I read about that too. Like you said, who not both?
FFS, I donât see anyone here even suggesting an outright ban. Theyâre simply wondering why guns are not regulated to the extent that cars seem to be (to go back to the first comment).
I donât like guns. I donât want a gun. But do I think others should be able to own one? Yes, but with strict guidelines because I shouldnât have to do background checks on the people l find myself surrounded by.
People shouldnât be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a gun without any regulatory oversight.
3 Likes
Never bring a sword to a gun-fight. 
[quote=âFFabian, post:112, topic:70138, full:trueâ]
âLive by the sword, die by the swordâ
[/quote]
2 Likes
exactly, no laws should be passed unless we can guarantee 100% compliance.
where do criminals get their guns? do the manufacturers have a criminal mailing list?
Not to mention actively using them every day for their intended purpose: entering Death Race 2000.
4 Likes
Iâm well aware that there are lots of posters here who are smarter than me on a whole helluva lot of stuff.
But on this particular issue, there is more of âWe Must Do Something, Whether Or Not It Actually Worksâ than I am used to seeing on boingboing.[quote=âIronEdithKidd, post:47, topic:70138â]
Unless you can think of some solutions, youâre part of the âoh, well, nothing can be done,â problem.
[/quote][quote=âalbill, post:69, topic:70138â]
Youâre right. We should do nothing. Let people die. Move on.
[/quote][quote=âalbill, post:71, topic:70138â]
Youâre right. Letâs do nothing because I have yet to see a proposal from you or pro-gun people that lays out your plan to get us out of this hole
[/quote][quote=âjamesnsc, post:73, topic:70138, full:trueâ]
Youâre right. Letâs do nothing. That seems to be working.
[/quote]
My sense is that people are mostly arguing âwe must do somethingâ in response to âwe shouldnât do anythingâ. Thatâs consistent with all the quotes in your comment.
Most of what youâve argued against is banning guns, which Iâm not sure was even proposed in this thread in the first place, so this comes across as a little straw-manny.
7 Likes
I believe that anyone who is proposing a legislative/regulatory solution to a problem should be required to crossmatch that solution against history, and clearly demonstrate that it would have solved the problem.
In this case, we have a detailed historical database of mass shootings. Propose a solution that would have rendered a significant number of those shootings non-events, and I will completely agree that it deserves a try.
But let me add that âoneâ is not a significant number. For the same reason that one d-bag who sneaks a blasting cap onto a plane in his shoes is not a reason that every air traveler in the USA should have to take shoes off before boarding the plane.
1 Like
Greece, about 700 BC: No one ever proved that democracy is working. We keep the oligarchy.
4 Likes
That would restrict us to the set of things that have been tried before. Since itâs safe to say that most ideas that have been tried before and worked have already been adopted, this means weâre restricted to the set of things that have been tried before and which didnât work. Which history will show didnât work.
So this ingenious restriction is implicitly an assertion that nothing should ever be done about anything.
But that oversimplifies the issue; ideas that didnât work in the past might work now because â very occasionally, mind you â the state of affairs many like to call ârealityâ changes. And vice versa, of course â ideas that have worked in the past may no longer be applicable for any number of reasons.
Also, social realities like mass shootings are a little different from physical phenomena like electron trajectories. The causal webs involved are much more complex, and we have to rely on diffuse statistical evidence to make judgments about which causal narratives are sorta helpful and which are misleading.
Your requirements also seem to rule out the notion that we could lay the groundwork now for a solution in the future. For example, itâs commonly pointed out the banning guns would still leave a lot of guns in circulation. But over time, the number of guns in circulation will be reduced. Perhaps severely curtailing access to guns wouldnât appreciably impact the availability of guns in the short term, but it may be a necessary step if we determine that decreasing the number of guns is something that has to happen, even if it can only be achieved decades out.
6 Likes
âŚI believe anyone naysaying a proposed solution should have every right to do so, but the price should be to offer a solution themselves - or at minimum forward progress towards one (that wonât work because of X, but if we change it with YâŚ) - or just STFU. We have more than enough people who just say no and offer nothing more towards the conversation.
FYI conversation, with both sides POV represented, is the only way to move towards any real solution and, who knows, with civil discourse and everyone contributing we just might find something viable.
âŚbut youâre content to contribute nothing and neg everything. Bravo.
3 Likes
Fine, challenge accepted. Letâs pass a law prohibiting the sale of ammunition for all guns tomorrow. Never been tried before, and I guarantee it will have desired results in short order. Yup, some nutters are going to hoard ammo. Fine. Let them, theyâre not going to use or sell the ammo, because thatâs how hoarding works.
Your turn. Offer up a solution following your own criteria.
6 Likes
Theyâll reload too. My stepdad reloaded all of his ammo. Eventually, brass will wear out though.
2 Likes
Hey, you know what? Thatâd be fine as long as heâs not inclined to going out to shoot up a holiday party.
Or should I amend my proposal to ban the sale of gunpowder, too?
2 Likes
Sale of ammunition prohibited to cops too, or are only cops allowed to buy it?
An alternative would be an automatic sunset provision. Pass a law with a defined standard of improvement.
If âmass shootingsâ, specifically defined, drop by 15 percent a year for the first three years the law is in effect, it is made permanent, otherwise out it goes.
That would work for me fine.
Point the First
As @albill alluded to above, reloadable cartridges donât last forever. It depends on the chambering, but most cartridges canât take more than two or three reloads.
The reloading process has a step for measuring the stretching (that happens during firing) of the cartridgeâs brass. The next step is trimming the brass back to the right headspace. This means the brass walls of the case are thinner with each reload. Reload too much, those walls get thin, and then you have a KABOOM.
(eta - I could talk here about the nuances of different loadings as well. There are Wildcat loads, and hot loads (lol), and subsonic loads, and SAAMI loadsâŚit goes on, but brass is not the only variable here.)
The unfortunate shooter usually needs medical attention, even if the paper target doesnât.
Point the Second
The guys who reload are not the same people as the guys who go out and kill people. The motivations are at odds with one another.
Reloading is a significant investment in a few areas: Consumables, Reloading Hardware, Brass, and a considerable learning curve before youâre anywhere near doing it right. Itâs like how nobody takes all the trouble to learn how to use an atlatl so they can go kill something. It would be silly to try nowadays.
It seems to me that the shooters who need watching would benefit from a speedbump when purchasing commercial ammunition. Itâs not hand-loaded cases at crime scenes. (Unless somebody wants to correct me, and thatâs cool.)
The ammo nuts wonât care about restrictions. Theyâll buy when they can and stock it away in the safe. Like someone upthread said, thatâs what hoarders do.
3 Likes
A chicken in every pot, a Brown Bess on every mantle
1 Like
Itâs right there. You linked wiki at the point concerned with what sort of firearm you can have.
Just above that is what you have to go through to get it, and handguns are particularly onerous in that respect, being restricted. Prohibited weapons are even harder to get.(Non-Canadians pls understand that prohibited just means really, really hard to get, not prohibited as such)
Hereâs an example. I live in a rural area, lots of guns for sport, only nutbars think of them in terms of defence but there are some of those.
I was working with a guy, well regarded, public person, holds elected office, seeking higher office.
Heâs a gun enthusiast, def not a nutbar, but wanted a handgun for his interests, these interests do not include defence.
He applies, goes through the things you have to do. Then you wait.
One day he gets a call at home. From the RCMP. Except heâs not there are they arenât calling for him.
They want to talk to his partner, they ask if she knew he had applied for a handgun license (she did, they share interests). They follow that by asking if he is okay, things going well, no behaviour outstanding to remark on. (none, heâs solid).
Then they ask this, âMaâam, is your husband in the room at this time?â (Nope, at work, itâs all good RCMP and thanks for checking in)
The US has nothing so thorough, because freedom. Mind you, this guy got his guns, he was free to do it, but a certain level of personal responsibility is demanded. So the rest of us can be free to.
Boy, that seems off-topic doesnât it? Because that applies to all Canadians. This guy is in rural Ontario. Ontario with itâs placid homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 actually below the national average.
Guess where the guns ainât. And making it hard to get is a big part of it. Ontario has far less firepower than Alberta, Sask & Manitoba combined. Particularly among restricted and prohibited firearms. Note where the homicides are. Note that the only place in Canada with a homicide rate that rivals the US is Manitoba, followed by Sask, then Alberta.
Now, whether itâs that criminals get their weapons often by stealing them from idiots with no gun safe, or quick and ready access makes crimes of passion more lethal, or whatever, in Canada, where there are more guns there is more homicide, by the numbers.
Population plays though, rural vs urban too, the most guns per capita in our country is by very, very far the territories. But you live up there you simply have a gun, you need to, so it ainât a thing. Up there though are very, very few people, in close knit far flung communities. Thatâs different.
If Ontario, with twice the population of those three trigger happy provinces combined, had comparable firearm ownership then firearms would be far more accessible, for legit owners or criminals, and being largely urban in population, weâd probably outstrip those provinces in homicide rates. If it makes it easier, people choose it, when they can.
Sure there are many factors, too many, mostly social, but between our social safety nets, our restricted access to handguns, our inability to shoot someone without immediately apologizing, gun crime in our major cities just isnât comparable to places south of the border. Having way, way, way, way, fewer weapons plays into it despite it not being the only factor.
Now, back to that story of the RCMPâs thoroughness with regard to handguns, all else being equal, do you think the number of people with easy access to their own handgun would be anything like it is now in the US if they had to go through that? It wouldnât be because they didnât pass the test either, itâd be because they didnât try.
I say âall else being equalâ because youâd just buy one illegally where there is great proliferation, but thatâs determined people. What about the far greater number of people who simply wouldnât own a handgun for their spur of the moment crime of passion or suicide (also a crime of passion I think) or moment of desperation.
What we do up here works okay, the situation isnât comparable to the US really, as for our declining numbers, itâs the same as in any developed country. The better video games get the fewer (real life) gladiators there are.
11 Likes
