Canadian carnage

[SugarDaddy1]

Canada shooting rampage kills at least 10 including policewoman; gunman dead, investigators say

 

[SusanHaack]

From the comment section of your article:

Several friends of Gabriel Wortman told TV reporters, he repeated said and believed that he could shoot people with no consequence whatsoever.
And to prove it he would show them recorded video of his idol Donald Trump saying on camera "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any (racist cult) voters".

He was a Trump supporter. Clearly he was insane.

 

[SusanHaack]

This is really horrible. 16 dead so far. Worst mass murder here since the Montreal Polytechnic engineer students.

 

[HisArpy]

This is really horrible. 16 dead so far. Worst mass murder here since the Montreal Polytechnic engineer students.

If only there was some kind of gun control law...

 

[Bbwlonghairedlover]

Canada shooting rampage kills at least 10 including policewoman; gunman dead, investigators say

I live in nowhere-ville Kentucky and I heard about this shooting, what a horrible tragedy. I often wonder what goes through a persons head, before the snap like this. It is unfathomable that someone could or would kill that many innocent people. 15 innocent people gone, 15 families without answers, and the really shitty part is, no one will ever know, for sure why he did what he did. They will guess and lay blame at one persons feet or another, but no one will ever know. That is the shitty part. Some kid is going to bed without their parent and they will never know why. That is the tragedy.

 

[OldJourno]

From the comment section of your article:

Several friends of Gabriel Wortman told TV reporters, he repeated said and believed that he could shoot people with no consequence whatsoever.
And to prove it he would show them recorded video of his idol Donald Trump saying on camera "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any (racist cult) voters".

He was a Trump supporter. Clearly he was insane.

And don't forget Nick Sandman. I'll bet Wortman was inspired by Sandman too.

 

[SusanHaack]

And don't forget Nick Sandman. I'll bet Wortman was inspired by Sandman too.

That catholic kid?

 

[Lancecastor19]

Sounds like he was shot after being arrested.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If only there was some kind of gun control law...

Yah, I mean Canada has only experienced 21 Massacres since 1698, while the USA had only 18, but that was just in 2019...gun control sure can't work then, according to HisArpy's logic.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

[SpeareChucker]

Too soon, as usual,
to turn this into a political squabble...




Really.
We get enough of that from Canadians every time they hear of a US shooting.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Too soon, as usual,
to turn this into a political squabble...




Really.
We get enough of that from Canadians every time they hear of a US shooting.

Look to HisArpy then. You don't think gun control works, well others have a different experience spread across countries all over the world. Seems this is only a Political issue in the US.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I'm thinking that I was too subtle...

 

[InsightRiot]

Is Susan’s #2 post trying to bait TDS leftist?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Is Susan’s #2 post trying to bait TDS leftist?

That was my impression.

 

[HisArpy]

Yah, I mean Canada has only experienced 21 Massacres since 1698, while the USA had only 18, but that was just in 2019...gun control sure can't work then, according to HisArpy's logic.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Basically your argument is that your gun control laws, which were promoted to PREVENT this from happening as a basis for their existence, are good enough as long as they reduce the incidences to some unstated "acceptable level".

Apparently 21 massacres in 52 years is "good enough" for Canadians. Especially when that's a lower number than in the US but let's not discuss the other social costs that go along with it.

 

[hobbit.]

Yah, I mean Canada has only experienced 21 Massacres since 1698, while the USA had only 18, but that was just in 2019...gun control sure can't work then, according to HisArpy's logic.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Basically your argument is that your gun control laws, which were promoted to PREVENT this from happening as a basis for their existence, are good enough as long as they reduce the incidences to some unstated "acceptable level".

Apparently 21 massacres in 52 years is "good enough" for Canadians. Especially when that's a lower number than in the US but let's not discuss the other social costs that go along with it.

Do try to keep up.

Where did you get 52 years from?

 

[HisArpy]

Do try to keep up.

Where did you get 52 years from?

Unwittingly, I assumed that 1698 was a typo of 1968 since NO ONE counts Indian uprisings as "massacres" even when the natives resorted to firearms when attacking forts, towns, and villages. Nor do those totals appear in ANY tally of "gun deaths". As neither do all the deaths perpetrated in the war(s) which created both the US and Canada. Or all the deaths by "privateers" at the behest of government.

So, an assumption of a typo is perfectly understandable since that would include only modern day statistics. If that was incorrect, then...

My bad.

 

[hobbit.]

Unwittingly, I assumed that 1698 was a typo of 1968 since NO ONE counts Indian uprisings as "massacres" even when the natives resorted to firearms when attacking forts, towns, and villages. Nor do those totals appear in ANY tally of "gun deaths". As neither do all the deaths perpetrated in the war(s) which created both the US and Canada. Or all the deaths by "privateers" at the behest of government.

So, an assumption of a typo is perfectly understandable since that would include only modern day statistics. If that was incorrect, then...

My bad.

never make asumptions

 

[HisArpy]

never make assumptions

Noted for future reference.

BTW, I fixed your typo.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Unwittingly, I assumed that 1698 was a typo of 1968 since NO ONE counts Indian uprisings as "massacres" even when the natives resorted to firearms when attacking forts, towns, and villages. Nor do those totals appear in ANY tally of "gun deaths". As neither do all the deaths perpetrated in the war(s) which created both the US and Canada. Or all the deaths by "privateers" at the behest of government.

So, an assumption of a typo is perfectly understandable since that would include only modern day statistics. If that was incorrect, then...

My bad.

I can understand how you would think it a typo, since the US averages 20 some mass shootings a year....

but as you say, common sense gun control doesn't work....chuckles

Note: I have a shitload of firearms, so it not like I hate them....

 

[HisArpy]

I can understand how you would think it a typo, since the US averages 20 some mass shootings a year....

but as you say, common sense gun control doesn't work....chuckles

Note: I have a shitload of firearms, so it not like I hate them....

Two questions for you.

1. Do you believe that the natives would have been happier if people in Canada hadn't been allowed to carry firearms "back in the day"? Conversely, do you think that Canada would be the country it is today, if settlers hadn't been able to protect themselves against marauders and bandits "back in the day"?

2. Would the people "back in the day" have thought that gun control laws were "common sense"? If not, then please explain why people today think that gun control laws are "common sense" given that the same conditions as exited then, exist today.

 

[HisArpy]

I can understand how you would think it a typo, since the US averages 20 some mass shootings a year....

but as you say, common sense gun control doesn't work....chuckles

Note: I have a shitload of firearms, so it not like I hate them....

As an aside, "mass shooting" is somewhat of a misnomer since the stats include shootings that aren't "mass". IMO, the number to "quantify" a "mass shooting" is too low and can encompass just about any multiple victim shooting.

 

[hobbit.]

Noted for future reference.

BTW, I fixed your typo.

cheers.

 

[HisArpy]

cheers.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/friends/cheers-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Two questions for you.

1. Do you believe that the natives would have been happier if people in Canada hadn't been allowed to carry firearms "back in the day"? Conversely, do you think that Canada would be the country it is today, if settlers hadn't been able to protect themselves against marauders and bandits "back in the day"?

I am not sure what the question really is to the above, I am not an indigenous person. Canada never had the "Indian Wars"/wild west like the US.

2. Would the people "back in the day" have thought that gun control laws were "common sense"? If not, then please explain why people today think that gun control laws are "common sense" given that the same conditions as exited then, exist today.

The conditions today are not the same as they were "back in the day" so your question is redundant. However please see below, maybe that will shed some light.

First off a firearm is a tool they are not "guns". They were tools then, and they are now.

Some firearms are designed to kill humans. I have several of those, Lee Enfields from both WW1 and WW2, complete with military issued kit, such as Bayonets and Chargers, as well as an SKS.

I also have many types of firearms designed for hunting, ie the killing of game animals, be it for large game, or water fowl or grouse.

The only restriction on the above is A: I needed to take and pass a firearms safety course, and if I desire to have a Hunting license a Hunters safety course B: they need to be stored in a secured location via some type of locking system when not in use. C: I needed to have a background check, which requires a form filled out, a police records check, a signed off from a spouse if one applies, and a sponsor who has known me for a set period of years.

Please point out the unreasonableness/inconvenience of the above?

Note: there is another qualification required if you wish to own "restricted" types of firearms such as Handguns etc. Which is met by taking and passing the Restricted Firearms course....

Last Canada, unlike the US has a list of prohibited firearms, which you can only legally own, if they have been rendered unable to fire through a certified Gunsmith, in an irreversible manner.