As I've stated plenty of times, if you have the money and connections and are willing to go through the NFA/ATF, you can absolutely gain access and ownership of tanks, bombs/explosives, etc.

Hell, the NFA itself is entirely arbitrary and ridiculous. Tanks, explosives and the like are NFA items, but so are supressors and short barreled shotguns/rifles. 1000% arbitrary, there simply is no real logic behind it whatsoever. The reasons why those particular items were scheduled as NFA items to begin with was because of the ignorance and idiocy of some law makers who somehow thought that criminals were going around executing people with supressed pistols like fucking MI6 agents. They were also concerned about the concealability of short barreled long guns...which, again, I'd love to hear the logic behind that one.



More often than not, we've seen increasingly strict laws, and very rarely the other way around. To my knowledge, there haven't been any real world examples to point to of gun control going the other way like you have postulated. At least not in the Western world.



Indiscriminate weapons...nukes, for example...would be a reasonable line, as they aren't even considered conventional arms. There isn't any defensive use for those types of weapons, they aren't used to control or subjugate, they are created solely to level and destroy and nothing else. We're talking potentially world ending weaponry.



Here's the thing. We, as a society, have decided that 18 is the age where we deem people as grown adults, old enough to make their own decisions and be held responsible for said decisions, good and bad. That is more or less a necessity. There needs to be some definition of what constitutes an adult and differentiate them from a minor. There is some logic and history behind these decisions. Just as we've decided that 16 years old is old enough to be able to legally operate a vehicle without adult supervision and have a license to do so. But they are still a minor, so they can't have the car registered in their name. They also can't do things like smoke or drink. In the future, perhaps there will be some new information and arguments that would call this into question. If/when that day comes, it would behoove us as a society to take those arguments into consideration and maybe adjust things accordingly.

As far as gun control goes? A large majority of that has been purely arbitrary, and any attempts at applying logic have been derived from bad faith arguments and misinformation/ignorance.

You're the one arguing that Canada and the US are fundamentally different places. Why would they legislate using America's idea of 'common use' firearms? And to borrow your oft-used line on Morrigan, I'm not inclined to trust info on what guns were common in Canada in days past from a guy who has repeatedly insisted he doesn't care what Canadians think about guns


Where will it end up? They'll go from 7th to... what? And how many generations will this conspiracy take? The fact that Canada's still 7th highest in the world (I'm not sure you're grasping the enormity of that) seems to fly in the face of your apparent argument that the authorities in Canada have been working towards complete disarmament for years now. Doesn't seem like they're doing a great job.


'Less than 120% of the country's entire population' seems like a good start. My idea of sensible is what keeps people safe from gun violence. I think it's very clear at this point that regulating guns is the only way to do that. You don't agree, we're obviously not going to make any headway on that front.


because that's exactly what their end goal is. What else do you think the amendments to C-21 are intended to accomplish?

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... n-heritage

https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/ ... t-handguns

You can trace the tightening laws over a period of time

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec ... to-a-close

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contrib ... o-yes.html
[/quote]
One of those is an opinion piece from a conservative talking head, a second is an op-ed from a Toronto city councilmember-- referring to those is like giving me two op-eds written by Neil Cavuto and Chris Taliaferro and claiming they represent a reasonable sense of where national policy is going. A third refers specifically to Quebec provincial policy, not to C-21 or any other federal legislation. The fourth is probably the closest thing to a valid point you have, except even that relies on a slippery slope argument with minimal evidence backing it up.


You could, but I'm not sure 'I'm uncomfortable with the fact that this country has more guns than people and dozens of people die because of gun violence every day' is beyond the pale.

That is correct, Canada and the US do have many fundamental differences. However, for better or worse, they are the closest thing to us to compare to, even when taking into account places like the UK.

and I ultimately don't care what they think about US gun laws and "gun culture" for mainly two reasons

1. As far as I'm concerned, they are legally completely defenseless anyways. They can't even so much as carry pepper spray for self defense purposes. A non-lethal tool that wasn't intended to cause lasting effects is completely illegal to carry. If a woman was caught with pepper spray in her purse, there is a chance she could be charged for it. One of the reasons for the proposed gun legislation was to curb gun violence and to increase public safety. Ok, fair enough, those are noble intentions. However, if these are such a pressing issue to be addressed, one would think that a government that ostensibly cares so much about its citizens' well being would empower said citizens and afford them the means to protect themselves where law enforcement cannot...which, let's be real, is normally going to be the case. Not their fault, those men and women are only human, they can't be everywhere at once. But I'm not really interested in hearing about what is sufficient for self defense or home defense, or whether or not people should be allowed to carry weapons from a people who are more or less helpless to defend their own person.

2. One cannot sit here and tell me to my face that strict gun legislation doesn't lead to disarmament/confiscation when you can just look at your own legislation and see it happening increasingly every year. That's like telling me the stove isn't hot, while I'm sitting here looking at and hearing your hand burning and smoking with my own two eyes and ears.



It hasn't even been a decade yet, mon ami. Give it some time...shit doesn't happen overnight. The consequences of legislation isn't always immediate. Not to mention this recent strict legislation was just passed within the last three years.



You have no clue how to keep people safe from gun violence. You've done nothing but propose policies that, more than likely, are going to go nowhere in terms of accomplishing its slated goal. At the very most, it will have some short term affect and then peter off after a certain point.




The legislation says what it says regardless of who is doing the analysis. But, fine, let's just look at the legislation itself
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntr ... 21-en.aspx



So those who already have their registered handguns can continue to possess them, but can only transfer or sell them to certain businesses or individuals.

So, basically a future ban, for lack of a better term. After the original owners pass away, those guns are going to the furnace or in a museum or somewhere other than the in the hands of other citizens. And, unless the laws change, no more handguns will be sold or transferred to non-exempt parties. Eventually, ownership of handguns won't be a thing anymore.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntr ... ex-en.aspx


1,500 models...and the ubiquitous term "assault-style firearms" which nobody seems to have a coherent definition for.



A "buyback program" which is just a nice euphemism for confiscation...because that's what it is essentially.

Now I'd like you to explain to me how you think this won't ultimately lead to disarmament? Unless you really believe that because a few farmers somewhere can own a single shot .22, that the population isn't technically disarmed...



That sounds like a personal problem to me. It may shock you to know this, but the majority of (legal) gun owners are actually halfway decent people, and not the gun toting lunatics that you may think many of us are.



Like I've stated before, nobody in their right mind is arguing that nothing should be done to alleviate gun violence in America, school shootings, shootings in general. I just vehemently and fundamentally disagree with your proposed approach.

One thing that springs to mind while reading these posts is that just over the last two to three years, at least 10 US states have stopped requiring a permit for carrying concealed firearms, and have enacted permitless carry legislation. I believe that is a recent, real world example of gun control going the other way in the Western world.

Good one. I completely forgot about that one

So I will amend my previous statement.

More often than not, gun control becomes increasingly strict, and not the other way around. There are examples within the US in many states where permitless carry legislation is being passed, but this is a recent development that's occurred within the last two years. Even then, they're still outnumbered by state level bills being passed/proposed that are strict.

I have mixed feelings about it. Thus far, we have yet to see any noticeable increase in gun violence that can be directly attributed to the passing of said legislation, but the future has yet to be seen. As I've said, the effects of legislation sometimes aren't seen until years after its been passed. I still think carry permits are important, as those classes often require education about lawful gun ownership/usage and some require range time in order to pass a shooting test. But that's only if we can make it so that anyone who has the desire to acquire one can do so without having to break the bank or worrying about getting their application denied for arbitrary reasons (thanks, Bruen v NYSRPA) or being forced to wait an inordinate amount of time for everything to be processed. Before the Bruen ruling, it was damn near impossible to get a carry permit in Maryland or New Jersey.

Going back to places like DC or Maryland or California, the process of getting a permit is incredibly laborious and expensive. You also, for some reason, can only carry guns that have been registered with your permit application, and you have to pay additional fees to add new guns to said permit to carry...which I view as a form of extortion. I think those states that went to permitless carry have overcorrected and just said fuck it, anyone who can legally own a gun can now carry it in public.

Sorry this is weird/wordy/rushed...I'll try to make this my last comment.



Okay, so there's less accessibility in those cases. But I'm not sure why there should be civilian access to them at all. As you say later -



Nukes are obviously off the table.

"Aren't considered conventional" - I'm not sure this expression really does much to mitigate the arbitrariness issue described earlier. In light of the whole slippery slope discussion, I still have in mind a continuum stretching from the least destructive and deadly (and throw in "efficient" if need be) weapons to the most destructive and deadly weapons. It doesn't "really" make sense to introduce a legal distinction based upon (as you say in one place) whether the weapon has a certain number of rounds etc.; the objects involved still belong to the (IMO very problematic) category of "deadly weapon" - I could almost borrow a definition of this category from your quote above, "created solely to [level] and destroy and nothing else." ("Level" might be redundant here, as it's perhaps separated from "destroy" by only a matter of degree? Maybe I'm mistaken about the usage.)

Basically, I don't see that the criteria separating regulation-worthy deadly weapons from non-regulation-worthy deadly weapons are particularly logical. (I can concede that much when considering your suggestion about the slippery slope.) But also, I don't see that it solves anything to sort out those weapons based on the label of "conventional," unless there's some clear, principled basis for the designation that I'm simply missing.

(Full disclosure: I'm obviously not a firearms guy. I shot a BB gun when I was a kid, haha...but that's it.)

As for "indiscriminate," "no defensive use," those seem a little less unpromising, maybe. I take it that "indiscriminate" weapons are such that it's simply a lot harder to deliberately restrict the damage they cause to a targeted area; not sure what else it could mean. But I think this only manages to introduce another criterion which is vague, hard to pin down, a matter of "more" versus "less" - so, I doubt it can escape the slope effect any better than, say, "more rounds" versus "fewer rounds."

I'm not sure what purpose "defensive" serves, either. It ultimately seems another variant on "deadly" or "destructive" - firearms defend by means of causing death, right? (Or at least injuring, or threatening to kill/injure.)

Just to sum up this wall of text: There are such objects as deadly weapons which serve no purpose besides that of a deadly weapon. (I think this doesn't apply to e.g. cars and knives, since they pretty clearly serve important purposes besides that of a deadly weapon.) It's often urged in the interest of public safety that these objects should be regulated or banned from civilian possession. But there's apparently an issue with this proposal: "where to draw the line" so as to non-arbitrarily avoid the extremes of total disarmament and total deregulation. And "draw the line at X rounds" seems to me as logically unpromising as "draw the line at Y degree of indiscriminate destructiveness" or "draw the line at 'considered unconventional.'" (Conventional according to whom, and for what reasons?)

However (anticipating the item below), it isn't clear that arbitrariness has to be a problem. And if it isn't a problem, then doesn't that neutralize the worry about slippery slopes here? (When making distinctions for legal purposes, we can and do draw lines arbitrarily without much of an issue (that's the point of the cigarette sales example), so why make a fuss in this case? Maybe we'd be right to make a fuss, but at this point I'm not sure why.)



Agreed with the first paragraph.

As for the second bit, I'll have to bow out at this point, as I don't have a command of the data (I can't comment on your earlier claims about "misleading statistics" and such), but I was never under the impression it was exceptionally difficult to make sense of. There's a correlation between tighter gun laws and lower rates of gun violence; is that much actually controversial? The data might not conclusively show causation (I admit I don't know), but the suggestion is there anyway, and the stakes in terms of public safety are high. Surely there are other socioeconomic factors exacerbating gun violence, as with violence and crime in general...but those issues badly need addressing in any case. You said earlier that gun control would be a "bandaid" - maybe the better expression is "necessary but not sufficient." (Ultimately just speculation on my part, so, I have nothing else to add.)

Libertarians are just republicans with bongs. You may not have voted for Trump but a huge amount did. In fact, the libertarians I know that did not vote for Trump were staunch supporters of the teenage murderer Rittenhouse.



We have the means to destroy tanks as they come down the street? Really? And you can kill the personnel already in that tank?? How about if the tank shoots first! Stop! Been there, done that, in recovery.


Dude....its not the laws that are draconian but gun culture. I would hope we would have evolved past the OK Corral.

You can keep saying this, and because you keep saying this, it doesn't make it anymore true. It's bullshit. As is your argument here. Repeat it until they treat it as truth is a sad ill in our world.

Jesus fuck lol...and they say I'm talking out of my ass...

You're simply incorrect. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Let me provide you with an example of what I mean. If someone calls themselves a Muslim...and tells everyone else that they are...but they're constantly observed doing things like eating pork and participating in extramarital sex, at some point, people would call into question whether or not this person is even really Islamic, because their actions don't appear to reflect that.

This isn't even a no true Scotsman fallacy, it just means that their actions and behaviors are antithetical to the ideology they claim to have, whether it be political, religious, etc

Those folks you refer to? I knew some as well...and I'm no longer friends with any of them for very good reason.



Do you not know what things like Guerilla Warfare are? I'm not saying that it would be an absolute slaughter in favor of civilians, but we are not nearly as incapable and defenseless as you think we are



Wrong again! Nice try, though. I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself.

You can't call "gun culture" draconian when people are having to deal with increasingly strict and illogical gun legislation that doesn't even really work nearly as well as its proponents believe it does, if even at all! Furthermore, how can we say we need more regulations when we've failed to even properly implement the ones we already have in place? It makes zero sense.

Yet you've failed to properly address any of the points I've brought up time and time again.

Its only bullshit because you refuse to see it. You think it's all reasonable and innocuous, when in reality it's the furthest thing from it...

I think we're getting to the point now where we can't see the forest for the trees. We're getting caught up in theorizing and such that we've lost track of the larger issue at hand, here.

Let's just take a look at what these politicians are saying and then I'll explain exactly why they're full of shit and have an obvious agenda

1. They want to heavily restrict, if not outright ban, "assault weapons" and have been calling for such restrictions/bans for decades now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh ... hannel=Joe

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58341

The problem is. Nobody, not even the ATF, the federal agency tasked with the regulation and enforcement of gun laws, has been able to come up with a consistent, concise and definitive description of what an "assault weapon". You would think after nearly 30 years of bitching and moaning about them, you would be able to provide a list of what differentiates an assault weapon from a non-assault weapon? No dice. Nothing. It's almost like there isn't one, and it's just a made up buzzword to describe any weapon they decide is too capable and frightening for the general public to own. If you want something banned or restricted, you better be able to tell me what that thing is in the first place before we even get to why it should be banned. This could apply to anything from guns to cigarettes.

2. They want registration and universal background checks.
https://www.vox.com/2021/3/11/22319705/ ... son-murphy

I don't have an issue with the latter. We have UBC here in Virginia/DC.
But I've already outlined several issues with registration. Government entities have shown time and time again that they can't even be trusted to keep people's personal information under lock and key. Not only have gun owners' personal information been leaked in California and New York, it's even happened in Australia! Does nobody have an issue with this? because I certainly do.
There's also no good reason to even believe that a registry will have any significant impact on gun violence. They don't help solve crimes, the people who aren't supposed to have guns aren't going to be affected by it in the slightest. It's a pointless and expensive exercise that will only end up being fruitless in the long term.

I did though, and you continue to lean on your slippery slope conspiracy theory that is based on paranoid assumptions that you call knowledge and fact. There's actually nothing there to see. What I am refusing is to fall into your twisted assumptions and false equivalencies, which others have handily dismantled, though you think because you keep saying them, it makes them true and solid. "properly"? You're ridiculous.

Hardly. I've actually provided evidence and shown where I've drawn these conclusions from and why.

Or have you missed the part where I've coped and pasted directly from pieces of legislation and broke down what they are outlining...and shown a pattern over a number of years where legislation has become increasingly more strict?

What have you provided?

I will also aim to make this my last post on this subject. This is the US politics discussion thread, after all, not the guns discussion thread.


Man, you keep getting back to this point of Canadians being completely defenseless/helpless as if every person from Vancouver to Halifax ventures into the mean streets at their own peril and anybody without a gun is at the mercy of... something, I'm not sure what. Canada is one of the safest countries in the world by virtually every index and metric-- except gun violence. And the way to prevent gun violence is not to give people more guns so that they can shoot back (or, more likely, accidentally shoot themselves or a friend, have their kid stumble across it and shoot someone, pick it up in a moment of crisis and hurt themselves or someone else...)


Every time you make this argument, you are arguing against the overwhelming consensus of impartial policy analysts, experts, and jurisdictions that have actually implemented gun control policies.


I don't think it's a personal problem at all. In fact, I think you'll find there are many, many people who are deeply uncomfortable with the fact that there are more guns than people in this country. I also don't think most gun owners are lunatics, but their right to own a gun does not exceed my right, my friends' rights, my kids' rights to live without fear of being shot to death. And the simple reality is, if you're going to stop the insane epidemic of gun violence in this country, you're going to have to regulate guns. There is absolutely no way around that.

Every argument from Malignant can basically be reduced to "But muh guns".

Literally any two or four legged predator they may come across? Or do you just think people live in a magical bubble where nobody becomes a victim of a violent crime simply because they live in a relatively safe neighborhood/town/country? Even countries like the Czech Republic allow for concealed carry for the purpose of self defense, and they are far from being a violent or dangerous country to live in.



I don't doubt that. But then that begs the question as to why the government felt the need to implement increasingly draconian measures, to the point where handguns are more or less outlawed for future generations? Was it just not quite safe enough?

"We are a very safe country! But, we could be safer..."



Nowhere have I suggested that we just start handing people guns and arm everyone and their dog. I am saying that any individual who wishes to exercise their right shouldn't have to jump through an absurd number of hoops that do nothing except put unnecessary burdens on lawful citizens.

I can't defend irresponsible ownership. We've seen an alarming number of instances of kids accidentally getting ahold of an unsecured firearm and using it to either hurt/kill themselves and/or others.




There are a lot of things about society that I'm uncomfortable with. At the end of the day, guess what...still just a personal problem.




IF we want to address gun violence, then perhaps we should try focusing less on the ultimately inanimate object - dangerous as it may be, not denying that - and try focusing more on underlying causes. We can overregulate firearms all we want, but if the issues that drive people to commit these atrocities continue to exist, lunatics will still murder in spree killings. At the very least they'll break the laws to obtain a firearm (people already do that). It isn't as if there aren't other, more effective ways to kill a lot of innocent people in a short amount of time.

This is exactly right. "I like guns, and I'm worried (read: paranoid) they're going to take away my toys." None of this is about ideology or safety or police or policy.

@Malignant, not sure what is draconian about evolving away from "conceal carry for all" to more "well regulated" firearm laws. That second amendment says a well regulated militia. No one is keeping you from bearing arms, just regulating what arms can be possessed by the populace. The gun lobby believes the second amendment is our conceal carry permit. That's draconian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk



If your idea of regulation includes dumb shit like "assault weapons" bans (which still nobody has been able to tell me what that is), mag limits, a registry, excessive fees/price gouging of the permitting process and other worthless pieces of legislation, then I'm not and will never be on board with it.

I don’t wanna get involved in this, but everyone here is ganging up on him. This statement is a load.

That's perfectly fine. These ideas need to be discussed, whether we end up seeing eye to eye or not. I wish guns weren't such a partisan issue, because I think people of all demographics and ideologies have the same rights, even people I disagree with. It's odd that I have to point that out, but there are some people that have a tendency to think that because someone doesn't fit with their particular worldview or whatever, that they are somehow lesser or don't deserve the same treatment or rights.

Not accusing anyone here of that just for the record...

I haven't even read this gun debate, and I probably will go back and read some of it, but my general thoughts on guns are:

1) Just because you own a gun doesn't make you a doomsday prepper. I have a huge interest in self defense and martial arts, and if you think there's any significant possibility that you could get jumped or have your house broken into, then it's prudent to own a firearm, and I'd like to own one (a handgun).

2) I definitely DON'T think we need to have assault rifles, and I think that laws should make them much more difficult to get. However, I'm not sure that at this point laws would make enough of a difference. Would they make any difference at all? Probably. And any difference is better than none. But at this point there are so many guns out there, and our society is so gun crazy, I just don't know. I do think something needs to be done to make these horrible shootings and school shootings less common. I also see that there is some debate about exactly what an assault rifle is, so we need to figure out a legit definition. I don't know enough about the way guns work to be able to define them, but I did once in my life at a friend's ranch shoot targets with both an AR15 and some kind of a hand gun. When I'd press down the trigger for the AR15 it would just fire out round after round like crazy, whereas I could only shoot so many bullets out of the hand gun before it needed to be reloaded. It's that repeated easy action firing without needing to reload that concerns me. If you can simply press a trigger down and kill 20 people in seconds without reloading, that's an issue, because we are talking about something being made to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which honestly should only be necessary in war and for soldiers. This seems to me to make school shootings and other spree shootings much more dangerous, whereas a typical hand gun can't do that. A person should be able to defend themselves just fine against one or even 5 people with a hand gun. So, my very vague general definition for "assault weapon" would be something that can be fired off dozens of times within seconds without reloading. I'm sure that's not a good definition though, and I need to learn more about how guns work for this kind of discussion. I definitely think we need universal background checks, and if you have EVER been imprisoned for a violent crime like assault, armed robbery, rape, murder obviously...I don't care how much time you do in prison, if you get back out again you should lose your right to own a firearm. You've proven yourself a threat to society, so no guns for you.

3) I do think that the U.S. has too much of a "gun crazy culture", and I think a lot of people are overly afraid of having their guns forcibily taken away, which is not likely to happen, however...

4) I also think it's unfair that some people throw any and all gun owners into the same group, considering them all to be crazy conspiracy theorists when it just isn't true. I'm a liberal, but I'd like to own a gun (don't yet), and I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Nobody needs an assault weapon. Wanna shoot those kinds of guns, join the military.

Yes and we're a tyrannical dystopia, you got us

It's seriously hilarious how I brought up Canada earlier and how we don't have a severe gun violence problem like the US does, and you reject this point firmly, saying you don't give a shit about what Canada does. But now that it's convenient for YOUR (completely inane and fearmongering) argument, you bring up "but Canada!".

Pathetically transparent.


Gaslighting??

Jesus christ you're such an unhinged moron. Words have meanings you clown, you don't get to use a word to describe maliciously methodical abuse to someone just for disagreeing with you.

(And before anyone whines about my "name-calling", remember that this dude told a guy to "fuck off" earlier -- even though he didn't deserve it at all -- so draw your ire at him first )



It 100% is, it's literally that fallacy in a very blatant way and your examples are as textbook as they get. Many Muslims are not that strict about eating pork and even drink alcohol. Lots and LOTS of Christians engage in extra-marital sex. It's incorrect to say they aren't Muslims/Christians, that's not for you to decide.

By the way:

This is so, so funny. You're literally speaking to a former Libertarian (staunch one with a capital L, frankly) and former (?) gun-toter. And telling him to fuck off because he made you uncomfortable by pointing out that gun-toting nutjobs largely preferred Trump, too.

But yes, "do you even Libertarian, bro" to mjollnir of all people is hilarious, not gonna lie. Even funnier is that mjollnir himself made the exact same argument you did a few years ago, by claiming that "true" libertarians were not on the Trump train... Fortunately he wizened up, so it's not too late for you too.



If you don't want to get involved then don't, especially if your only contribution is to finger-wag. As for him being dogpiled, I suppose that's true, but he's kinda asking for it by telling people to fuck off and sneering at non-Americans who aren't drinking his 2nd Amendment kool-aid, so frankly, I don't especially care. If he can't take it, he shouldn't dish it. As for you, maybe stay in your lane.

I'd be fine with the idea of gun control if I thought it had any chance of being implemented successfully in the US, but as it stands now, I'm very skeptical of that. The democrats don't come close to having the political power to enact substantial gun control, and if they did, the far right has grown paranoid and violent enough that attempting to enforce it would lead to widespread political violence far beyond what we're experiencing now.

Not a gun nut, but I'm not seeing a feasible solution here.

Literally nobody argued that point, now you're putting words into my mouth. I think your gun laws are draconian and that your government hasn't exactly fixed anything by enacting such strict gun control in a country that never really had a serious gun violence problem to begin with. It's obvious that they want to make gun ownership taboo if not outright illegal, and make it so that it future generations simply won't have access to them. Why else would they effectively outlaw handguns entirely? Places like Switzerland or the Czech Republic or Poland don't have nearly the same level of gun control that Canada does, and they are arguably just as safe, if not safer. It isn't as if America is the only first world country where people are allowed to own "military" rifles and carry pistols in public.



Once again putting words in my mouth. Please never take a debate class, you would get slaughtered. At no point did I ever deny that Canada isn't as violent as the US. I did point out that we are two different countries, and that it isn't a full 1-1 comparison.

Let me quote myself


Posted: 04 Mar 2023 19:24


Posted: 04 Mar 2023 21:09



.

Ultimately I don't...and I've already laid out why that is. Clearly either you didn't bother to read it or you just don't give a shit enough to try and understand.




Unhinged? Perhaps a bit. Moron? Pot calling kettle black.




https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman






I told him to fuck off because he was making a baseless assumption based off of his own personal experiences and with zero evidence to support his point whatsoever. It's one thing to say

"I have personally seen and heard a lot of people who call themselves libertarians support Trump." and another thing entirely in making a sweeping assertion.

Hell, if you actually bothered to read anything I wrote instead of automatically dismissing it, you would have seen that I even admitted that those individuals exist, but that I no longer associate myself with them

why the hell is wayne lapierre posting on a metal message board?

Okay Malignant....suppose you are right, even the staunchest anti-Trumper, Liz Cheney, a republican, still peddles a lot of the MAGA rhetoric. In fact, if he would have never had his election day temper tantrum, she would be supporting him. The gun lobby rhetoric is nothing but Republican talking points that they have been spewing for years. The ONLY time a republican was in favor of sweeping gun control was when Reagan was governor of California and the Black Panthers were walking around openly carrying. That made him quite uncomfortable. Bottom line....just because they dislike the person doesnlt mean they disregard the message.

I was full in it for years and actually believed what I said about libertarians not being on the Trump train. He made a comment about my deduction was from personal experience. But through personal experience (how the fuck else do you learn?) is how I discovered I was not only misled, but was outright wrong.

Speaking of rabidly armed Republicans, Donald Trump put out an unhinged statement today about expecting to be arrested on Tuesday (without providing any evidence), and calling on his supporters to take to the streets and "take our nation back." This ought to be delightful.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump- ... 023-03-18/

Jesus fuck...can we just toss this man in prison already?

The sad thing is if he does somehow end up in prison it'll end up being some form of martyrdom for his followers

Yeah we don't have gun violence problems like you do
Because we have gun control legislation

That's the whole point lol

Turns out when it's harder to get guns, it's harder to commit gun violence! Who would have thought. And "not fixed anything" my ass, gun violence massively dropped after gun control legislation was enacted. This was also the case in Australia.


lol what is this, am I supposed to be pwned from this zinger? Clown

I didn't put words in your mouth anyhow. You use Canada as a cudgel when it suits your ideology, and you dismiss it as irrelevant when the facts contradict your world-view.


Literally none of this text proves your point whatsoever. Muslims who drink booze are still Muslim, and you have zero right to tell them they are not (well, you technically have the "right" I suppose, but that'd make you a cunt).


It's obvious you told him to fuck off because it makes you rage to acknowledge that gun nuts and MAGA go hand in hand. Your #notallguntoters cope and seethe is amusing, though.

That is a massive load of horseshit...

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... 457#sec006

> "The finding of an association between unemployment, low income rates, the rates of aboriginal population, and provinces with a higher rate of suicide underscores and suggests areas for directed public health and harm reduction programs. No overall mortality reduction, but a shift from suicide by firearm in females and males age 45 and older to hanging, associated with current gun control programs, was found. This suggests that gun control methods to reduce suicide by firearms may have benefits but further actions to reduce suicide by controlling for other methods and suicide prevention programs could lower suicide rates in Canada. No associated reductions in homicide with increasing firearms regulations suggests alternative approaches are necessary to reduce homicide by firearm."

- Effect of Firearms Legislation on Suicide and Homicide in Canada from 1981 to 2016



Oof, wrong again

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... gun-deaths

> "Homicide patterns, firearm and nonfirearm, were not influenced by the NFA. They therefore concluded that the gun buy back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia."

- Melbourne University's report "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths"

Why don't you at least try to have something, anything, to back up the shit that you've been spewing this entire time. Give it a try, it may actually help.



Hello pot, meet kettle



Canada is a textbook example of everything I've been saying and is exactly why your opinion ultimately means nothing at the end of the day.



Did you bother to read any of it? Or did you just breeze right by it like you normally do.



It's obvious that you've really done nothing but misrepresent everything I've been saying and talking out of your ass this entire discussion, and you're just as clueless and full of shit as you claim I am.

Oof, wrong again.

It's a basic aspect of research literacy to recognize that you can probably find at least one study or source out there to back up just about any viewpoint you want, which is why looking at meta-studies or taking the time to actually go through multiple sources is important. On the other hand, finding this one took me literally five seconds.

Which is great that you've made that point, because every time this discussion comes up I have sometimes had to acquire pieces of information from multiple sources, all conveniently either ignored or misconstrued. Weird

Also, this little tidbit



I've always said that increasing people's quality of life is the best solution and not strict gun control. Is it really the goal to only reduce suicides by firearm? Or perhaps just reduce suicide rates itself? If we can make it so where people have the means to get what they need (financial, medical, etc), then people will be far less inclined to not only hurt themselves with firearms (well, really, less inclined to harm themselves at all, regardless of the instrument of harm), but to commit crimes with firearms, ranging from robberies, carjackings all the way to mass shootings.

Firearms are just an easy, convenient boogeyman. Nothing more...

Can we just end this already? It's becoming clear that we will never agree or see eye to eye on this issue, and I don't think anyone, myself included, wants this to end up being three pages of debating on gun control. There are other, more important issues to be discussed, frankly. I am extremely skeptical and mostly against gun control, but a lot more pressing issues are going on in the country.

I'll just say this. If we were to burn it all down and start from scratch, I'd be pretty ok with implementing a facsimile of the Czech Republic's gun laws. You have a right to own and possess a firearm for home and personal defense, but you need to pass a strict test and be properly trained on laws, proper and safe gun handling. The government either makes it subsidized and free, or fees of no more than $40 per applicant. That way anyone who wishes to get one has a fair chance, no matter their financial status or class. The classes are held frequently and are easily available, so anyone from a single mom working two jobs to a trust fund baby with more time and money than he knows what to do with can take the classes.

The governing body of issuing these permits have no more than 10 days to issue, not 20 or 30 or 90 (a right delayed is a right denied), anything past that and the applicant can file a writ of mandamus to give them their permit if they passed all of the qualifiers. The permit is good for 10 years, and you have to take a crash course every time you renew. Law enforcement also gets zero say in who does and doesn't get to have a firearm. There have been instances of LEOs accepting bribes or granting permits to people who have done favors for them and/or denying or holding everyone else's applications hostage more or less.

All permits are 'shall issue' and not 'may issue'. You don't have to be required to provide a reason or "justifiable cause" to own, because that's horseshit, and has been used as a way to deny applicants who should otherwise have been able to get one (Bruen v. NYSRPA). You cannot be denied due to race, political ideology/alignment, sexual orientation, etc.

No bullshit "assault weapons" bans or mag capacity limits, because those are entirely worthless laws to begin with. You don't have to register your weapons, as long as you have the valid and up to date credentials, you're good.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... ontrol-gun
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content ... g_2011.pdf

Yawn.

Oh look there's more fun facts:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/in-fighti ... -1.6004198

So gun violence in Canada is often caused by... US guns being smuggled across our border. So while sneering Americans claim they don't care about us, we have no choice but to care about their gun proliferation problem, because it's now also our problem. Cool cool. Thanks, Texas.

Maybe we should build a wall...


You say this while simultaneously ignoring his source, really?


No one's forcing you to keep replying. Though it's nice of you to admit that no evidence will sway your ideological bent, I suppose.

And before you go again with your smarmy "PoT KeTtLe" and "i aM VeRy sMaRt" silliness again: I just care about evidence, and I find the evidence overwhelming. To the point where denying that common sense gun legislation works is nothing short of either willful ignorance, extreme selfishness, or malice. I'm not sure which one you are, but it matters little at this point.

lmao of all the shit that Trump has done, they're gonna get him for paying hush money to a pornstar?

anyways if anything happens today, they'll get the perp walk and then he'll use the whole thing as campaign fuel and to rile his base up as always

It's another instance of Trump being an absolute idiot. Paying hush money ain't always illegal - and if Trump had used his own money there wouldn't have been a (legal) problem. But it's suspected he used campaign finances instead, for some inexplicable reason.

It doesn't really matter whether Trump walks free or gets 40 years in prison, he will be a martyr.

Unfortunate but true, the end result will be the same