Mass shooting in Ohio

[RRypien37]

I don't know the details but sounds like a possible gang killing/drug deal retaliation from what has been mentioned?

 

They killed members of the family but did not touch the children/not involved (usually "the code" with real gangsters). 

 

Tragic regardless. 

[Alflives]

38 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

The purpose of the thread is to remind the pro gun lobby that the idea of more guns = a safer society is flawed. I made a promise a while back that I would continue with these reminders on a regular basis. Of course, for this to happen, there need to be mass shootings on a regular basis, which of course, there are.

 

I'm surprised that you can't tell that I'm anti-firearms.

 

We've been over this many, many times, but since you were apparently not around in the multiple threads where I've made the same statements, I'll re-iterate:

 

I don't advocate a complete ban on guns. It would be impossible to enforce and is unnecessary anyway. What I do advocate is common-sense restrictions on a nationa basisl (not state by state)

 

• Restrictions on the types of weapons that may be legally purchased (eg: Assault weapons, semi-automatics. etc.)
• Restrictions on the capacity of ammunition clips.
• Restrictions on the type of ammunition that can be purchased legally
• No sales of weapons without a mandatory waiting period
• Mandatory safety training before a license to possess a firearm
• No purchase of firearms without a license
• Minimum age requirement for use and possession of firearms 

Those are off the top of my head, but that's it in a nutshell.

 

Now we can sit back and wait for the usual flood of "restrictions don't work" and "If we let them take away our assault weapons, next it will be our hunting rifles", etc., etc. 

We do have these laws - in Canada.  32 shootings in Surrey, BC in 3 months so far this year.  Criminals still get guns.  If I was defending myself with a hand gun during a break in, I would be shot 100 times before I was able to unlock all the cabinets, trigger locks, and then assemble, and load my gun.  The rules are insane for keeping a firearm here.  The friggin criminals sleep with loaded hand guns under their pillows, and carry almost 100% of the time, but we (law abiding citizens) have follow restrictions that make our guns useless for home defense. 

[Toews]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Someone had serious motive to murder this family, are you saying that had guns not been available these murder wouldn't have happened?  

 

And considering "it appeared some were killed as they slept"  I don't really care what tool was used, it wouldn't have taken much to kill someone as they sleep.

No and you have no way of knowing that all eight murders happen without guns.

 

It seems it's only the pro gun crowd that wants to ignore the weapon of choice used in these crimes. They will try and use whatever excuse to avoid bringing up guns.

 

The fact is that guns are the most proficient weapons at killing people. That is the reason why their use is so common and prevalent in societies that have no restrictions on their use. It isn't "just as easy" to kill people without guns. 

[Grapefruits]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

We do have these laws - in Canada.  32 shootings in Surrey, BC in 3 months so far this year.  Criminals still get guns.  If I was defending myself with a hand gun during a break in, I would be shot 100 times before I was able to unlock all the cabinets, trigger locks, and then assemble, and load my gun.  The rules are insane for keeping a firearm here.  The friggin criminals sleep with loaded hand guns under their pillows, and carry almost 100% of the time, but we (law abiding citizens) have follow restrictions that make our guns useless for home defense. 

You're better off defending yourself with a shot gun.  You only need to keep it behind one locked door and out of plain sight.  You can even keep a shell or shells right on the night stand.

[chon derry]

an example of how ridiculously easy it is to purchase ANYTHING  here in the north one only has to go to hyder alaska ,one mile from the border town of stewart bc. go to the bulk food store in hyder and pick up a fully functional 50 calibre machine gun complete with tripod , or any other type of fully automated weapon. grenades what have you , no questions asked. money is the only requirement.     "the rockets red glare the bombs busting in air"  good ol  marica. 

[RWMc1]

5 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

It's been a while since we've heard the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", "slippery slope" and "mental illness" arguments.

 

And of course the oldie, but goodie "the only the criminals will have guns"....

 

I'm waiting for Bo to tell us how he would have rolled out of bed Rambo-style, grabbed his M16 and busted some caps in all the bad guys' derrieres...

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!

I don't think common sense gun controls would work when there is so little common sense out there. So why try right? Everyone gets a gun. Mandatory!! Get off of my lawn punk!!!

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!

I don't think common sense gun controls would work when there is so little common sense out there. So why try right? Everyone gets a gun. Mandatory!! Get off of my lawn punk!!!

That help out CPP too.  

[Toews]

My personal favorite argument "I am sickened that a family is dead and some of you have chosen to make this about guns. Despicable."

 

aka

 

Stop talking about my guns.

[Nuxfanabroad]

 

Imagine there's no weapons

Believe me, I have tried

No mines below us

Above us, only flies

 

Imagine all the sheeple

Spied on, all their livvvveeees...

[King Heffy]

40 minutes ago, Toews said:

No and you have no way of knowing that all eight murders happen without guns.

 

It seems it's only the pro gun crowd that wants to ignore the weapon of choice used in these crimes. They will try and use whatever excuse to avoid bringing up guns.

 

The fact is that guns are the most proficient weapons at killing people. That is the reason why their use is so common and prevalent in societies that have no restrictions on their use. It isn't "just as easy" to kill people without guns. 

If you're killing multiple people in their sleep a knife would actually be a more effective weapon/.

[Toews]

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

If you're killing multiple people in their sleep a knife would actually be a more effective weapon/.

We don't know how many people were sleeping.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Are you American?

Nope. Doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion though.

 

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

We do have these laws - in Canada.  32 shootings in Surrey, BC in 3 months so far this year.  Criminals still get guns.  If I was defending myself with a hand gun during a break in, I would be shot 100 times before I was able to unlock all the cabinets, trigger locks, and then assemble, and load my gun.  The rules are insane for keeping a firearm here.  The friggin criminals sleep with loaded hand guns under their pillows, and carry almost 100% of the time, but we (law abiding citizens) have follow restrictions that make our guns useless for home defense. 

Again, territory that we've been over umpteen times in previous threads.

 

The home invasion murders like this one in Ohio are the exception. Most of the time a gun kills somebody, it's because it was handy. There are hundreds of examples of innocent children being killed by weapons that are carelessly left lying around be irresponsible owners.

 

"Cabinets", "trigger locks", etc. are a good thing. It's only because of this fear mongering by the pro gun lobby that you even think you need a gun close at hand in your own home. Statistically, that gun is more likely to be used on you, or a family member than it is an intruder.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, Grapefruits said:

You're better off defending yourself with a shot gun.  You only need to keep it behind one locked door and out of plain sight.  You can even keep a shell or shells right on the night stand.

Or, you could spend the money on an effective home security system, rather than an ineffective and dangerous (to you and yours) firearm.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

No and you have no way of knowing that all eight murders happen without guns.

 

It seems it's only the pro gun crowd that wants to ignore the weapon of choice used in these crimes. They will try and use whatever excuse to avoid bringing up guns.

 

The fact is that guns are the most proficient weapons at killing people. That is the reason why their use is so common and prevalent in societies that have no restrictions on their use. It isn't "just as easy" to kill people without guns. 

You have no way of knowing the cause and the extent a person would have went to kill the family . 

 

Your essentially blaming this crime on a object. Which is stupid. 

 

And honestly what's your stance on firearms. Are you of the opinion that all firearms should be banned? Atleast RUP isn't thinking that a logical possibility 

[RUPERTKBD]

It isn't even this particular incident that I'm trying to address. I understand that there are situations that would not have been prevented by stiffer regulation.

 

Rather, I use incidents like these to try and bring some awareness to people of the proliferation of firearms and how they cause so much misery to so many people. Criminals are always going to be able to get their guns and the gangland style Surrey shootings that Alf mentions will still happen.

 

However, the application of some common sense restrictions has the potential to save lives. A child doesn't find a loaded handgun and use it to kill himself, or someone else, because there is no gun. A person distraught over a break-up or personal bankruptcy doesn't shoot himself, because he doesn't happen to have a loaded gun in his nightstand. Kids who have been bullied at school can't go and shoot it up, because they can't purchase guns. And if they do happen to get ahold of weapons, they can't do as much damage, because ammunition clips have less bullets in them.

 

The reason I bring this up by posting this story is because the story is sensational enough to garner attention. Who would pay attention to a story about a kid showing up to school with his father's handgun for show and tell? The fact that a story has to be this dramatic for it to attract any attention at all should tell people how jaded Americans are when it comes to gun violence.

[Toews]

5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You have no way of knowing the cause and the extent a person would have went to kill the family . 

 

Your essentially blaming this crime on a object. Which is stupid. 

 

And honestly what's your stance on firearms. Are you of the opinion that all firearms should be banned? Atleast RUP isn't thinking that a logical possibility 

Of course not and neither do you. We only have the facts which are eight people are dead and the weapon of choice was a gun or multiple guns.

 

Strawman argument. I have made no such claim.

 

My stance is that there needs to be restrictions on firearms. I don't know what those restrictions would be but Rupert's suggestions seem reasonable so let's start with those.

[Grapefruits]

20 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Or, you could spend the money on an effective home security system, rather than an ineffective and dangerous (to you and yours) firearm.

I have both. AS for ineffective, a shot gun is very effective for home defense. As for them being dangerous.  Only if you haven't been properly trained how to use them.  Both my GF and I have taken numerous courses through Silvercore and both go to the range on a regular basis.

 

If you want to talk dangerous though.  Go watch a cop shoot at the range.  Most are a very lousy shot.

[Cowardrobertford]

Maybe have a program at school teaching students or anyone that killing people is bad

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

Of course not and neither do you. We only have the facts which are eight people are dead and the weapon of choice was a gun or multiple guns.

 

Strawman argument. I have made no such claim.

 

My stance is that there needs to be restrictions on firearms. I don't know what those restrictions would be but Rupert's suggestions seem reasonable so let's start with those.

Welcome to canada....

[DonLever]

4 hours ago, Toews said:

 

The fact is that guns are the most proficient weapons at killing people. That is the reason why their use is so common and prevalent in societies that have no restrictions on their use. It isn't "just as easy" to kill people without guns. 

Not true, in 2014,  29 people were killed and 130 others were wounded when attackers attacked people at a train station.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

 

In 2015, 50 people were killed by attackers with knives at a mine.

http://www.mining.com/fifty-killed-in-a-knife-attack-at-a-chinese-colliery/

 

It should be noted there is a total ban on gun ownership by private citizens in China.  It can be argued that without guns, people just use other methods.

 

In Canada, where gun ownership is more restrictive, 5 students were stabbed to death in Calgary last year.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1859713/calgarys-worst-mass-murder-tracking-the-tragedy/