Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Eric T. Cheng first none of my comments are intended to be in regards to Canada or any country in particular. I'm mostly discussing my personal views on the subject. For the most part I'm accepting of Canada's approach to gun control though will always argue in favour of more.

As far as I'm concerned there is no activity that justifies nor safety measures that could be taken that make private firearms possession reasonable when faced with the dangers they present.

Medicade is health aid
For that deep down body curse

Hahahahahaha......like that would ever happen.
No, you get more cops, more jails, more problems.

I still really find it hard to believe that widespread ownership of firearms would prove utterly ineffective against tyranny. I understand that tanks and missiles and drones are far *more* effective than small arms, but shouldn't the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan tell us that forces with small arms and guerrilla tactics can slowly erode the power base of a military backed government?

I understand the argument that small arms could never "finish" a revolution but I do think that they enable them to get started and I think this is demonstrably true. I'm sure people will argue that the US military is way more powerful and effective than the militaries of the various countries I'm referring to but I'm not convinced that it would make the proposition of an uprising impossible.

As I've said before I am not anti-gun control though I am skeptical of its effectiveness in this country. I'm also skeptical of any categorical statement that "such and such could never happen." Statements like that almost seem to beg to be disproved by circumstances sadly.

So where do all the illegally-owned firearms come from? Is there a strong, identifiable flow from the legit market to the black market?

I have a feeling that burglaries and straw purchases make up the bulk of illegally owned firearms, but I'm not in a place where I can google around for a citation on that. Straw purchases are easily solved with better enforcement of background checks and purchasing restrictions (Exactly why are you buying ten handguns at a time multiple times a year, sir?) without infringing on any rights. Burglaries get trickier.

Making preschool an official part of public school? Kids who do poorly in school are more likely to give up on it and turn to crime, and studies show that kids who go to preschool do better in school throughout their school years. It may not lower the numbers as much, but it's something we should be doing anyway.

(And I agree with Extar, that ending the drug war would go a long way as well)

So the problem is your neighbour. Under Canadian gun laws he wouldn't have had a gun license issued to him in the first place if he had a long history of substance abuse and anger management issue. This first step of the gun licensing program reduces the number of people who should not have access to firearms. However, if he developed those issues after he got his gun license and he has access to guns you can report him to the police and/or the Provincial Chief Firearms Officer. They may revoke his license and dispose of his firearms.

The Canadian gun laws aren't perfect but they do work.

Its the little things like that, that make american gun laws seem stupid. Granted the gun nuts don't like the idea of da gubn't declaring them mentally unstable and taking their guns away. Granted, I think some of the gun nuts I see post, they ARE mentally unstable and shouldn't have guns, so in that they are sort of justified in being afraid.

One of the disconnects here is that people focus on individual cases without considering the results of firearms availability in aggregate.

You're right, in the specific case you're responding to the problem is his neighbor. The thing is, in a society where the law renders firearms readily available (e.g., the United States) the simple fact is that the drunk neighbor is more likely to get his hands on a gun, which means the attendant bad consequences are more likely to occur.

The fundamental intellectual twist performed by firearms enthusiasts who oppose gun regulation is adopting the idea that firearms availability does not matter. This is adopted in the face of moderate evidence inidicating that increased firearms availability results in more deaths and injuries from accidents, suicides, and homicides. This evidence is not perfect - and now I'm restricting myself to the US - because firearms enthusiasts back a powerful organization dedicated to preventing that sort of data from being gathered.

In any event - as I've said - a sane approach to firearms would first quantify the damage firearms prevalance does to society and then attempt to weigh this damage against the benefits of firearms ownership that you outlined above (hunting, self defense, killing bears or whatever). Unfortunately we don't have a sane discussion on the topic, the other side is categorically unwilling to even acknowledge such a tradeoff might exist because KEEP YOUR GUMMINT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE or something.

Californian authorities singled out that Ali Syed was a "loner" and a "gamer" who "spent a lot time in room playing video games." They say that he had no criminal history nor mental health problems. No illegal drugs were found in his house or any signs he used any illegal drugs.

He used a long-barrel shotgun, which has no tight restrictions under California gun laws.

Shotguns have no tight restrictions under any state laws. If you can vote, you can buy a shotgun or "hunting" rifle.

As far as I know there are restrictions on short barrel lengths, like sawed-off barrel shotguns. In Canada, sawed-off barrel shotguns are illegal BUT if a manufacturer makes short-barrel shotguns (like the Dominion Arms Grizzly 8.5" barrel shotgun) then they're perfectly legal and Non-Restricted. o.O

At which point the problem would be convincing a million people who are obsessed with bullshit witchcraft statistics like "stopping power" to adopt them.

You're sort of limited in the damage you can do with a 2+1 round pump shotgun.

True, but folks still die: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/nation...ty-crime-spree-began-with-apparent-carjacking

I'm not sure what point you're addressing there, (was a shotgun used in that carjacking?) so I'll hit both:

1. They're not bullshit witchcraft statistics because they (over/under)represent the lethality of the firearm. They're bullshit because terminal ballistics as a science is in a pretty fucking dreadful state, the statistics mean nothing, and so aspie gun nuts go around quoting FBI requirements for bullet penetration and wound profile as if what holds true for an FBI shooter is true for them and the dude stealing their television is going to stop and have a gunfight with them and they absolutely must instantly kill their target with the first shot irrespective of placement or angle. These fuckers aren't going to buy a taser++, they would have to be sane for that.
2. That particular short shotgun would get three fast shots, at which point it would become slower to feed and shoot than an old-timey lupara. It's sort of a perfect example of the useless shit that gun manufacturers sell.

Sorry, just catching up on Chainsawsuit and thought this appropriate.

So I guess this is a thing now? Gun manufacturers refusing to sell anything that's banned by the law of the state for civilians to law enforcement.

https://www.facebook.com/CMMGInc/posts/476105212438554

I have no idea what to think about it. It mostly seems silly. (Especially as we've already seen the crazy crap that law enforcement already has access to, like APCs.)

Fine with me! Go ahead and lose money you weird assholes.

Fuck them and fuck everyone else who asserts that the poor excuse for firearms regulation we have in this country qualifies as "Unconstitutional restrictions" or anything of that nature.

I definitely think it's an interesting stand. I seem to recall that at least a few of the manufacturers doing this make the majority of their money from law enforcement sales, although I could be wrong.

So let me guess, CMMG is a company with little to no governement sales, so this is a free publicity stunt for them. And even if this really was a big manufacturer, it's not like Glock or several other excellent foreign brands wouldn't be more than happy to take over those sales.

No...

In other words, they'll still sell to law enforcement agencies The entire thing is just a meaningless PR stunt about how much they hate the thought of restricting AR sales.

Oh America, you so crazy.

Good lord!

For the first time ever, I want an AR.

Muzzle loaders are classified as non-firearms in Canada but since that one based on the AR platform it would be classified as a Restricted firearm in Canada.

For those interested, a supposedly continuously updated list of firearms manufacturers/resellers/whatever boycotting sales to NY law enforcement.

Can't NY law enforcement buy M-16s from Homeland Security and/or DoD?

It's Galtstanding from small firearms manufacturers. Doesn't matter, never did.

The manufacturers on that list are small time operations. But there are bigger internet gun related retailers on that list. MidwayUSA, for example, is one of the more popular websites that sells gun related products.

That place is really near me. I've heard interesting stories about what it's like there. I've heard for example, that they lead you along in the interview and ask roundabout questions to get an idea of how into guns you are. Even for the IT people. I've also heard that the sound of a shotgun being racked causes people to look around curiously for who has a new toy they want to show off.

The most entertaining of them is Cheaper Than Dirt, who are generally first to start price gouging when there's a run on anything.

They temporarily stopped online orders of firearms shortly after the Newtown massacre, pissing off gun owners who thought the move was caving into the gun control lobby.

Ending the war on drugs.

Good lord, the California gun control laws are even more confusing and stupid than the Canadian gun laws!

Gears of War writer Tom Bissell believes games are, in large part, overly saturated in violence.

Say what you want about US gun control news, at least it brings the funnies.

Andrew Cuomo seeks to ease newly passed magazine restriction. tl;dr, New York passed a 7-round limit on handguns, but citing the small number of handguns with magazines that small, Cuomo proposes that... New Yorkers not load more than 7 rounds into their larger magazines.

Or he can order the pistol magazines to be pinned to 7-rounds? In Canada all of our pistol magazines are pinned to 10-rounds.

That was the hilarious part though, it wasn't a pin or anything, just "don't load more than seven rounds." I don't know if someone told him that pinned magazines were a boondoggle to avoid getting into or what, but the final result just sounded like self-parody.