HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » A Canadian take on the su...

Fri Oct 27, 2017, 09:23 PM

A Canadian take on the subject

10 replies, 4960 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Canadian take on the subject (Original post)
gejohnston Oct 2017 OP
Sailor65x1 Oct 2017 #1
ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #2
yagotme Oct 2017 #3
spin Oct 2017 #4
gejohnston Oct 2017 #5
spin Nov 2017 #6
yagotme Nov 2017 #7
spin Nov 2017 #8
futrump Nov 2017 #9
yagotme Nov 2017 #10

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Oct 27, 2017, 09:40 PM

1. Very well stated

 

Stuck to the facts and left emotion out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:35 PM

2. Interesting article

 

I'm not sure why all the gun-grabbers focus on the AR-15 platform. The vast majority of shootings are committed with a handgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 30, 2017, 10:06 AM

3. 'Cause it's the "eebil black rifle",

and a rose by any other name...

If they get the AR banned, then they just go down the list to the next one, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Tue Oct 31, 2017, 07:02 PM

4. If semiautomatic rifles are a problem that banning would solve...

it would only make sense to ban and confiscate them all (or at least those with a detachable magazine that can hold more than five rounds) Why ban just a few that look evil because they resemble rifles used by the current militaries of the world. Even better would be to ban and confiscate ALL simiautomatic firearms especially pistols. The problem with that is of course it is impossible to pass such legislation at this time.

(In passing I don't really feel banning and confiscating all semiautomatic firearms is even possible and might well lead to some states seceding from the Union. Americans have always had a high level of distrust in government and that level is extremely high today. Many gun owners feel that they can't trust a government that doesn't trust honest citizens enough to allow them to own firearms.)

Therefore gun control advocates who wish to ban semiautomatic firearms try to use the incremental approach. First ban rifles like the AR-15 and then ban and confiscate other rifles that use a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds. Once that is accomplished work on banning and confiscating all semiautomatic pistols.

Gun owners are well aware of this tactic and therefore oppose any and all bans of firearms let alone confiscation of said weapons. Many gun owners also go to the polls to vote out any elected politician or candidate who supports such bans. Since there are at least 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation and a high percentage own semiautomatic firearms those who vote make up one BIG voting block. Of course politicians who come from states where gun rights are restricted and gun ownership is not as common as other states that have gun friendly laws, still can win elections with ease. Each state gets two Senators and only two. For that reason it's extremely difficult to get gun bans to pass in the Senate.

Obviously the gun laws in our nation need improvement and most gun owners would like to see it become much harder for people who suffer from mental illness that might make them dangerous to others and violent felons to be able to legally purchase firearms of any type. Gun owners would also like to see better enforcement of the laws against the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling and sale of such weapons into the inner streets of the cities in our nation.

I have always felt it would be better to the Democratic Party to simply ban the use of the word "ban" when proposing gun legislation and instead concentrate on improving our existing gun laws. Such an approach might actually reduce gun violence in our nation and also eventually help more Democrats win close elections in red gun friendly states.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 31, 2017, 09:24 PM

5. True, but

As he explains it, the mechanics of the AR should not require a restricted PAL like handguns. The RCMP could simply make all semi-autos restricted.
Canada has basically four licenses
Minors permit, which allows kids 12-18 year-olds to possess and buy ammo for unrestricted firearms
unrestricted PALs are for most rifles and shotguns, including SBRs and SBS (not semi-auto). A "mares leg" is unrestricted
restricted PALs for handguns, ARs and semi-auto rifles and shotguns with less than 18-inch barrel
A prohibited PAL is for grandfathered banned weapons, like a pre 1977 machine gun. From what I can find, machine guns were as tightly regulated as handguns until then.

While I agree the party would do better in red states, (I remember when Wyoming always sent a senator from each party. Of course, that was before the RR went infected the system), but tweaking gun laws won't do anything about the problem. Nothing the Republicans propose will either. Our violence problem is most likely a wealth inequality/crumbling infrastructure/political corruption/drug gang problem. The GINI coefficient. As this psych prof explains it well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 02:11 AM

6. That was a very interesting video. ...

The professor makes some excellent points. That's the first time I have heard the GINI coefficient discussed and to me it makes a lot of sense.

The Canadian PAL restrictions you mention seem better to me than banning and confiscating weapons. However it looks to me like they require the registration of all restricted and prohibited firearms and that would be an extremely unpopular idea in many areas of our nation. I live in Florida where basically firearm registration is illegal.



The 2017 Florida Statutes
Chapter 790 WEAPONS AND FIREARMS

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
(b) The Legislature intends through the provisions of this section to:
1. Protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. Protect the privacy rights of law-abiding firearm owners.
(2) PROHIBITIONS.—No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms.
.........
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 10:29 AM

7. Are you proposing the "slippery slope" method?

"Therefore gun control advocates who wish to ban semiautomatic firearms try to use the incremental approach. First ban rifles like the AR-15 and then ban and confiscate other rifles that use a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds. Once that is accomplished work on banning and confiscating all semiautomatic pistols."

Pro-gunners would see this as the beginning of complete confiscation, like some of those here proposing an outright ban on firearms. The '94 AWB attempted to address a lot of this, but manufacturers simply looked at the law, removed the "banned" items from the firearms, and kept cranking them out. There is no way you will get 51% of the country on board with such legislation if the word "confiscate" appears in the legislation. The "taking" of personal property will be severely frowned upon, on a nationwide basis.

The part about "use a detachable magazine" won't fly well, either. Just the way to ban a bolt action hunting rifle with a detachable mag, is to make a mag that holds 6 rounds. Words mean things, and hastily/poorly worded legislation will end up in the SC, and you know what will happen there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yagotme (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 12:48 PM

8. I was describing the "slippery slope" method of implementing gun control...

Last edited Wed Nov 1, 2017, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

legislation with the end goal being to pass laws similiar to those in Great Britain. It has also been described as the "camel nose under the tent" tactic. If you allow the camel to stick its nose under the wall of the tent soon the entire camel is in.



This tactic no matter how described has a long history dating back to the days of the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) which later became Handgun Control Inc (HCI) and eventually became the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In 1978 Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman.


In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign


From above in my post:

Gun owners are well aware of this tactic and therefore oppose any and all bans of firearms let alone confiscation of said weapons. Many gun owners also go to the polls to vote out any elected politician or candidate who supports such bans. Since there are at least 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation and a high percentage own semiautomatic firearms those who vote make up one BIG voting block. Of course politicians who come from states where gun rights are restricted and gun ownership is not as common as other states that have gun friendly laws, still can win elections with ease. Each state gets two Senators and only two. For that reason it's extremely difficult to get gun bans to pass in the Senate.

As a gun owner I oppose any gun bans as I am well aware of the path this would take us down. I do not oppose gun control legislation to insure that only sane, honest and responsible people can legally purchase firearms. I also favor legislation that targets the criminal misuse of firearms and legislation to better control the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling and illegal sale of such weapons. I oppose any federal registration of firearms as that could be used as a tool to enable gun confiscation , to harass gun owners and might even been used if accessed by the criminal element to target the homes of gun owners for burglary.

I see no problem with the civilian ownership of semiautomatic AR-15 style rifles which are targeted by the gun control advocates because they appear similiar to weapons used by militaries all over the world. Military assualt weapons are capable of fully automatic or burst fire unlike semiautomatic firearms. AR-15 style rifles function the same as less evil looking semiautomatic rifles, the difference being merely cosmetic. Ar-15 style rifles are also commonly used for hunting and are not made as only weapons for mass murder.

I do not favor magazine bans or limits on the amount of rounds a magazine can hold. That legislation would accomplish little as there are millions and millions of these magazines already in the hands of gun owners.

The Brady Campagin felt it had won a great victory a good first step on the road to banning firearms when the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed. Many gun owners at that time disliked the AR-15 as they felt it was unreliable and inaccurate. Of course the Federal Assault Weapons Ban really didn't ban the sale of such weapons and the manufacturers simply modified them to fit inside the limits imposed. A few gun owners bought them just to see what all the fuss was about and found they actually were quite reliable and acceptably accurate and soon they became extremely popular. The AWB also imposed a ten round limit on the capacity of magazines manufactured after a certain date. Manufacturers went to a 14/7 schedule to manufacture as many "high capacity" magazines before the cut off date. Consequently it was possible to buy magazines that held more then 10 rounds throughout the entire 10 years the assualt weapons ban was in effect but the price was quite high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 03:22 PM

9. interesting vid.

to play devils advocate, would it not be better if the types of people he didn't have firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to futrump (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:04 PM

10. I'll play the game.

Your question is missing some words, but I'll assume you mean the people with mental instability. Here in the US, people that have been involuntarily put in for mental treatment are (supposed) to be put on the no-buy list. The recent kerfluffle about "mentally handicapped people being allowed access to guns" was the denial of US veterans (reporting through the VA admin) of owning firearms if they needed assistance balancing their checkbooks, for one example. Supposedly, as rumor goes, Einstein had trouble keeping his checkbook balanced. I don't recall anyone crying for denial of his rights.

The reporting to NICS/FBI is spotty, at best (see recent church shooting in TX), and getting past HIPPA laws for mental reporting is a fight, also. The laws are there, but bureaucrats have to get their game together, too. No law is going to stop a determined attacker, they will just go black market (see gun/explosive attacks in Europe), or find another "vehicle". (See what I did there?) No one is 100% safe, anywhere, and no law ever prevented a crime. Laws only spell out what IS illegal, and proscribe a punishment for those who choose to ignore it. Murder has been illegal for millennia, but it still occurs.

Your turn!!!

ETA: Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread