Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Tell me more, please.

PAL/RPAL holders are subject to continuous eligibily screening against CPIC. A flag in CPIC means a referral of the file to the CFO/CFC

[harmony]

all these politicians who have been bought out by the nra, are completely hypocritical cowardly scumbags. they want guns in schools and college campuses and just about everywhere, EXCEPT in congress and other places where they have to work.

There is no hope. If a bunch of little children getting slaughtered brought about no change, I guess nothing will.

I wonder how they'd react if there ever was a mass shooting at their workplace?

[woob]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Retracted.

You just sort of did. Let's not go there.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

PAL/RPAL holders are subject to continuous eligibily screening against CPIC. A flag in CPIC means a referral of the file to the CFO/CFC

Sorry, I was looking for more specifics.


Are there interviews, submission of medical/psychiatric records.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

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

It's not emotionally driven rhetoric. Many people here want to see a safer America and an end to senseless shooting deaths.

If guns were much harder to come by, there would be far less mass shooting incidents. Simple as that. I happen to have a vested interest in wanting America (particularly the western states) to be safer.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

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

People like 2StonedBirds are why America has decided that children and people throwing a Christmas party are acceptable losses in the "fight" for "freedom". Their unwillingness to see reality is why there will probably be another mass shooting tomorrow. And Saturday. And next Tuesday.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by blueski

This event seems to be leaning towards a terrorist attack. Seems to me it wouldn't be addressed by gun control.

And then to those advocating more gun control, what do you do if or when terrorists are attacking North America on a daily basis? Does forbidding people to arm themselves for self defense really help if it ever gets that bad?

I'm of the belief that if anyone lights up a public place with firepower of this nature, it's a "terrorist" act, regardless of whether it has connections to ISIS/Al Qaeda/etc. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but he sure wasn't muslim.

Regardless of whether this had connections to radical Islam, it was still a terrorist act. Just like the attack on Planned Parenthood was a terrorist act.

But more to your point: this is still important regarding gun control. Both shooters were American citizens who purchased all of their firearms and ammo legally. How can any two people stockpile that kind of arsenal without drawing some attention? We keep tabs on someone who buys a lot of Benadryl, but we can't keep track of someone who stockpiles a ton of weapons and ammunition?

Originally Posted by Nobama

In theory your ideas are great, assuming that there are not hundreds of millions of guns and ammo and cartridges already in the hands of hundreds of millions of people. Your ideas could work if implemented now and the expectation of change within the next 100 years.

So since we can't fix it immediately, why not just ignore it entirely, ignoring the fact that more and more people are killed by firearms every year, ignoring that more and more mass shooting events happen every year. No let's just ignore it because we can't stop 100% of the problem immediately!

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

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

What gets one person's rocks off shouldn't be deadly to those around him. Just because you get kicks out of it doesn't mean there shouldn't be regulation. People get their kicks out of racing vehicles at high speeds. They have actual sporting events about it. But you can't just go down the highway at 120mph because you think it's fun. There are still regulations and limitations even though it's allowed in certain spaces and times.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

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

And the NRA types screeching that "Obama's taking all our guns!!!" when all anyone is asking for is basic, logical, sane gun control measures isn't "emotionally driven rhetoric"??

The pro-gun side is far more guilty of this than the pro-control side.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sorry, I was looking for more specifics.


Are there interviews, submission of medical/psychiatric records.

First step is passing either the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (8 hours) for non-restricted or Canadian Firearms Restricted Safety Course (16 hours) for both classes.

Application is then submitted to the Canadian Firearms Program where an applicant must provide all personal information and an applicant must self declare any diagnosis of mental illness within 5 years, any criminal record, any arrests, marital status and financial difficulties. In addition, they must provide contact info for their spouse and any intimate partners where the relationship has ended within the last two years. Applicants for a restricted license must provide two references they have known for a minimum of three years.

There is then a mandated 28 day waiting period. Background checks are done by the CFP/RCMP and spouse/partner contacted and interviewed. If you are applying for restricted, then one or both of your references are contacted and you'll get a call from the CFP as well.

At any point in this process, they can request a written statement from a medical professional about the applicant's fitness to own firearms or request an in-person interview with either a Firearms Officer or the local police.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

First step is passing either the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (8 hours) for non-restricted or Canadian Firearms Restricted Safety Course (16 hours) for both classes.

Application is then submitted to the Canadian Firearms Program where an applicant must provide all personal information and an applicant must self declare any diagnosis of mental illness within 5 years, any criminal record, any arrests, marital status and financial difficulties. In addition, they must provide contact info for their spouse and any intimate partners where the relationship has ended within the last two years. Applicants for a restricted license must provide two references they have known for a minimum of three years.

There is then a mandated 28 day waiting period. Background checks are done by the CFP/RCMP and spouse/partner contacted and interviewed. If you are applying for restricted, then one or both of your references are contacted and you'll get a call from the CFP as well.

At any point in this process, they can request a written statement from a medical professional about the applicant's fitness to own firearms or request an in-person interview with either a Firearms Officer or the local police.

Thanks.


It appears from the difference in gun violence between Canada and the US that this approach might be working in Canada.


America, seems to be a different story.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

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

When you decide to live in the land of reality, let us know.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

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?

Probably not, as I've stated as much as the American's need to work on a sensible gun control system that's far away from what they have now, they're going to have to go after illegal weapons shipments both domestically and from abroad, and focus on organized crime groups that are selling weapons illegally.

Its not as simple as the president snapping his fingers enacting legislation and the guns are gone.

Its got to be comprehensive.

But one common platform with these mass shootings is that we're seeing a lot of legally obtained guns used.

Now with yesterdays shooting, there was no indication that this guy was a threat.

He stayed very low profile.

He didn't expose anything that would mark him as a radical.

He infiltrated his company and made himself well liked, then he baited the trap (his own party) and killed everyone.

Somehow this guy was either very smart or very well trained by someone.

However if the firearms of the type that he purchased legally and used in this crime weren't available for public usage, would the result be different?

All I know is that 650 some odd mass shootings in the last year has told me that something is dramatically wrong with the system and with the acceptance of it by not looking at change.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

But more to your point: this is still important regarding gun control. Both shooters were American citizens who purchased all of their firearms and ammo legally. How can any two people stockpile that kind of arsenal without drawing some attention? We keep tabs on someone who buys a lot of Benadryl, but we can't keep track of someone who stockpiles a ton of weapons and ammunition?


What gets one person's rocks off shouldn't be deadly to those around him. Just because you get kicks out of it doesn't mean there shouldn't be regulation. People get their kicks out of racing vehicles at high speeds. They have actual sporting events about it. But you can't just go down the highway at 120mph because you think it's fun. There are still regulations and limitations even though it's allowed in certain spaces and times.

Where was it reported that they had an "arsenal" or a "stockpile"? All the reports I have seen have described two rifles, two handguns and about 1,000 rounds for each. Canada does have those type of records for restricted firearms and levels of purchase/ownership that could trigger an inspection.

I've never proposed less regulations, if my support for sensible regulations that have a genuine impact on public safety have been construed as such, then sorry.

The issue in this whole debate is that the vast majority of people simply do not understand the existing laws. They see the lack of regulations in some US states and draw a conclusion that it must be like that everywhere. It's frustrating when people make claims that 30 seconds of Google would show them are incorrect.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

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

14 more people who are dead that shouldn't be dead, means that maybe we need more emotional projection and not less.

This is an issue that someone should be getting angry and emotional about and demanding answers from the pro gun lobby that make sense. Because so far I can see any from up here on my perch.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Tell me more, please.

http://ywcacanada.ca/data/research_docs/00000028.pdf

Pg 16 (of the .pdf document). Lots of other interesting info in there too.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Where was it reported that they had an "arsenal" or a "stockpile"? All the reports I have seen have described two rifles, two handguns and about 1,000 rounds for each. Canada does have those type of records for restricted firearms and levels of purchase/ownership that could trigger an inspection.

I've never proposed less regulations, if my support for sensible regulations that have a genuine impact on public safety have been construed as such, then sorry.

The issue in this whole debate is that the vast majority of people simply do not understand the existing laws. They see the lack of regulations in some US states and draw a conclusion that it must be like that everywhere. It's frustrating when people make claims that 30 seconds of Google would show them are incorrect.

I cannot see any reason why anyone needs several thousand rounds of ammunition. I admittedly was not fully able to pay attention to the press conference while it aired, as I was at work and was distracted with that, and in his words it seemed a more impressive array of weapons had been compiled by the pair.

Regardless of that, I still just am having a harder and harder time understanding why anyone should have access to any weaponry more impressive than a typical hunting rifle. I don't understand the need for even a semi-automatic weapon outside of a warzone or if you're a police officer (and even then, it should be a last resort, not the first choice).

The more shootings happen, the more angry I get at the complete refusal from politicians to attempt to do anything at all to stop it, and the more angry I get at the hand-wringing from NRA supporters at the mention of any kind of gun control, no matter how minor and logical it is.

Meanwhile these same politicians who can't find it in themselves to offer anything other than "thoughts and prayers," meaningless platitudes while eschewing even the most simple changes, they today are attempting to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization who uses their federal funding to provide necessary health services to people who otherwise can't afford it, in the name of being "pro-life."

You'll stop at nothing to prevent abortions, regardless of the consequences, but yet you refuse to do anything to stem this unending swell of gun violence?

I get angry when these things keep happening and nothing changes. I get angry when these same NRA-sponsored politicians are telling me to be terrified of refugees, when I am exponentially more likely to be shot by a US citizen with a legally purchased firearm.

I just have a really hard time living in this country sometimes, and living in gun-happy Southwestern PA makes my frustration even worse, because all of these pro-gun arguments on CP are nothing compared to the absolutely insane rhetoric I hear from the gun-nuts around here. I'm just tired of people acting as if their "right" to own firearms is above and beyond the "right" of others to actually remain living. I'm tired of these people pulling the "well if everyone was armed this wouldn't happen!" BS argument (because just what I want in a critical situation is some redneck with no training firing off his weapon in the general direction of a threat).

The obsession that this country has with firearms borders on the pornographic, and I'm just wondering how many people have to die before anything changes.

[afc wimbledon]

The real irony for me is hearing right wing gun nuts arguing that the purpose of guns is to defend the constitution against an oppressive goverment therefore in order to defend gun rights it's neccersary to give the goverment oppressive unconstitutional powers to track Muslims that might want a gun.

If 14 people hadn't just died this would be funny as hell.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

the purpose of guns is to defend the constitution against an oppressive goverment

This is hysterically funny, all things considered.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Thanks.


It appears from the difference in gun violence between Canada and the US that this approach might be working in Canada.


America, seems to be a different story.

The basic tactic in Canada is to make gun ownership such an utter pain in the arse to contemplate that only citizens with a real interest or need will bother, hunting or farming etc, it's pretty much the same in the UK, I can get a gun in either place but it's just not worth the effort to me.

That doesnt absolutely prevent problems but eliminates the drunken depressed ex or disgruntled employee to a large degree, and, contrary to most Americans belief, it's the people around you that you need to fear, husbands colleagues neighbours, not criminals.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

..... the absolutely insane rhetoric I hear from the gun-nuts around here. I'm just tired of people acting as if their "right" to own firearms

They don't actually have the right, within the constructs of the original amendment. At least, according to this guy, anyway.

[sun]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

And this has been argued ad nauseam in previous pages so I really don't want to go over it all again. And again.

lol, good one.

91 posts in this thread alone.