4 officers, not just 1, were outside the school...

[hogie]

No laws will prevent these horrible tradgedys from happening. If it not guns being used it will be something else. The worst school killing in the US was done with a bomb. The Columbime shooters also had made bombs to be used.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...cre-180963355/

Trying to think that a law will stop this crap is ridiculous. The ones doing this are not sane, not having any regard for life.

Google how to make a bomb, it's out there.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

James Roszko was prohibited from legally possessing firearms, yet he managed to obtain a prohibited firearm, which he used to kill 4 armed RCMP officers. Our firearms laws did not prevent the murder of those four armed officers.

Yes the firearms laws did not prevent the murder of those officers. Actually the law against murder did not prevent those murders. Laws do not prevent anything. The best one can hope from law is to make commission of crime more difficult or to punish the offender if caught. Some laws are meant to just make it more difficult to get the tools needed for the crime.

Because laws are not able to prevent crime 100% do you think we should just not have them? You seem to be really unhappy with Canadian Law. You seem to be an intelligent person. Instead of constantly complaining on forums like this why don't you get involved in a solution and quit just waiting for an opportunity to complain?

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Quote:

Well this may throw a whole lotta minds outa whack!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...744374784.html


Some VERY interesting reading underneath that video. It would seem that it
is more important to some people that their statistics look good rather than dealing with reality. Basically, they just pretended that escalating criminal behavior didn't happen. That way when they report their stats for crime, they can say: "Look all of our crime numbers are down. We must be doing something right!"

[vcmm]

link no workie

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Originally Posted by vcmm

link no workie

I reloaded it.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Yes the firearms laws did not prevent the murder of those officers. Actually the law against murder did not prevent those murders. Laws do not prevent anything. The best one can hope from law is to make commission of crime more difficult or to punish the offender if caught. Some laws are meant to just make it more difficult to get the tools needed for the crime.

Because laws are not able to prevent crime 100% do you think we should just not have them? You seem to be really unhappy with Canadian Law. You seem to be an intelligent person. Instead of constantly complaining on forums like this why don't you get involved in a solution and quit just waiting for an opportunity to complain?

You are complaining that nothing is being done to prevent these shootings, and that we should be banning the AR-15. I am pointing out that unless our courts start dealing harshly with the offenders, there is no point in passing more laws. We pass laws, the criminals violate them, the police arrest the criminals, and our courts turn these people loose to commit more crimes. This cycle goes on and on with no change. These people are prohibited from possessing firearms, but they are caught again and again in possession of firearms. If a person is caught possessing firearms, while under a prohibition, they should be given a long prison sentence. If they are in prison, then they aren't going to get possession of a firearm and commit more crimes, or shoot someone. That would be a lot more effective than banning a few firearm models.

[vcmm]

Originally Posted by New Hunter Okotoks

I reloaded it.

Thanks!! But a COWARD is a COWARD no matter how they and the press interpret it!!

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Originally Posted by vcmm

Thanks!! But a COWARD is a COWARD no matter how they and the press interpret it!!

No doubt about that. But, they just acknowledged that the governments own policies (that they changed) allowed criminal behavior to escalate and they allowed the teenagers to get away with it.

If that killer would have received increasing punishments for his crimes, perhaps he would have changed his ways. Maybe not.

This killing spree proved that even when the citizenry does everything that they are told by the govenrnment.... See something, say something. Pay for full-time armed security. Even the FBI was called. Yet, the only thing that stopped the massacre from going on any longer is the killer stopped and left the scene.
I just wish that when people make the statement that "More needs to be done!" That they say exactly what they want done.

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by bobalong

I agree 100% use retired or serving military if possible. I would also like to see the same in Alberta to decrease or end the theft that is rampant in our province. I am not trying to compare a kids death to a theft, just agreeing that there are many trained honorable men and woman that could really help.

Here is t he issue with that: who's going to pay them to do that up here? The issue with rural crime and theft comes down to under funding and under staffing for the revolving door of work they already do. Lots of ex military police officers out there already. I'm sure if the had funding they'd take more.

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by New Hunter Okotoks

I just wish that when people make the statement that "More needs to be done!" That they say exactly what they want done.

Well, it would be nice if when they say exactly what they want done that they could back it up with any sort of logic/facts/SOMETHING that would show how it will actually contribute a positive effect.

So far all I have heard is BAN AR-15 - because something needs to be done - because we love our children - because I don't need them - blah, blah all the while ignoring the straightforward logic showing why such a token move would be absolutely ineffectual.

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

Well, it would be nice if when they say exactly what they want done that they could back it up with any sort of logic/facts/SOMETHING that would show how it will actually contribute a positive effect.

So far all I have heard is BAN AR-15 - because something needs to be done - because we love our children - because I don't need them - blah, blah all the while ignoring the straightforward logic showing why such a token move would be absolutely ineffectual.

Agreed. A killer who wants to kill people will find a way. If it wasn't a gun he would have used a truck. If it wasn't a truck he would have used pipe bombs, if it wasn't pipe bombs he would have used poison, etc. etc.

There were already policies in place that could have at least stopped this killer from acquiring the guns legally if Law Enforcement would have followed up on the many tips and warnings that were given to them by the public, yet they were ignored. Law Enforcement dropped the ball, but ultimately it is the killer's fault that so many lives were ruined.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Well this may throw a whole lotta minds outa whack!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...744374784.html

And furthermore;

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/24...port-says.html

That is unbelievable. Police hiding evidence so students don't get charged. Students recruited to commit crime at this school because they basically never get charged. Students commit crime sprees at specific times to improve crime rates.
Those kids died because of a desire to reduce the crime rate at the school to receive more funding. Corruption and coverup involving school board and sheriff department...........this is almost to evil to be real.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Yes the firearms laws did not prevent the murder of those officers. Actually the law against murder did not prevent those murders. Laws do not prevent anything. The best one can hope from law is to make commission of crime more difficult or to punish the offender if caught. Some laws are meant to just make it more difficult to get the tools needed for the crime.

Because laws are not able to prevent crime 100% do you think we should just not have them? You seem to be really unhappy with Canadian Law. You seem to be an intelligent person. Instead of constantly complaining on forums like this why don't you get involved in a solution and quit just waiting for an opportunity to complain?

Laws should apply to actions, not objects.

The left hates this premise, as do you.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Yes the firearms laws did not prevent the murder of those officers. Actually the law against murder did not prevent those murders. Laws do not prevent anything. The best one can hope from law is to make commission of crime more difficult or to punish the offender if caught. Some laws are meant to just make it more difficult to get the tools needed for the crime.

Because laws are not able to prevent crime 100% do you think we should just not have them? You seem to be really unhappy with Canadian Law. You seem to be an intelligent person. Instead of constantly complaining on forums like this why don't you get involved in a solution and quit just waiting for an opportunity to complain?

As you say laws may be there to make it harder to acquire the tools for crime. With James Rozko’s existing firearms prohibition; who do these laws you propose affect, me or James? James already and easily acquired illegal weapons. So stiffening laws who will be effected in the end me or James? As you say, criminals don’t follow laws, therefore the continual tightening of laws only hinder the law-abiding.

Then you go into the true heart of the matter. No we shouldn’t get rid of laws, they are needed. However, if we don’t enforce existing laws, or hold those who break them accountable, only the law abiding follow them. So in essence, what’s the point? If the law of murder was removed tomorrow I wouldn’t go shoot someone just for the heck of it. If robbery was decriminalized I wouldn’t try it on for size. You see, it’s not me the laws are written for. I could live in a society with some very basic rules. The laws are there for those who choose not to follow them. So unless these laws are enforced, and those held accountable, we basically are living without law, and most definitely without order. You want a change, have our existing laws enforced, and punish those that break them with effective measures.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by partsman

Look at our Ottawa shooter no hesitation, our man went after him and shot him.

That's because he is old school and can't tolerate BS and long drawn out discussions that a 45 can't end swiftly.
Today is all about a million questions as to why this, why that, how can we prevent this, that, shoulda coulda woulda...BOOM...end ex.

[M.C. Gusto]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

As you say laws may be there to make it harder to acquire the tools for crime. With James Rozko’s existing firearms prohibition; who do these laws you propose affect, me or James? James already and easily acquired illegal weapons. So stiffening laws who will be effected in the end me or James? As you say, criminals don’t follow laws, therefore the continual tightening of laws only hinder the law-abiding.

Then you go into the true heart of the matter. No we shouldn’t get rid of laws, they are needed. However, if we don’t enforce existing laws, or hold those who break them accountable, only the law abiding follow them. So in essence, what’s the point? If the law of murder was removed tomorrow I wouldn’t go shoot someone just for the heck of it. If robbery was decriminalized I wouldn’t try it on for size. You see, it’s not me the laws are written for. I could live in a society with some very basic rules. The laws are there for those who choose not to follow them. So unless these laws are enforced, and those held accountable, we basically are living without law, and most definitely without order. You want a change, have our existing laws enforced, and punish those that break them with effective measures.

Excellent post!

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

As you say laws may be there to make it harder to acquire the tools for crime. With James Rozko’s existing firearms prohibition; who do these laws you propose affect, me or James? James already and easily acquired illegal weapons. So stiffening laws who will be effected in the end me or James? As you say, criminals don’t follow laws, therefore the continual tightening of laws only hinder the law-abiding.

Then you go into the true heart of the matter. No we shouldn’t get rid of laws, they are needed. However, if we don’t enforce existing laws, or hold those who break them accountable, only the law abiding follow them. So in essence, what’s the point? If the law of murder was removed tomorrow I wouldn’t go shoot someone just for the heck of it. If robbery was decriminalized I wouldn’t try it on for size. You see, it’s not me the laws are written for. I could live in a society with some very basic rules. The laws are there for those who choose not to follow them. So unless these laws are enforced, and those held accountable, we basically are living without law, and most definitely without order. You want a change, have our existing laws enforced, and punish those that break them with effective measures.

Could not agree more.

[MyAlberta]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

As you say laws may be there to make it harder to acquire the tools for crime. With James Rozko’s existing firearms prohibition; who do these laws you propose affect, me or James? James already and easily acquired illegal weapons. So stiffening laws who will be effected in the end me or James? As you say, criminals don’t follow laws, therefore the continual tightening of laws only hinder the law-abiding.

Then you go into the true heart of the matter. No we shouldn’t get rid of laws, they are needed. However, if we don’t enforce existing laws, or hold those who break them accountable, only the law abiding follow them. So in essence, what’s the point? If the law of murder was removed tomorrow I wouldn’t go shoot someone just for the heck of it. If robbery was decriminalized I wouldn’t try it on for size. You see, it’s not me the laws are written for. I could live in a society with some very basic rules. The laws are there for those who choose not to follow them. So unless these laws are enforced, and those held accountable, we basically are living without law, and most definitely without order. You want a change, have our existing laws enforced, and punish those that break them with effective measures.

Interesting take but a miss. Laws are enacted for those that consider. Penalties are for those that have committed. This really isn’t about the perpetrator. His demise has no effect, other than morbid encouragement.

Everyday life goes on in the states, with an occasional incident. They’ll figure it out.