You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Ahh nothing beats typing on a keyboard over a mobile phone
Quote:
- 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
This we both agree on.
Quote:
- 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.
Referring to US, because SOME not all carry guns around with them. My fault for not being clear. I do not want to see this in Canada. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Quote:
- 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.
Thank you, couldn't have put it better myself. A LEGAL weapon that has the potential to kill, or at least injure, without really aiming at targets. Tell me weapons other than guns that do that. I don't know about you, but I have a low tolerance to pain, so not only do I not want to die, I don't want to get hurt either. So if you think it's acceptable to be injured (as long as you don't die), than kudos to you. You sound like it's actually a good thing that those who got shot didn't die but only injured, but wouldn't not getting injured even better??
Quote:
- 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.
Yes, criminals will get their guns no matter what (for the 10000th time). But what about for normal folks like me, you, or even James E Holmes (criminals as in gang related, and plus, he wasn't even a criminal until he committed the killing)? Why don't you tell me how would you get an illegal gun, say in a place like Canada? You make it sound like I could just walk up to a random person and ask for an illegal gun.
Which brings us to the point, you said it, no guns, he'll make bombs, and bombs would've been a even better weapon, but he didn't use it, because it's illegal and then don't sell bombs outright in US. So if guns were illegal, he'll probably still kill, but went with a blade instead, because if he's was going to illegal and all out, he probably would've done so in the first place and might even go for a bomb. Although this is just speculation
Finally..
Quote:
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.
Can you PLEASE tell me, actually, QUOTE me, where I said whether a person kills or not depends on what weapon he has. Actually, allow me to help you on that.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Guns or not, crazy people will kill. My concern is more about the damage of the outcome.
Quote:
And for the Nth time, yes, I know taking the guns away doesn't stop or prevent someone from going psycho.
Quote:
And I don't think anyone here actually thinks banning guns would stop people from killing each other, that's an argument you made up.
Please explain to me how you still think that I think that banning guns would stop people from killing. Please quote me. Please. I beg you. At least prove it to me.
Maybe these are some points to argue about:
- there's a large variety of guns, and so guns in general are not equally lethal, meaning, a pistol might just be dangerous as blade in terms of the number of people it can hurt and the level of injury, so it's too vague to group guns together in general
- maybe getting illegal guns is a lot easier than getting illegal bombs? so even if both were illegal, one would still probably go for a gun than a bomb, so banning guns only stop those who don't know how to attain firearms illegally?
- maybe ban a certain type of guns? like someone mentioned, something like automatic rifle?
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?
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm neither for or against carrying guns in public, because someone out to kill can just hide the gun in their jacket. Only thing that it really might help with is stopping people from doing MORE damage from actions that happen at the heat of the moment. NO, it rarely happens, but in the heat of the moment, people DO make mistakes and do something stupid and wrong. Although debatable, in MY opinion, I would think my chance of surviving is higher if someone got pissed and stab me with a knife, than shoot me with a gun. AGAIN, I'm talking about heat of the moment, rare cases, and not about the intentions of the person, but the potential damage of the weapon.
Quote:
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.
If you think the legality (is that a word?), has absolutely nothing to do with the choice of weapons, than everyone would be using bombs instead.
Again, crazies are normal folks like you and I, unless they are gang related, I don't know how a normal folk would actually be able to get their hands on illegal firearms. It's in my reply above this one.
Quote:
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.
Agreed.
Finally, I have to correct you...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 this way". 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.
You keep accusing people of thinking that way, do you have any sources or quotes or anything that people think like that??? Like who actually said that in this thread???
I personally don't see a need to carry guns in Canada, at least not in major cities. Plus, I don't think there's a deep enough gun culture here for it to ever start either. People would freak the f*&k out if they saw a permit-holder carrying a Glock, out walking their dog. Cops would be called and news would be made everyday.
Okay, so your main concern is the damage of the outcome, meaning you're focused on what weapon was used to carry out the deed (more lethal = more deaths), which also means you think it is possible to control what a crazy person will use as their weapons of choice. YOU CAN'T, PERIOD. You can make it harder for them, but in the end they will find SOMETHING that causes the greatest amount of damage, guns/grenades or not. You know that he rigged his apartment with 30 home-made grenades and gallons of gasoline, right? He was set out to kill. Could've killed more people there had he not given up that info beforehand. Hmm, I thought grenades were illegal, no?
A shotgun in the hands of a hunter is what gets him his dinner. The same shotgun in a nut case's hands is a weapon to kill people. Since you agree that crazies will kill others no matter what, then the focus should be on how to prevent them from getting to that point, and not what they choose to use once they hit that breaking point and is too late to turn back.
Just so I'm clear, what exactly is your opinion on this then? You say that gun control won't work and banning guns won't stop people from killing each other. Then you say that you're concerned about the overall damage of the killings, which focuses on what they use as weapons of choice. So if they didn't have guns, things would've been less serious, right? How do you prevent people from getting guns? You make it impossible to get one = gun control. So... where do you stand? I'm confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
You keep accusing people of thinking that way, do you have any sources or quotes or anything that people think like that??? Like who actually said that in this thread???
It's implied. People say things and use certain words to convey their feelings and opinions on things. Sometimes it's directly stated, sometimes it's not. You read between the lines.
Not related to this shooting, but to what we've been discussing:
A teenager has been arrested after killing nine people and wounding four others in a knife attack in northeast China, state media reported Thursday.
The 17-year-old, who was identified only by his surname Li, barged into the home of his girlfriend armed with a knife following an argument and killed two relatives of the girl, the Legal Daily said.
As he left his girlfriend's home in Liaoning province's Xinbin county, he stabbed six more people to death and wounded five, it said.
... not.
__________________
Nikonian
Last edited by Bonjour43MA; 08-02-2012 at 07:48 AM.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A northeast Ohio man brought a gun, ammunition and several knives to a showing of the latest Batman movie because he wanted to protect himself in case someone tried to replicate last month's deadly Colorado theatre shooting, his attorney said Tuesday.
Scott A. Smith, 37, had no intention of causing harm or inducing panic when he brought the weapons to a Saturday showing of "The Dark Knight Rises," said his attorney, Matthew Bruce.
"With the recent shooting in Colorado, and the other incidents around the country in regards to threats, he felt that he needed protection," Bruce said.
Bruce said he was referring to movie theatre threats made after the deadly July 20 shooting in Aurora, Colo., where a 24-year-old man is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 at a midnight showing of the same movie.
Bruce said his client "felt a sense of fear" about going to a theatre, and chose the Batman movie by complete coincidence.
Smith brought the weapons to a Regal Cinemas theatre in Westlake, just outside of Cleveland, and seated himself in the middle of the back row of the theatre, a half hour before the movie started, police said.
A theatre manager and an off-duty police officer working security stopped Smith after they became suspicious of a bag he was carrying, said Westlake Police Lt. Ray Arcuri.
"Why pick that movie? Why that theatre? Why sit in the back all the way like that? Why bring the gun?" he said. "There's several unanswered questions."
Smith was arrested without incident and is currently jailed.
He was expected to be indicted on several weapons charges, but it's still too early to determine what those charges will be, said Nicole DiSanto of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's office.
The theatre manager first noticed Smith and the beige bag he carried over his shoulder, Arcuri said. When approached, Smith told the manager it had medical supplies inside. He then showed the manager a portion of the bag that didn't reveal the weapons.
The off-duty Westlake police officer also noticed Smith and his bag. After checking with the manager, the officer followed Smith into the empty theatre.
The officer said Smith consented to a search inside the theatre. Arcuri said the officer was more familiar with the bag, and knew where to look when he found a loaded 9 mm Glock pistol with two extra loaded magazines, Arcuri said. The officer also found three knifes in the bag and another knife on Smith, he said. There were also medical supplies, but Arcuri would not elaborate on what they were.
When the officer asked Smith why he brought the weapons into the theatre, Smith offered to put them in his car.
Police searched Smith's North Ridgeville home Monday night and found more weapons, including at least six pistols and several shotguns and rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Arcuri said Smith, who did not have a concealed carry permit, should not have brought any weapon to the theatre.
"Our job is to protect the community," he said of police. "It's not his role. If there's a gun, it's because our officers brought it. It's not his job to bring the gun, it's ours."
A 32-year-old man B.C. man is facing charges after allegedly threatening to carry out a copycat of the Colorado movie theatre shootings that left 12 people dead.
Mounties in North Vancouver say Ryan Lewis "made significant death threats" on his Facebook page "to commit crimes similar to the recent shootings in Colorado."
Lewis was arrested Aug. 1 and charged with uttering threats. He was released from police custody on several conditions, including that he not have access to the internet.
"The police are committed to keeping our communities safe and take these types of threats very seriously," said North Vancouver RCMP Cpl. Richard De Jong.
"Social media is a powerful tool and can be used for good or bad. Comments and postings are not private and for public safety reasons, are taken seriously."
Lewis is scheduled to make his first appearance in court in North Vancouver later Wednesday.
Twelve people died and 58 were wounded when a gunman opened fire on an audience attending the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises last month in Aurora, Colo. James Holmes, a 24-year-old former University of Colorado graduate student, is in custody and charged with dozens of counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder.
I think both side makes very good points but I would agree with Alex Jones and the American public more.
Piers is talking as if we're living in a perfect world where we can take guns away in one night. He thinks that banning guns in America will force everyone to hand in their guns. The reality is, guns are already out there in people's hands. You take guns away from people who are licensed to carry them, they are at risk to those who are illegally carrying them.
Right now, their society is sort of stuck in the middle. Either they go left and hand over all the guns in hopes that all gun violence will stop. Or they can go right and continue wielding their guns to fight off those who irresponsibly uses them.
Piers is arguing to stop guns shooting massacres while on the other side, they're arguing to fight against possible government tyranny.
Either way, guns are in people's hands now, legal or illegal, it's there. To turn back and take them away will take years and years to accomplish and might even have to deal with more shootings by people who still have them.
If guns are taken away, people will just find the next possible weapon/explosive to complete their tasks. Be it knives, pipe bombs, Molotov, gasoline, etc. It's the criminal and violence law they need to tackle. It's the people who are not sane in their mind that needs to be tackled. It's the people who place their firearms irresponsibly that needs to be tackled.
For those interested on this topic, watch the one with Ted Nugent, he made some valid points.
AJ acted like a child during the interview. He definitely has relevant points, but it's hard to take it seriously when he's yelling and shoving his finger at Morgan.
AJ acted like a child during the interview. He definitely has relevant points, but it's hard to take it seriously when he's yelling and shoving his finger at Morgan.
Because he knows that when he's the guest at someone's show, he's going to be thrown questions that if he doesn't answer accurately, he'll be viewed as someone didn't do his homework. Piers is holding the cards with the answers, and Alex is the one that have to answer them. It's a stupid confrontation tactics to show how dumb you are but really, these questions don't mean jack.
The statistics are there for everyone to see and Piers is refusing to accept them.
Because he knows that when he's the guest at someone's show, he's going to be thrown questions that if he doesn't answer accurately, he'll be viewed as someone didn't do his homework. Piers is holding the cards with the answers, and Alex is the one that have to answer them. It's a stupid confrontation tactics to show how dumb you are but really, these questions don't mean jack.
The statistics are there for everyone to see and Piers is refusing to accept them.
Just because he knows that doesn't mean he should act the way he did. He's doing more damage to his cause by behaving like an idiot.
If he knew what was going to happen, and knew he wasn't smart enough to have a regular debate, he shouldn't have accepted the invitation.
__________________
I searched for truth, and all I found was You
I wouldn't call Piers a clown, because the point he was trying to make was different than the one Alex Jones was trying to make. The discussion Piers was trying to have was about guns. Pure, plain and simple. Alex was trying to have a discussion about crime. And then social issues. And then the constitution. And then drugs. And then the American uprising against the British in 1776. Jon Stewart last night had this AMAZING rant that was incredibly good and coherent and is available online if you're in the US...but not in Canada. If someone can find a place that's posted it to leave here, I'd greatly appreciate it.
They're always talking over people, so I wouldn't even consider any of this proper debate.
Piers is using interrogating questions to prove his point while Alex Jones is screaming his lungs off to get his statistics across.
In other debates, they're either talking over each other or just throwing insults at each others face. Piers is not going to change anything here so I don't see why he even bother to try. And taking guns away and banning them is not going to help. That is why we have history classes, to not repeat them.
I wouldn't call Piers a clown, because the point he was trying to make was different than the one Alex Jones was trying to make. The discussion Piers was trying to have was about guns. Pure, plain and simple. Alex was trying to have a discussion about crime. And then social issues. And then the constitution. And then drugs. And then the American uprising against the British in 1776. Jon Stewart last night had this AMAZING rant that was incredibly good and coherent and is available online if you're in the US...but not in Canada. If someone can find a place that's posted it to leave here, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Sonick is a genius. I won't go into detail what's so great about his post. But it's damn good!
2010 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - Wifey's Daily Driver
2009 BMW 128i - Daily Driver
2007 Toyota Rav4 Sport V6 - Sold
1999 Mazda Miata - Sold
2003 Mazda Protege5 - Sold
1987 BMW 325is - Sold
1990 Mazda Miata - Sold
Watched half of it and done with. More of a comedy then a real discussion.
You do realize that Jon Stewart is a comedian with a television show on a comedy channel, right? He just so happens to base his topics on current events in a semi-serious nature...
Because he knows that when he's the guest at someone's show, he's going to be thrown questions that if he doesn't answer accurately, he'll be viewed as someone didn't do his homework. Piers is holding the cards with the answers, and Alex is the one that have to answer them. It's a stupid confrontation tactics to show how dumb you are but really, these questions don't mean jack.
The statistics are there for everyone to see and Piers is refusing to accept them.
So if you have a debate with anyone who has the correct answers to anything despite them holding the cards or not, it's a "confrontation tactic"?
That's how debates work, you have facts and you structure your argument around them.
AJ was annoying and rude, but hidden within his rant, there were some valid points.
I doubt that the south will rise again, but it was true that the UK is still suffering from violent crime w/ a weapon, regardless of their ban on guns.
His rant about government conspiracies pretty much ruined his credibility, not to forget his colorful speech on the south.
I like that our system prevents a lot of the crazies from aquiring weaponry legally, I think that it's a fair trade between the ability to own firearms and public safety measures.
A complete ban on legal firearms is a mistake, it destroys a way of life, and enables criminals to be more confident with their exploits, knowing that the only people with the guns have to be called in, regardless if the current legal owners only have them for sporting purposes.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
