a party leader and / or Premier.

 

[Altair]

Bingo. Give the man a cigar.  By the way, removing all wayward gun owners from society is about as easy as preventing Doug Ford or Ms Wynne being elected as a party leader and / or Premier.

All?  Sure.  It's almost impossible to work in absolutes. Even countries with better gun control have gun violence.

Lets aim for most.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan,  Adam Lanza, James Holmes,  Omar Mateen,  Devin Kelley, Nikolas Cruz would not have been able to legally aquire firearms using Canadian laws. 

Stephen Paddock would have.

I'll take that though.  It would be a massive improvement.