The Newtown shooting was really really bad...

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@doorhinge

Hahahaha. You’re aware that California confiscated guns. California confiscated the guns that California had previously forced the owners to register. Registration was the first step to those confiscations.

I probably know what went down in California better than most, I was there during the Rodney King riots and I know happened when they confiscated SKS rifles.

For those of you that don’t know, here is what happened. California banned assault weapons. People were unclear if a particular type of rifle SKS - Wikipedia was an assault weapon so the attorney General Dan Lungren issued a ruling that SKS rifles with detachable magazines were NOT assault weapons but they had to be registered. Then he reversed course while he was running for governor and had them confiscated. They sent a letter out to all registered SKS owners telling them to turn in their rifle for $230 (the guns were probably worth about $100). They probably would not be able to get away with this anywhere outside the 9th circuit.

This is a series of events that simply cannot be duplicated at the federal level. And if it could, the country will be unrecognizable to any of us. You are basically afraid that the federal governmetn and the American people will one day resemble the California government and the people of California. If that day ever comes, we will have repealed the 2nd amendment and registration would have occurred a long time ago.

This country doesn’t have a national registration but it wasn’t for a lack of trying. The voters, from all walks of life and political persuasion, have a tendency to unelect those politicians who reject the idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves from criminal intruders and that the 2nd isn’t an individual right.

Registration doesn’t do that.

The recent recalls in Colorado resulted to two fewer Democrats in the State Legislature (almost three but the last one resigned in order to allow for a Democrat replacement appointment).

Colorado is a bit different. Colorado is generally a pro-gun state. They tried to pass gun regulations in the wake of Newtown when the gun nuts were very agitated and activated. Even worse, the new gun laws banned magazines (made them illegal to possess, not just to buy) that could take more than 15 rounds, they banned (illegal to possess) certain guns with high internal capacity (including shotguns). I don’t know if they would have gotten that sort of reaction if they did it at another time and they limited themselves to a background check.

The Colorado recalls also seems to have had an effect on California Governor Moonbeam Brown, who subsequently vetoed many of the anti-2nd bills just passed by the State legislature.

California doesn’t unelect people because they pass gun regulation. The SKS confiscation was driven in large part by the political ambitions of an atotrney general who was running for governor, he thought being a gun grabber was going to HELP im win elections. Another poster (from California) posted earlier that Governor Brown is fairly pro-gun, yeah, I know, it surprised me too.

You could probably purchase a machine gun (assuming you’re not a felon or looney) and can afford the $200 fee for yourself and the $200 per each machine gun plus the $45,000+ cost of the firearm and agree to submit to an annual, unannounced inspection by the BATFE. (Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. Did anyone bring sandwiches?)

Machine guns don’t cost $45,000. You can get all sorts of machine guns for under $5000, you can get an Uzi for under $10K and an M-16 for under $15K. If you want a collectible in great condition, then maybe prices get that high.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bryan_Ekers

I didn’t even try to argue the assault weapons ban had a noticeable effect. Instead, I described it as a “waste of time”. But I gather you’re highlighting the distinction between:

-licensing/registration, which slows or stops people from getting guns, and
-confiscation, in which guns that were once legally possessed are taken away.

My “Yeah. So?” was in response to the rather obvious claim that these are distinct actions. Yeah, they are. So?

Yeah, the post you were responding to was responding to a post by Andros where he seems to put them in the same category. One can be effective, the other cannot.

So I distinguish between anti-gun folks who want to pursue an agenda of licensing and registration and people who just want to grab guns.

I have no doubts that significantly reducing the number of privately-owned firearms in the United States (assuming that was the goal) is a generation-long (or several generations-long) process.

Thing is, you’re not telling me anything that I don’t already know, isn’t already obvious, or I couldn’t readily learn with a few minutes’ googling.

OK, so maybe you should just spell out what you think we should do. Maybe I;ve got you confused with people who want to make guns (or at least some guns) illegal. If youa re saying that you want licensign and registration and thats about it, then you and I are about the only two people on this board that think this way.

sure, Canadians do get killed, raped and robbed, but concealed-carry doesn’t seem to be a solution, if the American example is any guide.

Concealed carry also doesn’t seem to aggravate the problem. In a few studies that have been reviewed by both sides of the debate, it is generally agreed that having a concealed carry regime does not lead to noticably higher degrees of gun violence. There is still argument about whether it reduces crime but noone seems to think that it is a significant contributor to crime or gun violence.

I dislike the term “gun grabber” (and I’m not too fond of “gun nut”, unless the person has shown some actual fanaticism) if it’s meant to imply someone who wants to restrict or confiscate guns just for the sake of restricting or confiscating guns, while ignoring very legitimate concerns about crime and violence.

Then the term gun grabber applies to most of the anti-gun side of the debate on this board.

Personally in prefer the term gun nerd to gun nut but a lot of people on my side of the debate are in fact gun nuts (some of them are gun nuts and proud of it) just like a lot of people on the other side of the debate are gun grabbers (but they almost always deny that they are gun grabbers).

But labels… whatever. Use any term you want. I just won’t respond to someone who insists on calling me a “gun grabber” and uses that label as a premise, i.e. “so you want registration? Then you’re a gun grabber, and gun grabbers always want to take away guns, because gun grabbers secretly want the government to control everything” etc. It’s like arguing with a child.

Well by that definition, I’m a gun grabber because I want universal licensing and registration of all firearms. Your comments have made me think that maybe we only need to register handguns.

Just as an aside, I have been accused of being a gun nut MUCH more than I have been accused of being a gun grabber on this board. In fact noone has accused me of being a gun grabber for advocating licensing and registration but I have been called all sorts of names (gun nut being the mildest of them) for opposing gun bans, particularly the assault weapons ban.

[doorhinge]

@Bryan_Ekers

Or the board.

@Bryan_Ekers

By the way, as of today, I’ve lost $14.61 on my investment, and that’s not counting the $9.99 transaction fee. Some of this may be due to fluctuations between the U.S. and Canadian dollar or maybe sanity is returning to America.

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m not an American, the issue is largely of academic interest for me. Relatively speaking, Canada is more “utopic” than the U.S. because we have a lot less gun violence and yet have as much or more freedom. What we don’t have is casual access to concealed-carry permits (they exist, but are very rare) and yet gun violence (and violence in general) remains unusual. I live in a city with a population a little smaller than Houston’s and slightly higher than Philadelphia’s, but I’ll gladly match Montreal’s violent-crime stats against either. Possibly we have more stolen cars…

That said, I’ve no problem recognizing that our long gun registry (and your “assault weapon” ban) were complete wastes of time and resources that should have been spent hiring, training and equipping cops.
Cruikshank and Miller were decisions related to the 2nd Amendment (as is Heller) is all, the point being that the application of the 2nd is not simply a matter of reading the text of the 2nd, but also referring to SCOTUS rulings that are subject to later revision. Heller is no exception - the issues can (almost certainly will) be revisited and the benchmarks altered. I’m not holding my breath, of course - it may take a few decades. Possibly a case will come about stemming from someone using a 3D printer to make his own gun, of a quality level indistinguishable from current factory production.

@Bryan_Ekers

You should stop trying to be funny.

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, I offer up a challenge for you to make your next post in this thread a dead-serious, thoughtful, intelligent effort. If you can’t or won’t, then… bye.

(underline and bold added for clarity)

For someone who recently said, “the issue is largely of academic interest for me”, and who wishes to dictate what others can or can not post in “The BBQ pit” forum, I can only say that I’ll miss you.

So, how’s your aforementioned investment doing? Are you still down $14.61 (plus the $9.99 transaction fee)?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Damuri_Ajashi

OK, so maybe you should just spell out what you think we should do.

Hire more cops. Build more hospitals. Hunker down. Wait for radicalized conservatism to die out. Beyond that, I’m honestly not sure what you can do. A sizable chunk of your population are hanging onto their guns for the principle of it, and they’re willing (indeed eager) to reflect this in their votes and political contributions.

If I was able to take a shot at it (as it were) with legislative remedies, I wouldn’t bother putting new laws on guns - I’d repeal laws against drugs, on the theory that much of the gun violence in the U.S. is related to the drug trade.

Concealed carry also doesn’t seem to aggravate the problem. In a few studies that have been reviewed by both sides of the debate, it is generally agreed that having a concealed carry regime does not lead to noticably higher degrees of gun violence. There is still argument about whether it reduces crime but noone seems to think that it is a significant contributor to crime or gun violence.

Hence I’m not arguing for Canadians to have broad access to concealed-carry. We have lower crime rates than the U.S. without it.

Then the term gun grabber applies to most of the anti-gun side of the debate on this board.

If you choose to define it such, sure. I won’t be embracing the term, myself.

[andros]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yeah, the post you were responding to was responding to a post by Andros where he seems to put them in the same category. One can be effective, the other cannot.

Oh right. Yeah, sorry about that. I was not trying to make that point, actually.

See, doorhinge had already made it clear that he hadn’t read the thread before jumping in, and I had subtly snarked about it. He then landed on Bryan Ekers with some inanity about US political parties, making it clear he still hadn’t even glanced at the previous posts. It’s been made abundantly clear that Bryan is from Canuckistan. I felt like more snark, so posted about Canadian political parties in another subtle attempt to suggest that doorhinge was going off a bit half-cocked (ha!).

IOW, I was far, far too subtle for my own good. Apologies.

-a-

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bryan_Ekers

Hire more cops. Build more hospitals. Hunker down. Wait for radicalized conservatism to die out. Beyond that, I’m honestly not sure what you can do. A sizable chunk of your population are hanging onto their guns for the principle of it, and they’re willing (indeed eager) to reflect this in their votes and political contributions.

If I was able to take a shot at it (as it were) with legislative remedies, I wouldn’t bother putting new laws on guns - I’d repeal laws against drugs, on the theory that much of the gun violence in the U.S. is related to the drug trade.

Doesn’t sound very anti-gun to me. in fact it sounds like I support more gun regulation (licensing and registration) than you do.

Hence I’m not arguing for Canadians to have broad access to concealed-carry. We have lower crime rates than the U.S. without it.

America is not exactly analogous to Canada but the American experience is that concealed carry laws do not really contribute to higher crime rates or gun violence. And there is some evidence that it leads to less crime.

If you choose to define it such, sure. I won’t be embracing the term, myself.

I thought thats the way you defined it.

[watchwolf49]

If we look at the extremes:

If a Saudi woman is seen driving a car, the police are required to stop her, pull her out of the car and chop her head off. So I think Saudi women should be able to pack Glocks.

The UK has the highest per capita rate of violent crime in the world, there’s segments of that population that should NEVER be allowed to own guns.

What bothers me is when law enforcement advocates limits on guns … FUCK YOU … 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect the citizens from criminals, it protects us from YOU … ass-wipes.

Anyway, let’s look more closely at the Newtown school that fateful morning. First we have the fact that the shooter’s Mother worked there as a substitute teacher. Second we have the fact that the shooter had attended high school in that community. So, here we have a majority of the adults on the school grounds who knew the shooter was a total wack-job walking onto the campus with a fucking rifle. Now, if they call police, the mother’s going to get fired. This woman is their co-worker, their friend, a trusted member of their team.

How many turned their head and said in their heart “It’s not me making that call”? Or worse, Union rules don’t allow them to call.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@watchwolf49

If we look at the extremes:

If a Saudi woman is seen driving a car, the police are required to stop her, pull her out of the car and chop her head off. So I think Saudi women should be able to pack Glocks.

The UK has the highest per capita rate of violent crime in the world, there’s segments of that population that should NEVER be allowed to own guns.

What bothers me is when law enforcement advocates limits on guns … FUCK YOU … 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect the citizens from criminals, it protects us from YOU … ass-wipes.

I’m mostly concerned about criminals but I understand that folks like Ice Cube are more concerned about the police.

Anyway, let’s look more closely at the Newtown school that fateful morning. First we have the fact that the shooter’s Mother worked there as a substitute teacher. Second we have the fact that the shooter had attended high school in that community. So, here we have a majority of the adults on the school grounds who knew the shooter was a total wack-job walking onto the campus with a fucking rifle. Now, if they call police, the mother’s going to get fired. This woman is their co-worker, their friend, a trusted member of their team.

How many turned their head and said in their heart “It’s not me making that call”? Or worse, Union rules don’t allow them to call.

I don’t think any of this is correct other than the fact that the shooter lived and went to school in the area.

The shooter’s mother had no connection to the school:

“Janet Robinson, superintendent of Newtown schools, said she had not found any connection between Lanza’s mother and the school in contrast to initial media reports that stated Lanza’s mother had worked there”

He was not apparently a well known nutjob:

“Students and teachers who knew him in high school described Lanza as “intelligent, but nervous and fidgety”. He avoided attracting attention and was uncomfortable socializing. He is not known to have had any close friends in school.”

And in what world would people turn their heds when someone walks into an elementary school with a fucking bushmaster rifle? Union rules!??!?! WTF?

ETA: wait, am I being whooshed?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@doorhinge

As I stated above, “No firearms for them unless…”. I should probably add -dangerous chemicals, rope, cars (as the driver), airplanes (as the pilot), and knives to the list. I believe their rights should be restored, on an individual basis, if they can prove to the State that they are no longer a danger to themselves or society.

Okay, great!

Now, explain to me the process regarding taking away firearms from those who commit felonies or who have an onset of mental illness. Specifically, how is this goal that we both agree is necessary to be achieved without a registration system?

[watchwolf49]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The shooter’s mother had no connection to the school:

I stand corrected.

Are you overlaying early 21st century cultural norms over a late 18th century law? Our society has been arguably well-armed for over 200 years, of course our police behave. Is the 2nd Amendment the sole cause, hell no … all ten play a part. But take one part away, are we not less free?

The NRA dude had it right, just enforce the laws we already have. We can’t afford to enforce them, then what the hell’s the point of making new laws. Get 2/3’s each house of Congress and 3/4’s the states to agree, I’m first in line to turn in my gun (if I actually owned one). Until then, “Don’t Tread on Me”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Doesn’t sound very anti-gun to me. in fact it sounds like I support more gun regulation (licensing and registration) than you do.

Could be, but I’m starting from a different place - where handguns aren’t nearly as common and fear mingled with racism isn’t nearly as endemic. Basically, I don’t have to be anti-gun, because my environment isn’t heavily pro-gun.

America is not exactly analogous to Canada but the American experience is that concealed carry laws do not really contribute to higher crime rates or gun violence. And there is some evidence that it leads to less crime.

To be fair, there isn’t a single American experience, or a single Canadian one. Both countries are large and varied. As a thought experiment, I can picture taking four cities - Montreal, Boston, Calgary and Dallas - and trying to pair them based on common elements. Depending what I chose to focus on, I can see Montreal having more in common with Boston, and Calgary having more in common with Dallas, than Montreal/Calgary or Boston/Dallas.

Anyway, Canada does not currently embrace concealed-carry and there isn’t a lot of demand for it (at least where I live - possibly Calgarians feel different), and I think we’re okay without it.

I thought thats the way you defined it.

I sensed (or at least thought I did - I’m prepared to admit I might be wrong) a sneering tone to the way “gun grabber” (a term I’ve only become familiar with in the last few months) was being used. I don’t offer my own definition for it, but it looked to me like the people who were using “gun grabber” largely meant it as “person who hates/fears guns (and the people who own them) while knowing nothing about either.” I don’t feel this hate/fear and I’m not ignorant, so when someone insists I’m a “gun grabber”, I am dismissive.

If someone wants to offer up a less charged definition, where “gun grabber” means “person who argues for gun regulation or banning”, fine, but sooner or later the sneer will creep back in.

[doorhinge]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Okay, great!

Now, explain to me the process regarding taking away firearms from those who commit felonies or who have an onset of mental illness. Specifically, how is this goal that we both agree is necessary to be achieved without a registration system?

It would be done on an INDIVIDUAL basis. When it was discovered that John Dillinger was robbing banks and shooting people, Dillinger’s home, vehicle, and person could be searched, by court order, for weapons and the weapons confiscated. Should the court/police also search every home within 1000 yards or 2 miles of Dillinger’s home, ya know, just in case?

The “onset” of mental illness doesn’t count for much without a proper/legal medical determination. We, you and I, can’t legally prove we’re sane without a doctor’s certification. If Dick Durbin were to be admitted to a mental health facility for whatever reason (danger to self, danger to others, feels that people don’t like him), he would, as an individual, no longer be allowed to play with firearms (or rope or aspirin or sharp objects etc).

Felons can not be charged with a crime for not registering their firearms. Since it’s illegal for them to possess firearms and everyone has a 5th Amendment protection against incriminating themselves, felons can’t be force to tell the State that they are breaking the law (again/still/yet). Only the law abiding person could be forced to register their firearms. Criminals - no, law abiding - yes.

So who are you registering and for what purpose?

[watchwolf49]

Mental Illness or just having fun … Mythbusters - Kari Byron - Chopping down a tree with a machine gun - YouTube

[doorhinge]

@andros

Oh right. Yeah, sorry about that. I was not trying to make that point, actually.

See, doorhinge had already made it clear that he hadn’t read the thread before jumping in, and I had subtly snarked about it. He then landed on Bryan Ekers with some inanity about US political parties, making it clear he still hadn’t even glanced at the previous posts. It’s been made abundantly clear that Bryan is from Canuckistan. I felt like more snark, so posted about Canadian political parties in another subtle attempt to suggest that doorhinge was going off a bit half-cocked (ha!).

IOW, I was far, far too subtle for my own good. Apologies.

-a-

I don’t care if Bryan Ekers is Canadian. I treated him as I would anyone else. Canadians are allowed to post, or not post , on this board about any topic they choose. Attempting to dictate to me what I can or can’t post is above your pay grade.

[andros]

@doorhinge

Attempting to dictate to me what I can or can’t post is above your pay grade.

Then it’s a good thing I didn’t, huh?

I fortunately reserve the privilege of gently mocking you for demanding a discussion of US political parties from a Canadian without realising it.

[doorhinge]

@andros

Then it’s a good thing I didn’t, huh?

I fortunately reserve the privilege of gently mocking you for demanding a discussion of US political parties from a Canadian without realising it.

What does his being a Canadian have to do with the discussion? AFAIK, Canadians have access to books and media outlets and televisions and internet connections and Tim Hortons and hockey sticks and snow just like normal people (just kidding ). You’re the only one who seems to be hung up on his country. Do you know something about Canadians that you would like to share with the rest of the class?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@andros

IOW, I was far, far too subtle for my own good. Apologies.

Emoticons might help.

@watchwolf49

But take one part away, are we not less free?

I haven’t had much use for the third amendment. I’m not sure if I would miss it considering we have the takings clause.

[/quote]
The NRA dude had it right, just enforce the laws we already have. We can’t afford to enforce them, then what the hell’s the point of making new laws. Get 2/3’s each house of Congress and 3/4’s the states to agree, I’m first in line to turn in my gun (if I actually owned one). Until then, “Don’t Tread on Me”.
[/QUOTE]

We can enforce a lot of them but neither side seems to really want enforcement of the rules. Gun nuts would rather get rid of then rules and the gun grabbers would rather try to implement gun bans rather than investigatge felons who tried to buy guns.

@Bryan_Ekers

Could be, but I’m starting from a different place - where handguns aren’t nearly as common and fear mingled with racism isn’t nearly as endemic. Basically, I don’t have to be anti-gun, because my environment isn’t heavily pro-gun.

The people in America who are most anti-gun are coming from anti-gun parts of the country. The msot progun people tend to come from pro-gun parts of the country. You get these guys from Wyoming or Utah whine about gun regulation when they are barely subject to any gun regulation at all. You get these folks from NYC whine about the lack of gun regulation when you have everything short of an outright ban of firearms.

To be fair, there isn’t a single American experience…

Yes but as a whole, concealed carry does not increase gun violence or crime in an area. There is some evidence that it reduces crime.

Anyway, Canada does not currently embrace concealed-carry and there isn’t a lot of demand for it (at least where I live - possibly Calgarians feel different), and I think we’re okay without it.

Do you have open carry? Can you carry around your firearms openly?

I sensed (or at least thought I did - I’m prepared to admit I might be wrong) a sneering tone to the way “gun grabber” (a term I’ve only become familiar with in the last few months) was being used. I don’t offer my own definition for it, but it looked to me like the people who were using “gun grabber” largely meant it as “person who hates/fears guns (and the people who own them) while knowing nothing about either.” I don’t feel this hate/fear and I’m not ignorant, so when someone insists I’m a “gun grabber”, I am dismissive.

If someone wants to offer up a less charged definition, where “gun grabber” means “person who argues for gun regulation or banning”, fine, but sooner or later the sneer will creep back in.

OK, fair enough. I’ll just try to use the terms pro-gun or anti-gun.

@doorhinge

Felons can not be charged with a crime for not registering their firearms. Since it’s illegal for them to possess firearms and everyone has a 5th Amendment protection against incriminating themselves, felons can’t be force to tell the State that they are breaking the law (again/still/yet). Only the law abiding person could be forced to register their firearms. Criminals - no, law abiding - yes.

We can send people to jail for failing to report illegal income.

And the beauty behind licensing and registration is that we don’t need criminals to comply with the rules for licensing and registration to be effective.

We don’t have to take the guns from criminals to reduce guns in criminal hands. We just have to reduce their access to guns. The anti-gun argument is (at least in part) that given enough time crimanls will run out of guns from confiscations during police searches and recovery at crime scenes. Lets say the half life of a gun in criminal hands is 10 years (ten years before they get confiscated or found at a crime scene). But the registration process makes guns harder for criminals to get their hands on (let me know if you don’t understand why licensing and registration would reduce flow of guns to criminals). It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to reduce the inflow of guns into criminal hands enough so that we are taking more guns away from criminals each year than they can get their hands on each year. I think we can all agree that reducing guns in criminal hands will reduce gun violence, etc.

It is less effective than a total gun ban but it has the benefit of allowing law abiding citizens to keep their guns and the added benefit of not having to amend the constitution.

So who are you registering and for what purpose?

I a week ago I would have said, all firearms, but now I think handguns and machine guns might be all we need to register.

@doorhinge

What does his being a Canadian have to do with the discussion? AFAIK, Canadians have access to books and media outlets and televisions and internet connections and Tim Hortons and hockey sticks and snow just like normal people (just kidding ). You’re the only one who seems to be hung up on his country. Do you know something about Canadians that you would like to share with the rest of the class?

He’s not just Canadian, he’s French Canadian. Most of them can’t read and they wipe their asses with pine cones. Pine cones, its whats for dinner.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yes but as a whole, concealed carry does not increase gun violence or crime in an area. There is some evidence that it reduces crime.

Yes, you’ve said that a few times, but without some actual statistical analysis, I’m not going to delve into it. We don’t have concealed carry and we have lower crime rates than American venues that do (I recognize the wiggle room in this - urban Montreal might have a higher crime rate than rural Alaska, for example - but, whatever), so right off the bat any argument that Canadians should have concealed carry starts with a considerable burden.

Do you have open carry? Can you carry around your firearms openly?

Not in the cities. Rarely, one can get an open carry permit for a handgun for personal protection in wilderness areas.

He’s not just Canadian, he’s French Canadian. Most of them can’t read and they wipe their asses with pine cones. Pine cones, its whats for dinner.

I’m not French-Canadian, but this is stupid regardless.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m not French-Canadian, but this is stupid regardless.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So you’re six years old, then. Noted.