50 shot dead - Orlando shooting

[Neil_V]

Forum Sponsor

What's interesting is how many "law abiding" Canadian gun owners suddenly decided the law didn't apply to them when it came to the gun registry. Effective or not it was the law and it was ignored by a great many gun owners.

I've never owned nor even fired a gun of any sort beyond nurf, but that LGR was useless from inception to implementation. It's not a bad thing for law abiding citizens with an ounce of critical thought to say "F it, this doesn't make sense" from time to time

 

[mmmnaked]

I've never owned nor even fired a gun of any sort beyond nurf, but that LGR was useless from inception to implementation. It's not a bad thing for law abiding citizens with an ounce of critical thought to say "F it, this doesn't make sense" from time to time

Yep, its peaceful non-compliance and those gun owners were absolutely right to do it. Its proven by the fact that the billion dollar registry was ultimately scrapped. Good on them.

 

[mmmnaked]

350 people is still 350 people too many.

Imagine in your workplace, 50 people out of the 350 die... will it affect you? Will it affect a lot of families? Will it affect your employer?

There are big repercussions to 350 people dying, That's 350 families affected. Reducing the number of deaths, whether it be guns, whether it be drunken driving, whether it be heart disease/diabetes... is key. And that's another problem with numbers, they take the situation out of context, but a life is something more important than just a number. Most lives we should be trying to save, not saying "we can risk this many lives because the number is low"

Ok so you'd agree that 1000 is even more significant then. That's how many die in Canada to drunk driving. And there is absolutely NO basic need for alcoholic beverages.. whereas there is an actual NEED for guns for many citizens (hunting, wilderness defense). You cool with banning beer? I mean, it will ACTUALLY save 1000 people...

 

[Snobike Mike]

damn straight so no nut can go into a school and MURDER/SLAUGHTER little kids.
I bet you wouldn't have the balls to repeat half of your diatribe to any of these parents face to face.

I'm quite confident that my concern over the sanctity of life is much much higher than yours.....

PS, you do know that ironically on the very same day as Sandy hook that there was a Chinese school massacre of similar numbers. You should google the tool that was used, hint - it wasn't an AR15 or any firearm in fact.....

 

[LePhillou]

Ok so you'd agree that 1000 is even more significant then. That's how many die in Canada to drunk driving. And there is absolutely NO basic need for alcoholic beverages.. whereas there is an actual NEED for guns for many citizens (hunting, wilderness defense). You cool with banning beer? I mean, it will ACTUALLY save 1000 people...

Once again, those beers and those cars driven with too much alcohol = not its intended design. Beer is created for taste, enjoyment, and a certain buzz.
Cars are designed to be driven sober and alert.
Put a system in place that detects the alcohol level of the driver as they drive that immobilizes the vehicle when higher levels are detected and you're good. (not those blowy thingys that can be circumvented with a passenger)
Ban beer if need be, would suck cause i love my craft beers. But saving a 1000 lives is worth it. Thats why people give blood too...to save lives, one donation at a time.


So why does everyone need access to guns if there are only key demographics that truly need them?

And im not talking about banning guns, once again, im talking about better control and safety measures like we have in canada.
The ease of access and open/conceal carry means that in any given situation, with any impaired judgement you can make the decision to use the gun as an option to whether off someone else or off yourself.
The staggering rate of suicide by firearms is another thing that's "avoided" in those debates because people say things like
"if he wants to off himself, he'll find some way"
But once again, the gun adds convenience, ease and efficiency to an equation that SHOULDN'T be so simple.
Lots of people have lows in their lives and some might be in an altered enough state to contemplate/consider suicide, often times tends to be a temporary low... but what does the gun do, it makes sure that it's fast and easy to make it a permanent death statistic.
Most people won't have the guts or will just be plain too lazy ...or change their minds by the time they take other measures to commit the act.

 

[griff2]

350 people a year is nothing. Only bleeding heart manginas would expect legislative action based on such an insignificant statistic.

I could say the same about motorcycle riders killed by left turners.

 

[mmmnaked]

I could say the same about motorcycle riders killed by left turners.

And you'd be right. But believe me there are bleeding hearts out there who would readily ban motorcycles to save 30 people a year.

 

[mmmnaked]

Once again, those beers and those cars driven with too much alcohol = not its intended design. Beer is created for taste, enjoyment, and a certain buzz.
Cars are designed to be driven sober and alert.
Put a system in place that detects the alcohol level of the driver as they drive that immobilizes the vehicle when higher levels are detected and you're good. (not those blowy thingys that can be circumvented with a passenger)
Ban beer if need be, would suck cause i love my craft beers. But saving a 1000 lives is worth it. Thats why people give blood too...to save lives, one donation at a time.


So why does everyone need access to guns if there are only key demographics that truly need them?

And im not talking about banning guns, once again, im talking about better control and safety measures like we have in canada.
The ease of access and open/conceal carry means that in any given situation, with any impaired judgement you can make the decision to use the gun as an option to whether off someone else or off yourself.
The staggering rate of suicide by firearms is another thing that's "avoided" in those debates because people say things like
"if he wants to off himself, he'll find some way"
But once again, the gun adds convenience, ease and efficiency to an equation that SHOULDN'T be so simple.
Lots of people have lows in their lives and some might be in an altered enough state to contemplate/consider suicide, often times tends to be a temporary low... but what does the gun do, it makes sure that it's fast and easy to make it a permanent death statistic.
Most people won't have the guts or will just be plain too lazy ...or change their minds by the time they take other measures to commit the act.

Booze is designed to impair your judgement. Otherwise you'd be drinking alcohol free beer. Dont BS me. 1000 folks lost their lives thanks to drunk driving and we, collectively, are okay with that number. But you're crying about 200 shot and killed? MAJORITY of them being individuals already known to police (fact) and an even bigger majority committed by unlicensed individuals (fact)

So yeah. You're full of it. But that's par for course. Everyone wants something done when the results won't impact THEM negatively. You said every life matters and we should do what we can to save them.. well let's get stricter rules in place for buying booze.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Once again, those beers and those cars driven with too much alcohol = not its intended design.

That's some logic you have there. You claim that carte blanche the intended design of guns is for rampant killing (which is wholly untrue in and of itself). But intended design, regardless of how flawed you apply it, doesn't actually kill anybody.

If you were truly genuine in your arguments, you'd be looking at results, but of course you and the balance of gun-grabbing progressives aren't.

As is being pointed out, there are so many other things in society that kill people in far greater numbers which you justify with all kinds of emotional pleas but that doesn't change the fact that lots of things kill people. Trying to cherry pick one specific item and censuring 10's of millions of law abiding citizens for owning them is disingenuous at best, or more accurately outright lying about your agenda.

 

[Blackfin]

And you'd be right. But believe me there are bleeding hearts out there who would readily ban motorcycles to save 30 people a year.

What do rifles bring to your life that you're so willing to dismiss people's lives like that? "350 lives is laughable because I need my gun because _________."

 

[mmmnaked]

What do rifles bring to your life that you're so willing to dismiss people's lives like that? "350 lives is laughable because I need my gun because _________."

Same thing bikes bring me. Same thing beer brings me. Joy.

Btw those 350 are Americans. I'm guessing about 20 Canadians are killed with rifles annually. Compared to 1000 by drunks. Oops.

 

[Snobike Mike]

What do rifles bring to your life that you're so willing to dismiss people's lives like that? "350 lives is laughable because I need my gun because _________."

Do you know that more people die by drowning in our fine country than at the wrong end of a gun?

We should probably ban water.........

 

[Blackfin]

I like how the gun nuts move between the US and Canada when the stats suit them. Guess what guys, here in Canada where "only" 20 Canadians are killed with rifles annually we also have vastly more strict gun ownership laws resulting in fewer WMDs in the hands of those that would use them.

So when you trot out numbers from Canada (when it suits you) you're really just providing an argument for strict gun acquisition and ownership laws.

 

[mmmnaked]

I like how the gun nuts move between the US and Canada when the stats suit them. Guess what guys, here in Canada where "only" 20 Canadians are killed with rifles annually we also have vastly more strict gun ownership laws resulting in fewer WMDs in the hands of those that would use them.

So when you trot out numbers from Canada (when it suits you) you're really just providing an argument for strict gun acquisition and ownership laws.

The numbers are fine. 250-350 there and 20-30 here is the same **** bro. They have 300 million people we have 30. Comprende?

 

[Baggsy]

Intentional drowning? I figure we're doing pretty well so far here. South of the border is a bit of a mess, especially with hand guns, which an impromptu militia would have less need of.

Try and tighten up these arguments. Don't use the usual b.s. that the two sides south of us use. Verify your fact and post the link with the fact.

 

[99CBRF4]

we also have vastly more strict gun ownership laws resulting in fewer WMDs in the hands of those that would use them.

So small arms like handguns and rifles are WMDs now? :facepalm:

 

[mmmnaked]

So small arms like handguns and rifles are WMDs now? :facepalm:

It helps their side to sensationalize the argument. Kinda like how .50s can shoot down airplanes. Lol.

 

[Blackfin]

The numbers are fine. 250-350 there and 20-30 here is the same **** bro. They have 300 million people we have 30. Comprende?

20 x 10 == 200. 350 is not "the same ****" as 200. Indeed, 350 is 175% of 200.

Regardless, the US homicide by firearm rate is seven times higher than that of Canada. In 2012, the US suffered 8,813 murders involving firearms whereas Canada suffered 172. That's 172 too many but it still pales (~1720 vs 8813) when scaled for population differences. Is that "the same **** bro"?

 

[Blackfin]

So small arms like handguns and rifles are WMDs now? :facepalm:

One person can walk into a bar or a school and kill dozens of people in seconds. In the US nearly half a million people died from firearms between 2001 and 2013.

What's your threshold "mass destruction"?

 

[mmmnaked]

20 x 10 == 200. 350 is not "the same ****" as 200. Indeed, 350 is 175% of 200.

Regardless, the US homicide by firearm rate is seven times higher than that of Canada. In 2012, the US suffered 8,813 murders involving firearms whereas Canada suffered 172. That's 172 too many but it still pales (~1720 vs 8813) when scaled for population differences. Is that "the same **** bro"?

We're talking about rifles in this instance. In fact thats what ive been talking about for many pages please keep up.

250 are verified. 350 is extrapolated by percentage to include unknowns. Therefore the deaths via rifle are comparable. The numbers have already been hashed out on previous posts. But keep deflecting, please. Its fun.

Forum Sponsor