What an absolutely ignorant statement. I guess the same could be said of any country where killing like this happens. Like when Justin Bourque gunned down the RCMP (killing three and injuring two) in Moncton, I guess that's the society that New Brunswicker's want to live in. So have at it.
Give your head a shake.
I'm not a gun advocate, but do you really think this guy wouldn't have killed his wife and the kid without the gun?
No, no need to apologize. You can be annoying in any thread you like, no permission needed. Just a little disappointing that you're turning into a one-trick pony. Not that you owe me anything, hear?
Well, if it was Canada, he wouldn't have been able to get a gun. Canada doesn't let people have guns, so nobody gets killed there. That's why it's perfect.
Interestingly, the data's in, and there are a couple of things in the U.S. that have been effective at reducing violence. I discuss them with folks on another forum, because they're interested in solutions.
A society that is founded on the belief that everyone should be allowed to carry a handgun can hardly be surprised when people get angry and use them.
That's the type of society that Americans want. It's one of their fundamental beliefs.
He might have, but they might at least have had a chance to get away. Outrunning a bullet is difficult. And the fact the murderer might still have tried to kill his wife is irrelevant, especially given the fact that he appears to have accidentally killed an innocent child.
Canada is way ahead of the US so we must be doing something right, just as the US is doing something wrong.
That's strange. I've seen nothing from you in this thread that in any way shows you are interested in serious discussion. Your response became instantly emotional as soon as someone pointed out that guns might be a problem. In the interests of serious discussion, perhaps you might want to respond to this.
Gun Violence Archive (external - login to view)
Not with somebody who insists that the only way to reduce gun violence is to get rid of guns, and when asked how, responds with a handful of measures most of which some or all U.S. states have already taken, generally decades ago (and none of which would get rid of guns anyhow).
I think you have identified part of the the problem. If criminals, the mentally unstable, and others can simply drive from one state with strong gun legislation to one that has very weak guns laws, then the entire system is weakened.
Canada's gun laws apply coast to coast just as they do in most nations with gun control laws. It doesn't really matter if Illinois has strict gun control if all a potential buyer has to do if drive to Indiana.
This fact sheet is intended to provide general information only. For legal references, please refer to the Criminal Code (external - login to view) and the Firearms Act (external - login to view) and their corresponding regulations. Provincial, territorial and municipal laws, regulations and policies may also apply.
We have had many multiple murders here in Canada by firearm, even with our gun laws.
He have, have we?
There have been a few.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! The ultimate CanCon argument: two people going at it over undefined, deliberately vague terms!
MANY, you scumbag motherf*cking child-molesting communist!
FEW, you scumbag motherf*cking child-molesting fascist!
Die, traitorous garbage!
Die deader'n that, Nazi dogshit!
What could be better?
OK, so you missed the part about "you cannot buy a handgun in a state where you are not a resident, and have not been able to do so since 1968."
The U.S.'s gun laws are a mix of Federal, state, and local.
And hey, looky here! So are Canada's!
Restricted Firearms - Royal Canadian Mounted Police (external - login to view)
So, let's sum up. In a two-sentence post, you lied about Canadian gun laws in the first sentence, and you lied about U.S. gun laws in the second sentence.
OK, OK, maybe I'm a bit too harsh here, saying "lied." Let me back down and just say you made up false facts to support your argument. Either way, we're done here, because as James Madison said. . .
"To argue with someone who has abandoned the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
The "use and authority of reason" includes supporting one's arguments with real facts, not whatever crap one makes up for the purpose of supporting her argument.
I'd be happy to discuss this, or any other subject, with you whenever you decide that making shit up will not be your go-to tactic.