Hope this will be the beginning of change ...

Florida teen shooting survivors announce 'March for Our Lives' demonstration in Washington
Florida teen shooting survivors announce 'March for Our Lives' demonstration in Washington - ABC News

A fully agree with your view that its a social issue more than a gun control issue, but being that a government can't (yet) control a populations mind to be more empathetic, trusting, and non-violent, they will need to exercise the ability to control the tools that these people are using to commit these atrocities. Magazine capacities should be drastically reduced, and the approval process should be much stricter for these weapons.
The common denominator for almost all of these massacres is that these individuals were allowed to simply walk into a store and pick up a weapon that is capable of killing multiple people in a tremendously short amount of time. It really doesn't make sense, and its not necessary.
This guy beat his wife within an inch of his life? Sure! Sell him 5 rifles with 400 bullets
This guy has tortured and killed peoples pets? Sure! A couple handguns are his RIGHT!

the one thing I have to say is it looks like the conversation (aside from one or 2 people on one side or the other in this thread) is slowly moving closer together.

there is also a gun control component and there is a mental health and social consciousness component and BOTH of these issues need to be addressed.

one part of the conversation would reduce the availability of the tool used in these shootings, with a law makers pen stroke, but probably wont do anything to change the core issue of the hatred that causes them.

the other part of the conversation would hopefully improve social relations and mental health issues that over the long term would unify the country and the people in it and hopefully reduce the need for people to act out by taking lives. that is a much longer road and more difficult road to navigate, but the actual fix to the core issue.


without accepting there is a common ground somewhere between the 2 sides, there is no chance for change. i think the conversation is starting to happen tho. its probably going to take more large shootings by normal people for the mental health people to see there is a gun control issue, and by crazy people for the gun grabbers to see there is a social issue

Beep bop boop bop.
EleGiggle

My point of that post wasn't specifically the violent crime rates. It was that the people's perceptions were at odds with the actual data. That on average, people are much safer today than they were in say the nineties or eighties when violent crimes were double. But that they felt half as safe now.



Here's a list from the Brady law that prohibits gun ownership. which is federal. Meaning must be upheld by all states

1. Were convicted of a crime punishable by being in prison for more than one year;
2. Are a fugitive from justice;
3. Are addicted to, or illegally use, any controlled substance;
4. Have been ruled mentally defective by a court, or are committed to a mental institution;
5. Are an illegal alien living in the United States unlawfully;
6. Received a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces;
7. Renounced your U.S. citizenship, if you are a U.S. citizen;
8. Are subject to a court restraining order that involves your 'intimate partner,' your partner's child, or children; or
9. Were convicted of domestic violence in any court of a misdemeanor.

Gun Laws - FindLaw

States can add to the federal law, yes. Just like provinces can.
Background and criminal checks are mandatory nationwide by any licensed dealer.
And in many states, by private sellers as well.

Are Americans federal laws more lax than Canadas? Sure
Do I think they could probably implement some changes? Sure.
But I don't think it's the difference between how Americans view guns compared to Canadians.

I see, that's a good point. The numbers reflect that American's should feel safer than they did in the 90s. Yes they don't feel safer. Could that be due to Americans taking a more defensive stance and being more vigilant? Like setting up security cameras, having safe walk programs, anti gang programs. Having less drive by shootings would not make a neighbourhood feel more safe regardless of the frequency, I would imagine. That's my guess at the current sentiment and reason for the numbers.

Another reason I found that article interesting was that, collectively, the people polled generally felt that their own neighbourhoods were safer. while their perception of the rest of the country was less safe.
So their sense of security in their own surroundings didn't transfer to their view of the country as a whole.
That implies that something had influenced their view beyond what was in front of them.
If you look at what year people's perception of safety started to drop, it's about 2001.
And what happened in 01 that would make people feel less safe?
9/11 was a catalyst that changed the way media outlets contrived news and how viewers consumed it. Since then the media has been cultivating this market of sensationalism. And why wouldn't they? Above all, they're a business. And that's what sells. And with the ability to record and edit any interaction sitting in people's pockets, there's no shortage of merchandise that can easily be spun whichever way generates the most viewers. And people are bombarded with so much information these days that likely many of them won't take the time to research it's validity. And with how polarized things have become, they probably wouldn't wanna believe it anyways. Honestly, it shouldn't even be a surprise that they don't feel safe. Even if that's not the general reality.

And I'm not saying it's some end all be all. But fuck it would probably help a lot.
As always, those are just my thoughts.

Then kill those that are obvious like this motherfucker here and those who shoots up schools and shit.

They probably get shot by people who own guns for demonstrating. I would bet a shit ton of people will wanna unload their clips on those who supports gun restriction.

Lol. These guys usually do it themselves when they're done.

...

https://i.imgur.com/F2R6IED.jpg

Anthony Borges, 15. He used his body to hold a classroom door shut, protecting 20 other students inside as the gunman fired through the door, hitting him five times.

^ Real life Hodor :tears:

I always hear about the 'gun show loop hole', which drives me a little bonkers. It is really just the private sale of firearms. afaik, there is no 'loophole'.. i am a little ignorant though, what are the private sale laws for firearms in canada?

It is a loophole in the states. if you buy from a store you need a background check if you buy from someone selling guns from his collection and is not a dealer there is no background check.

Selling, Giving or Trading Firearms - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

It's not a loophole in a sense that you aren't tricking the system or anything. And it has nothing to do with gun shows.. There is just no law around private sales.

According to that link, it looks like Canada also doesn't have any rules regarding the transfer of firearms (with the exception of restricted or prohibited firearms)

If you are someone selling hundreds of guns a year and claiming they are all private sales it is a loophole. A person can buy 20 guns from a store and then sell them the next day in a private sale. That's how Mexican cartels get there guns.


In Canada you can only sell a gun to a person who has his pal.

For non restricted firearms in canada (most shotguns, most rifles, some semi automatic rifles, no handguns)

Dealer must verify PAL, might have to record who purchased, but I dont think the records are submitted to anywhere.
Private sale must verify PAL, SALE DOES NOT NEED TO BE RECORDED.
Gun show must verify PAL, SALE DOES NOT NEED TO BE RECORDED.

In Canada whether you buy privately or from a store they're supposed to check that you're currently licensed every time you buy a firearm or ammunition (most people just check your card, online sales get called in).

From my understanding in the US since a private sale doesn't require any sort of check all anybody needs is someone who isn't a dealer to buy the gun for them and then "sell" it to them and they can have that gun legally, even if they wouldn't be allowed to buy from a dealer. In Canada selling a gun to someone without a PAL is illegal, regardless of who is selling it.

So aside from checking the PAL (which doesn't seem to be enforced in any way), you can essentially do the exact same thing as in the states for a private sale

It's not the same. In Canada you have to make sure the person has a valid PAL. If the person you sold the gun to used it in a crime and he did not have his pal you would be in trouble.

"oh no mister, you're going to be in trouble now!"

your statement is false. there is no long gun registry (registration of non restricted firearms) therefore there is no method to trace an illegally purchased firearm used in a crime back to the one person who sold it without recording the PAL.

in fact i just looked a little harder into it and a store only needs to prove that the firearm was sold, not who it was sold to. part of the scrapping of the long gun registry was specifically to remove the possibility of a 'back door registry' that could be made by forcing dealers to record purchaser info. so technically speaking once a firearm leaves the dealer, it no longer has any record attached to it.

the only obligation by a seller is to visually see a PAL number. they may optionally choose to verify it by contacting the CFO, but it is not required by law.

You need to ensure their PAL is valid, not just that they've got a number. Which is pretty easily done in person by seeing their card, or calling it in. The photos on the cards are garbage for some reason though.

There's no method to trace non-restricted firearms like before, but there are other ways they might be able to sort out who it came from. Also it still isn't legal to sell to someone without a PAL or for someone without a PAL to possess it.

That's also only for non-restricted (ie most rifles and shotguns). Anything restricted (handguns) or prohibited is registered and has paperwork that has to follow it around through each sale. So while you *could* do roughly the same thing in Canada (except it's illegal here) for a rifle, you couldn't for a pistol.

And does everyone ask for the PAL when selling privately? Dunnoooo...

Well I thought law abiding gun owners were responsible people so they should right? If not then maybe they shouldn't own a gun themselves.

Whenever I have bought or sold privately, I have always asked for a PAL and have always been asked for a PAL. Sooooo.....