Gun Legislation

[Seth Milner]

Yeah, well, maybe in Canada and wherever they went to get their concealed carry. My questions weren't multiple choice, and to keep my CCL, permit, license, CWC, or whatever Something Left wants to call it, I have to re-qualify yearly, whereas generally most states only require a one time qualifying, and most PD's and other LEO's have varying schedules.

Not Canada. That's anywhere in the US.

Or to be more precise, *MOST* US states. But if you're in one of the OTHER states, all you need in the quick NRA one-day certificate course described above. Yes, multiple choice. And then you can get your CCL through the mail from Florida.

Yeah, I know. Something Left has told us how he got his CCL Probably ordered it off the Internet. That may be how it is now; that wasn't how it was when I got mine.

One question. . .are you allowed to own a gun at in Canada?

[Seth Milner]

... You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership....

The number of lives taken far outnumbers the number of lives saved. No doubt the number of rapes enabled by guns outnumbers those prevented.

That's not being anti-gun BTW. It's just being honest....

Seth Milner is being dumb or dishonest, as usual.
"Dumb". . .Your narcissistic egomania rears it's ugly head again. "Dishonest". . . how stupid. Perhaps you should look up that word's definition.

When homes that have guns see more violence, that necessarily takes into account any supposed violence prevented.
And all of the populace are decent law-abiding citizens...right. Do you own a gun? If so, why?

When states that have more guns and/or laxer laws see more violence, that necessarily takes into account any supposed violence prevented.
How so?

When comparable nations that have more guns and/or laxer laws see more violence, that necessarily takes into account any supposed violence prevented.
That still hasn't totally prevented violent crimes.

In complete contrast, as has been posted, the presence of fire extinguishers in a home, public facility or business reduces the odds of injury or death.
Owning a firearm reduces the odds of injury or death too; in a totally different manner. If someone who is armed broke into your home, which had you rather have available. . . a gun or a fire extinguisher?

Seth Milner can screech all he wants that "his" compensations are worth the violence, but denying that there's more violence just proves how irresponsible gunhuggers like "him" are.
You continue hugging your fire extinguisher, and I'll hug my gun. If someone threatens me with death or bodily harm, we'll see how irresponsible I am. Again; what's with this "him"?

[rstrong]

One question. . .are you allowed to own a gun at in Canada?

Of course. Outside of handguns our laws are much the same as in the US. Just with a greater emphasis on safety and responsibility, and a greater prohibition on military weapons.

Handguns are more restricted. The common license allows you to carry it from your home to the gun range and elsewhere, but only unloaded and with a trigger lock. For safety and to cut back on impulsive use.

An Authorization to Carry license is needed if you want to carry one around loaded and holstered. Those are usually only issued to employees of armoured car companies and to special cases. (Say, lawyers prosecuting organized crime.)

And then there's prohibited weapons:

Wikipedia: Gun politics in Canada: Laws and regulations

Prohibited firearms are not forbidden outright, as the name might imply, but their legal possession and acquisition are dependent upon their registration history and an individual's firearm licence.

Decades ago a friend who was in the reserves owned his own FN FAL battle rifle. He was quite adamant that he should not be allowed to own one, but as long as he was, he would.

[Seth Milner]

One question. . .are you allowed to own a gun at in Canada?

Of course. Outside of handguns our laws are much the same as in the US. Just with a greater emphasis on safety and responsibility, and a greater prohibition on military weapons.
The way it should be here

Handguns are more restricted. The common license allows you to carry it from your home to the gun range and elsewhere, but only unloaded and with a trigger lock. For safety and to cut back on impulsive use.
An Authorization to Carry license is needed if you want to carry one around loaded and holstered. Those are usually only issued to employees of armoured car companies and to special cases. (Say, lawyers prosecuting organized crime.)
Canada has no street crime or home invasions? What's the point in owning a gun if you have such stringent restrictions?

And then there's prohibited weapons:

Wikipedia: Gun politics in Canada: Laws and regulations

Prohibited firearms are not forbidden outright, as the name might imply, but their legal possession and acquisition are dependent upon their registration history and an individual's firearm licence.

Decades ago a friend who was in the reserves owned his own FN FAL battle rifle. He was quite adamant that he should not be allowed to own one, but as long as he was, he would.
I can't argue that. I have no need for an excessive force weapon.

[rstrong]

Canada has no street crime or home invasions? What's the point in owning a gun if you have such stringent restrictions?

Because it's never just you, alone. It's the gun carriers around you too. Like it or not you're playing the odds not as an individual, but as a crowd. You're far LESS safe in a public place where everyone is carrying loaded guns around.

There's less instances of people killed by someone "defending their home" having knocked on the door for entirely innocent reasons. There's less instances of gun owners and bystanders killed by a toddler reaching into a purse, a kid playing with the gun on the kitchen table or the dog stepping on the gun. And a whole lot less impulsive killing.

You can still defend your home. Your family is simply far safer in a home where any guns are stored unloaded with a trigger lock - even taking the threat of home invasion into consideration. If the point of having a gun is to increase the safety of you and your family, then don't do it in a way that decreases it.

[Vrede too]

The US suicide rate is also 23% higher than Canada's.

What's the point in owning a gun if you and your family are made less safe by it?

[Sometime Lefty]

OK, let's address the egomaniac's ranting: Something Left "attacked" me first (that whine again) Vrede too was too stupid to check first.
Something Left didn't call me out on anything. Different states use different terminology. I just discovered that NC calls their concealed carry permits CCH, meaning 'Concealed Carry, Handgun'; it is not a concealed 'weapon' permit or license, because of the definitions of differing 'weapons'. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about concealed carry in every state that allows it.

Oh Sith I accept your apology. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong and didn't know what he was talking about. Maybe in the future you could look into getting a technology called the interwebs where all mankind's knowledge (both real and imaginary) reside, then you could look things up before looking like a complete asshole. And just to increase your knowledge, in Fla it is a concealed weapon or firearm license. I know your understanding of the english written word isn't the best, it means I can carry a handgun AND a 15 inch dagger AT THE SAME TIME. They should have put an and/or in there right? So keep posting you make me laugh.

[O Really]

True that. Different states not only have different terminology, but also different rules for the permit/license. Florida is a concealed "weapons" permit; in contrast, NC specifically excludes most anything that's not a firearm, including a "slung" whatever that is. But if I get one I won't carry it concealed in NC. That's the rest - your Florida (or wherever) permit doesn't give you the right to do anything somewhere else that you couldn't do under their law. Too many laws, too many differences. Should be one single federal law, applicable everywhere to everybody.

[Vrede too]

It's "Sometime Lefty", dummy, and no one cares that he was mean to poor widdle you when he called you out on your complete ignorance while you were pretending to be knowledgeable. He was correct, as rapidly backed up by O Really, and you were wrong. Now, Sometime Lefty is being way generous in calling your whiny, self-justifying post an apology (if there wasn't more to your post than quoted). If you ever grow up you'll learn that people with even minimal personal responsibility humbly admit error when they've flubbed, and they apologize for being mean when they've defended their flub without foundation.

[O Really]

Rstrong's term "binary choice" describes the NRA-indoctrinated viewpoint of so many otherwise reasonable gun owners. Most people, left to their own brains and thoughts, would see a lot of room for alternatives in a subject as complex as "what to do to curtail firearm killings in the US." But not the NRA. Any regulation, no matter how minor or harmless, is seen as "taking away our guns." It's an all or nothing viewpoint that is totally opposite to those who want improved management of firearms. Very few people even mention "taking away guns" as a plausible approach. Very few advocate for significant restriction on purchase or ownership. Nobody that I've heard or read who wants increased management takes anything close to the extreme position of the NRA in advocating for their viewpoint.

[Seth Milner]

Oh Sith I accept your apology. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong and didn't know what he was talking about. Maybe in the future you could look into getting a technology called the interwebs where all mankind's knowledge (both real and imaginary) reside, then you could look things up before looking like a complete asshole. And just to increase your knowledge, in Fla it is a concealed weapon or firearm license. I know your understanding of the english written word isn't the best, it means I can carry a handgun AND a 15 inch dagger AT THE SAME TIME. They should have put an and/or in there right? So keep posting you make me laugh.

I get that means you think you're one mean badass. I'm impressed. A lot of people in Florida have that low IQ mentality.
(You still don't get to have anal intercourse with me as you expressed a desire to do.)

It's "Sometime Lefty", dummy, and no one cares that he was mean to poor widdle you...
Of course you don't care; narcissism works like that. Why are you getting your ass-chaps in a snit over what I call him? It's adorable you are vehemently defending his honor. Did he make you jealous when he expressed his desire to have sex with me?

..when he called you out on your complete ignorance while you were pretending to be knowledgeable.
He, nor you have enough sense to call your dogs; he surely didn't "call me out" on anything. He only stated, rather rudely, what he deemed to be CCL, CCW, license, permit etc. Personally, I don't give a damn what it's called, anywhere. Your gloating in your reduced mental state is hilarious; you've slobbered over his comments in several posts. Keep us laughing, will ya?

He was correct, as rapidly backed up by O Really, and you were wrong.
No more wrong than he was correct; but it's sure got your ass in a sling. . .

Now, Sometime Lefty is being way generous in calling your whiny, self-justifying post an apology (if there wasn't more to your post than quoted). If you ever grow up you'll learn that people with even minimal personal responsibility humbly admit error when they've flubbed, and they apologize for being mean when they've defended their flub without foundation.
Providing there was substance to apologize for. You're not going to get me to grovel at your feet; may as well get over yourself and move on. You're really just jealous because Something Left wanted to have sex with me, not you. (BTW, no thank you Something Left, you're not my type.)

[Seth Milner]

True that. Different states not only have different terminology, but also different rules for the permit/license. Florida is a concealed "weapons" permit; in contrast, NC specifically excludes most anything that's not a firearm, including a "slung" whatever that is. But if I get one I won't carry it concealed in NC. That's the rest - your Florida (or wherever) permit doesn't give you the right to do anything somewhere else that you couldn't do under their law. Too many laws, too many differences. Should be one single federal law, applicable everywhere to everybody.

That's the way I feel. I abide by the laws of the state where my license was issued, as well as the Federal guidelines that applies to my particular case. I also keep tabs online of each state's revisions of their gun laws to prevent violating their laws. Bottom line, I carry one handgun where I'm permitted to carry, no other "weapons". That keeps me and others around me safe, and ensures compliance.

[O Really]

. Bottom line, I carry one handgun where I'm permitted to carry, no other "weapons". That keeps me and others around me safe, and ensures compliance.

I'm not so sure people expert in such things would agree with you. A lot of times you're better served by a lesser weapon. And in any case, you're better off not to limit the weapons you're proficient with. If you see your chances of being attacked at least as good as those of needing to use your fire extinguisher.

[Sometime Lefty]

I get that means you think you're one mean badass. I'm impressed. A lot of people in Florida have that low IQ mentality.

Never said I did carry a knife and a gun just that if I wanted to, in Fla, I could. Matter of fact, I have had my carry concealed license over two years now and have never felt a need to carry a weapon or firearm with me. If that changes in the future I'll just reach in my drawer, strap on my Ruger, pull my shirt over it and be legal.

[O Really]

Wait - I missed something. Is there a limit to the number or types of weapons one carries in order to be a rational law-abiding citizen and not a low-IQ badass? It must be possible to actually lower one's IQ by carrying weapons. How do we know that doesn't happen with just one firearm?

[Vrede too]

It's projection after having been shamed, in detail and by multiple posters, on the low IQ fire extinguisher-gun comparison.

[Sometime Lefty]

Just an old man with no friends who drinks too much and comes here to bitch and moan and troll. As a follow on to Mr B he is perfect. He's a no god spoutin', cussing twin. Although the first Mr B understood and wrote our language at a much higher level.

[Seth Milner]

Never said I did carry a knife and a gun just that if I wanted to, in Fla, I could. Matter of fact, I have had my carry concealed license over two years now and have never felt a need to carry a weapon or firearm with me. If that changes in the future I'll just reach in my drawer, strap on my Ruger, pull my shirt over it and be legal.

Same here, for the most part. I have made a number of enemies during my career and although I don't always carry, I do keep my handgun readily available. One thing I found interesting though, is this: "Florida law does not require one to disclose one's possession of a firearm on contact with Law Enforcement." The cop can ask, but the individual does not have to answer. That's strange. I've never been to Alaska, but I understand that on every traffic stop, the driver is asked if they have a weapon in their car. Generally, the answer is yes.

Wait - I missed something. Is there a limit to the number or types of weapons one carries in order to be a rational law-abiding citizen and not a low-IQ badass? It must be possible to actually lower one's IQ by carrying weapons. How do we know that doesn't happen with just one firearm?

Depends on whether or not you're in Alaska where all non-native Americans are born holding a firearm.

Just an old man with no friends who drinks too much and comes here to bitch and moan and troll. As a follow on to Mr B he is perfect. He's a no god spoutin', cussing twin. Although the first Mr B understood and wrote our language at a much higher level.

Old man, yes; drinks too much, no. No friemds, wrong. If I drink, I drink at home; alone. My bitchin' and trollin' didn't happen until it was discovered I didn't fit the mold required for membership here, and evidently Mr.B didn't either. I've exchanged 2 pm's with him, and that was plenty enough for me. I am my own personality; whether it's liked or not doesn't faze or concern me in the least. You folks have your opinions, languages, special names for others, wingnuttiness, political preferences, etc., but none of you are any better a person than me, Mr.B, the Colonel, or whoever else decides to pop up here. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Merry Xmas, Happy Handnooky, or whatever alcohol/pot-fueled celebrating you want to do.

[O Really]

Well, see, there's yours and other anti-gun nuts' problem. You only see the deaths that have, or might, occur from gun ownership. You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership. ...

In fact, some do consider those things. As it turns out, the FBI is among them. According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 230 or so justified homicides. And for each one of those, there were 37 criminal homicides, and 78 other homicides ("opps" type shootings). Sure, there were undoubtedly other instances where a gun threat avoided injury, but there were clearly instances where a gun threat aided a crime but nobody was killed. So looking at just the killings, the criminals and negligents and hot-heads win.

[Vrede too]

Well, see, there's yours and other anti-gun nuts' problem. You only see the deaths that have, or might, occur from gun ownership. You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership. ...

In fact, some do consider those things. As it turns out, the FBI is among them. According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 230 or so justified homicides. And for each one of those, there were 37 criminal homicides, and 78 other homicides ("opps" type shootings). Sure, there were undoubtedly other instances where a gun threat avoided injury, but there were clearly instances where a gun threat aided a crime but nobody was killed. So looking at just the killings, the criminals and negligents and hot-heads win.

. . . and suicides.