Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

27 Dead in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting


  • Please log in to reply
842 replies to this topic

#421 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:49 PM

Then how do you use a gun correctly? Is it protection? If that is correct then let me ask you this:

How many lives are saved by gun owners vs how many are lost because of the availability of arms?

These questions have already been answered in the topic.

But I wonder why it would matter in the end.. the second amendment doesn't require more lives to be saved than lost any more than first amendment require more civilians to compliment than insult others by their usage of the first amendment.

If the suggestion is merely to do better background checks and require more thorough courses for a permit, as well as more frequent registration, I don't think there'd be much opposition.

Instead, gun is being blamed for the decision of a person to massacre others. So, still in the process of crawling before one can walk.
  • 0

#422 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:50 PM

if you think banning guns will end all violence you're in for an unpleasant surprise, not that they're ever going to ban guns in the U.S


What is the difference between Canada and US?
  • 0

Posted Image


#423 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:52 PM

What is the difference between Canada and US?


Isreal and Switzerland have easy access to guns for civilians and the rate of guns in homes is the same as the US, and their murder rates are not anywhere near as high as the U.S. So strict gun laws don't automatically = less violence because both those countries don't have strict laws, yet don't have high gun violence
  • 0

#424 Hockey!?

Hockey!?

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 10

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:56 PM

As if it wasn't bad enough:

https://twitter.com/...953994124783618

I suppose it was expected. These "people" make me sick.
  • 0

Posted Image

Posted Image


#425 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:01 PM

Zero steps forward, two steps back.. and this is where I point out that it isn't the gun's fault a lunatic decided to use it for the wrong purpose any more than it's a word's fault someone uses it wrongly. Amazing in the 21st century that logic still takes a back seat to reactionary.


The difference is that words aren't capable of killing people but guns are capable of killing people. By your logic, then all countries should have nuclear technology. Kids should have access to bombs etc. After all, all of these things are inanimate objects and it isn't these inanimate object's fault for someone using it wrongly. Its not the nuclear weapon's fault if North Korea might plan on using it. Amazing in the 21's century that logic still takes a back seat to stupidity.
  • 0

Posted Image


#426 rampage

rampage

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,036 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:06 PM

As if it wasn't bad enough:

https://twitter.com/...953994124783618

I suppose it was expected. These "people" make me sick.


Lowest form of our species
  • 0

#427 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

Isreal and Switzerland have easy access to guns for civilians and the rate of guns in homes is the same as the US, and their murder rates are not anywhere near as high as the U.S. So strict gun laws don't automatically = less violence because both those countries don't have strict laws, yet don't have high gun violence


Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Australia and Britain have either strict control on guns or complete ban on guns. Now do any of these have high incidents of gun violence like US??

How do you know banning guns in US won't work when they never even tried it yet? Trying is better than sitting on your hand and doing nothing. If it works, it works and if it doesn't then at least they tried. US wastes so much money on military and other things that don't even benefit their people yet its so hard for them to invest in something that might actually be a benefit to their citizens. But of course, its the same old rhetoric of "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
  • 0

Posted Image


#428 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

The difference is that words aren't capable of killing people but guns are capable of killing people. By your logic, then all countries should have nuclear technology. Kids should have access to bombs etc. After all, all of these things are inanimate objects and it isn't these inanimate object's fault for someone using it wrongly. Its not the nuclear weapon's fault if North Korea might plan on using it. Amazing in the 21's century that logic still takes a back seat to stupidity.

By your logic, we shouldn't have knives, or anything potentially dangerous because it's the "inanimate object's" fault for the way people use it. Blaming objects for the way people use them is the smart thing to do, people are just so dumb aren't they? :lol:
  • 0

#429 Scottish⑦Canuck

Scottish⑦Canuck

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,821 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 07

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:12 PM

These questions have already been answered in the topic.

But I wonder why it would matter in the end.. the second amendment doesn't require more lives to be saved than lost any more than first amendment require more civilians to compliment than insult others by their usage of the first amendment.

If the suggestion is merely to do better background checks and require more thorough courses for a permit, as well as more frequent registration, I don't think there'd be much opposition.

Instead, gun is being blamed for the decision of a person to massacre others. So, still in the process of crawling before one can walk.


No, the gun is being blamed for the ease at which he was able to do so.
  • 0

#430 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:16 PM

Yes we have rules to prevent crashes. They prevent some, but not all. We still have thousands of deaths a year from crashes. So again, if stopping unnecessary deaths is the objective, clearly we need to work on more rules/more enforcement/something else. To focus our money/energy on stopping something else that kills far fewer people a year, how is that an efficient use of resources/time/etc?


By this ridiculous logic, we should add up all the causes of deaths around the world, choose the #1 cause, and divest 100% of our resources towards it while ignoring everything else.
  • 0

#431 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Australia and Britain have either strict control on guns or complete ban on guns. Now do any of these have high incidents of gun violence like US??

How do you know banning guns in US won't work when they never even tried it yet? Trying is better than sitting on your hand and doing nothing. If it works, it works and if it doesn't then at least they tried. US wastes so much money on military and other things that don't even benefit their people yet its so hard for them to invest in something that might actually be a benefit to their citizens. But of course, its the same old rhetoric of "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

They HAVE tried banning guns in the US. Washington DC was one of the best examples, a long standing ban on the most common type of gun, shootings were still highly rampant because, surprise.. criminals can easily attain guns and they don't care about gun ban laws.

The next thing which makes this a non starter is that a gun ban = overturned in court. A complete gun ban will not happen without removal of the second amendment.

Can't compare the US to other countries to this degree because the US is unique in several ways on the subject -- a very strong second amendment, and more prevalence in murders in general than most other first world nations. Americans do not think like the Swiss, or like Canadians.. apples and oranges.

No, the gun is being blamed for the ease at which he was able to do so.

Killing someone with a knife is easy, which is why it is still one of the most preferred ways to murder someone.

Edited by zaibatsu, 15 December 2012 - 04:24 PM.

  • 0

#432 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

the meme's have begun as well, some real winners out there


pretty idiotic to post it, don't ya think? :rolleyes:
  • 3
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#433 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

By your logic, we shouldn't have knives, or anything potentially dangerous because it's the "inanimate object's" fault for the way people use it. Blaming objects for the way people use them is the smart thing to do, people are just so dumb aren't they? :lol:


The point am making is some object are weapons of mass destruction. Other objects might only be capable of killing a bird. I want to know why is the US foreign policy so different than their internal policy? If Iran wants nuclear weapons, why shouldn't they have it? If North Korea is testing their missiles, then why is US crying about it?
  • 0

Posted Image


#434 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:25 PM

As if it wasn't bad enough:

https://twitter.com/...953994124783618

I suppose it was expected. These "people" make me sick.


Not surprising in the least. Westboro isn't a church it's a hate group masquerading as a church to gain a tax exemption.

Declare them as a hate group and finish them once and for all.

Don't mean to derail the thread but the problem in the US isn't a problem of gun control. The root cause is the mentality of the citizens.

Probably little chance of changing the mentality so you have to institute some form of gun control. A good start would be re-instating the ban on semi-automatic weapons. No one legitimately needs to be able to fire a zillion rounds/minute in order to protect their liberty.

It's now 3 shooting incidents/assaults in what 4 days? Are they ever going to get it?

Americans do not think like the Swiss, or like Canadians.. apples and oranges.


That right there is the root of the problem, and where the change must come from. The cowboy mentality is their undoing.

Edited by nuckin_futz, 15 December 2012 - 05:35 PM.

  • 0

#435 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:25 PM

Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Australia and Britain have either strict control on guns or complete ban on guns. Now do any of these have high incidents of gun violence like US??

How do you know banning guns in US won't work when they never even tried it yet? Trying is better than sitting on your hand and doing nothing. If it works, it works and if it doesn't then at least they tried. US wastes so much money on military and other things that don't even benefit their people yet its so hard for them to invest in something that might actually be a benefit to their citizens. But of course, its the same old rhetoric of "guns don't kill people, people kill people".


You're talking countries where there were far fewer guns to begin with, and especially in the case of Singapore and Malaysia are a lot more authoritarian, and in the case of Japan, Australian and Britain, are island nations, which makes controlling smuggling a lot easier.

Japan also has the Yakuza, who wouldn't allow some random crazy to get their hands on an illegal gun.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#436 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

Yes we have rules to prevent crashes. They prevent some, but not all. We still have thousands of deaths a year from crashes. So again, if stopping unnecessary deaths is the objective, clearly we need to work on more rules/more enforcement/something else. To focus our money/energy on stopping something else that kills far fewer people a year, how is that an efficient use of resources/time/etc?


If that is the case, then they should stop the war on terrorism and start the war on drinking and driving or reckless driving. After all, more Americans get killed because of driving than terrorism.
  • 0

Posted Image


#437 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

You're talking countries where there were far fewer guns to begin with, and especially in the case of Singapore and Malaysia are a lot more authoritarian, and in the case of Japan, Australian and Britain, are island nations, which makes controlling smuggling a lot easier.

Japan also has the Yakuza, who wouldn't allow some random crazy to get their hands on an illegal gun.


And somehow this is impossible to implement in the good ol' US of A? If they even put 1/4 ounce of energy that they put on terrorism and stupid foreign policies into these issues, they would be farther ahead. Its pretty funny that US wants to control terrorism world wide yet can't control gun violence in their own damn country. You would think it is harder to go after terrorists and nations that harbor terrorists than it is to control domestic gun violence.
  • 0

Posted Image


#438 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:32 PM


  • 0

Posted Image


#439 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

They HAVE tried banning guns in the US. Washington DC was one of the best examples, a long standing ban on the most common type of gun, shootings were still highly rampant because, surprise.. criminals can easily attain guns and they don't care about gun ban laws.

The next thing which makes this a non starter is that a gun ban = overturned in court. A complete gun ban will not happen without removal of the second amendment.

Can't compare the US to other countries to this degree because the US is unique in several ways on the subject -- a very strong second amendment, and more prevalence in murders in general than most other first world nations. Americans do not think like the Swiss, or like Canadians.. apples and oranges.


Killing someone with a knife is easy, which is why it is still one of the most preferred ways to murder someone.


in Canada all handguns are restricted weapons (and many are prohibited). All firearms in a home must be secured either in a locked cabinet and /or a trigger lock mechanism and ammunition must be stored separately.

In the US that sort of gun control was rejected in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) by SCOTUS. Handgun possession was banned under District of Columbia law. The law prohibited the registration of handguns and mades it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.

This was found to be unconstitutional as the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defence) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.

http://www.lawnix.co.../dc-heller.html

The Heller holding which was based on a federal law was extended to the states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010). That case held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#440 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:35 PM

The point am making is some object are weapons of mass destruction. Other objects might only be capable of killing a bird. I want to know why is the US foreign policy so different than their internal policy? If Iran wants nuclear weapons, why shouldn't they have it? If North Korea is testing their missiles, then why is US crying about it?

The US wants to dictate who has those weapons. If there was someone you don't like, and you're a fairly aggressive person, you wouldn't want others that might actually stand up to you to have the same strengths you have.. then you might actually be forced into trying to get along with them rather than bully and threaten them.

The concept is similar.

If a robber believes you have a gun, chances are he might think twice about going into your house to rob/kill you (chances are he still might do it as well), but chances are if he comes in with a gun you have a higher chance of defending yourself than trying to call 911 and hoping the cops get there on time to save you. If you were a robber common sense dictates you'd have a preference to commit a crime when you would have the highest chance of getting away with it. The less dangerous repercussions you face, the more willing you are to do something. I'm in bewilderment that I have to explain this.
  • 0

#441 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

It's funny, but I hope you can differentiate cartoon caricature from reality.
  • 0

#442 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:37 PM

The US wants to dictate who has those weapons. If there was someone you don't like, and you're a fairly aggressive person, you wouldn't want others that might actually stand up to you to have the same strengths you have.. then you might actually be forced into trying to get along with them rather than bully and threaten them.

The concept is similar.

If a robber believes you have a gun, chances are he might think twice about going into your house to rob/kill you (chances are he still might do it as well), but chances are if he comes in with a gun you have a higher chance of defending yourself than trying to call 911 and hoping the cops get there on time to save you. If you were a robber common sense dictates you'd have a preference to commit a crime when you would have the highest chance of getting away with it. The less dangerous repercussions you face, the more willing you are to do something. I'm in bewilderment that I have to explain this.

The problem is that your chance of being attacked in your home is significantly less than the chance that the firearm could accidentally kill or wound a family member or guest.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#443 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:38 PM

It's funny, but I hope you can differentiate cartoon caricature from reality.


Sometimes these cartoon caricatures offer up better solutions than the politicians at the White House. Unfortunately, the reality is more like a cartoon nowadays.
  • 0

Posted Image


#444 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,007 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:38 PM

As if it wasn't bad enough:

https://twitter.com/...953994124783618

I suppose it was expected. These "people" make me sick.


I just ignore the Westboro Baptist church. They're just hate mongering crazy minded attention whores.

As the common saying goes: "Don't feed the trolls".
  • 1
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat

#445 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:46 PM

The US wants to dictate who has those weapons. If there was someone you don't like, and you're a fairly aggressive person, you wouldn't want others that might actually stand up to you to have the same strengths you have.. then you might actually be forced into trying to get along with them rather than bully and threaten them.

The concept is similar.

If a robber believes you have a gun, chances are he might think twice about going into your house to rob/kill you (chances are he still might do it as well), but chances are if he comes in with a gun you have a higher chance of defending yourself than trying to call 911 and hoping the cops get there on time to save you. If you were a robber common sense dictates you'd have a preference to commit a crime when you would have the highest chance of getting away with it. The less dangerous repercussions you face, the more willing you are to do something. I'm in bewilderment that I have to explain this.


So the double standard is clearly stated in your explanation. They give the same equal rights to average joes and psychos to bear arms but god forbid if other countries had the arsenal capability that they do. They definitely have their priorities straight. Am amazed that you can't see through this flawed logic. So Iran is in the right if it wants to protect itself from Israel and US. They could always point to the second US amendment.

Edited by Pouria, 15 December 2012 - 04:46 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#446 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Real Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:51 PM

guns kill people...

people kill people...

actually. who cares who kills who? the weapon isnīt important. a car can be a weapon, a knife, a gun, a bottle of beer. anything can be turned into a weapon...

the question is. why this coward, why this insane, why this piece of scum get permition to buy a rifle? itīs clear that if anybody does a psychological examination on people like this guy will be clear that people like this are not able to carry even a toy gun!

the guy buy 3 weapons and the Police didnīt suspected why he is buying so many guns? really?! why you need 3 diferent types of guns? do you live in rural Alaska or in a war zone? a gun isnīt enought to protect yourself? do you need hunt everyday to eat because you never heared the word "supermarket" on your life?


buy a weapon is so easy in USA, you just have to me an USA citizen over 18! go to Wallmart and buy 1,2,3 or how many guns you want, for hunt, self protection, "others"? they donīt care! they donīt understand that if you turn a weapon a "simple" tool that you can buy on a supermarket the society is telling that "kill is normal" and "natural death and muder the same thing, but to kill somebody you need to go to wallmart first..."


itīs silly try compare other countries, the education is diferent, the society is diferent. but itīs clear that the society in USA must say "thatīs enought", a maniac with a rifle? yeah. "for those who want feel the power of a military weapon on a civil use". WTF is this?! if you want feel the power of a military weapon join the army, navy or airforce!  you will travel aroung the globe to kill as much terrorist you want without be in charge of something...


but yeah. this "creature" was so coward, he killed himself, he wasnīt man enought to fight, to see the kids, the parents, the society, the world looking at him. he destroyed many and many lifes and in the end he killed himself to do not face a real punishment...



if a guy like this one hurt my family and for some miracle he survives, better run because I will hunt him like an animal, and after I find this coward I will punish maniacs like this in a proper way, scum must be treated like scum...

Edited by aeromotacanucks, 15 December 2012 - 04:53 PM.

  • 0
Shup up and fly! you´re not payed to think, you´re payed to fly!

#447 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,473 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:54 PM

Isreal and Switzerland have easy access to guns for civilians and the rate of guns in homes is the same as the US, and their murder rates are not anywhere near as high as the U.S. So strict gun laws don't automatically = less violence because both those countries don't have strict laws, yet don't have high gun violence

This is incorrect or I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

http://www.washingto...toting-utopias/
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#448 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

So the double standard is clearly stated in your explanation. They give the same equal rights to average joes and psychos to bear arms but god forbid if other countries had the arsenal capability that they do. They definitely have their priorities straight. Am amazed that you can't see through this flawed logic. So Iran is in the right if it wants to protect itself from Israel and US. They could always point to the second US amendment.

Ok I'm just gonna stop responding to your posts now. I answered your post that had little to do with this subject (which I now regret), and you seem to be under the impression that me (objectively) answering the question implies that I somehow agree with the US government's foreign policy? The hell is that?

guns kill people...

people kill people...

actually. who cares who kills who? the weapon isn´t important. a car can be a weapon, a knife, a gun, a bottle of beer. anything can be turned into a weapon...

the question is. why this coward, why this insane, why this piece of scum get permition to buy a rifle? it´s clear that if anybody does a psychological examination on people like this guy will be clear that people like this are not able to carry even a toy gun!

I agree with what you're saying, but from what I keep reading / hearing, shooter was denied when he tried to buy a gun. That was "gun control" at work. He used his mother's. Not being able to legally purchase a weapon won't stop someone from attaining one, or a means to commit such acts. (<- that's where we agree)

Edited by zaibatsu, 15 December 2012 - 04:58 PM.

  • 0

#449 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:58 PM

pretty idiotic to post it, don't ya think? :rolleyes:


No frickin' kidding. :angry:


Probably not going to be there for long, though.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 15 December 2012 - 05:01 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#450 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:02 PM

the meme's have begun as well, some real winners out there
*Inappropriate content removed*


Why would you even post that here?

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 15 December 2012 - 05:02 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.