28 killed at elementary school

[hobbyguy]

The "obsession" with gun control measures is just common sense.

If I stopped at a store in the UK, Germany, or New Zealand and a druggie happened to come in looking to rob the place, what are the odds that he/she will have a gun? Pretty low, so the danger to me is much lower, I may have to defend myself against such a druggie, and they may have a knife, but if need be I could start chucking cans of beans as a defense - and have a chance. If the druggie has a gun, well, I'm SOL.

In the US one would expect the druggie to have a gun. In Canada you have to assume the druggie could have a gun because of the flow of illegal firearms from the US. I also understand that one of the bigger sources of illegal handguns and ammunition in the UK is internet sales from the US.

If I'm having a bad day, and my neighbor really gets me mad, I might grab a baseball bat and possibly commit murder, but more likely wind up in jail for assault etc. If when I go grab something to go after my neighbor, I have a handgun sitting there, well pretty much assured a murder is going to happen - especially as I am going to be a lot more trigger happy if I figure my neighbor has one too.

So gun laws do make sense from a common sense standpoint.

The US is tied for murder rates with Turmenistan and Yemen? Aren't they supposed to be better than that?? Go down the list, and the tighter the gun laws, pretty much the lower the murder rate.

I'd be willing to bet that Canada's murder rate would drop a notch or two with no changes to Canadian law if the US made sensible changes to their guns laws, especially in regard to handgun ownership.

[grammafreddy]

I'd be willing to bet that Canada's murder rate would drop a notch or two with no changes to Canadian law if the US made sensible changes to their guns laws, especially in regard to handgun ownership.

Are you assuming all American gun owners and gang-related arms traffickers would suddenly have this great compulsion to become legal "if the US made sensible changes to their gun laws"?

If they are doing illegal things now, I would think they will just scoff and continue on with business as usual - on both sides of the border.

[GenuinelyInterested]

Well you see, this is where opinions, just as mental illness diagnosis, are subjective to a degree. It hasn't taken me anywhere near two hours, to identify a personality that befits a well practiced troll.

So, in less that 2 hours you have formed an opinion AND labeled me. At least I have given you some leeway and have not passed judgement on you or assigned you a label. My actions have spoken for themselves and have proven that I have a great deal more tolerance for others and their opinions, even though they may not be complimentary to my own.

I don't own any firearms and have no desire to, so you can rest easy, whereas you on the other hand arrived here, and instantly went off, guns blazing at people you don't even know, whereas most newcomers are more inclined to test the waters, before diving in head first. I'd be concerned if you handle weapons, the same way you've handled your arrival here, so congrats, you qualify for prohibition too.

I am sorry that I did not see anything in the "forum rules" when I signed up and read them before agreeing to them, that implied that, "I must test the waters before jumping in. I also did not see that any/all opinions formed, prior to entry to the forums must be left at the door.
If I am in any way mistaken with my remarks, please provide a link to where you have formed ideals from.

Just to add that, I may not currently own any firearms, I have done so in the past, both long gun and restricted. I an still eligible to purchase and shoot as the law sees fit. Yes, I am trained, licensed, permitted to possess firearms. I choose not to at this time but may change my mind in the future.

AND.....I have obtained both "crossed rifles" and "crossed pistols" .

[Glacier]

The US is tied for murder rates with Turmenistan and Yemen? Aren't they supposed to be better than that?? Go down the list, and the tighter the gun laws, pretty much the lower the murder rate.

So the gun laws are really lax in Greenland and really tight in Switzerland? Didn't think so. To repeat, there is no evidence that tighter gun laws reduces the murder rate. None.

As for common sense, I don't think so. The U.S. has banned cocaine, but that hasn't stopped it from coming into Canada. It's pretty fool hardy to think the guns would be any different.

[steven lloyd]

The U.S. has banned cocaine, but that hasn't stopped it from coming into Canada. It's pretty fool hardy to think the guns would be any different.

Not as long as we're trading marijuana for cocaine and guns. Ah yes - aren't drug laws the greatest thing ?

NRA news release:

Everyone should have a gun so we can shoot people who smoke marijuana

Wow. Next news release comes as big surprise ...

NRA opposes any new gun restrictions

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#84991

[grammafreddy]

NRA news release:

Everyone should have a gun so we can shoot people who smoke marijuana

link please?

[steven lloyd]

link please?

[email protected]

[grammafreddy]

That's an email address, SL.

[Glacier]

off topic remark removed/ferri

[grammafreddy]

I got that but I guess I was hoping for something a bit more ... umm ... real ... since you posted it as a quote from the NRA.

[hobbyguy]

Glacier, you posted the evidence yourself. Countries like Canada, Germany, Britain, NZ, Australia all have lower rates of murder.

Oh, and here's a substantiating article that shows that sensible gun laws do make a huge difference:

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws

Unqualified success down under.

It is worth noting that the incident that prompted Australia to revamp its gun laws was carried out with an AR-15, the same gun as Sandy Hook etc.

[Glacier]

Glacier, you posted the evidence yourself. Countries like Canada, Germany, Britain, NZ, Australia all have lower rates of murder.

Oh, and here's a substantiating article that shows that sensible gun laws do make a huge difference:

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws

Unqualified success down under.

It is worth noting that the incident that prompted Australia to revamp its gun laws was carried out with an AR-15, the same gun as Sandy Hook etc.

That's not evidence whatsoever. You are cherry picking stats. As I've stated numerous times on this thread, I support sensible gun laws, however, I'm not naive enough to say they make a huge difference. There hasn't been a signal mass shooting in 16 years, but how often did they occur before? The IPCC claimed that if there was no warming for more than 15 years, then their AGW projections would be proved false, but now that we've seen 16 years without warming, they now say you need to judge things over a longer time frame than 16 years. I would say that rare occurrence events need a longer time span than 16 years before we can draw conclusions. Looking at the trends in more crimes such as homicide, assault, and sexual assault could point to evidence however, but from what I see there seems to be mixed results in Australia.

Jennylives says no one is advocating for gun bans, but I see people saying no one in the U.S. should have an AR-15 even though I can easily get one in Canada. Tell another country they should ban certain fire arms when they are easy to obtain here stinks of hypocrisy to me. I'm not saying you are one of these people, but I've seen at least two people on FB something to this effect.

Lots of misleading and downright dishonest stats being posted on Facebook too such as this one...

[JLives]

When I say gun ban I mean a ban of guns. We restrict certain weapons but that doesn't mean we have banned guns. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-37

Very specifically, I'm for tightening up laws that allow people to legally access weapons capable of killing many people quickly.

Here is the difference between having an AR-15 in the US to Canada (from Wikipedia because I'm tired). The same yet very different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

Canada

The Government of Canada classifies the AR-15 (and its variants) as a restricted firearm. For anyone wanting to lawfully own an AR-15, they must obtain a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) valid for restricted firearms and then each acquisition of a restricted class firearm is subject to approval by the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of the would-be buyer's province of residence.[19][20] With the introduction of strict gun control measures by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (Bill C-68), the AR-15 had originally been intended to be classified as a prohibited firearm, making it all but impossible to privately own one. However, due to the presence of nationwide Service Rifle target shooting competitions, the AR-15 was granted a sporting exception.
As with all Restricted firearms (including most pistols, some shotguns, and some rifles) AR-15s are allowed to be fired only at certified firing ranges since the CFOs of all provinces and territories have agreed to issue ATTs (Authority To Transport) for these guns only to certified ranges. Since owners can't legally take these guns anywhere else that shooting is allowed, they can in effect only shoot them on certain ranges. In order to legally own and transport a Restricted firearm, the firearm must be registered with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian Firearms Program and must apply for an Authorization to Transport (or ATT) from the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for their province or territory. Additionally, the firearm must be unloaded, deactivated by a trigger or action lock, and be in a locked, opaque container during transport.[21]
The issuance of ATTs varies considerably from province to province, and is generally reflective of a particular province's political and social levels of acceptance toward gun ownership. In Ontario the only way to obtain an ATT for restricted firearms is to become a member of a range, whereas in Alberta, where firearms ownership is widely accepted, generally a single ATT is promptly issued that allows citizens to transport firearms to border crossings, gunsmiths, and shooting ranges. Firearms transfers in provinces such as Quebec can take up to 3 months to process.[citation needed]

United States

There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features, as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only". The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.
Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[22] these features became legal in most states.[23] Since the expiration of the ban the manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.
At least two states regulate possession of AR-15 rifles either by the restriction of certain features or outright bans of certain manufacturers' models. For example: the A3 tactical carbine pictured above is legal for sale and possession in the United States generally, but is illegal for sale in California.
Under U.S. firearms laws, the lower receiver of the AR-15 is considered a firearm and subject to purchasing restrictions. (This is not universally the case with rifles. On some other rifles, such as the FN FAL, Heckler & Koch 91, 93, (G-3, G-33), 94, MP-5 or SP-89 (plus clones), the upper receiver is the serial-numbered part, and thus the firearm.) The AR-15 upper receiver assembly is considered a part, and may be purchased and mail-ordered in most locations. This is a desirable feature for enthusiasts, who can purchase a number of upper receivers (often in different calibers and barrel lengths) and interchange them with the same lower receiver.
Adding a shoulder stock to an AR-15 with a barrel shorter than 16" would constitute constructing a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) under NFA rules – subject to a $200 tax stamp. The receiver, or serial-numbered part is still considered a firearm, but a receiver has unique status assigned by the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended, and ATF regulations or rulings. ATF ruling 07-07-2009 illustrates a receiver's unique legal status even if the receiver can only be made into a rifle.[24] Under the United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company Supreme Court ruling, an individual can possess parts for both the rifle and pistol so long as they are not assembled improperly.[25] This SCOTUS ruling has been further clarified by the ATF Director in a ruling (ATF Ruling 2011-4[26]) dated July 25, 2011 which restates most of the findings in the Thompson case.

[Captain Awesome]

When I say gun ban I mean a ban of guns.

All of guns? Handguns, rifles, shotguns?

[grammafreddy]

When I say gun ban I mean a ban of guns. We restrict certain weapons but that doesn't mean we have banned guns. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-37

Very specifically, I'm for tightening up laws that allow people to legally access weapons capable of killing many people quickly.

So which is it ? A total ban on guns period or a partial ban on specific kinds of guns?