From my cold dead hands!

[Guest American Woman]

Yes they would.........It happens, people then lose their PAL and get charged.........A recent Ontario man that retrieved a revolver from his safe and then used it to deter two people firebombing his home by firing warning shots was charged with unsafe storage and went to trial, and had to prove (at great personal expense) that he was able to retrieve his gun and confront the fire bombers in such a short timeframe.

So he wasn't guilty, which is what I said; but I wasn't referring to the owner getting at them quickly - I was referring to someone else being able to access them. Again, it's your opinion regarding Nancy Lanza. It is not a fact, as the facts are unknown at this time.

[GostHacked]

That’s correct………..And here in Canada I would be charged with unsafe storage.

Incorrect. If you did everything you could to abide by the law, and someone got in. You cannot be held accountable simply because you are following the law. The only safe option is to not have firearms at all, and we know how well that sits with the majority of people out there.

[Guest American Woman]

Incorrect. If you did everything you could to abide by the law, and someone got in. You cannot be held accountable simply because you are following the law. The only safe option is to not have firearms at all, and we know how well that sits with the majority of people out there.

That majority includes Derek.

[Guest Derek L]

Incorrect. If you did everything you could to abide by the law, and someone got in. You cannot be held accountable simply because you are following the law. The only safe option is to not have firearms at all, and we know how well that sits with the majority of people out there.

As the case I linked to above clearly demonstrates, one can be charged for unsafe storage well defending themselves.......

[Guest Derek L]

So he wasn't guilty, which is what I said; but I wasn't referring to the owner getting at them quickly - I was referring to someone else being able to access them. Again, it's your opinion regarding Nancy Lanza. It is not a fact, as the facts are unknown at this time.

And in this case someone did access her firearms and used them to kill people with.........

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-219.html

Criminal negligence

• 219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

  shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

  • (a) in doing anything, or

  • (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

• Definition of “duty”

  (2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

Now when Referring to Safe Storage laws in Canada:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-2.html#h-3

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

• 5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

  • (a) it is unloaded;

  • (b) it is

    • (i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

    • (ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

    • (iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into;

Care to define readily (If you can successfully you’ll have a career ahead of you defending Canadians against our Firearms laws)………..

[Guest Derek L]

That majority includes Derek.

Where have I suggested people shouldn't own firearms? Clearly I'm in favor of private ownership, but with ownership comes responsibility and for the cost of one decent deer rifle and scope, a firearms owner can purchase a safe that can not be “readily broken open or into”.....

I find it rich that two people that don't own firearms, come across as being opposed to safe storage laws........

[Guest American Woman]

Where have I suggested people shouldn't own firearms? Clearly I'm in favor of private ownership, but with ownership comes responsibility and for the cost of one decent deer rifle and scope, a firearms owner can purchase a safe that can not be “readily broken open or into”.....

I didn't say you weren't in favor of private ownership - I said just the opposite.

I find it rich that two people that don't own firearms, come across as being opposed to safe storage laws........

And I find it rich that you think your idea of "safe storage" is the bottom line, the only one, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is opposed to safe storage laws. Evidently your country is opposed to safe storage laws, too.

And for the record, just because I don't own firearms doesn't mean there have never been firearms in my house ........

Edited April 8, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't say you weren't in favor of private ownership - I said just the opposite.

And I find it rich that you think your idea of "safe storage" is the bottom line, the only one, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is opposed to safe storage laws.

My firearms haven’t been used in the commission of a crime, the late Mrs Lanza’s firearms, firearms you suggested might have been “safely stored”, had been used to commit a horrific crime……..Clearly the late Mrs Lanza’s “safe storage ideas” are not one to emulate.

[Guest American Woman]

My firearms haven’t been used in the commission of a crime, the late Mrs Lanza’s firearms, firearms you suggested might have been “safely stored”, had been used to commit a horrific crime……..Clearly the late Mrs Lanza’s “safe storage ideas” are not one to emulate.

I do suggest that they may have been safely stored, that we don't know. You disagree. That is your opinion. It is not fact. That we don't know is a fact.

Joe down the road keeps his loaded pistol in his night stand. His firearms haven't been used in the commission of a crime, either. I guess, according to your reasoning here, we should conclude that Joe down the road's "safe storage ideas" should be emulated. In other words, the fact that your firearms haven't been used in the commission of a crime is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Edited April 8, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

I do suggest that they may have been safely stored, that we don't know. You disagree. That is your opinion. It is not fact. That we don't know is a fact.

Joe down the road keeps his loaded pistol in his night stand. His firearms haven't been used in the commission of a crime, either. I guess, according to your reasoning here, we should conclude that Joe down the road's "safe storage ideas" should be emulated. In other words, the fact that your firearms haven't been used in the commission of a crime is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Well no, they are, as you’re quick to point out, my opinions are apart of this discussion, as such I’m entitled to illustrate how I form said opinions………

Now if Joe down the street resides in Canada, and if his handgun in his night table isn’t secured (to say nothing of it being loaded) then Joe is breaking several Canadian Federal laws….

[GostHacked]

Where have I suggested people shouldn't own firearms? Clearly I'm in favor of private ownership, but with ownership comes responsibility and for the cost of one decent deer rifle and scope, a firearms owner can purchase a safe that can not be “readily broken open or into”.....

You are missing an important point here, not sure if it is on purpose.

You abide by the laws and have them stored properly in accordance with the law, and in some cases even exceed the requirements of the law. And if your house was broken into and the guns stolen, do you think you are responsible for the loss of your guns? IN spite of all your security that you have, if all that fails you, are you still going to hold yourself responsible when you have done all in your power to make sure they are stored safely?

I find it rich that two people that don't own firearms, come across as being opposed to safe storage laws........

I am not against some storage laws. But personal responsibility is ultimately the thing that will help guarantee that your guns won't be stolen. I used the anecdotal story of my dad who gave up the guns simply because the laws are getting ridiculous with how they should be stored. Way more effort to stay within the confines of the law to remain legal. How many hoops are you willing to jump through?

Also taking storage laws while maintaining the stance of non-restricted magazines seems to fly in the face a little. Not that I support that either.

You are correct I do not own firearms, but very early on, I was taught to respect the gun. If you don't you end up getting hurt.

And all of this does nothing to address criminal intent. If I wanted to hurt someone and a gun was not available, I could just use my compound bow. 60lb draw weight can send an arrow straight through a person. One drawback (hahah)is I can only shoot one at a time.

From all the reports I have seen, Lanza's mother had stored her guns in a more secure way than what the Connecticut laws were before these new requirements came in. So she was legal within the confines of the law. Adam lost it, killed her and then went on a rampage.

This may show the planning involved that Adam may have had in order to commit these crimes. He knew how to get into the safe, and he either stole the keys or managed to figure out the combo without his mother knowing. This is the point lost on you. You don't take into account the other possibilities.

[Guest Derek L]

You are missing an important point here, not sure if it is on purpose.

You abide by the laws and have them stored properly in accordance with the law, and in some cases even exceed the requirements of the law. And if your house was broken into and the guns stolen, do you think you are responsible for the loss of your guns? IN spite of all your security that you have, if all that fails you, are you still going to hold yourself responsible when you have done all in your power to make sure they are stored safely?

I’m not the one holding myself responsible, fore I won’t be charging myself.

I suggest you further your understanding of the Firearms Act……..Here’s a good start:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/01/lorne-gunter-canadas-laws-on-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying/

It shouldn’t be this difficult, but it is, in large part because the Liberals intentionally wrote the 1995 Firearms Act to be as ambiguous as possible and give prosecutors as big a net as possible in which to ensnare gun owners. Their intention was to make gun ownership as complicated and onerous as possible so as to encourage owners to give up their firearms.

For instance, the Canadian Firearms Program, run by the RCMP, instructs gun owners to “unload and lock all firearms,” when not in use. That seems clear enough. When not hunting, target shooting or killing vermin, gun owners should remove the ammunition from their guns and “attach a secure locking device, such as a trigger lock or cable lock,” or “lock the firearms in a container or room that is hard to break into.”

But is cleaning or repairing the firearm a legitimate “use?” Most judges have ruled that cleaning constitutes use when such cases have come to court, yet police forces across the country — and particularly in Ontario — continue to lay unsafe storage charges against owners whose guns are found out of their safes or locked cabinets, even though they are dismantled for cleaning on a workbench or kitchen table.

See also:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dragnet

drag·net (drgnt)

n.

1. A system of coordinated procedures for apprehending criminal suspects or other wanted persons.

2.

a. A net for trawling; a trawl.

b. A net for catching small game.

I am not against some storage laws. But personal responsibility is ultimately the thing that will help guarantee that your guns won't be stolen. I used the anecdotal story of my dad who gave up the guns simply because the laws are getting ridiculous with how they should be stored. Way more effort to stay within the confines of the law to remain legal. How many hoops are you willing to jump through?

Would you feel Adam Lanza’s mother was a responsible gun owner? Clearly Adam would never have received a PAL/RPAL in Canada, I’m not sure of his Mother, yet he was able to gain access to firearms.

Also taking storage laws while maintaining the stance of non-restricted magazines seems to fly in the face a little. Not that I support that either.

Why? Are you suggesting that the majority of legal Canadian gun owners would suddenly become homicidal maniacs if they were legally aloud to remove the pop-rivet with a butter knife from their detachable magazines?

You are correct I do not own firearms, but very early on, I was taught to respect the gun. If you don't you end up getting hurt.

And all of this does nothing to address criminal intent. If I wanted to hurt someone and a gun was not available, I could just use my compound bow. 60lb draw weight can send an arrow straight through a person. One drawback (hahah)is I can only shoot one at a time.

All of my firearms can only shoot "one at a time"..........

From all the reports I have seen, Lanza's mother had stored her guns in a more secure way than what the Connecticut laws were before these new requirements came in. So she was legal within the confines of the law. Adam lost it, killed her and then went on a rampage.

This may show the planning involved that Adam may have had in order to commit these crimes. He knew how to get into the safe, and he either stole the keys or managed to figure out the combo without his mother knowing. This is the point lost on you. You don't take into account the other possibilities.

Define "more secure way"........If the State had no safe storage laws to speak of, she could have placed a plastic cable lock on the guns, thus they becoming "more secure" then State law requires, yet said locks could be cut with pruning shears.

[GostHacked]

I’m not the one holding myself responsible, fore I won’t be charging myself.

So in the end you seem to be agreeing with my stance. I am not against gun ownership and do not want to penalize people who are doing what they can to stay within the confines of the laws.

I suggest you further your understanding of the Firearms Act……..Here’s a good start:

I don't need to fully understand them but again, that seems to back up what I am talking about. All the laws due to criminal activity only hamper legal law abiding citizens to own and store firearms.

Does nothing to address criminal intent.

Would you feel Adam Lanza’s mother was a responsible gun owner? Clearly Adam would never have received a PAL/RPAL in Canada, I’m not sure of his Mother, yet he was able to gain access to firearms.

Do you keep letting this go over your head on purpose? You do know kids can be sneaky, got any of your own? I do not have children or firearms, but I do know kids lie and can be sneaky. I was a kid once too.

Why? Are you suggesting that the majority of legal Canadian gun owners would suddenly become homicidal maniacs if they were legally aloud to remove the pop-rivet with a butter knife from their detachable magazines?

How did you come to that conclusion with what I said? Every stance I have taken here says that all these restrictions just hamper LEGAL, LAW abiding citizens when it comes to firearms. Lanza's mother, owned and obtained the firearms legally. She even stored them in accordance with the laws. Actually it seems that again .. holy crap .. one more damn time, that she even EXCEEDED storage laws in Connecticut. And you are still questioning her instead of questioning Adam who killed his mother AND went on a rampage. Some strange disconnect you are seeming to have here with that.

Define "more secure way"........If the State had no safe storage laws to speak of, she could have placed a plastic cable lock on the guns, thus they becoming "more secure" then State law requires, yet said locks could be cut with pruning shears.

True, and if Adam had cut the lock and used them to kill her and the kids at Sandy Hook, you will say that she did not do it legally OR she did not do enough. That is exactly the stance you are taking here. You are putting the blame on HER and not the person who committed the crimes.

[Guest Derek L]

So in the end you seem to be agreeing with my stance. I am not against gun ownership and do not want to penalize people who are doing what they can to stay within the confines of the laws.

What does that mean? Some people can opt out of actual secure storage just because what?

I don't need to fully understand them but again, that seems to back up what I am talking about. All the laws due to criminal activity only hamper legal law abiding citizens to own and store firearms.

Does nothing to address criminal intent.

If a “legal gun owner” chooses to break the (poorly written) law, then that is intent enough………The contention around safe storage laws isn’t the requirement for them, but the lack of a clear definition of them…….Per the wording of the law, you could store a rifle with a $15 trigger lock inside a $300 gun cabinet from Canadian Tire, where as I could have the same rifle with a trigger lock inside a $3000 safe…….Clearly we’re both following the spirit of the law, yet your arrangements could be defeated with a cordless drill and crowbar where as mine a plasma torch, hence the ambiguity of said law in terms of defining what is “safe storage”.

Do you keep letting this go over your head on purpose? You do know kids can be sneaky, got any of your own? I do not have children or firearms, but I do know kids lie and can be sneaky. I was a kid once too.

Yes, I have two......I still fail to see your point.

How did you come to that conclusion with what I said? Every stance I have taken here says that all these restrictions just hamper LEGAL, LAW abiding citizens when it comes to firearms. Lanza's mother, owned and obtained the firearms legally. She even stored them in accordance with the laws. Actually it seems that again .. holy crap .. one more damn time, that she even EXCEEDED storage laws in Connecticut. And you are still questioning her instead of questioning Adam who killed his mother AND went on a rampage. Some strange disconnect you are seeming to have here with that.

I’m clearly referring to your reference to my stance on magazine limits.

True, and if Adam had cut the lock and used them to kill her and the kids at Sandy Hook, you will say that she did not do it legally OR she did not do enough. That is exactly the stance you are taking here. You are putting the blame on HER and not the person who committed the crimes.

I haven’t taken any blame away from Adam……..But I’m not afraid to question the Mother’s actions or inactions also.

[GostHacked]

What does that mean? Some people can opt out of actual secure storage just because what?

How do you come to that conclusion based on what I wrote?

If a “legal gun owner” chooses to break the (poorly written) law, then that is intent enough………The contention around safe storage laws isn’t the requirement for them, but the lack of a clear definition of them…….Per the wording of the law, you could store a rifle with a $15 trigger lock inside a $300 gun cabinet from Canadian Tire, where as I could have the same rifle with a trigger lock inside a $3000 safe…….Clearly we’re both following the spirit of the law, yet your arrangements could be defeated with a cordless drill and crowbar where as mine a plasma torch, hence the ambiguity of said law in terms of defining what is “safe storage”.

Well this is a nice clarification that would have saved us some time. So your beef really is the definition and qualifications of what safe storage really means. That seems reasonable to me.

Yes, I have two......I still fail to see your point.

If your kids are perfect angels then yes you would fail to see this point.

I haven’t taken any blame away from Adam……..But I’m not afraid to question the Mother’s actions or inactions also.

Hard to act when you are dead. Call it a minor technicality.

[Guest Derek L]

How do you come to that conclusion based on what I wrote?

From this:

I am not against gun ownership and do not want to penalize people who are doing what they can to stay within the confines of the laws.

Well this is a nice clarification that would have saved us some time. So your beef really is the definition and qualifications of what safe storage really means. That seems reasonable to me.

Exactly, and by extension the claimed level associated with Mrs Lanza’s firearms.

If your kids are perfect angels then yes you would fail to see this point.

I do fail to see your “point”……The eldest has her RPAL and the youngest a minors licence, as such, like other legal gun owners, they’ve been through the required process to obtain their licences……Does that make them perfect? Hardly, but the eldest can, unlike the older Adam Lanza, legally purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 if she so desired.

Hard to act when you are dead. Call it a minor technicality.

This is true, but her actions well alive could have negated the historic outcome.

[Mighty AC]

Great news! There are sane members of the GOP. Last week AW highlighted a few Republicans who support equal marriage and now others are speaking out against the ridiculous vows their brethren have taken to avoid a vote on gun control.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) — one of the only Republicans in the House to support the gun package — added that the filibuster effort is “wrong” and “makes it seem like they’re afraid of something.” “I don’t know what they’re afraid of, but if they’re so sure of their position, let it come to a debate,” King said on CNN.

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have also condemned the obstruction, arguing that the measure should come to a vote since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will allow senators to offer amendments to the legislation. The bill will expand restrictions against gun trafficking, invest in school safety and provide for universal background checks of all gun purchases, though the final version of that provision is still being negotiated. Polls indicate that more than 90 percent of Americans support background checks on all gun purchases.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/09/1838421/top-republican-conservatives-are-too-scared-to-debate-popular-gun-safety-bill/

[GostHacked]

Couple interesting things I came across today.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/justice/texas-college-stabbing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I am now calling for background checks and a knife registry for anyone wanting to purchase a knife.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/08/gabby-giffords-still-loves-gun-culture/?hpt=hp_c4

Giffords loves her guns.

[Guest Derek L]

And some polling of Police Officers:

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

Exactly, since it’s unenforceable and magazines can be exchanged in seconds.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

Of course, “assault weapons” are used in less then 5% of all gun homicides in the States.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

See Above.......Common sense really, since people that might shoot at the police tend not to follow gun laws........

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

And the percent is roughly the same within the United States military.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

Things the NRA is all supportive of?

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

Well duh......The police can't be everywhere.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

Like the NRA does?

8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

That surprises me, I thought Oakland’s had some measure of success

9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

Of course it would, as would enforcing the laws already on the books....

10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.

I agree with safety training.......but perhaps exemptions for those that have been through it in the military?

11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.

Agreed 100%

Maybe Obama should start listening to his "props" in the background:

[Mighty AC]

90% of people want background checks which is part of the White House's current proposed legislation. Missouri repealed their background check legislation and experienced an immediate 25% jump in gun homicides.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the law’s repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms. From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year. In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase. For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean. This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.

http://thinkprogress...ck-laws-repeal/

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

Cops don't shoot well despite training and officers want to put weapons in the hands of teachers with even less skill? Teachers who will not remain calm an level headed in emergency situations. Wow, I'm not sure there is a word in the thesaurus that can demonstrate just how stupid that statement is.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

Fortunately 72% of officers did not think that having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help.

Of course, “assault weapons” are used in less then 5% of all gun homicides in the States.

True...since they have no productive use it might be a good idea to ban them altogether like private nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that Nukes are used in zero percent of all homicides in the North America I am prevented from owning them. What a travesty of justice. What we need are portable nukes with legal conceal permits. Teachers and ECE workers should have mandatory nuke detonation training.

[Guest Derek L]

90% of people want background checks which is part of the White House's current proposed legislation. Missouri repealed their background check legislation and experienced an immediate 25% jump in gun homicides.

http://thinkprogress...ck-laws-repeal/

Cops don't shoot well despite training and officers want to put weapons in the hands of teachers with even less skill? Teachers who will not remain calm an level headed in emergency situations. Wow, I'm not sure there is a word in the thesaurus that can demonstrate just how stupid that statement is.

Fortunately 72% of officers did not think that having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help.

True...since they have no productive use it might be a good idea to ban them altogether like private nuclear weapons. Despite the fact that Nukes are used in zero percent of all homicides in the North America I am prevented from owning them. What a travesty of justice. What we need are portable nukes with legal conceal permits. Teachers and ECE workers should have mandatory nuke detonation training.

Clearly “nukes”, (unlike firearms) like other forms of explosives, are inherently unstable and could pose a risk to the public without human interaction………. As such they should be regulated.

As to the “cops” level of firearms training (The RCMP receive only ~2 weeks) are you suggesting they too pose a risk to the public? Perhaps we could reduce violence by disarming the police also?

[Mighty AC]

Clearly “nukes”, (unlike firearms) like other forms of explosives, are inherently unstable and could pose a risk to the public without human interaction………. As such they should be regulated.

As to the “cops” level of firearms training (The RCMP receive only ~2 weeks) are you suggesting they too pose a risk to the public? Perhaps we could reduce violence by disarming the police also?

Nukes aren't unstable unless handled or used improperly, but is there really a need for civilians to possess nuclear weapons? Hell yeah! How am I supposed to protect myself from a potentially oppressive government if they have the bomb and I don't? I believe that's the logic used for legal assault weapons anyway.

As for cops. They must meet a minimum level of proficiency. The initial RCMP training course is 63 hours, but more time is spent at the range. Officers around North America must then practice and re-qualify one or two times per year, depending on location. There have been several calls to improve officer shooting proficiency through more frequent, mandatory practice sessions. I agree with the calls for more frequent practice.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

The senate has reached a bipartisan deal to expand background check requirements.

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) will announce the details of the plan during a press conference Wednesday morning. Currently, only federally licensed gun dealers are required to conduct background screenings.

Under the Manchin-Toomey agreement, background checks will occur for sales conducted at gun shows, online, and through public advertisements with full record keeping, which advocates see as essential for enforcement and tracing crime guns. Friend-to-friend and family sales will be exempt from the requirement.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/10/1844301/in-blow-to-nra-bipartisan-duo-of-senators-to-announce-agreement-to-expand-background-checks/

Well it is a small step, but at least it is in the right direction and included the GOP.

[PIK]

I gots no problem with whatever Carrey wants to say while making millions from Hollywood with gun play....it's his right to do so.

We gots free speech rights...and gun rights !!

So many celebs made money of very violent films ,but then critize the law abiding gun owners. Let them all stay in hollywood.

[Guest Derek L]

Nukes aren't unstable unless handled or used improperly, but is there really a need for civilians to possess nuclear weapons? Hell yeah! How am I supposed to protect myself from a potentially oppressive government if they have the bomb and I don't? I believe that's the logic used for legal assault weapons anyway.

Actually they are, hence the great cost of maintaining an arsenal of them, especially once you get into two stage/thermonuclear weapons………..Contrasted with a firearm, it can lay dormant for decades, even centuries if stored properly….

As to the threat of a tyrannical government, and the forces that guard (With namely the AR-15‘s select fire cousin), maintain and if required, implement the United States nuclear weapons, their loyalty lies with the Constitution…….And well, the Constitution certainly isn’t trying to take away AR-15s……

But at the end of the day, the Assault Weapons Ban part II and magazine capacity limits won’t be made into federal law, and if the rest of his package does make it to a vote and manages to make it through the Senate, it will be stopped once it hit’s the Congress……

Your side has lost, and all you’ve accomplished is record sales of firearms and ammunition, coupled with lining the pockets of gun rights advocacy groups, dealers and the manufactures………..

You know what they say, when you can’t beat them……….

As for cops. They must meet a minimum level of proficiency. The initial RCMP training course is 63 hours, but more time is spent at the range. Officers around North America must then practice and re-qualify one or two times per year, depending on location. There have been several calls to improve officer shooting proficiency through more frequent, mandatory practice sessions. I agree with the calls for more frequent practice.

Ahh, I know all that......So if we disarm the police, do we make society safer?

That way, law abiding citizens and the police won’t have firearms, only criminals………….The vast majority of police in New Zealand aren’t armed, and the citizens are allowed to own actual assault weapons, high capacity magazines and silencers …..Yet New Zealand isn’t a hotbed of gun crime, contrast with Mexico, that has stricter gun laws then Canada, yet you’re four or five times more likely to be shot in Mexico then the United States……….It’s almost like laws and regulations meant to control individual firearms aren’t effective, but laws and regulation centered around controlling who can access such laws are…….funny concept……People control instead of gun control.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Derek L