Continue here about guns.

That's what I said... make guns extremely hard to get for plebs.

 

I am not white, just a little information. Anyways, down below is just some information about the United States firearm related homicides, and stuff compared to Canada.

ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY: Statistics Canada: Canada's national statistical agency / Statistique Canada : Organisme statistique national du Canada,
Language selection - Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Sélection de la langue - Gendarmerie royale du Canada, U.S. Data and Statistics | USAGov, ATF Home Page | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

According to a Statistics Canada report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.

Presently, Canadian law classifies firearms into three categories: prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted. Prohibited firearms include military-grade assault weapons such as AK-47s and sawn-off rifles or shotguns. Handguns are generally classified as restricted weapons, while rifles and shotguns are usually non-restricted. The AR-15 rifles used by the San Bernardino suspects is classified as restricted. Anyone wishing to buy a gun in Canada and/or ammunition must have a valid licence under the Firearms Act. To obtain a firearms licence, all applicants must undergo a screening process, which includes a safety course, criminal history and background checks, provision of personal references, and a mandatory waiting period. Then, when we thought gun related crimes would get better, we were wrong. Canada’s relatively tight firearms laws were loosened when then PM-Stephen Harper scrapped the federal Long Gun Registry. While in existence from 1993 – 2012, the registry was a centralized RCMP database that linked all guns with their respective owners. As a result, there are now roughly 300 million firearms in the U.S. according to some estimates, nearly one per person in a country of 319 million people. By contrast, Canada had approximately seven million registered firearms at the end of 2011, in a country of roughly 35 million people. Even if Canada had the same population as the U.S., this number would still only work out to about 70 million weapons. The Small Arms Survey estimates that there are 270 million firearms in America, which still works out to 89 guns per 100 people, ranking America as the world's number one country for firearms ownership, and buying a gun is much easier south of the border: background checks through the FBI database are only required for in-store purchases. Even then, it’s a relatively straightforward procedure of filling out an in-store form asking if the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime or committed to a mental institution, among other questions. The store then makes a quick call to the FBI and the whole process can be completed in minutes. Denials are rare, amounting to less than 1 per cent.

also this could be another debate topic: canada has let in 33,239 refugees as of yesterday. apparently america has barely let in 10,000? idek

idk, just some stuff i found, gl.

 

According to a Statistics Canada report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.

This counts suicide, as well as gang violence. Both of which are more common in the USA because of out population. You cant compare a Honda to a Ferrari just because they're both cars.

 

Ah.

Yep.

True enough.

I don't know if you understand this... There are more guns than people in the U.S. You can't just 'get rid of them'.

 

People need the right to defend themselves. Im not going to go into details but if your house is being robbed and you need to defend yourself against the intruder(s) with a firearm, Peoples argument against that is well the intruder wouldn't be there if guns were banned, but the thing is if your going to go as far as rob someones house with a firearm your going to find someway to get a gun, no matter what laws are put down people will find ways to get a gun. Also not to mention if guns are banned in america, just imagine how long that would take to get everyones guns and people would hide them.

 

FOr all those of you that are still ignorant to facts, Heres Keanu Reeves participating in a 3 gun tournament. a LOT of fun.

 

Just to add to this you can manufacture guns quite easily. They're very simple, and the inside mechanisms can be made with scrap metal. Although it's not entirely legal without a license because of safety reasons

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 5, 2016 ---

He's the kind of guy you want to have with a CPL

 

Not true. You can build your own gun as you please. You just cant sell them.

 

By entirely I mean making/having parts that could arguably make a fully automatic rifle or modify a semi-automatic into a full-auto rifle. I'm pretty sure that only manufacturers with a class 3 license are allowed to make or possess a part that controls full auto behavior, which means even if you cut the metal too short or have it rub and wear down you can get 10 years with the feds. Another bad territory is purchasing part kits for previously banned firearms which is mostly legal as long as all of the parts aren't there, however BATFE could argue that other parts in your storage could be used to make an illegal firearm.
So yes, you're correct but there's still some bad legal ground if you were to make tons of parts

 

Just on a little tangent...

I've always taken an interest in engineering, and I'd bet you that if I had a milling machine, I could design and build a fully automatic rifle. Maybe not the best thing in the world, but something that would function.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 5, 2016 ---

Edit: This just to say, I agree that guns couldn't be effectively banned in the U.S.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 5, 2016 ---

Lol I hit the wrong button so that wasn't an edit but whatever.

 

You're absolutely right about the UK. But what does that have to do with guns?

Are you suggesting that Americans will and/or should shoot people that threaten what you perceive to be fundamental rights?

 

Yes, Exactly.

 

Absolutely not.

History shows us that society sliding into authoritarianism isn't a rare occurrence, nor do I believe that America is immune from this push of ideology. Should we ever, as a society, take a turn towards a tyranny rather than a democracy (think Trump statements turned up to 10), I believe having an armed citizenry is a benefit as it gives us the tool necessary to throw off a tyrant and redeclare ourselves a free people.

In a hypothetical, if we become a society which imprisons people for saying things that do not agree with the current government, writes an article critical of an official or any of the namesake trademarks usually associated with a tyranny. In this situation I think the people have a national duty to rise up and remove this government and install a government that once again represents the will of the people.

 

Unfortunately, rifles don't do much against tanks and planes.
Makes it hard to pull a Canada and:
^Some language

But it's better than nothing .

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 6, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 6, 2016 ---

Military grade and AK-47 shouldn't be in the same sentence I think. The only reasons that any military in the world uses them are because they're cheap, and indestructible. Maybe there are more modern ones that are better manufactured...?

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 6, 2016 ---

I dispute this. I can quite easily compare a Honda to a Ferrari. That's how I know I'd rather have a Ferrari.

I think it's more like you can't compare a planet to an orange despite the fact that they're both round (I almost said orange lol). I mean, even then you can draw comparisons...

But what you're saying is right. Canada doesn't have the same inner city environments that we have (and that account for a huge % of our gun violence rate).

 

Free speech is the first thing to go when society starts heading down that path

 

In that case, I'll rephrase.

Are you suggesting that Americans will and/or should shoot a president that they perceive to be a tyrant?

 

No.

 

Then why did you suggest that "having an armed citizenry is a benefit" [as a means to dismantle tyrannic regimes]? How are guns a tool to "throw off a tyrant", if they're not to be used as weapons?

 

Obviously you put it in a glass case and everyone listens to you. Isn't that how the 2nd amendment works?
/joke