ANOTHER school shooting. -Florida-

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by AdAMxr

Going through my news feed this morning scrolled right through the Florida 17 dead school shooting headline. Stopped and read the article about how a 10year old died in a ski accident at castle mountain. Thought to myself wow that's sad. Looking back after I was amazed how mass shooting have become so commonplace that I didn't even stop to think about it.

Was thinking the exact same thing. I bet everyone remembers Columbine, but name a hand full of others. Not even shocking anymore and THAT is where the real danger lies. It's become a 'ho hum' commonplace that is in the news for a couple days then we go about our business waiting for the next one to read about on Facebook or Twitter. Truly a sad time for all.

BH

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by wags

How is the States the only country with these issues?

Severe decay of moral values, a general decline in civility.

Next question, why do most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by BloodHound70

More? How about some. Why is it necessary for regular citizens to have access to stuff like AR15's and the like, or to able to have a side arm walking into a local 7-11? They are so gun crazy down there that the first thing that crosses someones mind is to grab my gun and "make'um pay!!!".
I for one would love to carry a sidearm while out in the bush, but unfortunately it is the donkeys of the world that ruin it for everyone.
The "right to bare arms" in the states is just carried way to far. They need some sort of happy medium.
To expect everyone will be responsible in the future so 'keep everything the same' is ridiculous. Something needs to change. Burying your head in the sand thinking something will change without doing anything is the definition of insanity.
Go to a birthday party of 8 year old in someones back yard and give them all baseball bats. It won't take long before little Johnny smashes someone over the head with his. Is it the fault of all the other kids that Johnny did it, no, but do you let everyone keep walking around with their bats, nope........Its a sad reality we live in now.

BH

How is a AR-15 more of a threat than the mini 14, which is not restricted in Canada?

[Scott h]

Quote;

'The U.S. has more mass shootings than any other country.[25][26][27][28]

In one study, it has been estimated that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S., although it has only 5% of the world's population."

It's just a cut and paste but it does put it all into perspective.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by BloodHound70

Was thinking the exact same thing. I bet everyone remembers Columbine, but name a hand full of others. Not even shocking anymore and THAT is where the real danger lies. It's become a 'ho hum' commonplace that is in the news for a couple days then we go about our business waiting for the next one to read about on Facebook or Twitter. Truly a sad time for all.

BH

Yup!
If you look at the numbers, there will be another mass shooting in the US sometime in the next 5 days.........

[markg]

I get it. These mass shootings are a slap in our collective faces as a society. We feel helpless. We want to do something about it. Banning guns or types of guns is easy and obvious. So we gravitate to that solution. I am just not convinced that it would be effective. I could be wrong and will admit that.

I dont see the problem being the gun. I see the problem being the person using it. If you could unconditionally guarentee that banning guns would eliminate all deaths do to firearms then I would gladly turn my firearms into the authorities (i would be expected to be financially compensated) However if there was a single gun death after that fact then I would want my guns back because your solution didnt work.

We could also eliminate all water craft deaths by banning boats. Are you willing to turn in your boats, sea doo's or other pleasure craft to save just one life out on the water?

How many lives could we save if we just banned alcohol? How many people have died as the result of drinking and driving? Alot more than from firearms that is for sure. How many people are killed from doing stupid or violent things under the influence of booze? I would much more readily accept banning booze than banning guns.

Ohh ya they tried that down in the states (prohibition) and it didnt turn out so well. I am convinced you would have similar results banning guns.

[funclint03]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Severe decay of moral values, a general decline in civility.

Next question, why do most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones?

Why do terrorists drive cars on sidewalks full of people? You want everyone (including the teachers) armed, so why don't we just go ahead and ban pedestrians. That way everyone has to drive everywhere and if someone tries to ram anyone, every other driver will instead ram him.

I find it interesting the lack of nuance everyone seems to have these days on both sides. It seems so many people cannot or just choose to not make any compromise on their positions. It seems the people who yell the loudest on this topic either want everyone armed or to destroy all the guns. Why is it so hard to compromise?

Some of the very same people on here who get enraged about the "progressives" not learning about or choosing to ignore all of the facts presented in the Stanley trial are in here choosing to ignore some of the facts about shootings that happen with alarming frequency in the US.

I am really concerned that with the rise of the internet these people with the loudest voice are the ones who are heard, and demanding that everyone else follows their train of thought or they are a "liberal snowflake" or "Trumptard". Whatever happened to people wanting to work together to compromise to make the US and Canada a better place to live for everyone without resorting to name calling or belittling someone who's ideas don't exactly overlap with our own?

Anyway that is my spiel on this whole thing. Back to lurking for me haha.

[wags]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

.....because of ONE failed attempt......

18 school shootings in the US so far this year and.....nothing done.

Your example fails to support your argument well.

?

that's my point. One attempt, and now there's restrictions at airports. thousands of children murdered, and nothing has changed.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by markg

I get it. These mass shootings are a slap in our collective faces as a society. We feel helpless. We want to do something about it. Banning guns or types of guns is easy and obvious. So we gravitate to that solution. I am just not convinced that it would be effective. I could be wrong and will admit that.

I dont see the problem being the gun. I see the problem being the person using it. If you could unconditionally guarentee that banning guns would eliminate all deaths do to firearms then I would gladly turn my firearms into the authorities (i would be expected to be financially compensated) However if there was a single gun death after that fact then I would want my guns back because your solution didnt work.

We could also eliminate all water craft deaths by banning boats. Are you willing to turn in your boats, sea doo's or other pleasure craft to save just one life out on the water?

How many lives could we save if we just banned alcohol? How many people have died as the result of drinking and driving? Alot more than from firearms that is for sure. How many people are killed from doing stupid or violent things under the influence of booze? I would much more readily accept banning booze than banning guns.

Ohh ya they tried that down in the states (prohibition) and it didnt turn out so well. I am convinced you would have similar results banning guns.

Well said.

Step back and think. At this point, in America, will regulations prevent more mass shootings? The sheer number of firearms in circulation down there is staggering. And 99% of people won’t be handing their firearms in...

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by funclint03

Why do terrorists drive cars on sidewalks full of people? You want everyone (including the teachers) armed, so why don't we just go ahead and ban pedestrians. That way everyone has to drive everywhere and if someone tries to ram anyone, every other driver will instead ram him.

I find it interesting the lack of nuance everyone seems to have these days on both sides. It seems so many people cannot or just choose to not make any compromise on their positions. It seems the people who yell the loudest on this topic either want everyone armed or to destroy all the guns. Why is it so hard to compromise?

Some of the very same people on here who get enraged about the "progressives" not learning about or choosing to ignore all of the facts presented in the Stanley trial are in here choosing to ignore some of the facts about shootings that happen with alarming frequency in the US.

I am really concerned that with the rise of the internet these people with the loudest voice are the ones who are heard, and demanding that everyone else follows their train of thought or they are a "liberal snowflake" or "Trumptard". Whatever happened to people wanting to work together to compromise to make the US and Canada a better place to live for everyone without resorting to name calling or belittling someone who's ideas don't exactly overlap with our own?

Anyway that is my spiel on this whole thing. Back to lurking for me haha.

And what are your thoughts on mass shootings occurring in gun-free zones?

[wags]

Originally Posted by markg

People are killed with various methods all over the world. Cars, knives, bats, bombs, and other things. Its very sad. Humans just seem to have a proclivity for killing each other. It would be wonderful if we didnt. I would like to live in a much safer world. I just am of the opinion that the only person i can rely on to keep me safe is me. Laws and banning things are not effective.

I agree people are killed everywhere. Are you saying, proportionally, that the States is at the same level as anywhere else in the world?

Why are those same laws and restrictions (not banning) effective in hundreds of other countries?

[wags]

Originally Posted by Newview01

And what are your thoughts on mass shootings occurring in gun-free zones?

Are you referring to anywhere outside the US?

If you are - where are you referring exactly?

If you aren't - how does Chicago being 'gun free' mean anything when the state next to it isn't? That would be similiar to banning guns in Saskatchewan, but not Alberta.

This is a national issue. national restrictions are required.

[koothunter]

Originally Posted by chuck

Nope. The problem is single parent homes, lack of accountability, me first mentality, the inability to self filter social media use, religious indifference, and the list goes on.

x1000

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by markg

Laws and banning things are not effective.

Why have any laws at all?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by markg

I get it. These mass shootings are a slap in our collective faces as a society. We feel helpless. We want to do something about it. Banning guns or types of guns is easy and obvious. So we gravitate to that solution. I am just not convinced that it would be effective. I could be wrong and will admit that.

I dont see the problem being the gun. I see the problem being the person using it. If you could unconditionally guarentee that banning guns would eliminate all deaths do to firearms then I would gladly turn my firearms into the authorities (i would be expected to be financially compensated) However if there was a single gun death after that fact then I would want my guns back because your solution didnt work.

We could also eliminate all water craft deaths by banning boats. Are you willing to turn in your boats, sea doo's or other pleasure craft to save just one life out on the water?

How many lives could we save if we just banned alcohol? How many people have died as the result of drinking and driving? Alot more than from firearms that is for sure. How many people are killed from doing stupid or violent things under the influence of booze? I would much more readily accept banning booze than banning guns.

Ohh ya they tried that down in the states (prohibition) and it didnt turn out so well. I am convinced you would have similar results banning guns.

Most people are all for banning whatever won't effect them, but they will oppose any ban rhat effects them. Smoking is the number one cause of prevenable death in Canada so banning smoking would save the most lives, but smokers would oppose that. Drunk driving is likely number two, but the drinkers would oppose that. And yet many drinkers and smokers that don't own firearms,would have no issues with banning firearms. It's just humane nature.

[markg]

Originally Posted by wags

I agree people are killed everywhere. Are you saying, proportionally, that the States is at the same level as anywhere else in the world?

Why are those same laws and restrictions (not banning) effective in hundreds of other countries?

I dont know the answer to your question. I will accept the fact that the USA has alot of gun related deaths. We have some in Canada as well. Any death from a firearm is too many in my mind.

I like alot of the firearms laws in Canada and there are some that I dont agree with. I like the idea of a background check and a course on the proper usage and storage of firearms we have in Canada. Could the Americans learn something from our way of doing things? Maybe. Maybe not they have background checks and gun courses in many states.

It may be cultural. It may be economic. It may be environmental. It may be urban density. There are alot of factors that could be why the USA has gun violence. I dont know the answer to that question.

What I do know is that prohibition of anything has a high probability of failure.

[funclint03]

Originally Posted by Newview01

And what are your thoughts on mass shootings occurring in gun-free zones?

Just like the cowards who drive into crowds of innocent people, they of course go for the easiest targets. But does that mean that I think everyone should be armed all of the time and everywhere they go? No way. Way to easy for some moron to lose their cool and settle a beef by blasting someone.

I definitely understand both sides of the argument, and like most here own a couple of hunting rifles myself.

The U.S. has tried this experiment of arming everyone and it would appear that all of these shootings seem to be happening more and more often. It doesn't matter to me if it is mental health problems that are becoming more prevalent, and in fact that would make this experiment of arming everyone even scarier. To me it just seems like flawed logic that giving every Tom, Dick and Harry a gun is somehow going to reduce gun violence, when there is a chance that one day Harry becomes mentally ill and already has a small arsenal ready to go.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by wags

Are you referring to anywhere outside the US?

If you are - where are you referring exactly?

If you aren't - how does Chicago being 'gun free' mean anything when the state next to it isn't? That would be similiar to banning guns in Saskatchewan, but not Alberta.

This is a national issue. national restrictions are required.

And what national restrictions would you want to see implemented? Do you believe they would be effective?

[markg]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

Why have any laws at all?

Laws give you a base line of acceptable behavior. When you violate that then you are accoutable. The law in and of itself has no bearing on your desire to do harm.

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by markg

Laws give you a base line of acceptable behavior. When you violate that then you are accoutable. The law in and of itself has no bearing on your desire to do harm.

You said they are ineffective, so what's the purpose? Why have a base line? Why is a baseline relevant?

Why have something that, as you say above, " has no bearing on your desire to do harm"?

[Pathfinder76]

The leaning left will always want to ban the tool and the leaning right will always want to cure the actual problem.

[markg]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Most people are all for banning whatever won't effect them, but they will oppose any ban rhat effects them. Smoking is the number one cause of prevenable death in Canada so banning smoking would save the most lives, but smokers would oppose that. Drunk driving is likely number two, but the drinkers would oppose that. And yet many drinkers and smokers that don't own firearms,would have no issues with banning firearms. It's just humane nature.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[BloodHound70]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

How is a AR-15 more of a threat than the mini 14, which is not restricted in Canada?

Am not going to debate caliber of weapon as I used that as just an example. I consider this as a parallel to why schools are banning candy machines. Is it because of a couple kids can't keep their hands off of them? Nope, it is because it is readily available and humans by nature are gluttons and cannot help themselves stuffing their faces with junk. So would it have worked if they just announced in the schools "stop eating so much junk!!" and just left the machines in there and thinking "well that's all we can do because they can buy junk food everywhere so we can't do anything else." No, they took out the machines so it is more inconvenient to buy such things. Make it less convenient to buy something, the tempation is not there anymore.

The same rule applies for the ridiculous U.S. You buy 30L of gas you basically can get a gun for free. You can buy a gun anywhere, anytime, without much hassle thus they just buy everything and anything because "ITS MY RIGHT DAMMIT!!!"
I don't own a handgun and is definitely not because I don't like them. As a matter of fact I love shooting them and would love to own one, but it is such a pain in the arse. You cannot take it anywhere other than a range, and so many rules it just doesn't appeal to me so I don't have one. If rules were way more lax, I probably would have 5. Do I know guys that have them and take them out golpher shooting? Heck ya I do, but would not do it myself.

The argument that rules won't stop what happens just doesn't wash with me. Making it much harder to get one certainly would bring numbers of these incidents down. If you disagree you are kidding yourself and just want to walk down the hall for the candy bar.


BH

[markg]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

You said they are ineffective, so what's the purpose? Why have a base line? Why is a baseline relevant?

Why have something that, as you say above, " has no bearing on your desire to do harm"?

If you dont have a standard then you cant hold someone accountable for violating that standard.

Let me ask you a question. If you could formulate or word the "perfect law" would that stop people from braking it? If so why after several hundred years of writting laws do we have people that still break them?

I am in no way saying we shouldnt have laws and consequences for breaking them.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by BloodHound70

Am not going to debate caliber of weapon as I used that as just an example. I consider this as a parallel to why schools are banning candy machines. Is it because of a couple kids can't keep their hands off of them? Nope, it is because it is readily available and humans by nature are gluttons and cannot help themselves stuffing their faces with junk. So would it have worked if they just announced in the schools "stop eating so much junk!!" and just left the machines in there and thinking "well that's all we can do because they can buy junk food everywhere so we can't do anything else." No, they took out the machines so it is more inconvenient to buy such things. Make it less convenient to buy something, the tempation is not there anymore.

The same rule applies for the ridiculous U.S. You buy 30L of gas you basically can get a gun for free. You can buy a gun anywhere, anytime, without much hassle thus they just buy everything and anything because "ITS MY RIGHT DAMMIT!!!"
I don't own a handgun and is definitely not because I don't like them. As a matter of fact I love shooting them and would love to own one, but it is such a pain in the arse. You cannot take it anywhere other than a range, and so many rules it just doesn't appeal to me so I don't have one. If rules were way more lax, I probably would have 5. Do I know guys that have them and take them out golpher shooting? Heck ya I do, but would not do it myself.

The argument that rules won't stop what happens just doesn't wash with me. Making it much harder to get one certainly would bring numbers of these incidents down. If you disagree you are kidding yourself and just want to walk down the hall for the candy bar.


BH

The AR-15 and the mini14 use the same cartridge, and both are semi autos, and both have 30 round magazines available. In Canada , the only difference is that the AR-15 is restricted, and the mini 14 is not. Oh , and the fact that the mini 14 was used in the Montreal massacre, and the AR-15 has never been used in a mass shooting in Canada, even though it was not restricted for many years, and many people drove around with AR-15s and 20 or 30 round magazines, because it makes a good coyote rifle. As to your knowledge of the US firearms regulations, are you aware that some States have a mandatory waiting period to purchase any firearm? There is no such mandatory waiting period in Canada.

[markg]

I have said my mind on this issue. It is very sad. Nothing I have said is new. We will likely agree to disagree.

My heart goes out to those affected by something like this and it is my sincere wish that it had never happened.

[Mike_W]

Originally Posted by markg

When you ban something it does not mean that thing will go away. We have banned drugs they are still here. We make it illegal to speed, people still drive fast.

Banning guns wont stop gun crime. Human beings have been killing each other for a very long time. It is a sad part of what we are. In modern times we have just gotten better at it. I dont see there being any solution to this problem.

It is just very sad. I wish there was something a person could do to make it better, but that just isnt possible.

How would people speed if they didn't have a car?

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by markg

If you dont have a standard then you cant hold someone accountable for violating that standard.

Let me ask you a question. If you could formulate or word the "perfect law" would that stop people from braking it? If so why after several hundred years of writting laws do we have people that still break them?

You yourself have said that holding people accountable for violating standards doesn't work. If you don't have any standards or laws, no one would break any. So, your implied solution to solve crime is to not have any laws.

What stops most people from violating the boundaries (both stated, and implied) of the societies they live in is that we are social animals that rely on each other for survival, and if an individual steps outside societal boundaries they risk exclusion or isolation from supporting society and, therefore, risk personal extinction.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Mike_W

How would people speed if they didn't have a car?

This is how ridiculous the ban guns argument really is.

[bat119]

The ship has sailed on any kind of gun control in the US. every time the left beats the control war drum gun sales skyrocket get'em while you can. In 1994 Clinton temporarily banned the sale of new AR-15 type rifles, before the ban kicked in millions were acquired by people selling them "used" for twice the original price.

There is an estimated 265,000,000 guns in the US there is no hope of eliminating even a small percentage, identifying or defending against shooters is the states only options.

Any volunteers to go to Louisiana and tell the good old boys to hand in their guns.