Mass shooting

[Guest]

Talking about suspended, what happened to the "I'm not Mr Canada" thread?

[punked]

'Wow" indeed.

Punked was definitely not citing what the article said.

But it is what happened. Now its my fault you buy into the gun nut blogs out there citing this as the end to all the problems with guns out there?

Garcia went inside, chased people out the back door, and followed one employee as he ran toward the theater, apparently because he was the easiest target, Pollard said.

“He was chasing him, shooting in the air and at other cars,” Pollard said.

He said that when a San Antonio police officer heard the gunshots and pulled into the theater's parking lot, Garcia shot out his patrol car's windshield.

Garcia then pursued the employee into the theater, firing more shots when he reached the lobby, Pollard said.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Breakup-sparked-theater-shootout-4123414.php#ixzz2Gbe5KV59

Again this isn't a point for your side. I agree police officers should have guns.

[Guest American Woman]

But it is what happened. Now its my fault you buy into the gun nut blogs out there citing this as the end to all the problems with guns out there?

http://www.mysananto...p#ixzz2Gbe5KV59

Again this isn't a point for your side. I agree police officers should have guns.

From your link: "Garcia then pursued the employee into the theater, firing more shots when he reached the lobby, Pollard said."

He continued to fire shots in the theater. It was the off duty officer, the one working security, who shot him and ended it. Why do you refuse to see that??

It is a point for having armed security guards in public places. As for it being "my side," that says a lot right there. You think it's a matter of picking sides, so how is dialog supposed to take place with that mindset? - It's all about getting rid of guns; that's the beginning and the end. Yet there are other factors, other ways of dealing with some of the threats, that you are apparently blind to.

This is the perfect example. You refuse to see the situation for what it was. You don't even say that 'yes, it apparently was a good thing there was a security guard who took him out - thankfully no more lives were lost, but I still don't think it's a good idea;' you simply ignore the facts, as if it didn't happen the way it did.

Furthermore, you are saying that there's no way anyone would have been killed but for the security guard's presence and actions, which is a ludicrous position for someone who thinks guns are synonymous with killing regarding a crazed gunman on a shooting spree.

It's quite telling about your mindset and where you are coming from.

[GostHacked]

Everybody,

Stop the personal attacks. Anybody who posts personal attacks runs the risk of having posting privileges suspended.

Ch. A.

I don't think it can be considered an attack, when the poster has a history of the things people are complaining about here.

[punked]

From your link: "Garcia then pursued the employee into the theater, firing more shots when he reached the lobby, Pollard said."

He continued to fire shots in the theater. It was the off duty officer, the one working security, who shot him and ended it. Why do you refuse to see that??

Yah so we agree this man pumped off almost all the shots he had in his clip. So what saved peoples lives? Oh yah it was that this guy instead of firing his gun at people was shooting it in the air and at cars. If he instead pumped those shots off in a crowd you wouldn't be using this one example at all. If he wanted to kill people or was a better shot this would just be another public shooting with 5-10 people dead. This is not a win for your side, it again proves what I am saying. Gun access is to easy and if you want to kill some people you can kill plenty before someone else has a chance to shoot you. I am happy this man was a terrible shot though. Next time the guy might be a better shot and kill some people then you will be defending his right to a weapon.

It is a point for having armed security guards in public places. As for it being "my side," that says a lot right there. You think it's a matter of picking sides, so how is dialog supposed to take place with that mindset? - It's all about getting rid of guns; that's the beginning and the end. Yet there are other factors, other ways of dealing with some of the threats, that you are apparently blind to.

Yah because the other two POLICE OFFICERS who were at the mall wouldn't have gotten this man after his gun was already empty right? The facts instead of what you insinuate don't support your argument. There were police there with guns.

This is the perfect example. You refuse to see the situation for what it was. You don't even say that 'yes, it apparently was a good thing there was a security guard who took him out - thankfully no more lives were lost, but I still don't think it's a good idea;' you simply ignore the facts, as if it didn't happen the way it did.

Furthermore, you are saying that there's no way anyone would have been killed but for the security guard's presence and actions, which is a ludicrous position for someone who thinks guns are synonymous with killing regarding a crazed gunman on a shooting spree.

It's quite telling about your mindset and where you are coming from.

I am not saying anyone wouldn't have been shoot just there was plenty of time to actually kill people for this mad man and it is a miracle he didn't kill 10 people at this mall. He emptied his gun before any security guard or police took him down. I suggest you actually read up on the situation. If this was a long gun and a man who was practiced in shooting there would have been some dead people and you wouldn't be saying anything. You are WRONG!

Edited December 31, 2012 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

Yah so we agree this man pumped off almost all the shots he had in his clip.

We agree to no such thing. Where are you getting this from?

So what saved peoples lives? Oh yah it was that this guy instead of firing his gun at people was shooting it in the air and at cars.

Yeah, that's how someone got hit. By his shooting in the air and at cars. I won't repeat this again. He was shooting in the theater. The off duty officer working security told the theater goers to get down. She shot him. That's what stopped him.

If he instead pumped those shots off in a crowd you wouldn't be using this one example at all. If he wanted to kill people or was a better shot this would just be another public shooting with 5-10 people dead.

And you know this - how? And how do you know it wouldn't be another public shooting with 5 dead instead of 10? That more wouldn't have been killed but for the presence of the security guard? Let's say he was just a nice guy on a shooting spree, not meaning to hit anyone. If he were a better shot, as you suggest, then the presence of this security guard would be of even greater significance. Her presence would have been even more greatly needed.

This is not a win for your side, it again proves what I am saying.

You again speak of "sides" and "wins." How is one supposed to have any kind of dialog with such a mindset?

Gun access is to easy and if you want to kill some people you can kill plenty before someone else has a chance to shoot you. I am happy this man was a terrible shot though. Next time the guy might be a better shot and kill some people then you will be defending his right to a weapon.

What I would be doing is recognizing that the presence of an armed security guard likely saved lives.

I've pointed out repeatedly that the gunman in Connecticut broke several laws. It wasn't the laws that were lacking; it was the fact that he had no respect for the laws. He broke them. I've asked repeatedly - and no one has answered - how would Canada's gun laws have prevented that from happening? Do you have an answer?

Yah because the other two POLICE OFFICERS who were at the mall wouldn't have gotten this man after his gun was already empty right?

Seriously. Where are you getting "his gun was already empty" from? Do you simply make things up when you've got nothing else? - I can't help but notice you've gone from he "pumped off almost all (emphais mine) the shots he had in his clip" to "his gun was already empty" (emphasis mine) - within the span of one post.

The facts instead of what you insinuate don't support your argument. There were police there with guns.

Yet the police, with guns, didn't take him out. The security guard did.

I am not saying anyone wouldn't have been shoot just there was plenty of time to actually kill people for this made men and it is a miracle he didn't kill 10 people at this mall. He emptied his gun before any security guard or police took him down.

Again, I've seen nothing about is "emptying his gun." As far as I can see, this is pure fabrication.

suggest you actually read up on the situation. If this was a long gun and a man who was practiced in shooting there would have been some dead people and you wouldn't be saying anything. You are WRONG!

I have read up on the situation. The fact that I've provided legitimate sources for everything I've posted should tell you that. You. on the other hand, have nothing but speculation and excuses for a gunman on a shooting spree. Good to know that guns such as the one he was using can't kill; that it takes a long gun and practice in shooting to result in deaths in such situations; because that's, in effect, what you are saying.

Edited December 31, 2012 by American Woman

[punked]

And you know this - how? And how do you know it wouldn't be another public shooting with 5 dead instead of 10? That more wouldn't have been killed but for the presence of the security guard? Let's say he was just a nice guy on a shooting spree, not meaning to hit anyone. If he were a better shot, as you suggest, then the presence of this security guard would be of even greater significance. Her presence would have been more greatly needed.

Good you do get my point. This for you is about the amount dead for me it is about stopping it altogether. Your solutions is 5 dead kids instead of 10 while mine is 0 instead of 10. Thanks for playing.

Investigators say about 30 rounds were fired. It’s unclear why the break-up with his girlfriend caused the man to go after his co-workers. Investigators haven’t ruled out a love-triangle involving someone else at the restaurant.

http://www.theblaze....ith-one-bullet/

Next we wont be so lucky and all 30 bullets that a mad man shoots will hit and we will be dealing with 15 deaths and 20 wounded. YOU ARE WRONG THIS GUY SHOT OFF 30 BULLETS AW. Why do you think this story is a win for you? Is it because you didn't take the time to read up on it and critically think about the situation? Yes it is.

As the story unfolds this is what we know. Guys girlfriend breaks up with him (possibly cheating on him with a Co-worker). Guy posts on his girlfriends facebook wall "I am going to work to kill this ONE GUY" Girlfriend calls work tells everyone to get out before guy shows up. People at work flee just as he shows up and he chases ONE GUY (possibly the guy the girl was cheating with) shooting at ONE GUY and in the air. At least 30 shots were pumped off but not at people except ONE person (possibly the guy girl was cheating with). In the end we are lucky this mad man only wanted to shoot one person because he wanted to shoot more they would be dead.

We also know this. NONE THIS SUPPORTS YOUR IDEAS. Read a newspaper sometime before you go posting things that don't relate at all to your point.

Edited December 31, 2012 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

Good you do get my point. This for you is about the amount dead for me it is about stopping it altogether. Your solutions is 5 dead kids instead of 10 while mine is 0 instead of 10. Thanks for playing.

I get your viewpoint - banning guns. But yeah, "playing" is what I've been doing. Thanks for pointing out the mentality that one is supposed to 'engage in dialog' with. This attitude tells me that you don't want dialog; you simply want a ban on guns, and as far as I've seen, you'll make things up in order to support your "solution."

And no, "for [me]" it's not "about the number of dead." Try responding to what I've said instead of this nonsense.

Edited December 31, 2012 by American Woman

[punked]

I get your viewpoint - banning guns. But yeah, "playing" is what I've been doing. Thanks for pointing out the mentality that one is supposed to 'engage in dialog' with. This attitude tells me that you don't want dialog; you simply want a ban on guns, and as far as I've seen, you'll make things up in order to support your "solution."

And no, "for [me]" it's not "about the number of dead." Try responding to what I've said instead of this nonsense.

Nope that is not my view point. AT NO TIME HAVE BEEN FOR BANNING GUNS. I AM PRO GUN. I am for banning the NRA they get in the way of real dialogue. They stop research which could lead to real solutions and help us prove if your solution of more guns work. They lobby to make the world a more dangerous place and they throw up stories like this that don't prove their point at all.

Know my solution? Fund research for real solutions that don't ban guns but can help us find solutions or at least the real problem.

It is hard to respond to what you say when you post stories which you think support your argument with out actually reading them.

Edited December 31, 2012 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

Nope that is not my view point. AT NO TIME HAVE BEEN FOR BANNING GUNS. I AM PRO GUN.

Then you can't be for "no deaths," as you claim. As long as there are guns, there remains the danger of deaths,

I am for banning the NRA they get in the way of real dialogue.

Are you serious? THEY get in the way of "real dialog?" And I suppose bringing unsubstantiated claims into the discussion is "real dialog?"

They stop research which could lead to real solutions

No, they don't stop the research. The only thing "stopped" is conclusions that support one side of the issue - with public funds. As it should be. Unless you think the NRA should be able to receive public funds for such research, along with their conclusions?

It is hard to respond to what you say when you post stories which you think support your argument with out actually reading them.

I'll ask you one more time to provide evidence of your claim, but first you're going to have to determine what your claim is: did he use almost all of his ammunition or did he use all of it? You've claimed both. Without any sources to back it up.

So again. Source please. If you provide none, you'll confirm that you've simply made it up.

---------------------

And one. more. time. How would Canada's gun laws have prevented Lanza from carrying out his shooting spree? Again. It wasn't a lack of laws - it was that he broke the laws. How would Canada's laws have prevented him from breaking them?

Edited December 31, 2012 by American Woman

[punked]

No, they don't stop the research. The only thing "stopped" is conclusions that support one side of the issue - with public funds. As it should be. Unless you think the NRA should be able to receive public funds for such research, along with their conclusions?

I am for Science. If someone can show me some facts that support more guns=less deaths, I would love to see it. Know why the NRA doesn't do this research? It's because real Scientist would shoot 1000 holes in their study. I am sorry facts matter and the NRA blocking facts and science isn't real dialogue. Which is why no government department will study this because the NRA lobbies against any money that goes into gun violence research. In Florida it is illegal for doctors to even to keep records of gun innocents. Thanks NRA for blocking Science that has always gotten societies real far we can just look to the dark ages to find out what blocking science does for a Society. I can't believe I am talking to someone in real life who is for blocking science or the conclusion that come from it. This isn't about a political agenda. This is a right wing or left wing issue. It is Science vs. Magic argument.

I'll ask you one more time to provide evidence of your claim, but first you're going to have to determine what your claim is: did he use almost all of his ammunition or did he use all of it? You've claimed both. Without any sources to back it up.

So again. Source please. If you provide none, you'll confirm that you've simply made it up.

It is sourced. I cited a source that said he fired 30 rounds from a GLOCK 23 which holds 15 bullets. Meaning he even had time in his shooting spree to reload his Magazine. Yah we are lucky but not that there was a security guard there. We are lucky he didn't pump those two Magazines he shot off into real people instead of shooting it into the air. Seriously do you read up on anything you willy nilly post? So what he got shot? He got shot after he shoot up a restaurant, ran across a street, shoot up a cop car, ran into a crowded movie theater and shot that up and probably ran out of bullets. I feel so safe now knowing people only get to fire off two magazines worth of bullets before they might be brought down.

Maybe the restaurant should have had a security guard. Oh and the subway across the street. Heck the street should have had some to. Again a security guard didn't stop of being killed here, this guys bad aim stopped people from being killed.

And one. more. time. How would Canada's gun laws have prevented Lanza from carrying out his shooting spree? Again. It wasn't a lack of laws - it was that he broke the laws. How would Canada's laws have prevented him from breaking them?

Again it isn't about the lack of laws. It is about the lack of real dialogue. The last shooting in Canada started a national debate which lead to some action (both good and bad) but we did something. We looked at what worked and kept with it, we look at what didn't (long gun registry) and scrapped it. we used facts and figures to understand the problem. Having an organization which has roughly 10% of America in it which is committed to never talking about the problem or offering solutions with no evidence they work aint going to work. You need fund research into the small things that will make a big difference but the NRA is in the way.

[Canuckistani]

Thanks for that info - puts a lie to the whole "a good guy shooting a bad guy saved the day" thing. If he was a half decent shot, and was aiming to kill, since he got off 30 rounds we can assume maybe 10 deaths before the good guy shot the bad guy.

[punked]

Thanks for that info - puts a lie to the whole "a good guy shooting a bad guy saved the day" thing. If he was a half decent shot, and was aiming to kill, since he got off 30 rounds we can assume maybe 10 deaths before the good guy shot the bad guy.

Yep this is another one of those cases where facts trump spin.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am for banning the NRA they get in the way of real dialogue.

Sorry, you can't do that, not even from Canada. The NRA is protected by the US Constitution...just like "guns".

[punked]

Sorry, you can't do that, not even from Canada. The NRA is protected by the US Constitution...just like "guns".

That isn't what I meant for "banning the NRA" I meant their power needs to be taken away by the American public. People need to start voting against their agenda. When the NRA points to a congressman and says "don't vote for him he is for gun research" the people of that district need to take that as a ringing endorsement to vote for that congressman. They are a big part of the problem in the US because they stop solutions.

[Canuckistani]

Sorry, you can't do that, not even from Canada. The NRA is protected by the US Constitution...just like "guns".

We can't do anything, really, except to sit back and shake our heads. Doesn't mean we don't have an opinion on the matter tho. Personally I'm not for banning the NRA, but the politicians growing a pair and telling them to fark off. Or, you know, the IQ of Americans to rise a bit. Maybe all those Canadians emigrating there will do that.

[bush_cheney2004]

That isn't what I meant for "banning the NRA" I meant their power needs to be taken away by the American public. People need to start voting against their agenda. When the NRA points to a congressman and says "don't vote for him he is for gun research" the people of that district need to take that as a ringing endorsement to vote for that congressman. They are a big part of the problem in the US because they stop solutions.

Nonsense...more people are joining the NRA....not less. Stop telling people in the U.S. how they should vote. They have the right to do things that you don't agree with...from Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

We can't do anything, really, except to sit back and shake our heads.

Yep...that's what smug, sanctimonious people do, whether they be in the U.S. or Canada.

[punked]

Nonsense...more people are joining the NRA....not less. Stop telling people in the U.S. how they should vote. They have the right to do things that you don't agree with...from Canada.

I am not telling anyone how to vote. Although don't worry my vote counted just as much as yours did and will continue to in the future.

[Canuckistani]

Nonsense...more people are joining the NRA....not less. Stop telling people in the U.S. how they should vote. They have the right to do things that you don't agree with...from Canada.

stop telling Canadians on a Canadian forum to stop telling people in the US how they should vote. What the hell are you so worried about? You think this forum is going to influence Americans to become a bunch of socialist anit-gun people? The only Americans I see on this forum are you and American Woman, defenders of the American way. Why are you so insecure that you feel the need to come on a Canadian forum to defend the US from Canadians expressing their opinion?

[Canuckistani]

Yep...that's what smug, sanctimonious people do, whether they be in the U.S. or Canada.

What would you have us do? You even tell us to stop telling you how to vote, so obviously you don't want to listen to us, who've found a better way. So what can we do except shake our heads. I'm sure if you ask for our help, we'd be glad to give it, since we are a generous people.

[bush_cheney2004]

stop telling Canadians on a Canadian forum to stop telling people in the US how they should vote. What the hell are you so worried about? You think this forum is going to influence Americans to become a bunch of socialist anit-gun people? The only Americans I see on this forum are you and American Woman, defenders of the American way. Why are you so insecure that you feel the need to come on a Canadian forum to defend the US from Canadians expressing their opinion?

Because any Canadian-American who advocates taking away our constitutional rights needs to be engaged. Americans fought a war to be rid of your collectivist ilk, and we can do it again if necessary.

[bush_cheney2004]

What would you have us do? You even tell us to stop telling you how to vote, so obviously you don't want to listen to us, who've found a better way. So what can we do except shake our heads. I'm sure if you ask for our help, we'd be glad to give it, since we are a generous people.

Just how well do you think Americans telling Canadians how to vote would be received in Canada ? Your nation just dismantled the half-ass Gun Registry, one of the biggest and most expensive IT fiascos in history. No head shaking, just a lot of ROTFLMAO.

Edited December 31, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Canuckistani]

Because any Canadian-American who advocates taking away our constitutional rights needs to be engaged. Americans fought a war to be rid of your collectivist ilk, and we can do it again if necessary.

wow, paranoia does strike deep. You really think you're fighting the good fight here, protecting the US from losing your constitutional rights? You really should take a look at your country, the the constitutional rights your own government is infringing to "fight terrorism." for instance. If you think coming on this forum telling people to stop telling Americans what to do is protecting America, you have a serious problem.

[WIP]

On the newswire today in U.S. shootings, a 39 year old man who was taken to a police station got a hold of a female police officer's gun and shot three cops before being shot dead; while also in New England, a landlord shot and killed two tenants in a dispute over parking spaces.....so, now NRA supporters are calling for armed guards posted in front of police stations and every rental unit across the U.S.A......sounds like a plan!