The Canadian take on gun ownership

[jessemoore97 1,278]

These are very rare cases, there are mass shootings everyday in the States but how often is there a mass stabbing? Most of the time people have time to run and actually can defend themselves.

 

Also notice how they’re all in China? By far the most overpopulated country on earth.

 

I'm going to briefly comment on this, and walk away since I've engaged this topic numerous times before in previous threads.

 

Look up knife laws and stories for the U.K. and the problems they are having there. Historically a knife has multiple purposes, not just for the dinner table and kitchen. A few bad seeds are sending the ever powerful and all knowing government there into overboard mode legislating limits on knife ownership. Restrictions on how you can get knives, limits on the type of knives, new manufacturer guidelines on the style of knives, etc. It's really began to reach the point of absurdity. One wonders how long it will take before changes are proposed involving motor vehicles given the number of incidents they've had.

 

Now compare with gun control advocacy here and why gun owners are increasingly sceptical/fearful of "common sense" gun laws approach to resolving matters. There is no such thing as common sense, it's a gun grab plain and simple.

[ckp160 10]

I sort of replied to you in my other post but what do you mean by punished? Do you use your gun for hunting or do you like shooting targets or do you like looking at it?

 

I start with your latter question. All 3. I'm a total gun nerd. I enjoy them. I am not a super avid hunter, but I do some bird hunting, which coincidentally I do with a shotgun. A semiautomatic shotgun. The design is a very old design. The Browning Autoloading 5, or Browning A5. I bet if you looked around in Canada you'd find there are a bunch of semiautomatic shotguns used up there, but without knowing your gun laws maybe you guys all use pump guns.

Mostly I target shoot. Not sit there at a bench and target shoot, but what they call action shooting. Running from position to position shooting at various targets. Similar to USPSA (known as IPSC internationally) and IDPA stuff, although I do not compete.

Finally I enjoy the craftsmanship that goes into firearms. The history (particularly in The United States) of firearms is fascinating to me. Since the beginning of our country's birth, firearms have been woven into its very being. The guns John Moses Browning designed are just amazing. The 1911 was so far ahead of its time it's unreal. It's STILL being used today. Pretty.

 

Your first point is a hard pill for me to swallow, and let me tell you why. It has nothing to do with guns in particular, but it does have to do with freedoms and The United States being what it is. Freedom is dangerous. It just is. You're relying on people to do the right thing with their freedoms and not abuse them. Let's take a look at freedom of religion. Here, you can practice pretty much whatever you want. Obviously we're not going to allow human sacrifice and all that, but most of the major religions are here to stay. I think we can agree that Muslims have gotten a pretty bad rap in the press the past 20 our so years. The bombings and what-not. So, if this religion is preaching violence and death to America, why isn't it banned? Because the vast majority of Muslims are completely normal people. Why should they be punished and have restrictions put on their life because some ******* wants to blow him or herself up? It makes no sense. The EXACT same parallels can be drawn with gun owners.

 

Lastly, I hate to even bring this up because the statistic is so wide and completely unverifiable. I THINK the DOJ released a stat a while back that firearms were used to prevent someone from being harmed in somewhere between 30,000 to 500,000 times a year. No I didn't fat finger that last number. That doesn't include actual shootings, but what is called brandishing. Where the firearm is produced and the attacker retreats. I know that stat seems crazy, at least it does to me. I'm not even sure how they would actually track that, but if you google it you can find it. It doesn't support or detract from the semiautomatic debate. A revolver will kill you just as dead as a machine gun. It more just shows how useful firearms can be in self defense.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

there are mass shootings everyday in the States

 

factually untrue, not even exaggeratedly true..

 

Most of the time people have time to run and actually can defend themselves.

 

Did you not see the death counts on the 3 examples I gave you? They are equivalent to the mass shootings death counts. Again, you simply do not know how dangerous a maniac can be with a knife, which is why cops are legally allowed to shoot a knife wielding suspect.

[irishwavend 571]

I agree that everyone in the country should have to take a gun safety class and handle a gun so that they can get a full understanding of what it is and how it functions. How can you truly respect the weapon without knowing the first thing about it? It's like childless adults who try and tell parents how to parent. Until you've experienced it, you can know a little bit, but you can't get the big picture.

 

I think when you start talking about how other countries do it, one thing that is lost and never discussed is the homogeneity of the country. The US is the biggest melting pot in the world. We are not homogeneous by any means, so I think some of our problems are inherit to the simple fact that we have such a vast array of subcultures in American culture.

 

The other part which I think is most important is the delicate balance between removing somebody from society who has been identified as a potential threat and not treading on that person's civil rights under the US Constitution. In other countries, you could get away with locking up a jackwagon who could become a threat to society. But, those same countries turn around and use that as a weapon against their people versus using it as a protection.

 

The left loves to say that it would be impossible to identify and remove millions of illegal immigrants from this nation, therefore why expend the effort. If you think that's difficult, try identifying billions of firearms. The only people you will easily be able to confiscate them from are the legal, law abiding, respectful gun owners who truly use the weapons for hunting and self-defense. Then, there's absolutely no deterrent for criminals.

 

I have a buddy who works for the ATF who thinks gun restrictions are asinine and points to Puerto Rico and Mexico as examples. The bad guys will all find a way. Gun laws simply disarm the good people. The real problem are the people themselves, identifying them, and actually enforcing the laws. How many of these shooters have been identified by law enforcement or others, but slipped through the cracks when those folks failed to be responsible and do what was necessary to protect society from these people? We have too many failures in this country who refuse to do the hard thing, and instead opt for the easy thing, which then results in death and destruction because those responsible were nothing but pussies about performing the duties they were hired to perform.

 

Anyway...we need to teach more people about guns. Require it in school. And, we need more good people armed. The police are not meant to be your exclusive means of protection - they are merely support. You have to protect yourself - no ifs, ands, or buts. Nobody cares about your life or the life of your family more than you do. Everybody else has their own sh*t to tend to.

[ndomer4 532]

factually untrue, not even exaggeratedly true..

 

 

 

Did you not see the death counts on the 3 examples I gave you? They are equivalent to the mass shootings death counts. Again, you simply do not know how dangerous a maniac can be with a knife, which is why cops are legally allowed to shoot a knife wielding suspect.

 

Well they say a mass shooting is technically 4 people so I bet it’s closer to a fact then you think.

 

No I did notice and that’s why I said show me numbers like that in a country not named China. Did you take into account China is by far the most overcrowded and overpopulated country in the world?

[AlabamaDuck 0]

A strict interpretation of the second amendment might actually allow for citizens to own fighter planes and anti-aircraft missiles.

 

And you are against that?

[AlabamaDuck 0]

Lol unless that knife holder is daredevil or on some James Bond **** there is not way 50 people are going down by knife. No way.

 

I`m sure that there were a lot of people saying the same about cars. A knife is still the preferred weapon by a lot of people.

The 3 main reasons to own guns is sports shooting or recreational shooting, Hunting, and personal protections and home security.

A 5 round clip is all that is necessary. In My Opinion Only.

 

Alabama is a hunting state. There are a lot of girls and boys that kill their first deer at 13-14 or younger. Of course these are kids with fathers that hunt.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

No I did notice and that’s why I said show me numbers like that in a country not named China. Did you take into account China is by far the most overcrowded and overpopulated country in the world?

 

It does not matter how populated China is, I can get the same result in Norway at the local mall. China just has more people in general, so it is more likely that someone is going to actually take action.

[irishwavend 571]

THIS is the main problem... People failing to identify potential aggressors...

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/dozens-failed-to-report-nikolas-cruzs-troubling-behavior-until-after-parkland-report

[irishwavend 571]

That’s relative as to what you believe a tyrannical govt is. Did you know that only one in five Americans supported the revolution? Did you know that it was started by the rich because they didn’t want to pay taxes, yet the rich didn’t even fight for the most part? Did you know that recruitment was so low that they had to frame people for crimes and threaten them with jail time or join the cause? Again, relative to the situation. I am not saying America is not better off, maybe we are, but you have to take everything into perspective and current times. Trust the fact that if the govt wants to bomb your house that gun isn’t going to do ****. So that prospective is outdated. You are better off staying everyone has the right to own anti-aircraft missle launchers.

 

Dude...liberal education really did a number on you, huh? I mean, you are just regurgitating the bull**** aren't you? No real thought behind it... I mean, what you're spewing masquerades as real thought, but it's not...by any means. Pick up a real history book and read everything - not what you selectively choose to support some bogus liberal narrative.

 

Here's an example of your bull****. It is generally accepted by most historians of that era that 40%-45% of the colonists supported the war. 15%-20% supported England. The remaining amounts either remained neutral or kept a low profile.

 

"Maybe we are [better off]" Are you f***ing kidding me with that crap?

[echo88 74]

After reading your stats, it is not a very strong argument at all. All I have to say is that guns save more innocent lives than take. Also, majority of the gun deaths are done by illegal gun owners, therefore, stricter laws wont change anything. Criminals will get the guns anyway, because they do already. You would just be taking away the guns that were used to protect the innocent family from that home invasion.

 

You may think that link is all-knowing, but it really does not change anything and it is seriously biased (and seems somewhat politicized)...

 

The only argument I see against gun ownership are these mass shootings... If you think these mass murders wont happen with super strict gun laws, then you dont understand how these people think, nor do you realize how dangerous other weapons are. Give an average man a knife in a crowded mall and he could kill 15-20 people in 2 minutes. Give an ex-soldier on PTSD who is in great shape, he could kill 50 people in that time. He doesnt have to worry about running out of ammo either.

 

And they do....all the time....in China. But our media doesn't cover such things with the same ratings-boosting fervor as U.S. shootings. Probably because gun control is a hot button topic in our country and because our media is a soulless repository for feigned concern...and of course "thoughts and prayers".

 

The mass shootings in the U.S. have everything to do with social media fame and the sudden meaning that a marginalized individual believes their existence will receive when committing mass murder. We glorify serial killers and sensationalize acts of terror for weeks, if not months after they occur. Instead of just ending their own lives like they did before the possibility of having their faces plastered all over the internet, these recent shooters figure they can stick it to society in the most effective way by taking others with them. Might even be a Netflix movie in the works if they play their cards right. People here eat fu(king Tide pods for a fraction of such notoriety.

 

Changes to gun control laws and mental health reform are pathetic, futile attempts to solve a problem that will never go away until we stop canonizing the perpetrators and proving to future offenders that their $hitty, sick lives can be cemented into history on their way out if they so choose.

 

Firearms simply make killing a greater number of people quicker and less intimate than other weapons such as knives or machetes (ask China and India, respectively). I bet if the feds didn't have watch lists to prevent the acquisition of certain ingredients to make catastrophic homemade bombs, we would enjoy a prevalence of that type of mass murder over any committed with a firearm. Ever wonder why Timothy McVeigh was the last one to get away with something of that magnitude?

 

The reality is that you can't exert the same degree of surveillance over firearms that you can over bomb-making materials. Firearms have a much wider scope of utility and availability to citizens.... and rightfully so. Firearms will always be readily available to anyone determined enough to acquire one, regardless of the laws we set forth.

 

The danger of firearms, as with any object that can be used as a weapon, are limited to the responsibility/intent of the persons in possession--and there is no shortage of idiots here. Even law-abiding citizens who acquire guns legally can't bother themselves to practice safety measures responsibly...then they wonder how their 3 year old kids can manage to accidentally shoot themselves or others.

 

Did the ban on passengers carrying firearms on planes (or even subsequent screening) stop acts of mass murder in the air? No. They just used box-cutters. Then they used explosives hidden in a shoe...then electronics. The link between international and domestic terrorism is obvious. One is done out of reaction to foreign policy toward a region or religion. One is done out of a feeling of rejection by society or the perception of being slighted by someone, something, or a way of life that offends delicate sensibilities. They're both fu(king insane. Terrestrially, they use cars to mow down as many people as possible. Do people really believe that individuals harboring a desire to commit mass murder won't simply gravitate to whatever measure they have at their disposal to achieve their goal? "No gun? Aww shucks, guess I'll have to throw in the towel on my plans to kill as many people as possible before ending my own life." Give me a break.

 

The murders of innocent civilians will continue regardless of the countermeasures we take because our culture in the U.S. has, in the past decade or so, morphed into offering a twisted, perverse martyrdom to any of these idiots who commit such acts. We are all responsible for who we have become as a society and the types of degenerates we are cultivating.

Edited November 14, 2018 by echo88

[coltssb 1,044]

To Echo,

since it was your post and Im to Lazy to try to highlight from my IPhone.

 

I’ll just write on the one paragraph. In terms of the media coverage and encapsulizing these “sick individuals.” Frankly, I don’t even remember any of their names. I couldn’t tell you who was the Vegas shooter, the Orlando night club, Sandy Hook, California country bar and on and on who did what. However, I can remember each place it happened and pretty close to the number dead.

At this point, I could care less what that individual looks like. I could care less about his motives-because there are none. I care about how many are dead. And you know the f’ed up thing is. I look forward to seeing what the death toll is on the next one. Maybe we can break a record. Maybe they could kill 60 next time? Maybe 70? Because then, and only then, maybe somebody with some real balls will stand up and figure this shyt out.

[echo88 74]

To Echo,

since it was your post and Im to Lazy to try to highlight from my IPhone.

 

I’ll just write on the one paragraph. In terms of the media coverage and encapsulizing these “sick individuals.” Frankly, I don’t even remember any of their names. I couldn’t tell you who was the Vegas shooter, the Orlando night club, Sandy Hook, California country bar and on and on who did what. However, I can remember each place it happened and pretty close to the number dead.

At this point, I could care less what that individual looks like. I could care less about his motives-because there are none. I care about how many are dead. And you know the f’ed up thing is. I look forward to seeing what the death toll is on the next one. Maybe we can break a record. Maybe they could kill 60 next time? Maybe 70? Because then, and only then, maybe somebody with some real balls will stand up and figure this shyt out.

 

The names? Yeah I can understand that. I don't either. But the act? Yep. We all remember. And we will continue to do so. And that's what, IMO, the perpetrators get out of this.

 

Personally, I think a foreign terrorist plot will claim the next huge batch of lives instead of a mass shooter. Then I guess we will be banning radical Islam in the U.S. to preserve lives, right? Right? I mean, the movement to ban or limit gun ownership would be punishing the majority for the acts of the minority. Wouldn't it? No, they have a right to religious freedom. And that is apparently more important than the right to bear arms and defend yourself and your loved ones.

 

The fact that talking heads are debating magazine capacity and muzzle velocity for guns is a clear indicator that we, as a society, are woefully missing the mark (pun unintended). Anyone trained in the usage of a firearm can expire and reload any firearm with a lower capacity magazine just as quickly as someone can expend a magazine of a higher capacity. It is insane to me that this is even a topic for debate.

 

We dont need guns to defend ourselves from the government. That's an antiquated defense of the 2nd Amendment. The government wields weapons that don't even require the threat of losses on their end. Furthermore, there simply is no fathomable situation where the government would have to threaten or corral its own citizens unless a threat was made to its very existence. Even then, who makes up the individuals who would be carrying out such a barbarous crushing of the population? Yep, your own friends, family, and neighbors who make up 99% of military operators behind the trigger of literally all offensive weapons. I guess we are assuming that they choose allegiance to the gov instead of their own? Why? The amazing pay and benefits that are, by the way, no longer honored? Craziness. If the $hit ever hit the fan with our own government, you'd have politicians commanding an army of none. They know they wouldve already lost and so such a scenario should not even be contemplated.

 

The right to defend ourselves from the alarmingly increasing threat of day-to-day situations presented by our own citizens, however, is necessary. People who capitalize on the freedom they're bestowed to behave like animals...to bathe in the comically inept judicial system and act with virtual impunity.... should be treated as such by law-abiding citizens like myself.

Edited November 14, 2018 by echo88

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Dude...liberal education really did a number on you, huh? I mean, you are just regurgitating the bull**** aren't you? No real thought behind it... I mean, what you're spewing masquerades as real thought, but it's not...by any means. Pick up a real history book and read everything - not what you selectively choose to support some bogus liberal narrative.

 

Here's an example of your bull****. It is generally accepted by most historians of that era that 40%-45% of the colonists supported the war. 15%-20% supported England. The remaining amounts either remained neutral or kept a low profile.

 

"Maybe we are [better off]" Are you f***ing kidding me with that crap?

 

Skipping the insults. Nice job copying the first thing that comes up on google in regards to the support. If you scroll down you will see this number is debated http://www.ushistory.org/us/11b.asp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/505835/

You also did a hack job on copy and paste job taking out “white” before colonists.

 

And yeah maybe we are, how would you know it is over 300 yrs ago. I was not saying we are or we are not. I was being logical.

[echo88 74]

Skipping the insults. Nice job copying the first thing that comes up on google in regards to the support. If you scroll down you will see this number is debated http://www.ushistory.org/us/11b.asp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/505835/

You also did a hack job on copy and paste job taking out “white” before colonists.

 

And yeah maybe we are, how would you know it is over 300 yrs ago. I was not saying we are or we are not. I was being logical.

 

I think it's a fair conclusion that, depending on where your allegiances lie, the interwebs can provide endless fodder for either side of the argument....

 

No one fu(king knows anything except for what we can find ourselves or what was written in incredibly slanted textbooks....

 

It's actually, in my opinion, a significant contributor to the great political chasm we are experiencing. Not only do we have to deal with the reporting of questionable stories on both sides that both serve an agenda, but we now also have the ability to go back and question the reporting of historical accounts...

 

Arguing on either side is a foolish endeavor....

[ckp160 10]

I tend to agree with you Echo on we’re all responsible for the mess society is right now. You can’t disagree with somebody anymore it seems like. Both sides (far left and far right) have gone off the deep end. Seems like “they” want us to take sides.

 

I DO think we, as a country, can change the violence we’re seeing. Statistically speaking we live in the least violent times in history. Violent crime is down, but you wouldn’t think so watching the news. There has to be a correlation with the news we’re seeing and the presumption it’s more violent now. Sensationalism of violence maybe?

[Rocketsan 768]

Didn’t watch video, but will chime in with this. In my entire 46 years, I have only met one person who owns a gun (save for my best friend who is a cop and was given one).

 

It’s not part of our culture.

[echo88 74]

Didn’t watch video, but will chime in with this. In my entire 46 years, I have only met one person who owns a gun (save for my best friend who is a cop and was given one).

 

It’s not part of our culture.

 

Hey...you worry about bacon and hockey, budday....

[GunSlinger 28]

Instead of hey let's talk about gun control let's hear an actual solution. Chuck Schumer likes to talk about gun control but has he offered a real solution? Every election cycle Democrats like to talk gun control until they get your votes. But yet still no answers. Let's hear some actual ideas...I'm open to any.

 

Let me also add that I'm a registered Democrat, I also believe that most Republicans believe in some sort of gun control but they don't have any answers either.

Edited November 15, 2018 by GunSlinger

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I think it's a fair conclusion that, depending on where your allegiances lie, the interwebs can provide endless fodder for either side of the argument....

 

No one fu(king knows anything except for what we can find ourselves or what was written in incredibly slanted textbooks....

 

It's actually, in my opinion, a significant contributor to the great political chasm we are experiencing. Not only do we have to deal with the reporting of questionable stories on both sides that both serve an agenda, but we now also have the ability to go back and question the reporting of historical accounts...

 

Arguing on either side is a foolish endeavor....

 

Well this dude Irishwave told me to pick up a real history book while copying the first result on google. I don’t know what to believe my liberal education or what irishwave says because ya know google, textbooks... the right would say liberal. I am confused! I agree though with your post echo, **** has gone to far on both sides. However, my original post and point, which irishwave did not even address, still stands as valid in my own research. Founding fathers were not GODs, they do not see the future, and the govt would drop bombs and give two shits about your ar15. Also, NRA can’t support coffee for their employees.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Jim2Dokes