Originally posted by fenceSitter
Would comparison to Canada's gun control regulations be fair? There are fairly strict gun ownership laws but nowhere near the level of gun violence.
Is this because of the stricter laws or is it simply a cultural divide?
The only differences between Canadian laws and US laws are lawful carry and prohibited firearm types as far as I know. Oh, and that now-defunct
I would think any responsible US gun owner wouldn't complain about tighter regulations, background checks etc. if it means that weapons are
falling into criminal hands less often.
You'll have to be more specific with "tighter regulations." Background checks are already mandatory with the exception of face to face transfers by
private citizens in the same state. Even then if you knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who wouldnt pass a background check you're going to
I agree with culture being part of the problem. Is it reasonable to assume the majority of gun violence is a result of gang related/poverty
stricken areas? How can that be solved? Should nothing be done about gun control and somehow directly target and attempt to eradicate gangs and
poverty? Or should tighter laws be put into effect until those issues can be addressed?
Tighter laws as a stop gap would be fruitless and take valuable resources away from tackling those real much more grand societal issues which to date
no politician has a solution for. Hence the constant attack of the symptom rather than the disease.
In my opinion, the demand for guns is increasing as a direct result of gun violence. Gun violence is increasing partly because more guns are
available. Just sounds like a cyclical issue that is (or will) snowball out of control.
Reports from the UK attempt to tie the increase in firearm demand to immigrants from the former Soviet Union bringing with them a more violent
attitude and an overall lack of value for life which in turn prompted UK gangs and criminals to up their game, so to speak.
If gun availability is the issue then you're fighting against the simple existence of a thing. That fight is not winnable. You can buy heroin in any
high school in America. Marijuana from any park in America. Absolute prohibition of any thing is impossible so taking that approach leaves us with
tolerating an "acceptable level" of whatever it is we are trying to eradicate.
Can I ask your reason for owning a firearm? Is it simply for defense? If so that sounds fair to me but what type of weapon is required if only
Every reason under the sun. I started out hunting as a child then shooting competitively in my teens. Now I participate in everything from squirrel to
deer hunting to IDPA to trap and biathlon and 3-gun and everything in between. And I do carry a handgun everyday everywhere for defense.
Is a handgun enough or does fully-automatic assault rifles need to be available too?
Full auto firearms are heavily regulated by several federal laws. First all full auto firearms in circulation are from 1986 or earlier. Nothing post
1986 is available for lawful civilian ownership. This severely limits the available firearms and so their prices are outrageous. A legal to own AK for
example can approach $20,000 + in price and each transfer of this type of firearm requires a $200 fee and a complete background check as well as local
For contrast an illegal select fire AK can be had for $3000 or less.
Personally I think full auto restrictions are stupid. Only someone who has no machinegun experience would think the whole "spray 100 rounds into a
crowd" thing is feasible.
In reality ammunition is expensive making that 100 round spray cost $100 on its own and the act would last less than 10 seconds. If you've ever fired
one you'd know in that 10 seconds of those hundred rounds fired you'd be lucky to make one hit.
There seems to be this assumption that America has no laws and machineguns can be had in bulk by mail order. That is simply not true. On paper US laws
are not very different from those of more restrictive nations save carry and type.
edit on 31-8-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason