Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Would two people be considered a mass shooting in Alaska?
In any case, your review of the state of gun safety in Alaska proves my point.
67% of Americans want to ban assault weapons
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
In any case, your review of the state of gun safety in Alaska proves my point.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What you seem to be unable to understand is it's not just one kind of gun that is affected when countries enact effective gun control laws. I avoid the words "assault weapon" or assault rifle" because then somebody shows up and says there is no such thing or we delve into the mechanics of firing mechanisms and how that same mechanism is used in all sorts of weapons. Engineering mumbo jumbo. Gun control is a system-wide approach, not just about the tool but about who gets one, their qualifications and registration, some bans on types, and much more. Here is what is done in Canada. I just include the licensing aspect below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada
All licensing and registration is managed by the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program (CFP), under the Deputy Commissioner Policing Support Services (PSS). In the Canadian system, there are three classes of firearms and firearm licences: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Prohibited firearms are not forbidden outright, as the name might imply, but their legal possession and acquisition are dependent upon their registration history and an individual's firearm licence.[22] As of December 1, 1998, the prohibited clause must be grandfathered to acquire or possess prohibited firearms. New prohibited licences are available only at the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer of the province or the RCMP[citation needed]. See Classification of firearms below for complete details on prohibited, restricted and non-restricted firearms.
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]
Businesses, museums and organizations must have a valid firearms business licence to possess, manufacture or sell firearms, restricted or prohibited firearms, prohibited devices, or prohibited ammunition. A licence is not required to possess regular ammunition, but is required to manufacture or sell ammunition. A separate licence is required for each location where the business operates, and each business licence is valid only for the activities specified on the licence.
Registering firearms. In order to be legally owned, a restricted or prohibited firearm must be registered in the Canadian Firearms Registry, which stores all data regarding firearms in Canada. To register a firearm into the system, a firearm must first be verified; its identification and classification being confirmed by an authorized verifier working with the RCMP. One must submit a registration application, which can be done online. If the firearm is being transferred from one owner to another the process can be done by telephone. Firearm registration certificates do not expire and do not need to be renewed. The Canadian Firearms Registry Online (CFRO) is accessible to police through CPIC.
Public Agents Firearms Regulations, which took effect on October 31, 2008, require public service agencies to report all firearms in their possession. Agency firearms are those used by employees (i.e. service firearms) while protected firearms are those that have been found or seized or are otherwise being held. The timely reporting and sharing of information about protected firearms is particularly important for police as it will have a significant impact on investigators' efforts to monitor the locations, movement and distribution of illicit firearms in Canada.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't think there is anything that can be said to change the mind of an overt racist. Do you? The racist has to be willing to listen and if they are at that stage the information is already out there. I've known outright racists who changed over time but I'd say it was more due to their observing how things got better after the civil rights laws went into effect rather than anything anybody said.
Not saying return hatred with hatred. I'm saying that those opposed to racism should be firm in resolve to oppose it. Have you heard hatred in my words? That list I posted, for instance. I didn't write it but I really like the good humor it contains. The difference is, I don't care if I offend a racist. What I think about them is none of their business and I won't go out of my way to tell them.
At some level, we are all monkeys trying to get laid and otherwise succeed in our troop. One way that monkeys correct bad behavior is to shun or otherwise put those with bad behavior on the outside. They don't get laid, they don't get groomed, in other words make life suck for them. It's called social pressure and it's a powerful corrective tool in human society. I'm all for using this tool against overt racists. Once behavior is corrected then allow them into the troop. I wouldn't go so far as to introduce a once overt and now silent racist to my sister but I'm ok with them being around if they just stop picking on the members who are different. This is not a great analogy but I hope you get my drift.
Last edited:
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
Great work man, although I do believe I can change a racist person or at least I have hope.
You are pretty good about getting the message across without offending, Buck isn't and that's all I was really saying in the beginning.
You have some good debate skills, I just try to believe in more of a love will cure attitude. I've seen it man people feel it they really do. It takes that solid strong message but once they notice it can change even the most hateful racism.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'd just like the racists to stop hurting people. You can love somebody but still oppose them.
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
Exactly
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
You compared gun restriction to anti MJ laws. That's a dumb comparison.
LOL The gun laws in place are enough?
The chart compares homicide rates in different developed countries. Can you guess which row is Canada and which is the US?
HINT: US is the bottom row (29.7 homicides per million people)
Canada is the fourth row up (5.1 million per million).
Australia is the top row, 1.4 gun related homicides per million people -- the US has 29 times higher gun related homicide rate. When Australia enacted it's gun laws, the US gun lobby predicted mayhem, disaster and all the bad shit you talked about earlier.
Gun control laws work. I don't know why you are even defending Republicans and the NRA on this issue.
It is merely your own statement and your own opinion that I compare mj laws to gun law.
And it is also your own statement that I support the nra or Republicans.
Neither statement were mine. You only speak with a path to your own agenda. You call it reasoning.
too larry
Well-Known Member
I'm a gun collector in favor of toughening up the gun laws. I have mostly older long guns, pumps, bolt actions, double barrels and single shots, but do have a couple three semiautos. The clip is the thing. For hunting I have to use a five round clip. I would not be opposed to a limit on clip size.
But as far as actual gun deaths, hand guns are king. {The AR15 shootings get the headlines, but are a very small portion of the everyday gun deaths in this country} Of course suicide is a biggie. Person to person crime is right up there too.
Even with a school shooting a day, schools are safer than home for most kids. Way more deaths and injuries to children happen at home. Cars are still the biggest killer of kids though. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
But as far as actual gun deaths, hand guns are king. {The AR15 shootings get the headlines, but are a very small portion of the everyday gun deaths in this country} Of course suicide is a biggie. Person to person crime is right up there too.
Even with a school shooting a day, schools are safer than home for most kids. Way more deaths and injuries to children happen at home. Cars are still the biggest killer of kids though. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
So what can we do to put a stop to mass shootings? Probably nothing but we can help prevent and bring numbers down I'm sure with multiple approaches.
Maybe citizens that have shown responsible gun ownership for a certaint amount of time should be able to be exempt to semi automatic weapon bans. Maybe requirements need to be stricter like those on suppressors, they aren't banned just hard to get and they would aid tremendously in a mass shooting yet nobody uses them because why? Regulations correct? I think the answer lies somewhere In between with a combination of a few other factors.
I admit I don't like that I would have to pay more for the use of my firearms but I would deal with it. I just don't see a full ban being the answer. State or city on some occasions maybe, depending on the circumstances.
I am an outdoorsman and I love shooting, to me it's part of life. I could live without semi automatic weapons but in a world like today why should I have to? I live in a state where no mass shooting by definition have ever occurred and we have more assault rifles per person here than most of you combined. Statistics are flawed because of location and population density so it's hard to say one is cause and the other effect and not the other way around.
Really sucks that we aren't all sane enough to have nuclear technology or weapons of mass destruction, I mean I don't believe we need them to protect earth but what if?
Wouldn't it suck if in the future we couldve prevented some sort of natural disaster but we we're too busy bickering over who might use them to hurt one another? If this species worked together we could make such advances in science and technology it would be great.
Maybe citizens that have shown responsible gun ownership for a certaint amount of time should be able to be exempt to semi automatic weapon bans. Maybe requirements need to be stricter like those on suppressors, they aren't banned just hard to get and they would aid tremendously in a mass shooting yet nobody uses them because why? Regulations correct? I think the answer lies somewhere In between with a combination of a few other factors.
I admit I don't like that I would have to pay more for the use of my firearms but I would deal with it. I just don't see a full ban being the answer. State or city on some occasions maybe, depending on the circumstances.
I am an outdoorsman and I love shooting, to me it's part of life. I could live without semi automatic weapons but in a world like today why should I have to? I live in a state where no mass shooting by definition have ever occurred and we have more assault rifles per person here than most of you combined. Statistics are flawed because of location and population density so it's hard to say one is cause and the other effect and not the other way around.
Really sucks that we aren't all sane enough to have nuclear technology or weapons of mass destruction, I mean I don't believe we need them to protect earth but what if?
Wouldn't it suck if in the future we couldve prevented some sort of natural disaster but we we're too busy bickering over who might use them to hurt one another? If this species worked together we could make such advances in science and technology it would be great.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Sheesh
I'm not going to continue to argue with somebody who makes me pull up the very words they said just moments before. As I said earlier, your comparing gun control laws to drug laws is dumb.
The arguments you make are exactly those Republicans and the NRA make. I have no idea why you deny it but you are defending Republicans and the NRA. Sorry you don't like me to make an accurate comparison but there you have it snowflake. As with your stupid denial of comparing ant-MJ laws with gun laws, I can find exact comparisons between what you said and what Republican leaders or the NRA have said. Again, sorry you don't like an accurate comparison but there you have it snowflake.
NRA-backed Marco Rubio says gun control laws alone won’t prevent mass shootings
WASHINGTON
As Democrats called Thursday for restricting access to weapons after the worst high school shooting in American history, two South Florida Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio, who received millions of dollars in political help from the National Rifle Association, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, the single largest recipient of direct NRA campaign cash among Floridians in the House of Representatives since 1998, said gun control legislation won’t stop mass shootings.
Rubio’s voice trembled with emotion during a 30-minute interview with the Miami Herald in which he argued that legislation to limit access to semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 or laws to make it tougher to purchase firearms legally wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article200395164.html
Paul Ryan
This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut
As our nation struggles to come to grips with the horrible tragedy in Las Vegas, it’s only natural for people to search for an explanation of how an atrocity like this could have happened and to call on their elected officials to take measures to prevent such terrible bloodshed from occurring again in the future. Unfortunately, however, we’ve seen enough of these incidents to know that some people will rush to blame firearms for this carnage and will demand that Congress enact sweeping gun restrictions, engaging in misguided efforts that completely miss the underlying reasons behind the violence we’re seeing.
The simple truth is, mass shootings like this aren’t about gun control we refuse to pass. They’re about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.
You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I won’t allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our country’s inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund.
https://politics.theonion.com/this-shooting-isn-t-about-gun-control-we-refuse-to-pass-1819585076
Last edited:
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
I think I was the one comparing marijuana laws....or I think I did in some way and I believe it means something in the words of prohibition.
I mean come on we grew stinky bud under their noses for years and never got caught right? Prohibited and illegal, but still it's what we thought was right.
Not a great comparison because gun deaths are a bad thing but when talking about just assault weapons in general, in my hands they are safe and make me happy much like mj.
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
Well shit I guess you were in on it too.
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
Ill have to say I absolutely despise Donald trump and most republican views but i agree to a certain point on the healthcare and mental health problem. Both need to be adressed I do agree with that. Come on can't we say they have some good points? I think it would help our healthcare is fucked.
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
Not that it's not the republicans fault anyway already lol
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
Damn you! I was WTF? The OnionSheesh
I'm not going to continue to argue with somebody who makes me pull up the very words they said just moments before. As I said earlier, your comparing gun control laws to drug laws is dumb.
The arguments you make are exactly those Republicans and the NRA make. I have no idea why you deny it but you are defending Republicans and the NRA. Sorry you don't like me to make an accurate comparison but there you have it snowflake. As with your stupid denial of comparing ant-MJ laws with gun laws, I can find exact comparisons between what you said and what Republican leaders or the NRA have said. Again, sorry you don't like an accurate comparison but there you have it snowflake.
NRA-backed Marco Rubio says gun control laws alone won’t prevent mass shootings
WASHINGTON
As Democrats called Thursday for restricting access to weapons after the worst high school shooting in American history, two South Florida Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio, who received millions of dollars in political help from the National Rifle Association, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, the single largest recipient of direct NRA campaign cash among Floridians in the House of Representatives since 1998, said gun control legislation won’t stop mass shootings.
Rubio’s voice trembled with emotion during a 30-minute interview with the Miami Herald in which he argued that legislation to limit access to semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 or laws to make it tougher to purchase firearms legally wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article200395164.html
Paul Ryan
This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut
As our nation struggles to come to grips with the horrible tragedy in Las Vegas, it’s only natural for people to search for an explanation of how an atrocity like this could have happened and to call on their elected officials to take measures to prevent such terrible bloodshed from occurring again in the future. Unfortunately, however, we’ve seen enough of these incidents to know that some people will rush to blame firearms for this carnage and will demand that Congress enact sweeping gun restrictions, engaging in misguided efforts that completely miss the underlying reasons behind the violence we’re seeing.
The simple truth is, mass shootings like this aren’t about gun control we refuse to pass. They’re about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.
You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I won’t allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our country’s inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund.
https://politics.theonion.com/this-shooting-isn-t-about-gun-control-we-refuse-to-pass-1819585076
NrthrnMichigan
Well-Known Member
He's just trying to control the narrative. You can see he doesnt want to or cannot comprehend other's statements but instead tries to bend the quotes once again to favor his narrative or calls you stupid. No reasoning with this type. He will always be right no matter how wrong he is.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my argument: the states with the highest rates of gun violence are all red states
the statistics:
you are dumber than dog shit
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no you aren't you right wing shitbag
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Dude, he literally said it. No interpretation required.
The main difference between arguments against or for gun control is that arguments against are backed by belief and desire while arguments for are backed by multiple examples of successful reduction in harm for entire nations.
It's hard to argue against belief and desire, on that I'll agree. There was this girl who split with me and I simply couldn't agree with my friends who kept telling me that she will never come back. It was an absurd amount of time before I gave up and even longer before I recognized how dumb I had been.