5 ms·

There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves. California has pretty much this, and in implementat

There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves. California has pretty much this, and in implementation is much stricter than Canada. The result? There are mass shootings here as well as lots of urban gun violence. New Zealand already has stricter gun laws than many places in the US. Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay. The government unilaterally taking away the rights of innocent people shouldn't be okay. If it's okay with someone, then it means they're okay with stomping on the human rights of people they don't like. I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship.

arcticbull 8y ago
>>> California. It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. >>> I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship. Horrifying. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. That’s the problem, life is always trade offs. I don’t feel comfortable with everyone armed, that infringed on my rights. Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I do however want to live. And I want my children to grow up in a country without mass shooter drills and metal detectors so you can pursue your hobby, because 300 years ago a few people thought everyone should have muskets and slaves. Constitutions are amendable for a reason. Sounds like that trade off is just better.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. You haven't heard the tales of Minnesota bootleggers and mobsters. (Directly relevant to Canada.) National borders don't mean that much to criminals. This includes illegal firearms trafficking. Horrifying. My family has direct experience with Leftists who take away individual rights for the sake of the group. My mother and oldest uncle had to be smuggled for hours in a pitch black compartment of a freighter to escape. That's horrifying. War is horrifying, because that's what came soon after. It's orders of magnitude more likely you'll die in a car crash than die from an active shooter scenario. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. Sorry, but none of that makes sense. Many of the states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest levels of violence. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I dialed 911 once. It malfunctioned. I called from a neighbor's. I wound up with a bloody face and stitches. The police in their SUV drove past my house to the wrong address, driving right past me waving my arms with blood streaming down my face. This was in addition to their arriving way too late. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." One of my housemates had a direct experience with preventing a mugging, because the potential assailant figured out he had a weapon. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#772ff9ce5edc https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-... Sounds like that trade off is just better. Restricting the guns won't take the means to kill away from determined nutjobs and criminals. However, every day it's in action, it will take away the means for tens of thousands of innocent law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while creating the precedent of the government stomping on their property and 2nd amendment rights. Sorry, but your "logic" sounds like something ignorant kids would write.
- leereeves 8y ago
  > Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. Latin America has many countries with restrictive gun control and widespread gun crime. Brazil and Mexico have actually relaxed gun control so people can defend themselves[1,2] But even if your claim were true, who cares if gun crime goes down if overall murder and crime rates don't? Are people better off if killed or mugged with other weapons? 1: https://theglobalobservatory.org/2019/02/brazil-most-homicides-world-moves-loosen-gun-laws/ https://theglobalobservatory.org/2019/02/brazil-most-homicid... 2: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexicos-vigilantes-legalized-and-put-under-military-umbrella/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexicos-vigilantes-legalized-an...
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Brazil and Mexico are on the way to becoming failed states. If America moves towards a Mad Max future you can have your gun back. Until then, let's leave the shooting to the people trained to do so instead of literally anyone who wants to shoot. All the experts I've seen interviewed say people think they'll be awesome in a high-pressure situation like a shooting but unless they're actually trained specifically for it they'll likely harm people they didn't intend to.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      There are places in America that aren't much better than Brazil or Mexico. There are other places in America where help is hours away and defending yourself is the only option. And places where hunting is still a means of feeding families, as well as the primary method of managing animal populations. By all means, ban guns in New York and San Francisco if that's what the people of those cities want, but don't impose your needs on people who live completely different lives.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        If there are parts of America as lawless as Brazil and Mexico you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Giving those people guns and wishing them the best is just horrifying. Figure out how to repair the situation instead. Mad Max wasn't meant to be instructional, you know. I'd also suggest your opinions about America are pretty divorced from the realities on the ground.
- CarlSchmitt 8y ago
  What about your fellow citizens who don't live in LA, SF, or NY? Guns aren't a hobby out in my rural town...we have bears, mountain lions, and wolves ...and livestock to protect....you can choose to not buy a gun if you want but I'll always keep mine as long as I live around nature's predators...
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Yep, 100%, and you should have them. You know, after a background check. And one shotgun or rifle, or some reasonable quantity of a type of weapon that meets your needs. No pistols or AR-15s. Norway has strict gun control regulations but require you possess one to leave the built up areas of Svalbard due to polar bears.
    - CarlSchmitt 8y ago
      Having a .45 ACP pistol saved my life so I think I'll be keeping that as well...jammed rifles don't defend well against bears

arcticbull 8y ago

>>> California. It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. >>> I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship. Horrifying. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. That’s the problem, life is always trade offs. I don’t feel comfortable with everyone armed, that infringed on my rights. Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I do however want to live. And I want my children to grow up in a country without mass shooter drills and metal detectors so you can pursue your hobby, because 300 years ago a few people thought everyone should have muskets and slaves. Constitutions are amendable for a reason. Sounds like that trade off is just better.

stcredzero 8y ago
It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. You haven't heard the tales of Minnesota bootleggers and mobsters. (Directly relevant to Canada.) National borders don't mean that much to criminals. This includes illegal firearms trafficking. Horrifying. My family has direct experience with Leftists who take away individual rights for the sake of the group. My mother and oldest uncle had to be smuggled for hours in a pitch black compartment of a freighter to escape. That's horrifying. War is horrifying, because that's what came soon after. It's orders of magnitude more likely you'll die in a car crash than die from an active shooter scenario. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. Sorry, but none of that makes sense. Many of the states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest levels of violence. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I dialed 911 once. It malfunctioned. I called from a neighbor's. I wound up with a bloody face and stitches. The police in their SUV drove past my house to the wrong address, driving right past me waving my arms with blood streaming down my face. This was in addition to their arriving way too late. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." One of my housemates had a direct experience with preventing a mugging, because the potential assailant figured out he had a weapon. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#772ff9ce5edc https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-... Sounds like that trade off is just better. Restricting the guns won't take the means to kill away from determined nutjobs and criminals. However, every day it's in action, it will take away the means for tens of thousands of innocent law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while creating the precedent of the government stomping on their property and 2nd amendment rights. Sorry, but your "logic" sounds like something ignorant kids would write.
leereeves 8y ago
> Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. Latin America has many countries with restrictive gun control and widespread gun crime. Brazil and Mexico have actually relaxed gun control so people can defend themselves[1,2] But even if your claim were true, who cares if gun crime goes down if overall murder and crime rates don't? Are people better off if killed or mugged with other weapons? 1: https://theglobalobservatory.org/2019/02/brazil-most-homicides-world-moves-loosen-gun-laws/ https://theglobalobservatory.org/2019/02/brazil-most-homicid... 2: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexicos-vigilantes-legalized-and-put-under-military-umbrella/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexicos-vigilantes-legalized-an...
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Brazil and Mexico are on the way to becoming failed states. If America moves towards a Mad Max future you can have your gun back. Until then, let's leave the shooting to the people trained to do so instead of literally anyone who wants to shoot. All the experts I've seen interviewed say people think they'll be awesome in a high-pressure situation like a shooting but unless they're actually trained specifically for it they'll likely harm people they didn't intend to.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    There are places in America that aren't much better than Brazil or Mexico. There are other places in America where help is hours away and defending yourself is the only option. And places where hunting is still a means of feeding families, as well as the primary method of managing animal populations. By all means, ban guns in New York and San Francisco if that's what the people of those cities want, but don't impose your needs on people who live completely different lives.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      If there are parts of America as lawless as Brazil and Mexico you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Giving those people guns and wishing them the best is just horrifying. Figure out how to repair the situation instead. Mad Max wasn't meant to be instructional, you know. I'd also suggest your opinions about America are pretty divorced from the realities on the ground.
CarlSchmitt 8y ago
What about your fellow citizens who don't live in LA, SF, or NY? Guns aren't a hobby out in my rural town...we have bears, mountain lions, and wolves ...and livestock to protect....you can choose to not buy a gun if you want but I'll always keep mine as long as I live around nature's predators...
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Yep, 100%, and you should have them. You know, after a background check. And one shotgun or rifle, or some reasonable quantity of a type of weapon that meets your needs. No pistols or AR-15s. Norway has strict gun control regulations but require you possess one to leave the built up areas of Svalbard due to polar bears.
  - CarlSchmitt 8y ago
    Having a .45 ACP pistol saved my life so I think I'll be keeping that as well...jammed rifles don't defend well against bears