View Full Version : Montreal school shooting
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/14/patients-critical.html
A 25 year old man walked into Dawson college in Montreal with a machine gun and started shooting at students. Apparently, he walked from his car to the school in broad daylight without any reaction from anyone, while holding the gun in plain sight. Police got there quickly, but he'd already hit about 20 people and killed a young woman.
:shame:
Yeah, kind of old news at this point, though. He left a note saying he blamed feminists for his refusal for entry into the program or something to that effect.
Yes, that was in 1989. I was too young to remember, but it's commemorated every year in schools across Canada. This shooting happened yesterday and has brought back a lot of painful memories of the 1989 killings for Montrealers.
Oh, right. I got a little mixed up for a moment. This one was the guy in the trenchcoat with the mohawk, right?
Seems like Canada has a bowling problem as well. Nuts.
Sir Moody
09-15-2006, 12:04
no one country has a monopoly on crazy people...
Vladimir
09-15-2006, 13:55
Well Japan does, but...um not in this way. http://www.thejapanesearecrazy.com/
Goofball
09-15-2006, 22:36
A bit better detail here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060915.SHOOTINGMAIN15/TPStory/
THE MONTREAL SHOOTINGS: THE SCENE
Gunman shot student again and again
Cornered and hit in the arm by police, killer turned handgun to his chin and fired
ANDRÉ PICARD
MONTREAL -- Anastasia De Sousa was a vivacious, party-loving 18-year-old with flowing blonde hair and an electric smile, who enthusiastically began her studies in international business at Montreal's Dawson College just weeks ago.
Kimveer Gill was a nihilistic 25-year-old high-school dropout with spiky hair and a dark scowl, who was obsessed with guns and determined to "die in a hail of gunfire."
On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Gill murdered Ms. De Sousa and wounded a dozen other staff and students in a shooting rampage at the junior college before dying in a gunfight with Montreal police, an incident that sent shockwaves across the country.
Yesterday, as the initial shock turned to grief and anger, flags in the province were lowered to half-mast and a makeshift shrine of flowers and cards blossomed where a day earlier there were pools of blood.
Print Edition - Section Front
http://images.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/newspaper/20060915/sectionA-188.jpg (http://images.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/newspaper/20060915/sectionA-490.jpg?d=20060915) Enlarge Image (http://images.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/newspaper/20060915/sectionA-490.jpg?d=20060915)
http://images.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/icon/icon-digital-leaf-small-red.png
Burgeoning just as quickly were questions, questions about Mr. Gill's motives and about access to the type of guns used in the attack, why Montreal was, once again, the scene of a school massacre, and what can be done to prevent such horrors.
"Why did it happen? We really don't understand," said a grief-stricken Réal Hevey, the uncle of Ms. De Sousa.
Richard Filion, director-general of Dawson College, echoed that sorrowful question. "Why Dawson and not somewhere else? Maybe it's the bad luck of the draw," he said, adding that Mr. Gill had no discernible link to the school.
The crime is now the subject of two separate police investigations: one focusing on the murder of Ms. De Sousa and related armed assaults and the other on the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Gill.
What is known is that Mr. Gill, who kept a blog on the website vampirefreaks.com, awoke Wednesday morning, listened to the music of Megadeth and guzzled whisky. He packed an arsenal of three weapons - a 9 mm Beretta semi-automatic rifle, a Glock .45-calibre pistol and a 12 gauge shotgun.
All the guns were legally registered in the killer's name.
Mr. Gill drove from the suburban Laval home where he lived with his parents to downtown Montreal, parked his Pontiac Sunfire outside a daycare centre and calmly removed the weapons from the trunk.
Brandishing a rifle, he walked nonchalantly to the main entrance of Dawson College. He shot several people who were on the sidewalk, then proceeded inside, followed by two police officers who happened to be nearby.
Inside the college, Mr. Gill shot at random, but singled out Ms. De Sousa, who was shot repeatedly at point-blank range. The killer took at least two hostages, using them as human shields as police followed in hot pursuit.
In an exchange of gunfire with police, the gunman was hit in the arm. Mr. Gill then took his pistol, put it to his chin and pulled the trigger.
The rampage, beginning to end, was over in less than 10 minutes.
Yet, hours of chaos followed as police scoured the building, looking for possible accomplices and evacuating Dawson students who had taken refuge throughout the school when the shooting began.
Yesterday, nine victims remained in hospital, including four in critical care with wounds to the head, chest and abdomen.
"It's hour by hour for them," said Tarak Razek, the chief of trauma at McGill University Health Centre.
Countless others are, individually and collectively, trying to heal psychological wounds, chief among them Dawson students.
A variety of psychological and psychiatric services have been put at their disposal.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest, the father of teenagers, became choked up as he discussed the Dawson killings and, in particular, the call to offer condolences to the family of Ms. De Sousa.
"There are things you hope you never you have to do in politics, like call a father who has lost his daughter," he said.
Mr. Charest also vowed to fight to maintain the controversial federal gun registry.
Crazed Rabbit
09-15-2006, 23:53
Sounds like a good response by the police to this tragedy.
You'd think that someday the media might stop highlighting all these killers after they go crazy and make them infamous, so that others are inspired.
Crazed Rabbit
Sounds like a good response by the police to this tragedy.
You'd think that someday the media might stop highlighting all these killers after they go crazy and make them infamous, so that others are inspired.
Crazed Rabbit
It's upsetting to me how the media sensationalizes these things. I heard a news report that said he said on his blog that he will be referred to as 'the angel of death'... so what do they do by the end of the same report? You guessed it- refer to him as the angel of death. I really don't think it's in our interests to glorify these losers. He says wanted to die in a hail of gunfire and reporters go on to say he died in a shootout with police- no, he was wounded by police and then took the gutless coward's way out and shot himself. Sheesh.
Goofball
09-16-2006, 00:23
Sounds like a good response by the police to this tragedy.
Yes, it sounds like the cops were on the ball here. And it definitely supports the argument for having a visible police presence on the streets. These were just two cops who happened to be in the area and saw the whole thing start. Imagine if they hadn't been there and police had actually had to be called to the scene before responding? How many more would have died?
We did a job today in my small town for a teacher who works at Dawson. He wasn't there when it happened but he had to go in today and take part in a meeting on how to deal with what happened and what to tell the students.
I told him to tell them the best thing to do is to excel at their studies. Don't let the miserable SOB and his negative attitude drag everyone down. Overcome the adversity, overcome his negative actions with your positive reactions and don't give him and people like him the satisfaction of thinking the world stops and goes all to hell as soon as they pull the trigger. Screw them.
As for the cops, seems they did great this time. No waiting to set up a perimeter, no waiting for the SWAT team - they formed up and went in and straight at the guy. Good for them!
scooter_the_shooter
09-16-2006, 00:45
. These were just two cops who happened to be in the area and saw the whole thing start. Imagine if they hadn't been there and police had actually had to be called to the scene before responding? How many more would have died?
Which is why there need to be concealed carry laws.
Which is why there need to be concealed carry laws.
What a great idea to have some scared and shocked people shoot around in a school full of people!:stupido2:
It's a sad event and I would have to agree with Beirut.
UltraWar
09-16-2006, 12:44
This has references to Columbine (1999).
The killings were done in trenchcoats... and it started in the Cafeteria... go figure.
An acquaintance of mine was contacted by a media outlet not long ago about this, apparently from finding his email address affiliated with the Ottawa metal scene...something to do with the kid listening to metal (even though we all condemned his taste in music). Anyway, it should be funny for him to speak for the 'community'. I'll post links if things pan out.
Productivity
09-18-2006, 05:02
First let me express my sympathies and praise for those who ended this tragic situation.
Which is why there need to be concealed carry laws.
Can't you at least wait before exploiting this tragedy to preach your pro gun line? I find it really disgusting that you don't have the dignity to at least let this settle, before telling us that more guns are the answer.
Not one gun control post did I see in the thread so far, everyone else has the dignity to wait before adding this to their propaganda war. To make it worse you're not even arguing for something in your own country, you're now trying to force your opinions on another country entirely, a country just recovering from a tragedy. Surely it is their own choice as to how they attempt to avoid similar occurences. Where others express sympathies and praise the brave actions of those who ended it, you choose to do nothing but run your own Jihad for guns.
You disgust me.
*this is not a broad swipe at the general pro-gun lobby, it is a specific statement aimed at the one individual. It is a personal attack and I may receive warning points for it, but I find the quoted post to be utterly repulsive and feel I have to express that.
he has every right to voice his opinion on the subject no matter which country it refers too - having said that - more guns isnt the answer :2thumbsup:
Its a horrible shooting, and another brilliant example of media sensationalism - i also agree with Beirut
Goofball
09-18-2006, 21:19
These were just two cops who happened to be in the area and saw the whole thing start. Imagine if they hadn't been there and police had actually had to be called to the scene before responding? How many more would have died?Which is why there need to be concealed carry laws.
It's funny that you mention that.
Very funny in fact.
In a previous discussion you and I had, you made the unfounded statement that (in support of your usual NRA spoonfed "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" dogma) "virtuually no murders are ever committed with legally owned guns."
Allow me to draw your attention to this (from the original article):
What is known is that Mr. Gill, who kept a blog on the website vampirefreaks.com, awoke Wednesday morning, listened to the music of Megadeth and guzzled whisky. He packed an arsenal of three weapons - a 9 mm Beretta semi-automatic rifle, a Glock .45-calibre pistol and a 12 gauge shotgun.
All the guns were legally registered in the killer's name.
And this is in a country where gun ownership is very regulated already.
Now, take a look at this (also from the original article):
Mr. Gill drove from the suburban Laval home where he lived with his parents to downtown Montreal, parked his Pontiac Sunfire outside a daycare centre and calmly removed the weapons from the trunk.
Brandishing a rifle, he walked nonchalantly to the main entrance of Dawson College. He shot several people who were on the sidewalk, then proceeded inside, followed by two police officers who happened to be nearby.
In other words, the cops followed him into the school because they saw him walk in with a gun.
I find it incredibly amusing that your solution to the problem would be to make it legal for guys like this to strap a bunch of guns to themselves, then hide them from view...
I find it incredibly amusing that your solution to the problem would be to make it legal for guys like this to strap a bunch of guns to themselves, then hide them from view...
Apparently you have no compunction about making this a gun debate. :shrug:
I'll only add that I find it amusing that you seem to think this guy did not conceal his weapons because it's currently illegal to do so. A man intent on committing mass murder isnt likely to let the fact that it's illegal to carry arms stop him- I suspect it not being concealed had more to do with the fact that it was a freaking 12 gauge shotgun. :idea2:
scooter_the_shooter
09-19-2006, 00:13
First let me express my sympathies and praise for those who ended this tragic situation.
Can't you at least wait before exploiting this tragedy to preach your pro gun line? I find it really disgusting that you don't have the dignity to at least let this settle, before telling us that more guns are the answer.
You disgust me.
*this is not a broad swipe at the general pro-gun lobby, it is a specific statement aimed at the one individual. It is a personal attack and I may receive warning points for it, but I find the quoted post to be utterly repulsive and feel I have to express that.
Who would have thought I'd make a post about politics in the political forum...
Originally Posted by The Article
What is known is that Mr. Gill, who kept a blog on the website vampirefreaks.com, awoke Wednesday morning, listened to the music of Megadeth and guzzled whisky. He packed an arsenal of three weapons - a 9 mm Beretta semi-automatic rifle, a Glock .45-calibre pistol and a 12 gauge shotgun.
All the guns were legally registered in the killer's name.
With all the back round checks, smart gun laws, Safe storage laws, waiting periods, And magazine capacity limits in the world.....a nut job or outlaw can still sneak through...or go the illegal route. Criminals and psychopaths obviously don't heed other laws...why would they care about gun laws?
In other words, the cops followed him into the school because they saw him walk in with a gun.
First of all it is fortunate that the cops were there. But imagine they weren't how many more would have died? Hence Why I like the Idea of concealed or opened carry.
I find it incredibly amusing that your solution to the problem would be to make it legal for guys like this to strap a bunch of guns to themselves, then hide them from view...
I think it is incredibly amusing that you think guys like this care if it's legal to strap a bunch of guns to themselves then hide them from view.
Proletariat
09-19-2006, 00:28
Can't you at least wait before exploiting this tragedy to preach your pro gun line? I find it really disgusting that you don't have the dignity to at least let this settle, before telling us that more guns are the answer.
Oh, come on...
Not one gun control post did I see in the thread so far, everyone else has the dignity to wait before adding this to their propaganda war. To make it worse you're not even arguing for something in your own country, you're now trying to force your opinions on another country entirely, a country just recovering from a tragedy. Surely it is their own choice as to how they attempt to avoid similar occurences. Where others express sympathies and praise the brave actions of those who ended it, you choose to do nothing but run your own Jihad for guns.
Yeah, welcome to our world.
:unitedstates:
Just because someone throws out a view opposing yours in response to an article that describes a tragic current event doesn't mean it was crass or out of line. It's a politically focused forum. Let's not act like ceaser went to the victim's funerals handing out NRA pamphlets screaming he told them so.
Edit: I don't have a horse in this race, to be clear. Canada's gun control laws are a non-issue for me.
Crazed Rabbit
09-19-2006, 00:34
I find it incredibly amusing that your solution to the problem would be to make it legal for guys like this to strap a bunch of guns to themselves, then hide them from view...
Why not? The prohibition against it obviously hasn't helped.
Crazed Rabbit
Kralizec
09-19-2006, 00:59
My condoleances to the family and friends of the girl.
My complements to the Canadian police for a job well done.
Vladimir
09-19-2006, 01:45
What happened to the machine gun that the first post mentions? I really don't think CCDW permits would have prevented this, it was a college campus. This does make me think that I should stop listening to Metallica and drinking whiskey....Never mind, forget I said that. :wall: :shame:
There have been several instances recently where people were using their vehicles as weapons; one was on a college campus. Why wasn't there a cry to ban automobiles?
Seamus Fermanagh
09-19-2006, 03:08
Agree with Kralizec here. Did I just say that? Oh well, its true.
Good job by the Montreal police, stupid horror story for the girl's family, terrible inconveniences for the injured.
Which is why there need to be concealed carry laws.
The only concealed gun carry law we need in Canada is a law saying you get five years in jail for carrying a concealed gun. Period.
First of all it is fortunate that the cops were there. But imagine they weren't how many more would have died? Hence Why I like the Idea of concealed or opened carry.
Imagine a bunch of completely scared teenagers with weapons trying to defend themselves in a room full of scared teenagers with weapons trying to defend themselves...etc...you could very well end up with everybody shooting each other either by accident or by simply freaking out and shooting around. Or would you give every citizen military/police training at the age of 6 so they can react in a proper way?:dizzy2:
Rex_Pelasgorum
09-19-2006, 13:15
Unfortunately, these kind of crimes are the consequences of the "caste" system imposed in the US-type highschools... the teenagers in the western world tend to divide themselves in highschools in castes.. the ones from the top, the "rich and popular", and those from "below"... these are the results...
In European schools, or Eastern schools, these kind of events never happen .
Goofball
09-19-2006, 16:21
Apparently you have no compunction about making this a gun debate. :shrug:
I don't understand the point of that statement, other than to try to take a personal shot at me. Somebody else brought up guns, and I responded to their post. Was that wrong of me? How did I make it a gun debate? My first two posts had nothing to do with guns.
I'll only add that I find it amusing that you seem to think this guy did not conceal his weapons because it's currently illegal to do so. A man intent on committing mass murder isnt likely to let the fact that it's illegal to carry arms stop him- I suspect it not being concealed had more to do with the fact that it was a freaking 12 gauge shotgun. :idea2:
I never said any such thing. I was simply pointing out that making it legal to carry concealed firearms would make it even easier to do this sort of thing, because any nut could go out and get a licence, then know he can walk in wherever he wants with his guns with impunity before he starts blazing away. At least if it's illegal to carry concealed weapons, the police will be looking for people who even look like they might be hiding a weapon.
I find it incredibly amusing that your solution to the problem would be to make it legal for guys like this to strap a bunch of guns to themselves, then hide them from view...I think it is incredibly amusing that you think guys like this care if it's legal to strap a bunch of guns to themselves then hide them from view.
He cared enough about legality to go through the very tedious and drawn-out Canadian process of legally obtaining the firearms. Apparently our FAC measures are still too lax.
Imagine a bunch of completely scared teenagers with weapons trying to defend themselves in a room full of scared teenagers with weapons trying to defend themselves...etc...you could very well end up with everybody shooting each other either by accident or by simply freaking out and shooting around. Or would you give every citizen military/police training at the age of 6 so they can react in a proper way?:dizzy2:
Exactly. I have seen a trained soldier forget everything he'd been taught about how to react to enemy fire as soon as the first rounds started flying. Arming every joe-blow in the country is not the answer.
At any rate, this whole incident neither supports nor overturns my position on gun control. I am opposed to handgun ownership but support long-gun ownership. This guy apparently did most of his damage with long guns, but handguns make doing this sort of thing all the easier.
Crazed Rabbit
09-19-2006, 20:28
The only concealed gun carry law we need in Canada is a law saying you get five years in jail for carrying a concealed gun. Period.
So you'd remove the most effective way for a woman to defend herself from attackers, muggers, and rapists in the city?
It seems you don't allow for the possibility that good people can use guns, too.
Crazed Rabbit
good people can misuse guns too
Vladimir
09-19-2006, 21:08
So you'd remove the most effective way for a woman to defend herself from attackers, muggers, and rapists in the city?
It seems you don't allow for the possibility that good people can use guns, too.
Crazed Rabbit
Oh come on. I'm a big advocate of conceal and carry since I have a permit myself but keep it in the right context: these are a bunch of college kids. While it's a good idea to allow such permits (after serious vetting and training), the only "piece" they should have is what they're trying to get at the frat party.
I don't understand the point of that statement, other than to try to take a personal shot at me. Somebody else brought up guns, and I responded to their post. Was that wrong of me? How did I make it a gun debate? My first two posts had nothing to do with guns.It takes two or more people for a debate. Someone made a contentious comment and you picked it up and ran with it- thus my statement. But, if you want to cry personal attack, knock yourself out. :shrug:
Oh come on. I'm a big advocate of conceal and carry since I have a permit myself but keep it in the right context: these are a bunch of college kids. While it's a good idea to allow such permits (after serious vetting and training), the only "piece" they should have is what they're trying to get at the frat party.Although I didnt get mine until later, I knew several people who had permits in college..... I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
If I'm not mistaken, many colleges have regulations about having firearms on campus. Also, many states' carry/conceal laws also forbid CCW in certain public places (schools are on the list, at least in VA). Having a CCW on private property where the owner (say, a college) prohibits weapons is trespassing in VA, not a gun charge but still illegal.
Info from my favorite site, http://www.packing.org
Dawson College prohibits students from carrying weapons:
http://dc11.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/dsweb/Get/Document-6117/Code_of_Conduct_2005.pdf
#2.6 No student shall possess a weapon or materials which endanger the health, safety, or property of others.
Therefore, no law-abiding student, even with a CCW permit, could be packing on campus. :focus:
Crazed Rabbit
09-19-2006, 21:55
I believe most colleges don't allow CCW on campus, but there has been at least one case in the states where college students ran to get guns in their cars and stopped a school shooting in progress.
In Utah, the Supreme Court ruled on 9/8/06 that the University of Utah (or some similarily named insitution) must allow CCW on campus because of a recently passed law.
good people can misuse guns too
Most of society is good and will do the right thing regardless of laws. Unfortunately, some see guns as doing only evil things. But the principle is that you can't ban something from everyone because of what one person may do.
Crazed Rabbit
Most of society is good and will do the right thing regardless of laws. Unfortunately, some see guns as doing only evil things. But the principle is that you can't ban something from everyone because of what one person may do.
If you ban guns from everyone then the one person who does bad things cant get a gun
even honest "good" people might use a gun in panic, or even through a complete mistake, and cause injury or worse, this is horrible for both the gun "user" and the victim.
Lastly anything built deliberately with the abillity to cause death surely can only do evil things, no matter whos using it.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-19-2006, 22:12
If you ban guns from everyone then the one person who does bad things cant get a gun.
Banning something rarely stops it. Note the efficacy of our "War" on drugs. Consider the success of the prohibition against alcohol.
No, if you go that route, the only thing that might work is to send out agents to confiscate all firearms and restrict manufacture to a government monopoly as part of banning them. Without actively depriving people of guns, you are merely increasing the penalties for their use.
I believe most colleges don't allow CCW on campus, but there has been at least one case in the states where college students ran to get guns in their cars and stopped a school shooting in progress.
In Utah, the Supreme Court ruled on 9/8/06 that the University of Utah (or some similarily named insitution) must allow CCW on campus because of a recently passed law.Yeah, the law varies significantly in the US by state. For my state you can carry on campus afaik. It's allowed pretty much anywhere regardless of signage with a few exceptions (ie elementary/high schools and courthouses).
But realistically, I dont think I wouldve carried on campus as a student (maybe some employees would though). Off campus wouldve been a different matter though- their were some unsavory neighborhoods right off campus.
In Utah, the Supreme Court ruled on 9/8/06 that the University of Utah (or some similarily named insitution) must allow CCW on campus because of a recently passed law.
That would be the Utah Supreme Court, and it's ruling makes some sense because the University of Utah is state (public) property. The owner of a private institution could still ban weapons.
Dawson College prohibits weapons, not just CCW. Having weapons in a dorm or in a car would still be illegal.
Banning something rarely stops it. Note the efficacy of our "War" on drugs. Consider the success of the prohibition against alcohol.
No, if you go that route, the only thing that might work is to send out agents to confiscate all firearms and restrict manufacture to a government monopoly as part of banning them. Without actively depriving people of guns, you are merely increasing the penalties for their use.
I agree that banning rarely stops something from happening, however it sends out a clear message to the public, and allows the police to instantly act when they see someone with a firearm 9which is [i think] similar to what you say in the second bit.
I cant see why anyone would want to carry a gun off a campus, let alone on it, even if there are dangerous areas away off campus, a gun only increases the danger, If it is visable it simply causes any attacker to shoot instantly, and means anyone on the pavement gives you a wide berth (whether you need it or not), if the gun is concelaed, whats the point? surely the risk of using the gun means that it is essentially useless (ie. firearms are only a detterrant [spelt wrong])
I cant see why anyone would want to carry a gun off a campus, let alone on it, even if there are dangerous areas away off campus, a gun only increases the danger, If it is visable it simply causes any attacker to shoot instantly, and means anyone on the pavement gives you a wide berth (whether you need it or not), if the gun is concelaed, whats the point? surely the risk of using the gun means that it is essentially useless (ie. firearms are only a detterrant [spelt wrong])
Im not a fan of open carry. It certainly does make you stick out in a crowd- but more importantly it lets criminals know exactly where your gun is should they want to make a play for it. However, most people who carry are very responsible and good at avoiding situations where this could happen. Also, if you're dealing with a group or groups of openly armed law-abiding citizens there's no doubt that it's a huge deterrent to would-be attackers.
For concealed, the idea is to stay concealed until it's advantageous to do otherwise. Sometimes just exposing a gun to a would-be assailant is enough to make them reconsider. Other times, if outnumbered or suprised, citizens have been sucessfull after waiting for a time til their odds are better.
Crazed Rabbit
09-19-2006, 23:42
I cant see why anyone would want to carry a gun off a campus, let alone on it, even if there are dangerous areas away off campus, a gun only increases the danger, If it is visable it simply causes any attacker to shoot instantly, and means anyone on the pavement gives you a wide berth (whether you need it or not), if the gun is concelaed, whats the point? surely the risk of using the gun means that it is essentially useless (ie. firearms are only a detterrant [spelt wrong])
It increases the danger for the criminals. A concealed gun can be accessed very quickly in times of need. I don't see what you mean by 'the risk of using a gun'. Are you suggesting that a person using a gun is just as likely to shoot themselves as the criminal, or that guns are liable to explode spontaneously?
In fact, armed civilians have a better record, percentage wise, of not hitting bystanders than do police in America.
Once again, why would you deny people the right to defend themselves and leave them at the mercy of criminals?
Crazed Rabbit
Goofball
09-20-2006, 00:03
I don't understand the point of that statement, other than to try to take a personal shot at me. Somebody else brought up guns, and I responded to their post. Was that wrong of me? How did I make it a gun debate? My first two posts had nothing to do with guns.It takes two or more people for a debate. Someone made a contentious comment and you picked it up and ran with it- thus my statement.
And that sort of exchange of ideas that you have just described is pretty much the raison d'être for the Backroom.
What's amusing is that you chided me for "turning this into a gun thread" because I responded to a gun-related post, then proceded to make (starting with that same post) 4 gun-related posts yourself.
So apparently posting a gun-related opinion you agree with is permitted, but posting one you disagree with is derailing the thread.
:inquisitive:
Goofball
09-20-2006, 00:08
In fact, armed civilians have a better record, percentage wise, of not hitting bystanders than do police in America.
I'm just taking a wild guess here, but I would imagine that the reason for that is that a good percentage of "private citizen" self-defence shootings take place in/on their own properties rather than crowded public places.
Let me ask you this:
Who accidentally shoot more family members (on a % basis), police or private citizens?
Just wondering.
:juggle2:
So apparently posting a gun-related opinion you agree with is permitted, but posting one you disagree with is derailing the thread.Take it easy on the strawmen- I never accused anyone of derailing the thread. Debate is the standard for the backroom- however, some didn't want to see this thread as a gun debate and Caear010's statement went largely ignored. Since people seemed to not want to debate guns in this thread, I refrained. However, you picked up the opposite end of his view and began a debate. Since turning the thread to a gun debate didnt seem to bother you- I responded. Honestly, I cant even fathom how you'd take that as a personal attack. :dizzy2:
Let me ask you this:
Who accidentally shoot more family members (on a % basis), police or private citizens?
Just wondering.Better still- let's compare how many people accidentally shoot family members vs how many police shoot co-workers. That whole line of argument is pretty irrelevant anyhow. The oft made argument against civillians carrying guns in public is that they'll inadvertantly shoot civillians. The facts would appear to suggest that you're more likely to be shot accidentally by a police officer than a law-abiding armed citizen.
As an aside, I feel I should mention that I really don't care how much Canada restricts firearms- it makes no difference to me as it doesnt affect me. When it comes to gun debates, I have only 2 points: restricting gun ownership does not lead to a decrease in crime, and allowing people to own firearms does not lead to an increase in crime.
So you'd remove the most effective way for a woman to defend herself from attackers, muggers, and rapists in the city?
It seems you don't allow for the possibility that good people can use guns, too.
Crazed Rabbit
I do allow that good people can use guns. I'm one of them.
However, I do not want Canada to be a place where the population walks around carrying handguns. It's simply not who we are and not who we want to be.
yesdachi
09-20-2006, 01:43
Imagine a bunch of completely scared teenagers with weapons trying to defend themselves in a room full of scared teenagers with weapons trying to defend themselves...etc...you could very well end up with everybody shooting each other either by accident or by simply freaking out and shooting around. Or would you give every citizen military/police training at the age of 6 so they can react in a proper way?:dizzy2:
Imagine a couple of properly trained teachers there to take care of our children.
Or better yet imagine a school that could recognize and deal with a troubled student before he goes on a spree.
I am ok with gun ownership and carrying permits and even the precautions the lawmakers have setup, what I don’t like is anyone telling me what I cannot carry, eat, drink, ware, etc. Our “freedoms” are a privilege we have, abuse the privilege and loose it.
Goofball
09-20-2006, 16:08
Take it easy on the strawmen- I never accused anyone of derailing the thread. Debate is the standard for the backroom- however, some didn't want to see this thread as a gun debate and Caear010's statement went largely ignored. Since people seemed to not want to debate guns in this thread, I refrained. However, you picked up the opposite end of his view and began a debate. Since turning the thread to a gun debate didnt seem to bother you- I responded. Honestly, I cant even fathom how you'd take that as a personal attack. :dizzy2:
Fair enough. My wife mentioned that I've been a little bit bitchy and over-sensitive over the past couple of days; I guess she was right.
Let me ask you this:
Who accidentally shoot more family members (on a % basis), police or private citizens?
Just wondering.Better still- let's compare how many people accidentally shoot family members vs how many police shoot co-workers. That whole line of argument is pretty irrelevant anyhow. The oft made argument against civillians carrying guns in public is that they'll inadvertantly shoot civillians. The facts would appear to suggest that you're more likely to be shot accidentally by a police officer than a law-abiding armed citizen.
Where are these "facts?" You're still not aknowledging that the results are skewed by the fact that police operate among the public and are expected to respond to threats to public safety with deadly force if required. It would stand to reason that there would be more accidental shootings on their part than on the part of private citizens.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.