"Canada Bans Assault Weapons; People 'Deserve More Than Thoughts and Prayers' ”

[Mock Turtle]

Most weapons can do this.

Many of those weapons were never used by the military as semi-auto only rifles is a huge disadvantage. More so LEA uses handguns like glocks but those are not banned.

It's not as if I don't know there are inconsistencies, but I suppose it is all about reduction in the options available to those intent on killing innocents as opposed to the rights of some to own certain weapons.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What "shots" have I taken at you?

The expensive shots that kill innocent people.

What are you talking about?

We seem to be talking past one another. I'm more interested in how the USA progresses to a similar state that we find in so many other similar countries - where firearms are quite limited. Hence why moving along as Canada has done might be useful. I don't know what your particular views on gun ownership are but so many just cite the constitution as being enough - to give them such rights - even though no doubt the weapons available to so many in the USA now was perhaps not the intention of the constitution, or amendments.

 

[Shad]

It's not as if I don't know there are inconsistencies, but I suppose it is all about reduction in the options available to those intent on killing innocents as opposed to the rights of some to own certain weapons.

Most firearm deaths in the US and Canada are due handguns. Weapons of the same caliber as those on the banned list are not banned. The list was a knee-jerk reaction to appease a paranoid public all created by a single non-expert appointed bureaucracy while bypassing Parliament.

The shooter in NS got his weapon illegally from the USA.

 

[Shad]

I'm more interested in how the USA progresses to a similar state that we find in so many other similar countries - where firearms are quite limited. Hence why moving along as Canada has done might be useful. I don't know what your particular views on gun ownership are but so many just cite the constitution as being enough - to give them such rights - even though no doubt the weapons available to so many in the USA now was perhaps not the intention of the constitution, or amendments.

The US has majors cultural issue many refuse to even look at. Its not the weapons.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Most firearm deaths in the US and Canada are due handguns. Weapons of the same caliber as those on the banned list are not banned. The list was a knee-jerk reaction to appease a paranoid public all created by a single non-expert appointed bureaucracy while bypassing Parliament.

The shooter in NS got his weapon illegally from the USA.

Well legal or illegal, the more guns in circulation usually means it is easier to obtain them, and more deaths is correlated with more guns in circulation. Many countries have banned all guns apart from hunting and for sport, and living in one such, I can only say that a large majority are probably quite glad of such. The USA might be an outlier for ever but I doubt it, but I don't know what might effect change. Lots of innocent people being killed regularly, through murder, accidents, mistakes, etc., but doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

[Shad]

Well legal or illegal, the more guns in circulation usually means it is easier to obtain them, and more deaths is correlated with more guns in circulation.

So... Cultural issues are the problem in the US not merely weapons. Criminals do not follow the law if you have not figured it out yet.

Many countries have banned all guns apart from hunting and for sport, and living in one such, I can only say that a large majority are probably quite glad of such. The USA might be an outlier for ever but I doubt it, but I don't know what might effect change. Lots of innocent people being killed regularly, through murder, accidents, mistakes, etc., but doesn't seem to make any difference.

So? Other nations can do what they want. That is a problem of their citizens. Also note some of those nations with weapon bans kill their own citizens like China and NK. Disarmed nations hope that their government wont turn against them. The US as per it's Constitution expects it. So which view aligns with reality more?

 

[Mock Turtle]

So... Cultural issues are the problem in the US not merely weapons. Criminals do not follow the law if you have not figured it out yet.

Some are criminals, but others aren't. Not figured that out? Plenty of idiots in your country still shoot first and ask questions later, even cops - like putting 130 or so rounds into a car with two unarmed blacks in it.

So? Other nations can do what they want. That is a problem of their citizens. Also note some of those nations with weapon bans kill their own citizens like China and NK.

But you wouldn't necessarily compare the USA to them would you - more with similar European countries and such. Perhaps the UK should still allow bows and arrows to be carried and Japan likewise for them to carry Samurai swords, after all it was the culture at one time so why get rid of it? I suppose progress is the answer.

 

[Shad]

Some are criminals, but others aren't. Not figured that out? Plenty of idiots in your country still shoot first and ask questions later, even cops - like putting 130 or so rounds into a car with two unarmed blacks in it.

I am in Canada. Canada does not have the cultural issues the US does.

But you wouldn't necessarily compare the USA to them would you

Yet you compared nations and hoped the US were disarm it's population.

- more with similar European countries and such.

The same Europe that started two World Wars? The same Europe that disarmed people in their colonies to keep them oppressed? The same Europe that disarmed it's Jewish population? The same Europe and it's views the US was founded in opposition to? The same Europe that took a century to catch up the US regarding some basic rights. Yah... no.

Perhaps the UK should still allow bows and arrows to be carried and Japan likewise for them to carry Samurai swords, after all it was the culture at one time so why get rid of it? I suppose progress is the answer.

I was making a political and national statement not a cultural one in the quoted section.

 

[McBell]

We seem to be talking past one another. I'm more interested in how the USA progresses to a similar state that we find in so many other similar countries - where firearms are quite limited.

Similar how?

Hence why moving along as Canada has done might be useful.

Except that arbitrarily banning firearms does not work.

I don't know what your particular views on gun ownership are but so many just cite the constitution as being enough - to give them such rights - even though no doubt the weapons available to so many in the USA now was perhaps not the intention of the constitution, or amendments.

There are extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
Those who want every single fire arm on the planet to magically disappear on one side and those who want every single person to be allowed to own any weapon they want on the other.

I like to thing I am in the middle.
There are certain weapons I believe no one should own and there are certain people I believe should not ever be allowed to touch, let alone own any fire arm.

Banning things simply does not work.
They tried to ban alcohol, which is not specifically protected by an amendment and look where that went...

For so long as the 2nd amendment protects fire arm ownership, owning firearms will be a protected right and for all intents and purposes all that is needed in a legal argument about it.

How many mass shootings were there plenty of signs for BEFORE the shooting took place that were flat out ignored, dismissed, etc.?
But no one wants to address that.
Nope, the thing that gets discussed is which firearms to ban.
Then it falls off a cliff and NOTHING gets done.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am in Canada. Canada does not have the cultural issues the US does.

Right, well it does change things a bit unless you are an American living in Canada, in which case I would congratulate you.

Yet you compared nations and hoped the US were disarm it's population.

I would say much the same about any nation that had such access to these kind of weapons. The fact that is a cultural issue more than anything, plus a mistake in their constitution, is just by the by. Most countries do admit to change when the prospect of having a better life tends to counter the old ways - shame so many countries are still wedded to FGM.

The same Europe that started two World Wars? The same Europe that disarmed people in their colonies to keep them oppressed? The same Europe that disarmed it's Jewish population? The same Europe and it's views the US was founded in opposition to? The same Europe that took a century to catch up the US regarding some basic rights. Yah... no.

Haha - Not going to look at recent history in the USA then - slavery, segregation, late to help others - a beacon of exemplary behaviour - and they are showing it now with the perfect leader. And blaming Europe for the actions of a few countries is a bit lame, even if I would admit to the UK hardly being a fitting example to others with their imperialist history, but America hardly did much less when they displaced the native population in America. Forgotten that bit of history?

I was making a political and national statement not a cultural one in the quoted section.

Great.

 

[Curious George]

Right, well it does change things a bit unless you are an American living in Canada, in which case I would congratulate you.

I would say much the same about any nation that had such access to these kind of weapons. The fact that is a cultural issue more than anything, plus a mistake in their constitution, is just by the by. Most countries do admit to change when the prospect of having a better life tends to counter the old ways - shame so many countries are still wedded to FGM.
Haha - Not going to look at recent history in the USA then - slavery, racism, late to help others - a beacon of exemplary behaviour - and they are showing it now with the perfect leader. And blaming Europe for the actions of a few countries is a bit lame, even if I would admit to the UK hardly being a fitting example to others with their imperialist history, but America hardly did much less when they displaced the native population in America. Forgotten that bit of history?
Great.

It is unfortunate you want to make this a bash the U.S. topic. It seems nationalism is creeping up around every corner these days

 

[Mock Turtle]

Similar how?

Economic wealth, freedoms, democratic governments, etc.

Except that arbitrarily banning firearms does not work.

Hardly arbitrary. If firearms are not used for hunting or sport purposes then there is no need for the populace to have such - in the minds of those of us wanting more peaceful societies, that is. Leave the guns to the LEAs and military.

There are extremists on both ends of the spectrum.
Those who want every single fire arm on the planet to magically disappear on one side and those who want every single person to be allowed to own any weapon they want on the other.

Perhaps your views are guided by living alongside such? Having travelled quite widely in Europe and elsewhere, I have hardly ever felt unsafe or ever wished others had access to weapons, and in most such countries there was no evidence they had such access.

I like to thing I am in the middle.
There are certain weapons I believe no one should own and there are certain people I believe should not ever be allowed to touch, let alone own any fire arm.

That might be a nice principle but unfortunately neither is possible in practice when guns are circulated so widely and many can then obtain them illegally.

Banning things simply does not work.
They tried to ban alcohol, which is not specifically protected by an amendment and look where that went...

There really isn't much else of an option when it comes to firearms. One has to be very strict in the usage of legal weapons and not allow illegal ones into the country so they can be used illegally or risk the theft of any legal ones. It's not perfect but it's a slow slide into much greater use of such if it isn't controlled this way. Even then, criminal use of guns will still happen because people are willing to smuggle them into the country or make/adapt their own. It's really difficult to argue against the factual evidence that the more firearms there are in circulation then the more are used (whether legally held or not) and hence more deaths too - that is in general, although in some countries this is not the case. It appears to be so in the USA though.

For so long as the 2nd amendment protects fire arm ownership, owning firearms will be a protected right and for all intents and purposes all that is needed in a legal argument about it.

I know, which is why one must see that they got it wrong so long ago.

How many mass shootings were there plenty of signs for BEFORE the shooting took place that were flat out ignored, dismissed, etc.?
But no one wants to address that.
Nope, the thing that gets discussed is which firearms to ban.
Then it falls off a cliff and NOTHING gets done.

Just look at the last major killing - the concert, where he fired from a high building. No suggestion before that he might have done this, and still no apparent motive given. The same is often evident in school shootings, that is, they just didn't assess the level of anger of anyone who did such as ever to produce such a reaction. You can't lock up every loner or resentful person. The solution is to remove the means of carrying out relatively easy kills. And don't go down the slippery road - I know knives and cars, etc., can all be used to do such, but they at least have a prime other reason for existing, guns don't.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is unfortunate you want to make this a bash the U.S. topic. It seems nationalism is creeping up around every corner these days

It's not such, but it is about the apparent recalcitrant nature of the USA with regards this issue. Many just can't get their heads around being a different sort of society. If someone wants to place one country on a pedestal or demean others then they should at least be honest.

Let's get this straight - I'm not one to hate on or criticise Americans in general or your country as a whole, but it is the lax gun ownership laws that I have a problem with. I would just as easily criticise many countries for what I see as being unhelpful in the aim to make life better for all. And America does have a much wider sphere of influence than almost all others, hence it tends to get more attention. And if one wants to assess my criticisms of such a policy (the gun laws), what does one make of someone mentioning that the early emigrants moved from Europe to found the USA, because they apparently needed more freedoms, then went on to build a country via slavery and displacing the indigenous population? A bit of honesty would go down a treat, and we all know that virtually all nations have a bit of bad in their past - since we are all of the same species.

 

[Curious George]

It's not such, but it is about the apparent recalcitrant nature of the USA with regards this issue. Many just can't get their heads around being a different sort of society.

You have written what you have. Trying to rationalize it will not change that.

The U.S. allows the citizens to own and carry weapons. We are not a stupid society, we are not a tyrannical society, many people peacfully move from place to place with or without firearms.

The issues we have are abundant. The benefits we provide are so too. Our beliefs about guns are as diverse is our country. That we have violence, like many other countries is indicative of our problems. I do not believe the right to own or carry a gun is one of those problems. I do not think we will see a dramatic decrease in suicides or homicides by making guns illegal, and like the illegal drugs that are ubiquitous, i imagine so too will illegal guns be if ever they are made illegal. Hell, one can 3d print a gun if one is so inclined.

You mentioned that you have never felt the need to carry a gun throughout your travels. I understand that. Do you understand that this is your feelings and others might possess different feelings than you? When one suggests banning weapons it entails they believe they have the right to tell another they cannot own or carry such and such weapon. This is around what I have trouble wrapping my head. Why? It seems that most seem to assert they possess this right based on the premise that they have a right to ban anything if it contributes to the likelihood, (not even actuality) of a particular type of harm. That is you would deny citizen 1 something not because citizen 1 doing something is a danger to you or causes you, or will cause you, harm, but on the premise that if citizen 1 is allowed to do something then other citizens are allowed to do it too and one of those citizens will inevitably cause harm when doing that something.

The question this raises is where does this logic stop. Is it only when that harm is death? Or is it any harm?

Why should we not ban alchohol for the presence of it allows for drunk drivers, suicides, etc?

Why should we not hate speech as it can induce violence?

Why should we not ban religion as it can lead to mass suicide/homicide with instances like the heavens gate or Jonestown?

Why should we not ban abortion because it kills a fetus?

I don't mind people objecting to gun ownership. Or trying to push against gun culture. But I do not think anyone has a right to tell another that they cannot own or possess a reasonable, efficient and effective tool of self protection.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You have written what you have. Trying to rationalize it will not change that.

The U.S. allows the citizens to own and carry weapons. We are not a stupid society, we are not a tyrannical society, many people peacfully move from place to place with or without firearms.

The issues we have are abundant. The benefits we provide are so too. Our beliefs about guns are as diverse is our country. That we have violence, like many other countries is indicative of our problems. I do not believe the right to own or carry a gun is one of those problems. I do not think we will see a dramatic decrease in suicides or homicides by making guns illegal, and like the illegal drugs that are ubiquitous, i imagine so too will illegal guns be if ever they are made illegal. Hell, one can 3d print a gun if one is so inclined.

You mentioned that you have never felt the need to carry a gun throughout your travels. I understand that. Do you understand that this is your feelings and others might possess different feelings than you? When one suggests banning weapons it entails they believe they have the right to tell another they cannot own or carry such and such weapon. This is around what I have trouble wrapping my head. Why? It seems that most seem to assert they possess this right based on the premise that they have a right to ban anything if it contributes to the likelihood, (not even actuality) of a particular type of harm. That is you would deny citizen 1 something not because citizen 1 doing something is a danger to you or causes you, or will cause you, harm, but on the premise that if citizen 1 is allowed to do something then other citizens are allowed to do it too and one of those citizens will inevitably cause harm when doing that something.

The question this raises is where does this logic stop. Is it only when that harm is death? Or is it any harm?

Why should we not ban alchohol for the presence of it allows for drunk drivers, suicides, etc?

Why should we not hate speech as it can induce violence?

Why should we not ban religion as it can lead to mass suicide/homicide with instances like the heavens gate or Jonestown?

Why should we not ban abortion because it kills a fetus?

I don't mind people objecting to gun ownership. Or trying to push against gun culture. But I do not think anyone has a right to tell another that they cannot own or possess a reasonable, efficient and effective tool of self protection.

But you are not just defending gun ownership in a similar manner? Able to step outside of your society and see it from another perspective?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You have written what you have. Trying to rationalize it will not change that.

The U.S. allows the citizens to own and carry weapons. We are not a stupid society, we are not a tyrannical society, many people peacfully move from place to place with or without firearms.

Don't make out I ever did say such since I don't of course believe that. But you are still a society locked into the past, via your culture and constitution.

The issues we have are abundant. The benefits we provide are so too. Our beliefs about guns are as diverse is our country. That we have violence, like many other countries is indicative of our problems. I do not believe the right to own or carry a gun is one of those problems. I do not think we will see a dramatic decrease in suicides or homicides by making guns illegal, and like the illegal drugs that are ubiquitous, i imagine so too will illegal guns be if ever they are made illegal. Hell, one can 3d print a gun if one is so inclined.

I know all this, and I doubt you will ever change, but your apparent love affair with weapons does leak out to affect other countries. It seems to so many of us as to be indicative of basic insecurity and/or being threatening even if it isn't. You know the USA has great influence all around the world. Why do you think there is such a hostile reaction to a leader like Trump - because he just seems interested in what is best for the USA and damn the rest of us, even if this isn't true. The gun ownership, and violence, does likewise - as not being the best example for any nation labelling itself as 'leader of the free world'. That is why so many of us get so incensed about your gun ownership laws.

You mentioned that you have never felt the need to carry a gun throughout your travels. I understand that. Do you understand that this is your feelings and others might possess different feelings than you?

Of course I do, but I know it is perfectly rational and logically based too. As in, why would I want to possess a weapon that could end the life of another? Why would I want to live in a society where violence might be so commonplace as to need such? I can't believe that most people would not prefer to live in such a society, unless they had particular reasons for not wanting such.

When one suggests banning weapons it entails they believe they have the right to tell another they cannot own or carry such and such weapon. This is around what I have trouble wrapping my head. Why?

We tend to frame laws for the benefit of all in society. You apparently cannot see the benefits of banning such weapons. Hardly surprising since you are surrounded by such, but as can be seen in so many countries, this works.

It seems that most seem to assert they possess this right based on the premise that they have a right to ban anything if it contributes to the likelihood, (not even actuality) of a particular type of harm. That is you would deny citizen 1 something not because citizen 1 doing something is a danger to you or causes you, or will cause you, harm, but on the premise that if citizen 1 is allowed to do something then other citizens are allowed to do it too and one of those citizens will inevitably cause harm when doing that something.

Well your society hasn't had this option (fewer guns) has it, so how would you know? That is your main issue, the culture going so far back and tied to when the USA formed.

The question this raises is where does this logic stop. Is it only when that harm is death? Or is it any harm?

Why should we not ban alchohol for the presence of it allows for drunk drivers, suicides, etc?

Why should we not hate speech as it can induce violence?

Why should we not ban religion as it can lead to mass suicide/homicide with instances like the heavens gate or Jonestown?

Why should we not ban abortion because it kills a fetus?

I don't mind people objecting to gun ownership. Or trying to push against gun culture. But I do not think anyone has a right to tell another that they cannot own or possess a reasonable, efficient and effective tool of self protection.

Well you know this is all just slippery slope stuff. It just depends upon what kind of a society you want.

You are not bothered when a black goes jogging and gets shot by two white blokes because he is mistaken for a thief, or when a female calls the police and gets shot by them by mistake outside her own home, or when a caller at the door gets killed because the owner is fearful, or when a toddler kills a sibling because the mother is too stupid to keep a firearm safe, or all the numerous mass killings, etc. One could go on endlessly but apparently they are just mourned for a day, a week, or whatever, and then life goes on. Why? Because you (or so many) are wedded to a gun-culture and that is more important than all the lives lost.

 

[Shad]

Right, well it does change things a bit unless you are an American living in Canada, in which case I would congratulate you.

I haven't live in the USA for a while. I did have a limited academic visa over a decade and a half ago.

I would say much the same about any nation that had such access to these kind of weapons. The fact that is a cultural issue more than anything, plus a mistake in their constitution, is just by the by.

No mistake in the Constitution.

Some of those weapons banned have the exact same caliber of rifles which are not banned.

Most countries do admit to change when the prospect of having a better life tends to counter the old ways - shame so many countries are still wedded to FGM.

FGM is different issue as it is about a child, their parents and their religion/culture.

Haha - Not going to look at recent history in the USA then - slavery, segregation, late to help others - a beacon of exemplary behaviour - and they are showing it now with the perfect leader.

Those all resulted in many of the culture issues I am talking about.

And blaming Europe for the actions of a few countries is a bit lame, even if I would admit to the UK hardly being a fitting example to others with their imperialist history, but America hardly did much less when they displaced the native population in America. Forgotten that bit of history?
Great.

I forgotten no history. You want to use a point of disarmament and I pointed out how that worked out for many people in a certain world war. The government went along with it. The army went along with it. The regular population went along with it.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That's not what I meant. Nuclear armed nations know how to deal with nukes just like police/military knows how to manage weapons like assault weapons, something not every ordinary citizen do.

I agree that gun/assault weapon can be useful when dealing with armed assailant hell-bent on harming you/your family, but only to certain extent. It has it's benefits, but costs are far greater. Not just the dangers of some psycho misusing the weapon, but also accidents and other hazards it brings with it.

I think there should be a better alternative, ESPECIALLY for assault weapon. We should really find better alternatives which isn't as dangerous as assault weapons and can be used for defensive purposes

Actually, a shotgun would be better. Point and fire, no aiming required. Also less chance of collateral damage. AR 15 rounds will travel farther downrange with greater damage than a shotgun pellet. Bullets also have a better chance of penetrating walls at distances of over about 50 feet.

 

[Curious George]

Don't make out I ever did say such since I don't of course believe that. But you are still a society locked into the past, via your culture and constitution.

I know all this, and I doubt you will ever change, but your apparent love affair with weapons does leak out to affect other countries. It seems to so many of us as to be indicative of basic insecurity and/or being threatening even if it isn't. You know the USA has great influence all around the world. Why do you think there is such a hostile reaction to a leader like Trump - because he just seems interested in what is best for the USA and damn the rest of us, even if this isn't true. The gun ownership, and violence, does likewise - as not being the best example for any nation labelling itself as 'leader of the free world'. That is why so many of us get so incensed about your gun ownership laws.
Of course I do, but I know it is perfectly rational and logically based too. As in, why would I want to possess a weapon that could end the life of another? Why would I want to live in a society where violence might be so commonplace as to need such? I can't believe that most people would not prefer to live in such a society, unless they had particular reasons for not wanting such.
We tend to frame laws for the benefit of all in society. You apparently cannot see the benefits of banning such weapons. Hardly surprising since you are surrounded by such, but as can be seen in so many countries, this works.
Well your society hasn't had this option (fewer guns) has it, so how would you know? That is your main issue, the culture going so far back and tied to when the USA formed.

Well you know this is all just slippery slope stuff. It just depends upon what kind of a society you want.

You are not bothered when a black goes jogging and gets shot by two white blokes because he is mistaken for a thief, or when a female calls the police and gets shot by them by mistake outside her own home, or when a caller at the door gets killed because the owner is fearful, or when a toddler kills a sibling because the mother is too stupid to keep a firearm safe, or all the numerous mass killings, etc. One could go on endlessly but apparently they are just mourned for a day, a week, or whatever, and then life goes on. Why? Because you (or so many) are wedded to a gun-culture and that is more important than all the lives lost.

You start out like you do, then you finish as you do. You have clearly not understood my point of view.

I do not believe i have misunderstood or misinterpreted yours. Perhaps, reread my posts.

Cheers

 

[Shad]

Actually, a shotgun would be better. Point and fire, no aiming required. Also less chance of collateral damage. AR 15 rounds will travel farther downrange with greater damage than a shotgun pellet. Bullets also have a better chance of penetrating walls at distances of over about 50 feet.

There is ar15 self-defense ammo that limits penetration just as there is shotgun ammo that can go through 6 feet of drywall. That is an owner issue more than the weapon. Also consider that a shotgun is not suitable for many owners due to physical limitation, low strength, small size and/or disabilities.

Stopping power is also an issue. With pellets that is decreased comparable to a slug.