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

[Praxius]

You can't create a thread about a tragedy, then derail it to talk about how Gun Ownership may be linked to the tragedy (it isn't), and then throw a fit when someone points out how gun ownership is a strawman arguement and points out examples of why.

I never created the thread to focus on a tragedy. In the news section you're supposed to have the title in which is in the news article you are presenting. What you wish to talk about in the subject is subjective so long as it relates to the article. I used this example of a mass shooting, which has been occuring quite often as I see it in the news, I was wondering if anybody else notices the pattern as well (I guess not) and if there were any paticular solutions available for the problem at hand. If you wanted to talk about the tragedy as it is, knock yourself out, but I wished to focus on a paticular aspect of the subject.

And if you can't create a thread with references to start a question you are interested in to find some sort of solution or what not.... then why post threads at all?

Topic drift, the topic was on the tragedy, you made a logical and straight forward connection to gun ownership, and from that shifted the thread to debating gun ownership. Now people are bringing up the ownership of other dangerous items.

The ownership of cars is related to the topic of if guns would stop these kinds of tragedies. Thus the important point is if you banned guns would this guy have rammed a car through the front of the church?

Would banning guns do anything useful?

And to answer that question, yes, as there are numerous countries with much lower crime rates, gun related crimes if you want to focus more so, then the US.

What other developed country has 80 deaths on average each day related to firearms?

But I shall take a step or two back and perhaps simplify my question:

• Does anybody agree that there is a problem within the US in paticular when it comes to Gun Related Crimes?
• If yes, what do you propose would be a possible solution to the problem?

Your own solution doesn't even have to line up with my own, it doesn't even have to relate to the removal of firearms..... but so long as a solution of some kind that can be worked on and developed into something plausable, to me, it's valid.

The annoying part of the whole thing, is that besides people arguing the side of restricting or banning the availability of firearms, nobody else is presenting a solution, and that's what I'm really trying to get at.

It's either "Remove the Guns and Use Gun Control" or it's "It's our Constitutional Right to have them."

^ But the argument of "It's our right" doesn't present any solution, and only seems to express the mentality that there isn't any problem at all, nothing is done, and then people just wait to hear about the next case to hit the news.

If you are so protective of this right to own a firearm, then what other solution can you think of that might help the problem to the point where it would at least reduce the amount of times this sort of thing occurs?

There's got to be something.

I seek alternative ideas and concepts, not to dictate to people to follow what I think. And if I charge an idea as a solution, it's not in a manner to force my opinion to be taken by others, it's to give people a kick in the arse to think of some other idea besides the one I presented.

I heard continually people saying over and over through my life "It'll never work" "Nobody will like that" ~ and yet, they never offer any other solutions.

Maybe it's just a Star Wars mentality.... It's either Do or Do Not, there is no Try..... Well nobody can ever Do, if nobody ever Tries in the first place.

Added:

As it currently stands, the current solution that seems to have a track record of some success, is Gun Control.... I'm all open to other ideas and concepts besides this that might actually work.... be that some type of social help for people who are proned to these sorts of crimes, or better training/education, stronger background checks, GPS devices inside more leathal weapons, whatever your mind can think of....

But just saying a solution will never work and then not presenting any alternative doesn't really help anybody does it?

 

[Praxius]

I assumed you were talking about antiques, non workable, if you have them on display.... Sounds like you are breaking the law if they can shoot and are not locked up...

My father used to have a working Sten MkII SMG and a good ol fashion Bren Gun

.... Well the Bren didn't work, but the Sten did. He had them with his old collection of WWII stuff and no longer has either ever since he decided to take the RCMP ball team he used to play on down to see his stuff.

They politely asked him to make sure he got rid of them as soon as he could and they all scooted off for more burgers. It's nice to know people in the force, lol.

Of course he also had a K98 rifle and a Lee Enfield, but those were ok, last I checked.

 

[L Gilbert]

As seen in many other countries.... or anywhere for that matter, if a weapon is needed, there is a method of obtaining that weapon.

And in case of an emergency, such as oppression or an invasion of your country, I don't see why the right to bear arms can't be allowed, as that would be an extreme case of it's requirement and justification. Perhaps I could even agree to citizens being allowed to own firearms while your nation has declaired war..... but all other times, I see no practical reason for the right to bear arms to be available, when the majority use and abuse that right to terrorize their fellow citizens.

As mentioned before, I'm not for a total outright ban..... just some form of control to reduce the chances of death and violence.

So in which country does the majority of firearms owners terrorize their fellow citizens? Hell's bells, that doesn't even happen in the States.
Anyway, if you think I am going to stand by and let some bear or cougar destroy my crops and eat my chickens, you are addled. I also shoot skunks and coons for being major pains in the butt. On the other hand, as much as some people tempt me, I have never even pointed a firearm at anyone and have no intention of it. And the VAST MAJORITY of firearms owners are much like me. Also if you think I will give up good healthy moose or elk steaks for the bland, chemical-laden crap that comes in a plastic wrapped styrofoam tray, you really do need help for that problem between your radar dishes. And no I don't shoot critters with my target rifles. The rifles aren't built for that purpose.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well that is why the Constitution was called the great experiment when it was first derived. The Constitution was written not only for the masses but also to protect the rights of individuals. That is why a single person can go to a town meeting and say...

"Every year the town sets up a manger on town property. I feel offended and I do not want that set up this year."

Town after town has been taking to court over the years and have been forced by a judge to take down these displays much to the anger of the majority because of the Constitution protection of individuls.

Quite right. There should be a balance between societal rights for the masses and individual rights.

 

[L Gilbert]

The only thing firearms are good for is killing. Get over it.

Another comment born from ignorance. Apparently you missed the post where I explained about the various different purposes for firearms. Go away, you pest.

 

[L Gilbert]

Ever hear of animal control, or don't they exist in your neck of the woods.
And I didn't know fast animals were a problem... :smile:

You have never lived in a rural area have you? Most likely if you call the CO, he is out of his office and you get a message saying to leave your number and he'll get back to you or else in case of an emergency to call the RCMP. And in that case, they say, "We don't have a unit in your area but we'll try to get one there withing the next hour or two". And if the emergency happens to be one where a cougar is in your chicken pen, you sure as badgers have claws aren't going to wait for an hour till the cops show up.
BTW, in case you missed my post about why people have firearms, that is one reason, another is for acquiring food, another is for target competition, another is for collecting, and these days some people own firearms just to exercise civil disobedience against inane gun laws.

 

[L Gilbert]

Better solution: don't sell guns....

That's not a better solution, that's a stupid solution.

 

[L Gilbert]

To be fair Zz, if you look at the opening post, he quoted the article, and then struck up discussion on how frequent these sorts of shootings are in the US. The topic was about shootings in general. Gun control is an inseparable debate from that issue.

Exactly, and most shootings aren't about people as the intended target: not by a long shot (hehehe sorry, I couldn't help it and just had to throw that in).

BTW, the twit did say that the "only thing a gun is designed for is killing". I showed him to be wrong, but he'd never admit to being wrong.

Also, the main reason that people of Prax's sort think "majority use and abuse that right to terrorize their fellow citizens" is because it is fashionable for the newsmedia to pound nothing but the tragic incidents involving firearms. They don't seem to think that offering info about how many shootings of people as opposed to legal shootings. Just think of how many millions of rounds are fired off just in the hundreds of trapshoot & skeet tournaments, hundreds of long range target competitions, hundreds of smallbore target competitions, backyard plinking, RCMP range practise, military practise. And then there are the hunters.

 

[Risus]

That's not a better solution, that's a stupid solution.

Thats a stupid reply....

 

[Praxius]

So in which country does the majority of firearms owners terrorize their fellow citizens? Hell's bells, that doesn't even happen in the States.
Anyway, if you think I am going to stand by and let some bear or cougar destroy my crops and eat my chickens, you are addled. I also shoot skunks and coons for being major pains in the butt. On the other hand, as much as some people tempt me, I have never even pointed a firearm at anyone and have no intention of it. And the VAST MAJORITY of firearms owners are much like me. Also if you think I will give up good healthy moose or elk steaks for the bland, chemical-laden crap that comes in a plastic wrapped styrofoam tray, you really do need help for that problem between your radar dishes. And no I don't shoot critters with my target rifles. The rifles aren't built for that purpose.

Get a fk'n clue will you... in fact, open your fk'n eyes and the clues just pour out.

I'm not talking about hunting purposes.... ffs stick with the god damn program of what's being debated.

There are gun restrictions and gun laws here in Canada, and we're all still fully capable of hunting or shooting animals depending on the situation. Nobodys talking about taking away your precious right to kill harmless animals for your own pleasure.

Oh and guess what? There are many other, more simple and cost effective ways of dealing with animal pests who cross into your property besides shooting and killing them.

But I guess that's the simple and quick answer for the like of you.

Oh.... and as it seems as though I continually have to repeat myself because of fk'wits like you who like to argue in the black & white....... and I'll try and make it very clear and easy for you to read:

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY YOUR PRECIOUS GUNS MAGGOT!

 

[Praxius]

Another comment born from ignorance. Apparently you missed the post where I explained about the various different purposes for firearms. Go away, you pest.

And all your intelligent examples were all related to killing.... smooth move Ex-Lax.

 

[Praxius]

You have never lived in a rural area have you? Most likely if you call the CO, he is out of his office and you get a message saying to leave your number and he'll get back to you or else in case of an emergency to call the RCMP. And in that case, they say, "We don't have a unit in your area but we'll try to get one there withing the next hour or two". And if the emergency happens to be one where a cougar is in your chicken pen, you sure as badgers have claws aren't going to wait for an hour till the cops show up.
BTW, in case you missed my post about why people have firearms, that is one reason, another is for acquiring food, another is for target competition, another is for collecting, and these days some people own firearms just to exercise civil disobedience against inane gun laws.

Oh wow, like you're the only person who's ever grown up in that sort of territory. :roll: Wonderful expert you are.

Hunting = Killing
Target Competition = Training for being accurate with your killing when the time comes
Collecting = No purpose, no Use unless you're going to use them some day.... 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.

Still haven't won me over.

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?

 

[Praxius]

That's not a better solution, that's a stupid solution.

And what solutions have you brought to the table?

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.

 

[Praxius]

Exactly, and most shootings aren't about people as the intended target: not by a long shot (hehehe sorry, I couldn't help it and just had to throw that in).

BTW, the twit did say that the "only thing a gun is designed for is killing". I showed him to be wrong, but he'd never admit to being wrong.

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.

Also, the main reason that people of Prax's sort think "majority use and abuse that right to terrorize their fellow citizens" is because it is fashionable for the newsmedia to pound nothing but the tragic incidents involving firearms.

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.

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.

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? Maybe if Bush get's everything he wants, it can be like that..... but until then, suck it up princess.

They don't seem to think that offering info about how many shootings of people as opposed to legal shootings.

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?

Just think of how many millions of rounds are fired off just in the hundreds of trapshoot & skeet tournaments, hundreds of long range target competitions, hundreds of smallbore target competitions, backyard plinking, RCMP range practise, military practise. And then there are the hunters.

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?

 

[Praxius]

Thats a stupid reply....

Most of them are.

 

[EagleSmack]

"PVT PYLE! YOU ARE STUPID BUT DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR LEFT FROM RIGHT!"
"Sir No Sir"
SLAP! "WHAT SIDES THAT PYLE!"
"SIR RIGHT SIDE SIR"
SLAP! "WHAT SIDES THAT PYLE!"
"SIR LEFT SIDE SIR"
"DON'T %$#& WITH ME AGAIN PYLE"

Oh yeah...Lee Emry... One of the Marine's Finest.

 

[EagleSmack]

And in a democratic society, the majority rules, and if the majority decides they want their rights to shoot people, or not.... that's what get's changed, and the "Rights" are changed.

Nothing lasts forever.

That is why the USA is a Republic...the majority does not always rule. That is how ONE California judge can simply wipe away voter legislation with a swipe of a pen and declare the majority law "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

The Right to Bear Arms WILL stand.

 

[EagleSmack]

Ever had a rapid animal living under your deck? Going under there with a knife isn't really that good of an idea.

Laughing my head off!

Trying going under there with the intention of punching the same rapid animal.

 

[Praxius]

[/b]

"PVT PYLE! YOU ARE STUPID BUT DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR LEFT FROM RIGHT!"
"Sir No Sir"
SLAP! "WHAT SIDES THAT PYLE!"
"SIR RIGHT SIDE SIR"
SLAP! "WHAT SIDES THAT PYLE!"
"SIR LEFT SIDE SIR"
"DON'T %$#& WITH ME AGAIN PYLE"

Oh yeah...Lee Emry... One of the Marine's Finest.

You know, I actually had an itch to watch that movie a few days ago.... just for the whole begining with all the screaming and insults.... always made me laugh.

 

[Praxius]

That is why the USA is a Republic...the majority does not always rule. That is how ONE California judge can simply wipe away voter legislation with a swipe of a pen and declare the majority law "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

The Right to Bear Arms WILL stand.

Ok, then I will present the question, yet again:

• Does anybody agree that there is a problem within the US in paticular when it comes to Gun Related Crimes?
• If yes, what do you propose would be a possible solution to the problem?

I'm not diggin you out Eagle when I say this, but in general, it's like pulling teeth with a suction cup around here when it comes to getting a straight answer to a simple question.