Montreal School Shooting

Huntster said:
I hope you are right, but I'm sure you're not. I can literally guarantee that the "solutions" that Ottawa will continue to offer will be akin to the 1989 gun control fiasco. In fact, I'm sure the liberals are already bleating that the 1989 law "didn't go far enough."

Again, I suggest violating the "rights" of the few clear and obvious kooks by picking them up before they lose their marbles completely rather than violating the rights of millions of peaceful firearms owners by playing silly, meaningless, and fruitless gun control games.
Click to expand...

I remember thinking at the time that the people who opposed the legislation did not have a well mounted case. They just were not convincing enough in their arguements to garner support, and they certainly did not further their cause by public education. I do think other solutions have to be brought forward as an alternative to taking the present legislation any further.

I quite agree with your second comment - however, I don't see what you mean by "violating the rights of... kooks" - I think that uttering threats is covered in the criminal code, and surely showing very intense fascination for killing while collecting an arsenal to do this (these were not bb guns) is a definite show of devient bahaviour - put them together and you have a recipe for a massacre. Where would we be violating rights?
 
Jorghnassen said:
It doesn't matter that he's a loser and whether he's a bad shot or not: he killed one and wounded 19 others (2 of which could still die from those wounds). It is a tragedy.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it wasn't a tragedy? I just said he was pathetic. For all of us, that's a good thing. He was still a pathetic loser.

Q-Source said:
He was full of hatred against everything and everybody. An empty human being. But I would also put the blame on his parents.
Click to expand...
Why? Is there evidence that he had an abusive childhood?
The guy was 25. A grown man and a adult. Should we blame the parents of every adult criminal?

His journal can still be found online, his username was fatality666 in vampirefreaks. But I bet it will not last for long, as it is being bombarded with hate posts.
Click to expand...
It's already down.
 
Morrigan said:
Where did I say it wasn't a tragedy? I just said he was pathetic. For all of us, that's a good thing. He was still a pathetic loser.
Click to expand...

Mocking his lack of shooting skills makes it sound like you'd have been happier with more victims and is somewhat close to praising the acts of other mad gunmen like Marc Lépine. So forgive me for not thinking it's really a "good thing" that he missed a lot. It's plain bad that he went on a shooting spree in first place.
 
Oh please. Yeah, I'm HAPPY that he killed ONLY one person. I'm a big bad monster like that who enjoys people dying. :rolleyes: "Close to praising Marc Lépine"? *flips bird* Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

And I said it's a "good thing" that he was a poor shooter. Because, otherwise, more people would have died. In no way this implies it's a "good thing" that he started shooting in the first place. Why you chose to interprete my post in that way is beyond me. I'll chalk this up to some mysterious urge towards moralism, even when you know you're full of crap.
 
Jorghnassen said:
Mocking his lack of shooting skills makes it sound like you'd have been happier with more victims and is somewhat close to praising the acts of other mad gunmen like Marc Lépine. So forgive me for not thinking it's really a "good thing" that he missed a lot. It's plain bad that he went on a shooting spree in first place.
Click to expand...
I mocked his shooting skills as well. See post #26. If you were offended by that post, I suggest you leap into the nearest industrial strength wood chipper, as you are too sensitive to live. It sucks that he hit anyone at all.

Two words: gallows humor.

AE
 
Darth Rotor said:
I mocked his shooting skills as well. See post #26.
Click to expand...

Ah, but your post was simply "I'm glad he was a lousy shooter". Now read this (emphasis mine):

...killed only one person with his semi-automatic? Even the Colombine kids and the Polytechnique killer were more efficient.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it sounds a bit more like "man, at least those other mad men were good shots". Now, I'm not saying that's what he really meant to say, that's just what I perceived it connoted.

And Morrigan, you're the easily offended one. I keep my posts civil.
 
Last edited:
Morrigan said:
The guy was a loser. It's a good thing he was, but really, it's pathetic - killed only one person with his semi-automatic? Even the Colombine kids and the Polytechnique killer were more efficient.
Click to expand...
I found this in poor taste as well. It's playground teasing style.
 
ReFLeX said:
The original story had 2 gunmen and four dead, now it's being reported that only the lone gunman has died though many are in critical condition/surgery.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/13/montreal.shooting/
Click to expand...

I go to Concordia, which served as the "refuge" for the evacuated students. I got out of class not knowing anything, stepped outside, and my friend from Dawson ran up to me and told me 67 people were shot. People said there were four gunmen, and that one was still on the loose. And this was at 3:00. It's amazing how fast this stuff goes around. CBC reported four deaths initially, if I remember correctly.
 
Jorghnassen said:
Ah, but your post was simply "I'm glad he was a lousy shooter". Now read this (emphasis mine):

Don't you think it sounds a bit more like "man, at least those other mad men were good shots". Now, I'm not saying that's what he really meant to say, that's just what I perceived it connoted.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand you anymore. Either you're dishonest, or you're terribly unobservant - probably both. The latter, because you can't tell from my avatar that I'm female. And the former, because you quoted one part and omitted the rest. Tell me, what is the significant difference between: "I'm glad he was a lousy shooter", and "It's a good thing he was a lousy shooter"? You obviously chose to read things that weren't there. I'm not sure why.

And Morrigan, you're the easily offended one. I keep my posts civil.
Click to expand...
Haha, suuure. :rolleyes: You implied that I praised people like Marc Lévine based on nothing but your imagination. Who cares if you said such a thing "civilly"? It's still insulting, and of course it angers me. Intellectual dishonesty is more offensive than random slurs or curse words, or mocking dead murdering idiots for that matter.

Darth Rotor said:
I mocked his shooting skills as well. See post #26. If you were offended by that post, I suggest you leap into the nearest industrial strength wood chipper, as you are too sensitive to live. It sucks that he hit anyone at all.

Two words: gallows humor.

AE
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
mac said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
I hope you are right, but I'm sure you're not. I can literally guarantee that the "solutions" that Ottawa will continue to offer will be akin to the 1989 gun control fiasco. In fact, I'm sure the liberals are already bleating that the 1989 law "didn't go far enough."

Again, I suggest violating the "rights" of the few clear and obvious kooks by picking them up before they lose their marbles completely rather than violating the rights of millions of peaceful firearms owners by playing silly, meaningless, and fruitless gun control games.
Click to expand...
I remember thinking at the time that the people who opposed the legislation did not have a well mounted case. They just were not convincing enough in their arguements to garner support, and they certainly did not further their cause by public education.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, and even though the 1989 gun control issue in Canada was a specific political event of that time and place, the same political issue has been playing out directly to the south in the U.S. for decades. It has literally come full circle here, where now people are free to carry concealed with permits and, in places like Alaska, even without permitting or training requirements. This is an illustration of just how uninformed the electorate can be, and especially how the electorate doesn't even matter in the gun control debate, as almost all gun control is enacted against public opinion.

I do think other solutions have to be brought forward as an alternative to taking the present legislation any further.
Click to expand...

What kind of other solutions might you be considering?

I quite agree with your second comment - however, I don't see what you mean by "violating the rights of... kooks" - I think that uttering threats is covered in the criminal code, and surely showing very intense fascination for killing while collecting an arsenal to do this (these were not bb guns) is a definite show of devient bahaviour - put them together and you have a recipe for a massacre. Where would we be violating rights?
Click to expand...

You're right. Mr. Gill was probably violating current Canadian or Quebec law with his words, freely disseminated on his blog for the entire world (including the RCMP) to read.

However, had the RCMP picked this fool up a few weeks ago, you can be assured that "his rights" would be discussed at great lengths in court.
 
The front page of the Toronto Sun the following day, showed a picture of him and mentioned that he liked to play the video game "Columbine Massacre".

I didn't read the article.
 
Morrigan said:
I'm not sure I understand you anymore. Either you're dishonest, or you're terribly unobservant - probably both. The latter, because you can't tell from my avatar that I'm female. And the former, because you quoted one part and omitted the rest. Tell me, what is the significant difference between: "I'm glad he was a lousy shooter", and "It's a good thing he was a lousy shooter"? You obviously chose to read things that weren't there. I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

I've learned not to assume the gender of a poster by their avatar (especially anime ones), so forgive me for making the wrong assumption (based on forum demographics). I should have been more explicit in post #44 but I do try to pick my words carefully.

The significant difference is the way you expressed your mockery. You can call Kimveer Gill a pathetic loser all you want to vent your anger, but saying he killed only (your word) one (4 more victims are not out of the woods yet) and stating that the Columbine and Polytechnique killers were more efficient can been perceived as euphemized praises for other horrible acts. In the face of sudden tragedy, what is the point comparing the degree of horror of similar events (every media made the connection, but none phrased it along the lines of "but there were more victims in those other shootings")? You're mocking a dead guy who ain't there to suffer from it and inadvertantly saying things that can be viewed as making light of a tragedy to the victims (by implying the other events were worse). Now I know that is not what you meant to express, but those are some of the connotations of what you said (ReFlex saw them too, so it's not just me trying to see it in that particular way). Darth Rotor did not bring in any of those connotations with his (her?) short remark. No comparison with other events, no victim count.
 
mac said:
Badger - I agree. Can I use your words, please? I'll omit the first 7 ;-) , but I'd like to use it in correspondence to the civic authorities - I think it's well put - and would make a good byline.

BTW - it was originally supposed to cost approx $120 million - and surpassed the $1 billion mark (I'm not sure but I think it's closer to $2 billion).
Click to expand...

Sure, you can use those words! I'm pretty positive I'm not the first one to say that.

With regard to cost, I don't think they've figured it out yet. The $1 billion is all the auditors have easily been able to track so far.
 
Badger said:
The dude had registered his weapons. The government looks like it's standing by its promise to revamp the registry, too.

Good news, from my perspective.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/09/15/1844015-cp.html

I also saw a bit where PM Stephen Harper said "We have enough laws already. We have to concentrate on enforcing them" (no link)
Click to expand...

So handguns are illegal in Canada but not that giant rifle from the pictures? I wasn't aware...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom