Forums | MacLife

Restricting access is the whole point. There are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to own or carry firearms. We have the technology to put a system in place that would allow, for example mental health professionals to flag someone as too unstable to own a gun. Likewise the judicial system can flag convicts as unfit to own firearms. If I can get someone's FICO score in a matter of seconds, getting a background check to purchase a gun shouldn't be much more difficult. Safely and securely storing firearms is very important and we need some guidelines for that.

I also think we need to tighten up education and liability. If your kid finds one of your guns and injures themselves or someone else, that isn't a horrible tragedy it's negligent homicide and should be prosecuted as such. I know most people are responsible with firearms and grew up around them myself, but we need a way to keep them out of the hands of those who really shouldn't have them. As I've gotten older, guns don't make me feel safe, they make be feel uneasy. I don't like talking to police officers with a cannon on their hip. Likewise, I didn't care for the police carrying submachine guns near the Western Wall when we visited and I cut that part of the sightseeing trip short. I didn't care for the armed police outside Windsor Castle either.

Ultimately we need to quit being so afraid of each other. While we hear about violent crime in the media, there aren't people waiting around every corner waiting to attack you. The odds of being the lone gunman who saves the day are awfully slim. In any case, people need to be well-trained before being allowed to have firearms in public places.

Last edited by robco (2009-07-24 4:42 pm)

SomeOneOrOther wrote:

We must be the pus*y state up here, as we never hear people complaining about their gun rights being compromised. As far as I'm concerned, hunters have guns, police have guns, so does our small Army, maybe the priest at the local church has a gun, if he's paranoid enough to be carrying one, and I don't have a gun. And that's good enough for me.

Honestly, though, it's an interesting topic. Though one that doesn't really make the news up here, is what I'm trying to say.

Seriously, dude, you can say "pussy" here.

jkahless wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, Canada does not have the equivalent of a Second Amendment. Gun ownership is not considered a constitutional right. There are very tight restrictions about who can own what sort of firearm. Handguns especially are tightly regulated, and are illegal in many areas (I know Toronto pushed for that, but I'm not sure if it ever happened). Handguns with barrels shorter than a certain length are illegal, all sorts of stuff like that.

In addition to that, the idea of carrying a gun for self defense is just laughable.  You're allowed to do it, but you have to be able to show that the police are not able to protect you.  There's maybe two dozen people out of 34 million that carry.

I can hardly walk to the corner store without being mugged by a thug, grown insensibly bold with the knowledge that the population is unarmed sheep!

It really shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that the police are unable to protect you. The police are pretty much unable to protect anybody. All they can do is investigate crimes after the fact. And, if you're in an urban area, unless it's violent crime they won't bother.

Tallgeese wrote:

jkahless wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, Canada does not have the equivalent of a Second Amendment. Gun ownership is not considered a constitutional right. There are very tight restrictions about who can own what sort of firearm. Handguns especially are tightly regulated, and are illegal in many areas (I know Toronto pushed for that, but I'm not sure if it ever happened). Handguns with barrels shorter than a certain length are illegal, all sorts of stuff like that.

In addition to that, the idea of carrying a gun for self defense is just laughable.  You're allowed to do it, but you have to be able to show that the police are not able to protect you.  There's maybe two dozen people out of 34 million that carry.

I can hardly walk to the corner store without being mugged by a thug, grown insensibly bold with the knowledge that the population is unarmed sheep!

It really shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that the police are unable to protect you. The police are pretty much unable to protect anybody. All they can do is investigate crimes after the fact. And, if you're in an urban area, unless it's violent crime they won't bother.

http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-Rich … 0964230445

Police are under no obligation to respond to your call. There have been plenty of cases where operators screwed it up, and no one came - or went to the wrong address. Even more cases where police felt the call was trivial, and waited for hours to show up. I've actually had family affected by this.

It's better to survive and have to fill out paperwork, than be laying in a morgue while other people fill out paperwork. It's a shame that the paperwork almost invariably involves a lawsuit from the scumbag criminals family - but hey, at least your alive.

Restricting access is the whole point. There are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to own or carry firearms

Take it up with the founders.

jerwin wrote:

Restricting access is the whole point. There are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to own or carry firearms

Take it up with the founders.

They aren't the religious figures Americans see them as.  They had some good ideas, but they also screwed up a lot.  I don't understand why you guys hold your constitution as an argument in of itself.  "its in the constitution so it must be right" is a rather bizzare mindset I see a lot.

robco wrote:

Restricting access is the whole point. There are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to own or carry firearms. We have the technology to put a system in place that would allow, for example mental health professionals to flag someone as too unstable to own a gun. Likewise the judicial system can flag convicts as unfit to own firearms. If I can get someone's FICO score in a matter of seconds, getting a background check to purchase a gun shouldn't be much more difficult. Safely and securely storing firearms is very important and we need some guidelines for that.

I also think we need to tighten up education and liability. If your kid finds one of your guns and injures themselves or someone else, that isn't a horrible tragedy it's negligent homicide and should be prosecuted as such. I know most people are responsible with firearms and grew up around them myself, but we need a way to keep them out of the hands of those who really shouldn't have them. As I've gotten older, guns don't make me feel safe, they make be feel uneasy.

I found a Colt 45 when I was 9. I was playing with my best friend on a saulty salt marsh, looking for crabs and stuff. The handle was sticking out of the mud. I really thout it was a small brick as it was stuck in this thick black mud vertically and I just so happen to pull it and instantly new it was a real gun. I brought it home and my mother almost had a heart attack. Her live in boyfriend at the time cleaned it and it looked new. He kept it after leaving a few years later. I think the s#'s were still there. Probably fell off a small boat, but who knows?

jkahless wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

jkahless wrote:

In addition to that, the idea of carrying a gun for self defense is just laughable.  You're allowed to do it, but you have to be able to show that the police are not able to protect you.  There's maybe two dozen people out of 34 million that carry.

I can hardly walk to the corner store without being mugged by a thug, grown insensibly bold with the knowledge that the population is unarmed sheep!

It really shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that the police are unable to protect you. The police are pretty much unable to protect anybody. All they can do is investigate crimes after the fact. And, if you're in an urban area, unless it's violent crime they won't bother.

Protect you from what?  You also have to show that you are in need of protection.  Very few people actually need it.  I doubt the USA is really that much more dangerous than Canada.

Since I've lived in my current building (1.5 years) I've had one car broken into (attempted theft), two vandalized, multiple brawls outside my window, two helicopter-assisted and street-blocked-off manhunts, and a break-and-enter in my small neighborhood. And someone in my last apartment building was assaulted by a serial rapist who also raped someone about half a mile down the road from where I am now.

But I guess I can rely on the police to stop anything else happening, right?

Pariah wrote:

jkahless wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Take it up with the founders.

They aren't the religious figures Americans see them as.  They had some good ideas, but they also screwed up a lot.  I don't understand why you guys hold your constitution as an argument in of itself.  "its in the constitution so it must be right" is a rather bizzare mindset I see a lot.

The constitution has stood in the way of a great number of very popular bad ideas. The USA would be a backwards, very large, third world theocracy by now if it weren't for the constitution.
It's the foundation of all our laws. Maybe hard to understand for someone who lives in a country with less straight forward foundings.

Oh nothing wrong with a constitution, don't get me wrong.  But remember, there have been a few very bad ideas enshrined in your constitution as well.   It's not nearly as sacrosanct as most Americans seem to view it.

robco wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Specify which weapons exactly you're referring to here, please.

You're garden variety semi-automatic pistol with high capacity clip. You can take out several people before being taken down.

You're going to have to define high capacity, and justify excluding revolvers.  I have semi-auto pistols with total capacities of 7, 13, and 17 shots; the first in .40, the latter two in 9mm.  I think you're overestimating the effect of a few additional bullets.  If I wanted to mow down people, I would not pick a semi-auto handgun with which to do it.

robco wrote:

Was this meant to infer that you'd support the federal government banning all guns?

Handguns, yes. Hunting rifles, no.

Really?  Where in the constitution is such a distinction made?

robco wrote:

If you want to get technical, the Constitution says keep and bear arms - it doesn't specify guns. That could mean anything from a slingshot to a thermonuclear warhead. It also says shall not be infringed, which means not interfered with in any way. So if you want to really stick to the words, then we should be able to have any weapon we want. But most of us use reason and logic and realize that some restrictions are necessary.

Others of us pay attention to the Constitution and don't make illegal laws on top of it.  Yes, I should be able to buy a hydrogen bomb if I so desire.

robco wrote:

The simple fact remains that the US is obsessed with guns and has far more gun violence than any other nation - hell, in the UK most police don't even carry guns - avoiding such incidences as the BART police shooting an unarmed kid.

So banning civilian possession of handguns would have stopped that police officer from shooting that unarmed, defenseless, helpless man in the back?  What?

robco wrote:

And the fantasy of using your gun to stop a horrible crime almost never happens. More often than not people get killed by their own guns or a kid finds it and kills themselves or someone else.

This is false.  The NRA publishes a monthly column of stories of people using their guns to defend themselves.

robco wrote:

The facts and statistics simply do not support unrestricted gun ownership.

Actually they do.

robco wrote:

At the least, owning a guns should be like driving a car. Every person wishing to own a gun should be required to undergo safety training - including legal training that clearly specifies when deadly force is authorized.

This is how the vast majority of states that issue CCW permits have their system set up.

robco wrote:

They should then have to take a test - including some time on the gun range to demonstrate they know how to properly hand the class of gun they want - including being able to shoot accurately.

You don't have to take a test in each individual car you want to buy, nor do you have to run it around the Nurburgring in less than 8 minutes.

robco wrote:

Guns should be registered to the owner and transferred when the gun is sold

Why?

robco wrote:

and background checks should be conducted at every point of sale.

Businesses selling firearms must already do this.

robco wrote:

And every gun owner should be required to carry insurance to cover accidents if they fail to store their guns properly (unloaded and preferably with a trigger lock in place and/or in a gun safe).

What on earth use is a self-defense weapon if it's kept disassembled with a lock on it inside a safe?  Uh, excuse me rapist-murderer, could you hold on a second while I open this thing, unlock it, and reassemble it?  No way.  There are already criminal liability laws to punish those who cause their guns to be used carelessly or recklessly.

robco wrote:

Actually, it's the first thing they need.  Criminals will get guns regardless of the law, because they're criminals.  Law-abiding citizens are powerless to protect themselves from these criminals if it's impossible for them to get a license or permit.

Have you actually been to a major city? This isn't the wild west for smurf's sake. If you start shooting, you're more likely to take out innocent bystanders.

NYC, Chicago, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, San Francisco, Washington DC...yes I've been to major cities.  No I wouldn't take out bystanders.

robco wrote:

The last thing we need is for people shooting everywhere. If someone points a gun at you and asks for your wallet, they've already gotten the drop on you.

The exact same hand motion that would remove my wallet from its pocket can also remove one of my guns from its holster.  But you're missing the point.  I don't want shootouts on every street corner, I want criminals to be so intimidated that they'll stop committing crime.  And places that allow their citizens to properly protect themselves already see dramatically reduced crime rates.

robco wrote:

This isn't the country with wide open spaces.

So you're justifying making laws for the whole country based on your own unique misinterpretations of life in an urban environment?  There are a lot more non-urban environments in this country than there are urban.

robco wrote:

As for traveling, when you go to another country, you must respect their laws - even if you disagree with them.

Countries are sovereign.  States are not in this federal system of government.  Some level of uniformity is required.  Otherwise we'd have each state issuing its own currency.  Wouldn't that be fun!

robco wrote:

If you don't like the fact that you can't carry your guns in California, then don't come here. It would be the same if you went to Canada or the UK.

I may pout about Canada or the UK's laws, but I have no basis with which to challenge their validity.  California's on the other hand, I do.

jkahless wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, Canada does not have the equivalent of a Second Amendment. Gun ownership is not considered a constitutional right. There are very tight restrictions about who can own what sort of firearm. Handguns especially are tightly regulated, and are illegal in many areas (I know Toronto pushed for that, but I'm not sure if it ever happened). Handguns with barrels shorter than a certain length are illegal, all sorts of stuff like that.

In addition to that, the idea of carrying a gun for self defense is just laughable.  You're allowed to do it, but you have to be able to show that the police are not able to protect you.  There's maybe two dozen people out of 34 million that carry.

I can hardly walk to the corner store without being mugged by a thug, grown insensibly bold with the knowledge that the population is unarmed sheep!

Canada has not industrialized the prison system we have.  You have far fewer hardened, angry ex-cons roaming the streets.  You also don't have the poverty and desperation problems we do.

jkahless wrote:

Protect you from what?  You also have to show that you are in need of protection.  Very few people actually need it.  I doubt the USA is really that much more dangerous than Canada.

I have been to both Toronto and Chicago.  If I was going to get stuck unarmed at night in one of those cities, I'd much prefer Toronto.

Daniel wrote:

jkahless wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, Canada does not have the equivalent of a Second Amendment. Gun ownership is not considered a constitutional right. There are very tight restrictions about who can own what sort of firearm. Handguns especially are tightly regulated, and are illegal in many areas (I know Toronto pushed for that, but I'm not sure if it ever happened). Handguns with barrels shorter than a certain length are illegal, all sorts of stuff like that.

In addition to that, the idea of carrying a gun for self defense is just laughable.  You're allowed to do it, but you have to be able to show that the police are not able to protect you.  There's maybe two dozen people out of 34 million that carry.

I can hardly walk to the corner store without being mugged by a thug, grown insensibly bold with the knowledge that the population is unarmed sheep!

Canada has not industrialized the prison system we have.  You have far fewer hardened, angry ex-cons roaming the streets.  You also don't have the poverty and desperation problems we do.

While I'm not disputing that the murder rate in the USA is higher, it'd have to increase a great deal to become an actual danger, instead of a airy fairy hypothetical one.  As for cities being dangerous at night, there's even some parts of Vancouver I'd rather not go in the middle of the night.  That just means I avoid them instead of wishing I could strap some cold hard steel to my belt, and those areas are safer for that mindset.

Last edited by jkahless (2009-07-24 7:39 pm)