Sup IB

San Francisco is shit though.

All the best traps grow in rural conservative areas where they might get killed for being degenerates.

Well we do live in the reddest part of the blue dick. I seen some nice dudes with boobs there.

I love it

Post pic when you're done.

Try not to go on a shooting spree.

I'm not going to lie, but when i saw that yesterday and the guy they described as a mix race male in Oregon.... i thought longevity when on a spree.

You should take two seconds to read what you wrote before you hit post.

You can own guns without wanting to kill people, like most of the other millions of Americans that own guns. Its just a hobby for me like anime and hentai.

Sure, but don't delude yourself; guns were originally designed to kill other humans beings. The idea that you have a right to own them was to fight government oppression, they haven't been used for that since the American War of Independence.

You have a point but when you imply we don't need them because there is no government oppression like there was back then you open the door for other rights to be taken away as well because they can be deemed dangerous, the majority of gun owners own them legally and follow laws.

Why is that a right you need? You say that as if the Government is trying to take away the right to free speech, or the right to a fair trial. Between 2000 and 2014 there's been close to 165,700 gun homicides and 420,000 gun deaths(underestimate), compared to the 3,300 deaths due to terrorism during that time. How can a reasonable person possibly justify numbers like that just to keep a right which doesn't apply anymore. Aren't you concerned about the amount of deaths simply because Americans believe it's their God given right to carry firearms? What other rights do you think Canada, or anywhere in Europe have been taken away because of the lack of gun rights? Gun permits don't even stop people if background checks aren't done, the guy from Oregon had a permit. Stop lying to yourself, you want firearms because you like firearms... no other reason, seems like a flimsy reason to fight for considering the amount of people lives that hobby has cost.

Nice stats. Big scary numbers. I don't think they reach 1% of deaths or violent crimes, or compared to total handguns. 70Mill+ and counting bby.

I'm not entirely in disagreement with your sentiment, but often the case a lot of these social outcast are allowed to let lose because the abysmal mental health system or govt. incompetence (rather than the laws themselves), trying to hammer one of the people who are statistically less likely to do something stupid and dangerous with guns is an exercise in futility. To answer your first question, people use it mainly for self defense (because of the nature of the crime, it's hard to get an exact number of assaults or home invasions stopped), and I personally don't feel like collecting guns is in itself dangerous as long as you're well informed and cautious.

If you're going to read any of my sources read this one at least, since it's going to retort a lot of things that pop up in your mind, trying to refute me: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
And if you want...read these:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/g/violent_crime_rates_reduction
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
http://dartcenter.org/content/violence-comparing-reporting-and-reality#.Vg83YZeLUaQ

A more personal reason why I'm skeptical of more restrictive gun control is crime statistics themselves. It's not a surprise to many that gun control was something originally brought up to disfranchise minorities, especially blacks in the south and newly arrive immigrants in the more urban east coat areas (if they can't legally defend themselves, it's easier to hang/rob them). Ironically, to this day, cities like Chicago, Washington DC, New Orleans, and others densely populated areas with a lot of minority presence have the strictest gun control. So not only did we not learn from history, but as a result, there are more violent crimes in those cities and many don't have the option to defend themselves. If we were to ignore those 3 cities, the US would be significantly lower in gun crimes.

I do like firearms, I wasn't ever lying to myself, and I'm not a criminal nor intend to become one so I'm going to keep owning and buying them.

Is that an actual argument? There's 70 million guns so we should ignore the 400,000 deaths in the last 15 years? So one in 300 wackjobs can get his hands on a gun(as there is 70 million) and kill some innocent people, good thing it was only one...



The man from Oregon legally owned 13 guns, and was not marked as a risk to society when he purchased them during background checks. Self defense? Against what? Europeans and Canadians don't need guns, we make it hard(harder than Americans) to purchase and obtain firearms. Our violent crime is at a fraction of what the United States has, if you want your number to lessen you should start by removing the tools designed to kill. Why would you need to collect more than one gun? Again, it's because you like guns, plain an simple.



You're right, you didn't learn from history; the United States has a violent crime epidemic and exist no where else on earth.(perhaps war-torn countries) You may blame minorities for all of those crimes but you can also point to the tools of death they use, and only one of those issues can be removed.

So it comes down to this: you can't remove minorities from major cities so you either restrict guns(like the sensible nations that exist) and save a lot of your citizens, solving most violent crimes, or you go on as always having, killing your own citizens with inaction.



Hopefully you remain that way, it doesn't take much for someone's mind to break.

I don't mind people who have guns, I have friends that own a few(hunting rifles) just as long as they stay the hell away from me with their guns.

Why did you ignore the links? Especially the first one that refutes all of your points?
You are not arguing in good faith, and you clearly don't understand statistics.

Is throwing a lot of numbers around without context your argument? Because that's what you're doing. And yeah, good thing it was only one because as I proved early, gun control doesn't do shit when it truly matters. Less than 1% (.6%) deaths in America are murders. Out of all murders less than 1%(.2%) of those are related to mass shootings. Compare that 2.5 Mill annually crimes deterred. HURR less than .1% of murders are from mass shootings so let's tightly regulate guns despite it not working and making things worse for inner city people. Let's also ignore the mental health issue in America because it's easier to blame guns!

Protect against what you ask? Did you not read the link. Over 2.5 Million crimes are deterred annually, as you opposed to you 400,000 over a large period of time. Not to mention you didn't break down those 400,000 million in a meaningful way (a collection of years while not making a distinction between suicide used with guns or deaths where it was legit self defense). Numbers are just numbers with out context.



You're full of shit for suggesting I'm blaming minorities and not the draconian gun laws that create more victims than they save. I never blamed a single minority, only pointing out the fact that the places with minorities always have the most gun laws and gun murders.

[edit] Except Texas. El Paso Texas has a lot less crimes per 100,000 people. YOU CAN PROBABLY GUESS WHY.



We already restrict guns places with high gun violence, what reality are you arguing against exactly?

Again, read the first source. You can't argue against things that simply aren't true. Throwing around big scaway numbers without proper context isn't going to help your case either.

Refute everything said in here: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
or concede.

Hopefully you remain that way, it doesn't take much for someone's mind to break.



I respect that, its just a hobby for me, not a way of life.

I didn't ignore them, I took the time to read them and most of which deal with points I haven't even made.

"The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls."

I never made that point.

"The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people."

Again, not my point, guns were created to replace the bow, a weapon. Other uses exist, but that was never my point.

"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."

Never said that.

"Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals."

Good point, criminals aren't affected by gun laws, so let's do away with background checks altogether... That doesn't even make sense, if you just didn't have any guns there would be nothing to fight over.

"Stiff `gun control' laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar."

Here he says their point doesn't take into account many things like cultural, and economic differences between the United States and other nations. Solid point if I wasn't Canadian and live in a culture which is similar to your own with a weaker economy than yours, where are the gun deaths here?

"Most murders are argument-related `crimes of passion' against a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance. "

Don't think I made that point either.

"Semi-automatic firearms have no legitimate sporting purpose, are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals, and should be banned."

Was never my point but I do think trying to argue that you need an ak-47 to hunt elk is a bit ridiculous.

"The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia' that can be compared today to the National Guard."

Seems they made a typo. My question was why do you need that anymore? Not a debate about the wording made 250 years ago.

"A person in a public place with a gun is looking for trouble."

Again, this was never my point? Do you even know what the word refute means?

"Gun control reduces crime."

Gun deaths, my point was that you would have fewer gun deaths without guns.

P.S. This whole article you use to "refute" my points was written and researched by the NRA... you can do better than that, they aren't a legitimate source just as you wouldn't take anything from MSNBC or the Democratic Party.



Do you not believe what I'm saying as it does not suit your point? I don't mind showing you where I got my info.

here.

Less than 1% is still more than everywhere else in the world. It's fine to work on the mental health issue but lets start by not allowing those people to LEGALLY PURCHASE FIREARMS...



How many of those crimes would happens if the criminals didn't have guns themselves, you're right in that you need them now because you've given EVERYONE a gun, but if you simply removed them you'd have a lot less deaths in your country.(there can be no debate about this) No guns = less gun deaths, that simple. I did differentiate between homicides and accidental and otherwise.





You pointed out how minorities have the most gun murders... how is that not you linking them to gun violence? You may not believe them to be the problems but that doesn't change what your words implied. I'm not trying to blame guns, they're inanimate objects, people are obviously the problem but as you cannot find a solution to solve the problem why don't we just get rid of all the guns(except those in the hands of law enforcement and military) and let the police deal with crimes.

Now my posts have context and Ive examined yours more closely, if you want to continue I'm all for it, but find a different source other than the NRA.



Can you believe in my Country I'm what you would consider a conservative?(your Republicans)

I don't know much about the political climate regarding firearms in Canada, but I have friends on both sides of the spectrum there. It's pretty interesting considering that Canada has some pretty open gun laws as well, some even more gracious than certain states here like New York and California.

The point of the paragraph was to say that the majority of gun owners use them to protect themselves, not a something "kill" but to deter.

Your thoughts on the purpose of guns:




Oh look at that you did it again.




So Canada has that many guns currently? Canadians have the same racial tension as Americans with their cops? Canadians have a history of fighting for their independence? COOL. WAIT UP GUYS, PROBLEM SOLVED, WE'RE JUST LIKE CANADA SO WE DON'T NEED GUNS AND A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF.



Statistically more crimes are stopped. Compare your 400,000 over several years to 2.5 mil annually.



Yes, NRA is deeply pro-gun rights but they do use a lot of sources that are reputable like the department of justice. If you're going to disregard something, disregard the sources, not just on the basis of them being on NRA pamphlet.



You'll stop more people by helping the health issue. Maybe get rid of gun free zones could be a good start. As I pointed in the other one, with more crimes being deterred the amount of crimes naturally go down, so disarming everyone will make things worse, especially for the most vulnerable.






I said cities with more minorities tend to have both increased rate of crimes and gun laws restricting ownership and use. Rather than saying they're the reason (well in some cases the crimes are more attributed to them), they're more than likely to be the victims. The police, the people their suppose to trust, are sometimes the cause of more tension and violence. If anything the NRA cited is plain wrong, feel free to point out their faulty statistics and let them know too while you're at it.

Yep, I made the original statement, guns replaced the crossbow as a weapon in war... So your link doesn't refute my point, it's talking about something different, something I wasn't arguing.



Still not "refuting" something I said...



We're up there per capita, you're around 88 guns per 100 resident, and we're around 30, which places us 12th in the world. Not sure why a war you fought 250 years ago means you need guns today but you're right, you don't NEED guns... you simply want them.



There would be less crime and gun deaths if you didn't have guns.



Sorry, find those sources yourself, I'm willing to take them. I'm not bringing MSNBC into this or other left wing groups to argue my point, you should avoid doing so as well.



You'll stop more people from committing most violent crimes altogether if you simply don't have firearms anywhere except the police, it's not all mental instability that's killing people with guns.



I'm not really arguing to convince you so I don't care if the source you gave me has any faulty statistics, I only came back when you mentioned how your link "refuted" my post when that wasn't what I took from the link.

You asked for a source, and I gave you mine, I answered your "source" and pointed out how almost none of it was related to my points. If you want to argue about my points we can, but that wasn't what you showed me.



Ill quote something off Wikipedia that I found on the per capita page as I was writing my post to cruz

About the requirements of owning/obtaining a gun in Canada:


I'm a conservative but I just don't see the need; some criminal robs me at gunpoint he can fucking have my money, ill write up a police report and that will be the end of it. If someone wants to kill me for no reason while robbing me it'll make his life more difficult and ill be dead, so it's hard to care.