Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

They won't. There was a such thing as murder before there were guns.

It would take more then magically making all guns disappear, you would have to make all machining implements disappear all concepts of gunpowder and explosives disappear not just in the US but all over the world. Even if you did take us back to the Stone age people would just kill each other with tomahawks like they did for thousands of years before his existed.

you seem not to understand what a right is. I don't ask the state permission to be part of a church, I don't ask the state permission to speak my mind. If you do and they can say no that's not a right.

I've had multiple jobs that I've never asked the state permission to have. That isn't how it works in the US. I don't need the state's permission to buy a house.

these are always kind of funny. This is a case of better testing. Where as two month ago they didn't count quite as high because the testing wasn't as good or as widely available.

so naturally if there's more people getting tested you're going to have more data.

considering that people who kill themselves with their own guns are committing suicide I find your question disingenuous.

Further you're attempting to make suicide a gun issue and not a mental health issue.

That's using the pain and suffering of people for politics.

Further you don't have to kill an intruder to stop them. An intruder doesn't have to kill a homeowner in order to be an intruder.

so that's another area in which you're being disingenuous.

How many home intrusions are stopped by an armed home owner without killing anybody? how many people are deterred from breaking into people's homes for the simple fact that that person might shoot them to death?

I'm willing to bet the number of that if you were ever able to count it would be extremely high and it would far outweigh the amount of people who commit suicide using firearms.

yes someone pulled a gun on you in Australia and you follow follow the laws they just kill you. Because you don't have the right to life.

 

Was there also a higher corresponding rate of firearm-related violence that necessitated the change being made? Or was such simply unnecessary because the presence of firearms did not inspire violent acts to be committed?

 

This one.
I recall how STUNNED my family was when we heard "Uncle Bill" say
"Ah went to get ma' guuunnnn"
We had just arrived in America for the first time.

Road rage, Aussie style, is "fista-cuffs;" an iron pipe or
someone running over you. Someone reaching for a pistol
more or less never happens.
And if a guy wants to kill everyone, Vegas style, they are
going to have a hard time running around stabbing people.
"Semi-automatics" were banned after a mentally ill man gunned
down 50 people in Tasmania with an AR10. We haven't had one
of these massacres since.

 

The majority of such deaths are suicides. Suicides do not count when the subject pertains to firearm-related deaths as it is nothing more than a dishonest inclusion to inflate the numbers for pure shock value, and they will not be counted or discussed.

 

And mass killings are continuing in the nation of Australia unabated. All that has changed is the implement that is used.

 

That's Trump's "argument"
It's true, but not true.
We are doing more testing in Australia and only one state continues
to worsen - due to policies rather than testing. Turned out the quarantine
people were spreading the disease - imagine how stupid that is.

Policy is everything. And in the end maybe USA will be the world's hot
spot - with tens of millions of cases. I love America, but not many people
these days look to America for leadership of any kind.

 

That guy in Vegas who shot hundreds of people. If he had no guns he would either
1 - not think about killing anyone
2 - have to run around stabbing people (and getting tackled pretty soon.)

I can't see us ever having a situation like that. Not saying it won't happen, but it's
hard to imagine. Just seeing how prolific guns are in America I am shocked there's
not a million shot every year, instead of every decade.

 

Sounds like a violent place here in the states it's mostly just an extended middle finger or a horn blast.

Or just aquire a gun illegally. Making laws against things doesn't make them vanish.

They couldn't do it with one of the many fire arms that are still out there, or with a pump action shot gun?

Why?

 

it's a factual argument and it's 100% true. You can't document cases you can't verify. If you argue that you can I'm going to laugh at you

Sparsely populated countries with large land mass like Australia don't compare. Sorry.

so we catch a virus we get over it we have antibodies. You hide and you will have to every time it comes up again until you regain you're senses. The possibility of a healthy person dying from it are statistically insignificant.

Yeah much of the world is rather foolish.

 

Or get a gun illegally and do the same thing.
Or fabricate a pipe bomb, or room people over with a truck.

Wouldn't be that hard. Just got to get a means to kill people and every hardware store has that.

See, guns being prolific means nothing. 2/3s of those deaths are suicide.

And again pretending suicide is a gun problem and not a mental health problem is disingenuous.

 

Where would you feel safer, in Japan with half a dozen gun deaths,
or America with 35,000 gun deaths?

 

Or the individual in question could simply have utilized a motor vehicle and killed far more, just as was demonstrated in the city of Nice in the nation of France. Said individual greatly exceeded the number of killed and injured achieved by Stephen Paddock, despite having no firearms.

In the nation of Australia, during the twenty four years since the Port Arthur incident, there have been a recorded fourteen incidents that meet the four victim minimum threshold necessary for qualifying as a mass killing. There have also been an additional thirteen incidents that were one victims short of meeting the minimum threshold necessary for being classified as a mass killing.

That is twenty seven separate incidents in a twenty four year period. The nation of Australia hardly better off than it was when one stops playing politics, and gets down to the actual facts.

 

America. 24000 suicides wouldn't really cause me much alarm and 12000 homicides spread out over 340,000,000 people? That's a statistical zero, plus I can be armed so I'm there extreme rare event that sometime does try to murder me I have the right and the ability to defend myself.

So absolutely America. No earthquakes at least not in my part of the country, no nuclear melt down.

Worrying about people with guns here is like people working about spiders in your country.

 

There's your problem.
In the US, we have rights; in Oz, the state grants you privileges.

So?

We don't care.
Your ideas do not reflect the political and legal realities in America, and thus, have no merit.
In the US, for example, an attempt confiscate firearms will result is a lot of dead people - and the citizenry will ultimately retain said firearms.

 

He had a pilot''s license, an airplane, and the willingness to die.
Thus, your argument, above, holds no water.

Nothing in your laws prevents it.

Because you don't understand gun ownership in America.

 

Am I correct that a million Americans get shot every decade?
There's about 100,000 people shot per year, and 35,000 dead. That's
350,000 killed per decade. Are guns REALLY keeping Americans safe?

If some Ausssie (or Middle East interloper) wants to mow 600 people
down he or she can't go and buy an AR15 and three ton of ammo.
Nor can he or she purchase bulk pre-cursor bomb elements without
attracting attention.
Nor can he or she learn to fly an airplane but not learn to land it.
So it's got to be a vehicle or a knife. And that must put a few wannabe
assassinators off.

 

Even if such were correct, what of it? The obvious question of "so what?" would need to be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, would such actually make? Less than one third of one percent of the population of the united states gets injured in a specific way over the course of a decade, and it is somehow a problem in need of being addressed?

Suicides committed with a firearm amount to two thirds of the amount, simply do not count, and will not be counted. Of the remaining on third of firearm-related deaths in the united states, some eighty percent are criminals being killed, often by other criminals who cannot legally possess firearms in the first place.

The number of mass killings committed through the act of arson in the nation of Australia has proven an absence of firearms is doing nothing to dissuade the desire to kill as many individuals as possible, in the shortest amount of time possible.

And as said, there is always the city of Nice in the nation of France. Eighty six individuals dead, four hundred and fifty eight injured, all in the span of five minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

 

Did you notice how you simply ignored my response to your spiel about the Las Vegas shooter?
Where you simply assumed that if he couldn't get an AR15 he;d be forced to stab all those people?
I did.
I accept your concession.

Yes. They can. Your laws do not prevent mass shootings.

 

Laws can't "prevent" anything. But it would be hard to anyone in my country to
buy something like the AR15. They try to buy a ton of ammunition.
No-one with a car, knife or even bomb (sourcing bomb parts is difficult here)
could kill so many people like the Vegas shooting. Steven Paddock was able
to easily pull that off - and inspire others to outdo him.

 

So we could ALSO reduce suicide rates by getting rid of guns.
Look, I am not of what I call the "ban brigade", that is, those who
want to ban plastics, nukes, timber, fisheries, irrigation, dams,
gas, oil, coal, freeways, cars, Capitalism, billionaires, mining,
GM tech, AI, statues and the like. But guns in America just take
my breath away. Imagine, one hundred thousand people get
shot each year. That's a war zone.

 

Every mass murderer inspires others to attempt to outdo them, and the media only serves to stoke these flames by glamorizing the mass murderer with a degree of fame that could never be reached otherwise.

If the media would stop reporting the name of the murderer on an endless loop, treating the guilty party as if they do not exist and instead focusing on their victims, perhaps such would serve to dissuade the competition somewhat.

The matter aside, Stephen Paddock is hardly the only mass murderer in the united states. Focusing exclusively on his actions and himself, indirectly says the mass killings committed by others are not as important and their victims do not count, simply because they are of lower numbers.

 

How well us such working out in the nation of Japan? Why would those who want to end their own existence, not simply seek alternative methods of doing the same thing? Explain why such would not happen. Not why it is believed such would not happen, but why it would not happen.

Again, the obvious question of "so what" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make? Why does it matter that such a statistically minute portion of the population experiences firearm-related injuries, especially when the majority of them are self-induced due to either suicidal tendencies, or their own reckless behavior?

The majority of those who were shot but did not die from such will ultimately recover, and will likely learn not to do something like that again. It is a learning experience, much like one sticking their hand in fire and learning it is a bad idea.

 

The stats will show that one million people will be shot over the next decade,
going by the last decade, that is. Maybe more.
A baby born today in America might see eight million people shot - of whom
about three million are fatalities.
I think this proves that having guns hasn't made America 'safe' at all.

 

And so you agree - a motivated individual could commit a crime like the one in LV, because the laws do not and can not prevent it.
Thus, the reason it hasn't happened there is not because of your laws.

You delude yourself.

 

423,000,000 guns in the US
20,000 gun-related suicides
You: Seeee! Ban them!!!!