# Hmmm....Mexico has extreme gun control, but 30% of guns sold to Mexican government go missing....wanna guess who gets them?



## 2aguy (Jan 6, 2022)

Mexico has only one gun store.  It is isolated on an army base, and only special people are allowed access to buy the few guns they have for purchase.....

Mexico buys guns from the U.S. government....30% of those guns go missing....

Wanna guess who gets those guns?

Government, again, is the problem, not normal gun owners in the U.S.

*Mexico’s Army (SEDENA) is losing approximately 30 percent of weapons purchased from the U.S., a report from Mexican journalist Carlos Loret De Mola revealed. The report comes as Mexico’s federal government litigates against firearm manufacturers in a U.S. court, blaming them for the raging cartel violence.
---
Those missing weapons are showing up in crime scenes. Mexico’s military has also allegedly misplaced weapons bought from Germany, Australia, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Belgium.*

*In Mexico, the Army is the only entity that can purchase weapons from other countries.*









						REPORT: Mexican Army Loses 30% of Weapons Purchased from U.S.
					

Mexico’s military is allegedly working to cover up its loss of weapons purchased from other countries.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## Obiwan (Jan 6, 2022)

So the cartels found another source of guns after their former supplier (the Kenyan Faggot) left office????


----------



## wamose (Jan 6, 2022)

Was one of Biden's goals to create the most powerful narco state in the world? If it was he can check that box right along with checking the box for creating the world's most powerful terrorist organization. Nothing like arming your enemies to prove your incompetence-insanity.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 6, 2022)

Mexico is full of illegal American guns that were smuggled across the border.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 6, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Mexico is full of illegal American guns that were smuggled across the border.



No....not actually.......the Mexican government is the biggest supplier of guns to the cartels...and as a billion dollar industry they can buy guns from any country they want.....


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Government, again, is the problem, not normal gun owners in the U.S.


Yes! Government's lack of action is the problem and it's not normal gun owners who are preventing the government from taking action. It's the NRA bosses that are offside on sensible gun control measures. I won't provide the statistics because you already have them.


----------



## DudleySmith (Jan 6, 2022)

Mexico is just another narco state not a real government, and we need to treat it like the gangster hangout it is, not pander to its ridiculous whining.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jan 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Yes! Government's lack of action is the problem and it's not normal gun owners who are preventing the government from taking action. It's the NRA bosses that are offside on sensible gun control measures. I won't provide the statistics because you already have them.


Your so called sensible gun control measures will never affect criminals. If gun control actually worked gun free zones would be the safest places on Earth.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Your so called sensible gun control measures will never affect criminals. If gun control actually worked gun free zones would be the safest places on Earth.


Makes no difference to me on gun free zones, except that Canada is what could be seen as mostly gun free zones. And the shootings in our country??

2A remarked that government was to blame for the record setting gun violence and I just had to jump on the opportunity to suggest that government has failed to do what is needed to limit gun violence. 
As he suggests, it's not the fault of gun owners, it's the fault of NRA bosses, among others, that won't allow government to act.

Specific gun control measures for a start? Gun owners are mostly 'for' background checks. And then what about not disallowing the mentally ill to have them? 

Good discussion is possible this time!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Makes no difference to me on gun free zones, except that Canada is what could be seen as mostly gun free zones. And the shootings in our country??
> 
> 2A remarked that government was to blame for the record setting gun violence and I just had to jump on the opportunity to suggest that government has failed to do what is needed to limit gun violence.
> As he suggests, it's not the fault of gun owners, it's the fault of NRA bosses, among others, that won't allow government to act.
> ...


We already Have background checks and the mentally ill are already barred from owning firearms dumb ass.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We already Have background checks and the mentally ill are already barred from owning firearms dumb ass.


No, you don't have enough background checks and you don't have complete prohibition of the mentally ill using firearms.
Your namecalling is noted and if it continues we won't be having a discussion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, you don't have enough background checks and you don't have complete prohibition of the mentally ill using firearms.
> Your namecalling is noted and if it continues we won't be having a discussion.


We have all firearm sales by any FFL meaning any legal store requires a background check and yes all mentally ill are barred from owning forearms, I realize you are a Canadian and dont know our laws so I suggest you stop commenting on what you clearly do not know.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We have all firearm sales by any FFL meaning any legal store requires a background check and yes all mentally ill are barred from owning forearms, I realize you are a Canadian and dont know our laws so I suggest you stop commenting on what you clearly do not know.


You need to get yourself in the loop on the facts. Which 4 states don't have a law to prohibit. But thank you for leaving out the insults this time.

Also, 22% of guns sold in America don't require background checks. Unfortunately America lives by a culture of illegality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> You need to get yourself in the loop on the facts. Which 4 states don't have a law to prohibit. But thank you for leaving out the insults this time.
> 
> Also, 22% of guns sold in America don't require background checks. Unfortunately America lives by a culture of illegality.


The only firearms sales exempt are private sales and there is no way anyone know all of those but I seriously doubt it is 22 percent. And state law doesnt matter as Federal law does forbid sales to mentally ill and all firearms sales are federal.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only firearms sales exempt are private sales and there is no way anyone know all of those but I seriously doubt it is 22 percent. And state law doesnt matter as Federal law does forbid sales to mentally ill and all firearms sales are federal.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

And not just the 22% of guns sold without background checks, but this too:








						Nearly 300,000 Americans May Have Bought Guns Without Background Checks Amid Pandemic
					

The pandemic increased the number of background checks delayed past three days by over 50%, at which point gun dealers can sell the firearm to a buyer.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only firearms sales exempt are private sales and there is no way anyone know all of those but I seriously doubt it is 22 percent. And state law doesnt matter as Federal law does forbid sales to mentally ill and all firearms sales are federal.











						Universal background check - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

And not to even have to mention the 'Charleston loohole.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Mexico has only one gun store.  It is isolated on an army base, and only special people are allowed access to buy the few guns they have for purchase.....
> 
> Mexico buys guns from the U.S. government....30% of those guns go missing....
> 
> ...


^


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And not just the 22% of guns sold without background checks, but this too:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The background check still gets done dont lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Universal background check - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is unconstitutional and serves only one purpose to require registration of all firearms in the USA also unconstitutional.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And not to even have to mention the 'Charleston loohole.


You already mentioned it.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You already mentioned it.


No, but you may have seen it in one of the links.

In any case I still agree with 2A on government being responsible for the horrendous slaughter by gun. Gun owners aren't and he was right on that too. The NRA bosses are but they have been reduced to being a criminal enterprise that spends members' money on the finer things in life.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 6, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Mexico is full of illegal American guns that were smuggled across the border.


Full?  Not full.  Only a small percentage of the guns in Mexico are smuggled into Mexico from the states.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Mexico buys guns from the U.S. government....30% of those guns go missing....



All this recent article does is confirm that what was common before, is still happening.

The diversion of "direct military sales" from the US to the Government of Mexico (GOM) became a topic back at the very beginning of the Obama administration.

Previous State Dept investigations put the diversion at 26% back then.  This became an issue because Obama / Clinton exploded the number of those arms sales to Mexico ten-fold in 2009 without any assurances that Mexico had any handle on the diversion to the cartels.

The numbers of AR-15's sold to the GOM annually hovered around 2,400 through the 2000's; in 2009 is suddenly blew-up to 20K+.  2009 is the only year we have numbers for, after this became an issue, direct sales numbers to the GOM were made secret . . .  For all anyone knows it could have balloned to 50K or 100K; sounds like a good FOIA!

The Clinton State Dept. was well aware of the diversions and asked the GOM about the final outcomes of certain earlier contracts and if the weapons were still in the care and control of the GOM:


"Did GOM receive all 1,030 AR-15 type rifles exported under license 050016624?  Can you provide documentation demonstrating receipt of the rifles by SEDENA?  Can you provide documentation demonstrating that the firearms were transferred to and received by the Secretarias de Seguriada Publica in Baja, Chihuahua, and Michoacan? . . .  Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles."​​

			Cable: 09STATE57530_a
		


If one was paying attention back then you might remember when Obama first took office there was much fanfare about USA sourced guns being found at Mexican crime scenes and Obama's deceptive statement that *“[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States”* . . . All to push gun control in the USA, especially an "assault weapon" ban and special rules for FFL's in the SW border states.

Besides the deceptive nature of the statement itself, there is an undercurrent of duplicity when one folds in the expanded direct military sales . . .

See, those traces didn't necessarily need to point to regular gun store retail sales from US gun _*DEALERS*_ and then trafficked across the border to support the narrative, they just needed to simply be _traced back to the USA_ . . .

They knew pushing 20K+ AR's into the pipeline with a 26% diversion means they could guarantee 5,000+ AR's a year would immediately flow into the cartels and they would be used in gun fights . . . helping the 90% false claim along, and make it become true.

Now understand that the cartel being armed from the arms diversion from the GOM were the Zetas, and the cartel benefiting from Fast and Furious were their enemy, the Sinaloas and the evil Obama /  Clinton / Napolitano grand plan comes into focus.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And not to even have to mention the 'Charleston loohole.




There is no loophole...


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> There is no loophole...


It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> There is no loophole...


Correct.
it is impossible to legally avoid the background checks prescribed by state and federal law.
Thus, no loophole.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Correct.
> it is impossible to legally avoid the background checks prescribed by state and federal law.
> Thus, no loophole.


Legally is the key word. 
But legality has been sacrificed and thrown to the winds in America since Barr's run as AG. It hasn't yet been restored by MG. 
And now as it relates to the slaughter with guns, vigilante justice is being validated by the excuse of it being 'self defense'. 
The standard set in other democracies differs. 

Will the 22% of guns sold without a background check, grow larger? The sentiments of the pro-gun side at least are in favour of less background checks. That's a point that's worth debating.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Legally is the key word.
> But legality has been sacrificed and thrown to the winds in America since Barr's run as AG. It hasn't yet been restored by MG.
> And now as it relates to the slaughter with guns, vigilante justice is being validated by the excuse of it being 'self defense'.
> The standard set in other democracies differs.
> ...


Provide a link to the claim 22 percent of all firearms sales are with out background checks, I call bullshit.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide a link to the claim 22 percent of all firearms sales are with out background checks, I call bullshit.


I subtracted 78% from 100% and so I can't provide a direct link. The number can be debated but I would tend toward the 22% being larger, due to illegal gun epidemic in progress. The key word is 'legally' as I've suggested to one of the others.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns.



No.......that's not quite what I mean......

The problem is that our democrat party here in the states is releasing known, violent criminals over and over again, and on top of that, they are attacking our police, making it impossible for them to arrest and detain criminals...and then the democrat party releases the violent criminals they do catch...

That is the problem......you are too ignorant to understand the issue which is why you post the things you do...


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I subtracted 78% from 100% and so I can't provide a direct link. The number can be debated but I would tend toward the 22% being larger, due to illegal gun epidemic in progress. The key word is 'legally' as I've suggested to one of the others.




Criminals selling guns to other criminals do not undergo background checks...that is already against the law and we can already arrest any criminal caught with an illegal gun...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Legally is the key word.


And so you agree - there are no loopholes.
Good to know.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> and we can already arrest any criminal caught with an illegal gun...


No you can't, at least in the sense of your government being 'unable' to arrest a significant number of those with guns. * And also no you can't in the sense of there being no will to arrest anybody with a gun until the person commits the crime with his/her gun. *

They're all good guys with illegal guns until they commit a crime with their gun and become bad guys. 

Which brings to mind a possible solution to the gun problem! Begin a program of confiscating guns from those who haven't committed a crime with their guns, based on the guns not being legally obtained. Would you support that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I subtracted 78% from 100% and so I can't provide a direct link. The number can be debated but I would tend toward the 22% being larger, due to illegal gun epidemic in progress. The key word is 'legally' as I've suggested to one of the others.


Illegal gun sales are by definition illegal of course they dont have background checks, Legal sales are covered completely by background checks.  And even if 3 days pass the background check is STILL completed and if the buyer is disqualified the cops get involved.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No you can't, at least in the sense of your government being 'unable' to arrest a significant number of those with guns. * And also no you can't in the sense of there being no will to arrest anybody with a gun until the person commits the crime with his/her gun. *
> 
> They're all good guys with illegal guns until they commit a crime with their gun and become bad guys.
> 
> Which brings to mind a possible solution to the gun problem! Begin a program of confiscating guns from those who haven't committed a crime with their guns, based on the guns not being legally obtained. Would you support that?


We have rights how do you propose cops and ATF FIND the illegal firearms except by arresting criminals and raids on criminal enterprises?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No you can't, at least in the sense of your government being 'unable' to arrest a significant number of those with guns.


People aren't arrested until the state can show probable cause that they committed a crime.
The state is -more- than able to arrest those whose crimes they are aware of.
So, your "unable to arrest" isn't accurate.


Donald H said:


> They're all good guys with illegal guns until they commit a crime with their gun and become bad guys.


There are no illegal guns.   There -are- people who illegally posses guns.


Donald H said:


> Which brings to mind a possible solution to the gun problem! Begin a program of confiscating guns from those who haven't committed a crime with their guns,


If these people legally own their guns, why do you think they can be legally confiscated?


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Illegal gun sales are by definition illegal of course they dont have background checks, Legal sales are covered completely by background checks.  And even if 3 days pass the background check is STILL completed and if the buyer is disqualified the cops get involved.


I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.








						Universal Background Checks | Giffords
					

Universal background checks save lives from gun violence.




					giffords.org
				




And the reference to 45% appears to suggest that we up the ante from 22% to something much larger.

Are we now going to have to frame the word 'illegal' in the sense of that which is mentioned in that link?
I have to suggest that legality becomes a moot point in light of the number or guns that are sold with no background checks.

(see my question to 2A on the confiscation of guns from those who have committed no crime with their illegally procured guns)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I asked again how do you FIND the firearms to confiscate them? And except private sales all sales of firearms legally sold in this Country have a background check. You dont get to claim illegal sales which dont have background checks because they are ILLEGAL skew the number.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Getting your "facts" from anti gun sites I see. They lie, distort facts and just make shit up. There is no way that 22 percent of all firearms sales conducted legally in the States is private sales.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Getting your "facts" from anti gun sites I see. They lie, distort facts and just make shit up. There is no way that 22 percent of all firearms sales conducted legally in the States is private sales.




They aren't......but the anti-gun extremists want universal background checks....so they can get gun registration......so they will lie about private sales all day long.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We have rights how do you propose cops and ATF FIND the illegal firearms except by arresting criminals and raids on criminal enterprises?


Please try to structure your sentences correctly, so as to avoid confusion on your meaning.
You have rights.
I haven't proposed yet.
I might suggest an atmosphere of cooperation by those who own illegal guns, or have procured guns illegally. Could it be acceptable to the NRA to advise the good guys with illegal guns to declare those guns to the authorities? And then all those who declined to declare those guns, be dealt with by due punishment of having the guns confiscated? Or heavy fines?

I suggest that there doesn't exist an attitude that could contribute to confiscating illegally procured guns from gun owners who haven't committed a gun crime. 

Hence my suspicion that the 22% is much too optimistic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Please try to structure your sentences correctly, so as to avoid confusion on your meaning.
> You have rights.
> I haven't proposed yet.
> I might suggest an atmosphere of cooperation by those who own illegal guns, or have procured guns illegally. Could it be acceptable to the NRA to advise the good guys with illegal guns to declare those guns to the authorities? And then all those who declined to declare those guns, be dealt with by due punishment of having the guns confiscated? Or heavy fines?
> ...


LOL good god since the VAST majority of legal sales were accompanied by a background check you got nothing. And legal citizens dont buy illegal firearms.

As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an illegal firearm. And since we have rights , the only way cops find illegal firearms is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I might suggest an atmosphere of cooperation by those who own illegal guns, or have procured guns illegally.


There are no illegal guns, there is only illegal possession of a gun.
Why do you think those willing to commit a federal felony and illegally posses a gun are willing to "cooperate"?


Donald H said:


> Could it be acceptable to the NRA to advise the good guys with illegal guns...


There are no illegal guns, there are only illegal possession of a gun.  Illegal possession of a gun precludes you being a "good guy".


> I suggest that there doesn't exist an attitude that could contribute to confiscating illegally procured guns from gun owners who haven't committed a gun crime.
> Hence my suspicion that the 22% is much too optimistic.


Non sequitur - the latter for not in any way logically follow the former.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> They aren't......but the anti-gun extremists want universal background checks....so they can get gun registration......so they will lie about private sales all day long.


And so after all that, you come out against universal background checks!!

It looks like you've not only fouled your own nest, you've fouled the seageant's nest too!

What's the point of even trying to discuss the gun problems in America with any of you when you refer to people who want background checks as anti-gun extremists?


----------



## Abatis (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns.



How?  

Like held _legally _responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?

Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL good god since the VAST majority of legal sales were accompanied by a background check you got nothing. And legal citizens dont buy illegal firearms.
> 
> As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an illegal firearm. And since we have rights , the only way cops find illegal firearms is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.


Never mind! 2A has just fouled his nest and yours too by making it clear that he opposes background checks! You need to deal with him on his preferences on there being no universal background checks, then maybe we can continue?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And so after all that, you come out against universal background checks!!


As will any rational person.
- Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause,  restrains your exercise of a right while it determines if you are breaking a law.
- Universal background checks run afoul of the above, and, unless the person in question is stupid, are completely unenforceable.


Donald H said:


> What's the point of even trying to discuss the gun problems in America with any of you when you refer to people who want background checks as anti-gun extremists?


Why do you believe the state, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, should have the power to stop you while walking down the street and detain you while it checks for outstanding warrants?


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL good god since the VAST majority of legal sales were accompanied by a background check you got nothing. And legal citizens dont buy illegal firearms.
> 
> As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an* illegal firearm.* And since we have rights , the only way cops *find illegal firearms* is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.


And besides taking it up with 2A on his position against background checks, now you have to take up Shooter's notion that there are no illegal guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And besides taking it up with 2A on his position against background checks, now you have to take up Shooter's notion that there are no illegal guns.


Oh, you disagree?
Ok...
How am I wrong?


----------



## AMart (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Yes! Government's lack of action is the problem and it's not normal gun owners who are preventing the government from taking action. It's the NRA bosses that are offside on sensible gun control measures. I won't provide the statistics because you already have them.


And here we go thread derail on page 1. This is about Mexico.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you believe the state, absent reasonable suspicuion or probable cause, should have the power to stop you while walking down the street and detain you while it checks for outstanding warrants?


And so now do you understand why I refuse to discuss anything with you when you deliberately misrepresent my position? You've somehow been able to turn 'background checks' into police stopping people walking down the street, etc., etc.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh, you disagree?
> Ok...
> How am I wrong?


 the sargeant: 





> As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an* illegal firearm.* And since we have rights , the only way cops find *illegal firearms* is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And so now do you understand why I refuse to discuss anything with you when you deliberately misrepresent my position?


You support background checks.

There is no conceptual difference between the restraint by the state for the purchase of a firearm and the restraint by state in stopping you while walking down the street and detain you while it checks for outstanding warrants.
If you support the former, you cannot present a sound argument against the latter.

And so, I have -perfectly- represented your position.

Oh, you disagree?
Ok...
How am I wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> the sargeant:


This does not in any way prove -me- wrong.
Every law makes -possession- of a particular firearm illegal.
Not the firearm, but the -possession- of same.

Oh, you disagree?
Ok...
How am I wrong?


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

Abatis said:


> How?
> 
> Like held _legally _responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?


A case could be made against a congressman/woman who has accepted bribe money from the gun lobbyists or gun manufacturers.


Abatis said:


> Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?


From a Canadian POV, I say citizens do have that right.

'Safety' is among the criteria used to judge a country's quality of life.









						Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News
					

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.




					dailyhive.com
				





*Canada*
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Australia
Netherlands
Switzerland
New Zealand
Finland
Germany
Austria
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Japan
*United States*
France
Portugal
Spain
China
Singapore
I would suggest this is relating directly to lack of safety from gun violence.
Thank you for raising the issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> A case could be made against a congressman/woman who has accepted bribe money from the gun lobbyists or gun manufacturers.


Really?   Why do you think so?
How does taking contributions from a lobbyist in support/opposition of a law, conceptually or precedentially, make you _legally_ responsible for the effect of that law or the absence of same?
In what other contexts do you believe this concept applies?
Additionally-
If you choose to refuse to _enforce _a law, are you _legally _responsible for what comes later?
Why or why not?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Never mind! 2A has just fouled his nest and yours too by making it clear that he opposes background checks! You need to deal with him on his preferences on there being no universal background checks, then maybe we can continue?


I already told you I am against it too. It is an attempt to get registration so that eventually the Government can confiscate all legal firearms. And you claiming that makes us against background checks is a lie we support the current laws.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We have rights how do you propose cops and ATF FIND the illegal firearms except by arresting criminals and raids on criminal enterprises?


I'm sure he wants the government to go house to house and search and stop and frisk everyone on the street.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do realize that the "Giffords Center" is an activist anti-gun group.  The article is propaganda, not actual facts.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You do realize that the "Giffords Center" is an activist anti-gun group.  The article is propaganda, not actual facts.


On a -good- day, it's propaganda.
On a typical day,k its outright lies:

*Universal background checks are essential to close deadly loopholes in our laws*
^^^   
An outright lie

*a dangerous and deadly loophole in federal gun laws still exempts unlicensed sellers from having to perform any background check whatsoever before selling a firearm.*
^^^
An outright lie

*Because of this loophole,*
^^^
An outright lie

*Since the federal background check requirement was adopted in 1994, over 3 million people legally prohibited from possessing a gun have been stopped from purchasing a gun or denied a permit to purchase.*
^^^
An outright lie

_Ad nauseam_


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just one obvious lie is that "online sales" avoid background checks.  Online gun sales have to be delivered to a licensed gun dealer who is required to run a Federal Background check before releasing the gun to the purchaser.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> And so now do you understand why I refuse to discuss anything with you when you deliberately misrepresent my position? You've somehow been able to turn 'background checks' into police stopping people walking down the street, etc., etc.


You're the one saying that the government should confiscate what you are calling "illegal guns".  The only way to do that is "stop and frisk" or universal home and business searches.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You're the one saying that the government should confiscate what you are calling "illegal guns".  The only way to do that is "stop and frisk" or universal home and business searches.


No, you too are misrepresenting what I've said. Stop it or you'll be treated the same way I treat shooter.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 7, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I already told you I am against it too. It is an attempt to get registration so that eventually the Government can confiscate all legal firearms. And you claiming that makes us against background checks is a lie we support the current laws.


 I'm good with you saying that you are against background checks. That's coming some distance from where we started. 

The notion that the government is going to confiscate all legal firearms is pure nonsense, and below a level on which I will carry on a conversation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I'm good with you saying that you are against background checks. That's coming some distance from where we started.
> 
> The notion that the government is going to confiscate all legal firearms is pure nonsense, and below a level on which I will carry on a conversation.


Several PROMINENT Democrats have said that is the goal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, you too are misrepresenting what I've said. Stop it or you'll be treated the same way I treat shooter.


You'll, again, tuck tail and run away from an argument you know you can't support, much less win?
How -dare- you threaten him like that!?!?!?!?!


----------



## Abatis (Jan 8, 2022)

Donald H said:


> A case could be made against a congressman/woman who has accepted bribe money from the gun lobbyists or gun manufacturers.



So you can't actually _make the case_ that, "government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns".

Do you really expect 2aguy to "understand" a figment of your imagination; a condition you feel he needs to understand, but you can not explain how it exists?



Donald H said:


> From a Canadian POV, I say citizens do have that right.
> 
> 'Safety' is among the criteria used to judge a country's quality of life.



And now you want to offer more Canauk conjecture as a reply focused on American law?

I make this easy for you, *NO*, there is no enforceable right to be "safe" and especially to "feel safe" in law in the USA.  

No government agents (e.g., police) are duty bound to protect a person from harm even if they are aware of an imminent threat, nor can they be sued for not protecting a person from harm, even if assurances were made that protection service would be provided . . . 

The only exception is when government action has eliminated a person's ability to act in their own self defense (incarceration or other custodial condition).


----------



## fncceo (Jan 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> 30% of those guns go missing....



I'm guessing that is a VERY low-ball estimate.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 8, 2022)

Abatis said:


> So you can't actually _make the case_ that, "government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns".


I thought that was already agreed upon by the progunners and 2A?
And the rest of your message? I don't get your point?


----------



## Abatis (Jan 9, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I thought that was already agreed upon by the progunners and 2A?



You thought?  Nothing is clear about what you think.  You still have not fleshed out what "responsible" means in the context of you chastising a well versed gun rights supporter, that, "_It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns_."  

That seemed arrogantly snide and an attempt to settle as fact something you never attempted to establish, and as a matter of law, never could.  Which is why I asked you, "How?  Like held _legally _responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?"

I hoped for at least a feeble attempt to salvage your point (whatever it was) but of course you failed and continue to.



Donald H said:


> And the rest of your message? I don't get your point?



Well, if you remember, the post asking you about your "government is responsible" statement had two parts, those questions were trying to give you different opportunities to explain what you meant by "responsible".  The second part simply asked, "Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?"

To me, when someone says a person or entity is "responsible" for something, that means they stand some degree of accountability or even legal exposure for failing to fulfill or provide that "responsibility".  In the gun rights vs. gun control debate, an often stated anti-gunner argument is, "your right to own a gun does not outweigh my right to be safe"; I was just trying to see if you were an adherent to that flawed premise.

Of course your answer was profoundly lacking and I took the opportunity to explain the finer points of the law on that question to you.

Oh well, it could have been fun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 9, 2022)

Abatis said:


> You thought?  Nothing is clear about what you think.  You still have not fleshed out what "responsible" means in the context of you chastising a well versed gun rights supporter, that, "_It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns_."


That's because he's only here to post unsupportable nonsense.   
He has no intention, or capacity,  to defend it, and he'll run away from you the moment its clear you expect him to.
He's a troll.
Don;t feed him.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 9, 2022)

Abatis said:


> "_It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns_."


If government can't stop the slaughter, who can?


Abatis said:


> Like held _legally _responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?"


I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.


Abatis said:


> I hoped for at least a feeble attempt to salvage your point (whatever it was) but of course you failed and continue to.


I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.


Abatis said:


> Well, if you remember, the post asking you about your "government is responsible" statement had two parts, those questions were trying to give you different opportunities to explain what you meant by "responsible".  The second part simply asked, "Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?"


Part one is apparently where I said that government should/is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter. Responsible could mean 'held accountable' but that doesn't mean 'for deaths by bun, it means, 'held accountable' for stopping the slaughter.

Part two should be clear to everyone. Without part two you can't have life, liberty, and the pursuit, blah, blah.

I hope I've clarified my position. If not then let me know again.

And a question for you: Who do you think is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter? Assuming that you think it should be stopped?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

Donald H said:


> If government can't stop the slaughter, who can?
> 
> I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.
> 
> ...




Yes......the government, the democrat party in the cities with the worst gun crime.....must stop releasing violent gun offenders over and over again.....they keep letting the worst of the worst out of jail and prison......

Can you explain why they keep releasing gun offenders with multiple felony convictions over and over again?


----------



## Donald H (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Can you explain why they keep releasing gun offenders with multiple felony convictions over and over again?


Yes, with several reasons.
First, those parolled are always going to be a gamble. But the gamble is closely weighed against the risk of the subject reoffending. Typically the reoffending risk is higher in America but it's still weighing out on the positive side. So instead of more 'is not, is nots', a look at the statistical evidence is called for. And if America's corrupted penal system of punishment instead of rehabilitation can't bear the parole system then it may need to turn to more death sentences or perhaps Gulags in northern Alaska? I strongly suggest that adjustments are needed befor the baby is thrown out with the bath water. And firstly, rehabilitation be considered.

Second, reform of the system that purposely upholds gun violence on the pretense of gun owners having a right to use their guns in any way they see fit on a trial basis. Those bad guys are all good guys until they exercise their second amendment right.

And third, perhaps American must look outward to other countries where the gun violence is much less than in America, but gun owners are perfectly happy with their gun rights. Thereby causing those gun owners to find the level of murder of school children, within acceptable levels as weighed against their freedom to own and use their guns.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 9, 2022)

Democrats release firearm offenders on bail even when they have committed numerous offenses, they give them no jail time or such a short time as to be a joke. They drop firearm charges or plead them away. As for good guys none of the offenders are good guys,


----------



## Donald H (Jan 9, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Democrats release firearm offenders on bail even when they have committed numerous offenses,


Your comments are deserving of a closer look at parolees that could fit your suggestions.
If there are indeed instances of that which you suggest, then the system probably needs some adjustments. Can you provide an example of two of the more egregious examples? Keeping in mind of course that all parole systems have some instances of failure.

Weigh it against the need to incarcerate more Americans in a world record setting prison system that is bulging at the seams and is costing the taxpayers unacceptable expense. 


RetiredGySgt said:


> they give them no jail time or such a short time as to be a joke.


Anecdotal evidence.


RetiredGySgt said:


> They drop firearm charges or plead them away. As for good guys none of the offenders are good guys,



Would you advocate abandoning the status quo of pleading to lesser crimes? Can you then provide some specifics?


----------



## Abatis (Jan 9, 2022)

Donald H said:


> If government can't stop the slaughter, who can?



I understand that government has been granted certain powers in the public safety sphere.  That doesn't mean it can exercise any power you can conjure that you feel has some relationship to public safety.

I would say that those powers are concentrated on the slaughterer, rather than blanket powers to restrain the actions of the the general public at large.



Donald H said:


> I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.
> 
> I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.



So, "responsible" but not "legally responsible" . . .

Now we are back to you failing to develop at all _what_ you believe "responsible" means in the context of, "_stopping the slaughter with guns_", other than whatever it is, 2aguy must understand it.  I was questioning your assignment of that definitiveness to 2aguy about something that I predicted you don't  understand yourself.



Donald H said:


> Part one is apparently where I said that government should/is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter. Responsible could mean 'held accountable' but that doesn't mean 'for deaths by bun, it means, 'held accountable' for stopping the slaughter.



Held accountable but without legal recoure for failing in its responsibility?  Are you going to send someone to bed without dinner?



Donald H said:


> Part two should be clear to everyone. Without part two you can't have life, liberty, and the pursuit, blah, blah.



In law there is no recourse to hold anyone in government accountable / responsible for failing to "stop the slaughter with guns".  The duty or obligation is owed to society at large, not to any particular citizen.  That's why governments have immunized themselves from any legal actions for failing to keep any citizen safe.

In my understanding, the right to life is the right to defend your life, an immunity from government prosecuting you for harming another person, even homicide in justified self defense.



Donald H said:


> I hope I've clarified my position. If not then let me know again.



You have not clarified anything but proving you did not understand what you were demanding 2aguy understand.



Donald H said:


> And a question for you: Who do you think is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter? Assuming that you think it should be stopped?



Government is empowered with a myriad of legal tools to protect society from slaughterers.  I believe protecting society from slaughterers is an obligation we citizens have placed on government, to apply the laws prohibiting slaughtering people as the bicameral legislature passed them and the executive signed.

For those empowered with enforcing law, it is their duty, their responsibility to execute the powers of their office to that effect, to fairly and effectively use those powers against those who have broken the laws in the criminal code.  It is not in their power to expand or obviate the criminal code, deciding which laws are really worth enforcing or worse, inventing crimes not in the code . . .  Which means their powers do not extend to excusing criminals or harassing citizens who have not broken laws, nor is it in their power to implement political or social policy.

So, do I believe it is the responsibility of government to stop slaughterers?  Damn right!

Difference between you and me is I understand how the law actually works and I want to see the law used.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 9, 2022)

I said: 





> I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.
> 
> I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.[/quote}
> 
> ...


----------



## Abatis (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I said:
> 
> I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.
> 
> ...



I understand you are forcing the word "responsible" into leftist sillytalk.







Donald H said:


> Government must be held responsible for enacting laws to stop the slaugher by guns.



Is government's "responsibility" fulfilled by mere enactment of laws without any duty to enforce them?  

Government's responsibility has been fulfilled many times over.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 10, 2022)

Abatis said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Is government's "responsibility" fulfilled by mere enactment of laws without any duty to enforce them?


No, but you still haven't understood what I've said. But to the new point you're trying to raise, there are likely laws that prohibit the police from murdering black men on the street with their guns, and many instances where the laws against doing so aren't enforced. As we have come to agree, America is immersed in a slaughter by gun. 

But to return to that which I said: 



> I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.
> 
> I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.[/quote}
> 
> Do you understand the difference in those two sentences?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, but you still haven't understood what I've said. But to the new point you're trying to raise, there are likely laws that prohibit the police from murdering black men on the street with their guns, and many instances where the laws against doing so aren't enforced. As we have come to agree, America is immersed in a slaughter by gun.
> 
> But to return to that which I said:


LOL police are not murdering black men in the street.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL police are not murdering black men in the street.


In fact it can't be ignored but we could turn to the new topic of 'defunding the police' as the appropriate topic that makes the point better than our departure from the 'guns' question.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> . But to the new point you're trying to raise, there are likely laws that prohibit the police from murdering black men on the street with their guns, and many instances where the laws against doing so aren't enforced.


"Many instances"?
Such as?


----------



## Donald H (Jan 10, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Many instances"?
> Such as?


Take it to the appropriate topic where you will at least stand a chance of getting my attention.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Take it to the appropriate topic where you will at least stand a chance of getting my attention.


You brought it up now cant substantiate your claim?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Take it to the appropriate topic where you will at least stand a chance of getting my attention.


So, you know you can't cite -any- such instances.
Thought so.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You brought it up now cant substantiate your claim?


Chances are I might try with you at least, when you take it to the appropriate topic.
The suggestion being the murder of black men by police on America's streets. 
Not the 2A.
Quote me there so I won't miss the notification.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Chances are I might try with you at least, when you take it to the appropriate topic.
> The suggestion being the murder of black men by police on America's streets.


Yes.  
And you cannot demonstrate this actually happens.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2022)

2021 blacks killed by police. Full List of Black People Killed By Police in 2021

the article does not list the reason for the shooting but as in MOST police shootings the large majority were justified.

from the article  

[Black people continue to be disproportionately impacted by police violence, the data shows. Black people account for 27 percent of those killed by police in 2021 (of those whose race is known), despite making up 13 percent of the U.S. population.]

this fails to mention that 37 percent of all violent crimes are committed by blacks so at 27 percent shot they are under represented according to crimes.


From the article 

[Black people are three times more likely to be killed by police, yet 1.3 times more likely to be unarmed compared to white people, according to MPV.]

Again fails to mention that blacks are 3 times more likely to be committing a violent crime then whites. And it fails to mention that blacks have a tendency to disobey cops when stopped, to resist and fight with cops.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 2021 blacks killed by police. Full List of Black People Killed By Police in 2021


Don't try to disprove a claim he has done nothing to support.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2022)

In 2021, Police Killed 4 Unarmed Blacks, Blacks Killed An Estimated 26 Police Officers | VDARE Video Bulletin | Videos
					

It’s real simple: four unarmed blacks were kille...




					vdare.com
				




and this.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I already told you I am against it too. It is an attempt to get registration so that eventually the Government can confiscate all legal firearms. And you claiming that makes us against background checks is a lie we support the current laws.


Only two countries in the world have confiscated all firearms. The vast majority just have sensible rules/laws/regulations. That's why America is high on the list for gun incidents.

Rules/laws,/regulations don't stop gun incidents, they reduce them, just like rules/laws/regulations with vehicles. Without these, the likes of the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc.. would have dreadful gun stats like America.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Only two countries in the world have confiscated all firearms. The vast majority just have sensible rules/laws/regulations. That's why America is high on the list for gun incidents.


Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 10, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 2021 blacks killed by police. Full List of Black People Killed By Police in 2021


Alright, if you won't take it to the appropriate thread, I'll address all that here.


RetiredGySgt said:


> the article does not list the reason for the shooting but as in MOST police shootings the large majority were justified.


Yes, there are justified shooting and perhaps even most? But here's something that speaks directly to the point. In Canada the police carry guns, as do police in America, and so we may need to look at the number of police shooting in both countries, per capita, to determine the answer on 'shooting being justified. As well as some other considerations that may answer the question.


RetiredGySgt said:


> from the article
> 
> [Black people continue to be disproportionately impacted by police violence, the data shows. Black people account for 27 percent of those killed by police in 2021 (of those whose race is known), despite making up 13 percent of the U.S. population.]
> 
> this fails to mention that 37 percent of all violent crimes are committed by blacks so at 27 percent shot they are under represented according to crimes.


You could  be right. Blacks in America are guilty of more crime per capita than whites in America. We need to examine the reasons for that. I'll begin by suggesting that black crime and behaviour has been created by whites refusing equality. Or, if you don't accept that then maybe you can offer another reason(s)?
Bad people in America requires police lethal action more than in Canada?


RetiredGySgt said:


> From the article
> 
> [Black people are three times more likely to be killed by police, yet 1.3 times more likely to be unarmed compared to white people, according to MPV.]
> 
> Again fails to mention that blacks are 3 times more likely to be committing a violent crime then whites. And it fails to mention that blacks have a tendency to disobey cops when stopped, to resist and fight with cops.


I'll accept your answer as possibly correct, with cautious reservations.

But you have granted me the original premise on black men being shot dead (murdered?) on the streets more often than whites. In fairness you have offered some possible reasons and some possible justifications why that is true.

I've said many times that America has a race problem and that's something different from the racism problem. Do you understand what that means? If so then it can only add validation the points on which we agree. (agree with my certain reservations)

It's an issue that requires much more thought and discussion. Are you capable and willing?

edit: Here's a quick look at police shooting rates in Canada.


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/police-shootings-2020-yer-review-1.5849788


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence.


Does that mean you feel gun regulation and low gun incidents to be a coincidence in the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc..? Amazing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Alright, if you won't take it to the appropriate thread, I'll address all that here.
> 
> Yes, there are justified shooting and perhaps even most? But here's something that speaks directly to the point. In Canada the police carry guns, as do police in America, and so we may need to look at the number of police shooting in both countries, per capita, to determine the answer on 'shooting being justified. As well as some other considerations that may answer the question.


# of shootings per capita does nothing to determine if the shootings, in general or specifically, are justified or not.
Violent crime in the US is, per capita, higher than that in Canada; the natural result is the police in the US will shoot more people.


Donald H said:


> You could  be right. Blacks in America are guilty of more crime per capita than whites in America. We need to examine the reasons for that. I'll begin by suggesting that black crime and behaviour has been created by whites refusing equality.


I can't disagree with this until yu make an honest effort to demonstrare it to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Does that mean you feel gun regulation...


No.
It means I want you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence.        
It's -your- claim; the onus is on you to support it.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 10, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I can't disagree with this until yu make an honest effort to demonstrare it to be true.


Bugger off, you can't even get it right on whose point you're trying to argue now!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Bugger off, you can't even get it right on whose point you're trying to argue now!


As usual - I accept your concession of the point.
That was easy.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Does that mean you feel gun regulation...


Still waiting for you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence.        
It's -your- claim; the onus is on you to support it.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Still waiting for you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence.
> It's -your- claim; the onus is on you to support it.


More guns is the answer.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> More guns is the answer.


And, again, I accept your concession.
When you finally think you can demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence, let us know.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And, again, I accept your concession.
> When you finally think you can demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence, let us know.


More guns gun nut.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> More guns gun nut.


You already admitted you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence.
No need to further reinforce the point.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You already admitted you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in the UK, NZ, OZ etc, and their lower (than US) rates of gun-related violence.
> No need to further reinforce the point.


More guns me thinks.


----------



## Donald H (Jan 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> More guns me thinks.


In Canada, not allowing handguns on the streets is the main difference as it applies to guns.
I've never heard a better explanation for the huge difference.
I've heard it argued that the American mindset of military violence has a carry over effect on young men seeing some glamour in guns, which stays with them when they mature. But I know that's a significant effect on young men in Canada too. I was one.

Canada will never adopt any law similar to 'stand your ground'. They're a license to murder! 
Our powers that be who make laws aren't of the opinion that a death is a desirable outcome, while most Americans do.  They're not shy about saying so.

So there's a few possible reasons why those other countries' laws make a difference!


----------



## whitehall (Jan 12, 2022)

In a just world, former president Obama, his A.G. and ranking members of the ATF would face charges of negligent homicide in the death of a Border Patrol Officer who was murdered by one of the weapons shipped to Mexico in "Operation Fast/Furious" but strangely enough nobody in the ATF was even fired.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> More guns me thinks.


Yes, yes - you conceded.  We know.
No need to further surrender.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

Donald H said:


> In Canada, not allowing handguns on the streets is the main difference as it applies to guns.


I would disagree with this, but I know you cannot demonstrate it to be true, so there's no need.


Donald H said:


> Canada will never adopt any law similar to 'stand your ground'. They're a license to murder!


How did you develop this particular mal-understanding of 'stand your ground'?


----------

