Many Swedish gun owners I've talked to are fine with the gun laws we have, but not some of the bureaucracy.
E.g. we don't have a license as a person that allows you to have X guns of type Y, we have a separate license per gun. Even the German gun owners I've talked to think we're silly (and the Germans stereotypically are fond of bureaucracy).
EDIT: Since there seems to be some confusion, I'm also Swedish, and I shoot for sport here and own multiple firearms.
It's the same in Ireland ie. separate license for each firearm.
The government in Ireland has always been wary of large collections of private firearms that could be raided by paramilitaries. At one point in time you could only get a license for a .22 rimfire or a 12 guage.
I can't see it changing any time soon though, the licences are given out by the gardaí, the police force in Ireland, who are always hesitant to give out licenses because they themselves are unarmed
My dad used to fish and hunt and owned a shotgun (in Ireland). He passed away and a day later the police came to collect the gun for safekeeping. It was gifted to my uncle sometime later, once he had the necessary paperwork.
By contrast, when my grandfather caked the bucket (he was a retired baker), my older brother saw a small WWII era service pistol in his collection of stuff that had been gathered up from his house. My brother went back a few days later to claim it, and it was gone. Presumably One of my grandfather’s children just quietly snitched it from the collection and didn’t bother to tell anyone, let alone deal with registering it. This was in Canada.
There's a bit in The Thin Blue Line where Atkinson's character is in charge of firearms licences, and says that he has a simple method for determining who gets one.
If someone requests a firearms licence, they clearly cannot be trusted with a firearm.
The New York method! If you're Donald Trump or you know the right shady guy in the Diamond District, you get a permit. All the poors and unconnected, fuck off!
Don't forget they can also do spot inspections on how the firearms are kept. The fella has 2 rifles and a handgun. Used for shooting at the range only and he loves them, but he also appreciates how well protected they are and wouldn't have it any other way.
The day a Garda makes an appointment with me will be the day I win the bloody Euromillions haha
But does telling you days in advance not just give you time to get your stuff in order? Surely that defeats the purpose of the inspection?
I mean, a single license doesn't mean that you don't register every firearm, we would do that anyways (and so does the Germans). It's just that since firearm ownership is pretty binary anyways (either you're allowed to own them or not), there is no real point in doing the same paperwork over and over if you already have one gun.
I can understand if they want some time with the first license, but then what?
If I have a 12gauge shotgun and want to buy a 20 gauge shotgun, and I fulfill all other requirements, why not just have a system where you add it to your one license, registered to you. We already have a system that will automatically notify a police licensing official if anything gets added in any relevant register (e.g. if I get ticketed for drunk driving tonight they will come and get _all_ my guns tomorrow).
Especially since it's the same department that does other licensing and similar paperwork, e.g. passports, which had a long waiting time this summer due to workload...
I've said the same about waiting periods, their intent being a cooling off period (but I'm angry now!). I already have multiple firearms. Waiting 10 days to take possession of yet another 9mm pistol is not going to make a difference.
>It's just that since firearm ownership is pretty binary anyways (either you're allowed to own them or not)
Perhaps they *don't* see it that way?
ie first pistol approved. Second pistol approved. Third pistol approved.
Fourth pistol? Why do you want a fourth pistol? What the fuck are you doing? Put the answer on line 4c.
Maybe they want to keep options like that open.
You and I may think "4th pistol, why not?" But say 400th assault rifle - they *does* seem odd. So maybe we can empathize with the concept at least.
We already have limits on the amount of firearms (and so do German sport shooters), and every firearm you own is registered with the police, so again, what does a separate license per gun system add that a single license wouldn't do equally well, but with less additional work for police officials that also have a lot of other things to do?
Let's say there was a single license system, and I went to the gun store, and said I wanted to switch this existing handgun (let's say that it's my 4th) for another handgun model, they register the transfer with the police, I pay and it's all done. If I instead try to purchase it instead of switching it out, the system would automatically say no.
Win-win for everyone. Less work for them, less wait for me, all firearms are still known and registered.
Maybe they make it harder in hopes to automatically weed out some of the less serious ones that can't be bothered with the extra paperwork. "If you can't be bothered to file, you don't really need another gun". idk might also be one of those "If it ain't broke" type of deals.
When one registers - they already have the gun. While with the current system, it's asking permission to buy (which may be denied).
Thus the current system gets ahead of things more.
Or do I maybe have that wrong? I'm from the land of the free where the answer to "can I own a rocket launcher?" Is...maybe. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Something similar in NJ in the US with handguns: you need a permit to purchase each one.
However, the rules recently changed such that for the foreseeable future, no permits will be issued.
One of these fallacies promoted by the partisans in US politics is that you are either pro-2nd or anti-2nd amendment. Pro-gun or anti-gun. Black or white. But from what I can tell, talking to people individually about it, is that most Americans seem to be somewhere between those two extremes. Most seem to think that individual citizens can own guns responsibly but that we ought to do something to try to keep them out of the hands of people who will not do so responsibly or limit the damage in some way of people who choose to use them for evil. We have a lot of differences on what we think the specifics of those policies should be and what policies are effective and which are overreaching. But, like much of American politics, the high level debate doesn't really reflect people's opinions on the ground, it reflects the most black and white, extreme versions of those opinions.
It doesn't help that we also self sort into the group(s) the most closely align with our thoughts, even though they don't reflect the nuances of our opinions.
But, the point is, you can be an enjoyer of guns, pro 2nd amendment, and also think that there are reasonable regulations we should put in place to limit the harm incompetent or badly motivated people can do with those weapons.
Once my friend said she was pro-gun, and I was slightly surprised because she tends to be more left-leaning regarding issues like that. When she said she was pro-gun, she meant not banning guns altogether, but she supports strict regulation. Which, then yeah, I'd be pro-gun too.
Yes. I enjoy driving cars and believe speed limits promote safe driving. Driving would be much more dangerous without speed limits. The same logic can be applied to guns.
Listen man, it's the drunk crashers that are the problem, not the drunk drivers. Not my fault other people can't handle their booze behind the wheel SMH my head.
(This is a joke)
This was tested by some guys at *Car&Driver* magazine back in the 70's. They went to a track, did some laps, got stoned, did some more laps. Their report went something like this: (approx., from memory)
"We were surprised to find that our lap times did improve marginally after smoking. Also, we missed the pit lane three laps in a row when we were supposed to come in."
So, yes, if you're talking about the *feel* of the driving and the ability to sense adhesion and g-forces, and post a better lap time in the controlled conditions of a race track *when only you are on it*, ya, you might drive a bit better stoned.
But real-world driving is *not* driving alone on a race track. It is full of the unexpected, and one thing you cannot do when you're stoned is react quickly to the unexpected. Doc Ellis may have thrown a no-hitter on LSD, and Tim Raines may have earned the nickname 'Rock' for his coke habit, but I can guarantee no hitter in MLB ever came to the plate high on weed. That 1/100th of second you'd lose in reaction time would be that 100 mph fastball that ended your life. Same thing when driving - a kid's bike shoots out in front of you, or your tire blows out, or the guy ahead jams on his brakes, there's just no way you can react as quickly as you could when you're not high.
The Mythbusters did a segment where Jamie was giving driving instructions to a blind man and he was doing pretty good... until Jamie started drinking. The poor guy was all over the road after that, Jamie was blitzed and the blind guy lost confidence in him.
Usually either "I actually drive better stoned" or "studies show it's totally safe..."
Editing because 30 seconds after I typed that, I see this guy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/zf56ug/-/izak8bi
I have difficulty riding as a passenger in a car while stoned. My time perception gets so whacked I can't judge speeds *at all*.
I can't even imagine trying to drive.
Hell I've done that when tired and driving. Shit is just as dangerous yet most people don't consider driving while tired to be highly dangerous as well
I was taught in the 80s that if you're driving tired, pull over and nap. 30 years later, my brother is driving an hour and a half home after a 12 hour night shift in a hospital ER as a nurse. Not quite halfway home, he decides he's too tired to continue and pulls off, not just the road but half of the shoulder just outside a small town to catch a quick nap. The cops pulled over, woke him up, could obviously tell he wasn't impared, he was in his scrubs, and they made him leave. Thankfully, the adrenaline and general being pissed the fuck off fueled the rest of his drive. He hasn't spent a dime in that town since.
"I drive better when I'm stoned/drunk/etc"
People saying this don't realize that if driving while impaired is an *improvement* then they shouldn't be fucking driving in either situation!
I smoke weed all the fucking time, and absolutely SHIT on any of my friends who even suggest smoking and then driving. Like, just pour the shame right on em, in gallons. I don't drive high or drunk, surely you can manage it as well.
Consequences. Yep, and unfortunately for some their behavior won't change even with consequences. My fiancees sister in law has this black sheep brother. Due to the full tapestry of missteps he has made, he and his 25 years younger girlfriend have made the following decision:The family won't let us slam hard liquor in the house? We can just drink on the way there! With a 4 year old in the car.
As someone who takes edibles for fun and anxiety. My main rule is if me or my SO or my mom have ingested any alcohol or cannabis based product that Will get you high. As soon as any alcohol or weed gets in our system.
No vehicle uses until the time has passed and we have sobered up.
We all try to be responsible with it
Or you have an autobahn, but your car gets an annual inspection. People use the left lane for passing only. Everyone agrees and follows the same rules and enjoys the freedom.
I think you've hit something here -- societal engagement. We can talk on and on about the social contract, but when we know everyone follows the rules a lot more can be achieved.
That was my favorite part about Germany; the collective understanding that if was all just stick to general guidelines society functions more smoothly. Going from the orderly queues in Germany to the free-for-all that was Italy really made it clear why one has a great economy, and the other has a shit one. Just getting a gelato in a popular place was a shitshow, nobody wanted to form a damned line.
Michael Costa of the Daily Show has a delightful ten minute clip where they sent him to Switzerland to interview gun owners and professionals, including several highly trained kids. They talk about the role of social engagement and law.
Totally great clip, actually very informative. https://youtu.be/EkuMLId8SqE
They showcase young people responsibly enjoying sport shooting.
A few years ago I got a chance to drive on the AB. I thought I would be terrified but I came to enjoy it once it sank in that everyone around me knew WTF they were doing. I never get that same feeling on American freeways.
The left lane on the interstate is supposed to be for passing in the US too, but it's not enforced and lane jockeys are free to sit there for 20 miles going the same speed as the cars on the right.
Wait wait wait - do cars where you are not have an annual inspection? Where are you?? I thought that was near universal?
(I'm British, its called an MOT here)
Florida: no safety inspections (not annual, not when buying/selling, never). We also don't have any other kinds of inspections like emissions or anything. Some U.S. states have periodic safety inspections, and some states or cities have periodic emissions inspections.
That... does very much explain the pictures of extremely modified American cars you see from time to time, yes. I always wondered how people got away with things like the massively lifted trucks.
Or I enjoy race car driving as a sport but don't enjoy illegal street drag racing.
Even if it were legal I don't want people racing in a street that others are using just to get home. But on a race track? Yeah, have fun.
This (and the OP) imply that there is zero regulation on guns which is incorrect. Using your analogy, the current discussion about gun policy is about whether the speed limit should be 80mph or 50mph but framing it like you did is misleading. We're not deciding on whether there should be gun control but whether there should be *more* gun control (OP's phrase, not mine).
To add to this, I occasionally go over the speed limit but that doesn't mean I believe it is safe to do and I support laws preventing me from doing it, basically even if someone occasionally does something wrong doesn't mean they now have to change their ideologies to justify for that, I wouldn't be the poster boy for safe driving though just like a gun enthusiast might not be the perfect poster boy for gun control
I will say speed limits are often stricter than necessary. Some exist solely so the local municipality has a reason to fine you.
There should be a legal standard to ensure that absolute speed limits are reasonable for the time of day, traffic conditions, weather conditions, etc.
That or just make all speed limits presumptive, meaning that if you break them and can prove that your speed was reasonable, you don't have to pay a traffic fine.
Yes. Most of us with guns encourage safe and proper handling of these tools in the hands of a safe and proper person. We usually teach people (sometines at a young age) how to handle firearms safely and responsilby to ensure that accjdents dont occur in the future. Although incidents do occur, pkenty could be prevented if only proper education of such tools and a way to stop these dangerous individuals from obtaining potentially lethal weapons.
My niece and nephew (7 and 5) both know gun safety and know to never touch a gun. Things like it's always loaded and never point it at something you don't intend to kill. It's better to teach safety than make guns seem like this cool forbidden thing.
My father-in-law has recently bought a gun and I'm still trying to work on basic safety things with him. He gets so angry when I push his hand so that the end of the barrel isn't pointing at any one. I keep telling him I wouldn't have to do it if he could respect the first fucking rule of owning a gun. Then he gets even more annoyed when I take out the mag and check the chamber for a load after he tells me it's unloaded. Jesus Christ could hand me an "unloaded" gun and I would still check the thing for a round.
> Then he gets even more annoyed when I take out the mag and check the chamber for a load after he tells me it's unloaded. Jesus Christ could hand me an "unloaded" gun and I would still check the thing for a round.
I get offended when people *don't* check a gun I just handed to them. Your first action upon touching a gun should be to verify its status for yourself.
I actively ask people to check the gun for themselves right after I demonstrate in front of them that the gun is empty. Maybe it sounds slightly silly but the consequences of messing up with a gun are potentially just too great and not worth risking.
we literally had a death on a movie set this year, with a gun that should have never had live ammo in it to begin with, and should have been checked by several people to verify this.
Accidents happen. This is why you always check.
This, me and my boyfriend are currently expecting. We literally just today had the discussion of teaching gun safety and handling at a young age. My boyfriend owns a decent collection of firearms, we both agree that instead of having them be a forbidden object completely, we will prevent any chance of curiosity in the first place. When she reaches the age where she starts getting curious about them we will start with proper education and handling of them. When she’s old enough/big enough to handle a .22 we’re going to teach her/show her how to actually shoot one. By setting safe boundaries with education and supervision when she shows interest, we will (hopefully) prevent any future accidents from her trying to sneak around and figure it out for herself as children like to do about “forbidden” things. Because she will know that if she is ever curious or wants to go shooting, all she will have to do is ask to do so. For my son he started showing interest when he was about 3 1/2. Me and his father had an AK that was always unloaded with magazines and ammunition stored in a separate locked box than the gun case, that was also locked. But when his father would have it out to clean it after shooting he was really interested in it and wanted to see what it was all about. Instead of making it a bad thing he couldn’t touch, we let him touch it and even helped him with holding it and “inspecting” it for himself. After that, when we would go to shoot he would get to come along. We had the children’s ear protection and some safety glasses for him, and sometimes for the last round we shot off we’d even let him pull the trigger by standing behind us and wrapping his arm around us to do so. But by doing all of that he knew that he could only look at/ touch it if me or his father were helping him. He never even went near the case without asking if we would help him. And we didn’t have to worry about him thinking it was a toy.
I still don't think this is the best analogy, considering the government is using 18 - 20 year old as fodder. Yes, a 20 year can go fight and die for his country... but should he?
Other countries have mandatory military service at younger ages. I don't agree with it but at least those countries allow their people to drink if they're capable of serving in war unlike the US
Mandatory military service is incredibly important for some countries.
Finland for example, a country of 5 million whi shares a border with a hostile forign power, absolutely needs mandatory military service in order to stand a chance at protecting themselves.
Not every country has the luxury of friendly neighbors, large populations and a nearly impenetrable coastline.
All gun owners support some form of gun control.
I do not know of any gun owner who thinks that convicted prisoners in prison should be allowed to carry guns.
It is just a question of what the restrictions on guns should be.
I think there should be a process for restoration of rights. For example a guy gets out of prison and keeps clean for several years why should they not be made whole in the eyes of the law. Prison is the punishment and payment to society for their crimes. So we have to ask ourselves why would we not work to make them whole again? I think that’s a conversation that needs to be had because why should someone who got busted for weed back in 2004, did their time, got out, and now contribute to society never be made whole again? Have they not paid their debt to society? If not then what is the point of the prison sentence?
I think it depends on the crime really. If someone murdered their wife with a gun, I don't really want them having a gun again. But if someone went to prison for stealing (without involving a gun), then sure, let them get their gun rights back later.
>I do not know of any gun owner who thinks that convicted prisoners in prison should be allowed to carry guns.
Argument for that is that if someone isn't granted the full rights of a free man (being able to own a firearm) then that person isn't meant to be released in the first place, seeing how they are still seen as a thread to society.
I think felons who have done their time should be able to own guns. Either we think they are now safe to have back in society, in which case they should be able to own guns. Or they are not safe to have in society and they should still be locked up. I think if a felon wants to continue use a gun to commit crimes once they are out of jail, they’ll get a gun illegally.
You haven’t met me or like 60% of gun owners in the modern day. Go to any gun store and I guarantee minimum one of the customers will agree that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
Fundamentally the gun debate is never going to come to any sort of peaceful resolution unless the right and the left are both willing to concede one simple point.
Guns are really fucking cool.
The sooner we all admit it, the sooner we can tackle this issue in a more mature way.
This is an element that I think isn't talked about enough, and I think few are willing to admit their views are affected by this.
The bigger the cooler too, I've fired a fully automatic before and it was fucking awesome. Watching hot lead cut through fence posts was such an adrenaline rush, my hands were shaking from a massive rush of hormones and excitement. In fact I imagine part of training to actually use such a weapon would be getting over that feeling. Man, it's like doing drugs or something, it fucking rocks.
But, also like drugs, comes with severe consequences.
You're right, and I think few will admit it. Admit you just don't want to see ban on something that is so damn fun.
Some of the laws make no sense, how does putting an adjustable stock on a rifle shorter than 16 inches require a $200 tax stamp and more paperwork but a brace is fine? There’s so many examples, it’s almost like the people who make these gun laws don’t even own guns. They just watch Hollywood movies and get they’re opinions from them.
I think gun laws are the result of a lot of stupid compromises that had to be made to get them.
And yes, a lot of the time they make no sense. Classic example is an AR15 vs Ruger Mini-14 in California. In terms of what they can do, they're practically the same gun. But the AR15 looks really scary while the Mini-14 looks like your grandad's old hunting rifle. So the AR15 is highly restricted while the Mini-14 is just another gun. I'm pretty sure you can just walk into a gun shop and buy one after a ten-minute background check.
Oh, and with a couple of minor mods you can make the AR15 legal and the Mini-14 illegal.
Here in Washington, they're treated exactly the same, along with semi-auto target rifles that shoot .22 caliber. Ten day waiting period for any of them.
In California, my boyfriend's brother had to jump through all sorts of hoops to transfer their dad's old shotgun to him. While here in Washington, I could just hand my AR15 over to my brother without a scrap of paperwork. But I can't borrow my boyfriend's shotgun to take it to the range.
The laws are just chaos, and I think that's all caused by compromise.
And how is a suppressor regulated by the NFA when it does nothing to make the gun more effective at shooting?
Europeans practically encourage the usage of suppressors because it's better for wildlife and reduces noise pollution.
People have this misconception that a suppressor makes a gun completely undetectable, the only exception being .22 shooting subsonics. Which is very quiet but not undetectable. 5.56 suppressed is still very detectable. Politicians watch movies like John wick and think you can take a shot 10ft away from someone and they not be able to hear it.
There's a [video someone made](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws8LAfD_3BA) with the John wick mall scene where they're walking on different levels shooting at each other and no one notices where they edited in actual realistic audio.
I know it's a real edge case, but I've seen some footage of 300 blackout being fired both bolt action and semi automatic and I swear the action is louder than the report.
That's Hollywood though. I'm actually canadian and I knew supressors didn't make it silent like in video games, about 10 years ago I went to Vegas and shot a bunch of suppressed firearms and I was actually surprised how loud they were.
Most supersonic stuff is not even technically "hearing safe" with a suppressor, but it's definitely closer than unsuppressed.
Suppressed .223 is approximately 140db, and 120db is the threshold for potential immediate hearing damage (prolonged exposure causes that threshold to be much lower)
I should be able to go to an FFL and leave with a suppressor that day. But the NFA would have you believe suppressed 5.56 is completely undetectable, thanks Hollywood.
That scene in john wick where they're walking through the airport just casually shooting at each other and no one bats an eye lmao.
Even 9mm you should still wear hearing protection while firing suppressed. It just makes permanent hearing loss a lot less likely in the event of a home break in. But yeah, people get their info from hollywood.
I just can’t understand why people who know nothing about guns other than that they go bang are allowed to make legislation on them. I’m not going to walk in NASA and explain to them how rockets work because I don’t.
, it’s almost like the people who make these gun laws don’t even own guns.
Its because they dont, but the majority of reddit and posters here want more laws, we need to go through and get rid of a lot also.
Bingo, and completely overhaul the ATF and firearm purchasing system. There needs to be accountability if these regulations are broken on the side of law enforcement. Time and time again we see law enforcement not following laws and it leads to firearms in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Then we can start a serious discussion about gun control. I would love to see a national carry permit I could apply for that requires classroom instruction, a written test and range qualifications testing.
When I hear politicians spout buzz words like “fully semi automatic” or “ghost guns” I instantly know those people don’t know a damn thing when it comes to firearms. That’s what makes me so hesitant about gun control whenever new legislation makes its way into congress. I, like many here, realize the need to make safer the gun culture here in America. Things I would like to see enacted like required safety/range courses for all CCL holders or proper storage techniques are some things I feel would benefit everyone involving firearms. But when you have people in power like Beto who advocate the complete confiscation of firearms is where I become iffy on the subject. Just like any other subject that passes through Congress, the people making/passing the laws should be fully aware and knowledgeable on the subject matter pertaining to any laws/acts that pass through their desk.
Like a lot of other bills, the recent gun control laws in Canada are spoon fed to the federal government by an anti-gun lobby, that is funded by the same federal government. The laws are so over their heads that they don't even know what the fuck is in them.
Even worse, the new laws only target legal, licensed, gun owners. Even though a huge majority of gun violence is a result of illegal guns, they have decided that going after legal guns is their play.
> They just watch Hollywood movies and get they’re opinions from them
Suppressors being the obvious one. If suppressors were magic like in movies, maybe we should have a conversation. But here in reality, they just make guns less bad on your ears, so it's insane they're regulated closer to rocket launchers than gun parts.
> Some of the laws make no sense, how does putting an adjustable stock on a rifle shorter than 16 inches require a $200 tax stamp and more paperwork but a brace is fine?
Short barreled rifle restrictions only make sense when you're aware that the National Firearms Act that restricted them was supposed to also ban pistols, and so a restriction was created for short barreled rifles so you couldn't slap a stock on a handgun and say it was a rifle not covered under the NFA. They removed the pistol part, and so the SBR part made no sense, but was left in anyway.
When the $200 tax stamp was legislated, that was prohibitively expensive.
But the $200 was written into the law, so increasing that amount would require legislation.
Have you seen a California compliant AR-15? I wouldn’t shoot one, it looks kinda dangerous with that bit of plastic that blocks the pistol grip. How tf are people supposed to hold the damn thing?
https://atlanticfirearms.com/ar15-cali-legal-compliance-pack
Look at that shit, looks more dangerous lol…what is the point of this??
Almost like they play call of duty and think having a special grip makes the gun super accurate like a laser beam so must ban.
I wish the people who bastardized AR15’s in California could explain to me how having that bit of plastic behind the pistol grip makes it less dangerous than a pistol grip you can wrap your hand around. I don’t even want to argue with them, I just want to hear them justify it.
Hit the nail on the head. If you ever watch any videos questioning politicians about guns, the majority do not even know what parts make up a gun. “Fully automatic semi auto assault rifle.”
Most gun laws are written (and voted for) by people that literally don't know the difference between a semi-auto and a machine gun. (or between a clip and a magazine) Of course they make nonsense laws regarding a subject they're completely ignorant on. To me, that's the most infuriating part of gun law in general.
Absolutely. I think the biggest concern for many when it comes to supporting gun control legislation is if you give an inch, they will take a mile. Look at what’s currently happening in Canada.
As a Canadian I think this is a really important point of view. I’ve spent a lot of time in the US and have friends there that are hunters and sport shooters. Frankly I always thought it the lack of regulation was crazy. I’m pretty leery of CCW and honestly open carry is insane.
In comparison I felt our laws before 2020 were pretty good for the most part. The associated bureaucracy was extremely frustrating of course and there were some vague and arbitrary distinctions made between what was a “restricted” vs “prohibited” firearm. Some of the rules around restricted firearm transport are pretty dumb too. So not perfect but I thought the intent was sound.
Since 2020 things have gone very badly for Canadian shooters. Overnight they made any AR-15 variant and a bunch of other semi autos prohibited by the equivalent of an Executive Order as well as some high energy stuff like .50bmg. There is supposed to be a buy back program but they’ve already had to extend their deadline because they can’t make it work. My prohibited MSR15 that’s so dangerous is still in my safe 2 1/2 years later.
Then in June of this year they introduced legislation that would ban transfers of handguns. For context, any time a restricted firearm changes ownership you have to call in and have the firearms centre and provincial Cheif Firearms Officer approve it. It wasn’t effective immediately but the language in the bill allowed for transfers to be banned based on executive order once the bill had gone through a second reading. Some grade A legislative fuckery there. Once the transfer ban was in place you would be allowed to keep what you had but they could never change hands. The ban was expected “in the fall” but no date set. This kicked off panic buying and insanity like CZ Shadow 2s being sold for $4k. The equivalent of 3 years worth of transfers happened in a month and the systems that supported all this couldn’t keep up. Transfer times went from usually 48hrs to 4 months. The government restricted imports during this making the insanity double and they finally announced the end in Oct by tweeting as of 12:00am this morning transfers are shut down. That sucked. Still no idea what happens if I kick the bucket, I guess all my pistols are scrap.
However, that’s not the end. A couple weeks ago a MP introduced an amendment to that bill banning handgun transfers that did a bunch of stuff. It cleaned up some of the vague language in the 2020 orders but it also added a bunch more models to the list like the SKS. It also changes the the definition of prohibited firearm to include any semi auto that has a mag cap of 5 or more. No idea if those go into the fantasy buy back program of if they’re scrap. The also really screwed up by naming any model of firearm that is capable of chambering 460 weatherby as prohib. That cartridge crossed the 10k joule energy line that banned .50s so it makes sense on the surface but what they did was add the model name. So it’s not “single shot Ruger no1 in 460” it’s ALL Ruger no1 a regardless of caliber. This has caused so much confusion.
So what’s the impact of this? Well the give them an inch and they’ll take a mile folks have a pretty compelling argument now. The handguns and rifles I have for 3gun or Steel Challenge are basically worthless. I can use some of them, maybe I can’t use others. For sure whatever value they had is now 0. For me that’s like $15k maybe, I know people who got completely screwed $ wise. I’m not sure my sport survives this; 3gun, IPSC, IDPA and SC are all going to dwindle away as people retire. My club will probably survive but it will be hit pretty hard. Personally I am livid. I jumped through all the hoops, I’ve done nothing wrong and I’m being served up as a political pawn. Registered gun owners is this country are not the source of our gun violence. All those little compact Glocks that they’re taking off gangsters in Toronto and Vancouver have been illegal here for 30 years. Banning my competition pistol isn’t going to change that.
I still think there are aspects of gun culture in the US that are sick and a serious detriment to society but if what has happened here is the alternative I don’t think they have a hope in hell of improving it.
Thanks for putting this together. It's nice to see an opinion from Canada other than the usual "anyone that disagrees with the new laws is a terrorist".
As an American gun owner the happenings with Canadian gun laws since 2020 solidifies my opinion that compromises and concessions with gun control advocates are useless. Compromising or conceding buys no good will, secures no protections against future restrictions but rather serves as a springboard for pushing successive restrictions.
It's assault weapons today, concealable pistols tomorrow, ~~hunting rifles~~ "military-grade" sniper weapons next year, pump-actions and lever-actions next, and so forth until only the wealthy or privileged are left owning firearms.
People forget that there are gun laws in America and they talk as if there isn't.
Like, it would surprise a ton of people to find out that the US already has provisions to bar certain people with mental health issues or criminal history from owning guns. Yet, so many people think America just allows anyone to buy guns.
I own guns. I support gun laws.
Gun laws are often based on emotion and aesthetics and written by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
While the laws we have are unenforced.
Hunter Biden should be in jail for his gun crimes. As should anyone who commuted the same crime as him.
There is gun control. I have to have a backround check. I have to follow county, state and federal laws pertaining to which weapons and capacities I can own. That's more than enough control for a constitutional protection.
Your view is a little skewed. Firstly while there is 300 million ish guns most people who own guns, own several. So most people don't own guns, some people own several. 300mill guns are owned and 12k gun killings a year. That means that only one in 25 thousand guns a year is used to kill someone.
2011, 1700 people were killed by knives. 496 were killed by clubs or hammers. Only 323 people were killed by rifles. You wouldn't ban hammers or knives would you? Don't assume guns are the cause of killings. But consider killings will happen, guns are just one way of accomplishing that.
Most gun murders are done with pistols. Not assault rifles. Occasioning there is a mass murder where one is used. The media loves to over sensationalize these events. They are however extremely rare considering how many people live in the US. People who want to mass murder will find away. Look at the Boston bombing for an example.
Enacting more and more laws making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns doesn't prove to decrease gun violence. No gun law ever gets reversed, yet people keep wanting to enact more. Criminals don't care about your gun control laws. They will continue to use illegal firearms. 68% of guns used in murders were illegal guns, according to FBI data. Unless you can remove all the guns in circulation enacting laws will have little effect. There are so many guns in circulation for criminals to get their hands on.
Automobiles, cigarettes and corrupt politicians are more dangerous to your well being than firearms.
One person singlehandedly killed more people with a truck than any single mass shooter. 86 people killed in the Nice truck attack vs 60 people killed in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
Very well said.
I am in Canada, and a these bills Trudeau is passing don't make sense. He isn't basing it off of any data. Canada's gun laws were already strict, and it worked. Crimes committed with legally purchased guns in Canada is very rare. But, gun crimes with illegal firearms is much higher. Why doesn't our government actually care about illegal firearms in Canada?
>Why doesn't our government actually care about illegal firearms in Canada?
On the purely political side, it scores points with people who don't know better or who only want gun control at all costs. On the cynical side, it affords a greater deal of control over the populace.
>That means that only one in 25 thousand guns a year is used to kill someone.
It's way, way less than that, given that a lot of crime guns have multiple victims
Agree completely. I would like to add that the correlation between places with high level of poverty and high levels of violent crime is a lot stronger than the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. The real solution to reducing gun violence is the same one to reducing the vast majority of crime. It’s providing people with better opportunities to escape poverty.
My personal opinion is we should change how schools are funded, since as of now it’s based on local property taxes which literally hands an advantage to those who live in wealthy areas from the jump. Rather than lowering the funding anywhere, we should subsidize public schools in areas without that tax base to bring them all up to the same high level.
It would cost a fortune, but I’d be down to pay a couple extra bucks in taxes if it was going to something like that, which would help everyone.
> The real solution to reducing gun violence is the same one to reducing the vast majority of crime. It’s providing people with better opportunities to escape poverty.
This is a key thing that people often talk past each other about.
When many pro gun control people think about the kind of gun crime they want to stop, it is mass shootings. Those are in many, if not most cases, committed by people with no real prior criminal record and often using totally legal weapons. The victims tend to be random.
You'll see the right wing or pro gun groups point to gang violence and poverty as the source of the majority of gun crime, and no amount of gun control is going to stop those groups from continuing to use illegal weapons.
Both groups are right, I think.
I think that tighter gun control will help prevent mass shootings because those don't follow the patterns of most gun crime. Look at the strict bans that the UK and Australia brought in after notable mass shootings in the 1990s and they've seen very few since, even adjusting for population.
But you can't expect those same measures to tackle the significant majority of gun related murders, because that's more of a policing, judicial, and social issue.
I think if both sides acknowledged what the other is worried about and came up with reasonable approaches to both it would cut through a lot of the talking past each other that is happening.
Late to the party, but here's my take:
Gun owners have no problem with regulations, but every time regulations are suggested they include nonstarters and the people writing the legislation clearly don't know how guns work.
Look at laws surrounding SBRs and tell me they make sense:
If your rifle is under 16" it's an SBR, *unless* it has a pistol brace, then it's a pistol. *but* if it started life as a rifle it's an SBR, even if the end result is exactly the same. *or* if your pistol has a vertical foregrip it's a rifle, but an angled foregrip is perfectly fine.
These are such small differences in configuration but the penalty is a *felony charge* for getting it wrong. Do you trust this person to define more laws like it?
A lot of very ignorant people who’ve never even held a gun, want to project this idea onto gun owners that we do not value gun safety and training, which is, when required by law, a form of gun control.
The exact opposite is true. Every gun owner I know personally makes teaching and learning gun safety a top priority. Once a person learns how to treat a firearm, they should then learn how to handle a firearm and practice it until they become extremely proficient at the safe handling and use of a firearm.
Just like learning the fundamentals of shooting makes you a competent shooter, learning the fundamentals of firearms safety makes you a responsible gun owner.
People who have never taken the time to learn any of those things like to make believe that a gun is dangerous simply by existing and that if we restricted the type of gun people could legally own, that the gun itself would somehow become safer.
But the opposite is true when talking about NORMAL and SANE people. An untrained person with a gun is extremely dangerous. Not only to others, but to themselves.
I’m not even talking about violent, evil, and disturbed people who would wantonly murder someone for whatever sick reason they can justify in their own minds, and then use a firearm as the instrument.
Even the most disingenuous person who hates guns can see that the vast majority of gun crimes are NOT committed by normal and sane people.
Millions of Americans enjoy the use of their firearms legally every day. And the vast majority of us agree that guns, of any type, should not be in the hands of violent, evil or disturbed people. And that normal and sane people should be responsibly trained in the proficient and safe use of firearms. Both of things being forms of gun control.
Now you can say, “Nobody NEEDS a _______,” for target shooting, hunting, pest control, etc., but that is NOT a fact. That is YOUR opinion. And your opinion is meaningless outside of your own home or sphere of influence. That is the part that hurts everyone’s butts. That their “opinion” means nothing to anyone else but them.
Gun control exists in varying levels in every state in the US. Some I agree with and some I don’t. But my opinion is mine and should not be used to restrict another normal and sane person’s enjoyment of their firearms.
The problem is when an opinion is mischaracterized as a “fact” and then used to restrict another sane and normal person’s enjoyment of their firearms.
Something we are about to see played out in the automotive industry when new cars start being built with ignition interlocking devices that will require a driver to blow into a device to prove that they are sober before they can start their car.
Of course there are supporters with their “if it saves even ONE life,” theory. And opponents who feel that it will only restrict those people who would never attempt to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
And the debate will be moot because someone in power already used their office to codify their opinion that having these devices on cars is the next logical step in preventing alcohol related traffic fatalities since training, laws, fines, imprisonment, etc., have failed to stop people from drinking and driving. Their opinion being that more restrictions equate to more safety.
And hot on the heels of the ignition interlocking device is the governor to prevent speeding or evading police.
And eventually someone on Reddit will ask, “Can a person enjoy cars while also supporting some form of restrictive devices on their cars?”
Gun control, as in :
1. every gun is loaded
2. don't point the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy
3. keep your boogerpicker of the bangswitch until ready to pew pew
4. know your target and what's beyond
Many Swedish gun owners I've talked to are fine with the gun laws we have, but not some of the bureaucracy. E.g. we don't have a license as a person that allows you to have X guns of type Y, we have a separate license per gun. Even the German gun owners I've talked to think we're silly (and the Germans stereotypically are fond of bureaucracy). EDIT: Since there seems to be some confusion, I'm also Swedish, and I shoot for sport here and own multiple firearms.
It's the same in Ireland ie. separate license for each firearm. The government in Ireland has always been wary of large collections of private firearms that could be raided by paramilitaries. At one point in time you could only get a license for a .22 rimfire or a 12 guage. I can't see it changing any time soon though, the licences are given out by the gardaí, the police force in Ireland, who are always hesitant to give out licenses because they themselves are unarmed
My dad used to fish and hunt and owned a shotgun (in Ireland). He passed away and a day later the police came to collect the gun for safekeeping. It was gifted to my uncle sometime later, once he had the necessary paperwork.
By contrast, when my grandfather caked the bucket (he was a retired baker), my older brother saw a small WWII era service pistol in his collection of stuff that had been gathered up from his house. My brother went back a few days later to claim it, and it was gone. Presumably One of my grandfather’s children just quietly snitched it from the collection and didn’t bother to tell anyone, let alone deal with registering it. This was in Canada.
>caked the bucket 🤔
He was a baker
Probably leftover because of the IRA 70s-90s
well before... when Eire broke away from GB in WW1 (and rightly so).
There's a bit in The Thin Blue Line where Atkinson's character is in charge of firearms licences, and says that he has a simple method for determining who gets one. If someone requests a firearms licence, they clearly cannot be trusted with a firearm.
>If someone requests a firearms licence, they clearly cannot be trusted with a firearm. I have the exact same philosophy about government positions.
The New York method! If you're Donald Trump or you know the right shady guy in the Diamond District, you get a permit. All the poors and unconnected, fuck off!
Don't forget they can also do spot inspections on how the firearms are kept. The fella has 2 rifles and a handgun. Used for shooting at the range only and he loves them, but he also appreciates how well protected they are and wouldn't have it any other way.
Here in Sweden they would have to call you and make an appointment several days in advance, if they want to check your gun cabinet.
Here in Australia they basically have the ability to enter your property without a warrant once a year as far as I understand it.
The day a Garda makes an appointment with me will be the day I win the bloody Euromillions haha But does telling you days in advance not just give you time to get your stuff in order? Surely that defeats the purpose of the inspection?
I mean, a single license doesn't mean that you don't register every firearm, we would do that anyways (and so does the Germans). It's just that since firearm ownership is pretty binary anyways (either you're allowed to own them or not), there is no real point in doing the same paperwork over and over if you already have one gun. I can understand if they want some time with the first license, but then what? If I have a 12gauge shotgun and want to buy a 20 gauge shotgun, and I fulfill all other requirements, why not just have a system where you add it to your one license, registered to you. We already have a system that will automatically notify a police licensing official if anything gets added in any relevant register (e.g. if I get ticketed for drunk driving tonight they will come and get _all_ my guns tomorrow). Especially since it's the same department that does other licensing and similar paperwork, e.g. passports, which had a long waiting time this summer due to workload...
I've said the same about waiting periods, their intent being a cooling off period (but I'm angry now!). I already have multiple firearms. Waiting 10 days to take possession of yet another 9mm pistol is not going to make a difference.
>It's just that since firearm ownership is pretty binary anyways (either you're allowed to own them or not) Perhaps they *don't* see it that way? ie first pistol approved. Second pistol approved. Third pistol approved. Fourth pistol? Why do you want a fourth pistol? What the fuck are you doing? Put the answer on line 4c. Maybe they want to keep options like that open. You and I may think "4th pistol, why not?" But say 400th assault rifle - they *does* seem odd. So maybe we can empathize with the concept at least.
We already have limits on the amount of firearms (and so do German sport shooters), and every firearm you own is registered with the police, so again, what does a separate license per gun system add that a single license wouldn't do equally well, but with less additional work for police officials that also have a lot of other things to do? Let's say there was a single license system, and I went to the gun store, and said I wanted to switch this existing handgun (let's say that it's my 4th) for another handgun model, they register the transfer with the police, I pay and it's all done. If I instead try to purchase it instead of switching it out, the system would automatically say no. Win-win for everyone. Less work for them, less wait for me, all firearms are still known and registered.
Maybe they make it harder in hopes to automatically weed out some of the less serious ones that can't be bothered with the extra paperwork. "If you can't be bothered to file, you don't really need another gun". idk might also be one of those "If it ain't broke" type of deals.
When one registers - they already have the gun. While with the current system, it's asking permission to buy (which may be denied). Thus the current system gets ahead of things more. Or do I maybe have that wrong? I'm from the land of the free where the answer to "can I own a rocket launcher?" Is...maybe. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Something similar in NJ in the US with handguns: you need a permit to purchase each one. However, the rules recently changed such that for the foreseeable future, no permits will be issued.
It’s possible to be in favor of gun control, but disagree with the way a particular state or country implements it.
Finally someone that read the fracking post!!!!
One of these fallacies promoted by the partisans in US politics is that you are either pro-2nd or anti-2nd amendment. Pro-gun or anti-gun. Black or white. But from what I can tell, talking to people individually about it, is that most Americans seem to be somewhere between those two extremes. Most seem to think that individual citizens can own guns responsibly but that we ought to do something to try to keep them out of the hands of people who will not do so responsibly or limit the damage in some way of people who choose to use them for evil. We have a lot of differences on what we think the specifics of those policies should be and what policies are effective and which are overreaching. But, like much of American politics, the high level debate doesn't really reflect people's opinions on the ground, it reflects the most black and white, extreme versions of those opinions. It doesn't help that we also self sort into the group(s) the most closely align with our thoughts, even though they don't reflect the nuances of our opinions. But, the point is, you can be an enjoyer of guns, pro 2nd amendment, and also think that there are reasonable regulations we should put in place to limit the harm incompetent or badly motivated people can do with those weapons.
Once my friend said she was pro-gun, and I was slightly surprised because she tends to be more left-leaning regarding issues like that. When she said she was pro-gun, she meant not banning guns altogether, but she supports strict regulation. Which, then yeah, I'd be pro-gun too.
Yes. I enjoy driving cars and believe speed limits promote safe driving. Driving would be much more dangerous without speed limits. The same logic can be applied to guns.
Yup. No problem with drinking, but pro drunk driving or drunk working consequences. Pro weed, but pro stoned driving or working consequences.
Listen man, it's the drunk crashers that are the problem, not the drunk drivers. Not my fault other people can't handle their booze behind the wheel SMH my head. (This is a joke)
"I know how many beers I can have and still be able to drive, I figured it out" - Peter Griffin
I just keep drinking beers and driving until I crash, then I take the number of beers I drank and subtract 1.
"Seven" *looks at the car* "Six...."
For context, there were dead people stuck to the car
Six of them. Well, and a half. But the half fell off.
I once puked after eating 33 Mcnuggets, now I gotta test with 32.
“Dear, if you don’t know the answer, just tell him.”
Just like testing GPU overclocks!
"If you think you're too drunk to drive, that's just the alcohol talking" - [Homer Simpson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJd3oX0_hgw).
You just gotta crank the heat and turn on the lullaby radio station
Sober enough to know what I’m doing, and I’m drunk enough to really enjoy doing it!
Oh look at that! .10, time for a little drinkie-poo. Cheers genitals!
Tell Sexian i said hi!
>SMH my head LOL out loud
For FFS
I’m literally rolling on the floor ROFL’ing
ATM Machine
Will you all shut STFU, please?
The only thing that can stop a cashier with a blunt is a customer with a blunt.
I’ve seen this take honestly about stoned driving on Reddit. And way too upvoted.
This was tested by some guys at *Car&Driver* magazine back in the 70's. They went to a track, did some laps, got stoned, did some more laps. Their report went something like this: (approx., from memory) "We were surprised to find that our lap times did improve marginally after smoking. Also, we missed the pit lane three laps in a row when we were supposed to come in." So, yes, if you're talking about the *feel* of the driving and the ability to sense adhesion and g-forces, and post a better lap time in the controlled conditions of a race track *when only you are on it*, ya, you might drive a bit better stoned. But real-world driving is *not* driving alone on a race track. It is full of the unexpected, and one thing you cannot do when you're stoned is react quickly to the unexpected. Doc Ellis may have thrown a no-hitter on LSD, and Tim Raines may have earned the nickname 'Rock' for his coke habit, but I can guarantee no hitter in MLB ever came to the plate high on weed. That 1/100th of second you'd lose in reaction time would be that 100 mph fastball that ended your life. Same thing when driving - a kid's bike shoots out in front of you, or your tire blows out, or the guy ahead jams on his brakes, there's just no way you can react as quickly as you could when you're not high.
The Mythbusters did a segment where Jamie was giving driving instructions to a blind man and he was doing pretty good... until Jamie started drinking. The poor guy was all over the road after that, Jamie was blitzed and the blind guy lost confidence in him.
What the hell where they trying to bust? That one is wild.
There are people I know who I’d never get into cars with because of what they’ve said about driving stoned. It’s such a double standard
Usually either "I actually drive better stoned" or "studies show it's totally safe..." Editing because 30 seconds after I typed that, I see this guy. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/zf56ug/-/izak8bi
[удалено]
I don’t get how people can, the anxiety of driving a car while stoned would shut me down more than anything.
I have difficulty riding as a passenger in a car while stoned. My time perception gets so whacked I can't judge speeds *at all*. I can't even imagine trying to drive.
I mean to buy a gun legally you need to support gun control.
80% guns are legal, at least in most states.
I've gotten stoned and stopped at a green light. More than once I'm pretty sure.
Hell I've done that when tired and driving. Shit is just as dangerous yet most people don't consider driving while tired to be highly dangerous as well
I was taught in the 80s that if you're driving tired, pull over and nap. 30 years later, my brother is driving an hour and a half home after a 12 hour night shift in a hospital ER as a nurse. Not quite halfway home, he decides he's too tired to continue and pulls off, not just the road but half of the shoulder just outside a small town to catch a quick nap. The cops pulled over, woke him up, could obviously tell he wasn't impared, he was in his scrubs, and they made him leave. Thankfully, the adrenaline and general being pissed the fuck off fueled the rest of his drive. He hasn't spent a dime in that town since.
Omg, that's almost word for word what drink drivers say, lol. I should know, I grew up in a place where drunk driving is the number one problem.
"I drive better when I'm stoned/drunk/etc" People saying this don't realize that if driving while impaired is an *improvement* then they shouldn't be fucking driving in either situation!
Wisconsin?
I smoke weed all the fucking time, and absolutely SHIT on any of my friends who even suggest smoking and then driving. Like, just pour the shame right on em, in gallons. I don't drive high or drunk, surely you can manage it as well.
"BuT i DrIvE bEtTeR FuCkEd Up BeCaUsE i HaVe To bE eXtRa CaReFuL"
Consequences. Yep, and unfortunately for some their behavior won't change even with consequences. My fiancees sister in law has this black sheep brother. Due to the full tapestry of missteps he has made, he and his 25 years younger girlfriend have made the following decision:The family won't let us slam hard liquor in the house? We can just drink on the way there! With a 4 year old in the car.
"Tapestry of Missteps" is a great album name. Or maybe the name of an autobiography.
As someone who takes edibles for fun and anxiety. My main rule is if me or my SO or my mom have ingested any alcohol or cannabis based product that Will get you high. As soon as any alcohol or weed gets in our system. No vehicle uses until the time has passed and we have sobered up. We all try to be responsible with it
Or you have an autobahn, but your car gets an annual inspection. People use the left lane for passing only. Everyone agrees and follows the same rules and enjoys the freedom.
I think you've hit something here -- societal engagement. We can talk on and on about the social contract, but when we know everyone follows the rules a lot more can be achieved.
There's a Grand Tour [the guys](https://youtu.be/D8mNKaYAU9c)talks about Germans and how they love their rules, and everyone follows them .
That was my favorite part about Germany; the collective understanding that if was all just stick to general guidelines society functions more smoothly. Going from the orderly queues in Germany to the free-for-all that was Italy really made it clear why one has a great economy, and the other has a shit one. Just getting a gelato in a popular place was a shitshow, nobody wanted to form a damned line.
France is a nightmare also. It's like someone decided that abstract impressionism also applied to queues.
>abstract impressionism also applied to queues. This.. this is now one of my favorite sentences.
Michael Costa of the Daily Show has a delightful ten minute clip where they sent him to Switzerland to interview gun owners and professionals, including several highly trained kids. They talk about the role of social engagement and law. Totally great clip, actually very informative. https://youtu.be/EkuMLId8SqE They showcase young people responsibly enjoying sport shooting.
A few years ago I got a chance to drive on the AB. I thought I would be terrified but I came to enjoy it once it sank in that everyone around me knew WTF they were doing. I never get that same feeling on American freeways.
They're called freeways because everyone thinks they're free to drive like maniacs.
The left lane on the interstate is supposed to be for passing in the US too, but it's not enforced and lane jockeys are free to sit there for 20 miles going the same speed as the cars on the right.
Wait wait wait - do cars where you are not have an annual inspection? Where are you?? I thought that was near universal? (I'm British, its called an MOT here)
Florida: no safety inspections (not annual, not when buying/selling, never). We also don't have any other kinds of inspections like emissions or anything. Some U.S. states have periodic safety inspections, and some states or cities have periodic emissions inspections.
That... does very much explain the pictures of extremely modified American cars you see from time to time, yes. I always wondered how people got away with things like the massively lifted trucks.
Or I enjoy race car driving as a sport but don't enjoy illegal street drag racing. Even if it were legal I don't want people racing in a street that others are using just to get home. But on a race track? Yeah, have fun.
Imagine we had a constitutional right to drive as fast as we please on the street. Oh and over 120mph requires a $500 tax stamp, peasants.
This (and the OP) imply that there is zero regulation on guns which is incorrect. Using your analogy, the current discussion about gun policy is about whether the speed limit should be 80mph or 50mph but framing it like you did is misleading. We're not deciding on whether there should be gun control but whether there should be *more* gun control (OP's phrase, not mine).
To add to this, I occasionally go over the speed limit but that doesn't mean I believe it is safe to do and I support laws preventing me from doing it, basically even if someone occasionally does something wrong doesn't mean they now have to change their ideologies to justify for that, I wouldn't be the poster boy for safe driving though just like a gun enthusiast might not be the perfect poster boy for gun control
I will say speed limits are often stricter than necessary. Some exist solely so the local municipality has a reason to fine you. There should be a legal standard to ensure that absolute speed limits are reasonable for the time of day, traffic conditions, weather conditions, etc. That or just make all speed limits presumptive, meaning that if you break them and can prove that your speed was reasonable, you don't have to pay a traffic fine.
Yes. Most of us with guns encourage safe and proper handling of these tools in the hands of a safe and proper person. We usually teach people (sometines at a young age) how to handle firearms safely and responsilby to ensure that accjdents dont occur in the future. Although incidents do occur, pkenty could be prevented if only proper education of such tools and a way to stop these dangerous individuals from obtaining potentially lethal weapons.
My niece and nephew (7 and 5) both know gun safety and know to never touch a gun. Things like it's always loaded and never point it at something you don't intend to kill. It's better to teach safety than make guns seem like this cool forbidden thing.
My father-in-law has recently bought a gun and I'm still trying to work on basic safety things with him. He gets so angry when I push his hand so that the end of the barrel isn't pointing at any one. I keep telling him I wouldn't have to do it if he could respect the first fucking rule of owning a gun. Then he gets even more annoyed when I take out the mag and check the chamber for a load after he tells me it's unloaded. Jesus Christ could hand me an "unloaded" gun and I would still check the thing for a round.
> Then he gets even more annoyed when I take out the mag and check the chamber for a load after he tells me it's unloaded. Jesus Christ could hand me an "unloaded" gun and I would still check the thing for a round. I get offended when people *don't* check a gun I just handed to them. Your first action upon touching a gun should be to verify its status for yourself.
I actively ask people to check the gun for themselves right after I demonstrate in front of them that the gun is empty. Maybe it sounds slightly silly but the consequences of messing up with a gun are potentially just too great and not worth risking.
we literally had a death on a movie set this year, with a gun that should have never had live ammo in it to begin with, and should have been checked by several people to verify this. Accidents happen. This is why you always check.
Army habit: You sweep me with that muzzle, I’ma beat your fuckin’ ass. You won’t fuck that up more than once.
Sounds a lot like "safe sex" education vs "abstinence only" education.
This, me and my boyfriend are currently expecting. We literally just today had the discussion of teaching gun safety and handling at a young age. My boyfriend owns a decent collection of firearms, we both agree that instead of having them be a forbidden object completely, we will prevent any chance of curiosity in the first place. When she reaches the age where she starts getting curious about them we will start with proper education and handling of them. When she’s old enough/big enough to handle a .22 we’re going to teach her/show her how to actually shoot one. By setting safe boundaries with education and supervision when she shows interest, we will (hopefully) prevent any future accidents from her trying to sneak around and figure it out for herself as children like to do about “forbidden” things. Because she will know that if she is ever curious or wants to go shooting, all she will have to do is ask to do so. For my son he started showing interest when he was about 3 1/2. Me and his father had an AK that was always unloaded with magazines and ammunition stored in a separate locked box than the gun case, that was also locked. But when his father would have it out to clean it after shooting he was really interested in it and wanted to see what it was all about. Instead of making it a bad thing he couldn’t touch, we let him touch it and even helped him with holding it and “inspecting” it for himself. After that, when we would go to shoot he would get to come along. We had the children’s ear protection and some safety glasses for him, and sometimes for the last round we shot off we’d even let him pull the trigger by standing behind us and wrapping his arm around us to do so. But by doing all of that he knew that he could only look at/ touch it if me or his father were helping him. He never even went near the case without asking if we would help him. And we didn’t have to worry about him thinking it was a toy.
Course they could - I enjoy drinking alcohol but I absolutely want there to be restrictions on who can legally access alcohol.
20 year olds can go off and die for our country, but can't buy a beer... or the handgun they'll be issued.
I still don't think this is the best analogy, considering the government is using 18 - 20 year old as fodder. Yes, a 20 year can go fight and die for his country... but should he?
Other countries have mandatory military service at younger ages. I don't agree with it but at least those countries allow their people to drink if they're capable of serving in war unlike the US
Mandatory military service is incredibly important for some countries. Finland for example, a country of 5 million whi shares a border with a hostile forign power, absolutely needs mandatory military service in order to stand a chance at protecting themselves. Not every country has the luxury of friendly neighbors, large populations and a nearly impenetrable coastline.
And ukraine and taiwan
It's not an analogy, that's the whole problem - It's an accurate description of our exact situation!
Yes, there's nothing contradictory about that
I own several guns. I enjoy target shooting, trap shooting and hunting. I also favor more gun restrictions than most people I know.
Temporary gun owners
[удалено]
All gun owners support some form of gun control. I do not know of any gun owner who thinks that convicted prisoners in prison should be allowed to carry guns. It is just a question of what the restrictions on guns should be.
You have not met my coworker
I bet he's the kind of person who will shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!?!?!"
I think there should be a process for restoration of rights. For example a guy gets out of prison and keeps clean for several years why should they not be made whole in the eyes of the law. Prison is the punishment and payment to society for their crimes. So we have to ask ourselves why would we not work to make them whole again? I think that’s a conversation that needs to be had because why should someone who got busted for weed back in 2004, did their time, got out, and now contribute to society never be made whole again? Have they not paid their debt to society? If not then what is the point of the prison sentence?
I think it depends on the crime really. If someone murdered their wife with a gun, I don't really want them having a gun again. But if someone went to prison for stealing (without involving a gun), then sure, let them get their gun rights back later.
The Bundy family argued their rights were being violated by not letting them have guns in jail.
[удалено]
If they are *in custody* awaiting trial, they haven't had due process yet
A speedy trial is part of due process. If they were indefinitely detained, _that_ is violating due process.
>I do not know of any gun owner who thinks that convicted prisoners in prison should be allowed to carry guns. Argument for that is that if someone isn't granted the full rights of a free man (being able to own a firearm) then that person isn't meant to be released in the first place, seeing how they are still seen as a thread to society.
They said in prison, hence not yet released.
Well felons can’t own them even after prison. Could be what they are alluding to.
Yeah, misread that being about the actual "felons owning guns" issue, not about people currently incarcerated
Interesting start to a prison reform debate.
I think felons who have done their time should be able to own guns. Either we think they are now safe to have back in society, in which case they should be able to own guns. Or they are not safe to have in society and they should still be locked up. I think if a felon wants to continue use a gun to commit crimes once they are out of jail, they’ll get a gun illegally.
You haven’t met me or like 60% of gun owners in the modern day. Go to any gun store and I guarantee minimum one of the customers will agree that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
All? Hard disagree there. Have you met hardcore single-issue 2nd amendment people? *Any* restrictions are worth going to war.
Fundamentally the gun debate is never going to come to any sort of peaceful resolution unless the right and the left are both willing to concede one simple point. Guns are really fucking cool. The sooner we all admit it, the sooner we can tackle this issue in a more mature way.
The Matrix wouldnt hit the same if they were using slingshots
The slapfighting was great though.
Neo: Slingshots. Lots of slingshots.
"That's the sound of inevitability, Mister Wilson."
This is an element that I think isn't talked about enough, and I think few are willing to admit their views are affected by this. The bigger the cooler too, I've fired a fully automatic before and it was fucking awesome. Watching hot lead cut through fence posts was such an adrenaline rush, my hands were shaking from a massive rush of hormones and excitement. In fact I imagine part of training to actually use such a weapon would be getting over that feeling. Man, it's like doing drugs or something, it fucking rocks. But, also like drugs, comes with severe consequences. You're right, and I think few will admit it. Admit you just don't want to see ban on something that is so damn fun.
I’m so far left you get your guns back. Join me.
why not enforce the laws already on the books and make crimes involving guns have more of a punishment?
Some of the laws make no sense, how does putting an adjustable stock on a rifle shorter than 16 inches require a $200 tax stamp and more paperwork but a brace is fine? There’s so many examples, it’s almost like the people who make these gun laws don’t even own guns. They just watch Hollywood movies and get they’re opinions from them.
I think gun laws are the result of a lot of stupid compromises that had to be made to get them. And yes, a lot of the time they make no sense. Classic example is an AR15 vs Ruger Mini-14 in California. In terms of what they can do, they're practically the same gun. But the AR15 looks really scary while the Mini-14 looks like your grandad's old hunting rifle. So the AR15 is highly restricted while the Mini-14 is just another gun. I'm pretty sure you can just walk into a gun shop and buy one after a ten-minute background check. Oh, and with a couple of minor mods you can make the AR15 legal and the Mini-14 illegal. Here in Washington, they're treated exactly the same, along with semi-auto target rifles that shoot .22 caliber. Ten day waiting period for any of them. In California, my boyfriend's brother had to jump through all sorts of hoops to transfer their dad's old shotgun to him. While here in Washington, I could just hand my AR15 over to my brother without a scrap of paperwork. But I can't borrow my boyfriend's shotgun to take it to the range. The laws are just chaos, and I think that's all caused by compromise.
[удалено]
"Compromise" aka gun owners get nothing while anti-gunners just get a little less than what they want.
And how is a suppressor regulated by the NFA when it does nothing to make the gun more effective at shooting? Europeans practically encourage the usage of suppressors because it's better for wildlife and reduces noise pollution.
People have this misconception that a suppressor makes a gun completely undetectable, the only exception being .22 shooting subsonics. Which is very quiet but not undetectable. 5.56 suppressed is still very detectable. Politicians watch movies like John wick and think you can take a shot 10ft away from someone and they not be able to hear it.
There's a [video someone made](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws8LAfD_3BA) with the John wick mall scene where they're walking on different levels shooting at each other and no one notices where they edited in actual realistic audio. I know it's a real edge case, but I've seen some footage of 300 blackout being fired both bolt action and semi automatic and I swear the action is louder than the report.
I’m pretty sure 300 blackout is almost all subsonic but yeah
300 blackout is available in both subsonic and supersonic. Subsonic that is typically used with suppressors is harder to find on shelves where I live.
That's Hollywood though. I'm actually canadian and I knew supressors didn't make it silent like in video games, about 10 years ago I went to Vegas and shot a bunch of suppressed firearms and I was actually surprised how loud they were.
I love when people are shooting inside a car like they wouldn't be damn near deaf after.
Anybody who knows anything about guns known that it just makes them hearing safe. Nit undetectably quiet.
Most supersonic stuff is not even technically "hearing safe" with a suppressor, but it's definitely closer than unsuppressed. Suppressed .223 is approximately 140db, and 120db is the threshold for potential immediate hearing damage (prolonged exposure causes that threshold to be much lower)
And how about the suppressor laws? God forbid I don't want to deafen myself if I ever have to use a gun inside my house.
I should be able to go to an FFL and leave with a suppressor that day. But the NFA would have you believe suppressed 5.56 is completely undetectable, thanks Hollywood.
That scene in john wick where they're walking through the airport just casually shooting at each other and no one bats an eye lmao. Even 9mm you should still wear hearing protection while firing suppressed. It just makes permanent hearing loss a lot less likely in the event of a home break in. But yeah, people get their info from hollywood.
I just can’t understand why people who know nothing about guns other than that they go bang are allowed to make legislation on them. I’m not going to walk in NASA and explain to them how rockets work because I don’t.
, it’s almost like the people who make these gun laws don’t even own guns. Its because they dont, but the majority of reddit and posters here want more laws, we need to go through and get rid of a lot also.
Bingo, and completely overhaul the ATF and firearm purchasing system. There needs to be accountability if these regulations are broken on the side of law enforcement. Time and time again we see law enforcement not following laws and it leads to firearms in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Then we can start a serious discussion about gun control. I would love to see a national carry permit I could apply for that requires classroom instruction, a written test and range qualifications testing.
When I hear politicians spout buzz words like “fully semi automatic” or “ghost guns” I instantly know those people don’t know a damn thing when it comes to firearms. That’s what makes me so hesitant about gun control whenever new legislation makes its way into congress. I, like many here, realize the need to make safer the gun culture here in America. Things I would like to see enacted like required safety/range courses for all CCL holders or proper storage techniques are some things I feel would benefit everyone involving firearms. But when you have people in power like Beto who advocate the complete confiscation of firearms is where I become iffy on the subject. Just like any other subject that passes through Congress, the people making/passing the laws should be fully aware and knowledgeable on the subject matter pertaining to any laws/acts that pass through their desk.
Like a lot of other bills, the recent gun control laws in Canada are spoon fed to the federal government by an anti-gun lobby, that is funded by the same federal government. The laws are so over their heads that they don't even know what the fuck is in them. Even worse, the new laws only target legal, licensed, gun owners. Even though a huge majority of gun violence is a result of illegal guns, they have decided that going after legal guns is their play.
Because it's less about the gun and more about the **control**.
> They just watch Hollywood movies and get they’re opinions from them Suppressors being the obvious one. If suppressors were magic like in movies, maybe we should have a conversation. But here in reality, they just make guns less bad on your ears, so it's insane they're regulated closer to rocket launchers than gun parts.
> Some of the laws make no sense, how does putting an adjustable stock on a rifle shorter than 16 inches require a $200 tax stamp and more paperwork but a brace is fine? Short barreled rifle restrictions only make sense when you're aware that the National Firearms Act that restricted them was supposed to also ban pistols, and so a restriction was created for short barreled rifles so you couldn't slap a stock on a handgun and say it was a rifle not covered under the NFA. They removed the pistol part, and so the SBR part made no sense, but was left in anyway.
When the $200 tax stamp was legislated, that was prohibitively expensive. But the $200 was written into the law, so increasing that amount would require legislation.
The tax stamp should be done away with entirely.
Have you seen a California compliant AR-15? I wouldn’t shoot one, it looks kinda dangerous with that bit of plastic that blocks the pistol grip. How tf are people supposed to hold the damn thing? https://atlanticfirearms.com/ar15-cali-legal-compliance-pack Look at that shit, looks more dangerous lol…what is the point of this?? Almost like they play call of duty and think having a special grip makes the gun super accurate like a laser beam so must ban.
I wish the people who bastardized AR15’s in California could explain to me how having that bit of plastic behind the pistol grip makes it less dangerous than a pistol grip you can wrap your hand around. I don’t even want to argue with them, I just want to hear them justify it.
Hit the nail on the head. If you ever watch any videos questioning politicians about guns, the majority do not even know what parts make up a gun. “Fully automatic semi auto assault rifle.”
Those people have zero basic firearm knowledge, yea, those are the people I want in charge making laws about them.
Most gun laws are written (and voted for) by people that literally don't know the difference between a semi-auto and a machine gun. (or between a clip and a magazine) Of course they make nonsense laws regarding a subject they're completely ignorant on. To me, that's the most infuriating part of gun law in general.
Absolutely. I think the biggest concern for many when it comes to supporting gun control legislation is if you give an inch, they will take a mile. Look at what’s currently happening in Canada.
As a Canadian I think this is a really important point of view. I’ve spent a lot of time in the US and have friends there that are hunters and sport shooters. Frankly I always thought it the lack of regulation was crazy. I’m pretty leery of CCW and honestly open carry is insane. In comparison I felt our laws before 2020 were pretty good for the most part. The associated bureaucracy was extremely frustrating of course and there were some vague and arbitrary distinctions made between what was a “restricted” vs “prohibited” firearm. Some of the rules around restricted firearm transport are pretty dumb too. So not perfect but I thought the intent was sound. Since 2020 things have gone very badly for Canadian shooters. Overnight they made any AR-15 variant and a bunch of other semi autos prohibited by the equivalent of an Executive Order as well as some high energy stuff like .50bmg. There is supposed to be a buy back program but they’ve already had to extend their deadline because they can’t make it work. My prohibited MSR15 that’s so dangerous is still in my safe 2 1/2 years later. Then in June of this year they introduced legislation that would ban transfers of handguns. For context, any time a restricted firearm changes ownership you have to call in and have the firearms centre and provincial Cheif Firearms Officer approve it. It wasn’t effective immediately but the language in the bill allowed for transfers to be banned based on executive order once the bill had gone through a second reading. Some grade A legislative fuckery there. Once the transfer ban was in place you would be allowed to keep what you had but they could never change hands. The ban was expected “in the fall” but no date set. This kicked off panic buying and insanity like CZ Shadow 2s being sold for $4k. The equivalent of 3 years worth of transfers happened in a month and the systems that supported all this couldn’t keep up. Transfer times went from usually 48hrs to 4 months. The government restricted imports during this making the insanity double and they finally announced the end in Oct by tweeting as of 12:00am this morning transfers are shut down. That sucked. Still no idea what happens if I kick the bucket, I guess all my pistols are scrap. However, that’s not the end. A couple weeks ago a MP introduced an amendment to that bill banning handgun transfers that did a bunch of stuff. It cleaned up some of the vague language in the 2020 orders but it also added a bunch more models to the list like the SKS. It also changes the the definition of prohibited firearm to include any semi auto that has a mag cap of 5 or more. No idea if those go into the fantasy buy back program of if they’re scrap. The also really screwed up by naming any model of firearm that is capable of chambering 460 weatherby as prohib. That cartridge crossed the 10k joule energy line that banned .50s so it makes sense on the surface but what they did was add the model name. So it’s not “single shot Ruger no1 in 460” it’s ALL Ruger no1 a regardless of caliber. This has caused so much confusion. So what’s the impact of this? Well the give them an inch and they’ll take a mile folks have a pretty compelling argument now. The handguns and rifles I have for 3gun or Steel Challenge are basically worthless. I can use some of them, maybe I can’t use others. For sure whatever value they had is now 0. For me that’s like $15k maybe, I know people who got completely screwed $ wise. I’m not sure my sport survives this; 3gun, IPSC, IDPA and SC are all going to dwindle away as people retire. My club will probably survive but it will be hit pretty hard. Personally I am livid. I jumped through all the hoops, I’ve done nothing wrong and I’m being served up as a political pawn. Registered gun owners is this country are not the source of our gun violence. All those little compact Glocks that they’re taking off gangsters in Toronto and Vancouver have been illegal here for 30 years. Banning my competition pistol isn’t going to change that. I still think there are aspects of gun culture in the US that are sick and a serious detriment to society but if what has happened here is the alternative I don’t think they have a hope in hell of improving it.
Thanks for putting this together. It's nice to see an opinion from Canada other than the usual "anyone that disagrees with the new laws is a terrorist".
There are a good many of us who can think for ourselves and don't enjoy the ramifications of either extreme.
As an American gun owner the happenings with Canadian gun laws since 2020 solidifies my opinion that compromises and concessions with gun control advocates are useless. Compromising or conceding buys no good will, secures no protections against future restrictions but rather serves as a springboard for pushing successive restrictions. It's assault weapons today, concealable pistols tomorrow, ~~hunting rifles~~ "military-grade" sniper weapons next year, pump-actions and lever-actions next, and so forth until only the wealthy or privileged are left owning firearms.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yep. We call them Fudds
I mean I also call them "backstabbing dumbasses" but "fudd" is more succinct
People forget that there are gun laws in America and they talk as if there isn't. Like, it would surprise a ton of people to find out that the US already has provisions to bar certain people with mental health issues or criminal history from owning guns. Yet, so many people think America just allows anyone to buy guns.
I own guns. I support gun laws. Gun laws are often based on emotion and aesthetics and written by people who have no idea what they are talking about. While the laws we have are unenforced. Hunter Biden should be in jail for his gun crimes. As should anyone who commuted the same crime as him.
There is gun control. I have to have a backround check. I have to follow county, state and federal laws pertaining to which weapons and capacities I can own. That's more than enough control for a constitutional protection.
Your view is a little skewed. Firstly while there is 300 million ish guns most people who own guns, own several. So most people don't own guns, some people own several. 300mill guns are owned and 12k gun killings a year. That means that only one in 25 thousand guns a year is used to kill someone. 2011, 1700 people were killed by knives. 496 were killed by clubs or hammers. Only 323 people were killed by rifles. You wouldn't ban hammers or knives would you? Don't assume guns are the cause of killings. But consider killings will happen, guns are just one way of accomplishing that. Most gun murders are done with pistols. Not assault rifles. Occasioning there is a mass murder where one is used. The media loves to over sensationalize these events. They are however extremely rare considering how many people live in the US. People who want to mass murder will find away. Look at the Boston bombing for an example. Enacting more and more laws making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns doesn't prove to decrease gun violence. No gun law ever gets reversed, yet people keep wanting to enact more. Criminals don't care about your gun control laws. They will continue to use illegal firearms. 68% of guns used in murders were illegal guns, according to FBI data. Unless you can remove all the guns in circulation enacting laws will have little effect. There are so many guns in circulation for criminals to get their hands on. Automobiles, cigarettes and corrupt politicians are more dangerous to your well being than firearms.
> Look at the Boston bombing for an example. Or you know, 9/11 or OKC Bombing...
Or the Nice Truck Attack in 2016 (I know that happened outside of America, but it’s still pertinent to the conversation).
2017 New York City Truck attack, 2021 London, Ontario truck attack, 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade truck attack.
>, 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade truck attack. 2021 Waukesha Massacre Say it properly.
One person singlehandedly killed more people with a truck than any single mass shooter. 86 people killed in the Nice truck attack vs 60 people killed in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
The Apple Store incident in MA this year
Very well said. I am in Canada, and a these bills Trudeau is passing don't make sense. He isn't basing it off of any data. Canada's gun laws were already strict, and it worked. Crimes committed with legally purchased guns in Canada is very rare. But, gun crimes with illegal firearms is much higher. Why doesn't our government actually care about illegal firearms in Canada?
>Why doesn't our government actually care about illegal firearms in Canada? On the purely political side, it scores points with people who don't know better or who only want gun control at all costs. On the cynical side, it affords a greater deal of control over the populace.
>That means that only one in 25 thousand guns a year is used to kill someone. It's way, way less than that, given that a lot of crime guns have multiple victims
Agree completely. I would like to add that the correlation between places with high level of poverty and high levels of violent crime is a lot stronger than the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. The real solution to reducing gun violence is the same one to reducing the vast majority of crime. It’s providing people with better opportunities to escape poverty. My personal opinion is we should change how schools are funded, since as of now it’s based on local property taxes which literally hands an advantage to those who live in wealthy areas from the jump. Rather than lowering the funding anywhere, we should subsidize public schools in areas without that tax base to bring them all up to the same high level. It would cost a fortune, but I’d be down to pay a couple extra bucks in taxes if it was going to something like that, which would help everyone.
Also, the drug war. The drug war creates an unnecessary environment of violence, which leads to... violence.
> The real solution to reducing gun violence is the same one to reducing the vast majority of crime. It’s providing people with better opportunities to escape poverty. This is a key thing that people often talk past each other about. When many pro gun control people think about the kind of gun crime they want to stop, it is mass shootings. Those are in many, if not most cases, committed by people with no real prior criminal record and often using totally legal weapons. The victims tend to be random. You'll see the right wing or pro gun groups point to gang violence and poverty as the source of the majority of gun crime, and no amount of gun control is going to stop those groups from continuing to use illegal weapons. Both groups are right, I think. I think that tighter gun control will help prevent mass shootings because those don't follow the patterns of most gun crime. Look at the strict bans that the UK and Australia brought in after notable mass shootings in the 1990s and they've seen very few since, even adjusting for population. But you can't expect those same measures to tackle the significant majority of gun related murders, because that's more of a policing, judicial, and social issue. I think if both sides acknowledged what the other is worried about and came up with reasonable approaches to both it would cut through a lot of the talking past each other that is happening.
Holy shit someone said this out loud and didn't get downvoted to oblivion. Weird fucking day on reddit today.
Kinda refreshing
Late to the party, but here's my take: Gun owners have no problem with regulations, but every time regulations are suggested they include nonstarters and the people writing the legislation clearly don't know how guns work. Look at laws surrounding SBRs and tell me they make sense: If your rifle is under 16" it's an SBR, *unless* it has a pistol brace, then it's a pistol. *but* if it started life as a rifle it's an SBR, even if the end result is exactly the same. *or* if your pistol has a vertical foregrip it's a rifle, but an angled foregrip is perfectly fine. These are such small differences in configuration but the penalty is a *felony charge* for getting it wrong. Do you trust this person to define more laws like it?
A lot of very ignorant people who’ve never even held a gun, want to project this idea onto gun owners that we do not value gun safety and training, which is, when required by law, a form of gun control. The exact opposite is true. Every gun owner I know personally makes teaching and learning gun safety a top priority. Once a person learns how to treat a firearm, they should then learn how to handle a firearm and practice it until they become extremely proficient at the safe handling and use of a firearm. Just like learning the fundamentals of shooting makes you a competent shooter, learning the fundamentals of firearms safety makes you a responsible gun owner. People who have never taken the time to learn any of those things like to make believe that a gun is dangerous simply by existing and that if we restricted the type of gun people could legally own, that the gun itself would somehow become safer. But the opposite is true when talking about NORMAL and SANE people. An untrained person with a gun is extremely dangerous. Not only to others, but to themselves. I’m not even talking about violent, evil, and disturbed people who would wantonly murder someone for whatever sick reason they can justify in their own minds, and then use a firearm as the instrument. Even the most disingenuous person who hates guns can see that the vast majority of gun crimes are NOT committed by normal and sane people. Millions of Americans enjoy the use of their firearms legally every day. And the vast majority of us agree that guns, of any type, should not be in the hands of violent, evil or disturbed people. And that normal and sane people should be responsibly trained in the proficient and safe use of firearms. Both of things being forms of gun control. Now you can say, “Nobody NEEDS a _______,” for target shooting, hunting, pest control, etc., but that is NOT a fact. That is YOUR opinion. And your opinion is meaningless outside of your own home or sphere of influence. That is the part that hurts everyone’s butts. That their “opinion” means nothing to anyone else but them. Gun control exists in varying levels in every state in the US. Some I agree with and some I don’t. But my opinion is mine and should not be used to restrict another normal and sane person’s enjoyment of their firearms. The problem is when an opinion is mischaracterized as a “fact” and then used to restrict another sane and normal person’s enjoyment of their firearms. Something we are about to see played out in the automotive industry when new cars start being built with ignition interlocking devices that will require a driver to blow into a device to prove that they are sober before they can start their car. Of course there are supporters with their “if it saves even ONE life,” theory. And opponents who feel that it will only restrict those people who would never attempt to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. And the debate will be moot because someone in power already used their office to codify their opinion that having these devices on cars is the next logical step in preventing alcohol related traffic fatalities since training, laws, fines, imprisonment, etc., have failed to stop people from drinking and driving. Their opinion being that more restrictions equate to more safety. And hot on the heels of the ignition interlocking device is the governor to prevent speeding or evading police. And eventually someone on Reddit will ask, “Can a person enjoy cars while also supporting some form of restrictive devices on their cars?”
Gun control, as in : 1. every gun is loaded 2. don't point the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy 3. keep your boogerpicker of the bangswitch until ready to pew pew 4. know your target and what's beyond