STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence - Polidicks

brokenmerge [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] Wait what the fuck, their map is "ranking" as in, the red states are the first ten, the orange are... holy shit that's stupid that's not how you make map graphs at all who the fuck did this

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40156223]Ph. D.s sound like a lot more than "pro-gun blogs" to me.[/QUOTE] Want me to pull up all the Ph. D.s against climate change? Or even better, a Harvard geologist Phd who believes in creationism: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise[/url] [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40156223]And you're any better? You've pre-determined "guns r bad, m'kay" and refuse to accept any evidence or argument to the contrary, repeatedly, despite numerous arguments and sources being provided in the past. You have no high ground, stop acting like it.[/QUOTE] What sources? My biggest criticism of the pro-gun lobby here in facepunch is that they don't provide any evidence. Its always "You don't understand, america is more violent you don't live here, my guns haven't killed anybody, here look at these infowars quality websites". How can I be pre-determined to think guns are bad when I used to be a competition shooter?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40150799]someone's race horse getting drugged and raped[/QUOTE] That caught me so off-guard.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40156263]Want me to pull up all the Ph. D.s against climate change? [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] What sources? My biggest criticism of the pro-gun lobby is that they don't provide any evidence. Its always "You don't understand, america is more violent you don't live here, my guns haven't killed anybody". How can I be pre-determined to think guns are bad when I used to be a competition shooter?[/QUOTE] Because of the numerous, continuous times you're supported the ineffectual Assault-Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions, as well as supporting the banning of semi-autos and handguns, and childishly making fun of people who oppose these measures or possess these firearms. There's also a term for a gun owner who supports more gun control legislation, so long as "my trap gun and hunting rifle are left alone [I]this time[/I]," it's called a Fudd, and Fudds are often shortsighted, and believe that the "slippery-slope fallacy" is actually a fallacy in regards to gun control, and that gun control groups aren't trying to incrementally move towards outright prohibition, despite continuous rhetoric that proves the contrary. Often times, they also choose to completely ignore legitimate sporting or hunting uses for the firearms they support the prohibition of, because they either don't shoot that kind of competition or don't hunt with that gun. As a matter of fact, the lack of evidence is my biggest criticism of the anti-gun lobby, especially in Canada. The anti-gun lobby has got next to no data to support their argument, it's always emotional, to the effect of "if it saves one life" or "think of the children/women/poor." Recently, they're fabricated a number of lives saved by the long gun registry to try and back up their support of it, despite providing no sources or studies to enforce this number. As a matter of fact, we've had only 1 peer-reviewed study on gun crime vs gun control here, and that study found gun control laws to be completely ineffectual on crime. The only actual criticism provided from the anti-gun groups here, other than attempting to dismiss the study, was that it ignored suicides. As for data in America, off the top of my head I know Doctors Kleck, Mauser, and Lott have published a fair bit on gun control/crime in America that contradicts studies like this.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40156403]Because of the numerous, continuous times you're supported the ineffectual Assault-Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions, as well as supporting the banning of semi-autos and handguns[/QUOTE] Have you actually ever found a post of me saying that, or are you just doing a mixture of projecting your anxieties about gun control onto some one who has been convinced by the compelling scientific evidence that guns have actually caused more social harm than good, and strawmanning.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40156223] And you're any better? You've pre-determined "guns r bad, m'kay" and refuse to accept any evidence or argument to the contrary, repeatedly, despite numerous arguments and [B]sources[/B] being provided in the past. You have no high ground, stop acting like it.[/QUOTE] link pls

[quote] What sources? My biggest criticism of the pro-gun lobby here in facepunch is that they don't provide any evidence. Its always "You don't understand, america is more violent you don't live here, my guns haven't killed anybody, here look at these infowars quality websites". How can I be pre-determined to think guns are bad when I used to be a competition shooter?[/QUOTE] When I was 14 year old I was laughing at americans wanting guns, when I played RTS/FPS games I never wanted to select "USA" faction. Ofcourse it was just because of the government, i had no idea about the big picture at that age. When I watched great people on youtube and awakening my mind I have the opposite opinion, guns really are for your protection, as the founding fathers predicted so many years ago people will need them to protect against out-of-control regimes. (even with a lot of unproven things i watched, it did the trick and I have experience to filter out misinformation and do my own research, the point is to have an open mind and research and analyze, the TV and Eductation doesn't teach you how to have an open mind) Now I sadly look how USA society is breaking apart, corporate corruption above the law, poor citizens attacked from all sides, bilogically, physically and psychologically. The world is not against USA, because the government has been compromised, it does not do in the name of the people, it produces false flag operations in order to achieve the desired opinion of the citizens. Therefore it is confusion all around. The simplest and most easiest way to get around that confusion is to put citizens, bankers and goverments into separate factions, country sovereignty and borders are meaningless, citizens are all allies but they're being divided systematically (confusion, opinion, influences, propaganda) , all banks are one bank. They do this because you let them, you belive their bullshit, how can you belive a photoshoped image from white house, a forged birth cerificate, how can you still belive their jokes? In this case, the forums, opponents are obviously forum shills who make posts like do you, but not necessairly evil, maybe just asleep. Or genuinely not getting the point. You and similar thinking people should really think about if what you are doing is doing any good, because you are being used as well to shape the artificial opinion, because you easily believe official story, but we know so many innocent people fall into that trap that's why I try to awake you. Even if you're not a man of experiences to know how it works, there is historical evidence for this for you to learn, governments were always decievers. The options for you are, if you don't get it: - Sheeple (unawaken good person) - Mentally Uncapable of comprehension (Aspartame in processed foods, illegal drug use(not cannabis), fluoexetine, Hydroflouosilicic acid, ) - Corporate Shill (mindlessy or otherwise purposelly attacking all anti-govt opinions and liberty/freedom views) - Evil (psychopath, mk ultra slave, artificial or extraterrestrial biological or spiritual(energy) lifeform who feeds on human energy and worships death) --- How the citizen faction is being influenced: - Through media (psychologically; focusing you onto celebrities and entertainment, fake stories) - Through nurishment (biologically; monsanto GMO, poisons in foods) - Through disorder (physically; banker sponsored gangs, state sponsored terrorism, staged events) The saddest part is, when the citizen who supposed to be for common good, no poverty, everybody getting a fair life, when they are influenced by above tactis they unknowingly fall into the dark side factions by supporting their agenda, it is such an agony and a real problem.

[QUOTE=Stewox;40156646]wtf words[/QUOTE] Are you okay

[QUOTE=Stewox;40156646]When I was 14 year old I was laughing at americans wanting guns, when I played RTS/FPS games I never wanted to select "USA" faction. Ofcourse it was just because of the government, i had no idea about the big picture at that age. When I watched great people on youtube and awakening my mind I have the opposite opinion, guns really are for your protection, as the founding fathers predicted Now I sadly look how USA society is breaking apart, corporate corruption above the law, poor citizens attacked from all sides, bilogically, physically and psychologically. The world is not against USA, because the government has been compromised, it does not do in the name of the people, it produces false flag operations in order to achieve the desired opinion of the citizens. They do this because you let them, you belive their bullshit, how can you belive a photoshoped image from white house, a forged birth cerificate, how can you still belive their jokes? In this case, the forums, opponents are obviously forum shills who make posts like do you, but not necessairly evil, maybe just asleep. Or genuinely not getting the point. You and similar thinking people should really think about if what you are doing is doing any good, because you are being used as well to shape the artificial opinion, because you easily believe official story, but we know so many innocent people fall into that trap that's why I try to awake you. Even if you're not a man of experiences to know how it works, there is historical evidence for this for you to learn, governments were always decievers. The options for you are, if you don't get it: - Sheeple (unawaken good person) - Mentally Uncapable of comprehension (Aspartame in processed foods, illegal drug use(not cannabis), fluoexetine, Hydroflouosilicic acid, or a mk ultra slave) - Corporate Shill (mindlessy or otherwise purposelly attacking all anti-govt opinions and liberty/freedom views) - Evil[/QUOTE] I think even DaCommie1 would prefer if you didn't post on the matter.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40151092]No it isn't. Prove it.[/QUOTE] Poverty is the lead cause of crime in any society /Sociology fact But that doesnt mean we cant talk about guns though

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40156525]Have you actually ever found a post of me saying that, or are you just doing a mixture of projecting your anxieties about gun control onto some one who has been convinced by the compelling scientific evidence that guns have actually caused more social harm than good, and strawmanning.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=NoDachi;40098831]But guns are the common denominator. And the fact that the majority of guns don't cause harm is meaningless, because that is not how statistics work. Because if X% go missing, or misused or outright used for travesty then the fact that you live in a country so saturated with them [B]that having 300m does start to become a problem.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=NoDachi;40071163]You'll be hard pressed to kill 26 people and yourself with a .22 in under 5 minutes. Its almost as if efficiency has something to do with it.[/QUOTE] And all over [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1257167]this[/url] thread implicitly. You mock them here: [QUOTE=NoDachi;38421666]to defeat the government and communists, and govimunists[/QUOTE] I unfortunately don't have more time to find further posts of yours from farther back.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;40156903]Poverty is the lead cause of crime in any society /Sociology fact But that doesnt mean we cant talk about guns though[/QUOTE] The problem with the gun debate is that it often overshadows debates about poverty and income inequality. Politicians especially like the gun debate because it is an easy issue to deal with and an easy issue to get votes on. Poverty and income disparity aren't easy issues to deal about, so they really tend to get pushed over to the side.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40156962]And all over [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1257167]this[/url] thread implicitly. You mock them here: I unfortunately don't have more time to find further posts of yours from farther back.[/QUOTE] Yes. None of that has said "you're supported the ineffectual Assault-Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions, as well as supporting the banning of semi-autos and handguns". Even with the lack of context. I feel you've wasted a load more of your time on something that has only made you look more stupid.

[QUOTE=Stewox;40156646]When I was 14 year old I was laughing at americans wanting guns, when I played RTS/FPS games I never wanted to select "USA" faction. Ofcourse it was just because of the government, i had no idea about the big picture at that age. When I watched great people on youtube and awakening my mind I have the opposite opinion, guns really are for your protection, as the founding fathers predicted so many years ago people will need them to protect against out-of-control regimes. (even with a lot of unproven things i watched, it did the trick and I have experience to filter out misinformation and do my own research, the point is to have an open mind and research and analyze, the TV and Eductation doesn't teach you how to have an open mind) Now I sadly look how USA society is breaking apart, corporate corruption above the law, poor citizens attacked from all sides, bilogically, physically and psychologically. The world is not against USA, because the government has been compromised, it does not do in the name of the people, it produces false flag operations in order to achieve the desired opinion of the citizens. They do this because you let them, you belive their bullshit, how can you belive a photoshoped image from white house, a forged birth cerificate, how can you still belive their jokes? In this case, the forums, opponents are obviously forum shills who make posts like do you, but not necessairly evil, maybe just asleep. Or genuinely not getting the point. You and similar thinking people should really think about if what you are doing is doing any good, because you are being used as well to shape the artificial opinion, because you easily believe official story, but we know so many innocent people fall into that trap that's why I try to awake you. Even if you're not a man of experiences to know how it works, there is historical evidence for this for you to learn, governments were always decievers. The options for you are, if you don't get it: - Sheeple (unawaken good person) - Mentally Uncapable of comprehension (Aspartame in processed foods, illegal drug use(not cannabis), fluoexetine, Hydroflouosilicic acid, or a mk ultra slave) - Corporate Shill (mindlessy or otherwise purposelly attacking all anti-govt opinions and liberty/freedom views) - Evil[/QUOTE] seriously stop posting. all of your posts are legitimately fucking awful

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40156998]Yes. None of that has said "you're supported the ineffectual Assault-Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions, as well as supporting the banning of semi-autos and handguns". Even with the lack of context. I feel you've wasted a load more of your time on something that has only made you look more stupid.[/QUOTE] Because childish insults make your argument sound so much better. At several points in those threads you supported the British and Australian bans, as well as criticizing the existence of semi-auto firearms, as well as calling for a cull on the number of guns in America, and criticizing the manufacturing of these firearms, and Anerican gun owners in general. [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] Also I can't tell if Stewox is trolling of if he's seriously that ridiculous.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40157158]Because childish insults make your argument sound so much better. At several points in those threads you supported the British and Australian bans, as well as criticizing the existence of semi-auto firearms, as well as calling for a cull on the number of guns in America, and criticizing the manufacturing of these firearms, and Anerican gun owners in general.[/QUOTE] Yes. And none of that has anything to do with banning high-cap magazines. I don't think I've ever been so specific on singling out semi-auto firearms either. Why would I?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40157178]Yes. And none of that has anything to do with banning high-cap magazines. I don't think I've ever been so specific on singling out semi-auto firearms either. Why would I?[/QUOTE] I rescind my statement on hi-cap mags then, however you were criticizing the existence of guns that were "more deadly" due to their use in the Sandy Hook shooting, which in context was semi-auto versus bolt-action.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40157260]I rescind my statement on hi-cap mags then, however you were criticizing the existence of guns that were "more deadly" due to their use in the Sandy Hook shooting, which in context was semi-auto versus bolt-action.[/QUOTE] I was being critical of someone who said the lethality of a weapon plays no part in how dangerous they are - that Sandy Hook wouldn't have been any different if the gunman had used a .22 or a belt fed machine gun. Its not an unreasonable statement to make.

I rescind my statement about your support of the AWB as well and offer my apology on such, however my criticism of your childish insults of American gun owners and/or gun rights activists still stands.

[QUOTE=Stewox;40156646]When I was 14 year old I was laughing at americans wanting guns, when I played RTS/FPS games I never wanted to select "USA" faction. Ofcourse it was just because of the government, i had no idea about the big picture at that age. When I watched great people on youtube and awakening my mind I have the opposite opinion, guns really are for your protection, as the founding fathers predicted so many years ago people will need them to protect against out-of-control regimes. (even with a lot of unproven things i watched, it did the trick and I have experience to filter out misinformation and do my own research, the point is to have an open mind and research and analyze, the TV and Eductation doesn't teach you how to have an open mind) Now I sadly look how USA society is breaking apart, corporate corruption above the law, poor citizens attacked from all sides, bilogically, physically and psychologically. The world is not against USA, because the government has been compromised, it does not do in the name of the people, it produces false flag operations in order to achieve the desired opinion of the citizens. Therefore it is confusion all around. The simplest and most easiest way to get around that confusion is to put citizens, bankers and goverments into separate factions, country sovereignty and borders are meaningless, citizens are all allies but they're being divided systematically (confusion, opinion, influences, propaganda) , all banks are one bank. They do this because you let them, you belive their bullshit, how can you belive a photoshoped image from white house, a forged birth cerificate, how can you still belive their jokes? In this case, the forums, opponents are obviously forum shills who make posts like do you, but not necessairly evil, maybe just asleep. Or genuinely not getting the point. You and similar thinking people should really think about if what you are doing is doing any good, because you are being used as well to shape the artificial opinion, because you easily believe official story, but we know so many innocent people fall into that trap that's why I try to awake you. Even if you're not a man of experiences to know how it works, there is historical evidence for this for you to learn, governments were always decievers. The options for you are, if you don't get it: - Sheeple (unawaken good person) - Mentally Uncapable of comprehension (Aspartame in processed foods, illegal drug use(not cannabis), fluoexetine, Hydroflouosilicic acid, ) - Corporate Shill (mindlessy or otherwise purposelly attacking all anti-govt opinions and liberty/freedom views) - Evil (psychopath, mk ultra slave, artificial or extraterrestrial biological or spiritual(energy) lifeform who feeds on human energy and worships death) --- How the citizen faction is being influenced: - Through media (psychologically; focusing you onto celebrities and entertainment, fake stories) - Through nurishment (biologically; monsanto GMO, poisons in foods) - Through disorder (physically; banker sponsored gangs, state sponsored terrorism, staged events) The saddest part is, when the citizen who supposed to be for common good, no poverty, everybody getting a fair life, when they are influenced by above tactis they unknowingly fall into the dark side factions by supporting their agenda, it is such an agony and a real problem.[/QUOTE] It's like I am reading the words of an actual Conservative nutjob.

I like how nobody has bothered trying to refute my earlier post which says that guns were used more to intimidate people than to protect them. I am guessing everybody agrees with it then, if they have nothing to offer as a rebuttal?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40157516]I like how nobody has bothered trying to refute my earlier post which says that guns were used more to intimidate people than to protect them. I am guessing everybody agrees with it then, if they have nothing to offer as a rebuttal?[/QUOTE] No, I posted criticisms earlier, everyone else is probably just ignoring you.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40157530]No, I posted criticisms earlier, everyone else is probably just ignoring you.[/QUOTE] Your criticism is based more on the age of it (14 years old, which is apparently too old for any useful purposes) and how they were unable to somehow report people who were reluctant to use it for self-defense. If you actually read it, you would see that they took this latter point into account and tried to deliberately find as many people as possible that used them for self-defense (because looking at self-defense was the entire point of the survey). HOWEVER, even though they concentrated on that, and tried to remove as many instances of non-self defense, they found that the argument that people use firearms for self-defense is on shaky ground, not because shoddy methodology led them to that conclusion, but because they couldn't actually find that many people to support the pro-gun argument. If you want to make better criticisms, why not criticize the fact they used 5 judges from 3 states? Perhaps these judges did not look too favorably upon self-defense using firearms, but the fact they reported most instances of self-defense as unjustified (some people claimed that they would shoot former partners for instance) is ringing warning bells about the pro-gun argument. If your argument rests on "The study is too old" and "They used shoddy methodology" when the study is still being cited today, that's really saying something about your views on science. [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] I mean for fucks sake, you aren't trying to find out the truth. You frequently dismiss sources on the grounds that it has a bias, or they are too old, or use shoddy methodology. You've cited John Lott in the past, even though a lot of his work on "more guns = less crime" was discredited. I also often get shit about "oh these people are just going to exploit this incident in X to score a political point". Well firstly incident was something where about 6 or more people died. And yes I do understand that if you take away guns the killer would have used something else, like lawn furniture or a piece of toast, maybe. But relax! Your paranoid political fantasies notwithoutstanding, no one's going to take your guns away! Barring some seismic realignment in the USA, the gun control debate is all but settled thanks to organizations like the NRA which not only have too much political power, but suppress scientific research if it disagrees with them. And the price we have to pay is the occasional mass-shooting. Over and over again apparently.

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;40152586]The study says they used the list from [url=http://smartgunlaws.org/]here[/url] for 'strength of gun laws' but their deadliest states don't match the list I can find from their source? [img]http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/top10states.jpg[/img] Also that website is obnoxious to navigate[/QUOTE] Why I am not surprised that my state has the most relaxed gun laws.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40157516]I like how nobody has bothered trying to refute my earlier post which says that guns were used more to intimidate people than to protect them. I am guessing everybody agrees with it then, if they have nothing to offer as a rebuttal?[/QUOTE] People will believe what they want to believe, and so they are going to ignore whatever evidence of the contrary you slap in their face. It's sad.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40157626]Your criticism is based more on the age of it (14 years old, which is apparently too old for any useful purposes) and how they were unable to somehow report people who were reluctant to use it for self-defense. If you actually read it, you would see that they took this latter point into account and tried to deliberately find as many people as possible that used them for self-defense (because looking at self-defense was the entire point of the survey). HOWEVER, even though they concentrated on that, and tried to remove as many instances of non-self defense, they found that the argument that people use firearms for self-defense is on shaky ground, not because shoddy methodology led them to that conclusion, but because they couldn't actually find that many people to support the pro-gun argument. If you want to make better criticisms, why not criticize the fact they used 5 judges from 3 states? Perhaps these judges did not look too favorably upon self-defense using firearms, but the fact they reported most instances of self-defense as unjustified (some people claimed that they would shoot former partners for instance) is ringing warning bells about the pro-gun argument. If your argument rests on "The study is too old" and "They used shoddy methodology" when the study is still being cited today, that's really saying something about your views on science. [/quote] How about this as criticism then, you're flaunting around as gospel about how wrong America is a study that uses less than 500 samples of SUBJECTIVE accounts for either side, that cannot be considered anywhere near nationally representative. [quote][editline]4th April 2013[/editline] I mean for fucks sake, you aren't trying to find out the truth. You frequently dismiss sources on the grounds that it has a bias, or they are too old, or use shoddy methodology. You've cited John Lott in the past, even though a lot of his work on "more guns = less crime" was discredited. I also often get shit about "oh these people are just going to exploit this incident in X to score a political point". Well firstly incident was something where about 6 or more people died. And yes I do understand that if you take away guns the killer would have used something else, like lawn furniture or a piece of toast, maybe. But relax! Your paranoid political fantasies notwithoutstanding, no one's going to take your guns away! Barring some seismic realignment in the USA, the gun control debate is all but settled thanks to organizations like the NRA which not only have too much political power, but suppress scientific research if it disagrees with them. And the price we have to pay is the occasional mass-shooting. Over and over again apparently.[/QUOTE] Let's see, you criticize my dismissal of discredited and/or biased sources, then back your argument up doing the exact same thing. Honestly, this whole part is laughable. You claim I'm "not trying to find out the truth" yet for the last at least 4 months whenever a debate on this subject has come up you're either ignored or dismissed every source that has come up to counter you, while all the while reinforcing the "slippery-slope fallacy" by encouraging incremental gun confiscation. Need I remind you of the time you dismissed and derailed an ENTIRE THREAD, in which you were later banned, simply because John Lott was brought up ONCE, in ONE argument, as an aside rather than a main point? And please, tell me the last time I actually cited his work, "More Guns, Less Crime" as a source for anything. I mentioned him earlier in this thread as a possible source for further reading, I have, on the other hand, NEVER actually used any data from his book to back up my main argument. Get off your fucking high horse, you're in honestly no better of a position than I when it comes to "finding the truth," considering you've been considered one of the most ignorant stonewalls on this topic. You're in absolutely no position for misplaced arrogance. Not to mention "we" don't pay anything, you're British and I'm Canadian, neither of us is actually from America, neither of us are part of any "we" that results from goings-on there. As for this point: [quote]But relax! Your paranoid political fantasies notwithoutstanding, no one's going to take your guns away![/quote] It's happened in Britain, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, South Africa, Germany, France, Norway, and was attempted in New York and California. It's been both pushed and supported by numerous gun control groups and vocal advocates. In Canada, we are always one election away from having millions of guns prohibited and confiscated, and thousands more are confiscated due to arbitrary prohibition each day as their owners die and their estates are settled. Yes, someone is going to try and take my guns away, considering that was the blatant goal of the man who wrote our gun control legislation, Alan Rock, who was quite vocal in his intentions to make Canada "The world's first gun-free nation" and believed that only the police and military should have access to guns.

Well duh.

[QUOTE=D-Roy;40156309]That caught me so off-guard.[/QUOTE] How do you think the horse felt!?

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40158387]It's happened in Britain, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, South Africa, Germany, France, Norway, and was attempted in New York and California. It's been both pushed and supported by numerous gun control groups and vocal advocates. In Canada, we are always one election away from having millions of guns prohibited and confiscated, and thousands more are confiscated due to arbitrary prohibition each day as their owners die and their estates are settled. Yes, someone is going to try and take my guns away, considering that was the blatant goal of the man who wrote our gun control legislation, Alan Rock, who was quite vocal in his intentions to make Canada "The world's first gun-free nation" and believed that only the police and military should have access to guns.[/QUOTE] Its called democratic accountability. When something is wrong, and enough people want it gone - its removed.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40159385]Its called democratic accountability. When something is wrong, and enough people want it gone - its removed.[/QUOTE] Statements like this are why I made a point earlier about your support of firearms prohibition. There was nothing wrong prior to the bans, and the insinuation of such can be indicative support for them. Also, I should note that these bans were enacted without any evidence supporting them, they were knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings, with no basis. Nothing was wrong, and there was no reason for it to be removed, and the biggest issue is the way confiscation is conducted in Canada it is tantamount to theft, as the estate receives no compensation when the government confiscates the firearm, and the firearm cannot be passed down, and there is a very limited market of other grandfathered individuals to whom the gun can be sold. If the government doesn't steal the gun directly, they've robbed the estate of the gun's value by limiting the market it can be sold to, since it cannot be passed down.