[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Then you're not spending as much time on here as it seems...
How about knife and machete violence?

Ten mass murder events using knives/machetes/other bladed weapons since 2009 in Europe. That's 10 mass murders spread across several countries.

Compare to the US, where there have been over 30 mass murders using firearms, only since January 2024, and 2025 isn't over yet.

Canada effectively ended gun ownership a few years back, and the gun violence in Toronto and surrounding areas hasn't slowed down even a little. Because the criminals using them don't follow the law. Imagine that.

Yes, you'd have to imagine that, since it's not true.

Canadian citizens are allowed to own firearms, but they must first obtain a firearms license and must adhere to strict regulations, including completing a firearms safety course and passing background checks for mental health and criminal history. Firearms are classified into non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited categories, with different rules for each. For example, a national freeze on the sale and transfer of most handguns is in place, and specific rifles and shotguns are classified as non-restricted.

A national freeze on SALE AND TRANSFER of "most handguns" does not end gun ownership. If you own a gun, you own it. You're an owner. You are a person who has gun ownership. You can't sell your pistol, or transfer your right to own it to someone else. But you can have your pistol - as long as you comply with the regulations regarding safety, background checks, and licensing.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yes, you'd have to imagine that, since it's not true.

Canadian citizens are allowed to own firearms, but they must first obtain a firearms license and must adhere to strict regulations, including completing a firearms safety course and passing background checks for mental health and criminal history. Firearms are classified into non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited categories, with different rules for each. For example, a national freeze on the sale and transfer of most handguns is in place, and specific rifles and shotguns are classified as non-restricted.

A national freeze on SALE AND TRANSFER of "most handguns" does not end gun ownership. If you own a gun, you own it. You're an owner. You are a person who has gun ownership. You can't sell your pistol, or transfer your right to own it to someone else. But you can have your pistol - as long as you comply with the regulations regarding safety, background checks, and licensing.

Sorry, you're the one imagining. You can have a handgun in Canada only if you already have one (or you are a criminal).

The national handgun freeze, codified into law in December 2023, prohibits the sale, purchase, transfer, or importation of handguns by individuals, with limited exceptions for certain groups and purposes .

Handguns are not illegal in Canada. However, the legal framework has become restrictive:

Existing Owners: Individuals who lawfully possessed handguns before the freeze can continue to own and use them for purposes like target shooting and collecting.
Transfers: You cannot transfer a handgun to another individual unless they qualify for an exemption.
Registration Certificates: New registration certificates for handguns are not being issued to individuals, effectively preventing new ownership .

source

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Sorry, you're the one imagining. You can have a handgun in Canada only if you already have one (or you are a criminal).

The national handgun freeze, codified into law in December 2023, prohibits the sale, purchase, transfer, or importation of handguns by individuals, with limited exceptions for certain groups and purposes .

Handguns are not illegal in Canada. However, the legal framework has become restrictive:

Existing Owners: Individuals who lawfully possessed handguns before the freeze can continue to own and use them for purposes like target shooting and collecting.
Transfers: You cannot transfer a handgun to another individual unless they qualify for an exemption.
Registration Certificates: New registration certificates for handguns are not being issued to individuals, effectively preventing new ownership .

source

That's what I just said. You quoted the words I posted. Maybe re-read it. My response was to you claiming that "gun ownership" was mostly ended in Canada. NEW handgun ownership is prevented. But other firearms - rifles and shotguns - are not restricted, and people who already own handguns may keep them. I said that. You responded to it. Please re-read what I posted.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Then which is it? A gun problem, or a USA problem?

Just like some people are addicted to drugs, some Americans are addicted to guns. It's a compulsive disorder like gambling.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Yes. And there's plenty of stabbing and other crime to make up for the lack of guns.

You are deflecting. Stick to the subject ... guns.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

No idea what a "whack job" looks like. I was quoting OBB. Ask her...

To the rest of your post, do you stay up at night inventing these ridiculous fantasy scenarios with no basis in reality?

No. I make them up on the spot. Entertainment, don't you think. Of course they are thoughtful responses to scenarios given by those I respond to. Fun really. I realize I will not change minds, but it's nice to voice a different point of view.
And I sleep pretty soundly. Thanks for asking.

[villagernewbie]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

When you read Amendments to the US Constitution, you begin reading on the 14th or 15th word. The first 13 words are incidental nonsense and don't count.

Probably SCOTUS' biggest mistake. Just think if they had ruled differently, been consistent about it applying to "a well regulated militia" and how many more innocent people, especially children, would still be alive today.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by villagernewbie

Probably SCOTUS' biggest mistake. Just think if they had ruled differently, been consistent about it applying to "a well regulated militia" and how many more innocent people, especially children, would still be alive today.

Not their finest moment. Justice Scalia was an ego maniac, mired in historical and political muck. Not Reagan's finest appointment in my opinion.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Yup, it's a YOU issue. Projecting one's insecurities onto others is most certainly a psychological issue...

I think you may have missed something. The issue is guns and the desire/need/compulsion to openly display one's weapons is, imho, just plain foolishness. "That ain't me, babe". If one is so insecure that they feel they need to carry a gun and display it in public, I see that as a frightened person. Frighted people make mistakes under stress. Make bad choices. Avoid them. They are tragedies looking for a place to happen. They should be carrying a teddy bear instead of a gun, for everyone's safety.
Note: I have no real problem with gun ownership or concealed carry, in general. I just think that in 99.9×100% of the time it is unnecessary. Yeah, there is the miniscule chance that you may actually be in a situation where you might be able to help. Or, maybe not.

[ThirdOfFive]

Interesting thread! Lots of fear expressed that experience has, over and over again, disproved.

A few years back my wife and I, both holders of permits-to-carry, attended a Second Amendment rally on the grounds of the State Capitol in St. Paul, MN. Several hundred of us there and most were carrying, many openly (which is legal in Minnesota). Besides the exhibits, there were some pretty well-known speakers, both state and national.

There were cops there, too. Several uniformed LEOs were ringing the rally--all facing AWAY from the attendees. There was a cop among the attendees too; a St. Paul uniformed officer who was having just as good a time as the rest of us, checking out the exhibits and passing the time of day with attendees and presenters.

It occurred to me (and to probably most of the other attendees) that what we SAW there was diametrically opposite to what we had HEARD so often from various sources about the dangers of people carrying firearms. Several hundred armed citizens--and most of the cops, with the exception of the one enjoying the rally with the rest of us, had their backs turned. THEY knew of the danger--and it wasn't with us attendees.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

You are deflecting. Stick to the subject ... guns.

Not deflecting; pointing out to the gun control proponents there are other weapons to commit violent acts that don't involve guns for the criminals that are hell-bent on doing so.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

No. I make them up on the spot. Entertainment, don't you think. Of course they are thoughtful responses to scenarios given by those I respond to. Fun really. I realize I will not change minds, but it's nice to voice a different point of view.
And I sleep pretty soundly. Thanks for asking.

Pot, meet kettle. 90% of your comments are attempts at humor that deflect from the topic at hand.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Whatnext

Still half the number of cases than US. to next worse country. Britain.

Is that number "Per Capita" or "In Total". If it's "In Total", of course every country in Europe would have less, as their individual populations are dwarfed by the US...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

No. I make them up on the spot. Entertainment, don't you think. Of course they are thoughtful responses to scenarios given by those I respond to. Fun really. I realize I will not change minds, but it's nice to voice a different point of view.
And I sleep pretty soundly. Thanks for asking.

"Thoughtful"? Not really. "Imaginative"? Most likely...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by villagernewbie

Probably SCOTUS' biggest mistake. Just think if they had ruled differently, been consistent about it applying to "a well regulated militia" and how many more innocent people, especially children, would still be alive today.

First, you would have to know what was meant by "A well regulated militia"...

It was using the language of the time. "Well regulated" meant "In good working order".

And militia "was" the people... Not some standing army...

It wasn't for hunting. It was so "the people" could protect themselves from a tyrannical government. You know, like the one they had just fought a very blood war from which to escape.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I think you may have missed something. The issue is guns and the desire/need/compulsion to openly display one's weapons is, imho, just plain foolishness. "That ain't me, babe". If one is so insecure that they feel they need to carry a gun and display it in public, I see that as a frightened person. Frighted people make mistakes under stress. Make bad choices. Avoid them. They are tragedies looking for a place to happen. They should be carrying a teddy bear instead of a gun, for everyone's safety.
Note: I have no real problem with gun ownership or concealed carry, in general. I just think that in 99.9×100% of the time it is unnecessary. Yeah, there is the miniscule chance that you may actually be in a situation where you might be able to help. Or, maybe not.

I've already addressed this "so called need". It's nonsense. Concealed carry can be VERY uncomfortable. For some, open carry is the correct option.

Your "compulsion, insecurity, frightened person" accusation is pure projection.