Both Sides of the Gun Debate Need to Listen to This

[basquebromance]

I think it’s time for anti gun Celebrities to have their security armed with rocks......you know what, I think feathers will do the trick!

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[Pop23]

Canada has growing gun crime....we have gun crime that is going down....

Canada.....

Police can't explain increase in shootings in Toronto | CBC News

The two shootings come as Toronto is experiencing a year of increased gun violence, up 35 per cent from last year. The number of victims has also increased, up by 80 per cent over last August, according to police statistics.

Deputy Chief Peter Sloly can't say why there have been so many shootings this year, adding that he's noticed an uptick in gun violence across the country.

"It's a concerning trend we're seeing this year," Sloly told CBC News. "We've put extra resources on the street, we've got extra intelligence coming in, we have extra support from our communities."

But Mayor John Tory thinks he knows why the city is witnessing so much gun play.

"There's some level of gang activity involved," he said. "There is the illegal gun trade that continues to be a real problem especially when it comes to the Canada-U.S. border."


-----------
Firearms: Making sense of Toronto’s cycle of violence

The number of people killed or injured by guns in Toronto so far this year is already higher than 2014, reversing a recent downward trend. But while gun violence appears to be going up in Ontario’s capital, criminologists say this apparent increase in gun violence doesn’t necessarily mean the city is becoming more dangerous.
This week alone, there have been seven shootings over a span of four days, two of them fatal, Toronto Police spokeswoman Caroline de Kloet said Friday.

********

Mr. Pugash said the number of shooting events this year – 162, as of Aug. 20 – is now on par with the number on the same date in 2012, the year police previously noted a spike in gun violence.


Police don’t know the reasons behind this year’s increase, Mr. Pugash said, and it’s an issue that could be impacted by an “infinite number of factors.”


Toronto Sun

TORONTO - Welcome to Toronto’s Summer of the Gun 2015.

It’s a headline neither Toronto Police nor city hall want to see.

There is no question statistics can be made to look a lot of different ways, but some statistics are just plain ugly.

Scary, actually.

For example, 36 more people have been shot so far this year in Toronto than at this point last year.

Toronto Police statistics show a 90% increase in people wounded by gunfire and a 48% increase in shootings (135 compared to 91).

And there have been 106 more shooting victims (those hit by gunfire, as well as those victimized by it).

In fact, the 227 shooting victims so far this year is 31 more than the total for all of 2014.

It’s true not all shooting victims have been hit by gunfire, but as Deputy Chief Peter Sloly points out, every gun shot, whether into the air or a tree, is one that could ricochet and strike an innocent victim like we saw in 2012 when a two-year-old was hit.

If you add the death and injury statistics, Toronto has seen 88 dead or wounded by gunfire in 2015 compared to 53 at this time last year. That’s a 66% increase.

It’s a big spike.

Shocking, horrifying numbers that seem to have just snuck up on us.

Many seem worried about the controversial carding issue, but these scary stats aren’t getting the same media attention. It doesn’t feel like a particularly violent summer, but the stats indicate otherwise.





And more, with stories...



'Brazen criminals' behind spike in Toronto gun crime, says deputy chief | CBC News



Another Canadian city with gun crime....



UPDATED: Why does Moncton have such high gun-crime rates?

United States....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Vegas. October 1, 2017, 58 dead, 500+ injured because it's more important to sell guns than to protect peoples lives.

Nice, France. July 14, 2016, 86 dead 458 injured because it's more important to allow people to drive trucks than to protect people's lives.

So we should let people have AR-15's because we let them drive trucks?

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

 

[OnePercenter]

Vegas. October 1, 2017, 58 dead, 500+ injured because it's more important to sell guns than to protect peoples lives.

Nice, France. July 14, 2016, 86 dead 458 injured because it's more important to allow people to drive trucks than to protect people's lives.

So we should let people have AR-15's because we let them drive trucks?

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

 

[JimBowie1958]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

In context it is small arms that are military role capable.

In todays context that would be any high powered auto-loading rifle.

 

[2aguy]

Nice, France. July 14, 2016, 86 dead 458 injured because it's more important to allow people to drive trucks than to protect people's lives.

So we should let people have AR-15's because we let them drive trucks?

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

Wrong, he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people from a fortified and concealed location, the only thing that kept him from killing more people was the idiot used a bump fire stock which kept throwing his rounds over the crowd...

And if he really wanted to murder a lot more people, he should have used a rental truck.....a musllim terrorist with a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes....more than the Vegas shooter who used 2 rifles, firing into a crowd of 22,000 people and murdered 58.....

There is no comparison...for mass murder a rental truck beats a rifle....

 

[Pop23]

Nice, France. July 14, 2016, 86 dead 458 injured because it's more important to allow people to drive trucks than to protect people's lives.

So we should let people have AR-15's because we let them drive trucks?

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

So you think banning a madman from obtaining these legally, a man with a fortune, would have stopped him from getting them on the black market?

You solved nothing

 

[asaratis]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

something tells me you still wouldn't know.

You're probably right but it appears I'm in good company, no one else seems to know either.

Oh, you know already. You're just being a shitty liberal asshole.

Surely you know what an asshole is. If not, look in the mirror.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nice, France. July 14, 2016, 86 dead 458 injured because it's more important to allow people to drive trucks than to protect people's lives.

So we should let people have AR-15's because we let them drive trucks?

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

And water is wet. Just bring an umbrella

-Geaux

 

[Flash]

View attachment 187898

The AK is certainly a reliable weapon but actually not as good as their reputation. I have seen them jam. What I don't like about them are the sights. Terrible sights. Not really a good scope platform or good for modular like the ARs.

I use to have several but got rid of them over the years.

However, you have a very good point. The only thing that socialism has ever produced that worked and the socialists hate them.

 

[OnePercenter]

So we should let people have AR-15's because we let them drive trucks?

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

Wrong, he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people from a fortified and concealed location, the only thing that kept him from killing more people was the idiot used a bump fire stock which kept throwing his rounds over the crowd...

And if he really wanted to murder a lot more people, he should have used a rental truck.....a musllim terrorist with a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes....more than the Vegas shooter who used 2 rifles, firing into a crowd of 22,000 people and murdered 58.....

There is no comparison...for mass murder a rental truck beats a rifle....

Let me help you get your facts straight.

What stopped Paddock were two security guards from Mandalay Bay sent to the floor on an unrelated matter.

A truck could not have entered the fair grounds because the grounds were fenced and barricaded.

Paddock had 23 weapons in his hotel rooms.

So your reasoning in not limiting magazine sizes is because we have rental trucks?

 

[OnePercenter]

So we should let people have AR-15's because we let them drive trucks?

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

So you think banning a madman from obtaining these legally, a man with a fortune, would have stopped him from getting them on the black market?

You solved nothing

Which is why we need more police.

 

[flacaltenn]

3. Gun control regulations infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What's an 'arm'?

If you are an American adult and don't know what the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is all about then no amount of words will be sufficient to educate you.

So you don't know either? Can you define an 'arm' or is it like pornography, you know it when you see it?

Well.. At the time all those state and federal constitutions were being written, a civilian could own a state of art 8 cannon battleship and be PAID by the Feds for intervening pirates on the High Seas.. See Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the Constitution. Is THAT enough of a clue for ya???

 

[Pop23]

The AR-15 civilian rifle is no different from any other rifle......it is not a military weapon, it has never been used by the military, and it is protected by the 2nd Amendment, there is no "let" people do anything, they have a Right, to own that weapon.

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

Wrong, he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people from a fortified and concealed location, the only thing that kept him from killing more people was the idiot used a bump fire stock which kept throwing his rounds over the crowd...

And if he really wanted to murder a lot more people, he should have used a rental truck.....a musllim terrorist with a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes....more than the Vegas shooter who used 2 rifles, firing into a crowd of 22,000 people and murdered 58.....

There is no comparison...for mass murder a rental truck beats a rifle....

Let me help you get your facts straight.

What stopped Paddock were two security guards from Mandalay Bay sent to the floor on an unrelated matter.

A truck could not have entered the fair grounds because the grounds were fenced and barricaded.

Paddock had 23 weapons in his hotel rooms.

So your reasoning in not limiting magazine sizes is because we have rental trucks?

So Paddock strikes outside the festival when people waited to get in or leave.

You don’t think he cared where it happened? Right?

 

[asaratis]

So you wouldn't have any objection to a maximum five-round magazine for AR-15's?

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

Wrong, he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people from a fortified and concealed location, the only thing that kept him from killing more people was the idiot used a bump fire stock which kept throwing his rounds over the crowd...

And if he really wanted to murder a lot more people, he should have used a rental truck.....a musllim terrorist with a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes....more than the Vegas shooter who used 2 rifles, firing into a crowd of 22,000 people and murdered 58.....

There is no comparison...for mass murder a rental truck beats a rifle....

Let me help you get your facts straight.

What stopped Paddock were two security guards from Mandalay Bay sent to the floor on an unrelated matter.

A truck could not have entered the fair grounds because the grounds were fenced and barricaded.

Paddock had 23 weapons in his hotel rooms.

So your reasoning in not limiting magazine sizes is because we have rental trucks?

So Paddock strikes outside the festival when people waited to get in or leave.

You don’t think he cared where it happened? Right?

My understanding is that most of his shots were into the venue itself...within the fence.

 

[Pop23]

I wouldn’t object if it actually solved a problem.

If the problem is deaths caused by guns, you seem to forget a couple key points.

1. 99% of these deaths are caused by criminals who do not abide by laws (they will get a larger clip if they want one anyway) and suicide which rarely has a need for more than 2 rounds.

2. The other 1% is careless use of a weapon. Ever heard of one of these deaths caused by the 6th round?

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

Wrong, he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people from a fortified and concealed location, the only thing that kept him from killing more people was the idiot used a bump fire stock which kept throwing his rounds over the crowd...

And if he really wanted to murder a lot more people, he should have used a rental truck.....a musllim terrorist with a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes....more than the Vegas shooter who used 2 rifles, firing into a crowd of 22,000 people and murdered 58.....

There is no comparison...for mass murder a rental truck beats a rifle....

Let me help you get your facts straight.

What stopped Paddock were two security guards from Mandalay Bay sent to the floor on an unrelated matter.

A truck could not have entered the fair grounds because the grounds were fenced and barricaded.

Paddock had 23 weapons in his hotel rooms.

So your reasoning in not limiting magazine sizes is because we have rental trucks?

So Paddock strikes outside the festival when people waited to get in or leave.

You don’t think he cared where it happened? Right?

My understanding is that most of his shots were into the venue itself...within the fence.

Yes, but we were discussing alternatives to the use of a semi automatic rifle. What would stop him from using a truck to kill with.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm laughing.... year after year after year these gun control threads yield the same tired rationalizations from people on the left. And fascinating.... they state their s*** with such unabashed certainty as if 2nd Amendment people were some extreme fringe group. But these people never ever win in the public policy arena.... in fact gun grabbing has never been more unpopular than it is today. Look at any poll on voters concerns from Pew ...Gallup ....Rasmussen. Gun control is consistently on the very bottom of the list along with global warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

Who's not winning?

 

[jon_berzerk]

more guys like this need to step up like this guy

 

[asaratis]

The issue is mass shootings. Paddock would have found it impossible to kill 58 and injure 500+ in 9 minutes with five round magazines.

Wrong, he was firing into a crowd of 22,000 people from a fortified and concealed location, the only thing that kept him from killing more people was the idiot used a bump fire stock which kept throwing his rounds over the crowd...

And if he really wanted to murder a lot more people, he should have used a rental truck.....a musllim terrorist with a rental truck murdered 86 people in 5 minutes....more than the Vegas shooter who used 2 rifles, firing into a crowd of 22,000 people and murdered 58.....

There is no comparison...for mass murder a rental truck beats a rifle....

Let me help you get your facts straight.

What stopped Paddock were two security guards from Mandalay Bay sent to the floor on an unrelated matter.

A truck could not have entered the fair grounds because the grounds were fenced and barricaded.

Paddock had 23 weapons in his hotel rooms.

So your reasoning in not limiting magazine sizes is because we have rental trucks?

So Paddock strikes outside the festival when people waited to get in or leave.

You don’t think he cared where it happened? Right?

My understanding is that most of his shots were into the venue itself...within the fence.

Yes, but we were discussing alternatives to the use of a semi automatic rifle. What would stop him from using a truck to kill with.

A liberal would say, "The banning of trucks." I say "Nothing!"