Toronto Boxing Day Shooting

[Bait]

OR, listen to Chris Rock and restrict bullets.

Also, should this be in the politics section? I have a feeling it will end up political.

$5000 bullets ftw.


Seriously.

 

[OvA]

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I disagree
How is it your right to own something that's sole purpose is to kill? The fact that people walk around with guns with intent to kill, aren't they infringing on my rights?
I'm so sick of reading the paper every day and reading about another murder. It's asinine

The handguns used in the incident weren't even legal. A ban on handguns before that would have had 0 effect on the outcome of this. Are they going to go turn in their illegal firearm because another law has come and said they're not allowed to have it? No.

Banning guns = less shootings.

And there are studies that show easing restrictions for law abiding citizens also lowers crime/shootings. Banning guns for lawful citizens does not make it any harder for a criminal to acquire them. The only way for that to have worked is for them to have never been allowed in the first place or never been invented.

 

[Shasta]

Banning handguns won't get them off the streets. It'll just take away more of your rights.

This is a typically American attitude, crying about rights. Sure banning handguns won't stop shootings, but it's a start. America is so obsessed about rights, that I'm surprised all prisoners don't have full cable tv access, a spa in each room, and a personal massuse for "the stresses of prison life". Seriously.

Not trying to "bash Americans" but as a country- get a clue.

 

[CptStern]

I read some article today where they were blaming the US for exporting violence to Canada... I like how they're passing the buck on the problem, when what they really need to do is sort it all out.

ummm meaning the majority of illegal guns coming into canada are from the US, meaning that the gun culture is slowly creeping it's way here

This is tragic, but living in the US, this is nothing really uncommon or new to me, so, I say deal with it

exactly our point: we dont want to be like you


oh and you americans crying about how banning guns has no effect, please keep your opiunions to yourself because canada is NOT the US ..the US is far more saturated with guns than canada is ..banning guns here WILL have an effect

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

ummm meaning the majority of illegal guns coming into canada are from the US, meaning that the gun culture is slowly creeping it's way here




exactly our point: we dont want to be like you


oh and you americans crying about how banning guns has no effect, please keep your opiunions to yourself because canada is NOT the US ..the US is far more saturated with guns than canada is ..banning guns here WILL have an effect

Well, whatever, your rights to throw away. Just don't want the idea of clamping down on those fundamental freedoms to spread here.

 

[Nat Turner]

Well, whatever, your rights to throw away. Just don't want the idea of clamping down on those fundamental freedoms to spread here.

The thing is, people of other countries usually don't care about rights. I agree though. Their rights to throw away, their genocides to create. Not our problem.

 

[OvA]

Oh come on people! Bear arms?

 

[Muffin Man]

Oh come on people! Bear arms?

haha, thats pretty good ;D. I dont think guns should be banned, but deff harder to obtain. if a citizen wants to defend themselves bad enough, they can, hopefully it will catch some criminals trying to get guns in the process. sure therer are black market guns, but as somebody said, its a start. Really, I dont want to be like an american either, but i am one. Criminals with good beahavior sometiems can get flat pannel T.V.'s in their cells for gods sake !!! I don't have a god damn t.v. like that and i havent done anything bad in my life. we really need to do something, not just in canada and america either, though canada is much better off atm.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Oh come on people! Bear arms?

OH.

My sides hurt now

 

[CptStern]

Well, whatever, your rights to throw away. Just don't want the idea of clamping down on those fundamental freedoms to spread here.

how is the right to bear a weapon a fundamental freedom? the right exist is a fundamental freedom carrying a gun isnt

 

[Muffin Man]

how is the right to bear a weapon a fundamental freedom? the right to exist is a fundamental freedom carrying a gun isnt

QFT (and fixed grammatical error )

 

[OvA]

If I am unable to defend myself, I may not exist anymore

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

how is the right to bear a weapon a fundamental freedom? the right exist is a fundamental freedom carrying a gun isnt

The right to defend yourself effectively. Either way, we won't lose it here, just sucks for you guys if it happens. You say to butt out but just because it's not a support for your side of the arguement, I'm sure those not looking forward to losing any rights accept any support for their cause foreign or domestic.

 

[Greatgat]

QFT (and fixed grammatical error )

The right to exist isn't a fundamental freedom. The right to fight for existence is, for those who choose to do so. Not that I'm saying guns are the way to do so, but still.

 

[Nat Turner]

how is the right to bear a weapon a fundamental freedom? the right exist is a fundamental freedom carrying a gun isnt

Should you have the right to own a house? It's the same line of thought. Also, if we aren't allowed to bear arms, we would be unable to fight against oppressive governments or criminals. You may not understand this, but the government is not always right.

 

[Greatgat]

Should you have the right to own a house? It's the same line of thought. Also, if we aren't allowed to bear arms, we would be unable to fight against oppressive governments or criminals. You may not understand this, but the government is not always right.

Speaking of, did you know that most forms of insurance will not cover you if the damage is caused by "revolution"? That's right, if you or anyone else attempts to overthrow your oppressive regime, your insurance will not cover your damages.

To me, this implies that insurance companies expect a despot to be overthrown moreso than your house burning down. Think about it. They want us to be armed.

 

[OvA]

Should you have the right to own a house? It's the same line of thought. Also, if we aren't allowed to bear arms, we would be unable to fight against oppressive governments or criminals. You may not understand this, but the government is not always right.

Nat Turner = correct

 

[Shasta]

Damn dirty paraniod Americans. When will you learn? If you can't play nice without shooting each other, or accusing each other of trying to shoot you, or giving more rights to criminals than you do to their victims, you will be sent to the "time out corner". Is that understood?

 

[Nat Turner]

Damn dirty paraniod Americans. When will you learn? If you can't play nice without shooting each other, or accusing each other of trying to shoot you, or giving more rights to criminals than you do to their victims, you will be sent to the "time out corner". Is that understood?

You're not a criminal until you commit a crime.

 

[Yuri]

Damn dirty paraniod Americans. When will you learn? If you can't play nice without shooting each other, or accusing each other of trying to shoot you, or giving more rights to criminals than you do to their victims, you will be sent to the "time out corner". Is that understood?

Yes, sir.

Man I hate being punished for other people's mistakes.

You're not a criminal until you commit a crime.

...wut?

 

[Qonfused]

I agree that guns should be allowed but only handguns and such. Why does a normal person need a Tec9? Why? There's no reason. You don't hunt with a Tec9.

 

[Nat Turner]

Yes, sir.

Man I hate being punished for other people's mistakes.
...wut?

Oh I think I misunderstood him. NM

 

[Yuri]

I agree that guns should be allowed but only handguns and such. Why does a normal person need a Tec9? Why? There's no reason. You don't hunt with a Tec9.

You can't have a Tec9. You can't have automatic weapons. It's illegal.

I disagree, I think any weapon that isn't specifically for hunting should be illegallized. If you must "protect" yourself, buy a rifle. Woo.

 

[Nat Turner]

You can't have a Tec9. You can't have automatic weapons. It's illegal.

I disagree, I think any weapon that isn't specifically for hunting should be illegallized. If you must "protect" yourself, buy a rifle. Woo.

Do you have a reason behind this, or do you just hate rights?

 

[Qonfused]

You can't have a Tec9. You can't have automatic weapons. It's illegal.

Well, whatever. But I do know that I (well, you get the point... I'm not of age, but, meh...) can go down to a gun shop and buy an AK-47, M4, any submachine gun by signing a few papers. Of course, they have to be semi-automatic. Still, I'm not going to shoot a deer with an MP5, am I?

I really don't get it.

"We should legalize semi-automatic weapons so people can defend themselves better." DUMBASS, THEN THE RAPERS, ETC. CAN BUY THEM TOO.
****ing hell.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

The handguns used in the incident weren't even legal. A ban on handguns before that would have had 0 effect on the outcome of this. Are they going to go turn in their illegal firearm because another law has come and said they're not allowed to have it? No.

sure but when the criminals are caught, the law would come down harder on them because of such a handgun ban... now imagine that with a mandatory minimum sentence of say 5 years in prison... some criminals will think twice before acting.

 

[Nat Turner]

Well, whatever. But I do know that I (well, you get the point... I'm not of age, but, meh...) can go down to a gun shop and buy an AK-47, M4, any submachine gun by signing a few papers. Of course, they have to be semi-automatic. Still, I'm not going to shoot a deer with an MP5, am I?

I really don't get it.

"We should legalize semi-automatic weapons so people can defend themselves better." DUMBASS, THEN THE RAPERS, ETC. CAN BUY THEM TOO.
****ing hell.

The "rapers" aren't rapists until they rape someone and are convicted in a fair trial. Is there something about this you do not understand? Second of all, if you ban pistols along with machine guns, do you think all the criminals will turn them in?

The statistics are not even on your side. There is no real correlation between crime rates and gun ownership laws. I've looked up numerous sources on this, and there's no way to say that banning guns reduces crime. Look at Washington D.C., which has banned handguns, yet has the highest murder rate in the U.S.

What I'm saying is that you should look a situation at every possible angle until you are absolutely sure that certain rights are too dangerous for us to have. In the case of gun ownership, there is certainly no way to justify such restrictions. In this case, your cursory attempt to fix a problem would not only restrict individual liberties, which we fought a revolution over, but could actually worsen the welfare of people in general. I don't care for the way you would just idly toss out rights on a whim.

 

[Nat Turner]

sure but when the criminals are caught, the law would come down harder on them because of such a handgun ban... now imagine that with a mandatory minimum sentence of say 5 years in prison... some criminals will think twice before acting.

There is such thing as "assault with a deadly weapon." This is different from "assault". This is already in effect in every state, I believe.

 

[Shasta]

I'm scared that I might get robbed or my house may get broken into, by someone that may or may not have a gun. I want to protect myself, so I'm going to move to America, the land of the free, where we can all have constitutional rights to carry all sorts of excessive weapons.

BUT- I'm a bad shot. I might miss the evil person, even with my powerfull handguns etc, or worse- my bad aim could kill the neighbors kid. My gun might go off in my pocket when I'm on the bus, and kill some kid,- but I know his parent's would understand and still support my right to defend myself, so that's OK.

Etc.

 

[Nat Turner]

I'm scared that I might get robbed or my house may get broken into, by someone that may or may not have a gun. I want to protect myself, so I'm going to move to America, the land of the free, where we can all have constitutional rights to carry all sorts of excessive weapons.

BUT- I'm a bad shot. I might miss the evil person, even with my powerfull handguns etc, or worse- my bad aim could kill the neighbors kid. My gun might go off in my pocket when I'm on the bus, and kill some kid,- but I know his parent's would understand and still support my right to defend myself, so that's OK.

Etc.

Then you go to jail. What's your point? You could also run a kid over with your car.

Also, you must prove that this is actually a reasonable risk. You should find statistics showing that in cases of self defense with pistols, neighbors often get shot.

 

[Qonfused]

It's 2:03 in the morning. I'm not going to research anything.

Seriously, think about it. What good is a sub-machine gun going to be on the streets? What do you do with it? Shoot it for fun? Sure. Anything else? No. Nothing GOOD is going to come out of it. A handgun is perfectly fine to protect yourself against whoever's/whatever's out there. A semi-automatic, accurate, 30 round magazine is not needed in any situation.

Also, just because the constitution says we can have a gun, doesn't mean we should. Using the constitution as a reason to have a gun is no reason at all.

 

[Yuri]

Do you have a reason behind this, or do you just hate rights?

Do you have a reason behind making post after post which makes no sense? Hate rights? That's stretching it a little there, dude.

I don't want to be paranoid and hold on to my trusty sidearm at all times. I think that illegalizing guns would make firearm-related murders, especially accidental ones, much less frequent. Just like it did in most countries where firearms are illegal.

I understand that hunting is something that a lot of people love to do (even if I disagree with it), so it should be our right to own hunting rifles. However, sidearms and guns with characteristics that are obviously not meant for hunting, seem to only lead to unneccesary deaths and danger. It's not our right to own automatic firearms, explosives, or biological weapons. Because we don't need those things. I don't understand why a person would need to own a firearm.

Well, whatever. But I do know that I (well, you get the point... I'm not of age, but, meh...) can go down to a gun shop and buy an AK-47, M4, any submachine gun by signing a few papers. Of course, they have to be semi-automatic. Still, I'm not going to shoot a deer with an MP5, am I?

I was just stating that, is all. You know, the ban on a lot of dangerous and unneccesary rifles was just lifted one year ago, and still has yet to pass again.

The "rapers" aren't rapists until they rape someone and are convicted in a fair trial.

Why do you keep saying things like that? That doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.

 

[Qonfused]

I don't understand why a person would need to own a firearm.

To protect ourselves right other people with firearms. So take out the variable...

 

[Nat Turner]

Do you have a reason behind making post after post which makes no sense? Hate rights? That's stretching it a little there, dude.

I don't want to be paranoid and hold on to my trusty sidearm at all times. I think that illegalizing guns would make firearm-related murders, especially accidental ones, much less frequent. Just like it did in most countries where firearms are illegal.

Yes, you think. Yet you have no evidence, showing by default you want to restrict MY liberties.

And people shouldn't be able to mess up and make accidents? Shouldn't they be able to choose this risk?

I understand that hunting is something that a lot of people love to do (even if I disagree with it), so it should be our right to own hunting rifles. However, sidearms and guns with characteristics that are obviously not meant for hunting, seem to only lead to unneccesary deaths and danger. It's not our right to own automatic firearms, explosives, or biological weapons. Because we don't need those things. I don't understand why a person would need to own a firearm.

We do need these things to defend our homes in places with high crime rates. Personally, I do not need a firearm, because I do not live in such a place. When you restrict gun ownership, it gives criminals more incentive to break into homes and risk the lives of good citizens. I agree that explosives and biological weapons are not necessary, but automatics and pistols should be allowed. You have not yet provided an overwhelmingly strong reason to restrict liberty.

 

[Nat Turner]

To protect ourselves right other people with firearms. So take out the variable...

Making it illegal to own firearms doesn't suddenly make every gun go *poof*. The criminals still have them, and can still buy them. You're just taking away freedom (which by now I am absolutely assured you don't give 2 sh*ts about) from good citizens.

 

[Yuri]

To protect ourselves right other people with firearms. So take out the variable...

...huh?

 

[Qonfused]

Firearms are the variable. Got it?

Err, oh, there was a typo...
I meant "To protect ourselves from other people with firearms."

 

[Shasta]

Then you go to jail. What's your point? You could also run a kid over with your car.

Also, you must prove that this is actually a reasonable risk. You should find statistics showing that in cases of self defense with pistols, neighbors often get shot.

OK. I live in New Zealand. We have about 4 million people here, and about 3 firearms related deaths each year (usually acidental hunting or police apprehending a particularly violent criminal. Can any similar size city / population base in America boast the same? Not many if any, I imagine. Do you know why? Go on, have a guess. Concentrate hard. Bingo! Only a handful of people are allowed guns, and only hunting style rifles at that.

More legal guns= more places for people to steal them from.

 

[Yuri]

Yes, you think. Yet you have no evidence, showing by default you want to restrict MY liberties.

And people shouldn't be able to mess up and make accidents? Shouldn't they be able to choose this risk?

My reason for posting the word "think" was because I didn't want to sound like a know-it-all jerkoff who's opinion is the only one that matters. I live in this country, too, and my vote counts (or should count) just as much as yours. Do you have evidence? Stop thowing the "evidence" card at people when you're not providing any yourself.

And no one with children should be able to risk their children's lives. Or the lives of anyone, anyone else besides their own.

We do need these things to defend our homes in places with high crime rates. Personally, I do not need a firearm, because I do not live in such a place. When you restrict gun ownership, it gives criminals more incentive to break into homes and risk the lives of good citizens. I agree that explosives and biological weapons are not necessary, but automatics and pistols should be allowed. You have not yet provided an overwhelmingly strong reason to restrict liberty.

Automatics should be allowed? Why, so you can take out an army? Why in god's name would you ever, ever need an automatic weapon?

I'm more for the restriction of firearms then the complete ban of them. Pistols is something I would love to see illegalized, but I accept that it won't happen. Doesn't change my opinion about them.

"Defending" your home. Ugh, you make it sound like the US is some sort of war zone.

And there ya go, Shasta is here with the statistics and "evidence" that you keep complaining for. Japan is similar, and Hong Kong as well, I believe.

Firearms are the variable. Got it?

Err, oh, there was a typo...
I meant "To protect ourselves from other people with firearms."

Oh, I get it now. Couldn't understand it at first.