This may get heated like a politics thread....

[Smokescreens]

I ask that if you can not be civil to just move along here.

Ok... Hear goes nothing...

Lost life due to violence is a horrible tragedy no matter what tool was used. Be it a gun, knife, bomb, blunt object, ect. I doubt you will find a single person on either side of the gun debate to argue that. But can we please not blame the tool used? . Im a horrible speller and have crap grammer but i admit im at fault. not my pencil, pen or keyboard. I do not feel any gun or gun parts ban will have any "positive" effect on gun related homicides. I feel it will honestly make things worse due to law abiding citizens will be the only people to comply with any such ban. Meanwhile the criminals will still have the banned tools to now further do damaged. Look at some cities and states that have some of the strictest gun policies and there gun crime is far worse than The more relaxed cities or states. Look at chicago for example. I do feel we can do better but doing something does not mean your doing the right thing. Cocaine, heroin, crack, lsd, pcp, ect are all illegal but still flood our cities, schools and neighborhoods so simply making something illegal wont stop the issue regaurdless of what is being banned.

in the USA

Im 12 times more likely to be stabed than shot.
A rifle in general is used for arround 1% of violent shooting (though the media loves to jump all over it). And 80% is gang or drug related. The 19% ballance is everything else, suicides included.

Lifes saved by guns is drastically higher than lives taken. (Most times just brandishing a firearm will make a would be attacker flee for example)

On average 30,000 lives are taken by gun a year. But take out the suicides and that Number drops to 11,000 people. Still its a big number and that is horrible but lets look at lives saved. That number is
500,00 to 3,000,000 lives "saved" by use of gun according to the CDC

https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhal...120%3famp=true

Your view on the 2018 assault weapons ban proposal

So assault weapons are typically demonized as military style weapons by the media and people who dont know any better. But looking into the proposal they are trying to vastly broaden the allready lose term.

In this bill here are some items they are after.

10rd capacity or less. Most threats take more than 1 shot. On average from a pistol that count is 6 shots per threat, so 2 attackers you should have 12 rounds. This is due to you adrenalin and nerves making your hands shakey in a situation of life and death as well as a pistol round is not very effective. Its slow moving compaired to a rifle and does not create a big wound channel.

most pistols would be deemed a assault weapon as many semi automatic pistols hold more than 10rounds. My wifes glock holds allmost double that.

Barrel shrouds..... Ok why? It keeps you from touching a hot barrel, so.......

Threaded barrels. So no more muzzle breaks to reduce recoil i suppose. (Yeah, i know they want no suppresors but those are rear, expensive and come with a extensive backround check and paperwork)

No vertical grips. Helps with accuracy and egonomics so yup lets get rid of those. We do t want people to hit what they aim at and must like stray rounds flying around. And who cares if you have arthritis or carpal tunnel.

I dont think any of this will help anything

Now as i have said, i do think we can do better to lower gun related crime even if it will likely be traded off for knifes at the best case.

80% recievers require no ffl paperwork so a person not allowed to own a gun can buy that and then finish the machining process and assemble the firearm. I myself would like to try it but i feel that you should need to go through a ffl dealer to get one. This way it helps keep firearms out of the hands that should not have them while not infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. I would be happy to use non lethal ammo "if" i wouldn't have to worry about having a lawsuit against me for defending myself or my family.

Please feel free to add any ideas that you feel will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on law abiding citizens. Untill then we will never reach a common ground on this debate.

[NCB]

+1 on your view. I believe that this is a issue of Mental Health and not type of gun!

[BubbaKahuna]

I believe that's why the NRA lobbies so hard to make sure the CDC is not allowed to even study gun violence as a "Public Health Risk".
Seriously - the law prohibits them from even STUDYING it.

[BubbaKahuna]

Chicago is an anomaly.
While many weapons are illegal to sell in Chicago, any Chicago resident can drive literally 20 minutes to the Indiana border & buy all the illegal (at home) firearms they want.
As long as there are little pockets of laws like Chicago that restrict weapons of any type, those laws will never work.
It's going to take an 'all or nothing' to make any real difference.
Do they eliminate all firearm murders? Of course not, but they cut them down to a mere fraction. Australia is one example.

My Dad gave me my first firearm when I was a teenager. A bolt action 3 mag 410 shotgun.
I asked why I couldn't have a pump that held 8~10 slugs like everyone else I knew.
He said "If you can't drop what you're shooting at with 3 tries, you don't deserve to own a gun".

Other than mass murder or open ground warfare, why do any civilians need 30+ round magazines?
If the answer is 'to keep the government in check", you'll also need you own hundreds of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft and about a million personnel to use them.
They'll pound any 'armed resistance' so far into the ground they won't even find DNA in the hole, and they'll do it from 5 miles above.

[G_Conway]

I don't think I need a 1,000 round drum of ammo. But I also know that the anti-gun people NEVER stop trying to take my guns. They are constantly trying to add some new and useless law. Why do I have to wait 10 days for a gun if I already own one? Why do I have to go through ANOTHER paid background check to buy ammunition? Why can a State or Local government restrict access to guns that have passed federal safety requirements. All this time I thought I was a citizen of the USA, not California?

[Saddletramp]

Right out of the gate the very first point is incorrect. If a Chicago Resident drives 20 minutes to Indiana to purchase a firearm that is illegal where they live then they are committing a felony.. You can not purchase any modern firearm without applying for the FFL. By federal and state law if you purchase a gun in a state that you do not reside the weapon must be transfered to an approved FFL dealer in the state that the purchaser resides. Then that dealer must do a FFL background prior to releasing the weapon to the individual. I understand that the left pushes a very different narrative but facts are facts. If the current laws would actually be enforced a lot of these crimes would be prevented. Not all but some.Bottom line is the hacks that control narrative don't want to prevent crime they want a problem that they can pretend they're fixing.
BTW is Indiana is the cause of Chicago's gun violence problem why doesn't Indiana have the same problem?

[Messer2.0]

Chicago is an anomaly.
While many weapons are illegal to sell in Chicago, any Chicago resident can drive literally 20 minutes to the Indiana border & buy all the illegal (at home) firearms they want.
As long as there are little pockets of laws like Chicago that restrict weapons of any type, those laws will never work.
It's going to take an 'all or nothing' to make any real difference.
Do they eliminate all firearm murders? Of course not, but they cut them down to a mere fraction. Australia is one example.

My Dad gave me my first firearm when I was a teenager. A bolt action 3 mag 410 shotgun.
I asked why I couldn't have a pump that held 8~10 slugs like everyone else I knew.
He said "If you can't drop what you're shooting at with 3 tries, you don't deserve to own a gun".

Other than mass murder or open ground warfare, why do any civilians need 30+ round magazines?
If the answer is 'to keep the government in check", you'll also need you own hundreds of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft and about a million personnel to use them.
They'll pound any 'armed resistance' so far into the ground they won't even find DNA in the hole, and they'll do it from 5 miles above.

[Messer2.0]

If it was so easy to stop people without armored vehicles and planes, explain why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's called guerilla warfare. Plus there are still patriots and 3%s in the military that would use the weapons they have against the government .

[Messer2.0]

BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Maryland.

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

History. Study it, or repeat it.

[Jaybo]

Snopes is a proven left leaning site. If you read the article that event happened in 1775...

[Silkentek]

I do not trust snopes anymore after they tried to flag a documented speech by Hitler as 'untrue' facts. I can't provide a link anymore because they 'washed' their site after quite a few people called them on it. Snopes has proven they are holocaust deniers, to me at least. I am sure a lot of their stuff is truly fact checked, and in the beginning it was impartial, but they are not above using their reputation to skew the things they flag as untrue when that particular thing is actually factual and documented.
Remember, the History that our kids are taught is written by the VICTORS, and it will get re-written as so much of it has been, if the true facts reflect poorly on the established 'victors' of the current times.

[Assocracer]

The date was actually Apri 18th, 1775. 700 troops were sent to confiscate a cache of weapons that the militia had built up in Lexington, MA. Many thought they the troops were being sent to arrest and hang Hancock and Adams. This is when Paul Revere did his famous ride to warn the militia that the British were coming. The way that your story is told simply isn't true. This story, like many others, has been sensationalized and exaggerated, and simply fictionalized to lean one way or the other many times over. Gage was sent to disarm the militia, yes, but this didn't happen the way this story plays it out, nor for the same reasons this story says, nor does it have any relevance to what is going on with our country right now. He was sent to disarm a militia that had been organized to fight the government. He was NOT sent to disarm a bunch of citizens who owned guns to try to bring crime levels down.

[Shores]

This is a knee jerk reaction to the problem we have. It’s Political Theater, trying to pass laws so voters think you are doing something. Won’t make a difference. Attitudes, morals and behavior is what kills. Need to focus on behavior and hold folks responsible for their behavior, not an inanimate object. Even if you removed every gun from the face of the earth, crazies would find something else to use. Media and entertainment are the most hypocritical. Let’s glorify sexual abuse and other violence in movies, etc. and then piss and moan when folks act it out in real life. It is insidious...we are slowly and methodically desensitizing our offspring and then wonder why we have a problem.

[jd750ace]

The unresolved issues of a CDC study are as follows:
It is not a strictly disease related

Proposed methodology does not separate justifiable use of a firearm from “gun violence”

Methodology must include multiple divisions of data to accurately reflect the use or misuse of firearms.

Consider that the 1993 “Assault weapons” ban reduced the use of firearms in one specific category, and that was suicides. However, suicides as a whole INCREASED over this period, consistent with population growth. 65 percent of “ gun deaths” are suicide, not homicide, and although violent, do not accurately reflect any inherent danger. Also, “homicides” are not broken down to reflect justifiable versus felonious homicides.

people want to kill each other, they will find a way.

As to revolutionary uprising, yeah, that whole mighty military thing worked out great in Vietnam against a bunch of ignorant farmers, didn’t it?

when an Iranian dictator advocates for gun control in America, I think that should tell you where your convictions lie.

The 2nd Amendment, just like the entire Bill of Rights is a right BY GOD, not by government. Careful what you wish for. People bestowed with great power over a population are inclined to enslave those who possess no means to remove them from power.

[Assocracer]

Actually, the NVA was an extremely well trained and well-disciplined army. Also, remember that we were fighting people on their home turf. These people who want to fight the government clearly haven't learned anything from history, i.e. the Civil War.

[roadiemort]

[Smokescreens]

Chicago is an anomaly.
While many weapons are illegal to sell in Chicago, any Chicago resident can drive literally 20 minutes to the Indiana border & buy all the illegal (at home) firearms they want.
As long as there are little pockets of laws like Chicago that restrict weapons of any type, those laws will never work.
It's going to take an 'all or nothing' to make any real difference.
Do they eliminate all firearm murders? Of course not, but they cut them down to a mere fraction. Australia is one example.

My Dad gave me my first firearm when I was a teenager. A bolt action 3 mag 410 shotgun.
I asked why I couldn't have a pump that held 8~10 slugs like everyone else I knew.
He said "If you can't drop what you're shooting at with 3 tries, you don't deserve to own a gun".

Other than mass murder or open ground warfare, why do any civilians need 30+ round magazines?
If the answer is 'to keep the government in check", you'll also need you own hundreds of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft and about a million personnel to use them.
They'll pound any 'armed resistance' so far into the ground they won't even find DNA in the hole, and they'll do it from 5 miles above.

I think it would take someone to figure out how to "un-invent" the gun as the The Australian buy back did nothing to stop gun violence. Just like the assault weapon ban in 1994
http://theconversation.com/factcheck...ustralia-85836

I agree with your father in his thought of 3 rounds for hunting hell i say if you dont hit it in one shot it deserves to live, after all hunting is a ambush sport with a shot taken when the target is basically still and you have ample time to steady your shot. but i dont think a rabit or squirl is shooting back at you or runing at you with a knife either. I own a 1 shot 410 shotgun and doubt it would kill more than that.

30 round mag. Police officers have posted videos on youtube showing mag swaps to equal 30 rounds basically adds 2 or 3 seconds for time for three 10round mags vs one 30round. A 30rd mag is not a "need" but a "want" much like anything else in the world. We dont need phones, cars, tv, motorcycles, homes bigger than one room, ect

But most mass shootings are done with pistols and shot guns either way

[Shores]

Amen!

[Kroyleahcim]

First off GUNS are not the problem.The problem is the mindset of people that have them.

[Jaybo]

They'll pound any 'armed resistance' so far into the ground they won't even find DNA in the hole, and they'll do it from 5 miles above.

Like Korea, Vietnam, the middle east, etc.?

[BubbaKahuna]

The difference is that those wars were financed, armed & manned by governments, not disgruntled individuals.

[Jaybo]

Perhaps, but the local citizens were instrumental in winning the war, using Guerrilla tactics against a much larger and more well equipped Government, Just like in 1775

[davej]

I say punishment for the crimes committed would help. Lets start by having a Federal Death penalty for any crime conviction that is terrorist in nature and someones death was a result of the crime,Regardless of the weapon used. This would include running over people in a crowded street with a vehicle. Instead of taking away innocent Americans right to bear arms of any kind (or any other constitutional right). Instead take away this convicted persons right to appeal his/her death sentence and the sentence to be carried out within 7 days of conviction. There has never (so far) been any chance of having the wrong person on trial for theses crimes so no chance of putting the wrong person to death for these crimes.

Leave the rest of us good law abiding citizens alone and punish those that break the law, And punish harshly. until something like this happens the tragedies we see will continue to happen.
JMO

[Smokescreens]

This is from the fbi website. Homicides from 2011 to 2015 and weapon type used.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s..._2011-2015.xls

[Jaybo]

The only reason Japan did not invade the USA was that they knew most american homes had firearms. Hitler started with "gun registration" and then confiscation once he knew where all the guns were. How'd that work out?

OK, so take my guns away from me, who is going to protect me when criminals come to my home, with illegal guns leaving me without the means to protect myself and my family? The police? If I get a chance to call them. If I do, they will be likely 20 minutes away considering where I live. I have a God given right, protected by the Constitution to keep and bear arms. It shall not be infringed. It allows me to protect myself, my family and my property against all threats, foreign and domestic, including our Government.

[viking]

It is interesting to see the discussion about gun control in US. Here in Canada owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Owning a gun here is either for hunting, targets hooting or for collectors.There are strict background checks and safety courses. The storage requirements are also pretty rigorous. I do target shooting and have a few handguns. The way I store them is way above the requirements. A normal civilian in Canada cannot carry a weapon on them. I have to inform the authorities where I transport the weapon(s) to. Pretty much from my home to a few different ranges.

I personally have no ever been in a situation where I would need gun for self defense. At least not in my civilian life. Neither do I know of anyone that has. The shootings here happen mainly in the various gangs, drug deals etc.
Although there are some ppl here that do own AR-15 and similar semi auto weapons. I don't see why any civilian would need that. If you claim you need it for hunting, you should probably practice some target shooting with a rifle.
Interestingly the discussions in US are mainly about semi automatic rifles, when majority of the mass shootings have been done with handguns. Yes, it's easy to say let's not give weapons to mentally ill ppl. But in some cases the diagnosis doesn't come until after the shooting. How about making guns less accessible for everyone? I don't see why law abiding citizens would have a problem with that.
-A safety course.
-Background checks for everyone.
-Store the weapon in a manner that it cannot easily be stolen and become an illegal weapon.

It works here so why not in US. Mass shootings here are extremely rare. I doubt US has more mentally ill ppl than Canada.
Also, Trump's suggestion to bump stock ban is complete bs. I have done my military service and used many semi automatic and automatic weapons. Due to the recoil an automatic weapons tends to rise and only the first few bullets will hit your target. In semi automatic mode you have much better control of the weapon.

Just my two cents.

[Jaybo]

California by itself with 39 million people has 3 million more people than all of Canada does. at least 60% of the people there have mental issues! Didn't know there were so many crazies in Canada! You are correct, you don't *need* a gun. but in the USA we have a protected right to gun, so until that Amendment is repealed, and the following Civil war is won, I'm keeping my guns because I *want* them. Normal day to day life, nope, don't give them a thought. Some huge natural disaster, War? etc could change things drastically. When food, clean water, etc become scarce you may need the ability to defend your stuff and your life.

[Tug]

It's the mental health care laws here

[TimB]

LOL We are NOT Canada & we don't want to be

[Smokescreens]

We do have backround checks, a safty training im on board with and are required to lock them up when not being used/ carried though its not like we get random inspections so that issue would only present itself if something happens. And the mentally ill are not allowed a firearm but if its not diagnosed by a doctor it will not show in your backround check.

Its not like i am buying a candy bar at the gas staition how our media makes it sound.

[Assocracer]

Actually, in a good portion of the states, background checks are required but the seller can still decide to sell you a gun, even if you fail that background test. I've never heard of a store selling a gun to someone who failed the test, but they can if they want to. They just won't for CYA reasons. Hell, the seller can still sell the gun legally to a felon. The felon is the one breaking the law by possessing the gun. My issue is private sales. Anyone can sell anyone a gun in a private sale. The guy who shot up the Azana Spa here in Brookfield tried to buy a gun, but because he didn't pass a background check, no store would sell him one. So he went online and bought one from a private seller. The day after he got the gun, he walked into the spa and killed his ex-wife and like 4 other people before he shot himself. Personally, I think that even private gun sales should require a background check. And it should be a law that the seller CAN'T sell the gun to someone who doesn't pass said background check.

[Messer2.0]

It is interesting to see the discussion about gun control in US. Here in Canada owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Owning a gun here is either for hunting, targets hooting or for collectors.There are strict background checks and safety courses. The storage requirements are also pretty rigorous. I do target shooting and have a few handguns. The way I store them is way above the requirements. A normal civilian in Canada cannot carry a weapon on them. I have to inform the authorities where I transport the weapon(s) to. Pretty much from my home to a few different ranges.

I personally have no ever been in a situation where I would need gun for self defense. At least not in my civilian life. Neither do I know of anyone that has. The shootings here happen mainly in the various gangs, drug deals etc.
Although there are some ppl here that do own AR-15 and similar semi auto weapons. I don't see why any civilian would need that. If you claim you need it for hunting, you should probably practice some target shooting with a rifle.
Interestingly the discussions in US are mainly about semi automatic rifles, when majority of the mass shootings have been done with handguns. Yes, it's easy to say let's not give weapons to mentally ill ppl. But in some cases the diagnosis doesn't come until after the shooting. How about making guns less accessible for everyone? I don't see why law abiding citizens would have a problem with that.
-A safety course.
-Background checks for everyone.
-Store the weapon in a manner that it cannot easily be stolen and become an illegal weapon.

It works here so why not in US. Mass shootings here are extremely rare. I doubt US has more mentally ill ppl than Canada.
Also, Trump's suggestion to bump stock ban is complete bs. I have done my military service and used many semi automatic and automatic weapons. Due to the recoil an automatic weapons tends to rise and only the first few bullets will hit your target. In semi automatic mode you have much better control of the weapon.

Just my two cents.

Here's basically what I went through to get my ccw permit. Also when I renewed it I had to fill out a release of medical information so they could check my medical records and see if I had any mental issues.

[Smokescreens]

I also own 2 ar15 rifles. Its a semi auto rifle so what is the difference between another rifle? Because It looks evil? I can do way more damage with my .30-06 than my ar15's. My wife wont shoot my .30-06 because it hurts her shoulders and the ar15 has much less recoil for her. And its cheaper to fire a .223 vs a .30-06 so i can shoot it more.