That didn't seem correct to me, and it's not. We're have a fair amount of guns, but we're not even close to the U.S. It appears like a higher percentage of the guns in Canada are hunting rifles as well.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Uh.. Europe is a continent. Terrorism happens everywhere in the world, all the time. 

I believe that poorer countries get even more affected by it.

There are multiple federal gun control laws that regulate ownership of these guns though. 

The first is the 1934 National Firearms Act which rdid the following

"All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.^[21] The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.^[22] There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include: Lomont v. O'Neill,^[23] Westfall v. Miller,^[24] and Steele v. National Branch.^[25]"

Then in 1986, FOPA passed, which banned the sale of any newly manufactured automatic weapons to private individuals. Only fully automatic weapons before the passage of FOPA are allowed to be sold, which limited the supply of automatic weapons and boosted the price to the tens of thousands. 

Fewer than a million fully automatic weapons are owned legally in the United States. 

Well this is obviously antithetical to why we have gun freedoms.

But your response is out of context to what I was saying. We don't have gun freedoms for acts like this, the vast majority have guns for self defense.

Gun crimes are actually down even as ownership increases, but when something like this happens all the progress in a better direction is ignored.

1.) Suppressors do not make a gun silent. The provision is for hearing protection for shooters. An unsuppresed gun without wearing ear protection can be above 150 decibels. With ear protection this will bring it down to 90-110 decibels. Damage to the human ear happens at about 80+ decibels. With suppressors and ear protection the sound from the gun would be about 50 decibels, without protection it would still be very loud (around 100 decibels.) The number of documented gun crimes involving suppresors is nearly zero.  

2.) I don't know the specifics of this proposal. If it does what it says, then that is wrong. If it allows people do drive through the state though (many states will arrest people moving their guns as they travel through), but doesn't allow somebody to conceal carry within the jurisdiction where it is illegal, then I think that is fair. 

#1 definitely should pass though, it improves the safety of using guns. 

And this is what people find so insane, it's sick paranoia; if someone around here believed stuff like that, I think everyone in the community would want them locked up in an insanity ward. But it's such a common and accepted belief in the US that one has to wonder if it's like some kind of communicable mental disease. It's akin to North Korea and their irrational belief systems. Like a cultural illness.

User was moderated for this post

-Super_Boom

In the US, percent of gun-owning households has actually been dropping since the 70's alongside the fall in violent crimes, so the bold isn't exactly true. 

The guy was a millionaire. He did purchase them legally according to news reports. They've been interviewing the vendor, he passed all background checks.

Last I heard, neither of the vendors who claimed to have sold him guns sold him anything fully auto, and it is unknown if any of those weapons were used in the shooting.