![]() |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11281047)
As I pointed out in the other thread, the rate of gun ownership in California and Alberta (according to household surveys) is about the same and California now has gun laws that are in various ways more restrictive than the gun laws in Canada.
Yet the rate of firearm-related homicide in California is slightly more than 3/100,000 and is 0.76/100,000 in Alberta. In fact the rate in California is slightly higher than the US national average, despite having much tougher gun laws. There is something different about the US and Canada, and my personal view is that it is largely cultural. What those factors are is hard to say, lack of social mobility (i.e. gangs in L.A.), worse mental healthcare, worse education system, etc. I'm sure are all factors but Americans culturally just seem to be more trigger happy going by their media. |
Re: Guns
Others include the introduction of a written test before owning a long gun, which by all accounts is not exactly an onerous challenge; another means that permits for assault weapons must be given to named individuals rather than to corporations; another allows the California DoJ to extend a waiting period beyond the existing 10-day limit if a background check cannot be completed in that time; I could go on. None of these actually limit gun ownership in California. Bills that Brown vetoed on the same day he passed these included those outlawing assault weapons; one that would restrict gun-ownership rights of convicted DUI drivers; one that would have allowed the city of Oakland to impose its own registry and licensing requirements within city limits. As I said, it's all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11281047)
As I pointed out in the other thread, the rate of gun ownership in California and Alberta (according to household surveys) is about the same and California now has gun laws that are in various ways more restrictive than the gun laws in Canada.
Yet the rate of firearm-related homicide in California is slightly more than 3/100,000 and is 0.76/100,000 in Alberta. In fact the rate in California is slightly higher than the US national average, despite having much tougher gun laws. There is something different about the US and Canada, and my personal view is that it is largely cultural. What those factors are is hard to say, lack of social mobility (i.e. gangs in L.A.), worse mental healthcare, worse education system, etc. I'm sure are all factors but Americans culturally just seem to be more trigger happy going by their media. The other factor raised in Bowling for Columbine was that Americans appear to be a lot more paranoid about violence, being more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later, but thats not really relevent if the discussion is regarding shooting rampages rather than single homicides. This IIRC was attributed to American society being more focused on the ability of an individual to be able to make things happen, to live the american dream and to rise to the top, whereas Canada is more of liberal society where people work as more social groups and take care of the weaker members of society. Its simplistic but the general logic is that some stranger on the street approaching you in the US is more likely to be seen as a threat, looking to take what you have rightfully earned for yourself, whereas in Canada they would be seen as someone who you may be expected to help, as they would help you if your circumstances were reversed.... |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11281040)
And of all the proposed legislative changes after Sandy Hook, just one - yes, one single piece of legislation - was passed into law. That was a New York state law requiring the registration (note, not limiting ownership or use, just requiring registration) of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Can you cite one substantive regulatory change that would give the lie to what John Oliver claims? Do you suppose that what minor changes have been made have actually prevented one single person from possessing a gun? Connecticut passed a similar law. California passed a whole laundry list of laws. In Connecticut now you need a licence just to buy ammunition. Colorado for example banned transfers of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition and instituted background checks on private transfer of firearms. Maryland passed a ban on a long list of firearms and now has a permit to purchase requirement to buy a handgun (already had a waiting period and a list of "approved" guns which have to have integral locking devices). And what has it achieved - basically f all as this shooting in Santa Barbara showed and also there was a shooting at a school in Colorado. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by scootb
(Post 11280996)
Does the meat section in Walmart,or the local butchers offend you also?
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11281053)
One of those eleven laws was curbing the use of lead-based ammunition for hunting. Hardly a gun control measure.
Others include the introduction of a written test before owning a long gun, which by all accounts is not exactly an onerous challenge; another means that permits for assault weapons must be given to named individuals rather than to corporations; another allows the California DoJ to extend a waiting period beyond the existing 10-day limit if a background check cannot be completed in that time; I could go on. None of these actually limit gun ownership in California. The point being that I keep seeing articles about how guns should be treated the same way as cars - well in California you have to take a test in order to be able to buy a gun, and moreover you have to take that test every 5 years if you want to keep on buying guns, which is more restrictive than for getting a DL. Guns are registered in California. You have to undergo a pretty extensive criminal and mental health history background check - which is way more than you have to do to buy a car. Handguns are subject to various "safety" tests, to the point now that there are no new handgun models that can be introduced for sale in California as the manufacturers cannot comply with the requirements. "Assault weapons" are banned in California - that bill you mention would have broadened the ban so far that even super left-winger Jerry Brown refused to sign it. And none of this of course lets you have a gun in a public place, like you can with a car. To do that you have to get a carry permit from the Sheriff, which requires a training course which is given at the local community college. And so on. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11280935)
I take exception to this blaming it on mental health. Other countries don't have the same problem and yet gave access to guns. It's part of the American psyche and they just don't want to accept it.
Edit. He stabbed the first three people. I don't have the insight or knowledge to explain it but I feel the urge for retribution by killing is a more USA thing. Is it a leftover from recent history, the 'wild west'? A sense of entitlement? This is what I was partially referring to in my Hollywood/gaming comment, there is a theme of "retribution" writ large in popular American culture, and I think it influences some of the less stable members of the society. The massacre perpetrators have a heightened sense of injustice, and the consequences are tragic. Admittedly this happens all the over the world. The Chechen school massacre, for example. But it is somehow more understandable in a situation of war, national suppression or even terrorism. It should not happen in places like affluent California or Connecticut. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11280974)
My English boss has at least 30 firearms, ranging from handguns to AK47 replicas via way of expansive double barrel shotguns for clay pigeon bashing. He has a lot of fun via his hobby and no one is hurt by it.
My own kids (8 and 11) have had great fun at the range firing 22s and shotguns. The problem is not gun ownership per se, its a lack checks in some jurisdictions about who can own them and how, and in particular the rampages that occur now and then are symptomatic of a lack of mental heath provision under a pay to use health care system. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11281056)
The other factor raised in Bowling for Columbine was that Americans appear to be a lot more paranoid about violence, being more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later, but thats not really relevent if the discussion is regarding shooting rampages rather than single homicides...
Contrary to popular belief there is no specific law that says you can't have a gun for self-defence in your house in Canada, it's just not really the "done" thing. You could if you wanted to keep a shotgun under the bed with a trigger lock on it, but who does? It just seems silly to do it. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11281066)
California already has pretty restrictive gun laws so now they're fiddling around the edges of them. For example the registration of long guns came into force at the start of January - Canada recently scrapped the registration of long guns, so California by any reasonable measure has tougher gun laws now than Canada does.
The point being that I keep seeing articles about how guns should be treated the same way as cars - well in California you have to take a test in order to be able to buy a gun, and moreover you have to take that test every 5 years if you want to keep on buying guns, which is more restrictive than for getting a DL. Guns are registered in California. You have to undergo a pretty extensive criminal and mental health history background check - which is way more than you have to do to buy a car. Handguns are subject to various "safety" tests, to the point now that there are no new handgun models that can be introduced for sale in California as the manufacturers cannot comply with the requirements. "Assault weapons" are banned in California - that bill you mention would have broadened the ban so far that even super left-winger Jerry Brown refused to sign it. And none of this of course lets you have a gun in a public place, like you can with a car. To do that you have to get a carry permit from the Sheriff, which requires a training course which is given at the local community college. And so on. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 11281005)
I think the choice is between having freedom to arm ourselves and keeping the public safe. Canada and the US are more risk tolerant in this regard than the European countries despite there being no better reason to own a gun in one than the others. |
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11281072)
Your kids are firing shotguns at 8 & 11?
They prefer the 22 target rifles, the little one needs help dealing with the kick with the shotgun. I forget what gauge it is... smaller than a 12 gauge for less kick. Cant be a member of the club till they are 12 I think... cant own a gun until 16 maybe? |
Re: Guns
If that is true & is actually enforced then how did Elliot Rodgers pass? Mr Rodgers hadn't been committed or even put on a psych hold, going to see a psychiatrist and having a chat with him doesn't prohibit you from owning a gun. Psychiatrists are supposed to report specific threats to the police, but he apparently never made any, so there was no reason for him to be reported. So he passed the background check. From what I can gather in the press, his parents also didn't know he owned guns, so they never mentioned it to the police - however the police could have checked with the DoJ and discovered his gun ownership, but they never even bothered to look at his YouTube videos after his mother called the police. |
Re: Guns
Bottom line, it will keep happening.
|
Re: Guns
Originally Posted by confused_uk
(Post 11281077)
If that is true & is actually enforced then how did Elliot Rodgers pass?
No system is going to be perfect, and there are a lot of guns available illegally anyway. Lets face it, killing people is illegal and that also doesnt stop people doing it. The problem for me is not in the selling and licensing of guns, its in recognising when people are going to go postal and getting effective treatment in time, and for a country with some of the best facilities in the world, the US is woeful at providing it for all that need it. Clearly no sane person goes on a killing spree, pretty much by definition Then again there was the guy on a greyhound bus out west who hacked off another passengers head , so the system here isnt perfect either, with or without guns available. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:20 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.