1st. Aaron Alexis then Attacks on the 2nd Amendment

[WLDB]

Doesn't anyone notice that most, not all but most of these events are perpetrated by people who would pass background checks and be able to purchase the guns anyway. I've never heard of a dope dealer going on a mass rampage in an office or school. They may blast a couple of other dealers and help our cause to clean up the street but never a mass shooting in an office or school.

This guy already had a criminal record. Doesnt that prevent people from legally buying guns?

 

[karrie]

We should voice reasonable opinions, and where possible they should be reasoned and not just hateful hyperbole.

This is well said. Too bad it was preceded by your first post in this thread.

 

[petros]

The guy was nuts. The use of a gun was just the easiest option. Crazy people are lazy too.

If he didn't have access to a gun, it wouldn't have changed anything about his intent to kill and he would have used another method such as arson, chemicals or many other options.

Personally I'd rather be shot than die slowly with my lungs filling with fluids from homemade mustard gas.

 

[darkbeaver]

But. . . but. . . he brought long-overdue justice to the war criminals and mass murderers of America!

Do you have a link that substantiates that weird statement of yours?

 

[tober]

If he didn't have access to a gun, it wouldn't have changed anything about his intent to kill and he would have used another method such as arson, chemicals or many other options.

These mass killers are a category all their own, and there isn't a single solitary piece of evidence to support this position. It is merely another talking point intended to make people think guns have nothing to do with mass shootings. These people tend to think that the rest of the world is as blinded as they are to their emotional need for guns.

 

[karrie]

These mass public killers are a category all their own and there isn't a single solitary piece of evidence to support this position. This position is merely another pro-gun talking point designed to make people think guns have nothing to do with mass shootings.

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To expedite your absorption of the material.... in each table of this article, there is a W (weapon) column. Within that column, F denotes firearm, M denotes 'melee weapons' (knives, clubs, barehands, etc).

 

[DaSleeper]

I see a goal post move coming soon.......

 

[BaalsTears]

The American pestilence is alive even on a Canadian site...

Dale Carnegie lives.

 

[tober]

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To expedite your absorption of the material.... in each table of this article, there is a W (weapon) column. Within that column, F denotes firearm, M denotes 'melee weapons' (knives, clubs, barehands, etc).

Thank you. I hadn't seen that.

The vast majority of the listings were listed as "F" for firearms. The second most popular weapon seems to be knives (listed as "M"). The weapon factor of these killings is always effected by the culture in which they occur. Some places have no guns publicly accessible. Nowhere on the page did I see a listing confined to US shootings. There is no accepted theory that I know of which states that a killer who can't get a gun will go get a different weapon. If he did use a knife it would be up close and personal, and in most circumstances people could flee.

The general discussion concerns US shootings and the attempts of some forum members to defend US gun proliferation. In other words "killing" isn't the focus. The focus is the undesirability of the US gun culture and how it impacts Canadians. Canada does not have a gun culture like America, but those of us here who own firearms frequently suffer from the publicity that flows from American gun atrocities. Many Canadians do not know that Canadian gun owners do not have in our culture the American culture of violence. When non-shooting Canadians fail to distinguish between privately owned guns in Canada versus those in the US, we Canadians end up with things like the gun registry. I think I am safe in speaking for all Canadian gun owners when I say that we do not want and Canada does not need more gun control. We are not America.

 

[Colpy]

I listened for five & a half minutes before deciding I had better things to do with my day. .

Good for you. Alex Jones is a little over the edge

It talks about "tyrannical government". That is classic US NRA nonsense..

No....that is why the second amendment exists, and why bans on AR 15s and large capacity magazines are unconstitutional.

Not at all, although the right wing says so. It has been caused by a realistic fear held by American law enforcement that the public is armed and considers police the enemy. That is not the case in Canada. We respect our national police force – the RCMP. Because of that, the RCMP does not as a rule fear us. We want to keep it that way.

.

You REALLY haven't been paying attention to current evernts, have you??? Anybody that still "trusts" the RCMP as an institution is out of their frickin' gourd.

 

[karrie]

The weapon factor of these killings is always effected by the culture in which they occur. Some places have no guns publicly accessible___________ Nowhere on the page did I see a listing confined to US shootings. There is no accepted theory that I know of which states that a killer who can't get a gun will go get a different weapon..

You just ran the logic through as it pertains to other countries, then talked yourself out of it because Americans are, what, somehow different human beings than other countries?

The general discussion concerns US shootings and the attempts of some forum members to defend US gun proliferation. In other words "killing" isn't the focus. The focus is the undesirability of the US gun culture and how it impacts Canadians. Canada does not have a gun culture like America, but those of us here who own firearms frequently suffer from the publicity that flows from American gun atrocities. .

I tend to see us suffering more from the gun atrocities that occur here in Canada. We've had our fair share, despite not being 'like them'. Rampage killers are not 'US gun culture'. They are not excused, not accepted, not tolerated. They are vilified, very often shot, and in the end, imprisoned.

If you want to talk American gun culture and the things that are wrong with the way guns are treated, handled, etc., there are a lot of ways I'd likely agree with you. But rampage killers are aside from the issue.

 

[Goober]

Don't take it personally. I have a post-graduate university degree, own eight firearms and was out hunting several times in the last week. Canada does not have America's problem and I hate it when our politicians, who know nothing of our gun culture, watch US media and enact unnecessary laws against it - that was the long gun registry. Canadians should speak out, and it is natural that our opinions should span a spectrum. American gun atrocities have the power to effect our rights. We should voice reasonable opinions, and where possible they should be reasoned and not just hateful hyperbole.

Don't take it personally. But advice given by one who disregards their own stated good advice is lacking in several areas of emotional maturity.
Your advice falls under that old axiom - Advice, is like ar=seholes- everyone has one, and yours is full of shi-t

 

[tober]

No....that is why the second amendment exists, and why bans on AR 15s and large capacity magazines are unconstitutional.

You are incorrect in law. That is one of the primary NRA talking points, but the US Constitution does not say that nor has the US Supreme Court. The bans you refer to are not unconstitutional either. The government is permitted to regulate weapons. The principle is exactly the same whether you are talking about forbidding private ownership of nuclear weapons or regulating other military weapons.

You REALLY haven't been paying attention to current evernts, have you??? Anybody that still "trusts" the RCMP as an institution is out of their frickin' gourd.

I won't argue that. I wrote that neither Cdns nor cops in Canada are as afraid of each other as citizens and cops are in the US.

You just ran the logic through as it pertains to other countries, then talked yourself out of it because Americans are, what, somehow different human beings than other countries?

No. Your web page was international. My context for the gun discussions is Canada and the US. Furthermore, there is a very strong cultural connection between the means of killing used in different places. America is awash in handguns and the handgun is the weapon used in most shootings.

I tend to see us suffering more from the gun atrocities that occur here in Canada. We've had our fair share, despite not being 'like them'.

Really? What do you mean when you refer to us suffering? The statistics I've seen show Canada more or less in the same league as Western Europe and the English speaking commonwealth countries. American incidents exceed those of all the others combined.

Rampage killers are not 'US gun culture'.

Apparently you have identified category of killings called "Rampage Killers" that somebody has categorized and made the subject of a study. That's fine, but it's not my issue. Many of the killings referred to on your web page appeared to be politically motivated, things like terrorists crashing airplanes. The killings you referenced are more impersonal than the typical gun atrocity - the terrorist attacks a machine and whoever is in it dies. Or they gas a subway. Many are probably oriented directly by some ideology to make a power statement on the world stage. That might make it into your study, but it is not in my frame of reference.

My reference is specific to killings in the First World, where the shooters use privately owned firearms and are not readily connected to a political ideology when they kill strangers. In my reference the shooter directly and personally picks each of his victims when he kills them. These happen more in America than anywhere else in the First World. I see those atrocities as a threat to my hunting and shooting hobby because of Canada's closeness both geographically and culturally to America. That is why I rant against them.

If you want to talk American gun culture and the things that are wrong with the way guns are treated, handled, etc., there are a lot of ways I'd likely agree with you. But rampage killers are aside from the issue.

You brought up "rampage killers". I hadn't heard the term before. My frame of reference is First World gun atrocities, primarily those that are a-political.

 

[karrie]

I didn't bring up rampage killers. It was pointed out to you that, if they didn't have guns, these killers would find other ways to kill. There's plenty of history of arson attacks, bomb attacks, machete attacks, knife attacks, to prove that without guns at hand, humans kill in other ways. Rampage killing just happens to be the term. I was simply pointing out to you that your counter argument was false. And I did.

 

[tober]

Don't take it personally. But advice given by one who disregards their own stated good advice is lacking in several areas of emotional maturity.
Your advice falls under that old axiom - Advice, is like ar=seholes- everyone has one, and yours is full of shi-t

Geez, an Albertan who writes like a red-neck Yank? LMAO!

 

[Colpy]

You are incorrect in law. That is one of the primary NRA talking points, but the US Constitution does not say that nor has the US Supreme Court. The bans you refer to are not unconstitutional either. The government is permitted to regulate weapons. The principle is exactly the same whether you are talking about forbidding private ownership of nuclear weapons or regulating other military weapons.

Baloney.

The reason the second amendment is exists is so that the whole of the people (the militia) stay armed to prevent the rise of tyranny. I suggest you read a little history.

I would make the same suggestion to the justices of the SCOTUS

 

[tober]

I didn't bring up rampage killers.

Oh dear. Another Internet debate where the issue becomes semantics not substance. I had never heard the term "rampage killers" before now. You did. Rampage killers is your issue. You brought the term up.

It was pointed out to you that, if they didn't have guns, these killers would find other ways to kill.

It wasn't "pointed out" it was posited, because your reference is a theory under debate not an accepted fact.

There's plenty of history of arson attacks, bomb attacks, machete attacks, knife attacks, to prove that without guns at hand, humans kill in other ways. Rampage killing just happens to be the term. I was simply pointing out to you that your counter argument was false. And I did.

Your position is not logical. Nothing in the fact that your rampage killers use means other than guns to kill means that gun nuts with guns would necessarily do so. I have been a gun owner most of my life and I have heard this argument forever, and it is nothing but a cliché used by one side of an argument to try to sustain their position. The position goes in tandem with the hoary old NRA standby that guns don't kill people, people kill people. You are supposed to infer that there is no point in having any gun control because as soon as we get it the killers will keep killing by other means. There is no evidence to support the argument.

Just because you choose to insert American shooters into your category does not mean that every attribute within the category applies to these First World shooters. Many of your cases online were Asian, and it is a reasonable inference that a many of those killers were motivated by politics. It does make sense that a political killer will search for whatever weapon he can get. The killers I am referring to are a-political, and I don't believe that if you take away their guns they will use another means. I believe they kill because they have the guns, not the other way around.

 

[petros]

These mass killers are a category all their own, and there isn't a single solitary piece of evidence to support this position. It is merely another talking point intended to make people think guns have nothing to do with mass shootings. These people tend to think that the rest of the world is as blinded as they are to their emotional need for guns.

There is no evidence that crazy people are lazy? If you weren't crazy and lazy you'd be on to something.

There is no accepted theory that I know of which states that a killer who can't
get a gun will go get a different weapon. If he did use a knife it would be up
close and personal, and in most circumstances people could flee.

Accepted by whom? You? If you weren't crazy and lazy you'd research instead of assuming.

 

[B00Mer]

Geez, an Albertan who writes like a red-neck Yank? LMAO!

Geez a Libtard that writes like he's a constipated troll, but if you would just tell your BF to pull his d!ck out of your azz.

 

[gopher]

D.C. Shooting: Opportunity For Obama Regime to Take All Guns - YouTube

Hee, hee - when I've posted videos of Jones's views on 9/11 he was criticized by right wingers for being a crank. But now he is viewed as a hero.