U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1121315171843

Comments

  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    JaimieT said:
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 

    I mean, maybe we do need to open carry. I'm serious. Maybe if this guy had attended church there and seen all those open carriers he'd have thought twice. Maybe he would have gone straight for them, if he wanted to be killed in the act. 

    I think there's something to letting people see the full impact of their beliefs, and perhaps hiding the guns is making this way too sanitized for Republican moms.
    It goes the other way, seeing people open carry normalizes it. 
    if you live in a state where it's legal, you can probably carry openly and no one will even notice. I was coming home from the range just the other night and stopped at the grocery store with my revolver holstered on my hip, because I was just stopping for a case of soda and going straight home so why bother pack up when it's legal to carry openly, and the reaction was nothing. No panicked people fleeing in all directions from me, no harassment by cops, no one confronting me, in fact no different then when I don't have a gun. I don't even think most people even notice 

    I know people who are activists and carry openly every day, I don't do that, but of the four people I know who do it none have had problems with the public or law enforcement, one of them was in fact close friends with the assistant Chief of Police of my hometown
    Brawn


  • 4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
    The transport regulation is designed to keeps guns off the street, it encourages people who own things like AR-15 to store them at a gun range (the only place they can legally be fired) and to keep hand guns bought for protection at home.

    Back in the 90's my brother went through the process to get his license and the restrictions were crazy.  For the first bunch of months - maybe even a year? - he had to leave his gun at the shooting range.  Once he qualified to be able to bring it home, the gun range gave him a map and traced a route for him to drive on between his house and the gun range - the highlighted route was on the only one he could legally drive on while in possession of his gun, and the gun had to be in a locked box, unloaded and in the trunk of his car.  He couldn't stop for gas, couldn't go through McD's drive-through, couldn't stop at 7-11, if the traffic was bad he couldn't change his route etc.  He could only go from point A to point B with no stops in between. That was for a second tier license that allowed him to have a hand gun.  This was all part of his training to become a RCMP officer (a job that took him 4 years of training to get, then left after a year because they stationed him way up North and he hated it!).
    Brawn
  • JaimieT said:
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 

    I mean, maybe we do need to open carry. I'm serious. Maybe if this guy had attended church there and seen all those open carriers he'd have thought twice. Maybe he would have gone straight for them, if he wanted to be killed in the act. 

    I think there's something to letting people see the full impact of their beliefs, and perhaps hiding the guns is making this way too sanitized for Republican moms.
    It goes the other way, seeing people open carry normalizes it. 
    if you live in a state where it's legal, you can probably carry openly and no one will even notice. I was coming home from the range just the other night and stopped at the grocery store with my revolver holstered on my hip, because I was just stopping for a case of soda and going straight home so why bother pack up when it's legal to carry openly, and the reaction was nothing. No panicked people fleeing in all directions from me, no harassment by cops, no one confronting me, in fact no different then when I don't have a gun. I don't even think most people even notice 

    I know people who are activists and carry openly every day, I don't do that, but of the four people I know who do it none have had problems with the public or law enforcement, one of them was in fact close friends with the assistant Chief of Police of my hometown
    Do you honestly think that a 25 year old Muslim could pop in to buy groceries with an AR-15 strapped to his back without incident?
    Flukes
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited November 2017


    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
    Considering we *do* have a tiered licensing system, there's nothing silly about needing authorization to transport for a weapon that is restricted or prohibited. The license for a restricted firearm also now requires a valid ATT.

    The Canadian stance is that guns outside the home are for shooting targets and animals - not people. The laws make perfect sense in that context.
    CretanBull
  • Flukes said:


    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
    Considering we *do* have a tiered licensing system, there's nothing silly about needing authorization to transport for a weapon that is restricted or prohibited. The license for a restricted firearm also now requires a valid ATT.

    The Canadian stance is that guns are for shooting targets and animals - not people. The laws make perfect sense in that context.
      Our system works too.  The number of crimes committed using a legally purchased gun is very, very, very small...our biggest problem is illegal guns imported from America, which in part is why I'm concerned about American laws and ease of access.
    Flukes
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    JaimieT said:
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 

    I mean, maybe we do need to open carry. I'm serious. Maybe if this guy had attended church there and seen all those open carriers he'd have thought twice. Maybe he would have gone straight for them, if he wanted to be killed in the act. 

    I think there's something to letting people see the full impact of their beliefs, and perhaps hiding the guns is making this way too sanitized for Republican moms.
    It goes the other way, seeing people open carry normalizes it. 
    if you live in a state where it's legal, you can probably carry openly and no one will even notice. I was coming home from the range just the other night and stopped at the grocery store with my revolver holstered on my hip, because I was just stopping for a case of soda and going straight home so why bother pack up when it's legal to carry openly, and the reaction was nothing. No panicked people fleeing in all directions from me, no harassment by cops, no one confronting me, in fact no different then when I don't have a gun. I don't even think most people even notice 

    I know people who are activists and carry openly every day, I don't do that, but of the four people I know who do it none have had problems with the public or law enforcement, one of them was in fact close friends with the assistant Chief of Police of my hometown
    Do you honestly think that a 25 year old Muslim could pop in to buy groceries with an AR-15 strapped to his back without incident?
    Maybe, maybe not. it depends entirely on circumstance 


  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA


    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
    The transport regulation is designed to keeps guns off the street, it encourages people who own things like AR-15 to store them at a gun range (the only place they can legally be fired) and to keep hand guns bought for protection at home.

    Back in the 90's my brother went through the process to get his license and the restrictions were crazy.  For the first bunch of months - maybe even a year? - he had to leave his gun at the shooting range.  Once he qualified to be able to bring it home, the gun range gave him a map and traced a route for him to drive on between his house and the gun range - the highlighted route was on the only one he could legally drive on while in possession of his gun, and the gun had to be in a locked box, unloaded and in the trunk of his car.  He couldn't stop for gas, couldn't go through McD's drive-through, couldn't stop at 7-11, if the traffic was bad he couldn't change his route etc.  He could only go from point A to point B with no stops in between. That was for a second tier license that allowed him to have a hand gun.  This was all part of his training to become a RCMP officer (a job that took him 4 years of training to get, then left after a year because they stationed him way up North and he hated it!).
    See and all that would never fly in the US. 

    I dont think you'll find it easy to convince people the evil NRA and gun companies are making profit because it's not a felony to stop for gas on the way home from the range. 

    its a system with again, no public safety benefit. 

    The PAL system is good, it's a lot of the silly stuff that will cause opposition to enacting such a system 
  • JaimieT said:
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 

    I mean, maybe we do need to open carry. I'm serious. Maybe if this guy had attended church there and seen all those open carriers he'd have thought twice. Maybe he would have gone straight for them, if he wanted to be killed in the act. 

    I think there's something to letting people see the full impact of their beliefs, and perhaps hiding the guns is making this way too sanitized for Republican moms.
    It goes the other way, seeing people open carry normalizes it. 
    if you live in a state where it's legal, you can probably carry openly and no one will even notice. I was coming home from the range just the other night and stopped at the grocery store with my revolver holstered on my hip, because I was just stopping for a case of soda and going straight home so why bother pack up when it's legal to carry openly, and the reaction was nothing. No panicked people fleeing in all directions from me, no harassment by cops, no one confronting me, in fact no different then when I don't have a gun. I don't even think most people even notice 

    I know people who are activists and carry openly every day, I don't do that, but of the four people I know who do it none have had problems with the public or law enforcement, one of them was in fact close friends with the assistant Chief of Police of my hometown
    Do you honestly think that a 25 year old Muslim could pop in to buy groceries with an AR-15 strapped to his back without incident?
    Maybe, maybe not. it depends entirely on circumstance 


    I think chance is somewhere between 0 and .01%
    KingKobra
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    JaimieT said:
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 

    I mean, maybe we do need to open carry. I'm serious. Maybe if this guy had attended church there and seen all those open carriers he'd have thought twice. Maybe he would have gone straight for them, if he wanted to be killed in the act. 

    I think there's something to letting people see the full impact of their beliefs, and perhaps hiding the guns is making this way too sanitized for Republican moms.
    It goes the other way, seeing people open carry normalizes it. 
    if you live in a state where it's legal, you can probably carry openly and no one will even notice. I was coming home from the range just the other night and stopped at the grocery store with my revolver holstered on my hip, because I was just stopping for a case of soda and going straight home so why bother pack up when it's legal to carry openly, and the reaction was nothing. No panicked people fleeing in all directions from me, no harassment by cops, no one confronting me, in fact no different then when I don't have a gun. I don't even think most people even notice 

    I know people who are activists and carry openly every day, I don't do that, but of the four people I know who do it none have had problems with the public or law enforcement, one of them was in fact close friends with the assistant Chief of Police of my hometown
    Do you honestly think that a 25 year old Muslim could pop in to buy groceries with an AR-15 strapped to his back without incident?
    Maybe, maybe not. it depends entirely on circumstance 


    I think chance is somewhere between 0 and .01%
    I think you have such a stereotype of Americans in your mind clouding rational judgement. 

    Yeah if someone shows up in Arab robes shouting "allahu ackbar" holding a rifle in hand there's going to be issues. If a brown skinned man comes with a holstered handgun and is doing his business there will be no issue 

    and the police in my area are pretty well trained on the issue. The law requires that police be able to articulate an action or set of actions that warrant reasonable alarm, and the court precedent is clear that a complainants lack of comfort with firearms is NOT reasonable alarm 
    Brawn
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada


    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
    The transport regulation is designed to keeps guns off the street, it encourages people who own things like AR-15 to store them at a gun range (the only place they can legally be fired) and to keep hand guns bought for protection at home.

    Back in the 90's my brother went through the process to get his license and the restrictions were crazy.  For the first bunch of months - maybe even a year? - he had to leave his gun at the shooting range.  Once he qualified to be able to bring it home, the gun range gave him a map and traced a route for him to drive on between his house and the gun range - the highlighted route was on the only one he could legally drive on while in possession of his gun, and the gun had to be in a locked box, unloaded and in the trunk of his car.  He couldn't stop for gas, couldn't go through McD's drive-through, couldn't stop at 7-11, if the traffic was bad he couldn't change his route etc.  He could only go from point A to point B with no stops in between. That was for a second tier license that allowed him to have a hand gun.  This was all part of his training to become a RCMP officer (a job that took him 4 years of training to get, then left after a year because they stationed him way up North and he hated it!).
    See and all that would never fly in the US. 

    I dont think you'll find it easy to convince people the evil NRA and gun companies are making profit because it's not a felony to stop for gas on the way home from the range. 

    its a system with again, no public safety benefit. 

    The PAL system is good, it's a lot of the silly stuff that will cause opposition to enacting such a system 
    Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year.

    Canada: 1.97*
    United States: 10.54

    * No public safety benefit.
  • I think you have such a stereotype of Americans in your mind clouding rational judgement. 

    Yeah if someone shows up in Arab robes shouting "allahu ackbar" holding a rifle in hand there's going to be issues. If a brown skinned man comes with a holstered handgun and is doing his business there will be no issue 

    and the police in my area are pretty well trained on the issue. The law requires that police be able to articulate an action or set of actions that warrant reasonable alarm, and the court precedent is clear that a complainants lack of comfort with firearms is NOT reasonable alarm 
    I don't have a stereotyped view of Americans at all.

    Re: police training etc - right, and we've seen how all of that training gets consistently and evenly applied to people of colour.
    FlukesKingKobra
  • I don’t know that we here in the USA have any high-ground from which to criticize Canadian gun laws. Whatever flaws they may have, they appear objectively to provide better results for public safety than US gun laws.
    Flukes
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Flukes said:


    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
    The transport regulation is designed to keeps guns off the street, it encourages people who own things like AR-15 to store them at a gun range (the only place they can legally be fired) and to keep hand guns bought for protection at home.

    Back in the 90's my brother went through the process to get his license and the restrictions were crazy.  For the first bunch of months - maybe even a year? - he had to leave his gun at the shooting range.  Once he qualified to be able to bring it home, the gun range gave him a map and traced a route for him to drive on between his house and the gun range - the highlighted route was on the only one he could legally drive on while in possession of his gun, and the gun had to be in a locked box, unloaded and in the trunk of his car.  He couldn't stop for gas, couldn't go through McD's drive-through, couldn't stop at 7-11, if the traffic was bad he couldn't change his route etc.  He could only go from point A to point B with no stops in between. That was for a second tier license that allowed him to have a hand gun.  This was all part of his training to become a RCMP officer (a job that took him 4 years of training to get, then left after a year because they stationed him way up North and he hated it!).
    See and all that would never fly in the US. 

    I dont think you'll find it easy to convince people the evil NRA and gun companies are making profit because it's not a felony to stop for gas on the way home from the range. 

    its a system with again, no public safety benefit. 

    The PAL system is good, it's a lot of the silly stuff that will cause opposition to enacting such a system 
    Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year.

    Canada: 1.97*
    United States: 10.54

    * No public safety benefit.
    And you think the homicide difference is resultant to the ATT requirement? 

    I stated I was willing to look at a modified Canadian system in the US with some changes for parts of the Canadian firearms act that are superfluous and have no public safety benefit. Do you believe that if someone with an RPAL was allowed to carry concealed that it would have a statistical effect on your crime rates?

    probably not, 

    and for that matter, Canada has always had only a fraction of our crime, going back to the beginning of the 20th century when laws in both countries were substantially similar 
    Brawn
  • Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year.

    Canada: 1.97*
    United States: 10.54

    * No public safety benefit.
    And oddly, we had roughly the same number of mentally ill people per capita too.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that maybe the problem might be that Americans represent 4.4% of the global population but own 42% of the world's guns.
    Flukes
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Flukes said:


    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
    The transport regulation is designed to keeps guns off the street, it encourages people who own things like AR-15 to store them at a gun range (the only place they can legally be fired) and to keep hand guns bought for protection at home.

    Back in the 90's my brother went through the process to get his license and the restrictions were crazy.  For the first bunch of months - maybe even a year? - he had to leave his gun at the shooting range.  Once he qualified to be able to bring it home, the gun range gave him a map and traced a route for him to drive on between his house and the gun range - the highlighted route was on the only one he could legally drive on while in possession of his gun, and the gun had to be in a locked box, unloaded and in the trunk of his car.  He couldn't stop for gas, couldn't go through McD's drive-through, couldn't stop at 7-11, if the traffic was bad he couldn't change his route etc.  He could only go from point A to point B with no stops in between. That was for a second tier license that allowed him to have a hand gun.  This was all part of his training to become a RCMP officer (a job that took him 4 years of training to get, then left after a year because they stationed him way up North and he hated it!).
    See and all that would never fly in the US. 

    I dont think you'll find it easy to convince people the evil NRA and gun companies are making profit because it's not a felony to stop for gas on the way home from the range. 

    its a system with again, no public safety benefit. 

    The PAL system is good, it's a lot of the silly stuff that will cause opposition to enacting such a system 
    Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year.

    Canada: 1.97*
    United States: 10.54

    * No public safety benefit.
    And you think the homicide difference is resultant to the ATT requirement? 

    I stated I was willing to look at a modified Canadian system in the US with some changes for parts of the Canadian firearms act that are superfluous and have no public safety benefit. Do you believe that if someone with an RPAL was allowed to carry concealed that it would have a statistical effect on your crime rates?

    probably not, 

    and for that matter, Canada has always had only a fraction of our crime, going back to the beginning of the 20th century when laws in both countries were substantially similar 
    1. This isn't just homicide. It is all deaths involving a firearm.

    2. A system is a system - I can't and don't have to tease out the effect of each individual part. A good system has a greater affect as a whole than any of the individual pieces.

    3. If Americans are just more violent - maybe they shouldn't have so many guns.
    CretanBull
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited November 2017
    When Bill C-51 was passed (the Bill that mandated licensing, restricted ammunition etc) was introduced, homicide, suicide and accidental death by firearm declined over the following 25 years.  As Flukes said, you can't pick out individual things and determine which parts of the Bill did what, but as a system it had a massive impact.
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    I can accept disagreement on what are reasonable restrictions. I can certainly understand skepticism as to how successful gun control might be in the United States.

    What I can't understand is insistence that gun control doesn't work period or has no public benefit. The evidence to the contrary is all around. 
    CretanBull
  • The status quo with gun violence is broadly unacceptable.
    With over 300 million guns in the country, more guns is not a logical solution.

    The NRA is fighting yesterday’s battle rather than tomorrow’s battle. If there isn’t some common sense gun control implemented over time, then when the critical mass of incidents hits and this becomes a single-issue-vote on Election Day you will get some radical reform like Australia. The best way to avoid a radical reaction is to make some incremental changes before the moment comes.

    Clearly the critical mass has not yet been reached, but it looks inevitable. Is it a mass shooting every month? Is it a mass shooting involving children every week? I don’t know what it is, but it’s out there somewhere in the future.
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    No point in arguing with @emnofseattle everyone, he already said he wants people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists to be able to buy guns.  That is a sign of an irrational American who would rather do absolutely nothing than at least try to fix the system.

    Also, the open carry argument is a joke.  Open carrying is not only super douchey, but it also makes you an easy target.  If I want to rob someplace, I am going to shoot the open carrier first.  The other issue with open carry, is since people like @emnofseattle don't want people to have to attend mandatory firearm safety/responsibility courses, people who open carry leave themselves more open than concealed carriers to accidental discharges, as well as someone, possibly a kid, grabbing their gun.
    MrX
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    Thomas said:
    No point in arguing with @emnofseattle everyone, he already said he wants people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists to be able to buy guns.  That is a sign of an irrational American who would rather do absolutely nothing than at least try to fix the system.

    Also, the open carry argument is a joke.  Open carrying is not only super douchey, but it also makes you an easy target.  If I want to rob someplace, I am going to shoot the open carrier first.  The other issue with open carry, is since people like @emnofseattle don't want people to have to attend mandatory firearm safety/responsibility courses, people who open carry leave themselves more open than concealed carriers to accidental discharges, as well as someone, possibly a kid, grabbing their gun.
    Accusing my of being irrational then making up arguments with no statistical support is maybe the richest form of irony. You can't even decide what issue you're arguing. You somehow claim open carriers have no training, you have any evidence to back up this claim? Lack of a mandate does not mean lack of training amongst people who choose to do it. 

    For claiming how I don't want to fix anything, you've proposed nothing to fix the lack of due process on the terror watchlist, really that means if that law were ever passed it would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and you know it so you're just trying an appeal to emotion fallacy. Really you've just been talking down to me and never directly addressing any point, you've proposed nothing in terms of specifics other than the terror-watch list nonsense that's blatantly unconstitutional. So really you're right, there is no rational discussion to be had since you're just mad at me for not supporting a regulatory structure you haven't even defined 



  • Wonk alert on the House tax proposal:
    Estate Tax is to be repealed as we know, and that is obviously not a benefit for the middle class. They are, however, also preserving the step-up in basis at death unlike what had been earlier proposed by Trump and unlike what was done with the Bush repeal which was effective for one year.

    Good article on this in the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/07/two-words-in-the-gop-tax-bill-means-tens-of-billions-for-the-super-wealthy/?utm_term=.78150a3152c2

    Going back to the prior real estate taxation discussion this has extra gravy for folks who make money that way, coincidentally like our President. You get to deduct depreciation on real estate against your income over a 27.5 or 39yr period, the downside being that this depreciation is subtracted from your basis resulting in higher capital gains tax when you sell it. Under this proposal, if you leave the real estate to your kids they’d pay no estate tax on the transfer and have a magically-restored basis to depreciate against income all over again (higher basis as it would be the market value of the real estate at death and this stuff usually appreciates over time). So you could shelter income for generations on big real estate holdings and never have to pay a transfer or capital gain tax.

    No way this should happen as even if his being a multi-Billion-dollar-real-Estate-mogul who refused to divest assets when he took office is a coincidence, it just looks really bad. Like blatantanly using the office for self-enrichment. No middle-class or pro-growth lipstick to put on the pig either, just codifying multigenerational real estate dynasties at the expense of chumps who actually pay their taxes.
    TravisFlukesMrXCretanBullPhoebes89
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    No point in arguing with @emnofseattle everyone, he already said he wants people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists to be able to buy guns.  That is a sign of an irrational American who would rather do absolutely nothing than at least try to fix the system.

    Also, the open carry argument is a joke.  Open carrying is not only super douchey, but it also makes you an easy target.  If I want to rob someplace, I am going to shoot the open carrier first.  The other issue with open carry, is since people like @emnofseattle don't want people to have to attend mandatory firearm safety/responsibility courses, people who open carry leave themselves more open than concealed carriers to accidental discharges, as well as someone, possibly a kid, grabbing their gun.
    Accusing my of being irrational then making up arguments with no statistical support is maybe the richest form of irony. You can't even decide what issue you're arguing. You somehow claim open carriers have no training, you have any evidence to back up this claim? Lack of a mandate does not mean lack of training amongst people who choose to do it. 

    For claiming how I don't want to fix anything, you've proposed nothing to fix the lack of due process on the terror watchlist, really that means if that law were ever passed it would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and you know it so you're just trying an appeal to emotion fallacy. Really you've just been talking down to me and never directly addressing any point, you've proposed nothing in terms of specifics other than the terror-watch list nonsense that's blatantly unconstitutional. So really you're right, there is no rational discussion to be had since you're just mad at me for not supporting a regulatory structure you haven't even defined 



    So again, why do you support people on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists being able to buy guns?  We can narrow down the topic to one and let's see your rationality. 

    Also, here is a link to some information on children with guns.  The statement I made were that hundreds of kids die each year from self-inflicted gun shots.  That is a fact.

    https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.WgJF28bMyRs

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Flukes said:
    I can accept disagreement on what are reasonable restrictions. I can certainly understand skepticism as to how successful gun control might be in the United States.

    What I can't understand is insistence that gun control doesn't work period or has no public benefit. The evidence to the contrary is all around. 
    To the contrary, there are many gun control measures that do in fact work, if they are enforced. That's the rub.

    i believe we have enough gun laws, at least at the federal level, the problem is, failings of the federal government. 

    I can think of at least 5 mass shootings where the firearm was acquired by someone who shouldn't have been allowed a gun sale but the records weren't given to the FBI for the background checks. I can think of one other where shooter should've been committed by police for a 5150 but wasn't, and another where the military dumped a mentally ill airman on society without arraigning for him to get help (Dean Mellberg who shot up an Air Force hospital in 1994, the military policeman who stopped him wrote an excellent book called "warnings unheeded" about the event, check it out, excellent read, btw the MP is a pro gun guy) so we don't have an issue of not enough laws, we have an issue of not enough enforcement. Several weeks ago In fact a gun dealer in Oregon was released on good behavior after serving only 20 months of a 12 year sentence 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    LordBy said:
    Wonk alert on the House tax proposal:
    Estate Tax is to be repealed as we know, and that is obviously not a benefit for the middle class. They are, however, also preserving the step-up in basis at death unlike what had been earlier proposed by Trump and unlike what was done with the Bush repeal which was effective for one year.

    Good article on this in the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/07/two-words-in-the-gop-tax-bill-means-tens-of-billions-for-the-super-wealthy/?utm_term=.78150a3152c2

    Going back to the prior real estate taxation discussion this has extra gravy for folks who make money that way, coincidentally like our President. You get to deduct depreciation on real estate against your income over a 27.5 or 39yr period, the downside being that this depreciation is subtracted from your basis resulting in higher capital gains tax when you sell it. Under this proposal, if you leave the real estate to your kids they’d pay no estate tax on the transfer and have a magically-restored basis to depreciate against income all over again (higher basis as it would be the market value of the real estate at death and this stuff usually appreciates over time). So you could shelter income for generations on big real estate holdings and never have to pay a transfer or capital gain tax.

    No way this should happen as even if his being a multi-Billion-dollar-real-Estate-mogul who refused to divest assets when he took office is a coincidence, it just looks really bad. Like blatantanly using the office for self-enrichment. No middle-class or pro-growth lipstick to put on the pig either, just codifying multigenerational real estate dynasties at the expense of chumps who actually pay their taxes.
    The real thing is, anyone who thinks the rich don't pay enough in taxes will not be happy with any tax reform scheme that involves lower taxes across the board. 

    realistically people who pay the most taxes will get the most benefit from any tax breaks 
  • LordBy said:
    Wonk alert on the House tax proposal:
    Estate Tax is to be repealed as we know, and that is obviously not a benefit for the middle class. They are, however, also preserving the step-up in basis at death unlike what had been earlier proposed by Trump and unlike what was done with the Bush repeal which was effective for one year.

    Good article on this in the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/07/two-words-in-the-gop-tax-bill-means-tens-of-billions-for-the-super-wealthy/?utm_term=.78150a3152c2

    Going back to the prior real estate taxation discussion this has extra gravy for folks who make money that way, coincidentally like our President. You get to deduct depreciation on real estate against your income over a 27.5 or 39yr period, the downside being that this depreciation is subtracted from your basis resulting in higher capital gains tax when you sell it. Under this proposal, if you leave the real estate to your kids they’d pay no estate tax on the transfer and have a magically-restored basis to depreciate against income all over again (higher basis as it would be the market value of the real estate at death and this stuff usually appreciates over time). So you could shelter income for generations on big real estate holdings and never have to pay a transfer or capital gain tax.

    No way this should happen as even if his being a multi-Billion-dollar-real-Estate-mogul who refused to divest assets when he took office is a coincidence, it just looks really bad. Like blatantanly using the office for self-enrichment. No middle-class or pro-growth lipstick to put on the pig either, just codifying multigenerational real estate dynasties at the expense of chumps who actually pay their taxes.
    The real thing is, anyone who thinks the rich don't pay enough in taxes will not be happy with any tax reform scheme that involves lower taxes across the board. 

    realistically people who pay the most taxes will get the most benefit from any tax breaks 
    80% of the tax cuts go to the top 1% of income earners and adds a trillion dollars to the debt.  Middle class people will end up saving a few hundred dollars a year, and they'll pay for it not only for the rest of their lives but their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for it in either the form of higher taxed down the road or a century or so of reduced services that will make their cost of living far higher than the few hundred dollars that they save.
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    It's still early, but returns from Virginia and elsewhere are looking positive for Democrats. Sounds like Northam will win the governor's race, which was billed as the biggest 2017 race in terms of being a 2018 bellwether.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/2017-election-results/virginia/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_va-results

    One highlight - Danica Roem, a transgender woman, defeated a 26-year incumbent conservative Republican for a VA House of Delegates seat. Bob Marshall, the Republican, had refused to use female pronouns to refer to her and refused to debate her. She'll be the first transgender person to serve in the VA legislature.


    Frakkin T
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    The GOP is taking a fucking beating tonight  :D
    gguenotTaraC73MrX
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    I would love to hear some analysis about whether this is a normal rate of pushback after a presidential election. I know it's too soon. FiveThirtyEight usually does this in podcast form... so unless anyone else has a good suggestion, I guess I'll be checking in with them tomorrow. 
  • JaimieT said:
    I would love to hear some analysis about whether this is a normal rate of pushback after a presidential election. I know it's too soon. FiveThirtyEight usually does this in podcast form... so unless anyone else has a good suggestion, I guess I'll be checking in with them tomorrow. 
    They have a liveblog going with some pretty good commentary. Here's my favorite analysis of the night:

    Here’s the metaphor that one of us just used in the office: “I’m jumping out the window with my boogie board to catch the wave.” I won’t say who it was. [Editor’s note: It was Harry.]

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2017-election-live-coverage-results/
  • Frakkin T said:
    The GOP is taking a fucking beating tonight  :D
    My official 2018 theme song:


    Frakkin T
This discussion has been closed.