said by Net Citizen:Going by the citied gunpolicy.org site, the above regions held similar regulations to Canada's up until 1976. Automatic weapons and most definitely assault rifles are prohibited in Canada with very few exceptions.
WTF are you talking about 1976 for? Those countries I listed have exactly the same restrictions as Canada for automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
said by Net Citizen:The Candian and American sample is especially telling with ownership rates in the US being about four times the amount while its death rate is twice that of Canada's. That appears to run contrary to your premise.
Yes, that's called a statistical anomaly and indicates other factors at play in that specific instance. It also demonstrate that using that one example as proof that more guns = more violence is a logical fallacy, especially considering that the statistical rule carries on within the US.
said by Net Citizen:So the reality appears to be that the aforementioned countries lack the same comprehensive steps and enforcement enacted by the Canadian government with severe penalties for offenders to match. Gun laws are only as effective as the willingness by the government to enforce them. These are all paper tigers.
Whatever you think "appears" has been proven to be inconsistent with reality at best, a bold face lie at worst. Since you can't back up your gut feeling with actual data your argument is null and void.
said by Net Citizen:Detroit's gun laws are a lengthy process but they are not strict provided that you successfully pass a background check. Concealed carry requires a firearms class.
...and they still have one of the highest violent and gun crime rate in the US. Magnitudes higher than places where concealed carry is not only authorized but promoted.
said by Net Citizen:Los Angeles allows concealed carry permits state wide.
Los Angeles is a city. It has no legislative powers state-wide.
said by Net Citizen:Automatic and assault rifles with magazine capacities no more than 10 rounds are allowed. In fact this is the irony that's pervasive in most US states where hand guns have more restrictions than assault weapons.
Yet California is still the US State with the most restrictive and controlled firearm laws, and it still have one of the highest violent and gun crime rate in the country.
said by Net Citizen:Chicago's handgun ban was doomed from the start.
Just like every other handgun ban. Nice of you to admit it.
They "revised" it because the US Supreme Court ruled such bans to be un-constitutional, not because they felt like it. It still doesn't erase decades of a gun ban that resulted in higher violent and gun crime rate than pretty much every other city of similar size in the world.
said by Net Citizen:Most of the restrictions in various states tend to be classified under calibre size. Getting around this is fairly easy, simply sell a modified calibre gun that is slightly smaller while retaining the a chamber that holds the same amount of ammunition. It's a joke - which is why gun deaths remain relatively high.
The only joke here is you and your knowledge of firearms. To the extent that it would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.
Here's a hint. The chamber of a firearm can only ever contain one cartridge, no matter what caliber it's designed or modified to shoot.
Just another proof that whatever opinion you may have of firearms belongs in a septic tank, not in the public domain.
said by Net Citizen:Just as with the South American regions, US states seem to have gun laws that may look good on paper but in fact are riddled with loopholes courtesy of the NRA lobbyists.
Yet more un-subtantiated hyperbolic BS.
said by Net Citizen:You seem rather butthurt over my supposed desire to take away your gun(s).
Yes, I do get frustrated when people who so obviously have no clue about a topic profess to have any authority to decide how those who do have a clue should behave and what laws they should follow.
None of it has anything to do with my butt though, although I do find it interesting that you should associate firearms with butts.
said by Net Citizen:Once upon a time it was necessary for settlers to carry a firearm during the American expansion in the west where hostile bands of natives, rogue citizens and bandits were clear and present dangers. The Federal government had yet to fully establish proper zones of control which left local militias and town officials to maintain order.
We no longer live in the Deadwood era. In an urban environment with a competent police force, it's no longer necessary to carry a firearm; for any reason.
Oh yeah? How far away are the police when you're victim of a home invasion? Who tells them you need help? How effective were the police in protecting the people in that theatre?
When seconds count, cops are only minutes away.
said by Net Citizen:If you live in a rural district and depend on a rifle for your livelihood, that's a completely different matter. Many families who live off the land and have the necessary experience, knowledge and proper respect for their weapons often view city dwellers who are not compelled to observe the same standard as the very people who shouldn't be owning guns in the first place.
Since when are "city dwellers" "not compelled to observe the same standards" as rural residents? You really get off on lying to bolster your ignorant beliefs, don't you?
As a matter of fact rural residents have exemptions specifically designed for them in the storage regulations which allows them to have loaded firearms out in the open for predator control.
said by Net Citizen:This doesn't necessarily mean I believe those who have a fascination with firearms shouldn't be accommodated however.
Why would a firearm owner need to have a "fascination" with firearms to want to own them? Do you have a fascination with cars? Do you have a fascination with knives? Do you have a fascination with toilets?
Just because you're not interested in firearms doesn't mean those who are have to be fascinated with them to be interested in them. You seem to imply that being interested in firearms is some sort of mental deficiency. I would argue that it's hoplophobes like you who are mentally abnormal, just like any other phobic person.
said by Net Citizen:Firing ranges and gun fairs are where you should be going if you want to squeeze off a few rounds. My opinion only differs in the contemporary view is that whatever guns you own should remain in at these facilities under lock and key with those most qualified to care for them under 24/7 security. The firearms themselves never leave the firing range unless you're transporting the weapon to another facility or are moving out of province.
You mean protected by reliable people like police officers?
»
www2.macleans.ca/2011/09 ··· ted-for/»
news.sympatico.ctv.ca/lo ··· 7c27162fIn locations whose main purpose is the commerce of firearms?
»
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/s ··· 213.html»
www.slve.ca/gun-market-n ··· r-store/»
www.canada.com/calgaryhe ··· 6ea5d3f5Or do you mean something like a military armoury?
»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De ··· s_LortieAgain, the fact of the matter is that lawful firearm owners and their firearms, wherever they're stored, are not the problem. The criminals that would steal those firearms and use them to commit yet more crimes are the problem.
As long as the hoplophobes focus on firearms, criminals thrive. What would you do to fix a thermite problem, ban wood?