I'm Pro-Gun, Change My Mind

I live part of the year in Canada. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

That's fine, but that's in addition to a national firearms permit.

 

It depends upon which deaths you're reporting--murders, gun deaths, etc.

 

Exactly and the topic was homicides.

 

Criminals don't care about permits.

 

So without a government imposed consequences for meth use, you’re telling me you’d be all up on the pipe? The actual consequences of meth use would not be enough for you to want to preserve your job, or your education options?

And how does that relate to the ease of firearms manufacture? You think there’s a section of society restrained from a mass murder culminating in suicide due to the impact it might have on their resume?

 

70% of America already has some form of gun control!

 

I am telling you that I might be more likely to experiment with 'recreational drug' use but for the potential consequence of a criminal charge that would be a career ender for me. It is from the population of 'recreational drug users' that addiction is derived. Addicts are by their nature great deniers of 'actual consequences' so stopping some of them earlier bfore addiction sets in is of benefit. This relates to gun manufacture, because even if a product is easy to make or acquire, there are potential arrests all through a system of purchase, holding, and transport that can produce a paper trail in law enforcement. The same people who are likely to report illegal holding, purchase and transport, can be the same valuable sources law enforcement can count on to report a plan, some suspicious activity or comments. They are just doing it earlier in the process. if ownership itself is a crime, you don't have to wait for them to actually shoot somebody or try to establish a compromised mental or emotional state consistent with some statute. You get to grab the parts, and arrest. And then you have options.

 

We wouldn't issue them a permit, but we will lock them up for possessing a firearm without one.

 

You’re likely to experiment with firearm production with the intent to murder large groups of people without the threat that there might be a mark on your record?

Your argument is that irresponsible people who deny consequence will be thwarted by the chance that there might be a consequence?

Why wait to arrest someone for a crime they haven’t committed? Should the penalty for your new crime be the same as the penalty for the crime you’re trying to prevent?

 

Why are you posting this? Every city and most large towns in the world has, and always will have, a problem with crime. With the UK violent crime is related to knife attacks but this thread is about gun crime and the result of arming civilians. Are you suggesting that one individual armed with a blade could kill 49 people and wounding 53in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in a few minutes ? of course not, its totally ridiculous.
The truth is that any Brit in Britain has more chance of being struck by lightening than by being killed by a firearm.

 

Public education is an obsolete dangerous boondoggle in the age of the internet.

 

Again: Have you asked The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Independent, The Economist, The Telegraph, The BBC ... to retract all their "Fake News" stories reporting soaring UK gun crime?

 

Fact: All crime, including gun and knife crime, increased after law abiding British subjects were disarmed by their government.

"The increasing levels of gun and knife offences – so-called “high-harm, low-volume” crimes – and accelerating trends in other forms of violent crime, as well as a 36% rise in stalking and harassment and a 29% rise in robbery, will set alarm bells ringing in Downing Street.

The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said the rise in recorded crime was “truly shocking and should put an end to government complacency on crime”."
THE GUARDIAN, Rise in recorded crime is accelerating in England and Wales
Police figures show offences up 14% in a year, with knife and gun crime rising even more steeply, Alan Travis Home affairs editor
Thu 25 Jan 2018 12.28.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-england-and-wales?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

How can gun crime ever soar when guns are banned?

 

That doesn't even work in Sweden.

 

In fact, Canada has taken away the right to self defense from its people.

"Nixon says that at a recent town hall in Bluffton, a hamlet about 100 kilometres northwest of Red Deer, a woman in her 90s who lives on a dairy farm says she bought a gun to defend herself and wants to know how close to her bed a would-be robber has to be before she can shoot him without getting into trouble?

“She is so scared. Everybody is scared. People feel like they are hung out to dry and my understanding is it’s not just Alberta, but rural crime is an issue clear across the country,” added Nixon."
CALGARY HERALD, Corbella: As rural crime soars, residents go to desperate measures to protect their property, By Licia Corbella,
Published on: February 28, 2018.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...aves-rural-families-frightened-in-their-homes

 

Do you ever intend to discuss the statistics I cited?

 

We're supposed to take your word for it?

A national firearms license would give police additional tools to deal with gangs and other people who shouldn't have firearms, make it easier for license holders to trade and sell firearms by ending waiting lists and background checks, and provide some assurance to the public.

 

... violates the constitution.
The state may not require a license for the basic exercise of any right.

 

We don't need a license system to lock up criminals who have guns, because it is already illegal for them to have said guns.

 

She bought a firearm to defend herself.

Grandma can defend herself and shouldn't listen to people like you.

Here is the law in Canada:

Defence of Person
Marginal note defence — use or threat of force
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Marginal note:No defence
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
​

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9

 

A license allows police to determine quickly if a person they're dealing with is a person not entitled to have a firearm. Is the guy senile? Is he unhinged [a Trump supporter--joke insert]? Does he have a misdemeanour assault conviction in another state? Etc.

 

Meaningless.
Presently, when people are detained/taken into custody, the police run a check on their ID for warrants, legal disabilities, et al, at which point the police find out of a person has a gun illegally. The license is superfluous and therefore unnecessary.

 

Cite?

 

What's the police check for senility? What about mental illness? How about diminished mental ability?