Actually Canada has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, particularly outside of the largest urban centres. I think ninth in world...?

Anyway, Canada has lots of responsible gun owners, but much less of a gun culture. Outside of hunting-related occasions, I'm not sure I've ever seen a gun in Canada.In the US though.... it's quite jarring.

Jarring? It's comforting.

You have to remember that Canada doesn't have near the number of large cities, nor the accompanying gangs that account for a large percentage of the gun crime in US.

Maybe it's just the gun culture of America, I don't know, I'm no expert on the subject. I just am sick of hearing about shootings and people accidentally being shot on the news. And to me, it just seems the more people who have guns, the more people who are going to die by gunshot wounds.

@iMurk

I am a private security company manager in Israel. The reality around here is that many people own private firearms, almost all of the security guards are armed and in addition to that many soldiers who are coming home during weekends take their personal rifles with them. However, the ultimate majority of shooting incidents are related to terror attacks or to criminals. In both cases it has no relation to the moral standing of armed civilians who received their liscense by law.

To avoid accidental shootings and unaccounted weapon distribution one should work on several parameters:
1. Upgrading the requirments of gun owners.
2. Limiting the types of weapons and the amounts that are allowedto be possessed by one person.
3. Upgrading the requirments of training - specifically in all that regards safety in using and storage.

3.

@ iMurk789

You also have to remember that the media hypes everything up. The Aurora shooting left 12 people dead yet it will be in the news for months to come. Meanwhile, many, many others will die in car crashes and other random things.

The sad truth is that shootings make for good ratings. Shootings are dramatic and politically charged. Every time a shooting happens, the Brady Campaign resumes its whining and the NRA circles the wagons. And nothing changes. Because the fact remains that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership rights to the individual, and the Supreme Court has said as much.

Well said Gunfighter! To continue with this thought, the media VERY RARELY, if ever, reports on incidents where armed citizens thwart violent crime. See below:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rGFZDhCjvj0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This kind of citizen's defense happens far more frequently than the anti-gun crowd and the media would like to admit. Further, most of the time shots aren't even required, simply displaying the gun will likely send the would-be attacker running. I know, I know, people always cry, "but he could harm innocent people..." or "he's making MORE danger..." Well, the bottom line is that some people don't like being a victim. Some people aren't going to sit there, or lay face down, while some scum bag robs them, or worse. I just don't understand the culture of victimhood that so many anti-gun display. Call 911, don't do anything to anger or threaten the attacker, and hope for the best. FUCK THAT!

Opps, guess that didn't embed. Here's the link:

http://youtu.be/rGFZDhCjvj0

What I cannot understand is why NOBODY rushed this deranged douche bag in Aurora. The room was filled with smoke, the guys had a gas mask on, how much was he going to be able to see? Secure your loved ones, move low and fast to a flanking position, then tackle the bastard and subdue him. I understand that is happens so fast and that people are totally disoriented, but when you hear about this things it amazes me that there isn't a brave man or two there that rise up in defense -- even in unarmed. No former Marines, no off duty cops? No men with a pair of balls who are willing to do something other than just cower in fear? Ever wonder why these things don't happen in Dallas?

@ MichiganMan

To paraphrase a famous quote from a famous person, plans usually go to hell when the bullets start flying. He was firing an assault rifle in an enclosed space. Everyone in that theater was probably stunned at least for a few seconds by the sound alone. And you also have to remember that A) everything is much clearer in retrospect and B) you are separated from that theater by space and time. Everything is 100 times more terrifying when you are actually in a bad situation. If anyone had been able to taken him down, it would have been a new world record for biggest balls.

That being said, you are correct about responsible gun use being extremely under-reported. That man in Florida sent those two dumbasses flying out of that cafe. 0 injured friendlies, 2 bad guys in custody. That's what I call a good day. But it goes back to my previous point. Good news doesn't sell.

Without bothering to read to the end of this thread: I do want to quote a beautiful jewel from krellin: "fuck Ireland... it has no relevance."

IMMD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19138754

Another shooting......

Yet another staged "false flag" event in the long history of the propaganda war against our Republic's 2nd Amendment.

In a Republic, power ultimately resides in the People, and the use of deadly force to retain that power is the last resort of the People. A disarmed populace loses that power. The Untied States is NOT a Democracy, it is a Republic and the 2nd Amendment ensures that it remains as such. There are powerful forces whose goal it is to bring down our Republic, to meld it into a superstate. To achieve this, those forces MUST remove the power of People to defend their sovereignty.

With the UN's Small Arms Treaty -- a near total gun ban -- being thrust upon our Republic, I have no doubt that more of these tragedies will befall our nation. But, make no mistake about it, they're as staged as a episode of 24.

So sad.

I don't think it's a false flag. But either way, I think the real tragedy is the loss of innocent life.

I hope all of our thoughts and prayers are for the victims and their loved ones.

I don't know enough about this one yet, I'll learn more in time. But Aurora is so obvious it's would be laughable if not so tragic.

Eyewitness reports of multiple gunmen, Immediate propaganda from the MSM that there was only one, and the fact that that one happene to be trained at Fort Brag's psy-ops dept. all points to what I suspected yesterday day -- FALSE FLAG to demonize the 2nd Amendment and veterans. How many drugged up, mind control freaks are they going to trot out as perps in these staged mass killings before people see through the bullshit? Read the eyewitness reports of Columbine, how those witnesses have been ignored, discredited, and even threatened. It's a fucking script from a military manual played out over and over to further the agenda of disarming the US and destroying our Republic.

Color me skeptical. They'd have to be controlling the media, domestic and foreign, to keep such things out. Probably, I think the government is more capable than you think it is, but I don't think the government is capable of that level of undetected activity involving that many people for that long. The motives are inconsistent, too, and not shared by the majority of the people in office. Besides, their corporate backers are getting their way at every turn -- why should they care whether people have access to guns? They have been able to get whatever they want just fine with the present level of gun ownership.

I am doubtful that there is a vast conspiracy to manufacture anti-gun sentiment. Besides, is it so inconceivable that, free from such manufactured tragedies, there might not be real ones from time to time?

There is avast conspiracy by the gun lobby and their fellow travelers to enrich themselves off of murder. They also make the dumbest arguments in defense of their cause, bar none.

Ah, I was waiting for Putin to appear and enlighten us with his blatant ignorance.

They start by claiming that gun laws do nothing to reduce gun violence. Then when you point out that gun laws reduce gun violence everywhere on the planet where they are implemented, they reply with "so what, then they'll kill each other with knives". Nevermind that people can't walk in with a knife and aim to kill 100 people in a handful of seconds. Logic never enters into the equation.

These clowns make the claim that massacres wouldn't be less likely if it wasn't legal to buy kevlar, smoke bombs, and automatic weapons, but rather it'd be better if everybody walked into the theatre with kevlar, smoke bombs, and automatic weapons. Because we all know that a bunch of untrained fools with automatic weapons shooting in a dark room full of people, many of them children, will turn out just great.

Then the gun nuts will use the supreme court as the arbiter of what the Constitution says. Not really the supreme court, but rather the most recent decision which overturned hundreds of years of supreme court rulings. Because they're such big fans of original intent, stare decisis, and judicial restraint, except when it suits them. Then they become newly converted fans of making law from the bench and ignoring the constitution completely.

As for the 2nd amendment and its alleged 'individual right', where does it say that? Conservatives are big on reading the constitution exactly how it is written, except when it comes to the 2nd amendment, then they just make stuff up. They claim there's no right to privacy because it isn't explicitly stated. There's also no separation of church & state, but yet the 'personal right to firearms' is midrashed into the constitution with no problem, even though the amendment quite clearly refers to well-regulated militias. Does the guarantee of regulated militias sound like an individual right to run around with guns? Here's what Alexander Hamilton claimed well regulated militia meant, and I think he knew more about the constitution than the gun nut clowns running around today.

""A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

So it's quite obvious that well regulated militia doesn't refer to the entirety of the 'yeomanry', and that a well regulated militia requires actual, you know, training, and refers to an *actual militia*. It's not a bloody metaphor.

"The Untied States is NOT a Democracy, it is a Republic"

ROFL, what does this even mean. Where do conservatives learn this mantra? It's ridiculous and shows a total lack of understanding of what democracy & republic even mean. One might suppose it means conservatives are rambling about how we're not a direct democracy, and this is news to anybody? There are no 'direct democracies', so why bring it up?
It is bizarre they bash democracy so much since that has always been the basis for defending 'states rights'. Local governments should be able to decide for themselves the laws, by majority rule. The Constitution and the feds shouldn't get in the way of, say, abusing some particular minority group, because that'd entail a 'super-state' - quelle horreur.

Republic and democracy refer to different things. Republic refers to the source of sovereignty - the people. Democracy refers to system of government, generally speaking one with the veneer of competitive elections and 'alternate' ruling parties. Many democracies are also republics. The US is one example. India is another. Ireland is another. Many democracies are kingdoms. Spain, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, etc. Some republics are not democracies - South Korea until the 1980s, for example. Egypt until recently. South Vietnam.

"You have to remember that Canada doesn't have near the number of large cities, nor the accompanying gangs that account for a large percentage of the gun crime in US."

Explain why Alaska has such a high firearm violence rate. Also why does the southern US.

"both groups are very dangerous to the People."

Yes, criminals are especially dangerous when they can legally walk into a store and buy a big arsenal full of weapons to kill or rob people with.

Just curious, if laws don't work against guns as you say, do they work against abortions? Do laws work at all on any issue? Or do you just make a weird exception for your toys?

The southern US is easy to explain. Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and more large cities. Your insinuation the south has such a high rate with no or few large cities is bogus amd am indication of your inexperience/lack of knowledge or simply disingenuous.

And Alaska's 2.58 per 100,000 populace is actualy low conpared to Loisiana's 10+ per 100,000.

The state of Louisiana has the highest firearm homicide rate per capita. Is it the most urban? Mississippi has the 3rd highest. Does it strike you as being highly urban? South Carolina is not far behind. These aren't the states full of big cities. New York has the biggest city of all, plus several other large, poor cities like Buffalo and its rate is below that of *Kansas*.

Alaska has the highest rate of gun deaths in the country - 20 per 100,000. Yeah they're not all murders. But people apparently like to shoot each other and themselves all the same.

Also, fewer than half of all homocides in Alaska are gun related where as 70% of them in say Maryland are gun related.

Alaska's firearm homicide rate is higher than Ohio, the 7th most populous state in the union.