Mass shooting

[cybercoma]

Nobody could understand it, because it doesn't make any sense. Btw, I'm still waiting for you to denounce these actions.

It's pretty clear when you read more than one clause and ignore the rest of the post.

[Shady]

It's pretty clear when you read more than one clause and ignore the rest of the post.

Yes, but that one clause is ridiculous.

[cybercoma]

Yes, but that one clause is ridiculous.

Regardless, that's not the argument I was making. What was the argument, Shady?

[Guest Derek L]

Isn't it a normal human function after a disaster to try and figure out how to prevent future disasters? When a plane crashes, don't we immediately launch a full investigation to figure out what caused it, and figure out how to prevent that from happening again? If a bridge collapses, do you say "Now is not the time to use this as an emotional vehicle to further your agenda of proper bridge maintenance." ?

And in any event, there is a difference between arguing that gun control would not help, and making masturbatory posts about how exciting guns are right after a bunch of six year olds were slaughtered with one.

After a plane crashes or a bridge collapses do people call for bans on bridges and planes?

[Shady]

After a plane crashes or a bridge collapses do people call for bans on bridges and planes?

Not to mention that comparing inanimate objects to a human acting with free will are two very seperate things.

[Guest Derek L]

Well said. Of course it's clear that for some (many?) guns aren't an issue of public safety, but one tied directly to their own feelings of self-worth and masculinity. I can't see why else they take any discussion of making it more difficult to get guns so very personally.

Nothing to do with masculinity, more to do with people like you that lump the vast majority of gun owners in with those that would shoot-up a Kindergarten……………Think about, after a “terror” attack by a Islamic extremist, is it sound to call for a ban on all Muslims?

I wonder if the HRC would listen to gun owners

[Guest Derek L]

I think an important point in the debate that rarely, if ever, gets brought up is this.

You would think gun owners and those that really want to keep their firearms would be the first to stand up, denounce these actions, and really be the core of people contributing to ways that this kind of thing can be prevented. They know that this sort of thing contributes to public support for taking away their guns. If they were smart, they wouldn't act like juvenile selfish fools and try to be involved in the discussion in a constructive way. Otherwise, they risk having the public look at them like idiots that are part of the problem, rather than contributing to solutions. Digging their heels in, making threats, and criticizing people who are looking for ways to make society safer is going to leave them out of the discussion. They should be the first ones to the table offering solutions and advocating for safe gun ownership and better laws that allow them to keep their guns, while reducing harm.

You expect “gun owners” to help people like you, after you categorize gun owners with people that shoot up a classroom?

As to gun owners worrying about image or perception , well remember, we’re part of the public too………As to “safe ownership”, the NRA and gun disciple Jeff Cooper were the driving force behind all modern gun safety programs and procedures.

[WWWTT]

Which is not to say there have been no shooting sprees since then. Or is the gun ban 'successful' because these victims of Derrick Bird in 2010 weren't children?

Just writing the facts!

I guess you don't like the fact that the UK can control guns and doesn't have a gun smuggling problem like Canada does from the US therefore has low stats in regards to gun deaths.

Of course there will be some amount of crime everywhere.

But there should always be steps taken to reduce this!

WWWTT

[The_Squid]

Most gun owners are fine. I am among them. The gun nuts like DerekL add nothing to the debate and stand in the way of progress on sensible gun control.

[Guest Derek L]

Most gun owners are fine. I am among them. The gun nuts like DerekL add nothing to the debate and stand in the way of progress on sensible gun control.

No, I’ve made my opinion on how to make “guns safe” in numerous other threads, well opining that gun owners with an inherent knowledge of firearms are better equipped to make such calls then emotional people that fear a piece of wood, polymer and steel:

http://www.mapleleaf...pic=22019&st=90

Things like banning or further restricting certain firearms with differing actions is still a false positive………As is restrictions on ownerships in the cities (I live in Coquitlam, a suburb of Vancouver, and my guns don’t become more or less safe depending on geography), same with barrel length (As a mater of fact, the longer the barrel, the more accurate the gun) or even magazine capacity ( Higher caps tend to jam more and are heavier, hence effecting accuracy as the rounds are depleted, and hell, I can reload most semi-autos inside of two seconds).

No, the one condition that makes a piece of steel/composite/wood (aka a gun) potentially deadly is the person possessing it………..As I’ve said, I’ve not a problem with licensing, even a further form of a graduated system that we already have, and I’d even submit to an idea proposed by Eyeball, in that every time a licence comes up for renewal, said gun owner has to pay out of pocket for a Physical/mental health screening by a registered doctor……..I don’t think it necessary, but if it helps calm a certain constituency, so be it.

But once I’ve obtained said licence, it should be no business of the Government to know what I own within my home………We allow members of the police and military to carry firearms and they are just regular people after all, but we accept as a society that from time to time, some “bad guys” slip through the crack in their screening process, why not other fellow citizens?

I would make the following as a form of graduated licensing for firearms:

All those wishing to posses: Rimfires (.22lr, bit more powerful than pellet guns), centerfire bolt action, lever action, pump action and semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns (guns limited to a max of 5 rounds with internal tube or box mags) would submit to licensing process similar to our current Restricted class (handguns etc) of 16 hours of class room training, background checks and interviews with the RCMP, and a requirement that if said holder wished to discharge said firearms outside of a licensed range, they must have a valid hunting licence also (Usually two days classroom time, depending on Province)

For those wishing for the above, plus semi-autos centerfires with a detachable magazine (No restrictions on mag limit) and handguns for the sole purpose of target shooting, they must belong to a range…..But if one wishes a high cap for varmint control or a rimfire semi-auto handgun or center fire revolver for hunting/dispatching injured animals/bear defence, they must also possess a Provincial hunting licence, additional two day course on safety, ballistics and legalities on animal culling, plus 1 million dollars liability insurance. And the requirement for a mental health assessment when renewing their licence.

For those wishing to posses full automatics, they must obtain a collectors licence, everything above, but said arms can only be used at a range. (Realistically, not many people could afford such a hobby when a .30 calibre rifle, with a 30 round mag would go through $30 of ammo in seconds, plus even in the states, a beat-up AK-47 would run you about $5000.)

For those wishing firearms for self defence, everything as above, plus 5 million dollars liability insurance, they must attend (out of pocket) the same ~two weeks firearms training done by the RCMP at depot in Regina, plus a course (out of pocket) on conflict resolution and legalities of self-defence put on by a local policing collage (Here in BC it’s the Justice Institute)

All I’ve done, over and above the current licensing is to “increase the bar” for the entry level licence, and made the requirements for possessing handguns, semi-auto and auto rifles equal to or better than the current requirements we as a society currently mandate Armoured truck personal, prison guards, Sheriffs, DFO officers and in some municipalities, police officers are forced to meet……..What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest American Woman]

Just writing the facts!

I guess you don't like the fact that the UK can control guns and doesn't have a gun smuggling problem like Canada does from the US therefore has low stats in regards to gun deaths.

Please don't speculate as to my personal feelings - what I like or don't like - and stick to what I've actually said, as I don't care to respond to a ludicrous "guess" in that regard.

And fyi, Canada's "gun smuggling problem" is Canada's problem. Not surprising that you would blame your gun deaths statistics on the U.S., though, rather than address it.

Of course there will be some amount of crime everywhere.

But there should always be steps taken to reduce this!

So your "no school shootings since" really didn't prove much of a point. No more mass shootings on the other hand, would have - but that's not the reality, proving that gun bans don't prevent mass shootings. Now, for comparison's sake, how many school shootings were there in the U.K. before the ban, other than the one? What about mass shootings? Just how many were there before - and after? How effective has the ban been? And are you pushing for a gun ban in Canada?

Edited December 16, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

You expect “gun owners” to help people like you, after you categorize gun owners with people that shoot up a classroom?

As to gun owners worrying about image or perception , well remember, we’re part of the public too………As to “safe ownership”, the NRA and gun disciple Jeff Cooper were the driving force behind all modern gun safety programs and procedures.

Nobody's lumping gun-owners in with killers. Stop having a pity party. The problem is that your unwavering rejection of gun control legislation gives killers easier access to more efficient means of slaughtering others. Every few months when they do, the particularly zealous weapons fanatics like yourself whine and cry that it's unfair that people would want to take your guns away. Well, nobody gives a crap about gun-toting blowhards playing the victim when an entire classroom full of young children are the true victims. So instead of playing the defensive card, maybe the gun-possession advocates should be a bit more constructive at times like this. Frankly, flatly rejecting any notion of stricter restrictions on firearms ownership when there is clearly a problem with mass shootings in the US makes everyone else just ignore any valid points you might actually have.

[Guest Derek L]

Nobody's lumping gun-owners in with killers. Stop having a pity party. The problem is that your unwavering rejection of gun control legislation gives killers easier access to more efficient means of slaughtering others. Every few months when they do, the particularly zealous weapons fanatics like yourself whine and cry that it's unfair that people would want to take your guns away. Well, nobody gives a crap about gun-toting blowhards playing the victim when an entire classroom full of young children are the true victims. So instead of playing the defensive card, maybe the gun-possession advocates should be a bit more constructive at times like this. Frankly, flatly rejecting any notion of stricter restrictions on firearms ownership when there is clearly a problem with mass shootings in the US makes everyone else just ignore any valid points you might actually have.

Read my quoted post above.

[Smallc]

Nobody's lumping gun-owners in with killers. Stop having a pity party. The problem is that your unwavering rejection of gun control legislation gives killers easier access to more efficient means of slaughtering others.

The real problem is that your unwavering view that no one should own guns forces him into that position.

[cybercoma]

The real problem is that your unwavering view that no one should own guns forces him into that position.

Wrong. I take the position that no one should own guns because there's people like him that would giddily drool over firearms and ammunition in a thread discussing the mass murder of grade school kids. If he's an example of a "responsible gun owner" then no one should have guns.

Edited December 16, 2012 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Because he enjoys guns, and is able to separate that from a mass murder, he's somehow not an example of a responsible gun owner? Because he doesn't agree that people should have guns taken away (as you do) because someone somewhere went off the handle and shot some kids to death (an absolutely terrible tragedy that never should have happened) he's not an example of a responsible gun owner? You don't even seem to know that definition of the word.

[The_Squid]

Wrong. I take the position that no one should own guns because there's people like him that would giddily drool over firearms and ammunition in a thread discussing the mass murder of grade school kids. If he's an example of a "responsible gun owner" then no one should have guns.

He is certainly not an example of a responsible gun owner. Absolutely the opposite. People like DerekL are the problem.

[Smallc]

He is certainly not an example of a responsible gun owner. Absolutely the opposite. People like DerekL are the problem.

He's not? Have you seen him handle and store weapons? Has he shot someone? Has he threatened someone?

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess you don't like the fact that the UK can control guns and doesn't have a gun smuggling problem like Canada does from the US therefore has low stats in regards to gun deaths.

Why can't Canada control guns at the border? Maybe it is too busy grab-assing with union border guards over serious issues like wearing name tags instead !

I got news for you and the other wannabes with penis fantasies related to gun ownership.....the U.S. is not going to ban guns for law abiding citizens.

Not going to happen. We are manufacturing and importing more guns right now...today...and tomorrow....and the day after that.

[The_Squid]

He's not? Have you seen him handle and store weapons? Has he shot someone? Has he threatened someone?

Advocating looser gun restrictions. His obsession with posting pics of his favourite killing implements. His glorifying guns in a thread about a massacre.... If he's responsible, I'd hate to see irresponsible!

[bush_cheney2004]

He is certainly not an example of a responsible gun owner. Absolutely the opposite. People like DerekL are the problem.

Nonsense...he is an example of a responsible and educated gun owner that is needed to demonstrate gun ownership responsibilities and sporting practices to other current and new owners.

[Guest Derek L]

Because he enjoys guns, and is able to separate that from a mass murder, he's somehow not an example of a responsible gun owner? Because he doesn't agree that people should have guns taken away (as you do) because someone somewhere went off the handle and shot some kids to death (an absolutely terrible tragedy that never should have happened) he's not an example of a responsible gun owner? You don't even seem to know that definition of the word.

Welcome to the club

Reason makes no difference with their orthodoxy.

[WWWTT]

And fyi, Canada's "gun smuggling problem" is Canada's problem. Not surprising that you would blame your gun deaths statistics on the U.S., though, rather than address it.

Just trying to stick with the facts.

If you do not want me to guess what you like or do not like,then that's fine I will not comment on your preferrences than.

Oh and by the way,Canada's gun problem from smuggled guns from the US is also the US's problem.Just because we have the weakest PM in Canadian history when it comes to Canada/US relations,don't be fooled that our trading relation will always remain the same!

WWWTT

[Smallc]

Advocating looser gun restrictions. His obsession with posting pics of his favourite killing implements.

Well, first, many of us don't use guns for killing, and second, some of the gun restrictions are downright stupid, and should be done away with. I haven't heard hom say anything about reducing the requirements for licensing or storage. If anything, those should maybe be stronger.

His glorifying guns in a thread about a massacre.... If he's responsible, I'd hate to see irresponsible!

That says nothing about whether or not he's a responsible gun owner.

[The_Squid]

Why can't Canada control guns at the border?   Maybe it is too busy grab-assing with union border guards over serious issues like wearing name tags instead !

You are 100% correct. Our border "guards" are glorified tax collectors more concerned with Canadians having 3 bottles of wine and 30 beer rather than the security of our border.

It's not the responsibility of the USA to stop gun smuggling into Canada, although I'm sure that if we had a plan to crack down there would be plenty of cooperation from the US border patrol.