Go ahead, Feinstein, MAKE MY DAY

[Keroin]

The car vs gun deaths argument doesn't fly with me. Cars may kill people but so do swimming pools, so do Big Macs, so do lots of things not designed for that specific purpose. Guns, however they are used, are designed to kill.

This argument always fascinates me. I'm very much in favour of regulation but that's a moot point; I'm a citizen of a country that already has strict regulation and when it comes to America I think it would kind of like closing the gate after the lions have left the zoo.

I've owned guns, I've shot guns, (anyone who lives around bears has), I'm not opposed to them and understand their use as a tool. I'm not anti-gun just pro-common sense.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't see that as the cause.

The guy was completely off his rocker nuts. I think he would have found guns eventually. A more interesting piece would be how many guns I can buy for five grand in North Minneapolis.

He was off his rocker nuts, and the state already KNEW that.

When he walked in to purchase a gun, health officials and the university and the cops should have been notified right away. But they weren't, because the seller didn't fucking know. See Wiki excerpt below.


"The sale of firearms to permanent residents in Virginia is legal as long as the buyer shows proof of residency. Virginia law also limits purchases of handguns to one every 30 days. Federal law requires a criminal background check for handgun purchases from licensed firearms dealers, and Virginia checks other databases in addition to the federally mandated NICS.

A 1968 federal law passed in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also prohibits those 'adjudicated as a mental defective' from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment. Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the NICS.

Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine addressed this problem on April 30, 2007, by issuing an executive order intended to close those reporting gaps. In August 2007, the Virginia Tech review panel report called for a permanent change in the Code of Virginia to clarify and strengthen the state's background check requirements. The federal government later passed a law to improve state reporting to the NICS nationwide."

 

[WriterDom]

Inadequate gun control, and you had Virginia Tech.

If schools weren't so gun fearing and allowed a professor with some gun training to pack a gun a lot fewer kids would have died. It doesn't matter how stringent you make gun control. Someone with criminal intent will go outside the law to get one. It's a commodity just like pot, beany babies, or crack.

 

[Netzach]

He was off his rocker nuts, and the state already KNEW that.

When he walked in to purchase a gun, health officials and the university and the cops should have been notified right away. But they weren't, because the seller didn't fucking know. See Wiki excerpt below.


"The sale of firearms to permanent residents in Virginia is legal as long as the buyer shows proof of residency. Virginia law also limits purchases of handguns to one every 30 days. Federal law requires a criminal background check for handgun purchases from licensed firearms dealers, and Virginia checks other databases in addition to the federally mandated NICS.

A 1968 federal law passed in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also prohibits those 'adjudicated as a mental defective' from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment. Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the NICS.

Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine addressed this problem on April 30, 2007, by issuing an executive order intended to close those reporting gaps. In August 2007, the Virginia Tech review panel report called for a permanent change in the Code of Virginia to clarify and strengthen the state's background check requirements. The federal government later passed a law to improve state reporting to the NICS nationwide."

So, ok.

Legally let's pretand the gun show guy said "no, crazy man, not selling to you."

He could go take a short drive and find someone who doesn't care. At all.

I agree, your dollars are better used treating people for more than 5 visits with a counselor.

 

[JMohegan]

So, ok.

Legally let's pretand the gun show guy said "no, crazy man, not selling to you."

He could go take a short drive and find someone who doesn't care. At all.

I agree, your dollars are better used treating people for more than 5 visits with a counselor.

Virginia Tech would have been prevented if the seller said "no, crazy man, not selling to you" AND, at the same time, the alarm bells raised by this background check tipped off the university and cops to what was being contemplated.

I'm not saying background checks can prevent all gun crimes. All I'm saying is that they clearly can prevent some, and the opposition to background checks has no rational basis.

If you want a cute little pink pistol, and you have no criminal record or mental health issues, I can't fathom why you care if they check.

 

[Netzach]

Virginia Tech would have been prevented if the seller said "no, crazy man, not selling to you" AND, at the same time, the alarm bells raised by this background check tipped off the university and cops to what was being contemplated.

I'm not saying background checks can prevent all gun crimes. All I'm saying is that they clearly can prevent some, and the opposition to background checks has no rational basis.

If you want a cute little pink pistol, and you have no criminal record or mental health issues, I can't fathom why you care if they check.

I'm really cynical about the amount of time it takes for the social networks to be triggered into action versus the amount of time it takes for someone to drive into a neighborhood where you can get anything you want and get it.

That's my opposition. It's looking like you care about the issue and it's cosmetic and feel good and it doesn't necessarily work. Again, I don't disagree, I just don't care either way. Actually I think things like this allow Dems to sit back and say "we care, ahhhh, feels so good to care!" and nothing gets better and they don't actually have to fight with any insurance agency contributors over mental health parity enforcement.

Whereas taking mental health seriously as a society might help.

Pink Pistols, btw, is a cute name for an uncute organization, GLBT people who believe that being armed is a reasonable response to leading a more dangerous existence.

 

[WriterDom]

Whereas taking mental health seriously as a society might help.

Pink Pistols, btw, is a cute name for an uncute organization, GLBT people who believe that being armed is a reasonable response to leading a more dangerous existence.

Their mottos are "Pick on someone your own caliber" and "Armed gays don't get bashed." I'd get a concealed carry if I were gay. Might get one anyway. They are good for something like 10 years.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm really cynical about the amount of time it takes for the social networks to be triggered into action versus the amount of time it takes for someone to drive into a neighborhood where you can get anything you want and get it.

That's my opposition. It's looking like you care about the issue and it's cosmetic and feel good and it doesn't necessarily work.

Whereas taking mental health seriously as a society might help.

Pink Pistols, btw, is a cute name for an uncute organization, GLBT people who believe that being armed is a reasonable response to leading a more dangerous existence.

Oh, well this line of thinking makes sense to me. It's why I'm opposed to the war on drugs.

Instead of packing our prisons, killing our cops, and wasting billions of dollars, we should start getting serious about the treatment of abusers and addicts.


Re the pink pistols - thanks for explaining, I didn't know. Disrespect was not my intent.

 

[Keroin]

I'm not saying background checks can prevent all gun crimes. All I'm saying is that they clearly can prevent some, and the opposition to background checks has no rational basis.

If you want a cute little pink pistol, and you have no criminal record or mental health issues, I can't fathom why you care if they check.

This is the part I find most baffling.

At home, if I decide I want to own a gun, I can. It may not be as easy as driving down to the local Gun-Mart and grabbing a few Uzis but I can do it. Yes, criminals will always find a way to get guns, that's never going to change. But I fail to see how the solution to gun violence is more guns that are easier to buy. Seems illogical.

 

[Homburg]

I don't understand the resistance to background checks of citizenship, criminal record, and mental health status. I have yet to hear a single argument in opposition to this simple step that makes any sense. It all sounds like pointless, obstructionist, attempted badassery to me.

How is regulating every private sale of a firearm "simple"? Please explain this idea, and please include mechanisms by which both the sellers can be educated, and how it can be enforced.

--

Reason #2484 the South deserves some credit a
and the Midwest maybe a little less.

Eh, I think it is more my specific area than a general comment on the South at large. As I've said before, this area has an enormous amount of military, and this means more integration out of sheer expediency.

--

This story takes place in Richmond, Virginia.

Omar Samaha's ability to walk into a gun show and walk out one hour later, with 10 guns and no questions asked, is the issue.

I find the article specious. The implication of the purchases made inside were that there were licensed dealers making exceptions. In my experience, this is horseshit. I've seen people turned away too many times to count, and been turned down myself because I marked a box incorrectly, scribbled through it, and wrote the correct answer. I had a freind turned down because he misspelled his address.

Omar Samaha went in and bought 10 guns. If any of them were from licensed dealers, the news would have been ALL over that.

Again, I have yet to see a "simple" way to incorporate a background check on private sales and enforce that check.

Good luck with that? Though I find opposition to background checks totally disgusting, I'm not so stupid as to think pushing for this legislation makes any sense. I like Virginia blue, and want to keep that way. We can save more lives by reforming health care.

Agreed like crazy on the bolded part.

--

A 1968 federal law passed in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also prohibits those 'adjudicated as a mental defective' from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment. Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the NICS.

Pre-NICS, under the VSP system, this would not have happened. The regs were tighter and the system worked better.

 

[WriterDom]

Almost no violence here of any kind. Everyone assumes everyone else is locked and loaded. At times I keep a loaded shotgun under the bed. No kids here to worry about.

Last murder I remember was over a year ago. A guy shot his wife about 10 times for cheating on him. There seems to be more stealing lately. Probably because of the economy.

 

[ZRT]

Yes, that should be the case for all firearm sales.

It could be paid for the same way documentation requirements relating to the sale of homes, cars, boats, land, etc. are paid for - with taxes or fees on the sale.

Do you have a source for data on means of acquisition/gun crimes statistics? That's something I'd be interested to see.

The major difference between 'home/cars/boats/land' purchases and gun purchases is that in the former cases, it's virtually impossible to own any of those without impacting/interacting with your community. Own a car? You're going to be using public roads. Own a boat? You're going out on rivers. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to own firearms without involving the rest of the public at all. The majority of firearms in the US are obviously kept in this manner, given that the murder rate with firearms floats around 15k a year and the number of weapons in the country exceeds two hundred million.

Furthermore, do you have any idea of the bureaucracy you'd have to enact to track such matters? For what return, exactly?

Making an instant check available wouldn't be that difficult, it's already a matter of having the pertinent data and calling in the check, but what you're talking would lead to a whole new Federal agency on the scale of adding an entirely new DMV office to every town, or else massively upsizing the ATF. All for the purpose of inhibiting commerce among the law-abiding, essentially, because criminals aren't known for being good taxpayers. Even if you did change the acquisition pattern, you'd just drive it further underground.

So, what's the point? Are law-abiding citizens the problem here? The CBA doesn't show it.

Now on to the lies, damn lies, and damn statistics:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

I had to hunt a bit to find a primary source instead of something that was cherrypicked by advocates on either side, but of particular interest here is the table demonstrating that of the criminals surveyed in 1997 (well after the enactment of Brady), 78.8% of them acquired their firearms either from street sources or friends and family. Less than one percent got them at gun shows.

So, what's the issue here? Oh yeah, the same media hysteria that DiFi has played up to on every gun issue available. She rode the whole nonsense 'assault weapons' controversy to prominence, when those semi-autos weren't being used in any significant amount to commit crimes.

What gets me about the gun issue is that so much noise has been generated by the likes of DiFi that there's a notion that something must be done, and that biases the issue. Something has been done to the tune of seventeen thousand Federal, state, and local regulations that impede the legal owners while doing little more than inconveniencing the criminal.

The problem here is social, not the tool.

 

[JMohegan]

How is regulating every private sale of a firearm "simple"? Please explain this idea, and please include mechanisms by which both the sellers can be educated, and how it can be enforced.

See post 22. The idea of regulating the private sale of property is nothing new.

Enforcement comes when you break the law with your purchased property, and they track back where you bought it.

I find the article specious. The implication of the purchases made inside were that there were licensed dealers making exceptions. In my experience, this is horseshit. I've seen people turned away too many times to count, and been turned down myself because I marked a box incorrectly, scribbled through it, and wrote the correct answer. I had a freind turned down because he misspelled his address.

Omar Samaha went in and bought 10 guns. If any of them were from licensed dealers, the news would have been ALL over that.

I did not have the impression that they were describing licensed dealers making exceptions.

The article specifically mentions private sellers, noting that: "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reports in their investigations that private sellers at gun shows are a major source of gun crime in the country."

 

[ZRT]

The car vs gun deaths argument doesn't fly with me. Cars may kill people but so do swimming pools, so do Big Macs, so do lots of things not designed for that specific purpose. Guns, however they are used, are designed to kill.

And yet cars are the instrument in nearly three times as many deaths a year as guns here in America, despite being massively more regulated, with tons more training and public information applied to vehicular safety than firearm safety.

Cars are clearly more dangerous, and hence more deserving of regulation. Arguing that something was designed to kill (and that .22 rifle in the cellar wasn't designed to kill anything much over the size of squirrel) is basically an emotive argument that's ignoring the massive difference in public health hazard between cars and guns.

 

[ZRT]

The article specifically mentions private sellers, noting that: "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reports in their investigations that private sellers at gun shows are a major source of gun crime in the country."

And the ATF is known to be partisan about the issue, because it lets them expand their bureaucratic empire. Their statement is flatly contradicted by the DOJ.

Ever been to a gun show? Not being snarky, just curious. All they are is a consolidated sale location, getting the same weapons one could get any given day of the week via other sources. The main point of gun shows is horse-trading and comparison shopping.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

And yet cars are the instrument in nearly three times as many deaths a year as guns here in America, despite being massively more regulated, with tons more training and public information applied to vehicular safety than firearm safety.

Cars are clearly more dangerous, and hence more deserving of regulation. Arguing that something was designed to kill (and that .22 rifle in the cellar wasn't designed to kill anything much over the size of squirrel) is basically an emotive argument that's ignoring the massive difference in public health hazard between cars and guns.

Actually, there isn't that much more training to drive a car than shoot a gun. All you need to do is pass driver's education and a road test and you can drive.

And the first thing you are told when you handle a loaded gun is don't ever point the gun at anything you don't intend to kill or injure.

Plus, the biggest thing you are overlooking is the fact that cars are used more than guns. Of course cars will be more dangerous and involved in more deaths when millions and millions of people use them everyday. Most private citizens who own a gun keep them locked away (hopefully) for most of the time.

 

[JMohegan]

The major difference between 'home/cars/boats/land' purchases and gun purchases is that in the former cases, it's virtually impossible to own any of those without impacting/interacting with your community. Own a car? You're going to be using public roads. Own a boat? You're going out on rivers. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to own firearms without involving the rest of the public at all. The majority of firearms in the US are obviously kept in this manner, given that the murder rate with firearms floats around 15k a year and the number of weapons in the country exceeds two hundred million.

Furthermore, do you have any idea of the bureaucracy you'd have to enact to track such matters? For what return, exactly?

Making an instant check available wouldn't be that difficult, it's already a matter of having the pertinent data and calling in the check, but what you're talking would lead to a whole new Federal agency on the scale of adding an entirely new DMV office to every town, or else massively upsizing the ATF. All for the purpose of inhibiting commerce among the law-abiding, essentially, because criminals aren't known for being good taxpayers. Even if you did change the acquisition pattern, you'd just drive it further underground.

So, what's the point? Are law-abiding citizens the problem here? The CBA doesn't show it.

Now on to the lies, damn lies, and damn statistics:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

I had to hunt a bit to find a primary source instead of something that was cherrypicked by advocates on either side, but of particular interest here is the table demonstrating that of the criminals surveyed in 1997 (well after the enactment of Brady), 78.8% of them acquired their firearms either from street sources or friends and family. Less than one percent got them at gun shows.

So, what's the issue here? Oh yeah, the same media hysteria that DiFi has played up to on every gun issue available. She rode the whole nonsense 'assault weapons' controversy to prominence, when those semi-autos weren't being used in any significant amount to commit crimes.

What gets me about the gun issue is that so much noise has been generated by the likes of DiFi that there's a notion that something must be done, and that biases the issue. Something has been done to the tune of seventeen thousand Federal, state, and local regulations that impede the legal owners while doing little more than inconveniencing the criminal.

The problem here is social, not the tool.

The relevance of boats on rivers is lost on me.

From the table you reference, the 39.6% = friends and family seems to support the need for regulation of private sales.

However, if your main point is a cost objection, that's at least an objection I find rational.

And the ATF is known to be partisan about the issue, because it lets them expand their bureaucratic empire. Their statement is flatly contradicted by the DOJ.

Ever been to a gun show? Not being snarky, just curious. All they are is a consolidated sale location, getting the same weapons one could get any given day of the week via other sources. The main point of gun shows is horse-trading and comparison shopping.

The point of the ATF quote was that the ABC article specifically references private sellers rather than licensed dealers.

My answer to your question is a chuckle and a no.

 

[Keroin]

And yet cars are the instrument in nearly three times as many deaths a year as guns here in America, despite being massively more regulated, with tons more training and public information applied to vehicular safety than firearm safety.

Cars are clearly more dangerous, and hence more deserving of regulation. Arguing that something was designed to kill (and that .22 rifle in the cellar wasn't designed to kill anything much over the size of squirrel) is basically an emotive argument that's ignoring the massive difference in public health hazard between cars and guns.

OK, let me give you a personal story to highlight one of the important differences, (for me), between guns and cars and why the comparison doesn't work.

Shortly after leaving highschool, I dated and eventually moved in with a guy who owned guns. Three handguns (9mm), a couple of shotguns, and an M16. He was a decent fellow and would have passed any psychiatric evaluation with flying colours, I'm certain. We were together almost three years but for a variety of reasons I decided to end the relationship and move out.

Well, he snapped. Hello stalker. He knew the legal system and never crossed the line that would have allowed me to seek legal action, but he was a threat, nonetheless.

Despite my fears, I dealt with the situation as intelligently as possible and did manage to bring a peaceful end to the problem.

At no point, during the few years he was stalking me, did I think, "Oh my god, I'm in so much danger, he has a car and could kill me at any time!" However, the knowledge that he could very easily show up, pretty much anywhere, and blow my brains out made for some very sleepless nights.

(No, I did not buy a gun to defend myself. I refuse to let fear rule my life.)

Every time I get in a car, I know the risks. I've been in accidents, (not my fault, BTW). But I need a vehicle. I do not need, (and I'd argue the same for the majority of the population), a gun. For something that is not, as a general rule, a necessity but is designed to kill, (even if it's just squirrels), why shouldn't there be strict regulations?

And private gun sales? Why are these even allowed? I don't get it.

But I realize the futility of my questions and my arguments here - it's like trying to make an argument for birth control in the Vatican. America is a gun culture and I suspect it always will be. The idea that time, money and energy would be better used on social programs and such is valid but I haven't seen any big leaps forward in my lifetime, if anything, it seems as if things have gotten worse.

 

[Netzach]

There's an important historical precedent to this gun culture. And the result is, no offense, that your parliament can be told by the Queen of England, excuse me, stop meeting, thanks.

Depite the excesses and erosions, I still like our project better.

The MO of the Second remains, that if psycho Hitler loony man is voted in, that there's some kind of recourse for the populace.

Popular interpretations of what kind of government needs overthrow may vary on a normal day, but I think if the shit hit the fan, we'd manage to pull together, oddly enough.

 

[Keroin]

There's an important historical precedent to this gun culture. And the result is, no offense, that your parliament can be told by the Queen of England, excuse me, stop meeting, thanks.

Depite the excesses and erosions, I still like our project better.

The MO of the Second remains, that if psycho Hitler loony man (such as George W Bush?) is voted in, that there's some kind of recourse for the populace.

Popular interpretations of what kind of government needs overthrow may vary on a normal day, but I think if the shit hit the fan, we'd manage to pull together, oddly enough.

The Queen of England no longer has any say over our government and hasn't since before you were born. Where did you get this information from? We are independent and have our own constitution.

I know all about the history behind the gun culture. I take an interest in my neighbours.

I'm curious, do you really think there will come a time when your government will need to be overthrown?

 

[Netzach]

The Queen of England no longer has any say over our government and hasn't since before you were born. Where did you get this information from? We are independent and have our own constitution.

I know all about the history behind the gun culture. I take an interest in my neighbours.

I'm curious, do you really think there will come a time when your government will need to be overthrown?

I do too. Parlaiment was just given a cooling off period by a governor whose position was described as "titular".. Her post is described as "representative of the Queen's interests, figurehead" blah blah etc. I never thought the Queen had jack shit power over Canadian policy either, till lo and behold a couple of months ago. My rudimentary understanding is that a no-confidence vote was about to ensue, the PM got the titular power of the Crown behind him and holy shit, we thought filibuster is bad.

I listen to As It Happens religiously, btw.

Well, it seems that when it comes to a no-confidence vote, the figureheads mobilize.

No, I don't forsee that happening any time in my lifetime. I'm not a stockpiler of goods for y2K. But in the abstract, I appreciate the notion.

And while Bush was the worst thing in recent memory, I think it would be another 8 years of same for armed revolt to happen. Maybe 4 for the military coup. Term limits were put in place for good reason.

 

[Homburg]

See post 22. The idea of regulating the private sale of property is nothing new.

Um, no, I didn't ask how it would be paid for. I was interested to know how it was going to work. You said it would be simple. I want to know how simple it will be. How will John Q Public do a background check? How will he know how? How will he know when? And how will John Law know when Joe Public did not do said check?

Enforcement comes when you break the law with your purchased property, and they track back where you bought it.

Pie in the sky. How will it be enforced? This is a serious question.

Let's use a real world example. If you are driving, and you break the speed limit, how is it enforced? There are a variety of methods, but they boil down to a LEO catching you do it either visually or by an instrument (speedcams, etc). Short of a LEO seeing you sell a rifle to a hunting buddy, how are they going to detect it?

To use an example that is a bit closer to our quandary, take illegal drug sales. How do police enforce the prohibition on illegal drug sales? Again, by witnessing the act, detecting it, and/or doing investigation that turns up sufficient evidence that a transaction took place. So you sold that rifle to your hunting buddy, and he never commits a crime with it. Where does the LEO come in? He doesn't.

So let's say your buddy does commit a crime with the gun. The LEO's get the weapon, and try to track it down. Assuming he doesn't rat you out, how do they find out who got it? Registration of firearms at purchase is not common in this country, so they can't track it down that way. They can find out the dealer that sold the item initially, but their are supposed to dispose of sale records after a certain period. So where do the cops go then?

Well, the incremental extension (a Brady tactic) of this, is to require registration at sale "for tracking purposes". Ah, but if I am a law-abiding citizen, why would I rationally complain about backgrounds and registration, right? Dunno, why would you complain about wire taps made under the PATRIOT Act if you are law-abiding and not a terrorist? *shrug*

It is anything but simple, JM. And enforcement is realistically impossible. Any legislation in this arena will be a "gotcha" law where the infraction is tacked on to other offenses. You are just not going to see Joe Public busted for selling a rifle to his hunting buddy. It's too impossible to track.

I did not have the impression that they were describing licensed dealers making exceptions.

The article specifically mentions private sellers, noting that: "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reports in their investigations that private sellers at gun shows are a major source of gun crime in the country."

Meh. See above regarding the ATF and their missives. Check also in the completely specious assertions that the majority of guns used to commit cartel crimes in Mexico are purchased here in the US and shipped to Mexico, also an ATF quote.

I trust what the ATF says about firearms about as much as I trust what the DEA says about drugs. Or the FDA about drugs for that matter.

--

Actually, there isn't that much more training to drive a car than shoot a gun. All you need to do is pass driver's education and a road test and you can drive.

I don't know about your locality, but here you pass a written test, a road test, and are required to take driver's ed in high school. With a gun, if you're old enough, a resident, and have a clean background, you can buy a gun. A conscientious dealer that has the luxury of time might ask you if you know how to handle the gun when you buy it, but that's it. There is zero knowledge requirement to buying a gun.

I actually dislike this. While I may be pro-gun rights, I would not mind seeing some mandated firearms education for prospective buyers. Something akin to a driver's license for gun owners would not hurt my feelings, as the basic education necessary to obtain one would likely cut down on Non-intentional Discharges.

Plus, the biggest thing you are overlooking is the fact that cars are used more than guns. Of course cars will be more dangerous and involved in more deaths when millions and millions of people use them everyday. Most private citizens who own a gun keep them locked away (hopefully) for most of the time.

This is only but so useful a modifier to the statistics. Cars aren't just more deadly than guns by volume, they're more deadly by percentages too. It's actually not that easy to kill someone with a gun. You have to hit them in the right spot, and most people just aren't that good a shot. But hit someone with a car and their odds aren't that hot. Massive crush trauma is far more difficult to treat than a gunshot wound.

The amount of use argument is only so worthy in general though. We're not talking about an increase or decrease in how often guns are used here. We're just talking about sales transaction. There will be neither more nor less guns in existence because of any such legislation. So it would be more fair to compare how many cars total are int he US versus how many guns. And remember that a lot of cars are just sitting around collecting dust just like the guns you mentioned.

Still, the primary worth of the argumental comparison of guns to cars or guns to swimming pools is to provide perspective. It is a way of saying, "Hey, you're fired up over this issue, sure, but are you aware that X random common thing cause vastly more deaths than firearms?"

It goes along with JM's comments vis a vis health care reform. Spend energy and emotional capital in places where reform can do good. Gun control is an emotion-driven issue, not a rational one. The majority of democrat politicians that are ignoring gun issues are smart. It won't gain them votes, but can certainly lose them, and their energy is better spent pushing the progressive agenda in places where they can do greater good.

 

[Keroin]

I do too. Parlaiment was just given a cooling off period by a governor whose position was described as "titular".. Her post is described as "representative of the Queen's interests, figurehead" blah blah etc. I never thought the Queen had jack shit power over Canadian policy either, till lo and behold a couple of months ago. My rudimentary understanding is that a no-confidence vote was about to ensue, the PM got the titular power of the Crown behind him and holy shit, we thought filibuster is bad.

I listen to As It Happens religiously, btw.

Well, it seems that when it comes to a no-confidence vote, the figureheads mobilize.

No, I don't forsee that happening any time in my lifetime. I'm not a stockpiler of goods for y2K. But in the abstract, I appreciate the notion.

And while Bush was the worst thing in recent memory, I think it would be another 8 years of same for armed revolt to happen. Maybe 4 for the military coup. Term limits were put in place for good reason.

The Governor General has certain powers, one of them is the ability to prorogue parliament. However, she did this at the request of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not at the request of the Queen.

The Queen is considered our Head of State but that's pretty much just a title and she is merely a figurehead, (much like in her own country).

Given that the other option would have been instituting a coalition government or dissolving parliament and calling another election, I think the GG made a wise choice.

Yes, we are far more conservative in politics than our southern neighbours. It suits us, we're not rebels, we like peace. It's not for everyone and it's not a perfect system but I think it works well for our population. Hey, socialized medicine and low gun crime? Call me crazy but that's the box I'll tick.

 

[Homburg]

Every time I get in a car, I know the risks. I've been in accidents, (not my fault, BTW). But I need a vehicle. I do not need, (and I'd argue the same for the majority of the population), a gun. For something that is not, as a general rule, a necessity but is designed to kill, (even if it's just squirrels), why shouldn't there be strict regulations?

Eh. You don't need a computer. You don't need canned beans. You don't need cigarettes. You don't need coffee. And, no, you don't need a car either.

You need water. You need food. You need protective clothing. You need shelter from inclement weather. Cars are a luxury. They may be seen as a necessity of the modern world, but they are not.

And private gun sales? Why are these even allowed? I don't get it.

Why wouldn't they be allowed? They were legal once in Canada too. They were (I assume) criminalised by act of parliament, not Canadian history. You Canucks have similar gun ownership rates in various provinces to the US. Fortunately for you, the demographics of those provinces are such that gun crime is less of an issue. (Oh, erm, shouldn't have mentioned that. Gun control debates go all skewy when population density comes into play.)

 

[Homburg]

It's not for everyone and it's not a perfect system but I think it works well for our population. Hey, socialized medicine and low gun crime? Call me crazy but that's the box I'll tick.

I'd tick it too.

Personally though, I'd be interested to see Canada's gun crime rates prior to the heavier gun control legislation as compared to now. It would be interesting to see the change, if any. Personally, I doubt it would be significant. The culture just does not support it.