As I saw in a much circulated meme, if bullying was the root cause of these shootings you'd see predominantly LGBT killers, non-white killers, and women killers.
But that isn't who is doing it.
So bullying hasn't been identified in practically every case of a school shooting in the US in the last 20 years?
My point is that there are a lot of people who are bullied who do not turn around and start shooting people, in particular those who are most usually the targets of bullying. Women don't. And if you consider how much more these other identifiable groups suffer bullying, why aren't they the ones killing people?
And no, bullying is not at the root of virtually all school shootings. It is one of a number of causes.
Perscription medication apparently is a root cause too.
I'd say those other groups aren't killing as many people because they don't have fragile egos like racist males with white privilage do.
When we look at Canada though why are there so few school and workplace shootings?
I'm sure it can't have anything to do with the lack of handguns.
If Canada banned hammers, Canadians who really wanted to drive a nail would use a rock, or the side of a wrench, or a meat tenderizer.
In London, handguns are prohibited, but for a couple of months recently, they've managed to just about equal NYC in terms of murder, using knives. Adapt, improvise, overcome.
Not to toot our own horn, but I think there must also be a cultural component (which must necessarily be independent of whiteness, maleness or privelege, since we've got all of those in equal numbers). Maybe Canadians just don't feel the same pressing need to slaughter our "enemies" in the same way as some other countries. If we felt that same need then, like London, we'd find a way. And before anyone says "Oh, sure, but how many people can you kill with one knife", please Google "China mass stabbing". Sure it's more difficult, but on the plus side, a knife never runs out of ammo.
I agree there is a cultural component. We also don't have the same paranoid rhetoric used to back up gun culture in the U.S.
But I don't buy the "they'd just use glasses or pillows" line. In the first place other items are not as deadly as guns. And as that study on suicide found, simply not having one around did make an overall difference in whether one committed the act at all.
And google it and pages of studies to that effect pop up. Here's one, including the incidence of how many people are going to resort to using the feather duster or a frozen roast as murder weapon if there is no gun around:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/risks-of-having-a-gun-in-the-home
But I don't buy the "they'd just use glasses or pillows" line. In the first place other items are not as deadly as guns.
When used as intended. I've owned pillows responsibly for fifty years! But vehicles, which in fact ARE greater overall killers than handguns, seem to also be the new weapon of choice for someone committed to killing lots of strangers. Also NOT used as intended!
Damn, we humans are creative when we want to be!
But what's your take on how a city with pretty strict handgun laws -- London -- still seems to kill just about as many people (at least for a few months) as a city that permits concealed-carry -- NYC? If the problem is really handguns, why is London punching above their weight? Ain't "handguns".
I guess you gleaned that from the Reuters story, right? There have been some updates on that bit of cherrypicking:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43628494
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-...
I think a more accurate number might be overall incidence of homocide in the country. And really, if it is a case of people using other murder weapons, how many shoe beating rampages have we had here in Canada, and does it bring our murder rate anywhere near the U.S.?
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
But I don't buy the "they'd just use glasses or pillows" line. In the first place other items are not as deadly as guns.When used as intended. I've owned pillows responsibly for fifty years! But vehicles, which in fact ARE greater overall killers than handguns, seem to also be the new weapon of choice for someone committed to killing lots of strangers. Also NOT used as intended!
Damn, we humans are creative when we want to be!
But what's your take on how a city with pretty strict handgun laws -- London -- still seems to kill just about as many people (at least for a few months) as a city that permits concealed-carry -- NYC? If the problem is really handguns, why is London punching above their weight? Ain't "handguns".
The issue isn't individual murders. It's about preventing mass murders. It is much more difficult to kill a lot of people in a public place with a knife. Children are also less likely to kill playmates with them.
It's true that a vehicle can also be used to kill many people at once but vehicles have a positive useful purpose for everyone where as handguns do not. The sole purpose of a hand gun is shooting people. Sure you can use it for target practice, but you can use a bb gun for that too.
There are 800'000 some restricted firearms in Canada. Most of those are likely handguns. But even lets say half a million handguns. How many handguns have been used in mass shootings in the last 10 or 20 years? 5 handguns? 5 handguns out of half a million? The last school shooter used a shotgun you'd find on a farm 100 years ago.
Must be something else.
SAN BRUNO, Calif. -- A woman opened fire at YouTube's headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area Tuesday, wounding four people before she shot and killed herself and prompted panic as employees hid and tried to flee, police and witnesses said.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/female-suspect-dead-4-others-injured-in-you...
Speak of the devil.
Sad.
Must be something else.
Yeah. Clearly we are barking up the wrong tree here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_cou...
(edit)
And of course. Thoughts and prayers.
I guess you gleaned that from the Reuters story, right? There have been some updates on that bit of cherrypicking
It's true that a vehicle can also be used to kill many people at once but vehicles have a positive useful purpose for everyone where as handguns do not.
My point was not that we need to ban vehicles -- partly because murderers would just find the NEXT BEST thing. My point was that banning handguns does not equal stopping murders, and it doesn't even equal stopping mass murders.
Or just tell me how on earth there are still murders and mass murders in jurisdictions that prohibit handguns, or even all guns?
I actually acknowledged that it was for a couple of months. I don't think that focussing on just those months would be science.
But if the thesis is that it's all about guns and permissive gun laws, it's still sort of interesting to me that even for a couple of months, a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun laws could exceed a jurisdiction that allows some citizens to "pack heat".
It's like saying that some high-school runner beat an Olympian twice. Maybe they can't beat that Olympian every time, but it's still hardly for nothing. How should London have EVEN BEEN CLOSE?
how many shoe beating rampages have we had here in Canada, and does it bring our murder rate anywhere near the U.S.?
Our murder rate is nowhere near the U.S., regardless of method. Again, just pointing out that murderers don't seem to require handguns to be on the podium.
But what's your take on how a city with pretty strict handgun laws -- London -- still seems to kill just about as many people (at least for a few months) as a city that permits concealed-carry -- NYC?
Just for the record, NYC "permits" concealed carry in much the same way Canada does. That is to say, if you're white and wealthy, well-connected, a politician, an armoured car driver, and/or a former cop, you can get a permit, but for the average citizen, it's pretty close to impossible.
My point was not that we need to ban vehicles -- partly because murderers would just find the NEXT BEST thing. My point was that banning handguns does not equal stopping murders, and it doesn't even equal stopping mass murders.
You are talking in absolutes. Laws against murder don't prevent all murders either. We don't expect them to.
Jurisdictions can't be compared to one another unless they are very similar, for example two towns of 10,000 in the same province could be compared.
Jurisdictions can't be compared to one another unless they are very similar, for example two towns of 10,000 in the same province could be compared.
London and NYC were compared partly because they have very similar populations.
But of course London isn't a U.S. city like NYC, and they don't permit handguns like NYC. So what's the reason why their murder rates -- even for just a couple of months -- should be within a decimal point of each other?
So what's the reason why their murder rates -- even for just a couple of months -- should be within a decimal point of each other?
Because, as the article I posted pointed out, it is a narrow and therefore unrepresentative sample. The graph included in the BBC article shows the comparison between the two cities as it really is.
Because, as the article I posted pointed out, it is a narrow and therefore unrepresentative sample.
I get that. I said that.
But if -- even for only two months! -- eating Tide Pods killed as many people as guns, are you saying it would be unreasonable to wonder how eating Tide Pods EVEN CAME CLOSE? Even for just one sixth of a year?
Is that normal? Can paper cuts sometimes kill as many people as handguns for a sixth of a year?
Because, as the article I posted pointed out, it is a narrow and therefore unrepresentative sample.I get that. I said that.
But if -- even for only two months! -- eating Tide Pods killed as many people as guns, are you saying it would be unreasonable to wonder how eating Tide Pods EVEN CAME CLOSE? Even for just one sixth of a year?
Is that normal? Can paper cuts sometimes kill as many people as handguns for a sixth of a year?
Sure if one goes exceptionally high and the other exceptionally low they could be in the same range. But the two cities can't be compared that directly either. The cultures and economic situations are quite different. Only a longitudianal study would prove anything and even then there could be other variables.
Or we could just use logic. The purpose of handguns is to kill people. As a society we have a right to deem a product created for the purpose of killing people is not something we want broadly available. If they fulfilled some other purpose, like laundry, or transport, that would have to be weighted against the potential harm. But with handguns, there is no other purpose.
Phosphate was great for cleaning clothes, not so great for lakes. They were not necessary for cleaning clothes, the same goal could still be achieved, so they were banned.
Jurisdictions can't be compared to one another unless they are very similar, for example two towns of 10,000 in the same province could be compared.London and NYC were compared partly because they have very similar populations.
But of course London isn't a U.S. city like NYC, and they don't permit handguns like NYC. So what's the reason why their murder rates -- even for just a couple of months -- should be within a decimal point of each other?
It should be remembered that New York City has a population of around 8 million but it's just part of the tri-state area which currently has well over 20 million. I wonder how the crime rate in the Tri-City area compares with just New York City's? I think gentrification and the general economic growth in New York City over the years is bringing down their crime rates. I remember being in Manhattan every decade since the 70's and it felt incredibly more seedy, impoverished, and dangerous there 50 years ago than it does now. It seems to me that fifty years ago it was much more affordable to move into the five boroughs of New York. Back in the 70's and even 80's a poor person could easily find a place to live in areas like the Lower East Side or Greenwich Village. I think New York City's economy has steadily improved since the 1980's, especially Manhattan's and this is affecting their crime rates.
But the two cities can't be compared that directly either. The cultures and economic situations are quite different.
Also, their gun laws. Which is, of course, the point.
But the two cities can't be compared that directly either. The cultures and economic situations are quite different.Also, their gun laws. Which is, of course, the point.
Which is also part of the reason why the murder rate in London is about one third that of New York, this silly extrapolation of an outlier sample notwithstanding.
London's rate has also dropped since 2007, and stayed level for the past five years. In January London had eight murders and New York 18.
Because, as the article I posted pointed out, it is a narrow and therefore unrepresentative sample.I get that. I said that.
But if -- even for only two months! -- eating Tide Pods killed as many people as guns, are you saying it would be unreasonable to wonder how eating Tide Pods EVEN CAME CLOSE? Even for just one sixth of a year?
Is that normal? Can paper cuts sometimes kill as many people as handguns for a sixth of a year?
London is pretty busy chasing down mean tweets, that could account for the rise in actual crime.
Also the generation we're supposed to listen to about gun control have moved on from eating Tide pods (successful education campaign?). They're snorting condoms now.
6 people stabbed inside 90 minutes in London. Also a strange lack of news covering in the latest US mass shooting, it must be because the media is finally trying not to glorify the shooters.
There is plenty of coverage of the Youtube shootings in the right wing press. The Ben Shaprios of the US are having a field day.
There is plenty of coverage of the Youtube shootings in the right wing press. The Ben Shaprios of the US are having a field day.
You're right I see that now. Sad anytime there is a loss of life now we play identity politics and immediately blame sides and cheer when it's "not us" doing the shooting.
6 people stabbed inside 90 minutes in London. Also a strange lack of news covering in the latest US mass shooting, it must be because the media is finally trying not to glorify the shooters.
Six stabbings by six different people and so far no deaths. If Stanley had a knife instead of a gun Boushie would be alive today.
I believe the latest shooting in the US was a woman and the only person she killed was herself. The others all survived if I recall correctly.
A lot of things can kill people but some are more efficient than others. Cement blocks are being to prevent mass murder by vehicles at festivals and other places where there are large crowds. It won't stop it from happening 100%. People determined to do this sort of thing will find other ways or other targets. Does that mean we shouldn't bother with the cement blocks?
Pondering if Gerald Stanly had a knife and stabbed Colton in the head then he may very well have died. Lots of people die when stabbed. Unless you meant it int he context that guns go off and it's harder to have an accident with a knife.
You may also be surprised if you read various sources about the attempts to use blocks and posts to stop erratic drivers. They're apparently not very effective. You're right nothing prevents something 100% and no we shouldn't not look at ways to prevent and mitigate deaths from occuring but if you ask me identifying people with mental illness or violent intentions beforehand and intercepting them is going to be way more effective than a cement block.
The woman's father in the latest mass shooting tried to warn the police. What happened?
Maybe people should get criminal background checks and mental health assessments before being allowed to buy vehicles or get a license?
Nice people debating with gun-fetishist trolls is one of the various reasons I took long breaks from babble. Don't you all find it slightly embarrassing?
Not really. I don't run the place, so it's isn't really on me to make anyone fuck off. Anyway, the new consensus is to just accommodate, so there isn't really anyone to blame for that. It is what some people asked for.
And considering this started out, like a lot of other threads, on legitimate topics until the trolling started (which for some reason it always seems to), what do you think is more embarrassing, trying to keep things on topic, or just giving up and letting them have the field, and getting judgmental about those who are still trying?
I don't really think of it in those terms, even if I do agree with you that there is a point at which this is kind of useless. I just haven't quite reached it yet.
Not really. I don't run the place, so it's isn't really on me to make anyone fuck off. Anyway, the new consensus is to just accommodate, so there isn't really anyone to blame for that. It is what some people asked for.
And considering this started out, like a lot of other threads, on legitimate topics until the trolling started (which for some reason it always seems to), what do you think is more embarrassing, trying to keep things on topic, or just giving up and letting them have the field, and getting judgmental about those who are still trying?
I don't really think of it in those terms, even if I do agree with you that there is a point at which this is kind of useless. I just haven't quite reached it yet.
Who exactly is trolling in this thread?
Oh try not to get too righteous about it. I doubt you're going to take your ball and guns and leave.
If you're bent out of shape about it being pointed out again that this conversation has been swamped by one thing and one thing alone, too bad.
And considering this started out, like a lot of other threads, on legitimate topics until the trolling started (which for some reason it always seems to)
IIRC, "trolling" used to mean someone saying something online that they didn't particularly believe, in order to "get a rise out of" others. So, posting on a dog forum that cats are better, and posting on a cat forum that dogs are better. The poster can't believe both at the same time.
But now trolling seems to mean almost any genuinely held opinion that might, as it happens, get someone of the opposite opinion all riled up.
If we laugh at someone's earnest post in support of "trickle-down economics", nobody calls it trolling. If we suggest that Hummer drivers have micropenises, nobody calls it trolling. If we make fun of a 6,000 year old Earth, nobody calls it trolling.
I'm not saying I always agree with Paladin1, but I don't think he's posting just to see you frown.
Well, it's refreshing to take a bit of a break and talk about something else, even if it a throwback to the old meta days.
I guess if there's one way to tell us apart from the alt right it's that we sure know how to use our dictionaries. Better than shooting it out. Maybe there' was a lesson in there for old George Lincoln.
Oh try not to get too righteous about it. I doubt you're going to take your ball and guns and leave.
If you're bent out of shape about it being pointed out again that this conversation has been swamped by one thing and one thing alone, too bad.
Sorry Smith, it was a genuine question, you seem really defensive about it. I didn't see anyone trolling this thread just to get a rise out of anyone but as Magoo mentions maybe trolling now just means anyone with an opposite opinion.
I agree it's been swamped by one thing but I doubt we'll see eye to eye on what exactly that is.
I do get the big ball joke, clever! :) I admit I was just going to pop back in to lend some firearm knowledge since someone asked me to over PMs and fuck off again but I was enjoying having good conversations here without being called a nazi. Cause I like this place and I learn a lot.
Speaking of learning (and leaving), I'll tell you a secret. I found a mystery I feel really motivated to solve, at least before I part ways again. Remember a year or two ago when I called out a member for having two accounts here and posting on them both like they were seperate people? I spent some time going through posts, checking dates, forums, grammar mistakes and all that and laid it out in a post and they laughed said good job or whatever and left?
I think I'm on to a similar situation and I'm building a pretty interesting argument. It's pretty fucking wild how things are connecting. Like my CSIS buddy says it's all about patterns. Stay tuned.
Getting back on topic has the SARM been making much noise lately or have they quieted down?Haven't heard much about them in the news lately.
The last word was the province considering changes to tresspass laws. There was nothing that I heard about people arming themselves, and the only mention was the minister saying this evaluation of the law would not move into the area of self defense.
Pondering if Gerald Stanly had a knife and stabbed Colton in the head then he may very well have died. Lots of people die when stabbed. Unless you meant it int he context that guns go off and it's harder to have an accident with a knife.
Yes that is what I meant, and I also recall your saying something to the effect that it wouldn't play out like that with a long gun versus a handgun which makes perfect sense.
I understand what you are saying Unionist, but Paladin also supports some gun laws being stricter. He's never suggested more people having guns would protect us.
Personally I don't know anyone who owns a gun (to my knowledge). I know which end the bullet comes out of and that's about it. Actually, I know a bit more now because of Paladin.
The threads in which we are all on the same side tend to die because there is little to say.
The last word was the province considering changes to tresspass laws. There was nothing that I heard about people arming themselves, and the only mention was the minister saying this evaluation of the law would not move into the area of self defense.
Ah right on. I'm glad it didn't escalate.
How about you TimeBandit? You mentioned you're out west too, are you somewhat in the same area? Did you notice things kinda calming down like Smith did?
Yes that is what I meant, and I also recall your saying something to the effect that it wouldn't play out like that with a long gun versus a handgun which makes perfect sense
Yes you're right I remember that. A Rifle would be difficult trying to shove in a car window and could still accidentally go off, but I don't think it would go down the same way. A knife woulnd't at all (unless it's a russian ballastic knife).
I understand what you are saying Unionist, but Paladin also supports some gun laws being stricter. He's never suggested more people having guns would protect us.
Hey now, Unionist never said me. Why'd you go and assume for :) But yes for sure some laws should be stricter. Not to be self-righteous but I figure I have more reasons to push for "common sense gun control" than most members here. Guns are a privilage and not a right in Canada, thankfully.
Gerald Stanley was fined $3000 and given a 10-year weapons ban for impropperly stored firearms. The gun used in the shooting of Colton Boushie wasn't among the firearms improperly stored. He faced a maxium of 2 years.
