Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by vektor

a fundamental misunderstanding of perspective is why you would think this. They think the reforms are the incremental steps towards taking the guns away. This mostly based on the progression from a democratic republic to a more totalitarian state and the history of dictatorships taking away guns. It's not a complicated concept. Of course there should be regulations on guns, but there is also a risk of too much control. This isn't as black and white as most of you make it seem.

Aside from a few crackpots whose views are rightly dismissed as those of lunatic conspiracy theorists, Canadians do not have an irrational fear that our government might became a tyrannical oppressive regime that the citizens must overthrow with privately-owned firearms. The same can be said for every other western democracy in the world save one. Why is this attitude much more prevalent in the United States than it is in every other industrialized nation?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I said it before, I'll say it again: What good is having an AR-15, or even an AK-47, if the government has weapons that can eliminate the entire world in minutes? What a bizarre, utterly stupid argument "Yes, my handguns will be able to defeat the government's aircrafts, tanks and WMDs"

I assume Mikey is for the notion of "Let me have my nukes cause I have got to be ready to fight the tyranny with the same force they have".

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Aside from a few crackpots whose views are rightly dismissed as those of lunatic conspiracy theorists, Canadians do not have an irrational fear that our government might became a tyrannical oppressive regime that the citizens must overthrow with privately-owned firearms. The same can be said for every other western democracy in the world save one. Why is this attitude much more prevalent in the United States than it is in every other industrialized nation?

Because we had to do that once already?

[Red]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I said it before, I'll say it again: What good is having an AR-15, or even an AK-47, if the government has weapons that can eliminate the entire world in minutes? What a bizarre, utterly stupid argument "Yes, my handguns will be able to defeat the government's aircrafts, tanks and WMDs"

I assume Mikey is for the notion of "Let me have my nukes cause I have got to be ready to fight the tyranny with the same force they have".

Good point.

The other thing missed here is how illegalizing guns won’t stop criminals. Just look at the drug cartels etc, they get guns anywhere with no problems.

Which is true I guess, but I haven’t seen a school shooting conducted by everyday criminals.
Would Adam Lanza be able to get a gun in Canada? Not likely. Criminals sell guns to other criminals. Lanza was a disturbed teen and not yet a criminal.


Have those gun lovers asked themselves what would happen if these guys had no gun access? Would they maybe off themselves by jumping off a bridge?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I said it before, I'll say it again: What good is having an AR-15, or even an AK-47, if the government has weapons that can eliminate the entire world in minutes? What a bizarre, utterly stupid argument "Yes, my handguns will be able to defeat the government's aircrafts, tanks and WMDs"

I assume Mikey is for the notion of "Let me have my nukes cause I have got to be ready to fight the tyranny with the same force they have".

While I sort of get where you are coming from, your argument isnt' really a lot better than theirs. The whole 2nd amendment thing, if I get it, is to resist a bad government. Even a tyranical government sure as heck isn't going to nuke it's own country. And I don't think anyone one is planning on attacking tanks or aircraft with their guns. If the presence of tanks/aircraft was that much of an issue to ground forces, why would anyone feild an army with any form of machine gun?


Again, I get where you are coming from but it's kinda weak too.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by Red

Good point.

The other thing missed here is how illegalizing guns won’t stop criminals. Just look at the drug cartels etc, they get guns anywhere with no problems.

Which is true I guess, but I haven’t seen a school shooting conducted by everyday criminals.
Would Adam Lanza be able to get a gun in Canada? Not likely. Criminals sell guns to other criminals. Lanza was a disturbed teen and not yet a criminal.


Have those gun lovers asked themselves what would happen if these guys had no gun access? Would they maybe off themselves by jumping off a bridge?

Lanza got his guns because his mom was an irresponsible gun owner. Reports are she didn't lock the guns away in a safe place , nor did she keep ammunition in a different spot than where the guns are stored. My guns are kept in one safe and ammo in a completely different safe. If Adam Lanza was my family member would he have been able to get a gun or ammo from the house? Nope.

[Red]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Lanza got his guns because his mom was an irresponsible gun owner. Reports are she didn't lock the guns away in a safe place , nor did she keep ammunition in a different spot to where the guns are stored. My guns are kept in one safe and ammo in a completely different safe. If Adam Lanza was my brother would he have been able to get a gun or ammo from the house? Nope.

The point is that the mom wouldn't have guns if she lived in Canada.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Red

The point is that the mom wouldn't have guns if she lived in Canada.

Why not?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Because we had to do that once already?

Yeah, because you're the only country on earth that has ever had an uprising against it's sitting government

Not to mention the fact that the realities of the American Revolution are often ignored in making this argument.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Lanza got his guns because his mom was an irresponsible gun owner. Reports are she didn't lock the guns away in a safe place , nor did she keep ammunition in a different spot than where the guns are stored. My guns are kept in one safe and ammo in a completely different safe. If Adam Lanza was my family member would he have been able to get a gun or ammo from the house? Nope.

If James Holmes was your family member he still could've just walked into a gun store and purchased an automatic weapon and ammo.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Why not?

Because our moms here do not feel the need to own guns.
We have "guns are for hunters" culture and much stricter laws (bureaucracy) for those that just want a gun for fun.

[Red]

First comment on CTV news about the latest shooting.

How could this happen? Aren't schools "gun free zones"? Or could it simply just emphasize the fact that criminals who intend to shoot people dont follow these ridiculous feel good laws? Save a life... get rid of gun free zones now! Arm your selves people because the government cant protect you. Only you can.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/at-least...#ixzz2Ik2d36QZ

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Red

The point is that the mom wouldn't have guns if she lived in Canada.

Lanza is a very poor example, he could have just as easily had access to that weapon in Canada, the only difference would be the type of modifications that were present.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You're right I take that statement back.

Chicago is not THE most dangerous city in the world, but is routinely in the top 10 for murder rates in the US. They will most likely be #1 in 2013 though.

Wrong again.

As of 2011 stats, they aren't even in the top 15 for murder rate. Sort the column by murder rate, and they place 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._by_crime_rate

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Red

Because our moms here do not feel the need to own guns.
We have "guns are for hunters" culture and much stricter laws (bureaucracy) for those that just want a gun for fun.

Lol, what?

What are these stricter laws for those who want a gun just for fun?

[Red]

Originally Posted by valo403

Lanza is a very poor example, he could have just as easily had access to that weapon in Canada, the only difference would be the type of modifications that were present.

I don't believe he could. Where would he get weapons from?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

If James Holmes was your family member he still could've just walked into a gun store and purchased an automatic weapon and ammo.

I must really be out of the loop. Last I looked I thought automatic weapons were not available to the public at large. Where would one go about purchasing an automatic weapon in the US? Wal Mart?

[Red]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Lol, what?

What are these stricter laws for those who want a gun just for fun?

How many moms do you know that own not one but multiple guns?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by pylon

Wrong again.

As of 2011 stats, they aren't even in the top 15 for murder rate. Sort the column by murder rate, and they place 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._by_crime_rate

Fipside to that argument....Texas, which has some of the most liberal gun laws in the States, has a number of cities that rank near the bottom of that list.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by Red

The point is that the mom wouldn't have guns if she lived in Canada.

The point is if she was responsible with her firearms then he wouldn't have gotten her guns in spite of her living in America.