Saskatchewan school in lockdown after shooting.

[Warhippy]

9 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

  What are you saying? that all killing is bad therefore guns should be banned?  That if we banned guns murder rates will reduce? Because facts prove you wrong. Read what I said about the outcome of stricter gun laws.

You appear to be intent on getting an acknowledgement that guns are meant to kill...okay, sure, I'll give you that but without the human yielding them, they are harmless.

I am sure the people in Saskatchewan would feel no better about what happened if the perp used a machete or bomb. 

 

Did I say that?  No, no I did not.

 

I am acknowledging the simple premise that guns serve no other purpose than murder that is all.

 

I am not commenting on them being bad, nor am I commenting or asking for them to be removed.

 

That's literally all I am saying.  Guns were created for 1, count it 1 purpose.

 

But it is kind of fun that people continue to fabricate arguments outside of that simple premise that I am trying to point out that I am not saying leaning towards or alluding too

[DIBdaQUIB]

Just now, Warhippy said:

Did I say that?  No, no I did not.

 

I am acknowledging the simple premise that guns serve no other purpose than murder that is all.

 

I am not commenting on them being bad, nor am I commenting or asking for them to be removed.

 

That's literally all I am saying.  Guns were created for 1, count it 1 purpose.

 

But it is kind of fun that people continue to fabricate arguments outside of that simple premise that I am trying to point out that I am not saying leaning towards or alluding too

It's where your premise leads many to eliminating guns as a means to end tragedies or murder that garners the responses.  Your point has no other aim.

and as for this statement of yours."I am acknowledging the simple premise that guns serve no other purpose than murder that is all."  I guess that clarifies your position.

[Warhippy]

5 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

It's where your premise leads many to eliminating guns as a means to end tragedies or murder that garners the responses.  Your point has no other aim.

and as for this statement of yours."I am acknowledging the simple premise that guns serve no other purpose than murder that is all."  I guess that clarifies your position.

Murder/killing/death/decease/expiring.

 

Ya.  They ALL mean the same thing.  Dead.

 

You're really reaching to try to fabricate something that isn't there pal.  SO I will spell this in crayon for you to understand

 

All I am saying is that guns were created to KILL.  I am not saying take them away, advocating disarming a nation.  Guns were created to kill, maim, murder, make dead.  Trying to put words in my mouth alluding to anything else is pathetically childish

 

Again GUNS WERE CREATED FOR KILLING AND SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE

 

We good now?

[babych]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Murder/killing/death/decease/expiring.

 

Ya.  They ALL mean the same thing.  Dead.

 

You're really reaching to try to fabricate something that isn't there pal.  SO I will spell this in crayon for you to understand

 

All I am saying is that guns were created to KILL.  I am not saying take them away, advocating disarming a nation.  Guns were created to kill, maim, murder, make dead.  Trying to put words in my mouth alluding to anything else is pathetically childish

 

Again GUNS WERE CREATED FOR KILLING AND SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE

 

We good now?

I dunno Hippy, I think people just need to think outside the box on this one. For example, just yesterday the batteries in my tv remote died. Luckily I had a gun on hand which I used to change the channels on my tv by shooting the appropriate buttons.

Problem solved and, if I'm being honest, I don't why I haven't always changed channels this way.

[Master 112]

23 minutes ago, babych said:

I dunno Hippy, I think people just need to think outside the box on this one. For example, just yesterday the batteries in my tv remote died. Luckily I had a gun on hand which I used to change the channels on my tv by shooting the appropriate buttons.

Problem solved and, if I'm being honest, I don't why I haven't always changed channels this way.

I use my gun to adjust my glasses.

[nuckin_futz]

38 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

There are many who believe if we disarm the public (because they don't understand why anyone needs a gun these days) we will have a peaceful society with lower violent crime.

The fact that the exact opposite has happened in every country that has done this (England, Australia) does not dissuade them from the pursuit of their dream.  Violent crime increases in societies where the citizens are not able to defend themselves.  Criminals prey on the weak, it's no secret.  They also do not abide by the laws so when you disarm the public, you make it open season for violent criminals. 

Of course, there is also the political advantage of disarming the public, Hitler and Stalin did it and it made achieving their aims significantly easier.

Back on topic, what happened in Sask. is a tragedy and the pain that small community is feeling unfathomable.  I hope they can find a way to heal the wounds.

You've said a couple of times something to the effect of "look at what I said earlier about this". Could you back up your opinion with a link to factual information. Otherwise you're just bending the facts to suit your narrative.

Take Australia for example. The gun ban enacted there was to stop MASS shootings. Not violent crime, suicides or even murders. Incidentally as a nice bonus the suicide rate fell dramatically.

It's been wildly successful in stopping mass shootings. Hasn't been a single one since. Figured that example might be appropriate since the thread is about a mass shooting.

 

If Jimmy is angry enough at Garry to kill him, he doesn't need a gun. He can finish him with a katana, a hammer, bag of rocks or even a spoon.

If Jimmy is looking to create mass casualties in a short amount of time he is NOT going to use a katana, a hammer, or a spoon. You have to get close to your victim with those weapons and risk being disarmed. The preferred weapon for this task is a gun. Where you can maintain distance between you and your victim(s).

You can kill a single human being with just about any weapon arguing that point is just silly. So please no more "spoons make people fat should we ban them?" If you're a single individual intent on mass murder (like the kid in La Loche) you're going to use a gun because it's the only readily available weapon to complete the task.

 

[DIBdaQUIB]

5 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

You've said a couple of times something to the effect of "look at what I said earlier about this". Could you back up your opinion with a link to factual information. Otherwise you're just bending the facts to suit your narrative.

Take Australia for example. The gun ban enacted there was to stop MASS shootings. Not violent crime, suicides or even murders. Incidentally as a nice bonus the suicide rate fell dramatically.

It's been wildly successful in stopping mass shootings. Hasn't been a single one since. Figured that example might be appropriate since the thread is about a mass shooting.

 

If Jimmy is angry enough at Garry to kill him, he doesn't need a gun. He can finish him with a katana, a hammer, bag of rocks or even a spoon.

If Jimmy is looking to create mass casualties in a short amount of time he is NOT going to use a katana, a hammer, or a spoon. You have to get close to your victim with those weapons and risk being disarmed. The preferred weapon for this task is a gun. Where you can maintain distance between you and your victim(s).

You can kill a single human being with just about any weapon arguing that point is just silly. So please no more "spoons make people fat should we ban them?" If you're a single individual intent on mass murder (like the kid in La Loche) you're going to use a gun because it's the only readily available weapon to complete the task.

 

...or a bomb...or a car...

BTW - the shooting in Sask. was apparently with a shotgun...how does that fit in with the Australian ban on guns?

Mass shootings went down...how many mass killings did Australia have?  Has the increase in individual violent crime off-set that?

 

[DIBdaQUIB]

42 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Murder/killing/death/decease/expiring.

 

Ya.  They ALL mean the same thing.  Dead.

 

You're really reaching to try to fabricate something that isn't there pal.  SO I will spell this in crayon for you to understand

 

All I am saying is that guns were created to KILL.  I am not saying take them away, advocating disarming a nation.  Guns were created to kill, maim, murder, make dead.  Trying to put words in my mouth alluding to anything else is pathetically childish

 

Again GUNS WERE CREATED FOR KILLING AND SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE

 

We good now?

Pal?  Crayons?  Guns are for killing only?  I hope you aren't a licensed carrier with that level of intellect. 

Let's go back...knives were originally invented for killing and self-defense as were spears arrows etc..  Bats (clubs) were also originally designed for killing and self defense.  That they have evolved into other uses is the decision of the user (humans).  

I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted you.  if you don't stand by your words, that's your problem.

[surtur]

12 minutes ago, One one two said:

I use my gun to adjust my glasses.

Very logical use of a firearm. I use mine to clean the wax out of my large ears.

Obviously when I am not using it to kill,  murder, various animals I and my family enjoy eating. 

I don't understand how people say guns are the problem. Sure it makes it easier to use in a malicious way. But people are the problem and have been for thousands of years even before guns had even been invented.

Murder has happened as long back as history records show. Mass killings have happened without guns.  I am all for making it harder for nut jobs to have access to guns but I am far from removing guns from society.

 

[surtur]

12 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

You've said a couple of times something to the effect of "look at what I said earlier about this". Could you back up your opinion with a link to factual information. Otherwise you're just bending the facts to suit your narrative.

Take Australia for example. The gun ban enacted there was to stop MASS shootings. Not violent crime, suicides or even murders. Incidentally as a nice bonus the suicide rate fell dramatically.

It's been wildly successful in stopping mass shootings. Hasn't been a single one since. Figured that example might be appropriate since the thread is about a mass shooting.

 

If Jimmy is angry enough at Garry to kill him, he doesn't need a gun. He can finish him with a katana, a hammer, bag of rocks or even a spoon.

If Jimmy is looking to create mass casualties in a short amount of time he is NOT going to use a katana, a hammer, or a spoon. You have to get close to your victim with those weapons and risk being disarmed. The preferred weapon for this task is a gun. Where you can maintain distance between you and your victim(s).

You can kill a single human being with just about any weapon arguing that point is just silly. So please no more "spoons make people fat should we ban them?" If you're a single individual intent on mass murder (like the kid in La Loche) you're going to use a gun because it's the only readily available weapon to complete the task.

 

I would say that a bomb would be the preferred weapon of choice. Esp since you can make some pretty lethal ones with household chemicals.

Can cause at a lower risk to self harm a quick and massive casualty rate. And the person doesn't have to be there at the time of explosion. The reason guns are used is a psychological reason and has nothing to do with being the most efficient means to kill because it isn't.

[chon derry]

lets hope that the feds and provincial govt. levels enact a  corporate  local hiring policy across this country there,s way to much exclusion happening not only with aboriginal communities but across the board.resource extraction unopposed with no inclusivity ,this is what happens. in the north west corner of b.c. the province has put in a 25% aboriginal hiring policy for all mega projects bold and highly successful move by christy ,albeit to quicken the pace of development.  with all the big projects happening in p.r. kitamat this type of thing will never happen. lessons to be learnt from the least understood corner of our province.  then maybe just maybe hasting and main would,nd have so many people leaving there towns being fooled into thinking they left for a better life.  ps our own canucks owner siding with eagle spirit development co.  smart guy!!

[Hugor Hill]

36 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

...or a bomb...or a car...

BTW - the shooting in Sask. was apparently with a shotgun...how does that fit in with the Australian ban on guns?

Mass shootings went down...how many mass killings did Australia have?  Has the increase in individual violent crime off-set that?

 

 

 

[nuckin_futz]

24 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

...or a bomb...or a car...

BTW - the shooting in Sask. was apparently with a shotgun...how does that fit in with the Australian ban on guns?

Mass shootings went down...how many mass killings did Australia have?  Has the increase in individual violent crime off-set that?

 

If you can explain how the kid in La Loche was going to get a car inside the school and individual classrooms I am all ears.

As for a bomb. How many people have access to bombs or the know how to create one? For those who say the instructions for bombs are all over the internet. How many times do you hear of people using bombs to create mass casualties in this part of the world vs guns?

It's not like baking a cake even if you have the ingredients and instructions. You have no guarantee your homemade bomb will go off against your victim and not yourself. The average person is not MacGuyver. The gun is far more effective and practical.

Before the ban, mass shootings in Australia were increasing at an exponential rate. I'd dig up the stats for you but you didn't bother to dig up the stats you were asked for.

Comparing violent crime to mass shootings is rather daft. Would you rather be the victim of a mass shooting or a robbery?

[nuckin_futz]

33 minutes ago, surtur said:

I would say that a bomb would be the preferred weapon of choice. Esp since you can make some pretty lethal ones with household chemicals.

Can cause at a lower risk to self harm a quick and massive casualty rate. And the person doesn't have to be there at the time of explosion. The reason guns are used is a psychological reason and has nothing to do with being the most efficient means to kill because it isn't.

I get the feeling you're referring to a terrorist bomb maker with a background in chemistry and years experience.

The average north american who commits acts of mass casualty is not a chemist. They're pissed off and quite often not too bright.

Remember in the post you quoted where it said "readily available weapon"? Bombs are not readily available. I can't go to a bomb show and load up.

[DIBdaQUIB]

10 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

If you can explain how the kid in La Loche was going to get a car inside the school and individual classrooms I am all ears.

As for a bomb. How many people have access to bombs or the know how to create one? For those who say the instructions for bombs are all over the internet. How many times do you hear of people using bombs to create mass casualties in this part of the world vs guns?

It's not like baking a cake even if you have the ingredients and instructions. You have no guarantee your homemade bomb will go off against your victim and not yourself. The average person is not MacGuyver. The gun is far more effective and practical.

Before the ban, mass shootings in Australia were increasing at an exponential rate. I'd dig up the stats for you but you didn't bother to dig up the stats you were asked for.

Comparing violent crime to mass shootings is rather daft. Would you rather be the victim of a mass shooting or a robbery?

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy.  Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847#sthash.NTrMtzRv.dpuf

[DIBdaQUIB]

13 minutes ago, Hugor Hill said:

 

 

Entertaining and funny.  Thanks.

[surtur]

17 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

If you can explain how the kid in La Loche was going to get a car inside the school and individual classrooms I am all ears.

As for a bomb. How many people have access to bombs or the know how to create one? For those who say the instructions for bombs are all over the internet. How many times do you hear of people using bombs to create mass casualties in this part of the world vs guns?

It's not like baking a cake even if you have the ingredients and instructions. You have no guarantee your homemade bomb will go off against your victim and not yourself. The average person is not MacGuyver. The gun is far more effective and practical.

Before the ban, mass shootings in Australia were increasing at an exponential rate. I'd dig up the stats for you but you didn't bother to dig up the stats you were asked for.

Comparing violent crime to mass shootings is rather daft. Would you rather be the victim of a mass shooting or a robbery?

Making a bomb takes probably a grade 4 education.  I could make home made napalm when I was 9 with 2 ingredients one from the garage and one from the bathroom.  Is it dangerous sure but so is crossing the street. 

I read a book not the Internet. Also how to use light bulbs of all things as a bomb. 

It has nothing to do with guns it is 90% of the time getting the recognition for doing the deed. And so guns are a happy medium kill more people than with a knife and everyone know your name. 

A bomb can be anonymous or at least long enough that by the time they found out who did it it's old news. These people don't want that they want recognition.

[Lancaster]

7 hours ago, riffraff said:

A katana would be an item that isn't permitted at a school so in a sense it already is banned.

 

these debates are never ending.  Nonetheless I don't understand the: 

gun vs (insert any other inanimate object here) comparison.

 

who would you rather square off against? A ninja turtle or Rambo?

If someone really really wanted to murder me, choice is a moot point.  That person could easily just garrote me with piano wires, bash me over the head with a baseball bat, or just simply run me over with a car, all without me being able to defend myself.  Could I defend myself if someone is running after me with a bat... sure, assuming I know I'm being attacked.  If someone just bashed me in the dark from behind, having the bat "less deadly" doesn't change the end result. 

 

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

In a hypothetical situation carrying around a 2 foot long sword is going to get you a lot of attention and will get you busted without the same loss of life a gun will, as you have to catch and then manage to kill what you're trying to kill.

A gun is as simple as opening your coat drawing and pointing at what you want dead.

I have big issues with people who seem to feel smart or smug about making statements like these.  Again I am quite ok with guns, I am pro gun in most instances but kidding yourselves that guns were not, are not meant to kill is ludicrous.  A katana is also a weapon, but in this day and age a laughably poor one and yes in fact it IS banned as well from public use for very common sense reasons but isn't banned for the same reason guns aren't

It all depending on the context.  How trained is the person wielding the sword and how trained is the person wielding a gun.  Someone with a katana, say in a school hallway, could easily slice down half a dozen student within 30 seconds.  Not dissimilar to someone discharging a higher calibre weapon without training.  While many would like to have an "assault weapons" ban.... the truth is that it's much easier to use handguns, hence most shootings are actually carried out with handguns. 

I just have trouble with people labeling items due to supposed "intent", as if it's supposed to be somehow relevant.  As if because a vehicle's main purpose to be used to transport people/items makes vehicular homicide somehow "not as bad" as if someone using a gun to murder others.  I see no difference in murder or killing, regardless of the methodology involved.... it's the responsibility of the person(s) carrying out that act that is the main focus, whether it's done with a gun, a car, a bomb, or even speech. 

 

3 hours ago, elvis15 said:

That's just stupid. The point of a gun in these situations versus a sword, knife, bat, etc. is a gun can be used quickly and efficiently particularly at range to kill and injure people. That's why they are the weapon most common in attacks that result in high rates of death and injury.

Also, a sword of any kind is just an evolution on a cutting edge. Cutting edges, like knives, most common uses are not for causing harm, where for guns their most common use is for just that. Only with alternate designs are guns not used for that purpose (i.e. target shooting).

Don't ignore all the common sense around why guns are dangerous to try and make a point that is, frankly, absurd.

EDIT: but this is the same argument that keeps happening over and over, and yet what we hear in the news with the largest degree of injury and death over and over is someone using a gun to attack someone else.

In theory, the weapon for the highest rate of casualty would probably be piano wires or something... since once someone loops it around your neck, you have like almost 0% survival rate.  Probably more or effective in killing someone than a gun. 

If you're gonna use the evolution of weaponry as a starting point to why guns should be banned.... then guns evolved from muskets, which probably derived from crossbows, from bows, parallel development with slings, throwing spears, throwing axes, throwing daggers, javelins..... not really a good place to start. 

Firearms are dangerous, no one is ever gonna deny that.  Just because something is designed as dangerous doesn't mean it should be banned.  A katana is dangerous too, so are throwing stars, crossbows, slingshots, even BB guns.  Cars, without any training or rules are extremely dangerous too.  Yeah, I know cars is transportation, but does it mean that sports cars should be banned?  I mean, does anyone have any good reason to drive a Ferrari or a Miata?  It's not even a good  transportation vehicle compared to a sedan.  A large SUV isn't necessary for the average person now, is it? 

All firearms in Canada are designed to hunt animals or target shootings anyways.  If someone followed that rule and handle them properly, we would have no problems.  If someone is using a gun to shoot people, then they're not using the equipment as intended.... much like if someone is using a car for something it's not intended for, like running over people.... or someone with a machete cutting down people instead of branches.

[riffraff]

13 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

If someone really really wanted to murder me, choice is a moot point.  That person could easily just garrote me with piano wires, bash me over the head with a baseball bat, or just simply run me over with a car, all without me being able to defend myself.  Could I defend myself if someone is running after me with a bat... sure, assuming I know I'm being attacked.  If someone just bashed me in the dark from behind, having the bat "less deadly" doesn't change the end result. 

 

It all depending on the context.  How trained is the person wielding the sword and how trained is the person wielding a gun.  Someone with a katana, say in a school hallway, could easily slice down half a dozen student within 30 seconds.  Not dissimilar to someone discharging a higher calibre weapon without training.  While many would like to have an "assault weapons" ban.... the truth is that it's much easier to use handguns, hence most shootings are actually carried out with handguns. 

I just have trouble with people labeling items due to supposed "intent", as if it's supposed to be somehow relevant.  As if because a vehicle's main purpose to be used to transport people/items makes vehicular homicide somehow "not as bad" as if someone using a gun to murder others.  I see no difference in murder or killing, regardless of the methodology involved.... it's the responsibility of the person(s) carrying out that act that is the main focus, whether it's done with a gun, a car, a bomb, or even speech. 

 

In theory, the weapon for the highest rate of casualty would probably be piano wires or something... since once someone loops it around your neck, you have like almost 0% survival rate.  Probably more or effective in killing someone than a gun. 

If you're gonna use the evolution of weaponry as a starting point to why guns should be banned.... then guns evolved from muskets, which probably derived from crossbows, from bows, parallel development with slings, throwing spears, throwing axes, throwing daggers, javelins..... not really a good place to start. 

Firearms are dangerous, no one is ever gonna deny that.  Just because something is designed as dangerous doesn't mean it should be banned.  A katana is dangerous too, so are throwing stars, crossbows, slingshots, even BB guns.  Cars, without any training or rules are extremely dangerous too.  Yeah, I know cars is transportation, but does it mean that sports cars should be banned?  I mean, does anyone have any good reason to drive a Ferrari or a Miata?  It's not even a good  transportation vehicle compared to a sedan.  A large SUV isn't necessary for the average person now, is it? 

All firearms in Canada are designed to hunt animals or target shootings anyways.  If someone followed that rule and handle them properly, we would have no problems.  If someone is using a gun to shoot people, then they're not using the equipment as intended.... much like if someone is using a car for something it's not intended for, like running over people.... or someone with a machete cutting down people instead of branches.

Guns used to "hunt" animals means to "kill" an animal.  Guns are made to kill.  Granted some guns are not as powerful as others but nonetheless they are all potentially lethal.

 

bb guns/pellet guns? Admittedly I'm unaware of any deaths related to those guns.  But there have been deaths caused by .22 caliber weapons which are basically the next step up.

 

i don't see how anyone can say that a gun is not designed for the sole purpose of killing.  Target shooting is a biproduct of the tool.  When guns came on the scene, the people using them were not out for leisure in fancy dress on a Sunday afternoon.  The man responsible for the first firearm did not have target practice in mind.

[surtur]

45 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

I get the feeling you're referring to a terrorist bomb maker with a background in chemistry and years experience.

The average north american who commits acts of mass casualty is not a chemist. They're pissed off and quite often not too bright.

Remember in the post you quoted where it said "readily available weapon"? Bombs are not readily available. I can't go to a bomb show and load up.

Readily available to me means stuff I have in my house. 

I am not a chemist yet I can make my own napalm in my kitchen if I felt like it. And I wouldn't even need to leave my house to get the ingredients...  Except maybe the garage.

All this info  is in books and online. I read a book from 1965 explaining basic improvised explosive devices.

1965. It is now 2016 you don't think people have even better methods and  chemicals to use. It literally takes a grade four education to read and create some seriously devastating explosives. 

Lucky that most people don't even think about using a bomb for anything. Or take the time to learn how.