CdnFox

I accept your concession. Yes tonnes, look at the glock for example. There's been massive improvements in safety in the industry. Not even one person. Show me ANY people who said that the improvements to the remmington 700 safety mechansim was a bad idea, or that we shouldn't move to Glock as i mentioned invented the Safe Action System, a revolutionary, partially-tensioned striker-fired mechanism that integrated multiple automatic safety features into a simple, reliable design with a consistent trigger pull. This design effectively resolved the longstanding conflict between immediate readiness and safe carry in semi-automatic pistols. Have you ever heard anyone say that glock should never have done that? They sell quite a few glocks you know You're such a liar People want their guns to be safe same as they want their cars to be safe. Guns either as it turns out. And it worked. And you want to abaondon what works in favour of your ideology. So, doesn't matter to you if people die, as long as you get to virtue signal about guns. False equivilancy. Nobody's checking if drivers are off their meds or depressed before driving. And gun owners are REGULARLY stopped at random to make sure their guns are safe and that they're not drinking or the like, i've been through dozens and dozens of conservation officer checkpoints in my day. The cops also drive around the known wilderness gun areas and talk to gun owners. And even more so - EVERY SINGLE DAY, every one without fail, the RCMP databases matches my gun lincese up against every court order or court case or report that enters their system and flags if i'm in ANY of them, so the cops can decide if my license needs to be suspended and they need to come get my guns. it's the same for every licensed gun owenr. Imagine if the cops scanned every single driver's license owner and if there was a report of spousal abuse or a report from a doctor about depression or even drunk and disorderly conduct they suspended the person's license and towed their car away. So you're 100 percent wrong as usual. As i suspected, not a gun owner so you didn't know any of this. But gun owners already go through vastly more scrutiny than drivers do, Game set and match kiddo

Because gun control doesn't work. Thanks for asking

nope, yes or Arafat had the best chance and he blew it The next best chance came in 2014. And they blew that too They decided to start a war on October 7th and that blew up in their face. Literally They have had chance after chance after chance after chance to find a way to peacefully work it out and lived in prosperity and they make the deliberate decision not to and instead support hate and violence.. That's what you're defending

Yeah, it's pretty bad for him. I doubt it'll go down well. Sometimes it's best just to keep your mouth shut

I mean, he's not wrong

I accept your admission of defeat I actually enjoy watching your little tantrums. But I think a lot of other people are sick of you just consuming entire threads with it. I don't think I'd have too much trouble getting a bunch of people to suggest to Greg that you should be gone if all you're going to do is spam. And you do do a lot of spanning

Like i said, sometimes i forget he's not a real little boy (Pinocchio reference)

Yep. Nope Yep. But it's not that strange for a 12 - 15 year old to obsess like that. it's fairly obvious he has it's a pretty serious emotional issues.

Not saying you're wrong but some of that's a pretty tall order. You can't really reintroduce religion into people's lives, is something they come to on their own or not at all. And it's hard to reestablish things like a sense of responsibility to family. It's easy to destroy those things but it's not easy to create them in people without stepping on their rights pretty hard. The rest is doable of course. But it is been noted by experts that once a society's morals fall apart reestablishing it can be very difficult.

We take tons of measures to deliberately make guns safer. However, no matter what you do both cars and guns are going to be deadly if misused Same with guns. Better actions are created, better safeties are created, you don't see a lot of set triggers on rifles anymore, all kinds of measures are taken so ensure that modern designs don't go off when they're not supposed to, and when they do go off they don't blow up No they don't. I doubt you've ever owned a gun, and I'm certain you're prepared to lie about it either way, but explain to me how an M1 garand firing 30*06 cartridges is somehow LESS deadly than an m16 firing 5.56*45? The 30-06 is a FAR more lethal cartridge Because not bars like you focus all of their attention on guns and don't act like crazy Psychopaths when it comes to cars. Interestingly we did see political campaigns hinge on drunk driving measures. In those cases rather than focus on the vehicle and try and make the vehicle drunk proof, attention was focused on the driver and doing what could be done to deal with that. And lo and behold it worked pretty damn well. Drunk driving accidents historically or way lower especially in Canada. And it didn't involve any modifications to the vehicle in the slightest. Your knowledge of guns is based on fairy tales and left-wing propaganda. And you've just proven that the way to deal with problems is to deal with the operator not the machinery with your drunk driving example. Did you have anything else or are you done looking foolish for a bit?

Would you have been more comfortable if we had simply called you a chud? And how could you possibly know, you insisted you stopped reading after the first line of my post which didn't insult you at all. It just said you gave the wrong answer. And you wonder why people call you a liar

It's not misused or misinterpreted. But it brings us back to the same old problem the romans wrestled with, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who will guard the guardians. The gov't has military and police forces to enforce order and guard against threats. But those forces can and often have been used by gov'ts to control the people. So to protect the people from those guards they created the right of the people to be armed, and THEY would be the guardians who guarded the guards,. But.... then who guards THOSE guardians? every time you create a force that is intended to be protective it can also be used to be offensive, and you must then have another force to protect against that offense and you're back to the same problem But at the end of the day worrying about the tool used is not terribly productive. The bad guys will always find tools.

Because that's where the evidence is pointing. I'm sorry I guess I should have written it as too soon to say for sure. I assumed most of the intelligent people on this board would get what my meaning was. I forgot you might be reading it too I doubt very much that this person cared about gun control one way or another. In fact if they were targeting republicans it works in their favor, they get to kill a republican and they also get to make the case for gun control True. There's been a lot of left-wing people shooting right-wing people these days

It's not hard. We do it in Canada although the system has gotten away from us. Background check before receiving a license. License to be revoked if there's any criminal activity or overt an actionable signs of mental health issues, testing to be done before issuing the license Works very well and reduces accidents which is the bigger killer if you exclude organized crime shootings. The licenses should be "shall issue" and the test should be challengeable, but other than that it works pretty well. But at the end of the day your whole line of reasoning is stupid. We don't "know' someone will drive a car safely when we let them buy a car, yet we sell cars to just about anyone. And cars kill more than guns by far. we don't "know" someone will use a pocket knife wisely. Or gasoline, or any number of other tools very common in murders and mass killings. But we sell them SO explain why you want to see guns banned but not cars?

Dude, that's probably the worst example you could have given. Do some reading on that particular person in their case and you'll find that it is not a good example. It is more likely a case of self-loathing, he frequented that place with others many times. And his religious leader definitely would not have been a pastor

Liar. Anybody who bothers to take the time to write that took the time to read the post. You just don't want to cope with it . But I do love that your defense is that "I deliberately chose to remain ignorant so that I didn't have to cope with anything you said I didn't like because that made more sense to me". And what I said doesn't change. The only thing that's sort of changed is that we now know with certainty but you do not base your opinions on reason or logic, but rather only on what does or does not appeal to you. How very leftist of you

Everybody thought that was funny big guy I'm surprised you didn't see it for the humor value. But then again I frequently forget that you're not a real little boy

Well we know that to be a lie. And a bit of a silly lie considering they were desperate for ammunition, they certainly couldn't afford to waste any just randomly bombing things. They had their hands full going after the actual targets. So there you go. You have been misinformed

Ella Cook ID'd as first victim in Brown University shooting | New York Post Two people were killed and nine others were wounded in a shooting at an engineering and physics building on Brown's campus in Providence, Rhode Island Looks like the shooter may have been targeting republicans. Ella was president of the republican club. Too early to say and no suspect in custody at this time (the guy they had earlier isn't the shooter turns out) so we'll have to wait and see ,

They knew where the bad guys were. They shot at the bad guys. If the bad guys happen to put children in front of them then the bad guys are still the bad guys and got a lot of children killed. This is simple math even you can do. How many children would have been killed if the October 7th attack had not happened? Zero. So how many that did die are a result of the attack? All of them. You don't even need to get your calculator out for that

But they killed themselves. It literally picked the fight. If they want to go to war and hide behind their children and get their people killed and shouldn't you be mad at them and not Israel?

This is just starting to get mind-meltingly stupid If there was any actual evidence in the file the police would have gone after trump already . They would have gone after him years ago long before he was even running for president.

Leave him alone, that mirror was the best toy we ever bought for his cage and if he gets TOO worked up he'll attack it and break it.

Not in the same thread no. It's a justification. You're drawing a connection between the two events. It's not like you were randomly feeling for those who are suffering from hunger in Africa. You tied this event to that event and suggest that this event is understandable or acceptable because of that event. And no it is not possible to introduce that other one into the conversation and just claim it sort of randomly you feel for both. The attack here had nothing to do with Gaza, Gaza is entirely a responsibility of Gaza because Gaza was the one who started that war and even if they didn't it's still absolutely has nothing to do with two arm Psychopaths deciding to kill a bunch of Jews in Australia. If we were to accept that logic we'd have to accept that jews killing muslims here in canada was perfectly acceptable. I mean, milhemet mitzvah is as valid as jihad right? I'm sure if we go back far enough the palestinians were mean to the jews so it's all good. It's unacceptable.

LOL so back to just out and out spamming huh ? LOL Greg should punt your ass from the site. IT's one thing to disagree or trade barbs and in fact it's expected of a teen. But doing nothing but spamming is just disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.