And today's mass shooting 11 dead in Virginia Beach Municipal Complex

[basketcase]

...

Civil war is a real possibility if the U.S. government tries anything extreme....

Sad when the debate comes down to implied threats.

Sorry but no one is demanding guns be completely banned. Why can't the NRA and the lackeys of the gun companies accept reality instead of continuing to spear irrational fear (other than that fear drives the sales they want).

 

[basketcase]

Why should a responsible gun owner feel any guilt over the matter or sacrifice their freedoms when they're not part of the problem? ....

As members of a society we do it all the time. But you have been brainwashed into thinking gun rights are special.

 

[basketcase]

Let’s be honest here: a gun is not a tool. It is a weapon. A gun serves no purpose other than shooting things, it can’t really be used for anything else. ....

And that is a tool in some circumstances. For example a farmer can't just ask coyotes to leave their livestock alone and the people of Moosenee need something to deal with their 1000 pound furry neighbours. Hunting some animals such as deer is also a necessity and guns are the most effective tool for that.

But in urban environments it is at best a dangerous toy except in the hands of the people we pay to protect us.

 

[basketcase]

What of a sling, sling shot, sword, a bow, cross bow.... These have no other purpose than hitting a target, yet they are all ok ....

Actually all face some restrictions under Canadian law and you could be charged for even carrying them if the police feel you have no legitimate purpose for carrying them (knives or even a baseball bat as well). No idea how frequently those charges get laid when they aren't being used in violence or to make threats.

 

[Grimnul]

And that is a tool in some circumstances. For example a farmer can't just ask coyotes to leave their livestock alone and the people of Moosenee need something to deal with their 1000 pound furry neighbours. Hunting some animals such as deer is also a necessity and guns are the most effective tool for that.

But in urban environments it is at best a dangerous toy except in the hands of the people we pay to protect us.

Well, to be fair, I said a gun serves no purpose other than shooting things. Shooting bears and coyotes is still shooting things. Never said shooting things is always bad, there are definitely appropriate times to shoot things. I just think calling something that doesn’t do anything other than shoot things a tool isn’t quite appropriate.

 

[basketcase]

Let's be honest, anti-gun people don't want to have an honest conversation nor do they want compromise....

This from the guy who claims any restrictions on gun sales are a plot by "gun grabbers".

I agree with Mr. Average, Ontario laws are a fairly good compromise.

 

[Grimnul]

Actually all face some restrictions under Canadian law and you could be charged for even carrying them if the police feel you have no legitimate purpose for carrying them (knives or even a baseball bat as well). No idea how frequently those charges get laid when they aren't being used in violence or to make threats.

True. I used to do Iaido, I got stopped by a cop once when I was walking to my dojo carrying my Iaito (practice sword with a false-edged blade). I didn’t get in trouble, but he did want to know why I was carrying a sword.

 

[basketcase]

There are background checks in every state. Including at gun shows. ...

That vary from state to state or even city to city as does the effectiveness of the check. In many states, private sales can still happen with absolutely no documentation. Canada's system of federal licensing and mandatory training is far better than whatever law the gun lobby happens to get pushed at a local level.

 

[shack]

Yes, the well entrenched democratic right to practice for the Olympics and therefore the need to carry that practice equipment everywhere you go.

Nothing wrong with Canadian law that lets you practice at a range but prevents you from showing off your toys all day.

Other than the Gun companies possibly losing sales, what is wrong with the US saying all future sales need a mandatory background check? The only justification I have ever heard from the gun lobby is conspiracy theories that it's just the start of "gun grabbing".

Are you really trying to say that shooters at ranges usually use suppressors? I haven't gone for a few years but I don't recall seeing one on any of my past visits.

So should opioids be an American right? A small number of Americans buy a lot of guns but the democratic system is one person, one vote, not one gun, one vote.

I love this argument. We need random people with random amounts of training to be armed because even police can't be trusted to shoot straight.

It's like you're shooting (hopefully with a bow and arrow, not a gun) fish in a barrel

 

[avg guy]

My problem is that you get these rabid pro-gun types who do nothing but deflect and stonewall every time something like this happens, and they completely stifle any conversation about what should be done to make things better. I don’t think it’s a simple issue, but it’s one that frankly isn’t even really being discussed aside from the usual “thoughts and prayers” lip service. I don’t think the status quo is acceptable. I think it’s absolutely monstrous that people seem to be ok with a few thousand people dying every year just so people can have guns to play with.

I will agree with you on this. But this statement falls true on both sides. I have offered some suggestions (as a pro gun advocate) to meet, or start the discussion of meeting, some where in the middle. But I don't recall any of the anti-gun sides suggesting any advice to reach a solution for both sides of the debate.

Not picking on you Grimnul, just like your comment and think it can apply to both sides of the argument.

Side note (question): how do you highlight multiple quotes from different posts like shack did? Feel free to PM me, as to not interrupt the flow of this post.

 

[Frankfooter]

Side note (question): how do you highlight multiple quotes from different posts like shack did? Feel free to PM me, as to not interrupt the flow of this post.

Its the little quote thingy with the + to the right of the 'reply with quote' icon.

 

[cunning linguist]

This from the guy who claims any restrictions on gun sales are a plot by "gun grabbers".

I agree with Mr. Average, Ontario laws are a fairly good compromise.

Get it straight, not "any", "any more", as in; maybe enforce existing laws, even though people like you refuse to believe their existence.

 

[cunning linguist]

That vary from state to state or even city to city as does the effectiveness of the check. In many states, private sales can still happen with absolutely no documentation. Canada's system of federal licensing and mandatory training is far better than whatever law the gun lobby happens to get pushed at a local level.

Oh the irony of this post...

Canada has a guise of a federal system to the casual observers, but if you actually had first hand experience, you'd realize this isn't the case. Look at the differences between provinces, the Ontario CFO has been able to make up rules as they went along; range-specific ATTs and additional courses on top of the federal safety courses for range membership, being a few examples. And what about Quebec now? They'really building their own registry after it was scrapped federally, where's their sense of federalism now?

Nevermind that you're off base about your assertions about the US situaton. I'd love to see which states, cities and/or regions are exempt from the NICS background checks and I dare you to actually find out and present that evidence here.

 

[oldjones]

Oh the irony of this post...

Canada has a guise of a federal system to the casual observers, but if you actually had first hand experience, you'd realize this isn't the case. Look at the differences between provinces, the Ontario CFO has been able to make up rules as they went along; range-specific ATTs and additional courses on top of the federal safety courses for range membership, being a few examples. And what about Quebec now? They'really building their own registry after it was scrapped federally, where's their sense of federalism now?

Nevermind that you're off base about your assertions about the US situaton. I'd love to see which states, cities and/or regions are exempt from the NICS background checks and I dare you to actually find out and present that evidence here.

So you're saying that in both Canada and in the US, gun laws impose a combination of nationwide federal requirements, and state/provincial laws impose others? Whoopy-do! Betcha many municipalities in both countries also have bylaws regulating stuff like gun-shops, shooting ranges and where you can and cannot lawfully discharge your firearm as well.

Whoever would imagine that any mechanism specifically designed and manufactured to kill would not be subject to legal controls at all levels? The issue for grown-ups is the effectiveness of those laws at keeping gun use predictable and safe.

 

[cunning linguist]

So you're saying that in both Canada and in the US, gun laws impose a combination of nationwide federal requirements, and state/provincial laws impose others? Whoopy-do! Betcha many municipalities in both countries also have bylaws regulating stuff like gun-shops, shooting ranges and where you can and cannot lawfully discharge your firearm as well.

Whoever would imagine that any mechanism specifically designed and manufactured to kill would not be subject to legal controls at all levels? The issue for grown-ups is the effectiveness of those laws at keeping gun use predictable and safe.

And it's almost like people are realizing that different places and regions have different problems and that a "one size fits all" solution probably isn't the answer. Who'd-a-thunk?

 

[oldjones]

And it's almost like people are realizing that different places and regions have different problems and that a "one size fits all" solution probably isn't the answer. Who'd-a-thunk?

The same sort of folks who imagined they were hearing "one size fits all", and answered with "nothing's ever gonna fit".

 

[Grimnul]

The same sort of folks who imagined they were hearing "one size fits all", and answered with "nothing's ever gonna fit".

Exactly. So many people have this “well, it won’t 100% solve the problem, so it’s worthless” mentality. Just because it may not be perfect doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying. The goal is reduction of harm. 50% fewer attacks happening is still better than what’s happening now. I do sort of suspect that the gun people realize this and just use it as yet another stonewalling tactic, however.

 

[cunning linguist]

Exactly. So many people have this “well, it won’t 100% solve the problem, so it’s worthless” mentality. Just because it may not be perfect doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying. The goal is reduction of harm. 50% fewer attacks happening is still better than what’s happening now. I do sort of suspect that the gun people realize this and just use it as yet another stonewalling tactic, however.

Not only will it not solve the problem, the "solution" comes at great cost to stakeholders, not that you care.

Here's why we can't have an honest discussion; because actual honesty would result in severe backlash. When you say "universal background checks", you really mean, "no private sales" and gun owners see through that bullshit.

Here's why we can't have compromise, because one side's idea of a "compromise" is actually demanding concession. Wanna make progress and actual compromise? Then bring a horse to trade, other wise call it what it is, "concession". It may not get you far, but at least it's an honest conversation.

 

[poorboy]

This is to address basketcase's responses

25% of Americans own a firearm. That is a large portion of the population considering it takes into account kids and seniors. That's far from a minority.

You misunderstood what I said about suppressors and indoor use. Shooting inside is extremely loud. Earplugs are not fully adequate. Even doubling up with earplugs and over the ear hearing protection results in hearing loss for employees indoors for extended hours. Using a suppressor indoors is a good idea.

Target shooting is a sport, and it is as old as the firearm and is a 100% legal legitimate sport. I've already posted there's worldwide organizations like IPSC, which is in over 100 countries and has tens of thousands of members, with 30,000 in the US alone. I've previously posted about CMP, IDPA, Cowboy Action, Steel challenge, etc. You not acknowledging how large the shooting sports are does not take away from their popularity.

Open carry is what some Yanks want. I personally think it's stupid to display to a potential attacker that you are equipped with a firearm as your last resort for protection.

You put too much faith in the training of patrol officers. Go find one and talk to a Toronto Police or OPP Officer. They will tell you they only qualify once or twice a year. 90% don't shoot any more than those two qualifications, which is far below the average recreational shooter.

Here's a great example. Cst Ken Lam, the officer who arrested Alek Minassian, the man who killed 10 people with a van, has received no award from Toronto Police or external sources.

Why? Because he actually tried to shoot Minassian, but was unable to because he didn't load his gun. That's why he's never received and award and remains a Constable. If Minassian actually had a gun instead of a cellphone in his hand, Lam would be dead. Do your research. Find a Toronto Police officer and ask him/her. I'll bet they'll try and evade the question.

Think civil war in the U.S is an idle threat? Do your research on the U.S. military. They've held exercises that span multiple states simultaneously, with California listed as a friendly state, Arizona as a potentially friendly state and Texas as a hostile state. Why would they do that considering Iraq fits in California?

 

[avg guy]

You put too much faith in the training of patrol officers. Go find one and talk to a Toronto Police or OPP Officer. They will tell you they only qualify once or twice a year. 90% don't shoot any more than those two qualifications, which is far below the average recreational shooter.

This is sadly true. I know many officers who I wouldn't want them discharging their weapon as they do not have the training in situational awareness and recognizing a safe backdrop allowing to fire. They do not practice it, except for those who take it upon themselves to join a club and do it. Ever since the funding for "practice" ammo, club membership subsidy and their own ranges have been taken away, majority of officers refuse to pay out of pocket to keep up this portion of skill.