There's a super obvious answer here... no it doesn't STOP it completely... nothing ever does... but reduction is the key.

You cannot argue with historical facts.

Australia had that big shooting, got rid of powerful guns/put in a registry under a conservative government (there were no LOBBIES... so they did what made sense not what their corporate sponsors told them to do).

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JXQD...20.0.0.0.0.jpg

The results speak for themselves.

It’s a completely different world today. Not gonna fly. Lol like legit in the current state of the world you think even the most liberal country is going to have citizens willingly turn in guns? I sure as hell wouldn’t.

Like I just posted, the liberal govt. here doesn’t know how to do it. They know people are just going to ignore it, hence the pushback of over a year of Trudeaus super duper gun buy back.

It seems like u guys are argueing different points and assume the other knows the obvious that things wont change in the states. But interpreting it as it wont work.

We're not talking about 1850 vs 2022 here... 1996 wasn't a whole world ago.

New Zealand just did it in 2019.

Is that a different world?

If lobbyists didn't pay politicians in the USA (this is the primary problem in that country), they'd be working on getting this done... they wouldn't be saying inflammatory stuff about their stupid amendments for that crowd to slurp up and get all in a lather about their rights... they'd capitulate to reason like every other place in the world does eventually.

1996.. a pre-911 world without widespread internet usage.. lol come on.

With media the way it is today and the prevalence of heinous violent crimes, no one is going to get on board with that.

I’d say NZ isn’t exactly a comparable to North America or even most of Europe. NZ almost has the sale total population of BC..

Man don't even remind me of our now banned firearms lol I have them sitting in their cases in my closet and I get angry every time I go in the room and glance over haha. I know there's no turning back just get this stupid buy back rolling so I can be done with it so I can finally go into grieving mode.

False. Again, it's a culture thing. You don't see it in Canada because it's not prevalent. In a major city you can walk in to a store and buy as many mags and rounds as you want. Or you can go online and order it all in a matter of minutes and they'll ship it to your door registered mail anywhere in the country and it's yours in a week. There's no limit on how much someone can buy here you just don't see hoarding and marketing to hoarders like you do in the US. I agree their gun shows are nuts.
No, because no one is literally firing hundreds of rounds without reloading even a belt fed machine gun can't do that. We're talking 30 vs 5 or 10 for common rifle magazines. Yes there are drum mags but they're relatively uncommon though to be fair to your point one of the Columbine shooters did use 'larger' capacity 9mm mags. Did it contribute? Maybe at a very micro level but the magazine size was not the macro cause. One kid had 13 10rnd mags the other had a 52, 32, and 28. Total semantics at that point. They were also too young and got all their stuff illegally.

The root causes of this are social issues, excessive ease of accessibility as a result of culture, and no/useless background checks. Basic licensing and comprehensive federal background check like we have here in Canada would be a great place to start down there, but it'll never happen. If those measures were in place the number of mass shooters in the US who wouldn't have been able to acquire a firearm legally would have been drastically cut off. I can't find the article now but I read one a while ago that stated something like 90% of the mass shooters from Columbine onward had been prescribed anti-depressants at some point in their past. That would have disqualified them from legal ownership if there were any actual rules in place. The US wants Wild West laws and then are surprised when Wild West happens.

So let’s say that same buyback program in the Australia was able to achieve somthing similar. That article says it accounted for 20% of the guns in the country

20% of the guns in the USA is 80 million, compared to the 650,000 in Australia

Aus bought them back at “market rate”. So let’s say the average is $300, which these days you can’t buy the shittiest cheapest firearm for $300.

$300 x 80 million = 24 billion dollars

Not going to happen lol, sorry. To think the US govt. would approve a 24 billion dollar gun buy back program (which obviously it would be wayyyy more than that) I think We’ve got a better chance of the moon colliding with earth

Or 3.09% of the annual us military budget. Assuming it would take 2-3 years then we’re talking <1% of the annual budget.

American's have this odd fear a apocalypse might happen and every time a incident happens like this its always Buy more they "might take it away" moment.



Because Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself anyone else can if shit hits the fan.

Took them a couple hours to agree to send $40 billion to Ukraine.

Why not $24 billion to buy back guns?

The other day in Sacremento police held a buy-back program for for $50 gas cards.

They had so many people drop off guns that program ran out of gas cards in 45 minutes, and people were still dropping them off after in exchange for nothing....


https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/11006...r-guns-buyback

There are obviously a lot of people willing to give up their guns if incentivized to do so. If a $50 gas card can do it, imagine $200!

A lot of people seem to be forgetting the one thing Americans love more than guns. Money.

Also yea our mags are limited to 5 but the magazine you buy can still and often are 30 round mags with a pin in it which you can easily just remove and now you got 30 rounds if you so choose to.

^ That's great, where there's a will there's a way.

But how many mass shootings do we have in Canada? Is it even 1% of the USA?

It's not because people COULD drill a pin out of a magazine if they felt inclined to. All that is, is people who are so-called experts sitting around being smug saying "They don't know what they're talking about, I could bypass that real easy" and feeling better about themselves. Yah nothing can stop the ultimate motivated person, we get it.

I generally enjoy a good debate but I don’t really love arguing that more children are likely to die

Buy back the guns, send them to Ukraine, call it a military relief fund *taps forehead*

can someone explain this?

Police admitted that they didn't send anyone in while the guy was killing kids, because they were worried one of the cops "could have been shot"

So these kids basically sacrificed themselves for those pigs

rumor is going on a cop saved his kid and ran out the place waiting for back-up.


and other police were fighting parents not to run in and try save their kids.

Well of course that happened. Theres no way in hell a cop that had a kid inside would wait for backup. Anyones whose a parent would risk their lives to save their kids. Yet god forbid the cops letting anyone else save their own kids..... Theres a video on twitter apparently of the sergeant already admitting that there was cops going against protocol to save there kids

Edit

https://mobile.twitter.com/sawyerhac...719480320?s=21

A friend sent me this.

Oh, I see. So people are calling the cops cowards...

These are my initial thoughts.

1. If I were a parent who was outside, I would have 100% ran in there to try and save my kid. No one would be able to prevent me from entering that building, whether I was armed or not. I'm not relying on anyone or any cop to get my child out of a situation like that. I'm not sitting on the sidelines while my child is in danger.

2. In regards to the cop who ran in and saved only their kid, I can understand potentially the train of thought, make sure my child is safe and get the hell out of there. I'm not going to risk my child's life trying to save other people, who knows what is going on or if there are multiple shooters etc.

3. If you're a cop, but also a mother or father, are you supposed to risk your life and put yourself in a potentially life-threatening position? Is it their duty to die for anyone?

I get that being a police officer comes with certain expectations, but I'm not sure if putting your life in danger is an automatic requirement just because you're a police officer.

The problem i see is that u have parents who are willing to put there lives on the line to save there kids(its not surprising). But the cops held them back cause im willing to bet they would have no problem shooting the parents if they tried to make there way in. Thats America logic for u

To protect and serve unless you're scared, it inconveniences you, or you just don't feel like it today is the long version I guess.