Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Kim Rhode, Olympic shooter, takes aim at U.S. gun laws


elvis15

Recommended Posts

dumb ass gun lovers think their right surpersedes common sense laws. Suffer is their own family, so many accidental deaths and suicides. Those that argue it is like bad drivers, what do you think is better? No laws for driving then? No license required? Just because there are many illegal guns around, doesn't make regulations obsolete. The only thing that benefits from this are the gun makers. $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jaimito said:

dumb ass gun lovers think their right surpersedes common sense laws. Suffer is their own family, so many accidental deaths and suicides. Those that argue it is like bad drivers, what do you think is better? No laws for driving then? No license required? Just because there are many illegal guns around, doesn't make regulations obsolete. The only thing that benefits from this are the gun makers. $$$.

Us Canadians trying to understand the terrible gun violence you Americans suffer is really not fair.  Unless, we can spend a weekend in Surrey, of course. :o.  Seriously, apologies if any comments offended the Americans living with the constant danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jaimito said:

dumb ass gun lovers think their right surpersedes common sense laws. Suffer is their own family, so many accidental deaths and suicides. Those that argue it is like bad drivers, what do you think is better? No laws for driving then? No license required? Just because there are many illegal guns around, doesn't make regulations obsolete. The only thing that benefits from this are the gun makers. $$$.

There are laws regarding gun ownership already. Did I say there should be no gun laws?  I could even possibly agree on updating them.

 

IMO, as well as the opinions of others, more laws, like those that get proposed every time something tragic happens, will do little to nothing to solve the problem.  Where's the common sense in that?

 

So many accidental deaths?  You mean the little over 500 in 2013 (the lastest data from CDC.gov)?  And while there are significant suicides by gun (over 20K in 2013) how many of those would still commit suicide if the gun wasn't handy?  So, yes, the rights of the other 300 million people to protect themselves matters, and is correctly guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

If you want to reduce suicides and violent crime, the problems that really need addressing are within the economy and society in general.  New gun laws will be so minimally helpful, and will make things worse for those that are currently legal and responsible owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Some of these laws they are starting to pass now, for instance, in the state of California – if I were to purchase a gun, I cannot loan that gun to someone who is not a blood relative so that means that I can’t loan it to my husband or I can’t loan it to an adopted child,” she told The Guardian recently.

 

Oh the humanity!!:frantic::frantic:

 

I had to click the link to make sure the hyperlink wasn't disguised as a link to the Onion. 

 

Can't loan a gun to an adopted child! Frack you Obama!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kragar said:

As you point out, we have vehicle registration today.  We also have driver's licenses. Gun ownership per capita is similar to vehicle ownership.  Who knows, it may even have surpassed car ownership, per capita.

 

Now ask yourself: how many people are driving that are not good drivers?  Or, how many can pass the test easily and are normally good drivers, but then choose to drive drunk, or text-and-drive, or allow themselves to be distracted in other ways.  When this happens, people can die.  Sure, these things are illegal already, but they are still an everyday occurrence. What makes you think that government regulations will curb similar behavior with gun owners?   Then consider those drivers who don't have licenses, something that is more common down here with the presence of illegal aliens.  How many thousands of people will choose not to register, because they are already criminals?

 

it seems every time there is a shooting that makes the news, Obama comes out with some call for gun restrictions.  How often is it pointed out that Obama's proposal (or pretty much any proposal aired) would have mattered in the event that sparked his comments?  All too often, most recently with the horrible Florida nightclub shooting, the answer is that the proposal would not have done any good at all.

 

Side note: what did you mean by "Go only as fast as the slowest person."  This sounds completely absurd, but perhaps I am seeing it out of context.

You have to start somewhere, as certainly the current approach isn't working. And having even basic regulations in place (like a license) means you can apply penalties when people are found to be breaking the law before it becomes a shooting incident. That'd mean those penalties would have to be enough to be a deterrent, or at least allow confiscation/forfeiture of guns.

 

Maybe many of the currently proposed gun restrictions wouldn't solve things like the Orlando nightclub shooting, but things like having been on an FBI watch list, no fly/selectee list, mental illness restrictions, etc. have been suggested as reasons for at least additional checks if not outright refusal when someone is purchasing a gun and certainly would have likely prevented the shooter from going out two weeks before the attack and buying guns legally.

 

As far as the slowest person comment, there are plenty of laws in place purely because a small percentage of the population wouldn't be safe without them. Have you ever sat through a safety meeting and thought, "why would anyone ever do that," when you heard something that seemed too stupid to even mention? Those types of things are in safety manuals because someone had done them. The same goes for speed limits, where often they're set lower than should be safe for a particular road or highway.

 

In the case of something that's as significant a problem as gun violence, you have to start looking at the laws and restrictions you put in place to address the 'slowest person'. You look at where it could most reasonably be abused or allow someone who shouldn't own a gun to do so and create a check and balance to try and limit those situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dozen or so terrorists manage to hijack 4 planes and kill around 3000 people. Several new laws are enacted almost immediately, laws that inconvenience all airline passengers, even though the vast majority of them are law-abiding people.

 

30,000 people per year are killed by firearms.....nothing to be done folks....we don't want to inconvenience "responsible" gun owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kragar said:

...

If you want to reduce suicides and violent crime, the problems that really need addressing are within the economy and society in general.  New gun laws will be so minimally helpful, and will make things worse for those that are currently legal and responsible owners.

Those absolutely also need to be addressed, along with mental health. That doesn't mean a lot of areas that are too lax regarding guns can't also be. For instance, someone like the Orlando shooter who'd been investigated by the FBI, placed on their watch list during that time, and was reported to have potential mental health issues as well as be abusive towards his ex-wife should have at least had a flag on any attempt to buy a gun that would require additional checks before he could complete a purchase.

 

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

A dozen or so terrorists manage to hijack 4 planes and kill around 3000 people. Several new laws are enacted almost immediately, laws that inconvenience all airline passengers, even though the vast majority of them are law-abiding people.

 

30,000 people per year are killed by firearms.....nothing to be done folks....we don't want to inconvenience "responsible" gun owners.

Bingo. Laws are enacted all the time that inconvenience regular people every day. Those typically aren't passed in areas where lobbyists are spending lots of money trying to keep things from being over-regulated however.

 

Going as fast as the slowest person exactly describes the restrictions not allowing me to have a pair of tweezers or moderately sized bottle of shampoo in my luggage when I fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

You have to start somewhere, as certainly the current approach isn't working. And having even basic regulations in place (like a license) means you can apply penalties when people are found to be breaking the law before it becomes a shooting incident. That'd mean those penalties would have to be enough to be a deterrent, or at least allow confiscation/forfeiture of guns.

 

Maybe many of the currently proposed gun restrictions wouldn't solve things like the Orlando nightclub shooting, but things like having been on an FBI watch list, no fly/selectee list, mental illness restrictions, etc. have been suggested as reasons for at least additional checks if not outright refusal when someone is purchasing a gun and certainly would have likely prevented the shooter from going out two weeks before the attack and buying guns legally.

 

As far as the slowest person comment, there are plenty of laws in place purely because a small percentage of the population wouldn't be safe without them. Have you ever sat through a safety meeting and thought, "why would anyone ever do that," when you heard something that seemed too stupid to even mention? Those types of things are in safety manuals because someone had done them. The same goes for speed limits, where often they're set lower than should be safe for a particular road or highway.

 

In the case of something that's as significant a problem as gun violence, you have to start looking at the laws and restrictions you put in place to address the 'slowest person'. You look at where it could most reasonably be abused or allow someone who shouldn't own a gun to do so and create a check and balance to try and limit those situations.

Thanks for the clarification on the "slowest person" quote.  In that context, your statement makes perfect sense.

 

Some of the things you point out in your second paragraph make sense too.  However, people get mistakenly put on those government lists, and it can be difficult and/or take significant time to get off the list.  I know someone personally who had trouble with that, and I know there were recent news stories of 1-2 Congress members having the same issue.  When you consider the number of common names and also different translations of names, it is quite simple for people to get added yet undeserved attention from authorities.  And while there are clearly some people who are not mentally fit, how easily can that be determined, and how deep do you go?  Does a prescription for anti-depressants mean a deal-breaker for life?

 

"We have to do something"... one of the scariest things a politician can say.  There are cries for "common sense' when it comes to gun control, but it is rarely applied in the laws proposed.  You mention "basic regulations" in your opening paragraph.  How often would the requirement to have a license lead to someone being caught before they shoot someone?  

 

The ideas you reference need to be looked at closely before any laws are implemented.  Not only at how many lives it will save, but also how many lives will be adversely impacted.  Is it worth saving an innocent life if it means taking another innocent life?  When cities with the strictest laws for decades are still the places with the worst gun crime levels, perhaps stricter laws are not really the solution many think they will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Those absolutely also need to be addressed, along with mental health. That doesn't mean a lot of areas that are too lax regarding guns can't also be. For instance, someone like the Orlando shooter who'd been investigated by the FBI, placed on their watch list during that time, and was reported to have potential mental health issues as well as be abusive towards his ex-wife should have at least had a flag on any attempt to buy a gun that would require additional checks before he could complete a purchase.

 

Bingo. Laws are enacted all the time that inconvenience regular people every day. Those typically aren't passed in areas where lobbyists are spending lots of money trying to keep things from being over-regulated however.

 

Going as fast as the slowest person exactly describes the restrictions not allowing me to have a pair of tweezers or moderately sized bottle of shampoo in my luggage when I fly.

There's inconvenienced, and there is put at risk.  All the crap we have to put up with at airports now does not significantly add to our risk.  Limiting access to guns and ammo to law abiding citizens makes those people less able to defend themselves.  It's a different story.

 

If I lived in an area where criminals regularly used semi-auto handguns (thankfully I don't), and I was able to get a gun to protect my family, why should there be a limit on how many bullets my gun holds?  Yet clip limits are one of those common sense laws often proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kragar said:

There's inconvenienced, and there is put at risk.  All the crap we have to put up with at airports now does not significantly add to our risk.  Limiting access to guns and ammo to law abiding citizens makes those people less able to defend themselves.  It's a different story.

 

If I lived in an area where criminals regularly used semi-auto handguns (thankfully I don't), and I was able to get a gun to protect my family, why should there be a limit on how many bullets my gun holds?  Yet clip limits are one of those common sense laws often proposed.

That would go back to your own quote of addressing the economy and society in general. Rather than the 'solution' being the freedom to arm yourself to the teeth, shouldn't the solution be finding ways to get criminals and semi-auto handguns off the streets? Finding why those people are criminals to begin with and how those illegal guns are getting to them? 

 

Why is someone in those areas at risk? Is it because of the over-saturation of guns across America, combined with those socio-economic issues?

 

And of course any restrictions put in place have to be considered for impacts and usefulness. It'd be a pretty good time to address issues with removing oneself from a no fly list, which is a negative impact for someone already whether or not they want to buy a gun. If someone was legitimately on a no fly list, FBI watch list, or anything else similar, then wouldn't you want that same person who is proibited from travelling in a plane also unable to buy a gun?

 

Mental illness is hard, as would be something like convictions for assault or other physical offences. There are varying levels in each of those cases, some warranting blocking a person from obtaining a gun more than others. But that's why you'd start with a flag. For instance, certain thresholds and entries when you file your income tax will flag a review, which could put you up for an audit. You do the same thing with any gun purchase, where any flags in a person's history triggers additional steps in order for a sale to go through (or an outright block of a sale).

 

In the case of the woman in the article, you'd think she'd pass an additional licensing test pretty easily, one which would allow her to be rated at a higher level and potentially remove some of the restrictions proposed. For example, it could allow her to buy larger quantities of competition ammo, or authorize her at something like an instructor level allowing her to allow the use of a gun to anyone under her supervision.

 

Even for a non-gun person, the possibilities seem pretty obvious for how that could all work, from licensing to extra levels of checks, so that it really wouldn't stop someone who was worthy of owning a gun or be an unnecessary hindrance in the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

That would go back to your own quote of addressing the economy and society in general. Rather than the 'solution' being the freedom to arm yourself to the teeth, shouldn't the solution be finding ways to get criminals and semi-auto handguns off the streets? Finding why those people are criminals to begin with and how those illegal guns are getting to them? 

 

Why is someone in those areas at risk? Is it because of the over-saturation of guns across America, combined with those socio-economic issues?

 

And of course any restrictions put in place have to be considered for impacts and usefulness. It'd be a pretty good time to address issues with removing oneself from a no fly list, which is a negative impact for someone already whether or not they want to buy a gun. If someone was legitimately on a no fly list, FBI watch list, or anything else similar, then wouldn't you want that same person who is proibited from travelling in a plane also unable to buy a gun?

 

Mental illness is hard, as would be something like convictions for assault or other physical offences. There are varying levels in each of those cases, some warranting blocking a person from obtaining a gun more than others. But that's why you'd start with a flag. For instance, certain thresholds and entries when you file your income tax will flag a review, which could put you up for an audit. You do the same thing with any gun purchase, where any flags in a person's history triggers additional steps in order for a sale to go through (or an outright block of a sale).

 

In the case of the woman in the article, you'd think she'd pass an additional licensing test pretty easily, one which would allow her to be rated at a higher level and potentially remove some of the restrictions proposed. For example, it could allow her to buy larger quantities of competition ammo, or authorize her at something like an instructor level allowing her to allow the use of a gun to anyone under her supervision.

 

Even for a non-gun person, the possibilities seem pretty obvious for how that could all work, from licensing to extra levels of checks, so that it really wouldn't stop someone who was worthy of owning a gun or be an unnecessary hindrance in the process. 

As I said before, I agree with the principle of your thoughts regarding the lists, and those mentally unfit.  If the lists were managed better, and people were informed when they were put on the list, then the issues of the mistakes I mentioned would be less and more quickly addressed.

 

I just really hate the cries like "doing something, because something has to be done", because they are typically knee-jerk reactions which often lack a thought out plan.  If politicians are going to mess with a right, they need to be very careful in what they do.

 

My economy/societal comment goes back to another thread weeks ago (a BLM thread, probably) where I went into it in more detail.  The point was that recent (not just in Obama's time, but he is clearly guilty of this) govt policies do more harm than good, and while attempting to fix poverty only go to maintain it and make things worse.  Rather than worrying about limiting gun access, I believe resources are better spent addressing single-parent families, welfare, and employment, but current policies make those matters worse.  If more kids were raised in two-parent homes, and as they grow to be teenagers have better access to entry/low-skilled jobs so that they can grow to be better people, there would be less violent crime.

 

I think those people are at risk ultimately because of the economic/societal issues.  Without proper upbringing and opportunities, too many of those people suffering there turn to illegal behavior.  Cure the disease, not the symptom.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ And I agree which is why I'm careful about pointing out specific things that could very well be effective as a general thought, but then why should 2nd amendment people feel their only recourse even among all these positive suggestions is to arm themselves to the teeth? Shouldn't they welcome reform in all shapes and sizes that has the power to do good things, or is there really something else they're afraid of that they aren't willing to address?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A background check to buy ammo?  If they would just institute a purchase and acquisition licence like our PAL, it would go a long way.  With PAL, we don't have to have a background check to buy ammo, but we also have more strict laws on what we can own, as we should.  The gun nut crowd in the USA act like the anti-gun crowd are trying to take away all their guns, when all that is needed are some enforceable rules.  Yeesh, so glad to be Canadian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

that says it all right there folks.  anyone who thinks they need to say this in this day and age is a dum dum

Some might argue that the cop killers in Dallas and Baton Rouge were doing just that. I wonder how many 2nd Amendment supporters would agree with their actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, elvis15 said:

^^ And I agree which is why I'm careful about pointing out specific things that could very well be effective as a general thought, but then why should 2nd amendment people feel their only recourse even among all these positive suggestions is to arm themselves to the teeth? Shouldn't they welcome reform in all shapes and sizes that has the power to do good things, or is there really something else they're afraid of that they aren't willing to address?

I think the arming to the teeth comment is too much of a generalization.  Sure there will be people that fit that bill.  I met one a couple years ago, and was blown away by how many guns she owned.  I definitely do not, as I own one weapon, with no automatic behavior at all.  2nd amendment supporters come in all sizes.  I was a 2nd amendment supporter even before I owned a gun.

 

If you give up any freedom to the government, it is extremely difficult to get it back.  If gun control is only treating the symptom, why not do something more effective instead.  And, if my earlier position is correct, why are the anti-gun people so dead set against the reforms needed?  Because it has bad optics in the short term, and the left and the media apply stupid labels like it's anti-woman, or hurts the poor.  All the while ignoring that the policies continue to hurt those they are trying to help.

 

 Additionally, how many limitations are applied, along with any rational proposal that you and I would agree on?  Sweeping changes are what the anti-gun lobby wants.  Baby-steps would be a wiser course, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

If you give up any freedom to the government, it is extremely difficult to get it back.  If gun control is only treating the symptom, why not do something more effective instead.  

1.  Having lived in the US I always questioned this argument.  You're taxed for everything even going to state and federal parks.  You go to jail for smoking a plant, you go to jail for drinking publicly, you're not allowed to collect your own rain water, you have to pay to build a house and you cannot live your life how you want if it goes outside of laws written at all 3 levels.

 

But a gun is freedom...Freedom is being able to raise your kids how you want, be able to travel where you want without being questioned.  Freedom is not the smell of gun oil and the joy of an open range.  I guess we differ greatly on what IS or isn't actual freedom.  Because freedom for me is not owning a shiny toy that goes bang bang

 

2.  When you say something more effective than laws restricting ammo purchases or weapon purchases or the amount of guns one can own or even taking guns away from people; you're speaking of giving this 2nd amendment crowd the kind of power Trump was nudging towards.  Gun control is the only logical initial option, because take away the ability for someone to buy an Ak-47, or Sauer or automatic shotgun and ZOMG yer taking away mah freedom.

 

Gun control and restriction is the only logical answer for a country with more guns than citizens.  Even there many are promising to live out Hestons last stand and have them pried from their cold dead hands.  A group advocating shooting government officials because they believe freedom is holding a smith and wesson.

 

I don't think there is an answer for the US and it's absolutely bass ackwards way of thinking except to let them self destruct.  Because sadly that is where they are going.  20 years or less and the US and quite possibly the landscape of the world we live in is going to look vastly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I exaggerated with the 'armed to the teeth' statement, but there's certainly the mentality that one should be able to have more guns than the bad guys, or at least an equal amount, in order to protect themselves.

 

I'm in between sweeping changes and baby-steps as far as what I think could be done. And I don't know many people that would oppose better care for the mentally ill (recognition, treatment, etc.) for instance, apart from the cost to make that a reasonable part of the solution - and the Republicans who typically support 2nd amendment rights are the ones who'd be first against that.

 

The trick is not that gun control measures are only treating the symptoms, but that you have to approach it from multiple angles since there's so much room for things to go wrong in the current system. You can't just look at providing help for those with mental illness since some will still fall through the cracks and that is just a subset of the problem. You have to look at socio-economic causes as well as opportunity and lax regulations across the board if this really wants to change. You start with the easy stuff (why can someone on an FBI watch list in the past buy a gun without further scrutiny) and work on the harder ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...