School shooting in Montreal not terror.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
The killer was named Kimveer Gill.
On his internet blog, he declared himself as a goth who hated humans... He had a particular hatred for sports enthusiasts and athletes... He also despised cops, who he thought were watching him since about a month...
He posted pictures of himself with a gun and a knife...
"Fortunately", this was the isolated act of a poor lunatic...
On his internet blog, he declared himself as a goth who hated humans... He had a particular hatred for sports enthusiasts and athletes... He also despised cops, who he thought were watching him since about a month...
He posted pictures of himself with a gun and a knife...
"Fortunately", this was the isolated act of a poor lunatic...
A goth who hated humans, sounds like he wasnt aware that goths are humans too......I think their should be a childerns book made for goths so they dont get this idea of goth not human goth dislike human.
Fuck you Kimveer Gill.
Fuck you Kimveer Gill.
Wow a random senseless act of violence, almost makes me respect people who actually have a reason for hatred.
Pulled this from another thread, as I thought it belonged here......
First of all, pictures on the news show the shooter posing with what looks like a Beretta Storm carbine. That is a semi-automatic firearm that fires pistol ammunition (9mm or .40 S&W, perhaps .45 ACP), and takes pistol magazines.
Pistol magazines are allowed 10 rounds, although the second you stick one in a carbine, it becomes a prohibited weapon, as rifles and carbines are restricted to magazines of no more than 5 rounds.
Don't ask, it doesn't have to make sense, it is gov't policy.
The Beretta Storm is legal in Canada, but restricted (in the same class as a handgun) This guy probably (I don't actually know) held this weapon perfectly legally, which means he passed two government-mandated safety courses, and was a member of a shooting club.
Strangely enough, it seems the guy didn't do any shooting with the Storm, if he even had it with him. According to staff at the hospital, the wounded all had low velocity .22 caliber wounds. Lucky for them, as the larger caliber Storm would have caused more serious wounds........
First of all, pictures on the news show the shooter posing with what looks like a Beretta Storm carbine. That is a semi-automatic firearm that fires pistol ammunition (9mm or .40 S&W, perhaps .45 ACP), and takes pistol magazines.
Pistol magazines are allowed 10 rounds, although the second you stick one in a carbine, it becomes a prohibited weapon, as rifles and carbines are restricted to magazines of no more than 5 rounds.
Don't ask, it doesn't have to make sense, it is gov't policy.
The Beretta Storm is legal in Canada, but restricted (in the same class as a handgun) This guy probably (I don't actually know) held this weapon perfectly legally, which means he passed two government-mandated safety courses, and was a member of a shooting club.
Strangely enough, it seems the guy didn't do any shooting with the Storm, if he even had it with him. According to staff at the hospital, the wounded all had low velocity .22 caliber wounds. Lucky for them, as the larger caliber Storm would have caused more serious wounds........
Why would anyone have a weapon such as this guy had ....
It isn't a hunting rifle, or a small arms protective weapon - it's a killing machine for groups of people at one event.
Where would he get this kind of gun?
It isn't a hunting rifle, or a small arms protective weapon - it's a killing machine for groups of people at one event.
Where would he get this kind of gun?
Gun store? Or mabey he bought it off someone who had it, or went and bought it off the shelf at KMart in the US. Lucky for him it wasn't a protective weapon, we're not allowed protective weapons.
Re: RE: School shooting in Montreal not terror.
Oh right -
And he brought it across the border in his purse???
www.torontostar.com
Gee Gill - why didn't you do a neat solo job on yourself instead of the cowardly act you pulled on the students at that school and then letting the cops bring you down.
Action hero or nerd gone bad.
iARTthere4iam said:
Oh right -
And he brought it across the border in his purse???
www.torontostar.com
Gee Gill - why didn't you do a neat solo job on yourself instead of the cowardly act you pulled on the students at that school and then letting the cops bring you down.
Action hero or nerd gone bad.
Another case of killings connected to the website Gill had going ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_family_murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_family_murders
Now the real foolishness starts.
As I guessed, Gill's weapons were all legal, and registered.
He had jumped through all the hoops, and, believe me, they are numerous.
He had a Beretta Storm carbine (caliber not specified, but 9mm, .40 or .45 all about the same lethality), a Glock pistol in .45 ACP, and a shotgun.
I was wrong about the .22 rimfire, I am honestly surprized at the survival rate of the wounded.
Anyway, the idiots are already out in force, including Jean Charest, calling for the Conservatives NOT to dump the gun registry...........
Has it not occured to these people that the 2 BILLION bucks spent on that fiasco saved NO ONE?
This guys guns were REGISTERED!! What difference did that make? None.
Enough to drive a logical man mad.
As I guessed, Gill's weapons were all legal, and registered.
He had jumped through all the hoops, and, believe me, they are numerous.
He had a Beretta Storm carbine (caliber not specified, but 9mm, .40 or .45 all about the same lethality), a Glock pistol in .45 ACP, and a shotgun.
I was wrong about the .22 rimfire, I am honestly surprized at the survival rate of the wounded.
Anyway, the idiots are already out in force, including Jean Charest, calling for the Conservatives NOT to dump the gun registry...........
Has it not occured to these people that the 2 BILLION bucks spent on that fiasco saved NO ONE?
This guys guns were REGISTERED!! What difference did that make? None.
Enough to drive a logical man mad.
Wednesday's Child said:
In the world today, you can get just about anything, especially with the internet. It definitely wasn't a legal weapon, any gun controls wouldn't have prevented this from happening.
Unfortunately, reading about his posts on discussion boards, he was a prime canditate for this kind of event. Very suicidal.
Re: RE: School shooting in Montreal not terror.
He jumped through all the hoops and it didn't stop him (if it's true his were legal guns), but does that mean that those hoops haven't stopped anyone else?
Colpy said:
He jumped through all the hoops and it didn't stop him (if it's true his were legal guns), but does that mean that those hoops haven't stopped anyone else?
Re: RE: School shooting in Montreal not terror.
I'll grant you the point, it is impossible to tell.
But I doubt it. Even if he had been denied permits, guns are not hard to get outside the law, that is for sure.
BTW, according to both CTV and CBC News, his guns were legal and registered.
My point is you simply can't stop this stuff. If people are determined to kill, they can. I remember 30 plus dying in Montreal back in the seventies when some idiot kicked out of a bar returned with a bucket of gasoline, which he threw in the front door, followed by a match.
I also have to say huge thanks to the Montreal police. Two officers on the spot for another reason headed FOR the gunfire, cornered the suspect, and wounded him. In my mind they saved a LOT of lives.
Big difference between now and 1989, when officers refused to enter the school for over 20 minutes, while Marc LePine strolled the halls, killing at will. Police only went in when the gunfire STOPPED, after Lepine commited suicide.
Since then, training in Montreal has changed, and it saved lives yesterday.
tracy said:
I'll grant you the point, it is impossible to tell.
But I doubt it. Even if he had been denied permits, guns are not hard to get outside the law, that is for sure.
BTW, according to both CTV and CBC News, his guns were legal and registered.
My point is you simply can't stop this stuff. If people are determined to kill, they can. I remember 30 plus dying in Montreal back in the seventies when some idiot kicked out of a bar returned with a bucket of gasoline, which he threw in the front door, followed by a match.
I also have to say huge thanks to the Montreal police. Two officers on the spot for another reason headed FOR the gunfire, cornered the suspect, and wounded him. In my mind they saved a LOT of lives.
Big difference between now and 1989, when officers refused to enter the school for over 20 minutes, while Marc LePine strolled the halls, killing at will. Police only went in when the gunfire STOPPED, after Lepine commited suicide.
Since then, training in Montreal has changed, and it saved lives yesterday.
That's for sure. One death (so far) other than the gunman is a lot better than what could have been.
I know nations do not want aggressive law enforcement...but if someone had decided this creature was a loose cannon ....legal weapon or not - goofy website or not - "rights" or not..... nobody leaves an undetonated explosive lying in a lane unreported ... plenty of people let this guy descend into his own madness....
How many people knew about his website and never reported it?
If they did report it was it ever investigated as a serious threat?
If it was regarded as a serious threat, could law enforcement do anything?
What about he people in Gill's sick little world?
Surely someone must have known the guy was on the wrong side of the tracks.
Why don't people speak up when they see a sick mind operating at such a violent level?
Are we so permissive we allow anything until the bad act has been committed and then we seek blame?
It isn't as if the creep was operating under the radar - he broadcast his impairment to the world on the internet - and nothing was done to prevent what happened - no intervention - no "abuse of his rights".
Another day in the politically correct world of:
Mind your own business ..nothing can be done until the perpetrator commits an act of violence against others.
Interference may have saved a life - who knows - does anyone really care?
I guess life isn't that precious any more.
How many people knew about his website and never reported it?
If they did report it was it ever investigated as a serious threat?
If it was regarded as a serious threat, could law enforcement do anything?
What about he people in Gill's sick little world?
Surely someone must have known the guy was on the wrong side of the tracks.
Why don't people speak up when they see a sick mind operating at such a violent level?
Are we so permissive we allow anything until the bad act has been committed and then we seek blame?
It isn't as if the creep was operating under the radar - he broadcast his impairment to the world on the internet - and nothing was done to prevent what happened - no intervention - no "abuse of his rights".
Another day in the politically correct world of:
Mind your own business ..nothing can be done until the perpetrator commits an act of violence against others.
Interference may have saved a life - who knows - does anyone really care?
I guess life isn't that precious any more.
Good points about the website. Certainly if a person's blogs express violent ideas, it ought to be perfectly legal for the police to get an expert to read the blog and make a risk assessment. If that person is in fact deemed dangerous in the end, then certainly it ought to be permissible for society to force him into therapy, even against his will. And if necessary, confine him to hospital if the risk assessment is that bad, with his release guaranteed once he's deemed fit to go back to society, with necessary support provided to help him reintegrate.
This might not sound very democratic, or even against human rights. But if the person expresses such violent ideas, then society has a duty to help him. And if he's deemed not capable of acting rationally on his own, then society ought to reserve the right to make his decisions for him, with force if need be, until he's deemed capable of acting rationally again. this would not be intended to punish him, but merely to help him... and potentially save other's lives as well. In this way, all lives, including his own, could have been saved and he could ahve become a contributing member of society.
As for weapons, why should he have had the right to possess such without valid reason? It's not like he lived thousands of miles away from civiliation and needed them for hunting purposes now, is it?
This might not sound very democratic, or even against human rights. But if the person expresses such violent ideas, then society has a duty to help him. And if he's deemed not capable of acting rationally on his own, then society ought to reserve the right to make his decisions for him, with force if need be, until he's deemed capable of acting rationally again. this would not be intended to punish him, but merely to help him... and potentially save other's lives as well. In this way, all lives, including his own, could have been saved and he could ahve become a contributing member of society.
As for weapons, why should he have had the right to possess such without valid reason? It's not like he lived thousands of miles away from civiliation and needed them for hunting purposes now, is it?
Hello Machjo
As I understand it in my world, if a person is acting irrationally for whatever reason that person should be cared about and if at all possible diagnosed as to possibility of threat to self or others. We all tip toe around mental illness but as I wrote the man was set to explode. He may not have been mentally ill either - he could have had a brain tumor or drug induced psychosis. At his age group and his high intelligence, I'd guess he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia...
The problem he presented to everyone - he had to create a situation where someone else had to do the job of putting him down (law enforcement) and the way to do that was to threaten others' lives.
If a crazed individual was walking around the streets waving a baseball bat at people, law enforcement would have been called in immediately to subdue him and remove him from the situation of harming others - but he was swinging his bat on the internet - a passive modus of violence of which I see more and more.
About the gun - it appears that gun wasn't a hunting rifle or a small protection device but a fully equipped mankiller designed to take out a large number of people in a small amount of time.
How the gun could be registered and legal leaves me speechless!
What exactly does "gun control" mean?
Correction update
I have been informed that Gill actually pulled the trigger on himself with his own gun at the end rather than being killed by the police. If true, the final act saved the police from having to account for their "murder" in the eyes of justice.
As I understand it in my world, if a person is acting irrationally for whatever reason that person should be cared about and if at all possible diagnosed as to possibility of threat to self or others. We all tip toe around mental illness but as I wrote the man was set to explode. He may not have been mentally ill either - he could have had a brain tumor or drug induced psychosis. At his age group and his high intelligence, I'd guess he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia...
The problem he presented to everyone - he had to create a situation where someone else had to do the job of putting him down (law enforcement) and the way to do that was to threaten others' lives.
If a crazed individual was walking around the streets waving a baseball bat at people, law enforcement would have been called in immediately to subdue him and remove him from the situation of harming others - but he was swinging his bat on the internet - a passive modus of violence of which I see more and more.
About the gun - it appears that gun wasn't a hunting rifle or a small protection device but a fully equipped mankiller designed to take out a large number of people in a small amount of time.
How the gun could be registered and legal leaves me speechless!
What exactly does "gun control" mean?
Correction update
I have been informed that Gill actually pulled the trigger on himself with his own gun at the end rather than being killed by the police. If true, the final act saved the police from having to account for their "murder" in the eyes of justice.
Good point about the gun.
I can really see only a few situations in which a person should be allowed to carry arms:
1. A hunter who relies on a rifle for subsistence. Then all he needs is a hunting rifle.
2. A member of a rifle club, in which case there's no reason for him to take the rifle away from the club's premises.
3. Law enforcement.
4. Military.
5. Anyone else? I really can't think of any other valid reason beyond those four above, but you can go ahead and give it a try.
I can really see only a few situations in which a person should be allowed to carry arms:
1. A hunter who relies on a rifle for subsistence. Then all he needs is a hunting rifle.
2. A member of a rifle club, in which case there's no reason for him to take the rifle away from the club's premises.
3. Law enforcement.
4. Military.
5. Anyone else? I really can't think of any other valid reason beyond those four above, but you can go ahead and give it a try.
Re: RE: School shooting in Montreal not terror.
Oh Boy, are we ever in for a fight now.
In fact, I think I'll take this to a new thread, and call in Gun Control.........
Machjo said:
Oh Boy, are we ever in for a fight now.
In fact, I think I'll take this to a new thread, and call in Gun Control.........