Tory MP tells high schoolers they should carry guns

[Shady]

What's worst is Cons duping themselves.

Ya sure, it's a plot by teenagers to make Cons look bad.

And look at what the kids are learning: When a Con makes a stupid mistake and shows bad judgement ... THEY LIE and try to cover up the truth.

Nice example to set for kids.

So what you're saying is that you still have no actual facts regarding what was actually said.

[g_bambino]

So what you're saying is that you still have no actual facts regarding what was actually said.

Of course he doesn't. But, building strawmen is ever so much more fun!

[Guest Derek L]

Yeah. I don't make it a habit of answering stupid questions that have nothing to do wtih the subject at hand, which is you using anecdotal evidence against the national statistics provided by stopstaaron.

Nice Dodge, Does it come in Canary Yellow?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Like, if someone gets insulted...

I don't follow

Care to expand on your thoughts?

[huh]

Actually everyone has the right to defend themeself.

When you neglect to point out these things you give the implication.

And actually I did everyone the favour and reported you and hopefully the admin will spare everyone from more of you!

WWWTT

So your goal is to troll my posts with nonsense completely unrelated to what i wrote so you can then report my responses?

You neglected to point that out in the above implication, and no, im not required to state the obvious or write a book on the subject for your benefit, if you choose to read some amount of nonsense into something i didn't write then you do so at your own discredit.

[jacee]

Like, if someone gets insulted...

Ya, or some kid wears a hoodie in a gated community.

[Guest Derek L]

Ya, or some kid wears a hoodie in a gated community.

Care to expand on your thoughts or are you just thinking aloud?

[jacee]

And what example does accusing someone without merit or evidence set?

Do you really not see the absurdity of the allegation? It's one thing if Breitkreuz suggested that people should have the right to defend themselves. But there's no way he suggested kids should bring guns to school, not even the most loyal member of the NRA would suggest such a ludicrous notion. Even if he hit his head and started talking nonsense like this, it's quite obvious there would be no support for this idea. This is simply crazy that were even debating such a foolish notion might have been suggested. The real issue we should be discussing is why people are so quick to believe such a delusional fallacy and morraly convict someone based on heresy.

I think you meant "hearsay", but I could be wrong: Perhaps you consider it "heresy" when anyone accuses a HarperCon of anything.

The teenager who raised the concerns, and the mother who reported them are more believable to me than another HarperCon lie-and-deny, given their record.

Has Breitkreuz even attempted to explain what his remarks actually were?

No.

Thus, his lie-and-deny routine is not believable to me.

[g_bambino]

The teenager who raised the concerns, and the mother who reported them are more believable to me than another HarperCon lie-and-deny, given their record.

Just because you believe them doesn't make what they say true.

[jacee]

Just because you believe them doesn't make what they say true.

Just because some choose to believe another HarperCon lie-and-deny show doesn't make it true either.

Breitkreuz has a lot to lose - his credibility and possibly his job.

He has told us what he didn't say, but has he clarified what he did say? No.

What do the teenager and mother have to gain by making it up?

If they're making it up, why have no other students/parents/teachers come forward to say so?

On balance of the above considerations, I believe the report to be true and I believe Breitkreuz to be a liar when he denies it.

[g_bambino]

Just because some choose to believe another HarperCon lie-and-deny show doesn't make it true either.

You have to establish it's a lie first (assuming Breitkreuz's denial is what you're referring to as a lie). You haven't.

[Guest Manny]

I don't follow

Care to expand on your thoughts?

It's what people do in "the heat of passion". Or when they get panicky, stressed out. Like when a man shoots his wife cause the dog pooped on the kitchen floor.

[Guest Derek L]

It's what people do in "the heat of passion". Or when they get panicky, stressed out. Like when a man shoots his wife cause the dog pooped on the kitchen floor.

So, if my dog(s) poop on the kitchen floor (has happened) there’s the chance that I might shoot my wife?

[Guest Manny]

So, if my dog(s) poop on the kitchen floor (has happened) there’s the chance that I might shoot my wife?

Chance, as in mathematical possibility. But only if you've got a gun. If not, the possibility goes way down,

[Guest Derek L]

Chance, as in mathematical possibility. But only if you've got a gun. If not, the possibility goes way down,

I've got over 30, but have yet desired shooting my family when the dog makes a mess........That appears to be straw man logic……..On the inverse, if when the Zombie Apocalypse occurs, mathematically, those without firearms are more likely to succumb to the flesh eaters…….

I love home spun, hokum arguments.

[cybercoma]

Care to expand on your thoughts or are you just thinking aloud?

It should be pretty obvious what her argument is.

[Guest Derek L]

It should be pretty obvious what her argument is.

Do tell then, I’m quite obviously not on the same plane as you folk.

[Guest Manny]

I love home spun, hokum arguments.

Gun availability = gun violence, pure and simple. There's statistical correlation between murder in the heat of passion and availability of guns. Also known that people who attempt to commit suicide (and lots of young people attempt suicide) are more "successful" in killing themselves, when they use guns.

So our MP is giving young people and people who are not emotionally stable a license to kill.

As for people like you, well, you might be emotionally stable right now but things can happen to change it. A few years at a frustrating job with an abusive boss, big problems with the teenagers at home, walk in on the wife with someone else in bed and who knows what you might do.

[cybercoma]

It's quite a bit more impersonal to shoot someone from a distance, even a few feet away, than it is to kill someone with a knife or blunt object up close.

[Guest Derek L]

Gun availability = gun violence, pure and simple. There's statistical correlation between murder in the heat of passion and availability of guns. Also known that people who attempt to commit suicide (and lots of young people attempt suicide) are more "successful" in killing themselves, when they use guns.

So our MP is giving young people and people who are not emotionally stable a license to kill.

Can you demonstrate the text in which that’s the stated policy of the MP?

As for people like you, well, you might be emotionally stable right now but things can happen to change it. A few years at a frustrating job with an abusive boss, big problems with the teenagers at home, walk in on the wife with someone else in bed and who knows what you might do.

So domestic violence only occurs in home with guns?

[Guest Derek L]

It's quite a bit more impersonal to shoot someone from a distance, even a few feet away, than it is to kill someone with a knife or blunt object up close.

So killing a person with a knife or a bat is better? What weighs more, 100 kg of rifle ammo, or 100 kgs of baseball bats and/or knives?

[cybercoma]

So domestic violence only occurs in home with guns?

That's not at all what he said.

The obvious thing he's saying is that it's considerably more likely to turn deadly if there's a gun in the home.

The other thing that has been shown is that psychological abuse can be worse in homes where a partner can threaten another with a firearm.

[Guest Derek L]

That's not at all what he said.

The obvious thing he's saying is that it's considerably more likely to turn deadly if there's a gun in the home.

The other thing that has been shown is that psychological abuse can be worse in homes where a partner can threaten another with a firearm.

Can you back up those statements? I thought you just said above, a firearm is more impersonal then a knife etc……Doesn’t psychological abuse stem from a toxic personal relationship?

[cybercoma]

Can you back up those statements? I thought you just said above, a firearm is more impersonal then a knife etc……Doesn’t psychological abuse stem from a toxic personal relationship?

I said it's impersonal in the sense that it's easier to kill someone using a gun. You don't have to fight and struggle with the person and you don't have to be right on top of them, literally touching them as you're doing it.

The psychological abuse is from a "toxic relationship," as you say, but when you can hold it over a partner's head that "I'm so fucking I made I could shoot you." It's a different kind of threat when you have a gun to do it.

[Guest Derek L]

I said it's impersonal in the sense that it's easier to kill someone using a gun. You don't have to fight and struggle with the person and you don't have to be right on top of them, literally touching them as you're doing it.

The psychological abuse is from a "toxic relationship," as you say, but when you can hold it over a partner's head that "I'm so fucking I made I could shoot you." It's a different kind of threat when you have a gun to do it.

I different kind of threat? You do realize, your straw man is not really valid…….When applying for an PAL/RPAL, the RCMP will conduct interviews with your spouse.

Unless of course you’re suggesting all potential gun owners spouses have some form of Stockholm syndrome and will consent to their abusive partners screening process, prior to them getting firearms.