It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
K-Dot.I'll concede that gun control laws can be ineffective but then what do we do? It's easy to shoot down ideas and pick them apart but what's the end result of all of this? I guess what I'm trying to get at is I don't like how people are content with the status quo. Whether you're on the left or right you should want change yet I feel like when I watch any right wing leaders talk about this stuff, they just combat what the left side said and nothing is ever accomplished. Sure the left might at times have over the top idealistic ideas but at least they're trying to do something instead of just pretending that the second ammendment is gonna save everyone.
Great post, but the whole "well the 2nd amendment exists, therefore I deserve guns" argument is just as idealistic as anything the left says. People who make this argument will hide behind the constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't just as idealistic as whatever leftist ideas you are thinking of.
Wis_Skier_23By definition laws only affect those who follow them. Criminals aren't going down to the nearest Cabelas and purchasing a handgun and going out and robbing a gas station.
Most mass shooters weren't hardened criminals at the time they committed the shooting. Most of them, as far as I know, had perfectly clean or nearly clean records. Many of them also acquired their guns legally. Fact of the matter is, we don't know how these mass shooters, who almost always seem to suffer from mental illness, would act if it were more difficult for them to get guns. We don't know if they would be willing to break laws to do so. Please don't act like we can just assume that they would have the know how and means to break the law to acquire guns illegally, because we can't. This is, of course, directed at the shootings we hear so much about in the news, not gang or otherwise criminal related ones.
nocturnalI'm not going to do any of that but thank you for addressing my post by saying nothing.
Mentally unstable people are a drop in the bucket compared to the dozens of gangbangers shooting each other every day. Like low single digit percentages.
BogsGreat post, but the whole "well the 2nd amendment exists, therefore I deserve guns" argument is just as idealistic as anything the left says. People who make this argument will hide behind the constitution, but that doesn't mean it isn't just as idealistic as whatever leftist ideas you are thinking of.
Most mass shooters weren't hardened criminals at the time they committed the shooting. Most of them, as far as I know, had perfectly clean or nearly clean records. Many of them also acquired their guns legally. Fact of the matter is, we don't know how these mass shooters, who almost always seem to suffer from mental illness, would act if it were more difficult for them to get guns. We don't know if they would be willing to break laws to do so. Please don't act like we can just assume that they would have the know how and means to break the law to acquire guns illegally, because we can't. This is, of course, directed at the shootings we hear so much about in the news, not gang or otherwise criminal related ones.
Here’s the problem with gun violence.
The problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the United States and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.
In short, yes the US has a higher murder rate than say the UK, however the UK has a higher violent crime rate. The UK also only counts unlawful killings as homicides where as the US counts all killings no matter how it happens. So the actual murder rate is much lower then the US statistics would have you think. Violent crime definitions are not the same for the US and UK, hence violent crime sits at between 900 and 1361 per 100,000 people.
The UK still has a violent crime rate higher than that of the US's 386.3 per. 100,000 per capita, just not the 5 1/2 claimed by some, but between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 times more but enough of that lets stop comparing and get down to the core of the problem.
Now the AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?
REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than all of you are conditioned to believe.
In order to FIX these PROBLEMS, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!
I think there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. And its clear that over the past 20 years our violent crime rate in the US has decreased 50% while our murder rate has decreased 47%, these are statistics that no one seems to take credit for. We know where the crime is coming from; in metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000, we know where the shootings are happening, we know that the UK has a higher violent crime rate, we also know that we have six times more metropolitan areas than they do. We also know that mass shootings seem to get the bulk of attention, yet suicides comprise a majority of gun deaths. No one seems to talk about this.
All of these factors have to be considered and the straight-shooting fact is that the media and the politicians do not constitute for said variables. We have politicians already introducing legislation before they understand what the problem stems from.
For example, why is Dianne Feinstein pinpointing the AR-15? In 2011 out of the homicides that were caused be firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles and the AR-15 is a ‘subset' of a rifle. Doesn’t make any sense.
We need to mandate the gun laws that are already in place. In many states it’s a long and tedious process to obtain a firearm and rightfully so. Most people who complain about how purchasing a firearm is like buying candy from a candy store, have probably never attempted to purchase a firearm. Background checks, the ATF paperwork and waiting periods (not all states) are still required. The anti-gun crowd would have you believe it's quiet easy to waltz into any skeezy gun store, drop $50 on the counter and moonwalk out with a bazooka. And people who've never actually tried to buy one believe it. I would also like to point out that not only has violent crime DECREASED by 51% from1991-2011 and murder rate 54% but nonfatal firearm related crime has decreased from 1993 to 2011, 69%!!
Furthermore, the anti-gun propaganda has worked marvelously. 55% of Americans think gun-related crime has increased, while only 12% of Americans think gun-related crimes has decreased. Reality tells us that crime is way down but the perception is that violence is up. There’s a DISCONNECTION here and this disconnect prevents us from having an honest dialogue about what causes violence and what we can do to fix it. This misperception is utilized to justify legislation without understanding the problem, which more often than not infringes on our individualistic rights. Stop choosing between two extremities and start piecing together the problems with logic and reality. It seems as if we have dehumanized gun violence and instead humanized guns. Violence most often than not follows a logic.
There’s a logic to violent crime. What drives violence?
We engage in violence to elevate and maintain a status quota. A social outcast, someone who doesn’t fit in; the mainstream media rewards violence, infamy and an almost immediate celebrity. Violence just might be an attractive choice. It simply follow a logic.
This is all about the perception of threat. The quest for survival is one of the key drives of state sponsored violence. Violence can rectify survival.
Moreover, protection is a rational for violence. People will rectify violence to protect their political status, obsessions, interests, loved ones, investments, property, domicile, offspring, etc. If one perceives a threat to any of these aforementioned things violence can be instigated.
Is violence justified, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t what I’m saying is that there is a logic to violence.
Maybe we ought to make policies that mitigate logical violence, if of course we understand that logic. Defining that logic can be utilized for policy making to bite back violence but instead we are focused on a tool; a gun, which is utilized to commit violence. You can not fix a problem from within that problem.
There’s a good chance 10 violent crimes have been committed in the time of me writing this. There’s also a good chance that none of those violent crimes involved a gun. However, theres a very good chance that all of these crimes followed a logic.
Logic most often than not is due to environment. The most affecting genetically worst thing for a developing mind is the environment. We can fix many of these mental illness problems by fixing behavior and addressing their environment and susceptibility. A mind without stimulus to develop would go into trauma as a rejection and then it begins to change chemically. Imagine having your father beat on your mother constantly a a child?
I think we need to think about environment and behavior to fix this problem, and this has been going on for generations so it is going to take many more to fix. It isn’t as simple as banning guns or passing a few laws, it doesn’t and never will work like that.
But hey what do I know I’m a stupid conspiracy theorist. Right?
BombogenesisMentally unstable people are a drop in the bucket compared to the dozens of gangbangers shooting each other every day. Like low single digit percentages.
So because it would only stop a couple it's not worth it?
baethovenI don't think thats what he's getting at.. Call me crazy but it seems like he's trying to make you look at the bigger picture.
You can make me look at the bigger picture but that doesn't stop the fact that it would stop a small portion of these shootings and people are saying no to it, and I don't understand why.
Wis_Skier_23Gun laws can never stop a mass shooting.
How would you know if they did? Statistics of mass shootings in countries and even states with more strict gun laws show pretty well that the likelyhood of a mass shooting goes down significantly in nations that have stricter gun laws.
Wis_Skier_23France doesn't even allow guns and how'd that turn out for them. You can't legislate the publics safety from mass shootings by some arbitrary law
How many mass shootings have occured in France in the last decade? Compare that to the USA.
Wis_Skier_23France is a gun free zone yet look what happened.
Lets just ask another related question. How many mass shootings in France can you name besides the one that just occurred...
Wis_Skier_23You can have laws that help make the public a safer place but Gun control is an exhausted topic it doesn't work.
I don't know man, how many mass shootings have been prevented because of stricter gun laws in the UK or other European nations? The number isn't really quantifiable. In China there was a massive attack where a bunch of dudes hacked people up with knives... Do you know how much worse it could have been if they went all "Remember.. no Russian.." or something? Death toll could have gone from 29 to who knows where... could have been more like 290... maybe more. Police can stop guys with knives. They can't easily stop people armed with assault rifle derivatives and guns that have large capacity magazines with their standard issues...
Wis_Skier_23You can't look at the problem of mass shootings and only focus on the tool.
Yeah you can... it's quite easy. Take away the tool and you can't have a mass shooting. Make it difficult enough for them that it's not worth somebody's time.. make it so it takes longer to reload certain weapons... make it so they cant obtain more concealable weapons? I mean theres tons of ways to possibly deter somebody from getting a gun. I'd rather there be one person who dies by a sword some angry kid got at a thrift store than some shooter going around all North Hollywood because Grand Theft Auto wasn't real enough for him.
CirilloAgain
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Looking at the pictures of the ARs they used, they are definitely illegal in California.
Yeah I'd imagine they brought them in from Arizona or Nevada or wherever else. That's the issue with gun control, and what's so funny about folks saying it doesn't work. The only reason it doesn't work is because other places barely have any gun control. Youre in CA and want a gun? Drive to Nevada. They basically give you one at the border as a token of gratitude.
Steezy_GThe religion of peace strikes again..Maybe I California didn't have as strict GUN LAWS the victims would've bee able to defend themselves
No religion is a religion of peace... And how would you defend yourself if the gun laws were relaxed? Yeah.. you against a couple people armed to the teeth with tactical gear in a surprise attack. using accurate weapons with tons of stopping power. Sure. Your .38 sidearm is going to totally make them rethink their whole plan and run away. Who needs a superman when folks like you are around!
**This post was edited on Dec 4th 2015 at 10:23:13pm
These shootings are now a threat similar to people like dying in a earthquake or tornado just they aren't natural disasters.
There is no way to punish people willing to die. You must punish their families. Deportation and or internment for any close relative of people who do this will make them happen less.
This shit is here to stay you have to make sure these incidents occur less frequently and the only way to do that would be to punish loved ones who pull this type of shit.
PeppermillRenoThere is no way to punish people willing to die. You must punish their families. Deportation and or internment for any close relative of people who do this will make them happen less.
Yeah, making it more difficult to get guns would be totally un-american. Putting families in gulags though? That's American as fuck right there. Not police state at all... definitely not anything like what Stalin's USSR did... North Korea wouldn't have ever done anything like that... sounds LEGIT 10/10 would jail your family again...
I'll say it again but any holy book has violent verses and contradictions. It's people who decide how they interpret it and what they chose to believe. The Christian believing the earth is 6000 years old is just as stupid and manipulated than the average daesh soldier. He is just lucky to be born in the U.S and not in Irak, otherwise he would be wearing the bomb vest.
The hate towards the Muslim population as a whole is misguided, ignorant and serves Daesh. Use your brain for a second, goddammit.
DingoSeanYeah, making it more difficult to get guns would be totally un-american. Putting families in gulags though? That's American as fuck right there. Not police state at all... definitely not anything like what Stalin's USSR did... North Korea wouldn't have ever done anything like that... sounds LEGIT 10/10 would jail your family again...
I agree you have to make it more difficult to a certain degree and eliminate a lot of potential morons from owning them.
But wanting that isn't the same thing as wanting us to be like France where noone can own a gun.
Japanese internment camps in WW2 worked out OK. We won the war in the Pacific. There were no attacks on the mainland by Japanese insurgents during WW2. Yes they were kind of dick but you have to remember that in WW2 the Japanese committed the worst atrocities of anyone. Even Hitler had to tell the Japanese to cool it with the way they treated US P.O.W.s.
Spineless bitches probably think its awful that people were inconvenienced based on their nationality but it was a real war and the Japanese were way more ruthless and nasty in how they treated US P.O.W.s.
Honestly I don't really think the relatives and families of those scumbags in San Bernadino were that apologetic or anything either I sort of felt they should be arrested the way they talked about the attacks.
PeppermillRenoI agree you have to make it more difficult to a certain degree and eliminate a lot of potential morons from owning them.
But wanting that isn't the same thing as wanting us to be like France where noone can own a gun.
Lol. I'm from Normandie where pretty much everybody hunts. Do you even know what you are talking about? There are about 10 million guns legally owned in France. (remainder: Population about 65 million).
It is just harder to buy one, you have to show you trained at least 3 times at the range or something, you need to go through a medical examination, and a few other things. But you absolutely can own a gun if you want. Stop the brainwashing please.
PeppermillRenoHonestly I don't really think the relatives and families of those scumbags in San Bernadino were that apologetic or anything either I sort of felt they should be arrested the way they talked about the attacks.
I wonder how I missed this gem on the first read.
So you want to arrest people for not feeling the way you'd like them to, or not saying the things you'd want them to?
Your whole perspective is hilarious.
So let me get this right, don't mess with the second amendment, because that's the true spirit of America, that's what the founding fathers had in mind.
But fuck freedom of speech, that's not the true spirit of America.
Oh man, Hamilton would be proud, his heritage is clearly safe as long as there as true Americans like yourself to preserve it.
I think I mean whoever is your favorite founding father, Hamilton was just the first to pop into my mind. It is my understanding that this was a group effort, I didn't know Madison single handedly fathered the spirit of America.
Monsieur_PatateIt is my understanding that this was a group effort, I didn't know Madison single handedly fathered the spirit of America.
No, but he was the guy who wrote the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all those amendments you and others keep talking about. And, you know, Hamilton was arguably the most outspoken person against creating a Bill of Rights and all those amendments you just credited to his memory.
So forgive me for thinking you may have confused the two.
BogsNo, but he was the guy who wrote the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all those amendments you and others keep talking about. And, you know, Hamilton was arguably the most outspoken person against creating a Bill of Rights and all those amendments you just credited to his memory.
So forgive me for thinking you may have confused the two.
Ok. I'm sorry your jimmies are rustled by the lack of historical accuracy in my satirical post.
I thank you for the correction, and if I could edit my post to reflect this, I would. I hope this erratum will suffice.
Clearly the French school system could do a better job of teaching the creation of the U.S constitution. I feel ashamed, but grateful I got to learn something new today.
PeppermillRenoThese shootings are now a threat similar to people like dying in a earthquake or tornado just they aren't natural disasters.
There is no way to punish people willing to die. You must punish their families. Deportation and or internment for any close relative of people who do this will make them happen less.
This shit is here to stay you have to make sure these incidents occur less frequently and the only way to do that would be to punish loved ones who pull this type of shit.
It seems like in many of these incidences a drill of the exact or a markedly similar scenario takes place in the exact same location or in close proximity to the actual event. And what the fuck happened to the third suspect. I mean the story is so very bizarre. Apparently, the third shooter was detained, yet i have yet to hear anything about it.
During the shooting I heard from key-eyewittneses that there were three men, all dressed in black tactical gear, golding assault rifles, two wearing black hats, all looked to be Caucasian descent of a large and muscular stature.
Yet, a few hours later the police shot two Pakistanis, on of which was a 90lb woman who had a young baby. Apparently, the motive of this shooting was due to a baby shower argument? The trio had about a 50% kill rate, which is very high.
"When shot in the mysterious SUV, his tiny wife was wearing fitted shorts above her knees and no head covering. Family says she was always fully covered when she went out.
The media is now portraying them as "Bonnie and Clyde with a young baby.”
I just find it odd that they had a fully stocked fridge, with left over food in plastic containers and baby pictures all over their apartment. Like in all different places. There was even some arranged flowers on the kitchen table , if you look at the pictures were the media rummaged through the apartment. And WHY didn’t the FBI remove certain items such as the printer, photographs, IDs and the heaps of shredded documents from the house?? We know this because millions saw these items in the house on live television!
If the FBI genuinely thought this couple were terrorists there is NO WAY they wouldn't have taken away the contents of their shredder bin. To me this makes absolutely no sense, and i hope others can chime in and explain some of this.
So a young mom left her baby to go kill the people that hosted her baby shower? And the media now said that she pleaded allegiance to USUS on an alias page on Facebook. Of course it would be removed at 11am, the shooting started at that very time. CNN claims officials stated that she made the post on an alias account, yet they did not explain how the knew she was behind this message.” Unknown officials claimed, means nothing to me.
Why would a traditional Pakistani Muslim American target these people, his friends, teachers, elders, fellow Muslims? In California of all places, with all of its other potential targets?
The ammo, pipe bombs, etc., were found in their townhouse's garage. The garage was in a building separate from their home. A few minor items in the house. And a manhole in their closet ceiling.
"And no one who knew them, including their many siblings and mother who lived with them and Navy brother who lived close by, saw anything strange. Neighbor said they were happy. Smiled at her. Farook would leave the garage door open as he worked on his car. Last saw them hanging out on their patio on Sunday with their daughter, enjoying their family.
Journalists entered their house, within 48 hrs, to rummage through their belongings. An unprecedented event. Any more evidence for or against this deceased couple, now unusable.”
I’m not claiming it was some rouge CIA conspiracy or anything like that, there’s just some odd anomalies that I personally find bizarre.
Also, hearing the eyewitness explain what she saw and where she was seemed very genuine to me. I’m not sure how it goes from 3 white, tall, physically built men to 1 brown man and a brown, fat, short women and the third suspect by official sources never existed, but was detained in initial sources.
fuckmekevinIt seems like in many of these incidences a drill of the exact or a markedly similar scenario takes place in the exact same location or in close proximity to the actual event. And what the fuck happened to the third suspect. I mean the story is so very bizarre. Apparently, the third shooter was detained, yet i have yet to hear anything about it.
During the shooting I heard from key-eyewittneses that there were three men, all dressed in black tactical gear, golding assault rifles, two wearing black hats, all looked to be Caucasian descent of a large and muscular stature.
Yet, a few hours later the police shot two Pakistanis, on of which was a 90lb woman who had a young baby. Apparently, the motive of this shooting was due to a baby shower argument? The trio had about a 50% kill rate, which is very high.
"When shot in the mysterious SUV, his tiny wife was wearing fitted shorts above her knees and no head covering. Family says she was always fully covered when she went out.
The media is now portraying them as "Bonnie and Clyde with a young baby.”
I just find it odd that they had a fully stocked fridge, with left over food in plastic containers and baby pictures all over their apartment. Like in all different places. There was even some arranged flowers on the kitchen table , if you look at the pictures were the media rummaged through the apartment. And WHY didn’t the FBI remove certain items such as the printer, photographs, IDs and the heaps of shredded documents from the house?? We know this because millions saw these items in the house on live television!
If the FBI genuinely thought this couple were terrorists there is NO WAY they wouldn't have taken away the contents of their shredder bin. To me this makes absolutely no sense, and i hope others can chime in and explain some of this.
So a young mom left her baby to go kill the people that hosted her baby shower? And the media now said that she pleaded allegiance to USUS on an alias page on Facebook. Of course it would be removed at 11am, the shooting started at that very time. CNN claims officials stated that she made the post on an alias account, yet they did not explain how the knew she was behind this message.” Unknown officials claimed, means nothing to me.
Why would a traditional Pakistani Muslim American target these people, his friends, teachers, elders, fellow Muslims? In California of all places, with all of its other potential targets?
The ammo, pipe bombs, etc., were found in their townhouse's garage. The garage was in a building separate from their home. A few minor items in the house. And a manhole in their closet ceiling.
"And no one who knew them, including their many siblings and mother who lived with them and Navy brother who lived close by, saw anything strange. Neighbor said they were happy. Smiled at her. Farook would leave the garage door open as he worked on his car. Last saw them hanging out on their patio on Sunday with their daughter, enjoying their family.
Journalists entered their house, within 48 hrs, to rummage through their belongings. An unprecedented event. Any more evidence for or against this deceased couple, now unusable.”
I'm trying to avoid this one completely. Aurora, Boston, Sandy Hook, and now this. im over it.
Monsieur_PatateOk. I'm sorry your jimmies are rustled by the lack of historical accuracy in my satirical post.
I thank you for the correction, and if I could edit my post to reflect this, I would. I hope this erratum will suffice.
Clearly the French school system could do a better job of teaching the creation of the U.S constitution. I feel ashamed, but grateful I got to learn something new today.
My point still stands, the irony is hilarious.
You say something incorrect.
I correct you, thinking you just made an innocent mistake.
You get upset, respond rudely.
I respond in kind.
Therefore my jimmies are the rustled ones, not yours.
MALEPRIVILEGEYour insensitivity is disgusting. I have two cousins that deal with autism and Tourettes. You are an ableist pig
Instead of retorting to ad hominem attacks, how about you present your argument appropriately. I am on your side and have many questions in regards to the official narrative anomalies, some of which are outright bizarre and make little to no sense. But you’ll get no where retorting to fallacious statements, this seems to be both sides of the contention.
fuckmekevinInstead of retorting to ad hominem attacks, how about you present your argument appropriately. I am on your side and have many questions in regards to the official narrative anomalies, some of which are outright bizarre and make little to no sense. But you’ll get no where retorting to fallacious statements, this seems to be both sides of the contention.
I was referring to his use of the word "retarded" and how it exemplifies his ignorance.
Stop trying to sound smart and pay attention.
I have no interest in attempting to convince anyone of anything that may be associated with false flags and conspiracy theories. You may accept what I have to say or not, I do not care.
Here is Mr. Jone's list of shit that doesnt add up.
MALEPRIVILEGEI was referring to his use of the word "retarded" and how it exemplifies his ignorance.
Stop trying to sound smart and pay attention.
I have no interest in attempting to convince anyone of anything that may be associated with false flags and conspiracy theories. You may accept what I have to say or not, I do not care.
Here is Mr. Jone's list of shit that doesnt add up.
Mr. Jones' grammar is shit and he has the memory of a goldfish. So being a false flag operation, what did the Sandy Hook shootings achieve exactly? Oh, that's right... nothing. Such insight, much fucking idiocy.
nocturnalYou can make me look at the bigger picture but that doesn't stop the fact that it would stop a small portion of these shootings and people are saying no to it, and I don't understand why.
I dont know about other people, but I wouldnt be advocating not stopping the small portion of these types off shootings. But Id also like to see people focus more on the larger issue of gang related "mass shootings" rather than the ones we all hear about on TV.
Trying to prevent the smaller portion rather than discussing and fixing the larger issue first is what a lot of people have an issue with.
skiermanMr. Jones' grammar is shit and he has the memory of a goldfish. So being a false flag operation, what did the Sandy Hook shootings achieve exactly? Oh, that's right... nothing. Such insight, much fucking idiocy.
Alex Jones is a complete fucking lunatic and is a pawn to help muddy the waters. Another example is David Icke. only a complete dipshit would take that list seriously.
theBearJewI dont know about other people, but I wouldnt be advocating not stopping the small portion of these types off shootings. But Id also like to see people focus more on the larger issue of gang related "mass shootings" rather than the ones we all hear about on TV.
Trying to prevent the smaller portion rather than discussing and fixing the larger issue first is what a lot of people have an issue with.
One can be done very easily by passing proper background checks and laws. The other will be very hard we'll have to start by pumping money into certain areas and increasing education.
nocturnalOne can be done very easily by passing proper background checks and laws. The other will be very hard we'll have to start by pumping money into certain areas and increasing education.
Do the easy one first then talk to me.
Fair enough. I would just like to see people at least acknowledge the other larger issue as well and not just set a gun control plan but a plan to fix that as well. To me, they are separate issuses related only by guns so they need to be handled differently. The problem is they are being grouped together to show statistics and overrepresent what is really going on.
theBearJewFair enough. I would just like to see people at least acknowledge the other larger issue as well and not just set a gun control plan but a plan to fix that as well. To me, they are separate issuses related only by guns so they need to be handled differently. The problem is they are being grouped together to show statistics and overrepresent what is really going on.
The other issue is gang related violence is really condensed into certain areas my incidences can happen anywhere
When Montreal Polytechnique happened that was the start of real gun control in Canada. In fact when the anniversary comes up we still feel it today. In fact the rest of Canada abolished the long gun registry, but Quebec is intending to creating their own.
It's funny watching all these posts. All you pro guys are saying that gun control does nothing, and that its all going to just take the weapons out of the hands of good people and that it won't make a difference to those evil people who want weapons.
Honestly gun control laws aren't perfect up here. We still have idiots getting guns ( the capital incident last year, and the New Brunswick incident). But when you look at how many mass shootings we have had in the past, and what gun violence looks like in Canada you can see that the laws do work. You can even look at the shooting incidents themselves....the fact that they didn't have assault style weapons, that they didn't have extended mags. Yeah they did damage...but it could of been much much worse.
The problem is that you guys aren't even trying. You really don't care. It's become part of your culture. You let fear run your country instead of logic and it's sad.
MLBWhen Montreal Polytechnique happened that was the start of real gun control in Canada. In fact when the anniversary comes up we still feel it today. In fact the rest of Canada abolished the long gun registry, but Quebec is intending to creating their own.
It's funny watching all these posts. All you pro guys are saying that gun control does nothing, and that its all going to just take the weapons out of the hands of good people and that it won't make a difference to those evil people who want weapons.
Honestly gun control laws aren't perfect up here. We still have idiots getting guns ( the capital incident last year, and the New Brunswick incident). But when you look at how many mass shootings we have had in the past, and what gun violence looks like in Canada you can see that the laws do work. You can even look at the shooting incidents themselves....the fact that they didn't have assault style weapons, that they didn't have extended mags. Yeah they did damage...but it could of been much much worse.
The problem is that you guys aren't even trying. You really don't care. It's become part of your culture. You let fear run your country instead of logic and it's sad.
