Another public multiple shooting

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Here is what I don't get...maybe someone who is pro-gun can explain it to me...if responsible gun ownership can help keep the public safe...why haven't incidents like these been prevented more often (or at all) by civilians with guns?

Pick up any gun magazine. They is usually an article or two about somebody who was saved because they had a gun. It probably doesn't make the news very often because if there isn't a shooting. There isn't a news story.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ZDogg

Does anyone else think climate has anything to do with the murder rate differences between Canada and the US?? I remember seeing something about a sharp drop off of murders when it gets really cold outside. Just like everyone else the Murderers don't want to leave their house during cold streaks.

It would be interesting to compare the rates for June - Sept between Canada and the US.

Interesting concept.

One fault I can think of offhand is that the territories (Yukon and Nunavut) have murder rates that greatly exceed the US average.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by ZDogg

Does anyone else think climate has anything to do with the murder rate differences between Canada and the US?? I remember seeing something about a sharp drop off of murders when it gets really cold outside. Just like everyone else the Murderers don't want to leave their house during cold streaks.

It would be interesting to compare the rates for June - Sept between Canada and the US.

I can't point you to anything specific, but I have heard on multiple occasions from law enforcement that there is a direct correlation between crime rates and hot and cold weather.

[ZDogg]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Interesting concept.

One fault I can think of offhand is that the territories (Yukon and Nunavut) have murder rates that greatly exceed the US average.

When it's too cold for too long some people loose their marbles....

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ZDogg

When it's too cold for too long some people loose their marbles....

hah... maybe. I think you're somewhat right though, crime does tend to dip in the winter and peak in the summer.

To play devil's advocate, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Abbotsford, Edmonton and Regina hold the dubious title of highest homocide rates in Canada though of cities over 100k. Only Abbotsford can really boast decent winter weather. Of course, maybe those ones are aberrations are due to the high aboriginal populations and the culture clash that has resulted.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Yup, because we've never had public shootings in Canada

not nearly at the same frequency. seriously, when was last time someone in Canada went into a mall and randomly commited mass murder?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

not nearly at the same frequency. seriously, when was last time someone in Canada went into a mall and randomly commited mass murder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_P...nique_Massacre
?

edit: I guess you could count this too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

[Flames_Gimp]

seems like usa has about one per week

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

seems like usa has about one per week

Yeah, for the last two week time period.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yeah, for the last two week time period.

no those are just the big shootings.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I really don't think it's a stretch in logic to associate prevalence of guns and gun violence.

I imagine if there was a prevalence of cross bows, you'd see more long crossbow related deaths.

Saturating everyone with weapons really isn't the answer, nor is restricting weapons to those only in positions of authority. It's a tricky balance.

I see zero logical reasoning behind adding more guns to this equation though.

Exactly. Anyone who owns a gun for self defense owns it to defend themselves from the other people who have guns. It's always this circular logic.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Not everyone has a nice cushy office job that buys lots of groceries.

Try not to assume that everyone in the world grows up in your exact situation.

Hunting is more vital to wildlife management than you can possibly imagine as well.

Now I know little about hunting. But I can't imagine that the majority of hunters are doing it to put food on the table, I am sure there are some, but I bet most do so for "the sport of it". The majority of people I have met who own guns, use them as weekend type of activity. The only people that I have met who actually need guns (outside of law enforcement) have been farmers who need to protect their animals from predators or to protect themselves from other animals when in the bush. Now this is my narrow view of gun ownership, but I have a hard time believing that the majority of people need guns to feed their family.

I am against gun ownership. I realize a complete gun ban is not very feasible right now, so currently I am fine with people owning hunting rifles. What I don't get is the need for people to own hand guns and semi automatic rifles. You can't hunt with a pistol, I don't think anyone is feeding their family the squirrels they shot with their .357 magnum. You don't need to hunt with a AK-47. Unless you're on an Africa safari trying to take down a whole heard of Zebra in under a minute. These are the guns that are unnecessary and a regular fixture in crime and murders.

[Azure]

So you have a problem if I like to go to the firing range on the weekends, and fire my handgun? Who gives you the right to infringe upon my rights as a law-abiding citizen? Say for the sake of arguing, we are both living in the US....

No matter how many gun laws you pass, how many bans you impose, you will never stop guns from being a 'regular fixture in crime and murders.' Never. Ever. So by banning handguns, banning assault rifles....which BTW are illegal to use for hunting, and are specifically bought and owned to use on a firing range....you are only affecting MY right to defend myself. And yes, if I lived in a big city, I would get a concealed permit, as well as proper training, and I would carry a handgun to protect myself. Granted, nothing will ever happen, nor would I ever be a 'hero' that would stop a shooting such as the one at VT, but I would have the reassurance that I can protect myself, if need be, from certain danger.

Now does that mean if someone tries to rob me while holding a gun, I would whip out my handgun and blast them away before they got a shot off? I think CC had a post a while back saying that unless you are very highly trained in self-defense against people with weapons, the safest course would be to give the guy your wallet and cancel your credit cards ASAP. But, if someone with a knife asks for your wallet, and you have proper training for such a situation, you could protect yourself with a firearm. The key here is proper training.

This is your logic....

Alcohol is not 'needed' by anyone. In fact, alcohol has killed millions of people, and probably kills more people in Alberta than guns will in our lifetime. Therefore because alcohol is not 'needed', we should ban it. Since alcohol is unnecessary, and a regular fixture in ALL drinking and driving accidents, we should ban it.

Right?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you have a problem if I like to go to the firing range on the weekends, and fire my handgun? Who gives you the right to infringe upon my rights as a law-abiding citizen? Say for the sake of arguing, we are both living in the US....

No one has a problem with that. It's when on the way to the firing range I cut you off in traffic and you shoot me in the face. No one has a problem with safe gun use. But just having guns opens the door to people abusing guns and killing people. It's simply really.

No matter how many gun laws you pass, how many bans you impose, you will never stop guns from being a 'regular fixture in crime and murders.' Never. Ever. So by banning handguns, banning assault rifles....which BTW are illegal to use for hunting, and are specifically bought and owned to use on a firing range....you are only affecting MY right to defend myself. And yes, if I lived in a big city, I would get a concealed permit, as well as proper training, and I would carry a handgun to protect myself. Granted, nothing will ever happen, nor would I ever be a 'hero' that would stop a shooting such as the one at VT, but I would have the reassurance that I can protect myself, if need be, from certain danger.

Ah yes, the typical you can't get rid of every gun, so we shouldn't ban them argument. That makes perfect sense. We either have to solve the problem 100% or not at all. You gun people are so paranoid. You think that because you don't have a gun on you, you're going to get shot the second you walk out into the street.

Now does that mean if someone tries to rob me while holding a gun, I would whip out my handgun and blast them away before they got a shot off? I think CC had a post a while back saying that unless you are very highly trained in self-defense against people with weapons, the safest course would be to give the guy your wallet and cancel your credit cards ASAP. But, if someone with a knife asks for your wallet, and you have proper training for such a situation, you could protect yourself with a firearm. The key here is proper training.

What is this "proper training" you keep bringing up? Sounds pretty fairy tale to me. A gun safety course and a gun self defense course are a little different. So you suppose that we should train people to be effective with their gun in a self defense situation? Remind me why we should train more people to be killers? Who takes this "proper training"? My only guess would be people in the military. There is no law stating that you have to take a gun safety or a gun defense course, perhaps there should be one, but as of right now there is no proper training for gun owners. It is a moot point unless it is mandatory.

This is your logic....

Alcohol is not 'needed' by anyone. In fact, alcohol has killed millions of people, and probably kills more people in Alberta than guns will in our lifetime. Therefore because alcohol is not 'needed', we should ban it. Since alcohol is unnecessary, and a regular fixture in ALL drinking and driving accidents, we should ban it.

Right?

Oh you got me here. You have used my logic and sent it back firing into my temple. But where is my right to own an ICBM? Where is my right to trade in my sedan for a armored tank? If I am getting attacked by a person with a knife I should pull out my gun and defend myself, if I didn't have my gun I would be out matched and die for sure. If I am getting attacked by a person with a gun I should pull out my RPG and send them back the stone age, a straight gun on gun battle is coin flip as to who will live. I would hope you don't advocate this type of weaponry being legal (and I am sure you don't) but don't you think there should be a line? Why is the gun the end all be all? Banning guns isn't going to end crime. But if a person is robbing you with a knife instead of a gun chances are your survival is better.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

no those are just the big shootings.

Aren't those the one's being discussed?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

So by banning handguns, banning assault rifles....which BTW are illegal to use for hunting, and are specifically bought and owned to use on a firing range....you are only affecting MY right to defend myself.

You may have a point with handguns (though that is very debatable), but anybody in this country who needs an assault rifle to defend himself is a criminal to begin with and wouldn't be a "law abiding citizen" anyway.

Originally Posted by Azure

And yes, if I lived in a big city, I would get a concealed permit, as well as proper training, and I would carry a handgun to protect myself. Granted, nothing will ever happen, nor would I ever be a 'hero' that would stop a shooting such as the one at VT, but I would have the reassurance that I can protect myself, if need be, from certain danger.

Certain danger, eh? Your life would be better if you spent that loot on a shrink who specializes in paranoia or, barring that, a realtor to sell your house so you can move to a place that you aren't so scared of.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Certain danger, eh? Your life would be better if you spent that loot on a shrink who specializes in paranoia or, barring that, a realtor to sell your house so you can move to a place that you aren't so scared of.

Jesus, no kidding.

Maybe you should be shepherd, Azure. That way you could keep a gun to protect your herd from 'yotes n teenagers, AND you'd be away from the big scary city.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its statistical based on population.

Say the murder rate is one per 100 000 people. (Its a high example, but whatever)

Canada has 33 million people, so there would be a statistical expectation of 330 murders.

United States has 305 million people, so there would be a statistical expectation of 3050 murders.

The US has 9.2x times the instances of murder, but the ratio is the same.

Simple enough for you?

Wow, check your numbers, the ratio is nowwhere near the same.

Even if you even the populations Canada has far FAR fewer gun murders.

Plus we don't have have the huge massive shootings like that States does. None of this 35 dead sort of thing.

The last big one we had would be the Montreal one I think, at the university.

I'll get the actual data for you, but the rate isn't even close. No where in the rest of the first world is it like this.

Not blaming the guns or the media or the people, not here anyway. But holy smokes man, as far as the ratio goes. You are 100% wrong.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its statistical based on population.

Say the murder rate is one per 100 000 people. (Its a high example, but whatever)

Canada has 33 million people, so there would be a statistical expectation of 330 murders.

United States has 305 million people, so there would be a statistical expectation of 3050 murders.

The US has 9.2x times the instances of murder, but the ratio is the same.

Simple enough for you?

Here you go.

Canada has a rate of homicide at 1.83 murders per 100,000. The U.S. has a rate of 6.62 per 100,000 as of 1998.

For firearm related murders Canada is at 0.5 per 100,000, the U.S is at 4.4 as of 1998. (I have newer rates from both countries but not in the same study, so I went with this one.)

Not even close man.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...unControl.html

And the recent activities are showing the U.S. is getting worse for firearm deaths. Canada has actualy stayed pretty level.

The murder rate is almost 4 times higher in the states and the murder rate with guns is 9 TIMES HIGHER!

9 times. So no, it's not just population and ratios. This is already divided up into ratios. This is 9 times more at the same 100,000.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

No matter how many gun laws you pass, how many bans you impose, you will never stop guns from being a 'regular fixture in crime and murders.' Never. Ever. So by banning handguns, banning assault rifles....which BTW are illegal to use for hunting, and are specifically bought and owned to use on a firing range....you are only affecting MY right to defend myself.
Right?

Wrong. Control type laws like thos in Canada (much more controlled than in the states) and in Europe have kept the numbers down. The U.S. is the only nation with these crazy numbers and the nation with the most lax laws. (For the numbers look at my previous post just above.)

It's not airtight proof, but it's as damn close as your going to get.

You want to defend yourself, take a karate class. Guns have nothing to do with defense and everything to do wth assault and accidents.

[worth]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"If one of the kids had a handgun this might not have been so bad". I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that is what you are saying.

Allowing college kids to carry guns on campus would lead to a lot more than 32 deaths. College kids are crazy. They drink a lot, take drugs, get dumped by their girlfriends, cheat on their boyfriends, suffer from a lot of stress, and to top it all off, half of them are still teenagers. They'd be killing each other all the time if they were allowed to walk around with guns in their backpack.

I don't care how long Freshman Phil was in the boyscouts or how old he was when Pappy taught him how to shoot bottles, but when he learns his gal has been nailing the res floor supervisor for half a semester, he's going to be kind of pissed off. Throw in a failed chem test,a couple Keystones, some Jagermeister and a Smith & Wesson, you just know someone is going to get whacked.

This is a terrible tragedy, but the odds of something like this happening are extremely small. Preparing for it by letting some students carry guns is way overboard and would lead to a lot more trouble than it would prevent.

It'd be like visiting New York and wearing a motorcycle helmet the whole time because someone might drop a penny off the Empire State Building. It's too much, and it would ruin the experience.

There are many campuses across the United States that allow CCW, ie: those that are permitted and trained to carry a concealed weapon. Those who get a CCW license and go to the trouble to be fingerprinted by the US government and not the types that are going to go crazy and shoot people up.

It's not preparing for it by allowing people to carry guns, it's the realization that the police can not always protect you, and in 39 states I believe, you have the right to defend yourself.

A no guns policy basically takes guns away from the people looking to protect themselves, and you end up with the only person on campus with a gun is the criminal, and the police who won't do anything.