Gunman opens fire at U.S. church, kills two

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Oh wow, like you're the only person who's ever grown up in that sort of territory. :roll: Wonderful expert you are.
I seem to be a helluva lot more expert than you. So I am really not surprised that your ego apparentl;y is big enough that a layman like you would be telling someone more knowledgeable than you what is what.

Hunting = Killing
from Merriam Webster's online dictionary:
HUNTINGPronunciation: \ˈhən-tiŋ\ Function: noun Date: before 12th century 1: the act of one that hunts; specifically : the pursuit of game2: the process of hunting3 a: a periodic variation in speed of a synchronous electrical machine b: a self-induced and undesirable oscillation of a variable above and below the desired value in an automatic control system c: a continuous attempt by an automatically controlled system to find a desired equilibrium condition
Comprende? Hunting is the pursuit of game.
Target Competition = Training for being accurate with your killing when the time comes
For a few people. For the rest it is the pleasure of being competitive in something they like doping. Not all competition shooters hunt, child.
Collecting = No purpose, no Use unless you're going to use them some day....
Do you have any art on your walls? What do you use that for? Does it do anything for you? Just because you are too limited to think of any reason other than what you can scrounge up between your flaps doesn't mean there are no other reasons why people do things.
...to fight for the total access of firearms just so you can have a useless collection on your wall in which you plan on never using, doesn't seem justifiable for the deaths of other people who try to live their everyday lives from people who abuse that freedom and easy access.
So you are blaming collectors for these deaths now? You are blaming people who actually have a use for these tools for the deaths of others? If not, then it sounds like you would like all firearms to be gone. But this, as it has been pointed out, is an extremely unfeasible, idealistic, naive, and therefore unintelligent answer to the problem.

Still haven't won me over.
I am not trying to win you over. At first I was simply trying to be informative, but you refuse to accept the info. So then I did try to win you over, but failed. Now I am deliberately posting to annoy you. And that is working.

You act as though those who are for some sort of regulation or control over the access of firearms have never touched or used on before. The majority of my family including myself have been in various branches of the military at one point in our lives or another, we've got our training for the proper use of various firearms, my father used to collect firearms.... I enjoy firearms for target practice as you mentioned...... that doesn't mean I think every moron out there should be handed a weapon without some sort of background check.

Why is that so hard for you to lodge into your brain and understand?
So you enlist in the military, which incidentally, IS designed for killing people, and then you come strutting over here to CC to start pontificating at and about other people who don't use firearms to kill people?
roflmao Sorry but your credibility is dwindling rapidly.

But I still am a little curious about what YOU think the answer to firearms related deaths and how you would go about implementing that solution.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Do you hear of mass stabbings like you do of mass shootings????

Yes.

In the latest of a series of random knife attacks, a man in Japan stabbed 17, killing 7.


http://www.madein1903.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1600

I can remember, years ago, a nut with a sword killed four at the Staten Island Ferry Terminal........it is remarkable because he was shot dead by a man who then ran off.....undoubtedly illegally carrying the gun. shades of Bernard Goetz.

in South Korea I remember a guy killed a number of people with a sword.

If I remember ciorrectly, the Manson killings were done mostly with blades.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
And what solutions have you brought to the table?
I haven't had the chance to offer a solution yet, because of your pontificating and Risus' inane comments.

Nothing, except your bitching and moaning about other solutions.... thanks for the opinion from the peanut gallery mind you..... but if you're just going to complain and whine about other people's solutions and not bother to throw in your own as some form of counter argument, then you're just a waste of time.
You only call it bitching and moaning because you can't take it for what it is; criticism. Perhaps I am a waste of time now & then. At least I can be civil without resorting to the childish habit of name-calling.

Instead of implementing more and more idiotic gun laws, the gov't should have stepped up its enforement of the existing gun laws. I said that many times and that is the solution that makes most sense to me. What have we seen since the Liberals introduced the incredibly expensive, inefficient, waste of taxpayers money called the firearms registry? We've seen firearms related deaths fluctuate up and down but not disappear, decent people been made criminal, others make a mockery of these laws, illegal firearms are still being carried across the border, etc.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
A sensible gun control system:

Dump registration completely.....it is a waste of money and resources, so inaccurate it will not stand up in court.

Keep graduated licenses........requiring different levels of training for possession of each class, say.......one for manual load long guns, one for semi-auto long guns, one for handguns, one for concealed carry permits.

Allow acredited private citizens to give the courses, rate the applicants.....perhaps with testing done by police or other officials, and officialdom to issue licenses.

Got a gun? Got a license for that type of gun/purpose? No problem.

Got a gun? Got no license? Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Cheap, and as effective as any gun control system.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Oh, a Twit? Guess I don't have to edit my "Maggot" comment towards you then as a personal insult, as now we're even.
Sorry, but I used one derogatory remark. How many have you used?



You clearly haven't got the first fk'n clue what kind of person I am, or what group I place myself into, as you haven't even properly responded to anything presented to you, except with more bitching and moaning and flying way off the mark of what was said into something totally different in which your odd little mind somehow thought was something totally different.
You only say that because you either haven't understood a damned thing of what I said or are too blinded by your own bias to accept it. BTW, I don't care what sort of person you are. I find you abusive and immature and that is as much as I want to know about you. Perhaps you may become more civil in the future, but at this point I think you are you are pretty barbaric.

And the media pounding nothing but the tragic events involving firearms? People make the news, they just report it. You can't blame the media for the actions of idiots, as you're a case in point of this.
Again, if you had understood what I actually said, you wouldn't have posted this silly comment.
I will spell it out for you, child: you and others like you suck in these relatively few stories of shootings and that is all you can consider. You don't consider the fact that there are vast amounts of other people out in the world that DON'T wander about shooting others.

What do you expect the media to do? Cover it up and act like nothing happened just so you can sleep soundly at night thinking nothing bad happened in the world and everything is perfect?
Nope. What I expect the media to do is give us UNBIASED and COMPLETE reports. Not editorialised propaganda.
Maybe if Bush get's everything he wants, it can be like that..... but until then, suck it up princess.
Such a pleasant human being you are. lmao



Tell me.... exactly how many "Legal Shootings" has there been in Canada as compared to the US? Want to bitch out the population excuse again? Ok, then give me the Ratio if that makes you feel better.

I already posted an article on how many gun related crimes occur in the US.... if any of those were "Legal Shootings" then they wouldn't have been considdered crimes now would they?
What are you babbling about. Legal shootings in my view are those by hunters acquiring game, competitors vying for trophies at target matches, plinking in the backyard, etc. Illegal shootings would be people shooting others, get it? So there are a lot more people shooting legally than there are illegally. Get it?



Yeah, and all of those are in locations either designated a safe area, designed for the purpose of firearms, or they're very far away from where people live and work.... how does any of that justify being able to walk around downtown with a gun or two in your belt?
You missed my point. But then, that doesn't surprise me in the least, you frequently display a lack of comprehension.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Personally no. I say no, because I have been able to defend myself as I felt necissary, as well as able to defend those I care or used to care for in the past. I have been in multiple situations through my life where I needed to defend myself, and I never had to rely on a firearm to do so. Even in my own assault case against 5 guys, after explaining the entire situation to the police officers, I was never charged or talked down to, or given a lecture on how badly I smashed in a few faces.... they just turned to me and said they would have done the exact same thing.

Thats a long answer to the question, which is directly at odds to how you wanted people to answer YOUR question.

Here.... let me go Pre-School on you for a moment so you can understand:

• Does anybody agree that there is a problem within the US in paticular when it comes to Gun Related Crimes?

^ See, this can be either a simple Yes or a simple No.

If the question as it currently is presented gives you an impression in that little noggin of yours that there isn't a problem, then your answer would be "No" and thus, you no longer really need to continue in the debate because you just expressed your opinion.

Not that difficult.

I emphasized not the difficult to highlight this. You want people to answer your question with a simple yes or no and be left no room to debate their views. Either "Yes there is problem, and the next question is lengthy exposition on why" or "No, end of discussion and I cannot debate your point".

When you yourself have this question poised to you, you are not content to just say "No". And not give any reasoning, the direct opposite of what you demanded others do with your question.



So that in mind, I'll answer your question in a round about long way.


1.) There is no problem in the US when it comes to gun related crimes, because gun-related crimes aren't anymore of a problem than non-gun related crimes. Violent crimes are the problem, gun related or not. The root causes of these violent crimes are not related to guns, but to various social conditions.

Other devices are just as easily, and more frequently, used to kill. Gun ownership is a personal choice of any citizen based on how much they wish to have defense of their person and what lengths they will go towards it. Unless you can show someone is dangerous with a device or practice, it is not the governments place nor society as a mob, to remove that from them.

US gun laws are already quite stringent compared to laws for ownership of other dangerous items. Even cars, while you need a license to drive, you do not need one to purchase a car as is, and many people do drive without insurance or licenses.

Stringent gun laws are not shown to reduce crime overall, perhaps it will reduce "gun crime", perhaps not.

There is simply no shown benefit to more stringent gun laws. Often people try to show statistics one way or the other, but they are almost always bluntly biased with terms like "gun crime" (instead of violent crime) or anecdotal evidence of specific instances.

2.)

as I see no problem, thats all I need to state there.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Get your own clue. You want to be abusive, head off to the cage or keep civil posting habits.

Fk'n isn't an insult.... Requesting you to get a clue isn't an insult. Telling you that the clues pour out when you open your eyes is not an insult, that's just explaining the obvious.

Jeeez you swear a lot. You have problems with a short vocabulary?

Nope... but it does get more attention then trying to be civil it would seem, as I've already tried that route several times already..... but you couldn't even address accurately what was being presented to you multiple times and you tried to generalize something in which didn't even represent what I was saying.... so it would seem you are the one with the problem with vocabulary.

I have lived in or near the bush my whole life and I have never seen a harmless animal yet. Even your poor, "harmless" chipmink can carry diseases. Your poor, harmless little bambis can kick the crap out of the average man.

Those are usually signs to leave them the hell alone then.... but hey, if you can blow their brains out with a gun, then I suppose that shows them who's boss.

I grew up with deer, moose, rabbits, coyotes, skunks, racoons and yes, even your evil little chipmunks. I never had to shoot any of them, even when they continually landed on my property for whatever reason.

I mean, when you have to resort to shooting every animal that enters your property and use the excuse that they're full of disease, that sounds like paranoia to me.... but did you even bother to see if they were of any risk, or did you just lodge a round in their heads just for the fun of it?

Sometimes there are. I loaded the backside of a blackbear with two salt rounds from my shotgun. He hasn't been back since. But if you'd like to come show me how to deal with a cougar in my chicken pen without killing it, I would be very interested.

Perhaps someday when I have some free time I might. But for starters, one thing I and my family did with animal pests who kept getting into our garbage or eating our animals' food, was to leave the scraps of food out of the garbage and compost bins, put it on a plate somewhere away from the house, they come and eat it, they remove your scraps for you and at the same time, leave your animal's food and your garbage bags alone.

Eventually those rabid evil racoons and skunks weren't such a problem anymore and actually grew into an extended family with my own family.

As it goes for mountain lions / cougars, sure, you have a justification for shooting them, or at least scaring them off.... but once again, as I have to continually repeat myself, I'm not talking about the restriction of firearms for hunting or killing animals.... I was focusing on human on human attacks and the lack of laws towards those things.

Once again, I'm not as black and white on the subject as you or others would like to make me out to be.

You haven't got a clue as to "the like of me".

Nor do you of I.

there you are, back to the dullwitted lack of vocabulary. Using namecalling to win your arguments just like a 5 year old in a sandbox. tsk tsk tsk

Well next time read what's being said properly so I don't have to repeat myself like a teacher for a 5 year old who doesn't listen. If you're going to act like a 5 year old, then I'll talk to you in a way in which you can understand.

Apparently you can't seem to make up your mind what you are talking about. First, you make a comment about the frequency of people getting shot in churches.

Once again Wrong.... I talked about the frequency of people getting shot in general down in the US.... not just in churches.... come on now, seriously...

Then you bring up gun laws.

Yup, I did.

People make analogies to other things that kill and you throw more tantrums.

Sorry, you haven't seen a tantrum of mine yet. And I was talking about the focus on what can be done about gun related violence.... not vehicle related violence.... if you wish to make a topic about vehicles and deaths related to them, knock yourself out.... but this isn't the thread for cars.

Didn't think that was complicated, but I guess it is for some.

Then you flipflop and tell us you didn't like a thread being hijacked after you hijack it yourself.

*shakes head* Oh my... hasn't this already been cleared up by several rule quotes and acknowlegements that this wasn't the case and that what I used, and what I attempted to steer this conversation into, match with one another.

But see, now that you can't go and run off on some other tangent and other topic, and you're caught when you hi-jack, you in turn attempt to blame me for hi-jacking......

Question: How the hell can I hi-jack a thread I created before I even started a concept of debate?

Answer: You can't. That would involve some form of time travel.... and I know I am a tallented fellow, I don't think I can do that just yet.

I have been consistant, you haven't.... deal with it.

Then when people call you on it, you throw more tantrums.

Confirming the rules, and pointing out when you and others screwed up is a tantrum? Interesting little world you live in.

I really feel sorry for you, Prax.

Oh by all means, don't.... I certainly don't need imaginary sympathy from a faceless person on the internet. You can do much better things with your time then to feel sorry for me.

I wish I could help your condition but I can't suggest a solution other than your staying away from posters who don't accept your version of things.

Yeah, too bad you still don't get it.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Apparently you missed the posts where I told you that target rifles and the like are not designed for killing.

They are and they can.

The only type of firearms I could see your example as being true would be Pellet and BB guns.... but even those can kill small animals.

There are tons of replica firearms out there that are designed for display purposes only.

If they don't work, then it doesn't matter now does it? Just like the Sten and Bren guns I mentioned earlier that were in my houshold. But as mentioned before, which you seemed to not connect with, is that the collection excuse doesn't seem valid enough to have the laws as slack as they are.... if all you're going to do is collect them and they don't work.

It simply doesn't make any sense.

But you seem to be so blinded by your own bias that you can't think objectively. I feel sorry for you.

I'm not the one who's having problems reading what has been said properly.

You sure you don't need glasses?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
WOW!

This thread went downhill fast.

I quit when I realized that Praxius is a hopeless statist..........no sense arguing with him, I believe in the rights of the individual, he believes in the rights of the State....there is no chance of reconciliation on those grounds.

i could write a damn book on how the recognition of individual rights was forced on the state, and how the degradation of those rights will be the undoing of our free society, but I'd be wasting my time......so

I'm outta here.
aaaahhh, but it's fun, Colpy. :D
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
And this is also what happens when someone leaves a debate and then comes back after a few pages.... they miss most of what was said and then they pull out their own assumptions out of their arse as to what occured.

Just because I'm not too keen on the concept of every joe blow having a gun on them as I walk down the street, doesn't make me a Statist or whatever name you can think of. Where I live, nobody has needed the requirement of possessing a gun in public for their own safety, and I see no practicallity for people to start carrying them where I live now.
That's very fortunate of you.

And if the society in which I live in right now, in my little spot on the planet, can live perfectly fine (For the most part) without everybody having to be loaded up with guns, and in continual fear of being attacked..... oh and the current system is working..... then I see no justification for other places needing them as a right to protect them.
Not every place is like your little bit of heaven, though. And unfortunately you seem unable to imagine yourself in anyone else's position.

Oh, and you don't have to agree with what I'm saying.... just in case I might have sent you some subliminal message in my writting forcing you the agree. If you are compelled to agree with my opinion because it just makes more logical sense then the other side of the argument, well that's just truth working it's magic. :p Then again, maybe it's not.... once again, it all depends on your own perspective, which you are free to decide for yourself.

You don't see me with a gun to your head forcing you to agree with me do you? (pun intended)
Nope. But then you aren't standing in front of me with a firearm in your hand either. If you were, I would disappear very quickly from your view.



.......... Canada has never had the rights to bear arms in our foundation like the US has, and yet we seem to be doing pretty well for ourselves overall.....
You think we are doing okay? I don't.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal01.htm
 
Last edited:

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
A sensible gun control system:

Dump registration completely.....it is a waste of money and resources, so inaccurate it will not stand up in court.

Keep graduated licenses........requiring different levels of training for possession of each class, say.......one for manual load long guns, one for semi-auto long guns, one for handguns, one for concealed carry permits.

Allow acredited private citizens to give the courses, rate the applicants.....perhaps with testing done by police or other officials, and officialdom to issue licenses.

Got a gun? Got a license for that type of gun/purpose? No problem.

Got a gun? Got no license? Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Cheap, and as effective as any gun control system.
Looks good to me so I think it'd be worth a try. Um, hopefully the jail sentence for offenders would be appropriate, too.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I seem to be a helluva lot more expert than you.

The proper term is "Experienced." :p

So I am really not surprised that your ego apparentl;y is big enough that a layman like you would be telling someone more knowledgeable than you what is what.

Oh, so you saying you're more expert makes it so? Are you sure you don't work for the US intelligence agency? They always get things right.

I never said I was an expert by the way, but I sure as hell ain't claiming you're some kind of expert when your only solution for animal problems is to shoot them.

Takes a big brain to do that.

from Merriam Webster's online dictionary:
Comprende? Hunting is the pursuit of game.
For a few people. For the rest it is the pleasure of being competitive in something they like doping. Not all competition shooters hunt, child.

*snickers* yes... "child." :roll: Because I'm giving you a bit of friction in the debate, I gotta be a little child.

Guess what? News Flash: Hunting for the Pursuit of Game usually involves the "Killing" of that animal... hince the term "HUNT"

If you're going to go hunting and not kill your prey, then it's not hunting, you're bird watching.

But see.... much like the car situation, nobodys talking about wanting to restrict the right to hunt or shoot for sport and now you're continually trying to side track the argument into something that isn't even of concern.

In other words, you're making a big farting stink over nothing..... and you continue to do so, even after I already explained to you that I couldn't give a rats ass about the hunting part of things.

Do you have any art on your walls? What do you use that for? Does it do anything for you? Just because you are too limited to think of any reason other than what you can scrounge up between your flaps doesn't mean there are no other reasons why people do things.

*twirls finger* Whoopie Doo..... I already explained multiple times of my own training and use of firearms, both for hunting and target practice. I suppose mentioning that my brother went to the '96 Canada Games for Range doesn't help exclude your freak out over hunting and target practice?

Oh but this is where you try and pin point where I somehow said those should be banned as well.... and then I will respond with correcting you that I said those things are not justification for allowing the laws to remain the way they are.

Are you figuring this out yet, or shall I stoop to sign language?

So you are blaming collectors for these deaths now?

Did I? No.

You are blaming people who actually have a use for these tools for the deaths of others?

Did I? Nope....

If not, then it sounds like you would like all firearms to be gone.

Did I say that as well? Nope.... keep trying though, you might get something right eventually.

But this, as it has been pointed out, is an extremely unfeasible, idealistic, naive, and therefore unintelligent answer to the problem.

Of course it is, which is why I didn't say that was the right answer.

I am not trying to win you over. At first I was simply trying to be informative, but you refuse to accept the info.

I've accepted it as it stands.... it just doesn't really give you any foundation for your argument.

So then I did try to win you over, but failed. Now I am deliberately posting to annoy you. And that is working.

Is it? Nope.... but keep trying. You can't annoy an annoyance, that's like some sorta conundrum.

So you enlist in the military, which incidentally, IS designed for killing people, and then you come strutting over here to CC to start pontificating at and about other people who don't use firearms to kill people?

Yes, and no.... you still got the second part wrong.

roflmao Sorry but your credibility is dwindling rapidly.

Well no wonder, because you haven't begun to understand what's been said. Perhaps it's my accent.

But I still am a little curious about what YOU think the answer to firearms related deaths and how you would go about implementing that solution.

Fair enough.... although I mentioned it before, I suggested that people getting firearms should be tested in a similar fashion as people trying to fly a plane, or drive a car. In many places this does already happen, but in places like Virginia and Georgia, all you need is a drivers license and you get a gun.... that's the thing I have a personal problem with.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
A sensible gun control system:

Dump registration completely.....it is a waste of money and resources, so inaccurate it will not stand up in court.

Agreed.

Keep graduated licenses........requiring different levels of training for possession of each class, say.......one for manual load long guns, one for semi-auto long guns, one for handguns, one for concealed carry permits.

Agreed

Allow acredited private citizens to give the courses, rate the applicants.....perhaps with testing done by police or other officials, and officialdom to issue licenses.

Agreed, but I would also add perhaps some head shrinks to evaluate people's mental capacity and responsibility of the use of a firearm, but that's not something I'm totally big on, but couldn't hurt.

Got a gun? Got a license for that type of gun/purpose? No problem.

Seems fair.

Got a gun? Got no license? Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Cheap, and as effective as any gun control system.

See, something like that I could live with..... thank you.