Another mass shooting in America

3 gun competition.

 

That's insane!

Never heard of a competition that required a gun with a 30 round magazine. But if the choice is between some obscure "competition" and the life of people (including many children), the winner is clear.

Is that the best you can do?

 

Just because you don't partake doesn't mean it isn't a valid use.

You asked for one, I gave it to you.

 

In that case, we are all at the wrong end of cars. They should be banned.

 

In Canada, we also play Dungeons and Dragons, and we also have access to the most violent video games.

But, mass shooting are extremely rare. About one per 4 years.

Why ?

That's because gun laws are very strict.

Simple as that.

 

NO- you missed the target.

I can recall a trip a few years back while visiting my wife's daughter, who lives in Canada. We drove several hundred miles, touring- and I was surprised at some of the big differences from what I was used to in the midwest USA. As we drove past hundreds of farms and rural properties, I noticed that they were all well cared for. No old equipment or junk cars sitting around lawns mowed, building in good repair. As we met people, I noticed another difference- a generally respectful attitude between them, and friendly and helpful to us as visitors. No attitude issues, and one where people seemed to understand that they were responsible for their personal behavior.
They had pride in who they were, and I don't think I met a single person who was focused on blaming others. As you see on this forum- we have a lot of people who think others are responsible for making them happy, and they have no problem telling other people what's wrong with them.

That is culture; an inherent attitude in the people- in Canada, that provides for communication and understanding- and in general, allows people to resolve things logically. It does not promote hostility and rudeness. Unfortunately,ours is different; it regularly often does just that. The American culture is becoming more that way than ever before- and the result is irrational behavior, personal confusion and stress, and ultimately- violence. Our level of maturity as individuals is declining.

We don't have a gun problem- we have a people problem. It's the same as the difference between a party attended by responsible adults and one attended by irresponsible teens- there is invariably more conflict, more act-out, more bad behavior in the latter. We have cultivated a level of weakness and immaturity in recent generation, and they lack the personal responsibility and self-discipline to behave as adults.

My compliments to Canadians and other nations who are not dealing with this. There are a lot of good responsible people in America- but unfortunately, a lot of jackasses too; many who have degrees from our liberal universities and believe everything they think they know is right. The don't understand, but they know.

Now as an American, I am sorry to have to admit this- but it is true; denial of it only guarantees it won't be addressed.

 

True, America’s problem is a vapid soulless culture created by the progressive abandonment of religious belief and the destruction of all things traditional.

 

Sorry to say it like that, but this theory is totally ridiculous.

In Canada, we have as much mental illness as US: depressions, schizophrenia, divorces that go wrong etc.

The only difference, it's that's difficult to have access to guns. especialy semi-auto.

So here, a madman will not have the opportunity to make a lot of victims.

While in US, what he needs is just around the corner.

 

Let me laugh at this.

In Canada, the churches are empty and we have one of the most liberal Prime Minister in the world.

If your theory were accurate, we would have at least 40 mass shooting each year.

 

Mental illness is not the problem that is out of hand- it's cultural illness. People being raised poorly, lacking social skills and personal responsibility. It's mental dysfunction and disorder- not mental illness or mental defect.

 

Gun laws are very strict in Chicago too. Theyre approaching 600 murders this year.

Nothing is simple.

 

Chicago is only a city.

Gun proliferation is a national issue.

 

Not if you live in Chicago.

Comparing Canada with the US is like comparing apples and oranges. The whole mentality is different

 

"Only a city". In scale, a small nation. The state of Illinois where Chicago is located is also a scale model. Both have the strongest gun laws in the nation. They haven't worked.
If you can't correlate cause and effect without excluding arguments that don't support your point- your point gets invalidated. As Concealed Carry laws (CC) spread around the US, violent crimes dropped right along with the dissemination of CC. The places who blocked that had the opposite effect, and the leader in that was Illinois, with Chicago adding more restrictions.

The problem has nothing to do with guns or weapons- it has to do with criminal mentality and intent; a cultural character issue, and we have some pretty bad examples. Surprisingly, most criminals are far more deterred by the death penalty when it might be applied instantly to them, without trial, appeals or an iffy 15-year delay- because the person they attacked defended themselves. The more difficult it is for honest people to have weapons, the greater the advantage criminals have. The bad guys love the gun-control freaks.

 

Of course.

Americans do not want security unlike all other inhabitants of this planet.

They like to live in a violent society.

When there's a mass shooting, people look forward to the next one.

While in Canada, we are naturally peaceful.

Have enough sarcasm ?

 

Arkanis, surely you can understand the aspect of culture.

If you go to a meeting of professional people, you will see mutual respect.
If you go to a meeting of teen-age bullies, you will see mutual hostility.

The difference here is state of mind and mature values. Unfortunately, our society has raised a lot of people who lack self-respect and solid values.
The lack of proper discipline in families has produced a lot of people unable, or unwilling, to discipline themselves. That won't change anytime soon, and no law will get the job done. When it gets bad enough (and we hope that time has come) society will step back and take a new course. Hopefully.

 

First, the effect of a law is not immediate.

It takes 15-25 years to see a result.

Second, Chicago has no borders. Guns can move freely from one state to another.

Try to cross the Canadian border with Ar-15s.

Good luck.

That's the difference.

So youre main argument is Americains are more lunatics than other folks.

 

Yes. As a matter of fact, you did.

Maybe the right should start thinking more about human life and stop making up lame excuses for not enacting gun legislation to save lives.

 

You obviously haven't researched the laws of Illinois. If you have a Concealed Carry license that is honored all over the American nation, you won't find it honored in Illinois, and you will likely find yourself arrested if you bring a gun in- even for a purpose the is totally legitimate such as a training class. You can fly in with a declared weapon in a locked safety case with the full knowledge and permission of the airline, and be arrested at the counter when you go to claim it. They are out of step with the rest of the nation by a substantial margin. Guns do not move freely in and out of Illinois without violation of existing laws- at least by law abiding persons. New laws would be in exactly the same situation.
Yet with all that anti-gun law and mindset, Chicago sees about the same number of murders as those that took place at the Texas church- every week.

The AR15 is not a military weapon- the military does not and has not ever owned them. It is a semi-auto version of military styles, but it's looks- while intimidating- do not change the capacity. The popularity of the AR15 is due to it's being highly modular, meaning that it can be configured in a wide variety of ways. It would seem that unless you have laws controlling the cosmetic appearance of the rifle rather than the functionality, it is the same as any other semi-auto at the border.

And I didn't say lunatics, I said we had people with dysfunctional states of mind. We have failed to teach proper responsibility to the last few generations; allowed people to grow up weak and dependent- and angry because they feel they have no control. That is a cultural effect. Laws will not cure that. As one jurist told me- personal responsibility would be a fantastic social vaccine, if we can just find a way to inject it.

As to time- doing the wrong thing and waiting 20 years to see if it works is ridiculous. You may not be aware of the number of weapons in America. There are 300 million they know about, and I would estimate another 100 million they don't. These are not going to disappear, no matter what is done. While the most repressive laws might disarm honest people, the criminal element would love it. Probably make donations to the idiots promoting such things.

Nothing changes cultures overnight, and laws meaning to do so usually do more damage than good. However, society does tend to correct itself over time, if it doesn't destroy itself first.

 

Let me know when you have a report of a gun killing people. Not a person using a gun, just the gun.
If you can remove the gun and stop the murder, that would be good.
If you think reducing the choice of weapons is going to erase the intent of a person determined to kill, please tell me how that works.

I do think about human life. If someone breaks into my house, I would protect everyone here.
What's more the person who intended to harm our lives would never harm others again.
That is how you save lives.

 

No, it's not.

A good father, with an excellent education, can go crazy after a divorce and kill all his relatives.

Or go to his working place and shoot at his colleagues.

Mental health is not a permanent state.

This is why access to guns is a crucial issue.

 

Why would I do such an absurd thing? A gun without a person is as incapable of performing gun violence as a person without a gun.

Obviously the first option (the one you bring up) could not be more ridiculous. Unlike the second one which is grounded on reality. You can't eliminate the "person" in this equation. But you can eliminate the gun.

Double fallacy here: Strawman and Redcutio ad Absurdum Fallacy. I have already provided a reference that would help you avoid these. I strongly suggest reading it.

So... we agree.

Please repeat your question after you have read the post that started this conversation

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ting-in-america.518289/page-4#post-1068230391

And you need an "assault weapon" with 30-round magazines to do that? Above you said something about "the choice of weapons". If your point there was that this doesn't make any difference, please include in your explanation how that applies to your scenario.

 

None so blind as those who will not see- especially when the reason is refusal to see.

Seeing that you feel that way- don't own one. I won't interfere with your right to be defenseless, and you won't interfere with my right to be able to defend.

 

Do you think a spoon or so of poison in the punch bowl at the school reunion could kill 30 people? Howe about 100? . Much easier to carry, passes metal detectors, much easier to hide, much easier to deliver, much easier to escape. Now lets just hope that the guy who hated the rest of you in high school and is bent on revenge doesn't take that idea to heart....
Choice of weapons-. 30 rounds doesn't matter- magazines interchange very quickly, but that's a lot more trouble than an ounce of poison. People bent on murder don't have the hang-up, the illusion, that gun control people have.

 

If you don't agree with a statement you made... why did you make it?

This is getting weirder by the second.

So your point is that the killer in Texas, if he hadn't had access to "assault weapons", could have invited everyone in the Church over for Punch? And that way he could have killed 100?

I have to say that that is pretty absurd. But no more absurd than your two previous statements: first your suggestion that a gun could be involved in mass shooting without a person, and then that you don't agree with the statement you yourself made.

Funny that the guy justifying why we shouldn't have reasonable gun control by citing poison in a punch bowl would talk about "illusion"

During the Newtown massacre, 6 children managed to run past the shooter and escaped alive. Very likely because the shooter paused to reload. The mass shooter who shot Kathy Gifford was stopped and taken down while he was swapping his 30-round magazine. In this last case, after a thorough investigation it was determined where each and every bullet that was fired ended up. Bullet number 12 killed the 9 year old girl. With a 10-bullet magazine limit (which is what has been proposed) she would have had a chance to still be alive.

Tell me again how it "doesn't matter"?

You guys have a lot of "poison in the punch" and "guns that shoot themselves"... but no actual facts on your side.