Hi all, I have a question regarding gun control that I know I'm going to get blasted for but just know that I am humbly asking for an honest and sensible opinion on this.

I'm from Canada and discovered THF before a trip down south to Dallas and I thoroughly enjoy reading about hunting in an environment TOTALLY different from my own. Our gun control is significantly stricter than that of the US, some of it excessively so. That said I do support some of the laws we have in place. One of the cornerstones of our legislation is that everyone who wishes to purchase and possess a firearm must have a firearms license which is acquired after a weekend course teaching firearms safety... It's basically like getting a driver's license.

I understand that generally, there is vehement opposition to passing similar legislation in the US, but I don't really understand why. Requiring licensing doesn't necessarily interfere with the second amendment in that you can still freely go and buy guns, you just have to prove you're capable of handling them in a responsible way (much like a car). If you prove mentally unstable or to be a criminal, then you lose the license and the ability to legally purchase guns. I feel it would be much easier to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies and bad guys like this but maybe that's just me. Even if all current adults are "grandfathered" in and wouldn't require a license, just new kids, I feel over time it could really help.

Also understand that I am a proud gun owner... I'm not an anti by any means, but coming from a place with significantly less gun violence, I look south and think that something needs to be done.

That would constitute "infringement" that the Second Amendment states "shall not" happen. Couch the debate any way you can imagine, any type of restriction due to semantics or otherwise violates the Amendment. Gun ownership here does not equate to getting a driver's license as driving is not a protected right. Firearms ownersip is. This is one of the things that makes us different from other countries and is supposed to guarantee our freedom here.

Our problem is that total gun control has to start somewhere. Our second amendment is very clear that all citizens have a right to own fire arms. Agreeing to licensing lets the foot in the door and you know what happens from there. It has been proven again and again!

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. We don't have to prove anything to own a gun it is our right as citizens!

In my mind it is the difference between a right and a privlege. In Canada you have the privledge of owning a firearm as long as you meet certain criteria. This privlege can be altered or even taken away by the whim of the government. Such has been the case in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

In the US we have the right as a citizen to own a firearm. Our Constitution guarantees that this right cannot be taken away or infringed on by the government. By submitting to a license scheme we are allowing the government to slowly infringe upon those rights until they just become a privlege - and then nothing at all.

If that's the case then why does the NRA keep saying that we need to get the guns out of the hands of the crazies and mentally ill?

The NRA is stating that we have laws on the books already to deter this but they are being haphazardly enforced. Arbtrarily making new laws won't fix a broken system.

Ok, I can see where this is going.

The NRA statement is correct. There are laws here already that address this issue, and are currently being debated here. Part of that issue is enforcement of the laws already in place, which many (myself included) see as lacking. The same enforcement issues apply to current immigration, drug, and other laws here as well. The big question up for debate is how to preserve the rights we as American citizens are guaranteed by our Constitution. There will always be violence. Take away firearms and folks will be having at each other with knives, hammers, rocks. How we deal with it as a society is the real issue.

Because it is the crazies and mentally ill who perpetrate most of the active shooting attacks. In the United States, a driver license is a privilege but gun ownership is a right. The very act of requiring a gun license would be an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.

PS: Next time you come to Texas, head down to Austin. Dallas kind of sucks.

Hmmm... this is obviously a very tricky issue. I just read the article from California and it seems the only way they can accomplish that is by having a firearms registration database... Something we had in Canada until our current government [thankfully] did away with it.

It seems like there, they are enforcing the current laws that are in place and yet most of the respondents on the thread are commenting on how that is unacceptable. If that is an example of a law, in place, that should be enforced, then why are people upset about it being enforced when on this thread, stepped up enforcement of current laws is one of the main arguments for not adding more laws?

Also, you've convinced me that under the constitution, a licensing system can't really be instituted (although I must admit, I still think its probably a good thing).

If not that, what about the idea of pinning magazines to 10 shots? In Canada we're limited to 5 (which is obviously ridiculous), but at 10, it shouldn't interfere with any real hunting or even target shooting, but could really help in the event of a shooting rampage. Once again, nobody is limiting your access to guns, just what a gun is capable of doing. This would bring the laws closer in line to the capabilities and understanding of what "arms" referred to when the constitution was written.

P.S. Austin may be nice but Dallas is where my friends are... I think wtx is what I really want to check out.

The restrictions being proposed have nothing to do with hunting or target shooting, as the Second Amendment has nothing to do with them either. The rights are there so American citizens can protect themselves against an oppressive government. That right is being actively and openly attacked. The issue of the mentally ill posessing a firearm is being used to further the disarmament agenda. Notice the timing of all the debate as it comes AFTER a school shooting. It was highly publicized here with an agenda. A good "crisis" is not going to be wasted by those wanting to ultimately do away with firearms in the hands of U.S. citizens.

Is it possible that there is a middle ground between "guns for everybody with no restrictions" and "no guns for anybody" and that most legislators on both sides of the floor mostly fall somewhere in the middle of that continuum, not at either end? If that is the case, doesn't that make it much easier to have a healthy debate about the reality (crisis or not) that gun violence IS a major problem within your country?

Even with me in this discussion... I think it makes for much healthier conversation to take the assumption that some legislation or enforcement doesn't mean the beginning of the end for all gun ownership within the US. If we (hypothetically) eliminate that possibility then doesn't it make it easier to accept that there is a gun violence problem that we all want to see reduced?

So moving forward with that assumption in place, I'd like to get back to the issue of the "enforcement of laws currently in place". Why is it that on one thread, people are claiming that that, not more legislation, is the solution, then on another, saying that the story from Cali is the beginning of the end? If the goal is reducing gun crime without new laws, what are the steps necessary to see that happen?

I'll ignore the pinning of magazines, because I get the impression that no matter what suggestion of new laws I make, it will be struck down as unconstitutional which I understand and am willing to ignore for this discussion.

You keep pointing out that gun violence is a major problem in our country. I would simply ask you, what is the murder rate in Canada? How does it compare to the murder rate in the US based on population percentage? This should be what we are talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I am speculating which I don't like to do, but do you find there is a big difference? It doesn't matter how people get murdered, just that they are being murdered and trying to address that problem. What we're saying is lets focus on that issue, not the means being used to commit murders and violence in the first place.

Does it logically make sense to you that a government that rules the population and wants to control it would not want it to have rifles that hold more than 5 rounds in a clip?

You pose some very good questions.

As far as enforcement of laws already in place goes, it is an ongoing debate and there are a thousand differing points of view. My point of view (shared by many here but admittedly not everyone) is that once a precedent is set for any type of restriction of a citizen's rights, those rights are reduced and a future point for wider restriction is put in place. Once those rights are bargained away, they won't be restored. As time goes on, I notice that more rights are restricted and more laws are created. I think this has to do with people adjusting to the normalcy of constant change. It's human nature. Our tolerance level for certain behaviors changes over time; the more you see one thing that's unusual, the more normal it becomes. Before it was gun violence, it was violence committed with edged weapons and blunt instruments (and actually still is, as all violence is not committed with firearms alone). The medium used to commit violence changes somewhat over time. The simple fact is, banning firearms for law abiding citizens will only restrict those that obey the law from protecting themselves. Those that do not simply ignore the law and do what they were going to do in the first place.

The issue is not that we have a GUN VIOLENCE problem, but that we have a VIOLENCE problem, period. Until this problem is seriously addressed, it's all water under the bridge debate wise. Unfortunately those in public office here would rather grandstand with a firearms discussion and not a violence prevention discussion. The tendency is to blame the inanimate object, not the hand weilding it or the mind directing the hand. Here, firearms are blamed as they are what we as Americans have lawful access to, unlike those other parts of the world. They are deeply part of our culture and history. Besides, with as many firearms that are in private hands here, the more futile and ridiculous the discussion of bans due to violence becomes. Public awareness of so called "gun violence" occurrances is elevated due to a complicit mainstream media with an agenda. No one asks why there isn't a higher percentage of violent instances involving guns as there are SO many in the hands of so many citizens. You'd think it would be like the "wild west" out there. In certain parts of the country such as Detroit, it is. Detroit btw, has some VERY restrictive local gun laws. By and large however, it is not. Simply enforcing the laws already on the books would go a long way in reducing ANY crime and the violence associated with it.

The firearms homicide rate in the US is over 7x that of Canada while the homicide rate in general is only about 2.7x higher in the states than Canada. In other words, when comparing our two countries, not only is there a homicide problem, there is a gun homicide problem as well.

You are absolutely right that the limit of 5 round magazines does represent an example of government control over its citizens (an excessive one in my books) but EVERYONE acknowledges that SOME government control is a necessary and good thing. I'm betting that even you would agree that felons convicted of violent crime or those who are severely mentally ill and who have shown violent tendencies should not be allowed to possess firearms. This is an example of government control over its citizens as well. The question isn't "should the government control its citizens" but rather "how much government control is in the best interest of its citizens". That said, I can see that the suggestion of new laws that might curb gun violence is not really worth discussing so rather lets get back to the real problem that we can discuss: how can the homicide rate and in particular the firearms homicide rate be dropped in the US?

I'll go back to what the overwhelming response from firearms enthusiasts which has been greater enforcement of current laws. I've already asked about the situation in California where many posters have decried the enforcement of current laws there (still waiting for an opinion on that one), but what are some other laws that are in place which should be more stringently enforced?


"According to Statistics Canada, this country had a firearms homicide rate of 0.5 per 100,000 in 2011. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say the rate in the U.S. in 2010 – the most recent data available – was 3.6, or more than seven times the most recent rate in Canada."

Read it on Global News: Global News | Gun laws not necessarily solution to gun violence: Canadian lawyer

"The homicide rate has generally been declining [in Canada] since 1975 (3.03 victims per 100,000 people), but rose slightly from 1.62 to 1.73 between 2010 and 2011. This rate was about one-third the United States' rate (4.80), but more than four times the Japanese rate (0.34)."
http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57

You may be right, there MAY be a problem in our country with lots of things but that is none of your business. You will never get our way of life and we will never get yours. I don’t see anyone on this forum interjecting themselves into your countries issues but you feel it necessary to inject yourself into ours. Interesting, you obviously have a mental problem, I'll call the RCMP immediately to come get your guns! That last part was a joke to keep my telling you to but out on the light side

easy big guy... I love the states and I love guns but I hate people dying as a result of them because it makes the rest of us responsible ones look bad! I think we agree that nobody likes seeing people get shot and that we'd like to see that decrease.

I just want to understand the problem from your perspective so that when I'm defending my gun rights and often yours too in discussions, I have a thorough understanding of the issue.

Since the population in the Great USofA is reported roughly around 315,000,000, and Canada at only 33,000,000, my immediate (uneducated) suggestion would be to export any/all illegal, plus any/all felons that are residing in the US to Canada, immediately, reduce the % of population and therfore reduce the % of violence

You misunderstand, I’m not telling you to but out in a mean interweb tough guy kind of way, the point I’m trying to make is you will never get our way of life. I work with mostly Brits, all former military and all very very much interested in preserving human rights (we train foreign military on these issues all the time). On the surface we all seem like likeminded guys but we aren’t. It blows their mind that I have X number of guns in my home, that I can go buy an Armalite and shoot it anytime I want. And I don't get why they don't want that. We will never fully understand a culture that we did not grow up in.

I’m pointing out that this is a circular argument that will never be fully understood by you, not because you are dumb but because you did not grow up with the same culture that we did. The US is a gun culture. Period. End of story, and until the folks on the left breed all of us on the right out it always will be.

Homicide rates in the U.S. stem from many things. The big three are:

1. Drugs. Where there are drugs. There is crime. A good portion of the gun violence in the U.S. stems from the drug trade.

2. Population density. This is true is all societies. The more dense the population, the more crime per capita. Canada has less metropolitan areas than the U.S. and consequently less crime.

3. Lack of punishment. If the odds of you getting arrested much less getting convicted of a crime are slim, what is there to deter you from doing it?

You are a very wise man, West Texas is the place to check out.

The USA problem is not a gun problem, the USA problem is a homicide problem. If we didn't have the guns, I am sure the murders would use what ever other means they had available to them.

Given a choice of being shot or beat to death with a claw hammer,
I would take shot any day.

One thing not mentioned is most gun crimes are not committed with legally purchased guns. I am against any new laws because in my opinion all roads lead to total confiscation. If this were to happen do you really think the criminals would turn in their guns which were most likely stolen.

As far as the statistics you listed, I dont put much stock in any information that the liberal media has had a chance to get their spin on.

My apologies godfather. I misunderstood. You are right to a degree, it is not possible for me to completely understand, but I think I'm a lot closer to "getting it" than the people you're describing so please give me a chance.

Back to the topic at hand, it appears we're getting into those circles I was warned about. Several of you are now claiming there is no problem. BS. The NRA, Ted Nugent and others all agree there is a problem: too many guns in the hands of dangerous and mentally ill people.

The statistics back me up on this one, its not JUST a homicide problem but a gun homicide problem as evidenced in an earlier post that demonstrate that the proportion of homicides taking place with guns is significantly higher in the US than Canada (and others).

I've already agreed to the fact that new legislation including licensing is out of the question. Instead I'm asking what the NRA and others on this board are referring to when they talk about greater enforcement of current laws and if that is the answer than why were people getting worked up on the other thread about people doing just that: enforcing current laws.

Surely there is someone out there who can give me some examples of the laws people are talking about that are not being enforced now that should be so that the proportion of homicides taking place with guns (and in general) can be reduced so that some of the heat is taken off us... The responsible gun owners.

The statistics I quote are drawn from Statistics Canada and the Government of Canada's own website... Not liberal media

I also have clarified that for the sake of this discussion I am against new laws being created