Originally posted by Purple86GT: anti gun laws make people with guns stand out. when will you people get this?
Over here you carry a gun you got som explaining to do.
That's because Ontario is populated with a bunch of liberal pansies like yourself. Around here in the prairies, if you don't have a gun you have some explaining to do. And look, unlike you folks out in Eastern we don't have a school shootings dotting our news headlines.
Wow, don't get all upset, I can't take your little toys away. Just don't cry when you get hurt playing with it.
Do you have the 'safety' knives where you are? You know, the 'anti-stab' type that are required in the UK? After all, kitchen knives are the most common weapon used in fatal stabbings. Since they outlawed guns there, it seems that 30% of the murders in the UK are committed with pointy bits of metal....
I think only licensed chefs should have good cutlery. And each knife should be registered, and have its 'knife stab pattern' registered in a database, so that the owners can be readily identified in the case of a stabbing death...
i don't see a way to prevent this sort of thing short of putting the tsa at every school, (and mall, and stadium, and bus terminal...) and that's neither completely effective nor consistent with our civil liberties. i'd like to see some calm and civil discussion on ideas for how to deal with what seems to be a rising epidemic. calling for more gun control in general, or calling each other morons and idiots (oops, left out pansies) is not productive of solutions.
do we want a solution, or do we want to call each other names? never mind, i guess that's kind of obvious.
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 12-14-2012).]
Originally posted by Purple86GT: Oh for God sakes! Throwing more weapons at a problem solves nothing!
My kids school is locked down. You can't get in unless you are buzzed in and that only gets you into the lobby were you can speak to an administrator who then will call your child out or escort you in.
According to CBS News, they had such "safety" protocols in-place...
But it failed because this nutcase knew how to get around it. He ignored laws and did what he did using whatever means he wanted to. If he didn't have a gun, he could have simply walked into that classroom with something else like a knife, 5 gallons of gas, or you-name-it and still committed mass murder. Bad people do bad things, so how are you going to stop them? With a sign that says "no weapons allowed"? They've tried that in city-wide areas and IT DOESN'T WORK. Look at Chicago, for example.
If at least some of the teachers and/or administration were armed, this nutcase could have been stopped. But if the state of CT has the same laws as my state does, NO ONE except for an on-duty police officer is supposed to go onto school property with a gun.
When the hell are you anti-gun nuts going to wake up and realize that "gun free zones" are zones that criminals and people with criminal intent know contain lambs for the slaughter!
I pray for these families who have lost loved-ones. I just wish we would give a "fighting chance" to people who work in these areas so they would have the opportunity to defend themselves and those who are in their care.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-14-2012).]
Honest question: do you think these kinds of shootings would stop if all guns (minus leo/military per your prev post) were banned?
No I do not, I do however think that some can be averted or the consequences can be less severe.
Gun laws will never prevent PLANNED attacks. they will virtually stop unplanned aggressions.
You also need to factor in the average Joe with sub average training on the proper use of a firearm. The training you need to have the "right" to carry a firearm is ridiculous. Where I work we have stringent training (over a year), follow-up training, psych test, etc. to carry a weapon. Armed personnel are trained to not pull out their weapon unless they are POSITIVE of the results. You do not want to cause a panic reaction from the other party with a weapon, you do not want hostages, etc..
[This message has been edited by Purple86GT (edited 12-14-2012).]
That's because Ontario is populated with a bunch of liberal pansies like yourself. Around here in the prairies, if you don't have a gun you have some explaining to do. And look, unlike you folks out in Eastern we don't have a school shootings dotting our news headlines.
Go figure.
LOL! ok, I didn't think we had the whole "liberal pansies" thing up here, but sure, whatever.
No I do not, I do however think that some can be averted or the consequences can be less severe.
Gun laws will never prevent PLANNED attacks. they will virtually stop unplanned aggressions.
You also need to factor in the average Joe with sub average training on the proper use of a firearm. The training you need to have the "right" to carry a firearm is ridiculous. Where I work we have stringent training (over a year), follow-up training, psych test, etc. to carry a weapon. Armed personnel are trained to not pull out their weapon unless they are POSITIVE of the results. You do not want to cause a panic reaction from the other party with a weapon, you do not want hostages, etc..
And what prytell is an "unplanned aggression?" The gun registry that you folks out east seemed to have such a love affair with did not reduce gun violence one damn bit. If someone wants to find a way to kill, they will - firearm or not. Look at the mass murder that took place in China where the weapon of choice was a knife. The problem is the individual, not the damn weapon.
And why am I also not surprised that you work for the Government of Canada. Perhaps a bitter leftover from the Martin / Chretien days jaded that their registry was axed?
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 12-14-2012).]
i don't see a way to prevent this sort of thing short of putting the tsa at every school, (and mall, and stadium, and bus terminal...) and that's neither completely effective nor consistent with our civil liberties. i'd like to see some calm and civil discussion on ideas for how to deal with what seems to be a rising epidemic. calling for more gun control in general, or calling each other morons and idiots (oops, left out pansies) is not productive of solutions.
do we want a solution, or do we want to call each other names? never mind, i guess that's kind of obvious.
A good start would be to take down those pesky "no concealed carry" signs from schools, let teachers, principals, visitors, whoever has a concealed carry permit, carry in schools. Right now criminals know it's like shooting unarmed fish in a barrel. It's much harder to shoot fish in a barrel when you don't know what fish can shoot back.
Laws don't prevent crime. Registration, licensing, testing and regulation haven't stopped drunk drivers. Prohibition didn't stop drinking. The war on drugs hasn't stopped drug use.
All the law can do is provide for punishment after the fact. Guns exist. Even if you ban them, criminals will find a way to get them. No amount of words on paper could have stopped this tragedy from happening.
1 person with a gun could have.
I wonder how many people at that school are gun owners who weren't armed because you can't have guns on school grounds? I think the most reasonable reaction is, if a facility decides to ban weapons then that facility takes on itself the responsibility of providing security of the people there. Schools should be required to have armed security/law enforcement on site. It might not have prevented it, but it could have stopped it much sooner and saved a lot of lives.
We try to take common sense approaches to things like fire safety by being prudent with flammable materials, but we recognize fires will still happen, so you have to be prepared to extinguish one if/when it happens. A fire extinguisher doesn't guarantee you won't get burned, but your chances are much better if you have one than if you don't.
And what prytell is an "unplanned aggression?" The gun registry that you folks out east seemed to have such a love affair with did not reduce gun violence one damn bit. If someone wants to find a way to kill, they will - firearm or not. Look at the mass murder that took place in China where the weapon of choice was a knife. The problem is the individual, not the damn weapon.
And why am I also not surprised that you work for the Government of Canada. Perhaps a bitter leftover from the Martin / Chretien days jaded that their registry was axed?
Anything under murder 1 is unplanned...
The long gun registry is a cash grab and was doomed from the start. The problem is not hunting riffles it's handguns. Those are Illegal in Canada. You have the same laws as us here in the east, so calm down.
I agree that the problem is the individual, but the weapon facilitates the task at hand.
Laws don't prevent crime. Registration, licensing, testing and regulation haven't stopped drunk drivers. Prohibition didn't stop drinking. The war on drugs hasn't stopped drug use.
All the law can do is provide for punishment after the fact. Guns exist. Even if you ban them, criminals will find a way to get them. No amount of words on paper could have stopped this tragedy from happening.
1 person with a gun could have.
I wonder how many people at that school are gun owners who weren't armed because you can't have guns on school grounds? I think the most reasonable reaction is, if a facility decides to ban weapons then that facility takes on itself the responsibility of providing security of the people there. Schools should be required to have armed security/law enforcement on site. It might not have prevented it, but it could have stopped it much sooner and saved a lot of lives.
We try to take common sense approaches to things like fire safety by being prudent with flammable materials, but we recognize fires will still happen, so you have to be prepared to extinguish one if/when it happens. A fire extinguisher doesn't guarantee you won't get burned, but your chances are much better if you have one than if you don't.
You are practicing common sense, stop it! It is not working here.
If you mean how having gun laws would prevent fatalities from unplanned attacks? See my previous post. You are more than likely to walk away from a beating then you would from a shooting. If you wink at some guy's GF, he will punch you out instead of putting a cap in your ass. Now do you get it?
ok, that might be a good approach. do we screen cc applicants for "whacko-ness"?
moot point: Is someone who has "whacko-ness" going to decide get a concealed carry permit just to go shoot up a school, or ignore the LAW like they do now?
Secondly, even if someone with wacko-ness managed to get a concealed carry so they could legally carry in a school... the numbers are now against them with other armed individuals in that school. It's a win win.
[This message has been edited by CoryFiero (edited 12-14-2012).]
If you mean how having gun laws would prevent fatalities from unplanned attacks? See my previous post. You are more than likely to walk away from a beating then you would from a shooting. If you wink at some guy's GF, he will punch you out instead of putting a cap in your ass. Now do you get it?
You still don't get it do you. You seem to think if guns are outlawed, nobody would have a gun. Are you really that dense?
If you mean how having gun laws would prevent fatalities from unplanned attacks? See my previous post. You are more than likely to walk away from a beating then you would from a shooting. If you wink at some guy's GF, he will punch you out instead of putting a cap in your ass. Now do you get it?
I call trolling on this post. Please stop bring these jokes into a serious thread Purple86GT.
Do you have the 'safety' knives where you are? You know, the 'anti-stab' type that are required in the UK? After all, kitchen knives are the most common weapon used in fatal stabbings. Since they outlawed guns there, it seems that 30% of the murders in the UK are committed with pointy bits of metal....
I think only licensed chefs should have good cutlery. And each knife should be registered, and have its 'knife stab pattern' registered in a database, so that the owners can be readily identified in the case of a stabbing death...
Originally posted by CoryFiero: moot point: ... It's a win win.
i'm not trying to argue with you. but i'm not entirely comfortable with letting just anyone in schools with guns, either. the concealed carry option might have merit if there's some extra scrutiny, as opposed to just anyone who passes NICS at wal-mart.
Originally posted by Lambo nut: You still don't get it do you. You seem to think if guns are outlawed, nobody would have a gun. Are you really that dense?
Kevin
no, not at all. weed is outlawed. people have weed. it just cuts down on the availability. we all know "outlawing" something does not make it go away.
many people think cutting down on whimsical access would be a benefit
You want to carry? become a cop or join the military. Otherwise your just a puss. with dick envy.
Only cowards cary guns in fear of what "might happen" And yes, the criminals are cowards to! Back in the day, scores were settled with words and fists. Now any cowardly little scronny punk can carry a gun and shoot someone. But hey, its your right...
Puss? Dick envy? LMFAO.
Listen, if you do not want to carry, then do not. Period. If we, AS AMERICANS, choose to follow the laws, and acquire a permit to carry, then so be it. This is not Canada last time that I checked. (I love Canada, so please don't twist these words. )
Now, back to my virtues... Puss. No. I personally DO NOT carry. Why? Well, I am one of those folks that understands that I am a hot head, and carrying would only bring misfortune to me and my family. Now, my home is a completely different story. Regardless, I am a man that is fully capable of protecting myself with my hands. It has been proven literally dozens, and dozens of times.
Dick envy? You want maybe I send you some pics, or would written statements as to the girth and length of my member from past girlfriends suffice?
i'm not trying to argue with you. but i'm not entirely comfortable with letting just anyone in schools with guns, either. the concealed carry option might have merit if there's some extra scrutiny, as opposed to just anyone who passes NICS at wal-mart.
No worries, I'm thinking hard about the question you posed and I have before. I wanted to answer so you could poke holes into it (even if you agree) and try to think of reasons it would not work that I overlooked.
I don't know about all states but I know to buy a handgun it took an hour or so for the background check but a concealed carry permit background check took weeks, required fingerprints, and an 8 hour class with a test at the end.
[This message has been edited by CoryFiero (edited 12-14-2012).]
the concealed carry option might have merit if there's some extra scrutiny, as opposed to just anyone who passes NICS at wal-mart.
Here in Indiana, in order to get a permit to carry a handgun, you have to submit to a criminal background check on the local, state, and federal level that can take a few weeks to process. They record your personal info including fingerprints at the time you submit the application. It isn't just an "NICS" you get at wal-mart.
Here in Indiana, in order to get a permit to carry a handgun, you have to submit to a criminal background check on the local, state, and federal level that can take a few weeks to process. They record your personal info including fingerprints at the time you submit the application. It isn't just an "NICS" you get at wal-mart.
It is the same here. Just another example of what happens when one jumps in feet first without having a clue about the details.
It did very quickly on TV too, so don't preach to us.
Kevin
Just because others are irresponsible doesn't mean we have to as well. We should be 'better' than them. We should respect and honor the children ( and adults ) that lost their lives due to this unstable criminal.
Converting it to a political discussion only serves to minimize what happened.
Originally posted by CoryFiero: concealed carry permit background check took weeks, required fingerprints, and an 8 hour class with a test at the end.
kinda makes me wish we could somehow put these guy's brains in a jar and figure out what's wrong with them so we know what to look for. ok, so hypothetically, we allow any concealed carry owner to do so, in "gun free zones". are there any statistics on gun crimes by cc holders? are there 2 (or more) different kinds of gun owners?
Just because others are irresponsible doesn't mean we have to as well. We should be 'better' than them. We should respect and honor the children ( and adults ) that lost their lives due to this unstable criminal.
Converting it to a political discussion only serves to minimize what happened.
It was tongue in cheek. I added my forgotten smiley if that makes you feel better.
ANY EVENT - this is a tragic event, and my thoughts go out to the families affected. No idea what would posses someone to go out and kill children like this. Indeed a sad day. Now, sort of off topic:
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT: anti gun laws make people with guns stand out. when will you people get this?
Over here you carry a gun you got som explaining to do.
um, no - stiffer gun laws do nothing to prevent loons like this from killing. Example, take Mayerthorpe tragedy (yes this happened in Canada and WHILE the gun registry was intact) - the gun registry did nothing to prevent this, nor did the fact that the loon was known by the cops to hate cops and was prohibited from owning guns. So how come none of that stopped him from killing the 4 RCMP officers?
Or how about all those shootings this year in Toronto? Those all happened with 'restricted' guns - yet people still died on public streets. How did the gun laws protect these people?
Sure if I was to walk down a street carrying a rifle I probably wouldn't get too far before someone calls the cops, but that being said, put that same gun in some sort of case or blanket I wouldn't get stopped. What is preventing some loon from doing the exact same thing here? Nothing. It doesn't take anytime to park you car and get out of it carrying a gun and run into any building and kill a bunch of people. That exact scenario has happened here in Canada (although he didn't kill anyone): http://www.theglobeandmail....duct/article4252096/
If a person wanted a gun, they will get a gun, gun laws or not. Look at a recent incident in France where someone killed people at a school there, France FYI has tougher gun laws than we do and yet it still happened.
quote
Originally posted by Purple86GT:
No I do not, I do however think that some can be averted or the consequences can be less severe.
Gun laws will never prevent PLANNED attacks. they will virtually stop unplanned aggressions.
You also need to factor in the average Joe with sub average training on the proper use of a firearm. The training you need to have the "right" to carry a firearm is ridiculous. Where I work we have stringent training (over a year), follow-up training, psych test, etc. to carry a weapon. Armed personnel are trained to not pull out their weapon unless they are POSITIVE of the results. You do not want to cause a panic reaction from the other party with a weapon, you do not want hostages, etc..
Not true, unplanned aggressions will happen with or without a gun, how many knife attacks happen or people beaten to death?
Also, I own several guns and I never took training that was over a year. In fact I never had any such formal training on firearm use - I was taught to respect and proper use of guns as I was growing up. You also don't need any special kind of training to own a restricted weapon either. You do need a different permit for restricted weapons, but once you have that, there is nothing stopping you from walking into any gun store and buying a hand gun, etc.
Besides all that training and psych test for "armed personnel" that you speak of didn't prevent this tragic event from happening here in Canada either: http://news.nationalpost.co...iversity-of-alberta/
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-14-2012).]
