Guns

[arora]

You should. Because so far, all I've seen from you is naivety. Case in point:

Actually you are the one being naive as you clearly know very little about our culture, or how our country was founded. Even something as simple as how many guns there are in this country or how many miles of border we have eludes you. Anyway since you asked so nice, I'll respond, but first this bit.

What truth? The speaker offered an opinion. The councilman wasn't comfortable with the idea that someone in the room was carrying a weapon, and so he excused himself from the chambers.

The truth of the law? A councilman who does not know or respect the law should not be in office in the first place. It looked to me like a brat simply wanting his way, it's not uncommon and is exactly why they try to change laws willy nilly.

..............

a) politicians are planning to start tyranny any day now

Who said that? It's systematic by nature.

b) the right to bear arms is the only thing stopping them from doing so.

Again, who said that? Maintaining the right to bear arms might keep them a bit more honest, but the main point is allowing a few do goody feel good types to start trampling our constitution will never end well. Only as a very remote last resort do any of us defending the 2nd amendment in this thread foresee a civil war.

There most definitely is a liberal agenda in our government atm, and it threatens the very foundation of our country. Just read the president's last inauguration speech.

 

[FoolKiller]

You can't really compare the two considering that cars are not designed to be weapons.

Wouldn't a product being unintentionally more deadly than guns be an argument for banning it? It's the logic we use for drugs, dietary/medical supplements, and lawn darts.

And what are the odds that tyranny is just going to show up on your doorstep some day?

See, the problem with this argument is that you assume a) politicians are planning to start tyranny any day now and that b) the right to bear arms is the only thing stopping them from doing so.

No and no. We believe any government can become tyrannical some day, and not always through planning but through good intentions gone wrong. Do you think the British wanted to harm the colonies? Or did they see their citizens reaping the benefits of abundant resources and just think that they should pay their "fair share?" There may have even been debates over whether the treatment of the colonies was just or not. But through what a majority of the government assumed were moves just trying to benefit the empire's expansion protests arose, protests became violent, attempts to reduce the violence led to marshall law, and then protest became resistance, and then war. Tyranny doesn't have to come from a dictator or planning and doesn't happen suddenly and loud. It can come from misguided good intentions by multiple people in power and it can creep up silently over time.

As for what protects us from our government becoming tyrannical, the US Constitution and our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. But we see that bring chipped away bit by bit over the years. And those who defend doing that make silly accusations at those who put their foot down at the one part of the Constitution that allows the citizens to still maintain some form of power to not be overtaken by the will of the majority.

So your statement comes across as one giant rationalisation, and rationalisations are lies we tell ourselves to convince ourselves that we're right. Since you clearly haven't considered the alternative - an America where there is and never was a right to bear arms

Kind of like the Patriot Act (allowing spying on our own citizens without a warrant) and the NDAA (drones in our own skies and allowing indefinite detention without due process) are consider to be necessary to protect us from the boogeyman terrorists? Like I said, it can sneak up on you quietly and slowly. I would suggest you as Pfc Bradley Manning about that, but he has been busy being held without charge for over a year, in conditions that have now been considered torture.

- I have to ask: do you even know what a tyrant is?

Do you know what tyranny is? A tyrant (singular) is not necessary.

What truth? The speaker offered an opinion. The councilman wasn't comfortable with the idea that someone in the room was carrying a weapon, and so he excused himself from the chambers.

Excused himself after he failed to get what would have been an illegal motion, to take the weapon away from the expertly trained citizen, passed.

First, he disrespected the citizen's rights by attempting to violate them by force, and then disrespected the law and the citizen, arguably the entire council, by walking out when he didn't get his way. It may even be argued he disrespected the US Military by acting as if the citizen's training did not make him trustworthy with a weapon, that up until that moment no one was aware he had, and no one ever saw at any time.

Did I say they were? a6m5 made the point that "tyrannical rule has always existed". I just took that one step further and applied it to every facet of everyday life, and not just the political sphere.

Except the "rule" part can only apply to those who create and repeal the rules, such as governments.

Don't Americans pride themselves on being the "land of the free"? If so, why do you refuse to trust future generations to maintain that and uphold democracy? Or do you simply not trust your generation to teach the next generation the values of democracy? And if so, doesn't arming yourselves to protect yourselves against a future threat that you could have prevented otherwise demonstrate a fundamental lack of judgement that makes you unqiuely unqualified to be trusted with weapons in the first place?

Because past and present generations have been chipping away at our freedoms. Even one of the founders of our government believed that "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground." It is not a new concept for Americans. It is one in which our Constitution was designed to give is the power to try to prevent. No one is making up ideals to rationalize their beliefs.

See, that's the trap that I think so many proponents of the Second Amendement fall into: you wrongfully assume that the Second Amendment is the first, last and only thing protecting you from becoming a banana republic, and that by taking it away, it will inevitably lead to disaster. Which is somewhat ironic that you have accused me of generalising predictions of the future, when there's a good fifty or so pages of discussion forum here where the overriding argument in favour of gun ownership is "if we lose the right to bear arms, society itself will collapse!".

Since you used quotation marks, I assume you can back that up. Or would it be safer to assume that it is more of a 'in the event of' kind of situation?

Take the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings as an example. The NRA pointedly refused to support any form of gun control, and instead insisted that their proposal, of allowing teachers the right to carry concealed weapons in classrooms, was the only way forward.

Completely disregarding gun control reforms without even looking at them sounds exactly like a politician compeltely disregarding the Second Amendment. The only difference is in the effects of their actions compared to that politician.

Wow, I didn't know sitting back a week in silence while all of your opponents to stand on the legacy of the dead try to tarnish your reputation and make statements about what must be done and then responding to them, after a respectful silence for the tragedy, with a counter-proposal was completely disregarding something. I also didn't know it was complete disregard to wllingly attend a meeting to discuss gun control and design a proposal for the president was complete disregard.

I also didn't know it was reasonable to accuse someone of completely disregarding an idea by introducing a counter-proposal that you yourself completely disregard.

And the difference in the effects of their actions is precisely why the NRA is unable to be a form of tyrannical rule.

 

[hogger129]

Look, we can sit here and argue day in and day out, but the United States Constitution's Second Amendment specifically protects our right to have "guns." It says "arms," but it's been defined over and over again as small arms like rifles, handguns, shotguns.

If having no guns creates a safer society, explain why violent crime rates rose in the UK and Australia after they outlawed most guns...

Or take a look at Switzerland, where there is a "military-style assault rifle" in every home and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.


Anybody here wants to have a fair and open debate about this, just let em know, I'll be happy to have it.

 

[a6m5]

Or take a look at Switzerland, where there is a "military-style assault rifle" in every home and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

I thought they didn't do that anymore, but according to Wiki, I guess they still distribute assault rifles and handguns. However, they stopped distributing ammo in 2007. link

 

[Zenith]

Anyone have a dissenting opinion regarding banning "military style" guns or are we all in agreement that banning something because it looks scary is dumb?

 

[arora]

The whole 'as long as it only has one of the following' idea is weak at best, it's still the same gun as far as speed and caliber.

The idea that since a disturbed youngster shot up a school with pistols we need to ban a type of rifle, well...

 

[a6m5]

Anyone have a dissenting opinion regarding banning "military style" guns or are we all in agreement that banning something because it looks scary is dumb?

I made my position clear with my drunk driving argument. What difference does it make what kind of car I'm driving?

Before learning about firearms, I thought guns dictated how powerful the shots were. Today, I know that the gun is the delivery system, but the power depends on the ammo. This whole military style rifle things a joke, because the rifles they are referring to, the .223 cartridge used in ARs, M16, M4, Bushmasters, etc., they are anemic compared to the popular ammunitions used in hunting rifles & shotguns. According to anti-gun politicians, hunting weapons are OK though. If I compared them to cars, .223 & AK-rounds would be the four & six cylinders. Hunting rounds would compare to V8s! Sure, they couldn't have 20 or 30 rounds on tap, but it'll most likely go right through any cover you hide behind to shield yourself.

 

[Joel]

Anyone have a dissenting opinion regarding banning "military style" guns or are we all in agreement that banning something because it looks scary is dumb?

That's my biggest concern. I have a couple posts in the Real Guns thread you should check out about Canadian gun laws. They're completely illogical, and all about what looks scary. AK variants are illegal, but I can buy an SKS. AR-15's require a "Restricted" (2nd tier) gun license, but I can buy a semi auto FN SCAR variant with a basic gun license. Or a semi auto Uzi, or P90, or Sig 556, but not an AK. It's absurd, and it's the path the US is headed on if the anti gun lobby has their way.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

That's my biggest concern. I have a couple posts in the Real Guns thread you should check out about Canadian gun laws. They're completely illogical, and all about what looks scary. AK variants are illegal, but I can buy an SKS. AR-15's require a "Restricted" (2nd tier) gun license, but I can buy a semi auto FN SCAR variant with a basic gun license. Or a semi auto Uzi, or P90, or Sig 556, but not an AK. It's absurd, and it's the path the US is headed on if the anti gun lobby has their way.

Your avatar has caused more suffering and misery than any weapon I own.

Question for you, since you live in America's hat; do any of those restrictions make you feel safer? From what I gather, people who want to disarm the citizenry thru gun control laws do so in the name of public safety. I don't know about you but I wouldn't feel any more safe if my collection was confiscated. It seems, to me anyway, that those who do not own guns and abhor them will feel safer...so we all should suffer for the illusion of being safe.

It's security theatre...submit to the all powerful and all-knowing invincible government and you'll be granted the right to feel safe. Not be safe...feel safe. That's an important distinction.

Americans, now more than ever, are divided in their ideology but most do not trust our government...or are at least suspicious. Many hated Bush and his policies. They'd never vote for a Republican but most will admit Obama didn't keep his promises and they feel betrayed. Even the most ardent liberal will admit that losing an enumerated right isn't a good thing, they know that if government has that kind of power and a George Bush v3.0 gets in office they'll be kissing a lot of their cherished rights goodbye.

Plenty of people in this country has seen the tyranny of the government. Don't forget millions of people lost their homes. Those that stayed until the last minute were thrown out by men with guns. Hundreds of thousands of banks closed. In those circumstances, men with guns stormed into the bank and told everyone to get the hell out. Millions of taxpayers have seen their paychecks shrink since the calendar rolled over to '13. What are we getting for our money? Next year, tens of millions will see their health insurance costs go up massively despite not getting any more for the added expense. Wages are not going up. Home equity is still in the red.

If you think people have a bit of faith in the government or Barack Obama...wait a bit and let his policies really put the screws to their paychecks and wealth.

After that, ask people again about tyranny and guns. Obamacare kicks in 2014

 

[hogger129]

Apparently the embed isn't working, so here's the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYeaCGYdCcM

I would like everybody to watch this video because I think it clearly explains the mindset of "liberals" in this country.

I think they mostly live in a bubble and could care less about their Constitutional rights until their lives are personally affected by it.

But back on topic, banning guns isn't going to do anything except hinder the ability for good people to defend themselves. First they'll come for these so-called "assault" weapons. Then they'll come for handguns. Then they'll take away your semi-automatic rifles. It's a slippery slope to not being able to exercise your Second Amendment rights because your ability to do so has been legislated away.

 

[Crash]

Washington city councilman walks out on council meeting because of citizen with CCW.

​

It's a bit long but worth watching. Good for this mayor, and lol the same people who didn't want you to have a gun didn't want you to wear a hat

We need more of these civilians showing up at government functions 👍

Thankfully Washington has state preemption on such laws. The CPL holder did absolutely the right thing, and I highly applaud the mayor for recognizing and standing up for the Second Amendment, and that the government is there to serve the people.

Seattle tried to ban guns in public parks a couple years back. People sued, and the state courts have ruled that the city had no legal ability to pass such a prohibition.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Question for you, since you live in America's hat; do any of those restrictions make you feel safer? From what I gather, people who want to disarm the citizenry thru gun control laws do so in the name of public safety. I don't know about you but I wouldn't feel any more safe if my collection was confiscated. It seems, to me anyway, that those who do not own guns and abhor them will feel safer...so we all should suffer for the illusion of being safe.

It's security theatre...submit to the all powerful and all-knowing invincible government and you'll be granted the right to feel safe. Not be safe...feel safe. That's an important distinction.

I know this wasn't directed at me but I do live here so I'll take a poke at it. The restrictions do make me feel safer but because we're at a completely different starting point here and a very different culture when it comes to guns and violence. I don't want to disarm the citiizenry to make me feel safer, what I don't want is for this to become a gun mad society like you have down there. Unleashing another 20 Million guns on our country, which is what we would need proportionally to keep up with you, just makes no sense to me. The vast, vast majority of weapons here too are shotguns and rifles for hunting, not handguns for protection or sport shooting. I've never seen a pistol nor never known anyone that owned one. I have no idea where to find a shooting range if I wanted to shoot a gun.

Our murder rate is about 1/3 of yours and most murders are either criminals killing each other (aka natural selection) or domestic violence, rarely involving a gun. There's comparitively very little home invasion/burglary/random shooting here and gun violence is far, far less prevelant than in Canada's a$$. I can get into a bar fight pretty much anywhere in Canada and not worry about whether the guy is packing heat or not.

If I lived down below I'd feel differently. The country is already flooded with guns and I'd have a CCP and weapons at the ready at home to defend myself. But living up here it's such a rare occurance to hear of a break in while someone is home or a gun used in a crime it's big news, outside of Toronto and Montreal anyway, and I live in a border city of 200.000. To get a weapon to protect myself against some imaginery foe would just never occur to me.

 

[Joel]

Your avatar has caused more suffering and misery than any weapon I own.

Yeah, quality of life would improve far more if we just banned Gary Bettman instead of guns.

Question for you, since you live in America's hat; do any of those restrictions make you feel safer? From what I gather, people who want to disarm the citizenry thru gun control laws do so in the name of public safety. I don't know about you but I wouldn't feel any more safe if my collection was confiscated. It seems, to me anyway, that those who do not own guns and abhor them will feel safer...so we all should suffer for the illusion of being safe.

This one's a bit hard to say. I'm young, and I've never lived in a Canada with more relaxed gun control. The current state of Canada's gun laws are the only thing I know, the only gun control issue in my lifetime was scrapping the long gun registry, which I agreed with (big waste of money). The other thing is that the area of I grew up in is a small rural farming county, and the only real crime there is people selling weed (which I don't consider a crime) and petty theft at high school parties. There's really just not much violence in the area I grew up in. The city I'm studying in now (Halifax) has the 2nd highest murder rate in Canada, which equates to just 18 homicides in a city of 400,000.

We just don't have the same murder rates and the same problems with violence here, it's just not as much of an issue. There's some rough areas in our bigger cities (and some smaller ones), but there's just not the same kind of murder rate. Compare Philadelphia to Toronto, they have a very similar metro population, in 2012 there were 331 murders in Philly, compared with...54 in Toronto. And people here talk about Toronto having gun violence problems. Roughly 2.7 million people live in the city of Toronto, about the same as Chicago's city population. Compare the murder rates in Toronto with Chicago and you can see that there's just not the same kind of gang violence problems in Toronto. I've never lived in the US, so I can't say whether or not I feel safer here than in the US, but what I will say is I definitely do feel safe in Canada. I feel safe, and I know that statistically I'm in a very safe country.

However...

It's security theatre...submit to the all powerful and all-knowing invincible government and you'll be granted the right to feel safe. Not be safe...feel safe. That's an important distinction.

Correlation does not infer causation, and I agree with all of this. I do feel very safe in Canada, but it really has next to nothing to do with our gun laws. I know our gun laws well, and I know they have so many holes and inconsistencies in them that I don't "trust" the gun laws to make me safe. if I have an AR-15 here, I'm limited to a 5 round magazine, but if I bought a semi auto .22, I could legally have a 500 round magazine if I could find one. The gun laws in Canada are really just a big smoke and mirrors show, we don't have low crime rates because we have less guns, we have low crime rates because we have less gang violence, fewer big cities with fewer bad areas, our people are arguably better educated, they're healthier, they're happier, and there's less people getting swept up by the gang violence that so drastically pump up the US crime rates.

The problem is I see a lot of people in the US saying things like "Canada has gun control, and they have way lower crime rates", while ignoring all the other factors that make up crime rate. There's just a vast cultural difference between Canada and the USA, we're similar in some ways but in terms of what the general public values it's completely different. In the US, Obamacare and socialized medicine is called tyranny (which it objectively is, and I completely agree that Obamacare is a terrible change), but in Canada, people are proud of our health care system and often talk about it with an air of smugness compared with the US health care system. It's not as simple as just taking the guns away, despite what Obama wants you to believe, there's a lot more going on behind the scenes that makes Canada a safer country than the US, and I don't believe for a second that Toronto is safer than Chicago because I have to fill out a couple forms and take a multiple choice test to buy a gun.

I've said this before, the easiest way for me to illustrate the cultural difference when it comes to guns is the language used by Canadians and Americans about them. In the US, law abiding and responsible gun owners refer to their guns as weapons, whereas in Canada, if you refer to your gun as a weapon it immediately arouses suspicion, and if you call your gun a weapon to the police, they'll get a warrant and make sure your guns are stored properly and check up on you. That's the difference to me, people in the US buy guns to defend themselves (and for other reasons of course), but in Canada that just doesn't occur to me. I grew up around guns, at home I have 5 guns, a compound bow, and a crossbow in the shed, but they're all fitted with trigger/action locks, in a locked shed, and the ammunition is in a separate ammo box that's locked shut. My family's guns aren't for self defense, they're for hunting and shooting skeet/trap. Firearm vs weapon is a very subtle but very telling distinction to me.

I'm not trying to bash the US or imply that the US is this barbaric wild west wasteland or anything, I'm just saying that Americans often buy guns to protect themselves from a statistical, perceived, and real threat of violence against their home. I don't judge anyone for having a gun in the US for the purpose of self defense. As Johnnypenso said, if I ever live in the US and am in a state where I can get a CCP, I'm going to get a CCP and carry a gun, and I'll have a gun in my house to defend myself as well. However, in Canada it just doesn't really make sense. I can't get a CCP anyway, but even if I could I don't think I'd carry, nor do I ever foresee myself having guns in my house for home defense. I find it completely naive for people in the US or elsewhere to think that my feelings of safety in this country are because I have to take a test to buy a gun. It ignores the underlying issues that lead to violence, gun control in the US (especially at this point with 300 million guns), is just a silly dog and pony show to make a bunch of hipsters in NYC feel safer.

TL;DR: I feel very safe in Canada, but it's because of the lack of the underlying issues that lead to gang violence and homicides, and our very low crime rates, not because I have to get a license to buy a pump action shotgun.

EDIT: As an aside, I'm not for a second advocating that the US go the way of Canada and have socialized medicine, heavily subsidized universities, expansive social programs, etc etc. Those things work for Canada, but the US and Canada have vastly different principles and ideologies. I don't believe Americans should keep throwing the constitution under the bus to be more like Canada, these things work here, but I don't really see them working the same way in the US because of the different principles the US was founded on. The US went to war with Britain for independence, and Canada..... asked politely. Just because the rest of the first world has public health care and gun control and does pretty well with it doesn't mean that's necessarily the answer for the US.

 

[sourpatchkid]

How many of you american citizens received a letter from ATF about your registered assault rifles

 

[Grand Prix]

*snip*

Great post! 👍

 

[Slash]

How many of you american citizens received a letter from ATF about your registered assault rifles

As far as I know, we haven't.

 

[sourpatchkid]

As far as I know, we haven't.

Crazy! I mean my best friend got this letter, he hasn't been in any trouble, I think I might get this letter too.

 

[arora]

Crazy! I mean my best friend got this letter, he hasn't been in any trouble, I think I might get this letter too.

I looked on the atf web page and could not find any suggestion they are sending out letters of any kind. Can you post a link?

I'd not be surprised if it's just some silly hoax by anti gun nuts.

 

[sourpatchkid]

I looked on the atf web page and could not find any suggestion they are sending out letters of any kind. Can you post a link?

I'd not be surprised if it's just some silly hoax by anti gun nuts.

Ill take a picture of this, I hope I was getting trolled cause he said this was personally signed by a agent

Edit: maybe he could be a criminal

 

[Johnnypenso]

....snip.....

Yup, well done.👍👍

 

[Joel]

Great post! 👍

Yup, well done.👍👍

See? Look how polite and friendly we are!

 

[a6m5]

Yup, well done.👍👍

Really, to both of you. 👍

I'm from Japan where the gun control is at its tightest. Yes, it's very safe there, and I also firmly believe that it is safer without guns. Having said that, we are talking about a country that even the outlaws have very few guns(and they never use those), and people associate guns only with wars, and to a degree, hunting, but never as a tool for protection, or self-defense.

IMO, gun control can work, but certainly not everywhere.

 

[FoolKiller]

There's comparitively very little home invasion/burglary/random shooting here and gun violence is far, far less prevelant than in Canada's a$$.

Out of curiosity,, what is the drug use like up there? That is the main cause of these kinds of crimes here.

I can get into a bar fight pretty much anywhere in Canada and not worry about whether the guy is packing heat or not.

I can too. It is rare to have a gun get pulled out in a bar fight, since most bar fights are tied to manlines, pulling a gun defeats the point. I've even seen a guy hand his gun to his friend first.

The bigger worry in a bar fight isn't if the other guy is packing a weapon, but what kind of attorney he has.

If I lived down below I'd feel differently. The country is already flooded with guns and I'd have a CCP and weapons at the ready at home to defend myself.

To be honest, this isn't a concern in most middle class neighborhoods. That can change in any neighborhood, but in the flyover regions it isn't as bad as the places the media only cares about.

How many of you american citizens received a letter from ATF about your registered assault rifles

I didn't, but like most US citizens I don't own an assault rifle.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

IMO, gun control can work, but certainly not everywhere.

The problem is that the places where gun control can work are often the places it is needed the least.

In Chicago, where the selling/transferring of firearms has been banned until recently, >95% of those who commit crimes with a gun have a criminal record. In those circumstances, they are not allowed to own a gun in the 1st place. Why no one really cares is that >80% of those who are the victim of a crime committed with a gun also have a criminal record. It's a cycle.

Those stats come from the last Chicago PD's Superintendent Jody Weiss. In a nutshell; none of the gun controls or laws have worked in Chicago and it's where the most gun crimes occur. Each year, more guns are confiscated or forfeited to Chicago PD than NYC & LA combined. Ya, we got a problem...

There are plenty of neighborhoods that are safe. The vast majority of violence occurs in the ghetto and pretty much stays there until some savage drifts out in search of new people to hold up, rob, and ultimately shoot so there isn't a witness.

Be glad Canada's larger cities are not Chicago. Sure, poutine isn't a replacement for deep dish pizza but you're more than welcome to import our ghetto folk in exchange for said pizza.

The thing is; everyone here (Chicago) knows someone who has been murdered, mugged, robbed, carjacked, jumped, or at least knows someone who knows someone. We see it all the time in the news and when I say "all the time" I really mean every day. Fights/muggings on public transport, aggressive homeless following you into restaurants, hearing shots being fired as you leave a nightclub, and coming home to see your door kicked in; it only takes 1 time to really question whether or not local police can keep you safe.

No way would I feel safer knowing that only people with badges can own firearms legally. Why? It'll never stop criminals from obtaining them illegally.

Also of note; the Mexican Narco-cartels are very prevalent in some areas in Chicago b/c it's a good hub for transporting drugs & illegals. Even a state senator has ties to human trafficking and phony IDs. The latino gangs are well financed and work with local businesses (protection money) as well as the cartels. They're very well organized as well.

Think a new gun law is going to make those fellas come clean?

 

[arora]

If you think people have a bit of faith in the government or Barack Obama...wait a bit and let his policies really put the screws to their paychecks and wealth.

After that, ask people again about tyranny and guns. Obamacare kicks in 2014

Indeed, I don't find it coincidental that gun reform is brought up at this time. I fear this obamacare is going to infringe and strip like nothing we've seen before. Add in an economy that might tank hard and you'll see a country of angry young men.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Out of curiosity,, what is the drug use like up there? That is the main cause of these kinds of crimes here.

We have a very "liberal" attitude towards pot consumption here although it's still illegal. I suspect most cops would just turn a blind eye to a joint or two. We don't have prisons full up of people caught with a couple of joints or a small bag of weed unless you were caught trying to sell it. Most working age people either have smoked pot or are indifferent to it I would suspect, so long as you keep it in your home, which just about everyone does. I'll never forget the Sarsfest concert a few years ago, 500,000 people crammed into a field at a Toronto airport, cops everywhere, weed everywhere and it was no big deal.

We have our hard drug issues same as most countries but we also have a fairly easy to get into social safety net. Even if you're a complete deadbeat we'll still give you a crappy apartment, free healthcare and a few hundred dollars a month to live. I think that minimal existance and the ease with which you can get it, gives people an option beyond selling drugs or resorting to criminal activity to survive. Yes we have bike gangs and criminal gangs, but I would guess most of the harder drugs are sold to middle and upper class folks from the 'burbs.

The problem is that the places where gun control can work are often the places it is needed the least.

In Chicago, where the selling/transferring of firearms has been banned until recently, >95% of those who commit crimes with a gun have a criminal record. In those circumstances, they are not allowed to own a gun in the 1st place. Why no one really cares is that >80% of those who are the victim of a crime committed with a gun also have a criminal record. It's a cycle.

Those stats come from the last Chicago PD's Superintendent Jody Weiss. In a nutshell; none of the gun controls or laws have worked in Chicago and it's where the most gun crimes occur. Each year, more guns are confiscated or forfeited to Chicago PD than NYC & LA combined. Ya, we got a problem...

There are plenty of neighborhoods that are safe. The vast majority of violence occurs in the ghetto and pretty much stays there until some savage drifts out in search of new people to hold up, rob, and ultimately shoot so there isn't a witness.

Be glad Canada's larger cities are not Chicago. Sure, poutine isn't a replacement for deep dish pizza but you're more than welcome to import our ghetto folk in exchange for said pizza.

The thing is; everyone here (Chicago) knows someone who has been murdered, mugged, robbed, carjacked, jumped, or at least knows someone who knows someone. We see it all the time in the news and when I say "all the time" I really mean every day. Fights/muggings on public transport, aggressive homeless following you into restaurants, hearing shots being fired as you leave a nightclub, and coming home to see your door kicked in; it only takes 1 time to really question whether or not local police can keep you safe.

No way would I feel safer knowing that only people with badges can own firearms legally. Why? It'll never stop criminals from obtaining them illegally.

Also of note; the Mexican Narco-cartels are very prevalent in some areas in Chicago b/c it's a good hub for transporting drugs & illegals. Even a state senator has ties to human trafficking and phony IDs. The latino gangs are well financed and work with local businesses (protection money) as well as the cartels. They're very well organized as well.

Think a new gun law is going to make those fellas come clean?

We have deep dish pizza too eh..lol. Gun control laws work best in societies where guns are not the deep fascination they are in the U.S. We are at the point now, where many liberals in the U.S. would like to be...lots of shotguns and hunting rifles and a very small amount of handguns and relatively little crime associated with handguns. But once the guns are in the society and in the numbers they are in the U.S., gun control laws only punish the law abiding citizens, not the criminals. You could ban the selling of every single gun ever for the rest of time in the U.S. and by 2100 I bet you'd still have 200,000,000 guns. The cat is out of the bag, gun control will not work to stop the tide, it's time to look at other solutions like mental health programs, widespread CCP regulations, more security around vulnerable people etc.

 

[iMikeTheKing]

I guess this is what people believe criminals will do if they ban guns.

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

^That picture (and others like it) are so much better at explaining these crazy gun laws than people writing long paragraphs about it.

 

[FoolKiller]

We have a very "liberal" attitude towards pot consumption here although it's still illegal. I suspect most cops would just turn a blind eye to a joint or two. We don't have prisons full up of people caught with a couple of joints or a small bag of weed unless you were caught trying to sell it. Most working age people either have smoked pot or are indifferent to it I would suspect, so long as you keep it in your home, which just about everyone does. I'll never forget the Sarsfest concert a few years ago, 500,000 people crammed into a field at a Toronto airport, cops everywhere, weed everywhere and it was no big deal.

We have our hard drug issues same as most countries but we also have a fairly easy to get into social safety net. Even if you're a complete deadbeat we'll still give you a crappy apartment, free healthcare and a few hundred dollars a month to live. I think that minimal existance and the ease with which you can get it, gives people an option beyond selling drugs or resorting to criminal activity to survive. Yes we have bike gangs and criminal gangs, but I would guess most of the harder drugs are sold to middle and upper class folks from the 'burbs.

See here it isn't turning to selling drugs and criminal activity to survive that is the issue causing burglaries and such. It is drug users who are so far in they can't function in society, not even using what social safety net we have, who then steal to feed their habit. Theft is most often broken down into two categories, drug users looking to score a hit (also many of the homeless and/or beggars) or crimes of opportunity (like a teen seeing a car running unattended and taking it for a joy ride).

The more organized and planned attempts have specific goals and the nature of them can be predicted to the point of planning in hopes of preventing them,, such as living in a gated community or keeping valuables in a safe.

 

[Nicksfix]

Wayne LaPierre's rebuttal to Obozo's gun control bill.

Video