22 dead, dozens wounded (and counting) in USA’s latest 2nd Amendment celebration

[Deluge]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Splatter.

No one has mentioned abolishing the second amendment, and the abortion agument is spurious.

Splatter? lol

Then what the f*ck are you trying to say? Don't be timid, just spit it out. 

The abortion argument is nowhere near spurious. It is relevant - highly relevant, and your so-called fight to save lives is inconsistent. 

 

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Explain. 

You could actually pass some laws that would deal the carnage cause by firearms instead of thoughts and prayers and other window dressing.

[Deluge]

Just now, Aristides said:

You could actually pass some laws that would deal the carnage cause by firearms instead of thoughts and prayers and other window dressing.

And that means abolish the 2nd Amendment, right? 

[Guest]

Just now, Deluge said:

Splatter? lol

Then what the f*ck are you trying to say? Don't be timid, just spit it out. 

The abortion argument is nowhere near spurious. It is relevant - highly relevant, and your so-called fight to save lives is inconsistent. 

 

It was splatter.  You made up an argument for me, and invoked a spurious argument by bringing up abortion.

I could just as easily say that the argument against abortion is an argument for gun control if we are simply (and I do emphasize the word) discussing lives.  That too would be nonsense, though.

[Aristides]

Just now, Deluge said:

And that means abolish the 2nd Amendment, right? 

Like I said, you would be doing yourself a favour. But carry on crazy and don't trip over any of the bodies.

[Deluge]

Just now, Aristides said:

Like I said, you would be doing yourself a favour. But carry on crazy and don't trip over any of the bodies.

I'd be doing violent criminals a favor, that's for sure. I'd be doing a tyrannical government a favor too.

Are you content with the idea of cowering while gangbangers, violent criminals, and a ruthless dictatorship herds you around and slaughters you like cattle? 

 

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It was splatter.  You made up an argument for me, and invoked a spurious argument by bringing up abortion.

I could just as easily say that the argument against abortion is an argument for gun control if we are simply (and I do emphasize the word) discussing lives.  That too would be nonsense, though.

You're running away again. 

Answer the question. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You're running away again. 

Answer the question. 

Which question?  Reread my response to make sure I didn't answer it, but in such a way as you didn't understand it.

Unless you're talking about your avoidance of the issue by saying someone who advocates for sane gun control is trying to abolish the second amendment.

Which really should be obvious.

Edited October 27, 2023 by bcsapper

[Deluge]

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Which question?  Reread my response to make sure I didn't answer it, but in such a way as you didn't understand it.

Unless you're talking about your avoidance of the issue by saying someone who advocates for sane gun control is trying to abolish the second amendment.

Which really should be obvious.

What is your stance on the 2nd Amendment? Do we keep it, or do we abolish it? 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

You're the one saying "It's not the Guns!". So what is it then. Mental Health, Wealth Inequality, Poverty? What sets these types of shootings a part is they often happen in places where poverty or drug use isn't a huge issuu. 

The do  not happen in areas of poverty or drug use. Sandy hook is a prosperous community. Las vegas is not poor and neither was the shooter. L'ecole politechnique is not in a poor area. Dawson was not poor. Virginia tech is not full of poor people. 

This is my problem - you just make random crap up or you listen to people who just make random crap up.

The number one determining factor and one that was present in ALL of those is mental health issues. There was a small group who did some fascinating work studuying this, but if mental health issues go undetected and untreated or unaddressed by authorities then this can be the result if certain criteria are met.

The only time poverty comes into play is organized crime or gang shootings which are technically 'mass murders' but clearly not the kind of thing we're talking about here.

Quote

Well I feel much more comfortable in the level of regulation we have in Canada then what is seen in the US. Of course we're not in America. They have this devotion to guns that most in the rest of the developed world find weird.  

And if I feel more comfortable banning gays from teaching at schools, should we do that? Your comfort level is not relevant.

 

Quote

You could argue there's an element of mental health issues in all crime. But we rarely see such mass casualty type crime like this in places with reasonable gun laws. 

That is not true. Again - you're making up facts. Go check out gary mauser's work.  You can see DIFFERENT murders but in reality the murder rate for any given country has NOTHING to do with the avialability of guns.  J

Quote

The issue at hand is a mass shooting. Some dude kills a bunch of random strangers in a public place, usually with some sort of semi-automatic rifle and gads of ammunition. 

No, the issue at hand is that you made a claim about semi auto rifles being the most popular for killings and they're not even close in either country.

Funny how you want to "change the issue" after i point out you're not correct.

 

 

Quote

Much of the hand gun crime in Canada happens with smuggled guns from the US. 

Almost all of it. And almost all of the long gun crime as well.  Almost all GUN crime is from smuggled guns in Canada.

Funny story - despite the regulation it's still easy for people who want to commit crimes to get a gun.
 

Quote

Are you in Canada or the US? Because I was talking about Canada. Is there anywhere in Canada where you can drive around with a loaded sawed-off shotgun? 

No problem driving around with a short barreled shotgun at all, and i can have the ammo at the ready no issue. IF by 'sawed off" you mean short barreled shotguns i have MANY of them, (shotguns being a fave of mine).  In fact - short shotguns are actually more illegal in the states where you need a specific special tax stamp than they are in Canada where they are unrestricted firearms.  I have several with 12 inch barrels - i used to have one wit an 8 inch barrel. 

II have been pulled over (forgot to put my insurance sticker on the license plate)  by a cop just after i bought a mare's leg super short lever action 44 mag that's basically the size of a large handgun and it was on my passenger seat while the cop talked to me - didn't even ask about it despite it being clearly in site - and this was in a major city. Not the first time something like that happened.

So - once again  you don't know the law. You don't have the slighetst clue - just an uninformed opinon but yeah ... guns are the problem and all gun owners are like "murica man!!

Yeash.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

But given the lack of meaningful action on gun control after incidents like Sandy Hook and Parkland, it's fairly obvious that, at the very least, you and people like you care more about your guns than you care about other people's children.

And that level of stupidity is why there will never be changes to the gun laws in the us, and why canada will probably roll back some of it's gun laws.

All gays are child molesters.  All black people are theives. Gun owenrs love guns more than children

Sigh.  Sometimes it's hard to think of humans who think like that as the best we could come up with after 4 billion years of evolution.

If you really meant what you say - you'd demand we ban all teachers and sports coaches because sometimes the molest children, you'd DEMAND a ban on swimming pools because they kill more kids than guns, you'd insist children not be allowed in vehicles because far more will die in car accidents than by guns....

I' man what's wrong with you? Do you love cars more than your own children? You MUST right?!?!

[Boges]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The do  not happen in areas of poverty or drug use. Sandy hook is a prosperous community. Las vegas is not poor and neither was the shooter. L'ecole politechnique is not in a poor area. Dawson was not poor. Virginia tech is not full of poor people. 

This is my problem - you just make random crap up or you listen to people who just make random crap up.

The number one determining factor and one that was present in ALL of those is mental health issues. There was a small group who did some fascinating work studuying this, but if mental health issues go undetected and untreated or unaddressed by authorities then this can be the result if certain criteria are met.

The only time poverty comes into play is organized crime or gang shootings which are technically 'mass murders' but clearly not the kind of thing we're talking about here.

And if I feel more comfortable banning gays from teaching at schools, should we do that? Your comfort level is not relevant.

Reading Comprehension. . . I said "ISN'T" and issue. You can't lump Mass shootings like this with traditional violent crime because their causes are much different. But they're causes not unique to US, the rampant use of guns are. 

 

Quote

And if I feel more comfortable banning gays from teaching at schools, should we do that? Your comfort level is not relevant.

You say stuff like this in polite company?

I'm stating that much of the developed world has it right in regards to gun control and much of the US has it wrong. You're free to disagree. 

Quote

 

Almost all of it. And almost all of the long gun crime as well.  Almost all GUN crime is from smuggled guns in Canada.

Funny story - despite the regulation it's still easy for people who want to commit crimes to get a gun

 

Especially when you share a massive border with a country that has more guns in it than people. Would a wall work? 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Boges

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

Yet they mostly feel "wokeness: is the cultural sickness that must be addressed/

I guess some people must think the best way to address wokeness is with a gun or a pick-up truck.  I think it's reasonable to assume there'll be more people using these options to work out their political issues in the future.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And that level of stupidity is why there will never be changes to the gun laws in the us, and why canada will probably roll back some of it's gun laws.

All gays are child molesters.  All black people are theives. Gun owenrs love guns more than children

Sigh.  Sometimes it's hard to think of humans who think like that as the best we could come up with after 4 billion years of evolution.

If you really meant what you say - you'd demand we ban all teachers and sports coaches because sometimes the molest children, you'd DEMAND a ban on swimming pools because they kill more kids than guns, you'd insist children not be allowed in vehicles because far more will die in car accidents than by guns....

I' man what's wrong with you? Do you love cars more than your own children? You MUST right?!?!

Really, a swimming pool argument?  A car argument?

Okay, because you're not as dumb as that post suggests, I'll just say that I think lifeguards and seatbelts are a great idea and leave you to figure out the rest.

Because I know you can.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Or just maybe, there is an underlying social problem that causes these people to want to respond via violence?

It's simply the stress of life in a violent culture.  And that will require a lot of addressing, an absolutely enormous amount.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

What is your stance on the 2nd Amendment? Do we keep it, or do we abolish it? 

You stand well back, take a good long look at all the facts, and interpret it accordingly.  Change the laws to suit the new interpretation.

That said, even if the US were smart enough to do a bang up job, it would like suddenly stopping all greenhouse gas emissions as such would relate to climate change.  There would still be a massive lag before such changes would show an effect.

Still, the current situation is insane, so might as well, right?

[Deluge]

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You stand well back, take a good long look at all the facts, and interpret it accordingly.  Change the laws to suit the new interpretation.

That said, even if the US were smart enough to do a bang up job, it would like suddenly stopping all greenhouse gas emissions as such would relate to climate change.  There would still be a massive lag before such changes would show an effect.

Still, the current situation is insane, so might as well, right?

Not nesessary. As a law abiding citizen and 2nd Amendment supporter, I want access to any gun I want. If psychopaths and criminals are getting their hands on guns, then it's up to the state to do a better job of rooting them out before they unload on the public. 

It's not guns' fault, it's the murderer's fault. 

THAT is the correct stance. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Deluge

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Not nesessary. As a law abiding citizen and 2nd Amendment supporter, I want access to any gun I want. If psychopaths and criminals are getting their hands on guns, then it's up to the state to do a better job of rooting them out before they unload on the public. 

It's not guns' fault, it's the murderer's fault. 

THAT is the correct stance. 

It's certainly the current stance.

Anyway, we're in a loop now.  We're back to you showing that you care more about your guns than you do about other people's children.  (I amended that earlier because I don't know if you have any children, and I don't know what you think of them if you do)

Edited October 27, 2023 by bcsapper

[Deluge]

27 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's certainly the current stance.

Anyway, we're in a loop now.  We're back to you showing that you care more about your guns than you do about other people's children.  (I amended that earlier because I don't know if you have any children, and I don't know what you think of them if you do)

No, YOU are in the loop. I am in the right. 

I love children and I love the Constitution. 

You love defenselessness and abortion. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No, YOU are in the loop. I am in the right. 

I love children and I love the Constitution. 

You love defenselessness and abortion. 

Splatter.  That didn't take long.

You don't know what I mean by "a loop" do you?

[Deluge]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Splatter.  That didn't take long.

You don't know what I mean by "a loop" do you?

Sorry, chump. You can't tell 2nd Amendment supporters that they don't care about children. It's a stupid thing to say and it's unfounded. 

I support the 2nd Amendment and I also love human life.  

YOU just hate guns, and you use the loss of human life to fuel your war against legal gun ownership. 

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

You don't think those elements of loneliness aren't a reality for people in other countries?

100%.

However, the divisiveness and rhetoric isn't the same. Your political climate is dangerously toxic. It isn't the same. The gun culture, which is part of the US fabric, isn't the same.

The attacks on what used to be masculinity, aren't the same. ⁵

Guns are only a small portion of the problem. 

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Being able to commit mass murder because your lonely seems way more common in the US. Why? Guns! 

Its over simplifying the actual issue. Many countries with many guns per capita don't even remotely come close to the murder rates you see in the US. Why is this? American guns are more murderous? Or just maybe, part of the issue may be cultural? 

Why is the average gun owner in Canada far less likely per capita, to commit mass murder?

Better gun laws? Different relationships with Guns? Maybe all of the above? But how would this explain the same or similar pattern in countries where far more guns are available?

Do you honestly believe guns on their own, will create this issue?

2 hours ago, Boges said:

The guy who took a rent-a-truck down a Toronto street years ago was an Incel. 

Okay. 

Do you think someone happily married would mow down people with a car, or shoot something up?

I had a guy try to side swipe the the other day because he tried to bully me into moving faster with nowhere to go on a highway. I had a car gap ahead of me, so he pulled on the shoulder next to me to have his tantrum, after I flashed him a middle finger.

Do you think I stay relatively calm, if I don't have a wife to consider? 

He clearly, was single and rage filled. Called me every name in the book as he repeatedly steered his car towards mine demanding me to lower my window, and my smile truly sent him over the edge as his trying to scare me didn't affect me.

My mentality is if you hit me, I have hundreds of witnesses, and man to man with no car protecting you, I like my chances with a background in combat sports.

Single and lonely, I would have followed him at high speed, got out, and likely stabbed him to death, or beat him unconscious, and then urinated on his face. 

I don't understand how you feel a gun will prevent one's ability to kill many people.

The only thing keeping me in check, is that I have a lot of dependents who love and need me and vice versa.

I as a result, will take the high road, because its in my and their best interests. It will take a lot more provocation.

I however, can understand the anger, because I was bullied as a youth. So it is relatively easy to me to understand an anger that makes your thoughts so dark, that people would think you were a monster for thinking them, but those same people were inciting and encouraging the bully to keep shoving you down stairs or throwing items at you while the crowd laughs and prevents you from leaving.

I have a deep understanding of that anger.

Difference with me, is back against the wall, I fight like a caged pittbull then and there and bring the conflict to a brutal end. 

But again, to think guns can fix the issue when its deeply rooted, is silly at best.

Just maybe there are a lot of pieces of s*** in society that could push people to wanting to murder them.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Sorry, chump. You can't tell 2nd Amendment supporters that they don't care about children. It's a stupid thing to say and it's unfounded. 

I support the 2nd Amendment and I also love human life.  

YOU just hate guns, and you use the loss of human life to fuel your war against legal gun ownership. 

Splatter.  I'm not telling 2nd Amendment supporters anything.  I'm telling you (and those who think as you do, obviously)

I have to believe there are some who see the existence of both the 2nd Amendment and sane gun control laws as not being mutually exclusive.  You want access to any gun you want, and it's up to someone else to deal with the carnage, even dead kids.

And I told you, I have a gun, and I would be willing to bet I've fired a greater variety of firearms than you have, and had more fun going so into the bargain. You saying I hate guns doesn't win you the argument.

But you are right that I view the loss of life as a good reason to bring in stricter gun control laws, so we are getting somewhere.

Edited October 27, 2023 by bcsapper

[Boges]

12 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

100%.

However, the divisiveness and rhetoric isn't the same. Your political climate is dangerously toxic. It isn't the same. The gun culture, which is part of the US fabric, isn't the same.

The attacks on what used to be masculinity, aren't the same. ⁵

Guns are only a small portion of the problem. 

Its over simplifying the actual issue. Many countries with many guns per capita don't even remotely come close to the murder rates you see in the US. Why is this? American guns are more murderous? Or just maybe, part of the issue may be cultural? 

Why is the average gun owner in Canada far less likely per capita, to commit mass murder?

Better gun laws? Different relationships with Guns? Maybe all of the above? But how would this explain the same or similar pattern in countries where far more guns are available?

Do you honestly believe guns on their own, will create this issue?

Okay. 

Do you think someone happily married would mow down people with a car, or shoot something up?

I had a guy try to side swipe the the other day because he tried to bully me into moving faster with nowhere to go on a highway. I had a car gap ahead of me, so he pulled on the shoulder next to me to have his tantrum, after I flashed him a middle finger.

Do you think I stay relatively calm, if I don't have a wife to consider? 

He clearly, was single and rage filled. Called me every name in the book as he repeatedly steered his car towards mine demanding me to lower my window, and my smile truly sent him over the edge as his trying to scare me didn't affect me.

My mentality is if you hit me, I have hundreds of witnesses, and man to man with no car protecting you, I like my chances with a background in combat sports.

Single and lonely, I would have followed him at high speed, got out, and likely stabbed him to death, or beat him unconscious, and then urinated on his face. 

I don't understand how you feel a gun will prevent one's ability to kill many people.

The only thing keeping me in check, is that I have a lot of dependents who love and need me and vice versa.

I as a result, will take the high road, because its in my and their best interests. It will take a lot more provocation.

I however, can understand the anger, because I was bullied as a youth. So it is relatively easy to me to understand an anger that makes your thoughts so dark, that people would think you were a monster for thinking them, but those same people were inciting and encouraging the bully to keep shoving you down stairs or throwing items at you while the crowd laughs and prevents you from leaving.

I have a deep understanding of that anger.

Difference with me, is back against the wall, I fight like a caged pittbull then and there and bring the conflict to a brutal end. 

But again, to think guns can fix the issue when its deeply rooted, is silly at best.

Just maybe there are a lot of pieces of s*** in society that could push people to wanting to murder them.

A lot going on in this post. I really don't feel like multi-posting. 

I will concede that "Culturally" the US is a lot angrier a country. I do think other countries have a better relationship with guns. They're not seen as a God-given right because of some amendment devised when they were fighting a domestic war. Their politics are way more polarized. Though I see some similar elements coming with the way people dislike JT. Back when I was "young" I really disliked Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty. It never once occurred to me to put an Eff Dalton bumper sticker on me car. 

Earlier in the thread we discussed cars. An angry disaffected person could use a car to kill scores of people. But driving cars are also highly regulated. Imagine if gun owners had to buy insurance in case their weapons was actually used to kill someone . . . like designed. 

It seems a faction of Americans want as few regulations on guns as possible. 

Regarding angry. I actually had the same thing happen to me where someone passed me on the shoulder when I was in the Carpool lane. He chipped my windshield because rocks were flying from the shoulder. It was an Old man with his wife in the passenger seat. 

We see from the incident in Sault Ste Marie, that violence is possible by anyone, including a family man. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Boges

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Splatter.  I'm not telling 2nd Amendment supporters anything.  I'm telling you (and those who think as you do, obviously)

I have to believe there are some who see the existence of both the 2nd Amendment and sane gun control laws as not being mutually exclusive.  You want access to any gun you want, and it's up to someone else to deal with the carnage, even dead kids.

And I told you, I have a gun, and I would be willing to bet I've fired a greater variety of firearms than you have, and had more fun going so into the bargain. You saying I hate guns doesn't win you the argument.

But you are right that I view the loss of life as a good reason to bring in stricter gun control laws, so we are getting somewhere.

OK, lay it out for me - no more bullshit. 

Exactly what and how many guns should we be allowed to have?

How do you determine who gets to purchase guns and what steps do we have to take to purchase them? 

[Guest]

Just now, Deluge said:

OK, lay it out for me - no more bullshit. 

Exactly what and how many guns should we be allowed to have?

How do you determine who gets to purchase guns and what steps do we have to take to purchase them? 

Splatter.  The notion that I should be able to dictate, here, today, what the US should do with regard to gun control is asinine, and the fact that I don't have the "exact" answer to the  problem doesn't win you the argument.  In fact it's bullshit.

What the US currently has with regard to gun control is obviously completely useless, and a result of a nonsensical interpretation of the constitution.  Much stricter gun controls should be applied in the US.  That's going to take a lot of effort from your government and your courts. 

I would be willing to consult if asked, of course, but I would want paying.