• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

JihadJane said:
That's beside the point (strawman argument). What is relevant is whether or not you'd think I was glorifying suicide vests.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are the one using a strawman argument now.

What is your evidence that there are more crazy people in the US than in other countries?
Click to expand...

Never said I had any. but given that a mass shooting is conducted by someone who is crazy, that issue should be addressed to prevent future mass shootings.
 
Dancing David said:
Registering and tracking all firearms would not be about taking guns way at all. Gun regulation does not mean removal.
Click to expand...

"Gun confiscation is not the reason for gun registration" was the sell used by the Canadian Liberal federal government back in the nineties when they introduced the implementation the Long Gun Registry (recently shut down*).

Back in 2006, Paul Martin was a Liberal running in the federal election for Canadian Prime Minister (he lost). One of his election promises was the wholesale confiscation of otherwise legally owned restricted (registered) firearms in the province of Ontario (specifically Toronto IIRC).

Canadians firearm owners learned not to trust politicians who claim registration will not lead to confiscation...

*The primary reason for the LGR being killed was that after many years of being in force, it was studied and shown to be a useless and ineffective wasteful use of resources. They determined that the registration of Long Guns had no effect on reducing the criminal use of firearms in Canada.
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
Of course not. As Jefferson himself noted, the loss of lives in the persuit of liberty is to be expected and it must be refreshed by the blood of patriots...
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.​
Especially 6 year old patriots giving their lives so folks like you can be "avid shooters" - just like the guys at Virginia Tech, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and Newtown were.

Their blood is on your hands.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is a funny argument. I must say it is the first time someone has accused me of being the cause of a mass murder. So in your eyes, the upbringing of these disturbed individuals and their mental illness was not the problem, but instead the guy that fights for his right to take his gun to the range and have a weapon for self defense is what caused the mass murders. You sir, are ridiculous.
 
Nessie said:
Unless all Americans have the attitude you have and all are prepared for armed or other attack, those who want to commit massacres will find places where others do not have a gun to fight back. Considering the number of guns and gun owners in the USA, they never seem to be where a massacre is taking place to stop them.
Click to expand...

FWIW, we would have been committing a felony had we been in the school with our weapon.
 
Quad4_72 said:
FWIW, we would have been committing a felony had we been in the school with our weapon.
Click to expand...

Should it be a misdemeanor? Perhaps a fine?

Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate, or are you just pointing out the penalty?
 
LTC8K6 said:
You only need to be 18 to buy a rifle.
Click to expand...

The news report I read said that the guy wasn't old enough under Connecticut law to legally possess hand guns.

Under Canadian law, they differentiate between 'ownership' (buying a firearm) and 'possession'. I'm not sure whether it works the same or not in the States...
 
IDB87 said:
Should it be a misdemeanor? Perhaps a fine?

Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate, or are you just pointing out the penalty?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't see the big deal about a concealed carry permit holder carrying into a school with a holstered weapon. I know that sounds outrageous, but what harm does it cause? Obviously the law of no guns in schools does not deter criminals, so what purpose does it serve?
 
Autolite said:
The news report I read said that the guy wasn't old enough under Connecticut law to legally possess hand guns.

Under Canadian law, they differentiate between 'ownership' (buying a firearm) and 'possession'. I'm not sure whether it works the same or not in the States...
Click to expand...

Again, depends on the state. Some states someone over 21 can purchase someone under 21 a handgun to possess and that is perfectly legal. Pretty silly, I know.
 
Does anyone know if the police or any of the news agencies retracted or further explained the reports of a second shooter? I've been Googling but haven't been able to find any thing beyond conspiracy theory crap.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Indeed. Canada has fewer gun deaths per capita. But why ?
Click to expand...

Indeed, Mexico has much tighter gun control restrictions than Canada and a murder per capita rate of five times that of the United States.

Perhaps there are factors other than gun control that might account for these discrepancies...
 
Quad4_72 said:
Now THAT is a funny argument. I must say it is the first time someone has accused me of being the cause of a mass murder. So in your eyes, the upbringing of these disturbed individuals and their mental illness was not the problem, but instead the guy that fights for his right to take his gun to the range and have a weapon for self defense is what caused the mass murders. You sir, are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Similarly if you ever use air travel you were indirectly responsible for 9/11.
 
One of the things a lot of people are missing is the obvious and outrageous anger this idiot had--most victims were shot from 8 to as many as 11 times.
Turn that anger loose with a machetti, hammer, or other weapon and the carnage would still be outrageous, although more succeptable to mass attack on defense...
 
Quad4_72 said:
Never said I had any. but given that a mass shooting is conducted by someone who is crazy, that issue should be addressed to prevent future mass shootings.
Click to expand...

A crazy person with easy access to firearms; but you only want to look at one part of situation?
 
rwguinn said:
One of the things a lot of people are missing is the obvious and outrageous anger this idiot had--most victims were shot from 8 to as many as 11 times.
Turn that anger loose with a machetti, hammer, or other weapon and the carnage would still be outrageous, although more succeptable to mass attack on defense...
Click to expand...

So, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples, then, from countries where guns are controlled more tightly?
 
zooterkin said:
So, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples, then, from countries where guns are controlled more tightly?
Click to expand...

The trouble with a discussion of reducing gun deaths in the context of mass killings and spree killings is that they make up such a tiny fraction of gun related homicides that, even if we eliminated all of them it would not change the homicide rate in the US by much at all.
 
joesixpack said:
No, you are confused here. If I must apply for a permit, then it is no longer a right. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate a need. In the US it is the state's burden to demonstrate that you are not allowed to own a gun, the presumptive being that you are. You are not asking for the right to own a gun, you are giving the state opportunity to demonstrate that you should not have one. They are unable to say "no" without demonstrating that you are a danger.

ETA; The background check must be completed within a definite time window. If the government fails to respond within 7 days (I believe) to the request, the transfer takes place. A transfer is not a "license".
Click to expand...

In the UK anyone can apply and it is up to the police to argue the case if they think that person is not suitable. The police have to give reasons for a lack of suitability and there is an appeal system to the courts if an applicant feels the police were wrong to refuse. The UK police cannot say no unless the applicant is a danger either.

We have the right to a gun as much as you do, the conditions are different, just as different US states have different conditions, thats all.

Sorry, you are the confused one.
 
zooterkin said:
A crazy person with easy access to firearms; but you only want to look at one part of situation?
Click to expand...

Given that there is a high percentage of the population that does the right thing with guns, it would better satisfy all parties to focus on the mental illness as opposed to taking rights away from law abiding citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom