Not if your position, as I have expressed my own to be, that ALL guns should be banned with my (grudging) exception of small caliber, low capacity hunting rifles - for those who absolutely must kill an animal in the wild.
Politicians who try to thread the needle, and fail more often than not, either lack the courage of their convictions or are fools to think they can find the magic sweet spot that will please any side of this argument. They are welcome to try though and I will cast my support for the one that is the closest to my position, stopping short of becoming a single issue voter.
Canada does not have - nor, I hope, will have - an issue with gun violence such as the one in the US. So if the registry failed, the country does not seem to have suffered any real consequence. I hope it remains so. If it does not and it results in tragedy, I suspect Canadians will demand action and the gov’t will respond accordingly.
No, it doesnt, nor would it make a difference if it was a .22 single shot rifle, a machete, a bomb, or a large rock- dead is dead . But it does make a difference to the law abiding citizen whom you are about to put in prison for years because you dont know the difference. It’s like putting a man in prison because he possessed pictures of kitties having sex, not kiddies.
If you are gonna ban something, you need to define it and you should say why.
Why ban assault weapons? They cause significantly less that 4% of the murders here in the USA. if you magic wanded them out of existence, you would not detect s significant reduction in the violent crime rate.
You like animals to suffer? You wish to outlaw duck hunting?
Yes, indeed "Canada does not have … an issue with gun violence such as the one in the US"… nor did they before the registration.
None of those euro nations you like to compare to the USA had much of a gun crime rate before they banned the guns. Sure, they have a lower murder rate now, but they had a lower murder rate before. In fact, their gun bans didnt actually seem to do anything.
I’ve said this before but its finally happened as I feared … were so used to violent public shootings that we treat them like the middle east treats terrorism/bombings … barely blinking and saying "well that’s sad but what can you do? "
There wasn’t a news story of this posted on the MSN home page until the next day and a lot of people didn’t know about it and probably wouldn’t of if it hadn’t been posted here … 3 or so years ago? the front page would of been all about it for a week or more not to mention tv and the like …
That position is complete anathema to mine, and a majority of Americans, at least, the last time I looked at Pew Research’s polls on the subject.
Attempting to force that upon the US in a top-down manner will lead to widespread sectarian violence. Which will not stop at politicians, nor the people asked to execute their policies.
I suspect our positions are far enough apart to make further debate futile.
Except this is not how “the middle east” treats terrorism and bombings. There are massive political, military, and humanitarian efforts underway to deal with those things, in the various countries that comprise the region known as “the middle east.” I just today donated money to the Nineveh Plain Protection Units which are Assyrian militia currently fighting against the Islamic State.
If you meant that most people in America barely blink and say “well that’s sad but what can you do”, well, that’s essentially true. It doesn’t need to be, though.
I don’t expect things to change overnight. It will take years. A generation, maybe more. But we have to start changing things and we have to introduce these ideas of social change and public attitudes about guns. Thoughts and prayers haven’t worked… as if. Shrugging it away or kicking the can down the road saying nothing can be done is just resigning ourselves to more of the same and worse.
yeah i meant to say the "news of public shootings " but ive had isreali friends that moved here and they said unless you have a relative that died most people are unemotional about them since the late 90s i guess theres a spiritual numbness about it you could say
You don’t know the difference between a assault rifle and a assault weapon. The difference could send a innocent man to prison. Hell, to be honest, you don’t know jack shit about what you want to ban. And that’s the problem. Like the Politicians that made Marijuana a Schedule I drug, because they didnt know jack shit about it. Because of their ignorance 8.2 million men (mostly black men, because of course) were arrested between 2001 and 2010. EIGHT MILLION. Due to ignorance about drugs. And since there are like 75 Million gun owners in the USA, I expect that if we let politicians who know jack shit about guns write stupid laws, a higher amount would go to prison due to bad laws caused by ignorance.
Small caliber rifles would only wound large game like deer, moose, elk, wild boar, causing them to die slowly and suffer.
And just FYI- all those nasty assault weapons you want to ban *are *small caliber. See, you know jack shit about guns. In fact they are .22 caliber. More ignorance.
And you can’t hunt duck and game birds with rifles, you need a shotgun. More ignorance.
Ignorance strikes.
I suspect it’s different when the enemy can be identified and compartmentalized. Hamas and Hezbollah are Israel’s enemies and Israeli citizens have accepted the risk from an identifiable source of danger. School shootings are quite something else when your own classmate without prior history of conflict can suddenly and unpredictably become your killer.
Ban both. I don’t care. Don’t send people to jail if they have not used it to commit a crime. Encourage people to voluntarily bring them to the nearest cop shop. Give people a tax credit in the amount that would motivate them to do so.
Oh, you got me. Clever, you are. Fine, have whatever caliber hunting rifle it is you need to kill moose and squirrel. Do you need more than 5 rounds, or are you planning on taking out an entire species?
Assault rifles are already banned. But Ok, voluntary buy backs for assault weapons, I can accept that. Say a tax credit and a gift card. Sure.
Five rounds is OK, and more is not legal for hunting in several states. But some lever action rifles dont have a detachable magazine, and instead use a removable plug. You know that Winchester rifle you see on all the old cowboy movies? Still a fine deer rifle (well, modern smokeless versions, of course).
You asked that in post #296 and I answered that question in post #297. If you are just going to keep asking without being bothered to read the response, well, I can’t help you.
In case, you missed it. It is not the responsibility of the lawfully, constitutionally protected side to offer up suggestions as to how to go about changing a miniscule problem that only your side sees.
Resolved: People getting killed is a problem.
A long ways down the “importance list” is gun deaths, especially to gun owners. Why? Because there are a whole host of things that kill people in much greater numbers.
Where are your proposals for those?
Smoking, driving a car, drowning, etc etc
Poverty is down, and unemployment is at near-record low levels. Again, whatever we are doing is working. As for mental health, first you would need to supply hard figures on how much mental health support will reduce the problem. Then we can talk about proposals.
That’s amazing, since it’s not apparent that “we” are actually doing anything. Changing demographics is doing most of the heavy lifting, since most other western democracies have experienced a similar fall in violent crime.
You also forgot to mention that despite falling crime rates, gun homicide rates in the US have increased by nearly 50% since 1999, and gun suicide rates by even more than that. So whatever you’re doing, it’s about time to stop, and start doing something that actually works. Cite.