Mass shooting in theatre Aurora, Colorado

[trd2343]

Yes, of course not everyone lives in a big city. And what you and Lomac have listed are fair points for those who don't live in the city, but you can't take that and apply it to the city. It's wrong to punish everyone base on the actions of few. But it's equally wrong to allow something so dangerous to be easily accessible to the general just for the sake of those living outside the city.

If you're going to think a gun is just as dangerous as a blade, I don't know what to say. A blade is only lethal if you're in close range, and even if from afar, you could at most hope to throw it only once. A gun? Wider range and multiple shots.

Just think for a second, what would have been the outcome of this incident had the murderer only had access to something like a blade? The murderer would still have acted on his plan, but I can say for sure less people would've been killed and injured. With a close range weapon, at least there could be the possibility of some brave people who might be able to fight him off from a distance. With a gun? No chance.

Guns or not, crazy people will kill. My concern is more about the damage of the outcome. Do I have a solution for these crazy people? Certainly not. Do I think not having guns would stop these people from killing? Certainly not either. But at least it would lower the damage these people will bring.

What I said was wrong. Banning guns for everyone is wrong. But I also don't agree that everyone should have access to a gun either.

[Bonjour43MA]

First of all, legally owned firearms are not "easily accessible". You don't just walk into a gun shop here in Vancouver and walk out with a .45. You need to take courses, pass some safety exams, apply to the RCMP, get police background checked, get reference checked, get phone interviewed, wait for a 28 day mandatory wait period, apply for paperwork to transport your guns from your house to the range, buy gun locks and cases for storage and transport, and after all that (which takes between 1.5 month to 6 months), you get to go to a store and buy a gun.

This is also not a rural vs. urban issue. You'd be surprised at how many "urban" people own guns but don't advertise the fact. Guns are not only owned by people outside of the city - this is a myth.
Exclusive: GTA loves their guns just as much as rural areas, data shows - thestar.com
That's 287,000 registered guns in the city of Toronto alone. and we're only talking about shotguns and long-barrel rifles, not handguns and short-barrel rifles.

Guns are definitely more lethal than blades and other weapons, and that's why criminals and crazy people use them. Note the words "criminals" and "crazy people". You can restrict all you want and take all the guns away from "normal people", but you can't prevent criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. Illegal guns and criminals that use them are the culprits of almost all of the shooting incidents you see in the news.

You're still stuck on the fact that you are not comfortable with others owning firearms. Why is that? Why do you assume people with guns have the potential to go crazy one day and go out to randomly kill others. Going by your logic, anyone with a car or truck, a blow torch, a machete, all have the "potential" to be crazed killers. You know that is not true. I think you should check out your local range one day and meet and talk to the people there. Most people there are friendly, nice, "normal", and really just there and having a good time punching some holes on papers or clay targets. They have zero intention of using it to cause harm to others.

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

That stat strikes me as very inflated, please provide a credible source showing a comparable figure. I have only ever met a hand full of gun owners ever in urban areas of Canada, and since the majority of Canadians live in urban areas, I question that statistic.

As a whole, I find that Canadian gun laws have established a good balance between restriction and access.

I have both my restricted and non-restricted licenses, but since I live in the city at the moment, I feel no need to own a gun.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/filea...nnexe-4-EN.pdf

This is from the government, and while it's hard to get solid facts from this (despite the fact that it's purely stats), there was a lot of controversy regarding this because most of the polls were done via phone and, frankly, not everyone is going to admit to an anonymous person over the phone if they own a gun and, if so, how many and what types.

HOW MANY GUNS ARE THERE IN CANADA

[trd2343]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

First of all, legally owned firearms are not "easily accessible". You don't just walk into a gun shop here in Vancouver and walk out with a .45. You need to take courses, pass some safety exams, apply to the RCMP, get police background checked, get reference checked, get phone interviewed, wait for a 28 day mandatory wait period, apply for paperwork to transport your guns from your house to the range, buy gun locks and cases for storage and transport, and after all that (which takes between 1.5 month to 6 months), you get to go to a store and buy a gun.

This is also not a rural vs. urban issue. You'd be surprised at how many "urban" people own guns but don't advertise the fact. Guns are not only owned by people outside of the city - this is a myth.
Exclusive: GTA loves their guns just as much as rural areas, data shows - thestar.com
That's 287,000 registered guns in the city of Toronto alone. and we're only talking about shotguns and long-barrel rifles, not handguns and short-barrel rifles.

Guns are definitely more lethal than blades and other weapons, and that's why criminals and crazy people use them. Note the words "criminals" and "crazy people". You can restrict all you want and take all the guns away from "normal people", but you can't prevent criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. Illegal guns and criminals that use them are the culprits of almost all of the shooting incidents you see in the news.

You're still stuck on the fact that you are not comfortable with others owning firearms. Why is that? Why do you assume people with guns have the potential to go crazy one day and go out to randomly kill others. Going by your logic, anyone with a car or truck, a blow torch, a machete, all have the "potential" to be crazed killers. You know that is not true. I think you should check out your local range one day and meet and talk to the people there. Most people there are friendly, nice, "normal", and really just there and having a good time punching some holes on papers or clay targets. They have zero intention of using it to cause harm to others.

If you read what Lomac and the other guy was saying, they're arguing for the fact that people outside of city own guns for reasons they stated, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

I don't think why you keep putting words out that I've never said. I never said people who hold guns are crazy. You really need to read carefully. I said people who turn crazy can potentially do more damage with a gun than say other weapon, ie the blade that we were talking about.

And if you actually read, I agree with the points that others have listed for people who live outside the city to own guns, so I don't know where you get the idea I'm not comfortable with people owning guns.

I totally agree that criminals will get their gun one way or the other. I'm not worry about those, nor can I anyways.

And for the Nth time, yes, I know taking the guns away doesn't stop or prevent someone from going psycho. The problem is a normal person is absolutely defenceless against a gun. I can run away from a knife, maybe try to dodge an incoming car, but there's nothing you can do against a gun.

I don't assume people with guns will go crazy and start shooting. I never did. No, I don't assume people with machete or cars will turn crazy. People will not turn crazy because they have a gun. I don't know what other way do I have to put it for you to understand. Maybe my English is not that great, that's why. But I believe I have the least possibility of surviving against someone shooting a gun.

[bing]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

USA is stuck in a sticky situation. Its like they let hell loose, so you can't really contain it.
You have people wanting guns for protection, only because criminals can obtain guns so easily in the first place.

I was down in Oregon (this state has no gun law at all I think) a few months ago at a gun range. my friends and I were just having casual talk with the cashier. he was asking us why we like living in Canada better? we said its safer, not everyone has a gun. He said its safer in USA, cause they got guns for protection... Lol

First of all, I would not listen to a cashier working at a gun store to give me an objective view. The average American is also very uneducated IMO. From my memory, the origin of American gun culture is related to their history as a frontier society, American militias were the source of protection when there was no standing army, and guns were used to hunt and seen as a right of passage for boys. It is so culturally embedded that it is protected as a 2nd amendment right. The NRA meanwhile is one of the biggest lobbying groups and they spend millions every year. The anti-gun lobbyists on the other hand spent a measly $60,000 in 2007.

Although the homicide rate has been declining in both countries, when the US is compared with Canada, the US has a higher homicide rate per 100,000 population than Canada. I would say that a disproportionate amount of the violent and non-violent crime occur mostly in the American South. The American North is definitely safer and if you include non-violent crime, the crime rate between US and Canada (Quebec = lowest) would be relatively similar. But, it should be kept in mind US has more police officers and more major cities.

[SkinnyPupp]

I'll argue alongside anyone in favour of guns for hunting, sport, protection, etc. But do civilians really need to be able to buy fully automatic rifles? That's what fucks me up

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

I'll argue alongside anyone in favour of guns for hunting, sport, protection, etc. But do civilians really need to be able to buy fully automatic rifles? That's what fucks me up

You can't buy automatic rifles in Canada at all as a civilian, in some states down south it's also disallowed.

I don't really have a problem with that, automatic fire is generally a waste of ammunition, and it's incredibly efficient at not being accurate at all. Most soldiers use automatic weaponry for suppression anyway, I don't need to suppress anything.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

I'll argue alongside anyone in favour of guns for hunting, sport, protection, etc. But do civilians really need to be able to buy fully automatic rifles? That's what fucks me up

Persoanlly being totally pro-gun I don't see the point in being able to buy hand guns

[scottsman]

Comparing guns used for sports and guns like Uzis, Ak47's, Assault Rifles, Pistols, etc... is like comparing apples and oranges. The general population in any modern society has no need for any guns that do no fall in the category of "sport use" guns. Police and Military Personal are the only ones that really need weapons designed to kill/defend humans.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

I'll argue alongside anyone in favour of guns for hunting, sport, protection, etc. But do civilians really need to be able to buy fully automatic rifles? That's what fucks me up

They can only do that in some states in the USA. You can't at all in canada.

if you start using that argument then you can argue why people need 400 horse power cars. or whatever.

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Persoanlly being totally pro-gun I don't see the point in being able to buy hand guns

whys that?

Originally Posted by scottsman

Comparing guns used for sports and guns like Uzis, Ak47's, Assault Rifles, Pistols, etc... is like comparing apples and oranges. The general population in any modern society has no need for any guns that do no fall in the category of "sport use" guns. Police and Military Personal are the only ones that really need weapons designed to kill/defend humans.

that's a slippery slope
the general population doesnt need sports cars.
the general population doesnt need TV
the general population doesnt need private transportation (just make them take public).
the list and keep going on and keep sliding.

the general population doesnt need revscene.
or video games.

the general population doesnt need any saws or hammers or any tools to fix things, only people in the maintenance industry need it.

you can imagine where this leads to.

[freakshow]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

Going by your logic, anyone with a car or truck, a blow torch, a machete, all have the "potential" to be crazed killers. You know that is not true. I think you should check out your local range one day and meet and talk to the people there. Most people there are friendly, nice, "normal", and really just there and having a good time punching some holes on papers or clay targets. They have zero intention of using it to cause harm to others.

I'm not arguing against any of your points (I don't know enough about guns).. but this point isn't quite logical.

Yes, it's *possible* to use a truck, blow torch, machete, paperclip to kill someone, but if I owned all of those plus a gun, and I went crazy one day, you can be sure that the gun has a 99% higher chance of being used.
It's not very easy to kill someone with your truck. Blow torch.. would also be very difficult. And a machete is much more difficult to wield effectively.

Your examples are bunk because, whether you like it or not, if someone does 'go crazy', having access to a gun instantly makes things much, much worse.

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

that's a slippery slope
the general population doesnt need sports cars.
the general population doesnt need TV
the general population doesnt need private transportation (just make them take public).
the list and keep going on and keep sliding.

the general population doesnt need revscene.
or video games.

It's not as slippery as you think. As I said to the guy above, if TVs and private transportation could be used to cause damage like a gun could, then it would be a slippery slope. You're comparing apples to oranges.

IMO, a closer comparison would be the laws around having grenades. Why don't they just sell them freely? Maybe I just like to watch grenades blow up, look, I'm not crazy, and don't worry, I'll take a safety course for them too.

Oh wait.. yeah.. because that would be INSANE. Out of all people Ulic, I'm surprised you have that much faith in humanity that you think giving guns to people is a good idea. People are stupid. and crazy.

[Hondaracer]

If somone went crazy and had access to a car you could argue they could do more damage than with a gun.

Ulic, I just dont see the need for handguns, I own two myself and they are almost useless to have within Canada, I sold my .45 and picked up a .22 replica because .22 is so much cheaper to shoot, outside of sporting needs, target, ipsic, and hobby uses handguns are useless

I'm not really for banning them persay, but as I've demonstrated before IMO there should be an absolute zero tolerance on illegal handguns. Ie. people carrying them unlawfully, and there should be a STRICT penalty if you are caught with one you are not allowed to have, anyone in possession of an illegal handgun caught out in the public has purely bad intentions with it

Through aquaintaces I know of a group of your stereotypical young viet wannabe gangsters who got pulled over in their car and the cop found 2 loaded 9mm in the center console, every person involved didn't even spend time of any sort outside of the booking time at the station.

[trd2343]

Originally Posted by freakshow

Yes, it's *possible* to use a truck, blow torch, machete, paperclip to kill someone, but if I owned all of those plus a gun, and I went crazy one day, you can be sure that the gun has a 99% higher chance of being used.
It's not very easy to kill someone with your truck. Blow torch.. would also be very difficult. And a machete is much more difficult to wield effectively.

Your examples are bunk because, whether you like it or not, if someone does 'go crazy', having access to a gun instantly makes things much, much worse.

That's exactly how I feel. You are defenceless against a gun. Can't run, can't hide, can't avoid.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Originally Posted by freakshow

It's not as slippery as you think. As I said to the guy above, if TVs and private transportation could be used to cause damage like a gun could, then it would be a slippery slope. You're comparing apples to oranges.

IMO, a closer comparison would be the laws around having grenades. Why don't they just sell them freely? Maybe I just like to watch grenades blow up, look, I'm not crazy, and don't worry, I'll take a safety course for them too.

Oh wait.. yeah.. because that would be INSANE. Out of all people Ulic, I'm surprised you have that much faith in humanity that you think giving guns to people is a good idea. People are stupid. and crazy.

TV's and private transportation can cause just as much or more damage.
TV's used for propaganda, or spreading information.

more people die from private transportation each year than guns. lol that's guarenteed.

i duno about you. but if i wanted to kill a buncha people, i'd just wait for some event like the sun run and drive my truck as fast as i could and mow people down.

people are forgetting how imaginative people can be. if you take away a gun. people will make bombs. or use other methods.

if you want to hurt people, you're going to find a way to do it, with or without guns.

the grenade argument... well people make pipe bombs and other shit... you don't need to be able to buy grenades.

I have a lot of faith in humanity.
lol im super optimistic and positive for humanity in the long run. like 500-1000+ years.

im just a bit negative... for the short term.. i think within the next 500 years we're going to fall into some dystopic future scenario.

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

If somone went crazy and had access to a car you could argue they could do more damage than with a gun.

Ulic, I just dont see the need for handguns, I own two myself and they are almost useless to have within Canada, I sold my .45 and picked up a .22 replica because .22 is so much cheaper to shoot, outside of sporting needs, target, ipsic, and hobby uses handguns are useless

I'm not really for banning them persay, but as I've demonstrated before IMO there should be an absolute zero tolerance on illegal handguns. Ie. people carrying them unlawfully, and there should be a STRICT penalty if you are caught with one you are not allowed to have, anyone in possession of an illegal handgun caught out in the public has purely bad intentions with it

Through aquaintaces I know of a group of your stereotypical young viet wannabe gangsters who got pulled over in their car and the cop found 2 loaded 9mm in the center console, every person involved didn't even spend time of any sort outside of the booking time at the station.

im like you then, i have an m4 variant just sitting under my bed for years, collecting dust. I'm probably never going to fire it ever again. but i'm not gonna sell it.

i agree on the illegal guns, but illegal guns have nothing to do with legal guns.

[freakshow]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

TV's and private transportation can cause just as much or more damage.
TV's used for propaganda, or spreading information.

more people die from private transportation each year than guns. lol that's guarenteed.

i duno about you. but if i wanted to kill a buncha people, i'd just wait for some event like the sun run and drive my truck as fast as i could and mow people down.

people are forgetting how imaginative people can be. if you take away a gun. people will make bombs. or use other methods.

if you want to hurt people, you're going to find a way to do it, with or without guns.

Again, although it's *possible*, you need to also consider the likelihood. It's *possible* to use the TV for propaganda... but.. that's an extremely poor argument given our context (the need of a specific item vs the risk when misused)

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

if you want to hurt people, you're going to find a way to do it, with or without guns.

This is a good point. An all out ban on guns wouldn't eliminate violence. But IMO, it would decrease the senseless killing.

Also, if you're pessimistic about our future for the next 500 years, maybe we should just have a temporary 500 year ban on guns..

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

i agree on the illegal guns, but illegal guns have nothing to do with legal guns.

a distinction not many make.

[?uestlove]

shit i can't leave my house anymore, i could get shot

[Bonjour43MA]

Too many points to counter, so I'll just do it in point form:

- Unless you're some crazy trained Ninja, please don't tell me you have eyes on the back of your head that can tell you to jump out of a truck coming at you at 70km/h.

- Again, unless you're some crazy trained Ninja, please don't tell me you have the reflex ability to deflect someone that's within arms reach, about to stab you in the chest.

- There is no difference between someone living in the city that is a weekend hunter / sports shooter, than someone living outside the city that's also a hunter / sports shooter. This is NOT a urban vs rural issue. reamemiya, you need to go back and read your own posts again because you keep contradicting yourself on this point.

- Having fewer guns WILL NOT reduce any killings! Once again I ask you to go look up stats for the UK and many other gun-banned countries in the world. Yes, "gun-related" murders are down, but "overall murders" are the same! People don't stop killing people simply because one of the methods has been taken away. On the other hand, look at Switzerland and their high gun ownership numbers, almost every household has at least a rifle and a box of ammunition present, yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Fewer guns != fewer deaths! that's a myth that the politicians tried to shove down people's throats.

K I'm too tired now to keep typing. Guess I'll just agree to disagree with some of you, but I hope I presented some facts and dispelled some misconceptions of what firearm ownership is about and why people want them.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

Too many points to counter, so I'll just do it in point form:

- Unless you're some crazy trained Ninja, please don't tell me you have eyes on the back of your head that can tell you to jump out of a truck coming at you at 70km/h.

- Again, unless you're some crazy trained Ninja, please don't tell me you have the reflex ability to deflect someone that's within arms reach, about to stab you in the chest.

- There is no difference between someone living in the city that is a weekend hunter / sports shooter, than someone living outside the city that's also a hunter / sports shooter. This is NOT a urban vs rural issue. reamemiya, you need to go back and read your own posts again because you keep contradicting yourself on this point.

- Having fewer guns WILL NOT reduce any killings! Once again I ask you to go look up stats for the UK and many other gun-banned countries in the world. Yes, "gun-related" murders are down, but "overall murders" are the same! People don't stop killing people simply because one of the methods has been taken away. On the other hand, look at Switzerland and their high gun ownership numbers, almost every household has at least a rifle and a box of ammunition present, yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Fewer guns != fewer deaths! that's a myth that the politicians tried to shove down people's throats.

K I'm too tired now to keep typing. Guess I'll just agree to disagree with some of you, but I hope I presented some facts and dispelled some misconceptions of what firearm ownership is about and why people want them.

Killings are lowest in 20 years in the UK



BBC NEWS | UK | Killings are lowest in 20 years

[will068]

Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma

They can only do that in some states in the USA. You can't at all in canada.

if you start using that argument then you can argue why people need 400 horse power cars. or whatever.

We also have restrictions on cars having certain attributes. However, you can also say that the regulations for operating vehicles is severely behind as well (E.g. I support 0 tolerance when driving under the influence of a substance); More road tests if you are a senior etc.

Why not treat guns like how drugs should be treated:

Legalize it, but regulate the fuck out of it. E.g. you want an automatic weapon, you have to be in the force and use it only in gun ranges (or whatever restriction is need to be placed etc.).

[Bonjour43MA]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Killings are lowest in 20 years in the UK



BBC NEWS | UK | Killings are lowest in 20 years

The gun ban was introduced in 1997, so looking at that chart, why the spike years later, then a drop after that as well? There's no correlation between taking guns away from everyday citizen to murder rates going up and down, there are many other factors that are in play that charts can't simply show. All that chart says is that people are still getting murdered, and the number had gone up and down in the past decade.

Also, from the same source, it is reported that knifes are the main methods in crime in the UK. Middle of the article.
BBC News - Analysis: UK gun crime figures

Since we love the BBC so much, here's one more on how banning guns didn't do much to criminals using illegal guns to do the same deed.
BBC News | UK | Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

and... taking guns away from regular citizens did nothing to stopping criminals from getting them
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Mail Online

I can go back and forth with you pulling stats off the web... it won't end. The bottom line is - guns are not the problem! I support having sensible gun laws like what we have in Canada, but focusing on this one object will not prevent future tragedies.

[trd2343]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

Too many points to counter, so I'll just do it in point form:

- Unless you're some crazy trained Ninja, please don't tell me you have eyes on the back of your head that can tell you to jump out of a truck coming at you at 70km/h.

- Again, unless you're some crazy trained Ninja, please don't tell me you have the reflex ability to deflect someone that's within arms reach, about to stab you in the chest.

- There is no difference between someone living in the city that is a weekend hunter / sports shooter, than someone living outside the city that's also a hunter / sports shooter. This is NOT a urban vs rural issue. reamemiya, you need to go back and read your own posts again because you keep contradicting yourself on this point.

- Having fewer guns WILL NOT reduce any killings! Once again I ask you to go look up stats for the UK and many other gun-banned countries in the world. Yes, "gun-related" murders are down, but "overall murders" are the same! People don't stop killing people simply because one of the methods has been taken away. On the other hand, look at Switzerland and their high gun ownership numbers, almost every household has at least a rifle and a box of ammunition present, yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Fewer guns != fewer deaths! that's a myth that the politicians tried to shove down people's throats.

K I'm too tired now to keep typing. Guess I'll just agree to disagree with some of you, but I hope I presented some facts and dispelled some misconceptions of what firearm ownership is about and why people want them.

I guess I'll have to make myself really really clear.

1. If it's a sudden attack from my back, I'll die for sure, be it a gun or a pebble.

2. If it's an attack right in front of me, I'll die for sure too cause I don't have ninja reflex. But I probably won't die from a car because it doesn't have enough space to accelerate.

3. If I see the attack from say 10 m away, unless I'm in the middle of the desert against Usain Bolt, I can safely say I'll not die unless the guy has a gun or car. I dare say even 5 m is more than enough room for me to safely get away save for a gun/car.

If that's not real enough for you, let's just take this incident here.

Tell me, in your honest opinion, how many people would the murderer would've been able to kill if he had
a) gun
b) knife
c) car
d) flamethrower?
e) whatever you can think of

As for weekend/sports shooter, if this makes it more specific, I'm referring to people who carry a gun around with them in a city 24/7.

As for the number of killings, let's be really really specific. I'm referring to number of deaths per incident of random/school/theatre shooting. Gang related doesn't count because it's targeted.

And please answer me this, what weapon (that you can get legally) would you have used if you were the Joker in that theatre?

Lastly for the record, I have nothing against Canadian gun laws, rather it's against the idea of bringing laxed American gun laws to Canada.

[Bonjour43MA]

^^^
- i don't want American-style gun laws in Canada either. I've already said many times that our system is decent at the moment. i'm not one of those people that want to loosen gun laws so that people can buy them more easily. we have mandatory wait times and police background checks to weed out the crazies, and though not 100%, it does its job in preventing spur-of-the-moment psychotic episodes by a nut case

- no one needs to carry a gun 24/7 in the city. as of now, you can't legally do so anyway. only criminals do that 24/7, which means it STILL has nothing to do with legal gun owners. all of these laws are supposed to reduce crime and "make our streets safter", but they don't, because they target only law-abiding gun owners. i can go dig up the source for this, but in Ontario over the past 5 years, there has been ONE case of deadly shooting where the gun was a registered legal firearm. yes, ONE. the rest were all by criminals with smuggled-in guns from the US.

- a gun is definitely more efficient in killing than most other weapons, that's why it was invented. that being said, how many times have you seen in the news where people got shot but survived? MANY. why? because real guns don't shoot like video game guns where you can do headshots from 50m out. majority of people, even experienced, can miss their targets at close range due to nerves and inexperience. you can die just as easily from being stabbed or getting run over by a car.

- the obvious answer to your question is "the joker would've picked a gun because it's the easiest and you can buy it from a store and walk out the same day (in the US)". but then again, why does it matter what he chooses to use?!?!?! STILL focusing on the object. why isn't this point getting through? no guns? alright, he'll make bombs, he'll go through illegal channels to get black market guns, etc etc etc. at the end of the day, he planned this attacked, wanted to kill by all means necessary, and settled on the easiest tool that he could find. this is a US case so we can say that their gun laws are simply too laxed, and i agree. however, i simply do not believe that he would've given up just because he wasn't able to buy a rifle off the shelf. he was set out to do it, and he would've done it no matter what.

[trd2343]

- I'm exaggerating , not 24/7 but there are instances in the states, NOT Canada where people carry their guns around. AGAIN I'm talking about Canada.

- it sounds great when you put it that way, many people survived, but with less lethal weapon, those people might not even be injured at all! I'm talking about damage control, not whether you will get killed or not.

- exactly what you said, he went for the easiest tool. If a grenade was made legal, he would've went for a bomb instead, but because its illegal, it involves more work, so he went for the next thing that's legal, a gun! Now if say whatever gun he had was illegal, of course he would still kill, but base on your argument, he would have went for the easiest tool, which would be a blade, or something else.

[Bonjour43MA]

I'm slightly confused at your posts. You say one thing and then contradict yourself later, saying that's what you mean originally. Maybe we're not understanding each other through forum posts for whatever reason.

Almost all States in the US allow some form of on-person carrying of guns, whether it be concealed or open, with or without permits. It is highly possible that you could be standing at a check-out line at Starbucks in the states, and the person next to you may have a Glock in a holster at his waist - you'd never know. So yes, it's possible to carry a gun with you at all times in the states, and many are doing it as we speak. Many look at this as a great deterrent to criminals because they can't possible know if you're carrying or not, so unless they're REALLY desperate, it's unlikely that they will engage you in an alley, with the potential to be shot by you.

You can't do that in Canada, not legally. We have Authorization to Carry permits that you can apply to, but almost no one in Canada, unless you're in the armored truck industry or have special privileges (government officials), could be issued one for personal protection. Criminals couldn't care less about these laws and permits, so they're the ones that carry guns with them in their cars or in their bags. Everyday citizens in Canada = no guns on person. Criminals = they do whatever they want. I'm sorry, what was the point you were trying to make on this again?

Grenades, pipe-bombs, whatever. Does it really matter? For a planned attack like this, the nut case will ALWAYS find ways to get his ideal method of killing in place. Just because it's illegal it doesn't mean he'll stop trying to get it - this is the point you don't seem to want to accept. Laws, regulations, restrictions, are in place for those that OBEY them. Criminals and crazies DO NOT. Drugs are illegal so there should be no users and sellers right? I think you know the answer to that one.

The focus should be on social programs that offer help and support to those that need it, starting from a very young age. If people can find outlets where they feel they can find solutions to their issues, then they are less likely to goto extreme measures to "make a point", or to vent/release their anger/frustrations. In the case of the mentality unstable, better institutions and care need to be in place as well so that those that can benefit from these facilities could use them, and not be thrown out to society and be left alone with their instability and crazy thoughts.

At the end of the day though, there will always be crazy people out there that do unthinkable things. People focus on the weapons because it's the most rationalized answer to "why" they kill, "oh if he didn't have a gun this wouldn't have happened". Sometimes there's just no answer to why they do these things - if there were, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now.