What is it with Walmart and these mass shootings!
When one reads the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, it's a 2 part sentence. Half militia have right to own a gun. Over the years the State militias have lost structure to the NRA and the police state. IMO the second amendment was meant to institute a civilian defense system that more closely resembles the Swiss model. As a result oversight, moral mentorship, and community responsibility have disappeared.
Just another American white supremacist gun-nut 'inspired' by his NZ counterpart. Instead, the 21 year old accused guy could have channeled his murderous impulses and perhaps gone to Afghanistan where Western forces have reportedly killed more civilians than the Taliban this year 18 of that senseless war.
'Violence is as American as cherry pie.' - H Rap Brown
When one reads the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, it's a 2 part sentence. Half militia have right to own a gun. Over the years the State militias have lost structure to the NRA and the police state. IMO the second amendment was meant to institute a civilian defense system that more closely resembles the Swiss model. As a result oversight, moral mentorship, and community responsibility have disappeared.
If the Swiss were slave owners who were engaged in actively stealing indigenous land then it might be a good analogy but I think it doesn't meet the mark. This article from a few years ago has a good summary of some of the historic debate surrounding it.
Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby’s favorite amendment. “That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false,” he said. Instead, the “well-regulated militias” cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment/
George Galloway: TMOATS - Episode 7
"In this week's show, George speaks about the atrocious mass shootings in the US with Andrew Patrick from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence..."
The killer probably chose WalMart because it's the place where the poorest people in any given community tend to shop, and because recent immigrants, a group which in most places tends to be relatively poor, are more likely to shop there. The specifically reprehensible aspects of WalMart-the unionbusting, the lax policies on gun and bullet/shell sales-most likely played no role in the racist terrorist's choice of target.
Also it is a high population place to get as many people as possible before getting arrested or killed in return.
Also it is a high population place to get as many people as possible before getting arrested or killed in return.
That would also figure into it.
Dayton Shooter Was Apparently A Self-Professed 'Leftist', Warren & Sanders Fan - Twitter
"Judging by his supposed activity on Twitter, the Dayton shooter appears to have held views opposite to those of the El Paso gunman. 'I want socialism, and I'll not wait for the idiots to finally come around to understanding..."
"White Supremacist Terrorism is not only growing networks of white supremacists. It is literally law of the land embedded in manifest destiny, doctrine of discovery, prison industrial complex, immigration exclusion, police killings, drone warfare, segregation and all state violence."
Dayton Shooter Was Apparently A Self-Professed 'Leftist', Warren & Sanders Fan - Twitter
"Judging by his supposed activity on Twitter, the Dayton shooter appears to have held views opposite to those of the El Paso gunman. 'I want socialism, and I'll not wait for the idiots to finally come around to understanding..."
"White Supremacist Terrorism is not only growing networks of white supremacists. It is literally law of the land embedded in manifest destiny, doctrine of discovery, prison industrial complex, immigration exclusion, police killings, drone warfare, segregation and all state violence."
Yeah right...a guy who fights for socialism by slaughtering black people. That TOTALLY tracks. "And I am Marie of Romania".
The guy probably wrote that-if HE wrote that at all-to use his hate crime as a means to smear the Left.
This is a really interesting read on the American white supremist "movement."
In our own century, the choice might come down to Green socialism or eco-fascism. The day before the El Paso attack, The New York Times published an op-ed mocking climate activist Greta Thunberg, written by anti-immigrant polemicist Christopher Caldwell. But Caldwell belongs to the old guard of the right, destined to be dumped in history’s landfill. The real battle to come is between Thunberg and the emerging Malthusian fascists.
https://www.thenation.com/article/el-paso-mass-shooting-fascism/?fbclid=...
Toronto does not want to be outdone
The killer probably chose WalMart because it's the place where the poorest people in any given community tend to shop, and because recent immigrants, a group which in most places tends to be relatively poor, are more likely to shop there. The specifically reprehensible aspects of WalMart-the unionbusting, the lax policies on gun and bullet/shell sales-most likely played no role in the racist terrorist's choice of target.
Also it is a high population place to get as many people as possible before getting arrested or killed in return.
I think you both nailed it.
Toronto does not want to be outdone
I'm not sure why the Mayor of Toronto keeps pushing a handgun ban. He understands that these shootings are gang related and the owners of these guns don't have a liscence in the first place.
I know a detective in Toronto said that the guns gang members are getting are being stolen out of lawful gun owners houses so banning guns means no guns available to be stolen out of peoples homes. There is a logic with that.
The city and government ran with this obscure detectives claim, the only thing is he didn't have any evidence. When asked to back up his claim with statistics, sources and what not he didn't have any. Further more he appeared to up and disapear. When you dig into the issue only a small portion of firearms recovered from crime scenes are guns stolen from Canadian homes. The majority are smuggled in from the US.
What happens after handguns in Toronto are banned and the number of shootings continues to rise? What next?
How about we eliminate all guns with the exception of 18th century muzzle-loading muskets. If you're really proficient you might get off four rounds per minute, during which time you can be tackled to the ground. You might kill someone if you were close enough but it would put an end to mass shootings.
Nobody needs a handgun. Their primary purpose is killing people - just because most owners just pretend to kill people with them at a firing range doesn’t change that.
Maybe handgun aficionados could find a new, less disturbing hobby? This one is becoming culturally inappropriate.
Nobody needs a handgun. Their primary purpose is killing people - just because most owners just pretend to kill people with them at a firing range doesn’t change that.
Maybe handgun aficionados could find a new, less disturbing hobby? This one is becoming culturally inappropriate.
Agreed.
My platform (which I've been pushing on babble for many years):
1. Ban all handguns.
2. Ban possession/storage of all guns in appropriately defined urban areas.
3. Extremely severe penalties for being found in possession of a handgun, or any gun in an urban area.
4. [OPTIONAL - once we've accomplished the above] Eliminate private ownership of all guns. Rent them from the state if and when you need them for lawful use.
As for the tired ultra-right NRA line that this will only affect "law-abiding gun owners", and that criminals will continue to do whatever they want - that is correct. That's how laws work. Criminals violate them. Duhhh. The purpose of my proposal would be to drastically reduce the number of guns in circulation.
I'm talking about Canada. There's no point talking about the U.S. As long as it remains a brutal non-human society which incarcerates and murders its own minorities and "lower" classes, and as long as it commits aggression against and murders countless millions abroad, there will never be any form of effective gun control there - nor will mass shootings be curtailed. Each shocked reaction, spontaneous demonstration, alleged movement ("this time we really mean it!" - e.g. when white students are killed) - will subside with the turning of the news cycle.
How about we eliminate all guns with the exception of 18th century muzzle-loading muskets. If you're really proficient you might get off four rounds per minute, during which time you can be tackled to the ground. You might kill someone if you were close enough but it would put an end to mass shootings.
Those muskets take blackpowder. Wouldn't angry people just make nasty IEDs and pipebombs?
Maybe handgun aficionados could find a new, less disturbing hobby? This one is becoming culturally inappropriate.
I'm not so sure about that. There's an estimated 3000 guns bought and sold each day in Canada, 4500 firearm related businesses across Canada with new ones springing up all the time, Two year + waiting lists to join handgun clubs because they;re so packed and popular, just as many run ranges in Canada as there are hospitals, licenses and people joining the sport continue to rise.
Why else wouldn't the Liberals just snap their fingers and ban all guns?
The devil's in the details on those stats, Paladin. Are the buyers within a small group? How many are new buyers? How many on the waiting lists for handgun clubs are new, how many have history with handguns? If it's continued engagement within a population or region, then it's a very different picture than new adoptees. My observation is that the number of hunters and gun owners per capita has fallen (basically, fewer people own more guns and has been a trend for the last 15-20 years), and handguns especially are something a lot more people - not just the hobbyists, but the public at large - are increasingly uncomfortable with.
Even in the US, the people who buy guns are generally people who already own guns and 57% of their household do not have any firearms.
I'm with Unionist - complete ban on handguns. My dad was a hunter and gun enthusiast, also a collector of long guns. I grew up around them and I understand gun culture (we could dive into its association with toxic masculine culture, but let's not drift too much). I have been a long-gun owner. I'm still living on the prairies, which is probably more gun-friendly than any other part of the country. Nobody needs a human-killing machine for fun. Enough, already.
Maybe handgun aficionados could find a new, less disturbing hobby? This one is becoming culturally inappropriate.
I'm not so sure about that. There's an estimated 3000 guns bought and sold each day in Canada, 4500 firearm related businesses across Canada with new ones springing up all the time, Two year + waiting lists to join handgun clubs because they;re so packed and popular, just as many run ranges in Canada as there are hospitals, licenses and people joining the sport continue to rise.
Why else wouldn't the Liberals just snap their fingers and ban all guns?
Ok then, we could handle it this way: Allow people to keep collecting and trading handguns...just don't allow them to buy bullets for said handguns. It would probably increase the resale value of the handguns if they weren't worn down by use.
Another in Baton Rouge
Breaking: WALMART SHOOTING UPDATE: Sheriff says one suspect has been apprehended, other gunman remains at large; injured victims being treated at Baton Rouge General.
My observation is that the number of hunters and gun owners per capita has fallen (basically, fewer people own more guns and has been a trend for the last 15-20 years), and handguns especially are something a lot more people - not just the hobbyists, but the public at large - are increasingly uncomfortable with.
You absolutely could be right.
An article Elizibeth Thompson wrote for CBC news in 2016 suggets that the number of restricted guns (handguns, short barrel semiautomatic guns and AR15s by name) in Canada has doubled since 2004. The continues to say:
The number of restricted guns in Canada shot up 9.5 per cent last year, bringing the number of restricted firearms registered across the country to its highest point in more than a decade.
Everything I'm reading indicates numbers have continiously increased. Even Anti gun activist Mrs Heidi Rathjen expressed concern over the increase in licences in Canada (2.2 million or around 7% of Canadians).
If we do end up banning all guns, and we pay Canadians for their private property instead of just coinfiscating it, then it will only cost Canadians about $25 per gun per Canadian to buy them.
I'm with Unionist - complete ban on handguns.
That's not going to even put a dent into gang related shootings like we're seeing in Toronto but it will make people feel safer for a little while so that's a positive.
Here is Why Congress Won't Act on Gun Violence, Climate Change, Impeaching Trump or Anything Else
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/06/here-is-exactly-why-congress-won...
"Bad things happen because good people don't force them to stop..."
As far as I am aware, you can buy a rifle or carbines that is easily available on the market that uses the exact same cartridge as almost all the handguns currently in existence (I don't think anyone ever made a .25 ACP rifle but the little .25 ACP pistols are all prohibited anyways). You get a lot better ballistic performance shooting a handgun round through a rifle length barrel than you do shooting the same round from a handgun.
So how exactly would you prevent someone from buying say, 9mm ammunition for their rifle but make sure they never use that exact same 9mm ammunition in a pistol?
Anyways, as a self-professed recreational firearm enthusiast I do find it hard to argue with the point about a mass murderer using a muzzleloading musket, but I suppose they'd either "fix bayonets" and you'd have a mass shooting combined with a mass stabbing, or they would carry several loaded muskets and drop them rather than fiddle about with a powder horn and a ramrod. Or use the black powder to make a bomb.
I'm pretty sure more people in Canada are getting RPALs, I will be one of them soon as there are some handguns in the family that no one else has any interest in.
Here is Why Congress Won't Act on Gun Violence, Climate Change, Impeaching Trump or Anything Else
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/06/here-is-exactly-why-congress-won...
"Bad things happen because good people don't force them to stop..."
Congress hasn’t gotten off its collective pasty lobbyist-fattened ass because the streets of every major city are not currently filled with millions of pissed-off people throwing rocks at store windows and who refuse to go home until Congress passes real gun control.
lol
Nobody needs a handgun. Their primary purpose is killing people - just because most owners just pretend to kill people with them at a firing range doesn’t change that.Maybe handgun aficionados could find a new, less disturbing hobby? This one is becoming culturally inappropriate.
That's ridiculous! More and more people are finding it hard to make ends meet. For the second consecutive summers, multiple heatwaves have threatened lives of vulnerable people living in our major urban centres. I don't think lecturing people about what hobbies they should or shouldn't enjoy is really a good place for us to spend political capital.
Besides, this isn't really a big issue in Canada anyways. It's not like any idiot can just go in and get a gun. That is restricted, and there is a process to go through. So what if someone enjoys target practice at the range? Who is it actually hurting? Though I may disagree with Paladin on some finer points of gun control, he's absolutely correct that actual criminals won't bother to register the weapons they use.
For the second consecutive summers, multiple heatwaves have threatened lives of vulnerable people living in our major urban centres. I don't think lecturing people about what hobbies they should or shouldn't enjoy is really a good place for us to spend political capital.
True. That's why a ban is essential.
Besides, this isn't really a big issue in Canada anyways.
Oh you're so correct.
14 shootings in Toronto over the August long weekend
So what if someone enjoys target practice at the range? Who is it actually hurting?
They should go to their lovely rural range, rent their guns, and shoot it up to their heart's content. Totally agree. But take a gun home? Jail time.
Though I may disagree with Paladin on some finer points of gun control, he's absolutely correct that actual criminals won't bother to register the weapons they use.
Who's talking about registering weapons? Ban the weapons. And lock 'em up if they violate the ban.
As for criminals? They'll keep robbing banks, even if we passed a law saying it was illegal to rob banks. Likewise with sexual assault and murder. Oh wait a minute...
Do you actually think these things through before saying what you say?
It would definitely be a good start!
100 a day!
I’m surprised they have any tourism left
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/08/06/Nationalize-US-Firearms-Industry/
Do you actually think these things through before saying what you say?
I do, actually.
Who's talking about registering weapons? Ban the weapons. And lock 'em up if they violate the ban.
Well I guess you and I disagree on this one.
100 a day!
I’m surprised they have any tourism left
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/08/06/Nationalize-US-Firearms-Industry/
BC is losing 11 people a day to overdoeses and only has a population of 4.9 million people, I was thinking the same.
Nobody needs a handgun. Their primary purpose is killing people - just because most owners just pretend to kill people with them at a firing range doesn’t change that.Maybe handgun aficionados could find a new, less disturbing hobby? This one is becoming culturally inappropriate.
That's ridiculous! More and more people are finding it hard to make ends meet. For the second consecutive summers, multiple heatwaves have threatened lives of vulnerable people living in our major urban centres. I don't think lecturing people about what hobbies they should or shouldn't enjoy is really a good place for us to spend political capital.
Besides, this isn't really a big issue in Canada anyways. It's not like any idiot can just go in and get a gun. That is restricted, and there is a process to go through. So what if someone enjoys target practice at the range? Who is it actually hurting? Though I may disagree with Paladin on some finer points of gun control, he's absolutely correct that actual criminals won't bother to register the weapons they use.
First of all, why are you giving me shit for responding to Unionist's ideas? Why are you not lecturing Unionist on his expenditure of "political capital"? Is there a particular reason the vitriol is aimed at me?
Secondly, who in the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot talk about? I reserve the right to be concerned about multiple issues simultaneously and I really don't need you to vet what is and isn't a valid concern or opinion for me to hold.
Thirdly, "So what if someone enjoys target practice at the range? Who is it actually hurting?" Why don't we ask Coulton Boushie? Oh, wait, you can't - someone killed him with a handgun. Outside a shooting range. Hey, totally acceptable collaterol damage for what is essentially supposed to be a hobby item. I'm sure the body count for model trains is high, too.
Fourthly, statistically, when you see general ownership drop, you will also subsequently see criminal possession drop. It takes time, but it happens. I refer you to Australia, a good example on gun control on a number of metrics, including suicide rates, which haven't come up in this discussion yet. Oh, wait - Am I allowed to worry about suicides? Anxiously awaiting your permission.
Apparantly you are only allowed to worry about suicides if they are firearms related. Specifically handgun related too I'd guess.
I'd totally agree that this is, in Canada at least, a self-correcting problem that will eventually resolve itself with the passage of time. Sure, more people might be getting PAL's and RPAL's but I'm not entirely convinced that this trend will continue to the next generation or beyond. With more and more people living in urban settings I don't honestly think the percentage of legal gunowners will be going up, I think it will go down over time but there will still be a need for private firearms ownership, although I would grudgingly concede the point that Unionist makes about smaller scale gun bans in urban areas becoming more acceptable to the general voting public in the not-too-distant future.
Interesting point - I wonder how much "growth" in permits are going to Millenials and Gen Z? Demographics would be nice to see on that.
A long gun, IMO, can be considered a tool if you're living in isolated rural circumstances. You don't need a handgun or a even a very powerful long gun. Basis of ownership should be given to purpose and need, not because you just like them.
Huge what if.
If there were a terrible violent circumstance developing in your community ( like an invasion of space creatures set on eating your friends and family would it not be a nice thing to know that the government had set up some kind of civil defense program that we could all be part of...including licensing and training and extreme civil oversight?)
Secondly, who in the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot talk about?
How is him telling you what you can and can't talk about different than you telling him what he needs and doesn't need?
Nobody needs a handgun.
Fourthly, statistically, when you see general ownership drop, you will also subsequently see criminal possession drop. It takes time, but it happens. I refer you to Australia, a good example on gun control on a number of metrics, including suicide rates, which haven't come up in this discussion yet.
What about Vermont and their low crime, low homicide rate? People walk around with guns there and you don't even need a license to buy a handgun.
Fewer than a third of Vermonters own guns at all (including Grandpa's hunting rifle that stays in the attic), and it's actually pretty rare for Vermonters to carry handguns in public, despite it being legal to do so. And in terms of population density, Vermont's about the same as PEI – but with twice the murder rate.
Timebandit - I'd say most of the growth is from younger shooters taking up the sport, but that's just based on anecdotal experiences. I'd bet if you don't already own firearms by the time you are 40 (30?) you are probably not going to ever own firearms. If, say, the legal firearms owners are growing at a rate of 1% per year but the population of Canada is growing by even 2 or 3% per year the overall percentage of legal firearms owners will become less and less as time goes on. I'd be curious as to how many of the new shooter are new to Canada.
And I guess you can make a case for handguns based on the fact that Wilderness Authorizations to Carry exist under the current Canadian gun laws, as well as the far more rare Authorization to Carry. Basically, for the Wilderness ATC if you work in the remote wilderness and have a legit reason to need to carry a firearm, you can seek out permission to carry a smaller, lighter handgun as opposed to a larger, heavier rifle or shotgun. But only at work and only in remote locations as far as I know. The fact that we still have basically a Canadian version of legal Concealed Carry (although exceedingly rare and difficult if not impossible to get) might also make a valid argument in favour of private handgun ownership.
Ward - maybe the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association would fit the bill but I think they are an NGO. The Americans have the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Aside from that, maybe the Swiss or the Israelis would do the best at fighting off murderous space creatures given that their militaries depend a lot on trained reservists, that's probably more to do with their versions of national defence rather than some sort of civil defence program.
Paladin1 - Vermont has always been a headscratcher for me. I was wondering if it was somehow due to their state motto, but that was New Hampshire I was thinking of, not Vermont. I think in the end it's very complicated and hard to draw conclusions as to why one place is plagued by criminal misuse of firearms but a different place is not.
Hurtin, sounds like you have a more developed perspective on this matter than myself. I'm curious how you would place the defender vs aggressor motivation into this mass shooter scenario.
Amerikkka: Mass Murder, White Supremacy & Violent Misogyny [At Home and Abroad!]
El Paso is Trump and Trump is El Paso
"Let us be clear: white supremacy defines the United States for more than democracy ever has. It is an ideology embedded and entrenched within the country's institutions and is the bulwark of its dominant cultural values. How could it be otherwise...?"
Exclusive: We Obtained Video of the Dayton Shooter Fronting a 'Pornogrind' Band
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/d3azgx/exclusive-we-obtained-video-o...
"Authorities are still trying to understand why a 24-year old would open fire on a crowded bar in Dayton, Ohio's nightlife district, killing his own sister, eight other people and wounding 26. Police do know that Connor Betts had expressed fascination with mass shootings, and had been seeking out information on how to commit one. A Vice News investigation revealed he was also a figure in the 'pornogrind' and 'goregrind' music scenes..."
Ward - I'd say I have an extremely biased perspective, but aside from that I'm not entirely sure what you are asking - motivation? Defender versus aggressor motivation? I don't see any way to look at a mass shooting as anything other than an extremely aggressive act of violence. Or maybe it's OK during a war, but that's just a way of justifying acts of violence with some moralistic hand waving. I believe in the right to self defense but violence, let alone lethal violence should be waaaaay down there on your list of conflict resolution tools.
For the record, I would be willing to consider violent conflict resolution methods much, much sooner if the hypothetical space aliens from your earlier post resembled Jar Jar Binks in any meaningful way.
Fewer than a third of Vermonters own guns at all (including Grandpa's hunting rifle that stays in the attic), and it's actually pretty rare for Vermonters to carry handguns in public, despite it being legal to do so. And in terms of population density, Vermont's about the same as PEI – but with twice the murder rate.
I can't speak to population density but Vermont has around 626,000 people and PEI 153,000 so I'm not surprised Vermont has a higher murder rate. I'll take a look at the other points you mentioned, at quick glance it does appear that Vermont made some changes to their gun laws in 2018.
Paladin1 - Vermont has always been a headscratcher for me. I was wondering if it was somehow due to their state motto, but that was New Hampshire I was thinking of, not Vermont. I think in the end it's very complicated and hard to draw conclusions as to why one place is plagued by criminal misuse of firearms but a different place is not.
For homicide with guns I would guess over crowding, social economics, culture and especially gangs. I've seen some graphs where if you remove some top 3-5 cities in the US (ie Chicago) then the US drops fairly far from murders per capita or whatever it is. It's a harsh thing to say but statistically in the US deaths from mass shootings are an insignificant number (again, statistically) compared to other shootings. Something like 9000 to 10,000 black Americans are murdered every year with handguns in gang related shootings but mass shootings is what usually catch headlines.
The US murder rate is contininuing to drop.
I can't speak to population density but Vermont has around 626,000 people and PEI 153,000 so I'm not surprised Vermont has a higher murder rate.
"Rate"... "rate"... hang on, checking my dictionary... Be right back.
I can't speak to population density but Vermont has around 626,000 people and PEI 153,000 so I'm not surprised Vermont has a higher murder rate. I'll take a look at the other points you mentioned, at quick glance it does appear that Vermont made some changes to their gun laws in 2018.
I meant double the murder rate per capita, not in absolute numbers.
For homicide with guns I would guess over crowding, social economics, culture and especially gangs. I've seen some graphs where if you remove some top 3-5 cities in the US (ie Chicago) then the US drops fairly far from murders per capita or whatever it is.
Ready access to guns also means more dead women in domestic violence situations. In the US, you are far more likely to be killed by a family member, either intentionally or accidentally, than a gang member.
Mass shootings are only one of the reasons to lose the guns.
Mass shootings are only one of the reasons to lose the guns.
It's pretty easy to say ban guns. In practice there's probably a bit more involved. (Well, that's not exactly true, guns in Canada are already banned. You need to pay for permission to own them, but I know what you mean)
Guns in the US? I can't see it happening honestly. It's a great call to arms (no pun intended) but is it actually in the realm of possibility?
400 million guns. The government couldn't afford to buy that many guns off people, and lets be honest most probably won't willing give up their guns.(Quebec and New Zealand has so far given a big finger to registration and confiscation, respectively)
But would the US hire thousands (or tens of thousands) more police officers for the sole function of confiscating these firearms? That's a lot of money for training and new equipment. Or call in the military to knock on doors with machineguns and tanks?
In Canada there's 37 million people and an estimate 10-20 million guns. There's 4500 firearm related businesses and it's growing every day. The us has 400 million guns, no idea how many firearm related businesses but I'm guessing it's a lot. That's a hell of a lot of unemployment.
On a different note I always find it interesting when I see politicans talk about banning guns, yet they're surrounded by private security carrying guns. If we ban guns would private security companies lose their guns too?
Don't forget movie stars. Actors like Liam Neilson. His TAKEN movies made $929.3 MILLION dollars. Movies where he goes around murdering everyone with guns. Then he turns around and talks about gun control and how bad guns are? Give me a break.
Sometimes we don't even notice it. Trudeau and his Starwars halloween costume, carrying a gun (albeit a space baster).
In your profile picture Timebandit there's a woman pointing what appears to be a revolver that would probably be prohibited in Canada. Is she pointing at another human being?
As for Australia, yes they have much stricter rules than Canada.
In 2018 Austrailia had 3 mass shootings, Canada had 2.
In June Australia had a mass shooting with 4 dead which was carried out with a prohibited pump-action shotgun.
Speaking of Hollywood here is the trailer to an upcoming movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lqCjai8LDo
The Hunt, originally titled Blue State vs Red State, is a lovely movie of human beings graphically hunting other human beings. Not difficult to parse what's below the surface here. A bunch of deplorables being hunted by the left.
Is this okay because they're murdering (lol) Trump voters?
Maybe step 1 is to stop glamourizing violence and hurting other people.