Perhaps he was suffering from schizophrenia, and felt compelled to do something. The laughable gun control laws - which the US was TOTALLY going to made stricter after Sandy Hook - may have allowed him easy access to commit this crime.
Seriously - how many times do they say people need to hear things before they believe it again? Like 437?
Mark
Of course I am dismissive . . . the various levels of Government KNOW how to "fix" this, or at least make it less common. but they refuse to do so. So . . . wake me when they decide to enact REAL change.
And yes, this particular one MIGHT be schizophrenic, or bi-polar, etc. But he is just as likely to be some doofus who was pissed off that Netflix dropped Firefly from their database, or that he got a failing grade on his term paper, etc.
I feel sorry for the victims, but I find it very hard to get too worked up each time something like this happens because of the unwillingness on the part of those who CAN do something to prevent recurrences from ACTUALLY doing anything besides wringing their hands.
I am waiting for the Gun Control Lobby in the US to start an internet lottery around mass shootings. Pick the date of the next one and WIN . . . because there WILL be a next one.
It's people like you that insist on the fact that guns are fine for responsible people and that they should be available that are the reason governments do NOT do anything.
I'm not arguing that.. crack is still kicking around
But the laughable "prevention methods" aren't helping. I personally want them all gone, but I'm not a genie. Making them much more difficult to access? As in ban them? Sure that means still available, but harder to acquire isn't a bad compromise.
You know I"m not so naive to think a ban would be foolproof.
That's cool then. To be clear, I'm basically fine with the laws in Canada. Licensing, background checks, safe storage, etc. Makes sense to me. None of them would have stopped these shootings though. It really just has to be about the culture, a dedicated focus on churning out less shitty people over a huge sample size.
If they can figure out a way to cross reference gun purchases against xanax prescriptions though, I'm all for it. That would be compromise.
It's people like you that insist on the fact that guns are fine for responsible people and that they should be available that are the reason governments do NOT do anything.
Mark
No, I am the guy who recognizes that firearms are a legal item, but is in favour of reasonable restrictions on the acquisition of them. There is a distinction. This country has reasonable laws for the acquisition of firearms, and restrictions on what CAN be purchased that do not exist south of the border.
No, I am the guy who recognizes that firearms are a legal item, but is in favour of reasonable restrictions on the acquisition of them. There is a distinction. This country has reasonable laws for the acquisition of firearms, and restrictions on what CAN be purchased that do not exist south of the border.
Fair enough..
I can't recall you ever advocating for a "Guns N' Fun" store type thing here in Canada. It just blows my mind that I'm at a point now in my life, where I couldn't tell you with certainty the locations of the last 5 mass shootings in North America - or that the list gets to ONLY the last 5....
Any item that its sole purpose is to kill should not be easily accessible to the general public for any reason. How many stories do you hear about someone successfully protecting themselves with a gun vs. accidental shootings, school shootings etc. Enough said.
And sure hunting can be fun or whatever (I've never done it) but it is completely unnecessary.
You want to play with a gun, you can "own" one that stays locked up at your local gun club.
Any item that its sole purpose is to kill should not be easily accessible to the general public for any reason. How many stories do you hear about someone successfully protecting themselves with a gun vs. accidental shootings, school shootings etc. Enough said.
And sure hunting can be fun or whatever (I've never done it) but it is completely unnecessary.
You want to play with a gun, you can "own" one that stays locked up at your local gun club.
It's such a polarizing issue that no one will ever convince the other side, and every argument is already out there.
My "Nope." is in response to the idea that because you don't like something I can't have it. My shit is locked up and I'm not a mental case. There is no reason that anything these fucking idiots do should affect me, so just figure out a solution that leaves my shit alone and I"ll gladly support anything that makes us safer.
Yeah that's basically how it is now, and yeah I pretty much agree with it. Like anything, there are both reasonable and unreasonable cases where this could be applied, but I do believe in a "keep them responsibly or be held accountable" approach.
Yeah that's basically how it is now, and yeah I pretty much agree with it. Like anything, there are both reasonable and unreasonable cases where this could be applied, but I do believe in a "keep them responsibly or be held accountable" approach.
Ok, how about this, if someone uses your registered firearm in the commission of a crime, you get a certain percentage of the sentance?
So . . . I have stored my firearm according to the requirements of the law. Someone commits a crime by breaking into my home and another crime by stealing my legally stored firearm. Later, the person they sold it to commits an armed robbery and you want ME to serve part of the sentence? How about the Cops who did not capture the felon BEFORE he could sell my firearm? Should they serve part of the sentence, too?
And it doesn't matter whether or not I can find convictions, it is the law. If they aren't even enforcing the current laws, isn't that just more evidence that we don't need more of them?
here's another article i came across today. i'll quote some of it since i know many people will never even consider clicking on the link to read it themselves. it's specifically about the US but is obviously important.
1. Keeping a handgun to guard against intruders is now a Constitutional right...However, the Court made it clear in these decisions that the Second Amendment does not rule out reasonable regulations of gun possession and use.
2. Half of gun owners indicate that the primary reason they own a gun is self-defense. In practice, however, guns are only used in about 3% of cases where an intruder breaks into an occupied home, or about 30,000 times per year. That compares with over 42 million households with guns.
3. As many Americans die of gunshot wounds as in motor-vehicle crashes (around 33,000). In the last 30 years, over 1 million Americans have died in civilian shootings — more than all American combat deaths in all wars in the last century.
4. Most gun deaths in the United States are suicides...the case-fatality rate with guns is 90%, far higher than for the other common means. Availability influences choice of weapon; states with the highest prevalence of gun ownership have four times the gun suicide rate as the states with the lowest prevalence.
6. ...where gun ownership is common, the violence is more likely to involve guns and hence be more deadly than in jurisdictions where guns are scarcer.
7. The primary goal of gun regulation is to save lives by separating guns and violence...The goal is to make it less likely that criminal assailants will use a gun.
8...there is no sense in the assertion that we should combat the causes of violence instead of regulating guns. The two approaches are quite distinct and both important.
1. Keeping a handgun to guard against intruders is now a Constitutional right...However, the Court made it clear in these decisions that the Second Amendment does not rule out reasonable regulations of gun possession and use.
Agreed on both points, so long as "reasonable" is well defined.
2. Half of gun owners indicate that the primary reason they own a gun is self-defense. In practice, however, guns are only used in about 3% of cases where an intruder breaks into an occupied home, or about 30,000 times per year. That compares with over 42 million households with guns.
I'd be willing to bet those numbers are incredibly deceiving, but it doesn't matter. I'm sure less than 3% of houses burn down - so you guys buying home insurance are all crazy too, right?
3. As many Americans die of gunshot wounds as in motor-vehicle crashes (around 33,000). In the last 30 years, over 1 million Americans have died in civilian shootings — more than all American combat deaths in all wars in the last century.
According to the next point (#4) of this same article, we can take 90% off of that number out as people that were gonna kill themselves anyway. Google yourself some stats to fill in the other 10% - spoiler alert: most of them are criminals - ie people that won't follow any of the fancy new laws that you guys come up with anyway.
4. Most gun deaths in the United States are suicides...the case-fatality rate with guns is 90%, far higher than for the other common means. Availability influences choice of weapon; states with the highest prevalence of gun ownership have four times the gun suicide rate as the states with the lowest prevalence.
Non issue IMO. If you shoot yourself with your own gun, you're doing it wrong. This is straight up less traffic on the way to work.
6. ...where gun ownership is common, the violence is more likely to involve guns and hence be more deadly than in jurisdictions where guns are scarcer.
What about the intangible number of people saved simply by people thinking of the possible consequences before robbing a store or mugging someone? What about the (arguable) link between people carrying guns and less crime?
7. The primary goal of gun regulation is to save lives by separating guns and violence...The goal is to make it less likely that criminal assailants will use a gun.
These goals sound good as stated. No problem if the methods of achieving them are fair.
8...there is no sense in the assertion that we should combat the causes of violence instead of regulating guns. The two approaches are quite distinct and both important.
Combating the cause of violence is so much more important though. Some regulation is fine, and sure it will feel good, but the reality is that there's like 300 million guns already out there and a percentage of them are simply unable to be regulated. If we had a way to capture those ones we'd be onto something, as they are the guns causing most of the problems, but what responsible gun owners are worried about is the fact that we're the easy prey for these regulations. Super easy to round up 100 guns that never would have hurt anyone and say a difference was made. They make really nice headlines like "100000 Guns Taken Off Streets!" but don't actually solve the real problem.
Last by not least... and I apologize if this was not intentional... but I was curious what #5 was. I literally laughed out loud when I saw you deleted it from the post because it didn't support the agenda:
5.The homicide rate today is half of what it was in 1991. That is part of the good news in the United States — violent crime rates of all kinds have plunged since the early 1990s, and violent crime with guns has declined in proportion. (Two thirds of all homicides are committed with guns.) Still, homicide remains a serious problem — homicide is the second leading cause of death for American youths. Our homicide rates remain far higher than those of Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Israel, and other wealthy countries. We are not an exceptionally violent nation, but criminal violence in America is much more likely to involve guns and hence be fatal.
I never said I agreed with anything in this article. I just posted highlights for the reason I stated (ie. no one will read it). My "agenda" was to get you the read the article so I guess I win!
I never said the article was anti-guns.
Edit: and please explain to me how #5 is pro gun because I don't see it.
Edit 2: Here is how the article stated it:
The debate over gun control generates more heat than light. But no matter how vigorously the claims and counterclaims are asserted, the basic facts are not just a matter of personal opinion. Here are our conclusions about some of the factual issues that are at the heart of the gun debate.
And #5 is because the argument was made that more guns = more deaths, yet we now have more guns than ever and they've been reduced 50 percent. The way it is portrayed you'd think there are are dudes with assault rifles hiding around every corner.
not discounting the shootings etc. those things are terrible and I'm for reasonable measures to prevent them. Everyone starts talking about bans though and it gets silly.
And #5 is because the argument was made that more guns = more deaths, yet we now have more guns than ever and they've been reduced 50 percent. The way it is portrayed you'd think there are are dudes with assault rifles hiding around every corner.
not discounting the shootings etc. those things are terrible and I'm for reasonable measures to prevent them. Everyone starts talking about bans though and it gets silly.
1) i did not make any reference to my opinion on this article whatsoever. i read the oxford university press blog daily and happened across this article and posted it because it was pertinent to the content of this thread.
2) i summarized the article by quoting direct quotations from it because (like i already mentioned) most people won't read the article. i specifically did this (i.e. used direct quotations) as to NOT include my opinion.
3) the reason i left out #5 wasn't because it "didn't fit my agenda" (of which i did not have one other than posting an article that relates to the topic). i didn't want to post #5 in its entirety and summarizing it from a sentence or two would have lost its meaning in my opinion. therefore, i was simply lazy and skipped it. if you really think that #5 is "pro-gun" or doesn't "fit my agenda" (whatever that may be), then we can discuss this separately if you are interested. otherwise i guess we'll have to agree to disagree because i don't quite understand how you would think this. perhaps i'm misreading #5?
4) again, like i already mentioned, this article is presenting the facts of the situation around guns and gun control. like the author states in the first paragraph:
But no matter how vigorously the claims and counterclaims are asserted, the basic facts are not just a matter of personal opinion. Here are our conclusions about some of the factual issues that are at the heart of the gun debate.
(my emphasis added)
so the fact that you ripped into these arguing your opinion was kind of funny to me.
and yes this does state that these are their conclusions. so, who are they exactly?
Kristin A. Goss is Associate Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University. She is the author of Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Philip J. Cook is ITT/Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics and Sociology at Duke University. He is the co-author (with Jens Ludwig) of Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Kristen A. Goss and Philip J. Cook are co-authors of The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know®.
seemingly people who are in the know, at least from my perspective, but again i could be wrong. i did not research them or anything.
i will assume that you don't "pokerforum stalk" my posts in off topic but i post a lot of articles that relate to the thread content. i post articles for and against my opinions if for nothing else but to keep the conversation going. in this specific instance, i made no comments or opinions whatsoever so your specific disagreement with me seemed quite strange and unwarranted. i can see that you really like your guns. i'm sorry if the article offended you, but again, these were presented as the general facts, i made absolutely no comment on my position or opinion of this article, and no the statistics were not made up.
EDIT: P.S. please keep inviting me to your home games despite us disagreeing on gun control measures. have a PLO night and you can kick my ass again
Comments
Perhaps he was suffering from schizophrenia, and felt compelled to do something. The laughable gun control laws - which the US was TOTALLY going to made stricter after Sandy Hook - may have allowed him easy access to commit this crime.
Seriously - how many times do they say people need to hear things before they believe it again? Like 437?
Mark
And yes, this particular one MIGHT be schizophrenic, or bi-polar, etc. But he is just as likely to be some doofus who was pissed off that Netflix dropped Firefly from their database, or that he got a failing grade on his term paper, etc.
I feel sorry for the victims, but I find it very hard to get too worked up each time something like this happens because of the unwillingness on the part of those who CAN do something to prevent recurrences from ACTUALLY doing anything besides wringing their hands.
I am waiting for the Gun Control Lobby in the US to start an internet lottery around mass shootings. Pick the date of the next one and WIN . . . because there WILL be a next one.
It's people like you that insist on the fact that guns are fine for responsible people and that they should be available that are the reason governments do NOT do anything.
Mark
always.
I'm not arguing that.. crack is still kicking around
But the laughable "prevention methods" aren't helping. I personally want them all gone, but I'm not a genie. Making them much more difficult to access? As in ban them? Sure that means still available, but harder to acquire isn't a bad compromise.
You know I"m not so naive to think a ban would be foolproof.
Mark
What? That is actually an extremely bad compromise!
I just said harder to acquire, not how much harder. Therefore impossible to gauge how bad a compromise it is.
Mark
If they can figure out a way to cross reference gun purchases against xanax prescriptions though, I'm all for it. That would be compromise.
No, I am the guy who recognizes that firearms are a legal item, but is in favour of reasonable restrictions on the acquisition of them. There is a distinction. This country has reasonable laws for the acquisition of firearms, and restrictions on what CAN be purchased that do not exist south of the border.
Fair enough..
I can't recall you ever advocating for a "Guns N' Fun" store type thing here in Canada. It just blows my mind that I'm at a point now in my life, where I couldn't tell you with certainty the locations of the last 5 mass shootings in North America - or that the list gets to ONLY the last 5....
Mark
And sure hunting can be fun or whatever (I've never done it) but it is completely unnecessary.
You want to play with a gun, you can "own" one that stays locked up at your local gun club.
You forgot to cite your reference "Mark - 2010"
Mark
well, your argument convinced me.
#gunsforall
>:D
My "Nope." is in response to the idea that because you don't like something I can't have it. My shit is locked up and I'm not a mental case. There is no reason that anything these fucking idiots do should affect me, so just figure out a solution that leaves my shit alone and I"ll gladly support anything that makes us safer.
Ok, how about this, if someone uses your registered firearm in the commission of a crime, you get a certain percentage of the sentance?
Here's a random article:
Brandon man facing firearms charges after stolen gun used in crime - MyToba.ca
Added: In this case the Brandon man was a cop (or ex cop) and it took 7 months to lay a charge. Not sure what the eventual resolution was.
So . . . I have stored my firearm according to the requirements of the law. Someone commits a crime by breaking into my home and another crime by stealing my legally stored firearm. Later, the person they sold it to commits an armed robbery and you want ME to serve part of the sentence? How about the Cops who did not capture the felon BEFORE he could sell my firearm? Should they serve part of the sentence, too?
Just silly.
And it doesn't matter whether or not I can find convictions, it is the law. If they aren't even enforcing the current laws, isn't that just more evidence that we don't need more of them?
The Gun Control Movement Needs Its Own Pro-Life Fanatics
Eight facts about the gun debate in the United States | OUPblog
I'd be willing to bet those numbers are incredibly deceiving, but it doesn't matter. I'm sure less than 3% of houses burn down - so you guys buying home insurance are all crazy too, right?
According to the next point (#4) of this same article, we can take 90% off of that number out as people that were gonna kill themselves anyway. Google yourself some stats to fill in the other 10% - spoiler alert: most of them are criminals - ie people that won't follow any of the fancy new laws that you guys come up with anyway.
Non issue IMO. If you shoot yourself with your own gun, you're doing it wrong. This is straight up less traffic on the way to work.
What about the intangible number of people saved simply by people thinking of the possible consequences before robbing a store or mugging someone? What about the (arguable) link between people carrying guns and less crime?
These goals sound good as stated. No problem if the methods of achieving them are fair. Combating the cause of violence is so much more important though. Some regulation is fine, and sure it will feel good, but the reality is that there's like 300 million guns already out there and a percentage of them are simply unable to be regulated. If we had a way to capture those ones we'd be onto something, as they are the guns causing most of the problems, but what responsible gun owners are worried about is the fact that we're the easy prey for these regulations. Super easy to round up 100 guns that never would have hurt anyone and say a difference was made. They make really nice headlines like "100000 Guns Taken Off Streets!" but don't actually solve the real problem.
Last by not least... and I apologize if this was not intentional... but I was curious what #5 was. I literally laughed out loud when I saw you deleted it from the post because it didn't support the agenda:
I never said I agreed with anything in this article. I just posted highlights for the reason I stated (ie. no one will read it). My "agenda" was to get you the read the article so I guess I win!
I never said the article was anti-guns.
Edit: and please explain to me how #5 is pro gun because I don't see it.
Edit 2: Here is how the article stated it:
The debate over gun control generates more heat than light. But no matter how vigorously the claims and counterclaims are asserted, the basic facts are not just a matter of personal opinion. Here are our conclusions about some of the factual issues that are at the heart of the gun debate.
And #5 is because the argument was made that more guns = more deaths, yet we now have more guns than ever and they've been reduced 50 percent. The way it is portrayed you'd think there are are dudes with assault rifles hiding around every corner.
not discounting the shootings etc. those things are terrible and I'm for reasonable measures to prevent them. Everyone starts talking about bans though and it gets silly.
1) i did not make any reference to my opinion on this article whatsoever. i read the oxford university press blog daily and happened across this article and posted it because it was pertinent to the content of this thread.
2) i summarized the article by quoting direct quotations from it because (like i already mentioned) most people won't read the article. i specifically did this (i.e. used direct quotations) as to NOT include my opinion.
3) the reason i left out #5 wasn't because it "didn't fit my agenda" (of which i did not have one other than posting an article that relates to the topic). i didn't want to post #5 in its entirety and summarizing it from a sentence or two would have lost its meaning in my opinion. therefore, i was simply lazy and skipped it. if you really think that #5 is "pro-gun" or doesn't "fit my agenda" (whatever that may be), then we can discuss this separately if you are interested. otherwise i guess we'll have to agree to disagree because i don't quite understand how you would think this. perhaps i'm misreading #5?
4) again, like i already mentioned, this article is presenting the facts of the situation around guns and gun control. like the author states in the first paragraph:
(my emphasis added)
so the fact that you ripped into these arguing your opinion was kind of funny to me.
and yes this does state that these are their conclusions. so, who are they exactly?
seemingly people who are in the know, at least from my perspective, but again i could be wrong. i did not research them or anything.
i will assume that you don't "pokerforum stalk" my posts in off topic but i post a lot of articles that relate to the thread content. i post articles for and against my opinions if for nothing else but to keep the conversation going. in this specific instance, i made no comments or opinions whatsoever so your specific disagreement with me seemed quite strange and unwarranted. i can see that you really like your guns. i'm sorry if the article offended you, but again, these were presented as the general facts, i made absolutely no comment on my position or opinion of this article, and no the statistics were not made up.
EDIT: P.S. please keep inviting me to your home games despite us disagreeing on gun control measures. have a PLO night and you can kick my ass again