FAQ  •  My feedback  •  Feedback
UKLockpickers.co.uk Lockpicking supplies such as Lockpicks, tools, and more! COMMANDOLOCK.COM Military grade padlock systems lockpickshop.com A source for lockpicking supplies such as lockpicks, locksmith tools, and more!

A question for places with strict gun control.

<<

Werewolf

Familiar Face

Posts: 116

Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:00 am

Location: Belgium

Post Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:00 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

Josephus wrote:Annual Death Rate from Mass Public Shootings:

Belgium 0.128
US 0.089
Canada 0.032


Wow , i was surprised to see that number. But the statistics are a bit distorted by belgiums small population. 0.128 in a million adds up to a total of 1.4 person per year. Considering we had 2 shootings in the last 5 years.
One of these , the one in Liege in 2011 , should never have happened !!! Gun control laws were useless there. This was an absolute carreer criminal. This person should have been in jail , if we had a working justice system , WHICH WE DO NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!! But this is not the place to rant about that ...
The second one was a terrorist strike in a jewish museum.
Other than these 2 incidents , i don't remember any serious shootings since the 1980's , when the Nijvel gang was operating. 2 in the last 30 years is what i call rare.

If you look at other European countries on that list , you can notice a similar effect in other countries with low population. Norway and Finland , each with 1 shooting , have an undeserved high position on that list.
Trust me , I'm a locksmith
<<

Pick-Fu

Familiar Face

Posts: 110

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:28 pm

Location: Oregon

Post Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:06 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

Werewolf wrote:
Josephus wrote:Annual Death Rate from Mass Public Shootings:

Belgium 0.128
US 0.089
Canada 0.032


Wow , i was surprised to see that number. But the statistics are a bit distorted by belgiums small population. 0.128 in a million adds up to a total of 1.4 person per year. Considering we had 2 shootings in the last 5 years.
One of these , the one in Liege in 2011 , should never have happened !!! Gun control laws were useless there. This was an absolute carreer criminal. This person should have been in jail , if we had a working justice system , WHICH WE DO NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!! But this is not the place to rant about that ...
The second one was a terrorist strike in a jewish museum.
Other than these 2 incidents , i don't remember any serious shootings since the 1980's , when the Nijvel gang was operating. 2 in the last 30 years is what i call rare.

If you look at other European countries on that list , you can notice a similar effect in other countries with low population. Norway and Finland , each with 1 shooting , have an undeserved high position on that list.


Thank you for making all of my points... Gun control laws dont work, so we dont need any more then we have already..
Career criminals belong in jail and not out shooting people
the last mass shootings here were terrorist attacks (not all terrorist are muslims) these were done by home grown terrorists against our police and the one before it was a muslim terrorist
<<

Josephus

Familiar Face

Posts: 244

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:30 pm

Location: Michigan

Post Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:20 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

Werewolf wrote:
Josephus wrote:Annual Death Rate from Mass Public Shootings:

Belgium 0.128
US 0.089
Canada 0.032


Wow , i was surprised to see that number. But the statistics are a bit distorted by belgiums small population. 0.128 in a million adds up to a total of 1.4 person per year. Considering we had 2 shootings in the last 5 years.
One of these , the one in Liege in 2011 , should never have happened !!! Gun control laws were useless there. This was an absolute carreer criminal. This person should have been in jail , if we had a working justice system , WHICH WE DO NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!! But this is not the place to rant about that ...
The second one was a terrorist strike in a jewish museum.
Other than these 2 incidents , i don't remember any serious shootings since the 1980's , when the Nijvel gang was operating. 2 in the last 30 years is what i call rare.

If you look at other European countries on that list , you can notice a similar effect in other countries with low population. Norway and Finland , each with 1 shooting , have an undeserved high position on that list.


The best we can do is compare rate to rate. To go by totals, the largest countries will always appear to have a massive violence problem even when the odds of you dying is much less like between Belgium and the US where an average person in Belgium is 43% more likely to be murdered in a mass shooting.

The real story is told a bit better with normal statistical analysis with quartiles, means-of-means, rate of change; z, p, and r values and all that. If you take out the top dozen or so violent counties in the US, the death rate is similar to the lowest western countries. Statistics can say many things. So does that mean the numbers displayed for the US are also undeserved?

Also are what constitutes a shooting, mass shooting, and homicide. Each country tracks these things separately. A famous example is comparing historical gun crime rates between a country that sees suicide as a crime verses a country that does not.
<<

AppendixG

Newbie

Posts: 7

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:48 am

Location: Michigan

Post Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:54 am

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

Josephus wrote:The best we can do is compare rate to rate. To go by totals, the largest countries will always appear to have a massive violence problem even when the odds of you dying is much less like between Belgium and the US where an average person in Belgium is 43% more likely to be murdered in a mass shooting.

Very good posts, Josephus, and well-sourced.

I've been working all day and, maybe I'm interpreting the statistics incorrectly, but it looks like if you compare "Death Rates" and "Instances" for the three countries listed, mass shootings in America are less frequent but more fatal than their Canadian and Belgian counterparts. That is, they happen less frequently per capita but result in more deaths per instance.

I'm not sure what conclusion, if any, can be drawn from that data but maybe inspiration will strike and I'll do a little research to see a comparison between the weapons used in Belgian, Canadian and American mass shootings.

Great information, though, thank you for the evenhanded and informative posts.
<<

WestCoastPicks

Familiar Face

Posts: 178

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:45 am

Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:21 am

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

Pick-Fu wrote:westcoastpicks,

We have around 150,000,000 people in the US who own firearms and never go out and shoot anyone with any of them so this "man killer" lable is BS and you know it. Every gun if used improperly has the potential to kill a person just as well as a baseball bat has the same potential to kill people. Even a car, or a screwdriver, or cow shit (can be made into a bomb)

so lets do some numbers together...

there are over 350,000,000 guns in the US with about the same number of people..
33,000 deaths that the left relates to guns each year, lets break that down
over 1/2 of that is suiside (terrible to think that someone would take their own life) so now we are down to 16,500
now lets take away the murder by gang members and the deaths by cops, we are now around 3,000 deaths by neglegent discharge or outright murder (which is hardly ever done with an AR15 or AK47 style rifle)

So lets devide the 3,000 by the number of people in the country 3000/350000000 = .00001%
you are less likely to die in the US by gun then you are crossing the street in a crosswalk
Do the math for Canada and see if you come up with the same % I wish my computer wouldnt have crashed because I had a list of broken down that showed that people in Canada had a greater chance of death by firearm then we do.

I carry a concealed handgun every day to protect myself and my family (im getting older and cannot go hand to hand as good as I once did) and now we are letting unvetted islamists into the country and they are killing our people, I myself want the option to own an AR15 (modern sporting rifle) to protect myself against superior firepower that a criminal can get.

Venesuala (ok cant spell today) has a no guns policy but is the murder captial of the world per capita... explain that one
Every country that outright bans the citizens right to have a firearm has a higher violent crime rate (may not be guns but they just use other weapons.) If they outlawed guns in the US people would just use a bomb to create mass murder, or a truck like in France.
A guy in China killed over 30 people with a knife (I think it was china, maybe japan) so should there be a total knife ban?

Dr's in the US kill more people then guns, outlaw Drs?
Cars kill more people in the US then guns, outlaw cars?
Alcohol kills more people in the US then guns, go back to prohibition?

When will people learn its not a tool that is the issue but evil people (cough: mostly liberals : cough) that go around shooting people

Do you know who backs gun control the most? Gang members! they want unarmed targets.... no thanks, I will stay in the US and keep the ability for self preservation with my firearm



So the 100 times more gun deaths per person has nothing to do with the guns?
<<

GWiens2001

User avatar

Lock-Goblin-Gordon
Lock-Goblin-Gordon

Posts: 3413

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:05 am

Location: Arizona, United States

Post Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:13 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

WestCoastPicks wrote:
Pick-Fu wrote:westcoastpicks,

We have around 150,000,000 people in the US who own firearms and never go out and shoot anyone with any of them so this "man killer" lable is BS and you know it. Every gun if used improperly has the potential to kill a person just as well as a baseball bat has the same potential to kill people. Even a car, or a screwdriver, or cow shit (can be made into a bomb)

so lets do some numbers together...

there are over 350,000,000 guns in the US with about the same number of people..
33,000 deaths that the left relates to guns each year, lets break that down
over 1/2 of that is suiside (terrible to think that someone would take their own life) so now we are down to 16,500
now lets take away the murder by gang members and the deaths by cops, we are now around 3,000 deaths by neglegent discharge or outright murder (which is hardly ever done with an AR15 or AK47 style rifle)

So lets devide the 3,000 by the number of people in the country 3000/350000000 = .00001%
you are less likely to die in the US by gun then you are crossing the street in a crosswalk
Do the math for Canada and see if you come up with the same % I wish my computer wouldnt have crashed because I had a list of broken down that showed that people in Canada had a greater chance of death by firearm then we do.

I carry a concealed handgun every day to protect myself and my family (im getting older and cannot go hand to hand as good as I once did) and now we are letting unvetted islamists into the country and they are killing our people, I myself want the option to own an AR15 (modern sporting rifle) to protect myself against superior firepower that a criminal can get.

Venesuala (ok cant spell today) has a no guns policy but is the murder captial of the world per capita... explain that one
Every country that outright bans the citizens right to have a firearm has a higher violent crime rate (may not be guns but they just use other weapons.) If they outlawed guns in the US people would just use a bomb to create mass murder, or a truck like in France.
A guy in China killed over 30 people with a knife (I think it was china, maybe japan) so should there be a total knife ban?

Dr's in the US kill more people then guns, outlaw Drs?
Cars kill more people in the US then guns, outlaw cars?
Alcohol kills more people in the US then guns, go back to prohibition?

When will people learn its not a tool that is the issue but evil people (cough: mostly liberals : cough) that go around shooting people

Do you know who backs gun control the most? Gang members! they want unarmed targets.... no thanks, I will stay in the US and keep the ability for self preservation with my firearm



So the 100 times more gun deaths per person has nothing to do with the guns?


Nope, not at all. It has to do with a more accurate shooter.

Gordon
Just when you think you've learned it all, that is when you find you haven't learned anything yet.
<<

diyandsave+62

Newbie

Posts: 9

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:17 pm

Location: Oregon

Post Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

I think that we can remove the gun from the picture. If a person is determined to kill a bunch of people then they will find a way. Recent events have shown that. I will conceed that a gun is an easy choice. But to blame the gun and to think that removing all guns will stop the violence is moronic. This reason for my original post was to start a dialog that may open some closed minds, perhaps even mine. The responses from a lock picking group were surprising. Personally I blame over population and the decline in close knit communities. I was hoping to hear more from places like Great Britain, where they have gone from rural gun ownership to progressively stricter controls. Canada would probably be similar. But I may have the wrong impression of these countries, not being there. Perhaps the movement of the people towards urban living helps polarize the issue. Liberals living in cities and conservatives tending to be rural, a generalization on my part.

Remember, when seconds count, help is minutes away.

Stay safe all, Diy.
<<

WestCoastPicks

Familiar Face

Posts: 178

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:45 am

Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:48 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

GWiens2001 wrote:
WestCoastPicks wrote:
Pick-Fu wrote:westcoastpicks,

We have around 150,000,000 people in the US who own firearms and never go out and shoot anyone with any of them so this "man killer" lable is BS and you know it. Every gun if used improperly has the potential to kill a person just as well as a baseball bat has the same potential to kill people. Even a car, or a screwdriver, or cow shit (can be made into a bomb)

so lets do some numbers together...

there are over 350,000,000 guns in the US with about the same number of people..
33,000 deaths that the left relates to guns each year, lets break that down
over 1/2 of that is suiside (terrible to think that someone would take their own life) so now we are down to 16,500
now lets take away the murder by gang members and the deaths by cops, we are now around 3,000 deaths by neglegent discharge or outright murder (which is hardly ever done with an AR15 or AK47 style rifle)

So lets devide the 3,000 by the number of people in the country 3000/350000000 = .00001%
you are less likely to die in the US by gun then you are crossing the street in a crosswalk
Do the math for Canada and see if you come up with the same % I wish my computer wouldnt have crashed because I had a list of broken down that showed that people in Canada had a greater chance of death by firearm then we do.

I carry a concealed handgun every day to protect myself and my family (im getting older and cannot go hand to hand as good as I once did) and now we are letting unvetted islamists into the country and they are killing our people, I myself want the option to own an AR15 (modern sporting rifle) to protect myself against superior firepower that a criminal can get.

Venesuala (ok cant spell today) has a no guns policy but is the murder captial of the world per capita... explain that one
Every country that outright bans the citizens right to have a firearm has a higher violent crime rate (may not be guns but they just use other weapons.) If they outlawed guns in the US people would just use a bomb to create mass murder, or a truck like in France.
A guy in China killed over 30 people with a knife (I think it was china, maybe japan) so should there be a total knife ban?

Dr's in the US kill more people then guns, outlaw Drs?
Cars kill more people in the US then guns, outlaw cars?
Alcohol kills more people in the US then guns, go back to prohibition?

When will people learn its not a tool that is the issue but evil people (cough: mostly liberals : cough) that go around shooting people

Do you know who backs gun control the most? Gang members! they want unarmed targets.... no thanks, I will stay in the US and keep the ability for self preservation with my firearm



So the 100 times more gun deaths per person has nothing to do with the guns?


Nope, not at all. It has to do with a more accurate shooter.

Gordon


I think you're confusing accurate shooters for accurate and accessible guns. Some of the best snipers are canadian. It has nothing to do with how accurate of a shot your people are. The amount of shots fired don't add up. Even if you include missed shots. The US has 1000 times more than the country touching their border. The same people.

For you to be correct. There would have to be just as many shots fired but misses. This just isn't the case.
The facts are, per person 1000 times more people killed by guns than the country bordering the US with reasonable gun laws.

Can I ask you what kind of statistics you have or evidence at all for your claim? Cause telling me that 1000 times more gun deaths is because your people being more accurate of a shot, makes zero sense in light of the statistics. And the fact that those people have to actually fire the shot before they can hit or miss.

If you can show me where Canadians fired off 29,893 shots and missed. And had they hit, would have been a gun death , Your claim would make sense.

The fact is, those shots were never fired. Canadians don't miss their targets 1000 times more than Americans. Americans shoot at and kill 1000 times more of their own people than Canadians. Those are the stats. This is what the facts support. I'd love to see any evidence to the contrary. Anyone who has seriously researched the gun problem in the US will all tell you the exact same thing. It's the instant easy access due to the saturation and lack of control. Of mainly the types of guns that were made just for killing other people. This is also evident in the suicide population (as mentioned above, wrongly mind you). The rate of suicide in the US per person is not any higher than in Canada. But suicide by gun is WAY higher in the US. Because guns are easier than jumping or whatever else, also they are everywhere and easy to get your hands on one.

Canadians have guns. Lots of guns. It's not a problem for us because of the reasonable restrictions placed upon gun ownership and the requirements of certification.

BTW: I believe in Harty debate and a unending quest for actual knowledge. I love hashing out ideas and debating the finer points of arguments. I sometimes get a bit worked up, but I always stay respectful. Just let me know if I'm being too aggressive, lol.

-Harley
<<

nine4t4

User avatar

Familiar Face

Posts: 49

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:48 pm

Location: Toronto

Post Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

I'm Canadian and NOT anti-gun, but the NRA-ists are a bit crazy. The NRA is actually a small fringe group, since most gun owners aren't NRA members. The silent majority of gun owners are reasonable people, just like most muslims aren't terrorists. But if you mention firearms people immediately jump to NRA shenanigans and vitriol they same way they associate muslims with terrorism. Hey, there are over a billion muslims not trying to kill everyone, but we don't hear about them. And there are millions of gun owners that aren't doomsday conspiracy nuts.

The problem I have with the NRA is that because they rely on the second ammendment, the RIGHT, they can't step back and say some people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. You can be bat shit crazy and they'll still argue you have a right to own a firearm. They also use the slippery slope argument to prevent reasonable concessions to the left wing anti-gun nuts. They fight background checks, so that when there is a mass shooting by a nut job, they can't say "He shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun" These are the people that had a problem with a 5 day waiting period!!! 5 days?!!!! I've waited longer for a cheque to clear.


Canada's laws aren't as draconian as many here and the states think. Personally, I prefer the Canadian model where we can have most rifles and handguns once we prove that we are responsible.
You do your courses, get your permit and require safes and you're good. Selective fire weapons are pretty much prohibited, and most of us are okay with it. Anyone that shoots knows that full auto is rather pointless outside of very specific battlefield situations. Suppressive fire isn't the kind of thing you're going to need at a range, or against a home invader or even a grizzly. As long as it's semi-automatic, most stuff is okay.

Where the law here gets screwy is the way we classify prohibited weapons. .25 and .32 handgun ammunition is banned, as well as the handguns because they are usually small concealable pistols. Concealed carry (and open carry) aren't part of our system. An AR15 is legal but certain magazine and barrel combos are not. If you shorten a rifle to under 26" it's illegal, but it's legal if it left the factory that way....and so on.

The "home of the brave" is actually the home of the terrified. The second ammendment was put in place to defend against a tyrannical government, but the reality is that "the gun as defense" is about other Americans. You guys are scared of each other, or live in a paranoid delusion that you're going need to be John McLane any day now. Up here, we shoot piece of paper, clay and the occasional animal and they leave us alone.


So, Canadians have tighter gun laws (and some stupid ones) with regards to who can have what, but overall it's fairly easy for the average hunter or sport shooter (legal gun owner). The difference is in gun crime. I live in Toronto, which is comparable to Chicago in population and size. When we have 200 shooting incidents and 25 shooting deaths here it's "The year of the gun" in the newspapers. Chicago with the same population will see 10-20 times that amount.


We have gun control, not prohibition. You need to CONTROL who gets guns, and while legal owners are left alone, it does reduce the number of firearms in the hands of criminals (most of which are smuggled from the US. Sorry but the American model isn't working out too well. You don't need to prohibit, just say yes to a few checks and balances.
JOB: (n.) a series of tasks that aren't enjoyable, but are done in return for money. see Prostitution
A LIVING: (n.) A means of enjoying ones existence that also provides financial compensation. see Freedom
<<

MBI

User avatar

Site Owner

Posts: 1537

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:25 am

Location: Utah, USA

Post Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:40 am

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

nine4t4 wrote:You don't need to prohibit, just say yes to a few checks and balances.

I think I get what you're saying, and in principle I agree with you. Just not in a practical sense.

As you say, "a few checks and balances" or to use the current gun-grabber buzz words that have become popular in the news lately: "common sense" or "sensible" gun laws, sounds very reasonable on the surface. Those terms have recently gained immense traction in social media. But what does it really mean? The very fact that they chose to call the next round of anti-gun legislation "sensible gun laws" implies that anyone who objects to it is crazy or an extremist; after all, who would object to anything "sensible." What they choose to label legislation often has little to no bearing on what it actually contains. I think that term was specifically chosen to give them ammunition. Ammunition to call anyone who tries to defend the right to gun ownership, and self defense, a nutcase.

I believe that the majority of people who are calling for "sensible" gun laws (and other synonyms to sensible), are well intentioned, every-day citizens who are shocked by the tragedies they see on the news and quite understandably want something done to prevent it. Many clamor, not realizing how much has already been done. Popular media makes it sound like any fruitcake can walk into a gun shop and walk out with a machine gun five minutes later. It's just not the case. There are immense restrictions already in place in regards to legal gun purchase and ownership.

Lets take the Brady Bill as an example of a gun law that sounds good on the surface, but doesn't actually accomplish what it claims. This law has been hailed as a major triumph by gun control advocates while failing to acknowledge that the only useful part of the law, the part of the law that was a compromise which allowed it to pass both the House and Senate, was actually written by the NRA.

In it's simplest description, the Brady Bill called for a two week waiting period before the sale of a handgun. It was described as a "cooling off" period, to prevent "crimes of passion." This, despite the fact, that waiting periods haven't ever been shown to prevent a single crime, yet they have been proven to have kept people in dire need of self defense, the ability to legally buy a firearm. One example, the Rodney King LA riots back in the 90s, where a significant number of homeowners and business owners were unable to buy firearms for self defense. Well, they were able to BUY them, but weren't legally allowed to take them home from the gun shop for two weeks. Which was well after the riots were over.

Contrary to popular belief, the Brady Bill didn't contain ANY provision to do any kind of background check to verify that the answers given on 4473 (the federal form you have to fill out to buy a gun) were true and that you don't have a criminal history which would prevent you from legally owning a firearm. The NRA wrote another bill as an alternative to the Brady Bill. It made provisions for a national instant background check that could be performed at the time of a firearm sale to make sure that the person buying the firearm wasn't legally barred from doing so, for example, because of indictment or felony criminal conviction. It showed that the costs would be low, funded by the people having checks performed, and there were no technical hurdles preventing the background check system.

The NRA version of the bill was initially rejected, but when it looked like the Brady Bill wasn't going to pass, the Brady sponsors finally relented and amended it to include portions of the NRA bill. Surprisingly, they were so married to the unproven concept of a waiting period, they actually watered down the NRA bill, making it LESS effective at stopping prohibited persons from buying guns. The end result was that no national instant background check system was implemented. The Brady Bill passed, including a two week waiting period. However, as per the NRA amendment, gun sales within any STATE that had an instant background system in place were exempted from the waiting period. A substantial number of states immediately set up instant background check systems which were in place when the Brady Bill took effect. Going a step beyond what was required by the Brady Bill, to my knowledge most (if not all) states that implemented the instant background check system did so for ALL firearm sales, not just handguns.

Now, as for the "watering down" of the NRA bill? For states that chose NOT to implement an instant check system, gun buyers in those states had to wait two weeks after purchasing a gun before they could take possession of it, but they could still buy it with NO background check. That means any felon (or other prohibited person) who wanted to buy a gun from a gun shop, only had to go and lie on the 4473 form, wait two weeks, and get a gun. It wasn't until new legislation years later that the instant check system became mandated federally, finally replacing a useless two week waiting period implemented by the Brady Bill. Despite the uselessness of the waiting period, even with background ckecks some states still have a waiting imposed by state law.

From a practical perspective, gun laws in the US are already WAY too complex. I used to be in charge of compliance (with local, state and federal gun laws) at a very large gun shop and police supply store in the US. There are literally tens of thousands of gun laws in the US, each of which restricts the sale and ownership of firearms and ammunition in some way. It's complicated enough that the agents at the primary agency in charge of enforcing those laws (BATFE) don't even know the laws. I've received so much bad information from BATF agents and examiners, often times telling me it's OK to do something that I KNOW is blatantly illegal, that I had to get copies of the federal gun statutes to keep on a big shelf above my desk and learn them out of self defense.

The problem I see is that most gun control groups are in fact outright anti gun groups, with the end goal of banning all firearm ownership.

Before the Brady Bill passed, the NRA publicly stated that it was just "the nose of the camel in the tent," if you're familiar with the adage, and that if passed as proposed it would just be the opening gambit to an eventual ban on handguns. I remember watching a press conference where Sarah Brady obscenely trotted out her husband, previously disabled by a gunshot during the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, and left him sitting there drooling behind her to gain sympathy while she proclaimed the NRA to be paranoid and that we only needed to pass some kind of reasonable law to keep guns out of criminal's hands. She proclaimed that there was no sinister plans to disarm America. Did she really think we're that stupid? Did she not realize it's public record that before they changed the name to The Brady Coalition, their group was called The Coalition to Ban Handguns?

Around this time a staffer at the Brady group publicly leaked a lengthy internal confidential memo outlining the Brady plan, over the course of about 20 years or so as I recall, of incremental laws they hoped to pass. The memo stated that not only did they want to ban ownership of every type of firearm and ammunition, they even wanted to ban any edged implement aside from gardening tools and cutlery. Well, after the release of that document and it's wildfire spreading via fax (internet was brand new) Sarah Brady cried foul, claiming the document was a forgery made by the NRA, insisting she had no such goals.

Well, after the law passed she got over confident and she showed her true colors. The night the Brady Bill passed, the ink wasn't even dry on the signatures when the called another press conference. After originally calling the NRA paranoid for making their "camel's nose in the tent" comment, she said something to the effect that this was just the first step, and "if you think that's just the camel's nose, here's the rest of the camel" (I'm going off memory for this quote but I think I got it right) and laid out the next bill they were proposing along with the subsequent steps they wanted to take after that. It basically confirmed the legitimacy of the contents of the internal memo that they had originally denied. A progression of laws leading to a ban.

I say she got over confident because the next Brady bill fell flat, although the "Crime Bill" passed, but only narrowly and with the addition of a 10-year sunset on the law when it would expire. The following election saw one of the biggest landslide turnovers of control of the House and Senate from the Democrats to the Republicans that the country has seen in... well, in ages.

There are a lot of gun laws on the books. If we want stronger laws, I think that what we really need is to revamp them entirely. Simplify the system, pass one new and simplified law that preempts every previous federal gun law on the books. Let's make the instant background system stronger. It's the best tool in our arsenal at preventing them from being sold to the wrong people. Let's help agencies improve record keeping so things don't fall through the cracks which should have put someone on the prohibited list. Let's unban ridiculous things that have never been shown to be used in crimes. Lets simplify the immense paperwork burden that's placed on legal gun stores. Let's remove the BATF's ability to simply create new gun laws administratively, on a whim and with the stroke of a pen. Making new federal laws is a job for CONGRESS. Allow the purchase of a safe to be a tax deduction to help encourage people to store guns as securely as possible.

Unfortunately, none of that is going to happen.
<<

WestCoastPicks

Familiar Face

Posts: 178

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:45 am

Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:57 am

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

MBI wrote:
nine4t4 wrote:You don't need to prohibit, just say yes to a few checks and balances.

I think I get what you're saying, and in principle I agree with you. Just not in a practical sense.

As you say, "a few checks and balances" or to use the current gun-grabber buzz words that have become popular in the news lately: "common sense" or "sensible" gun laws, sounds very reasonable on the surface. Those terms have recently gained immense traction in social media. But what does it really mean? The very fact that they chose to call the next round of anti-gun legislation "sensible gun laws" implies that anyone who objects to it is crazy or an extremist; after all, who would object to anything "sensible." What they choose to label legislation often has little to no bearing on what it actually contains. I think that term was specifically chosen to give them ammunition. Ammunition to call anyone who tries to defend the right to gun ownership, and self defense, a nutcase.

I believe that the majority of people who are calling for "sensible" gun laws (and other synonyms to sensible), are well intentioned, every-day citizens who are shocked by the tragedies they see on the news and quite understandably want something done to prevent it. Many clamor, not realizing how much has already been done. Popular media makes it sound like any fruitcake can walk into a gun shop and walk out with a machine gun five minutes later. It's just not the case. There are immense restrictions already in place in regards to legal gun purchase and ownership.

Lets take the Brady Bill as an example of a gun law that sounds good on the surface, but doesn't actually accomplish what it claims. This law has been hailed as a major triumph by gun control advocates while failing to acknowledge that the only useful part of the law, the part of the law that was a compromise which allowed it to pass both the House and Senate, was actually written by the NRA.

In it's simplest description, the Brady Bill called for a two week waiting period before the sale of a handgun. It was described as a "cooling off" period, to prevent "crimes of passion." This, despite the fact, that waiting periods haven't ever been shown to prevent a single crime, yet they have been proven to have kept people in dire need of self defense, the ability to legally buy a firearm. One example, the Rodney King LA riots back in the 90s, where a significant number of homeowners and business owners were unable to buy firearms for self defense. Well, they were able to BUY them, but weren't legally allowed to take them home from the gun shop for two weeks. Which was well after the riots were over.

Contrary to popular belief, the Brady Bill didn't contain ANY provision to do any kind of background check to verify that the answers given on 4473 (the federal form you have to fill out to buy a gun) were true and that you don't have a criminal history which would prevent you from legally owning a firearm. The NRA wrote another bill as an alternative to the Brady Bill. It made provisions for a national instant background check that could be performed at the time of a firearm sale to make sure that the person buying the firearm wasn't legally barred from doing so, for example, because of indictment or felony criminal conviction. It showed that the costs would be low, funded by the people having checks performed, and there were no technical hurdles preventing the background check system.

The NRA version of the bill was initially rejected, but when it looked like the Brady Bill wasn't going to pass, the Brady sponsors finally relented and amended it to include portions of the NRA bill. Surprisingly, they were so married to the unproven concept of a waiting period, they actually watered down the NRA bill, making it LESS effective at stopping prohibited persons from buying guns. The end result was that no national instant background check system was implemented. The Brady Bill passed, including a two week waiting period. However, as per the NRA amendment, gun sales within any STATE that had an instant background system in place were exempted from the waiting period. A substantial number of states immediately set up instant background check systems which were in place when the Brady Bill took effect. Going a step beyond what was required by the Brady Bill, to my knowledge most (if not all) states that implemented the instant background check system did so for ALL firearm sales, not just handguns.

Now, as for the "watering down" of the NRA bill? For states that chose NOT to implement an instant check system, gun buyers in those states had to wait two weeks after purchasing a gun before they could take possession of it, but they could still buy it with NO background check. That means any felon (or other prohibited person) who wanted to buy a gun from a gun shop, only had to go and lie on the 4473 form, wait two weeks, and get a gun. It wasn't until new legislation years later that the instant check system became mandated federally, finally replacing a useless two week waiting period implemented by the Brady Bill. Despite the uselessness of the waiting period, even with background ckecks some states still have a waiting imposed by state law.

From a practical perspective, gun laws in the US are already WAY too complex. I used to be in charge of compliance (with local, state and federal gun laws) at a very large gun shop and police supply store in the US. There are literally tens of thousands of gun laws in the US, each of which restricts the sale and ownership of firearms and ammunition in some way. It's complicated enough that the agents at the primary agency in charge of enforcing those laws (BATFE) don't even know the laws. I've received so much bad information from BATF agents and examiners, often times telling me it's OK to do something that I KNOW is blatantly illegal, that I had to get copies of the federal gun statutes to keep on a big shelf above my desk and learn them out of self defense.

The problem I see is that most gun control groups are in fact outright anti gun groups, with the end goal of banning all firearm ownership.

Before the Brady Bill passed, the NRA publicly stated that it was just "the nose of the camel in the tent," if you're familiar with the adage, and that if passed as proposed it would just be the opening gambit to an eventual ban on handguns. I remember watching a press conference where Sarah Brady obscenely trotted out her husband, previously disabled by a gunshot during the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, and left him sitting there drooling behind her to gain sympathy while she proclaimed the NRA to be paranoid and that we only needed to pass some kind of reasonable law to keep guns out of criminal's hands. She proclaimed that there was no sinister plans to disarm America. Did she really think we're that stupid? Did she not realize it's public record that before they changed the name to The Brady Coalition, their group was called The Coalition to Ban Handguns?

Around this time a staffer at the Brady group publicly leaked a lengthy internal confidential memo outlining the Brady plan, over the course of about 20 years or so as I recall, of incremental laws they hoped to pass. The memo stated that not only did they want to ban ownership of every type of firearm and ammunition, they even wanted to ban any edged implement aside from gardening tools and cutlery. Well, after the release of that document and it's wildfire spreading via fax (internet was brand new) Sarah Brady cried foul, claiming the document was a forgery made by the NRA, insisting she had no such goals.

Well, after the law passed she got over confident and she showed her true colors. The night the Brady Bill passed, the ink wasn't even dry on the signatures when the called another press conference. After originally calling the NRA paranoid for making their "camel's nose in the tent" comment, she said something to the effect that this was just the first step, and "if you think that's just the camel's nose, here's the rest of the camel" (I'm going off memory for this quote but I think I got it right) and laid out the next bill they were proposing along with the subsequent steps they wanted to take after that. It basically confirmed the legitimacy of the contents of the internal memo that they had originally denied. A progression of laws leading to a ban.

I say she got over confident because the next Brady bill fell flat, although the "Crime Bill" passed, but only narrowly and with the addition of a 10-year sunset on the law when it would expire. The following election saw one of the biggest landslide turnovers of control of the House and Senate from the Democrats to the Republicans that the country has seen in... well, in ages.

There are a lot of gun laws on the books. If we want stronger laws, I think that what we really need is to revamp them entirely. Simplify the system, pass one new and simplified law that preempts every previous federal gun law on the books. Let's make the instant background system stronger. It's the best tool in our arsenal at preventing them from being sold to the wrong people. Let's help agencies improve record keeping so things don't fall through the cracks which should have put someone on the prohibited list. Let's unban ridiculous things that have never been shown to be used in crimes. Lets simplify the immense paperwork burden that's placed on legal gun stores. Let's remove the BATF's ability to simply create new gun laws administratively, on a whim and with the stroke of a pen. Making new federal laws is a job for CONGRESS. Allow the purchase of a safe to be a tax deduction to help encourage people to store guns as securely as possible.

Unfortunately, none of that is going to happen.


You're right, too many people irrationally cling to their man killers despite the fact everyone who is educated in and has researched the subject is telling them it's causing the problem. Change will have to be made the same way Religions and attitudes toward minorities have been changed, slowly and incrementally over time kicking and screaming down to the bitter end. Only finally expiring once all the old adherents are dead or have left. It's slow, but it's inevitable.
<<

Pick-Fu

Familiar Face

Posts: 110

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:28 pm

Location: Oregon

Post Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:27 am

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

Im sorry westcoastpicks but you have lost all credibility in this discussion with your continued use of the term " too many people irrationally cling to their man killers" and then say " despite the fact everyone who is educated in and has researched the subject is telling them it's causing the problem" FBI stats show that in the last 2 decades gun ownership has just about doubled in the US and gun related deaths have halfed.


You are using buzz words like out liberal left tries to use to make it sound like anyone who owns a firearm is as they call them a "Gun nut"
If you dont like the way the US laws are then you dont ever have to visit, there is no reason you as a Canadian should not be posting anti-gun dribble against the citizens of the US, as they say... "you dont have a dog in this fight"

I dont care if you go all anti-gun in canada... thats your country and your other citizens are the ones that have to deal with that.

Im not trying to be an @55 about it but it chaps my hide when someone who isnt even a citizen of this country makes uninformed statements based on what they "think" instead of hard facts... Like that moron from the UK Pierce Morgan. I just wanted to bitch slap that moron every time he opened his mouth.

Ok, Im not going to be sucked back into this thread... I said I was out before
<<

MBI

User avatar

Site Owner

Posts: 1537

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:25 am

Location: Utah, USA

Post Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:14 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

I believe that politicians who advocate gun control are interested in people control, not crime control.
The idea of gun control as a method of curbing crime is a red herring.

And just for giggles, here's an article I found this morning about the effectiveness of gun control in a European nation.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ger ... li=BBnb7Kz

Yet despite already having very strict gun control, and the arguments mentioned in the above article, of course some people are now clamoring for MORE gun control after the Munich shooting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36877388

I know what we should do. Let's just make murder illegal.
Having a law like that on the books will protect us. I'm sure of it.
If they outlaw murder there's no way a criminal would risk the consequences of committing that crime.
<<

Random

User avatar

Familiar Face

Posts: 133

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:29 pm

Location: Ontario, Canada

Post Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:59 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

Even if they remove every gun off the face of the earth, we would still find a way to kill each other. Stricter gun laws are not going to completely stop the killing, they are a band aid fix for the real problem. This world needs a little more love and respect for each other.
<<

mdc5150

User avatar

Contributor
Contributor

Posts: 990

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:35 am

Location: Arizona

Post Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:15 pm

Re: A question for places with strict gun control.

The United States was won with guns tactics and determination. Our founders put the second ammendment in place to make sure we all had the right to keep and bear arms so that the people had the last check and balance in place. Our government would have had a rogue dictator long before not had we not hd an armed civilization.

I know it is hard for people not born in the United States but it is a gun culture here. It is in our DNA and it is the cost of freedom which is why so many of us defend it so fiercely. I had an Aussie friend who was in the Australian army and was apparently a very good shot and he hated the idea of citizens with guns. We always butted heads on the subject.

Some say the people don't need guns to keep the government in check but if you knew our history well enough you would know that is a falsehood.
PreviousNext

Return to Full Metal Jacket Required

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]

Don't forget to visit our sponsors for all of your lockpicking needs!
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Grop
"CA Black" theme designed by stsoftware