# Texas Shooting



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Okay, a few have posted, but I think the Texas shooting shows EXACTLY what is wrong with the US perspective on gun control.









Uvalde shooting: Texas police change key details as criticism mounts


Officials due to speak amid questions over why officers took more than an hour to stop the attack.



www.bbc.com





Bad guy got a gun.
Walks into school unopposed 
why weren't the doors locked?
Where was the security.

Police then stood outside and waited an HOUR for the tactical team to show up.

They detailed, tased and handcuffed parents who wanted immediate action.
Police spent more time stopping the parents from doing anything than actually working to stop the shooter.

They broke policy again by not immediately engaging with the active shooter, which has been the accepted standard practice for over 20 years.


It is actually unbelievable that the police not only let a shooter move freely through the school for over an hour, but actively stopped others from doing anything to help.
I hope that the investigation results in those who assisted this killer being held responsible.

I know it's too much to hope for but I'd love to see some charges of aiding and abetting for the police leadership that AGAIN failed to do their job.

This is why the US needs more access to guns, their law enforcement is not capable or willing to protect the public.


Honestly at the point where the police are actively blocking people from rescuing the kids, we're VERY lucky it didn't get worse.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ..._ This is why the US needs more access to guns, their law enforcement is not capable or willing to protect the public._ ...


 ... first part - who are you referring to " ... _needs more access to guns"_? Citizens with their rights to bear arms and more arms (in the USA)? So they can take the laws into their own hands and have weekly shootouts ... at the supermarkets, at schools, car meets, or better yet, car jacking, armed robberies, <have your pick here> etc. I hope you realize that disturbed 18 year old shooter was able to "legally" obtain his assault rifles the minute he turned of age. You know you can't deny him the right to bear arms.

Second part ... their law enforcement is not capable or willing to protect the public - might want to ask "why's that" and then refer to your early complaints on this forum about "the problem of certain sectors or groups in the population wanting to "defund the police"".

*Bottomline*: the cops didn't act there because there's a certain "culture" ingrained there. I'm sure if the school was next to Mar-la-go or the NRA's headquarters, the entire state's policeforce would be there. Plus your thinking with that sentence is either warped or convoluted or possibly both. And I'm being polite here.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The police keep changing the story line, so it is difficult to tell what actually happened.

The press conference with Governor Abbott was disgusting. It was a photo opp with a dozen law enforcement and politicians telling the public what a perfect job they did "running towards the gunfire", and that liberal gun laws in Texas weren't a factor at all in the rampage.

It appears the police at the site were outgunned and would have been slaughtered if they went in. They had to wait for a tactical team with more powerful weapons. Any parents allowed to charge in would have been killed and people would be outraged the police let them enter. The gunman was barricaded in a classroom with kids and teachers, and could use kids as human shields. What were parents with guns going to do in that situation......start blasting away ?

Senator Ted Cruz and others are talking about "one door" access at schools, but there are many issues with that as a "simple" solution.

For example......fire codes. There would have to be other doors, even if they only open from the inside. There are also windows in schools, so presumably he wouldn't want any windows. The kids go outside for recess and lunch, so presumably he would keep all the kids inside all day. The kids arrive to the schools and leave the schools.....so they would be vulnerable at those times of day. They would need armed guards and a secure perimeter for blocks around the school.

The only way to keep the kids secure would be to replicate maximum security prisons......with perimeter fencing with armed guards on patrol. There would have to be a walled in "play yard" for the kids to go for recess, lunch, or outside activities. Every school would need a contingent of heavily armed security guards.

Basically, Cruz wants to make every school look like a marine outpost in Iraq.

Spread that kind of idea across the entire US and consider the scope required for that "solution".

It also doesn't protect kids and other people in shopping malls, parks, churches, or anywhere else that people gather.

It seems like a lot of complex and expensive infrastructure to stop 18 year olds from buying automatic weapons and killing people.

Why not just make it far more difficult to buy certain types of weapons, like we do in Canada ? Why not require extensive background checks ?

If the gun lobby won't agree to that......they won't agree to anything.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Incidentally, there was a gunman shot and killed by police in the GTA who was near a school. Fortunately the police were not outgunned in Canada.

It looked like it might have been a "copycat" attempt.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The police keep changing the story line, so it is difficult to tell what actually happened.
> 
> The press conference with Governor Abbott was disgusting. It was a photo opp with a dozen law enforcement and politicians on stage to tell people what a perfect job they did, and that liberal gun laws in Texas weren't a factor at all in the rampage.


Which Liberal gun law in Texas was a factor?

Was it the FBI background check that was the problem?
Was it the law against bringing the gun onto school property?
Tresspassing?
Murder?

Really I want to know, what Liberal Texas law was the problem?



> It appears the police at the site were outgunned and would have been slaughtered if they went in.


No they weren't, their handguns were more than sufficient.
Most of the time an active shooter is stopped by one or two officers with handguns.

Look at the situation in Vaughn, police with handguns confronted and stopped a guy with a rifle.



> They had to wait for a tactical team with more powerful weapons. Any parents allowed to charge in would have been killed and people would be outraged the police let them enter.


They didn't need to wait, and policy is not to wait.
They broke policy.

Good thing that OFF DUTY Border Patrol guy showed up.



> Why not just make it far more difficult to buy certain types of weapons, like we do in Canada ?


Because the type of firearm was mostly irrelevant.
You let a murderer wander around for an hour unopposed he could have killed just as many kids with a kitchen knife.



> If the gun lobby won't agree to that......they won't agree to anything.


What about the type of weapon made it more dangerous.
Honestly in that situation an AR15 wasn't the best choice anyway[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Incidentally, there was a gunman shot and killed by police in the GTA who was near a school. Fortunately the police were not outgunned in Canada.
> 
> It looked like it might have been a "copycat" attempt.


Fortunately the police in the GTA acted instead of waiting an hour for a Tactical team.

Also we don't know what gun he had, but most likely it was as powerful or MORE powerful than an AR-15.

Remember that .223 is one of the weakest commonly available centerfire rifle cartridges. It is most useful for shooting paper or gophers.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After giving his "politcal" solution at a press conference with reporters, Senator Ted Cruz was asked why this type of school shootings (27 this year already) doesn't happen in other countries where there are also issues with mental health, drug addiction, etc.

He responded by telling the reporter that was a political agenda question and walked away.

Cruz and others are scheduled to speak at an NRA convention. It will be interesting what they say there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Fortunately the police in the GTA acted instead of waiting an hour for a Tactical team.
> 
> Also we don't know what gun he had, but most likely it was as powerful or MORE powerful than an AR-15.
> 
> Remember that .223 is one of the weakest commonly available centerfire rifle cartridges. It is most useful for shooting paper or gophers.


The guy in the GTA had a pellet gun, and the problem with AR15s is the number of rounds they fire and the damage they can produce in a few seconds.

Reports are that the victims in the school were so riddled with gun shot wounds it took hours and parents to ID them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Texas gun laws were further relaxed after the school shooting.

Last September they passed an "open carry" law for handguns without training or permits.

Basically, you can walk around with a gun and the police can't even approach you to investigate.

Imagine being a parent of a kid who is getting into trouble and doesn't want to follow any rules, and having them return home from Walmart with a gun.

After all, this kid shot his grandmother in the face because she was talking to the cell provider about his cell phone bill.


----------



## Thal81 (Sep 5, 2017)

It seems the official line in Texas is still "Guns are fine, it's people that are bad". They were interviewing a Canadian woman living down there, she was saying the next step should be to arm teachers to dissuade shooters. Like, she is totally absorbed in the gun carrying culture. Bunch of lunatics down there.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Texas gun laws were further relaxed after the school shooting.
> 
> Last September they passed an "open carry" law for handguns without training or permits.
> 
> *Basically, you can walk around with a gun and the police can't even approach you to investigate.*


 ... only if you have any resemblance to a rAEdneck that the cops there don't approach you. Otherwise, state troopers will stop your vehicle questioning and asking for ID on the old broads sitting in the back of the vehicle in the lucky event (for the cop on duty) both are illegal aliens to be caught. That's what they do best - tracking illegal aliens disguised as doing duty curtailing human trafficking, right in downtown Dallas. Okee.

Btw, most Texans don't know where Toronto, Ontario is. Only Canada is somewhere north of them. LMAO.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Okay, a few have posted, but I think the Texas shooting shows EXACTLY what is wrong with the US perspective on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent questions. I winter in south Texas and I am pretty sure every school in our county has strict security standards. The school yards are fenced with chain link fences. Entering school is like going through airport security for visitors. There was some serious negligence at this school.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Thal81 said:


> It seems the official line in Texas is still "Guns are fine, it's people that are bad". They were interviewing a Canadian woman living down there, she was saying the next step should be to arm teachers to dissuade shooters. Like, she is totally absorbed in the gun carrying culture. Bunch of lunatics down there.


Well no **&(, that's obvious.

When you have armed killers walk into schools, and the police sit outside stopping the parents from taking action for OVER AN HOUR. Maybe the teachers can do something.

The thing is with the whole "do something" crowd is they don't actually want to DO ANYTHING.

What should have happened here is the school security should have stopped him, the police should have stormed the building AS SOON AS POSSILBE, in line with the standard procedures for active school shooters.

They broke policy, people died.
You can't trust the government and police to protect you.

Lets say you have a problem, you call police, they refuse to respond. 
Now what?

I'd bet most of the children were killed while the police sat outside stopping the public from helping.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The tragic history of the AR15 semiautomatic weapon.

Most gun deaths are caused by hand guns, but the AR15 is the weapon of choice for mass killing shooters.

_Dubbed "America's Rifle" by the NRA__, the *AR-15 is popular** for its easy-to-modify design and lack of recoil or "blowback" after firing, which preserves the operator's aim and makes the shot more precise*, as The Washington Post detailed in a Q & A on the firearm. 

While the AR-15 is not a machine gun, a user can modify the AR-15 to approximate the function of an automatic gun by attaching a device called a "bump stock", as was the case in the Las Vegas shooting._









Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012


Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.



www.usatoday.com


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... only if you have any resemblance to a rAEdneck that the cops there don't approach you. Otherwise, state troopers will stop your vehicle questioning and asking for ID on the old broads sitting in the back of the vehicle in the lucky event (for the cop on duty) both are illegal aliens to be caught. That's what they do best - tracking illegal aliens disguised as doing duty curtailing human trafficking, right in downtown Dallas. Okee.
> 
> Btw, most Texans don't know where Toronto, Ontario is. Only Canada is somewhere north of them. LMAO.


When you had Ford for mayor everyone knew about Toronto. With Vaddie Guerro playing ball in Toronto the latino population knows were Toronto is.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Is the number of guns in the US the problem? The Culture? It’s always shocking to see the data compared to other similar countries. It’s crazy that there hasn’t been anything meaningful done to lower the rates of violence.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Wasn’t there an armed guard in Buffalo too? Maybe he helped the lower the number of dead, but can you really prepare for someone With a lot of ammo and/or multiple firearms? the guard lost his life and there were still many killed.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Is the number of guns in the US the problem? The Culture? It’s always shocking to see the data compared to other similar countries. It’s crazy that there hasn’t been anything meaningful done to lower the rates of violence.


The Democrats are actively anti gun, presidential candidates on on the record saying "we are coming for your guns".
As extremists, nobody really expects them to engage in good faith negotiations.
Top that off with nonsensical regulations, and a failure to even propose common sense gun control, and of course it's going nowhere.

If there was actually a proposal for real policy to help they would have broad support.

But like Canada the politicians are playing games, they don't care about solving the problem.

heck we ban guns based on their appearance. 
The AR15 is no more deadly than other hunting rifles, if anything it's less powerful than most.
But it makes a really good screenshot, and they run with it.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Why does this seem to happen predominantly in the US? Surely, the sheer number of guns is PART of the issue isn’t it?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The future schools in America........as per the NRA and gun lobby.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Guns are the obvious rallying point but there is a far bigger issue and it is a cultural issue. Why is the USA and other countries seeing an epidemic of crazed young men restoring to doing such evil. I suspect for many the home or family situation is non-existent or dysfunctional, for many their world centres around violent ideologies games and dark stuff for entertainment , then you add in social isolation, bullying and drugs and the only thing missing is throwing the match into the gasoline. In the modern secular society the answers to this problem are off side because we might get into questions of moral standards, guidance, love and discipline. I suspect this young man was missing out on a whole pile of that stuff.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> This is why the US needs more access to guns


Most non-sense conclusion I've heard this year.

I don't think it's even worth replying to this.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Why does this seem to happen predominantly in the US? Surely, the sheer number of guns is PART of the issue isn’t it?


Possibly.

But of those half a billion civilian guns in the US, only a handful are used this way.
The real question is why do the handful of people who commit these crimes do so, and what can be done about them.

I really think for these exceedingly rare circumstances you have to understand why they happened. Broad strokes don't explain it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Most non-sense conclusion I've heard this year.
> 
> I don't think it's even worth replying to this.


The fact that there was nobody with a gun trying to protect the kids is the problem.

If police won't step in to stop these killers, maybe arming the teachers is the only hope.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Why did Democrats want to remove cops from schools? The only reason seems to be so that they can use a mass shooting as a political talking point. Or maybe it was the fallout from their stupid "defund the police" policy.


----------



## Thal81 (Sep 5, 2017)

The kids shouldn't need protection. It's not normal that schools need metal detectors, locked door and armed guards.

What the hell is wrong in the USA? I found this nice little website with interesting stats. Scroll down to the list of countries and find the outlier datapoint!
School Shootings by Country 2022


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Thal81 said:


> What the hell is wrong in the USA?


They have a two party system where neither party has any incentive to make things better.

At least they killed this guy.

In Canada we let our mass murderers out for a few years.
You know that "bulk discount" when you kill more than one person.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847



Personally I think unusual crimes should get unusual punishments.
It's unusual to kill lots of people, so you should serve an unusual amount of time in prison.

The thing I don't understand is why don't the gun control groups propose and enforce effective gun laws, instead of their focus on eliminating private firearm ownership.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> The fact that there was nobody with a gun trying to protect the kids is the problem.


The fact that this 18-year-young man had guns and even a bulletproof vest is the problem.

You need two things for a shooting to happen:

Someone with mental health issues
A gun
Both issues have to be addressed. One of them is addressed by removing access to guns for civilians.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> The fact that this 18-year-young man had guns and even a bulletproof vest is the problem.
> 
> You need two things for a shooting to happen:
> 
> ...


Americans have a right to guns.

The thing is the vast majority of guns are never used in crime and never hurt anyone.

There is the question of reasonable restrictions, considering all the benefits of guns, and the costs, is it justified to ban guns.
The problem with having an honest discussion is you will have people who lie and say "there is no benefit to gun ownership", how do you debate with these people, they'll NEVER find common ground, because they're extremists.

Gun banners are extremists who you can't come to an agreement with, it is pointless to discuss with them. << That is where some want to have the debate, it's pointless.

Gun control proponents who acknowledge the positive value of firearms can be engaged with, but how do you tell them apart from the prohibitionists?
There is virtually nobody on the pro-gun side who thinks dangerous people should have guns.
These moderate positions need to talk. But the Gun Control side needs to clean up their act and get the extremists out of there.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If you don't want to apply restrictions or ban certain guns, there is no point of debate because they are key issues in finding a solution.

A debate would be pointless if it is all about supporting the status quo.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> There is virtually nobody on the pro-gun side who thinks dangerous people should have guns.


The fact is... You don't know beforehand *who* are the dangerous people and you don't know beforehand *when* will someone become dangerous and you don't know beforehand *what* will trigger them into becoming dangerous and you don't know beforehand *how* it will affect them in their mental health and you don't know beforehand *why* they became dangerous.

One thing we know, though: if someone owns a gun, he is already more dangerous than someone who doesn't own a gun.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> If you don't want to apply restrictions or ban certain guns, there is no point of debate because they are key issues in finding a solution.
> 
> A debate would be pointless if it is all about supporting the status quo.


I do want restrictions and bans on certain guns.

While I want reasonable restrictions on who can have guns, how they can be used and what types are available, I don't think you have that same view.

My take is that you don't think any person should ever have a gun of any type at any time for any reason.

Where is the middle ground?

I've stated this before.
All gun owners should be trained, licensed.
I like that Canada requires the consent of all intimate partners before you get a license.
It's good that you must have your license to buy guns or ammunition.
It's good that your license is subject to continuous background checks.

I'm okay with the ban on automatic firearms.
I am not okay with the bans on ordinary hunting & target rifles.

The one thing I would like to see is for handgun hunting to be legal.
Ideally properly trained and licensed citizens should also be permitted to carry handguns, but that has virtually no chance of coming to be in Canada

Other than the last 2 positions, what do you actually support or disagree with? Where is my position flawed or lacking?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> The fact is... You don't know beforehand *who* are the dangerous people and you don't know beforehand *when* will someone become dangerous and you don't know beforehand *what* will trigger them into becoming dangerous and you don't know beforehand *how* it will affect them in their mental health and you don't know beforehand *why* they became dangerous.
> 
> One thing we know, though: if someone owns a gun, he is already more dangerous than someone who doesn't own a gun.


Yes and that's why we have people who want to take guns from police too.

FYI crime reporting data shows gun owners as a group commit fewer crimes.
There is a rather interesting and popular study showing concealed carry permit holders commit crimes at a lower rate than police.

Given that maybe we should disarm police too, we don't know which ones are going to be suddenly violent, and they do seem to kill a disproportionate number of people.

Just a question, in your magical world where there are no guns at all, do you think it will be more or less violent?
Don't you think a group might just act with impunity, knowing there is no way to stop them?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I do want restrictions and bans on certain guns.
> 
> While I want reasonable restrictions on who can have guns, how they can be used and what types are available, I don't think you have that same view.
> 
> ...


The US gun lobby opposes your positions.

As a real life example......look at the law passed only last September in Texas.

It allows anyone to walk around with a hand gun in a holster with no firearms training and no permit.

People are buying guns and don't even know how to load them.


----------



## Raggedy Dandy (Mar 12, 2020)

sags said:


> Reports are that the victims in the school were so riddled with gun shot wounds it took hours and parents to ID them.


This makes me physically ill just reading it.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It is all about the gun lobby. The NRA, the industry.

Their lobbyists, the millions that they pump into election campaigns.

Plus the freedom to bear arms……and discriminately kill people when the feeling strikes.

Cannot see any change. What changed after Sandy Hook? Nothing….except the conspiracy theorists believe that it was fake and no one was shot.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The US gun lobby opposes your positions.
> 
> As a real life example......look at the law passed only last September in Texas.
> 
> ...


What is your point?
That I don't agree with Texas republicans? I thought that was a given.
FYI, I don't agree with Texas democrats either. nor the CPC, Liberals NDP, Bloc etc

I have particular views that may, from time to time overlap.


As far as what Texas is doing, that's what they're doing.
You can find examples of states with more permissive gun laws that have very low murder rates (Vermont)

I'm okay with the US gun lobby opposing my positions, I was asking what are YOUR positions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Raggedy Dandy said:


> This makes me physically ill just reading it.


Just think how much better it would have been if police were fighting the shooter instead of the parents.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The focus of the gun lobby will now be to turn attention away from the availability of guns and automatic weapons to blaming or criticizing the police.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

ian said:


> It is all about the gun lobby. The NRA, the industry.
> 
> Their lobbyists, the millions that they pump into election campaigns.
> 
> ...


In last election campaign gun control lobby spent twice as much as gun lobby.
The boogeyman of NRA election spending is not a reality.
Source: CNBC


----------



## Raggedy Dandy (Mar 12, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Just think how much better it would have been if police were fighting the shooter instead of the parents.


I have an 8yo daughter. The thought of a single child that age riddled with bullets before the police get to the shooter is no better than the actual outcome yesterday.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> The focus of the gun lobby will now be to turn attention away from the availability of guns and automatic weapons to blaming or criticizing the police.


Well the failure of police made it worse.








“The wrong decision”: Texas DPS says local police made crucial error as school shooting continued


Uvalde’s local incident commander thought the active shooting had stopped and that the gunman had barricaded himself inside the school. Inside, the killing continued.




www.texastribune.org





The police were the only ones with automatic weapons.

I would bet money that no politician will put together a SINGLE measure that would work to prevent this type of tragedy in the future.

I expect that the one thing that might come out of this is extreme clarity on exactly how to respond to an active shooter. 
That is, you follow the decades old practice of immediately attempting to stop them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Raggedy Dandy said:


> I have an 8yo daughter. The thought of a single child that age riddled with bullets before the police get to the shooter is no better than the actual outcome yesterday.


You don't need to have kids to be upset by this. (However I do have kids)

The idea of the police using pepper spray and tasers on the parents begging for action, while the students were calling 911 begging for help, while the police stood outside doing nothing is what I find most troubling.

I honestly don't understand how the police can live with themselves after allowing this tragedy to continue.
They were standing around outside while the shooter shot those kids. Everyone should be outraged about that!


----------



## Raggedy Dandy (Mar 12, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I honestly don't understand how the police can live with themselves after allowing this tragedy to continue.
> They were standing around outside while the shooter shot those kids. Everyone should be outraged about that!


Same way they live with themselves after shooting an unarmed person in the back, kneeling on someone's neck until they're dead, or smashing in the wrong door and killing an unarmed person on their couch.

I have my own thoughts on the police as a whole, which would need it's own separate thread. As can probably be gleaned from my sentence above, I don't have much good to say.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> You don't need to have kids to be upset by this. (However I do have kids)
> 
> The idea of the police using pepper spray and tasers on the parents begging for action, while the students were calling 911 begging for help, while the police stood outside doing nothing is what I find most troubling.
> 
> ...


Do you have any clue what the circumstances were ?

The gunman had barricaded himself into one classroom with the kids and teachers. There was only one door into the room and he had it locked and blocked.

There was no way the parents were going to do anything but get themselves killed trying to get into the room. The gunman would use the kids as human shields.

You would let armed parents into the school to start shooting everywhere ? That would be even more mayhem in the school.

The police had to wait for a tactical squad to come with the weapons needed to snipe the gunman, because an 18 year old was better armed than the responding police officers.

Do some basic research dude.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> FYI crime reporting data shows gun owners as a group commit fewer crimes.


Fewer crimes doesn't mean less severe crimes. I guess a country with 10 homicides is "fewer crimes" than a country with 20 thefts?



MrMatt said:


> Just a question, in your magical world where there are no guns at all, do you think it will be more or less violent?


Over 1/3 of homicides by shooting.






Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide


Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide (total methods used; shooting; stabbing; beating; strangulation; fire (burns or suffocation); other methods used; methods used unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2021.




www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Anyone remember the armed militia who stormed the legislature in Michigan........over covid measures ?

Anyone remember the armed militia parading around with their camo and weapons in the US ?

Anyone remember Kyle Rittenhouse killing unarmed civilians and being found not guilty because of a sympathetic judge and an idiotic state gun law ?

I think some gun promoters would support protests with screaming mobs firing guns into the air, like we see happening in some countries.

In Canada we had the so called "trucker protest" who did their best to irritate and upset the local residents. Imagine if that crowd were allowed to have guns.

Imagine if the hate fuelled people chasing Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh around were allowed to have guns with them.

All Canadians need to band together to ensure that gun lobbies don't set policy in our country and politicians who support them never get elected.

We need to show support at the ballot box for our politicians who stand firm and hold the line against the gun lobby.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Anyone remember Kyle Rittenhouse killing unarmed civilians and being found not guilty because of a sympathetic judge and an idiotic state gun law ?


No I don't, could you link to it?
Or are you talking about the case where he was assaulted in a parking lot, then chased by a mob down the street.

The first person threatened to kill him, and assaulted him, and was shot.
Then while running away he was hit with a weapon and had a gun pointed at him, and he shot them too.

It's basic common law that you are permitted to use appropriate force to defend yourself. That isn't "idiotic", that's justice.

The idea that it's okay to chase someone down the street and point a loaded gun at them is "ok" is idiotic.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> All Canadians need to band together to ensure that gun lobbies don't set policy in our country and politicians who support them never get elected.
> 
> We need to show support at the ballot box for our politicians who stand firm and hold the line against the gun lobby.


Again, you haven't proposed your reasonable and appropriate gun control plan.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Lots of good guys with guns were there. Police were on scene and sat around for about *an hour* while the bad guy kept murdering children.

This shows pretty definitively that good guys with guns are not a preventative measure. This isn't a cartoon program, you don't just point a gun at a bad guy and stop the problems. The right wingers have this juvenile view of the world.

Similarly, good guys with guns didn't prevent the Buffalo massacre or any of these other recent shootings. What an absolutely stupid concept.

In fact one parent even sneaked into the building. She jumped the fence, went in and got her kid!! Clearly then, any "good guy" with a gun could have also gone in and [according to right wing thinking] stopped the bad guy.

So no, having good guys with guns doesn't work.

The solution is to rid America of guns. Make it much harder for everyone to get guns, strict gun control, and make it illegal to walk around town like a lunatic carrying a gun.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Again, you haven't proposed your reasonable and appropriate gun control plan.


 ... talk about being dense. The answer is already in your quote of sags.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No I don't, could you link to it?
> Or are you talking about the case where he was assaulted in a parking lot, then chased by a mob down the street.
> 
> The first person threatened to kill him, and assaulted him, and was shot.
> ...


Under Canadian law Rittenhouse would be in prison for murder and other convictions, and that is where he should be.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Once again, the Texas police are changing their story claiming an on site commander "misjudged" the situation and he believed the shooter was by himself.

Their explanation ignores the fact that children were calling 911 and telling the dispatcher the gunman was with them.

One surviving child said her best friend called 911 and told the dispatcher and the gunman heard her and shot her.

They are lying, lying, lying, and spinning, spinning, spinning to find something or someone to blame other than weak gun laws in Texas.

As Texas Governor Abbott will be in a tight race with Beto O'Rourke, he is likely directing the police to minimize his own responsibility for bad laws.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Lots of good guys with guns were there. Police were on scene and sat around for about *an hour* while the bad guy kept murdering children.
> 
> This shows pretty definitively that good guys with guns are not a preventative measure. This isn't a cartoon program, you don't just point a gun at a bad guy and stop the problems. The right wingers have this juvenile view of the world.
> 
> ...


 ... unlikely to happen when its constitution gives its citizens the "right to bear arms." For those who don't want to participate in that kind of wild-west, I think Canada would be a good choice of immigration.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think Canada should welcome states that want to join a "normal" country.

California, Washington and New York ......maybe Hawaii too.

We should also talk to Puerto Rico. I hear it is nice there in the winter.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Money172375 said:


> Why does this seem to happen predominantly in the US? Surely, the sheer number of guns is PART of the issue isn’t it?


I can think four mass shootings in Quebec, Wasn't there one in our nation's capital. I recall three rampage shooting targeting police in Moncton, SK and Alberta. Sometimes as Canadians we have selective memory syndrome.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> I think Canada should welcome states that want to join a "normal" country.
> 
> California and New York would be great Provinces..........maybe Hawaii too.


 ... I don't MIND Alaska joining - so convenient. Fits right in with our northern territories.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Under Canadian law Rittenhouse would be in prison for murder and other convictions.


Only an absolute lunatic, a dangerous menace to society, would walk around PUBLIC carrying a loaded military weapon (like Rittenhouse did).

Even if it's unloaded, that's straight-up lunatic behaviour and should be immediate grounds for arrest and detention, at the very least a psychiatric evaluation. And such behaviour is illegal in Canada, thank god.

Normal people don't do things like that, nor do they yearn to. It's abnormal and intrinsically violent. For heaven sake that's the kind of thing you see in warzones, like in the Congo, or failed states like Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's a reason I moved out of the US!!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Now I'm waiting for the HappilyRetired in the foray to put the usual spin/twist on this.

An observation not brought up - the shooter had given "warnings on social media" of a carnage to follow. So what intelligence agency in the USA (or Canada, if any) is "supposedly" tracking this?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Now I'm waiting for the HappilyRetired in the foray to put the usual spin/twist on this.


Some of the members on this forum are right-wing extremists, and I already know what they think.

Several members here even passionately defend Rittenhouse and his lunatic behaviour. Mind boggling.

The problem really is that right wing *extremism* has been normalized in the US, due to Trump and the Republican party. So things that are completely insane, fringe, far-right behaviours --- and which USED to be recognized as that --- have crept into mainstream dialogue.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ That's why any American who sees this kind of extremism should be moving out!!!!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

zinfit said:


> I can think four mass shootings in Quebec, Wasn't there one in our nation's capital. I recall three rampage shooting targeting police in Moncton, SK and Alberta. Sometimes as Canadians we have selective memory syndrome.


The Nova Scotia mass shooting / rampage was very recent, and one of the most insane that ever happened in Canada.

Really terrifying. Wortman had a fake RCMP car and uniform, went around shooting everyone and burning down houses.

As with many of these cases, the warning signs existed but sadly were ignored by police. The shooter (Wortman) had previously been seen engaging in illegal and dangerous weapons behaviour. His neighbours had even called the police, complained about illegal weapons they'd seen Wortman with. That was long before the rampage.

Neighbours had also called police about Wortman's violent attacks on his girlfriend.

Police failed to investigate the complaints about guns and domestic violence. Wortman went on to kill 22 people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)




----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> ... What should have happened here is the school security should have stopped him ...


Trouble is ... the latest details say the school security office was off site. Being a small town, I suspect the one guy was all there was.




MrMatt said:


> ... the police should have stormed the building AS SOON AS POSSILBE, in line with the standard procedures for active school shooters.


There's standard procedures across all police departments including small towns?
I doubt it ... and with the stories changing - I'm not sure we will be able to find out what that town's police standard procedure was for an active shooter.


Cheers

*PS*
Supposedly the Border Patrol tactical team arrived much earlier at about 12:10pm. Making even less sense for waiting.

The Feds reportedly were unclear why they were needed instead of local SWAT, raising the question of whether there was a local SWAT group.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The only difference between the attempted mass shooting in Canada and mass shooting in Texas was response from law enforcement.
The gun laws didn't change anything. In both cases individual with a rifle attempted to shoot up a school. In one case law enforcement acted properly, and in the other it didn't


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> ... I would bet money that no politician will put together a SINGLE measure that would work to prevent this type of tragedy in the future.


Given you don't agree with the politicians in charge in Texas - it seems a given. 
Not that I expect Texas to make any changes.




MrMatt said:


> ...I expect that the one thing that might come out of this is extreme clarity on exactly how to respond to an active shooter. That is, you follow the decades old practice of immediately attempting to stop them.


You seem to think that all police forces are trained to the same level and have the same playbook.
I don't think that's the case in the US - particularly in a small town.


Cheers


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> The only difference between the attempted mass shooting in Canada and mass shooting in Texas was response from law enforcement.
> The gun laws didn't change anything. In both cases individual with a rifle attempted to shoot up a school. In one case law enforcement acted properly, and in the other it didn't


Around the middle of April 2022 5 people were shot and killed near a Mosque in Scarborough Ontario. What gun laws would have prevented that slaughter? I don't think they have tracked down the killer.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Most of these illegal guns in Canada are coming from the US, so their out of control gun culture affects us too.

I grew up in a town that bordered the US and guns were constantly being smuggled across the border.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> You seem to think that all police forces are trained to the same level and have the same playbook.


You're mixing 2 different points.
They aren't trained to the same level, they also have several different tiers of police.

The lack of proper training is a HUGE problem for police in the US, also for Canada, but not the the same extent.

They DO however have very similar playbooks, particularly for these incidents.



> I don't think that's the case in the US - particularly in a small town.


Absolutely, that's one thing that the US does particularly poorly.

Canada has highly standardized our policing, we have the RCMP program, and all Ontario police go through the same college.
I'm not sure about the other provinces and their municipal police, but many of them simply contract through the RCMP.

That being said our police are dramatically under trained, they should be getting several days a month of training/refreshers, and I don't think anyone wants to dedicate that number of hours.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Guns were not permitted at Trump's speaking event. That's while he was talking at the NRA, making excuses for the gun lobby.

He'll do anything to get the NRA's money and support, even while he's scared sh*tless of getting shot.









Guns are banned during Trump's upcoming speech at the NRA conference


The Secret Service is taking control of the hall during Trump's speech in Houston on Friday and is prohibiting attendees from having firearms and other weapons, according to the gun group.




www.npr.org


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

...I'm finding it sadly surreal....to listen to those children that were in the school describing what happened ...
sadly surreal....Their innocence in expressing what happened, & how they feel now....

What in god's name is wrong with US law-makers....Do any of them have grand-children?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> ...I'm finding it sadly surreal....to listen to those children that were in the school describing what happened ...
> sadly surreal....Their innocence in expressing what happened, & how they feel now....
> 
> What in god's name is wrong with US law-makers....*Do any of them have grand-children?*


 ... of course they do, including the policy-makers aka politicians. They're breeding them like rabbits, only those rabbits are kept safe and well-protected. You wouldn't find them going to a "public" school, remotely away from any "not-in-my-circle" club (for a lack of the proper description).


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Guns were not permitted at Trump's speaking event. That's while he was talking at the NRA, making excuses for the gun lobby.
> 
> *He'll do anything to get the NRA's money and support, even while he's scared sh*tless of getting shot.*
> 
> ...


 ... the irony which doesn't surprise me at all, none whatsover. Just look at his track-record of "dad, I got a bone spur so the army is out for me!!!!" And yet so quick to mouth off "McCain ain't a hero, he's a coward for being a POW." 

Just caught a glimpse of a headline that he did a dance/jig at yesterday's NRA convention. Talk about beyond disgusting. An inhumane dump.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Republicans are tone deaf at every level, but they are confident that it doesn't matter to the majority of voters in Texas.

The big tech companies and employees must be wishing they had located their businesses and families somewhere else.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Not that it doesn't matter to the majority of these voters in Texas or elsewhere as long as that USA's constitution remains or allow its citizens "the right to bear arms." The USA doesn't even need a WW to annihilate themselves - self-induced right to bear arms will do it.

Just a matter of time when everyone (and I mean everyone legally of age) carries a gun and go shooting themselves in an act of self-defense. Why bother even having laws there, let alone "gun-laws" which is so farcial.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

For all their talk about supporting mental health, Texas is providing mental health to the families of the tragedy via online support lines.

Then they ran off the NRA party to celebrate the business of gun manufacturing.

The NRA isn't their grandparent's NRA. Many NRA members have quit in disgust and as an association the NRA is financially bankrupt.

It is now solely a marketing tool of the gun manufacturers, who parade around paid off politicians spouting the company line.

They wave American flags, play patriotic music, sell patriotic shirts, caps, and bumper stickers, and peddle their latest guns to sell to anyone who wants one.

And they plot out how to foil any legislation.......ANY legislation that would curb gun sales in any way.

They are a malicious cancer on society.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> ...I'm finding it sadly surreal....to listen to those children that were in the school describing what happened ...
> sadly surreal....Their innocence in expressing what happened, & how they feel now....
> 
> What in god's name is wrong with US law-makers....Do any of them have grand-children?


They see more political gain by denouncing the problem but doing nothing to resolve it.
Nobody is proposing any effective changes.

heck here in Canada I've heard Trudeau is going to announce more changes, possibly Monday.
I'd bet that his measures target law abiding citizens, and mostly ignore the illegal guns and criminal element.

Politicians care more about politics than people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Responsible gun owners have nothing to fear from the Canadian government.

When people are opposed to practical gun laws, I have to wonder what they are hiding.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Making hay with politics.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Responsible gun owners have nothing to fear from the Canadian government.
> 
> When people are opposed to practical gun laws, I have to wonder what they are hiding.


Right... because the Liberals didn't suddenly ban a bunch of hunting and target rifles based just on their appearance.

Oh wait... they did.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

zinfit said:


> I can think four mass shootings in Quebec, Wasn't there one in our nation's capital. I recall three rampage shooting targeting police in Moncton, SK and Alberta. Sometimes as Canadians we have selective memory syndrome.


I suppose the scale and schools in particular is where my mind was at. I guess too that the death count always seems higher in the US.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The gun laws should change from what is banned or restricted.........to what is allowed, and what modifications to the weapon are allowed.

The government can compile a list of allowable weapons for hunting and target practice, and ban everything else.

Ammunition should be restricted to that which is necessary for the allowed weapons.

That would make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to develop ways to skirt restrictions, as they have done with AR15 rifles.

The ability to fire 300 rounds in a matter of a couple of minutes isn't necessary for any form of hunting or target practice.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Illegal weapons are flowing into Canada, and it has to stop.

It is shocking to read local news of a car stopped for a traffic violation and they found a trunk full of weapons, or weapons displayed in a drug bust.

We need to increase manpower and support for a Federal law enforcement body that is totally dedicated to stopping the flow of guns into Canada.

The units should be invested with the legal powers required as senior law enforcement to avoid jurisdictional conflicts with local law enforcement.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Even if US makes a ban on certain arms.......they let in 3mln people a year and tons of drugs through the southern border - you think guns won't make it through?


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

sags said:


> The gun laws should change from what is banned or restricted.........to what is allowed, and what modifications to the weapon are allowed.
> 
> The government can compile a list of allowable weapons for hunting and target practice, and ban everything else.
> 
> ...


ARK15 is nothing more then a dressed up hunting rifle . Some hunting rifles have more firepower then this weapon. Any gun in the hands of the wrong people is a dangerous combination. A motor vehicle in the hands of the wrong people can be a very dangerous combination. If the state wants to ban and eliminate guns they will encounter major opposition especially in rural areas. There are limits on how much control the state can exert through making laws. I cattle have been out of barn a long time ago in the USA. Even if no more guns were available for sale the population is already heavily armed to the gills. Trying to confiscate all these arms would be a daunting task.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

sags said:


> Illegal weapons are flowing into Canada, and it has to stop.
> 
> It is shocking to read local news of a car stopped for a traffic violation and they found a trunk full of weapons, or weapons displayed in a drug bust.
> 
> ...


a lot of those guns are crossing the St Lawrence River from one Indian reserve to another. Would Trudeau be willing to send enforcement people into these reserves to enforce the law?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

james4beach said:


> The Nova Scotia mass shooting / rampage was very recent, and one of the most insane that ever happened in Canada.
> 
> Really terrifying. Wortman had a fake RCMP car and uniform, went around shooting everyone and burning down houses.
> 
> ...





MrMatt said:


> Well the failure of police made it worse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I am very confident of two things. 

Absolutely nothing will change in the US regarding effective gun control legislation.

There will be more mass shootings-in school and in faith based settings.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> You're mixing 2 different points.
> They aren't trained to the same level, they also have several different tiers of police.
> 
> The lack of proper training is a HUGE problem for police in the US, also for Canada, but not the the same extent.
> ...


Trouble is ... as soon as the local police have independence - whether they use the same policy and train their officers to react based on that policy is up to them. 

Or are you saying there's some group within the state that enforce what the policy will be?

Texas seems all about local rights so I'm not sure that the local police in this case were playing from the same playbook or whether a bad decision was made that contradicted the playbook.




MrMatt said:


> ... Absolutely, that's one thing that the US does particularly poorly.


Which makes it odd that you seem confident that the playbook you prefer is what was being followed.
IIRC, a couple of the articles taking about the change from trying to negotiate to trying to actively take out the shooter said that this change was not accepted/implemented by all police.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

jargey3000 said:


> ...I'm finding it sadly surreal....to listen to those children that were in the school describing what happened ...
> sadly surreal....Their innocence in expressing what happened, & how they feel now....
> 
> What in god's name is wrong with US law-makers....Do any of them have grand-children?


You do realise that early on in Covid the Texas Lieutenant Governor said he was willing to die by skipping the covid restrictions in order to keep the economy strong. AFAICT, he had no consideration that he might live to pass covid onto his grand kids.









Texas Lt. Governor: Old People Should Volunteer to Die to Save the Economy


According to Dan Patrick “lots of grandparents” are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause.




www.vanityfair.com






Cheers


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

It is impossible situation to change. The system of checks and balance, the second amendment and a divided population. The best short term solution is to make schools safe and secure from such risks. We should stand back and examine the facts. The shooter was 18 and legally acquired his firearms. A regular hunting rifle works the same as the AK70. In Canada a 18 yearly could legally purchase a hunting rifle and do the same thing in Canada.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ..._ We should stand back and examine the facts. The shooter was 18 and legally acquired his firearms. A regular hunting rifle works the same as the AK70. In Canada a 18 yearly could legally purchase a hunting rifle and do the same thing in Canada._


 ... simple. Ban those damn things or make it almost impossible if not extremely difficult to "legally" obtain. Unless one is a licensed hunter by trade/profession or owns a farm (registered as one) that requires it or in law enforcement, etc. what do you need a gun (any kind) for? 

But then those who gun enthusiasts will say "well, you can stab someone to death anyways or use a van to run over multiple bodies" so what's the difference in rampage killing? What's the frequency? It's not like every other day Canada has a mass shooting or a van rampage going on. 

And then you have the guns manufacturers and their lobbyists crying foul 'cause they'll be out of business along with the jobs of their supporting politicians.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> Trouble is ... as soon as the local police have independence - whether they use the same policy and train their officers to react based on that policy is up to them.


Similarly in Canada, each police force can set their own policies.
My city has a police board that sets some policies.



> Or are you saying there's some group within the state that enforce what the policy will be?


Bigger than that, there are several groups that set and define "best practices" for situations.
This is the case in pretty much every professional industry.



> Texas seems all about local rights so I'm not sure that the local police in this case were playing from the same playbook or whether a bad decision was made that contradicted the playbook.


When you don't follow best practices, and things go wrong, it's your fault.
A doctor who uses outdated techniques would have explaining to do if things go wrong, similarly for law enforcement.



> Which makes it odd that you seem confident that the playbook you prefer is what was being followed.
> 
> IIRC, a couple of the articles taking about the change from trying to negotiate to trying to actively take out the shooter said that this change was not accepted/implemented by all police.


They've already admitted they acted improperly.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Under Canadian law Rittenhouse would be in prison for murder and other convictions, and that is where he should be.


No, he wouldn't.
Under Canadian law he would STILL have a strong case for self defense.
The first case, where someone threatened to kill him and tried to take his gun is clear cut self defense, and that's the weakest.

In the other cases, one assaulted him with a weapon, the other Kyle waited until he was threatened with a gun before he shot.

He could get a whole bunch of firearms violations, but murder when you're acting in self defence, no way.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The gun laws should change from what is banned or restricted.........to what is allowed, and what modifications to the weapon are allowed.


That unnecessarily stifles innovation.
If there were particular features that were troublesome (Like high capacity magazines, or being an automatic weapon) sure, but to pre-emptively ban doesn't seem justified.



> The government can compile a list of allowable weapons for hunting and target practice, and ban everything else.


I don't trust them to do this fairly.
They are already banning firearms for hunting and target practice.



> Ammunition should be restricted to that which is necessary for the allowed weapons.


Uhh it is



> That would make it more difficult for gun manufacturers to develop ways to skirt restrictions, as they have done with AR15 rifles.


What restrictions are being skirted?



> The ability to fire 300 rounds in a matter of a couple of minutes isn't necessary for any form of hunting or target practice.


If you leave someone alone for an hour you can fire 300 rounds with a sling shot. heck you could almost make and throw 300 paper airplanes in an hour.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

why were guns banned- at a GUN CONVENTION- when trump gave his speech?
what was the rationale behind that decision?


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... simple. Ban those damn things or make it almost impossible if not extremely difficult to "legally" obtain. Unless one is a licensed hunter by trade/profession or owns a farm (registered as one) that requires it or in law enforcement, etc. what do you need a gun (any kind) for?
> 
> But then those who gun enthusiasts will say "well, you can stab someone to death anyways or use a van to run over multiple bodies" so what's the difference in rampage killing? What's the frequency? It's not like every other day Canada has a mass shooting or a van rampage going on.
> 
> And then you have the guns manufacturers and their lobbyists crying foul 'cause they'll be out of business along with the jobs of their supporting politicians.


They could do what they do in the Middle East. use suicide bombs or just plain bombs with a triggering device. The internet would probably show you how to make them. In the last two years a slaughter in Scarborough, NS, PEI, a school slaughter at La Loche SK and the Mosque massacre. If you live in the right part of Toronto drive by shootings seem to have become a sport. University massacres . Quebec must be champion in that department , Concordia, Poyltech, Dawson College . With the emotional state of affairs over guns Trudeau will be introducing some law on guns that will have little or no impact except to make the masses think he is doing something effective.. The movement of illegal guns across the St Lawrence between Indian reserves would be a good start. Don't hold your breath on Trudeau doing anything in that department.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> why were guns banned- at a GUN CONVENTION- when trump gave his speech?
> what was the rationale behind that decision?


 ... that's the irony. The truth is "special privileges" 'cause the Dump was there, supposedly as an ex-POTUS, no guns are allowed. The NRA is so farcial it's beyond help.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

zinfit said:


> They could do what they do in the Middle East. use suicide bombs or just plain bombs with a triggering device. The internet would probably show you how to make them. In the last two years a slaughter in Scarborough, NS, PEI, a school slaughter at La Loche SK and the Mosque massacre. If you live in the right part of Toronto drive by shootings seem to have become a sport. University massacres . Quebec must be champion in that department , Concordia, Poyltech, Dawson College . With the emotional state of affairs over guns Trudeau will be introducing some law on guns that will have little or no impact except to make the masses think he is doing something effective.. The movement of illegal guns across the St Lawrence between Indian reserves would be a good start. *Don't hold your breath on Trudeau doing anything in that department.*


 ... fair enough given this issue falls on his lap as PM. However, have you heard of any Conservatives wading or even remotely addressing this area? I haven't even heard of any potential PC leader candidate utter the word "gun" even.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> why were guns banned- at a GUN CONVENTION- when trump gave his speech?
> what was the rationale behind that decision?


Because the Secret Service is in charge of security and nobody who isn't cleared by the Secret Service is allowed to have firearms near their protectees.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... fair enough given this issue falls on his lap as PM. However, have you heard of any Conservatives wading or even remotely addressing this area? I haven't even heard of any potential PC leader candidate utter the word "gun" even.


Mob rule isn't always right. There are things that can be done to reduce school slaughters but it isn't some red flag process or firearms registers or banning AK47 when regular rifles do the same. The change in culture thing is one thing the liberals won't touch. Tough border controls to limit the entry of guns is another.The Liberals won't touch that one. When the Liberal/left can show how they have eliminated the drugs that are killing young people they will get my attention with more gun control measures.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The root cause for increase in violence, riots, and crime is precisely that - change in culture.
It is now acceptable to loudly wonder whether some people are worth the space they take up. It is now acceptable to call people that disagree with you nazis, for sole reason that they disagree with you.

Currently we have government that is set on spreading hate and division. It is politically winning tactic.
Unfortunately it has massive consequences and we are starting to deal with them over past 2 years. But hey, political victory is much more important, right?

Even before the corpses of the innocent children cooled down, they were already used as a political tool to have even more division. The times we live in......


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Because the Secret Service is in charge of security and nobody who isn't cleared by the Secret Service is allowed to have firearms near their protectees.


 ... does the NRA always need the Secret Service to "protect" its convention members? WOW, that's rich.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

zinfit said:


> Mob rule isn't always right.


 .. what mob rule?



> There are things that can be done to reduce school slaughters but it isn't some red flag process or firearms registers or banning AK47 when regular rifles do the same. The change in culture thing is one thing the liberals won't touch. Tough border controls to limit the entry of guns is another.The Liberals won't touch that one. When the Liberal/left can show how they have eliminated the drugs that are killing young people they will get my attention with more gun control measures.


 .. why does this gun - killings has to be a Liberal thing which then becomes a Conservative thing when it affects everyone in this country (and around the globe), pretty well like Covid? No wonder the next poster (the damianster13 one) keeps spewing about the "current" government is sowing hate and division. Does he think the next opposite government will do any better when they (including him) can't even see this as an "opportunity" in front of them/him to sway voters (aka humans) to their side.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> .. what mob rule?
> 
> .. why does this gun - killings has to be a Liberal thing which then becomes a Conservative thing when it affects everyone in this country (and around the globe), pretty well like Covid? No wonder the next poster (the damianster13 one) keeps spewing about the "current" government is sowing hate and division. Does he think the next opposite government will do any better when they (including him) can't even see this as an "opportunity" in front of them/him to sway voters (aka humans) to their side.


Mob rule? all the noise coming from the large anti-gun crowd . They demand government action regardless of whether it will work.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I am looking at some potential US travel, so I spent the day looking (in detail) into recent crime reports in the cities, including police bulletins and descriptions of the shootings and murders. I'm sharing here because it may be relevant to others, especially since we Canadians aren't familiar with US gun culture and may be oblivious to this kind of thing.

Gun crimes/shootings are up tremendously in the US over the last couple years. I looked at a pretty large sample of recent incidents (dozens, in a few cities). The majority fit into these categories, listed in order of frequency.


*Personal fights that escalate to gunfire*. Reading the descriptions, I'm seeing that a lot of these are pretty mundane incidents which escalate because some idiot pulls out a gun. For example, two drunks start fighting outside a bar and a guy pulls out a gun. Or two junkies are fighting. Or a girl is harassed by some men outside a bar, some self-declared "white knight" comes to the rescue and pulls out a gun. Often, bystanders are caught in the cross fire.

Takeaways: don't pick a fight with anyone ; stay clear of fights in case of stray bullets​

*Gang shoot-outs that hit bystanders*. These are pretty damn serious, some gangster or drug dealer tries to shoot their enemy, but does it in a public area and hits innocent bystanders. Horrific. They largely occur late night.

Takeaways: avoid poor neighbourhoods ; avoid nightclub districts frequented by gangs ; don't be outdoors after midnight​

*Related to robbery or drug activity*. Quite a bit of these as well, including a few that happen when someone confronts a burglar or car thief. Drug addicts and drug dealers also seem to be a source of shootings, perhaps disputes, payment conflict, etc. Largely occur late night.

Takeaways: avoid drug trade areas ; never confront robbers ; don't be outdoors after midnight​


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... does the NRA always need the Secret Service to "protect" its convention members? WOW, that's rich.


No, but they are tasked with providing security for current and former presidents.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

zinfit said:


> Mob rule? all the noise coming from the large anti-gun crowd . They demand government action regardless of whether it will work.


 ... ah, the "noise" - and now the anti-gun crowd is the known as the "mob". First, so how long has this "noise" been on for? Yesterday, if not decades? Of course, they demand government action whether it works or not because 99% of the time it doesn't. That's why they continue making noise and will continue until it works. Wouldn't it be the same action on the other side of the coin, sitting there playing stupid, dumb and deaf. 

And thanks for the clarity on- the large anti-gun crowd is the mob. I think you haven't seen a "real" mob when the anti-gun crowd takes arm themselves or create an anti-gun movement. You can only push people so far. I hope you realize that.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> No, but they are tasked with providing security for current and former presidents.


 ... it's funny that my post mentioned an ex-POTUS there and you don't and yet you mention the Secret Service was there due to current and 'former' presidents. I don't suppose you would consider the Dump as a fake former POTUS although I would?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I am looking at some potential US travel, so I spent the day looking (in detail) into recent crime reports in the cities, including police bulletins and descriptions of the shootings and murders. I'm sharing here because it may be relevant to others, especially since we Canadians aren't familiar with US gun culture and may be oblivious to this kind of thing.
> 
> Gun crimes/shootings are up tremendously in the US over the last couple years. I looked at a pretty large sample of recent incidents (dozens, in a few cities). The majority fit into these categories, listed in order of frequency.
> 
> ...


 ... who the hell wants to visit the "United States of America". I mean you can be shot just for doing your weekend shopping at the supermarket (ie. walking on the street too), let alone participating in arguments or street-fights.

Besides, Toronto where I reside is having a car-jacking (with handguns) crisis currently. 

I think our mayor is now "waking up" when a "celebrity" hockey (Maple Leaf) was done one. Now he's asking our premier, if not the prime minister for help. Not sure what's the police chief is doing. LMAO.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ...
> 
> Now he's asking our premier, if not the prime minister for help.


Well, you know where that will lead. First, his political opponents will keep taunting him about his inaction until he does something. Then they'll accuse him of being an authoritarian dictator trampling on peoples' rights.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Tostig said:


> Well, you know where that will lead. First, his political opponents will keep taunting him about his inaction until he does something.


 ... it's already happening. See the OP's post (1st) who opened this thread.



> Then they'll accuse him of being an authoritarian dictator trampling on peoples' rights.


 ... that's coming from one of his follower on this forum despite being asked 8 times (the follower) why he can't "voluntarily" leave this commie (in his eyes) country. To this day, still no answer as his rights (the follower) are being trampled here!!!! ... by himself. [I wish the loonie emoji can be brought back.]


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... who the hell wants to visit the "United States of America". I mean you can be shot just for doing your weekend shopping at the supermarket (ie. walking on the street too), let alone participating in arguments or street-fights.
> 
> Besides, Toronto where I reside is having a car-jacking (with handguns) crisis currently.
> 
> I think our mayor is now "waking up" when a "celebrity" hockey (Maple Leaf) was done one. Now he's asking our premier, if not the prime minister for help. Not sure what's the police chief is doing. LMAO.


Your exactly right. If you are terrified about gun killings stay out of the USA , Mexico , Central America, Eastern Europe and Toronto . I recall many years back when the US changed the rules for entry . They required a passport. The NDP MPs were very upset with that change and made a lot of noise over it. They couldn't answer my question. It was simple given their clear anti-American opinions and attitudes why would they want to travel to the USA? I doubt that US gun violence will deter the many millions of Canadians who winter in Florida, Arizona and Texas. I have spent 13 winters in Texas without any problems or bad experiences. Most Texans know what areas and situations to stay away from. There are certain parts of Dallas and Houston one stays away from. If you want trouble go to some of the bars and drink lots and hang around until 2AM and there is a good chance of seeing violence.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Anyone remember Kyle Rittenhouse killing unarmed civilians and being found not guilty because of a sympathetic judge and an idiotic state gun law ?


That's an outright lie, and you know it.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Canadians seem preoccupied with the killings in Texas and the USA . Why aren't they equally concerned about the Mexican situation? Chicage and St Louis have very high homicide rates compared to other US cities. It runs about 18 killings per 100,000. They have a long ways to go to catch up with the Mexican border cities like Juarez . Its official rate is 110 per 100,000 and is likely underreported. About 5 times the rate for the most violent cities in the US. Mexico does have a totally ban on firearms with severe penalties. It seems we know the solutions for the US what is their solution for Mexico?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

zinfit said:


> Your exactly right. If you are terrified about gun killings stay out of the USA , Mexico , Central America, Eastern Europe and Toronto .


 ... hello, I can't exactly stay away from Toronto, Ontario, Canada as I reside here. And I realize Toronto is no longer called "Toronto the Good." And it's up to our mayor to either have that bad image reversed (unlikely) or at least not to have it tainted further more as this is the place you can grow up and go to work safely. 



> I recall many years back when the US changed the rules for entry . They required a passport. The NDP MPs were very upset with that change and made a lot of noise over it. They couldn't answer my question. It was simple given their clear anti-American opinions and attitudes why would they want to travel to the USA?


 ... I don't recall that - NDP MPs upset about Canada's Cross Border requirements? That's applicable to all Canadians - it's now the passport instead of driver's licence if driving. Flying has always been passport required. And the NDPs' anti-American opinions - or is that just made up in your head?



> I doubt that US gun violence will deter the many millions of Canadians who winter in Florida, Arizona and Texas.


 ... of course not, when their 2nd "owned" home is there. I have a (Canadian) friend who has a "time-share (only)" in Florida and this person cannot NOT afford to go there every winter, including Covid or not. I think maybe if the entire state of Florida sinks in or there's a deadly earthquake or a state castastrophe, this person will re-consider. 



> I have spent 13 winters in Texas without any problems or bad experiences. Most Texans know what areas and situations to stay away from. There are certain parts of Dallas and Houston one stays away from. If you want trouble go to some of the bars and drink lots and hang around until 2AM and there is a good chance of seeing violence.


 ... of course, just like any other city in North America. There're good and bad districts where one generally stays out of. However, one (and multiples of that) doesn't expected to be killed 'cause the killer didn't like the skin colour of the shopper. There's not just the "race" and "hate" elements there but the gun-accessibility makes it all that much easier to take multiple bodies for the coward if not deranged shooter.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Texas shooting showed the "good guys with guns" theory doesn't work. There were 19 armed police officers unable to stop this rampage by one 18 year old with an AR15.

The gun lobby is blaming doors, windows, video games, culture, armed security, unarmed teachers, and now the police.....anything but the gun in the hands of an 18 year old.

The AR15 allowed him to fire 300 bullets in a 4 minute time span, including the time reloading the rifle 10 times and fire shots at the door to keep the cops at bay.

It is pretty simple. Countries with tight gun restrictions have far fewer gun deaths and mass shootings than countries with lax gun laws.

Canadians overwhelmingly support stiffer laws, including a gun registry, lifetime background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and modifications to guns. Canadians fully support actions to stop the flow of illegal guns into Canada, predominantly from the US.

The lax US gun laws are causing gun problems in Canada.

It is so obvious there shouldn't even be a debate on it and it should pass by unanimous vote in Parliament.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The Texas shooting showed the "good guys with guns" theory doesn't work. There were 19 armed police officers unable to stop this rampage by one 18 year old with an AR15.


Because the good guys with guns were being threatened and detained by those police. 



> Canadians overwhelmingly support stiffer laws, including a gun registry, lifetime background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and modifications to guns. Canadians fully support actions to stop the flow of illegal guns into Canada, predominantly from the US.


I agree to most of that, but the restrictions should be REASONABLE.
The problem is they're banning hunting and target shooting rifles, because of their appearance.

The long gun registry is pretty much pointless, it adds NO VALUE. 
If the police are called to a house they should ALWAYS assume there is a gun inside, the registry changes nothing.

Yes, Canadians, including gun owners, support stiffer laws (and actual enforcement), background checks, restrictions on types, ammunition and modifications.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Also, about 60% of gun violence in Canada is with handguns - and they have strongest restrictions.
Meanwhile, gun violence with handguns have risen in last couple of years - what gives?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Also, about 60% of gun violence in Canada is with handguns - and they have strongest restrictions.
> Meanwhile, gun violence with handguns have risen in last couple of years - what gives?


A failure to enforce current handguns.
Virtually all gun violence in Canada is with people who are already breaking gun laws, and most of the firearms were smuggled into the country.

Taking away a particular model of hunting rifle isn't making anyone safer, but a nice composite small intermediate-caliber hunting rifle it makes for a great press conference prop.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> Also, about 60% of gun violence in Canada is with handguns - and they have strongest restrictions.
> Meanwhile, gun violence with handguns have risen in last couple of years - what gives?


yes and handguns are prohibited? sounds like Mexico which bans all firearms. With Liberals just pass more laws and restrictions whether they have any effectiveness . It makes the Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal voters feel like something effective is happening.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

zinfit said:


> yes and handguns are prohibited? sounds like Mexico which bans all firearms. With Liberals just pass more laws and restrictions whether they have any effectiveness . It makes the Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal voters feel like something effective is happening.


Exactly. Naive people who eat all the political slogans without looking at actual effects buy it and they vote - ignorant voters make up majority of electorate


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> Exactly. Naive people who eat all the political slogans without looking at actual effects buy it and they vote - ignorant voters make up majority of electorate


Yeah, Gravy Train, Common Sense Revolution and Make America Great Again are slogans that come to mind.

And then there's the "Good Guy with the Gun" thing and "Paid Distress Actors" that was used by the Russians to describe dead Ukrainian civilians.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ... hello, I can't exactly stay away from Toronto, Ontario, Canada as I reside here. And I realize Toronto is no longer called "Toronto the Good."


Most of those guns are coming from the USA by the way. The huge amount of weapons circulating in the US spill across the border and get smuggled into Canada.

If there weren't so many guns sold and circulating in the US, we'd have less gun violence in Canada too.

The US gun industry feeds the flow of weapons into both Mexico and Canada. They're a true menace to society. Any decent country would shut down or heavily regulate this kind of industry, perhaps even dismantle it.

About 70% of the weapons seized in Mexico come from the USA. The American gun industry arms the Mexican cartels and contributes to immense bloodshed in Mexico.









Where do Mexican drug cartels get their guns? The US.


A new report exposes the issue.




www.vox.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Brilliant !

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre thought he was being praised, then he looked confused, then he waited for the praise he thought was building, and then he finally clued in on what was happening, and there was even some applause at the end…..whoosh.

The speaker had them all hooked as soon as he said “left wing media”……then he just reeled them in.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531019935308304386


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Tells you about the "intelligence(s)" of the NRA participants, never mind its "huh? duh" chairman. But then it doesn't surprise me even those thoughts and prayers are empty as useless as they are.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Most of those guns are coming from the USA by the way. The huge amount of weapons circulating in the US spill across the border and get smuggled into Canada.
> 
> If there weren't so many guns sold and circulating in the US, we'd have less gun violence in Canada too.
> 
> ...


 ... it's a cancer there and continuously spreading to other countries. Just a matter of time when everyone (including anti-guns) arm themselves and shoot as needed, if not a civil strife of some kind first.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

You can't commit genocide, send people to gas chambers, or impose communism unless you first disarm the population.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> Just a matter of time when everyone (including anti-guns) arm themselves and shoot as needed,


I believe that is a thing in the US. Folks who never gave a poo about guns or wanted one or thought they needed one start to feel that since everyone else is packing, they can't be safe anywhere unless they're packing too. The gun lobby loves that and loves to promote the fear and loathing that feeds the whole mess.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Tells you about the "intelligence(s)" of the NRA participants, never mind its "huh? duh" chairman. But then it doesn't surprise me even those thoughts and prayers are empty as useless as they are.


No member of the NRA has ever committed a mass murder. They've stopped plenty of them, though.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

gardner said:


> I believe that is a thing in the US. Folks who never gave a poo about guns or wanted one or thought they needed one start to feel that since everyone else is packing, they can't be safe anywhere unless they're packing too. The gun lobby loves that and loves to promote the fear and loathing that feeds the whole mess.


 ... it's not fear however much the gun lobby loves to feed and promote on that. Their constitution provides them with the fundamental right to bear arms and all the more reason in the name of self-defence.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> You can't commit genocide, send people to gas chambers, or impose communism unless you first disarm the population.


 ... it's funny that some very patriotic folks like to continuously return to commie Canada to live.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> No member of the NRA has ever committed a mass murder. They've stopped plenty of them, though.


 ... no need to as they got suckers to that for them whilst they gorge on the profits like fat oinks, oinks.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... it's funny that some very patriotic folks like to continuously return to commie Canada to live.


Canada isn't communist, but Trudeau thinks communism is great. Canada can survive a little bit of time with a wannabe communist as PM, what it can't survive are too many people who will happily vote for people like Trudeau.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... no need to as they got suckers to that for them whilst they gorge on the profits like fat oinks, oinks.


Every time you're given a fact you don't like you make an idiotic comment like that. You are weak minded an unable to debate anything.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Canada isn't communist, but Trudeau thinks communism is great. Canada can survive a little bit of time with a wannabe communist as PM, what it can't survive are too many people who will happily vote for people like Trudeau.


I'm not sure about that, I think it's clear that being an authoritarian dictatorship is great, as long as he's in charge.

I don't think he's really a communist I think he's more concerned with power than money.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Every time you're given a fact you don't like you make an idiotic comment like that. You are weak minded an unable to debate anything.


 ... fact my foot. What fact? Your fact? Where're the stats? Or was it more like your stupid comment in addition, not knowing how to interpret first. So no need to debate there either. Besides, aren't I supposed to return to your Ignore List? And why not? Can't hold in the "facts"? To debate, my derriere. More like trolling your given "expertise". This is a "fact". A real fact.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I'm not sure about that, I think it's clear that being an authoritarian dictatorship is great, as long as he's in charge.
> 
> I don't think he's really a communist I think he's more concerned with power than money.


 ... same goes for the Opposition. I really hope PP makes it as the PC's leader - what a show to watch then.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Canada isn't communist, but Trudeau thinks communism is great. Canada can survive a little bit of time with a wannabe communist as PM, what it can't survive are too many people who will happily vote for people like Trudeau.


 ... like it's gonna to survive with the Opposition leader - now don't be shocked it might be Jameet Singh in the next election while the PC party can continue with its circus party.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... same goes for the Opposition. I really hope PP makes it as the PC's leader - what a show to watch then.


PP has been known as a libertarian for the past 2 decades, that's literally the opposite of authoritarian.

He also gets more than 50% of the vote, while Trudeau gets less than 50%, which for a sitting PM is pretty embarrasing.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

james4beach said:


> Most of those guns are coming from the USA by the way. The huge amount of weapons circulating in the US spill across the border and get smuggled into Canada.
> 
> If there weren't so many guns sold and circulating in the US, we'd have less gun violence in Canada too.
> 
> ...


Yes may-be the Mexicans get there guns from the USA but it doesn't answer the question. Yaurez has about 37 times the homicides as El Paso and the only thing that separates them is a river. Gun killings in Houston are 1/4 the rate of Chicago. Houston has hundreds of stores were guns are bought regularly. Chicago has no gun stores. Instead of making sweeping statements about banning all firearms we would do better if we focused on making guns safer and reducing the risk. We can get on our high horses and say ban all firearms but no matter how much control a person has that will not happen in the US and in most of Canada. I notice a young person carrying a gun outside a school in Scarborough was shot and killed by police. I will not second guess that police decision. We should make sure schools are secure and are well trained to deal these situation. If does happen in Canada. It happened in La Loche SK last year and it did happen at colleges in Quebec. It could have happened in Scarborough.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

zinfit said:


> I notice a young person carrying a gun outside a school in Scarborough was shot and killed by police.


I think the last case the person shot and killed did NOT have a gun.
He had a BB gun.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> I think the last case the person shot and killed did NOT have a gun.
> He had a BB gun.


ban BB guns?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

zinfit said:


> ban BB guns?


Well we already banned having loaded guns in the city, or unloaded ones, or replica ones, or creating a disturbance.

really the problem isn't the lack of laws, it's that people still break them


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Actually it was a pellet gun and there is likely a lot more to the story.......or some police officer will be in deep trouble.

The SIU is investigating the shooting.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> There is likely a lot more to the story.......or some police officer will be in deep trouble.


To what story?

The fact that the police in Texas used their power to actively prolong the attack?

Or that the Toronto police overreacted to an apparent threat?


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Well we already banned having loaded guns in the city, or unloaded ones, or replica ones, or creating a disturbance.
> 
> really the problem isn't the lack of laws, it's that people still break them


The law has a pile of prohibitions dealing with narcotics and other addictive drugs? How is that working?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> To what story?
> 
> The fact that the police in Texas used their power to actively prolong the attack?
> 
> Or that the Toronto police overreacted to an apparent threat?


The one that SIU are investigating.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The one that SIU are investigating.


They investigate all cases where serious injury or death occur.

He pointed something that looked like a gun at them, they shot him.
Pretty clear cut and justified, just like the Rittenhouse case.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The government announced sweeping new gun legislation today.

Since the mass shooting in Texas, there have been 11 more mass shootings in the US.

The situation is out of control in the US, but the gun laws are working in Canada and the new laws will make further improvements on public safety.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> They investigate all cases where serious injury or death occur.
> 
> *He pointed something that looked like a gun at them, they shot him.*
> Pretty clear cut and justified, just like the Rittenhouse case.


Geez...........I would hope not.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

sags said:


> The government announced sweeping new gun legislation today.
> 
> Since the mass shooting in Texas, there have been 11 more mass shootings in the US.
> 
> The situation is out of control in the US, but the gun laws are working in Canada and the new laws will make further improvements on public safety.


Give me a break Juarez averages 30 killings er day. Tijaunia , Reynosa are about the same.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good thing we don't live where the gangs and drug cartels run the country.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Good thing we don't live where the gangs and drug cartels run the country. One reason to avoid Mexico for retirement. Crooked politicians, crooked cops, and gangs.


Trudeau is crooked too, the most corrupt PM in Canada's history. But you're okay with that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> He pointed something that looked like a gun at them, they shot him.
> Pretty clear cut and justified, just like the Rittenhouse case.





sags said:


> Geez...........I would hope not.


Why not?
You don't point a gun at someone unless you plan on shooting them.
If you point a gun at a cop, you should expect to be shot.

What do you want? They have to shoot you first?

Honestly I have no idea what any of your ideas or thoughts are, just that we should just all sit back and trust Trudeau.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The government announced sweeping new gun legislation today.
> ...
> The situation is out of control in the US, but the gun laws are working in Canada and the new laws will make further improvements on public safety.


Yes, ban legal handguns, which aren't used in crime anyway.

These changes offer virtually no safety improvement.

Just more do nothing legislation. 
Heck some of the apparent measures (5 round limit on long guns, and banning large capacity magazines) are ALREADY BANNED.

If they were really serious, they'd fund enforcement. But this is why we don't trust Liberals on gun policy, they're not serious.


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, ban legal handguns, which aren't used in crime anyway.
> 
> These changes offer virtually no safety improvement.
> 
> ...


Oh great a handgun ban! Those criminals and street gangs are salivating right now (you know the criminals who dont listen to any law/rule/ban regardless what they are) and are the ones who are actually out there committing crimes...

Trudeau just made the street value of hand guns increase immensely....profits just doubled for those criminals smuggling guns across the border!

This will do NOTHING to prevent gun crime, but its a feather in trudeaus cap that those dumb enough to trust him can say oh wow he delivered on his promise...just brutal...


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Make the peasants think you are actually accomplishing something and throw in a lot of Newpeak .


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_He pointed something *that looked like a gun* at them, they shot him. _

A cardinal rule of gun ownership is don't shoot at something if you don't absolutely know what it is.

That is how hunters get killed, and police officers get charged with killing someone holding a cellphone.

Reading some of the posts, I suspect few ever owned or fired a weapon, and wouldn't know the first thing about hunting or preparing game for food.

Just guys who show up at the camp with the price tags still hanging off their gear.

All the hunters I know don't like being around people who don't know what they are doing with a gun in their hands.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Gumball said:


> Oh great a handgun ban! Those criminals and street gangs are salivating right now (you know the criminals who dont listen to any law/rule/ban regardless what they are) and are the ones who are actually out there committing crimes...
> 
> Trudeau just made the street value of hand guns increase immensely....profits just doubled for those criminals smuggling guns across the border!
> 
> This will do NOTHING to prevent gun crime, but its a feather in trudeaus cap that those dumb enough to trust him can say oh wow he delivered on his promise...just brutal...


When their defense lawyer tells them the amount of prison time they will be getting........it will get their undivided attention.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Trudeau is crooked too, the most corrupt PM in Canada's history. But you're okay with that.


Corrupt ?..........what a joke.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

A woman carrying a pistol recently stopped a mass shooting in Charleston. Had she not been carrying, several people would have been killed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Yes, ban legal handguns, which aren't used in crime anyway. _

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with a handgun.

The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed by an AR15 or one of the other 1500 semi-automatic weapons the Liberals have banned.

The wise decision is to ban both, which the Liberals are doing.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Corrupt ?..........what a joke.


Yes, Trudeau is a complete joke. As so are all the people that voted for him.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> A woman carrying a pistol recently stopped a mass shooting in Charleston. Had she not been carrying, several people would have been killed.


Yup.....and she had a concealed carry weapon permit, was trained and knew how to use it responsibly. She likely was trained law enforcement or military.

That is a far cry from Texas law where anyone over 18 can buy and open carry a weapon with no training, license, or certification.......including an AR15.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some people should be exempt from the restrictions and be allowed to have handguns.

They would need to prove they have the requisite certification, knowledge, and experience to handle the weapon with utmost expertise and caution.

They should be considered as a special designation in gun ownership that isn't easy to obtain.

Just handing guns to idiots.......is bad policy.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Yup.....and she had a concealed carry weapon permit, was trained and knew how to use it responsibly. She likely was trained law enforcement or military.
> 
> That is a far cry from Texas law where anyone over 18 can buy and open carry a weapon with no training, license, or certification.......including an AR15.


The point was that someone with a gun stopped a mass shooting. Her background is irrelevant.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Some people should be exempt from the restrictions and be allowed to have handguns.
> 
> They would need to prove they have the requisite certification, knowledge, and experience to handle the weapon with utmost expertise and caution.
> 
> They should be considered as a special designation in gun ownership that isn't easy to obtain.


Like Canada where it's special license, requires additional training?
And you need additional permits to even take it to the range or to and from the store?


The things you say suggest you really have no idea what the actual laws are in Canada.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _He pointed something *that looked like a gun* at them, they shot him. _
> 
> A cardinal rule of gun ownership is don't shoot at something if you don't absolutely know what it is.


Exactly, they had a threat, they neutralized it.

Again, what do you want? Should they wait till he shoots someone before you stop them?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

It keeps getting worse.
Apparently not only did local police prevent parents from saving children, they also tried to stop the tactical team.



https://news.yahoo.com/border-patrol-agents-defied-uvalde-145127057.html



I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, but this is a criminal level of incompetence.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Are you still opposed to defunding the cops? Or only in Canada.


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

sags said:


> When their defense lawyer tells them the amount of prison time they will be getting........it will get their undivided attention.


if anything under the liberals we are seeing nothing but LESS time in jail, rather than stricter punishments, theres a reason these guys are called out-LAws.. they do not obey the law...


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Like Canada where it's special license, requires additional training?
> And you need additional permits to even take it to the range or to and from the store?
> 
> 
> The things you say suggest you really have no idea what the actual laws are in Canada.


I think sags makes a lot of sense with what he is saying - and I do understand what he is saying is very similar to the current rules and regs to own a restricted gun in canada at the moment.
I think alot of us agree on a lot more than we think, we just spend a lot of time splitting hairs and arguing over some of the small nuances of things.. we all want a safer crime-free canada, my fear is this new liberal legislation is not going to be effective in getting us any closer to that goal...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Gumball said:


> I think sags makes a lot of sense with what he is saying - and I do understand what he is saying is very similar to the current rules and regs to own a restricted gun in canada at the moment.
> I think alot of us agree on a lot more than we think, we just spend a lot of time splitting hairs and arguing over some of the small nuances of things.. we all want a safer crime-free canada, my fear is this new liberal legislation is not going to be effective in getting us any closer to that goal...


No, it's a PR stunt that simply angers gun owners.
If you look almost all the "reasonable" points that sags raises are already the law in Canada.

They're simply trying to wear down the shooting sports to the point where they aren't an effective lobby.

20 years ago they closed the shooting range at the University of Toronto.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/university-of-toronto-gun-range-to-be-silenced-1.640898



My old high school had a shooting range in the basement, and I'm not _that_ old yet.

This is their plan, to whittle and chip away. 


I really like shooting, now I'm torn, do I go get a 9mm pistol hoping I can use it enough before they ban them, or if it's just a waste of time.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Exactly, they had a threat, they neutralized it.
> 
> Again, what do you want? Should they wait till he shoots someone before you stop them?


Some people think it's like Hollywood...the cop can shoot the gun out of their hand from 30' away. Or that they should be able to tell the difference with 100% accuracy between a real weapon and what looks like a weapon in milli-seconds.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Just an observation. The school shootings seem to be something more than random. The shooter profile is usually a is a young male who has been shunned socially and be the object of bullying and eventually decides to commit suicide and in so doing extract revenge against the sources of his alienation and depression.. , It has happened enough that every school should be taking strong measures to make such events next to impossible. Getting rid of guns in the US is not a realistic possibility . Making schools safe from such threats is a very attainable goal and it should be done forthwith. Both Democrats and Republicans could unit around that goal.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

zinfit said:


> Just an observation. The school shootings seem to be something more than random. The shooter profile is usually a is a young male who has been shunned socially and be the object of bullying and eventually decides to commit suicide and in so doing extract revenge against the sources of his alienation and depression.. , It has happened enough that every school should be taking strong measures to make such events next to impossible. Getting rid of guns in the US is not a realistic possibility . Making schools safe from such threats is a very attainable goal and it should be done forthwith. Both Democrats and Republicans could unit around that goal.


The fastest thing on two legs is a Democrat running for a microphone after a shooting demanding that guns be banned. They want the police to be defunded, they let violent criminals out of jail early, and they don't want cops in schools or armed teachers. The end result is more shootings, which they know but that's the plan all along. They use every death to push their agenda to disarm the population. They have no interest in any plan that will result in zero shooting deaths if it means that people can keep their guns.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What plan would that be ?

The armed security guard who was a former police officer was killed by the gunman in Buffalo, and everyone knows about all the police on scene in Texas.

They could convert every school into a prison like fortress, but it wouldn't protect the kids coming and going to school or at recess or lunch.

Let's say they did come up with a viable plan, who would pay for it all ? Maybe apply a special "surtax" on guns to pay the cost ?

If a gun cost $25,000 instead of $200 maybe kids wouldn't be able to buy them, so maybe that is one way to deal with it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I kind of like that idea.

Don't "ban" guns......"tax" them.

Apply the tax at the production level so it is collected. The manufacturers pay the tax on every gun they produce and recoup it from their retail customers.

That will provide money to secure the schools, pay damages to victims, and pay the cost of extra policing.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment or the US Constitution that determines the price or availability of guns.

The "right to bear arms" doesn't say "the right to bear affordable arms".


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> What plan would that be ?
> 
> The armed security guard who was a former police officer was killed by the gunman in Buffalo, and everyone knows about all the police on scene in Texas.
> 
> ...


My plan is simple and makes sense.

Mass killers don't attack schools where teachers have guns. They tend to choose gun free zones almost exclusively.

Teachers are already in the school and in the classrooms, they know all the students and would be aware of something amiss, and are available all day long. Teachers would bring their own guns at not cost to the taxpayer.

My idea is a lot better than the ridiculous idea of charging $25,000 for a gun and then magically pretending that the black market doesn't exist.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

HappilyRetired said:


> My plan is simple and makes sense.
> 
> Mass killers don't attack schools where teachers have guns. They tend to choose gun free zones almost exclusively.
> 
> ...


The teacher left a door open that is how the shooter entered. The security at the vmain entrances wouldn't have allowed him in. The school yards are fenced . A small thing leaving a door unlocked. A buzzer or alarm signal device would have eliminated that possibility. I think it should be possible to screen teachers, train them thoroughly on handgun usage and have teacher access to such guns from a secure location in the event of a such a emergency. Schools like fire alarm systems, extinguishers, fire drills in the event of fires. Since gun shootings are happening frequently their is need for strict security and emergency response measures to deal with such situations. Waiting for the eliminating for guns in the USA is a waste.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

HappilyRetired said:


> The fastest thing on two legs is a Democrat running for a microphone after a shooting demanding that guns be banned. They want the police to be defunded, they let violent criminals out of jail early, and they don't want cops in schools or armed teachers. The end result is more shootings, which they know but that's the plan all along. They use every death to push their agenda to disarm the population. They have no interest in any plan that will result in zero shooting deaths if it means that people can keep their guns.


Proof that my comment was accurate. California just passed a bill repealing the need to report assaults or physical threats by students:

_(2) Under_ existing law, whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities. Failure to make the report is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000. An act by specified persons to inhibit or impede the making of the report is an infraction punishable by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000.
*This bill would repeal those provisions. 

Bill Text - SB-1273 School safety: mandatory notifications. *


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Proof that my comment was accurate. California just passed a bill repealing the need to report assaults or physical threats by students:
> 
> _(2) Under_ existing law, whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities. Failure to make the report is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000. An act by specified persons to inhibit or impede the making of the report is an infraction punishable by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000.
> *This bill would repeal those provisions.
> ...


The fact that they had to make a law to force disclosure of safety concerns is problematic.
The fact that someone doesn't want them to report safety concerns is MORE problematic.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

They repealed sections of the law and amended other sections to be more inclusive and strengthen the reporting requirement.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> They repealed sections of the law and amended other sections to be more inclusive and strengthen the reporting requirement.


No they didn't.
You clearly didn't read the bill. Or you're lying. It's a one page bill that significantly reduces reporting requirements.

The requirement was that they had to disclose all assaults and threats, and there are penalties for not doing so

The new reporting requirement is they have to report bringing a gun to school (Section 626.9 or 626.10 of the Penal Code) unless it is a BB gun



I've got a question, why is reporting school violence a problem?
I assume they added a reporting requirement because staff weren't reporting school violence.

What is the benefit of NOT reporting school violence?


That being said, overly harsh "zero tolerance" policies are problematic. But if you're bringing a BB gun to school, it should be reported, and I see no reason to waive that from mandatory reporting requirements.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Look for the "amended" parts of the legislation and the discussion of the changes in the legislature.

There is a list of agency and group support and opposition to the changes, and a pro-con analysis of the effect of the changes.





__





Bill Analysis -






leginfo.legislature.ca.gov


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_What is the benefit of NOT reporting school violence?_

Gives teachers and school principals more discretion on minor offenses, instead of automatic referral to the criminal justice system.

The objective of the education system is to educate the pupils.......not forward them to the criminal justice system for any minor infraction of the rules.

Why do conservatives believe the criminal justice system is the appropriate panacea solution for everything ?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Not every infraction and assault results in criminal record.
However; capturing them makes sure that they pop up during background check so someone who has infraction for assaults won't be able to get weapons - I thought that's the entire idea?
Background checks are useless if assaults aren't reported


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Defund police
Don't prosecute Antifa or BLM violence
Let criminals out of jail early
Let violent offenders walk across the border
Take cops out of schools
Stop reporting school violence
Run to a microphone when there's a shooting

These are deliberate actions. Only a fool refuses to see the pattern.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Not every infraction and assault results in criminal record.
> However; capturing them makes sure that they pop up during background check so someone who has infraction for assaults won't be able to get weapons - I thought that's the entire idea?
> Background checks are useless if assaults aren't reported


Every charge doesn't result in a criminal "conviction" but rest assured it becomes part of a person's criminal record, even as part of a juvenile record.

Criminal records include both the charges and the resolution of the charges.

Interactions with police won't show up on the RCMP CPIC database, but they will remain on the records of local police force where it occurred.

People confuse criminal records with a record of criminal convictions. They aren't the same.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

And what is wrong with having a record of assault if you have committed an assault?
If you don't want record - don't assault people.
I want aggressive people to not be able to buy guns and therefore want assault to come up on background checks.

This opens the avenue for teacher intimidation. If aggressive assaulters threatens you, you are probably less likely to report in fear of retribution.

HappilyRetarded is correct here - democrats are doing everything to have as many violent people on the streets as possible


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _What is the benefit of NOT reporting school violence?_
> 
> Gives teachers and school principals more discretion on minor offenses, instead of automatic referral to the criminal justice system.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but if someone is assaulting people and bringing weapons to school, it's time to get help.

You consider assault, rape, and bringing weapons to school "minor infractions of the rules".

Conservatives don't think the criminal justice system is a panacea, we just don't really have a better system to deal with these types of problems.

Look at the Texas shooting, were they supposed to send in a f***king social worker to "mediate"?


We do need to fix our justice system, absolutely, it isn't perfect.
But that doesn't mean we should let violence reign at schools, or let violent criminals roam free.

Also why do you think banning guns is the panacea for gun crime? Given that 1/4 of "gun crimes" in Canada don't involve an actual gun, and most of the remainder are guns smuggled from the US.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Someone......meaning kids.

The legislation doesn't forbid calling law enforcement. It removes the mandatory requirement to do so for minor incidents.

I expect all major incidents would still be reported to police. Some seem to think government should make the decision instead of the school.

I thought conservatives were opposed to more government intervention ?


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

zinfit said:


> The teacher left a door open that is how the shooter entered ...


I guess you haven't followed the latest of something over a dozen updates that change the story.

The first report was that the teacher panicked and left the door propped open while calling 911. Now it's that the teacher _closed_ the door before the shooter entered but it didn't lock.








Texas authorities say a teacher closed a propped-open door before the attack


Police initially said the gunman entered through a door that was propped open by a teacher. Now they say the teacher had actually shut the door, but it didn't lock.




www.npr.org






It makes the investigation look like the keystone cops with many changes and willingness to report then adjust or retract what they said.


As for training teachers, I can recall the Tamp Tribune highlighting that so many teachers were quitting due to low pay/long hours that the school boards ads were highlighting that new hires would teach during the day and then go to school at night to get their qualifications. Maybe this 16K population town can do better than that ... and maybe not.


Cheers

*PS*
I'm curious as to what at the main entrance would have stopped the shooter from entering?
Wasn't one of the updates that the school district cop was off campus?

The google street view seems to be showing a four foot chain link fence as the entrance "barrier".
The windows to the classroom have no fence so he could have just as easily walked beside the classroom window and sprayed the room.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Texas police do appear to be a unit of the Keystone cops, except it isn't funny to watch.

They can't even get basic information right....or is it that they are trying to spin the events politically until they get called out on the false information ?

It looks a lot like a political coverup is underway in Texas. Misinformation, excuses, denials, self praise, the blame game.........and so it goes.

Texas gun law is stupid and defending stupid laws is really stupid.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Someone......meaning kids.
> 
> The legislation doesn't forbid calling law enforcement. It removes the mandatory requirement to do so for minor incidents.
> 
> ...


I would also expect all major incidents to be reported, if so I think the legislation should reflect that.

I don't have a concern with the legislation removing the requirement for minor incidents, but it ALSO removes the requirement for major incidents.

Under the old law assaults had to be reported, under this new legislation they've basically removed mandatory reporting of all incidents except for firearms.

We're not talking about hairpulling and namecalling, under these changes even assaults, rapes, and weapons in schools are no longer required to be reported.
I would hope they do, but you have to ask yourself, what politician is trying to cover up serious crimes at schools?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I'm sorry, but if someone is assaulting people and bringing weapons to school, it's time to get help.





sags said:


> Someone......meaning kids.


Yes, "kids" you know like Salvador Ramos, who was a student

Under the old law if he assaulted students, or brought weapons to school in California it would have to be reported.
Under the new law there would no longer be a mandatory reporting requirement.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I thought conservatives were opposed to more government intervention ?


Only in things that are not their responsiblity.
Criminal law is one area that the government is responsible for.

If crimes are being committed at school, law enforcement should be involved.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> And what is wrong with having a record of assault if you have committed an assault?
> If you don't want record - don't assault people.
> I want aggressive people to not be able to buy guns and therefore want assault to come up on background checks.
> 
> ...


 ... I think you got your drink spiked while half way typing your post with the derailing. Also, see the bolded words above within your post. A correct retard that's so happy too.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I thought Sam Harris had a pretty good take on the situation and what is to be done.






tl;dr is that wishing guns away from America is a bit of a fantasy. Also, it is a really bad idea to embrace idioitic right wing ideas like making schools like prison fortresses with armed guards and single points of entry and egress. Same with drilling active shooter situations, when children have perhaps 1 in 1 million chance of dying in school mass shooting each year. Just tell the kids to run if they hear gunfire but otherwise don't think about it too much. Shelter in place is dumb and a recipe for dozens of kids getting shot. Spending a lot of time dwelling on active shooter drills may have perverse effects, increasing anxiety unnecessarily or even inspiring attacks.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

HappilyRetired said:


> My plan is simple and makes sense.
> 
> Mass killers don't attack schools where teachers have guns. They tend to choose gun free zones almost exclusively.
> 
> ...


I have an even better idea:

Let's add metal grids in every window of the schools,
let's add two armed guards with bulletproof vests at every entrance of the schools,
let's add barbed wire fence all around the schools,
let's add metal detectors at every entrance of the schools,
let's add metal gates at every entrance of the schools, requiring access cards provided only to students,
let's arm every school personnel and equip them with bulletproof vests.

And now tell your kids to have nice day at jail school where they'll be safe because they live in a very unsafe country with mass shootings every *day*.

When I go to countries where I see armed police everywhere, armed guards everywhere, armed military everywhere, I don't feel safe. I feel like I'm in a country that has lost control of crime, mental health issues, extremists, crazy people and terrorists. And now they have to protect themselves against their own people.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> they live in a very unsafe country with mass shootings every year.


Correction mass shootings every day.

There have been many mass shootings since Uvalde. 



https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b1dda979edc4137e96416509bfac548e6d8c0009a80193829bf7980c4d3784d0JmltdHM9MTY1NDE4MjY5MCZpZ3VpZD1mNWJlOWM1MS02NDZlLTRmOWQtYjgwOC0zNmMxNGZjNmFiMmUmaW5zaWQ9NTE0OQ&ptn=3&fclid=47d044eb-e286-11ec-b1d6-6883f430a134&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmV3c3dlZWsuY29tL3RoZXJlLWhhdmUtYWxyZWFkeS1iZWVuLTE3LW1hc3Mtc2hvb3RpbmdzLXdlZWstc2luY2UtdXZhbGRlLTE3MTE2NTQ&ntb=1


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

sags said:


> I kind of like that idea.
> 
> Don't "ban" guns......"tax" them.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I thought Sam Harris had a pretty good take on the situation and what is to be done.


Be careful... gateway to the intellectual dark web.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web



Throw in some Jonathan Haidt or Thomas Sowell and you'll be alt-right in no time.

FYI, Sam Harris and his non-religious work on meditation and spirituality is really good. Waking up as an audiobook is quite good.


I think shelter in place is an acceptable strategy if help is coming, otherwise flee in different directions and hope you get lucky.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Be careful... gateway to the intellectual dark web.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hopefully that will be a beginning and he can start seeing where the cancel, culture , progressives and woke movement is going. They have made good progress so far they only need a totalitarian dictator like Stalin , more newspeak and the heavy hand of the state to complete the job. Trudeau is just an empty front man for this crowd.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Be careful... gateway to the intellectual dark web.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Harris has distanced himself from the idea of IDW (I gather because of some members going a bit off the deep end). He is definitely, 100% not alt-right or right wing at all.



zinfit said:


> Hopefully that will be a beginning and he can start seeing where the cancel, culture , progressives and woke movement is going. They have made good progress so far they only need a totalitarian dictator like Stalin , more newspeak and the heavy hand of the state to complete the job. Trudeau is just an empty front man for this crowd.


Harris can start to have thoughts on those subjects? He's been on it for many years now. Since around 2014/2015 and the Gamergate situation. I think Gamergate is probably a rather underappreciated event by wider society in terms of the impact it has had on trends in political discourse. I wonder if you are perhaps projecting onto Harris--he was a rather vocal critic of Trump.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

andrewf said:


> Harris has distanced himself from the idea of IDW (I gather because of some members going a bit off the deep end). He is definitely, 100% not alt-right or right wing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Harris can start to have thoughts on those subjects? He's been on it for many years now. Since around 2014/2015 and the Gamergate situation. I think Gamergate is probably a rather underappreciated event by wider society in terms of the impact it has had on trends in political discourse. I wonder if you are perhaps projecting onto Harris--he was a rather vocal critic of Trump.


So was Rogan and Ben Shapiro. No matter how you slice it Trump wasn't making government smaller and less intrusive. I want more freedom through less government and corporations that stay out of politics.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Harris has distanced himself from the idea of IDW (I gather because of some members going a bit off the deep end). He is definitely, 100% not alt-right or right wing at all.


his position is more nuanced than that.

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/9h5pqb
_*”Well... Just to be clear; I think I’ve said this before but I view this notion of the Intellectual Dark Web as a tongue-in-cheek analogy that shouldn’t be taken too seriously.”*_

The whole point of the "IDW" and alt-right is that they don't agree and they're not alt-right, they simply talk about the issues.

_*“If you’re going to talk about me and Jordan Peterson in the same sentence, or me and Ben Shapiro in the same sentence, you have to acknowledge that we disagree about almost everything. So the IDW does not name a unified group, much less a tribe in any normal sense.”*_

The idea that anyone could think Harris (Or Pinker or Weinstein) are in any way "right" is hilarious.
The whole joke is that these people actually have reasoned discussions about important topics and respectfully disagree.

The "Dark Web" is a joke, because actually calmly and in good faith discussing ideas isn't part of mainstream culture these days.

You might disagree with "them", in fact you have to, since they largely disagree with each other, and that's the point. That's the type of discussion we have to have to actually move forward on addressing these problems.

If you want to get a deeper understanding of issues, you need to have people who will actually discuss them in a way that isn't insulting or offensive.
It's actually quite entertaining to see a very strong ashiest like Sam Harris debate a very religious person like Ben Shapiro on ethics and morals.


To "solve" the murder problem we need people to discuss this openly and honestly. 
On one side they simply want to take away all legal guns, and they expect the violence problem to simply evaporate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Discussions about gun control have been ongoing for decades. At some point the government has to make some decisions.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> his position is more nuanced than that.
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/9h5pqb
> ...


He subsequently disavowed the IDW, in 2020. I'm not saying he took a position on what the IDW stood for or that it was a coherent philosophy or anything. It's more that some members took positions or behaved it ways he didn't want to be associated with any further.

I don't find Shapiro particularly engages in good faith (too busy shilling insurance and gold). Peterson seems better, but has some very odd ideas. His first interview on Harris' podcast is absolutely entertaining. They spent over an hour grappling over what the word 'true' meant. Peterson has a very strange idea about truth being utilitarian (things are only true insofar as they are useful).


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/jwvdda


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Peterson seems better, but has some very odd ideas. His first interview on Harris' podcast is absolutely entertaining. They spent over an hour grappling over what the word 'true' meant. Peterson has a very strange idea about truth being utilitarian (things are only true insofar as they are useful).


Truth is a set of concepts that have been debated for millennia in philosophy. 
I think it's at best an interesting tangent, but definitions are important.


I also happen to agree with Sams view on IDW, but it's a convenient label of people who "discussed difficult topics", and that has value.

It is unfortunately rare where people with divergent views will discuss difficult topics in a respectful manner.

My opinion is that some people (unfortunately) don't want to discuss their ideas or face criticism. I think that's because they're bad ideas and aren't defensible or logically consistent.
They don't want to discuss their points, and they actively blur definitions to suit their purposes. 

Lets look at guns, people keep using the term "assault weapons", except there is no actual definition. Some people think if it's black and 'scary', it's an "assault weapon". 
I think "assault weapon" is an undefined term with emotional connotations that is used for political convenience.
That's why gun ban people tend to use the term, or "weapons of war", or other highly charged terms.

The reality is that if Trudeau said they were going to ban and buyback 1500 variants of hunting and target rifles, the level of public support would be WAY less than if he says "assault weapons".
If there was actually a real debate, discussion and agreement on what an "assault weapon" is, then I don't think we'd be having the same discussion.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Lets look at guns, people keep using the term "assault weapons", except there is no actual definition.


Hmm, there is a definition. Maybe a few nuances leading to "different" definitions, but there's at least a common agreement that an assault weapon is semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun with a detachable magazine. With only those two attributes, the picture is already pretty clear about the type of weapon and its capabilities.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Look at this lunatic, a Republican in the middle of a government session, pulling out his various handguns (on video).

How many goddam guns does this freak own?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Collecting guns and weapons is not a new thing and plenty of people do it.

A friend of mine has really nice collection, starting from medieval sword, through sabers, muskets, to new state of the art hand guns and hunting rifles.

I have friend who professionally does reenactments of Polish hussars. Armors, weapons, attire, both for himself and horses.
Nothing wrong with having a hobby. Some people collect stamps, some collect coins, some weapons, some armors, 

Just because someone collects different things you do doesn't make them a lunatic.
Honestly, you sound like a lunatic comparing left-wing Conservative party of Canada to Republicans, calling anyone who has a weapon a lunatic. You really should look in the mirror before passing quick judgement on others.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

damian13ster said:


> Just because someone collects different things you do doesn't make them a lunatic.


Yeah sorry dude, but a man who has like 5 to 10 different handguns at home, and who plays with them in a government proceeding is a lunatic.

I understand collecting historical items or works of art, but owning 10 modern-made handguns and being so cavalier with them is not normal. If a guy owned 10 guns and treated them with proper respect and caution, kept them in a gun safe, perhaps only taking out one (for legal self defense) that would be OK.

In Switzerland, men go through military training and just about every household has a rifle at home. It's kept in safe storage, usually disabled. That's normal and sane use of a gun. If the nation was ever invaded, the men would all re-assemble their guns and use them.

But just hanging out with your 10 guns and waving them around in the air, while on a government meeting? No, that's crazy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I think "assault weapon" is an undefined term with emotional connotations that is used for political convenience.


There are guns that are designed for defence, there are guns that are designed for hunting, and there are guns that are designed for killing people. I don't think the problem is necessarily guns but gun culture. Canada doesn't have much fewer guns than the US (still top ten in world per capita gun ownership), but we don't worship guns and see them as the solution to conflict like they are seen to be in the US. Guns are fetishized in the US, which I don't think is healthy.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> Yeah sorry dude, but a man who has like 5 to 10 different handguns at home, and who plays with them in a government proceeding is a lunatic.
> 
> I understand collecting historical items or works of art, but owning 10 modern-made handguns and being so cavalier with them is not normal. If a guy owned 10 guns and treated them with proper respect and caution, kept them in a gun safe, perhaps only taking out one (for legal self defense) that would be OK.
> 
> ...


If the guns are not loaded/have safety on/have firing pin out - there is really no danger. 
If the gun is loaded and safety is off and firing pin is in - then yeah, it is stupid.

I don't know which one it is, so I don't pass judgement.
Do you know whether the guns are loaded, active, and with safety off?

The problem are lunatics on both sides of the extremes - don't be one of them


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Hmm, there is a definition. Maybe a few nuances leading to "different" definitions, but there's at least a common agreement that an assault weapon is semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun with a detachable magazine. With only those two attributes, the picture is already pretty clear about the type of weapon and its capabilities.


I disagree with your definition.
You just described a typical hunting rifle, or almost every modern pistol.

I'd say an assault weapon is a firearm capable of fully automatic operation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> There are guns that are designed for defence, there are guns that are designed for hunting, and there are guns that are designed for killing people. I don't think the problem is necessarily guns but gun culture. Canada doesn't have much fewer guns than the US (still top ten in world per capita gun ownership), but we don't worship guns and see them as the solution to conflict like they are seen to be in the US. Guns are fetishized in the US, which I don't think is healthy.


Canada has WAY fewer guns than the US, and most of our guns are long guns.

120 per 100 is a LOT more than 35 per hundred.








Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





I disagree that the guns are really designed differently.
The ergonomic features that make a firearm good for military patrols make it good for walking in the forest hunting.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I disagree with your definition.
> You just described a typical hunting rifle, or almost every modern pistol.
> 
> I'd say an assault weapon is a firearm capable of fully automatic operation.


Found in a document from the government of Canada and referring to the definition from the US Department of Justice:

_“Assault weapon” is not a legally defined term in Canada’s firearms legislation. Various international jurisdictions use different terms and definitions, often based on physical characteristics. For illustrative purposes, the US Department of Justice has used the following description: in general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire._

The US has a definition.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Guns are fetishized in the US, which I don't think is healthy.


It's a bit of a modern phenomenon too, partially fuelled by the gun lobby. Additionally fuelled by the new right-wing which starting around 1980, the loopy idea of the "cowboy", brought back as a political movement... the lone, armed man (brave cowboy) against overreaching government.

Remember Reagan pretending to be a cowboy, wearing a cowboy hat etc? That's when the cultural shift started.

This was an orchestrated movement, planned by corporate interests to fight against regulation and taxes -- for $$$. And gullible, dimwit Americans were easily convinced by this cartoon notion.

This has always fundamentally been about the wealthy elites (and powerful corporations) not wanting to pay taxes, and not wanting regulation. But the gun-toting cowboy image, starting in the 1980s, was how the corporate elites conned the dim-witted, common Americans into joining this movement to oppose the government and "protect muh freedums" -- reject taxes, reject regulation, reject government.

Over time, the gun became more prominent as part of the right wing character, in opposition to gubmint.


Today we have the extreme form of this dysfunction. The modern aristocrats, the billionaires (Trump + Kushner) gain power and use it to slash corporate taxes to enrich their circles, and reduce regulations. Same old story. But how on earth can a bunch of billionaires win the support of millions of average Americans? What kind of moron would vote for actual billionaire elites? Well this is where we get the extreme version of Reagan's right wing. Republicans constantly fear-monger, whining on and on about "freedums" and personal liberties, pushing fantasies about "evil" government. *This is the same old 1980s right wing shtick, but now it's on crack.*

And the Republican voters eat it up, and hand power to the aristocrats. What a bunch or fools.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Part 1.

Rather than continually restricting guns the manufacturers produce to subvert restrictions, government should ban all guns except for "exemptions".

They can work with hunter and gun club associations to determine which guns would be "exempt" from the law for their legal purposes.

They can also restrict the type of ammunition and number of rounds for each weapon.

Part 2.

Training, licenses, buying and selling, safe storage of weapons with sufficient criminal penalties for breaches of law should also be in place.

More resources should be applied to halting illegal guns from coming into Canada.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Found in a document from the government of Canada and referring to the definition from the US Department of Justice:
> 
> _“Assault weapon” is not a legally defined term in Canada’s firearms legislation. Various international jurisdictions use different terms and definitions, often based on physical characteristics. For illustrative purposes, the US Department of Justice has used the following description: in general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire._
> 
> The US has a definition.


Okay, well by that definition Canada banned assault weapons decades ago.
Secondly I still don't really agree with that definition

Firstly because then something like this is by definition not an assault weapon. (it is not semi automatic)








But by that definition (with a large magazine) The hunting rifle below IS an assault weapon.









The idea that hunting rifle is an assault weapon, but a Light Machine Gun isn't is IMO laughable.
FYI, they both fire the same ammunition.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Rather than continually restricting guns that the manufacturers change, modify or produce to get around restrictions, the government should ban all guns except for "exceptions".
> 
> They can work with hunter and gun club associations to determine which guns would be "exempt" from the law.
> 
> ...


How about any hunting rifle that isn't fully automatic?
If you just let us use plain old semi auto hunting rifles most would be happy. But that's specifically what they're trying to ban.

I also quite enjoy handgun target shooting, but it seems that's too much too. 

The problem is that the Liberals get too much play "fighting gun crime" by continuously attacking law abiding gun owners. It's all grandstanding


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Secondly I still don't really agree with that definition


Well, the US Department of Justice doesn't care if MrMatt agrees or not with their definition and categorization. The point is that they have a definition and categorization.

The weapons you've shown have other
categorization, simple as that.

The hunting rifle is not "designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use".

The definition also usually includes the nuance "*detachable* magazine".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Well, the US Department of Justice doesn't care if MrMatt agrees or not with their definition and categorization. The point is that they have a definition and categorization.
> 
> The weapons you've shown have other
> categorization, simple as that.
> ...


Semi auto is semi auto, the mini14 will shoot as fast as you pull the trigger, just like an AR15.

It also has a detachable magazine, which is why I chose the mini-14. I'm not sure why you consider "detachable magazine" as a nuanced term. 
Many battle rifles did NOT have detachable magazines, this is a recent development.

It was also "designed for combat use" as much as it was "designed for hunting use", perhaps more so than some other rifles.
I am glad you recognize that a civilian implementation of a military design can be a legitimate hunting rifle.

One of the most popular hunting rifles in Canada for decades were Surplus Lee Enfields, specifically because they were "designed for combat". The things that make a good combat rifle make a good hunting rifle. Ergonomic and reliable.


I short I'll return to my claim.
The fully automatic belt fed, or removable magazine firearm is an "assault weapon"

The semi automatic, removable magazine hunting rifle is not an "assault weapon"

The real issue I have is that there is no functional difference between these 2 rifles, they are both legitimately hunting/target rifles, and neither would be appropriate for military use.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Then why is the AR15 the weapon of choice by mass shooters ?

Just comparing the two rifles......it looks like the black one is lighter and would be easier to use in an assault.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Then why is the AR15 the weapon of choice by mass shooters ?


Because it's the most common hunting rifle design in the US?

If you're buying a rifle in the US for any use, it's likely going to be an AR15, as a single design has models for every price range and every use.
From hunting moose to gophers, from cheap to expensive. There is an AR15 that will fit your needs.




> Just comparing the two rifles......it looks like the black one is lighter and would be easier to use in an assault.


Lighter would also be easier to carry around hunting all day. Again the same attributes that make a rifle good for military use make it good for hunting.

Also FYI, the C7A2 (Canada military issue rifle) is 7.3lbs, whereas the mini14 is LIGHTER at 6lb 6oz


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Federal gun control bill triggers run of 'panic' buying on pistols, Calgary firearms shops say


'We have sold out of pretty much every handgun we have in two days,' says one employee




nationalpost.com





Who could have seen that coming......


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Imagine this scenario that actually exists in Texas.

You are raising teenagers and parents know how difficult they can be at times. 

You have a disagreement with them about using the family car, how late they are staying out at night, or who they are hanging out with.

The 18 year old shows up at home with an AR15 and bag full of bullets and heads to his room saying.......I will do whatever I want.

Remember this kid shot his granny in the face because she was checking up on his cellphone bill.

He got mad about that and shot her and that set off the whole chain of events.

I am glad I am not trying to raise a rebellious teen in Texas.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Imagine this scenario that actually exists in Texas.
> 
> You are raising teenagers and parents know how difficult they can be at times.
> 
> ...


Imagine this scenario that actually exists in Toronto.

You have a disagreement with your teenager about something.
They show up at home with the illegally purchased handgun they bought downtown and say "I will do whatever I want".

It's important to note that in Toronto illegal handguns are widely available at reasonable cost.








Radio host proves how easy it is to find an illegal gun in Toronto


A radio host who wanted to see how easy it is to get an illegal gun in Toronto was viewing firearms in the parking lot of a mall just hours after he began looking for one.



toronto.ctvnews.ca






Remember, most gun crime is illegally smuggled guns. 








EDITORIAL: Going in circles on 'banning' handguns


Since coming into office seven years ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has proposed every conceivable method of “banning” handguns in Canada.




torontosun.com




"Most handguns used in crimes in Canada — an estimated 80% in cities like Toronto — are smuggled in from the U.S., purchased by criminals who aren’t deterred by the Criminal Code, let alone provincial legislation or municipal bylaws."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Imagine this scenario that actually exists in Toronto.
> 
> You have a disagreement with your teenager about something.
> They show up at home with the illegally purchased handgun they bought downtown and say "I will do whatever I want".
> ...


You don't seem persuaded by this argument when it comes to drugs. Why are drugs illegal if they are widely available on the black market? The argument for banning guns is much stronger than for banning drugs. Guns are for causing harm to others (even if in self defense) while drugs only directly cause harm to the users.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> ...drugs only directly cause harm to the users.


That might be one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You don't seem persuaded by this argument when it comes to drugs. Why are drugs illegal if they are widely available on the black market? The argument for banning guns is much stronger than for banning drugs. Guns are for causing harm to others (even if in self defense) while drugs only directly cause harm to the users.


What argument? 
Legal and controlled drugs are okay and should be permitted, illegal and smuggled drugs should not.
Legal and controlled guns are okay and should be permitted, illegal and smuggled guns should not.

I actually 100% support banning guns from people who shouldn't have them.
I simply think properly screened, trained, licensed and monitored people should be permitted to have guns for appropriate usage.

Similarly I think drugs should be available for appropriate uses as well.

Improper use of drugs can cause harm, so we have instituted controls to reduce those harms. Drugs outside these channels are illegal.
Improper use of guns can cause harm, so we have instituted controls to reduce those harms. Guns outside these channels are illegal.

I'd actually suggest that I'm rather consistent on these policies.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Imagine this scenario that actually exists in Toronto.
> 
> You have a disagreement with your teenager about something.
> They show up at home with the illegally purchased handgun they bought downtown and say "I will do whatever I want".
> ...


 .. and so is that core problem going away? Okay, let's not get too greedy, how about it lessening? I think carjacking in Toronto is just the start ... until that or a home invasion happens to a "well known public" figure somewhere on the upper echelon in society will it then be considered a "problem".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I seriously doubt it is as easy for a kid to buy an illegal gun in Canada as it is to buy one at Walmart in the US.

If it was that easy, and the sellers were that well known........they would be easy for the police to catch and arrest.

_*Hello.....I saw your ad in Facebook market and want to buy a gun.*

Okay........meet me at Tim Horton's parking lot.

*Hi.......you got the gun ?*

Yea........here it is. You got the money ?_

*Nope*_*.......you are under arrest.*_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

From the link on the story about how easy it is to buy a gun in Toronto.....

_Newstalk 1010 host Yonah Budd said he was confident he could find a gun in Toronto *through contacts he made as a private investigator, crisis intervention specialist and prison chaplain. *

Well, no **** Sherlock.........a prison chaplain knows criminals.......who knew ?_


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> That might be one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard.


All other harms from drugs are indirect. Much of the harm is a result of prohibition, not so much drugs themselves.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Improper use of drugs can cause harm, so we have instituted controls to reduce those harms. Drugs outside these channels are illegal.
> Improper use of guns can cause harm, so we have instituted controls to reduce those harms. Guns outside these channels are illegal.


We prohibit types of drugs and not uses.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I seriously doubt it is as easy for a kid to buy an illegal gun in Canada as it is to buy one at Walmart in the US.


I agree
1. Walmart doesn't sell illegal guns.
2. The guns Walmart does sell can only be sold to adults.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Improper use of drugs can cause harm, so we have instituted controls to reduce those harms. Drugs outside these channels are illegal.
> Improper use of guns can cause harm, so we have instituted controls to reduce those harms. Guns outside these channels are illegal.





andrewf said:


> We prohibit types of drugs and not uses.


We have a blanket prohibition on many types of drugs outside the regulated channels, for approved purposes.
Which is pretty much the same as guns.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Saying that illegal things are illegal is tautological.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Saying that illegal things are illegal is tautological.


There is no evidence that Walmart is selling guns illegally, I'm sure if they did there would be a massive uproar.
I can't imagine the PR disaster if they were faking background checks to the FBI.

My point remains Walmart doesn't sell guns to kids. Of course sags won't back up his claim, because he likes to spew unsupported nonsense.

The claim that it is easier to illegally purchase a gun from Walmart than to purchase it on the streets of Toronto is laughable.
I think you'd have more luck illegally purchasing a gun from a shady dealer, but even then dealers licenses are valuable and the criminal penalties are quite severe.

Looking at the ATF statistics on surprise inspections, the vast majority of FFL holders have no violations at all.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Walmart sells a lot of guns, ammunition and supplies in the US and aren't willing to give it up.

They change their store policies on a continual basis. It appears a person has to be be 21 at present but they can change store policy at any time.

They may change again, since Texas enacted their new open carry laws and eliminated any permits, certifications, or training to be necessary.

In any event, in Texas there are lots of retailers and gun shows where 18 year olds can legally buy a gun and walk around with it.

I seriously doubt buying an illegal gun in Canada is easier than buying a legal one at a store or show in the US, and open carry in Canada is illegal.

Perhaps Mr. Matt could supply an example of an advertisement to buy illegal guns in Toronto or maybe a website or 1-800 number to call.

If so, he should forward the information to the police, so law enforcement can remove the illegal guns which Mr. Matt says is the sole cause of gun violence.

Yea, didn't think so.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Walmart sells a lot of guns, ammunition and supplies in the US and aren't willing to give it up.
> 
> They change their store policies on a continual basis. It appears a person has to be be 21 at present but they can change store policy at any time.
> 
> ...


Yes, and nobody dispute that.



> I seriously doubt buying an illegal gun in Canada is easier than buying a legal one at a store or show in the US, and open carry in Canada is illegal.


I agree with that as well. Never did I suggest that was not the case.



> Perhaps Mr. Matt could supply an example of an advertisement to buy illegal guns in Toronto or maybe a website or 1-800 number to call.
> 
> If so, he should forward the information to the police, so law enforcement can remove the illegal guns which Mr. Matt says is the sole cause of gun violence.


I never said that, I did repeat statistics from law enforcement that the vast majority of gun crime is committed by illegal guns.



> Yea, didn't think so.


I'm not going to back up claims that I never made and don't agree with.

It's always interesting how you make outlandish claims, then when called on it, suggest those people are making outlandish claims as well.

I never said it was easier to get an illegal gun in Toronto than to legally purchase a firearm in the US.
I DID say it was easier to get an illegal gun in Toronto than to illegally purchase one from Walmart, which was your claim.

I'll just remind you of your claim.


sags said:


> I seriously doubt it is as easy for a kid to buy an illegal gun in Canada as it is to buy one at Walmart in the US.


I'd also suggest that a properly licensed/qualified individual in either jurisdiction could legally purchase a firearm with little trouble


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

I think Mr. Matt is a real life Nathan Thurm from Saturday Night Live!😵


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Zipper said:


> I think Mr. Matt is a real life Nathan Thurm from Saturday Night Live!😵


 ... interesting.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, and nobody dispute that.
> 
> 
> I agree with that as well. Never did I suggest that was not the case.
> ...


 ... re above bolded sentences, particularly the 2nd one. How is one able to purchase a gun from Walmart if it's considered "illegal" to do so? That's like saying Walmart is selling firearms illegally. So in effect, that's NOT what sags was claiming. It's the opposite so no need to for him to back up MrMatt's twist at this.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... re above bolded sentences, particularly the 2nd one. How is one able to purchase a gun from Walmart if it's considered "illegal" to do so? That's like saying Walmart is selling firearms illegally. So in effect, that's NOT what sags was claiming. It's the opposite so no need to for him to back up MrMatt's twist at this.


Exactly, and that's my point.

He said


sags said:


> I seriously doubt it is as easy for a kid to buy an illegal gun in Canada as it is to buy one at Walmart in the US.


I think it is easier for a kid to buy an illegal gun in Canada than to buy one in Walmart at the US. 

AFAIK there is ZERO evidence Walmart is selling guns to kids in the US.
But we know that kids are buying illegal guns in Canada.

Therefore it is easier for a kid to buy an illegal gun in Canada than it is to buy one (legal gun or illegal gun) at Walmart in the US.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I actually 100% support banning guns from people who shouldn't have them.
> I simply think properly screened, trained, licensed and monitored people should be permitted to have guns for appropriate usage.


This is a super weak point of view.

I'll quote one of my previous posts:



MrBlackhill said:


> The fact is... You don't know beforehand *who* are the dangerous people and you don't know beforehand *when* will someone become dangerous and you don't know beforehand *what* will trigger them into becoming dangerous and you don't know beforehand *how* it will affect them in their mental health and you don't know beforehand *why* they became dangerous.
> 
> One thing we know, though: if someone owns a gun, he is already more dangerous than someone who doesn't own a gun.


I'm pretty sure most of the mass murderers would successfully go through the screening process.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Approve 5 or 6 specific weapons for specific purposes and ban everything else.

Too many people think they are Rambo.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I simply think properly screened, trained, licensed and monitored people should be permitted to have guns for appropriate usage.





MrBlackhill said:


> This is a super weak point of view.


Why?
Are you one of those nutcases that want to take guns away from police and military?
Or only when they're on shift, because ... why? Do you think a cop suddenly becomes a danger to society when their shift ends?

Talk about a weak point of view.



> I'm pretty sure most of the mass murderers would successfully go through the screening process.


I'm pretty sure that isn't true.
What portion of mass murders in Canada are committed by people who are licensed?

What portion of mass murders in the US are screened and licensed (ie with a Concealed carry permit in a state where that means some sort of screening or training.)

I'm not saying it is perfect, and I'm perfectly happy to improve it. But to suggest proper screening is ineffective flies in the face of the evidence.

I think that the problem is multifold.
US gun laws are broken, they also have a different culture

Canadian gun laws are poorly enforced.
I think the continuous background checks we have are a good idea. I think required training is good. But the people who pass these requirements aren't the ones killing people.

Most gun crime in Canada is committed with illegal guns by people who aren't properly licensed, using guns that aren't legally in the country.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Approve 5 or 6 specific weapons for specific purposes and ban everything else.
> 
> Too many people think they are Rambo.


That makes no sense.

a .22lr isn't any more or less dangerous if it's fired from a Ruger 10/22 or a Ruger AR, or a Bushmaster AR.
Heck a Browning Buckmark Rifle and Buckmark pistol are pretty much the exact same gun.

I think the reason you want this, is simply you like banning guns. You don't care. you just want a ban.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Why?
> Are you one of those nutcases that want to take guns away from police and military?


No, because they need it for their job. That's a good reason. And that's a limited percentage of the population who are police or military. So it has nothing to do with a country where most of the population owns a gun.

But why allow guns to other people who obviously don't need a gun?

Ok, people want access to guns for hunting. Right, do you need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt? Do you need a large magazine? It should be an activity of patience and precision, not a mass murdering type of activity on the deers in the forest.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> No, because they need it for their job. That's a good reason. And that's a limited percentage of the population who are police or military. So it has nothing to do with a country where most of the population owns a gun.
> 
> But why allow guns to other people who obviously don't need a gun?
> 
> Ok, people want access to guns for hunting. Right, do you need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt? Do you need a large magazine? It should be an activity of patience and precision, not a mass murdering type of activity on the deers in the forest.


Yes, semi-automatic is a standard in hunting rifles. For good reasons too - if you miss, you do need to take 2nd shot quickly.

The magazines for semi-automatic rifles are already capped at 5 bullets so what you are suggesting already exists in place.

The facts are that recidivism rates are insanely high for people with previous gun-related charges.
That's why the issue are weak sentences, lack of prosecution, low/no bails.

It is not a coincidence that gun-related crime is on the rise with a trend among prosecutors/DAs in large cities to prosecute less people, release criminals with no/low bail, and don't incarcerate for gun-related charges

Luckily people are starting to realize what is actually to blame for rise in violence, crime, homicides. It can be seen by efforts such as recalling DA in San Francisco who is a left-wing nutcase, worked for Hugo Chavez, and has parents who belonged to a left-wing militia and murdered multiple people.
DAs need to start doing their job and the crime can be stopped from rising


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1533463656167526401


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> No, because they need it for their job. That's a good reason. And that's a limited percentage of the population who are police or military. So it has nothing to do with a country where most of the population owns a gun.
> 
> But why allow guns to other people who obviously don't need a gun?


That's why we only allow guns for very limited reasons.
If you have a reason, and you're properly screened you can have a gun.
Obviously the type of gun will differ depending on your needs.

The thing is that the limits seem nonsensical, based on the opinions of ignorant people who think that black guns are more dangerous. 





> Ok, people want access to guns for hunting. Right, do you need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt? Do you need a large magazine? It should be an activity of patience and precision, not a mass murdering type of activity on the deers in the forest.


Yes you need a semi auto.
Large magazines have been banned for decades.
You clearly have never been hunting.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> For good reasons too - if you miss, you do need to take 2nd shot quickly.





MrMatt said:


> Yes you need a semi auto.


That's exactly why I said: hunting should be an activity of patience and precision, not mass shooting in the forest.

If you miss, too bad, do better next time.

Why can't it be like bow hunting?

Obviously a semi-automatic weapon is easier for hunting. But how is that an argument?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's exactly why I said: hunting should be an activity of patience and precision, not mass shooting in the forest.
> 
> If you miss, too bad, do better next time.
> 
> ...


Because bow hunting is a different sport.

You're actually asking why wanting to using better equipment to improve performance is an argument?

Are you using a Commodore 64, or did you upgrade to better equipment to "improve performance"?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's exactly why I said: hunting should be an activity of patience and precision, not mass shooting in the forest.
> 
> If you miss, too bad, do better next time.
> 
> ...


An arrow makes much more damage than a bullet so it is far more likely to incapacitate even if shot is not ideal.

Hunting is an activity of patience and precision.
That doesn't mean we want animals to suffer if someone's precision isn't ideal, if animal makes unanticipated move, and the first shot is not a quick kill.
It also doesn't mean we want someone who was imprecise for whatever reason to be hurt

The magazines are already capped at 5 - what else do you want?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> That doesn't mean we want animals to suffer if someone's precision isn't ideal, if animal makes unanticipated move, and the first shot is not a quick kill.


I mean, it's not as if non-automatic weapons took that long before the next shot.



damian13ster said:


> The magazines are already capped at 5 - what else do you want?


Good. I don't know the laws in Canada, but if in the US every weapon sold had a magazine capped at 5, it would already be better.

I'd be ok with semi-automatic weapons if the law capped the magazine to 5 and no weapon with detachable magazine. That's certainly not the case in the US.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> I mean, it's not as if non-automatic weapons took that long before the next shot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is in Canada, yet we still have virtue signaling, talking points, to try to create another wedge issue based on what's going on in the States


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I mean, it's not as if non-automatic weapons took that long before the next shot.


Automatic weapons have been prohibited to decades.

We're talking about semi auto. The advantage is you don't lose your sight picute.



> Good. I don't know the laws in Canada, ...


Pretty obvious, it's also normal. 
The vast majority of people who want more "gun control", have no idea what the actual laws are.
They think you can just walk into a store and get an automatic weapon.




> I'd be ok with semi-automatic weapons if the law capped the magazine to 5 and no weapon with detachable magazine. That's certainly not the case in the US.


Great, so you too are okay with the status quo in Canada.
Magazines have been capped at 5 for decades.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Automatic weapons have been prohibited to decades.
> 
> We're talking about semi auto.


By "non-automatic" I was including semi-automatic. Or maybe I should've written non-semi-automatic.




MrMatt said:


> Pretty obvious, it's also normal.
> The vast majority of people who want more "gun control", have no idea what the actual laws are.
> They think you can


Well, we're in a thread about a shooting in the US, not in Canada. I never said I wanted more gun control in Canada.

And it's not because I don't know the current laws in Canada that I can't give an opinion about what I believe should be allowed or not.

And if you tell me the current laws in Canada already cover what I believe to be reasonable, then I'm happy.

And even if I also don't know the laws in the US either, I know it's clearly not reasonable.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> By "non-automatic" I was including semi-automatic. Or maybe I should've written non-semi-automatic.


Okay, but you have to understand to people actually knowledgable about firearms, automatic means "fully automatic" aka machinegun.

I think this is a purposeful deception, and why they show pictures of Black "military style" rifles, not wooden "hunting rifles", they they talk about stuff.

It's all emotional.


As far as texas, yeah they have to fix one thing. Maybe fixing law enforcement.

If I was in Texas after that last shooting, I'd get a gun the next day. 
The actions of police were criminal, no doubt at all.
You have children bleeding out from being shot, and they're delaying the tactical team.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Canadians reacted exactly the same way.
All available handguns sold out in a day. Over a month worth of sales immediately gone. 
Stores had to shut down due to lack of inventory. They are restocking as fast as possible so that every Canadian who was hesitant about getting a gun gets to do it prior to legislations getting through the system.

If you ever wanted to increase amount of guns in the country - announce that at some point in the future sales will be restricted.
Literally only good thing about entire proposal is increase in max penalties from 10 to 14 years. Just need to make sure that prosecutors actually do their job and not continue to let criminals walk out


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> All available handguns sold out in a day.


See, this is another thing I don't understand though.

I said I'd be ok with weapons with a magazine capped at 5 and non detachable. But I would also add that it should be a hunting weapon.

I don't think a handgun is a hunting weapon...

So I should add that nuance that I'm ok only with *hunting rifles* with a magazine capped at 5 and no detachable magazine (nothing that would allow a quick loading of the next magazine).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> See, this is another thing I don't understand though.
> 
> I said I'd be ok with weapons with a magazine capped at 5 and non detachable. But I would also add that it should be a hunting weapon.
> 
> I don't think a handgun is a hunting weapon...


They're not, they're target firearms.
They must be in a locked box, unless they are the range, store, storage or being worked on (cleaned/repaired)

We allow people to have cars that aren't street legal, just for sporting purposes.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> They're not, they're target firearms.


Well, they shouldn't be allowed if they are. Why would one *buy* a handgun? What's the purpose of *buying* it? Why does a civilian *want* a handgun?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> If I was in Texas after that last shooting, I'd get a gun the next day.


If ever in my life I feel the urge to buy a gun to... protect myself and others (?), then I'll most likely rethink my decision to live in that area and move to a safer place, unless we're in a post-apocalyptic world.

Never in my life I would see "buying a gun" as a decent solution. How can this be a *solution*?

Would I live in a place with high crime rate and mass shootings? No.
Would I live in a place with high crime rate and mass shootings if I owned a gun? Still no.

A gun doesn't protect you. Maybe a gun and a bulletproof vest and a full face helmet does. Is this how you want to walk the streets of your neighborhood? What about your kids?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> See, this is another thing I don't understand though.
> 
> I said I'd be ok with weapons with a magazine capped at 5 and non detachable. But I would also add that it should be a hunting weapon.
> 
> ...


With rising crime, decreasing prosecution, increasing response times, increasing division, prime minister paraphrasing Hitler - it is normal that people feel less safe than before and were entertaining the idea.

It makes perfect sense if you are law-abiding, intelligent and responsible citizen, that having a weapon for protection ads to safety and doesn't increase risk (there are rules about weapon and ammunition storage) .

Now all those people who were entertaining the idea and might or might not have decided to make a purchase are rushing to the stores because their choice will be taken away from them, so they have to do it now.

If you want less guns, increase law enforcement, get criminals off the street, prosecute those that break the law, and don't divide the country.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> If ever in my life I feel the urge to buy a gun to... protect myself and others (?), then I'll most likely rethink my decision to live in that area and move to a safer place, unless we're in a post-apocalyptic world.


I did preface with "If I lived in Texas"



> Never in my life I would see "buying a gun" as a decent solution. How can this be a *solution*?


I bet never in your life did you imagine that the police would actively assault you to protect the gunman killing your children. This is a thing that happened



> A gun doesn't protect you. Maybe a gun and a bulletproof vest and a full face helmet does. Is this how you want to walk the streets of your neighborhood? What about your kids?


Again that's laughable.
When you have a problem with a violent person, what do you do?
You call guys with guns to take care of the problem.

Do you think a full face helmet is bulletproof or something? One man killing machine out for justice. Sorry we don't live in the world of Judge Dredd.


Who finally stopped the Shooter in texas, a good guy with a gun.

Again I'd prefer to live in a world where we didn't need guns, but we do.
There are bad people out there, with guns and bombs and cars and knives, and even just their fists that want to hurt people.
I want to make sure they're always dramatically overpowered by the good guys who want to stop them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Well, they shouldn't be allowed if they are. Why would one *buy* a handgun? What's the purpose of *buying* it? Why does a civilian *want* a handgun?


Because handgun shooting is a different sport than rifle shooting, which is different than bow shooting.
Why would you want to buy a handgun? To shoot it? 
Because it's not legal to lend handguns in Canada.(Without going through more permits to do so)


Just like bicycle racing is different than motorcycle racing, which is different than F1, and different than the Red Bull air race.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Again that's laughable.
> When you have a problem with a violent person, what do you do?
> You call guys with guns to take care of the problem.


No, I call guys who represent the law and protection of civils so that they could take care of the problem properly with different tactics they've been trained for. It rarely has to escalate to the use of a lethal weapon. It starts with communication, then physical force, then non-lethal weapons, then maybe a lethal weapon but that's only if the violent person is armed or very dangerous.

So, no, I don't see calling the police as "calling guys _with guns_". My focus is definitely *not* on "guns" as the main reason why they should be able to deal with the situation properly.



MrMatt said:


> Do you think a full face helmet is bulletproof or something?


I meant a bulletproof full face helmet, obviously. For the joke.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> Magazines have been capped at 5 for decades.


Does this extend to .22 rifles with tubular magazines? Are they now prohibited weapons?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> Does this extend to .22 rifles with tubular magazines? Are they now prohibited weapons?


I don't know.. I haven't seen an analysis yet.

The law used to be 5 rounds on centerfire rifles.
So rimfire (ie .22's) and bolt actions (Lee Enfields) didn't need to be modified.

But our gun policy is has been "made for photo op" for years.


The other thing is that they've made some really wonky interpretations.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> I don't know.. I haven't seen an analysis yet.
> 
> The law used to be 5 rounds on centerfire rifles.
> So rimfire (ie .22's) and bolt actions (Lee Enfields) didn't need to be modified.
> ...


I ask because I have owned a Mossberg .22 bolt action since I was a kid. It has a tubular magazine that will hold 12 LR cartridges. Given to me by my uncle in Chicago. Just put it in the trunk of the car and drove back into Canada with family. So, I have long been an international gun smuggler. Maybe add to that now, an owner of a prohibited weapon. 

My early gun-owning days were long before any talk of gun control. One could walk into places like the sporting goods department of Eaton's or Simpson's on Queen St. in Toronto, pay a modest sum, and walk out with a gun. I don't think there was any age or other restriction. I was in elementary school when some of us would go to the Fort York Armoury and target shoot with .22s on Saturday mornings and strive to earn "Dominion Marksman" medals. I still have mine.











One must wonder how it is, that in those lawless, free-wheeling days, one never heard of "gun violence", "mass shootings" and all such tales of woe. Not much ever happened. And we were pretty much all guilty of that heinous crime "careless storage". Many a Canadian home had an open gun rack on a basement wall. Sacre bleu!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> I ask because I have owned a Mossberg .22 bolt action since I was a kid. It has a tubular magazine that will hold 12 LR cartridges. Given to me by my uncle in Chicago. Just put it in the trunk of the car and drove back into Canada with family. So, I have long been an international gun smuggler. Maybe add to that now, an owner of a prohibited weapon.
> 
> My early gun-owning days were long before any talk of gun control. One could walk into places like the sporting goods department of Eaton's or Simpson's on Queen St. in Toronto, pay a modest sum, and walk out with a gun. I don't think there was any age or other restriction. I was in elementary school when some of us would go to the Fort York Armoury and target shoot with .22s on Saturday mornings and strive to earn "Dominion Marksman" medals. I still have mine.
> 
> ...


You're getting old.
It would be a shame to have to get rid of one of those old tube mag .22's Or even permanently modify them so they don't work right anymore. They're a piece of Canadian history, but people these day have no respect for the history of our country.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> You're getting old.


I do not grow old.

If I stop growing, I am old.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> I do not grow old.
> 
> If I stop growing, I am old.


I'm playing sports against kids 1/2 (occasionally 1/3rd) my age... as long as I'm not embarrassing myself... I'm good. The number of guys a decade younger than me who are "too old for that" is saddening. Sure I have age related health concerns, but I'm not in the grave yet.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

One reason why I continue to live off the grid and on a large, somewhat remote, acreage. It's a physical existence. You have to be able to pack stuff, to fall trees, buck up and split wood, keep a garden and orchard, deal with boats and equipment. Not a lifestyle for anyone who likes to sit around. 

Back in the 80s I was with a Vancouver group addressed by an anatomy professor at UBC. He mentioned the pink colour of a healthy lung. He showed a picture. He added: "Our lungs do not look like that. Ours are black. We live in the city." Not sure if it's as grim as he said, but makes me happy to live where I do.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> I ask because I have owned a Mossberg .22 bolt action since I was a kid. It has a tubular magazine that will hold 12 LR cartridges. Given to me by my uncle in Chicago. Just put it in the trunk of the car and drove back into Canada with family. So, I have long been an international gun smuggler. Maybe add to that now, an owner of a prohibited weapon.


I believe you are ok but when in doubt, check the list the gov provides.



Mukhang pera said:


> My early gun-owning days were long before any talk of gun control. One could walk into places like the sporting goods department of Eaton's or Simpson's on Queen St. in Toronto, pay a modest sum, and walk out with a gun. I don't think there was any age or other restriction. I was in elementary school when some of us would go to the Fort York Armoury and target shoot with .22s on Saturday mornings and strive to earn "Dominion Marksman" medals. I still have mine.


Ah, the good old days. So guess where I learned to shoot with a 22lr ... courses held in the basement of a public school where they had a rifle range. IIRC, the allowed age was 14 (with parents permisson) to buy a rifle but I can't remember if a hunter safety course was required back then. And yes, guns where sold almost everywhere back then.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cainvest said:


> Ah, the good old days. So guess where I learned to shoot with a 22lr ... courses held in the basement of a public school where they had a rifle range. IIRC, the allowed age was 14 (with parents permisson) to buy a rifle but I can't remember if a hunter safety course was required back then. And yes, guns where sold almost everywhere back then.


My public school was not that progressive, but allowed kids to bring real guns to school to put on a skit. Can you imagine that today?

Kids usually did not need to buy guns. They were gifted by parents. My first came at Christmas, age 9. An Anschutz single-shot bolt action .22. A well-crafted German gun. Still with me. 

I do not think I myself purchased a gun before about age 18 or so, but stores perhaps followed an age 14 rule. I do not think that was enshrined in any legislation. Certainly in Toronto in those days, and probably all of Ontario, no courses were required. IIRC, if you wanted to take a gun out into the woods, even if not to hunt, a resident general hunting licence was required, for the princely sum of $1. I usually picked one up at Skinner's Sporting Goods at Bloor & Yonge every year. On the licence it said "Licence fee $0.85. Issuing fee $0.15".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The US has celebrated guns and gun crimes since they were founded.

The gunfighters of the old West, Bonnie and Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly, John Derringer, and the movies heroes...John Wayne, Rambo, John Wick.

The problem for us is our next door neighbor. It is like living next door to a Hells Angels clubhouse.

There were 8 mass shootings in the US on the weekend, and they still argue about any limits on guns.

Some suggest they should publish the photos of the carnage from these mass shootings to shock people into action.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Who wants to live in the US? There has been between 41 and 67 mass shootings *per month* in 2022 only. That's already more than 250 mass shootings in 2022 in the US in only 5 months. Over 300 people died. Over 1000 injured. And guess what, it's accelerating month by month.

Yet we only talk about the ones that occurred at schools, universities and places of worship. But there's many, many more.












https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The US has celebrated guns and gun crimes since they were founded.


By fighting off an oppressive government.



> The problem for us is our next door neighbor. It is like living next door to a Hells Angels clubhouse.


I completely agree, since I've literally lived near (within 1km) of a Hells Angels home.
It's wonderful, people don't cause much trouble in the neighbourhood.
Despite their reputation and power they're quite nice.

Just like living next to the US, people aren't typically that inclined to cause trouble in their neighbourhood.



> There were 8 mass shootings in the US on the weekend, and they still argue about any limits on guns.


That's not true, and you know it.
They want to have reasonable controls and policies to keep people safe. But some obstructionists just want to ban all guns and want to hold up progress.

The problem is that the debate is the ban guns crowd turned it into a yes/no question, rather than a debate on appropriate controls.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

That's a very liberal definition of 'mass shooting'.
Two gang-bangers injuring each other is classified the same as Uvalde massacre.

And if you look at population of 350mln and literal flood over the southern border - I would say there is quite a lot of people who want to live there.

In fact, more Canadians are leaving the country to go to US than Americans who come to Canada.


https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1990/demographics/p23-161.pdf



So I guess the answer to your original question is:
There is more Canadians who want to live in US than Americans that want to live in Canada


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> That's not true, and you know it.


It isn't true, there weren't 8 mass shootings during the last weekend... There were 11.

7 on Saturday June 4th
4 on Sunday June 5th


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> Who wants to live in the US? There has been between 41 and 67 mass shootings *per month* in 2022 only. That's already more than 250 mass shootings in 2022 in the US in only 5 months. Over 300 people died. Over 1000 injured. And guess what, it's accelerating month by month.
> 
> Yet we only talk about the ones that occurred at schools, universities and places of worship. But there's many, many more.


Yes, there are many, many more. But anyone paying attention has noticed that if the shooter is other than white the media almost always ignores the story.

It's not coincidence that almost every shooting happens in a gun free zone. And the solution is to have more gun free zones? Only a liberal can be stupid enough to suggest that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> It isn't true, there weren't 8 mass shootings during the last weekend... There were 11.


You know it's not a good faith discussion when they selectively edit quotes to attack your position.

I was CLEARLY talking about the arguing about any limits on guns.
*Everyone *wants to have appropriate limits and controls on firearms, what they're arguing about is what they should be. 



sags said:


> There were 8 mass shootings in the US on the weekend, and they still argue about *any limits* on guns.





MrMatt said:


> That's not true, and you know it.
> They want to have reasonable controls and policies to keep people safe. But some obstructionists just want to ban all guns and want to hold up progress.


It is completely clear from my actual response I wasn't disputing that some shootings took place.

I think the debate would proceed much more smoothly if they actually talked about what appropriate controls they could put in place.
I also think it would benefit greatly if people who weren't acting in good faith would $#@$ off.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Who wants to live in the US? There has been between 41 and 67 mass shootings *per month* in 2022 only. That's already more than 250 mass shootings in 2022 in the US in only 5 months. Over 300 people died. Over 1000 injured. And guess what, it's accelerating month by month.


Easy, don't live in crappy poor areas of the US.

Move to a nice safe pro gun state like New Hampshire, or Vermont, not to the south Side of Chicago, or some [email protected]#$ hole Texas town with an criminally incompetent police force.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> That's a very liberal definition of 'mass shooting'.
> Two gang-bangers injuring each other is classified the same as Uvalde massacre.


It's still people with guns shooting at people.



MrMatt said:


> Easy, don't live in crappy poor areas of the US.


Have you seen the map? You consider those to be crappy poor areas of the US?



damian13ster said:


> In fact, more Canadians are leaving the country to go to US than Americans who come to Canada.
> https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1990/demographics/p23-161.pdf


Data from 1990. Anyways, the point is not US to Canada vs Canada to US.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrBlackhill said:


> It isn't true, there weren't 8 mass shootings during the last weekend... There were 11.
> 
> 7 on Saturday June 4th
> 4 on Sunday June 5th


My bad.......thanks for correcting the compilation of carnage.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I was CLEARLY talking about the arguing about any limits on guns.


I know it wasn't what you meant, I was just fooling around to highlight the overwhelming amount of mass shootings in only the past weekend, the past 2 days.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Have you seen the map? You consider those to be crappy poor areas of the US?


Do you want to live in any of those places?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Do you want to live in any of those places?


Well, there have been shootings pretty much in every state with high density population. So yes, it's mostly where people live and want to live. All of the East of the US, plus California and Washington DC. But maybe you prefer living in the Wyoming.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Lived in US for a total of 6 years. Outside of hunting didn't see a single gun in the streets and was never close to any gun violence.
You sound like people out here should wear bulletproof vest full times. Turn off TV and videogames, go for vacation, travel a lot, and you will find out reality is quite different than what is being portrayed in the media


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Well, there have been shootings pretty much in every state with high density population. So yes, it's mostly where people live and want to live. All of the East of the US, plus California and Washington DC. But maybe you prefer living in the Wyoming.


It's not about the State, it's about the neighbourhood


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> Lived in US for a total of 6 years. Outside of hunting didn't see a single gun in the streets and was never close to any gun violence.


It's not because you didn't experience it that there isn't.

I could also say that in 15 years I've never locked the doors of my home, never closed the windows and never locked the doors of my car, yet I've never been stolen by a theft, so theft doesn't happen here. Wrong conclusion.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> Well, there have been shootings pretty much in every state with high density population. So yes, it's mostly where people live and want to live. All of the East of the US, plus California and Washington DC. But maybe you prefer living in the Wyoming.


I'd rather live in Wyoming than crime ridden DC or Chicago.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Move to a nice safe pro gun state like New Hampshire, or Vermont, not to the south Side of Chicago, or some [email protected]#$ hole Texas town with an criminally incompetent police force.





MrBlackhill said:


> Well, there have been shootings pretty much in every state with high density population. So yes, it's mostly where people live and *want to live*. All of the East of the US, plus California and Washington DC. But maybe you prefer living in the Wyoming.


People want to live in crappy areas that have mass shootings?
Weird

So I specifically mentioned nice high quality of life areas, and you point out that the high density crappy places.
You even say *"every state with high density population."* Maybe the high density population is part of the problem?

Then you say 'All of the East of the US", neglecting those really nice North Eastern States of course. I'll share a map.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In the US, the wealthy live in gated communities with private security.

Regular folks put bars on their doors and windows, and remain locked down at home at night.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Maybe the high density population is part of the problem?


Well, statistically, obviously there will be more mass shootings in high density areas. Doesn't mean it's the problem, it's just a matter of probabilities. Probability of having a mass shooter in the 500 000 population Wyoming with 2.3 hab./km² is definitely less than the probability of having a mass shooter in the 20 000 000 population New York State with 159 hab./km², and especially New York City with about 9 000 000 population and 11 300 hab./km².



MrMatt said:


> Then you say 'All of the East of the US", neglecting those really nice North Eastern States of course. I'll share a map.


Yes, the "really nice North Eastern States", you know Vermont and New Hampshire which I know very well since I live in Montreal, just 1h away. You know, Montreal, in the socialist province Quebec with whom VT and NH share borders, those states who have voted Democrats over the past 30 years? (With one exception in 2000 for NH). VT and NH which are all about nature with low population and low density. What's the probability of having mass shootings with all this context?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

HappilyRetired said:


> I'd rather live in Wyoming than crime ridden DC or Chicago.


Well, me too, and that's the point when I said "why would anyone want to live in the US in this context"?

Because, I mean, if you want to live in the US, you don't want to live in areas with lots of crimes and mass shootings. But obviously those happen in high density areas. Turns out they are high density areas because that's where jobs are, where opportunities are, where people want to live. Definitely not in Wyoming. So if you don't want to live in high crime, high mass shootings areas, but you want to live in areas with lots of opportunities, there's nowhere in the US remaining.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Far left extremist has been recalled as DA in San Francisco.
Looks like even democratic party voters have realized the party went extreme left and are starting to pull it towards the center


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Far left extremist has been recalled as DA in San Francisco.
> Looks like even democratic party voters have realized the party went extreme left and are starting to pull it towards the center


Lets hope so.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> MrBlackhill said:
> 
> 
> > ... Have you seen the map? You consider those to be crappy poor areas of the US?
> ...


Me personally? 
No ... but that applies to all of the US.

I know many co-workers, friends, relatives and even a couple of renters who moved to these areas. 

As well, my relative who was transferred to Chicago as part of a promotion to VP did not have guns, gun violence or mass shootings on his list for why he came back to Canada. Frustration over too few marginally competent job applicants, OTOH was top of his list.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There was a daylight robbery at a bank in Victoria BC on Tuesday which resulted in a shoot-out.

2 suspects were killed by police.
6 officers were shot... some minor, others with severe injuries, and still in hospital.

No bank employees, customers or general public were injured. This is a great outcome. Great work by these police, protecting the public.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> There was a daylight robbery at a bank in Victoria BC on Tuesday which resulted in a shoot-out.
> 
> 2 suspects were killed by police.
> 6 officers were shot... some minor, others with severe injuries, and still in hospital.
> ...


Want to bet they were illegally smuggled guns?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Another mass killing in Illinois during a July 4th parade, and another shooting of two police officers at a July 4th event in Philadelphia.

There have been more than 350 mass shootings in the US this year and it is only July. They need to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.

_"We have mass shootings every day and don't know how to stop it"._......says the only country on earth with mass shootings every day.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ MAGA, A, A, A, A, A, etc. until there's only 1 left.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> Another mass killing in Illinois during a July 4th parade, and another shooting of two police officers at a July 4th event in Philadelphia.
> 
> There have been more than 350 mass shootings in the US this year and it is only July. They need to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> _"We have mass shootings every day and don't know how to stop it"._......says the only country on earth with mass shootings every day.


Those are what you call well-regulated events by one-man militias.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Just extremely thankful that we live on this side of the border. For many reasons.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The gunman in Illinois had mental illness problems and multiple previous involvement with the police, yet he was legally permitted to buy an assault rifle, and fired 70 rounds into a defenseless crowd in a matter of seconds, killing and wounding many in the crowd.

Thank goodness that In Canada, due to legislation by the Trudeau Liberals, he would not have been able to buy that type of weapon or ammunition, and would have been "red flagged" from buying any weapon under Bill C-21.

Pierre Poilivere boasts that he hasn't changed his stand on guns since he was elected in 2004, even after Sandy Hook and all the other mass killings that have followed on an almost daily basis.

All he is doing is bragging how firmly rooted his ignorance and lack of understanding of the problem is.

People like Pierre should never be given authority or power by the people.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

He would also be 'red flagged' under existing laws in Illinois if law enforcement acted properly.
Not by sending 'mental health specialists' and not forwarding charges not to stigmatize - but by properly registering stability issue and threats under criminal record - therefore making it impossible to buy a weapon.

DAs and prosecutors need to stop doing their jobs - if they aren't, then any background checks would be absolutely useless. And no, he wouldn't be red-flagged in Canada, if interactions with law enforcement wouldn't come up in background check

Sadly, Illinois is ran by person who hates police and loves criminals - and the result is increased crime and problem with staffing the police. Lori Lightfoot is to blame for this


More information coming out: he applied for a license, got it approved. Went through background checks, and his application was cosigned by his father who he earlier threatened with a murder that resulted in police coming in and confiscating weapons (swords, knives).

Somehow that didn't come up during background checks and license application - the DAs and prosecutors refusing to put it in criminal record are responsible for the death of 7 people

Good thing that some places are waking up and recalling liberal DAs that do everything not to offend and stigmatize criminals - which then leads to criminals committing more crimes


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> The gunman in Illinois had mental illness problems and multiple previous involvement with the police, yet he was legally permitted to buy an assault rifle, and fired 70 rounds into a defenseless crowd in a matter of seconds, killing and wounding many in the crowd.
> 
> Thank goodness that In Canada, due to legislation by the Trudeau Liberals, he would not have been able to buy that type of weapon or ammunition, and would have been "red flagged" from buying any weapon under Bill C-21.
> 
> ...


 ... the Cons party is hopeless. Now they want to boot Brown, the less of 2 evils out of the leadership race ... LMAO.

I really like to see how tuba-player PP reins that party if he does win.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Rather then shutting down access to FB and Twitter for people who seem to be into hate and killing people. We should leave them alone and give the FBI a full mandate to use these platforms to track the high risk individuals and make sure they are derisked. They have successfully used this approach to track down Islamic extremists and terrorist. There is no reason why it wouldn't work for the people who are doing the mass shootings. This problem must be approached from many angles. To focus on guns alone is spinning tires. even if the gun industry was shutdown the US population is already fully armed. In states like Texas it is not unusual for individuals to own 12 or 20 firearms. Gun ownership is a hobby for millions.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Social media can provide the FBI with the information about a poster and their contacts when they shut them down.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

sags said:


> Social media can provide the FBI with the information about a poster and their contacts when they shut them down.


The FBI anti terrorism social media screening is probably superior to FB.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

zinfit said:


> Rather then shutting down access to FB and Twitter for people who seem to be into hate and killing people. *We should leave them alone and give the FBI a full mandate to use these platforms to track the high risk individuals and make sure they are derisked*. They have successfully used this approach to track down Islamic extremists and terrorist. There is no reason why it wouldn't work for the people who are doing the mass shootings. This problem must be approached from many angles. To focus on guns alone is spinning tires. even if the gun industry was shutdown the US population is already fully armed. In states like Texas it is not unusual for individuals to own 12 or 20 firearms. Gun ownership is a hobby for millions.


 ... there's a saying that goes "you're innocent until proven guilty" and then there's the 2nd amendment in the USA with the right to bear arms. So when all said and done ... nothing changes. Hence, the USA will (always) be known as the "(land of many opportunities) ... for mass shootings".

Btw, did you not read the latest about the July 4th parade shooter? His dad has no "regrets" in helping (actually sponsoring) his son getting his firearms ID card. And that his kid's 2019 death threat on the family was merely a kid's outburst. ... and the father ran for mayor(?) in the past. OKIE.

Robert Climo's father says he doesn't regret helping his son get a gun, and calls the threat of death in 2019 a children's explosion.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

zinfit said:


> The FBI anti terrorism social media screening is probably superior to FB.


And just like FB they are very selective in who they target.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Texas schools send parents DNA kits to identify their kids’ bodies in emergencies


After the mass shooting in Uvalde, the kits are making many parents feel even more anxious about sending their children to school.




www.today.com


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Although we're not exactly in that crazy wild-west-gun-slinging country but getting close with the continuous and grow carjackings via guns, et al in Toronto. So in effect, I don't blame the TDSB staff now for taking the opportunity to go on strike at this time.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Although we're not exactly in that crazy wild-west-gun-slinging country but getting close with the continuous and grow carjackings via guns, et al in Toronto. So in effect, I don't blame the TDSB staff now for taking the opportunity to go on strike at this time.


 Canadian police are becoming a target


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Although we're not exactly in that crazy wild-west-gun-slinging country but getting close with the continuous and grow carjackings via guns, et al in Toronto. So in effect, I don't blame the TDSB staff now for taking the opportunity to go on strike at this time.


They should hire more police, and crackdown on these criminals.

Those who want to "defund the police", should accept that more crime is one of the consequences.

As far as School staff going on strike, they're greedy. They're already well paid for their jobs. Using their monopoly power against the people of the province to extort more money just isn't cool.
Unfortunately there is no political party strong enough to take on unions.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> *They should hire more police, and crackdown on these criminals.*
> 
> Those who want to "defund the police", should accept that more crime is one of the consequences.


 ... if so, that's like saying you want to pay more taxes first? No?



> *As far as School staff going on strike, they're greedy. They're already well paid for their jobs*. Using their monopoly power against the people of the province to extort more money just isn't cool.
> Unfortunately there is no political party strong enough to take on unions.


 ... it could be. But then everybody learns from everybody, especially in the workforce, no?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> They should hire more police, and crackdown on these criminals.





Beaver101 said:


> ... if so, that's like saying you want to pay more taxes first? No


If that's what it takes, yes, hire more police.

Realistically, protection services is one of the largest budget items, and hiring adequate police might result in tax hikes.
I'm okay with that.
We have cases of police not showing up to active home invasions so ... yeah, we desperately need more police.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> If that's what it takes, yes, hire more police.
> 
> *Realistically, protection services is one of the largest budget items, and hiring adequate police might result in tax hikes.
> I'm okay with that.*
> We have cases of police not showing up to active home invasions so ... yeah, we desperately need more police.


 ... and just how many more do you propose we hire so that you're happy with the resulting tax hikes? 

Why don't you ask yourself a simple question - has the number of police force ever been reduced over the years or in any given year?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and just how many more do you propose we hire so that you're happy with the resulting tax hikes?
> 
> Why don't you ask yourself a simple question - has the number of police force ever been reduced over the years or in any given year?


Enough so that police will respond to a home invasion in progress.
It's one thing to be slow to respond to crimes after they happen to investigate, but I do not think we should routinely have no immediate response to violent crimes in progress.


Yes, the police *service* is reducing due to attrition, while we have explosive population growth. Even if the service was remaining flat, the growing population is a reduction in officers per capita.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Enough so that police will respond to a home invasion in progress.


 ... and just how many would you like? 1 to 1? 1 to 10? As it sounds like there's a home invasion every week in your town.



> It's one thing to be slow to respond to crimes after they happen to investigate, but I do not think we should routinely have no immediate response to violent crimes in progress.


 ... let me put it this way, car jackings, home invasions and domestic violence will likely go the way of ... graffiti, vandalism of any kind ... down the pole. The latter have been NO response by TPS for years. Yawn even you take the time to call and report it.



> Yes, the police *service* is reducing due to attrition, while we have explosive population growth. Even if the service was remaining flat, the growing population is a reduction in officers per capita.


 ... so what other public services don't have attrition? Fire fighters? Paramedics? Nurses? Doctors? Or it's just the cops?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There was no shortage of police responding in Uvalde. There was a shortage of police officers with the courage to go after the shooter.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Enough so that police will respond to a home invasion in progress.





Beaver101 said:


> ... and just how many would you like? 1 to 1? 1 to 10? As it sounds like there's a home invasion every week in your town.


Asked & answered


MrMatt said:


> Enough so that police will respond to a home invasion in progress.


I mean that, if that means giving half the population a badge and gun to shoot the other half committing home invasions, yes.
Do I mean this literally, yes I literally want enough police to respond to all active violent crimes in progress.

I think that we should should have enough police so that when a violent crime is in progress, we can dispatch an officer to address it.


----------

