13 ms·

>I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. On virtue of how many shootings have begun "witho

>I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. On virtue of how many shootings have begun "without warning", the cultural context in canada versus the us is quite different. The expectation of actions when you see a firearm is very different in these two countries! - in the US, someone with an openly carried firearm may be transporting it or any number of innocent use cases - in Canada, someone with an openly carried firearm is already committing a crime. And, that crime is generally of no personal benefit to them^, which is a huge warning sign. They are likely not considering the law in their actions. If I saw a person with a gun in the US, I would quickly walk away. If I saw a person with a gun in Canada, I would run. >gun owners would be much more receptive to regulation if they felt people were genuinely trying to separate narrow and effective laws from broad infringements that annoy many and accomplish little Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. The bar is never high enough, the logic never sound enough. The "broad infringements" proposed are never, and will never be, good enough. I find your statement to be a bit disingenuous in that regard. ^ while protest is a valid case imo, protesting by (for example) carrying a gun onto a school campus, grocery store, or movie theater is quite different than in a park with other protestors. Context matters, even here!

kodah 4y ago
> Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. Maybe sometimes, but there's also gun laws like in California that affect large populations of gun owners. I don't think they're making their dissatisfaction and confusion with the gun laws up. Owning a gun in the US isn't very simple; different states have wildly different laws you have to observe, and those are in effect at airports as well. I don't think it's wise to say, "they just don't understand" to the people who actually have to live with the laws. As a gun owner, I do think there's reasonable forms of gun control. I don't mind having my background checked or paying a tax stamp. I don't mind psychological evaluations or closing gun show loopholes. Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > and those are in effect at airports as well I don’t think this is that difficult. Don’t bring a gun to an airport. If you must for transport, arrange for a professional to do it for you. If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm.
  - jcims 4y ago
    It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunit... >If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm. Citation needed.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      > It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA Including the very elucidating first bullet point! > Citation needed. I was being generous. No one needs to travel by air with a firearm.
      - ducktales 4y ago
        What if they're traveling across the country for top-shelf training? I thought we wanted well trained gun owners?
        eyelidlessness 4y ago
        This isn’t a serious question. But if it were, there’s an obvious logistical solution.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      >Citation needed. Anyone carrying a gun in an airplane, or any public transportation method is either a security officer, or a criminal. There are no good reasons as a regular-ass Joe to carry your Glock in an airplace. Not a single one.
chmod600 4y ago
"The expectation of actions when you see a firearm" The poster to whom I replied was discussing concealed carry and transport in a car. Your reply to me is nonsensical. If someone is intent on harm, they are unlikely to broadcast it with open carry.
- MrMan 4y ago
  school and mass shooters often brandish weapons between their car and the place of the massacre, and more and more they are wearing body armor. not exactly concealing their intentions. and they often shoot people who challenge them on the way in.
  - chmod600 4y ago
    If they are "not exactly concealing their intentions", then how do laws about concealed carry help? Either (a) they are concealing illegally, in which case nobody will know; or (b) they are not concealing, in which case a law about concealed carry is irrelevant.
- charles_kaw 4y ago
lliamander 4y ago
> Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. The bar is never high enough, the logic never sound enough. The "broad infringements" proposed are never, and will never be, good enough. I find your statement to be a bit disingenuous in that regard. Gun control advocates consistently fail to understand the things they are attempting to regulate, and fail to provide rational justifications for how their restrictions would actually promote public safety.
- nulbyte 4y ago
  I could say the same about gun owners. If only there were a way for the two to come together to work out these problems and find something that works. Something like a conversation. With no yelling.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    > I could say the same about gun owners. Could you? Most gun owners, especially gun rights advocates, have received some training in the mechanics of firearms as well as the tactical and legal realities of using a firearm on another person. Gun control advocates are in general less likely to have any such training. > If only there were a way for the two to come together to work out these problems and find something that works. Something like a conversation. With no yelling. We can certainly have a discussion about guns and violence, but gun rights advocates are ultimately winning this conflict simply by training and empowering more people to own guns.

kodah 4y ago

> Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. Maybe sometimes, but there's also gun laws like in California that affect large populations of gun owners. I don't think they're making their dissatisfaction and confusion with the gun laws up. Owning a gun in the US isn't very simple; different states have wildly different laws you have to observe, and those are in effect at airports as well. I don't think it's wise to say, "they just don't understand" to the people who actually have to live with the laws. As a gun owner, I do think there's reasonable forms of gun control. I don't mind having my background checked or paying a tax stamp. I don't mind psychological evaluations or closing gun show loopholes. Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> and those are in effect at airports as well I don’t think this is that difficult. Don’t bring a gun to an airport. If you must for transport, arrange for a professional to do it for you. If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm.
- jcims 4y ago
  It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunit... >If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm. Citation needed.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    > It's straightforward to fly with firearms. You don't need a professional, just basic attention to detail. Details are posted by the TSA Including the very elucidating first bullet point! > Citation needed. I was being generous. No one needs to travel by air with a firearm.
    - ducktales 4y ago
      What if they're traveling across the country for top-shelf training? I thought we wanted well trained gun owners?
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        This isn’t a serious question. But if it were, there’s an obvious logistical solution.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    >Citation needed. Anyone carrying a gun in an airplane, or any public transportation method is either a security officer, or a criminal. There are no good reasons as a regular-ass Joe to carry your Glock in an airplace. Not a single one.

chmod600 4y ago

"The expectation of actions when you see a firearm" The poster to whom I replied was discussing concealed carry and transport in a car. Your reply to me is nonsensical. If someone is intent on harm, they are unlikely to broadcast it with open carry.

MrMan 4y ago
school and mass shooters often brandish weapons between their car and the place of the massacre, and more and more they are wearing body armor. not exactly concealing their intentions. and they often shoot people who challenge them on the way in.
- chmod600 4y ago
  If they are "not exactly concealing their intentions", then how do laws about concealed carry help? Either (a) they are concealing illegally, in which case nobody will know; or (b) they are not concealing, in which case a law about concealed carry is irrelevant.
charles_kaw 4y ago

lliamander 4y ago

> Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. The bar is never high enough, the logic never sound enough. The "broad infringements" proposed are never, and will never be, good enough. I find your statement to be a bit disingenuous in that regard. Gun control advocates consistently fail to understand the things they are attempting to regulate, and fail to provide rational justifications for how their restrictions would actually promote public safety.

nulbyte 4y ago
I could say the same about gun owners. If only there were a way for the two to come together to work out these problems and find something that works. Something like a conversation. With no yelling.
- lliamander 4y ago
  > I could say the same about gun owners. Could you? Most gun owners, especially gun rights advocates, have received some training in the mechanics of firearms as well as the tactical and legal realities of using a firearm on another person. Gun control advocates are in general less likely to have any such training. > If only there were a way for the two to come together to work out these problems and find something that works. Something like a conversation. With no yelling. We can certainly have a discussion about guns and violence, but gun rights advocates are ultimately winning this conflict simply by training and empowering more people to own guns.