How many illegals is Canada offering citizenship or legal status to? Oh, I see. They toss em right out as soon as they can so don't have decades worth of accumulation. Canada can easily step up and offer to take any illegals that we deport- I mean for real- not one of Justins little rants that he did once and then had to take it back when he found out his voters were not exactly with him on that. This horseshit about everything in Canada being light- years ahead of the U.S has reached a new height on ET lately. I am more than willing- at taxpayer expense- to drive any families who are about to be deported back to El Salvador up to the Canadian border. Your move, Maple Syrup Mavens. Just let us know.
Asking how many gun murders used an automatic or semi-auto gun is really quite silly when those represent the vast majority of firearms out there and best tool for the job. It's like asking how many trucks that were used to mow down people had power steering, and then yelling ah HA when they all do. However, pointing out a correlation in the lack of a father figure is a different direction entirely.
At Mr. Tsing's request, I'll keep this civil. I've spent a lot of time in Canada, like it a lot, and have many close Canadian friends. But I'd never even consider trying to transform my country, the United States, into some kind of copycat version of it -- which will never happen anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to move there? And I mean that with all due respect. Because you seem to prefer it to the U.S. Serious question. Why not take the path of least resistance?
That's an excellent point. But then you need to go to the next step and ask how many fewer might have been killed had there, for example, been no semi-automatic weapons available. And of course it is a very difficult question to answer without detailed information about each gun murder. . The point I would like to make, one which you will probably disagree with, is that semi-automatic guns are unnecessary They are mainly advantageous in killing people, though not essential unless you need to kill a lot of people , selectively in a hurry. Now if criminals have semiautomatics, and they do, I would agree that you would be at least marginally better off defending yourself against such a criminal if you too had a semiautomatic. Regardless, we should certainly get rid of semiautomatic hand guns and large magazine semiautomatic rifles, and all assault guns that were designed originally for military or police use. If we do that, eventually the criminals will not have these guns either and the"playing field" will again be level. In the interim, before we locate and find most of the criminally held semiautomatic hand guns, you will be at a slight disadvantage in defending yourself at home if all you have is a double action .45. I'm OK with that. Your sacrifice will be well worth the greater good of making it, eventually, far less convenient for me to pick up an AK at my local sporting goods store and take out half the post office personnel. I'll be forced to revert to ammonium nitrate, and I can't get that either.
Those Canadians won't have me. Too old. And my government made my medicare account non-portable, trapping me, just like I was in the old Soviet union and had to get a permit to travel to the next town. Sadly I'm stuck. Do you have any idea of the billions the U.S. taxpayer would save if medicare accounts were portable.? I do! So as long as I'm stuck here, I am going to do my best to make the place tolerable.
But it's not a relevant question, because there are hundreds of millions already out there. I can understand if you were asking this question in a controlled environment, but that ship has sailed. Would we all be happier in a world without firearms? I know I would. But that isn't reality, so focus on the real world, please. Again, this isn't a relevant comment unless you have a way to get rid of all the offending firearms. Not just the ones the legal folks have, but the criminals as well. You can't tell someone he has to give up his protection while the bad guy (that caused him to buy the firearm in the first place) will keep his. Listen to your argument: "Your sacrifice will be well worth the greater good!" Then think how that sounds to those of us who have to make the sacrifice. You're trying to convince me to make my family less safe for a theory that you believe in but cannot support with facts or data, and lets face it, history is replete with examples where disarming has not been good for those disarmed. We are not the ones breaking the law! Focus your efforts on the criminals, not the objects the criminals use! Someone deciding to shoot up a school of kids doesn't wake up one morning after following the law his whole life, see the firearm he legally acquired and suddenly go "hell, we gonna get you some action today, my friend!" They are mentally impaired, often criminal behaviors, and have illegally acquired weapons. Frequently the authorities have been alerted to their presence but have done nothing. They have little social norms (such as solid family units, or father figures) or are extremists in some nature. That is where you should be looking.
Or should we say, "try to move there." Amazing the way lefty Americans think they can just up and decide they are going to move to Canada and announce it to the Canadians. They will quickly find that they have immigration standards that they most likely cannot meet.