Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

What Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun In Texas?


SabreFan1

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said:

Actually suicide by gun is much more successful than other methods of attempt.  Reducing gun availability would no doubt lower suicide rates  / death rates in the USA.....

Would it though? Taking away the gun may save them for a day but it's not a real answer , if they don't find help they will sadly find another way....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Don’t know if having a gun in a bedside table helps at all.  However, when out and about, I’d carry down there.  

It’s called living in fear, I live in a county with a population of around 1million.

In 2019 we had 10 homicides, 4 were gun related, I really don’t see a reason to walk around armed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you'd be better off with a pit bull for a personal guard and some pepper spray in your nightstand. But sure i understand. 

 

The gun thing in the US is rife with bs, imo. People one one side try to minimize the human cost, some think they're Chuck Heston protecting the ranch, others want them all banned and open borders at the same time. The US is a nutty place right now. 

 

For me, I think it would be a good thing to try to reduce the number of firearms deaths regardless of the 'how' but thats just my 2 cents. 

While a pit bull and pepper spray are good options for some, many people cannot afford the cost and time owning a pitbull takes.  Guns are a cheaper alternative for many.  Also, if they were owned at the same rate as guns, you'd be looking at an additional thousand deaths a year.  So, not a perfect solution (not that you suggested it was one).

 

Oddly enough, about the same number of Americans per day are treated for serious dog bites as they are getting shot.

 

There is more than our share of nuttiness down here, that's for sure.

  • Cheers 2
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Kragar said:

wouldn't logic suggest that other factors are at work

Yes. Clearly.

 

The internet educates people on all kinds of different ways to be violent if they are disturbed, high? They see weapons like trucks mowing down tourists in Paris. Or Melbourne where I live. Not once, but twice. By locals, not a terrorist. All glamorise violence.  True they do not need guns? Rap sings about a hoods life, and young kids see gangsters in pimped out Chevy Tahoe's. $120,000 rides, $10,000 chains around their neck.  While mum is in a crack house. The true idiots will still find a weapon.

 

We do need to set a different reality in front of parts of society that do not have positive role models. Opportunities. 

 

52 minutes ago, Kragar said:

before looking at gun restrictions?

No.

 

They are still part of that table which makes it easier to be a gangster. To domineer, intimidate. Which breeds more gangsters.  

 

They are still routinely, and increasingly part of a culture? Where a guy who gets picked on at school. work, Is disillusioned, or suicidal, suffering depression. Has psychopathic thoughts & no friends, assassinates those who picked on him. How many US school shootings have their been? Workplace, those upset with the govt.? A company uses dynamite to clear avalanches, another to mine gold. It does not mean we should give everyone bombs.

 

There is a mathematical correlation to the number of guns & the number of shootings.    

 

Reducing their availability will equally & proportionately improve public safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Yes. Clearly.

 

The internet educates people on all kinds of different ways to be violent if they are disturbed, high? They see weapons like trucks mowing down tourists in Paris. Or Melbourne where I live. Not once, but twice. By locals, not a terrorist. All glamorise violence.  True they do not need guns? Rap sings about a hoods life, and young kids see gangsters in pimped out Chevy Tahoe's. $120,000 rides, $10,000 chains around their neck.  While mum is in a crack house. The true idiots will still find a weapon.

 

We do need to set a different reality in front of parts of society that do not have positive role models. Opportunities. 

 

No.

 

They are still part of that table which makes it easier to be a gangster. To domineer, intimidate. Which breeds more gangsters.  

 

They are still routinely, and increasingly part of a culture? Where a guy who gets picked on at school. work, Is disillusioned, or suicidal, suffering depression. Has psychopathic thoughts & no friends, assassinates those who picked on him. How many US school shootings have their been? Workplace, those upset with the govt.? A company uses dynamite to clear avalanches, another to mine gold. It does not mean we should give everyone bombs.

 

There is a mathematical correlation to the number of guns & the number of shootings.    

 

Reducing their availability will equally & proportionately improve public safety.

That correlation does not exist here, when comparing the US to itself, which is the best comparison.

 

We did not have the same issue with shootings in previous decades.  Societal factors, including many you describe, are part of it.

 

Tack into that the difficulty of passing laws that infringe on existing rights, I feel political capital us more effectively spent elsewhere to address the underlying issues we are experiencing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

That correlation does not exist here, when comparing the US to itself, which is the best comparison.

 

We did not have the same issue with shootings in previous decades.  Societal factors, including many you describe, are part of it.

 

Tack into that the difficulty of passing laws that infringe on existing rights, I feel political capital us more effectively spent elsewhere to address the underlying issues we are experiencing.

You have your opinion.  

 

Guns equals escalation everywhere there is violence.  Vancouver has 45 or 50 murders per year. Canada 450 or 500.

 

Here is the Wlkepedia list of American murders by US region;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

Like you, I agree gang violence is the cultural factor driving murder rates. Socio-economic factors driving gang membership. How they go about it I covered clearly in an earlier post.

 

I watched a show last night about the historical rise of the Crips and Bloods in Los Angeles.  Gangs initiated in the early 70's, late 60's.  Gang members themselves were incredibly clear about the role of guns in escalating the violence. It was about blood sport and ranking when they started. Gangs that stayed out & brawled when kids were 14?  Were run by guys "Mike Tyson would have been scared of!'' Became quickly about retribution with guns when kids were beaten to death.  But really, like with motorcycle gangs in Canada? And everywhere. Gun shops opened in the mid 70's in LA. The Bloods were vastly outnumbered. But now could use guns to keep marauding Crips out of their territory. The guy who started the Crips was shot by one of his own. Members had grown up. Now it was about money, and turf to sell drugs. The most violent offenders controlled distribution, prostitution. Then gambling, loan sharking, extortion as next level rackets. All more profitable than working. 

 

Yes its about gangs.  But gangs exist to a much greater degree because of access to guns. Almost no US state does not have at least three times the murder rate of Canada. Some ten times & a few twenty times & more the murder rate.  The worst are the suburban area's around big cities where gang members grew up & lived.     

 

image.thumb.png.6ff2d0dc36e1ce519fc360823fb5e3fa.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

The issue is that you feel the need to have multiple armed people to “guard the halls” for a church service.  
 

That’s straight up insanity and it’s largely because firearm ownership is too widespread and access is way too easy.

It is called prudence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Okay not to sound crude but suicide is a hard one to put just on guns.....if a person is looking for a way out , they will find one......sad or happy ending.

so cant put the blame just on guns , that sounds more like mental health.

gang death....well that sounds like a gang problem more then legal gun owner....

you talk about more gun restrictions , what's that going to help? It's just going to be a hazel every legal owner has to go threw and last I check gangs just dont care. 

So at the end of the day is it a gun problem or gang problem?

 

I guess gang shootings used to be shotguns and handguns, now its automatic weapons. I don't know if you can turn that back, but clearly things were let go too far in terms of what was freely available to the public. 

 

14 hours ago, Kragar said:

The suicides and gang issues are less concerning to my personal safety because of where and how I, and many others, live.  That in no way implies that they are not issues needing attention.  KoS's comments were about USA's collective safety, after all.

 

Since the availability of guns, or the number of guns per capita, hasn't really changed significantly in accordance with the rise in shootings, wouldn't logic suggest that other factors are at work and should be addressed before looking at gun restrictions?

to me it suggests looking at multiple factors at the same time, gun restrictions just being one of them. I don't agree at all with the deflection by gun owner groups that restrictions are something done to hurt "legal" gun owners. We have laws for nearly everything, we're not all punished everyday for how we're allowed to drive or buy booze, e.g. 

 

A lot of the guns being used in Canada by gangs are illegally obtained out of the US, that does bug me a lot. We shouldn't have to deal with problems created in part from the US gun market. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kragar said:

While a pit bull and pepper spray are good options for some, many people cannot afford the cost and time owning a pitbull takes.  Guns are a cheaper alternative for many.  Also, if they were owned at the same rate as guns, you'd be looking at an additional thousand deaths a year.  So, not a perfect solution (not that you suggested it was one).

 

Oddly enough, about the same number of Americans per day are treated for serious dog bites as they are getting shot.

 

There is more than our share of nuttiness down here, that's for sure.

I guess I'd prefer to take my chances with a dog than an uzi. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

You have your opinion.  

 

Guns equals escalation everywhere there is violence.  Vancouver has 45 or 50 murders per year. Canada 450 or 500.

 

Here is the Wlkepedia list of American murders by US region;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

Like you, I agree gang violence is the cultural factor driving murder rates. Socio-economic factors driving gang membership. How they go about it I covered clearly in an earlier post.

 

I watched a show last night about the historical rise of the Crips and Bloods in Los Angeles.  Gangs initiated in the early 70's, late 60's.  Gang members themselves were incredibly clear about the role of guns in escalating the violence. It was about blood sport and ranking when they started. Gangs that stayed out & brawled when kids were 14?  Were run by guys "Mike Tyson would have been scared of!'' Became quickly about retribution with guns when kids were beaten to death.  But really, like with motorcycle gangs in Canada? And everywhere. Gun shops opened in the mid 70's in LA. The Bloods were vastly outnumbered. But now could use guns to keep marauding Crips out of their territory. The guy who started the Crips was shot by one of his own. Members had grown up. Now it was about money, and turf to sell drugs. The most violent offenders controlled distribution, prostitution. Then gambling, loan sharking, extortion as next level rackets. All more profitable than working. 

 

Yes its about gangs.  But gangs exist to a much greater degree because of access to guns. Almost no US state does not have at least three times the murder rate of Canada. Some ten times & a few twenty times & more the murder rate.  The worst are the suburban area's around big cities where gang members grew up & lived.     

 

image.thumb.png.6ff2d0dc36e1ce519fc360823fb5e3fa.png

 

 

I just pointed out that comparing the US to US was the way to go, and you start comparing the US to Canada... a country with much less population density and nowhere near the intensity of racial issues.

 

Gun deaths per capita are down significantly from the 80's to mid 90's, and has been rising only in the last couple years.  The prevalence of guns has not skyrocketed in that time, nor leading up to it.  That is why I think there are other more important factors at play.  While this probably hasn't been clear in this thread, and you and I haven't talked about this before, that I recall, in other threads I have acknowledged that there are some restrictions I can support.

 

The Wikipedia link you provided shows CA and TX as the top two states with the most murders and gun murders.  TX has almost double the gun ownership per capita, yet the two states have virtually identical murder and gun murder rates.

 

IMO, part of what comes into play is the openness of borders.  CA is now a de facto sanctuary state, and has been working towards that end for decades.  There are plenty of urban centers whose cities, counties, and/or states are providing sanctuary to illegal aliens.  What happens when you import, with wide-open arms, a disproportionate number of poor people with little to no labor skills?  Increased demand for low-skilled labor depresses wages for those jobs.  Higher demand for cheap housing means higher rent for that housing.  Both of which perpetuate poverty for our own struggling citizens, which increases both gang activity as you point out but also general desperation and depression.  (FYI, this is not all I am hanging my hat on, it is just an example)

 

I'd be interested to see what gang-related info you have that supports your premise.  I tried looking some stuff up, and I could find that youth participation percentage was declining, but the site stopped tracking in 2011, and different reports would range from 800K up to 1.4M members in a given year... gotta love accuracy out there :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you'd be better off with a pit bull for a personal guard and some pepper spray in your nightstand. But sure i understand. 

 

The gun thing in the US is rife with bs, imo. People one one side try to minimize the human cost, some think they're Chuck Heston protecting the ranch, others want them all banned and open borders at the same time. The US is a nutty place right now. 

 

For me, I think it would be a good thing to try to reduce the number of firearms deaths regardless of the 'how' but thats just my 2 cents. 

I think what gets marginalized sometimes, is the fact that many people don't really fall into either of the extreme camps, yet those are the examples that get thrown around all the time. What most gun control advocates are hoping for is moderate, common sense restriction, rather than an all-out ban.

 

For example, the guy who carried out this shooting has a criminal record. Now, I don't know the extent of his record, but I think it's pretty much common sense that it should be illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon. The problem is, it's only illegal to sell to a felon if you know he's a felon. That means he or she would have to admit to the fact....hardly a likely scenario.

 

It seems as though this would be a textbook example of why universal background checks, coupled with a mandatory waiting period should be required.

 

What I find odd is that many on the pro-gun side of the argument, are pointing at this particular incident as a "success", and yes, without the actions of the security guard, the loss of life would have been much greater. But that narrative seems to ignore the fact that two parishioners were killed before the attacker was engaged. Arming everyone is always going to be a less effective method of protection than keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think what gets marginalized sometimes, is the fact that many people don't really fall into either of the extreme camps, yet those are the examples that get thrown around all the time. What most gun control advocates are hoping for is moderate, common sense restriction, rather than an all-out ban.

 

For example, the guy who carried out this shooting has a criminal record. Now, I don't know the extent of his record, but I think it's pretty much common sense that it should be illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon. The problem is, it's only illegal to sell to a felon if you know he's a felon. That means he or she would have to admit to the fact....hardly a likely scenario.

 

It seems as though this would be a textbook example of why universal background checks, coupled with a mandatory waiting period should be required.

 

What I find odd is that many on the pro-gun side of the argument, are pointing at this particular incident as a "success", and yes, without the actions of the security guard, the loss of life would have been much greater. But that narrative seems to ignore the fact that two parishioners were killed before the attacker was engaged. Arming everyone is always going to be a less effective method of protection than keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

you nailed it right there. 

 

Common sense has left the argument a long time ago, unfortunately. I don't think we need all out bans in Canada, but I also don't have a problem with trying out ideas like allowing municipalities to set their own rules. That seems very fair to me, allow each community to set its own standard. If Toronto wants to ban handguns, cool. If Alberta doesn't, cool also. 

 

We do need to do more with guns coming into Canada from the US... not really sure where to start on that one. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

to me it suggests looking at multiple factors at the same time, gun restrictions just being one of them. I don't agree at all with the deflection by gun owner groups that restrictions are something done to hurt "legal" gun owners. We have laws for nearly everything, we're not all punished everyday for how we're allowed to drive or buy booze, e.g. 

 

A lot of the guns being used in Canada by gangs are illegally obtained out of the US, that does bug me a lot. We shouldn't have to deal with problems created in part from the US gun market. 

 

I don't think the laws are done to hurt legal gun owners, but the laws will hurt them more, because they are more likely to follow them.


We do have laws for nearly everything.  Incandescent light bulbs are banned because they can be less efficient, so we are encouraged/forced to use less safe (CFLs) and/or expensive (LEDs) forms of light.  Cars are made smaller and lighter in an effort to reduce fuel consumption, at the risk of human life as these vehicles are less safe in accidents.  We have to get licenses for nearly any business venture... mostly another cash grab.  It gets to the point where business is discouraged, especially in heavily regulated jurisdictions, that people just give up and leave to work somewhere simpler.  You are punished because you are forced to deal with ICBC to drive your car.  You are forced to pay high taxes to buy your booze, too.

 

To be clear, I am in favor of making some changes.  @RUPERTKBD and I have agreed on some things in the past.  I just don't hold up a lot of faith that they will make a significant difference in the problems we are having here.  Because the society itself has major issues.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I don't think the laws are done to hurt legal gun owners, but the laws will hurt them more, because they are more likely to follow them.


We do have laws for nearly everything.  Incandescent light bulbs are banned because they can be less efficient, so we are encouraged/forced to use less safe (CFLs) and/or expensive (LEDs) forms of light.  Cars are made smaller and lighter in an effort to reduce fuel consumption, at the risk of human life as these vehicles are less safe in accidents.  We have to get licenses for nearly any business venture... mostly another cash grab.  It gets to the point where business is discouraged, especially in heavily regulated jurisdictions, that people just give up and leave to work somewhere simpler.  You are punished because you are forced to deal with ICBC to drive your car.  You are forced to pay high taxes to buy your booze, too.

 

To be clear, I am in favor of making some changes.  @RUPERTKBD and I have agreed on some things in the past.  I just don't hold up a lot of faith that they will make a significant difference in the problems we are having here.  Because the society itself has major issues.

yup. All I would like to see is a combined effort on all fronts, common-sense gun reform along with health interventions and crime reduction. Otherwise it will just be more of the same. 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess gang shootings used to be shotguns and handguns, now its automatic weapons. I don't know if you can turn that back, but clearly things were let go too far in terms of what was freely available to the public. 

 

to me it suggests looking at multiple factors at the same time, gun restrictions just being one of them. I don't agree at all with the deflection by gun owner groups that restrictions are something done to hurt "legal" gun owners. We have laws for nearly everything, we're not all punished everyday for how we're allowed to drive or buy booze, e.g. 

 

A lot of the guns being used in Canada by gangs are illegally obtained out of the US, that does bug me a lot. We shouldn't have to deal with problems created in part from the US gun market. 

 

And before that gangs used other means to kill each other , sad but true. 

I agree that yea full auto is just stupid but their sport guns but wouldn't hurt my feelings to seem them gone. 

 

They will find guns anyway they can , I read an article about how in Canada gangs are getting every day people to take their pals , so they can get guns. They will get them from other countries , heck theirs groups that will happily do it. 

So I'll ask again gang problem or gun problem?

https://nationalpost.com/news/illegal-guns-sourced-in-canada-surge-compared-to-those-smuggled-from-u-s

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yup. All I would like to see is a combined effort on all fronts, common-sense gun reform along with health interventions and crime reduction. Otherwise it will just be more of the same. 

And reduce the illegal alien population (by deportation/prevention, not by more sinister means... gotta be clear :) ), restore and use mental institutions, remove unnecessary barriers to commerce, improve access to better schools for inner-city kids, stop encouraging absentee parents, and, and, and...

 

The biggest problem from my perspective is that gun reform is the only thing that gets media attention.  Without the rest, the benefits of gun reform are marginal at best.  Half the time the reform idea du jour wouldn't have mattered in the mass shooting that brings back the debate one more time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think what gets marginalized sometimes, is the fact that many people don't really fall into either of the extreme camps, yet those are the examples that get thrown around all the time. What most gun control advocates are hoping for is moderate, common sense restriction, rather than an all-out ban.

 

For example, the guy who carried out this shooting has a criminal record. Now, I don't know the extent of his record, but I think it's pretty much common sense that it should be illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon. The problem is, it's only illegal to sell to a felon if you know he's a felon. That means he or she would have to admit to the fact....hardly a likely scenario.

 

It seems as though this would be a textbook example of why universal background checks, coupled with a mandatory waiting period should be required.

 

What I find odd is that many on the pro-gun side of the argument, are pointing at this particular incident as a "success", and yes, without the actions of the security guard, the loss of life would have been much greater. But that narrative seems to ignore the fact that two parishioners were killed before the attacker was engaged. Arming everyone is always going to be a less effective method of protection than keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

They pretty much do that now in Canada. It's 30 days waiting for a hand gun.

rifle you can walk out the same day with your pal. 

You also pretty much need an pal to just buy ammo now Adays. 

Pal course is one day just for rifles and two day for hand guns. 

And with hand guns iirc in b.c rcmp can come to your home and check on them. 

So what more can be done in Canada?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think what gets marginalized sometimes, is the fact that many people don't really fall into either of the extreme camps, yet those are the examples that get thrown around all the time. What most gun control advocates are hoping for is moderate, common sense restriction, rather than an all-out ban.

 

For example, the guy who carried out this shooting has a criminal record. Now, I don't know the extent of his record, but I think it's pretty much common sense that it should be illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon. The problem is, it's only illegal to sell to a felon if you know he's a felon. That means he or she would have to admit to the fact....hardly a likely scenario.

 

It seems as though this would be a textbook example of why universal background checks, coupled with a mandatory waiting period should be required.

 

What I find odd is that many on the pro-gun side of the argument, are pointing at this particular incident as a "success", and yes, without the actions of the security guard, the loss of life would have been much greater. But that narrative seems to ignore the fact that two parishioners were killed before the attacker was engaged. Arming everyone is always going to be a less effective method of protection than keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Has enough info been published to confirm this?  And whether it would have helped?  From what I have seen, and I think OP mentions this as well, the attacker used a shotgun, which IIRC are easier to get.  Unless evidence comes out to support that he bought the gun right before the event, I don't think it is a textbook example at all (however good the idea it might be).

 

Your last paragraph leans towards an extreme camp, IMO.  All too often, the anti-gun lobby defense is critical of gun ownership because it is not 100% effective, as you point out in the church shooting.  But, nothing is 100% effective, so while it is a nice goal to strive for, realism needs to come into play.  Sadly, two were shot while the attacker was engaged, and died in the hospital.  In a span of a few seconds.  If this happened in a nice safe place with strict gun control with law-abiding citizens obeying gun-free zone laws, how many others would have died before the police arrived on the scene, even if they can arrive within a few minutes?

 

Who advocates for arming "everyone"?  Even a majority of NRA members support universal checks  And, since no one can keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, clearly allowing citizens to choose to be armed is not always less effective.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...