blackbird

That's true but it's too bad authorities and gun sellers didn't stop the long list of other killers from buying military style guns over the past several years.

I just read an article about a man in Texas who was shot twice in a church by a police officer, after he stopped a shooter and took the gun away. This happened the same day as the Florida school massacre two weeks ago. Fortunately nobody was killed at this church. Several people charged a man with a handgun and this man helped by taking the handgun away from him. Then a police officer arrived and told him to drop the gun. He was bending over to put it down because he thought if he dropped it, it would go off. The officer shot him twice. He has a blood clot in one lung but is recovering in a hospital. He will be taking legal action and wants compensation from the police department. This proves how dangerous it would be for even some teachers to be armed with a gun. The police are taught to shoot first and not take any chances. Ask questions after.

Not every issue. He is wrong about guns and going in unarmed, but he is correct about building a wall and keeping bad characters out of the U.S. He is correct about a lot of things.

Did you see Trump say he would go into a school (to confront a shooter) even if he (Trump) had no gun! Sounds very brave, but who would actually do that and why? Easy to say when you don't have to do it. Most people have a desire for self-preservation.

Trump sounded like he might be changing his mind a tiny bit and maybe not accepting everything the NRA says. All Trump might have to do is issue one of his Executive Orders instructing the FBI, police departments, and Military to begin collecting all automatic firearms and illegal handguns. That would be a good way to start. Fight about the details afterward.

With the billions of dollars worth of cocaine being brought into the states every year from Mexico and south America, the swat teams are getting lots of practice dealing with criminals with guns. Adding collecting automatic military guns and illegal handguns to their confiscation duties would not be much extra work or expense. Just think of the new work that would be created for unemployed ex military folks.

Obviously you're not aware the police in cities like Chicago already go into houses with swat teams, shields, tear gas, and knock doors down and go in armed with automatic military style weapons. It's the war on drugs. Is going on all the time. They are very professional and experienced at it. Once in a while they get shot. Watched it on Netflix. So confiscating guns would be nothing new. They already do those kinds of raids every day and night all over the place. They are training constantly. Anybody foolish enough to try to resist wouldn't stand a chance and will be taken away in a hearse.

Probably a good place to start. All guns possessed illegally should be confiscated of course. I'm not sure how authorities go about it. But that's just the first step.

CNN was questioning a higher rank officer in a police department in Florida about why nothing was done when clear information came to light about the shooter. He didn't seem too anxious to take responsibility for anything himself. Perhaps passing the buck to some extent. I guess that is what they will all do, pass the buck. Too many people are pinning their hopes on filtering out the bad guys before any shooting happens. I think they need to filter out the guns, especially the military type guns. So many lives could probably be saved by that one step alone.

Maybe because of all the illegal handguns smuggled into Canada from the U.S. and obtained by criminals and gang members, would be a good guess. I doubt the UK has many firearms per capita compared with Canada. But we're deviating. The problem we're trying to discuss is all the shootings in the U.S. Do you really think all the guns and free for all killing is worth having when some gun control and strict screening would likely still allow rational people to have some guns?

People can work on changing the system and politicians but that must be considered a very long-term goal. In the meantime, better prepare for continuation of around 14,000 gun deaths a year and over 20,000 injuries, even with no war. That will continue as a fact of life. In the meantime, Canada can continue to confiscate any illegal firearms being brought across the border and try to confiscate illegal handguns in Canada.

I think the US has about 30 times the rate of gun deaths of the UK. The countries you point out as being bad, Russia, Mexico, and Brazil are bad choices because they in drug wars or in some anarchy and not models of anything. Again you lose on that comparison.

Isn't there a significant number of teachers that are assaulted in schools? Add guns to the mix will not work well.

Didn't somebody post on here the elimination of a huge number of guns in Australia and a corresponding drop in gun killings or am I just imagining seeing it? They could start by collecting all automatic weapons from society and banning them completely. I'm sure that would make a difference. But first they are going to have to elect a congress that is on side. That will be a tall order.

Mass shooters would just shoot any adults they see first and then kill everyone else. Shooters don't give notice they are coming for you. Arming teachers or security guards is unlikely to be much help. Who would take a job as an armed security guard at a school? The prevalence and easy availability of assault weapons and hand guns is the biggest issue. Unless that changes, the shooting statistics will probably remain high.

Yes, there are solutions, but not from the NRA. Waste of energy and breath talking with them. Trump says they need to arm some of the teachers, repeating the NRA talking points. The largest education organization in the U.S. said the arming teachers comment is ridiculous. Nobody becomes a teacher to be an armed guard.

If you listen to the NRA puppets talking points, there is no use in even trying to talk with them.

We know there is a right, but exactly whether that is unlimited. Can a person have a 50 calibre machine gun mounted on a tripod or a shoulder-mounted anti tank rocket launcher? There has to be some rationality to owning firearms. I am sure the federal government could bring in some laws to define exactly what is reasonable and what is illegal. Of course it will be challenged in supreme court, but that is part of how the system works. Trump won't convince anyone of anything with his bizarre comments about arming teachers.

The same way other countries have had to do it. Amnesty and/or confiscation. Perhaps there could be some financial compensation offered, but that would be costly.

It's also suicide for anyone who takes on such a job. Who would be the first person shot by a mass murderer?

The NRA's answer is MORE guns. The idea of arming school teachers instead of reducing the number of guns in the country and banning semi automatic and automatic weapons of war is sheer lunacy. Some of students who witnessed the shootings have also been receiving death threats for speaking out.

Canadians watch the news of everything that is going on in the U.S. and it gets as much coverage as things going on in Canada, maybe more at times. The CBC carries much of the American news and everything happening around Trump. So Canadians are deeply immersed in American culture, entertainment, and politics, whether they live there or not. ON the gun issue, many of us just don't see why so many innocent people need to die from guns just because they happen to live there. It's seen as a huge tragedy. You also know Canadians, especially the left, are quite enthusiastic at spending taxpayer's money to try to solve the world's problems. I'm not a support of liberals or lefties, but I look at the gun issue as a non-political problem. Saving lives should be more important than some abstract notion of "gun rights", which is purely subjective and open to interpretation as to what it should mean.

These private organizations cannot donate money to a candidates election campaign. The private organizations cannot give money to a candidate's political campaign or riding association. Private organizations that exist for certain causes probably find other ways to promote their causes. But if they are claiming charitable status for income tax purposes, they cannot get involved in politics per se Election campaigns fall under the supervision of the Elections Canada and there must be a paper trail for all donations and expenditures. The campaigns begin on an actual date prior to the election. Of course there may be organizations that promote certain causes in the media throughout the year. Environmental organizations are an example which use money for their causes anytime. But any organization which claims charitable status from the federal government Revenue Canada cannot be partisan or involved in politics. At least they are not supposed to be.

No. In Canada in Federal politics, federal parties and candidates cannot receive money from organizations, corporations, or unions. All donations must come from individuals and is limited to about $1300 per year and the same amount to a candidate's election campaign. There are no donations from a gun lobby. In the U.S. the NRA provides millions of dollars to politicians they choose. Not in Canada.

If we saw the mental state of some of the people that are allowed to own handguns, or walking around with them in cities, we would probably he horrified. Big money from the NRA is what controls many elected legislators. Money is what calls the "shots".