Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Yes, and while their debate is interesting, it's not up to me to tell Americans how they should run their shop. So I only speak for the Canadian end of things.




Handguns are the big difference, from a gun control standpoint, I think. From wiki.

   

It's also wrong. Every study that's been done shows no link between video game and real life violent tendencies.

And no one accuses the NRA of being unbiased.

   

Well, my weekend plans are set!

   

If Sasha and Malia were allowed to carry their own assault-style rifles they wouldn't even need guards.

I like the part where the need to have the family of the President of the United States protected by guards was never questioned by anyone until the past few weeks. Of course logical and reasonable people wouldn't even have formed that particular question in the first place but in a debate dominated by batshitters and conspiracists all sorts of nasty stuff is destined to float to the top.

   

Already happened. Fortunately, a well-regulated citizen was present to stop the killer.

   

I don't know about that. When I've been playing BF3 in sniper mode and I find a nice hiding spot and some little turd keeps spawning on me and giving away where I am....

   

Fair enough. Hell, I'm Canadian, but I find that there is a distinctive individualistic culture in the United States that Canadians really don't understand as well as we think. Thus, when an issue comes up like gun control, or public health care appears, things that we are either so used to, or think is common sense, go against what Americans culturally believe.



True, but, I'd place good money that a majority of those handgun murders are done with those who shouldn't even have a handgun anyway, and thus are using illegal weaponry. Banning the purchase of handguns, or even the ownership, would only make a small dent in the murder.

The United States has statistically fewer "crimes of passion" (I calculated that through one romantic partner or family member murdering another, which isn't a perfect definition, but would limit an overwhelming majority of gang murders) compared to Canada. The percentage of murders that were intimate partner homicides is 14.9% as of 2010 for Canada (89, out of 554), and 10.2% for the United States (1336 intimate murders, out of 12,996 total). A major restriction on gun purchases or ownership in the United States would probably have little impact on these types of murder. Gang violence and violence stemming from criminal activity would take a huge effort that goes far beyond just banning guns, be it poverty reduction, education, or a significant police action to seize illegally own guns in cities.

   

I feel the same about corner campers on objective based game types.

"*POW*, right in the kisser!"

   

Yes, the cultural difference is perhaps nicely summed up by the fact that both the US and Canada have as national emblems a man on horseback in the west. IN teh US, it is the cowboy, the symbol of individuality in the lawless west. In Canada, it is the Mountie--an officer of the government to bring order to the wild west.



I don't think I'd necessarily buy the "small dent" argument without evidence. Banning handguns in Canada has been pretty effective. They are pretty hard to come by, and levels of violent crime involving handguns are much lower. Cracking down on drinking driving has not eliminated it, nor will it ever, but it has resulted in signficant drops. Same with smoking. Regulation can be effective.

I think in Canada handguns are getting easier to obtain, mostly due to the rise in organized crime. I'd like to see a crackdown on that end of things myself.

   

I can't find the logic for banning assault rifles (or rather semi auto rifles) and mags larger than 10 rounds.

Rifles of all sorts are only used for a tiny number of murders, and the top 5 most commom firearms used for murders (which are the vast majority of all firearm murders) all hold less than 8 rounds.

If Obama gets all he wants, and lets say it goes even father and by magic makes all the banned stuff go away somehome, over 95% of the murders with firearms still happen like nothing changed.

How is this going to save lives?

   

The problem is that, after going through the FBI's crime statistics (admittedly, I didn't search all that energetically), I could not find the percentage of handgun murders committed by those who illegally owned such weaponry. The complete ban of handguns in some cities, like Washington D.C. did not deter handgun murder rates, but then you have the issue of guns being smuggled in from other states and such (which would technically make them illegal, but still). Cracking down on illegal weapons would probably make all the difference in US crime rates, considering, I'd argue, a majority of firearm homicides will be committed by such illegal weaponry.

Last I checked, handguns are not banned in Canada. Restricted, sure, but if you pass the right licenses and training course, you'd be able to legally purchase a handgun. A few hoops to jump through if you want to keep it at home, though.

   

It's a difficult nut to crack. Clearly in Canada, Britain, New Zealand and Australia (other English speaking developed countries), handguns are restrcited or banned and handgun homicides are an order or two of magnitude below what you see in the US.

But, as you pointed out, the cultural differences are huge. One uncomfortable question--if you took white crime in the US and compared it to these other countries, what would it look like. Xort pointed that out, and, liberal that I am, I still had to say the numbers were surprising and persuasive.

   

Think I was unclear. I'll rephrase...

"Insert Muslim instead of 'gun owners'

Sorry for the confusion.

   

From today's White House press release here is the summary of the 23 Executive Orders His Imperial Majesty issued today:

Good luck with that. Federal agencies treat their info as gold. They'll never just give it away to another agency so that agency can claim their budget money.



Um, yeah. The meat of this one is the requirement that psychiatrists void their oaths regarding patient confidentiality. The lawsuits will be fun to watch. It also does the opposite of preventing another Newtown because people will shy away from seeking mental health care if they know it's going to get them a visit from the DHS SWAT team.



What information? Some states have laws restricting this kind of thing in order to prevent the Federal government from compiling an illegal national firearms registry list.



They're not doing this already? Oh, wait, yes they are. BATFE has had access to violent offender and lists of committed individuals since 1986. So this does nothing than restate a law from the Reagan era.



Instant background checks are available nationwide for law enforcement. Nothing was stopping this from being done before.



This happened in 1989. Since then it's been illegal for private transfers without a FFL holder involved who runs all applicable Federal and State background checks.



Like the ones the NRA has run for over a century?



This one is going to be hairy. Does it make the CPSC a police agency that will have the authority to keep lists of who owns a gun safe?



This one is funny because right now a fair percentage of such guns can be traced right back to the Obama Administration's 'Fast and Furious' program that ran illegal guns into Mexico.



The FBI NICS database already does this.

Obama's ordering HIMSELF to do something?



Oh, you mean send all these people to NRA training programs at no expense to the taxpayers? Or will this cost us another billion dollars we don't have?



They're not doing these things already?



Contempt of Congress. The Congress already specifically prohibited the CDC from conducting this politically charged kind of 'research' and the Congress specifically prohibited any funding for this. In short, this one is DOA.



Right, require gun makers to employ non-existent or technologically absurd technologies like 'microstamping'.



That needed an Executive Order? To call a meeting?

In all, I see a lot of masturbatory fluff here in conjunction with Obama picking fights with Congress over stuff in laws that he had previously negotiated in good faith. Except that he lied.

This will all surely turn out well. That whole debt ceiling discussion is going to go to pieces now that Obama is on record confronting Congress and double-dealing even the Democrats who passed his health care act.

   

Just goes to show what little power a President actually has.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next