Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So for a bit of clarity.

You can't take a firearm on Calgary transit, there is a bylaw that prohibits it. GATW is correct when he states that the only transport requirement is that a non-restricted firearm is unloaded.

The ATT post is mostly incorrect. For a restricted firearm, transport must be from the place of storage (your house) to the destination (not just a range) by the most reasonably direct route. This means that stopping for gas or something to eat is legal. You do not ever need to advise local authorities that you are transporting a firearm under an long term authorzation. If you are transporting under a short term authorization, you receive that permission from the CFO, not local authorities.

The storage requirement about rendering a firearm inoperable when stored in a safe is incorrect. If stored in a safe, a firearm does not need to be rendered inoperable and ammunition can be stored in the same safe.

If you possess a valid PAL/RPAL, you can indeed buy a non-restricted firearm and take it with you immediately. For a restricted, you need to wait to remove it from the point of purchase and that time can vary based on the CFC/CFO and how fast the transfer is completed and a short term authorization is granted. I've seen same day purchase/transport home and also ones that take weeks. Either way, a restricted can't be transported from your place of storage without the registration certificate, which can take up to a month from the time of registration to arrive.




Why not a campaign to address the use of firearms in crime and the root causes of crime? There are plenty of legitimate uses for firearms, but you're saying that since some people misuse them, no one should have them. If you tried that same logic with cars or knives, people would go nuts because it would inconvenience them. There are less people who own firearms, so it's easier for those who don't to tell them they shouldn't have them since it doesn't affect them. Just like a knife or a car, the purpose of an object is decided by the user.

Absolutely reasonable points. The problem is that in America they are past the point of reasonableness. People worship their guns here. I've lived in both countries and I've known gun owners in both. In Canada, most gun owners use their gun for sport and hunting and don't have some grandiose schemes of one day overthrowing the federal government, should they become "tyrannical" or being the hero in a hostage situation.

In the States, the gun owners I know have their hunting rifle/shotgun, and then a slew of "defensive" weapons that they will use to fight off the bad guy and/or a tyrannical government. And they make sure everyone knows that their right to guns is in the constitution and they'll fight to death to protect their right, yada yada yada.

The love affair with the physical firearm and the hero complex people get when owning them is the main problem in the USA. This leads to guns being very easily accessible by anyone who wants to commit violence.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Minnie

It's much easier to get pissed off by the world asking the hard questions that they seemingly aren't able to ask or answer or want to even entertain.

The people who need to answer the tough questions won't even listen to them if the come from foreigners. The very idea an American value is rejected by foreigners makes it even more precious in their eyes. You're talking about people who think the rest of the world is barbaric or repressive or decadent, who genuinely believe they - conservative, gun-toting Americans - are the only free people on the planet. The more the rest of the world condemns their values, the more certain they'll be of their own righteousness.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its funny because a lot of American's make connections back to the old west and the so called growth of the gun culture.

But chances are in the old west, your sheriff was a civl war veteran who had seen the horrors of war and just basically didn't stand for actual gun violence. The people that committed them were usually hung right then and there by the Sheriff or local lynch mob. Or they waited for a judge where you would be quickly be found guilty and transported to a prison for either life or a quick jolting ride on old silky.

the romantic image of people having quick draws in the street or shoot outs with outlaws or indians invading your home stead were for the most part fiction.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I'd love to see your logic on this one because its escaping me.

I did this google search of "Violent criminal acts committed by a camera", and except for someone using a selfie stick to put a camera up his butt when he was drunk I couldn't find anywhere where a person was killed or maimed directly by a camera.

So please explain to me where this cast off comment is in any way relevant to firearms related crimes.

The people for confiscation and destruction of firearms are using the misguided logic that if you control the object, you control the crime.

So ok, lets roll with that for a minute.

When a murder is committed with a firearm, the reaction by many is to project the actions of criminals onto all firearm owners. "Someone used a gun to kill someone, so the solution is to remove them from the hands of all civilians."

We have entire task forces dedicated to catching and charging disgusting pedophiles online, who distribute and look at their garbage. So, why don't we ban cameras?

If we control the object, we control the crime.

A camera is designed to take a photograph of whatever its pointed at; firearm are designed to fire a projectile at whatever its pointed at. Both have legitimate uses but both can be used for criminal acts. So since a select few of the population misuse an object, the train of thought says we should just ban them and that will fix the problem.

Certain users of cameras can be grandfathered. Store their registered cameras at central storage location, where a permit must be drawn for the camera to be used in a lawful regulated manner. People who do not have a legitimate use for a camera (ie income source) they may posses an antique camera, after taking out an expensive insurance policy and passing extensive background checks and abdicate their right to warrant-less searches. Disposable cameras, polaroid, digital and all cameras with memory storage are prohibited. We will create an amnesty program where you have a 28 day grace period to turn in your cameras for destruction, after that grace period if found with any of the aforementioned prohibited devices, criminal charges will be laid.

How many more children and families must be affected by the disgusting crime of pedophilia, that destroys lives? And the despicable camera nuts who continue to own cameras and enable pedos?

Nobody needs a camera. Best part is, no one has a constitutionally protected right to own a camera so there will be no lengthy drawn out court process and the political will required to undertake such legislation will be minimal.

Control the object, control the crime.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The people for confiscation and destruction of firearms are using the misguided logic that if you control the object, you control the crime.

So ok, lets roll with that for a minute.

When a murder is committed with a firearm, the reaction by many is to project the actions of criminals onto all firearm owners. "Someone used a gun to kill someone, so the solution is to remove them from the hands of all civilians."

We have entire task forces dedicated to catching and charging disgusting pedophiles online, who distribute and look at their garbage. So, why don't we ban cameras?

If we control the object, we control the crime.

A camera is designed to take a photograph of whatever its pointed at; firearm are designed to fire a projectile at whatever its pointed at. Both have legitimate uses but both can be used for criminal acts. So since a select few of the population misuse an object, the train of thought says we should just ban them and that will fix the problem.

Certain users of cameras can be grandfathered. Store their registered cameras at central storage location, where a permit must be drawn for the camera to be used in a lawful regulated manner. People who do not have a legitimate use for a camera (ie income source) they may posses an antique camera, after taking out an expensive insurance policy and passing extensive background checks and abdicate their right to warrant-less searches. Disposable cameras, polaroid, digital and all cameras with memory storage are prohibited. We will create an amnesty program where you have a 28 day grace period to turn in your cameras for destruction, after that grace period if found with any of the aforementioned prohibited devices, criminal charges will be laid.

How many more children and families must be affected by the disgusting crime of pedophilia, that destroys lives? And the despicable camera nuts who continue to own cameras and enable pedos?

Nobody needs a camera. Best part is, no one has a constitutionally protected right to own a camera so there will be no lengthy drawn out court process and the political will required to undertake such legislation will be minimal.

Control the object, control the crime.

I take it then you have no objection to, say, Muslim Americans owning small yield nuclear devices then?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The people for confiscation and destruction of firearms are using the misguided logic that if you control the object, you control the crime.

So ok, lets roll with that for a minute.

When a murder is committed with a firearm, the reaction by many is to project the actions of criminals onto all firearm owners. "Someone used a gun to kill someone, so the solution is to remove them from the hands of all civilians."

We have entire task forces dedicated to catching and charging disgusting pedophiles online, who distribute and look at their garbage. So, why don't we ban cameras?

If we control the object, we control the crime.

A camera is designed to take a photograph of whatever its pointed at; firearm are designed to fire a projectile at whatever its pointed at. Both have legitimate uses but both can be used for criminal acts. So since a select few of the population misuse an object, the train of thought says we should just ban them and that will fix the problem.

Certain users of cameras can be grandfathered. Store their registered cameras at central storage location, where a permit must be drawn for the camera to be used in a lawful regulated manner. People who do not have a legitimate use for a camera (ie income source) they may posses an antique camera, after taking out an expensive insurance policy and passing extensive background checks and abdicate their right to warrant-less searches. Disposable cameras, polaroid, digital and all cameras with memory storage are prohibited. We will create an amnesty program where you have a 28 day grace period to turn in your cameras for destruction, after that grace period if found with any of the aforementioned prohibited devices, criminal charges will be laid.

How many more children and families must be affected by the disgusting crime of pedophilia, that destroys lives? And the despicable camera nuts who continue to own cameras and enable pedos?

Nobody needs a camera. Best part is, no one has a constitutionally protected right to own a camera so there will be no lengthy drawn out court process and the political will required to undertake such legislation will be minimal.

Control the object, control the crime.

This post tells me you just don't get it.

Do you really need to have a camera/pedophilia parallel?

It is far too easy to get a weapon in the states. Again, I have no issue with weapons, but I want it to be difficult to get them, and hell maybe even keep them. Perhaps, there should be regular reviews of gun owners to ensure they are still of sound mind (after all this is a mental illness issue).

[kermitology]

Wait.. what? Ban cameras because of pedophilia? Surely you're not serious. You'd need to demonstrate a reason for assault rifles to exist, or hand guns for that matter. Cameras can be used in many non-violent, non-harmful means.

Please try again.

[Resolute 14]

Like I said, 2StonedBirds. People like you are why 14 people in San Bernadino are dead today. People like you are why a second mass shooting yesterday went almost unnoticed.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Wait.. what? Ban cameras because of pedophilia? Surely you're not serious. You'd need to demonstrate a reason for assault rifles to exist, or hand guns for that matter. Cameras can be used in many non-violent, non-harmful means.

Please try again.

Target shooting, competition, hunting, collecting, self defense (legal in Canada and the US).

As already pointed out, assault rifles are already classed as prohibited in Canada and near impossible to get in the US.

[Coach]

I've typed out multiple responses to 2stonedbirds' equivalency of cameras and guns, but I get to a point where I realize there's just no way laying out any argument based in rationality will convince him. So I will just boo.


BOOOOOOOOOOO

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

but I want it to be difficult to get them, and hell maybe even keep them. Perhaps, there should be regular reviews of gun owners to ensure they are still of sound mind (after all this is a mental illness issue).

This is already being done in Canada, daily in fact. And I 100% support it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Target shooting, competition, hunting, collecting, self defense (legal in Canada and the US).

As already pointed out, assault rifles are already classed as prohibited in Canada and near impossible to get in the US.

In short, literally the only purpose for a gun is destruction.

[ResAlien]

What's important to remember is that someone's hobby is more important than people not being murdered. It is not complicated. I like guns, I don't care if other people die, and I will use semantic gymnastics to muddy the waters whenever the issue of my hobby is brought up.

My entertainment is simply more valuable to me than your life. That's it.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like I said, 2StonedBirds. People like you are why 14 people in San Bernadino are dead today. People like you are why a second mass shooting yesterday went almost unnoticed.

2StonedBirds is responsible for Islamic terrorism now? I don't agree with what he is saying, but that's pretty harsh.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

What's important to remember is that someone's hobby is more important than people not being murdered. It is not complicated. I like guns, I don't care if other people die, and I will use semantic gymnastics to muddy the waters whenever the issue of my hobby is brought up.

My entertainment is simply more valuable to me than your life. That's it.

So can I for a straight answer to this then?

If you banned all guns tomorrow, would it keep guns from being used in an illegal manner? If so, how?

[2Stonedbirds]

Like I said, emotionally driven rhetoric being used as a projection tactic.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The people for confiscation and destruction of firearms are using the misguided logic that if you control the object, you control the crime.

So ok, lets roll with that for a minute.

When a murder is committed with a firearm, the reaction by many is to project the actions of criminals onto all firearm owners. "Someone used a gun to kill someone, so the solution is to remove them from the hands of all civilians."

We have entire task forces dedicated to catching and charging disgusting pedophiles online, who distribute and look at their garbage. So, why don't we ban cameras?

If we control the object, we control the crime.

A camera is designed to take a photograph of whatever its pointed at; firearm are designed to fire a projectile at whatever its pointed at. Both have legitimate uses but both can be used for criminal acts. So since a select few of the population misuse an object, the train of thought says we should just ban them and that will fix the problem.

Certain users of cameras can be grandfathered. Store their registered cameras at central storage location, where a permit must be drawn for the camera to be used in a lawful regulated manner. People who do not have a legitimate use for a camera (ie income source) they may posses an antique camera, after taking out an expensive insurance policy and passing extensive background checks and abdicate their right to warrant-less searches. Disposable cameras, polaroid, digital and all cameras with memory storage are prohibited. We will create an amnesty program where you have a 28 day grace period to turn in your cameras for destruction, after that grace period if found with any of the aforementioned prohibited devices, criminal charges will be laid.

How many more children and families must be affected by the disgusting crime of pedophilia, that destroys lives? And the despicable camera nuts who continue to own cameras and enable pedos?

Nobody needs a camera. Best part is, no one has a constitutionally protected right to own a camera so there will be no lengthy drawn out court process and the political will required to undertake such legislation will be minimal.

Control the object, control the crime.

this is completely baffling to me.

Camera's are not designed for pedophiles or sex perverts, that they've adopted their usage of it is a side effect of its manufacture.

Again please show me where I can point a camera at someone, squeeze the shutter and they instantly die. Now I do believe some ancient tribes believed that cameras would capture your soul, but that's been proven not to be true.

Guns are designed to kill, that's its primary mission, whether its used on animals or humans its intent and design is to be as lethal as possible.

Again, and I asked this question much earlier in this thread. Can you show me why a person needs a gun that has a magazine and can put more then a round a second downfield?

Are you as a home owner legally deputized to prosecute criminals?

If you are on the street and a crime happens are you deputized to act as a law enforcement person and pull your gun out and shoot someone indiscriminatly?

If you make it more difficult or remove the equation of firepower + insane person(or angry person, or militant person) the = sign will automatically point to less death and destruction because mass killing or gun crimes becomes more difficult to do.

a person with a knife or with a hammer is not a perfect killing machine due to lack of range, and the limited legality potential of the weapon (frankly if your intended victims are faster then you, you look stupid swinging or stabbing air)

A crazy person or angry person with intent + semi automatic firearm, with lots of bullets to fire = near perfect mass killing machine.

Its simple as that.

There is absolutely no reason for these weapons to be easily accessible non, that I can think of, and I like guns, I really do.

But I don't see a need to have a home defense machine gun or bazooka either.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

This is already being done in Canada, daily in fact. And I 100% support it.

Tell me more, please.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like I said, 2StonedBirds. People like you are why 14 people in San Bernadino are dead today. People like you are why a second mass shooting yesterday went almost unnoticed.

Come on. That's a bit much. Let's keep the dramatics out of this, hey?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Like I said, emotionally driven rhetoric being used as a projection tactic.

Retracted.