Canada bans assault-style weapons after its worst ever mass murder

[Oldschooler]

I see your point but a responsible gun owners should be allowed to options in firearms.

Sure I'm with you just tighten restrictions. Have people go through psychiatric evaluations. Ensure they don't have any prior violent convictions. Get rid of the gun show loopholes. Perform regular audits on gun shops, etc.

 

[Emoryal]

It’s better to have an AR and not need it, than to need it and not have one

Whta if the statistics show having one doesnt make a difference.

 

[FaTaL]

good for them

good for New Zealand as well

 

[Wildin]

I'm simply saying this

if you really about protecting you and yours

you not finna let no pen and paper stop you from doing that.

True. But there's differences and advantages to legally carrying. As of now we can legally carry. Most people want to not break the law.

If you really think that any gun will protect you from the government if they decide to fukk with you than I don't know what to say. You realize that the government will always have the upper hand and is leaps and bounds above your average citizen in weapons technology. If they want to exterminate you as a black man or anyone else for that matter they could do it easily no matter how many guns you have. They could send an unmanned drone to your crib and blow up your whole house from 30,000 ft in the air you won't know what hit you.

The first amendment allows the right for people to peacefully assemble.

The second for a well regulated militia to bear arms being necessary to the security of the free state.

There's a time when people will have to fight against our own police and or military. Sure they have bombs, gases, nukes, but regardless of their training, oaths, weaponry, title, affiliation we have the right to defend ourselves.

You don't just throw up your hands and not fight. Even if you kill or injure one, that's enough.

 

[DEAD7]

Why does anyone need an assault rifle?

To overcome any force preventing you from killing local politicians, congressman/woman, and assassinating presidents when the time comes.

 

[Eastside Get The Money]

Way too cold and y’all soft but I could really see myself in Canada they always do things right.

America saw 25 kids die and 500 get hit in Vegas and said

Canada has a mass shooting and said we changing things.
America is so dumb

 

[Oldschooler]

The first amendment allows the right for people to peacefully assemble.

The second for a well regulated militia to bear arms being necessary to the security of the free state.

There's a time when people will have to fight against our own police and or military. Sure they have bombs, gases, nukes, but regardless of their training, oaths, weaponry, title, affiliation we have the right to defend ourselves.

You don't just throw up your hands and not fight. Even if you kill or injure one, that's enough.

I know we are talking about hypotheticals at this point and I don't want to derail the thread into a philosophical issue in regards to who the police or military will follow.

However, the second amendment was written in 1791 a time when all they had was rifles and swords. I think it's way past its time and simply not relevant to serve its purpose which is to overthrow rogue government from power. Basically it said that if the majority of folks didn't agree with their government they have the right to bare arms and take it by force. Guess what the majority of our population don't agree with the current establishment but no one has the balls to take them on because its suicide nowadays. If you want to become a martyr for a cause get in front of your oppressors gun and let them kill you without hesitation. History will reveal the evil act.

 

[HellRell804]

If you really think that any gun will protect you from the government if they decide to fukk with you than I don't know what to say. You realize that the government will always have the upper hand and is leaps and bounds above your average citizen in weapons technology. If they want to exterminate you as a black man or anyone else for that matter they could do it easily no matter how many guns you have. They could send an unmanned drone to your crib and blow up your whole house from 30,000 ft in the air you won't know what hit you.

You have a much better argument if you want to argue about protecting your family against your average criminal. But just as you argue about that someone else arguing against could say that laws to get your hand on guns are too lax (aka its too easy for a lunatic to get their hands on a gun or a gun that could inflict more damage). What about gun homicides that stem from a sudden crime of passion and easy access to a weapon at that instance.

Banning assault rifles is a statistical argument. Long barrels have better accuracy and thus could cause more damage to someone or hurt more people because you could shoot someone from further out. Being further out means it'll take longer to discover the perp. Automatics also cause more damage because you could shoot more people in a shorter amount of time. These are just common sense arguments against these types of guns.

Let me tell you why what u said was dumb.

The government has technology, but at the end of the day they have to rely on soldiers (citizens) to use them.

If the government ever decided to turn their arms on citizens, an extremely large percentage of soldiers would defect before gunning down their families and friends in the streets.

If they then decide to bomb their citizens they risk the possibility of destroying infrastructure and putting themselves in a hole that will be almost impossible to get out of. Also the government will never be legitimate because the children and family of all those people you killed will be out for revenge. So a government critically in debt, with a depleted military, and a rebelling population leaves the door open for another foreign power to enter the fray and start siding with the rebels providing them with funding, weapons, and food. It will be an unwinnable situation.

The crazy thing about the above scenario is that this is a strategy the U.S and other first world countries have used time and time again with countries that have turmoil with their leadership in order to increase their influence in world affairs.

Trust me, governments are more afraid of citizen uprisings than you think they are. They don't really give af about a few random shootings and "protecting" people. They need a population that will willingly disarm themselves so they can stamp out any dissent quickly before it turns into a revolution

 

[kevm3]

thank God I don't live in canada

 

[pete clemenza]

Props to Canada. Go ahead and have a gun for the family but assault weapons need to go

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

If you really think that any gun will protect you from the government if they decide to fukk with you than I don't know what to say. You realize that the government will always have the upper hand and is leaps and bounds above your average citizen in weapons technology. If they want to exterminate you as a black man or anyone else for that matter they could do it easily no matter how many guns you have. They could send an unmanned drone to your crib and blow up your whole house from 30,000 ft in the air you won't know what hit you.

You have a much better argument if you want to argue about protecting your family against your average criminal. But just as you argue about that someone else arguing against could say that laws to get your hand on guns are too lax (aka its too easy for a lunatic to get their hands on a gun or a gun that could inflict more damage). What about gun homicides that stem from a sudden crime of passion and easy access to a weapon at that instance.

Banning assault rifles is a statistical argument. Long barrels have better accuracy and thus could cause more damage to someone or hurt more people because you could shoot someone from further out. Being further out means it'll take longer to discover the perp. Automatics also cause more damage because you could shoot more people in a shorter amount of time. These are just common sense arguments against these types of guns.

Why do y'all keep repeating this over and over? The government went against Iraq, Vietnam, Koreans, Afghans, etc. etc.

 

[King Frost]

the gun the shooter used was acquired illegally




gotcha bytch

 

[UpThruDere]

“The gunman did not have a firearms license and that only one weapon was traced back to Canada, police said.”

That defeats the whole point of banning them if he most likely didn’t get them in Canada and got them illegally, criminals don’t follow “laws” that’s the whole point of being a criminal, this only hurts the law abiding citizens.

 

[Whore D'oeuvres]

H&K mp5

That's a submachine gun. Not even in the rifle category

 

[Cave Savage]

Whether or not you support gun rights, it is crazy to me that Canada can pass major laws without going through legislation.

Imagine if Trump had that kind of power.