People wouldn't have their guns drawn. The guy could just pull the gun out at point-blank and kill the other guy. In America he'd pull out an AR-15 from a trench coat in a crowd and kill 10 people before someone could do something about it
Wolfie I don't think you get it. I believe he shot one person? If that were an AR-15 with an extended mag how many do you think it would be? Criminals will buy guns illegally! What about the vast majority of crimes which are not premeditated like that? Suicides mainly, kids accidentally shooting someone, crimes of passion, hunting accidents etc... I always site the same things in this argument, may favorite is suicide. If I'm remembering it correctly from last time I argued guns on kaw forums, each day the equivalent of a sandyhook shooting happens per day in suicides. Well over half of suicides fail, because killing yourself cleanly without much damage isn't so easy, and people usually talk themselves out of it. Know what method has a 90% success rate though? Guns. Also one of the most common methods. I'm not saying ban guns. I own guns. I'm saying the argument is not near as simple as conservatives make it out to be. There are two sides. Cite Israel, where everyone has military training and many (most?) people carry guns. Very few shootings. Well I counter cite Britain. No one has guns except the police and criminals. Last year there was less than 10 shooting deaths if I am remembering correctly. People kill people, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Don't just read this and say "EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE GUNS! Then this guy would have been shot sooner!" Didn't I just read in the op that over 50 shots were fired, mostly from guards? You think normal citizens with hand guns would be better than a parliamentary guard? It's never as simple as you make it out.
Threads like this make me realize how prevalent denial and cognitive dissonance are about politics. There are two sides, look at them. There is idiots on both sides, don't just looks at the other sides idiots. Look at the reason, look at the logic, understand where they are coming from.
I can post to that igerpums. Understanding where shooters come from. I'll use Canadians events. This reminds me of Jason Bourque for some reason. The Canadian Rambo guy who shot the cops. The targeting of the soldier, and the attack on parliament. It also reminds of a event in the US. Where a couple gunned down 2 Las Vegas police. Jerad and Amanda Miller. Strung, out misguided political junkies. They even got booted from a militia group right beforehand. With limit knowledge of the latest shooter in Canada I still feel it's more like the other misfits. Even if some Islamic ties are made or have already been made. Where these people come from is a desperation to find meaning in their life. To be more than they are. To feel they can make a difference in regards to things they do not accept or approve of. Specifically politically. I don't see this as a ISIS terrorist attack. But rather a domestic incident with other underlying issues that allows the individual to relate. Gun laws. Please...
Well that is spot on progressive liberalism. It's been echoed. Unless Canada is being attacked by ISIS. Whatever you guys like. It's your country.
Well it could be like the Philippines with communist guerrillas running around. Or so I've heard. I haven't had the pleasure of experiencing the country first hand. Or like the US with a million gang bangers on the streets. I'm sure the members of parliament were ******** in their pants. I even heard somebody saying Canada has lost her innocence. Stephen Harper chiming in with Canada won't be intimidated rhetoric. They even are allowing ISIS to troll over tweeter. I would think leadership and mature members of media would be able to ignore stuff like that. And then to advertise it so the curious search it out. That's was kind of dumb. CNN... The perspective is different with the common folks though. It was a shooting. The place makes this news and the fact it was a "Muslim". 2 state police were murdered in Pennsylvania. The guy is still on the loose in the woods. I think. I'm not current on the story. For a reason. It's wasn't on the news 24/7. It wasn't a Muslim. It was a white guy. Another day...
Here's the thing. The reason it's so easy for criminals to get guns illegally is because they aren't very well regulated. Think about it. Your car has a unique Vehicle Identification Number that's attached to the vehicle and recorded on the title. A record is kept every time the title is transferred indicating the seller and the purchaser. If you wish to operate the vehicle on public roads, it must be registered, tagged, insured, and you must pass a driving test. Because of regulations, it's not hard to trace the ownership of the vehicle all the way back to the original purchaser. It's harder to do that with guns because the fact is, they're less regulated. How do most criminals get guns? We don't know for sure, because federal funding into gun research was frozen in 1996 by Congress under pressure from N.R.A. lobbyists. The government can't even study the problem. However, the ATF lists three common ways criminals get guns: "Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms. Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check. Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.” http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/ ... and-youth/ Now imagine how much harder it would be to get guns this way if gun sales and ownership were at least as well regulated as cars. I don't have a problem with owning firearms, within reason. But unlike cars, firearms are weapons, designed to kill. And I don't see anything unreasonable about requiring a background check and registration of the weapon in order for someone to own one.
Wonder were all the anti gun liberals are at now 1 guy with his gun saved the canadian government. Would this have happened here we would be hearing on how killing a terrorist was wrong and how peace officers should of shoot them on the leg or arm blah blah blah as much as i hate to say it i think camps should be opened up again put all liberals and muslims/isis supporters and let them rot.
I never said background checks are bad I was referring to when things go beyond that making it harder for innocent people to have guns.
I think it would be generous to accuse you of thinking. First, not all liberals are anti-gun. Many are simply pro-responsibility. That requires universal background checks and registration. If that's too much of a burden for you in order to own a weapon, then perhaps you shouldn't own a weapon. Just a thought. Second, while your type is quick to point out that the Constitution gives you the right to bear arms, you seem to forget the fact that it also gives you the right to worship whomever you want. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The First Amendment to the United States Constitution That includes Muslims. Furthermore, there's this thing called "due process" in the Constitution. "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution You can't simply round up groups people you don't like and imprison them because they belong to a group. That includes liberals and Muslims. Your Constitution. Learn it, live it, love it.
Universal back ground checks aren't the main problem Dragon. It's universal registry. When news papers start posting the names and addresses of gun owners. It becomes a problem. When Mexico starts asking for the gun registry, that is a problem. Real world examples. There are more. If gun owners could trust that information wouldn't be leaked and stored in a secure data base maybe some could go along with it a little easier.
Plus with the ISIS narratives flying around, getting stricter gun laws is fantasy. If you think the gun guys were drawing a hard line before, I imagine they are even more dug in now. Is what is interesting is the fact that anyone wanting to commit a gun crime. Whether it's related to actions of the State, or random violence. Can walk into Walmart and buy that weapon. I'm looking forward to how that dynamic will play out in the future. Or if it will even considered in future policy discussion and debate. With the current atmosphere with Ebola and ISIS the need for the State is being pushed greatly upon the public. The creation of CDC "swat teams" should be a interesting evolution as well. Especially with the state being interjected into our health care through the new ACA laws. It's a real political pickle for everyone.