The problems with mass shootings are stem from psychological problems. These problem stem from a culture that normalized posting photos on facebook posing with firearms. The point of these posts is to appear intimidating which associates firearms with power over others. This puts people that engage in this behavior one bad day from going on a killing spree.

You know that Canadians have had these kinds of firearms for decades, right? The guns themselves aren’t the problem, it’s the violent rhetoric. Facebook is definitely a problem, and I wouldn’t care if they banned that instead (though I imagine it would be a far less popular move). Addressing the root cause would be more beneficial, instead of treating the entire adult population with undue suspicion and fear. Besides, you can already report unstable people with firearms to local police, and if they decide to investigate, they’ll confiscate those firearms pre-emptively.

So firearms need to be regulated similarly to tobacco. We don’t want tacticool firearms for people to pose with on facebook, which starts them down a dark path. Ideally firearms should be lame looking, and not have the capability of killing large numbers of people. Many weapons aren’t suitable for hunting, but pose a significant danger if used for killing sprees have been banned.

I don’t own firearms for mass killing. It’s a sport that I enjoy that requires a unique blend of practical skills that translate to other parts of life. Are firearms dangerous weapons? Yes, that’s why we have licencing programs that require training and education. You know, kinda like cars.

Lame-looking guns still kill just fine, and these bans haven’t removed all semi-automatics anyway. The SKS is still non-restricted; it was left alone because it’s incredibly popular with First Nations hunters, but that doesn’t mean Mr. Mass Shooter can’t pick one up to replace his AR-15 or 9mm PCC.

And yeah, guns get across the border. This is also illegal, so not sure why you’re trying to make a point about it being somehow hypocritical to have both owning weapons suited for mass killings be illegal while smuggling guns is also illegal.

The bans don’t stop the crime, that’s the point. Taking guns from lawfully licenced people won’t impact the crime statistics because they’re almost entirely absent from those statistics. Spending the gun buyback money on increased border enforcement would’ve been a more effective method.

If you don’t like it, go move to the US and have your kids go to schools where they need to do mass shooting drills.

Telling me to move to the US to enjoy mass shootings is not a reasonable or stable response to my objection to the assault on gun ownership in Canada.

What I like about Canada’s gun culture is that it’s focused on safe use and ownership of firearms. The irony is that we try very hard not to be like Americans in that respect, but we’re still villified as if we’re the same simply because we have/want firearms.

Not everyone has the luxury of buying meat at a grocery store, and not everyone is silly enough to think carrying a bolt-action rifle in the woods is sufficient enough for safe predator control.

Finally, if you know anyone who has a really fast car, and doesn’t race it anywhere but the racetrack, would you ban those fast cars because someone could do something illegal with them? After all, propaganda films glorifying illegal street racing like The Fast and Furious are programming impressionable young minds to drive recklessly on our roads, threatening to make every commute a deadly gamble!