Magazine size laws aren’t really effective at doing anything. Up in Canada you can’t have a rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds. However, almost all of the magazines are full size magazines that have been modified to hold fewer rounds. All of the responsible owners leave them at 5, but with a minute or two of work you could turn most of them into full size again. We don’t have mass shootings every day.
Gun violence in America is a culture issue. You’re broken.
The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).
Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that’s usually completely ineffective.
Exactly, it’s very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don’t even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It’s just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe
You seem to be making quite the set of assumptions.
Those of us in favor of firearm ownership do actively want change - but you might be surprised to hear we want changes which actually address underlying issues rather than nonsense about magazine capacities and scary black rifle.
I humped my m4 and m16a2 for 7 fucking years, get fucked with your ‘black rifle scary’ bullshit, sideways.
how are large capacity magazines in any way ‘controversial’ to you fuckwits? fewer rounds in the mag require more reloads bright eyes, it’s pretty fucking simple. you assholes want to justify bump stocks and rotary triggers, you’re not interested in safely keeping and using firearms, you’re interested in not having to give up anything to anyone when the issue is firearms. no compromise, no sanity, just bullshit games about nomenclature and freedumbs.
it’s always telling to me, too, the ones who’s minds get changed when their family members are shot. cause that’s what it takes with your fuckwits, you have neither the imagination or empathy so it literally requires one of your family getting shot at school to actually dig in that theere MAY BEEE A PROBLEM with 400 MILLION FIREARMS in a country of 330 million people.
so yeah, I got 'sumptions. I’m assuming you’re some bolo fuckmuppet who loves his AR more than he thinks kids should be able to go to school terrorized about getting shot.
I humped my m4 and m16a2 for 7 fucking years, get fucked with your ‘black rifle scary’ bullshit, sideways.
Cool. No one cares.
how are large capacity magazines in any way ‘controversial’ to you fuckwits? fewer rounds in the mag require more reloads bright eyes, it’s pretty fucking simple. you assholes want to justify bump stocks and rotary triggers, you’re not interested in safely keeping and using firearms, you’re interested in not having to give up anything to anyone when the issue is firearms. no compromise, no sanity, just bullshit games about nomenclature and freedumbs.
it’s always telling to me, too, the ones who’s minds get changed when their family members are shot. cause that’s what it takes with your fuckwits, you have neither the imagination or empathy so it literally requires one of your family getting shot at school to actually dig in that theere MAY BEEE A PROBLEM with 400 MILLION FIREARMS in a country of 330 million people.
Did you have a point anywhere in that rant and hyperbole?
so yeah, I got 'sumptions. I’m assuming you’re some bolo fuckmuppet who loves his AR more than he thinks kids should be able to go to school terrorized about getting shot.
Ah, very rational.
It might surprise you to learn I’m quite the proponent of actually addressing underlying issues rather than clutching pearls about sCaRy bLaCk RiFLes.
You’ll note this is the second time I’ve provided such an analysis - it seems you didn’t bother to actually check before violently abusing your keyboard.
Your bullshit link doesn’t do shit to reduce the number of firearms, bolo. You still can’t recognize there’s a math problem here and clutch to your premise even though it’s flawed. Gonna block you now, because you’re dumber than dogshit and genuinely aren’t interested in stopping kids from getting murdered.
How do you write something like this without realising what a cunt you sound?
This person is talking about deeply mentally ill people and literal wife beaters losing their guns and your response is to not only oppose that, but to oppose it on the ground of "But they paid for them! You can’t just take away things someone paid for! ".
Oh sorry that’s not fair, you vomited up the words “due process”, like that’s something the pro-gun community believes in as the openly fantasise about executing people on the spot for property crimes and not just something other people built that you think you can spit back in their face.
Do you know why it’s hard to respect the pro-gun crowd?
Because when a legal gun owner in Ulvade used a legally purchased gun to mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition and the entire world asked “What can we change to stop this from happening?”, do you know what their pro-gun community replied?
“I don’t know, maybe something to do with doors or mental health. All I know is that the gun laws in Texas are brilliant, if not too strict. There is nothing I would have changed and selling guns to someone with a history of rape threats and animal abuse is exactly what the founding fathers wanted”.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
Exactly. They act like they know everything and ignore when you try to educate them. Banning any feature of a gun isn’t going to matter, nothing short of a full on ban is going to put a dent in shootings and that’s just not going to happen without civil war.
Arguably addressing root issues would have profound effect… though I tend to agree it won’t happen without civil war, given the current state of partisan politics and waves vaguely at this post
What particular laws have been “completely ineffective”? How are you measuring that efficiency, if not by comparing to countries without them?
We get it, gun owners get salty because they’re not allowed all the toys they want. Their natural state is “tantrum” from America to Canada to Australia to the UK.
But that’s too bad for them. While they may decided that increased risk of people being murdered is fine because they don’t think it will be their family, those countries have decided that their hurt feelings aren’t as important as other people’s lives.
And oh look, they’re way better places to send you kids to school or walk around at night. Who’d have fucking known?
Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest… I still think it’s ridiculous we don’t have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.
Bans restrict freedom for everyone.
License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.
No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an “Assault Rifle” were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of “Restricted Firearms” (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an “Authorization to transport”, to be able to carry a “Restricted”, or “Prohibited” firearm, one must obtain an “Authorization to Carry” (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of “non-restricted” firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and “restricted” firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one’s application, the prospective firearm owner’s application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one’s application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.
I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.
A magazine is literally just a box of certain geometry with a spring inside it. They can be 3D printed or made by hand. No government anywhere can stop the signal. Instead we need to focus on the cultural rot that made narcissists decide it was OK to assault random strangers.
thank you!! this country has a narcissism problem. the hyper-focus on individuality and celebrities not only encourages it, but celebrates it. lots of people look up to narcissistic psychopaths as if being a ruthless egotistical asshole is something to strive for.
i knew a guy that had one poster up, and it was of Tony Montana from Scarface. he would show it off to people as if he were unaware he was indirectly telling everyone that he was an asshole. the guy i knew looked up to a machiavellian drug dealer that easily murdered anyone that got in his way of wealth and power, despite that Tony had a horrible relationship with his wife, was paranoid, and ended up dying from his own shit behaviors.
i knew a girl with a social circle that was all about social media likes. her and her best friend went to Hawaii to take pictures to post on instagram and facebook. i mean, they spent thousands of dollars and planned their days out in Hawaii around going to scenic places so they could waste hours taking and retaking 100s of pictures to post a few of the best ones. these girls had terrible relationships characterized by antagonism and competition. they would hit on each other’s boyfriends and cheat on their own, then get surprisingly upset if anyone else did a 1/10 of what they did to their so-called friends and boyfriends. it was disgusting how they treated each other. even their own individual mentality was marred by these delusions of grandiosity and entitlement that weren’t rooted in rationality or care for others.
whenever i visit other countries, i’m refreshed by the humanity of people there. i think it’s one of the reasons i like traveling so much. i just cannot deal with the narcissism here. it’s exhausting and alienating. anyone have any tips on how to remedy these feelings i get?
For one to be able to utter such words openly is evidence that one enjoys the existence of non-zero amounts of freedom 😉 one must not be complacent in their good-fortune to be born into a society with such freedoms. There are many places in the world with no such guarantees.
I do pretty much whatever the fuck I want every day in the USA. I love the freedom I have here, but it’s a lot better when you’re not poor. I’ve had it both ways and the freedom definitely scales with dollar count.
Yeah, 85% of traceable guns used for crime came from the US. Our asshole neighbours refusal to get their shit together is killing Canadians because they consider their right to kill black people knocking at their door to outweigh the good of everyone else.
And then if we criticize them, they’ll tell us to mind our own business, as if it’s a harmless hobby that doesn’t hurt anyone else.
Yeah, I know, I’m being a little over the top in this comment, but all I can do is air frustrations. Guns are like every other issue conservatives care about. You’ll never change their mind. The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Hold up. Canada’s failure to manage its borders is our issue? This, even aside from how you apparently only care that crime was committed with those darn American handguns rather than that crime was committed. Aren’t you supposed to be the country doing better?
Also, what’s this about right to kill black people? Is this more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Lmao are you really shifting blame from the Canadian criminal to the American gun? You really believe the criminal wouldn’t have committed the crime without a gun? Like above nothing short of a total ban will impact crime, and that’s not going to happen for a few reasons. We are all frustrated from crazies killing people but the solution isn’t in the guns, we need to treat the person.
Also you seem a bit brain washed thinking gun owners just want to kill black people. Maybe you should think hard about that line and who gains from you believing that.
We really could solve so many issues if we just did the basics. Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I’m pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
I agree with all of this. I think almost all of Canada’s gun control laws are sensible. We have sensible laws about transport, storage, safety training, and other things. Magazine size and banning weapons that look scary is not effective though.
Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I’d love to see your source for such positions, especially regarding the magnitude of improvement expected and the justification for such.
We already have extensive background checks for nearly every firearm purchase. I’ve yet to see support for the notion that any meaningful percentage of firearm violence is committed by those who legally purchased a firearm but somehow bypassed a background check.
Similarly, I’ve yet to see any support for the notion that legally requiring safe storage - constitutional violation concerns aside - would make any meaningful improvement. This, at least, one could do much to promote without adding restrictions - I’ve yet to see any blue team support for, say, subsiding safes.
And similarly, there’s no blue team support for subsided, equitable, shall-issue training and licensing - and a lack of indication it would make a difference.
I’m pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Oh? Who are those people? How would you objectively identify such?
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
Ironically, you highlight the reason such a highlight is raised - you do nothing at all about the underlying issue (violence and the pressures for it) and, instead, focus only on the fact firearms are a tool used; tacking on more restrictions which create additional burden for those already doing nothing wrong yet are unlikely to meaningfully impact the crime is absurd. You ignore that the current laws and proposed laws continue to ignore the problems.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
“Common sense” is such a laughably disingenuous phase here. It implies the solutions are obvious and intuitive yet the solutions proposed do nothing for the issue at all beyond setting the stage for fire and fury when such measures are rightly resisted.
You are right that there are a few simple things we can do to meaningfully impact things… but you might be surprised as to what they are.
So are you saying you think banning all guns would be the solution?
I wouldn’t disagree. I just don’t know if it would be entirely possible given how deep the gun culture in America is. I’m just trying to come up with solutions that would make everyone happy.
When it comes to gun storage laws, no. Not having random gun inspections. But say in a situation like a young child getting ahold of a gun that has just been left out, which seems to happen frequently, that should be a massive penalty. I feel like there should be more laws that penalize irresponsible gun owners much more harshly and maybe people would treat them with more respect.
I live in an area of the country where it seems like a bunch of people who are idiots and completely irresponsible love to have a firearm. I vividly remember hanging out with an older buddy years ago driving down a gravel road, he thought he saw a cat on the side so he pulled over really fast and grabbed his handgun so he could shoot it. Those are the type of guys I do not think should have guns. They’re not fucking toys. They’re literal machines made for death. They need to be treated as such.
That’s just my view though. I’m sure there’s others out there with more knowledge on the subject that could come up with better solutions. I just feel like no one is and it’s annoying as shit.
Lovell told police there were two handguns in his vehicle, but he said “he did not know why he would have shot his gun and could not recall any part of the shooting incident,” according to the affidavit.
That’s some use of legal language. “I don’t recall murdering those women. I know they ended up dead, but I don’t know how. What would I have to gain?”
This fuck presided over cases that affected peoples’ lives. Sigh…
“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”
I’m sorry, but if ten shots don’t make your attackers run away, you’re pretty fucked.
I was gonna throw in some sarcastic humor, but it keeps coming out very dark, so I’m withholding that. This sucks.
Attackers do not always run away when presented with lethal force. Sometimes many direct hits are required to stop the threat. Many, many shots can end up in non-critical locations. It’s not like an attacker is allowing you to line up nicely.
PCP. Angel dust will turn someone into a borderline unkillable god. Unless you drive all 10 of those shots into their chest instantly there’s a good chance you’re fucked.
Edit: Crazy how the dude above me is positive for saying the same thing I am.
I’ve seen video of a small lady with a handgun chasing out four home intruders while taking wild, panicked shots. Yes, these guys ran, but not everyone will. Two and a half shots per intruder doesn’t sound like a fun time.
Yeah, well, sometimes your home is invaded and you get killed in your sleep. Shit happens. A gun isn’t going to stop that. You’re way more likely to use it to shoot yourself anyway.
Interestingly enough, the lady doesn’t seem to have died in her sleep - that a firearm did, indeed, stop that invasion. Weird, that.
I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?
The last refuge of the gun proponent pertains to the issue of self-defense. This is certainly a major perceived reason for the private ownership of guns. In a 1979 survey, when asked why they possessed a gun, 20% of all gun owners and 40% of handgun owners cited self-defense as the reason. It is unfortunate that these people may be operating under a delusion, having subjected themselves and their families to great danger in the guise of self-protection. One study examined the number of times a gun is used in self-defense against the risk of having a gun in the home in King County, Washington. The risks measured by the authors were the cumulation of “death from unintentional gunshot wounds, homicide during domestic quarrels, and the ready availability of an immediate, highly lethal means of suicide.” The authors conclude that for every instance of a death resulting from defensive use of a gun, there were 43 gun deaths resulting from domestic fights, accidents, or suicides.
Can you not do math? This isn’t at all in dispute. Having a gun in your home makes you exponentially more likely to be killed by a gun. You are perhaps tenfold more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
I see you didn’t respond to what was stated. As a reminder:
I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?
Right?
This, even before your additional questionable conclusion from what is clearly an source so unbiased you cannot taint its unbiasedness by… actually showing support for your position.
I’ll consider your criticism regarding math when you’ve polished up those reading skills.
No, the subject always had depth. That your understanding is superficial does not mean the goalpost has moved so far as you now understand what the rest of us already realized.
It’s interesting you comment on depth given your demonstrated inability to engage with anything - be it arguments or your own sources - beyond the most superficial.
The same way we allow cops to arrest people and transport them into a police station for booking. There are exceptions to rules. Does that not make sense to you?
It only makes sense for cops to have an exemption if we first accept the premise that standard capacity magazines have utility for personal protection, and not just to shoot into crowds.
The police response to BLM riots is the perfect example of why I think it’s important for the populace to be just as well armed as the government.
I don’t want to sound anything. I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone here thinks. You’re all teenagers and bots. I’m here to make fun of you and express my disgust of the far leftists here that the biggest book they read is in their school curriculum. Spare me your condescension. Who gives a shit anyway!
Consider this…pythons were introduced to the Everglades by idiots throwing their pets away. A few years ago a python ŵas found dead from trying to swallow the alligator it killed. Alligators are no longer the apex predator in the Everglades.
No big cats. The Florida panther is almost extinct and lives in grasslands not swamp. Besides, if I had to bet, I’d put money on the gator…or python now.
Anywhere there is water, and lorida has a lot of water, there is a potential for alligators. Central Florida has a big population of gators. Its only a matter of time.when their predator will come to meet them.
This is law. It takes ten years of practice just to really scratch the surface in one small area of law. Arbitrary compulsive retirements (such freedom) serve only to cause brain and experience drain that cannot be easily made up.
Add to that, most people retire when they should all on their own. Maybe sometimes they need a little push from colleagues. Very rarely does it rise to the level of publis inquest and a forced competency exam.
This time it seems it did, and look! It’s happening. What’s the real problem? Why is throwing the baby out with the bath water seen as a legit solution?
I prefer government officials, and especially judges and senators, to have real experience. Most elders are not senile old coots, especially not those who spent their lifetime in a career that by nature is as daily taxing on memory and recall as is the law. Some say the law is a study and a practice in memory. The best trial lawyers usually have the best memory. Add to that the extensive amount of reading and writing trial attorneys and judges do. It’s not like this judge has been clocking out from a show-up job every day at 5 pm and then doom scrolling or binging Netflix.
I would say of the judges I’ve been before including some elderly federal judges in a senior or retired judge, or magistrate sort of role, have been some of the most knowledgeable, most efficient judges I’ve argued to, especially at the appellate level, where all they do (in theory) is jurisprudence, logical and policy reasoning, and interpretation, the most mentally demanding sort of law practice.
Very rarely does it rise to the level of publis inquest and a forced competency exam.
This time it seems it did, and look! It’s happening. What’s the real problem? Why is throwing the baby out with the bath water seen as a legit solution?
He states that it went wrong this time and that the system in place is correcting the problem. How is that in support of the judge?
The rest of his comment is in support of no age limit for judges. He states in no uncertain terms that the older the judge, the better. His thinking is the cause for a slew of arguably poor decisions made from out of touch geriatric people who overwhelmingly rule over this country.
I’m in support of age limits for people who can directly and insurmountably affect my life. He is not. Therein lies the rub.
I prefer government officials, and especially judges and senators, to have real experience. Most elders are not senile old coots, especially not those who spent their lifetime in a career that by nature is as daily taxing on memory and recall as is the law.
I would say of the judges I’ve been before including some elderly federal judges in a senior or retired judge…
Using context clues, I think it’s fair to say I’m not the one being obtuse with my interpretation of OPs comment. Also, there’s a typo in your quote of me.
See, you’re doing it again. Just because he is ok with some older judges, you’ve drawn the conclusion that he supports this judge - despite the fact that he clearly stated he didn’t. That’s not “contextual clues”, but just reading what you want to read.
You can fire the next bullet in a mag magnitudes faster than you can fire the first bullet in the next mag. Not only drastically lowering the rate a gunman can kill, but dissuading it in the first place
And where do most of them live? Virgina. Virgina has elections going on which will determine the make up of the state legislature. These people have little to do but vote.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.