How American gun deaths and gun laws compare to Canada's

[frigidweirdo]

...Inner city degeneration is as a result of politicians not bothering with dealing with social issues properly...

There is no way that a mere politician can make White Folk want to live alongside Black Folk, as a general rule; not in the 1940s and 1950s, and not now.

...The white flight is as a result of this inner city degeneration...

Nope. Most of the White Flight took place during the Great Immigration of the period 1920-1970, with the lion's share being in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s.

Most of those neighborhoods were still in decent shape when the White Folk bailed out.

Left to rot under Black control for most of the last 50 or 60 or 70 years, there's not much left now worth saving.

...And nothing is being done now and nothing will be done in the future, because the people with the money control the politicians and they spend so much money telling people like you what to think, so you don't realize what needs to be done in order to deal with the situation. ..

Yer a funny little feller.

Nothing was done then, nothing is being done now, and nothing is going to be done in future, because White Folk just don't want to live next to Black Folk.

Also, White Folk don't appreciate throwing good money after bad, and they've thrown a lot of money into those inner-city Black Holes with very little worthwhile coming from it.

Nobody needs to tell White Folk not to want to live next to Black Folk... they usually arrive at that conclusion all by themselves... with little or no prodding.

...They just have you harping on about how you can't take guns away and it's all the fault of black people, and you can't solve this, so don't bother, just make sure rich people are getting lots of money.

The Kiddie Table is down the hall, second door on your Left.

Politicians can help make a climate of tolerance, or intolerance. They can impact education, they can impact social inequality, they can do so much which changes people's perceptions.

I was in South Africa a couple of years ago, and there was a guy in this town near Namibia. I spoke to him and he said he moved there from somewhere else to get away from his son. His son was a racist and his father didn't like this.

You'd think it were surprising, the guy who lived under apartheid wasn't a racist. But the kid who grew up under the free country was. Why? Well, black people are the source of all fear for white kids. They cause almost all of the crime, they may target white people (who are generally richer). It's not difficult to see why a white kid now would fear black people. Not because of all black people, not even because of most black people, but a minority (that is quite large) who would commit crime and make SA a very unsafe country.

Politicians made this situation. They didn't deal with crime, education is poor, and I mean really poor, govt officials on the take will steal money instead of giving students the text books they need. Opportunities have not been created. The govt, rather than deal with the issues that need to be dealt with, have literally lined their own pockets.

What's the difference between the US and SA? Not much really. Corruption is there in both, in the US it's called "campaign financing" or similar terms, money is legitimately going into the pockets of politicians, either through direct donations or through PACs. Everything is monitored, it's hard to see what's coming and going through PACs though, either way, politicians are on the take.

The other similarities are that nothing much is being done about anything that involves the normal folk.


White flight happened for many reasons. The US is hardly the most integrated country on the planet.

You say white people don't want to live next to black people. Why? There's no logical reason for people of equal status and stature in society to not want to live around each other.

25% of black people are in poverty.

Yet black people and white people do live side by side in many places without a problem.

The issues of why people don't want to live next to each other could be similar to what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. People who'd lived next door to each other for a long time, suddenly found themselves on different teams, teams the politicians decided were important (Milosevic was a Serb Nationalist) and then some people took advantage and then all hell broke loose.

Again, it's an issue that can be dealt with, but isn't being dealt with.

 

[couch protester]

…I guess if Americans will give up their guns, then criminals will promise to give up breaking in homes raping women, molesting kids and robbing, while we sit back not able to defend our wives and daughters


…if Americans give up guns; crime would go down? Since we have 100 times more criminals than Canada, felons promise to give up breaking in homes, raping, molesting, and trust them with our wives/kids?


…America has more criminals than Canada, most gun owners are not criminals. Criminals use violence like rape, stalking, abusers, child molesters, home invaders, which Canada doesn't have more than America


…Maybe we deport our non gun using criminals to Canada for you to rehabilitate and allow anarchy for one day so they can purge off your kids and homes, while you don't have a gun or enough police to help


Criminals without guns infringes on our rights when they rape, child molest, break in homes, steal, and abuse us. Criminals with illegal guns mostly buy illegal guns black market coming from Mexico border

 

[frigidweirdo]

…I guess if Americans will give up their guns, then criminals will promise to give up breaking in homes raping women, molesting kids and robbing, while we sit back not able to defend our wives and daughters


…if Americans give up guns; crime would go down? Since we have 100 times more criminals than Canada, felons promise to give up breaking in homes, raping, molesting, and trust them with our wives/kids?


…America has more criminals than Canada, most gun owners are not criminals. Criminals use violence like rape, stalking, abusers, child molesters, home invaders, which Canada doesn't have more than America


…Maybe we deport our non gun using criminals to Canada for you to rehabilitate and allow anarchy for one day so they can purge off your kids and homes, while you don't have a gun or enough police to help


Criminals without guns infringes on our rights when they rape, child molest, break in homes, steal, and abuse us. Criminals with illegal guns mostly buy illegal guns black market coming from Mexico border

Maybe if people started sorting out the mess they've made, then things would improve. However politics is all about the politicians, who do the bidding of the rich.

 

[MDiver]

The NRA isn't a single entity, but rather an organization representing a couple of million voters; add in that private gun ownership is 75 million plus voters and you have a significant voter block. As one who has been around firearms since childhood, served 23 years in the military, was range safety officer and owns several, ownership is a great responsibility and requires a safety first policy with them. Many of the deaths in the U.S. are because of gang related activities. Young gang members obtain the firearms via theft and straw buyers. The death of a gang member is just one piece of crap eliminating another piece of crap. I have absolutely no sympathy for gangbangers. Their deaths are good riddance. The sad part comes in when innocents are hit by the bullets.

 

[couch protester]

The NRA isn't a single entity, but rather an organization representing a couple of million voters; add in that private gun ownership is 75 million plus voters and you have a significant voter block. As one who has been around firearms since childhood, served 23 years in the military, was range safety officer and owns several, ownership is a great responsibility and requires a safety first policy with them. Many of the deaths in the U.S. are because of gang related activities. Young gang members obtain the firearms via theft and straw buyers. The death of a gang member is just one piece of crap eliminating another piece of crap. I have absolutely no sympathy for gangbangers. Their deaths are good riddance. The sad part comes in when innocents are hit by the bullets.

mostly anti-gun advocate democrats are the ones usually doing all the murdering. 95% black households democrat 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35yrs.

 

[blackhawk]

So move to Canada.

 

[Kondor3]

...Politicians can help make a climate of tolerance, or intolerance. They can impact education, they can impact social inequality, they can do so much which changes people's perceptions...

You have just touched upon a key point... trying to CHANGE peoples' perceptions... Blacks flock with Blacks... Whites flock with Whites... etc... it's OK... it's not Evil.

...South Africa... Politicians made this situation...

Doubtful... we are dealing with instinctive prejudices as well as environmental and historical ones.

...White flight happened for many reasons...

All of which circle back to the "I don't want to live next to Black people" nucleus.

...The US is hardly the most integrated country on the planet...

Never said otherwise. We have improved greatly in that area over the past 50 years since passage of the Civil Right Act and related, but we are by no means perfect.

...You say white people don't want to live next to black people. Why? There's no logical reason for people of equal status and stature in society to not want to live around each other...

I give you the primary reason for White Flight during the so-called Great Migration of Blacks from the South to the North.

...black people and white people do live side by side in many places without a problem...

Quite true. My own distant suburban town and my own subdivision and my own block are evidence of that. The White Attitude here is that a few scattered here-and-there are very welcome, so long as their numbers don't build-up beyond a threshold that would give them local political power - beyond which White Folk would start to bail from here as well.

...The issues of why people don't want to live next to each other could be similar to what happened in the Balkans...

What was that maxim... Occam's Razor?.... (paraphrase): "The least complicated answer is usually the right one."

Left to their own devices, Black Folk flock with Black Folk... White Folk with White... Yellow with Yellow... Brown with Brown... Red with Red.

Left to their own devices, people will first flock with others who look like them, then, second, act like them, then, third, think like them.

Left to our own devices, all other conditions being equal, each of us is far more likely to save a child of our own race, than a child of the other's.

That's instinctive, gut-level stuff that cannot be changed or legislated away, and some social reformer -types are unable to accept that Reality, because it dooms their own hopes.

We could revisit this issue in 10,000 years, and, instinctively, Black will still flock with Black, White with White, Yellow with Yellow, etc. - all other things being equal.

It's OK to recognize those instincts; hell, in the long run, acknowledging that Reality - the 10,000 LB elephant in the room - is the only way to move forward.

However, kidding ourselves about our own built-in prejudices, and how to work around them, while oftentimes more politically INcorrect, is also, ultimately, a doomed exercise.

Or so it seems, to this observer.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope.....gang membership only comes out in crimes directly related to gang work......if a gang member shoots a guy at a party over a dice game they don't include that in gang crime.......

I think I will take the word of the Agency that tracks gang activity over your speculation, thanks, Dick Tiny.

But hey, simple enough solution. Let's have the CDC study gun violence, and determine how many were domestic arguments and how many were gang activity. That's simple enough.

And that is exactly how the Germans in the 1930s felt about guns........Jews just couldn't prove they needed guns.......even as they were pushed into the gas chambers.....dittos the political opponents of the socialists...they just could not show a need for guns....as they were executed by the police and military...

Funny how that works.....isn't it....

Uh, dude, most German Jews got out of the country and survived the war. Polish and Russian Jews were the ones who got slaughtered despite having guns.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong....most shooters have criminal records and killing you brother over tennis shoes though not gang related does not mean that both brothers were not in gangs.....

Dittos murdering your girlfriend....a gang member is not listed as a gang member when he shoots his girlfriend....

except you don't offer any evidence that these people who shoot their siblings or girlfriends were gang members.

Also, you keep ignoring that gang members have no trouble getting guns, because it's a "right".

 

[JoeB131]

Look, everyone, Dick Tiny is going on a Google Purge.

Becuase he can't argue the statistics.

 

[guno]

The concept here is that Canada treats gun ownership as a privilage, not a right. So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

which actually makes a lot more sense.

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.
would that include the gang people and other law breakers?....

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

And that is exactly how the Germans in the 1930s felt about guns........Jews just couldn't prove they needed guns.......even as they were pushed into the gas chambers.....dittos the political opponents of the socialists...they just could not show a need for guns....as they were executed by the police and military...

Funny how that works.....isn't it....

pushed into gas chamber with the help of the caf'rik church , Jews din't have a fixation with guns like you goyim do

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually hadtougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns. but again Jews never had a fixation with guns to begin with.

Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The Red Army lost millions fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?

 

[frigidweirdo]

...Politicians can help make a climate of tolerance, or intolerance. They can impact education, they can impact social inequality, they can do so much which changes people's perceptions...

You have just touched upon a key point... trying to CHANGE peoples' perceptions... Blacks flock with Blacks... Whites flock with Whites... etc... it's OK... it's not Evil.

...South Africa... Politicians made this situation...

Doubtful... we are dealing with instinctive prejudices as well as environmental and historical ones.

...White flight happened for many reasons...

All of which circle back to the "I don't want to live next to Black people" nucleus.

...The US is hardly the most integrated country on the planet...

Never said otherwise. We have improved greatly in that area over the past 50 years since passage of the Civil Right Act and related, but we are by no means perfect.

...You say white people don't want to live next to black people. Why? There's no logical reason for people of equal status and stature in society to not want to live around each other...

I give you the primary reason for White Flight during the so-called Great Migration of Blacks from the South to the North.

...black people and white people do live side by side in many places without a problem...

Quite true. My own distant suburban town and my own subdivision and my own block are evidence of that. The White Attitude here is that a few scattered here-and-there are very welcome, so long as their numbers don't build-up beyond a threshold that would give them local political power - beyond which White Folk would start to bail from here as well.

...The issues of why people don't want to live next to each other could be similar to what happened in the Balkans...

What was that maxim... Occam's Razor?.... (paraphrase): "The least complicated answer is usually the right one."

Left to their own devices, Black Folk flock with Black Folk... White Folk with White... Yellow with Yellow... Brown with Brown... Red with Red.

Left to their own devices, people will first flock with others who look like them, then, second, act like them, then, third, think like them.

Left to our own devices, all other conditions being equal, each of us is far more likely to save a child of our own race, than a child of the other's.

That's instinctive, gut-level stuff that cannot be changed or legislated away, and some social reformer -types are unable to accept that Reality, because it dooms their own hopes.

We could revisit this issue in 10,000 years, and, instinctively, Black will still flock with Black, White with White, Yellow with Yellow, etc. - all other things being equal.

It's OK to recognize those instincts; hell, in the long run, acknowledging that Reality - the 10,000 LB elephant in the room - is the only way to move forward.

However, kidding ourselves about our own built-in prejudices, and how to work around them, while oftentimes more politically INcorrect, is also, ultimately, a doomed exercise.

Or so it seems, to this observer.

Prejudice can be changed. How politicians react to situations can fuel prejudice. If adults are being prejudiced then children will follow them. Then you have another generation of prejudice. If prejudice isn't considered acceptable then kids won't learn that prejudice is acceptable.

The perfect example of this is Germany and Austria post WW2. The Germans were split into two. The West was told it was guilty of all these crimes and it had a concerted effort to learn from history. The Austrians were told they were the victims of German aggression, and the East Germans didn't give a damn.

You look at far right parties, the NPD in Germany:

And you see it basically aligns with the former East Germany. This is no coincidence. Berlin is lower, why? Because A) half of Berlin was in the West and B) because open minded Westerners are more likely to move to Berlin than anywhere else.

Austria has a political party, the FPOe, (and had the BZOe in Carinthia under Jorg Haider until he killed himself in a car crash) which is quite far right, and yet considered a legitimate party, but was diplomatically embargoed by the EU in 2000 (even though it was in the EU).

Prejudice has be combated and, while not completely defeated, it has seen a massive reduction.

Politicians made this situation. The Soviet overlords in East Germany didn't care who people were as long as they pretended to be good Communists. Prejudice was allowed to remain because the politicians didn't care. In Austria the politicians had no reason to combat this, as long as they can ski, swim in lakes and go naked, then they don't give a damn, it's quite a conservative society anyway. But in West Germany they did care and they combated it.

Yes, in the US things have got better. However better isn't good in many respects. The racial tension that should have disappeared a long time ago is still around. Black people feel like they've been duped by the other people around them, kids grow up with no hope unless it comes from crime, and conservatives tell them everyone can make it in America, yet those saying it are putting their kids through good school and can afford to send them to university, while many black kids (25% of black people are in poverty) don't have these opportunities and are expected to make it none the less.

Your view about blacks in your neighborhood is political. The reason people don't want black people controlling is because there is a divide in the US and people share that view. But if black and white people were equal, and black people didn't feel the need to be politically black, then there wouldn't be a problem at all. Again, politicians have made this.

 

[2aguy]

...Inner city degeneration is as a result of politicians not bothering with dealing with social issues properly...

There is no way that a mere politician can make White Folk want to live alongside Black Folk, as a general rule; not in the 1940s and 1950s, and not now.

...The white flight is as a result of this inner city degeneration...

Nope. Most of the White Flight took place during the Great Immigration of the period 1920-1970, with the lion's share being in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s.

Most of those neighborhoods were still in decent shape when the White Folk bailed out.

Left to rot under Black control for most of the last 50 or 60 or 70 years, there's not much left now worth saving.

...And nothing is being done now and nothing will be done in the future, because the people with the money control the politicians and they spend so much money telling people like you what to think, so you don't realize what needs to be done in order to deal with the situation. ..

Yer a funny little feller.

Nothing was done then, nothing is being done now, and nothing is going to be done in future, because White Folk just don't want to live next to Black Folk.

Also, White Folk don't appreciate throwing good money after bad, and they've thrown a lot of money into those inner-city Black Holes with very little worthwhile coming from it.

Nobody needs to tell White Folk not to want to live next to Black Folk... they usually arrive at that conclusion all by themselves... with little or no prodding.

...They just have you harping on about how you can't take guns away and it's all the fault of black people, and you can't solve this, so don't bother, just make sure rich people are getting lots of money.

The Kiddie Table is down the hall, second door on your Left.

And following the White Flight was upper middle income Black Flight……Blacks don't want to live in Hell holes either…..and left as soon as they could too…..

 

[2aguy]

The concept here is that Canada treats gun ownership as a privilage, not a right. So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

which actually makes a lot more sense.

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.
would that include the gang people and other law breakers?....

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

And that is exactly how the Germans in the 1930s felt about guns........Jews just couldn't prove they needed guns.......even as they were pushed into the gas chambers.....dittos the political opponents of the socialists...they just could not show a need for guns....as they were executed by the police and military...

Funny how that works.....isn't it....

pushed into gas chamber with the help of the caf'rik church , Jews din't have a fixation with guns like you goyim do

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually hadtougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns. but again Jews never had a fixation with guns to begin with.

Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The Red Army lost millions fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?

pushed into gas chamber with the help of the caf'rik church , Jews din't have a fixation with guns like you goyim do

The nazis were atheists and pagans not catholics……and yeah…do you know how you can tell that the Jews did not have a fixation with guns….they didn't have any when the nazis started taking over and later when they were being sent to the gas chambers…………unlike the Swiss who had 435,000 civilians armed with rifles who were ready to fight…and no, I am not blaming the Jews…they had no idea what was coming….and we know what happened and people like you still want to disarm everyone…..you didn't learn the lesson of the Holocaust…….

Yes…we Know, the Weimar Republic registered guns…and then what happened…the nazis came to power and used the gun registration records to disarm Jews and their political enemies…..

. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

Wow….sound familiar to the people posting here…….you just need a permit…you should just register your guns…you should have to get permission to sell them, carry them….no one wants to take them…..and then 20 years later the nazis used those registration records created during the Weimar Regime to confiscate guns in the hands of Jews and their political enemies…..allowing them to rise to power since their roving gangs of Brown shirts could not be stopped by armed civilians…therefore all political resistance was crushed…….

And had the Jews had guns at our levels…there would not have been the ability of nazi brown shirts to beat them up, destroy their buildings and businesses and intimidate their political opposition into silence….

Had Jews had guns at our ownership rate the nazi party would not have been able to intimidate their way to power….roving gangs of brown shirts would have been shot to death before one Jew was beaten or one store was destroyed………just like during the black lies riots here…the stores with armed guards were not looted….

And if guns were not an issue…then why did the nazis first confiscate the guns of their political enemies….?

And you keep posting that the Jews did not have a fixation on guns……and how the did that work out for them? The Jewish Ghetto in Poland held off the entire German militiary machine in Warsaw with several hand guns and explosive devices…..now imagine if all the countries in Europe had not disarmed their people after World War 1….and every country the Germans invaded was met with hundreds of thousands of heavily armed partisans and not unarmed, pacified civilians…..

The Swiss had 435,000 heavily armed civilians ready to fight any invasion attempt….and the Germans did not invade…..

And before they say…yeah…but they had side deals with the Germans……Hitler hated the Swiss….and he had no problem invading every other European Country and taking over completely…..so don't sell me that crap that the only reason Hitler didn't invade Switzerland was they managed his gold…….

Mass murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who don't have guns……

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns. but again Jews never had a fixation with guns to begin with.

Yes…this quote from your post shows how stupid those scholars you quoted are and how dumb your post is………..it was the Jews and political enemies of the nazis who were disarmed by the gun registration of the Weimar Republic……..gun registration led to confiscation of the victims guns……………….

And after they were disarmed….they were sent to gas chambers…….and the other countries of Europe handed over their Jews and other victims to the nazis as well to be murdered…because their civilian populations were disarmed after World War 1 as well…….


Do you guys read this actual history and not see why we fight to keep the 2nd Amendment….are you that slow that you can read that history and not see the value of a well armed civilian population….

12 million people were sent to the gas chambers…not war casualties……murder victims….because they could not defend themselves…

And not one German in 1920 Germany, when they were told they had to register their guns would have believed that 20 years later German Citizens would be marched into gas chambers…..

Please……do yourself and us a favor…read some freaking history…..

 

[2aguy]

The concept here is that Canada treats gun ownership as a privilage, not a right. So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

which actually makes a lot more sense.

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.
would that include the gang people and other law breakers?....

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

And that is exactly how the Germans in the 1930s felt about guns........Jews just couldn't prove they needed guns.......even as they were pushed into the gas chambers.....dittos the political opponents of the socialists...they just could not show a need for guns....as they were executed by the police and military...

Funny how that works.....isn't it....

pushed into gas chamber with the help of the caf'rik church , Jews din't have a fixation with guns like you goyim do

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually hadtougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns. but again Jews never had a fixation with guns to begin with.

Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The Red Army lost millions fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?

The Russian military lost millions because their leadership sucked and they were undercut by the paranoia of Stalin…………if not for the U.S. and it's allies Russia would be speaking German today.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong....most shooters have criminal records and killing you brother over tennis shoes though not gang related does not mean that both brothers were not in gangs.....

Dittos murdering your girlfriend....a gang member is not listed as a gang member when he shoots his girlfriend....

except you don't offer any evidence that these people who shoot their siblings or girlfriends were gang members.

Also, you keep ignoring that gang members have no trouble getting guns, because it's a "right".

Twit…..gang members cannot legally own any guns…they all have criminal records…….so it is not their "Right" to own a gun…yet they get them more easily than you or I do….and they are 15 years old and get guns faster and easier than we do…….

 

[Jroc]

The concept here is that Canada treats gun ownership as a privilage, not a right. So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

which actually makes a lot more sense.

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.
would that include the gang people and other law breakers?....

So instead of proving why you shouldn't have a gun, you have to prove why you should.

And that is exactly how the Germans in the 1930s felt about guns........Jews just couldn't prove they needed guns.......even as they were pushed into the gas chambers.....dittos the political opponents of the socialists...they just could not show a need for guns....as they were executed by the police and military...

Funny how that works.....isn't it....

pushed into gas chamber with the help of the caf'rik church , Jews din't have a fixation with guns like you goyim do

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually hadtougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns. but again Jews never had a fixation with guns to begin with.

Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The Red Army lost millions fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?

You're a joke old man Hopefully your "goy" offspring wouldn't be so passive as you


Jewish partisans were among the deadliest resistance fighters in World War II Europe

The Jews who fought back.
More than 30,000 Jews joined armed resistance movements throughout occupied Europe during World War II. Not only did they face death from the Germans and their European allies, they often endured dangerous anti-Semitism within their own partisan groups, fought with scant support from the Allies and lived under the most atrocious conditions.

Yet despite these obstacles, Jewish partisans were among the most successful resistance fighters of the war. They destroyed infrastructure such as rail lines and power plants, harassed occupation forces and killed German soldiers whenever and wherever they could.

“Learning about the Jews who fought back shatters the stereotypes of passivity and victimization that sometimes colors views of the Holocaust,” Mitch Braff, Executive Director of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation, told War Is Boring.

The foundation’s Website is a treasure trove of oral histories, photographs, maps and other information that tells the story of those long-overlooked fighters against genocide and tyranny.

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/02/23/the-jews-who-fought-back/

 

[M14 Shooter]

If blacks in the US committed murder in proportion to their population, the US murder rate would fall to 2.85/100.
Conclusion: Guns aren't the problem.

 

[dannyboys]

Wrong....most shooters have criminal records and killing you brother over tennis shoes though not gang related does not mean that both brothers were not in gangs.....

Dittos murdering your girlfriend....a gang member is not listed as a gang member when he shoots his girlfriend....

except you don't offer any evidence that these people who shoot their siblings or girlfriends were gang members.

Also, you keep ignoring that gang members have no trouble getting guns, because it's a "right".

Twit…..gang members cannot legally own any guns…they all have criminal records…….so it is not their "Right" to own a gun…yet they get them more easily than you or I do….and they are 15 years old and get guns faster and easier than we do…….

The little negro street thugs do not get their illegals guns from a 'straw purchaser' or from someone whose stolen the gun. (That happened a decade and more ago. Not any longer.)
Those are phony bullshit LIB myths/lies.
Today 99% of the guns the 15 year old negroes have are purchased from the proceeds of selling heroin etc on the street. They are 'fronted' the heroin etc by the gangs. The gangs sell the 15 year old cheap knock-off guns the gangs bought from the Mexican cartels who bought the guns and the heroin from C. European arms manufacturers who make the cheap knock-off guns. (Glock has been trying to sue these manufacturers for years BTW).
When these arms manufacturers sell guns into the M.E. they are paid in uncut heroin. The Mexican Cartels pay the arms manufacturers in US currency.
I go into an inner city shithole to buy a bag of heroin. I give the 15 years old kid a hundred dollar bill. The kid pays the gang for the heroin with that $100 bill. The gang pays the Mexican Cartel for the heroin and the cheap guns using that $100 bill, among others. The Cartel sends the $100 bill with others to the C. European arms manufacturer in payment for the guns and heroin. The manufacturer deposits the $100 in a shady bank and then 'e-transfers' the money in the account to offshore banks.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong....most shooters have criminal records and killing you brother over tennis shoes though not gang related does not mean that both brothers were not in gangs.....

Dittos murdering your girlfriend....a gang member is not listed as a gang member when he shoots his girlfriend....

except you don't offer any evidence that these people who shoot their siblings or girlfriends were gang members.

Also, you keep ignoring that gang members have no trouble getting guns, because it's a "right".

Twit…..gang members cannot legally own any guns…they all have criminal records…….so it is not their "Right" to own a gun…yet they get them more easily than you or I do….and they are 15 years old and get guns faster and easier than we do…….

The little negro street thugs do not get their illegals guns from a 'straw purchaser' or from someone whose stolen the gun. (That happened a decade and more ago. Not any longer.)
Those are phony bullshit LIB myths/lies.
Today 99% of the guns the 15 year old negroes have are purchased from the proceeds of selling heroin etc on the street. They are 'fronted' the heroin etc by the gangs. The gangs sell the 15 year old cheap knock-off guns the gangs bought from the Mexican cartels who bought the guns and the heroin from C. European arms manufacturers who make the cheap knock-off guns. (Glock has been trying to sue these manufacturers for years BTW).
When these arms manufacturers sell guns into the M.E. they are paid in uncut heroin. The Mexican Cartels pay the arms manufacturers in US currency.
I go into an inner city shithole to buy a bag of heroin. I give the 15 years old kid a hundred dollar bill. The kid pays the gang for the heroin with that $100 bill. The gang pays the Mexican Cartel for the heroin and the cheap guns using that $100 bill, among others. The Cartel sends the $100 bill with others to the C. European arms manufacturer in payment for the guns and heroin. The manufacturer deposits the $100 in a shady bank and then 'e-transfers' the money in the account to offshore banks.

I am not disagreeing with you….but in order to use this info. I would need a link to it…can you get me a link?