Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18312636

One person has been killed and seven others injured in a shooting at Toronto's main central shopping centre, Canadian police have said.

This looks awful.

dæl wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18312636

One person has been killed and seven others injured in a shooting at Toronto's main central shopping centre, Canadian police have said.

This looks awful.

In the United States sadly this is everyday news. Detroit is a wonderful place.

Alexzandvar wrote:

dæl wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18312636

One person has been killed and seven others injured in a shooting at Toronto's main central shopping centre, Canadian police have said.

This looks awful.

In the United States sadly this is everyday news. Detroit is a wonderful place.

Don't all the guns make it safer though?

Alexzandvar wrote:

dæl wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18312636

One person has been killed and seven others injured in a shooting at Toronto's main central shopping centre, Canadian police have said.

This looks awful.

In the United States sadly this is everyday news. Detroit is a wonderful place.

Is that where you live? I do and I endorse this statement 100%

SilverMK2 wrote:

Alexzandvar wrote:

dæl wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18312636

One person has been killed and seven others injured in a shooting at Toronto's main central shopping centre, Canadian police have said.

This looks awful.

In the United States sadly this is everyday news. Detroit is a wonderful place.

Don't all the guns make it safer though?

A terrorist cell could rob one of Americas many poorly secured gunshops and arm themselves with enough guns and ammunition to kill a medium sized town.

Yep more guns makes everything safer.

Is this gang related? Otherwise, the hell makes all the loonies go loonier these days up North?

Kovnik Obama wrote:Is this gang related? Otherwise, the hell makes all the loonies go loonier these days up North?

Apparently it was some sort of revenge attack on the person who died.

Jeez, way to collateral damage, buddy

SilverMK2 wrote:
Don't all the guns make it safer though?

Alexzandvar wrote:
Yep more guns makes everything safer.

I'm sure the gunman, being a law-abiding citizen and all, would have been more than willing to comply with any gun control laws that may have prevented this.

Vaerros wrote:I'm sure the gunman, being a law-abiding citizen and all, would have been more than willing to comply with any gun control laws that may have prevented this.

And I'm sure that if there were not a significant number of guns laying about for every single person in the US, nut jobs would find it significantly harder to mow down innocent people

Gun control only works if you actually control guns, not pretend that having a 30 second wait for your high powered rifle/shotgun/etc is gun control...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Vaerros wrote:I'm sure the gunman, being a law-abiding citizen and all, would have been more than willing to comply with any gun control laws that may have prevented this.

And I'm sure that if there were not a significant number of guns laying about for every single person in the US, nut jobs would find it significantly harder to mow down innocent people

Gun control only works if you actually control guns, not pretend that having a 30 second wait for your high powered rifle/shotgun/etc is gun control...

Except a 'significant number of guns' is the reality we have to deal with(at least in the United States, where I'm from) and no amount of legislation is going to change that anytime soon. What kind of 'working' gun control measures are you suggesting be implemented(and would individuals like the shooter in this incident even be affected)?

Vaerros wrote:Except a 'significant number of guns' is the reality we have to deal with(at least in the United States, where I'm from) and no amount of legislation is going to change that anytime soon. What kind of 'working' gun control measures are you suggesting be implemented(and would individuals like the shooter in this incident even be affected)?

Gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination?

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:Except a 'significant number of guns' is the reality we have to deal with(at least in the United States, where I'm from) and no amount of legislation is going to change that anytime soon. What kind of 'working' gun control measures are you suggesting be implemented(and would individuals like the shooter in this incident even be affected)?

Gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination?

Let's say the examination somehow weren't of very high cost to the government and the methods weren't dubious...the shooter in this incident could simply opt to not even bother with a license, still obtain a gun from a private sale(or some other means) , and still go on a rampage.

Vaerros wrote:

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:Except a 'significant number of guns' is the reality we have to deal with(at least in the United States, where I'm from) and no amount of legislation is going to change that anytime soon. What kind of 'working' gun control measures are you suggesting be implemented(and would individuals like the shooter in this incident even be affected)?

Gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination?

Let's say the examination somehow weren't of very high cost to the government and the methods weren't dubious...the shooter in this incident could simply opt to not even bother with a license, still obtain a gun from a private sale(or some other means) , and still go on a rampage.

Well that private sale would result in prison for whoever sold it him, and why would the government rather than the gun buyer be paying for the evaluation?

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:Except a 'significant number of guns' is the reality we have to deal with(at least in the United States, where I'm from) and no amount of legislation is going to change that anytime soon. What kind of 'working' gun control measures are you suggesting be implemented(and would individuals like the shooter in this incident even be affected)?

Gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination?

Let's say the examination somehow weren't of very high cost to the government and the methods weren't dubious...the shooter in this incident could simply opt to not even bother with a license, still obtain a gun from a private sale(or some other means) , and still go on a rampage.

Well that private sale would result in prison for whoever sold it him, and why would the government rather than the gun buyer be paying for the evaluation?

The seller would be charged if he were ever caught, and if he had records of the transaction(which would be a stupid thing for him to do), *maybe* the guy he sold it to could be tracked down, just maybe...

That's a good point about the evaluation cost, though. It *could* be a cost somehow transferred to the purchaser(and likely a steep one), but I find that disturbing(and I have yet to see how this will accomplish anything).

Vaerros wrote:
The seller would be charged if he were ever caught, and if he had records of the transaction(which would be a stupid thing for him to do), *maybe* the guy he sold it to could be tracked down, just maybe...

I was under the impression that guns carried serial numbers, which would obviously have to be included on the license. If they sold it privately they would be liable for any and all crimes committed with it from then on.

Vaerros wrote:That's a good point about the evaluation cost, though. It *could* be a cost somehow transferred to the purchaser(and likely a steep one), but I find that disturbing(and I have yet to see how this will accomplish anything).

Your constitution says you have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms cheaply, if people can't afford to pay for the licenses perhaps they shouldn't have a gun. I can see how this may be discriminatory against the poor, and that is unfortunate, perhaps they could save toward it. But if a scheme like this stops even 10% of the gun crime in America would it not be worth it?

dæl wrote:
I was under the impression that guns carried serial numbers, which would obviously have to be included on the license. If they sold it privately they would be liable for any and all crimes committed with it from then on.

The point that I was making is how do you track the gun back to the seller? You could interrogate the buyer until he gives up a name, track down the seller, and then you would have to prove that the gun was indeed transferred between the two(which would be quite a feat, if the seller knows what he's doing). And no, as far as I know(correct me if I'm wrong, though), the seller isn't responsible for crimes that the buyer commits.

dæl wrote:
Your constitution says you have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms cheaply, if people can't afford to pay for the licenses perhaps they shouldn't have a gun. I can see how this may be discriminatory against the poor, and that is unfortunate, perhaps they could save toward it. But if a scheme like this stops even 10% of the gun crime in America would it not be worth it?

Except at this point people aren't just paying for the product, in the pure sense -- they're paying for some arbitrary element that a government is forcing on them because some group of people doesn't like what they're doing. It would not stop 10% of the gun crime in America, because the people who are committing those crimes [generally] don't give a damn about such things and can get around them. In fact, by implementing such heavy-handed measures, you're driving some buyers from a regulated market to a 'black market'. If Chuck down the street is willing sell me a used gun for several hundred dollars cheaper than the now heavily-regulated store, which option do you think I'm going to go with?

Vaerros wrote: In fact, by implementing such heavy-handed measures, you're driving some buyers from a regulated market to a 'black market'. If Chuck down the street is willing sell me a used gun for several hundred dollars cheaper than the now heavily-regulated store, which option do you think I'm going to go with?

By that logic everyone would be buying everything on Ebay. Clearly, has it isn't the case, something in your reasonning can't be universalised.

Up here, usually, once you get to the point of 'but legislation can't do anything anymore' that's when a gun amnesty is declared. Did it, what, twice in the last 200 years? But your Right to the Appendages of Ursidae would get in the way of that too...

Surely the capitalist illegal gun sellers will react to the market prices?

To be honest there is little that could cure the gun epedemic in the USA - far too many of them in legal hands and waaaaaay too many in illegal hands. The reason gun control works in most of the rest of the civilised world is that the policies have been in place for a long time on historically low numbers of weapons. Mostly to stop soldiers returning from the huge numbers of wars from being able to rob and gang up etc with their guns from what I recall

The point being that the less guns there are in a society, the less there are available for when 'everyday' people snap, and the harder it is for criminals to get their hands on them and for their use to be so widespread that it becomes difficult to be able to actually track down the criminals using them.

The USA has a long hard path to fight along if they want to reign in the rampant use of guns in illegal acts - the cultural sense of entitlementis stupidly strong.

Vaerros wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:
Don't all the guns make it safer though?

Alexzandvar wrote:
Yep more guns makes everything safer.

I'm sure the gunman, being a law-abiding citizen and all, would have been more than willing to comply with any gun control laws that may have prevented this.

@ Vaerros

Its not currently the case that you are liable, but it would need to be if licences were to work. Would you sell a gun to someone knowing that if they or someone they sold it on to committed a crime you would go to prison?

@ SilverMK2

Sweden has a large number of guns, everyone keeps theirs after national service in case they need to be conscripted again. They have very little gun crime.

dæl wrote:@ Vaerros

Its not currently the case that you are liable, but it would need to be if licences were to work. Would you sell a gun to someone knowing that if they or someone they sold it on to committed a crime you would go to prison?

@ SilverMK2

Sweden has a large number of guns, everyone keeps theirs after national service in case they need to be conscripted again. They have very little gun crime.

The reason Sweden has little gun violence is because of the mentality around guns there, not the guns themselves.

Alexzandvar wrote:
The reason Sweden has little gun violence is because of the mentality around guns there, not the guns themselves.

@retty much this from what I understand.

Alexzandvar wrote:

dæl wrote:@ Vaerros

Its not currently the case that you are liable, but it would need to be if licences were to work. Would you sell a gun to someone knowing that if they or someone they sold it on to committed a crime you would go to prison?

@ SilverMK2

Sweden has a large number of guns, everyone keeps theirs after national service in case they need to be conscripted again. They have very little gun crime.

The reason Sweden has little gun violence is because of the mentality around guns there, not the guns themselves.

There's your winner. /thread

azazel the cat wrote:

Alexzandvar wrote:

dæl wrote:@ Vaerros

Its not currently the case that you are liable, but it would need to be if licences were to work. Would you sell a gun to someone knowing that if they or someone they sold it on to committed a crime you would go to prison?

@ SilverMK2

Sweden has a large number of guns, everyone keeps theirs after national service in case they need to be conscripted again. They have very little gun crime.

The reason Sweden has little gun violence is because of the mentality around guns there, not the guns themselves.

There's your winner. /thread

Agreed. Having a culture of responsible, knowledgeable gun owners is always better.

Vaerros wrote:
Agreed. Having a culture of responsible, knowledgeable gun owners is always better.

Now if only there was a way to see if prospective gun owners were responsible and knowledgeable, I don't know, maybe some sort of evaluation.

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:
Agreed. Having a culture of responsible, knowledgeable gun owners is always better.

Now if only there was a way to see if prospective gun owners were responsible and knowledgeable, I don't know, maybe some sort of evaluation.

In Canada, you have to take a course (about 8 hours) on gun laws, safety, general care, function and history , for both restricted (handguns) and non-restricted (long-barrel) firearms. Our course & tests are very, very easy. In fact, the only people that cannot pass them are the severely mentally incompetent, or those people who are afraid of guns, even when the guns are laying inanimate on a table.

Following that, you have to send in some paperwork and then a full police background check will be performed on you as part of a 28-day waiting period.

That's how easy it is to obtain a possession and acquisition license here, and we do not consider firearm ownership to be a right in Canada, but rather a privilege; so I shudder to think about how easy it is to obtain a firearms license in the USA.

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:
Agreed. Having a culture of responsible, knowledgeable gun owners is always better.

Now if only there was a way to see if prospective gun owners were responsible and knowledgeable, I don't know, maybe some sort of evaluation.

You mean like a background check?

Hordini wrote:

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:
Agreed. Having a culture of responsible, knowledgeable gun owners is always better.

Now if only there was a way to see if prospective gun owners were responsible and knowledgeable, I don't know, maybe some sort of evaluation.

You mean like a background check?

I mean gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination, this removes not only criminals but potential problems as well, I don't think it's a good idea to have extremists and psychopaths roaming round with assault rifles.

dæl wrote:

Hordini wrote:

dæl wrote:

Vaerros wrote:
Agreed. Having a culture of responsible, knowledgeable gun owners is always better.

Now if only there was a way to see if prospective gun owners were responsible and knowledgeable, I don't know, maybe some sort of evaluation.

You mean like a background check?

I mean gun licenses based on extensive psychological examination, this removes not only criminals but potential problems as well, I don't think it's a good idea to have extremists and psychopaths roaming round with assault rifles.

What do you consider an assault rifle?

You do know that a lot of gun crime (probably the majority) is done with stolen guns or guns bought on the black market, and usually by people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun at a gun store, right? Most people who buy guns legally at gun stores aren't the people you need to worry about committing crimes.