DTube - How To School An SJW - Debating Gun Control In Canada
When it comes to Canadian gun laws the right to use a weapon for self defense is in a grey area that is soon to be black or white! As it is now when it comes to defending yourself in Canada if you should find yourself in the unfortunate position where you must defend yourself with deadly force, you will be arrested and charged with a crime. In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth and Josh Sigurdson of World Alternative Media take to the streets of Vancouver to ask Canadians how they feel about the current state of our gun laws and what may or may not need to change.
Patreon ➜ http://www.patreon.com/PressForTruth
Patreon Alternative ➜ https://pressfortruth.ca/donate
Paypal ➜ https://www.paypal.me/PressforTruth
Bitcoin ➜ 1A88c8x7Hza96WXwcM11oC639MfrEFtT1P
Ethereum ➜ 0xEce2AEf1F26373a00BDC7243d1201a98578CC67e
► Watch on DTube
► Watch Source (IPFS)
In my opinion, it is necessary to change the law. It is necessary for the protection of man's life.
I would say so too.
Men that wear makeups should not make comments on gun control. They probably never even touched a gun.
Yeah, it's kind of stupid, the argument for "defending ourselves against government". There is no limit to this logic. Why not let people buy a Tank? An assault helicopter, or even a nuclear or chemical weapon for that matter? Where does it stop? You have to draw the line somewhere. For instance, should we even regulate not owning pointy kitchen knives? That would be going to far of course, but just to prove my point that you have to draw a line somewhere.
Banning weapons completely? No. But making it mandatory to have thorough background checks to obtain a license, limit the sale of assault rifles or automatic weapons. In the end, protecting against the government would be effective enough if you are able to own a regular one-shot rifle.
Finally, the point that places where people own more guns there is less crime is also bullshit science. Unless you can prove that there isn't a third intermediary variable that influences the outcome, it's not a proven correlation. For instance, crime in Sweden or Finland is magnitudes below that of the US. And there are barely NO guns there. So... how do you explain that? Comparing within the US without looking outside is just being narrow minded.
There is a line but full auto guns do not cross it. The debate about tanks etc goes into what organized militia's should have access to or rather whether or not the government should have these weapons maybe. Full auto machine guns are very effective at killing crowds of people standing close together, but you can't stop those kinds of massacres since people can simply run over crowds with a truck. The Paris truck attack killed like 80 and injured 400. So banning full auto guns doesn't really do anything other than make citizens less equipped to keep the government in check. I believe every state requires background checks for full auto guns. Full auto guns are pretty hard to obtain but that's mostly because they are very expensive.
The states with the highest gun ownership have very low gun murder rates. Often much lower than other states. The only places in the US with high gun crime are areas with higher populations of black people. If you compare race demographic maps to gun ownership maps every state with almost all whites has next to 0 gun crime even if the gun ownership is very high. There isn't much of a difference whether a state is conservative or liberal. Population density doesn't even seem to be that much of a factor. From what I can tell gun crime is pretty much just a black problem in areas with poverty stricken blacks. Cities like New York City that are very mixed race have pretty low gun crime, probably because the people there all are rich. Point is % of gun ownership doesn't really matter, it's an issue with certain people. I suppose we could wall off cities like Chicago. I'm guessing sweden and finland have mostly white people.