Whats your stance on gun control ?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Use both hands?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Nufy

I've always wondered about the whole assault rifle thing...

many of the stories I have seen say that want them for hunting...

If you need a high capacity magazine to go hunting, you should take up a different hobby because you suck at it...

You can't use this type of rifle to hunt in Canada.....Period. It's illegal. The only place to legally discharge this type of rifle is at an approved range. And it's not a high capacity magazine, it's standard capacity. A normal magazine for this type of rifle would be 30 rnds (pinned to 5 in Canada) anything north of 30 and then you are starting to get into high capacity.

OP, are you reffering to gun control in Canada or the States? Those are two very different questions.

[BigBrodieFan]

The situation here in the US is a serious conundrum. The NRA has (successfully) lobbied for any whackjob to own a barrage of assault rifles. My old Tae Kwon Do instructor, for example, is hard core Republican, and continues to stockpile ammunition in his basement along with various assault rifles because he is afraid the government will take them away.

So- if we ban assault rifles- do those who have the assault rifles have to get rid of them? And, if they do- how do they get rid of them?

If we ban hand guns, what will the entire state of Texas do? Everyone carries a gun there. Will they just hand over their guns?

If we ban guns and we know there are so many guns out there that it's easy for criminals to get guns- do 'civilians' no longer feel safe in their homes knowing that their weapon is gone, but the bad guys have them and there is no way to defend oneself?

I say- it will be a long process but a step in the right direction. Ban all assault rifles and hand guns and make it harder for anyone, including good guys and bad guys, to get them. No one should be able to fire off more than 6 rounds at once (I think that's the limit in Canada?). If there is a civil war and uprising in the US, it could be ugly but can we sit back and watch mass murders keep happening once or twice a month? I think is inhumane to do nothing because there is 'too much red tape.' I think Obama is going to be the one to make a difference- I hope so. Enough is enough.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

The situation here in the US is a serious conundrum. The NRA has (successfully) lobbied for any whackjob to own a barrage of assault rifles. My old Tae Kwon Do instructor, for example, is hard core Republican, and continues to stockpile ammunition in his basement along with various assault rifles because he is afraid the government will take them away.

So- if we ban assault rifles- do those who have the assault rifles have to get rid of them? And, if they do- how do they get rid of them?

If we ban hand guns, what will the entire state of Texas do? Everyone carries a gun there. Will they just hand over their guns?

If we ban guns and we know there are so many guns out there that it's easy for criminals to get guns- do 'civilians' no longer feel safe in their homes knowing that their weapon is gone, but the bad guys have them and there is no way to defend oneself?

I say- it will be a long process but a step in the right direction. Ban all assault rifles and hand guns and make it harder for anyone, including good guys and bad guys, to get them. No one should be able to fire off more than 6 rounds at once (I think that's the limit in Canada?). If there is a civil war and uprising in the US, it could be ugly but can we sit back and watch mass murders keep happening once or twice a month? I think is inhumane to do nothing because there is 'too much red tape.' I think Obama is going to be the one to make a difference- I hope so. Enough is enough.

Handgun ban is unfortunately a long way away but eventually it will probably happen as they are the absolute root of all "evil" in the USA.(stats prove this)

Murders,accidental deaths and knee jerk suicides is all you need as proof that Americans as a whole shouldn't have these things lying around.

Britain in the late 90's just said "enough is enough" hand them over or go to jail for a long time, 75.000 odd guns were turned in the first day of the ban, criminals caught on that even possession of a handgun wasn't worth it and nowdays there are very few handgun crimes in that country.

Inherently people are violent,getting rid of guns won't stop violence but it will save thousands of lives every year.(another stat that's proven)

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by T@T

Britain in the late 90's just said "enough is enough" hand them over or go to jail for a long time, 75.000 odd guns were turned in the first day of the ban, criminals caught on that even possession of a handgun wasn't worth it and nowdays there are very few handgun crimes in that country.

But the NRA has the sheep convinced that Britain has a far higher rate of violent crime than the US, and they conclude it is because of Britains gun ban.

[Canuck-Hater]

I support practical regulation that doesn't violate the constitution. I think some of the proposals by the mouthpieces in Washington are a little extreme. They need to find that balance.

[Azure]

Chicago and its 500 murders per year proves that a handgun ban doesn't work. 40 already in 2013.

But lets keep saying it does and bury our head in the sand.

And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us...anted=all&_r=0

This is why outright bans don't work. And never will.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

Chicago and its 500 murders per year proves that a handgun ban doesn't work. 40 already in 2013.

But lets keep saying it does and bury our head in the sand.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us...anted=all&_r=0

This is why outright bans don't work. And never will.

That's absolutely crop. How is a ban supposed to work when you can drive 20 minutes and get one elsewhere? Your logic it's flawed but keep saying it

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Chicago and its 500 murders per year proves that a handgun ban doesn't work. 40 already in 2013.

But lets keep saying it does and bury our head in the sand.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us...anted=all&_r=0

This is why outright bans don't work. And never will.

Local bans are crap, a nationwide ban with stiff penalties is the only way it could work.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by T@T

Local bans are crap, a nationwide ban with stiff penalties is the only way it could work.

Exactly. If you have a nationwide ban on guns and the political will to round up all the old weapons, stop gun sales and enforce regular gun safety training, psychological and mental health checks for gun owners, you can cut down gun violence drastically. It works quite well in Japan and the UK. Gun related deaths there are 31/year on 130 million and 51/year on 63 million in Japan and UK respectively vs 31000+/year on a population of 300 million for the US. Since the mass shootings in the UK back in 1997 and wide sweeping gun bans since, gun deaths have dropped dramatically in the UK. Gangs in the UK are resorting to using flare guns in gang fights now that guns are not available in wide numbers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...35d_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ind-real-ones/

There are all sorts of weapons that people have no business owning. Hunting rifles and what not sure, but no autos... no one except the military has any business owning those.

[TurnedTheCorner]

I'm fer it, not agin it

[FlameOn]

Business Insider has a detailed statistical piece on how spectacularly poorly the US handles guns. Basically the US has the highest rate of gun ownership in all the industrialized world and the second highest rate of gun related deaths outside of Mexico (which is fighting a huge war with drug gangs run by former special forces). Amazingly the US has a higher gun related death rate than some countries going through actual warfare
http://www.businessinsider.com/shoot...n-laws-2012-12

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Azure

Chicago and its 500 murders per year proves that a handgun ban doesn't work. 40 already in 2013.

But lets keep saying it does and bury our head in the sand.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us...anted=all&_r=0

This is why outright bans don't work. And never will.

That's absolute bull****. You can't have local bans and expect them to work when anyone can get one with a short drive. You need to ban them nationally to see if it will actually reduce gun related voilence (and it will).

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by canflip_101

Whats your stance on gun control ?

Ok.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's absolutely crop. How is a ban supposed to work when you can drive 20 minutes and get one elsewhere? Your logic it's flawed but keep saying it

The point is that the existence of guns is not the sole reason murder is committed. There are a variety of other issues at play that cause someone to want to murder someone else. Fix those issues, and you fix gun crime....gun control or no gun control.

States like Texas and Montana have WAY higher levels of gun ownership not to mention open carry, and their gun crime rates are way lower.

But I'm sure the fact that the Texas economy is on a tear has nothing to do with it. The low unemployment, and therefore lower poverty rate has even less of an affect.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flameswin

That's absolute bull****. You can't have local bans and expect them to work when anyone can get one with a short drive. You need to ban them nationally to see if it will actually reduce gun related voilence (and it will).

Which will never happen.

But hey lets continue being unrealistic.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The point is that the existence of guns is not the sole reason murder is committed. There are a variety of other issues at play that cause someone to want to murder someone else. Fix those issues, and you fix gun crime....gun control or no gun control.

That is so stupid.

Read it like this

Fix those issues, and you fix gun crime....gun control or no gun control.

lol, guns are so insignificant in gun crimes there is no point in any control of them.

[FlameOn]

According to calculations done by Bloomberg, if nothing is done to curb gun violence by 2015, the number of deaths in the US by gun violence will exceed the number caused by auto accidents

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

That is so stupid.

Read it like this

Fix those issues, and you fix gun crime....gun control or no gun control.

lol, guns are so insignificant in gun crimes there is no point in any control of them.

Its not stupid at all. The US has a huge problem with poverty. A huge problem with drug crime. A huge problem with people not being able to climb the class ladder.

If there is no 'way out', a lot of those people resort to crime. And studies have shown that a lot people who commit murder have a prior conviction.

In 2009, 43 million were living in poverty in the US. That is more than the entire population of Canada. And studies have also shown that increased poverty rates can lead to increased crime rates.

To think that a simplistic solution like gun control can solve a colossal nationwide problem is extremely naive IMO.

And the US simply does not have the manpower to remove the amount of weapons floating around throughout the country. There is a reason local police departments have said they won't enforce any kind of ban. They simply can't.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its not stupid at all. The US has a huge problem with poverty. A huge problem with drug crime. A huge problem with people not being able to climb the class ladder.

If there is no 'way out', a lot of those people resort to crime. And studies have shown that a lot people who commit murder have a prior conviction.

In 2009, 43 million were living in poverty in the US. That is more than the entire population of Canada. And studies have also shown that increased poverty rates can lead to increased crime rates.

To think that a simplistic solution like gun control can solve a colossal nationwide problem is extremely naive IMO.

And the US simply does not have the manpower to remove the amount of weapons floating around throughout the country. There is a reason local police departments have said they won't enforce any kind of ban. They simply can't.

How did Britain do it? Pretty sure they have the same problems.

Your attitude, the same as a lot of people's and one which I hate is.... it's such a big problem, we just can't do anything about it, let's just give up and do nothing. Maybe talk about all of things we can't do, like help the mentally unstable, but not take away their 2nd amendment rights. Sandy Hook and Aurora was simply a product of the environment, and while assault rifles were used to facilitate mass murders, let;s just accept the fact there is nothing we can do about it and let the people keep their assault weapons. It's sad, but oh well, nothing can be done.