[MP-Ryan]

What in the hell is going on in this thread now?

I would like the two Brits (who seem to know very little about firearms and their safe usage - no disrespect kara, while some of your position is reasonable a good chunk of it is rooted in perception), the one German (who seems to think education is bad), and the defensive Americans to all take a little break and kindly look up the facts on firearms usage in Canada in the last 20 years as an example of how proper regulation and safety training can work.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm

You don't need to ban guns.  You don't need to restrict them to the point where only a select few can access them.  You need to train people in their safe and responsible use and storage.  You need to ensure that the people who can access them have background checks and complete mandatory safety programs before they can be licensed.  You need to ensure that the licensing process is meaningful.  And you need to restrict the types of weapons that are available to the public by balancing public safety and need.

Canada has a relatively high per-capita ownership of firearms, yet we have far fewer criminal incidents and accidental deaths with guns than many comparable countries.  It's because we've regulated them - by trial and error.  Admittedly, the regulatory system went overboard when we started registering every single weapon in the country, but we've since backed away from that with the focus on regulating owners and registering only restricted weapons - the types you're not going to see an average person use for hunting or pest control.

I grew up around guns, and I've been using a firing them since I was 10.  I was properly trained in their use, and guns are neither an object of fascination to me nor an object of fear.  They are a tool with a purpose, be it defensive or recreational, and one to be treated with caution and respect.

It's pretty clear to me that people like Lorric who would advocate the banning of all weapons for frankly silly reasons don't understand the utility they have in the correct circumstances.  A lot of people in North America still hunt for sustenance (I don't, but I've a number of friends who do and deer/elk/moose can be delicious).  Lots of people here are hikers, and while I'll always prefer to use my bear spray there are times when the only weapon that will do is a firearm.

You can't approach the subject of firearms regulation in vast countries with remote areas like Canada and the US from the perspective of someone who has spent virtually their entire life in the non-remote areas of the UK.  It disrespects the nuances of the siituation.

Canada's situation makes it quite clear (Australia too, actually) that it is possible to make firearms available to certain members of the generally subject safely.  Incidentally, any youth of age 12 can obtain a Minor's license if they pass the requisite safety requirements.  There are actually provisions for youth even younger to obtain a license if they hunt for sustenance (a very real possibility in remote communities).

[Mikes]

the one German (who seems to think education is bad)

2 / 10.

[Lorric]

What in the hell is going on in this thread now?

It's pretty clear to me that people like Lorric who would advocate the banning of all weapons for frankly silly reasons don't understand the utility they have in the correct circumstances.  A lot of people in North America still hunt for sustenance (I don't, but I've a number of friends who do and deer/elk/moose can be delicious).  Lots of people here are hikers, and while I'll always prefer to use my bear spray there are times when the only weapon that will do is a firearm.

You can't approach the subject of firearms regulation in vast countries with remote areas like Canada and the US from the perspective of someone who has spent virtually their entire life in the non-remote areas of the UK.  It disrespects the nuances of the siituation.

I wish people would at least say why my reasoning, saving thousands of lives, is "silly".

I wouldn't want to take the guns away from people for who they need them for their profession or are clearly responsible owners.

The reason I would want to take them from the general population is because people are dying right now. It will save lives. Then once you've taken the guns away, you can set about enabling the people who want their guns back and are willing to put the effort in to show they are capable of using them to get their guns back through whatever gun safety/gun use program America decides to implement, and if anybody can get their guns back straight away. Those that complete the program earn a license which they can use to purchase a gun, or have their confiscated gun returned to them.

[Scotty]

What in the hell is going on in this thread now?

It's pretty clear to me that people like Lorric who would advocate the banning of all weapons for frankly silly reasons don't understand the utility they have in the correct circumstances.  A lot of people in North America still hunt for sustenance (I don't, but I've a number of friends who do and deer/elk/moose can be delicious).  Lots of people here are hikers, and while I'll always prefer to use my bear spray there are times when the only weapon that will do is a firearm.

You can't approach the subject of firearms regulation in vast countries with remote areas like Canada and the US from the perspective of someone who has spent virtually their entire life in the non-remote areas of the UK.  It disrespects the nuances of the siituation.

I wish people would at least say why my reasoning, saving thousands of lives, is "silly".

I wouldn't want to take the guns away from people for who they need them for their profession or are clearly responsible owners.

The reason I would want to take them from the general population is because people are dying right now. It will save lives. Then once you've taken the guns away, you can set about enabling the people who want their guns back and are willing to put the effort in to show they are capable of using them to get their guns back through whatever gun safety/gun use program America decides to implement, and if anybody can get their guns back straight away. Those that complete the program earn a license which they can use to purchase a gun, or have their confiscated gun returned to them.

It's silly for the same reason that trying to redraw lines on a map in Africa in order to solve that problem in that A) it will never happen, ever and B) it wouldn't work even then.

[Lorric]

What in the hell is going on in this thread now?

It's pretty clear to me that people like Lorric who would advocate the banning of all weapons for frankly silly reasons don't understand the utility they have in the correct circumstances.  A lot of people in North America still hunt for sustenance (I don't, but I've a number of friends who do and deer/elk/moose can be delicious).  Lots of people here are hikers, and while I'll always prefer to use my bear spray there are times when the only weapon that will do is a firearm.

You can't approach the subject of firearms regulation in vast countries with remote areas like Canada and the US from the perspective of someone who has spent virtually their entire life in the non-remote areas of the UK.  It disrespects the nuances of the siituation.

I wish people would at least say why my reasoning, saving thousands of lives, is "silly".

I wouldn't want to take the guns away from people for who they need them for their profession or are clearly responsible owners.

The reason I would want to take them from the general population is because people are dying right now. It will save lives. Then once you've taken the guns away, you can set about enabling the people who want their guns back and are willing to put the effort in to show they are capable of using them to get their guns back through whatever gun safety/gun use program America decides to implement, and if anybody can get their guns back straight away. Those that complete the program earn a license which they can use to purchase a gun, or have their confiscated gun returned to them.

It's silly for the same reason that trying to redraw lines on a map in Africa in order to solve that problem in that A) it will never happen, ever and B) it wouldn't work even then.

I don't know what the Africa thing refers to.

But saying it will never happen is defeatist, and of course it would work if it did.

[MP-Ryan]

Canada, a fairly heavily-armed country in terms of private ownership, has around 30 firearms per 100 residents.  So does Germany.  Switzerland is around 45.  The United States is around 88.

The US Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms.

So how, dear Lorric, do you propose to ban and remove guns in a country where they are only a few short of enough for every man, woman, and child?  Even if it were a good idea (it's not), it's not even remotely practical.

Banning weapons does not eliminate firearms deaths, either.  It can drastically reduce them, yes, but countries even with very restrictive firearms laws have equal or higher violent crime rates to those that don't.  Doesn't mean zero firearms restrictions are a good idea, but it similarly does not show that banning firearms solves the problem.

Saving thousands of lives is hyperbolic as well; a component of the murder and violent crime rates occur due to weapons of opportunity.  Sometimes those are firearms; if a gun isn't available, another weapon probably will be.  Firearms restrictions can prevent a number of accidental deaths.  In both cases, the same objective can be accomplished with the same results without a total ban on gun ownership.  Again, the situation in Canada demonstrates that quite admirably.

There are also a number of good reasons for people to own, possess, store, and use firearms.  Banning them outright doesn't acknowledge that reality, and restricting them to a tiny minority doesn't work either.  The US absolutely needs stricter firearms laws in general, but what you're proposing is just beyond reality.

This is the second time in just this thread that you've thrown out one-statement simplistic solutions to complex problems.  That doesn't help the discussion at hand, it just serves as a distraction where the rest of us are taking time out of somewhat productive discussion to correct your misconceptions.

[Lorric]

Canada, a fairly heavily-armed country in terms of private ownership, has around 30 firearms per 100 residents.  So does Germany.  Switzerland is around 45.  The United States is around 88.

The US Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms.

So how, dear Lorric, do you propose to ban and remove guns in a country where they are only a few short of enough for every man, woman, and child?  Even if it were a good idea (it's not), it's not even remotely practical.

Banning weapons does not eliminate firearms deaths, either.  It can drastically reduce them, yes, but countries even with very restrictive firearms laws have equal or higher violent crime rates to those that don't.  Doesn't mean zero firearms restrictions are a good idea, but it similarly does not show that banning firearms solves the problem.

There are also a number of good reasons for people to own, possess, store, and use firearms.  Banning them outright doesn't acknowledge that reality, and restricting them to a tiny minority doesn't work either.  The US absolutely needs stricter firearms laws in general, but what you're proposing is just beyond reality.

Hey, where did you get those stats? Does it have stats for other countries too, I'd like to see.

That is an absurd number of guns, I didn't think there were that many. If that's true, that America has 88 guns for every 100 people, then that's hundreds of millions of guns. I knew America had a gun fetish, but never in my wildest imagination did I think there would be that many.

However, this also might mean with so many gun owners, that teaching gun safety mandatorily would be impossible too.

Perhaps the removal of firearms could be done gradually, on a state by state or even city by city basis, starting with whichever state has the most gun deaths per person, and working from there. If you can't get rid of them all, then get rid of them in the worst areas.

If you want nationwide approval, you need to attack this mentality and break it down so they will accept it.

Anyway, you don't think it would do any good to take them anyway even if you could. what would you do if they put you in charge?

[MP-Ryan]

Those numbers came from a Wikipedia entry; they're a collation of national statistics.  Google firearm ownership by country.

Again, simplistic statements about complex problems.

Now, if I could be dictator-for-a-day to solve the US gun issue, I'd start by introducing legislation to make licensing mandatory, improve the scope of background checks, require a mandatory safety course in order to obtain a license, introduce mandatory laws on safe storage, and restrict the types of firearms legally allowed to be sold in the US.  Basically, I'd introduce very similar measures to what Canada currently has in place because it works.  None of those proposals infringe the 2nd amendment, all of them go toward generating a shift in attitude around firearms safety rather than lean towards bans.

[Lorric]

Those numbers came from a Wikipedia entry; they're a collation of national statistics.  Google firearm ownership by country.

Again, simplistic statements about complex problems.

Now, if I could be dictator-for-a-day to solve the US gun issue, I'd start by introducing legislation to make licensing mandatory, improve the scope of background checks, require a mandatory safety course in order to obtain a license, introduce mandatory laws on safe storage, and restrict the types of firearms legally allowed to be sold in the US.  Basically, I'd introduce very similar measures to what Canada currently has in place because it works.  None of those proposals infringe the 2nd amendment, all of them go toward generating a shift in attitude around firearms safety rather than lean towards bans.

I had a look. I wonder how countries like Afghanistan and Syria can have such tiny gun ownership figures. You get the impression on that everyone is running around with an AK47 in somewhere like Afghanistan sometimes.

Simple solutions are often the best ones.

And why would your solution be any easier to implement than taking away all guns?

[MP-Ryan]

And why would your solution be any easier to implement than taking away all guns?

Just so no one wonders why I'm no longer bothering to address Lorric's massive oversimplifications, this question is why.  Lorric - I've previously answered this - 2nd amendment, 88 firearms per 100 residents, gun culture.

[Lorric]

And why would your solution be any easier to implement than taking away all guns?

Just so no one wonders why I'm no longer bothering to address Lorric's massive oversimplifications, this question is why.  Lorric - I've previously answered this - 2nd amendment, 88 firearms per 100 residents, gun culture.

But you're still telling people they need a mandatory license and mandatory home saftey laws. If they don't, then you have to take their guns. Enforcing that on a nationwide basis would be harder than just taking people's guns one by one from each household. And they can still shove the second ammendment in your face.

[Lorric]

And why would your solution be any easier to implement than taking away all guns?

Just so no one wonders why I'm no longer bothering to address Lorric's massive oversimplifications, this question is why.  Lorric - I've previously answered this - 2nd amendment, 88 firearms per 100 residents, gun culture.

But you're still telling people they need a mandatory license and mandatory home saftey laws. If they don't, then you have to take their guns. Enforcing that on a nationwide basis would be harder than just taking people's guns one by one from each household. And they can still shove the second amendment in your face.

[NGTM-1R]

But you're still telling people they need a mandatory license and mandatory home saftey laws. If they don't, then you have to take their guns. Enforcing that on a nationwide basis would be harder than just taking people's guns one by one from each household. And they can still shove the second ammendment in your face.

Yes, yes, no, no.

[Lorric]

But you're still telling people they need a mandatory license and mandatory home saftey laws. If they don't, then you have to take their guns. Enforcing that on a nationwide basis would be harder than just taking people's guns one by one from each household. And they can still shove the second ammendment in your face.

Yes, yes, no, no.

yes,yes,explain,explain.

[NGTM-1R]

It's already been explained. Several times. MP-Ryan's patience in doing so has been astonishing.

In return all you have done is assert he is wrong without explaining yourself, so you can **** right off asking anyone for explanation of their position when you're over here saying that some is more effort than all, in an environment that wants neither, without explanation of why this could possibly be so.

[Lorric]

It's already been explained. Several times. MP-Ryan's patience in doing so has been astonishing.

In return all you have done is assert he is wrong without explaining yourself, so you can **** right off asking anyone for explanation of their position when you're over here saying that some is more effort than all, in an environment that wants neither, without explanation of why this could possibly be so.

It has not been explained.

[Mongoose]

Lorric, at the bare minimum, go educate yourself on exactly how the US Constitution functions (note that it's already been explained in this very thread) before your general ignorance on this matter frustrates the rest of us even more.

[Lorric]

Lorric, at the bare minimum, go educate yourself on exactly how the US Constitution functions (note that it's already been explained in this very thread) before your general ignorance on this matter frustrates the rest of us even more.

It has been frustrating for me too.

I will stay away from the thread for a while and let things cool down. Perhaps for a few days, perhaps forever, but If I come back, I promise I will read up on the US constitution first.

I only wanted to try and help. Sometimes a view from an outside perspective can be valuable even though it is an American problem.

[Sarafan]

Not accompanying the thread, just wanted to post the NRA's response which is hilarious, armed guards at every school, can you taste the freedom?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c1

[deathfun]

Not accompanying the thread, just wanted to post the NRA's response which is hilarious, armed guards at every school, can you taste the freedom?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=us_c1

There was another one putting veterans (armed) at every school