Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Global Politics => Topic started by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2018, 05:40:58

Title: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2018, 05:40:58
Quote
David Hogg, gun control advocates march on Smith & Wesson headquarters, demand $5 million donation[


https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/26/david-hogg-gun-control-advocates-march-smith-wesso/

Seems typical of that group. The only thing missing is the usual attempts at blackmail.


As with most anti-gun politicians, celebrities and spokes people, Mr Hogg is quite happy to employ armed security.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/5/david-hogg-employed-armed-security-nra-protest-org/

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 09:23:15
New Zealand bans “military style” assault guns after mosque attacks: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/after-mosque-attacks-new-zealand-quickly-bans-assault-weapons-1.4345293

Looks like the ban is quite broad, is immediate to prevent stockpiling, and includes even “accessories” to weapons. There will be a buy back, but the price tag looks minimal. The law for it all, apparently, will come later.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 21, 2019, 11:51:51
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 21, 2019, 13:00:58
Gun confiscation worked in Britain.

Year old stats, but I don't think they'll be much change once the new ones are compiled.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-clapham-shepherds-bush-crouch-hill-kingsland-hammersmith-greenwich-latest/

<snip>
Quote
Figures from London's Metropolitan police showed that knife crime has surged by 16 per cent in the capital — as Britain's crime epidemic continues.

Excluding those killed in terror attacks like London Bridge, Westminster and Manchester, there was still a 12 per cent rise in murders — the highest numbers in a decade.The total number of offences involving a knife or bladed instrument that have been recorded by cops in the year to March 2018 rose to 40,147, a seven-year-high.

There were 1,299 stabbings in London up to the end of April, according to official statistics from the Met Police.
<snip>

Near as I can tell, this is just London.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: AbdullahD on March 21, 2019, 13:36:45
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.

That would literally be my entire collection gone... such an arbitrary set of qualifiers 😡

I feel bad for NZ gun owners :(
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on March 21, 2019, 13:59:33
Gun confiscation worked in Britain.

Year old stats, but I don't think they'll be much change once the new ones are compiled.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-clapham-shepherds-bush-crouch-hill-kingsland-hammersmith-greenwich-latest/

<snip><snip>

Near as I can tell, this is just London.

At the risk of playing too fast and loose with regards to correlation versus causality, Britain has also seen a reduction of 21,000 police officers since 2010 (https://fullfact.org/crime/police-numbers/). London Met has seen a decrease of somewhere around 10%- they lost about 3000 (https://fullfact.org/crime/london-losing-3000-police-officers/).

I'll try to succinctly contextualize this and then give the 'so what?'. A police service will always have two personnel overheads: A certain amount have to be on the road taking all the calls coming in, from the mundane to the serious. Generally they will be pretty fully occupied doing these things. Call volume can be diverted with things like online and telephone report centers and such, but in any major municipality the cops on the road are nearly always fully busy. They aren't in a position to do much proactive, like knocking on doors to make sure offenders are abiding by curfews and release conditions, or running surveillance, doing undercover drug buys, and writing search warrants. Think of these units as your pioneers, your mortars, your direct fire support platoon. You lose too many troops, your battalion doesn't get to have these nice things because otherwise the rifle companies are empty.

A certain amount of officers will have to be in the office- managers, administrators who require specific policing experience and skills... You invariably lose some 'roadable' this way.

You take every other officer, and that's your support units. That's your investigative support sections. Your robbery unit. Your sex crimes unit. Your domestic violence unit. Your major crimes / homicide units. Your auto theft unit. Your probation/parole/conditions enforcement unit. Your drug teams. Your surveillance teams. Your prolific offender enforcement units. These units all work in concert. There are a lot of ways bad guys are taken off the street.

Traffic units adequately resourced to do enforcement will pull over stupid drivers (which a lot of gang types are). Those stupid drivers will get tickets. Eventually ones who are stupid enough may lose their licenses and get hit with suspensions- then you get them caught driving suspended, and from stops like that you see drugs and guns being seized from vehicles that are searched incidental to arrest; you see passengers IDed where they otherwise wouldn't be, and guys out on probation or interim release who have enforceable conditions get breached.

Prolific offender units will pcik a few of the known problem eprsonalities. They'll do surveillance, they'll do door knocks to check up on probation conditions. They'll actively investigate reported breaches (e.g., don't hang out with criminals, don't consume alcohol, abide by a 10pm to 7am curfew, etc). They'll learn who's stealing what and who they're selling it to and attack those networks.

Drug teams will start with street level undercover buys and will work their way up a network. They'll identify dealers at whatever level they're targeting, and they'll do the necessary surveillance to get search warrants. Once those doors get kicked, violent people go to jail, drugs and crime guns are found and off the street. Criminal networks are disrupted.

Your auto theft units will do surveillance and work GPS enabled bait cars. The people who steal cars tend to have other stuff going on- when they're caght, often they have conditions, or are on parole or probation. They may have weapons, they often have drugs. They may be accompanied by other criminal associates who can be IDed and action taken. These operations get them in jail for a while.

So when police services get stripped of people, the positions necessarily hit the proactive units the hardest. The units that *aren't* stuck going call to call, and who are able to specifically target certain offenders, areas, or problem patterns. Because the people who are going around sticking knives into people are almost invariably living the kind of lifestyle where these sorts of units will encounter them, and on the aggregate, more of them will come off the street and end up in jail for a while, making patrol officers more able to respond adequately to stuff as it comes in, and maybe do a bit of proactive work themselves, such as doing foot patrols around drinking establishments and entertainment districts, and other stuff to deter crimes of opportunity or drunken stupidity. It's really the same problems we've seen in Canadian cities as populations have grown and police services haven't- just that Britain went through massive cuts.

So essentially they're now running very short staffed and are struggling to do anything other than just go to the emergency calls that come in. That leaves a lot of not great people on the street who are basically 'left alone' until something bad enough to make it through call triage has already been committed.

So bear all that in mind when attempting to make univariate comparisons of things like changed gun laws and crime levels. It's a gross oversimplification that really doesn't look at the larger problem in any real depth at all.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 14:04:46
Did some reading on what they consider an MSSA; got this from wikipedia, but it's pulled from the legislation.  Apparently an MSSA is anything that has;

    Folding or telescopic butt
    Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
    Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
    Bayonet lug
    Pistol grip as defined by regulation
    Flash suppressor

So you could buy something legally under their A class license, and easily swap out a part and have it meet the definition of an MSSA.  So it sounds like they are banning the various modular rifles and large magazines, as well as buying them back from the legal owners.  I know a lot of people won't like it, but it seems like a fairly reasonable approach that balances the needs of hunters, farmers etc against the increasing risk from fringe lunatics going on killing sprees.

Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on March 21, 2019, 14:09:21
It's not based on logic, it's being seen to be "doing something"
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Target Up on March 21, 2019, 14:17:27
At the risk of playing too fast and loose with regards to correlation versus causality, Britain has also seen a reduction of 21,000 police officers since 2010 (https://fullfact.org/crime/police-numbers/). London Met has seen a decrease of somewhere around 10%- they lost about 3000 (https://fullfact.org/crime/london-losing-3000-police-officers/).

I'll try to succinctly contextualize this and then give the 'so what?'. A police service will always have two personnel overheads: A certain amount have to be on the road taking all the calls coming in, from the mundane to the serious. Generally they will be pretty fully occupied doing these things. Call volume can be diverted with things like online and telephone report centers and such, but in any major municipality the cops on the road are nearly always fully busy. They aren't in a position to do much proactive, like knocking on doors to make sure offenders are abiding by curfews and release conditions, or running surveillance, doing undercover drug buys, and writing search warrants. Think of these units as your pioneers, your mortars, your direct fire support platoon. You lose too many troops, your battalion doesn't get to have these nice things because otherwise the rifle companies are empty.

A certain amount of officers will have to be in the office- managers, administrators who require specific policing experience and skills... You invariably lose some 'roadable' this way.

You take every other officer, and that's your support units. That's your investigative support sections. Your robbery unit. Your sex crimes unit. Your domestic violence unit. Your major crimes / homicide units. Your auto theft unit. Your probation/parole/conditions enforcement unit. Your drug teams. Your surveillance teams. Your prolific offender enforcement units. These units all work in concert. There are a lot of ways bad guys are taken off the street.

Traffic units adequately resourced to do enforcement will pull over stupid drivers (which a lot of gang types are). Those stupid drivers will get tickets. Eventually ones who are stupid enough may lose their licenses and get hit with suspensions- then you get them caught driving suspended, and from stops like that you see drugs and guns being seized from vehicles that are searched incidental to arrest; you see passengers IDed where they otherwise wouldn't be, and guys out on probation or interim release who have enforceable conditions get breached.

Prolific offender units will pcik a few of the known problem eprsonalities. They'll do surveillance, they'll do door knocks to check up on probation conditions. They'll actively investigate reported breaches (e.g., don't hang out with criminals, don't consume alcohol, abide by a 10pm to 7am curfew, etc). They'll learn who's stealing what and who they're selling it to and attack those networks.

Drug teams will start with street level undercover buys and will work their way up a network. They'll identify dealers at whatever level they're targeting, and they'll do the necessary surveillance to get search warrants. Once those doors get kicked, violent people go to jail, drugs and crime guns are found and off the street. Criminal networks are disrupted.

Your auto theft units will do surveillance and work GPS enabled bait cars. The people who steal cars tend to have other stuff going on- when they're caght, often they have conditions, or are on parole or probation. They may have weapons, they often have drugs. They may be accompanied by other criminal associates who can be IDed and action taken. These operations get them in jail for a while.

So when police services get stripped of people, the positions necessarily hit the proactive units the hardest. The units that *aren't* stuck going call to call, and who are able to specifically target certain offenders, areas, or problem patterns. Because the people who are going around sticking knives into people are almost invariably living the kind of lifestyle where these sorts of units will encounter them, and on the aggregate, more of them will come off the street and end up in jail for a while, making patrol officers more able to respond adequately to stuff as it comes in, and maybe do a bit of proactive work themselves, such as doing foot patrols around drinking establishments and entertainment districts, and other stuff to deter crimes of opportunity or drunken stupidity. It's really the same problems we've seen in Canadian cities as populations have grown and police services haven't- just that Britain went through massive cuts.

So essentially they're now running very short staffed and are struggling to do anything other than just go to the emergency calls that come in. That leaves a lot of not great people on the street who are basically 'left alone' until something bad enough to make it through call triage has already been committed.

So bear all that in mind when attempting to make univariate comparisons of things like changed gun laws and crime levels. It's a gross oversimplification that really doesn't look at the larger problem in any real depth at all.

Not sure of your point here. There could be four million cops on the payroll, they’re almost never where murders or violent crimes happen till after the fact, then it’s the same statistic. Maybe they respond faster, but almost all policing is reactive rather than proactive, especially in rural areas.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on March 21, 2019, 14:36:55
Not sure of your point here. There could be four million cops on the payroll, they’re almost never where murders or violent crimes happen till after the fact, then it’s the same statistic. Maybe they respond faster, but almost all policing is reactive rather than proactive, especially in rural areas.

OK, sorry man, I didn't break it down enough. I'll try again.

Firstly- I'm not talking about flushing the streets with cops so that there is one coincidentally on scene when a knife comes out able to instantly respond. I'm talking about prevention in a couple of different ways. I will preface by strongly disagreeing that police is almost purely reactive. That's the case in a poorly resourced organization, absolutely, but a ton of proactive work can be and is done.

One: There *is* a deterrent effect to some extent. When bars close and people pile out onto the street in an entertainment district, fights will be prevented in many cases merely by police being visible. The kind of situations that lead to some drunk idiot pulling a knife or gun on someone. Some people will still have more sense if they see police or know them to be around.

Two: I'm talking more about 'disabling' criminal behaviour. The types of people who commit violent offences are generally involved in a whole host of different criminal behaviours. Stealing cars, trafficking in drugs and stolen property... They tend to spend significant periods bound by parole / probation / bail conditions aimed at curbing behaviour, stuff like stay in your house at night, don't drink alcohol, etc. These are things that proactive police units can engage. Like I mentioned, the auto theft units who will run bait cards; the prolific offender units who will do door knocks and curfew checks, and breach and return to jail people who violate conditions.The drug units who will proactively investigate and execute search and arrest warrants. Stuff like that. All this proactive work gets criminals off the street and either in jail or on bail conditions that make it harder for them to do stuff. Fewer criminals are able to be in a situation where they can or choose to commit acts of violence.

Even modest numbers in police resources in a community can allow for the stand up or expansion of proactive units that can have a disproportionately positive effect on that particular crime patterns they're targeting. Conversely, reducing police numbers disproportionately hits those units first because other priorities have to be maintained for first response. You start taking resources away form these units, and criminals are able to carry on with much greater impunity- which invariably will lead to more things like robberies/carjackings gone wrong, drug binges, and the other sorts of shenanigans where violence occurs.

All that to say- simply looking at 'gun laws vs crime stats' as a simple comparison is utterly meaningless when there are much more significant big picture things happening.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 14:53:46



https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

Quote
Last Friday, our country was shocked by a brutal and senseless attack. We recognise our world has changed.

Police focus is on ensuring the immediate safety and peace of mind of our communities.

Today, the Government has made immediate changes to classifications in the Arms Act which will mean some firearms are going to be reclassified as military style semi-automatic firearms (MSSAs).

At 3pm today, changes have been by an Order in Council under section 74A(c) of the Arms Act came into force adding two more groups of semi-automatics under the MSSA definition:

• a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges; and

• a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

As a result of these changes many people who, up until now have owned these firearms legally, will no longer be able to possess them on their current licence conditions.

This means for many people, you will now be in unlawful possession of your firearm.

Given this is an immediate change, there is an amnesty to allow the notification and hand in their firearms to Police.

To organise the hand in of your firearm, you will need to complete a form on the Police website. Those who are unable to do so can call Police on 0800 311 311.

When the form is submitted Police will be notified you are in possession of a firearm that needs to be handed in. We will contact you to organise a suitable time and place for you to hand over your firearm. This may mean you bring it to Police at an allocated time, or a Police employee comes to you directly to collect the firearm.

I can’t emphasise enough that in the current environment, it is important you do not take your now-unlawful firearm anywhere without notifying Police. It is absolutely vital that we manage the safe and organised transport of all firearms into Police custody.

There is clear information on our website around what firearms are affected by the change and what to do if your firearm if affected.

The Government has signalled there will be further changes made over the coming weeks to ban all military style semi-automatics and assault rifles permanently.

While legislation is being finalised, the Government in the interim has acted to restrict the potential stock-piling of these guns, parts and high-capacity magazines, prevent additional purchases and encourage people to notify Police about their intention to hand in their firearms.

We will continue to update the public and especially the firearms community as required.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on March 21, 2019, 14:54:14
All that to say- simply looking at 'gun laws vs crime stats' as a simple comparison is utterly meaningless when there are much more significant big picture things happening.

Interesting look at the knife phenomenon in the UK in particular the youth aspect where knife violence seems to be more prevalent.

It is long but does support what you are saying Brihard.

Cuts to social services, mental health resources and increased poverty are some of the factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/beyond-the-blade-the-truth-about-knife-in-britain

The real test is whether or not gun laws keep gun crimes from happening. 
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on March 21, 2019, 14:58:50
Interesting look at the knife phenomenon in the UK in particular the youth aspect where knife violence seems to be more prevalent.

It is long but does support what you are saying Brihard.

Cuts to social services, mental health resources and increased poverty are some of the factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/28/beyond-the-blade-the-truth-about-knife-in-britain

The real test is whether or not gun laws keep gun crimes from happening.

Absolutely those things come into play as well.

When I was policing in a mid sized community (urban/suburban centre, large rural catchment), whenever fluctuating resources and call volume allowed we would do what proactive stuff we could. It made an observable difference, particularly when we could work certain known violent or prolific offenders. Now that's very small scale, but the reasoning scales upwards easily. We also saw the impact that inadequate resources for youths and mental health in particular had.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on March 21, 2019, 15:12:35
Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.

Allowing governments to arbitrarily access private messages truly is an invasion of privacy that effects all of us. Who then decides what constitutes "hate" speech? Is it CNN's reporting of the stuff Trump says? That's truly a slippery slope.

Let me give you just a brief viewpoint on why bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and thirty round magazines are being used as guidepoints. It's primarily because such things are frequently the functions attached to military high powered rifles whose primary use is the killing of people. You do not need any of those things for legitimate hunting or even home defence. Many people are of the view that people who need/want to own modern military firearms are displaying worrisome personality disorders and that it an unreasonable step in society to make such highly destructive weapons readily available.

Here's a quick opinion of one columnist:

Quote
...Doesn’t it seem clear that anyone who feels the need for an AR-15 is already displaying abundant evidence of disordered thinking? If you are paranoid enough to think you need so much firepower for home protection, that’s more paranoia than sanity can contain.

If you say you need an AR-15 to go deer hunting, that’s preposterous. And if you think that you and your patriotic buddies, armed with a small arsenal of semi-automatic rifles converted to full-auto with bump stocks, can resist an American government supported by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, then that’s clear evidence of lunacy....

https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15 (https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15)

I know that I'm venturing into risky ground because many people on this forum are strong advocates of owning military firearms. Hell, I own two myself; one a hundred and forty year old single shot lever action British military rifle in 450/570 calibre the other a seventy-five year old German 8mm Mauser with a five round internal magazine (both have bayonet lugs [and bayonets], are high powered but neither has flash suppressors or a high capacity magazine). I haven't fired either in over fifty years.

Let's face facts. The vast majority of society--even in the US--is of the view that there needs to be much stricter gun control and that military firearms, and pseudo-military firearms, are unnecessary and undesirable in a free and democratic society and further that people who defend and encourage their continued proliferation have something wrong with them. Try to remember that the Heller decision in the USSC in 2008 that interpreted the 2nd amendment broadly on the grounds of self defence was only a five to four ruling and that it did indicate that limitations were acceptable on a case by case basis.

This issue is just another one of those that highlights the strata that our society is divided into. Neither side will ever admit that their views may be unreasonable or that there is any valid justification for their opponents views. Personally, I think that semi-automatic is semi-automatic regardless of whether it's wrapped up in an AR-15 style body or a Ruger Mini-14. I also believe that 5 round magazines and strict background check and registration requirements are reasonable limits to their ownership. The former, alas, all to easy to get around. The aim of the game is to make the majority of society feel safe and comfortable in their lives. What works here might not work in South Africa or Afghanistan. Conditions differ. NZ has been gobsmacked and what is being done there now is to make the people feel good that the government is taking action on their collective behalf. That matters and is, IMHO, worth so much more than the usual bullsh*t "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of gun violence that the US political leadership takes after these events.

 :2c:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: cld617 on March 21, 2019, 15:13:03


https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.

Ridiculous. Considering Quebec has seen about a 17% compliance with their registry, I wouldn't suspect NZ's compliance will be that much larger. Similar societal types in possession of arms, and you certainly don't foster attitudes of understanding by telling someone they're a criminal with the stroke of a pen.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 21, 2019, 15:35:16
Can you please explain to me how whether a firearm has a flash hider or not will save lives and prevent mass shootings?
Has there been many bayonet inflicted deaths during mass shootings?

Reading the above a magazine that holds 7 cartridges would be okay but something that is pinned to 2 rounds but looks like it holds 8 would be banned?


What might really have saved lives is allowing the NZ government to arbitrarily access private message on forums, access private email accounts and access text messages and conversations. They could run programs that red flag anything remotely close to hate speech (or dislike speech or fear?) and arrest them.

Those are the current regs, I think they are looking at a hard cap of 5 rounds for any magazine/tube etc (maybe higher for the 22LR varmint guns).

I don't think banning any of these will do anything to prevent a mass shooting, but can see limiting them to just small magazines limiting the damage (just from the logistics of carrying a bunch of mags and swapping them out every few seconds). The bayonet one is kind of random, but if they are limiting long gun ownership to uses relating to hunting, domestic farm usage etc is there any good reason to have flash suppressors or pistol grips? I can't think of any, but not a big gun guy.

 Targeting some of the underlying mental health issues, economic disparity and monitoring extremism  would be actual preventative measures. Those are a lot harder to do effectively, but hopefully that's something they look at once the shock wears off.

Don't really know if this will make any real difference, but they did seem to look at it, realize they aren't happy with it, and decide to take action and change it (while allowing some exceptions for hunting, farming and recreational use). They are guesstimating about $200m for a buyback, so don't think this is a case of turn it in for nothing, but it is refreshing to see a democratic government make a reasoned decision and take quick action instead of voicing platitudes and empty thoughts and prayers.

Really don't think a massive privacy invasion by the police is in order though. For one, if they had carte blanch access, you are now in a needle in a haystack situation wading through the volume of bs, and anyone with half a brain that wants to avoid it will come up with a work around.  Getting tips from concerned citizens is still probably your best bet for effectively focusing on actual threats, and that requires public trust. You lose that pretty quickly when you are worried about them scanning all your online activities.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 15:47:04
Quote from: FJAG
Allowing governments to arbitrarily access private messages truly is an invasion of privacy that effects all of us. Who then decides what constitutes "hate" speech? Is it CNN's reporting of the stuff Trump says? That's truly a slippery slope.

Why is your privacy more important than the lives of children? Think of the children ;)

I totally agree but the "think of the children"/"if it saves just one life" premise has long been a mantra by gun control advocates.

Being honest you don't really care either way really about firearms, that's cool. I wouldn't expect you to get too emotional over those old guns you mentioned that you haven't shot in 50 years (aside from an heirloom sort of thing).

Perhaps if you're an imbiber of alcohol you would be more bothered by the "saves just one life" mantra if the government was looking at severely restricting alcohol ownership/possession or out right banning it.

That's why I bring up computers and privacy. Maybe it's apples and oranges but the privacy thing I mentioned (along with no alcohol, no smoking) would surely save some lives and that's enough for some people to support it.

Maybe in a couple years the government going through our PMs and Email "to save lives" will be the next fight.

Quote from: FJAG
Let me give you just a brief viewpoint on why bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and thirty round magazines are being used as guidepoints. It's primarily because such things are frequently the functions attached to military high powered rifles whose primary use is the killing of people.

Okay, what constitutes high powered? Is it the size and power of the bullet? If so the 5.56mm bullet that the AR15 isn't very powerful compared to common hunting calibers like .308s, 30-06 and such. There's often arguments that the AR15s 5.56 caliber is under powered.


Quote from: FJAG
You do not need any of those things for legitimate hunting or even home defence. Many people are of the view that people who need/want to own modern military firearms are displaying worrisome personality disorders and that it an unreasonable step in society to make such highly destructive weapons readily available.

I'm not a hunter but I think trying to decide whats needed and whats not for hunting seems very subjective. I've heard that line a lot, you don't need such and such a gun for hunting, often from non-hunters. I think that may be like me with my legal background of 1x PLQ PO check saying you don't need a lawyer if you're not guilty. Right?

A Remington 700 bolt action rifle and Remington 870 pump-action shotgun are probably the most widely known,owned and used "hunting" guns. At least in North America but all over the world too I suspect.  Would you care to take a guess at how many people have been killed with those guns by the police and military? 700 makes a hell of a sniper rifle. Police have been using the 870 forever.

One could say hunters don't need the same guns snipers use to kill people and police use to shoot criminals.

As for home defense, are you suggesting that the AR15 rifle isn't good for defending your house? We use them for self-defense in the military and to protect our country. I can't really think of many better guns for home defense than an AR15.

Quote
https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15 (https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15)
Doesn’t it seem clear that anyone who feels the need for an AR-15 is already displaying abundant evidence of disordered thinking? If you are paranoid enough to think you need so much firepower for home protection, that’s more paranoia than sanity can contain.
Some might argue believing in an invisible being in the sky is evidence of disordered thinking. Begging an invisible person for help if someone is attacking you? Might work.  I'd stick with an AR myself  ;D


Quote from: FJAG
I know that I'm venturing into risky ground because many people on this forum are strong advocates of owning military firearms.

I'll say! Your posts are always awesome though, I thoroughly enjoy them. Even if you think I have some kind of disorder  :Tin-Foil-Hat:
 
Quote from: FJAG
Let's face facts. The vast majority of society--even in the US--is of the view that there needs to be much stricter gun control and that military firearms, and pseudo-military firearms, are unnecessary and undesirable in a free and democratic society and further that people who defend and encourage their continued proliferation have something wrong with them. Try to remember that the Heller decision in the USSC in 2008 that interpreted the 2nd amendment broadly on the grounds of self defence was only a five to four ruling and that it did indicate that limitations were acceptable on a case by case basis.

This issue is just another one of those that highlights the strata that our society is divided into. Neither side will ever admit that their views may be unreasonable or that there is any valid justification for their opponents views. Personally, I think that semi-automatic is semi-automatic regardless of whether it's wrapped up in an AR-15 style body or a Ruger Mini-14. I also believe that 5 round magazines and strict background check and registration requirements are reasonable limits to their ownership. The former, alas, all to easy to get around. The aim of the game is to make the majority of society feel safe and comfortable in their lives. What works here might not work in South Africa or Afghanistan. Conditions differ. NZ has been gobsmacked and what is being done there now is to make the people feel good that the government is taking action on their collective behalf. That matters and is, IMHO, worth so much more than the usual bullsh*t "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of gun violence that the US political leadership takes after these events.

 :2c:

Good points for sure. Going after guns is easy and low hanging fruit. It's a bandaid solution that will make people in the moment feel better and safer- catnip for politicians.

I have 100% confidence that anyone here with our Mariomike mentored research skills could make some wicked IEDs, pipebombs and chemical weapons in our houses. Anyone with access to the net can download the know how (Maybe a great example of stricter police powers and anti-privacy laws eh?)

Say we get rid of privately owned firearms, maybe we'll see a drop in crime and someone might have to work harder to kill a bunch of people. Who do we blame when guns are gone and someone does a chemical attack (Japan) or daisy chains a bunch of pipe bombs to children? Do we look at banning more stuff or do we take a look at whats radicalizing people, the process and ways to bring people back. Ways for people to be constructive rather than destructive.

Pretty sure firearm owners realize our days are numbered.  lt is what it is but I don't think it will solve any problems. If anything it will probably succeed in accomplishing exactly what the NZ shooter wanted. I think we should look for better solutions than going for a kill count of 7 instead of 17.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 15:52:43
Quote from: Navy_Pete
They are guesstimating about $200m for a buyback, so don't think this is a case of turn it in for nothing, but it is refreshing to see a democratic government make a reasoned decision and take quick action instead of voicing platitudes and empty thoughts and prayers.

Have a read of the memo from the NZ Police I posted. It doesn't appear that there is any sort of compensation for the over-night illegal guns that need to be turned in. Maybe owners will get lucky and the government will pay them out afterwards.

When the RCMP and Canadian government just attempted the same thing a couple years ago there was no discussion of compensation for the guns that were deemed illegal.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 16:38:47

Pretty sure firearm owners realize our days are numbered.  lt is what it is but I don't think it will solve any problems. If anything it will probably succeed in accomplishing exactly what the NZ shooter wanted.

I also think they are quite numbered, we might be surprised by just how fast things could happen.*  All that money invested in the hardware in the gun porn threads, can now be spent on paying carbon taxes.
* The one issue that I see is who is going to step onto the first nation reserves and disarm that particular population of every soon to be prohibited weapon, or will they all be given trappers licenses so they can keep sidearms.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 21, 2019, 17:09:42


https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-announce-process-hand-over-reclassified-mssas?nondesktop&fbclid=IwAR0SmG7X6Nqw6Y26aM3KE-bqE1KlcLlENb30YUUg_IleDcANLnInQi9qSr4

So by the sounds of it a bunch of guns were made illegal over night. Doesn't appear to be much talk about compensation or a by back for these semi-autos. Just turn them into the police. I wonder what kind of compliance they'll get.

I think I am missing something becuase it sounds to me like mag load restrictions vice all out platform bans.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 17:47:29
I think I am missing something becuase it sounds to me like mag load restrictions vice all out platform bans.

The NZ PM said the gun the shooter used will be banned.

I don't know if that means a Smith and Wesson MP15 AR 15 or all AR15s, easy to presume the latter.

As for the mag restrictions I didn't spend too much time looking at it but I get the feeling it's written to basically ban any gun that accepts magazines larger than a standard 5 round style magazine you would see in a Browning semi-auto. Basically anything that can be suggested to "look armyish".
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 21, 2019, 18:18:20
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 21, 2019, 18:25:57
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Interesting. I wonder if they differentiate between a flash suppressor and a muzzle break.

I find the mag restriction portions confusing.  So why cant they just buy 5 or 4 round mags ? 

That would knock out my M305, SKS and DA Grizzly (MF) ... and it comes damn close to taking out my No.5 JC too... phew for bolt actions!
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Target Up on March 21, 2019, 19:12:16
There go the SKSs I suppose.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on March 21, 2019, 20:01:57
Take a look at the attached list. Any firearm that is semi automatic and has a detachable magazine greater than 5 rounds is now illegal to own in NZ. Any firearm that  falls within the definition below is also immediately banned from private possession and must be turned in:

New Zealand Arms Act 1983: Public Act 1983 No 44: (as 01 October 2018)

military style semi-automatic firearm means a firearm (other than a pistol) that is—
(a) a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:
      (i) a folding or telescopic butt:
      (ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
             (B)is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:
      (iii)a magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges) that—
             (A) is capable of holding more than 7 cartridges; or
             (B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 10 cartridges:
      (iv) bayonet lugs:
      (v) a flash suppressor:
      (vi) a component of a kind defined or described by an order under section 74A as a pistol grip for the purposes of this definition; or
(b)a semi-automatic firearm of a make and model declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(c)a semi-automatic firearm of a description declared by an order under section 74A to be a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act; or
(d)a semi-automatic firearm that has a feature of a kind defined or described in an order under section 74A as a feature of military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act

Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 21, 2019, 20:10:22
Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

 :cheers:

Hi FJAG, read about that, apparently they didn't previously regulate the magazines. You could have the rifle with a small magazine, but as soon as you bought the larger magazine, the rifle was reclassified as an MSSA. Kind of dumb, and I think that's a loophole they are looking to close. Apparently they expected the person that had the previous A class license to reapply and get the E class license to have an MSSA if they wanted to buy an accessory that would change the category of the weapon system.  Kind of unmanageable, but guess it will become a moot point.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: milnews.ca on March 21, 2019, 20:37:26
It's not based on logic, it's being seen to be "doing something"
:nod:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on March 21, 2019, 21:04:51
Then again

(https://i.imgflip.com/11rfqk.jpg)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 21, 2019, 21:13:32
Here's a question.

Ar15s have been around since the 60s. Magazine fed high capacity guns have been around from the 30s (Thompson).

It seems like in most mass shootings there's AR15s and pistols and such present but the amount of fatalities seem low (with upmost respect to the dead) considering the shooters are using these high capacity, high power, military grade, *buzz word* guns.

But now and then you get a shooting with the same kind of firearms with a considerably larger body count like in this shooting.

What, if anything, is the reason for that?  If it was the guns and magazines wouldn't we logically see more shootings with higher body counts? Is it a matter of most shooters giving up for lack of a better description more quickly? Someones pissed off at everyone at work and they want to go in and hurt them and once they hurt a few people the shock of the situation kicks in and it's over?

Does police reaction time place a crucial role?

The fact people are crammed in to close quarters where they can't escape?

Apparently this guy thought about the shooting and planned it for 2 years. I'm not sure what if any training he had (or picked up). Is the body count so high here because he was absolutely committed to what he was doing and (I'm guessing) remained relatively calm throughout?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 22, 2019, 00:03:18
I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on March 22, 2019, 00:59:24
I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.

There has been much debate on this subject for some time. Here's one paper that discusses the issue of the effectiveness/lethality of the 5.56 round during CQB and why there may be conflicting reports on the round.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf)

Don't forget that the mil spec 5.56mm round is not identical to the .233 Remington round. See here for one article on the subject:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/ (https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/)

Note especially that while milspec 5.56 ammo is all solid core which depends on velocity and yaw to make its wound effects, civilian .233 ammo may also be softpoint which expands/fragments on contact.

In summary, without knowing all of the factors and conditions and the type of ammo used in any particular case it becomes difficult to explain one situation's differentiation from another.

This is getting to be a morbid subject.

 :not-again:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: milnews.ca on March 22, 2019, 07:21:43
Just splitting off the gun law debate because of its specificity and details to leave the "Analysis" thread for the broader political discussion.

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on March 24, 2019, 16:11:33
Much of the bulk commercial ball is built using the cheapest components they can get and still perform well. So it may not be optimized for terminal damage to the target, just to get there. 
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 25, 2019, 23:29:36
Essentially if you own a rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 5 rounds turn it into the police.

(https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/about-us/firearms-classification.jpg)

It sounds like people are registering some pretty powerful weapons on the online forums including pocket nukes and plasma rifles lol
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: comfortablynumb on March 26, 2019, 00:14:59
No guns? No problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxK_pBaG4E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxK_pBaG4E)

Time to go back to basics, folks! Just do the basics really well.

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on April 05, 2019, 17:59:26
By now we're all aware of US Cities who are refusing to cooperate with US Federal Immigration authorities when it comes to enforcing immigration laws creating so-called "Sanctuary Cities".

Currently there is a growing move amongst County Sheriffs to form "Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties" wherein they are going to refuse to give effect to their State Legislatures' gun control legislation. See here:

Quote
Hundreds Of Counties Vowed To Be ‘Second Amendment Sanctuaries’ Since Parkland
“As a law enforcement officer, I have discretion to use the laws that I want to. That’s my decision. I’m not going to enforce that particular law.”
04/05/2019 By Matt Vasilogambros

There are “sanctuary cities” that refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement. Now, there are “sanctuary counties” that refuse to enforce new gun control laws.

Rural, conservative communities are pushing back against state legislatures that have been approving new firearm restrictions at a rapid rate since the February 2018 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. More than 200 counties across nine states have vowed not to enforce new state measures that restrict gun access, and 132 have declared themselves to be Second Amendment “sanctuaries,” borrowing a term at the center of the immigration debate, according to a Stateline analysis.

For gun rights supporters, it’s a defiant rebuff to state leaders they believe are attacking their communities’ gun heritage and way of life. So far, county leaders have not translated their rhetoric into action by, for example, defying a “red-flag” court order to confiscate guns from a person deemed to be dangerous to himself or others. ...

See rest of article here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counties-second-amendment-sanctuaries-parkland_b_5ca35e88e4b035e30b062801 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counties-second-amendment-sanctuaries-parkland_b_5ca35e88e4b035e30b062801)

There is a difference in the two concepts in that there is a constitutional division between States powers and Federal powers in the US and States do not have to opt into assisting the Federal authorities in their lawful duties while counties are the creatures of State governments and as such it's agents.

Interestingly enough, Chapter VI Article 3 of the US Constitution provides that:

Quote
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

All states amend this to include their several constitutions and other provisions as well.

Some states are dealing with the broad issue, such as Florida re "Sanctuary Cities".

Quote
Florida may send a big message to sanctuary cities
Elina Shirazi By Elina Shirazi | Fox News

MIAMI — Florida has one of the largest illegal immigrant populations in the country and its new governor wants to make sure they don't have protection from local authorities.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing for a ban on sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Several bills making their way through the state legislature would effectively make it against the law for police departments to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials. If a law enforcement official refuses, they could be fined or fired. ...

See rest here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-may-send-a-big-message-to-sanctuary-cities (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-may-send-a-big-message-to-sanctuary-cities)

The police have historically had discretion in how to deal with perceived offences. Not every minor infraction needs to be dealt with a charge. Such discretion had, however, been roped in when circumstances indicated that enforcement was too lax or mores changed; such as in domestic dispute situations.

The question is, at what point does the willful disobedience of a county official against his/her elected representatives' laws (even if in line with the desires of the local community) does it move from mere civil disobedience to open revolt? At what point does it impair the overall respect for the rule of law?

 :worms:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 05, 2019, 19:10:22
I'll leave sancturary citites alone. There is not a single good thing about them I find right or acceptable.

In the same token, I wont really address gun sanctuary.

I will give an opinion though on gun control.

If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.

Canadians might roll over to political pressure and disarm, but Americans won't.

You can take that to the bank.

America was born in blood and they have very long memories. The vast majority believe that when the government says you don't need guns, that's exactly the time you'll need them.

The Afghans, for centuries, have turned back well equipped invaders, with guns that they hammered out of scrap metal, while sitting cross legged in the dirt. A perfectly functioning AK47 can be made from a square shovel. Black powder and gun cotton can be made in your garage with common chemicals. Lead can be had from old batteries. If Afghans can do it with rudimentary tools. An industrialized nation's citizens can turn them out by the thousands in basements and garages, if they wish.

As with everywhere, you can outlaw them, but you'll never get rid of them, nor will you ever stop their manufacture. Not by private citizens.

With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.

Just as both types of sanctuary cities are doing right now.

Just my  :2c:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: quadrapiper on April 06, 2019, 00:04:38
If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.
The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: quadrapiper on April 06, 2019, 00:11:59
With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.
Noting that the founders were on occasion cryptic, there's that "well regulated militia" aspect: while that might very well even require the existence of some volunteer force of armed citizens, the current arrangement of massively armed individuals doesn't seem in accordance with the text.

A federal government could do any number of things within that interpretation and not consider itself in violation; perhaps even see it as upholding the full concept of that amendment.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 00:34:11
The current state of the law re the Second Amendment comes from the USSC case of District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It includes a provision at pp 54-56 which is summarized in the headnote as follows:

Quote
 Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 01:08:30
I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

If they come for the guns legalities won't matter. People will not give up their freedom, 2nd amendment or not. And millions will see gun confiscation as the first step to the loss of that. 'Don't Tread on Me' isn't a cheap slogan down there. For millions in the US, it has deep meaning

Like I say, even if by some miracle of epic proportions, they do get them all, it would only be a very temporary situation. I would hazard a guess and say they would be built even while being confiscated.

And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 02:17:08
I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

Actually FJ we're not missing the point at all. We get the point exactly and you are hitting the nail on the head. That's why I thought I'd throw out this topic to see what the wider aspect of these phenomena are. Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both of these issues (immigration and Second Amendment) are ones that are based largely (but not exclusively) on an urban/rural split. Considering that 2/3 of the US population favors some forms of gun control or stricter gun laws, its probable that the urban population of Atlanta favors it the same as their brothers in New York City while their respective state's rural communities are less disposed that way. That brings about an interesting problem for probably most states in how to balance the expectations of their respective urban/rural populations/voters.

I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms (that's just an NRA fairy tale scenario) so I doubt that there will ever be that mass uprising. There will, however, be continuing conflicts over such things as background checks, felon possession, open carries, protective orders, Sovereign Citizens etc., where case by case enforcement will be necessary. It's these more limited cases which will test the system.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 06, 2019, 02:57:29
I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms

Because every homesteader might need to mobilize at a 'Minute's Notice' to defend themselves against the rapacious legions of George III, right? ;)

It's comforting to know that Northern Ireland isn't the only part of the English speaking world that is lost in the 80s.... the 1780s....
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on April 06, 2019, 09:40:42
The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.

You’re wrong, and FJ is right.

Pushback against widespread gun confiscation would not be on the order of the sorts of armed insurgencies we see overseas where real belligerents number in maybe the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans would actively resist efforts to confiscate firearms, and there would not be a clear division where the police and military play ball and the citizenry do not. Many police and military would have nothing to do with participating in gun confiscations and would be part of actively resisting.

Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter. The genie is way too out of the bottle.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 06, 2019, 12:36:43
>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both problems already exist, there and here, just not highlighted by issues as incendiary as illegal immigration and firearm control.  People disobey (ignore) unjust laws (their perception), particularly laws that infringe on such fundamental rights as life/security, freedom of expression, property, and in general "pursuit of happiness".  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

These two sides of the coin have a long history; what is new is the publicity each incident receives, which stokes the fires of indignation among whoever objects (whether to a law, or the law's enforcement).
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 13:10:29
>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

....  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

...


Caledonia?

Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland. And much of the US antipathy to standing armies and confiscation of weapons finds, in my opinion, its origins among Anglo-Scots Borderers, Huguenots and Palatines that were disarmed by their governments, violently suppressed by standing armies, often dragoons, used as police, and evicted from their lands. 

The exiles found themselves forced into foreign military service or into plantations amid hostile populations for the benefit of the governments that suppressed them.

It is suggested that people find themselves stuck in the past.  I suggest consideration of this from Colin P on his Facebook page.

(https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56242607_2714655278576232_3969006851923640320_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=1e1657dc02481a384b2fe626b7c1dd7a&oe=5D3E4FB2)

My comment to him still stands.

"And we're still here."



Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 13:17:15
Caledonia?
Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland.

That Caledonia. I thought you may have been talking about the one in Ontario. People forcefully thrown off their legally acquired and paid for land for government expediency and to suppress rebellion.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 14:16:30
I was.

It reminded me of the other Caledonia and its role in creating a 2nd Amendment culture.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 06, 2019, 14:32:25
Quote from: Brihard


Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?


Great post.

I think it's important when looking at this issue to keep ego out of the equation.  One side thinks the police and military would roll up on American citizens and kick everyone's ***. The other side thinks these militia groups would send the law enforcement running with their tail between their legs.

The truth is exactly what Brihard says, the genie is way too out of the bottle. There's an estimated 400 million guns in the US, an estimated 120 guns per 100 people. A lot of them are willing to die for their right to own them. Law enforcement AND civilians would fill up body bags.

Another great point, when all the police are tied up in shootouts confiscating 400 million guns who's dealing with traffic accidents, stolen bikes, domestic assaults, Facebook threats? 
What happens when the military gets called in and a charismatic battalion commander says he didn't sign up to fight Americans, and his soldiers agree,then decide to support "the people"?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter for sure.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 14:50:51
For a few examples of how such actions can develop and end up see the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: quadrapiper on April 06, 2019, 14:51:54
And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.
Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html (http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html) don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 15:03:05
Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.   They are not appointed.

Quote
Colorado sheriffs
Sheriff is an elected position in the state of Colorado according to the state's constitution.

Election
A sheriff is elected for a four year term in each county. Before he or she enters office he will create a bond, with at least three sufficient sureties, between $5,000 and $20,000, that the board of county commissioners specifies and approves. No person will be considered a surety who is not worth at least $2,000 over and above his or her debts.[1]

Government roles
Every person elected or appointed to the office of sheriff for the first time will attend a minimum of 80 hours of a training course the first time a training course is given after the person's election or appointment.

Every sheriff must possess basic peace officer certification and shall undergo at least 20 hours of in-service training provided by the county sheriffs of Colorado every year during such sheriff's term.

The county only pays all reasonable costs and expenses of these training sessions.[2]

Only U.S. citizens, Colorado citizens and residents of the county in which they are appointed or elected may serve as sheriff. He or she must possess a high school diploma or its equivalent or a college degree and must have a complete set of fingerprints taken.[3]

The sheriff has charge and custody of the county jails and of the prisoners in the jails. The sheriff will supervise them personally or a deputy or jailer will supervise them.[4]

The sheriff is also fire warden of his or her county in case of prairie or forest fires.[5]

The sheriff is in charge of transporting prisoners to a correctional facility or other place of confinement who may have been convicted and sentenced and who are ready for such transportation. If any sheriff fails or neglects to do this, the boards of county commissioners can take away this responsibility. This does not apply to the transportation of the insane.[6]

The sheriffs, undersheriffs, and deputies must keep and preserve the peace in their counties quiet and suppress all frays, riots, and unlawful assemblies and insurrections. They can command anyone to their aid that they see necessary to do their duties.[7]


https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 15:25:13
Rather doubt there'll ever be a hard push from the US government; however, compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, the sort of armament floating around in private US hands is rather limited: pervasive and numerous, but without a national army's worth of heavier weapons in the mix. "Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

What is likely needed at this point is something akin to a constitutional convention, affecting both state and federal regulation, to determine a single national framework binding both levels of government, as the routine application of the second amendment varies overmuch state to state.

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
  • make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"
  • show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and
  • overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).
This sort http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html (http://www.thedonovan.com/categories.html) don't bother me, though I disagree with some of their politics. The sort of person who wakes up and decides to tool up as if going on patrol in Iraq to scull about Anytown USA for political points? Deeply concerning, and cancerous. That sort of thing encourages arms races between political ideologies, represents a massive hazard as far as NDs, let alone intentional violence, and cultivates a paranoid and fearful atmosphere not conducive to effective governance.

And that's without addressing the groups and thus ideologies these individuals share space with, none of which are of value to society.

FJAG points out, far more eloquently than I might, the broader conceptual issues in the current US situation. I am more concerned by the sheriffs than the municipalities: a city council making a certain decision at least has a collaborative process and represents multiple inputs, while the sheriff is appointed specifically to enforce laws*, is operating in isolation, and of course has far more direct access to coercive options (e.g. Arpaio).

*With all the usual policing-by-consent notions of intelligent enforcement, which this sort of behaviour far exceeds.

I'm glad you have so much faith in human behaviour. I'm not diametrically opposed to your opinion, I just don't agree with the cut and dry. There is no black or white at all. It's all grey.

Any government that uses it's full military potential against it's citizens is already too far gone to save.

If walking around geared up isn't against the law. Who says they can't? You may not like it, but really, that's just too bad isn't it?  Trying to equate Canadian feelings and righteousness about US law is a mugs game. The look like us, but thought wise, patriot wise, engagement wise and freedom wise, they are a much more staunch breed than Canadians. They put it all out there, they are not afraid, nor will they be cowed, they wear it proudly and loudly.

Canadians sit home, watch CBC and complain to the cat.

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on April 06, 2019, 16:11:51
Just a point, quadrapiper:

Sheriffs are elected in the US generally and Colorado in particular.   They are not appointed.

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_sheriffs

In short, Sheriffs draw their authority directly from the consent of the governed, and not from the "government" at large.

I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 06, 2019, 16:37:41
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-john-kass-chicago-policing-20190321-story.html

"Authorities confirmed that two police officers — TAC cops, not rookies — were making a drug arrest shortly after 2 p.m. on Sunday.

A mob appeared, threatening the officers, surrounding them, threatening to reach for their own weapons to shoot them dead, and the cops let the suspect go.

What is learned here? The street is officially no longer afraid of the Chicago police."

So: perhaps the way to avoid armed stand-off tragedies is for police to defuse the situation by standing down.  Or, perhaps all people who think they should be able to stand apart from the law should all receive the maximum force of the law. 

What inflames people and promotes the gradual unwinding of society is the certain knowledge - provided by the internet as current events and archives of past events - that some groups receive the full force of the law while others go unimpeded and unpunished.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2019, 17:07:16
I disagree with your conclusion.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

 :cheers:

I agree that the powers of the sheriff (the Shire Reeve) are circumscribed by the constitution(s) of the United (and several) States.  Constitutions created and amended and interpreted by representatives of the governed.  One of the interpreters is the Shire Reeve, given his powers by hand.

Having spent a fair amount of time trying to understand rules, only to have my interpretation, and those of others, overturned by local inspectors with similar mandates to interpret those rules on behalf of the local community, I would suggest that the best we can come to is that the outcome is moot (as in debatable by the Shire Moot).

Otherwise what is the need for lawyers and courts?

 ;D :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Baden Guy on April 06, 2019, 17:09:08
"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun, by Chris Balch

I am not anti-gun. I own guns that I use for target shooting and a handgun that is primarily designed for personal defense.

I grew up in 1950s rural Connecticut, where everybody owned guns. I spent autumn weekends on our family’s 150-acre farm with my dad, learning safety, responsibility and hunting. More than once I proudly brought home a Thanksgiving supper.

I have a clean legal record. I pass a firearms background check on state and federal levels.
But today, between 22 percent and 40 percent of firearms transfers (NRA numbers vs. the CDC’s) are between private parties and don’t require a background check.

Today, young people whose only experience with firearms is a virtual one from video games, will turn 18 and be eligible to purchase a high capacity military-style-sport-rifle. Or turn 21 and be eligible to buy a handgun. No other qualifications.

I’m not anti-gun, but I am pro-common sense:

All firearms sales and transfers should go through federal dealers with 100 percent background checks.

First-time buyers should complete a safety/responsibility training course.

We need a mandatory 48-hour waiting period. (Research shows this prevents crimes of passion and suicides.)

These simple changes will reduce the chances of guns ending up in hands of those that should not own them. These changes will improve the understanding of the responsibility that comes with the ownership of firearms, and will reduce crimes of passion/suicides, while having little impact on law-abiding owners."
https://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/i-am-anti-gun-violence-not-anti-gun-by-chris/article_b8aa97e3-0bc7-570d-b0bc-3351378956eb.html

Just an article chosen from many. Obviously thee are differences in this country. But I am also sure that most of us can extrapolate the general sentiment.
"I am anti-gun violence, not anti-gun."
 

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: NavyShooter on April 07, 2019, 11:01:01
Regarding the confiscation of firearms in the US, here is a somewhat sobering perspective that I came across a while back.

https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/?fbclid=IwAR3cxXuNeWh9bEhda5KhI9tuOwOycLaMIgYRziIsoktCGnfRZt_aswI3EZQ

I'm not sure that the confiscation of guns would be done solely by "SWAT/ERT" type officers - the rumbles out of New Zealand are such that normal 'beat cops' are showing up at doors (in small groups of 2-4) already.  (Anecdotal - saw something on Facebook - as reliable as Wikipedia...)

So, the question of who/how many raids may not be the 82K, officers, it may be the 900K officers - but in looking at the overall - that'd make the number of potential raids drop by an order of magnitude - but would still be probably about 100 raids/visits to seize guns PER OFFICER.

Not a good statistic to have to stare down...especially if the precipice is tipped and some damn fool starts to shoot back instead of handing over their guns.

Which, in the US, I firmly believe would happen at some point.

In Canada?  The historical references indicate that civil compliance will occur when a gun ban comes. 

The likelihood of armed resistance to a gun ban in Canada is, honestly, minuscule. However, looking at Quebec and their recent foray into registration again, the passive inaction and likelihood of civil disobedience is extremely high.

What are my thoughts?  Enforce the laws we already have, and punish the guilty effectively. 

I truly hope never to see the scenario in the link above play out - unfortunately, I think we are on a slippery slope...and the US is far more likely to see that cliff than Canada.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 07, 2019, 14:09:44
Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: milnews.ca on April 07, 2019, 15:02:58
... In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government ...
I agree with you they they have to enforce the laws they're given.

That said, like any peace officer, there's an element of discretion that can be used in enforcement (to a point, anyway).  In a situation where an official is elected, I suspect the "direction" of discretion will be affected by the electorate/desire to be re-elected.  Again, there are limits re: laws being ignored, but I think the political element would "flavour" any breaks given.
Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299
Interesting video - who put this together?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 07, 2019, 16:01:48
I agree with you they they have to enforce the laws they're given.

That said, like any peace officer, there's an element of discretion that can be used in enforcement (to a point, anyway).  In a situation where an official is elected, I suspect the "direction" of discretion will be affected by the electorate/desire to be re-elected.  Again, there are limits re: laws being ignored, but I think the political element would "flavour" any breaks given.Interesting video - who put this together?


No idea. I suspect it was a friend of the firearm owner or himself with a cell. It's California, which makes it doubly difficult. The gist is, he has 80% lowers. Those are not firearms, they're paperweights.
He completed and assembled one into a 100% lower and registered it per regulations, totally law abiding. As the cop explained, once an upper was attached, he had an illegal gun, according to them. We can't see from the vid whether an upper is on it or not.
That seems to be the excuse that is being used anyway, kind hard to follow with all the bumph going on.

If he registered the complete thing with caliber, barrel length , etc. They consider it an assault rifle (not going there today). If he had just left it as a lower registration they wouldn't have taken it. Should have just left it a lower and put whatever upper he wanted at the time, use it and take it of. Back to just a lower.

I'm impressed with the amount of cops that showed up for this friendly visit.

Oh, and remember when I said the 2nd is in the eye of the beholder, not the law? Listen to the civilian.

I think that's what's going on.

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 07, 2019, 17:31:20

No charges? California cop admits stealing thousands of bullets over 30 years
12,000 stolen bullets found at home of Department of Consumer Affairs investigator

Call him the cop who took a bullet. Thousands of bullets.

That’s what Steven C. Richter did for up to 30 years as a veteran investigator for the California Department of Consumer Affairs and a deputy for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. But he wasn’t decorated for valor.

Richter, 64, resigned both jobs in disgrace in 2015. He then admitted he’d been stealing thousands of rounds of ammunition and other items for decades, documents released to the Bay Area News Group and KQED under the state’s new police transparency law show.

But even after authorities found more than 12,000 stolen bullets in his home, and even after Richter told investigators he traded his loot to a now defunct Inland Empire wholesale gun store in exchange for guns, he wasn’t charged with a crime.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/14/no-charges-california-cop-admits-stealing-thousands-of-bullets-over-30-years/
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 07, 2019, 20:47:18
Posted without comment.

https://video.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/10000000_2282429485308463_6076659621760598016_n.mp4?_nc_cat=106&efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fymy1-2.fna&oh=e105494af3f2bb364f682f02bb3aa039&oe=5CAA6299

Got nothing but a white page and a notice saying, "URL signature expired."
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: milnews.ca on April 07, 2019, 21:31:08
Got nothing but a white page and a notice saying, "URL signature expired."
Same as of 2031EDT, too.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 08, 2019, 00:37:14
 :dunno: Sorry, I haven't gained full control of the internet yet.  ;D
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on April 08, 2019, 13:33:06
Part of the issue is that the gun lobby can never trust the gun control fanatics to stop pushing for more laws. Giving in to any demands weakens the 2nd Amendment position and the gun control groups are pretty clear that they want almost all of the guns banned. They will take slice and then come back for another one, each time saying "It's only reasonable". The NRA gets zero credit from them for pushing firearm safety and playing a big part in reducing accidental firearm shootings. It's time to ask the gun control fanatics what are they willing to give up?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 08, 2019, 15:18:11
Part of the issue is that the gun lobby can never trust the gun control fanatics to stop pushing for more laws. Giving in to any demands weakens the 2nd Amendment position and the gun control groups are pretty clear that they want almost all of the guns banned. They will take slice and then come back for another one, each time saying "It's only reasonable". The NRA gets zero credit from them for pushing firearm safety and playing a big part in reducing accidental firearm shootings. It's time to ask the gun control fanatics what are they willing to give up?

That's easy... you can have their guns after you pry them from their cold, dead fingers (circles right temple with right forefinger) :)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on April 08, 2019, 20:10:56
To give you an idea about the production capability of the small gun makers, they can produce AR's cheaper than China can. A submachine is a super simple gun to make. the hardest part to make is the mag.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Loachman on April 15, 2019, 22:13:09
The question is, at what point does the willful disobedience of a county official against his/her elected representatives' laws (even if in line with the desires of the local community) does it move from mere civil disobedience to open revolt? At what point does it impair the overall respect for the rule of law?

If the elected representatives' laws are contrary to the US constitution, which LE people swear to uphold, which takes precedence?

Noting that the founders were on occasion cryptic, there's that "well regulated militia" aspect: while that might very well even require the existence of some volunteer force of armed citizens, the current arrangement of massively armed individuals doesn't seem in accordance with the text.

There is a considerable body of writing by many of the US founders that is anything but "cryptic". "Well-regulated" in their time meant "well-trained" and "well-equipped", and the arms covered by the Second Amendment were intended to be of military utility.

The "militia" was (and still is, legally) every able-bodied adult male citizen, who was expected to have his own arms.

Pushback against widespread gun confiscation would not be on the order of the sorts of armed insurgencies we see overseas where real belligerents number in maybe the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans would actively resist efforts to confiscate firearms, and there would not be a clear division where the police and military play ball and the citizenry do not. Many police and military would have nothing to do with participating in gun confiscations and would be part of actively resisting.

Those ones tend to take their constitution - that they swore to uphold - seriously, and many also tend to be firearms owners themselves. Many have openly let that be known.

Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

I think that few would follow such orders, either out of respect for their constitution, respect for fellow citizens who pose no threat to society, or for self-preservation.

"Taking everyone's guns" isn't feasible for various reasons - that said, any notion the specifically belligerent groups and movements have of actually standing up to "the Feds" should the latter apply their full capabilities is delusional.

Any notion that a majority of "the Feds" would co-operate with a mass confiscation is also "delusional".

I cannot understand the tolerance of people like Bundy: that he and his publicity stunts haven't ended up in dead law enforcement is incredible; equally, he represents a sort of defiance-as-the-goal sneering at government authority that's hard to justify.

Such situations are not as simple as they may appear to be. There was a long history leading up to that situation, including creeping federal over-regulation of land that had been used for grazing for generations. They, and their supporters (either in location or elsewhere), viewed them as standing up to a bully government. And that was the main reason for the codification of the right to keep and bear arms in the US Second Amendment.

I've no objection to private firearms ownership, including large and varied collections in support of historical, competition, or hunting activities: it's the group of US firearms owners who have made (generally military-style) armament a political expression, and who variously:
  • make much noise about being armed specifically to enable fantastical notions of shooting Feds or "others,"

Yes, there are some crazies (who still very rarely commit any actual violent crimes).

  • show up (in the more extreme expression) in public heavily armed at political events/demonstrations, including demonstrations by "the other side," and

This is stupid and rude, wins them no friends on the anti-gun side, and few on the pro-gun side. They still have a legal right to bear arms as long as they do so lawfully. More and more states now have "constitutional-carry" laws (I cannot recall the precise count, but am pretty certain that it's a majority of them), whereby no permit is required for either concealed or open carry. There has been no increase in violence as a result, and, in general, US violent crime rates, including homicide, are well down from their peak in the 1960s despite a massive increase in the number of firearms owned. The national murder rate is driven by major Democrat-run cities with gang problems and restrictive firearms laws, and most of the violent crimes in those tend to occur in a few specific neighbourhoods that receive little policing (out of fears of violence or being called "racist"). Several states have lower homicide rates than Canada, and, a few years ago, Nunavut topped the chart for highest homicide rate of all US and Canadian states, provinces, and territories (with a small population, a few more or less murders in any year can skew the statistics).

  • overlap significantly with the more violent and loathsome portions of the US right (Klan, Nazis, etc.).

And those of other political/racial persuasions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers.

And, despite the fact that the "US right" tends to get all of the bad press, there is a more dangerous and more violent aspect on the US far left side. Groups such as Antifa should not be underestimated.

While Sheriffs are elected by their constituents, their authority comes from the state's constitution. The same constitution, in each case, provides for an elected assembly to make laws and a judiciary (whether appointed or elected) to adjudicate cases under the law. Sheriffs are sworn to uphold the constitution and thereby the powers of the other elected officials including the statutory/regulatory laws made by the legislature and the case law that has been decided by the state judiciary.

In the broadest sense possible (as for all public officials in the US) they derive their powers from the people but such powers are in fact created through statutory enactments made by what you call the "government" at large.

What sheriff's cannot do is act on their own authority or some local ordnance created by their county government which is in conflict with the laws of their state or the federal government. The powers of the states and the federal government is divided by the US constitution and neither a state (nor it's counties) can legislate within a federal field. Secondly, counties are creatures of the state constitution and other state laws and only have as much power as the state delegates to the counties. Again, a county is a very low level legal entity and it and it's officials and employees (including sheriffs) are bound to work within the framework of the state laws.

If county electors don't like a state law, their recourse is to elect a new state legislature. It is not to elect a sheriff who won't enforce state laws. There is a common law concept (which exists in both the US and Canada) called mandamus which is a writ or order issued from a court which requires a public official to perform a public or statutory duty (whether state or federal) that is imposed on him/her. Failure to obey the order can lead to contempt of court actions including imprisonment. This is what happened to Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Arapaio who failed to cease racial profiling practices within his force as ordered by a US District Court.

Unconstitutional laws tend to be struck down by courts. In the matter of firearms ownership and use, many Sheriffs put the US constitution ahead of lesser laws that, in their view, violate their constitution.

In "Sheriff Joe's" case, he was convicted of criminal contempt of court, which is a misdemeanour, and pardoned by President Trump. Up to 2016, he still won elections with clear majorities. Yes, he was a controvertial figure, but still received a lot of local support. In any case, I do not see a constitutional aspect to his case, as opposed to the Second Amendment's codification of a natural human right.[/list]
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 16, 2019, 12:56:44
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#7e37b44f5edc

Quote
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
Paul Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
Contributor
I cover health care and economics from a free-market perspective.

After the Parkland, Florida shootings, some are calling for more government research into “gun violence.”

Currently, the federal government’s Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is restricted by Congress from using tax money to promote gun control (although not from conducting research into gun-related violence). Some legislators want to remove this funding restriction. Separate from the federal government, the state of California has created a “gun violence research center” and the state of New Jersey is considering establishing a similar program. Similarly, university professors such as David Hemenway of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, have called for more federal funding of gun violence research.

Many gun rights advocates are wary of such research, fearing it will be used to fuel a partisan political agenda. Dr. Timothy Wheeler of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership has noted that CDC has a track record of anti-gun bias. In the 1990s, one CDC official even stated that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.”

But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.

The first principle is:

* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

If one imagines that guns in civilian hands are used solely as murder weapons, it makes sense to ban or strictly regulate them.

But millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns as well as the lives lost by criminal use.

The numbers of defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year is controversial. But one study ordered by the CDC and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

    Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”

(In comparison, there were 11,208 homicide deaths by firearm in the US in 2012. There were a total of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” of which the majority were suicides, 21,175.)
SIG Pro SP2022, one of many pistols suitable for personal defense.

SIG Pro SP2022, one of many pistols suitable for personal defense. By Augustas Didžgalvis - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons

A second key principle in judging gun violence research:

* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.

As an example of the latter type of analysis, one recent Washington Post story reported that, “For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die”:

    In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI’s homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.

However, this comparison can be misleading. An armed civilian does not have to kill the criminal in order to save an innocent life. As the National Research Council notes, “[E]ffective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”

We don’t judge whether the police are doing a good job by the numbers of criminals they kill each year, but rather by how well they stop crime. The same should be true in judging the effectiveness of civilian DGUs.

The exact number of DGUs is not precisely known. There are reasons to think the actual number may be higher or lower than the figures cited. For example, some respondents to surveys may consciously or unconsciously exaggerate the degree of peril they were in, which could lead to an overestimate of DGUs.

On the other hand, gun policy researcher Brian Doherty explains how reported numbers could also be an underestimate. Just as many sexual assault victims don’t report those crimes to the authorities, many law-abiding people who successfully use a gun to deter a crime without firing a shot may similarly choose to avoid reporting these incidents to the police:

    [Y]our possession or use of the weapon might be a matter of greater concern to the cops than whatever the intruder or criminal you were repelling was up to. They’ll doubtless never lay hands on him; you are right there, for any investigation and harassment the cops might want to call forth. Many gun owners or gun users might see little good and much possible bad arising from calling the cops after a DGU incident, and thus many or even most would never make a police blotter, never make a newspaper.

It’s relatively easy to measure the number of lives lost due to criminal gun violence. It’s harder to measure the number of lives saved by legal defensive gun use. Murders that didn’t happen don’t show up on crime statistics. This is just another example of Bastiat’s classic principle of “the seen vs. the unseen.”

Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:

* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.

Doherty makes an important point about the ultimate relevance of any such research studies: “However large the number of DGUs, or how small; and however large the number of accidents or tragedies caused by guns, or how small, the right and ability to choose for yourself how to defend yourself and your family — at home or away from it — remains, and that numerical debate should have no particular bearing on it.”

One of my friends had to use his legal concealed handgun to protect himself when attacked by two knife-wielding criminals. I’ve written about his story here.

For those who wonder whether AR-15-style rifles have a legitimate self-defense use, took a look at this story where someone used an AR-15 to protect himself during a home invasion against 3 black-clad intruders, and another story where a man used his AR-15 to stop a knife attack against others.

It is our inalienable right to self-defense that makes me a proud supporter of responsible gun ownership and of the Second Amendment. Guns can be used for good as well as evil purposes.

We would consider it irresponsible for a public health researcher to study only the negative effects of, say, caffeine consumption without also considering the positive effects. If public health researchers wish to have credibility with the millions of gun rights supporters such as myself, they should endeavour to quantify the very real benefits of legal gun ownership in addition to the genuine harms caused by illegal gun use. Studies that discuss only the latter without the former are incomplete at best — and dishonest at worst.

I support good public policy based on objective research, informed by a proper understanding of individual rights — including the right to self-defense. If we’re going to engage in gun violence research, let’s do it right — by recognizing both the positive and negative aspects of civilian firearm ownership.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 20, 2019, 07:31:51
Chuck Norris picked up a new gig promoting Glock. Seems some people are not pleased at all according to this "article". It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days, random thoughts from Twitter.

Quote
“Chuck shouldn't be working with gun companies at a time like this,” wrote a commenter, who — like Norris — is a martial artist. “He should be advocating ways to keep his gun loving friends from possible becoming surprising random mental health people that use guns to kill others and children. Please tell me Chuck, that you do something like that for the kids at least and aren't all about the money. I mean no wonder Bruce Lee died....he wasn't like all these a holes, just about the [money].”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chuck-norris-slammed-for-becoming-the-face-of-glock-so-sad-to-see-youre-just-a-sponsor-now-160931110.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chuck-norris-slammed-for-becoming-the-face-of-glock-so-sad-to-see-youre-just-a-sponsor-now-160931110.html)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Journeyman on April 20, 2019, 08:26:38
….according to this "article". It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days...
Not debating gun control, just pointing out that you choose an article from the "Entertainment" section of "Yahoo.com,"  then wring your hands about the quality of journalism in your life.  Seems about right.
           :boring: 
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: PPCLI Guy on April 20, 2019, 08:34:41
Reflecting the new style of governance in the US, It is written in that new style that passes for journalism these days, random thoughts from Twitter.


FTFY
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 20, 2019, 14:12:18
Not debating gun control, just pointing out that you choose an article from the "Entertainment" section of "Yahoo.com,"  then wring your hands about the quality of journalism in your life.  Seems about right.
           :boring:

I am not taking any more insults from you.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Journeyman on April 20, 2019, 14:45:02
I am not taking any more insults from you.
a)  I can live with that;

b)  Insulting you could be considered a 'personal attack' under the site's regulations.  Rather, I was suggesting that if you don't like the quality of political reporting from Yahoo's Entertainment people, etc, perhaps you should consider upping your game for what sources of journalism you choose to read.  Naturally, it's completely up to you.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 21, 2019, 14:49:51
a)  I can live with that;

b)  Insulting you could be considered a 'personal attack' under the site's regulations.  Rather, I was suggesting that if you don't like the quality of political reporting from Yahoo's Entertainment people, etc, perhaps you should consider upping your game for what sources of journalism you choose to read.  Naturally, it's completely up to you.

You didn't get it did you? I chose this particular piece on purpose. I was not endorsing Yahoo Entertainment as a source of news. Sometimes over analysis of a post leads to misunderstanding. Didn't I not sufficiently explain myself with the quotation marks? Maybe I should have used some emoticons but I stay away from them as much as possible.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Halifax Tar on April 21, 2019, 16:48:28
I really think people over estimate the "positive" reaction a US Government sanctioned gun grab would get from US Military people. 

I would predict vast swaths of the US Military and Police Forces simply disregarding or outright resisting and such direction or order on the basis of their oath to defend the constitution.

This is the crux of the gun issue in the USA IMHO.  You can not take forceful action against firearms or it leads to open and violent insurrection in that country.  I see no other outcome.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 21, 2019, 18:02:33
I really think people over estimate the "positive" reaction a US Government sanctioned gun grab would get from US Military people. 

I would predict vast swaths of the US Military and Police Forces simply disregarding or outright resisting and such direction or order on the basis of their oath to defend the constitution.

This is the crux of the gun issue in the USA IMHO.  You can not take forceful action against firearms or it leads to open and violent insurrection in that country.  I see no other outcome.

Rep Eric Swalwell is running for president in the next election you may have heard. The top item on his campaign site is called "Ending gun violence".

https://ericswalwell.com/my-plan/ (https://ericswalwell.com/my-plan/)
Quote
Ending Gun Violence

No more turning a blind eye to American lives stolen by gun violence. We must enact truly universal background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases, do more to take guns away from domestic abusers, push states to adopt gun violence restraining order laws, and remove weapons of war from our communities once and for all. I’m the only candidate calling for a mandatory national ban and buyback of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.
I can't figure out in this how his policy would ever end gun violence. He advocates a buyback of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, whatever that is. But it seems to be is should be called confiscation, the government can't buy back what they never owned in the first place. They belong to individual citizens and such a proposal would make them criminals overnight.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 21, 2019, 18:58:07
KKWD I like the article you posted because to me it highlights how self-important we've become. The people reacting to Chuck Norris's announcement I mean.

"I'm unsubscribing from you!" - I think Mr Norris will survive.

Quote
“Chuck shouldn't be working with gun companies at a time like this,” wrote a commenter, who — like Norris — is a martial artist. “He should be advocating ways to keep his gun loving friends from possible becoming surprising random mental health people that use guns to kill others and children. Please tell me Chuck, that you do something like that for the kids at least and aren't all about the money. I mean no wonder Bruce Lee died....he wasn't like all these a holes, just about the [money].”

Riiiiight.


Mass shootings in the US, horrific as they are, are an insignificant number compared to where the majority of shootings are coming from.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 22, 2019, 00:20:03
" advocating a buy back of military style, semi automatic, assault weapon.

It won't be a buy back. It'll be a $25 convenience fee for them not having to come take them. A true buyback of blue book value would be beyond the reach of any system. Given the ignorants' ever shifting definition of assault weapons, given the amount of AR's and variants alone numbering in millions, no goverment could afford it.

I won't even attempt to parse his definition, other than to say, military style and semi automatic don't belong in the definition of assault weapons. We've been down that road here more than once here and I doubt anyone's thoughts on it have changed very much.




Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Eaglelord17 on April 22, 2019, 11:23:08
I really think people over estimate the "positive" reaction a US Government sanctioned gun grab would get from US Military people. 

I would predict vast swaths of the US Military and Police Forces simply disregarding or outright resisting and such direction or order on the basis of their oath to defend the constitution.

This is the crux of the gun issue in the USA IMHO.  You can not take forceful action against firearms or it leads to open and violent insurrection in that country.  I see no other outcome.

Not to mention there is tons of citizens in the USA who did serve at some point and would not be willing to accept that as well. When you have a military of 1 million troops, and your system is designed and optimized for quick rotations (3 years and out if you like), you end up with a lot of trained citizens on the streets. 7.3% of all Americans have served (specifically 1.4% of females and 13.4% of males) which is a large amount who would also likely resist.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: kkwd on April 24, 2019, 06:46:01
Quote
Fear & Loading: Chuck Norris vs. President Trump in Indianapolis?

Who wins?

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/12/fear-loading-chuck-norris-vs-president-trump-in-indianapolis/ (https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/12/fear-loading-chuck-norris-vs-president-trump-in-indianapolis/)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on April 26, 2019, 22:49:11
" advocating a buy back of military style, semi automatic, assault weapon.

It won't be a buy back. It'll be a $25 convenience fee for them not having to come take them. A true buyback of blue book value would be beyond the reach of any system. Given the ignorants' ever shifting definition of assault weapons, given the amount of AR's and variants alone numbering in millions, no goverment could afford it.

I won't even attempt to parse his definition, other than to say, military style and semi automatic don't belong in the definition of assault weapons. We've been down that road here more than once here and I doubt anyone's thoughts on it have changed very much.

yep let say an average price of $700 per gun x 350-400 million = $245,000,000,000.00 (at 350)
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 26, 2019, 23:30:23
Toronton will be holding a gun buy back.

$250 for a rifle, $350 for a pistol.

There's a Canadian company that's selling pistol frames for $49. You need to register pistol frames with the RCMP, so, considered guns?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 27, 2019, 08:55:40
Toronton will be holding a gun buy back.

$250 for a rifle, $350 for a pistol.

There's a Canadian company that's selling pistol frames for $49. You need to register pistol frames with the RCMP, so, considered guns?
Who has frames? Registered portion is the gun.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 27, 2019, 09:05:51
Who has frames? Registered portion is the gun.

https://sjhardware.com/product/stripped-tt33-handgun-frame/

You should buy us each one buddy :)

All kidding aside I think gun buy back programs are great. I actually arranged for a guy to turn an unregistered pistol over to the police without repercussion and man it was stressful and intimidating for me and i was the middle man.

The programs are great (as long as jerks like us don't ruin it) but I've also heard of someone being charged for bringing a gun to the police a day before the amnesty started which is pretty stupid.

And there was our own Toronto police selling 'turned in' guns back to the public to 'raise funds' for the department a few years back
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 16, 2019, 20:45:35
https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/police-station-mocked-for-photo-of-knife-haul-that-includes-a-spoon/


https://youtu.be/MhfuuKiTcYQ
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 24, 2019, 19:24:05
Suspicious visit by the NZ police about firearms. Strange that they didn't want to discuss anything on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tKEjSVhj-Q&feature=youtu.be



Gun owners upset by 'heavy-handed' police raids complain to IPCA
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112872575/complaints-about-heavyhanded-raids-on-gun-owners-land-at-ipca

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on July 02, 2019, 14:35:25
Florida paramedics are now armed. The governor signed it into law effective 1 July, 2019.
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/07/01/new-law-allows-paramedics-carry-guns-when-responding-high-risk-incidents/

States including Kansas and Ohio already have the same law in place. Similar bills have been proposed in Tennessee, Mississippi and Virginia.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 05, 2019, 18:33:07
In the 1920s the Weimar governments of Germany instuted gun control, fast forward to the 1930s and one of the first things the Nazis did was ban ownership completely and go door to door collecting firearms preventing the people from resisting.

While its true the Wiemar Republic had strict gun control measures, its false that the Nazis instituted a total gun ban. In reality for the majority of Germans gun laws were actually relaxed. However, if you were Jewish (or anyone else on the Gestapo's bad books), you had your firearms confiscated. For more info see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument), and here (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/).

Quote
Russia, China, Cambodia, etc. Venezuela in 2014 banned firearms ownership, now they under a dictatorship and starving unable to resist.

Cambodians are forbidden (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cambodia) from owning firearms. However, Russians (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/russia) and Chinese (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/china) citizens are allowed to own firearms, however with restrictions (automatic/semi-automatic firearms/handguns forbidden and rifles and shotguns regulated).

According to my link, Venezuelan (https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/venezuela) people are allowed to own firearms, however, I would suspect that if you are a suspected government opponent you will have your firearms confiscated. Government supporter just the opposite.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Navy_Pete on August 05, 2019, 19:38:43
Jesus, I can't believe they can legally buy drum magazines for a rifle.  There is literally no reason for that other than to kill a lot of people, very lucky the police happened to be nearby.

Hard to believe a society that doesn't allow anyone to buy a beer until they are 21 will let them buy a rifle and accessories to make it that deadly without any kind of background check.  You need to do more to operate a forklift for gods sake.

For something like mass shootings, stats relating to death per 100,000 is pretty irrelevant.  The US is looking at one every few weeks; that's far more frequent than any comparable country.  The # of fatalities and injuries per incident would be another good one but needs enough incidents to be significant. Examples like the Brevik shooting in Norway or the more recent one in Christchurch were terrible, but are one offs so aren't reasonable comparisons.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Dimsum on August 05, 2019, 19:55:47
Jesus, I can't believe they can legally buy drum magazines for a rifle.  There is literally no reason for that other than to kill a lot of people, very lucky the police happened to be nearby.

Hard to believe a society that doesn't allow anyone to buy a beer until they are 21 will let them buy a rifle and accessories to make it that deadly without any kind of background check.  You need to do more to operate a forklift for gods sake.

The tipping point was Sandy Hook.  If shooting elementary school kids didn't change the law, nothing will. 
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 05, 2019, 20:02:59
Jesus, I can't believe they can legally buy drum magazines for a rifle.  There is literally no reason for that other than to kill a lot of people, very lucky the police happened to be nearby.


That's an incredibly ridiculous and fear mongering thing to say.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 05, 2019, 20:09:09
The tipping point was Sandy Hook.  If shooting elementary school kids didn't change the law, nothing will.

President Obama said it was the worst day of his presidency. He said even his Secret Service detail was crying.

Hard to imagine the effect these things must have on the First Responders.

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 05, 2019, 20:34:06
That's an incredibly ridiculous and fear mongering thing to say.
Disagree here J. Not sure why anyone would need more than what’s allowed for mags here in Canada. High capacity mags are for military and police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 05, 2019, 20:55:30
Disagree here J. Not sure why anyone would need more than what’s allowed for mags here in Canada. High capacity mags are for military and police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Need" is always a tricky argument. We can't legally hunt with pistols in Canada and they're the leading firearm used in homicides in the US and Canada by a large margin. (1,517 people have been shot in Chicago this year, most will be handguns) Seems like an argument to ban handguns, but that "why do you need that" can be argued really to ban anything.

As for reloading, some people enjoy spending more time shooting and less time reloading. Some people just don't like reloading.

Having a high capacity magazine doesn't make anyone a murder wannabe anymore than having a large hard drive on a laptop makes someone interested in keeping illegal material on their computers. What happens when someone has a chest rig with 12x 5 round magazines? You can go through 60 rounds pretty quick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT_bSGJ8j9o


I personally think magazine size and some kind of acceptable kill ratio is low hanging fruit and we need to start figuring out why these guys are falling through cracks (or ignored) ref my above post.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 05, 2019, 20:59:34
"Need" is always a tricky argument. We can't legally hunt with pistols in Canada and they're the leading firearm used in homicides in the US and Canada by a large margin. (1,517 people have been shot in Chicago this year, most will be handguns) Seems like an argument to ban handguns, but that "why do you need that" can be argued really to ban anything.

As for reloading, some people enjoy spending more time shooting and less time reloading. Some people just don't like reloading.

Having a high capacity magazine doesn't make anyone a murder wannabe anymore than having a large hard drive on a laptop makes someone interested in keeping illegal material on their computers. What happens when someone has a chest rig with 12x 5 round magazines? You can go through 60 rounds pretty quick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT_bSGJ8j9o


I personally think magazine size and some kind of acceptable kill ratio is low hanging fruit and we need to start figuring out why these guys are falling through cracks (or ignored) ref my above post.
Some good points  here as always. Know that you are very adept at changing mags with a chest rig. But being limited to 5 rounds in each will make it very slow for  the mouth breathing hostile shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 05, 2019, 21:54:03
Some good points  here as always. Know that you are very adept at changing mags with a chest rig. But being limited to 5 rounds in each will make it very slow for  the mouth breathing hostile shooter.
Fair enough but the thing about those shooters is that with a little free time and some internet access they can watch countless training videos like this Navy SEAL teaching CQB drills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrulFx7mMkU

For someone really motivated and who has some cash to burn you can get courses taught  from ex JTF2, SEALS, SF, Rangers. Tons of training academy's out there that teach shooting, CBQ, pistol and carbine, driving, close protection.

I wouldn't consider him using a "Hunting" 7 shot Remington 870 shotgun with slugs or buck shot instead of an AR15 as some kind of victory. This guy had a kill list and was able to buy a gun, that's something the US needs to sort out.  I'll bounce you a PM about how ridiculous this young offender sealed file BS can be.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 05, 2019, 22:08:43
Fair enough but the thing about those shooters is that with a little free time and some internet access they can watch countless training videos like this Navy SEAL teaching CQB drills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrulFx7mMkU

For someone really motivated and who has some cash to burn you can get courses taught  from ex JTF2, SEALS, SF, Rangers. Tons of training academy's out there that teach shooting, CBQ, pistol and carbine, driving, close protection.

I wouldn't consider him using a "Hunting" 7 shot Remington 870 shotgun with slugs or buck shot instead of an AR15 as some kind of victory. This guy had a kill list and was able to buy a gun, that's something the US needs to sort out.  I'll bounce you a PM about how ridiculous this young offender sealed file BS can be.
Aye. I’ve always wondered why someone hasn’t used a shotgun in these types of shooting. Limited range? Too gory? After you’ve fired off your shot too long to reload ( unless you’re Keanu Reeve, that guy is next level).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 05, 2019, 22:50:04
Not one of the shootings on this list used a shotgun exclusively.

If you had included the word "exclusively" when you asked, I would have searched for exclusive use of a shotgun in mass murders.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

I’ve always wondered why someone hasn’t used a shotgun in these types of shooting.

Edit for clarity.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on August 06, 2019, 00:36:27
This thread could definitely use some cleanup, and probably a bunch of posts getting bumped over into one of the gun control discussions.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 06, 2019, 01:26:20
"Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to get guns when he rolled back Obama regulation"

That's how some people saw it.

Others (https://reason.com/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment) (including the ACLU) saw it differently:

" None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.

This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns."

To summarize: I realize some people are in the if-it-saves-one-life camp; I am not.  I'm happy trading off security for liberty.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 06, 2019, 09:09:57
Technically the ACLU opposed the legislation in regards to an infringement on rights.  They actually don’t oppose gun control.

So the law would have made it harder for the mentally ill to get a gun.  No doubt.  But as your article points out it would have created a database of people that might not otherwise have to be there. 

More clarification about ACLU’s position here after previous shooting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-gun-mentally-ill-rule-1.4538963


Thanks for that article Brad.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 06, 2019, 10:38:04
From,

Religious/Extremist Terrorism:  Non-Muslim edition

Technically the ACLU opposed the legislation in regards to an infringement on rights.  They actually don’t oppose gun control.

Quote
The ACLU's Position on Gun Control

By Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Center for Liberty, ACLU

March 26, 2018
https://www.aclu.org/blog/mobilization/aclus-position-gun-control
The solution to gun violence is not more guns, but less.



Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 06, 2019, 11:30:42
From Religious/Extremist Terrorism: Non-Muslim edition 

(look at the Swiss for a example of that).

Quote
19 May, 2019

Switzerland just voted overwhelmingly in favor of tighter gun control laws
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/switzerland-just-voted-overwhelmingly-in-favor-of-tighter-gun-control-laws/ar-AABACLw

Swiss gun owners will need to justify why they need a gun and secure a special permit to buy new semi-automatic weapons.

Quote
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
"And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal."


Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 06, 2019, 12:02:46
The same discussion, using the same arguments, the same stats, by the same people. Wash, rinse, repeat. Every time there's a shooting.

Confiscating all guns, to stop mad shooters is like cutting off everyone's dicks to stop all rapes.

Start looking towards the actual individuals, their mental state, their upbringing, their social and economic mentality.

A hammer, knife or garden shovel, is as deadly as a gun, when wielded by a madman. One only need look at the nutjobs that go wacky in Japan. Killing and wounding a large number during knife attacks. I don't hear the Japanese calling for a knife ban. 10's if not hundreds are killed daily by the automobile. Doctors kill almost more people than anyone, or anything, daily. The list, of things that kill people more than guns, is long and extensive.

It's not guns, it's the nut on the end of the barrel.

People that want confiscation, as a solution, are too lazy, and self serving, to take care of the real problem. Blaming anyone, including politicians, is just as equally lazy and asinine.

Guns are tools, period. They don't do anything, unless someone is pulling the trigger.

That 'someone' is the problem, not the guns......or knives, or explosives, or...,or...

If governments sunk as much money into mental health as they do trying to confiscate people's property, maybe they could find a solution to counter the people that are doing this.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: milnews.ca on August 06, 2019, 12:39:21
This thread could definitely use some cleanup, and probably a bunch of posts getting bumped over into one of the gun control discussions.
Stand by ...
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 06, 2019, 14:23:46
The same discussion, using the same arguments, the same stats, by the same people. Wash, rinse, repeat. Every time there's a shooting.

Confiscating all guns, to stop mad shooters is like cutting off everyone's dicks to stop all rapes.

Start looking towards the actual individuals, their mental state, their upbringing, their social and economic mentality.

A hammer, knife or garden shovel, is as deadly as a gun, when wielded by a madman. One only need look at the nutjobs that go wacky in Japan. Killing and wounding a large number during knife attacks. I don't hear the Japanese calling for a knife ban. 10's if not hundreds are killed daily by the automobile. Doctors kill almost more people than anyone, or anything, daily. The list, of things that kill people more than guns, is long and extensive.

It's not guns, it's the nut on the end of the barrel.

People that want confiscation, as a solution, are too lazy, and self serving, to take care of the real problem. Blaming anyone, including politicians, is just as equally lazy and asinine.

Guns are tools, period. They don't do anything, unless someone is pulling the trigger.

That 'someone' is the problem, not the guns......or knives, or explosives, or...,or...

If governments sunk as much money into mental health as they do trying to confiscate people's property, maybe they could find a solution to counter the people that are doing this.
[/

“A hammer, knife or garden shovel, is as deadly as a gun, when wielded by a madman.”

I don’t even know where to start...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on August 06, 2019, 15:44:25

A hammer, knife or garden shovel, is as deadly as a gun, when wielded by a madman.

That’s so utterly inane as to border on mindless. It’s so transparently dishonest I’m amazed you have the gall to think anyone else dumb enough to take the claim credibly.

There’s a reason you aren’t stockpiling knives or hammers to defend your home and hearth from... I don’t know; whoever.

The gun is the most transformative and democratizing tool in the history of interpersonal violence. Never before and with no other implement has someone with so little training, conditioning, strength, or skill been able to do effectively wound and kill so many people in so little time with so little effort. Pretending otherwise is stupid and serves no honest purpose. Any meaningful discussion must at least start with an acknowledgement of that reality.

You are, as always, entitled to your own opinion. Not your own made up set of facts.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 06, 2019, 16:06:04
Quote from: Brihard
Never before and with no other implement has someone with so little training, conditioning, strength, or skill been able to do effectively wound and kill so many people in so little time with so little effort.

I agree about how deadly and dangerous guns are (and situation depending especially semi autos) but if we're talking physics then vehicles are right up there too.  Buddy in France killed more people with 1 truck than the Las Vegas shooter did with 24 guns
86/434 (dead/wounded) vs 59/422.

Using an ar15 or any gun really seems to been romantasized in (North) American culture. Dave Grossman would probably have something articulate to say about the psychology differences and instant gratification behind shooting someone and running them over. Not having a car between the attacker and victim probably makes it more personal.

I don't think the US would do bad to have the same kind of registration/accountability as we do for handguns in Canada (minus the stupid range rules). I've never had an issue buying or selling a gun through the RCMP's system, they've helped me out numerous times including helping me de-escalate bad situations with people who had guns.

I get that in places like Vermont make it work where you can carry guns around all day and don't need a licence to buy one. On the other end of the spectrum a city of 2.7 million has had 1600 shootings in 8 months, they have super strict rules but the guns are coming from somewhere. Maybe the US needs one national level set of rules and not state by state?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on August 06, 2019, 16:13:37
On the other end of the spectrum a city of 2.7 million has had 1600 shootings in 8 months, they have super strict rules but the guns are coming from somewhere. Maybe the US needs one national level set of rules and not state by state?

This is a key point right here. There is no inhibition to freely moving about the US, practically nothing stopping the movement of legally acquired firearms in one place into another. So, de facto, the entirely of the continental US is at the mercy of the weakest gun laws.

I analogize it as akin to trying to designate a corner in the pool where you’re allowed to pee to keep the rest of us in the pool free from it. It just doesn’t work like that.

We are to a still considerable extent at the mercy of US gun laws. We cannot possibly resource CBSA and police sufficiently to stop all trafficking of firearms across the border. Similarly, within Canada, once a firearm is in country and being possessed/trafficked illicitly, there are few internal measures to combat that beyond the sheer distance of some ‘trade routes’. That has more of an impact on price than on overall availability...
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 06, 2019, 16:35:25
but if we're talking physics then vehicles are right up there too. 

To avoid that we can go back to getting around on the backs of animals.  :)

Lots of political opinions. Here is a medical opinion,

Quote
Politicians Keep Blaming Mass Shootings on Mental Health Issues. Doctors Say They're Wrong
https://time.com/5644147/mass-shootings-mental-health/





Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 13:43:06
While we're arguing who is promoting gun violence, I'll just leave this here:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/hollywood-film-depicts-trump-supporters-being-hunted-for-sport-by-liberals/?fbclid=IwAR0qpENR7wJdvK7m9XdT6RtS2t_sXbbYIG8_4oSnfpNxXP9q5zFtYLwowB8
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: FJAG on August 08, 2019, 14:12:31
While we're arguing who is promoting gun violence, I'll just leave this here:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/hollywood-film-depicts-trump-supporters-being-hunted-for-sport-by-liberals/?fbclid=IwAR0qpENR7wJdvK7m9XdT6RtS2t_sXbbYIG8_4oSnfpNxXP9q5zFtYLwowB8

This film is no more "promoting" gun violence against anyone than, say, "Godzilla" is "promoting" violence against the Japanese.

Its the product of a producer who makes a good living out of creating dreck horror movies seeing the opportunity for making another buck. There is no message here and no hidden agenda; just mindless entertainment built around the usual penchant for horror and murder that has an audience amongst the usual audience that watches this crap.

Not everything is a liberal conspiracy.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 14:29:28
This film is no more "promoting" gun violence against anyone than, say, "Godzilla" is "promoting" violence against the Japanese.

Its the product of a producer who makes a good living out of creating dreck horror movies seeing the opportunity for making another buck. There is no message here and no hidden agenda; just mindless entertainment built around the usual penchant for horror and murder that has an audience amongst the usual audience that watches this crap.

Not everything is a liberal conspiracy.

 :cheers:

I made no statement one way or another. You drew your own conclusions.

However, is it your contention that movies don't contribute to the way people think or act?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 14:41:24
This film is no more "promoting" gun violence against anyone than, say, "Godzilla" is "promoting" violence against the Japanese.

Its the product of a producer who makes a good living out of creating dreck horror movies seeing the opportunity for making another buck. There is no message here and no hidden agenda; just mindless entertainment built around the usual penchant for horror and murder that has an audience amongst the usual audience that watches this crap.

Not everything is a liberal conspiracy.

 :cheers:

I'm looking forward to seeing it.  Maybe not in the theatre but definitely on Netflix.   Mostly for mindless fun. 
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 08, 2019, 15:01:58
>There is no message here and no hidden agenda

Except to the people who choose to hear a message.  But if they act on it we can blame it on something we'd like to blame it on, particularly if they don't provide a shopping list of what set them off.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 15:08:32
That’s so utterly inane as to border on mindless. It’s so transparently dishonest I’m amazed you have the gall to think anyone else dumb enough to take the claim credibly.

There’s a reason you aren’t stockpiling knives or hammers to defend your home and hearth from... I don’t know; whoever.

The gun is the most transformative and democratizing tool in the history of interpersonal violence. Never before and with no other implement has someone with so little training, conditioning, strength, or skill been able to do effectively wound and kill so many people in so little time with so little effort. Pretending otherwise is stupid and serves no honest purpose. Any meaningful discussion must at least start with an acknowledgement of that reality.

You are, as always, entitled to your own opinion. Not your own made up set of facts.

I guess knives and other objects can be deadly after all.  ::) These are not made up facts.

I guess these people were just stupid, as some contend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/world/asia/knife-japan-stabbing-sagamihara.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2289445.stm

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 08, 2019, 15:14:05
I guess knives and other objects can be deadly after all.  ::)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/world/asia/knife-japan-stabbing-sagamihara.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2289445.stm
They sure can. Great ‘research’ s/

PS
of the 40 deadliest US mass shootings since 1949 (8 or more people killed):

--7 occurred in the 10 years before US enacted assault weapons ban

--2 occurred in the 10 years assault weapons ban was in effect

--26 have occurred in the 15 years since assault weapons ban expired


of the 40 deadliest US mass shootings since 1949 (8 or more people killed):

--7 occurred in the 10 years before US enacted assault weapons ban

--2 occurred in the 10 years assault weapons ban was in effect

--26 have occurred in the 15 years since assault weapons ban expired



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 15:20:46
Nobody is discounting the fact that guns are proficient.

I'm just saying that guns are tools and madmen have lots of options. It's obvious that a lack of guns does not stop mass murders.

That is all the point I was trying to make.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on August 08, 2019, 16:55:12
I guess knives and other objects can be deadly after all.  ::) These are not made up facts.

I guess these people were just stupid, as some contend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/world/asia/knife-japan-stabbing-sagamihara.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2289445.stm

Nobody is claiming that lack of guns stops mass murder any more than lack of fatty, sugary food stops obesity or heart disease. It is not a binary question or they either completely explain mass murders or they contribute nothing. In formal logic the concept you’re missing is ‘sufficient’ versus ‘necessary’. Epidemiologically, easy access to guns is a massive contributory factor to mass murder.

You’ve nicely highlighted my point for me. Nobody - least of all me - is claiming that other weapons (any tool used or intended to hurt or wound is a weapon) cannot be deadly. But to find an example you hoped would convince, you had to hang your hat or an instance where a physically health adult male entered a residence for people with disabilities at half past two in the morning. All 19 of the dead were residents there; we can infer they were disabled. That was their deadliest attack in something like a decade. 19 dead in a shooting in the US would be noticeable, but hardly unprecedented or a record. The Japan knife attack you cite was as close as one can get to an experimental frictionless vacuum. He was as set for unhindered success as he possibly could have been. Your other example had a whole two people killed. That barely registers. A mass killing with a knife is hugely exceptional.

Contrast that with Dayton, Ohio shooting, where the shooter was very unlucky. He was confronted by six police who were on scene already, and was shot and killed in thirty seconds after his first shot. 9 dead, more than 20 injured. It reinforces my point that a gun is a tremendous equalizer. The Japan attacker had insider knowledge of location, targets, security, and pattern of life from having previously worked there. The Ohio shooter simply needed a gun and a crowd. Like the El Paso shooter. Or like any other mass killer who has recently laid waste with a gun.

It will always be possible to find exceptional circumstances. I was in Nice a couple days after the truck attack and walked the ground. He had about as ideal a situation and venue as can be had for such an event, and the toll reflects that. We have seen significant changes in urban security in the past decade. Big events are quite easily hardened against such attacks. Mitigating the risks of a vehicle attack is a pretty simple CPTED problem. As I presently sit here having lunch outside a typical soft target in Vancouver (BC Place stadium), I see bollards, planters and such that are relatively unobtrusive and inexpensive, but would serve well to minimize the damage that can be done. Were a crowd to be here for a Lions game, and someone went rogue with a knife, I see dozens of fit and strong adults in the immediate vicinity. Some combination of us would probably stop it fast, admittedly at the risk of getting carved up. Conversely, someone hopping out of a car with a gun could enter any of the restaurants and cafes here and kill or wound dozens, and likely fend off at least the first attempts by anyone to rush them. They could do that with minimal training and experience so long as they’ve repped out some basic stoppage and reload drills for half an hour.

A truck as a weapon can kill. With considerable luck it can kill a lot. The cost/benefit in municipal design for target hardening against this isn’t at all outlandish.

A knife as a weapon can kill. Absent exceptionally fortunate or ideal circumstances, this attack will be quickly limited by people fighting back, and the wounds, while grievous, tend to be survivable. You have to physically reach the target to wound them. Potential victims are much more likely to have weapons/shields of opportunity at hand.

Guns with the right characteristics for combat (semiautomatic, detachable magazine, and ammunition with sufficient KE to create a meaningful secondary cavity in tissue) are completely in their own class for the ability of any angry idiot to acquire and use to great effect. You can very rapidly wound pretty much anyone within sight. They are the among the hardest things to proof against through environmental design, barriers to access them in the US are negligible, and they are easy for anyone to learn to use ‘well enough’.

As I said, any entry into this debate must start with accepting the basic truth about the extreme utility of firearms for interpersonal violence, and working from there. Any position that does not in face of abundantly clear evidence is dishonest and useless.

I enjoy shooting, I am no hoplophobe, I use and instruct firearms use professionally - including in the context of responding to exactly such attacks. I don’t want everyone stripped of their firearms. Nor will I try to bury my head in fantasy though just because something is enjoyable to me. America has a gun problem, and that problem is the wrong guns (inclusive of things like high capacity magazines) too easily accessed by the wrong people, with constant tragic consequences.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 08, 2019, 17:15:11
an instance where a physically health adult male entered a residence for people with disabilities at half past two in the morning. All 19 of the dead were residents there; we can infer they were disabled. That was their deadliest attack in something like a decade. 19 dead in a shooting in the US would be noticeable, but hardly unprecedented or a record. The Japan knife attack you vote was as close as one can get to an experimental frictionless vacuum. He was as set for unhindered success as he possibly could have been. Your other example had a whole two people killed. That barely registers. A mass killing with a knife is hugely exceptional.

Quote
Some are capable of engaging in physical activities outdoors, while others are bedridden.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/25/japan-knife-attack-live-updates



Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 17:45:50
Don't get lost in the weeds.

A madman killed 19 people with a knife. That is the bottom line. The circumstances, time, etc are as mundane as those of a mass shooter. Boiled down to the essence, evil people will do evil with whatever they have at their disposal.

I've never disputed access to firearms is a problem. What I dispute is the people calling for an all out, knee jerk reaction ban, without looking at any possibilities or other actions that may mitigate an all out ban and try to find some common ground for all sides to work on.

I've argued before that an all out ban will be fruitless. If someone wants a gun, they will get a gun. They will purchase, steal, modify or make one. We have to look at other means of mitigating it. A gun ban won't cut it.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 08, 2019, 18:19:24
RomeoJuliet, Interesting stuff. I couldn't quote your post for some reason.


Check this out.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Look at the types of firearms used in shootings reference your metrics above. Handguns appear to have been used steadily and quite often before, during, and after the assault weapon ban ended. And those pistols are responsible for a number of the higher death counts too.

Lots of Glock 9mms to go along with the cheaper AR15s, Rugers and Bushmasters. Not many $3000USD Knights Armament AR15s used or $1000 pistols.

Why would so many handguns be used when the shooters could buy AR15s?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 08, 2019, 18:27:26
I didn't look at your article, Jarnhamar. But, Saturday Night Specials have always been easy to obtain, cheap, and easily concealed.

We used to call them suicide specials.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 18:35:13
Nobody is claiming that lack of guns stops mass murder any more than lack of fatty, sugary food stops obesity or heart disease. It is not a binary question or they either completely explain mass murders or they contribute nothing. In formal logic the concept you’re missing is ‘sufficient’ versus ‘necessary’. Epidemiologically, easy access to guns is a massive contributory factor to mass murder.

You’ve nicely highlighted my point for me. Nobody - least of all me - is claiming that other weapons (any tool used or intended to hurt or wound is a weapon) cannot be deadly. But to find an example you hoped would convince, you had to hang your hat or an instance where a physically health adult male entered a residence for people with disabilities at half past two in the morning. All 19 of the dead were residents there; we can infer they were disabled. That was their deadliest attack in something like a decade. 19 dead in a shooting in the US would be noticeable, but hardly unprecedented or a record. The Japan knife attack you cite was as close as one can get to an experimental frictionless vacuum. He was as set for unhindered success as he possibly could have been. Your other example had a whole two people killed. That barely registers. A mass killing with a knife is hugely exceptional.

Contrast that with Dayton, Ohio shooting, where the shooter was very unlucky. He was confronted by six police who were on scene already, and was shot and killed in thirty seconds after his first shot. 9 dead, more than 20 injured. It reinforces my point that a gun is a tremendous equalizer. The Japan attacker had insider knowledge of location, targets, security, and pattern of life from having previously worked there. The Ohio shooter simply needed a gun and a crowd. Like the El Paso shooter. Or like any other mass killer who has recently laid waste with a gun.

It will always be possible to find exceptional circumstances. I was in Nice a couple days after the truck attack and walked the ground. He had about as ideal a situation and venue as can be had for such an event, and the toll reflects that. We have seen significant changes in urban security in the past decade. Big events are quite easily hardened against such attacks. Mitigating the risks of a vehicle attack is a pretty simple CPTED problem. As I presently sit here having lunch outside a typical soft target in Vancouver (BC Place stadium), I see bollards, planters and such that are relatively unobtrusive and inexpensive, but would serve well to minimize the damage that can be done. Were a crowd to be here for a Lions game, and someone went rogue with a knife, I see dozens of fit and strong adults in the immediate vicinity. Some combination of us would probably stop it fast, admittedly at the risk of getting carved up. Conversely, someone hopping out of a car with a gun could enter any of the restaurants and cafes here and kill or wound dozens, and likely fend off at least the first attempts by anyone to rush them. They could do that with minimal training and experience so long as they’ve repped out some basic stoppage and reload drills for half an hour.

A truck as a weapon can kill. With considerable luck it can kill a lot. The cost/benefit in municipal design for target hardening against this isn’t at all outlandish.

A knife as a weapon can kill. Absent exceptionally fortunate or ideal circumstances, this attack will be quickly limited by people fighting back, and the wounds, while grievous, tend to be survivable. You have to physically reach the target to wound them. Potential victims are much more likely to have weapons/shields of opportunity at hand.

Guns with the right characteristics for combat (semiautomatic, detachable magazine, and ammunition with sufficient KE to create a meaningful secondary cavity in tissue) are completely in their own class for the ability of any angry idiot to acquire and use to great effect. You can very rapidly wound pretty much anyone within sight. They are the among the hardest things to proof against through environmental design, barriers to access them in the US are negligible, and they are easy for anyone to learn to use ‘well enough’.

As I said, any entry into this debate must start with accepting the basic truth about the extreme utility of firearms for interpersonal violence, and working from there. Any position that does not in face of abundantly clear evidence is dishonest and useless.

I enjoy shooting, I am no hoplophobe, I use and instruct firearms use professionally - including in the context of responding to exactly such attacks. I don’t want everyone stripped of their firearms. Nor will I try to bury my head in fantasy though just because something is enjoyable to me. America has a gun problem, and that problem is the wrong guns (inclusive of things like high capacity magazines) too easily accessed by the wrong people, with constant tragic consequences.

Great post.  :whistle: :goodpost:
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 08, 2019, 18:41:11
I didn't look at your article, Jarnhamar. But, Saturday Night Specials have always been easy to obtain, cheap, and easily concealed.

We used to call them suicide specials.

*Channels Cathy Newman* So what you're saying is if you did read the link you would agree that pistols are used in just as many mass shootings as sinister assualt rifles, often causing around the same amount of killed and injured, and you think the gun someone uses has more to do with whatever is available on hand and less about the weapons characteristics? Further more you believe that while there are cases where shooters have no warning signs, most times there are tons of warning signs that are repeatedly ignored? I find myself agreeing with you.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: mariomike on August 08, 2019, 18:47:14
*Channels Cathy Newman* So what you're saying is if you did read the link you would agree that pistols are used in just as many mass shootings as sinister assualt rifles, often causing around the same amount of killed and injured, and you think the gun someone uses has more to do with whatever is available on hand and less about the weapons characteristics? Further more you believe that while there are cases where shooters have no warning signs, most times there are tons of warning signs that are repeatedly ignored? I find myself agreeing with you.

No idea who Cathy Newman is. Could look her up, but don't care. Did not read your link. Maybe after dinner. I simply made a comment that Saturday Night / Suicide Specials are cheap, relatively easy to obtain, and concealable.

That is all I said.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 19:09:47
No idea who Cathy Newman is. Could look her up, but don't care. Did not read your link. Maybe after dinner. I simply made a comment that Saturday Night / Suicide Specials are cheap, relatively easy to obtain, and concealable.

That is all I said.

I have no idea who she is either.  I checked.  Looks like a British journalist.  She received death threats after an interview with Jordan Peterson. 

Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Newman

I’m not up to speed on pop culture quotes that Millennials use.   I guess she’s possibly someone they quote?

 :dunno:

Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on August 08, 2019, 19:20:39
Don't get lost in the weeds.

A madman killed 19 people with a knife. That is the bottom line. The circumstances, time, etc are as mundane as those of a mass shooter. Boiled down to the essence, evil people will do evil with whatever they have at their disposal.

I've never disputed access to firearms is a problem. What I dispute is the people calling for an all out, knee jerk reaction ban, without looking at any possibilities or other actions that may mitigate an all out ban and try to find some common ground for all sides to work on.

I've argued before that an all out ban will be fruitless. If someone wants a gun, they will get a gun. They will purchase, steal, modify or make one. We have to look at other means of mitigating it. A gun ban won't cut it.

That’s the closest I’ve seen you come to conceding that there is any exceptionality to guns. You’re the guy who will “but, knives!” or “but, hammers!”.

You started with a strawman. I’ve seen no one here arguing for a full on gun ban. I doubt you’ll find anyone so minded on army.ca. So you’re arguing a position that no one is taking.

Early in this thread direction you said:
Quote
A hammer, knife or garden shovel, is as deadly as a gun, when wielded by a madman.

I took issue with that because it’s clearly absurd. It’s taken more effort than it should to get you to concede that just maybe there’s something about guns that makes them better weapons than most other things. Nobody here has argued that evil people won’t do evil things. The clear position I’m staking is that guns make it much easier to do more evil for someone so minded, and it makes them harder to prevent or stop. I will at least tip my hat to the fact that you seem to be tacitly conceding that now. It puts us in the same chapter if not on the same page.

I believe we will all agree there are many factors that all deserve to be addressed. The US (and us) need more better access to mental health care, and that needs to bypass economic barriers. That leads us to that ugly concept ‘socialism’ (for those inclined to throw the word around too loosely), but if we want to look beyond just health care insurance in society, and to health care as insurance for society, then some rational decisions have to be made about where some funding’s gonna go.

Guns do not inherently cause violence any more than cars cause impaired or reckless driving. Nobody here is arguing that guns cause mass shootings. Just that, mass shootings are deeply linked to gun availability, and that mass shootings form a bulk of mass killings. Just as we license and insure the use and register the ownership of motor vehicles, with all manner of sanctions and enforcement measures, there is much more room for reasonable restrictions than are currently in place in many jurisdictions.

Absolutely let’s talk about those other things, and be willing to make policy changes. Let’s also hope the US can be willing to talk about and make policy changes around guns, if they want to actually achieve anything.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 08, 2019, 19:25:37
An interesting article from the Harvard Gazette....

Want to stop mass shootings?

A public-health prescription: Tougher laws, an NHTSA for guns, and politicians who look more like America

The mass shootings over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, killed at least 31 people and wounded scores more. Those incidents were just the latest such deadly attacks in the United States, which has tallied more than 250 since Jan. 1, according to a new report by Gun Violence Archive. The group defines a mass shooting as one that claims the lives of at least four victims. David Hemenway, professor of  health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and author of the 2006 book “Private Guns, Public Health,” has spent much of his career studying gun violence. He spoke with the Gazette recently about what can be done to stop mass shootings.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/08/harvard-professor-of-health-policy-discusses-gun-violence-in-the-wake-of-two-u-s-mass-shootings/
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 08, 2019, 19:32:45
I have no idea who she is either.  I checked.  Looks like a British journalist.  She received death threats after an interview with Jordan Peterson. 

Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Newman

I’m not up to speed on pop culture quotes that Millennials use.   I guess she’s possibly someone they quote?

 :dunno:

Ahh, I should explain then. If you watch the interview she did with Jordan Peterson Jordan would say something and she would completely take his comment out of context and make up ridiclous statements.

I'll paraphrase

Jordan: men and women are traditionally interested in different jobs. In scandanavia where there is the least amount of barriers for women, women still gravitated towards jobs like nursing and clerical work.

Cathy: so what you're saying is you think men are smarter than women and more successful because women are indecisive and are just on this planet to make babies.

I doubt I'm doing it justice, watch their interview.

Of course I don't mean Mariomike is anything like that, I was just making a joke about "so what you're saying is" because I completely took what MM said out of context.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 19:42:09
Ahh, I should explain then. If you watch the interview she did with Jordan Peterson Jordan would say something and she would completely take his comment out of context and make up ridiclous statements.

I'll paraphrase

Jordan: men and women are traditionally interested in different jobs. In scandanavia where there is the least amount of barriers for women, women still gravitated towards jobs like nursing and clerical work.

Cathy: so what you're saying is you think men are smarter than women and more successful because women are indecisive and are just on this planet to make babies.

I doubt I'm doing it justice, watch their interview.

Of course I don't mean Mariomike is anything like that, I was just making a joke about "so what you're saying is" because I completely took what MM said out of context.

Ah ok.  I’ll look for it thanks.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 08, 2019, 19:44:02
RomeoJuliet, Interesting stuff. I couldn't quote your post for some reason.


Check this out.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Look at the types of firearms used in shootings reference your metrics above. Handguns appear to have been used steadily and quite often before, during, and after the assault weapon ban ended. And those pistols are responsible for a number of the higher death counts too.

Lots of Glock 9mms to go along with the cheaper AR15s, Rugers and Bushmasters. Not many $3000USD Knights Armament AR15s used or $1000 pistols.

Why would so many handguns be used when the shooters could buy AR15s?
Hmmm, handguns are easier to conceal? I agree with you that Canada’s handgun laws are most likely adequate (and the rules regarding ATT can be a major pain).

Assault weapons with high capacity mags for those other than military and police? Not a fan. Although I could definitely use more practice so I can score higher when my unit shoots biannually.
PS when hand guns and assault weapons are used in mass shootings I wonder what percentage of shooters used high capacity mags?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 20:06:57
Assault weapons have a definition. AR15's don't meet that definition. If people are going to be hammered here for accuracy in statements, it has to be for everything. In this case AR15's are not full auto.

Facts matter.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 08, 2019, 20:14:40
Assault weapons have a definition. AR15's don't meet that definition. If people are going to be hammered here for accuracy in statements, it has to be for everything. In this case AR15's are not full auto.

Facts matter.


Yup, correct.

‘Because assault weapon is not a legally-defined term, providing a count of how many are held in Canada is not possible.’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 08, 2019, 22:19:53
>mass shootings are deeply linked to gun availability

Mass shootings are linked to availability, but "deeply" is unlikely.  Firearm availability has been high in the US for a long time; the increase in "mass shootings" not involving criminals is recent.  Some explanation based on other factors is needed.  My money is on social rather than material factors.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 08, 2019, 22:23:53
Resistance to "smaller mags" stems from self-defence advocates arguing from a position of common sense and evidence: if larger mag capacity is good for police against bad guys, it's good for citizens against bad guys.

When something bad happens and the political prescriptions start to roll out, a useful first question is: does this politician propose to solve the problem by placing the burden of shrinking liberties on criminals, or on citizens?
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 08, 2019, 22:38:54
Quote from: RomeoJuliet
Assault weapons with high capacity mags for those other than military and police?
Fair enough. You also said there's no reasons for high capacity magazines. Lets flush that out.

Bare with me, I'm a little long winded sometimes.

Lets say on top of the 5-round magazine limit the government full on bans AR15 rifles, and, any ALL other firearms that remotely "looks army". Call it assault weapons or military style weapons.


Someone walks into a school with a Browning BAR semi-automatic hunting rifle (which has a detachable magazine) and 5 magazines in his pocket. [This is a 308, where an AR15s bullet is often too light to hunt deer in many places, you can use 308s to hunt bears]
He starts shooting and takes the lives of 10 or 15 students. What happens next? Well why do you even need semi-automatic guns for hunting.

Ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Someone else walks into a church with a Remington pump action hunting shotgun and a pocket full of shells. You're only legally allowed 3 rounds in there but he just took the plug out and had 5 or 6 rounds in there. He starts shooting and takes the lives of 8 or 9 students. What happens next? Why do you need a gun that holds more than 2 bullets?  (forget that the police and military use remington pump shotguns)

Ban shotguns and rifles other than break-action shotguns, which are a far cry from AR15s right? Bullet or two then reload, plenty of time to tackle the shooter.

Someone else walks into a store and uses a break action shotgun and murders 8 people. (on 2 Jun 2010 George Fisher used a break action double barrel shotgun and bolt action .22cal to murder 13 people and injure 11 more).  What happens next? What's left to ban?




I won't argue that military style semi-autos are pretty good at killing people quickly. There's lots of examples of people using all manner of firearms to kill lots of people quickly. Pistols, rifles, shotguns and even a double barrel shotgun.  The link I posted shows how equally represented pistols are in shootings (possibly used even more?). But rifles modeled after assault rifles are probably at the top.
The media always obsesses about what kind of gun is used. Should the debate be about whether 7 people with a pistol vs  12 people with an AR get shot? Or should we be concentrating on why a guy who is caught with a rape and kill list, with a history of threats and violence, slips through the cracks and both falls off the police radar, and, manages to buy any gun.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 22:51:24
>mass shootings are deeply linked to gun availability

  My money is on social rather than material factors.

I think it’s  a combination.  Societal factors with the added issue of easily accessed weapons and a stunted government not willing or able to deal with either.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: milnews.ca on August 09, 2019, 12:43:23
Just throwing these recent tidbits out there to add ingredients to the discussion stew …
Quote
… Two policies-universal background checks and "may issue" laws* that required a heightened showing of suitability for concealed carry-were associated with lower firearm homicide rates in large cities but were not associated with firearm homicide rates in suburban and rural areas. In contrast, laws that prohibited gun possession by people convicted of a violent misdemeanor were associated with lower firearm homicide rates in suburban and rural areas, but were not associated with firearm homicide rates in large cities. Permit requirements were associated with lower firearm homicide rates in both large cities and suburban and rural areas … This article provides the first evidence that state firearm laws may have a differential impact on firearm homicide rates in suburban and rural areas compared to urban areas in the United States ...
From "The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates in Suburban and Rural Areas Compared to Large Cities in the United States, 1991-2016" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31361355) (Journal of Rural Health, based on FBI data)
Quote
… Universal background checks were associated with a 14.9% (95% CI, 5.2–23.6%) reduction in overall homicide rates, violent misdemeanor laws were associated with a 18.1% (95% CI, 8.1–27.1%) reduction in homicide, and “shall issue” laws* were associated with a 9.0% (95% CI, 1.1–17.4%) increase in homicide. These laws were significantly associated only with firearm-related homicide rates, not non-firearm-related homicide rates. None of the other laws examined were consistently related to overall homicide or suicide rates … We found a relationship between the enactment of two types of state firearm laws and reductions in homicide over time. However, further research is necessary to determine whether these associations are causal ones ...
From "The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study" (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-04922-x) (Journal of General Internal Medicine, based on CDC data)

* - More on "may issue" & "shall issue" laws here (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/may-issue-vs-shall-issue-concealed-carry-states/).
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jed on August 09, 2019, 14:10:18
I think it’s  a combination.  Societal factors with the added issue of easily accessed weapons and a stunted government not willing or able to deal with either.

In your opinion it is a combination of Societal factors (mainly some form of individual mental health) or easy access to scary demonized firearms. I would say that the facts all over the world lay waste to your opinion.

One obvious conclusion is that there is a Societal Fear of scary firearms akin to people being afraid of snakes, etc.  Maybe we should exterminate all deadly snakes to prevent the unnecessary death of people? After all one loss of life is too many.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 09, 2019, 14:59:01
In your opinion it is a combination of Societal factors (mainly some form of individual mental health) or easy access to scary demonized firearms. I would say that the facts all over the world lay waste to your opinion.

One obvious conclusion is that there is a Societal Fear of scary firearms akin to people being afraid of snakes, etc.  Maybe we should exterminate all deadly snakes to prevent the unnecessary death of people? After all one loss of life is too many.

Not quite, Jed but thanks for trying to give me my opinion.  The US has a gun culture no other western country has.  Bordering on the religious (heck for some guns and religion are linked) An almost romanticised version TBH.  It has a history of racial divide.  A divide where guns were the perceived solution.  In fact guns figure prominently in US history.  (The revolutionary war, the Civil War for one, the Conquest of the West another).   

This is more than just a mental health issue.  It is also more than just a gun control issue.  Mental Health issues exist throughout the western world yet we don't see the same rates as we do in the US with these incidents.  Some countries have easy access to guns and yet we don't see the same rates of gun violence the US has. 

So what is it?  Is it disenfranchised young racist men? 

There are similar traits that can be found in young jihadi men and young white supremacist men.  Both groups feeling disenfranchised and angry at the world that found something to belong to and something to fight and some willing to act on it.  Maybe that is part of it.

Then add just how easy it is to get a gun and you have a recipe for disaster. 

I'm not sure why some people think that some more rules would be bad.  Not bans or confiscations.  But universal rules as opposed to individual state laws that create inconstancies.  I find it odd that people balk at background checks being unreasonable.  But it needs to be about more than just gun control and mental health.

I hope the US can figure it out at some point.  Not very hopeful though.

So yes it is a combination.  this isn't an all or nothing game the left and the right like to play.   
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 09, 2019, 15:23:51
Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart store in Missouri, police say

https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-man-arrested-at-missouri-walmart-police-say?fbclid=IwAR2fbj7be3fqLqXHbFH79Q-lS7dnZRQ1DebXrl3CxiRDIWQg-Ps5H0eIRJg

Quote
An armed man reportedly wearing body armor and pushing a shopping cart at a Walmart store in Missouri on Thursday led a store manager to pull the fire alarm and sent customers fleeing -- but an armed off-duty firefighter was able to detain the man until police officers arrived, Springfield police said.

The 20-year-old suspect was carrying loaded tactical weapons, according to reports. He was arrested at the scene and taken into custody, however, police didn't immediately say what charges he was arrested on.

“His intent obviously was to cause chaos here, and he did that,” Springfield police Lt. Mike Lucas told The Springfield News-Leader.

It wasn't immediately clear if the man who was detained told cops why he was at the store, however, the incident comes five days after a mass shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, that resulted in 22 deaths.

    “His intent obviously was to cause chaos here, and he did that.”
    — Lt. Mike Lucas, Springfield Police Department

In a Facebook post, Springfield police wrote that officers were dispatched to the Walmart store around 4:10 p.m. Thursday on reports of  “an armed white male.”

More at link
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 09, 2019, 15:36:59
Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

https://www.concealedcarry.com/news/armed-citizens-are-successful-95-of-the-time-at-active-shooter-events-fbi/?fbclid=IwAR261zWxPHGrYy_TE6O0aovIMMzxAgNxzuzLZF9wncOntZ59ON2dyh1zJtc

Quote
The FBI has published 3 reports that collectively detail active shooter events from 2000-2017. The first report covered events from 2000 to 2013, the second covered 2014-2015, and the third and most recent covered 2016-2017.

It is important to note that the FBI has no specific system in place for finding and cataloging active shooter events. They manually search for and include them in their reports the same way anyone else might Google it which of course means there is room for error particularly in missing events that should have been included.

The FBI definition of an Active Shooter event is: “One or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.”

A few important distinctions about the FBI definition of Active Shooter include:

    A firearm must be used by the attacker. This then means they have not included incidents like the armed citizen who saved a woman outside the GM building in Detroit from a stabber or the man who was stopped by a CCWer in a Smiths Grocery store in Salt Lake City when he was stabbing shoppers at random.
    Domestic incidents are not included. The FBI feels that an Active Shooter event has to be one in which the attacker is endangering strangers not only their own family members.
    Gang-related violence is excluded also.
    For the FBI to define an incident as an Active Shooter incident both law enforcement personnel and citizens have to have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.

Much more at link.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jed on August 09, 2019, 15:47:52
Ah, gun violence. What a BS terminology. This is basically human beings committing uncontrolled evil and mayhem using a firearm. All countries all over the world do this regularly.  People in Africa have been especially good at it. I believe what society seem to be focusing on is these tragic individual Mass Shooter instances (with no apparent sane motive) that have started cropping up mainly in the US in the past few decades. All sorts of other criminal or ideological behaviours keep getting lumped in just to confuse the issue.

Thank goodness that the US has had their 2nd amendment right to allow people to individually protect themselves from corrupt or merely inept big government. Canada benefits greatly due to our proximity on the same continent as this great Nation.

Personally I would sooner live in the freedom of our country or in the US than in the restricted environments of many European and Asian countries. For the time being I am at least able to voice my own opinion without reprisal from some wayward big government bureaucrat.

Watching England  and other Commonwealth countries take away freedoms from their subjects is very disturbing to me. Seeing Canada choose this future is not one I would prefer. Our children and grandchildren will have to live with it, I suppose. I imagine that the North American Indians and the Mountain Men may have had the same feelings when the push from the populated areas began to civilize a pristine world.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 09, 2019, 15:59:57
Time magazine has a piece on the dangers of linking gun violence to mental health issues.

https://time.com/5645747/gun-violence-mental-illness/

This para in particular echoes some of what I have stated.

"The false link between mental illness and violence has another deeply troubling public health impact. When we blame gun violence on “mental illness” (or “video games” or even “assault rifles”) we create a bugaboo that keeps us from doing the hard work needed to make real progress on gun violence. The U.S. mental health system, and our country’s approach to mental illness, is far from perfect. But even if we perfected treatment, we would not stop the current American gun violence epidemic. To do so requires hard discussions and good research evidence about issues ranging from structural inequality, to addiction, to racism and misogyny, to firearm access by at-risk people, to social media. Blaming mass shootings on mental illness stops us from making forward progress."
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Jed on August 09, 2019, 16:12:15
Time magazine has a piece on the dangers of linking gun violence to mental health issues.

https://time.com/5645747/gun-violence-mental-illness/

This para in particular echoes some of what I have stated.

"The false link between mental illness and violence has another deeply troubling public health impact. When we blame gun violence on “mental illness” (or “video games” or even “assault rifles”) we create a bugaboo that keeps us from doing the hard work needed to make real progress on gun violence. The U.S. mental health system, and our country’s approach to mental illness, is far from perfect. But even if we perfected treatment, we would not stop the current American gun violence epidemic. To do so requires hard discussions and good research evidence about issues ranging from structural inequality, to addiction, to racism and misogyny, to firearm access by at-risk people, to social media. Blaming mass shootings on mental illness stops us from making forward progress."


Seems like a cop out statement to me.  No one is saying that all forms of ‘Mental Illness’ result in ‘gun violence’.  There are specific form of Mental Illnesses that relate at an individual level that is the problem. Thank God these are very rare occurrences.

Blaming mass shootings on Guns stops us from making forward progress.   See what I did there.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 09, 2019, 16:22:34

Seems like a cop out statement to me.  No one is saying that all forms of ‘Mental Illness’ result in ‘gun violence’.  There are specific form of Mental Illnesses that relate at an individual level that is the problem. Thank God these are very rare occurrences.

Blaming mass shootings on Guns stops us from making forward progress.   See what I did there.

Reread the quote Jed it says essentially what you did there...

When we blame gun violence on “mental illness” (or “video games” or even “assault rifles”)


I also agree with that statement so I guess we agree.

Yes.  Thank god they are rare here where we have some sort of balance.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 09, 2019, 22:24:30
Gun control has been the 3d rail of US politics. One side wants to ban guns and the other votes against anything that threatens private gun ownership.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Remius on August 10, 2019, 00:03:52


Lovely.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-in-disturbance-at-missouri-walmart-said-he-was-testing-2nd-amendment-rights-prosecutors
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on August 10, 2019, 03:39:19

Lovely.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-in-disturbance-at-missouri-walmart-said-he-was-testing-2nd-amendment-rights-prosecutors

What an idiot...
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 10, 2019, 06:44:45
Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart store in Missouri, police say

https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-man-arrested-at-missouri-walmart-police-say?fbclid=IwAR2fbj7be3fqLqXHbFH79Q-lS7dnZRQ1DebXrl3CxiRDIWQg-Ps5H0eIRJg

More at link
2 dudes legally allowed to carry. How did that work out? Lucky no one was killed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Target Up on August 10, 2019, 16:09:35
2 dudes legally allowed to carry. How did that work out? Lucky no one was killed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You just answered your own question. No one was killed.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 10, 2019, 19:33:55
I'd rather look at the glass as half full and say what stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Nobody but the perp knew what he was thinking or whether he is lying after getting caught. What we do know, is this wacko, whatever his intentions, was stopped in his tracks by a good guy with a gun.
Personally, I think his 2nd amendment ploy is bullshit.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 21, 2019, 21:27:33
A different perspective.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/?fbclid=IwAR2rmMpF18zVhF8vZYD03B6kaxA7M2Av7qNl1-eMaMGpNeHqBPIHxcfjOBM
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brihard on August 21, 2019, 22:13:56
A different perspective.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/?fbclid=IwAR2rmMpF18zVhF8vZYD03B6kaxA7M2Av7qNl1-eMaMGpNeHqBPIHxcfjOBM

Crunching data on that will definitely take some time. At first glance, Norway can be excluded immediately from meaningful comparison; their small population means that the single mass shooting event at Utøya accounts for almost the entirety of their aberrantly high mass shooting death rate. Without that single outlier theirs would be very nearly nil.

I’m confident that France and Belgium’s mass shooting rates are mostly attributable to Islamist motivated terrorist attacks, but again it will take more time and digging to bear that out.

High rates in Eastern Europe don’t surprise me.

I’m curious about their selection of 2009-2015 for comparison given that the source data set runs from 1998-2019. Bigger samples are always better if they’re more representative. I’m curious what including the full data set would do for these rates.

There is of course still the fact that apples and oranges are being compared here. Most of the discussion lately has revolves around random mass shootings in the sense of an individual flies off the handle and tries to rack up a kill count, versus a broader categorization that will also capture Islamist terrorism as well as gang shootings. It’s tough to compare the situations of a gangbanger with ready access to illegal firearms, or an organized terror cell to a 21 year old kid who hasn’t moved out of his parents’ basement and has easy access to legally purchase an AR.
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Colin P on August 21, 2019, 23:19:46
What I don't agree with is the FBI definition of 4 or more people killed, this muddies the waters and makes determining causes and prevention difficult. I don't believe that most people think a gangland hit when they think a mass shooter. This link discusses the issue.


https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html
Title: Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 22, 2019, 02:47:54
There are a lot of definitions in use out there, but pretty much all of them spell out exactly what they are counting.

Statistically, even the outliers are likely to eventually happen.  We just don't know over how many years they should be averaged.