Sure it's a reality, but they aren't normal.

Personally, I think if the second amendment were never there, there wouldn't be the insane industry that they have.
And trying to repeal the second would be political suicide. Both Democrats and Republicans know this. Pro gun rights is a huge voting block. And that's pretty much what it comes down to.
Ultimately, it's the citizens who decide. And like I said before, if the citizens feel the need to own guns, that second ain't going nowhere.

They just beat the British using guns so the idea that everyone can bear arms to fight tyrannical government was one of the founding principles when they wrote the declaration.

Repealing it will change the country for the worse because it will give the government way too much power

The Florida shooter was practicing with his gun in his back yard. They have it on video. If all guns where banned he would be in jail for owning a gun and not in jail for murder.

LOL.


The US government already has all the power. Guns are not going to do anything against the US government.

You don't think that he would practice somewhere other than his backyard?

And I don't know what you mean by "power" but this is what I mean:

If they repealed the 2nd amendment they'd have to start enforcing it which means they're gonna have to increase domestic military and police spending which will lead to more of a Big Brother type society. A shit ton of people who otherwise were law abiding citizens will go to jail which means there will be more prisoners, rocketing up the influence in the prison industrial complex, which means that these people who profit from jailing people will have even more incentive than today to lobby the govt to enact laws that keep putting people in jail. And when you have the police with guns fighting people with guns people will die. It'll lead to laws that further restrict freedoms in the name of security.

It's a slippery slope and one side shouldn't have all the guns.

Have you seen the US military budget. I don't think they are hurting for money.

I doubt they're willing to spent that kind of money to house and feed criminals. I've heard it can cost 50k a year for each prisoner. The states already has a prison population problem. Although, for characters such as this, I think it would have been appropriate to jail him, after the fact that he's killed a shit load of people.

I think it would have really helped if this guy could have made some friends to tell him he's crazy. At minimum, a head shrink to fix the amount of crazy this guy was.

Yeah that's the point - they'll start to use that budget to enforce those gun laws on their own population of gun loving citizens which won't be pretty for anyone

But the laws will reduce the number of gun deaths and that was my point.

Bring the death penalty back,than dig one mass hole where they all end up in together to cut down costs even further......Fuck it,feed the local Zoo's lions.

Interesting article I came across.

5 facts about crime in the U.S. | Pew Research Center


I think it's fair to say that media plastering events like these, then citing outlandish statistics, has an effect on people's misconceptions of things like homicide rate and gun death statistics.
You can see the clear uptick in 2001 onward, which I assume would be due to the 9/11 attack and the media cascade of terrorism hysteria that followed.

Yeah there's mass shootings. Nothing's gonna stop that completely. But generally, the overall homicide rate has been dropping for decades.

Yep no problem here, look he found another article!

I agree with this. Criminals with sentence that is life and longer should just be killed. Really, what's the point of keeping them around and wasting tax dollars?

As cold-hearted as they may sound, this world is way overpopulated. The expectancy and privilege to live should be raised.

In case a mistake was made and the person is actually innocent.

How many articles did you have to go thru before you found one that fit your narrative?

The funny thing is, he's so daft that he doesn't realize that this article actually goes against his narrative.

Crime has statistically been going down over the last decade here, most people should know this. Mass shootings however have gone up tenfold.

If regular crime has gone down, than what is the need for such lax gun laws? Conservatives love to use the narrative that we need guns to protect ourselves, but from what exactly? If crime has gone down, than why not introduce better gun laws to restrict the flow, and thus hopefully lower the amount of mass shooting incidents, suicides, etc?

Besides, has anyone actually pulled any statistics of how often a gun is used to protect a home, or robbery, self-defence?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1f235fbf4e63

What a surprise, not that damn often. There goes that argument.

Give it a rest, we've allowed Heckler & Koch, Smith & Wesson, the NRA to push this ridiculous agenda for years now, it's time for a change.

:okay:

You seem to be having an issue processing what I'm saying.
When something like this happens, and the media erupts with a barrage of headlines (many of them filled with misinformation and false statistics) do you think people are less likely to feel the need to own a gun? Or more?

Canadian and American federal gun laws aren't vastly different. Yet the rates of gun ownership and gun death are. That alone should indicate it's not a control issue.

Remember what I was saying about trust? I won't bother posting any of the many articles I've come across. Instead you go ahead and Google social trust amongst Americans. See how much it's declined over the decades.

It's pretty simple; The main reason people in the states want their guns is for protection. And that's because they don't have a high level of social trust.
If they wanna change it, maybe they should start by lowering the amount of social and political animosity that their media seems to love pedaling.

Regardless of the cause, i think it's a trust issue much more than a control issue. I think control is just a knee jerk reaction to a problem that's more difficult to resolve. And since I don't think it's the problem, I don't think it would result in much change.

That's my opinion. FWIW. Hope it's clear now

^
And that's what I appreciate about you welfare.
Well said.

In Canada, we don't have property rights. But the Colton Boushie case has shown that Canadians don't agree with that. Why should we respect a life that doesn't respect itself?

I would say that gun regulation is different. Prohibited guns, restrictions in accessories, and storage safety.

I have a couple friends that have moved down to the states for tech jobs. Both of them say that if you're not well off in the USA, you are essentially fucked. If you're poor, there is no health care, no support services, no rights. From their example, well off is 100k or above combined income, no children. The police down there are not for protection, but a tool for the courts as evidence. For example, get in car accident, they are there to take photos and details of damage, not attend to people involve in terms of medical assistance.

But that does add to your point in trust. How would you suppose in a country like the United States, would you solve the issue?

On the post with the decline in crime, Canada has seen the same decline in the same period, by roughly the same rate, and we still sit at about half as much violent crime per capita than the states.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-...001011-eng.pdf

Your name is zyzzjr. You named yourself the junior of a dead internet troll, a very apt comparison to your posting habits.

By the way, I'm actually one of the "lefties" that isn't crying about Russia. They are of course complicit, but I very much think they are being used as an easy target to blame, a scapegoat of sorts.

The reality is dark money is being used by American conservatives to push this agenda online, and they are simply funding these various "bot mills" in Russia. I'm somewhat skeptical this is only the Kremlin's fault. It's easy to blame the Russians, rather than admitting it's Americans themselves who are "hacking" elections, and propagating "fake news".

Heck, go on The Province or Vancouver Sun on Facebook. You'll see countless political comments on local news with fake Facebook accounts, pushing always the same right-wing agenda. Do I really think the Kremlin gives a shit about pushing some conservative agenda on a local news site? Hardly.

There is a market for these Russian bot mills, and the money is coming from here, not the Kremlin. These mills are also located here in Canada, and the US, among other places. No one wants to admit that fact, the conclusion is far darker.

License and registration requirements:

-To own a gun in Canada, residents must take a safety course and pass both a written and a practical exam. The license expires in five years. Residents have to register restricted firearms, such as handguns and automatic weapons, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Canadian Firearms Program.
In the U.S., license and registration laws vary from states to state, often with no such requirements. There is no mandatory course or exam.
Background checks:

Canada requires a background check that focuses on mental health and addiction. Agents are required to inform an applicant’s spouse or family before granting a license.

The U.S. requires a federal background check for all those buying guns from licensed dealers but does not require one in private transactions such as at gun shows.

Our laws are pretty similar huh? We carry a Federal law that requires you to undertake a full background and criminal check, along with a written and practical exam. I would say the process is VERY much different from most States in the US, our laws fall Federally the same between all Provinces, in the US it does not.

I would also wager our background checks to be far more stringent than any such background check administered in the US.

You are comparing Apples to Oranges.

^I'm pretty sure I was alluding to the same thing about our laws being different.

If we're comparing regulations, then I would say that it's a apples to apples comparison. Regulation to regulations.