[Xort]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Xort - did you know that the day after Columbine, Canada had its very own school shooting too? Because the shooter couldn't buy an automatic weapon or high capacity magazine, he was only able to kill one person - unlike in Columbine where the death toll was over a dozen.

I think you mean the 'W. R. Myers High School shooting' that was 8 days later and commited by a 14 year old.

Guess what, a 14 year old can't buy any guns in Canada. So even if Canada had machineguns for sale, he couldn't buy them.

But you made another more critical error and this one is a bit technical for Canadian gun laws, the Myers shooter used a .22lr rifle. That is a .22 rim fire round. Under Canadian law rim fire rounds are not subject to magazine size limits. You can buy a belt felt semi automatic 22lr rifle in Canada and connect it to a 1000 round box.

Yes that's not an automatic weapon, but it's as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The differance between the two shootings is that one used a round that has very limited killing power, was a terrible shot, and wasn't a well thought out plan

In Columbine it was two shooters, using slightly more deadly rounds, with a real plan to kill as many people as they could. If their bombs had worked the death toll would have been much higher.

~

If someone in Canada wanted to murder some people with a gun it's not hard, take your non resticted semi automatic rifle, take it's 5 round limited mag, and pull the metal pin out, now you have a OMG high capacity magazine! If someone did this to a 7mm+ rifle round mag, you would have a much more deadly weapon than a submachinegun shooting 9mm pistol rounds, or a kid with a 22lr rifle.

Canadian law does nothing to keep semi automatic weapons with large magazines out of the hands of people that have a pair of pilers. People with these firearms don't shoot people beacuse just like in the USA 99.999% of firearms owners don't go out to see how many people they can murder.

$1:

That's a huge difference between Canada and the US - we implemented measures that greatly diminish shootings such as this when we had a mass school shooting (Ecole Polytechnique),

Ecole created terrible useless laws that did nothing to actualy limit the ability of Canadians with legal weapons to go on shooting sprees. The laws created were useless in making the nation safer. Canada has fewer shooting of this sort because, Canada has fewer people.

$1:

while lobby groups like the NRA got American politicians to stick its head in the ground and as a result, continues to have mass shootings like this far too often.

Not that often, for a population as large as the USA, mass shootings are rare, likely one of the most rare crimes commited, outside of hugely outdated laws.

$1:

You're correct that gun control laws cannot end events like this, but they can sure limit the body count, which is a victory in and of itself IMHO.

Gun control laws don't lower the body count, because the laws are writen by ignorant people that don't understand weapons. Gun control laws also do nothing to address the problem of non legaly aquired weapons. The shooter being stupid, has more to do with lower counts than any laws that control weapons. Moreover as was said I guess no one in the theater had a weapon on them to return fire.

Canada hasn't had another Ecole not because of the knee jerk laws passed but because we haven't had any more butt hurt women hating gentlemen of middle eastern decent get mad enough at a school's sexist policy to kill people over it. We are not safe because of our laws, we are safe because people don't want to hurt us.

~

This current shooting case, is a product not of weak gun control laws, it's a product of a motivated person. Which from early speculative report has mental issues.

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm pretty sure he was talking about this.

Well that's not a pump anything shotgun.

$1:

And sure machine shops can modify weapons from semi-auto to full auto, but who except for survivalists and a few gun nuts has access to one? I'd bet most Americans don't.

I would bet the biker gangs own more than a few machine shops. However what I ment to say was the a machine shop can produce weapons, not just modify them.

A question to you, why the fixation on full automatic? Outside of a machinegun in a MG's tactical roll, semi automatic is a superior method of fire.

$1:

Another thing - most smuggled/illegal weapons come FROM the US, not into the US.

Correct but if the US didn't have an abundance of legal firearms, how long do you think it would be until weapons were being smuggled, or localy illegaly produced?

[DanSC]

I suppose my fellow Americans and I could use this and other similar incidents to greatly increase funding for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. Unfortunately, mental illness doesn't rile up the bases on the Left and Right like gun control does.

[bootlegga]

Xort Xort:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Xort - did you know that the day after Columbine, Canada had its very own school shooting too? Because the shooter couldn't buy an automatic weapon or high capacity magazine, he was only able to kill one person - unlike in Columbine where the death toll was over a dozen.

I think you mean the 'W. R. Myers High School shooting' that was 8 days later and commited by a 14 year old.

Guess what, a 14 year old can't buy any guns in Canada. So even if Canada had machineguns for sale, he couldn't buy them.

But you made another more critical error and this one is a bit technical for Canadian gun laws, the Myers shooter used a .22lr rifle. That is a .22 rim fire round. Under Canadian law rim fire rounds are not subject to magazine size limits. You can buy a belt felt semi automatic 22lr rifle in Canada and connect it to a 1000 round box.

Yes that's not an automatic weapon, but it's as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Buy/access to is technicality. The fact is that assault weapons are far more difficult to get a hold of in Canada as a result of a mass shooting. In the US, that is not the case.

And, please enlighten me on all semi-auto 22 calibre rifles that are belt-fed and come with a 1000 round box. Did you just make the same mistake as you accused Guy Fawkes of?

Xort Xort:

The differance between the two shootings is that one used a round that has very limited killing power, was a terrible shot, and wasn't a well thought out plan

In Columbine it was two shooters, using slightly more deadly rounds, with a real plan to kill as many people as they could. If their bombs had worked the death toll would have been much higher.

So you say - yet when there have been shootings here in Canada - the lack of assault weapons and high capacity magazines has limited casualties.

Xort Xort:

If someone in Canada wanted to murder some people with a gun it's not hard, take your non resticted semi automatic rifle, take it's 5 round limited mag, and pull the metal pin out, now you have a OMG high capacity magazine! If someone did this to a 7mm+ rifle round mag, you would have a much more deadly weapon than a submachinegun shooting 9mm pistol rounds, or a kid with a 22lr rifle.

Canadian law does nothing to keep semi automatic weapons with large magazines out of the hands of people that have a pair of pilers. People with these firearms don't shoot people beacuse just like in the USA 99.999% of firearms owners don't go out to see how many people they can murder.

Yeah, not very many people have the technical know-how to do that. I'm sure someone could also rig up a BMF Activator crank on a legal weapon to get full auto fire. However, as I said, most people don't have the technical know-how (or even knowledge of such things) to do so.

Xort Xort:

$1:

That's a huge difference between Canada and the US - we implemented measures that greatly diminish shootings such as this when we had a mass school shooting (Ecole Polytechnique),

Ecole created terrible useless laws that did nothing to actualy limit the ability of Canadians with legal weapons to go on shooting sprees. The laws created were useless in making the nation safer. Canada has fewer shooting of this sort because, Canada has fewer people.

Again, says you.

On a per capita basis, the US numbers of deaths from firearms is exceeded only by extremely dangerous nations like Columbia, Iraq etc - where guess what, access to assault weapons is endemic.

So, while I do agree there is something systemic in the US that leads to mass shootings (as opposed to Canada), the numbers seem to suggest that access to high levels of violence + assault weapons + high capacity magazines = more casualties in most countries.

By knocking two of those factors out of the equation, Canada has significantly dropped the numbers of casualties in these horrible events.

Xort Xort:

Gun control laws don't lower the body count, because the laws are writen by ignorant people that don't understand weapons. Gun control laws also do nothing to address the problem of non legaly aquired weapons. The shooter being stupid, has more to do with lower counts than any laws that control weapons. More over as was said I guess no on in the theater had a weapon on them to return fire.

Canada hasn't had another Ecole not because of the knee jerk laws passed but because we haven't had any more butt hurt women hating gentlemen of middle eastern decent get mad enough at a school's sexist policy to kill people over it. We are not safe because of our laws, we are safe because people don't want to hurt us.

Tell that to the kids at Dawson College. Yes, Gill was able to get his hands on a couple legal weapons - but they weren't Tec-9s or M-16s or any other sort of high-power, high-capacity weapons like are available in the US.

Xort Xort:

This current shooting case, is a product not of weak gun control laws, it's a product of a motivated person. Which from early speculative report has mental issues.

It's always a disturbed person - the difference is what kind of killing tools said disturbed person can get his hands on.

If all the killer can get is a knife, his number of victims will likely be far less than if he can get his hands on an M-16 (serial killers being the exception).

If all they can get is a hunting rifle and pump action shotgun, even the most motivated wack job is going to hurt/maim/kill fewer than someone with access to an assault weapon - which was designed for one reason and one reason only - to kill other people.

Xort Xort:

A question to you, why the fixation on full automatic? Outside of a machinegun in a MG's tactical roll, semi automatic is a superior method of fire.

So is aimed fire from the shoulder instead of spraying randomly from the hip - but some perps actually use the same tactics they see on Call of Duty or in Hollywood movies instead of "superior methods".

We'll have to wait and see what this wacko did.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Another thing - most smuggled/illegal weapons come FROM the US, not into the US.

Correct but if the US didn't have an abundance of legal firearms, how long do you think it would be until weapons were being smuggled, or localy illegaly produced?

Not very many - at least not in Canada. I have no doubt that criminals might try and manufacture their own, but again, most people don't have the knowledge, skill, equipment or know-how to make an assault weapon. A one-shot disposal zip gun - sure, but an M-16?

Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling...

In the end, it matters not one bit to me. I live in Canada which does have these laws that I support - even though I am also a staunch supporter of gun rights. I think people should be allowed to have guns - just not military-style weapons designed for one purpose and only one purpose - to kill other people. Those should stay in the hands of the military and police. IMHO Civilians simply don't need such things.

The States can do whatever they want when it comes to gun control or lack thereof. But if they choose the latter, then IMHO they also lose the right to moan and wail about such horrible events when they happen.

[Xort]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Buy/access to is technicality. The fact is that assault weapons are far more difficult to get a hold of in Canada as a result of a mass shooting. In the US, that is not the case.

That is actauly very dependant on the US state. Some states I will agree it's very easy to buy... wait WTF is an an assualt weapon?

Do you mean an 'assault weapon' as defined by the ASB 1994? That classed weapons due to mostly cosmedic features?

I will assume you actauly ment assualt weapons, which I will define as a fully automatic, rifle or carbine lenght weapon, firing a sub rifle power round but more powerful than a pistol round.

In which case those are very hard to buy in the US as all machineguns (as defined by the bATF as being able to fire more than a single round with a single trigger pull) are subject to federal license and background checks as well as a heavy per item stamp tax.

They are legal to own in the US, but that's a hell of a pain in the ass to get something. In Canada you can legaly own a machinegun, but no one is going to meet the qualifications to own one. So lets say fully auto is banned in Canada.

However, IIRC so far only a single crime has been commited with a legaly owned class III weapon in the US, and that was by a police officer.
~
So because the common use of the world assualt rifle doesn't fit, lets wash it down some more, and say you ment a rifle or carbine that can fire semi automatic.

Well in Canada that's a non restricted rifle and it requires a non restricted license. To get it you need a background check which is compleated by calling the people supplied as referances, a criminal check, and a training class with a writen and practical test, takes a weekend.

That's a reasonable number of hoops to have to jump through. But you only need to do it once. Then you are free to by non resticted rifles in any number, just show your license card your are good.

In the USA some states have that level requirement to buy a semi auto rifle. Other states I will admit have no such requirements.
~
So I will submit that Canadian law which may not may not have been created by the Ecole event makes it take some time to get a semi auto rifle. But once you have it if you don't commit any other crimes it's good for life, or until the government changes the law again.

I don't think you can say that the law in Canada makes it far harder to get a non restricted semi auto rifle.

$1:

And, please enlighten me on all semi-auto 22 calibre rifles that are belt-fed and come with a 1000 round box. Did you just make the same mistake as you accused Guy Fawkes of?

I didn't make any mistake in my correction to Guy Fawkes statement. He said gibberish.

As for the 22lr belt fed: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=22lr+belt+fed
http://www.lakesideguns.com/
http://www.armtac.com/category/22-lakes ... fed-upper/
(you can order the part from the above link and have it shipped to you in the mail)

The important differance between the two school shootings in that the Canadian kid used a very weak rifle. .22lr is little better than sling shot or an air rifle. If he had used a rifle in a hunting round he would have killed more than a single person. Our laws didn't keep a deadly weapon out of his hands, he only had access to a .22lr rifle, and if you can legaly own a .22lr you can have a semi automatic in a .30+ cal rifle round, or a 20mm anti tank rifle if you wanted.

$1:

So you say - yet when there have been shootings here in Canada - the lack of assault weapons and high capacity magazines has limited casualties.

Assault weapons is a non sense term, it has no meaning. A non restricted license gets you a weapon that is (other than the full auto firing ability) functionaly identical to the assault rifle we issue our military. In fact you can buy much more deadly weapons than we issue the military with that non restricted license.

As for the lack of high capacities mags, technicaly correct, but if you can pull a pin out of a magazine you can make your own 30 round mags. So in practice we haven't limited 30 round mags in Canada, because we can buy 30/5 round mags. Which is a 30 round mag, with a pin in it limiting it to 5 rounds.

$1:

Yeah, not very many people have the technical know-how to do that.

What? It's a cotter pin, if you can pull a cotter pin out, you can make your own illegal 30 round mags from legal 5 round mags.

$1:

I'm sure someone could also rig up a BMF Activator crank on a legal weapon to get full auto fire. However, as I said, most people don't have the technical know-how (or even knowledge of such things) to do so.

Most legal semiauto rifles can be changed to full auto by grinding down the sear a bit. Have a dremel tool? You too can convert your semi auto to full auto.

But again, no reason to do that. Semi auto fire is superior for shooting.

$1:

Again, says you.

What laws came out after Ecole?

$1:

On a per capita basis, the US numbers of deaths from firearms is exceeded only by extremely dangerous nations like Columbia, Iraq etc - where guess what, access to assault weapons is endemic.

We are not talking about single murders, we are talking about mass shootings. So nice try to dodge the issue.

$1:

So, while I do agree there is something systemic in the US that leads to mass shootings (as opposed to Canada), the numbers seem to suggest that access to high levels of violence + assault weapons + high capacity magazines = more casualties in most countries.

Not the topic at hand.

$1:

By knocking two of those factors out of the equation, Canada has significantly dropped the numbers of casualties in these horrible events.

Canada has not actualy removed those factors as I showed above.

$1:

Tell that to the kids at Dawson College. Yes, Gill was able to get his hands on a couple legal weapons - but they weren't Tec-9s or M-16s or any other sort of high-power, high-capacity weapons like are available in the US.

The Cx4 Storm is a restricted firearm, and the only differance between that and non restricted weapons is an extra test and more money for the application.

But Cx4 Storm fires a pistol round, a different non restricted rifle would have been a better weapon. Something shooting .308 WIN semi auto with a 30 round mag... that would have killed a lot more people, and is legaly easier to get than the Storm.

Also you said M-16. Well guess what, you can buy a rifle the shoots the same bullet, down the same barrel lenght, with the same ability to mount stuff to it (cause why not bling out your rifle?), with a 30/5 mag... non restricted. If you have a restricted license which isn't hard to get, you can have an AR pattern rifle that works identical to the M-16 family other than not having full auto or burst fire. (which are terrible fire modes of almost no application)

The Tec-9... it's a SMG, in the US other than with the class III federal license it's going to be semi automatic. Sure it's easy to change into full auto, but in it's common state it will be semi. Now in Canada I'm not sure it's legal status. However, it's just a pistol. You can with a resitrcted license buy a pistol in Canada, with the same sized round, (9x19mm) the same barrel lenght, and the ability to take the same magazine. Little bit of work grinding down the sear and you have a functionaly equal pistol.

Or you can say, pistols are silly when you want to try and kill a lot of people and stick with the rifle.

A Tec-9 is safer to get shot with than a hunting rifle.

$1:

It's always a disturbed person - the difference is what kind of killing tools said disturbed person can get his hands on.

Which I have proved I think are equal between Canada and the US for most people.

$1:

If all the killer can get is a knife, his number of victims will likely be far less than if he can get his hands on an M-16 (serial killers being the exception).

Well we are not talking about a total ban now are we?

$1:

If all they can get is a hunting rifle and pump action shotgun, even the most motivated wack job is going to hurt/maim/kill fewer than someone with access to an assault weapon - which was designed for one reason and one reason only - to kill other people.

Assault weapon isn't a valid or meaningful term. Under current laws I can buy in Canada with a non restricted license a semi auto rifle that will be identical or superior to what we currently issue the military.

$1:

So is aimed fire from the shoulder instead of spraying randomly from the hip - but some perps actually use the same tactics they see on Call of Duty or in Hollywood movies instead of "superior methods".

If you are going to kill people, you will I hope so some practice shooting first. Breivik used a Mini-14, a rifle that is non restricted in Canada.

$1:

Not very many - at least not in Canada. I have no doubt that criminals might try and manufacture their own, but again, most people don't have the knowledge, skill, equipment or know-how to make an assault weapon. A one-shot disposal zip gun - sure, but an M-16?

The AR family is likely the most modified weapon system in the world. You can find kits for making your own AR lower reciver (which is what is classified as the rifle part). The barrel is not restricted because it's just a metal tube.

I think you are underestimating how smart and skilled a machinist is.

$1:

In the end, it matters not one bit to me. I live in Canada which does have these laws that I support - even though I am also a staunch supporter of gun rights. I think people should be allowed to have guns - just not military-style weapons designed for one purpose and only one purpose - to kill other people. Those should stay in the hands of the military and police. IMHO Civilians simply don't need such things.

Well our current laws give weapons functional identical to military weapons to civilians, and most don't even need the *slightly* harder to get restricted license.

~

I think the problem is that you are ignorant of guns, and Canada's gun laws. That isn't your fault, and it's not a knock against you. I'm sure their are things I don't know about immigration law, that I likely should before I make comments on Canada's immigration policy.

[sandorski]

Everytime something like this happens, many people say, "Don't jump on the Gun Control bandwagon because of this." Seems to happen more and more, eventually they will have to jump on the bandwagon.

[Xort]

sandorski sandorski:

Everytime something like this happens, many people say, "Don't jump on the Gun Control bandwagon because of this." Seems to happen more and more, eventually they will have to jump on the bandwagon.

Because it's not possible to kill a large number of peopel without a firearm of some kind.

(do I need to provide mass murders that didn't use firearms?)

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Holy fuck One of the victims survived the recent Eaton Centre shooting only to be gunned down at the movies.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Xort Xort:

sandorski sandorski:

Everytime something like this happens, many people say, "Don't jump on the Gun Control bandwagon because of this." Seems to happen more and more, eventually they will have to jump on the bandwagon.

Because it's not possible to kill a large number of peopel without a firearm of some kind.

(do I need to provide mass murders that didn't use firearms?)

Again NO ONE is saying it is impossible to kill a great number of people without a fire arm. It is just more difficult to do so. If a person wants to kill a large amount of people they can, it's just that firearms make it very quick and easy. This guy could have put padlocks on the doors and set the room on fire, but that means he would have had bring in gas, a backpack with locks, ect. Even with the example you gave earlier with motor vehicle homicide, it would be difficult to kill 12 people in one collision.

[Hyack]

It is so much easier to use firearms if your aim is to commit a mass murder......

$1:

The deaths of 12 people at a movie theatre in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colo., early Friday is the latest in a long list of mass shootings around the world:

July 22, 2011: At least 80 people are killed at a summer camp on the Norwegian island of Utoya. A man arrested also is suspected in a blast earlier the same day in downtown Oslo that killed seven.

April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. He kills 12 people before killing himself as police close in.

March 10, 2009: Michael McLendon, 28, killed 10 people — including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff's deputy — across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself.

Sept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, walks into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and opens fire, killing 10 people and burning their bodies with firebombs before shooting himself fatally in the head.

Nov. 7, 2007: After revealing plans for his attack in YouTube postings, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen fires kills eight people at his high school in Tuusula, Finland.

April 16, 2007: Seung-Hui Cho, 23, kills 32 people and himself on Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Va.

April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and policeman, before committing suicide.

April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing themselves in the school's library.

April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia, shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others. He was captured and imprisoned.

March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and then kills himself.

Oct. 16, 1991: A deadly shooting rampage took place in Killeen, Texas, as George Hennard opened fire at a Luby's Cafeteria, killing 23 people before taking his own life. 20 others were wounded in the attack.

June 18, 1990: James Edward Pough shoots people at random in a General Motors Acceptance Corp. office in Jacksonville, Fla., killing 10 and wounding four, before killing himself.

Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, killing 14 and then himself.

Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, kills 16 people in small market town of Hungerford, England, and then shoots himself dead after being cornered by police.

Aug. 20, 1986: Pat Sherrill, 44, a postal worker who was about to be fired, shoots 14 people at a post office in Edmond, Okla. He then kills himself.

July 18, 1984: James Oliver Huberty, an out-of-work security guard, kills 21 people in a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, Calif. A police sharpshooter kills Huberty.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/20/mass-shootings-list.html

[Xort]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Again NO ONE is saying it is impossible to kill a great number of people without a fire arm. It is just more difficult to do so.

I'm sure that people killed in a truck bomb feel better knowing that the person that killed them had to put more effort into it.

$1:

If a person wants to kill a large amount of people they can, it's just that firearms make it very quick and easy.

And the argument is that fire arms are so much easier than any other method, that someone who would kill a lot of people with a gun, wouldn't kill anyone if they had to use another method.

I'm saying that's silly. I provided enough information about Canadian guns laws to show that it's not actual a factor. Canadians have as easy a time getting their hands on weapons as most Americans. However mass shootings seem rare in Canada. Although I suspect this is because of the population differance.

$1:

This guy could have put padlocks on the doors and set the room on fire, but that means he would have had bring in gas, a backpack with locks, ect.

And we don't think people bent on mass murder have the motivation or ability to do this?

$1:

Even with the example you gave earlier with motor vehicle homicide, it would be difficult to kill 12 people in one collision.

Well I was thinking of more than one event at one time.

~

My point is that if you can magic away guns (good luck) you aren't going to stop these people from killing others. Maybe rather than walking into a crowded area we have a new kind of mass murderer that just kills over and over, basicly a serial killer, but one with the motivations of a mass shooter, rather than the standard serial killer.

We should strive to make people not want to murder other people, not try to make it harder for them, while still falling short of doing something to make us safe.

Or you say, 12 people dead? 5 people per day are stabbed to death in the USA. So by the time this stops being news, 4 to 8 times as many people are going to be stabbed to death in the USA.

A much higher number of people will be shot to death true, but I was aiming for the closest number per day as died, and it goes from stabbing at 5 a day and 13% of the total murders, to 22 dead at 55% shot to death a day.

~

Point is, 22 people will be shot to death tomorrow and unless something about the story is intresting only the local media will report on it.

This is why laws made because of events are stupid. Oh no 12 dead, and the shooter used an AR pattern rifle we should ban that! 22 people are shot dead the next day by a range of pistols. Meh.

Ecole; he killed all those girls we need better gun control laws. Make laws that do nothing to make the nation safer. Well at least we felt good about out empty action.

This is why in some little way I find the religious to be slightly more tolerable than the left. When the the religous make a useless empty action all it does is waste their time with praying. When the left gets a stick up their ass it's government commissions and studies and a new national plan. $$$ in other words.

~

On topic but aside, I've been reading that the movie theater was a gun free zone. I don't know if that's true but I've read it and it doesn't seem unbelievable. I wonder if it will come out in this guy's trial that he selected the location because of that?

[Xort]

Hyack Hyack:

It is so much easier to use firearms if your aim is to commit a mass murder......

16 events 318 dead over 28 years for the whole world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings

October 28 2009, Pakistan Peshawar, North-West Frontier Province 92 dead
October 25 2009, Iraq Baghdad 155 dead
October 10 2009, Pakistan Shangla District, Swat Valley 41 dead

Should I keep posting vehicle bombs?

You can read the link right? Do I need to hammer this point more?

[Zipperfish]

Well, the main reason against gun control is that you should be armed to protect yourself. Yet, I don't recall in any of these shootings anyone pulling out their gun and shooting back. What up wi' dat?

As for the right to bear arms issue, with Americans it's bred in the bone. It's part of their fabric. They are willing to pay the price of that freedom with occassonal events like this, with higher homicide rates and with a number of accidental shootings every year. I respect that.

[Hyack]

Xort Xort:

Hyack Hyack:

It is so much easier to use firearms if your aim is to commit a mass murder......

16 events 318 dead over 28 years for the whole world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings

October 28 2009, Pakistan Peshawar, North-West Frontier Province 92 dead
October 25 2009, Iraq Baghdad 155 dead
October 10 2009, Pakistan Shangla District, Swat Valley 41 dead

Should I keep posting vehicle bombs?

You can read the link right? Do I need to hammer this point more?

Sure, go right ahead, knock yourself out and since you like wiki so much here's a link for you.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

[Hyack]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Holy fuck One of the victims survived the recent Eaton Centre shooting only to be gunned down at the movies.

Kind of makes you think her time was definitely up.....a real case of extreme bad karma...

[Thanos]

It logically has to be seen as pointless in trying to convince Americans that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics is in their best interest. As it stands right now having a mass killing of civilians several times per year, in addition to tens of thousands of individual instances of murder, suicide, and accidental shootings, seems to be the price Americans are willing to pay for the right to have unhindered access to personal weaponry.

I'm not convinced that regulating the type of firearm itself is the correct course of action anyway. It seems that disallowing certain personality types (chronic criminals, mentally ill, politically/religiously extreme, etc) from legal possession of weaponry would be the better course of action, but I'm sure that groups like the NRA are quite ready to fight against bans on individuals as much as they are against bans on the weapons themselves.

No-win scenario all around. All we get to do is shuffle on and wait for the next incident to happen so we can have the same pointless discussion all over again.