Smart Guns?

[Belgarathian]

That's not an argument, lots of things are deadly, lots of things cause more innocent death than guns do year over year. You are wanting to infringe the rights of peaceful individuals via the violence of the state, using the very things you claim to despise. 

 

Nice presumption and projection. So now only gun death is an issue? Death in general is not? What about other victimization? When waiting periods were introduced deaths didn't change but rapes went up. IF the problem is the reservation of the use of deadly force the true bogeyman you need to be concerned with is the state, not your fellow man, and not their possession of guns.

 

Legal gun ownership shows no connection with increased victimization. But the curtailing of said rights does incur victimizations across the board.

 

You're right. There are more homicides and deaths by other means, but it's so much harder to murder 30 people in a school with a steak knife at 1pm.

[tbroadwater2010]

Thank you for correcting me, and I would agree that if you illegally purchase a weapon you likely have nefarious plans. 

 

PA might have that solution, but sadly America needs congress to act on gun control and spearhead gun reform across all states as there are huge inconsistencies between them. 

PA is admittedly one the easiest and most lack at gun laws. so if PA is semi good enough for you, then there are VERY FEW states that have easier gun laws. And thats just to carry. You still must be of age to own a weapon, and ALSO you can not legally own a weapon that is automatic (semi automatic is ok) or modify a gun in ANY WAY to make it fully automatic. Also a federal offense. So the assault rifle is semi auto. Still understandably scary, but seeing the background checks and multitudes of paperwork is requires to own any weapon, it dramatically cuts down on people who are not legally able to have a gun, owning one.

[SansVarnic]

not part of the problem. part of the solution to the problem. I honestly stopped following this post a while ago because it doesnt make sense LOL. but congratulations on having no gun freedoms.

 

Unfortunately you are taking the wrong point of view in this debate. Having and owning your own firearm does not present a solution to issue of gun violence. Your statement of owning a firearm is great to the point that you support the right to have and own but as for the solution is much more involved than this. Responsibility, awareness, ethics, morality, etc. are things that are amiss here and being held accountable lawfully are all things that tie in to this issue. Great you can use a firearm to protect yourself and it is a solution that works for you individually but it does not work for everyone. Blanket statements like the one you made do not address the issue behind gun violence nor does it offer a solid solution. All this does is hurts you as a reliable source and helps those that wish to increase unnecessary gun control. I can make a case that you are not sound of mind by making that statement and that you believe that the solution by carrying is justified murder of the criminal element.

 

Now I know you did not in any way say this but think about what you say in the future and how you say it before stating in a public forum. Your words can be easily twisted and used against you.

 

...aaaaaand what solution are you part of BECAUSE you carry a gun everywhere. 

 

not much of one. 

 

 

-Disclaimer- I've only read the first 5 pages, so I'm sorry if someone has already said this.

 

Pretty sure this tech is designed to protect the user in the scenario that the gun owner is disarmed, the gun can't be used against them. It's not to stop you shooting people, sorry, shooting in 'self defense'. The limitations are that if your batteries run flat after you forgot to replace them when it warned you, or you put the watch on the other wrist (how dumb are you), then yes... You're probably screwed. 

 

Exactly this is what the designers were thinking when the tech was originally developed. (I have been keeping up with this company since they originally announced this tech several years ago).

Unfortunately this technology is a 2 edged sword. 1) it is tech and it can fail and any given moment  2) the tech has a weakness by being jammed from the criminal element.

Unfortunate there is also a 3rd thing, government abuse, this can be used to prevent say a group of armed people from using the weapon in a revolutionary movement, that is not to much of stretch of thought but quite possible.

[HalGameGuru]

Thank you for correcting me, and I would agree that if you illegally purchase a weapon you likely have nefarious plans. 

 

PA might have that solution, but sadly America needs congress to act on gun control and spearhead gun reform across all states as there are huge inconsistencies between them. 

Technically it is not illegal to sell a gun between two individuals without a background check. The entire premise of the installation of that requirement was interstate commerce and that is not triggered by individual actors, unless they cross state borders. But, you cannot sell anything through craigslist. You have to meet up in person. And if you are going to sell to someone out of state you HAVE to ship to an FFL and they have to have a background check before receiving the firearm. And most people do that even in state in person to person transactions, they go to a gun shop and have the shop handle the transfer and do a background check at the time of sale.

 

In the event you do sell to another individual you are in the wrong if you suspect they are unable to legally possess or purchase a firearm legally and sell to them anyway. But a lot of the attempts at insinuating the state into interpersonal transactions falls apart by where they derive those powers and the system in place to make that happen. You cannot force an individual to become an FFL to sell A gun. As it is neither their business, nor would that individual be guaranteed to have the ability to procure an FFL to begin with.

[HalGameGuru]

You're right. There are more homicides and deaths by other means, but it's so much harder to murder 30 people in a school with a steak knife at 1pm.

The Chinese are doing a bang up job of perfecting the technique.

[HalGameGuru]

PA is admittedly one the easiest and most lack at gun laws. so if PA is semi good enough for you, then there are VERY FEW states that have easier gun laws. And thats just to carry. You still must be of age to own a weapon, and ALSO you can not legally own a weapon that is automatic (semi automatic is ok) or modify a gun in ANY WAY to make it fully automatic. Also a federal offense. So the assault rifle is semi auto. Still understandably scary, but seeing the background checks and multitudes of paperwork is requires to own any weapon, it dramatically cuts down on people who are not legally able to have a gun, owning one.

I don't know PA's specific laws but you should check and make sure, most states limit the PURCHASE of a firearm but not ownership. A 12 year old could own a rifle for hunting given to him by family, or a pistol used for competition procured similarly.

[stconquest]

No, my inherent human RIGHTS allow me to own and carry whatever I wish, America's second amendment merely tells the government not to interfere with that specific right. It neither grants nor imbues any rights upon anyone.

 

I can end someone's life with a car, a spoon, an empty hypodermic needle, a can of brake cleaner. Your issue is with the people who would use a tool maliciously, not those who are no danger no matter the tool they possess.

 

Your own commentary belies your argument as it pertains to America. The vast majority of both homicide and victimization revolving around guns would go away with the dissolution of the war on drugs. Even with the way we record our stats the majority of it is gang and drug related, which are due to an OVERREACH of policing, and lack of intelligence on the part of the powers that be. Remove that impetus and see how the stats change.

 

I am curious, what are these inherent human rights?  I want to laugh a bit.

 

Yes, people can be killed in many ways that do not involve a firearm;  and yes, I have a problem with murder no matter the tools used.

 

No my argument does not fail to ring true.  If you understood my argument, you would not have said that.  I am not referring to murder rates involving firearms.  I am arguing against the entire manufacturing sector and the laws that embolden the overproduction of weapons.

 

Try this:  How about America controls where guns that are manufactured in house end up.  Guns manufactured in the USA, end up on the black market here in Canada.  Without your shitty ass system of laws, more over how those laws are interpreted and enforced, my fellow citizens would be better off;  at least where gun violence is concerned.

 

[HalGameGuru]

I am curious, what are these inherent human rights?  I want to laugh a bit.

 

Yes, people can be killed in many ways that do not involve a firearm;  and yes, I have a problem with murder no matter the tools used.

 

No my argument does not fail to ring true.  If you understood my argument, you would not have said that.  I am not referring to murder rates involving firearms.  I am arguing against the entire manufacturing sector and the laws that embolden the overproduction of weapons.

 

Try this:  How about America controls where guns that are manufactured in house end up.  Guns manufactured in the USA, end up on the black market here in Canada.  Without your shitty ass system of laws, more over how those laws are interpreted and enforced, my fellow citizens would be better off;  at least where gun violence is concerned.

 

HAve you studied up on the Non-Aggression Principle, Self-Ownership, Natural Law, Argumentation Ethics, etc.? My stance on property rights stem from Self-Ownership. Any involuntary or nonconsensual limitation on such things, enacted or enforced by coercion or violence is wrong.

 

So Canada has a gun violence problem? Illegal weapons and victimization? Seems like an issue with Canadian criminals more than American freedom. Is it Canada's fault America has a war on drugs and Canada was historically a strong supplier of Marijuana? I have no concern over property ownership or transfer, if people are doing such things illegally where you are that sounds like a problem for YOUR law enforcement. If they are victimizing people that ALSO sounds like a problem for your law enforcement. It is not my concern what your country's citizens choose to do surrounding things your state finds to be illegal any more than I can hold Canada responsible for what Americans or the government chooses to do over or about marijuana. Although America's stance and laws on it are ridiculous.

 

Interesting that your citizenry's lack of respect for your nation's laws is America's problem...

[Belgarathian]

PA is admittedly one the easiest and most lack at gun laws. so if PA is semi good enough for you, then there are VERY FEW states that have easier gun laws. And thats just to carry. You still must be of age to own a weapon, and ALSO you can not legally own a weapon that is automatic (semi automatic is ok) or modify a gun in ANY WAY to make it fully automatic. Also a federal offense. So the assault rifle is semi auto. Still understandably scary, but seeing the background checks and multitudes of paperwork is requires to own any weapon, it dramatically cuts down on people who are not legally able to have a gun, owning one.

 

Thank you for clearing this up. Are there states where it is easier to get guns, or have automatic weapons? There have been heaps of reports about kids getting tons of ammo from Wallmart and acquiring guns cheaply from bulk stores. 

[HalGameGuru]

Thank you for clearing this up. Are there states where it is easier to get guns, or have automatic weapons? There have been heaps of reports about kids getting tons of ammo from Wallmart and acquiring guns cheaply from bulk stores. 

Ammo isn't a big issue, if you practice regularly, or shoot competitively thousands of rounds a month are the norm. 

 

As for automatic weapons, new manufacture for retail sale has been banned for a while. And to get one you have to either have a firearms trust or a very permissive Chief Law Enforcement Officer, whom has to sign off on any NFA transfer to an individual. 

 

Although to be fair, in America, aside from Miami Vice, LEGAL fully auto weapons used in a crime is sparse, and of all crimes involving a gun since the 80's the number of fully auto weapons was something like a thousandth of a percent, and those were all illegally procured or modified.

 

From a Redditor: "Almost none. There are 3 known incidents of legally owned full auto firearms being used to commit a crime since 1934. 2 of those 3 incidents were by cops IIRC. The North Hollywood incident is one of the extreme few that were done with illegally modified firearms. There's not any data out there because there really aren't many other incidents."

 

There used to be a time you could order a fully automatic weapon from the Sears Roebuck catalog. With no background checks or even age checks. Heck even as late as the 50's and 60's red blooded american boys could buy dynamite fuse and the chemicals to make rocket fuel (an explosive) with nary a raised eyebrow. Kary Mullis has a good video on the subject, I think it may have been his "Sons of Sputnik" video but it may have been his "Celebration of the Scientific Experiment" video.

 

EDIT: on Ammo a lot of the bulk purchases recently have been hoarders or people looking to resell on the aftermarket TO hoarders. People would learn when the shipments would arrive at Walmart, buy out the whole lot at retail, then bump up the prices 50-100% and resell same day to people who were unaware but knew Walmart was already sold out.

[stconquest]

HAve you studied up on the Non-Aggression Principle, Self-Ownership, Natural Law, Argumentation Ethics, etc.? My stance on property rights stem from Self-Ownership. Any involuntary or nonconsensual limitation on such things, enacted or enforced by coercion or violence is wrong.

 

So Canada has a gun violence problem? Illegal weapons and victimization? Seems like an issue with Canadian criminals more than American freedom. Is it Canada's fault America has a war on drugs and Canada was historically a strong supplier of Marijuana? I have no concern over property ownership or transfer, if people are doing such things illegally where you are that sounds like a problem for YOUR law enforcement. If they are victimizing people that ALSO sounds like a problem for your law enforcement. It is not my concern what your country's citizens choose to do surrounding things your state finds to be illegal any more than I can hold Canada responsible for what Americans or the government chooses to do over or about marijuana. Although America's stance and laws on it are ridiculous.

 

Interesting that your citizenry's lack of respect for your nation's laws is America's problem...

 

You are well versed in your understanding of rights, but those privileges are bestowed upon you by the law.  Laws are written by us to keep us from causing harm to others and to ourselves.  You do not seem to have a grasp on the term inherent or, more likely, I treat the term differently than you. 

 

Inherently, you do have the right to own and carry firearms.  Inherently, the community around you has the right to limit how you own them and where you can carry your guns; even taking them away if need be.  If the community around said you are not fit to have a gun and people(unarmed) came to take your guns away, would you feel justified in using lethal force to stop them?  See, the laws can be twisted in order to progress towards a more peaceful state.  Conversely those same laws can be twisted without the general well being of others in mind.

 

Now, keeping your shitty excuses for freedom to yourselves:  How is the fact that US made guns illegally ending up in Canadian territory, not a concern for the USA?  Sounds like you are saying that just because the USA is a judiciary mess where gun control is concerned, the affects of US incompetency on other nations is not their problem.  Maybe you can stop with your know it all pretense and admit there are problems with current US policies. 

 

Look, no country is perfect.  Acting like you have inherent human right to a faulty set of laws built on ancient ideologies does not make you right.  It just makes you... a republican?  Sorry, bad joke, bad joke.

[SansVarnic]

Thank you for clearing this up. Are there states where it is easier to get guns, or have automatic weapons? There have been heaps of reports about kids getting tons of ammo from Wallmart and acquiring guns cheaply from bulk stores. 

 

It is possible to own a fully automatic weapon. The thing is you have to file with the ATF to get a Class 3 permit to buy one. In some state silencer or suppressors are legal but other state require a class 3 permit to own as well. Its not easy to get a class 3, the process can be expensive and lengthy.

 

You have to 18 minimum to buy ammunition, in some states you have to be 21. Example; in Iowa you have to be 18 to buy shotgun shells, but you have to be 21 to buy handgun or rifle ammunition.

Not sure about other states though. I am pretty sure the minimum age is the same in all states.

 

*edit

In Iowa you can own the weapon but it has to be a show piece, the firing pin has to be removed. I think in order for the weapon to be able to fire you have to have a signed waiver from the governor but don't quote me on this I will have to research it.

Edited January 22, 2016 by SansVarnic

[tbroadwater2010]

Thank you for clearing this up. Are there states where it is easier to get guns, or have automatic weapons? There have been heaps of reports about kids getting tons of ammo from Wallmart and acquiring guns cheaply from bulk stores. 

Im not 100% sure but i believe it is federal law that no guns can be fully automatic. And yes owning ammo in any amount is legal and Walmart does carry lots of ammo. As for guns being cheap, you can get used guns from licensed resellers for pretty cheap if your looking for used. 

[HalGameGuru]

You are well versed in your understanding of rights, but those privileges are bestowed upon you by the law.  Laws are written by us to keep us from causing harm to others and to ourselves.  You do not seem to have a grasp on the term inherent or, more likely, I treat the term differently than you. 

 

Inherently, you do have the right to own and carry firearms.  Inherently, the community around you has the right to limit how you own them and where you can carry your guns; even taking them away if need be.  If the community around said you are not fit to have a gun and people(unarmed) came to take your guns away, would you feel justified in using lethal force to stop them?  See, the laws can be twisted in order to progress towards a more peaceful state.  Conversely those same laws can be twisted without the general well being of others in mind.

 

Now, keeping your shitty excuses for freedom to yourselves:  How is the fact that US made guns illegally ending up in Canadian territory not a concern for the USA?  Sounds like you are saying that just because the USA is a judiciary mess where gun control is concerned, the affects of US incompetency on other nations is not their problem.  Maybe you can stop with your know it all pretense and admit there are problems with current US policies. 

 

Look, no country is perfect.  Acting like you have inherent human right to a faulty set of laws built on ancient ideologies does not make you right.  It just makes you... a republican?  Sorry, bad joke, bad joke.

No, legislative laws imbue no rights, your rights are inherent, laws can merely respect or deny those rights.

 

It's not a concern unless an American did something immoral or illegal putting them there. Which that individual would then be liable for his actions to whomever took umbrage to them. As it is, it is far more likely to be Canadian citizens bringing guns into Canada and/or reselling them illicitly. America, as a nation, is not responsible for individual actions. If you find an american illegally selling arms in canada bring him up on charges. That's not my concern. The fact that it is possible for a Canadian citizen to purchase a firearm in America under certain circumstances is no crime on America's part. Although if Canada is shipping people over here to purchase guns to take back illicitly to Canada I feel, under your premise, that would make it Canada's problem once again. Anyone trafficking guns over international borders is breaking multiple laws on both sides of the border. Does that mean either nation has a problem or people who would do such a thing need to be dealt with? And if it is a problem is marijuana Canada's problem? Or an issue to be dealt with over the individuals doing such acts?

 

I have an inherent human right not to be aggressed against in my person or property, and I have the right to any property I come to own through voluntary/consensual or productive means. Unless and until I aggress against someone you have no right to use violence or coercion against me. If you have a problem with my holding certain property bring it up to me, to my insurance, to my neighbors, or stop dealing with me and ostracize me into compliance with your whims. I find that stance as inane as certain Americans' similar stance on marijuana. If you are willing to use violence to enforce your opinion on people who have done you no harm YOU are the problem.

[HalGameGuru]

Im not 100% sure but i believe it is federal law that no guns can be fully automatic. And yes owning ammo in any amount is legal and Walmart does carry lots of ammo. As for guns being cheap, you can get used guns from licensed resellers for pretty cheap if your looking for used. 

Technically it is only the law that such guns cannot be manufactured for civilian purchase. Nor easily modified to do so. And as it is the interstate commerce clause that they derive such powers from a lot of states have laws on the books or upcoming that any firearm wholly manufactured within their borders, that is kept within their borders can be NFA without any federal overreach. There have been no new commercial full auto weapons since the 80's. I do hope at some point that is repealed, as it is to get an M16 or Thompson will cost you 5 figures. 

 

You can get a brand new gun for under 200 if you are OK with it being ugly or a 22. And you can build your own if you want something ugly and only quasi-expedient.

 

EDIT: I'd love to one day own a Thompson or M14 if only for the history and engineering of it. Make a great entry for the full auto event shoots held once or twice a year around the country as well.

[SansVarnic]

Technically it is only the law that such guns cannot be manufactured for civilian purchase. Nor easily modified to do so. And as it is the interstate commerce clause that they derive such powers from a lot of states have laws on the books or upcoming that any firearm wholly manufactured within their borders, that is kept within their borders can be NFA without any federal overreach. There have been no new commercial full auto weapons since the 80's. I do hope at some point that is repealed, as it is to get an M16 or Thompson will cost you 5 figures. 

 

You can get a brand new gun for under 200 if you are OK with it being ugly or a 22. And you can build your own if you want something ugly and only quasi-expedient.

 

EDIT: I'd love to one day own a Thompson or M14 if only for the history and engineering of it. Make a great entry for the full auto event shoots held once or twice a year around the country as well.

Only thing is full auto is overrated personally. I prefer to stick with semi-auto.

[HalGameGuru]

Only thing is full auto is overrated personally. I prefer to stick with semi-auto.

Oh same here, for effect and practicality semi auto is far better, I would like one of those specific models solely for the history/engineering and fun factor. Neither of those would be defense or "life and liberty" guns.

[stconquest]

No, legislative laws imbue no rights, your rights are inherent, laws can merely respect or deny those rights.

 

It's not a concern unless an American did something immoral or illegal putting them there. Which that individual would then be liable for his actions to whomever took umbrage to them. As it is, it is far more likely to be Canadian citizens bringing guns into Canada and/or reselling them illicitly. America, as a nation, is not responsible for individual actions. If you find an american illegally selling arms in canada bring him up on charges. That's not my concern. The fact that it is possible for a Canadian citizen to purchase a firearm in America under certain circumstances is no crime on America's part. Although if Canada is shipping people over here to purchase guns to take back illicitly to Canada I feel, under your premise, that would make it Canada's problem once again. Anyone trafficking guns over international borders is breaking multiple laws on both sides of the border. Does that mean either nation has a problem or people who would do such a thing need to be dealt with? And if it is a problem is marijuana Canada's problem? Or an issue to be dealt with over the individuals doing such acts?

 

I have an inherent human right not to be aggressed against in my person or property, and I have the right to any property I come to own through voluntary/consensual or productive means. Unless and until I aggress against someone you have no right to use violence or coercion against me. If you have a problem with my holding certain property bring it up to me, to my insurance, to my neighbors, or stop dealing with me and ostracize me into compliance with your whims. I find that stance as inane as certain Americans' similar stance on marijuana. If you are willing to use violence to enforce your opinion on people who have done you no harm YOU are the problem.

 

That was fun.  You intrigued me with your understanding of personal rights.  Things I should study up on.

 

I perceive your reluctance to identify an issue with the overproduction of firearms as something of a one-off with you.  Possibly trying to argue the wrong side to a better degree than someone arguing the right.  I am done, you are too willing. 

 

If gun control was passed to a degree that a citizen adamantly disagreed with and refused to acknowledge, that citizen would be breaking the law; their guns could be seized with under the force of "law";  whether or not the citizen did any harm to another.

 

I am drained, you killed me.  I will respond if you quote.  Don't expect it immediately, not that I have been that fast to respond up to now. 

[Real_PhillBert]

true, you're not 1st... But you're right behind Albania and pretty much every other 3rd world nation in civil unrest with huge amounts of corruption (I'm making some broad generalisations here).

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

 

And just because you're not 1st, doesn't mean that it's okay... Islam has killed more people than Hitler and the Nazi regime, but that doesn't make it okay. What makes America particularly disturbing and disgusting is that you have the ability and power to drive gun reform and protect your people, but you actively campaign to stop it.  

 

In 2016, you've had more mass shooting victims than there are days. And when it comes to discuss how to solve this issue, you make it legal to carry weapons on campus, arm the teachers, and hire a security guard who's expected to be a f*cking superhero for $16/hr and no health insurance.

 

I have never claimed to be happy with the level of violence in the US. I just think it is counter productive to both sides when people are presenting misinformation. A logical discussion cannot exist when people throw around fallacies as fact. 

[HalGameGuru]

That was fun.  You intrigued me with your understanding of personal rights.  Things I should study up on.

 

I perceive your reluctance to identify an issue with the overproduction of firearms as something of a one-off with you.  Possibly trying to argue the wrong side to a better degree than someone arguing the right.  I am done, you are too willing. 

 

If gun control was passed to a degree that a citizen adamantly disagreed with and refused to acknowledge, that citizen would be breaking the law; their guns could be seized with under the force of "law";  whether or not the citizen did any harm to another.

 

I am drained, you killed me.  I will respond if you quote.  Don't expect it immediately, not that I have been that fast to respond up to now. 

 

And that seizure would be an overstep, I will argue the intellectual logic and premises of the law we have to live under, but by extension of my view on rights most of the state's intrusion is entirely immoral and most of its very existence is repugnant to human morality.

 

And anyone can argue for such actions, so long as they recognize and admit the allowance for violence it takes is inherently wrong, they can argue for whatever they want. You want to ban marijuana, feel free to make that argument, but realize the use of force via the state to enforce that opinion is wrong.

 

I don't see an issue with overproduction, it only exists because the demand is there. And the PROFITS are there BECAUSE of gun control. Same reason why gangs and cartels exist, drug laws make the trade in such commodities imminently more lucrative. It's no different with anything, no matter what laws you put out there will be those who want what you prohibit. And the more effort you put into that prohibition the more profitable sidestepping that prohibition becomes. The mafia only exploded in power because of alcohol prohibition, drug cartels and street gangs only exploded because of the war on drugs. And most of the gun violence we have to deal with is due to these same factors. Bad actors crowd out good ones when protections and allowances for the good actors disappear. You're gonna see crime and violence continue to drop in places like Colorado and Washington as more of the inane drug laws get chipped away.

 

In our back and forth I did some checking up on canada and I was immensely surprised to see its violent crime rate was almost THREE TIMES America's. Homicide rate was expectedly low, although a lot of America's bloat there is difference in tabulation. Does Canada follow the UK's statistical aggregation for such things? I would assume not with how high the violent crime rate is, but maybe. Making allowances that most of America's homicide rate is due to drugs and gangs, and apparently most of Canada's homicides are presumed to be gang related as well, but America also counts justified self-defense and accidents as homicide I was quite surprised by the prevalence of victimization. 

[HalGameGuru]

On the claim of the numbers of mass shooting victims, whose numbers are we using? There was a tabulation going around for a while that massively inflated the numbers due to bad aggregation(counting certain instances more than once) and horrific misdefinition(of mass shooting, firearm, and injured parties), including an instance where a couple of teenagers with a BB gun injured themselves and a couple of other people by being jackasses and that adding 4 to the count of those involved in "mass shootings"

[stconquest]

And that seizure would be an overstep, I will argue the intellectual logic and premises of the law we have to live under, but by extension of my view on rights most of the state's intrusion is entirely immoral and most of its very existence is repugnant to human morality.

 

And anyone can argue for such actions, so long as they recognize and admit the allowance for violence it takes is inherently wrong, they can argue for whatever they want. You want to ban marijuana, feel free to make that argument, but realize the use of force via the state to enforce that opinion is wrong.

 

I don't see an issue with overproduction, it only exists because the demand is there. And the PROFITS are there BECAUSE of gun control. Same reason why gangs and cartels exist, drug laws make the trade in such commodities imminently more lucrative. It's no different with anything, no matter what laws you put out there will be those who want what you prohibit. And the more effort you put into that prohibition the more profitable sidestepping that prohibition becomes. The mafia only exploded in power because of alcohol prohibition, drug cartels and street gangs only exploded because of the war on drugs. And most of the gun violence we have to deal with is due to these same factors. Bad actors crowd out good ones when protections and allowances for the good actors disappear. You're gonna see crime and violence continue to drop in places like Colorado and Washington as more of the inane drug laws get chipped away.

 

In our back and forth I did some checking up on canada and I was immensely surprised to see its violent crime rate was almost THREE TIMES America's. Homicide rate was expectedly low, although a lot of America's bloat there is difference in tabulation. Does Canada follow the UK's statistical aggregation for such things? I would assume not with how high the violent crime rate is, but maybe. Making allowances that most of America's homicide rate is due to drugs and gangs, and apparently most of Canada's homicides are presumed to be gang related as well, but America also counts justified self-defense and accidents as homicide I was quite surprised by the prevalence of victimization. 

 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm

 

Roughly 500-600 homicides (reported) per year. 

 

"Notes: Homicide includes Criminal Code offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide."

 

Yeah, it is a regular gangster convention up here... jk.  :lol:

[HalGameGuru]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm

 

Roughly 500-600 homicides (reported) per year. 

 

"Notes: Homicide includes Criminal Code offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide."

 

Yeah, it is a regular gangster convention up here... jk.  :lol:

I haven't seen any info to say whether Canada follows the American system of counting homicide based on raw numbers or the UK system of convictions. I don't have a copy of the criminal code of Canada to say whether its counted as a murder only with a conviction for murder like in the UK. I don't know for sure if its the same for violent crime rates either. A couple of much older papers showed massive differences in reported crime stats and internal prosecutions. To the order of all of Canada's violent crime reportedly totaling 1.4 million instances but that same year Ontario alone showing 4 million judicial prosecutions of violent crime. That was apparently from the 80's before Canada created its dedicated statistical wing of its judiciary, similarly to the US with the FBI's Uniform Crime Report ( I believe is what it is called)

 

But, I honestly don't fear homicide as I am not a part of any gang, and I have almost no fear of personal or property crime, even living in a rougher part of a higher crime rate town. But, as we're discussing statistics rather than experience that doesn't matter much. I do still find it interesting that there can be so many huge swings even in geographically contiguous locations or so similar stats where culture or demographics are similar.

 

Mexico's gun laws are draconian, but their victimization you could almost entirely point towards the drug war as to their majority cause.

[MrDynamicMan]

Sounds like it would fairly easy to jam the signal.

and hack the mainframe?

[DocShay]

Terrible idea. There is already enough things that *could* go wrong preventing a firearm from discharging - Adding more to the equation will not help.