FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Canadian killing spree
Canadian killing spree
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Hate to bring moribity to the forum but any else following the mass killing spree in Canada… 10 killed 15 injured so are in stabbings… 13 different locations so far " I'm not following exactly but Im sure I'll hear more about it later. This morning I heard something about 'Smith' ...... ??? Were the victims members of a sect or cult or way of life ? Were they selected or killed randomly. Seems to be two men that the authorities are persuing. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? " This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway...." I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence  | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence "Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead? | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?"I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue. And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns. | |||
I was very impressed to read about the text messages sent to everyone in the region warning them.
I think of Canada as a peaceful nation, hope these men are quickly caught | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns."You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it? I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems. As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful. | |||
" I was very impressed to read about the text messages sent to everyone in the region warning them. " Especially as the area is amost half the size of Europe | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful."I was being sarcastic. Apologies. I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing). Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns. Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns. | |||
" I was very impressed to read about the text messages sent to everyone in the region warning them. Especially as the area is amost half the size of Europe" It'd be interesting to see community cohesion and its effects on crime/victimisation prevention and mitigation. | |||
" I was very impressed to read about the text messages sent to everyone in the region warning them. Especially as the area is amost half the size of Europe" Yes. The local people must be feeling quite vulnerable | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Apologies.
I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing).
Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns.
Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns."Don’t forget farmers mums. What about bows, crossbows, javelins. People throw axes for sport now? I think the UK has it pretty good on what guns you can have, just still a bit sketchy on who can have them. It’s difficult though, identifying that potential crazy person.. | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Apologies.
I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing).
Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns.
Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns.
Don’t forget farmers mums. What about bows, crossbows, javelins. People throw axes for sport now?
I think the UK has it pretty good on what guns you can have, just still a bit sketchy on who can have them. It’s difficult though, identifying that potential crazy person.."Yes, I agree that the UK has a good balance. There is potentially technology that would limit use of a firearm to people who bought it, limiting criminal use. I think less weapons are a net good in society. Like, knives kill people but guns are more effective. | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Apologies.
I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing).
Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns.
Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns.
Don’t forget farmers mums. What about bows, crossbows, javelins. People throw axes for sport now?
I think the UK has it pretty good on what guns you can have, just still a bit sketchy on who can have them. It’s difficult though, identifying that potential crazy person..
Yes, I agree that the UK has a good balance.
There is potentially technology that would limit use of a firearm to people who bought it, limiting criminal use.
I think less weapons are a net good in society. Like, knives kill people but guns are more effective."Biometrics. Sounds good in theory but the practical application is the problem and a digital lock can always be bypassed on a mechanical device. Because of the media and Hollywood the real threats aren’t even understood. I think the good reason to have them should be more robust. | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Apologies.
I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing).
Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns.
Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns.
Don’t forget farmers mums. What about bows, crossbows, javelins. People throw axes for sport now?
I think the UK has it pretty good on what guns you can have, just still a bit sketchy on who can have them. It’s difficult though, identifying that potential crazy person..
Yes, I agree that the UK has a good balance.
There is potentially technology that would limit use of a firearm to people who bought it, limiting criminal use.
I think less weapons are a net good in society. Like, knives kill people but guns are more effective.
Biometrics. Sounds good in theory but the practical application is the problem and a digital lock can always be bypassed on a mechanical device.
Because of the media and Hollywood the real threats aren’t even understood. I think the good reason to have them should be more robust."I’m sorry the media and hollywood,what do you mean? Canada is a separate country from the USA you know | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Apologies.
I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing).
Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns.
Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns.
Don’t forget farmers mums. What about bows, crossbows, javelins. People throw axes for sport now?
I think the UK has it pretty good on what guns you can have, just still a bit sketchy on who can have them. It’s difficult though, identifying that potential crazy person..
Yes, I agree that the UK has a good balance.
There is potentially technology that would limit use of a firearm to people who bought it, limiting criminal use.
I think less weapons are a net good in society. Like, knives kill people but guns are more effective.
Biometrics. Sounds good in theory but the practical application is the problem and a digital lock can always be bypassed on a mechanical device.
Because of the media and Hollywood the real threats aren’t even understood. I think the good reason to have them should be more robust."I've heard from reliable sources that the technology has existed since the Columbine shooting, but there's been no incentive to introduce it, because (in the US) gun manufacturers have special immunity from being sued. | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Apologies.
I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing).
Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns.
Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns.
Don’t forget farmers mums. What about bows, crossbows, javelins. People throw axes for sport now?
I think the UK has it pretty good on what guns you can have, just still a bit sketchy on who can have them. It’s difficult though, identifying that potential crazy person..
Yes, I agree that the UK has a good balance.
There is potentially technology that would limit use of a firearm to people who bought it, limiting criminal use.
I think less weapons are a net good in society. Like, knives kill people but guns are more effective.
Biometrics. Sounds good in theory but the practical application is the problem and a digital lock can always be bypassed on a mechanical device.
Because of the media and Hollywood the real threats aren’t even understood. I think the good reason to have them should be more robust.
I've heard from reliable sources that the technology has existed since the Columbine shooting, but there's been no incentive to introduce it, because (in the US) gun manufacturers have special immunity from being sued."I would imagine that the technology has advanced since then but they all rely on having an electronic trigger. In which case they can all be bypassed mechanically. It might stop spontaneous misuse by another, but nothing that can't be gotten around with more time/tools. | |||
"Is this why we need a well regulated militia of weenies carrying assault rifles to protect themselves and their wimminz from grocery shopping? This is Canada, not the US, and blades not guns, but what the hell, ban everything anyway.... I am aware. Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun. Because what we really need is more weapons to prevent violence
Well, if the Canadian Police and the Mounties get to these guys, they will undoubtedly be armed. Should they leave their guns behind and rely on 'be kind' instead?
I'm not sure I've ever said that police or military should be unarmed. In fact, my statement "weenies in supermarkets" might be a clue.
And tell me, how did the good guys with guns, trained, do when faced with a shooter in an elementary school in Uvalde? How long did they wait while little children were slaughtered? I bet the parents of the dead children are delighted that both good and bad guys can get guns.
You did say 'Maybe it would have been solved by a good guy with a gun'. Maybe it would, presumably there wasn't one around, or like Uvalde, they bottled it?
I do agree that the proliferation and lack of who can access guns has been their undoing in the US but they are beyond help now without major problems.
As for Uvalde, they were, for the most part, all the gear and no idea. Shameful.
I was being sarcastic. Apologies.
I think guns in the hands of the general public are a bad idea, they require law enforcement to escalate to be able to contain threats as well as more bad people to get guns. (Of course there need to be exceptions - law enforcement, military, farmers, that sort of thing).
Knives have purpose other than killing or destroying things - as do cars and other things that can be used to kill. While regulation of these is also important (licenses/road rules, for example), their societal good outweighs the risk of harm in most instances. I do not believe that this is the case for guns.
Fortunately knives, cars, etc, are relatively inefficient for killing, as compared to guns.
Don’t forget farmers mums. What about bows, crossbows, javelins. People throw axes for sport now?
I think the UK has it pretty good on what guns you can have, just still a bit sketchy on who can have them. It’s difficult though, identifying that potential crazy person..
Yes, I agree that the UK has a good balance.
There is potentially technology that would limit use of a firearm to people who bought it, limiting criminal use.
I think less weapons are a net good in society. Like, knives kill people but guns are more effective.
Biometrics. Sounds good in theory but the practical application is the problem and a digital lock can always be bypassed on a mechanical device.
Because of the media and Hollywood the real threats aren’t even understood. I think the good reason to have them should be more robust.
I've heard from reliable sources that the technology has existed since the Columbine shooting, but there's been no incentive to introduce it, because (in the US) gun manufacturers have special immunity from being sued.
I would imagine that the technology has advanced since then but they all rely on having an electronic trigger. In which case they can all be bypassed mechanically. It might stop spontaneous misuse by another, but nothing that can't be gotten around with more time/tools."I think we should still try. | |||
