RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:But Good Citizens In Canada Don't Need Guns, Right ? Is the ENB board not the place for gun talk? Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem with Fiddy spamming right wing talking points. But I push back and "WHOA this isn't the place!". I'll stop when Fiddy stops.
Do you even read what I write? Because if you had, you would know that I'm not advocating for a gun ban in the US. If you had read you would know that I suggested background checks and red flag laws for the US. I support a gun ban for Canada. So the question is, if you're not reading what I write, why am I wasting my breath?
You still haven't been able to answer what part of what's happening in the US now looks appealing to you?
You still haven't been able to counter the fact that gun ownership increases the risk of gun violence in the household.
You still haven't been able to counter the fact that gun ownership does not lower crime. On the contrary.
Your latest argument is that I have a problem understanding correlational problems. You point to the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act as a comparable fallacy. Only there are a few problems with that reasoning.
1- The Gun Free School Zones Act was poor policy and poorly enforced. Most school mass shootings are planned in advance. But the GFSZA was mostly aimed at stopping spur of the moment shootings.
2- One fallacy does not prove another. I do not have one single data set to prove my point that gun bans work against mass shootings. I have multiple data sets, from the UK to Japan to Australia to Taiwan...etc.
And are you as well claiming that the recent gun violence epidemic is somehow cultural? Please explain.
NPCexe wrote: You really do have a problem with understanding correlational problems. You're falsely concluding the relationship of 2 events, namely x legislation ending and an increase in gun crime. Here, I can produce the exact same fallacy by stating that in 1990 they introduced the Gun Control Act that created "gun free school zones." What happened in the following decades? Mass shootings on schools. Should I make unfounded pompous assertions of causal relationships on an ENB board like you keep doing? Should I say that gun free school zone legislation led to a rise in school shootings? Does that feel right in your opinion? Furthermore your claim about a ban on gun legislation beginning in the 70s is categorically wrong. There are many acts that were passed the the decades following, all to no avail, and no matter how hard you try to pin it on the NRA the fact of the matter is that they passed nonetheless and STILL they did nothing to curb gun crime. Your reasoning is off and if you wish to discuss gun issues, a stock board is no place. The issue is complex and of course some legislation was always historically present, but none of what is being suggested here by politicians is "common sense." None of it works because it doesn't address the root cause (cultural) of why people are picking up weapons and shooting up malls and schools, something no kid in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60,s, 70s and 80s was ever culturally conditioned to do. Regarding your obsession with expandable magazines, if the legislation limits a magazine capacity from 45 to 30 or from 20 to 10, a shooter can legally now have 10 mags of 10 instead of 5 mags of 20, and since we already concluded that reloading takes a fraction of a second, this does nothing to stop shooters. I know it's difficult for some to calculate some basic math on paper but it's not that hard to see how this is not a major deterrent. Furthermore you need to educate yourself on the difference between semi automatic and what they call "assault weapons" (commonly referring to fully automatic) which are ALREADY banned/regulated. All the recent shootings were not committed by "assault weapons" - they were all semi automatic. But you say those should be banned too, which effectively means all guns because all handguns and AR-15 style rifles are semiautomatic. And if that's the point you're making, that you want to ban all guns off the face of the USA, then good luck with that because guns are enshrined in American culture whether you or I like it, and if any reasonable politician wanted to try "common sense" gun laws then let them try it at the local/municipal or state level and then proceed to make grandiose claims about its effectiveness... oh wait.. democrats have done that in all parts of the USA and oops turns out gun crime is higher than it's ever been. Just like Canada. Because they never care about dealing with the crime, they just care about disarming law abiding citizens.
yggdrasill wrote: 1&2- You claimed that "
it's not a gun issue it's a culture issue: Americans have had guns in their country since the beginning and the issues Americans have today were not present in the decades following WW2". I showed you how the NRA's radicalization in the 1970s began to erode common sense gun laws that had kept violence under control since the 1930s, and that that coincides pretty perfectly with the rise in gun violence. If find that very coherent and to the point. The US's gun culture changed in the 1970s to become more radical. It has been accompanied by an increase in gun violence that is unparalleled anywhere else in the developed world.
The gun culture has changed. People used to have hunting rifles. Now they have AR-15s with expanded magazines. Tell me which of those weapons makes it easier to shoot large groups of people and make trained police officers with body armour cower in fear in a hallway while kids bleed to death? My knowledge of semi-automatic may be poor, but it's good enough to know that guns are becoming more accurate and more powerful, and therefore deadlier.
3- So wait. In the same sentence you claim my gun control points are irrelevant because they weren't passed to address mass shootings and you then point out that mass shootings only became an issue in the last decades, precisely when those laws were repealed? Really? Can't you connect the dots?
4- You can't cherry pick an incident to claim assault bans don't work. Adam Lanza may not have used weapons included in the ban, but 74% of mass shooters acquired their guns legally. If anything, Adam Lanza shows the ban should have been even more comprehensive. You also conveniently forget that from 2000 to 2003 (before the end of the assault weapons ban) there were on average 4 school shootings per year for a total of 11 deaths. From 2004 to 2007 there were on average 5 school shootings per year for a total of 55 deaths. Don't tell me the assault weapons ban wasn't working.
5- My point was to show that the NRA has become radical because it has been paid by the gun industry. It is a corrupt entity more interested in lining its pockets than protecting the American people or the 2nd Amendment which calls for a "well-regulated" militia. The NRA wields incredible political power, and its corruption has lead the US straight into a gun violence epidemic by removing common sense gun laws. I can accept that US culture means a comprehensive gun ban is unrealistic. But the US population overwhelmingly supports background checks and red flag laws, and only the NRA stands in the way of common sense.
NPCexe wrote: Your rebuttal is incoherent and strays off from the main point, which was a refusal by the left to prosecute gun crimes. I'll keep it brief out of respect for ENB board: 1. American household gun ownership has not increased over the years, it has generally stayed between 35-42% every decade. The increase in gun purchases are largely done by avid gun owners, which boosts the per capita rating but doesn't mean the majority of households have a gun. Therefore the culture of gun ownership has not changed. 2. Your knowledge of the term semi automatic is poor because your sources don't want you to know what the term means. The vast majority of guns in the states are semi automatic AND, (expanded magazines or not) it makes no difference to a 2 second reload time. The issue has nothing to do with semi automatic weapons or expandable magazines. 3. Your gun control legislation points are not relevant because they tried to address other issues such as terrorism/politics and were not passed in response to mass shootings (which again was not an issue until the last few decades). 4. Assault weapons ban does nothing for gun crime, because mass shooters like Adam Lanza used weapons NOT included in the ban (even the now-leftist media conglomerates admitted this at the time but I guess your programming doesn't allow you to remember that far back). Lanza used a bushmaster AR-15, a sig sauer and a glock, none of which were on your precious list of banned assault weapons. 5. Your attempts to show that the NRA is corrupt has no bearing here, and in fact I don't even care for any type of lobbyists so they can all go to hell. The Republicans, and especially the Democrats, do not care about gun related crime whatsoever, and this Hegelian dialectic has been playing over the decades back and forth and still people are so biased that they pick a side and scream at the other. Nobody cares to take a step back and see the bigger picture here.
yggdrasill wrote: Americans have had guns, yes. But not as many as today, and they didn't have semi-automatic weapons with expanded magazines. Until the 70s, the NRA lobbied in favor of and co-authored gun control legislation. The NRA helped Roosevelt pass the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act. It's president at the time, Karl T. Frederick, testified before Congress that "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” In the 60s, when Oswald killed JFK with a rifle purchased through an NRA mail-order advertisement, the NRA vice-president agreed that mail-order sales should be banned. The NRA again supported Reagan's California Mulford Act in 1967 (imagine, Ronald Reagan passed gun control legislation! Fox doesn't tell you that now do they). But in the 70s, that changed. The NRA became the corrupt, extremist group we know today.
In 1994, US Congress managed to pass an assault weapons ban. Unfortunately it had a sunset clause, meaning it was allowed to expire 10 years later. Mass shootings have been on the rise ever since, exponentially so.
It's not a culture issue. It's a gun lobby issue. The reason this didn't happen after WWII is that the NRA hadn't radicalized yet.
NPCexe wrote: Tell that to the leftist DAs in Philly and LA. They refuse to prosecute gun crimes and sends repeat shooters back on the streets. Furthermore it's not a gun issue it's a culture issue: Americans have had guns in their country since the beginning and the issues Americans have today were not present in the decades following WW2
yggdrasill wrote: No. They don't.
Owning a gun puts your household at higher risk of gun violence from domestic violence, suicide, or accident. The vast majority of mass shooters (77%) purchased their guns legally. The vast majority of mass shooters started off as "good" citizens. You want to give them guns? You want firearms to be the leading cause of death for Canadian children? That's your dream?
The cops need to do their jobs and prevent illegal guns from crossing the border. They need to do their jobs and break up street gangs.
Good citizens don't need guns. They need a more effective police.
FiddyFiddyOddzz wrote:
Niagara police homicide detectives investigate after 3 shot in St. Catherines.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8914886/st-catherines-shooting-niagara-police-lake-street/