Yzermandius19

You can look up the difference in crime statistics at your own leisure, the difference is quite apparent. There is certainly more correlation between that Southron Hot Heads and gun deaths than gun control or amount of guns and gun deaths.

Yup. They don't just have more mass shootings, and gun deaths, they have more violent crimes of all sorts, and it's rooted in their honor culture which overemphasizes the importance of reputation, where slights are paid for in blood. Those with this culture who moved to big Northern cities brought that penchant for gun violence with them which is why those cities have so many gun deaths. This culture didn't start in America, it started in a poor area of Scotland that also have similar crime issues compared to surrounding cultures, and migrated to South from there, as this is where those people settled.

Most gun deaths in Chicago don't come from guns sold in Indiana, they are from guns sold in Illinois, and mostly from illegal sales at that. No amount of gun control in Indiana is going to fix Chicago's gun problems, and no amount of stricter gun control in Chicago is going to do that either. As I said, Southron Hot Head Dueling Culture plays a part in this, it's not the guns or lack thereof, it's not the gun control or lack thereof.

If he wanted to get a gun, it's not that hard, Canada's laws do not make it difficult to get a gun. The attacker thinking it was difficult is a faulty perception based on his incompetence. It may be easier to attempt to limit access, but the results aren't going to be what you expected, the measures won't work, and no one lives are going to be saved.

The laws haven't been that different for that long, the change is within my lifetime, 1993 was the moment were they started to diverge when Chretien went a gun grabbing, and that change did not effect gun violence the way you assume it would. Fact is gun control did not create the difference in gun violence you see between Canada and America, the parts of America with the most gun control, the parts that have laws that are closer to Canada today, have the most gun deaths. The parts of America that have less gun control laws, closer to what Canada was like in the 1970's for instance, have less gun deaths. Gun control does not save lives, it didn't save Canada, and it won't save America. You not seeing a logical reason to own a weapon is not grounds for a law restricting the ability to do that, that's just an indication that you lack the imagination to put yourself in the shoes of law-abiding gun owners who have logical reasons to own such a weapon.

I am saying the inanimate object isn't the problem here, it's the people abusing inanimate objects who are the problem. You seem to want to blame the object, but if the US had exact same gun laws as Canada, it would not have Canada's gun violence rates, that's not how it works.

The Dueling culture of Southron hotheads that has also migrated to Northern cities. The media outrage culture that politicizes every mass shooting to get more page views. Mass shootings are up, but shootings in general are down, mass shooters getting famous while non-mass shooters get little media coverage, no doubt plays a large part in that, just as it played in the rise of the serial killer in the 1970's, very similar dynamic. The media's obsession with infamy is a helluva drug. The problem is not the object used to murder people, the problem is people murdering other people. Inanimate objects don't kill people, people kill people, the problem ain't the guns.

Logic wouldn't state that, because the amount of guns that are available to them does not explain the differing outcomes. Gun homicides have gone down in the US as the amount of guns have increased, if logic stated that more guns equals more gun deaths, that wouldn't be the case. It's the media making the nutjobs famous, the dueling culture of the American South that has migrated north to major cities, it's a cultural thing. Restricting or banning inanimate objects is not going to fix those issues any more than banning murder stops serial killers.

Indeed, but that doesn't make it a good idea to pass an unconstitutional law, you seem to think that it's a good idea, because the courts will eventually sort it out.

They can pass the laws, but that doesn't make those laws a good idea, or constitutional. Passing unconstitutional laws to make you feel better about the Americans you look down on, is not a wise move for America. You have no good reason to infringe on people's rights, you just think America should do it because you are convinced it will work, yet you refuse to provide good reasons for that assumption to anyone else, they should just listen to you and "do something" no further explanation required, constitutional rights be damned.

They can't change the law if it infringes on constitutional rights. Not everything is a majority vote, and constitutional rights exist for a reason, it's so that can't vote those rights away from the minority, or the majority, just because it's popular. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. A proposal being popular doesn't make it a good policy.

My bias is obvious, your bias is obvious. The burden of proof is on you, because you want constitutional rights to be restricted. Being politically popular doesn't mean they will be effective. Perhaps you can provide an argument for private citizens not owning military style weapons, since you are the one who wants to take away people's rights and you don't think the current restrictions go far enough. The side who wants to restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens better have a damn good reason for it, or it's a non-starter. The side who supports constitutional rights does not need a damn good reason for not wanting their rights restricted, it's best to air on the side of caution, especially when the side who wants to restrict rights has no good reason for the other side to accept their proposals.

Bump stock bans are pointless, they save no lives, what is the point in banning them? Just because "you" say it'll do something, doesn't make it so. Only one of us is advocating restricting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens though, and isn't me. If I am wrong, the rights of law abiding citizens are preserved, if you are wrong, those rights are infringed upon. So the burden of proof is on you to prove your proposed regulations work the way you think they will, you are the one who wants to infringe on the rights of others because of the perceived effectiveness of these regulations on your part. So prove they are effective as you perceive them to be, or stop trying to take away people's rights with your concern trolling Americans about mass shootings.

Virtue signaling about how not implementing measures that don't work is doing nothing, that is how nothing will get done.

Some conservative media outlet exist, but they are outliers, and these outliers are not indications that most media in Canada is not heavily biased in a leftward leaning direction.

He could have killed more if he aimed instead of spraying aimlessly. You are talking out of your ass if you think simply holding down the trigger until the ammo runs out is the most effective way to kill people quickly, even in a crowd, it is not. One shot a second, for thirty seconds, leaves plenty of time to aim shots and get more kills than this guy got. He did not engage in the optimal strategy to kill people in a crowd, he took less lives by pursuing a strategy that takes no skill whatsoever, instead of the optimal one.

They had no good plan, if their plan was to kill the most people possible, they failed to accomplish that with their spray and pray foolishness, and choosing a target that would be responded to in less than a minute.

The rubes think it's called "assault" because it's extra lethal and should be banned outside of military or law enforcement use, but they are rubes for a reason.

Diabolical.

No double tap eh? Impressive. Precision kills, spray and pray, not so much.

The only people who think spray and pray is the way to maximize a kill count, are people who know nothing about guns or how to use them effectively. Like you say, that sh*t is only good for suppressing fire, and even in that situation, the point is to discourage return fire, not maximize kill count during the spray and pray. Spray and pray is not effective at killing as many people as possible in a short period of time, it's time to wise up gun grabbers. Get better talking points.

No, they will kill more, because they will actually have a plan and not just lash out in a way that doesn't kill many people when they could have killed significantly more. If they take their time, have a plan and methodically execute it, they'll kill a lot more people than holding down the trigger, missing tons of people and dealing with massive recoil due to terrible aim. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

I find it hilarious that what is considered "authentic" black culture in North America is simply a Scottish sub-culture invented by white people, imported to North America, and later culturally appropriated by a culture that now frowns on cultural appropriation of their culture by others.

Did Highland Scots settle in the West Indies too? If so the duelist culture is entirely cultural appropriation by blacks from hothead Scots, who brought that culture from a very small geographic region, and filled the America's with it wherever they settled, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Yeah the black ghetto culture is simply borrowed from the highland Scots who settled in American South. The black ghetto crowd now think that "Uncle Toms" aren't black enough, if they don't pimp a culture they stole from rednecks, it's hilarious. Black Rednecks don't take kindly to others trying to further their lot in life, if they happen to be black, then they aren't really black, lulz.