We have had a number of mass stabbing attacks in Canada over the past few years, but none of them have resulted in mass killings. That is a damned sight better than a mass shooting attack.
50 shot dead - Orlando shooting
- Thread starter -D-
- Start date
We have had a number of mass stabbing attacks in Canada over the past few years, but none of them have resulted in mass killings. That is a damned sight better than a mass shooting attack.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Yep and the progressives just slurp up the rhetoric while on their social justice campaigns.....
Snobike Mike
Banned
So again, killed by gun bad, killed by knife (or pressure cooker, or airplane, or fertilizer bomb) not so bad?
PS, you've just confirmed that violence will happen no matter what the "tool" used
PPS, ever noticed how many of these "mass" shootings happen in gun free zones?
48Connor
Well-known member
PPS, ever noticed how many of these "mass" shootings happen in gun free zones?
Because that's where all the people are, you dunce.
"I can't believe there's never been a mass shooting in the middle of a farmers field where guns are allowed! Why do they always happen where tons of people are in a confined space that don't allow weapons?"
yodude
Banned
the doves are done, in come the hawks
Snobike Mike
Banned
Lol, I see you missed the whole irony of "gun free zone" so let me spell it out for you:
1. Gun free zones are places where it's illegal to have guns
2. Terrorists don't follow laws, they break them
3. It's law abiding citizens who are easy to target in gun free zones because they follow the laws while terrorist/criminals/gang bangers don't
PS, I'll leave the ironic self refuting nature of your "quote" to puzzle you for the time being
48Connor
Well-known member
Lol, I see you missed the whole irony of "gun free zone" so let me spell it out for you:
1. Gun free zones are places where it's illegal to have guns
2. Terrorists don't follow laws, they break them
3. It's law abiding citizens who are easy to target in gun free zones because they follow the laws while terrorist/criminals/gang bangers don't
PS, I'll leave the ironic self refuting nature of your "quote" to puzzle you for the time being
Holy sh*t Batman. You sound fun at parties.
Lol, I see you missed the whole irony of "gun free zone" so let me spell it out for you:
1. Gun free zones are places where it's illegal to have guns
2. Terrorists don't follow laws, they break them
3. It's law abiding citizens who are easy to target in gun free zones because they follow the laws while terrorist/criminals/gang bangers don't
PS, I'll leave the ironic self refuting nature of your "quote" to puzzle you for the time being
http://www.vpc.org/press/states-wit...ion-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2014-confirms/
[h=1]States with Weak Gun Laws and Higher Gun Ownership Lead Nation in Gun Deaths, New Data for 2014 Confirms[/h]Washington, DC — Newly available data for 2014 reveals that states with weak gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun ownership have the highest overall gun death rates in the nation, according to a Violence Policy Center (VPC) analysis of just-released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
In addition, states with the lowest overall gun death rates have lower rates of gun ownership and some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation. However, even in these states the human toll of gun violence is far above the gun death rate in other industrialized nations.
The VPC analysis refers to overall gun death rates in 2014, the most recent year for which data is available. The deaths include gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. A table of the states with the five highest gun death rates and the five lowest gun death rates is below. For a list of gun death rates in all 50 states, seehttp://www.vpc.org/fact-sheets/state-firearm-death-rates-ranked-by-rate-2014/.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 4"]States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 7%"]Rank
[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]State
[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]Household Gun Ownership[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]Gun Death Rate per 100,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 7%"]Rank[/TD]
[TD="width: 17%"]State[/TD]
[TD="width: 15%"]Household Gun Ownership[/TD]
[TD="width: 14%"]Gun Death Rate per 100,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 7%"]1[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]Alaska[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]56.4 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]19.68[/TD]
[TD="width: 7%"]50[/TD]
[TD="width: 17%"]Hawaii[/TD]
[TD="width: 15%"]12.5 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 14%"]2.82[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 7%"]2[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]Louisiana[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]49.0 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]19.27[/TD]
[TD="width: 7%"]49[/TD]
[TD="width: 17%"]Rhode Island[/TD]
[TD="width: 15%"]15.9 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 14%"]3.22[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 7%"]3[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]Mississippi[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]54.3 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]18.27[/TD]
[TD="width: 7%"]48[/TD]
[TD="width: 17%"]Massachusetts[/TD]
[TD="width: 15%"]14.3 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 14%"]3.37[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 7%"]4[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]Alabama[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]49.5 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]16.81[/TD]
[TD="width: 7%"]47[/TD]
[TD="width: 17%"]New York[/TD]
[TD="width: 15%"]22.2 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 14%"]4.43[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 7%"]5[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]Montana[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"]67.5 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]16.80[/TD]
[TD="width: 7%"]46[/TD]
[TD="width: 17%"]Connecticut[/TD]
[TD="width: 15%"]22.2 percent[/TD]
[TD="width: 14%"]5.20[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Snobike Mike
Banned
Well let's take a contrarian look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE&feature=youtu.be
Once you've actually viewed the video maybe we can chat about Chicago?
PS, what do you intend to do about "mass stabbings" like the one in Calgary?
Would you like to retract that question? Save a little face?
How about a little head?Snobike Mike
Banned
Would you like to retract that question? Save a little face?
You want me to retract my Calgary mass stabbing statement why?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...at-canadian-medical-clinic.html?intcmp=hplnws
Fox news 'One person were killed' and YouTube as arguments - really?
Not sure where you get that.
Look, humans are pretty ****ed up; always have been, likely always will be. We have it in us to fight and kill for ridiculous reasons; it could seem noble -- like fighting "for one's country" -- or it could seem ludicrous -- like shooting someone for being cut off in traffic. When we look at the history of armed conflict we see a progression from tribes with sticks and stones engaging in hand-to-hand combat that puts individuals at great risk all the way to ICBMs where millions of enemy combatants half a planet away could die at the press of a button by some guy that faces basically zero-risk.
People will always find reasons to fight, to combat others. People will always hate for political, religious, ideological or myriad other reasons and the question is, how far are they willing to personally commit to the battle? While "mass" stabbings or baseball bat attacks do happen is it reasonable to say that the act of holding a knife, walking up to within inches of your victim and plunging the knife into his thorax something a would-be assailant is likely to do -- so personal, direct and intimate, so dangerous to risk the would-be victim defending himself and possibly overpowering the assailant etc -- and then trying to repeat that 50 times when he could instead simply spray lead from a distance and watch people drop like ripped-open sacks of meat?
The gun has made killing at a distance easy, impersonal and relatively risk-free (at least until the perp turns the weapon on himself or is taken out some other way; but this always happens after he's already shot and killed many...)
In the past limited technology limited the casualties in war. People were more likely to die from disease and infections than from the injuries directly inflicted by the weapons of the time. As technology and killing-tools increased in efficiency, it became simpler and almost impersonal to stand-off and take out enemies from a distance. And it's only gotten worse; muskets and flintlocks might be fired 4 times a minute in ideal conditions while an AR-15 can fire 13 rounds a second.
Like I implied: People have always fought with whatever tools they had at hand. The incontrovertible statistics show that when those tools include easily-obtained weapons specifically designed to kill humans with great rapidity -- like semi-auto handguns and "assault" rifles -- the carnage is likewise amplified.
Guns are more lethal than stabbings. Definitely requires more effort as well.
People are DEFINITELY more scared of guns than knives.
As a semi auto rifle will fire away FROM A DISTANCE way more punishment without effort compared to stabbing where, technically, if you run faster than the ...knifeman (the equivalent of a gunman
) you can outrun him and save your own life. No one can outrun a bullet, except maybe roadrunner.
And once again.
Yes people that are dedicated to harm others will find ways without guns. Guns are just very convenient and easily accessible in the US-A.
SO by putting gun laws in place, you basically remove a certain category of homicide (impulse ones).
If anyone took the time to view the video on my previous post you'd realize that comparatively, theres still 3 big problems with guns in the US-A and they each need to be addressed in different ways.
People are DEFINITELY more scared of guns than knives.
As a semi auto rifle will fire away FROM A DISTANCE way more punishment without effort compared to stabbing where, technically, if you run faster than the ...knifeman (the equivalent of a gunman
) you can outrun him and save your own life. No one can outrun a bullet, except maybe roadrunner.And once again.
Yes people that are dedicated to harm others will find ways without guns. Guns are just very convenient and easily accessible in the US-A.
SO by putting gun laws in place, you basically remove a certain category of homicide (impulse ones).
If anyone took the time to view the video on my previous post you'd realize that comparatively, theres still 3 big problems with guns in the US-A and they each need to be addressed in different ways.
I don't know why people post these studies and I don't know why pro-gun folks bother attempting to refute them. Its not revelatory. More guns will OBVIOUSLY mean more gun deaths. More cars, more car accidents..more pools more drownings, etc.
Several facts are inescapable. So-called assault weapons are seldom used in homicides yet are disproportionately attacked by the left constantly calling for bans because they are supposedly very dangerous. The stats clearly disagree. Rifles are simply not used to kill a significant number of people.
Handgun bans are rarely if ever brought up despite handguns being the predominant firearm of choice for crime as well as self defense. The number of these things in public hands in the US makes it absolutely without a doubt IMPOSSIBLE to institute any sort of ban. It also makes it extremely unlikely to make mandatory training or licensing because it would require the public to voluntarily submit to that framework. Non-compliance would be staggering; and the folks who do comply would be exactly the ones you don't necessarily care to disarm in the first place.
Too many guns down there. No bans will happen. No registration will happen. The left will continue to beat the drum for political and financial gain but that's about it. Until they choose to address the real contributing factors to violent crime, the dog and pony show will continue.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Have you ever shot a gun? It's not like in the movies where you point, shoot and magically hit your target with immediate fatal consequences. And the farther the target the waaaaaay harder it is to hit said target.
I'm glad you brought up self defense with knife scenarios. I wonder if in a "mass shooting" scenario if there was someone else there with a gun to defend if the outcomes would be different. Hmmmmmmm......
But the facts don't actually support this position nor does correlation (which in the US isn't there as noted in info I've posted) mean causation.
PS, In mass shooting scenarios such as Orlando, would someone holding the door closed to keep victims in increase or decrease the potential fatality rate?
Last edited:
If guns don't offer protection why do police and military carry them? As far as muskets, well that's all that anyone had. Now times have changed and modern firearms exist. BTW where do you get the idea that you are more in danger having guns in the house? As far as the government turning against us, look up civil forfeiture laws, they are already starting.
