Gun Control

[Audie]

Reducing gun deaths and injuries, and reducing the availability of guns to criminals.

SOURCES:
Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns
Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides


So, you "don't care for" slippery slope arguments... But you still use one?

You are aware that there are countries in the world that have put in place firearm permit and licensing laws and not confiscated firearms, right?

Licensing and permits, and other sales laws.
Of course divers restrictions are effective at
preventing / limiting access.

The topic though was "registration". Does your
article specifically show wherein "registration"
as such accomplishes anything?

As for slippery slope, did you have to be tiresome?

"are you aware" is also being tiresome.

I would suppose that every country on earth
has some "firearm permit and licensing laws".
Including China and Japan, which do.

The topic, though, was registration.
And the USA, not Upper Volta.

What do you think "registration" would mean in the
USA, not some other country?

And what is the purpose of it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you perhaps cite the law?
I am curious how this works. Surely one can use
deadly force in gravest extreme.
Does one state the purpose of a gun when buying it?
Like, "this glock is for decorative purposes"?
And if you say "self defense" they wont let you buy it?

There are allowances in US law intended to make firearms easier and more convenient to use against a person, such as:

- storing firearms loaded
- storing firearms unsecured
- keeping handguns
- concealed or open carry in public places.

Canadian law doesn't make these allowances.

A person could buy a shotgun for "home defense" if they wanted, but they'd still be breaking the law if they left it loaded and unlocked under their bed "just in case."

If they ever did use the shotgun against someone, they could very well be in serious legal trouble. Canada has no "castle doctrine," and we have this provision in our Criminal Code:

26 Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

While our laws do allow for self-defense and defense of property, our courts are pretty severe about what constitutes "excess" force. There have been cases where homeowners have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms for shooting and killing intruders.

 

[Audie]

Off the top of my head:

- knowing that a gun is registered to a particular address or to the owner of a particular vehicle is useful for police to know how to approach the situation.

- registering firearms makes it easier to trace guns used in crime back to their source, and thereby is a useful tool to combat the black market for weapons.

- if someone loses their right to own firearms (e.g. if they get a felony conviction, or if they have a restraining order against them for domestic abuse), knowing what firearms they legally own can help in making sure they turn in all of them.

Ah, those sound sensible. Perhaps there is a
counter argument.

Numbers one and two are a bit sketchy. Esp
number two, as people are hardly going to register
guns then sell them to the bangsters. And finding
out from whom it was stolen wont really solve much
either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, those sound sensible. Perhaps there is a
counter argument.

Numbers one and two are a bit sketchy. Esp
number two, as people are hardly going to register
guns then sell them to the bangsters.

They'll register the gun if they can't buy the gun at all without registering it.

And finding
out from whom it was stolen wont really solve much
either.

If it was stolen. Many criminal guns weren't.

 

[Audie]

There are allowances in US law intended to make firearms easier and more convenient to use against a person, such as:

- storing firearms loaded
- storing firearms unsecured
- keeping handguns
- concealed or open carry in public places.

Canadian law doesn't make these allowances.

A person could buy a shotgun for "home defense" if they wanted, but they'd still be breaking the law if they left it loaded and unlocked under their bed "just in case."

If they ever did use the shotgun against someone, they could very well be in serious legal trouble. Canada has no "castle doctrine," and we have this provision in our Criminal Code:

26 Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

While our laws do allow for self-defense and defense of property, our courts are pretty severe about what constitutes "excess" force. There have been cases where homeowners have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms for shooting and killing intruders.

Ok, you misdescribed the law.

As for excessive force, it is the same in the USA
including prison for shooting intruder-depending of
course on the situation. (which state is part of the
"situation")

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, you misdescribed the law.

Why do I bother to pretend that you're actually interested in honest conversation?

 

[Audie]

They'll register the gun if they can't buy the gun at all without registering it.


If it was stolen. Many criminal guns weren't.

Number one there is kinda obvious, though "have to
register" does not apply unless it is a though-the-store.
And the usefulness of knowing that Joe t he citizen may
have a gun is limited.

Trace the gun...for a situation inwhich a registered gun
is used in a crime, then left at the scene?

I guess that could happen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Licensing and permits, and other sales laws.
Of course divers restrictions are effective at
preventing / limiting access.

The topic though was "registration". Does your
article specifically show wherein "registration"
as such accomplishes anything?

Did you read the first study?

"(...) Mandatory registration makes it easier to trace guns used in crime to their last known legal owner, and to investigate possible illegal transfers. In combination, these laws have the potential to significantly restrict gun acquisition by high risk individuals through stricter eligibility criteria, safeguards against falsified applications, and increased legal risks and costs associated with illegal gun transfers to proscribed individuals."
SOURCE: Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns

As for slippery slope, did you have to be tiresome?

Do you have to get personal and defensive right away?

"are you aware" is also being tiresome.

I couldn't give a toss what you think of my style of writing.

I would suppose that every country on earth
has some "firearm permit and licensing laws".
Including China and Japan, which do.

The topic, though, was registration.
And the USA, not Upper Volta.

What do you think "registration" would mean in the
USA, not some other country?

And what is the purpose of it?

Instead of talking down to me and being evasive, maybe read the studies I link to?

 

[Audie]

Why do I bother to pretend that you're actually interested in honest conversation?

A bit of that old psychological projection going on there
bud. I am not the one does "enthusiasm" (fake facts).

 

[Audie]

Did you read the first study?

"(...) Mandatory registration makes it easier to trace guns used in crime to their last known legal owner, and to investigate possible illegal transfers. In combination, these laws have the potential to significantly restrict gun acquisition by high risk individuals through stricter eligibility criteria, safeguards against falsified applications, and increased legal risks and costs associated with illegal gun transfers to proscribed individuals."
SOURCE: Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns


Do you have to get personal and defensive right away?


I couldn't give a toss what you think of my style of writing.


Instead of talking down to me and being evasive, maybe read the studies I link to?

No, I didnt. You posted a whole buncha, 99% irrelevant,
so I asked if there was something in there.

You were being tiresome for no evident
reason that to be tiresome.. Trying to turn that into
me being defensive is kind of ridiculous

Like "are you aware" was not talking down
with a rhetorical question, or saying "read it"
is not evading a question.

Sorry you want to be like that, but, go practice
on someone else.

 

[Mock Turtle]

FWIW: Canada has plenty of guns. Not as many per capita as the US now, but a few decades ago, our gun ownership rates were similar.

The big differences between our two countries is in our legal framework:

- keeping weapons for self defense - unless you're defending yourself from bears in the wilderness - isn't recognized as a legitimate reason to keep a gun.
- pistols are restricted weapons. You can buy them, but there's a rigorous licensing process and heavy restrictions on how they can be used, stored, and transported.

If you want a pistol for competitive shooting - or a non-sporting handgun for blasting targets at the range - you can have it. You'll have to jump through a bunch of licensing hoops and generally have to leave your gun locked up at the range when you aren't using it, but you can have it.

If you want to hunt, you can do it. The licensing process for a long gun isn't that onerous. You'll just have to store your firearm locked and unloaded when you aren't using it for hunting.

It's not guns per se that cause most of the problem; it's all the allowances that the US makes for being able to put bullets into human beings, whether in terms of the weapons that are available or how they can be carried and stored. Take away those allowances and the bulk of the problem goes away. It wouldn't make things perfect, but it would make both the firearm death rate and the overall homicide rate a fraction of what they are now.

Well I know which country I would feel safer in.

 

[Audie]

Well I know which country I would feel safer in.

dontya kind of think it depends on what part of which country?

 

[Jollybear]

Because they aren't necessary? Unlike the others - and where their main purpose is not to kill. Perhaps it is more your insecurity (and others, and your history, and your culture) that is driving gun ownership - must have a gun to protect me against some other fellow/villain/unknown who has a gun? Why not look to all the other (relatively) civilised countries that seem to manage without them? Ignoring the hunting argument or the competition one. Too fond of toys?

Statistics say that when either more police are employed or more civilians have guns the crime rate is lower.

Guns are needed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

dontya kind of think it depends on what part of which country?

I'm sure it does but any country having fewer of such weapons or tighter gun laws will feel safer, for me at least, than any country like the USA where even the differences between state laws might not be known by any visitor. Cities will almost always feel less safe than other places, and, having travelled enough, I do feel safer in some than others. None have had as lax gun laws as the USA and mostly it was more the fear of being robbed, violently or otherwise.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Statistics say that when either more police are employed or more civilians have guns the crime rate is lower.

Guns are needed.

Statistics, him say, more guns in circulation tends to correlate with more deaths by guns. Europe, and most other countries, they say, we don't need no stinking guns. We are not that insecure.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Statistics say that when either more police are employed or more civilians have guns the crime rate is lower.

Guns are needed.

Could you please present the statistics which say the more civilians have guns the lower the crime rate?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I didnt. You posted a whole buncha, 99% irrelevant,
so I asked if there was something in there.

Presenting a study on the effectiveness of a gun registry is 99% irrelevant to the question of the effectiveness of a gun registry?

You were being tiresome for no evident
reason that to be tiresome.. Trying to turn that into
me being defensive is kind of ridiculous

And now you're just being silly. If you can't debate without childish tactics like speaking down to someone and calling them "tiresome", then don't bother.

Like "are you aware" was not talking down
with a rhetorical question, or saying "read it"
is not evading a question.

Or, maybe, it's a perfectly legitimate way to begin a sentence. I can't help your projecting onto it.

Also, it was "You are aware" not "are you aware", as in "This is something you should be aware of".

Sorry you want to be like that, but, go practice
on someone else.

I'm sorry you reacted defensively against my post and got upset over it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

How do you know walmart had alot of armed citazins?

And even if they did, then that makes them either cowards or in the wrong part of the store.

The "good guys with guns" argument implies gun control in terms of restricting who gets a gun and required training and registration.

Spreading guns around willy nilly and hoping more good guys get them doesn't fill me with confidence.

Also, even if good guys have guns, this doesn't mean they are ready to use them from a safety perspective or are mentally ready to fire on a human.

Unfortunately, humans tend to be reactive. Having guns around increases the likelihood of someone losing their cool and randomly shooting people. This recently happened close by me at a--you guessed it!--Walmart. (What is it about Walmarts and guns?)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Statistics say that when either more police are employed or more civilians have guns the crime rate is lower.

Guns are needed.

Which statistics say this? Please be specific. Link to a source.

 

[Jollybear]

Statistics, him say, more guns in circulation tends to correlate with more deaths by guns. Europe, and most other countries, they say, we don't need no stinking guns. We are not that insecure.

Ya, more guns logically means more gun deaths.

But, statistics show, more guns means less overal crime.

Its a trade off. What kind of a society you want? More guns, with more gun deaths or less overal crime?

And its not a insecure issue, its a reality issue.