> Ok so you made up the part about Dems wanting to ban guns No, I didn't, and I clarified what I said. We both read/write English, but perhaps subtle differences in dialect means you didn't understand what I was saying. In Canada, we have the "Liberal Party of Canada" and their voters are often referred to as "Liberals." In the US, the political party that most closely resembles our Liberal party would be the Democratic party. I *assumed* referring to Democrat voters as "democrats" would be understood. Apparently not. > and you acknowledge that all those western countries have less gun violence by far because of gun control. I was never against gun control. Go back and re-read what I said. I am against draconian gun control. Thankfully, you don't have that problem in most of the US, but make no mistake, there are Americans who want **everyone** disarmed. > Thanks for the support! LOL. Did you just declare yourself the winner?

> I don't care what a few people say, I care about laws. Ideas become laws if enough people want them to. There are a lot of Americans who'd love to trample on the constitution if it meant they would get what they wanted. The Second Amendment is one example, free speech being another. >And how are the gun deaths in those countries per capita? Those countries don't have a second amendment. The US does.

> Please link me a bill calling for that. I'm curious to learn. I follow congress closely and haven't seen anything. I meant democrat voters, not politicians. There are tons of examples of far-left Americans calling for the abolishment of civilian-owned firearms on twitter, tiktok, and on college campuses. If I cared enough to dig through youtube videos and reddit threads, I'd link some examples. Not worth my time forba reddit debate, though. > The countries with the strictest gun laws are almost all authoritarian. I wasn't talking about communist shitholes. I specified "free" countries, which was meant for that imply the Western world. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, Canada, and others have **very** strict gun control. As mentioned previously, they've carved out exemptions for manually operated long guns that can be used for pest control and/or hunting. There are some exceptions to that, but the barriers to entry are very high.

> No one is suggesting that. Some American democrats absolutely do call for the abolishment of civilian firearm ownership. Most of them recognize it's a pipe dream, but if they could snap their fingers and make it so only the government had guns, they'd do it. In other "free" countries, eliminating civilian gun ownership is on the agenda of liberal politicians. They would prefer that only the government has firearms. They sometimes make small exceptions for manually operated long guns to be used **only** for hunting.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or I am not explaining myself properly. You can argue against gun control without being against gun control. If a government decides to ban **all** civilian firearm ownership, that is gun control. If somebody argues against that, it doesn't make them a "gun nut." In other words, you can support reasonable control while also being against draconian measures. Example: There is a Canadian academic who testified to the senate that proposed gun control legislation was misguided. He self-declared that he did not own firearms or have any skin in the game. He was strictly a researcher who looked at the data and explained there would be no significant impact on public safety. The gun control we already had in Canada was effective, and there was no need to further restrict recreational shooters.

> They don't tolerate gun nutters. Arguing against gun control doesn't automatically make somebody a "gun nutter." There are academics who've researched the topic, spoken out against certain gun restrictions, and don't oen any firearms lol