Oregon shooting, 10 reported killed so far

[l/l/rX]

Originally posted by sputnik


63 in 7 months might seem like a big number but there are similarly sized cities in the US that will see 63+ shootings over a weekend.

My point was, we have way stricter gun rules here in Canada vs the US, but yet we're seeing a significant amount of shootings still regardless gun laws or not.

Edit: just incase if you missed it in my last point of my previous post, im definitely not saying they shouldnt change a thing, i want them to at least take a step in the right direction ie) obtaining permits the very least to purchase a firearm.

[Canmorite]

I saw a photo that said: "In retrospect, Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

Not enough people give a fuck. Too many gun nuts and NRA supporters that don't like facts on gun control.

[Feruk]

Who gives a crap?

US mass shooting are now an American pastime. They have zero desire to change this, so I don't see why we'd bother discussing.

[codetrap]

.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by sputnik


63 in 7 months might seem like a big number but there are similarly sized cities in the US that will see 63+ shootings over a weekend.

What city typically has that kind of shooting crime? Detroit, maybe. But true enough about comparing our city to those in the US.

We're sitting at about 108 per year, projected. As a comparison, Chicago had roughly over 7 a day, on average. Granted, they have over double our population but could you imagine 3 shootings a day, or 1100 shootings over the year here in Calgary?

I'm pretty happy with 10% of that number, thanks.

As far as having permits to buy guns (or lack thereof in many areas of the US), I do think it is a good step to curb the gun violence. Sure, lawful owners and purchasers may turn and use the gun for violence, but at least checks for mental health, criminal record and safety knowledge can be performed.

It still does nothing for the majority of shooting crimes though, done with black market guns.

[codetrap]

.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by Feruk


US mass shooting are now an American pastime. They have zero desire to change this, so I don't see why we'd bother discussing.

This is one of the dividends of a highly militarized society.

It's not possible to export violence without also importing it yourself.

[g-m]

Originally posted by Feruk
Who gives a crap?

US mass shooting are now an American pastime. They have zero desire to change this, so I don't see why we'd bother discussing.

[HuMz]

Since this issue was politicized as soon as the bodies hit the floor, as if guns were somehow responsible. The motive is now clear that the shooter was specifically targeting Christians. The shooter directly went up to people and asked if they were a christian, if so they were shot in the head.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by l/l/rX


My point was, we have way stricter gun rules here in Canada vs the US, but yet we're seeing a significant amount of shootings still regardless gun laws or not.

Edit: just incase if you missed it in my last point of my previous post, im definitely not saying they shouldnt change a thing, i want them to at least take a step in the right direction ie) obtaining permits the very least to purchase a firearm.

9 per month in a city of over a million people is not a significant number.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Good thing Oregon is a nice, safe, open-carry state, AMIRITE? Where were all these "good people with a gun"?

Fucking bullshit.

Once again, people are massacred in a country that doesn't give a flying FUCK about their population. Nothing will change, ever. This isn't even news anymore. It's an every day occurrence.

Good people with a gun weren't allowed there, it was a no gun zone, as are 92% of mass shootings in the US. In fact, there was a debate last year to arm the security guard and they ruled against it. Had that guard had a gun he would have been that "good guy with a gun".

Could he have taken down the shooter? It's possible, but I think the better question is "Would the shooter have still targeted the school knowing that there was a armed guard on site?" To that I would speculate no.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by codetrap


http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

Chicago has 2.7 Million people.. and they've had 2326 shootings this year.

Calgary has 1.1 Milion, and there's bee 63 shootings.

But hey, they don't need gun control at all.

Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the US, why is it they always have some of the highest murder rates committed by guns?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by HuMz


Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the US, why is it they always have some of the highest murder rates committed by guns?

Because apparently banning guns actually stops criminals from using them to committee crimes.

Or so the gun control folks would have you think.

And anyone who wants to speak about “US gun laws” needs to specify which of the 51 sets of rules they are referencing.

[Canucks3322]

Originally posted by HuMz


Good people with a gun weren't allowed there, it was a no gun zone, as are 92% of mass shootings in the US. In fact, there was a debate last year to arm the security guard and they ruled against it. Had that guard had a gun he would have been that "good guy with a gun".

Could he have taken down the shooter? It's possible, but I think the better question is "Would the shooter have still targeted the school knowing that there was a armed guard on site?" To that I would speculate no.

Ya cuz the guy with the assault rifles he bought at Walmart is thinking twice about the minimum wage guy with a tiny gun.... I hate this fucking argument, it's so dumb.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Canucks3322


Ya cuz the guy with the assault rifles he bought at Walmart is thinking twice about the minimum wage guy with a tiny gun.... I hate this fucking argument, it's so dumb.

Since when does Walmart sell NFA firearms? If you're going to argue points about something use the correct terms, because there is a huge difference between an assault rifle and a semiauto sporting rifle.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Canucks3322


Ya cuz the guy with the assault rifles he bought at Walmart is thinking twice about the minimum wage guy with a tiny gun.... I hate this fucking argument, it's so dumb.

Many of these mass shootings involve handguns, not the big bad assault rifles. You seem to be equating the security guards status or income as having something to do with his ability and accuracy to shoot a gun. How are these 2 things related?

If the argument is dumb then address it, instead of trying to claim that a security guard wouldn't be able to take down a shooter because of his tiny gun. This shooter had time to line people up and question them, plenty of time for someone to respond fire with a "tiny gun".

[codetrap]

.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by FraserB


Because apparently banning guns actually stops criminals from using them to committee crimes.

Or so the gun control folks would have you think.

And anyone who wants to speak about “US gun laws” needs to specify which of the 51 sets of rules they are referencing.

Because the gun laws of the states surrounding Illinois are also some of the loosest in the country. Their biggest problem is the flow of guns into Chicago.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


Because the gun laws of the states surrounding Illinois are also some of the loosest in the country. Their biggest problem is the flow of guns into Chicago.

Doesn't this indicate that strict gun restriction laws on law abiding citizens do nothing to stop the flow of illegal guns?

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by HuMz


Doesn't this indicate that strict gun restriction laws on law abiding citizens do nothing to stop the flow of illegal guns?

What's wrong with strict gun laws on law-abiding citizens? We have strict guns laws here, and people still have guns.

A problem in the US is that each state has different laws regarding guns, and unless a federal mandate is put in place, guns will continue to flow/cross borders from loosely regulated states.

The argument of "well one piece of legislation isn't working, so let's not do fuck all to prevent mass murders" is probably the shittiest argument and biggest disregard for human life I've ever heard. The US is the only developed nation in the world with such a disproportionately high mass murder rate because of their current legislation (or lack thereof).