Guns?

[Ikyoto]

As I sit here I find myself in a real quandary- I have access to a 9mm PPK, a.45 1911, a Colt naval revolver, two Peacemaker .45s and a Winchester 1886... and see a real need for gun control. Everything I can get is meant to be used CAREFULLY. No "spray and pray". Precision shots, no random bullshit. I actually want fewer full autos out there... But what the hell do we law abiding, safe users do about all the crap that's already out there? IS there anything we can do without blood in the streets?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Well, failing to stop a further increase in the number of guns out there doesn't seem like the best way to go about reducing the number of guns in society, right?

Firearms regulation won't solve the problem overnight. It'll take decades. But it's a start, and it's better than continuing to throw guns out on the street willy-nilly. Besides, the real problem is people's attitudes toward guns. Having gun control changes those attitudes. Slowly. So you start with small changes, wait for opinion to shift, then you make some more small changes. Eventually you get there. That's how we got people to stop smoking - it took decades, but we changed attitudes, which changed the rate of smoking.

There's no reason that the US can't do that for guns.

[Ikyoto]

I say we shoot EVERYONE and start over

[FZR1KG]

Guns aren't the problem, people are, so legislating things to control them is pointless.
So I've been informed.

[Ikyoto]

Kin i still shoot some of the really stupid ones? I know there are enough politicians around... I think Monsanto is having a sale...

[SciFiFisher]

Well, failing to stop a further increase in the number of guns out there doesn't seem like the best way to go about reducing the number of guns in society, right?

Firearms regulation won't solve the problem overnight. It'll take decades. But it's a start, and it's better than continuing to throw guns out on the street willy-nilly. Besides, the real problem is people's attitudes toward guns. Having gun control changes those attitudes. Slowly. So you start with small changes, wait for opinion to shift, then you make some more small changes. Eventually you get there. That's how we got people to stop smoking - it took decades, but we changed attitudes, which changed the rate of smoking.

There's no reason that the US can't do that for guns.

What you are describing is exactly why some people are so vehemently opposed to any infringement or regulation of the US 2nd Amendment. Because they know the eventual goal is to do away with all guns. That it always starts with small changes. That promises are made that the small changes are all that will be made. And that those promises will be broken.

I offer you seat belt laws as an example. When seat belt laws were first passed in many states the laws stated that you could not be pulled over if the only infraction the officer saw was that you weren't buckled up. You could only be cited if you were pulled over for a different infraction than not being belted up. Safety advocates got people to agree to seat belt laws by adding this provision to reassure everyone that law enforcement would not use the seat belt law as a way to earn revenue and to use it indiscriminately to substitute for probable cause.

Fast forward to today and practically every state has a seat belt law AND you can be pulled over and cited for not being belted up as the primary infraction. States have special emphasis holidays where they make a point of looking for seat belt scoff laws en mass. Law enforcement is now using the law to pull people over and then searching cars. They routinely claim the lack of a seat belt is probable cause to pull you over. If they just happen to want to search your car they can now because they had probable cause to pull you over.

Safety advocates openly admit it was their intent all along that seat belt safety laws would wind up being primary infractions. That they fully intended to just keep chipping away until they got what they wanted and to hell with what anyone else wanted because they were right. But, they knew that people would not accept that so they presented laws they knew people would accept. And then they often waited until slow election years to lobby and get amendments and changes to the laws passed. Essentially they created laws the majority of the people did not want and still do not want by lying and be deceptive about the end results.

How many times can this game happen before people instinctively say they refuse to play? Because they know that if they compromise even a little that next year or the year after that someone will take their small compromise and turn it into a full blown restriction or abridgement of a private or public right?

I am not against reasonable laws and reasonable regulation. But, I refuse to believe that those advocating for regulation and restriction really intend to stop at reasonable changes. I think they fully intend to ban all guns and that their intent is to make gun ownership virtually impossible in this country. And that they plan to do it by pretending that the only changes they want are small reasonable ones with a steady progression towards the final goal. And that they really don't care if they have to lie or deceive people to reach that goal.

[The Supreme Canuck]

A) Wait. The majority of people don't want seat-belt laws? Who doesn't want seat-belt laws? I've only ever met a single person who thinks they're a bad idea, and he was a back-to-the-woods, flat tax crazy libertarian type from high school. Maybe people who weren't used to seat-belt legislation didn't like the news that laws were incoming, but people these days like those laws just fine.

It's just like with smoking - people scoffed at attempts to reduce rates of smoking when it was a common thing to do, but these days no one anywhere thinks that smoking is a good thing. We laugh at how ludicrous cigarette ads were. "4 out of 5 doctors agree: Camels are the best brand to smoke"? Please.

People change. Views change. And sometimes people need a kick in the ass to start changing. In hindsight, it's obvious it was the right decision.

B) I disagree that the end game is banning all guns. The end game is sane regulations on firearms ownership and use, like exist in the entire rest of the developed world. The attitude in the US is so into the red-zone of crazy on the issue that that may appear to be a total ban, but I assure you it is not. The goal is good laws, and a change in public attitudes such that people don't want guns in the first place. Or at least such that they don't want them in the... peculiar... way that many Americans currently want them.

I mean... you do recognize that attitudes towards guns are different in the US than in the entire rest of the developed world, right? And that US attitudes are a little... off? That's what needs changing. And that's the real reason for regulations - the regulations themselves are nice, but the real pay-off of regulations is that they change public attitudes.

C) And what's the problem with making small, incremental changes, anyway? You pass the regulations that you can (and which people are, by definition, okay with - you couldn't pass them otherwise). Over time this changes public attitudes. So then you, once again, pass the regulations that you can (and which people are, again, necessarily okay with). This changes public attitudes further. Etc., etc., rinse and repeat.

At no point are you passing laws that people are not okay with. What's the problem? You seem to be saying that the problem is that the laws being passed near the end of this process (potentially decades later) would be unacceptable to the people living at the beginning of the process. To which I say "So what?" Previous generations of voters should have zero impact on the current generation. To say otherwise is to ossify society and unacceptably limit the democratic rights of current citizens in order to appease long dead citizens.

Imagine applying that reasoning to same-sex marriage. Or the civil rights movement.

It's nonsensical. Entirely incoherent.

[FZR1KG]

Got to agree with the canuck here.
Basing laws or lack of change of laws on previous generations would mean you'd still have slavery.
Slow change is the way to go otherwise you have either no change, or revolution when things are no longer sustainable.
Take your pick.

I'm not so sure anymore that firearms controls is the answer though seeing as TSC gave a compelling case as to why regulating something that isn't the problem is just wrong. And firearms aren't the problem. People are. So regulate the people instead.

Ok, I'm just being a smart ass because it's in my nature.

I still remember the NRA defending the right of a 16 year old to hunt bear in a forest in a fog with a .30-06.
This was a case where said kid shot a person in the head, broke their stupid "golden rules" of firearms safety and still they won't budge.

Till the National Retard Agency gets their head out of their ass I doubt much will change.

[cid]

...I have access to a 9mm PPK, a.45 1911, a Colt naval revolver, two Peacemaker .45s and a Winchester 1886...

Okay...I call dibs on the 1911, one Peacemaker, and is the Winchester '86 a lever action? What caliber?

[Ikyoto]

...I have access to a 9mm PPK, a.45 1911, a Colt naval revolver, two Peacemaker .45s and a Winchester 1886...

Okay...I call dibs on the 1911, one Peacemaker, and is the Winchester '86 a lever action? What caliber?

http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/ ... amily=024C
.45-70. sweet action. but ALWAYS test the "play" on the lever.

6 rounds... pfft... original specs do 15 in the tube. One-at-a time.
Cock, sight, squeeze, cock open, check. Repeat if you've gone stupid and missed. DO NOT repeat if you missed and don't know where the round stopped!

[FZR1KG]

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/50495582.html

Guns, kids, firearms safety and peoples ridiculous ideas of who's fault it is.
If you search forums there are many hunters blaming the hikers.
Why?
Because they went on a popular hiking trail the weekend bear season was opened.
They should have worn Orange
They shouldn't have gone out in a fog.

Last I checked it's impossible to do proper identification and backdrop checks in a fog.
So hunting in fog is beyond irresponsible as clearly shown by the death of a woman.
Two kids, 14 and 16 years old hunting in a popular hiking area with a rifle that can shoot about two miles and still have the energy to kill (.270cal).

The punishment: 30 days and 120 hours of community service.
You'll notice, no order stopping the kid from obtaining another firearm.
30 days and 120 hours for killing a woman out of complete negligence.

But who really is to blame here?
I say the pro gun camp and the NRA for pushing these stupid laws that allow kids to hunt on their own, break their own golden rules (which are ridiculous anyway) and then hardly pay for any infraction.
Law makers too stupid to realise what they are doing.
Dumb asses parents for not thinking about anyone else but their kids desires.
But mostly the NRA for pushing total shit out into the public.

[FZR1KG]

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409

More gun owners means more gun deaths. Pretty obvious really.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Thirty day sentence, with a maximum possible sentence of five months? Fuck me...

Here is the manslaughter provision in the Criminal Code of Canada:

Manslaughter

236. Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Source: Criminal Code of Canada

Minimum sentence: four years. Maximum sentence: life. And, let me tell you, courts don't like guns. They especially don't like negligence with guns. They come down hard on firearms offences.

Moreover there are criminal provisions directly related to the careless use of a firearm which this kid would also probably have been found guilty of. It's a bit complicated, but the long and the short of it is that up to an additional two years - which must be served consecutively with the manslaughter sentence - could be tacked on to the total sentence for carelessness. Assuming this was the first carelessness conviction, of course: if it were a subsequent conviction, that would mean up to an additional five years in prison for carelessness.

Plus the kid would need a firearms licence to own a rifle. To get one you are required to pass an accredited firearms safety course. The course covers the following:

Topics covered in the CFSC include:

- the evolution of firearms, major parts, types and actions;
- basic firearms safety practices;
- ammunition;
- operating firearm actions;
- safe handling and carry procedures;
- firing techniques and procedures;
- care of non-restricted firearms;
- responsibilities of the firearms owner/user; and
- safe storage, display, transportation and handling of non-restricted firearms.

Source: RCMP

If you're interested here is the handbook used by the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (warning: PDF). Or at least the handbook used as of 2008 - there might be an updated version, but this is the one that popped up in Google. This handbook is 271 pages long.

Also important to note is that, as a minor, the kid would have a different, restricted class of licence. A parent or guardian would also have to give written consent for the minor's licence to be issued. Moreover, an adult is allowed to challenge the safety course and sit the exam directly; a minor is required to go through the entire course. No exceptions.

Oh, yes - this course requirement is only for un-restricted firearms - hunting rifles and shotguns. For restricted weapons (handguns, etc.) there is a second, more involved mandatory safety course.

Finally, passing the course is not the only requirement for obtaining a firearms licence.

So basically... holy shit. That the situation in the article actually occurred boggles my mind. Coming from the context I describe above, you understand why I find this sort of thing to be completely crazy, right? Batshit, off-the-wall, holy-fuck-this-actually-happens-in-the-developed-world insane? I mean, it's easily preventable and properly punishable. But here we are, in Bizarro-World all the same. Christ.

As for who to blame, I'm still pegging it on American gun culture as a whole. If that wasn't the way it was, the NRA would have no traction, firearms laws and licensing requirements would be different, and maybe this kid would have known how to properly handle a rifle.

[FZR1KG]

You need to look up the history of the NRA and their contributions to the laws and policy.
They have blood on their hands.

You aren't the only one in complete bewilderment as to the way firearms "accidents" are treated here.
Mind you, the judge actually stated this wasn't an accident. So go figure.
30 days for murder, if you are hunting and shoot a human that was meant to be a bear.

In another case a man was charged for shooting a guy but insisted on claiming what he shot was a deer.
It was found later that the bullet passed through the deer and killed the man.
NRA and pro gun supporters are claiming this was then a true accident.
I maintain that all these people are complete morons and with their level of stupidity shouldn't be allowed to go 100 yards of an unloaded firearm.

Where is the backstop?
Every shooter knows that bullets pass through game and thus the backstop must be considered.
Every shooter knows about ricochets and thus needs to look at backstops at far greater angles than just straight ahead.
If they don't know, then they can't claim to be either a hunter or a shooter. They are an idiot with a firearm and need to be stopped before they hurt or kill someone and if they do kill someone then they are guilty of being an idiot with a firearm. IMHO life.

[The Supreme Canuck]

See, I think the problem goes back way before the NRA. I blame the idiot Founders who wrote the second amendment. And I blame the fact that the US was a country created at the barrel of a gun.

The problem is the Revolution, as far as I'm concerned. It's had bad cultural effects on Americans that continue down to today.

[FZR1KG]

Yeah, but you can't string up the founding fathers now can you?
Someone still has to push their view and that has been the NRA.

[brite]

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1. There was NO standing Army in the US until after 1812. All white males over the age of 16 were expected to have, on hand a weapon, in good working order, and to show up, if and when someone attacked.
2. The "free State" referred to... is this COUNTRY you idiots. NOT the individual states. Not yourselves. The political entity of the United States of America.
3. No one is infringing on your right to bear arms. What is being discussed is how to make things safer for those who: a) don't use weapons. b) are being gunned down on at alarming regularity. c) the terminally stupid (a guy shot off his penis... really?? You want to give him is guns back?? On the upside, he won't be procreating...) d) taking guns away from abusers, those that are having mental difficulty (perhaps on a temporary basis?), stalkers and other people that are shown to have a propensity to do serious harm when they have access to a weapon.

[FZR1KG]

2. The "free State" referred to... is this COUNTRY you idiots. NOT the individual states. Not yourselves. The political entity of the United States of America.

hoo u callin idjiot?
We gots da guns
an dat was me big bro in point 3c an eyes been fixin is wyfe fur im

[Rommie]

I swear, whenever I read "the right to bear arms" I always kinda imagine some mountain man whose arms are not human but rather those of a black bear. In case you wanted a new art project Iky.

[Swift]

3. No one is infringing on your right to bear arms. What is being discussed is how to make things safer for those who: a) don't use weapons. b) are being gunned down on at alarming regularity. c) the terminally stupid (a guy shot off his penis... really?? You want to give him is guns back?? On the upside, he won't be procreating...) d) taking guns away from abusers, those that are having mental difficulty (perhaps on a temporary basis?), stalkers and other people that are shown to have a propensity to do serious harm when they have access to a weapon.

That's the one that gets me. Every amendment to the Bill of Rights has had reasonable exceptions carved out of it to protect public safety and general welfare. You have the right to free speech, but you can't cause a panic (yelling "movie" in a crowded firehouse) or libel someone. Why would anyone think that the right of gun ownership should have no restrictions and no responsibilities?

[FZR1KG]

Because they are fucked in the head.

[grapes]

2. The "free State" referred to... is this COUNTRY you idiots. NOT the individual states. Not yourselves. The political entity of the United States of America.

The dangers of cut-and-paste are well-known today, but remember, this was two hundred years ago and they were still developing the concept of typewriters.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776, a few years before the constitution) clearly was referring to the individual "state", as does every other single instance of the word (over six dozen, half of them in "united states") in the rest of the US constitution (1789):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia ... _of_Rights

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Now, after the cut-and-paste hack job, they inserted an apparently-independent clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," made just a little more confusing by another comma--hey! That comma looks like it was penned in Garamond! That type face wasn't invented until...oops, nevermind.

[The Supreme Canuck]

What really cheeses me off is the fuckheads who think their second amendment rights extend to other countries. Every few years some genius will try to cross the border into Canada with a car full of loaded handguns. Then he's shocked that he's arrested, and the US media blows up about how a freedom-lovin' Murrican has been detained in a godless foreign country for doing something protected by his Jesus-given right to be armed to the teeth at all times.

Fuck you, guy. That's not a right here. Deal with it. You're a criminal.

I mean, literally right now CNN is making a huge stink about how a marine is in a Mexican jail awaiting trial for driving to Tijuana with three loaded firearms in his vehicle. The injustice! The tyranny! How dare Mexico have and enforce its own laws inside its own borders? This is an American marine! Don't they know that? He hasn't done anything wrong, anyway.

Asinine.

[grapes]

That's the one that gets me. Every amendment to the Bill of Rights has had reasonable exceptions carved out of it to protect public safety and general welfare. You have the right to free speech, but you can't cause a panic (yelling "movie" in a crowded firehouse) or libel someone. Why would anyone think that the right of gun ownership should have no restrictions and no responsibilities?

Arms, not guns. It is against the law for the average citizen to possess nuclear armaments. And we're OK with that.

Objections have been proposed at a few NRA meetings, but they've never gone anywhere with it. The idea would have absolutely no traction in the rank and file membership, unless someone starts trying to go too far...

[Swift]

What really cheeses me off is the fuckheads who think their second amendment rights extend to other countries.

Reminds me of a Steven Wright joke. He was visiting Canada and this was the conversation as he came back through customs:
"Do you have any firearms or narcotics?"
"Yeah, what do you need?"