# I hate the term "the shooter"....



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

I dont know why, but it irks me in all these mass shooting situations, they refer to the suspect as " the shooter".or "active shooter"
Dont know why- maybe it gives them too much stature, too much of a label, puts them into a category,
makes them seem like a rebel, or a Rambo, ...or or, a likens them to the lone gunslinger of the old west or something... or an action figure or something....some character in a video game...cant quite explain it...put my finger on it....but why not call them "the suspect" or something, like in other crimes...
i dunno, to me, it somehow elevates them....which IMHO should not be the case...
any comments...?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> I dont know why, but it irks me in all these mass shooting situations, they refer to the suspect as " the shooter".or "active shooter"
> Dont know why- maybe it gives them too much stature, too much of a label, puts them into a category,
> makes them seem like a rebel, or a Rambo, ...or or, a likens them to the lone gunslinger of the old west or something... or an action figure or something....some character in a video game...cant quite explain it...put my finger on it....but why not call them "the suspect" or something, like in other crimes...
> i dunno, to me, it somehow elevates them....which IMHO should not be the case...
> any comments...?


Active shooter is a description, that they have someone who is currently shooting.
The shooter is if they currently are not, but recently were shooting.

What do you propose? 

Other labels might not be as descriptive.

"I am approaching and planning to engage with the suspect", vs "I am approaching and planning to engage an active shooter".


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

I hate the term "motive unknown" when the person is screaming the usual phrase that certain terrorists like to say when they are killing the infidels.

But the media still says "motive unknown" even though they know it's a lie.

Saying "the shooter" makes sense...that's exactly what they are.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> I hate the term "motive unknown" when the person is screaming the usual phrase that certain terrorists like to say when they are killing the infidels.
> 
> But the media still says "motive unknown" even though they know it's a lie.
> 
> Saying "the shooter" makes sense...that's exactly what they are.


Hmm, so the shooter's name is Seth Aaron Ator, and was just fired from his job hours before his spree. Is that the motive that you were thinking?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/us/odessa-texas-shooting-sunday/index.html


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

bgc_fan said:


> Hmm, so the shooter's name is Seth Aaron Ator, and was just fired from his job hours before his spree. Is that the motive that you were thinking?
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/us/odessa-texas-shooting-sunday/index.html


I don't read CNN links...they lie.

Was the shooter screaming the common phrase used by terrorists that made the motive perfectly clear? Or was the shooter just another unhinged person with no background that would suggest terrorism, and therefore the motive is not known yet?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> I don't read CNN links...they lie.
> 
> Was the shooter screaming the common phrase used by terrorists that made the motive perfectly clear? Or was the shooter just another unhinged person with no background that would suggest terrorism, and therefore the motive is not known yet?


Well then I suggest you search your own alt-right sources and you'll see they repeat the same information.

Aren't you supposed to be gone?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> Well then I suggest you search your own alt-right sources and you'll see they repeat the same information.
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be gone?


Prairie Guy is a Trump supporter. He's got a whole different view of the universe... and boy does it show.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In Trumpland there is no universe. There is only Trump.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

On September 1st, new Texas law allows guns on school grounds, houses of worship, and other places.

Just what they need, more places where people can legally carry guns so nobody knows if a crime might be contemplated until after the shooting starts.

Nothing like people walking around Walmart "locked and loaded" to make a person feel secure. 

When people see a couple of teenagers walking down the street with assault weapons......do they call the police or just assume they are fun loving teens ?

If someone looks like they might be reaching for their gun.....do you draw first ?

Imagine the checkout line at Walmart when someone reaches for their wallet and everyone pulls out their gun........just in case.

And what of the woman who places her purse on the counter and is digging through it ? Is she going to pull out her credit card or her gun ?

The US is returning to the days of the gunslinger. Too many people want to be Johnny Ringo.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/us/texas-new-gun-laws-trnd/index.html


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I lived in the US for a number of years, and I remember when police officers stopped a car they ordered everyone out of the car before they approached the vehicle.

Walking up to a vehicle has become far more dangerous for police in the US. This latest guy shot 2 officers when they pulled him over.

Is it surprising innocent people are getting shot by police if they look like they are reaching for a gun ?

I expect more innocent people will continue to be accidentally shot. If you ever get stopped by the police.........keep both hands on the steering wheel.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> On September 1st, new Texas law allows guns on school grounds, houses of worship, and other places.
> 
> Just what they need, more places where people can legally carry guns so nobody knows if a crime might be contemplated until after the shooting starts.
> 
> ...


Okay, so when you're dealing with a dangerous person, what should you do?

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

The reality in the US, and increasingly in Canada, is there is chronic under-enforcement of laws by police and the judiciary, leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable.
It's all well and good for people with armed security saying you don't need a gun for self defense.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The NRA excuses ring hollow.

Every country has people with mental problems. Every country has disadvantaged and angry people.

The US stands alone in the numbers of mass shootings and gun deaths than other countries.

The reason is the access to high powered assault weapons, that were meant for military use.

It dangerous to the lives of police officers to arrive armed with a revolver when they are facing an assault weapon. 

Honor the Constitution and allow every citizen the right to own a single shot weapon.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

To be honest though, if I lived in the US I would carry a sidearm.

I would want one in case some weirdo decided to take pot shots at me because he thinks I took his parking spot.

That is sort of the problem. People carry weapons because everyone else is carrying weapons.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I agree that the term 'active shooter' maybe has too much of an appealing connotation. Maybe we should start describing them as 'desperate losers', as it is generally an apt description.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The NRA excuses ring hollow.
> 
> Every country has people with mental problems. Every country has disadvantaged and angry people.
> 
> ...


5.56mm isn't high powered.
It was designed as a target shooting round, and is used for rodent hunting.
It isn't typically considered appropriate for hunting deer, and definitely not appropriate for more dangerous game.
9mm is definately not high powered, and it's used in most mass shootings.

I don't know a single police force in North America that issues revolvers. Perhaps if you're in Alaska you might want a large caliber revolve for bears, but most police use pistols around 9mm or .40 S&W.

I don't know your definition of assault weapon, you likely mean scary and black, which is of course no functional effect.
Single shot weapons, so a double barrelled shotgun should be prohibited?
Better make sure these assault weapons are off the streets too!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield

The thing is that licenced concealed carry holders are the LEAST worrisome people to have carrying a gun.

It's important to note the vast majority of crime, particularly gun crimes, are committed by people who can't legally possess the guns they use.
If the police simply enforced the gun bans currently on the books, many of these situations would not have happened.
The problem with all the new laws and bans etc is that it's all political theater.
They have absolutely no intention of enforcing the laws on the very criminals causing the problems, but they'd be able to chase down law abiding citizens to say they're getting guns off the streets.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

jargey3000 said:


> I dont know why, but it irks me in all these mass shooting situations, they refer to the suspect as " the shooter".or "active shooter"
> Dont know why- maybe it gives them too much stature, too much of a label, puts them into a category,
> makes them seem like a rebel, or a Rambo, ...or or, a likens them to the lone gunslinger of the old west or something... or an action figure or something....some character in a video game...cant quite explain it...put my finger on it....but why not call them "the suspect" or something, like in other crimes...
> i dunno, to me, it somehow elevates them....which IMHO should not be the case...
> any comments...?


It's funny how some things just annoy us individually. My recent annoyance was when the hurricane was approaching Puerto Rico and all the talking heads on the media kept saying, 'Porto Rico'. How can you purport to be an educated person capable of commenting on world news when you don't even take the time to learn how to pronounce a name properly?

I have no opinion on 'shooter' either positive or negative. It's descriptive I guess, that's about all I think about it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Military assault weapons are high powered. The muzzle speed causes extensive internal damage to soft tissue targets. 

(The above has been well documented on previous CMF threads)

The guns and ammunition are designed for no other purpose than to kill the highest number of people in the shortest period of time.

These weapons aren't being used to hunt rodents or deer or moose or bears or elephants or rhinos. They are only used to kill people.

The public is tired of all the excuses by the NRA and gun lobby groups. The laws will change the next time the Democrats control all 3 branches of government.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Military assault weapons are high powered. The muzzle speed causes extensive internal damage to soft tissue targets.
> 
> (The above has been well documented on previous CMF threads)
> 
> ...


That is simply not true.

The ammunition was not designed to kill people.
.223 was a target round, adapted for military use as 5.56 
.308 was a hunting round, adopted for military use as 7.62 by NATO

.223 is widely used for varmint hunting and target shooting.
.308 is the most common big game hunting round in North America. 

You're clearly not attempting to discuss any of this in good faith. You're stating outright falsehoods.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I am a hunter and a gun owner. 
Up here in Canada, I and other hunters I know think the US situation is ridiculous, and the loosening of gun laws in Texas more so.
A president with some balls would acknowledge the domestic carnage and provide the leadership to address it.

Added: On a selfish note, the US as an easy source of handguns for Canadian criminals/gangs is raising the possibility of poorly considered more restrictive laws in Canada which would be unfortunate. We'll be able to blame trump and the nra in part, but it will be water under the bridge by then.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> To be honest though, if I lived in the US I would carry a sidearm.
> 
> I would want one in case some weirdo decided to take pot shots at me because he thinks I took his parking spot.
> 
> That is sort of the problem. People carry weapons because everyone else is carrying weapons.


Yes, exactly. Having lived in the US myself, I can say that's exactly the mind set you get. Since there are so many people around you carrying guns, you feel like you should probably get one to defend yourself from the other people. It also contributes to a general level of anxiety & fear in society at large.

You have to be somewhat afraid of everyone, because any nut you encounter might have a gun. If you get in an argument with someone on the street, they might have a gun. If someone breaks into your house at night, even just for mild burglary, they might have a gun. If one of your coworkers is going through a bad divorce and comes to work fuming with rage, they might have a gun.

I hated that feeling.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> That is simply not true.
> 
> The ammunition was not designed to kill people.
> .223 was a target round, adapted for military use as 5.56
> ...




please tell us mister Matt, are you an advocate of open carry .:biggrin:

do you think we should have open carry in canada? after all, to hear you tell it, the ammunition was never designed to kill people. And canadians do need to protect themselves from varmints. Never know when a varmint might prowl nearby. Bloor Street, Bay Street, Sparks Street, gotta keep that sidearm at the ready.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> please tell us mister Matt, are you an advocate of open carry .:biggrin:
> 
> do you think we should have open carry in canada? after all, to hear you tell it, the ammunition was never designed to kill people. And canadians do need to protect themselves from varmints. Never know when a varmint might prowl nearby. Bloor Street, Bay Street, Sparks Street, gotta keep that sidearm at the ready.


No, I'm not a proponent for open carry in general.
It's already illegal to have a loaded firearm of any type in Toronto.

Open carry of handguns is legal for very few people in very specific circumstances, for urban areas I think open carry should be restricted to uniformed individuals.

Personally I think properly trained and screened people should be allowed concealed carry. 
Right now this is basically limited to active law enforcement under the direction of the appropriate supervisor.

I think this could and should be opened up, particularly for those with advanced training, specific needs, or in remote areas where there is a potential need.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> That is simply not true.
> 
> The ammunition was not designed to kill people.
> .223 was a target round, adapted for military use as 5.56
> ...


Quite frankly, you are splitting hairs, and ignoring the issue. The ammunition isn't the issue. The problem is the type of weapon being used. To say that the ammo being used not being designed to kill people is like saying a grenade isn't designed to kill people. It is designed to disperse metal shrapnel with explosive force. 

If you can't tell the difference in accuracy and damage that can be done by a rifle/carbine vs a handgun, then maybe you should look a bit more into it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Poking holes in people tends to be detrimental to their health, any claims about whether ammunition was designed that way aside.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Many surgeons have discussed the horrific damage they see in the victims of these high velocity weapons.

The old war movies and westerns show a country "doctor" fixing a wound by giving the guy a shot of whiskey and a piece of leather to bite down on.

Remove the bullet, seal the wound and people could survive if vital organs weren't punctured.

With these high velocity weapons, the surgeons attending the victims describe an unholy mess inside the victim. 

They have to pick small pieces of shrapnel from all over the place. When the hospitals describe "critical injury" they mean it is a damn mess to try to fix.

The experts say it is not so much the ammunition, but the high muzzle velocity and the ability to shoot hundreds of rounds that is so dangerous with these weapons.

There is a reason they are the weapon of choice by these "shooters". There is no reason or need why the public should possess them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Many surgeons have discussed the horrific damage they see in the victims of these high velocity weapons.
> 
> The old war movies and westerns show a country "doctor" fixing a wound by giving the guy a shot of whiskey and a piece of leather to bite down on.
> 
> ...


The reason they're a weapon of choice is because they think they make them look cool.
But you're missing the point.

The people who commit these crimes, in Canada, SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS!

Why do we let them have those guns?
Why don't we put them in jail when we find them with guns?

In Canada the vast majority of shooters were under surveillance, or previously convicted of other, often violent, crimes.
But we have courts striking down sentences for violent crimes and letting murders off.

Put the criminals in jail, and the vast majority of gun crime (almost all crime) would be off our streets.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This is the kind of dangerous nonsense the police have to deal with in "open carry" States.

These two fools are tying up at least 3 police vehicles. There are more videos like it.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Personally I think properly trained and screened people should be allowed concealed carry.
> Right now this is basically limited to active law enforcement under the direction of the appropriate supervisor.
> 
> I think this could and should be opened up, particularly for those with advanced training, specific needs, or in remote areas where there is a potential need.



do u think u are a candidate for concealed carry mister Matt

u don't seem to be located in a remote area but perhaps you could apply for advanced training as a party with a specific need. Needs to voice disturbed & aggressive obsession with the prime minister of canada.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I hope our law enforcement is keeping an eye on social media for gun-obsessed people who show out-of-the-ordinary anger towards politicians.

For example, a Brampton MPP was just confronted by a highly agitated man who came at him with bizarre, alt-right islamophobic slurs. I fear that someone will try to hurt one of our politicians, as has already happened in the UK (murdered a pro-immigration MP) as well as Germany, where another pro-immigration politician was recently shot and killed this summer.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It's a lot easier for police in Canada. You walk down the street with an assault weapon and you are heading for jail.

No discussions about your Constitutional rights and all that. It is "put your hands behind your back" time.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> I hope our law enforcement is keeping an eye on social media for gun-obsessed people who show out-of-the-ordinary anger towards politicians.
> 
> For example, a Brampton MPP was just confronted by a highly agitated man who came at him with bizarre, alt-right islamophobic slurs. I fear that someone will try to hurt one of our politicians, as has already happened in the UK (murdered a pro-immigration MP) as well as Germany, where another pro-immigration politician was recently shot and killed this summer.



this ^^ is why i didn't agree with your post in another thread that inflammatory hate-trudeau posts in social media are "funny."

me i do not consider them to be funny. I see these posts as deliberately designed to harm.

i remember posting, during the 2015 election campaign, that i would be happy with whichever candidate - trudeau, harper, mulcair - would win. It would never have occurred to me to threaten the well-being of stephen harper, if he had been elected, or the well-being of thomas mulcair either. On the contrary, i would have deeply respected the office of the prime minister & the worth of the person who had been democratically elected to occupy it.

flash forward four years & justin trudeau is being bombarded with all manner of threats & lies. Some time ago, security had to remove Sophie & the children from public view, save & except for exceptional circumstances, because threats to the family have become so dangerous. 

right now 2 cmffers are saying that trudeau has to be a drug addict because ... because ... well, they have no evidence but the PM is such a POS that hey, he must also be a drug addict, right.

somebody else is saying that kevin o'leary had to be drunk & driving the boat the night of the fatal accident but now he's trying to stick the blame on his wife ... because ... well, the police haven't even laid charges yet but o'leary is such a POS that hey, he had to be the one driving the death boat, right

i don't know what to call this social media lynch mobbing. I don't think it has a name yet, other than i'm-rubbing-you-out-je-t'efface.

.

.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It's a lot easier for police in Canada. You walk down the street with an assault weapon and you are heading for jail.
> 
> No discussions about your Constitutional rights and all that. It is "put your hands behind your back" time.


I wish that was the case.
We have people getting caught with prohibited weapons, and they're out the same day.

The mosque shooter didn't even get 7 years per victim.

We have a complete failure to enforce our laws and protect the citizenry.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> this ^^ is why i didn't agree with your post in another thread that inflammatory hate-trudeau posts in social media are "funny."
> 
> me i do not consider them to be funny. I see these posts as deliberately designed to harm.
> 
> ...


Well, I wasn't happy Trudeau won, I was a bit disappointed, but I though cooler heads would prevail and keep him from doing anything too bad. Unfortunately I think he's done a horrible job.
I don't want anything bad to him, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he's working to what he believes is the best interest of Canada, and we should thank him for that. But I really think it would be better if someone else was in the PMO.
Heck I'm sure there are likely some decent Liberals in the party that would do a not-worse job.

Threats are unacceptable, and should be prosecuted.
Lies are not acceptable.
Criticism and negative opinions are perfectly fine.

I think Trudeau is a lot of things, but a drug addict, no.Maybe an attention junkie, and a whole bunch of worse things.

I know he smokes pot, and I think he likely still smokes it. 
I think that because I don't really trust him, I believe it is more plausible than not that he smoked in the past, assuming that it seems likely he still does.

I know very few people who meet these 3 criteria. 
1. Are aware of the health risks in young adults (as Trudeau should be) 
2. Who are for pot legalization.
3. Who don't themselves smoke pot.

Most people who are for pot legalization don't believe there is a significant health risk. Of those who understand there are significant health risks, every person I personally know who supports legalization, smokes it.
In my opinion and experience, you're for it because there is no problem, because you want to smoke it, or pure political reasons and you don't care about health.

If he never smoked it, and simply lied to everyone to be cool, or relateable, that's a possibility, but unlikely due to his personality and the social circles runs in.


I actually think the level of political discourse would be much higher if people didn't lie, but many people are so passionate that they insist on doing so.
I'd like to point out when I missed the dates on Trudeau getting elected, I admitted my mistake.
I'd like it if people supported their positions, but most people simply don't.
The problem is it is really hard to tell the truth from the lies, and media isn't always clear about their bias.


As far as people who follow politics "being happy with whomever wins", I think that you're a rarity.
I think people like you exist, but many people are on the spectrum of mildly annoyed to near PTSD. 
At the time I was mildly annoyed. If he wins a second time, I'll be about as annoyed as I was when Dalton McGuinty was re-elected in Ontario, which was slightly more, but not enough to make me use profanity.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> this ^^ is why i didn't agree with your post in another thread that inflammatory hate-trudeau posts in social media are "funny."
> 
> me i do not consider them to be funny. I see these posts as deliberately designed to harm.


You're right humble_pie and I'm changing my view on this. I thought some of this stuff was amusing before, but now I see it differently.

And for the record, I can live with Scheer being PM. It's not my preference, but it certainly wouldn't drive me mad.

I think we should be concerned about the people who are apparently driven into frothy madness by Trudeau as PM. That's not a healthy reaction.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I assume by health risks, you mean the elevated risk of psychosis for those young people predisposed to schizophrenia?

I meet your three criteria, I just don't believe the health risks are severe enough to warrant prohibition. Not the least of which due to the fact that prohibition has no effect on the number of at risk youth consuming marijuana. You could pursue draconian measures to reduce consumption, but that would likely have worse outcomes than the status quo in destroyed lives
Never mind that alcohol harms more young people than marijuana.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I think we should be concerned about the people who are apparently driven into frothy madness by Trudeau as PM. That's not a healthy reaction.


Ditto for Trump. He was elected by the will of the people. Some might not like the guy, but get over it. I have never seen the losing side continuing their attack on their opponent with such vehemence for so long after the election. Maybe part of the plan is to give him no chance to be president. He has had to devote most of his days in office to fighting a rearguard action waged by his opponents. And, for reasons not clear to me, Canadians seem more on the warpath against Trump than Americans, by a long shot. The term "frothy madness" is apt. So is "rabid". Canadian views about Trump are scary.

I neither like nor dislike Trump, Trudeau or anyone else. I do not approve of any politicians and I do not vote in elections at any level, not since I first voted, just for the novelty, at about age 21. Best just to ignore them all. I do not want to waste my time thinking about them, listening to them, or reading about them. They are in it for themselves and their friends, full stop. None is much different from another.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I assume by health risks, you mean the elevated risk of psychosis for those young people predisposed to schizophrenia?
> 
> I meet your three criteria, I just don't believe the health risks are severe enough to warrant prohibition. Not the least of which due to the fact that prohibition has no effect on the number of at risk youth consuming marijuana. You could pursue draconian measures to reduce consumption, but that would likely have worse outcomes than the status quo in destroyed lives
> Never mind that alcohol harms more young people than marijuana.


Well then you're clearly in the minority, though one could argue you're just minimizing the health impact.

I do agree that the debate should be what sort of prohibition is appropriate for the level of risk, however we never had an honest debate on that issue.
I'm more concerned about the push to decriminalize all drugs. I want fentanyl and other dangerous drugs to be restricted. 

I think there should be a line where the risks become sufficient to warrant government restrictions. I am all for discussing what they should be, but that debate didn't happen for Marijuanna, and I'm concerned it won't happen for the other drugs.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Ditto for Trump. He was elected by the will of the people. Some might not like the guy, but get over it. I have never seen the losing side continuing their attack on their opponent with such vehemence for so long after the election. Maybe part of the plan is to give him no chance to be president. He has had to devote most of his days in office to fighting a rearguard action waged by his opponents. And, for reasons not clear to me, Canadians seem more on the warpath against Trump than Americans, by a long shot. The term "frothy madness" is apt. So is "rabid". Canadian views about Trump are scary.
> 
> I neither like nor dislike Trump, Trudeau or anyone else. I do not approve of any politicians and I do not vote in elections at any level, not since I first voted, just for the novelty, at about age 21. Best just to ignore them all. I do not want to waste my time thinking about them, listening to them, or reading about them. They are in it for themselves and their friends, full stop. None is much different from another.


Odd how Trump speaks for the will of the people when he had millions fewer votes. He speaks for the electoral college maybe, but not the people.

And BS on the losing side not continuing their attack after they lost the election. Trump himself engaged in quasi-racist birther conspiracy theories many years after Obama's election.

Trump has been no friend of Canada. I would say it is stranger that so many Canadians are big Trump fans. I mean, Trump has delivered on a pipeline like many Conservatives dreamed he might.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Well then you're clearly in the minority, though one could argue you're just minimizing the health impact.
> 
> I do agree that the debate should be what sort of prohibition is appropriate for the level of risk, however we never had an honest debate on that issue.
> I'm more concerned about the push to decriminalize all drugs. I want fentanyl and other dangerous drugs to be restricted.
> ...


I would prefer an approach that is more focused on harm reduction. That might mean decriminalization, but it surely does not mean jailing users instead of providing treatment options or addressing underlying causes of drug abuse.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Odd how Trump speaks for the will of the people when he had millions fewer votes. He speaks for the electoral college maybe, but not the people.
> 
> And BS on the losing side not continuing their attack after they lost the election. Trump himself engaged in quasi-racist birther conspiracy theories many years after Obama's election.
> 
> Trump has been no friend of Canada. I would say it is stranger that so many Canadians are big Trump fans. I mean, Trump has delivered on a pipeline like many Conservatives dreamed he might.


Well, if U.S. elections are not democratic, then Trump got in under the same rules as others before him. 

As for BS, I was not aware that Trump ever lost to Obama. Nor was I aware that his party howled for years and saw rallies in the streets against the president the way we have seen since he was elected. 

I am no fan of Trump, or any other politician. I choose to ignore them all. I don't work myself into a lather over disliking any of them. What I am seeing in Canada concerning Trump is seething hate. I find it a bit unsettling. I hate no one. It's an onerous thing to carry. And dangerous.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The game is rigged in favour of republicans. They are able to win the executive and both branches of the legislative branch with less popular support in all three. Whether it is democratic or not, it is not accurate to say that Trump ever demonstrated or enjoyed the support of the people.

Trump was among the 'losing side' as he demonstrated opposition to Obama, including spreading specious and racist rumours questioning Obama's citizenship and academic record (the audacity of an incurious barely-literate like Trump questioning Obama's academic achievement). Obama saw many rallies (remember the Tea Party) against him, including much insane conspiracy theories such as Obama planning to round people up and put them in FEMA concentration camps (any day now, boys). If you think there is some special persecution of Trump, then you haven't been paying attention. I have never seen a President have opposition that is so appropriate and measured, given their behaviour. And republican support of him is completely unprincipled. For instance, many of the people criticized Obama for trying to thaw relations with Russia prior to the invasion of Georgia are supporting Trump's cozy relationship with Putin now. Apparently Russia and North Korea have warmer relations with the US administration than most of the US' traditional allies. 

Best case, Trump is just a waste of 4-8 years in global progress. Worst case, he has done permanent, irreparable damage to the global order that has provided an unparalleled period of peace and prosperity. I'm sure the world will be much better with a belligerent China free to dominate its neighbours, Russia threatening its near abroad, and more countries seeking their own nuclear deterrent due to a deterioration in their once solid belief that the US would protect them. Will Poland have to get their own nukes to deter Russia? Same for South Korea and Japan? What about a bloody invasion/"reunification" of Taiwan invited by US waffling? Hong Kong is going to provide a preview of the lengths China is willing to go to when soft power and incrementalism fails.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Yes, exactly. Having lived in the US myself, I can say that's exactly the mind set you get. Since there are so many people around you carrying guns, you feel like you should probably get one to defend yourself from the other people. It also contributes to a general level of anxiety & fear in society at large.
> 
> You have to be somewhat afraid of everyone, because any nut you encounter might have a gun. If you get in an argument with someone on the street, they might have a gun. If someone breaks into your house at night, even just for mild burglary, they might have a gun. If one of your coworkers is going through a bad divorce and comes to work fuming with rage, they might have a gun.
> 
> I hated that feeling.


Here's the thing I don't understand. A lot of people say they are in favour of carrying a gun because anyone on the street might have on and bad intentions. I get that thought. But I have yet to see a news story where a law abiding citizen pulled out a gun they were legally carrying and shot say that guy who 'comes to work fuming with rage' and who started shooting co-workers. 

Where are all these people who are legally carrying a gun, when they are needed? Not ONE has ever returned fire as far as I know.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

you obviously don't watch "The Rifleman" re-runs, with Chuck Connors...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> Here's the thing I don't understand. A lot of people say they are in favour of carrying a gun because anyone on the street might have on and bad intentions. I get that thought. But I have yet to see a news story where a law abiding citizen pulled out a gun they were legally carrying and shot say that guy who 'comes to work fuming with rage' and who started shooting co-workers.
> 
> Where are all these people who are legally carrying a gun, when they are needed? Not ONE has ever returned fire as far as I know.


Never mind that if you start firing your own weapon during an active shooter situation, in the confusion others and/or police might believe you are the original shooter and fire on you in turn. The idea of a 'good guy with a gun' stopping the bad guy is a misleading power fantasy. It just turns the situation into pandemonium.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Never mind that if you start firing your own weapon during an active shooter situation, in the confusion others and/or police might believe you are the original shooter and fire on you in turn. The idea of a 'good guy with a gun' stopping the bad guy is a misleading power fantasy. It just turns the situation into pandemonium.


It is indeed just a fantasy. And I believe that experienced gun owners know the serious consequences of pulling out your gun and shooting someone in a confused situation like that. You could kill an innocent person (misread of situation), hit a bystander, kill a child, get charged with murder, etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Police officers are getting shot. There were armed people in the Walmart who didn't get a chance to fire back. 

Why not let people own rocket launchers and surface to air missiles ? Why stop at military grade weapons ?

The arguments presented by the NRA and wild eyed gun owners (a small minority) aren't serious enough to consider.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Here's the thing I don't understand. A lot of people say they are in favour of carrying a gun because anyone on the street might have on and bad intentions. I get that thought. But I have yet to see a news story where a law abiding citizen pulled out a gun they were legally carrying and shot say that guy who 'comes to work fuming with rage' and who started shooting co-workers.
> 
> Where are all these people who are legally carrying a gun, when they are needed? Not ONE has ever returned fire as far as I know.


It happens all the time but the far left media you follow don't bother reporting those instances. There are countless documented cases you can find in 30 seconds on the internet.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I would prefer an approach that is more focused on harm reduction. That might mean decriminalization, but it surely does not mean jailing users instead of providing treatment options or addressing underlying causes of drug abuse.


I'm all for harm reduction.
But it should be strategies that could conceivably work.

Legalization of pot did not reduce harm from a health perspective, if anything it increased harm from a health perspective.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> Here's the thing I don't understand. A lot of people say they are in favour of carrying a gun because anyone on the street might have on and bad intentions. I get that thought. But I have yet to see a news story where a law abiding citizen pulled out a gun they were legally carrying and shot say that guy who 'comes to work fuming with rage' and who started shooting co-workers.
> 
> Where are all these people who are legally carrying a gun, when they are needed? Not ONE has ever returned fire as far as I know.


Then you aren't searching enough ...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/alabama-mcdonalds-gunman-killed-by-armed-dad-who-is-injured-in-shootout
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...roger-shooting-heres-what-we-know/1754676002/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/?page=1


It's foolproof as a drug informant unknowingly gave the police a county sherrif's deputy's address for a drug bust where the police would share in anything confiscated. The deputy later said that had the gun been closer at hand, there would have been a fire fight as if they called "Police" while breaking the door down, it wasn't heard.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> andrewf said:
> 
> 
> > Never mind that if you start firing your own weapon during an active shooter situation, in the confusion others and/or police might believe you are the original shooter and fire on you in turn. The idea of a 'good guy with a gun' stopping the bad guy is a misleading power fantasy. It just turns the situation into pandemonium.
> ...


So I guess those reported to have shot back were "inexperienced"?

Fantasy or not ... it happens in the US.


Cheers


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

The Nazis banned guns. Dictators ban guns. The left wants to do the same thing and also limit speech.

It never turns out good for the people when the government takes away guns and freedom of speech


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> The game is rigged in favour of republicans. They are able to win the executive and both branches of the legislative branch with less popular support in all three. Whether it is democratic or not, it is not accurate to say that Trump ever demonstrated or enjoyed the support of the people.
> 
> Trump was among the 'losing side' as he demonstrated opposition to Obama, including spreading specious and racist rumours questioning Obama's citizenship and academic record (the audacity of an incurious barely-literate like Trump questioning Obama's academic achievement). Obama saw many rallies (remember the Tea Party) against him, including much insane conspiracy theories such as Obama planning to round people up and put them in FEMA concentration camps (any day now, boys). If you think there is some special persecution of Trump, then you haven't been paying attention. I have never seen a President have opposition that is so appropriate and measured, given their behaviour. And republican support of him is completely unprincipled. For instance, many of the people criticized Obama for trying to thaw relations with Russia prior to the invasion of Georgia are supporting Trump's cozy relationship with Putin now. Apparently Russia and North Korea have warmer relations with the US administration than most of the US' traditional allies.
> 
> Best case, Trump is just a waste of 4-8 years in global progress. Worst case, he has done permanent, irreparable damage to the global order that has provided an unparalleled period of peace and prosperity. I'm sure the world will be much better with a belligerent China free to dominate its neighbours, Russia threatening its near abroad, and more countries seeking their own nuclear deterrent due to a deterioration in their once solid belief that the US would protect them. Will Poland have to get their own nukes to deter Russia? Same for South Korea and Japan? What about a bloody invasion/"reunification" of Taiwan invited by US waffling? Hong Kong is going to provide a preview of the lengths China is willing to go to when soft power and incrementalism fails.


In the US the president is selected by the EC, that's the game they're playing. The popular vote percentage is not what matters.
Look at Canada, we rarely get a PM who's party gets a majority of the popular vote. 

If the goal is to win the popular vote, different strategies would be employed.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I'm all for harm reduction.
> But it should be strategies that could conceivably work.
> 
> Legalization of pot did not reduce harm from a health perspective, if anything it increased harm from a health perspective.


Did it though? Evidence? It is still early days in legalization, besides. Are you familiar with the experience with decriminalization in Portugal?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> In the US the president is selected by the EC, that's the game they're playing. The popular vote percentage is not what matters.
> Look at Canada, we rarely get a PM who's party gets a majority of the popular vote.
> 
> If the goal is to win the popular vote, different strategies would be employed.


But, if the popular vote doesn't matter much in what is supposed to be in theory a direct election, that kinda calls into question the legitimacy of the process. In Canada, we have a Parliamentary system where we exercise our democratic right through our MPs. We don't elect PMs. Americans elect their Presidents directly, only the process places huge discounts on some voters. It is a bit odd that every elected branch of government provides a systemic advantage to one side, which also happens to be the side that has a strong advantage wrt moneyed interests.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> It is a bit odd that every elected branch of government provides a systemic advantage to one side, which also happens to be the side that has a strong advantage wrt moneyed interests.


True. Hillary won an overwhelming portion of the ridings made up of rich elites. Trump won more ridings in flyover country...people with less money.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

One Koch down, one to go.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> But, if the popular vote doesn't matter much in what is supposed to be in theory a direct election, that kinda calls into question the legitimacy of the process. In Canada, we have a Parliamentary system where we exercise our democratic right through our MPs. We don't elect PMs. Americans elect their Presidents directly, only the process places huge discounts on some voters. It is a bit odd that every elected branch of government provides a systemic advantage to one side, which also happens to be the side that has a strong advantage wrt moneyed interests.


But it isn't supposed to be a direct election.
Also if they were to do a real direct election, they'd have to synchonize voter requirement and laws nationally, which is unlikely to happen.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Did it though? Evidence? It is still early days in legalization, besides. Are you familiar with the experience with decriminalization in Portugal?


yes, I'll get a one line summary from the person who wrote the policy.

“Decriminalization is not a silver bullet,” he said. “If you decriminalize and do nothing else, things will get worse."

It's the other stuff you have to do to make things better, things like mandatory treatment.
We don't have mandatory treatment in Canada, and there is NO willingness to implement it.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> One Koch down, one to go.


Those who lean left really like to celebrate the death of people they think are right of center.

Koch gave $150 million to a cancer center that the leftist supreme court judge Ginsburg was treated at. I guess her partisanship only goes so far


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is that the same RBG whose cancer diagnosis has right wingers salivating?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> But it isn't supposed to be a direct election.
> Also if they were to do a real direct election, they'd have to synchonize voter requirement and laws nationally, which is unlikely to happen.


How is it not a direct election? Voters are placing a mark beside the name of the presidential candidate, not some faceless, nameless elector. The process is a travesty.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Those who lean left really like to celebrate the death of people they think are right of center.
> 
> Koch gave $150 million to a cancer center that the leftist supreme court judge Ginsburg was treated at. I guess her partisanship only goes so far


Koch must have been a Democrat according to your logic. One of the biggest spenders on buying political influence.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Koch must have been a Democrat according to your logic. One of the biggest spenders on buying political influence.


A lot of their recent money went to the Democrats.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> How is it not a direct election? Voters are placing a mark beside the name of the presidential candidate, not some faceless, nameless elector. The process is a travesty.


You're the one arguing it that it is supposed to be a direct election, but that isn't the system they put in place.

But it isn't, the states choose electors, and they choose the president.
If you don't like how the states select their electors, that's a different issue.

Yes the process is a mess, but it was set up in a time where communication was different.

Also, since different states have different laws the votes aren't equal.

If a state does not require any ID to vote, I would suggest there is a higher probability of voter fraud.


----------

