|
10711. Wombat - 2/19/2013 9:20:11 PM Canada also has strict gun control and Mexico is essentially lawless in parts. 10712. iiibbb - 2/19/2013 9:20:38 PM Canada doesn't have particularly strict laws. 10713. Wombat - 2/19/2013 10:53:22 PM Canadian gun laws are less strict than in some US jurisdictions, but the laws are applied uniformly across Canada. The Canadian laws are more restrictive of handguns, and the police are involved in a way that would make US gunowners uneasy from a constitutional standpoint.
From a surprisingly temperate article by my old schoolmate David Kopel: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html 10714. iiibbb - 2/19/2013 11:09:39 PM It is weakening in Canada due to expense and noncompliance... and confiscations only made compliance even less likely.
Bill C-68
The Firearms Act was created by Bill C-68, An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons, which was introduced in 1993, and aimed at the licensing of all gun owners and registration of all firearms. The bill also classified replica firearms as prohibited devices, with those already owned being grandfathered. It was passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent in 1995. The Canadian Firearms Centre was established in 1996 to oversee the administration of its measures.[6]
and
The registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 1995 and the deadline for gun owners to register their non-restricted firearms was January 1, 2003.[7] Compliance was a dismal failure: Over 70% of all firearms in Canada were never registered.
10715. alistairconnor - 2/20/2013 3:40:36 PM No north/south gradient in Europe.
Among EU countries, the highest death rate is the Netherlands (slightly north of centre), followed by... Finland and Portugal.
(I'm tempted to say : bang goes that theory) 10716. iiibbb - 2/20/2013 4:18:27 PM There may be other factors in Europe given the culture and population densities.
The North American continent is a little more homogeneous.
The pattern holds in South America, and in the Asia/South Pacific islands. Russia doesn't count because all of those deaths are on the western side... nothing in Siberia.
So I don't think the theory is meritless...
and Oh snap!, it's seasonal too.
So it's good thing you didn't say bang!... it was pointed at your face :P 10717. iiibbb - 2/20/2013 4:19:59 PM Double snap 10718. thoughtful - 2/22/2013 3:39:49 AM NOVA had a program on what makes a rampage killer and there was an interesting quote: we need to make mental health care more readily available than guns..... 10719. iiibbb - 2/22/2013 4:01:00 PM I saw one proposal in the news the other day (no link) where some people are proposing liability insurance for guns as a means to prevent gun violence.
Now aside from the fact that it makes no sense (my homeowners/renters policy covers my firearms liability), and just seems like a way for some 1 percenter to make a shit-ton of money.
How does insurance prevent anything?
This is what passes for common sense gun control? Democrats had better be careful how feverish they get to take these massacres out on the people who had nothing to do with them.
10720. iiibbb - 2/22/2013 4:03:28 PM People I have discussed with this have said the insurance is to cover what happens when the gun is stolen. Why would I keep a policy on a gun that is stolen? How long would I have to pay for it after it was no longer in my possession?
That's not how car insurance works... I'm not liable for something some car thief does with my car after it is stolen. 10721. arkymalarky - 2/22/2013 4:15:52 PM I think it's an excellent idea. I've personally known of several accidental deaths involving other people's guns. 10722. arkymalarky - 2/22/2013 4:16:37 PM You should be at least as responsible for your gun as you are your car. 10723. iiibbb - 2/22/2013 4:32:48 PM Homeowners/renters insurance covers liability in general for accidents...but I guess there are people who don't have that.
Not sure how you would insure criminals.
What happens after the gun leaves my possession by theft or otherwise? I'm going to cancel that policy. So there will be a number of uninsured guns out there.
At the end of the day the coverage is likely to be pretty inexpensive.
10724. Wombat - 2/22/2013 5:31:26 PM You are also going to report the gun as stolen, one hopes, and provide information about it (make, model, serial number) to law enforcement, correct? 10725. iiibbb - 2/22/2013 6:49:50 PM I would insured or not.... what does insurance do to prevent accidents or crime? 10726. judithathome - 2/22/2013 7:27:44 PM Democrats had better be careful how feverish they get to take these massacres out on the people who had nothing to do with them.
Am I allowed to get feverish about the sequester? Republicans seem determined to punish the public when we had nothing to do with that insane proposal...which BOTH parties voted for in order to force themsleves to act sensibly...now, they can't even accomplish what that crazed thing was supposed to force them into...I had nothing to do with that but if I decide to fly somewhere after sequester goes into effect, it may take 4 hours or more to get onto the plane...which will be flying in air with far fewer air traffic controllers.
Same with gun laws...you have to look at the whole ball of wax, not just some niche support from gun owners who live in fear of the government.
10727. iiibbb - 2/22/2013 7:37:12 PM Judith, I think the economy/sequester is the Democrat's mandate right now. They should hammer the Republicans hard over it. I think that adding gun control to the ball of wax, creates instability in the mandate. Which could mean no solution to the economy/sequester come 2014.
I'm do not want to trade a budget fix for gun control. That's not why I've been voting Democrat. 10728. iiibbb - 2/22/2013 7:39:57 PM It seems though that my understanding of politics was wrong. It's not about having platforms and finding compromises... it's creating stalemates until the party has an advantage and then getting as much shoved down the throats of moderates as the party possibly can get away with. 10729. judithathome - 2/22/2013 10:57:32 PM Well, you just nailed what politics TODAY is all about...and will be about until Republicans gain the Senate and the Presidency.
Then, everything will be just ducky because they can do what they want...which, if they allow the sequester to go through, will be what THEY want because they have shown since Obama was elected...it's what they want to happen.
Everyone seems to forget that this "compromise" of the sequester was so bad, it was believed that no one in their right minds would vote FOR it to happen...funny, in that the left gave credence to the right that they would SEE it was madness to let it happen. As usual, giving too much credit to the right that they would do the sane thing and come together to defeat it.
10730. robertjayb - 2/24/2013 12:07:02 AM Sunday, Bloody Sunday...
WASHINGTON (AP) — Guest lineups for the Sunday TV news shows:
ABC's "This Week" — Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.
___
NBC's "Meet the Press" — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood; Govs. Deval Patrick, D-Mass., and Bobby Jindal, R-La.
___
CBS' "Face the Nation" — Education Secretary Arne Duncan; Govs. Martin O'Malley, D-Md., Bob McDonnell, R-Va., Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., and John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.; Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa.; Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Tim Kaine, D-Va,
___
CNN's "State of the Union" — LaHood; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Gov. Daniel Malloy, D-Conn.
___
"Fox News Sunday" — Govs. Jack Markell, D-Del., and Scott Walker, R-Wis.; Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Wonder if Holder and the ever-vigilant justice department will be commended for bravery in taking on Lance Armstrong after cutting infinite slack for Wall Street criminals.
Interesting priorities.
|
