another mass shooting - at a country venue

Jeremi01 said:
tu as tord à 100%,
surtout si tu crois qu'il y a seulement 4-5 attentats/an au states.... Prends en considération que ça prend au minimum 2 morts que ce se soit considérer comme tuerie de masse. Prends en considération les blessés etc


Même si le site internet est biased, car ça entoure la violence par arme à feu, il reste que toute les incidents et tuerie y sont montrées.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
Click to expand...

c'est facile de tourner les chiffres pour démontrer ce qu'on veut. la pluspart des statisticiens ignorent de leur propre vonlonté un fait qui rend leur soit-disant statistiques inutiles sauf pour des raisons politiques. ce fait est: la population des É-U est 10x plus que celle du Canada.
donc s'il y en a 1 par an au Canda ça équivaut à 10 aux É-U.
en termes de tuerie en masse, je crois qu'on en a un peu plus par habitant au Canada.
en terme de meurtres, il y en a bien plus aux É-U.
 
sur les meurtres, beaucoup sont liés à des tueries. P-E que des guerres de gangs de rue n'est pas compté comme tuerie terroriste domestique, mais il reste que s'il y a plus que 1 individu impliqué, ça devient quand même un ''mass shooting''

Lâchons le côté politique de la chose, les USA est un pays qui prônent la violence pour régler des conflits et c'est un pays qui a une trop grande facilité d'accessibilité à l'arme à feu. Des instables imbéciles avec des guns, il y en a en sibole aux states

Le CND compte +- 600 homicides/par an et je ne peux pas te dire combien est un acte terroriste ou un acte d'un désespéré, mais ça doit être minime. Cette statistique vient de statistique canada et ça ne dit pas combien par arme à feu
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA said:
I get the point you’re trying to make. The only difference is that rape is an act, just like murder. Legalizing rape would be the same as legalizing murder. Guns on the other hand are tools. I’m not making arguments for or against guns, just saying.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference, the point I am trying to make is that just because someone manages to bypass a law doesn't make that law useless or stupid any how...

The statement I initially quoted was trying to say otherwise, and I applied the said thinking to another law just to prove how stupid it is, whether the law in question is preventing a behavior (murder/rape) or an object (guns/drugs) doesn't change anything, you could apply the initial thinking to any kind of law it would still sound as stupid.

One person bypassing a particular law doesn't mean the law suddenly becomes irrelevant, if it was the case there would be no laws since they would all be irrelevant.
 
PsychoBandito said:
For debates sake.

All guns are banned. Is the government going to give a full value pay out for every gun?
Click to expand...

If guns had to be banned, I guess going for a full pay out for every legally owned gun would add a safety net for the government and put more odds on their side in terms of the risks associated with the population going full retard / rebelion style...Not saying it wouldn’t happen but it would definitely help tempering down lots of people lol

Removing people their guns and giving them no compensation for the money they « lost » when buying them back when they were legal is asking for trouble lol
 
Do you think the average tax payer is going to be happy paying out a few billion dollars for them? It's an unfortunate reality that needs to be considered.

Off topic, but I'm for more afraid of 2 scuba tanks, some kerosene and a pressure washer wand...
 
PsychoBandito said:
Do you think the average tax payer is going to be happy paying out a few billion dollars for them? It's an unfortunate reality that needs to be considered.

Off topic, but I'm for more afraid of 2 scuba tanks, some kerosene and a pressure washer wand...
Click to expand...
Definitely not, but I don't believe that an Australia-style ban would work with the US. The main argument is protection against all the people that are after them as a result of high crime. Make them feel safer and more of them would give up their guns willingly.

I feel like the problem is that a very capitalist society often breeds inequality and class segragation. It's more difficult for people to get out of their shit financial situations and hardship and to make a decent living. That's probably why a lot of them turn to crime as a get rich quick scheme. There seems to be less crime in more socialist countries (in general anyway) and I'm not saying there aren't huge drawbacks at being very socialist either. I think a good healthy balance between the two is something that needs to be found, and the US needs to work towards that. Make people happier, educate the poor and give them the tools and knowledge (without throwing money at them) to make even the least resourceful of the people make a living for themselves. I mean when the cost of education and health care is pretty astronomical, you can start to see why some get desperate. It also doesn't help that people don't seem to trust their law enforcement either.

You lower crime, your make people feel safer, you lessen the apparent "need" for a gun, and you slowly tighten the screw on gun ownership until they're confined to dedicated shooting ranges.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I'm about as anti-gun as they get, so I feel pretty strongly about not letting any humans (who have varying emotions and uncontrollable outcomes in their lives) get their hands on a tool whose sole intent and designed purpose is to end lives as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I get that a lot of people like guns (not sure why but to each their own) but you can't compare gun ownership (even responsible ownership) to anything else. It's a tool with one purpose in mind and I really do feel like it's the sort of power that no one should be allowed to handle.
 
Snail said:
Definitely not, but I don't believe that an Australia-style ban would work with the US. The main argument is protection against all the people that are after them as a result of high crime. Make them feel safer and more of them would give up their guns willingly.

I feel like the problem is that a very capitalist society often breeds inequality and class segragation. It's more difficult for people to get out of their shit financial situations and hardship and to make a decent living. That's probably why a lot of them turn to crime as a get rich quick scheme. There seems to be less crime in more socialist countries (in general anyway) and I'm not saying there aren't huge drawbacks at being very socialist either. I think a good healthy balance between the two is something that needs to be found, and the US needs to work towards that. Make people happier, educate the poor and give them the tools and knowledge (without throwing money at them) to make even the least resourceful of the people make a living for themselves. I mean when the cost of education and health care is pretty astronomical, you can start to see why some get desperate. It also doesn't help that people don't seem to trust their law enforcement either.

You lower crime, your make people feel safer, you lessen the apparent "need" for a gun, and you slowly tighten the screw on gun ownership until they're confined to dedicated shooting ranges.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I'm about as anti-gun as they get, so I feel pretty strongly about not letting any humans (who have varying emotions and uncontrollable outcomes in their lives) get their hands on a tool whose sole intent and designed purpose is to end lives as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I get that a lot of people like guns (not sure why but to each their own) but you can't compare gun ownership (even responsible ownership) to anything else. It's a tool with one purpose in mind and I really do feel like it's the sort of power that no one should be allowed to handle.
Click to expand...

And as a pro-gun and gun owner myself, I kind of have the same opinion you have.

Gun violence in the USA is a very complex problem that cannot be solved easily and is caused by multiple factors.

I agree that availability to firearms is too easy in a lot of states. From my point of view, I would like to have qualified people to own and handle guns, not the general population.

But there is also the racial tensions, poverty and the huge gap between poor and rich people, low education due to high scholarship cost, lack of heath system availability to lower income people also due to high cost...

So you add the easy availability to own firearms to possible mental heatlth problems that are untreated, low scholarship meaning low income and you have a recipe for disaster. Thankfully Canada manages the firearm issue better than down south, and even though its a pain in the ass for law abiding firearm owners here to jump through each hoops of the whole ownership experience, at least I can sleep without thinking my maniac neighbour who owns multiple firearms will go batshit crazy and begin shooting everyone.

If I would make the laws, from what I know of how the system works here in Canada, I would make the whole license process even harder to skim out the retards out of it, and have frequent check ups on mental health and criminal background checks (restricted firearms licence owncers currently get checked EVERY day for criminal background) and basically make the whole process of owning firearms longer and more difficult, but provide more latitude regarding firearm choices once you get approved for everything.

But that's just my 2 cents from a gun owner point of view.
 
4frnt. said:
And as a pro-gun and gun owner myself, I kind of have the same opinion you have.

Gun violence in the USA is a very complex problem that cannot be solved easily and is caused by multiple factors.

I agree that availability to firearms is too easy in a lot of states. From my point of view, I would like to have qualified people to own and handle guns, not the general population.

But there is also the racial tensions, poverty and the huge gap between poor and rich people, low education due to high scholarship cost, lack of heath system availability to lower income people also due to high cost...

So you add the easy availability to own firearms to possible mental heatlth problems that are untreated, low scholarship meaning low income and you have a recipe for disaster. Thankfully Canada manages the firearm issue better than down south, and even though its a pain in the ass for law abiding firearm owners here to jump through each hoops of the whole ownership experience, at least I can sleep without thinking my maniac neighbour who owns multiple firearms will go batshit crazy and begin shooting everyone.

If I would make the laws, from what I know of how the system works here in Canada, I would make the whole license process even harder to skim out the retards out of it, and have frequent check ups on mental health and criminal background checks (restricted firearms licence owncers currently get checked EVERY day for criminal background) and basically make the whole process of owning firearms longer and more difficult, but provide more latitude regarding firearm choices once you get approved for everything.

But that's just my 2 cents from a gun owner point of view.
Click to expand...

Your post makes sense but will fall on deaf ears. I've stopped giving long winded responses here because the beach club bros from Laval get there panties in a bunch if you don't parrot their views. At the same time they fail to provide any meaningful rebuttal to further the discussion.
 
4frnt. said:
And as a pro-gun and gun owner myself, I kind of have the same opinion you have.

Gun violence in the USA is a very complex problem that cannot be solved easily and is caused by multiple factors.

I agree that availability to firearms is too easy in a lot of states. From my point of view, I would like to have qualified people to own and handle guns, not the general population.

But there is also the racial tensions, poverty and the huge gap between poor and rich people, low education due to high scholarship cost, lack of heath system availability to lower income people also due to high cost...

So you add the easy availability to own firearms to possible mental heatlth problems that are untreated, low scholarship meaning low income and you have a recipe for disaster. Thankfully Canada manages the firearm issue better than down south, and even though its a pain in the ass for law abiding firearm owners here to jump through each hoops of the whole ownership experience, at least I can sleep without thinking my maniac neighbour who owns multiple firearms will go batshit crazy and begin shooting everyone.

If I would make the laws, from what I know of how the system works here in Canada, I would make the whole license process even harder to skim out the retards out of it, and have frequent check ups on mental health and criminal background checks (restricted firearms licence owncers currently get checked EVERY day for criminal background) and basically make the whole process of owning firearms longer and more difficult, but provide more latitude regarding firearm choices once you get approved for everything.

But that's just my 2 cents from a gun owner point of view.
Click to expand...

I think there are lots of gun owners in the states that feel this way, but keep their mouth shut out of fear of being exiled.

I think looking at places like Switzerland, you start to see that maybe it's not just gun ownership that causes these problems.
 
Stirl_ae86 said:
I checked MSN and didn't even see a headline anywhere for this. Meaning one of two things: That the media couldn't find a way to use this to their benefit and somehow blame Trump. Or that the population is finally officially numb to events like this. Maybe both.
Click to expand...

I did not see you post about this either

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/667252788/police-fatally-shoot-black-security-guard-who-detained-suspected-shooter

Meaning one of two things: That the conservative medias couldn't find a way to use this to their benefit and somehow blame libtards. Or that the population is finally officially numb to events like this. Maybe both.

...

Police Fatally Shoot Black Security Guard Who Detained Shooting Suspect

When police arrived after reports of a shooting over the weekend at a bar outside Chicago, witnesses say Jemel Roberson, a 26-year-old security guard who worked there, had already subdued the alleged assailant, pinning him to the ground.

Adam Harris, who was at Manny's Blue Bar in Robbins at the time of the incident on Sunday, told WGN-TV that Roberson was holding "somebody on the ground with his knee in his back, with his gun in his back" when officers from neighboring Midlothian got there early Sunday.

Midlothian Police Chief Daniel Delaney said that's when one of his officers "encountered a subject with a gun" and shot him, according to a statement given to the media.

But the "subject" was Roberson, not the suspect in the bar shooting.

Witnesses say Roberson was wearing his uniform, including a hat emblazoned with the word "security," and was holding a firearm he was licensed to carry.

Midlothian police confirmed that two officers responded to the scene at the bar on Sunday and that one of them opened fire.

"Everybody was screaming out 'Security!' " Harris told WGN. "And they still did their job, and saw a black man with a gun, and basically killed him."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top