If the politicians can knee-jerk as a direct response to this sort of thing (which they did, in '89, from the exact same campus, using it as an excuse to launch a new wave of gun control laws), why can't law abiding, gun owning, citizens comment on it, as well?

I'm not blaming the people that got hurt, I'm not pointing fingers at the victims, I'm not saying "they had it coming," the way some Canadians and Europeans did on 9/12/01. I'm not even talking, specifically, about Canadian politicians (we have some ridiculous gun control laws here in the states, too, and trust me I feel even more strongly about them). I'm just saying I think it's a damned shame every time something like this happens, people are forced to rely on the police to protect them.

I get sick to my stomach when I imagine how helpless those people must have felt, with nothing more dangerous than a mechanical pencil or a calculator to defend themselves with, against someone willing to ignore gun laws in order to kill people. It literaly sickens me to think about law-abiding citizens losing their lives for being law abiding, and disarming themselves to set foot on a college campus (or into a church, or a gov't building, or anyplace that serves alcohol, or a million other businesses). It nauseates me to think about people being denied the basic right to defend themselves.

The kids at Columbine (to use a similar, and more unpleasant, example) broke 11 seperate, previously existing, firearm laws just when they set foot onto that high school campus. Nevermind when they started shooting people -- they broke 11 laws, just having those guns, carrying them the way they were, going to a public school with them, etc. They knew they were breaking laws doing so, and they didn't not do it because of it. It's what criminals do, pretty much by definition; ignore or bypass laws.

So what makes politicians think more laws are the answer?

What makes politicians warm and fuzzy inside, disarming the very people that voted them into office? What lets them sleep at night, when faced with the fact tragedies like this might not happen, might happen less frequently, or at the very least might be stopped much quicker, if they didn't go out of their way to handicap law abiding, decent human beings?

Psychos and sociopaths and thugs and gangbangers don't give a fuck about gun laws. Decent human beings do. Responsible human beings. Human beings that respect authority, care what other people think about them, and are well-adjusted enough to follow society's rules. The people you want carrying guns can't, because politicians and soccer moms don't want them to.

I've read that there's one gun in Canada for every three Canadians. I'm not sure how accurate it is, or (of course) how many of them are big-ass hunting rifles or shotguns, etc. The gist of the statement, however, is that it is not a nation of people frightened of firearms. It's not a nation of people who don't know how they work. It's not a nation of people living in the 12th century. It's a nation of people, however, who can't carry those guns anywhere to protect themselves. This shooter, according to CNN, was laid low by the police, using new (post-Columbine) "active shooter" techniques. Where the police used to settle in a perimter and wait for SWAT to show up, they now understand that bad men stop shooting nice people if you fucking kill them. I commend the bravery of those officers, and were I not a whole bunch of miles away, I'd try to buy each of them a beer. However, in the time it took those policemen to arrive, this guy put one college girl in the ground, and 7-8 more in critical condition and 10-12 more in the hospital (I've heard varying numbers). Imagine if those people had been able to actively defend themselves! Imagine if that "one gun for every three Canadians" was a number describing concealed carry permits. That would be between 6 and 8 law-abiding citizens, out of those actual shot by this lunatic alone, that could've filled that fucker with holes before he'd preforated victim number 2.

Think about that. Think about a society -- and not just Canada, here, but any society -- full of people not just willing to run and try to help people (like your own brother, Dog), but able to help people. Imagine that one in three. Imagine what the next psycho asshole who decided to shoot up a college campus would be up against, in seconds, not minutes. Imagine fifteen or sixteen of yesterday's twenty victims being shaken up, but unharmed. Imagine a government that let you protect each other like that, instead of a government that does everything it can to keep you reliant on it for protection (the way those cops used to be reliant on SWAT to come stop the shooter).

My prayers are with those affected by this tragedy. My thoughts are with them, my heart goes out to the families of those injured, unaccounted for as-of-yet, and (of course) murdered. But at the same time, I can't just be sad, I'm pissed off, too. Not only at the shitheel crazy-ass that decided to kill a bunch of people, but at the politicians -- none of whom were on that campus that day, of course -- who let it happen by not allowing people to defend themselves. I hope your brother wasn't hurt, I hope the people that were hurt make it through this (I've heard one, so far, succumbed to their injuries at a nearby hospital), and I hope such a thing never gets to happen again, anywhere.

There are two groups of people that are the most worried about being shot by civilians (non-LEO, non-military). Criminals and politicians. Politicians, sadly, have the power to act on their fears.

No you can't. You can't buy an "assault rifle" anywhere, in any state, without special (very expensive, very complicated, very paper-trail-heavy) certification. Check your facts. It's not like you can stroll into a Wal Mart and walk out with an FN-FAL or something, without background checks, etc. Trust me.

Yes. That makes perfect sense.

I'm fucked up because I wish those twenty college kids had been able to defend themselves. I'm crazy because I wish shit like this didn't happen, and because laws very obviously aren't going to stop it. I'm nuts because I wish people were able to protect themselves from the psychopaths, sociopaths, rapists, muggers, and general worthless criminals of the world (the people who casually ignore gun control laws, like they ignore the laws against murdering, raping, and stealing). I'm disgusting to you, because I wish this shit couldn't happen to decent human beings. You're sickened by me, because I don't like the idea of people being dependent on their government to protect them, but, rather, I like the idea of them being capable of protecting themselves. I'm wrong, because I don't like laws that, quite simply, make good people die for no reason.

The notion of law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves makes you "sicker" than the crazy bastard that decided to go on a shooting spree. You, sir, make lots of sense.

If the tragedy hadn't happened as a direct result of the laws that let it happen, the idea wouldn't have jumped into my head so very, very, quickly. That said, I apologize for the disruption, and will bow out of the thread if that's what you want. I'll only ask that you go back and reread what I wrote, understanding that it's coming only from a position of greif over the harm that's been caused, and righteous indignation that such attacks continue to be possible. I've lost friends to insane shooters -- google search "Clay Shrout" some time -- and it makes me sick to my stomach whenever I hear about it happening to anyone else.

Is it? I don't know what the statistics are like for where you live, but this gets trotted out a lot when comparing European countries to the US and in plenty of cases, it's completely untrue.

For example, you're actually a lot less likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the US than in the UK.

If you disregard things like race and socio-economic status, the theoretical average person is more likely to get murdered in the US (in particular, murdered with a gun)... though those averages aren't even close to accurate for the majority of middle-class Americans. On the other hand, the rate of other violent crime - assault, rape, armed robbery, etc. - is lower. (and the rate of non-violent property crime is lower still)

I'm actually acquainited with at least a couple of Canadians that do. (though they're both ex-servicemen, and have a tendency to be on the conservative side, by Canadian standards anyway)

Does this actually mean less violent crime is reported and noted by the police in US, and which study came to this conclusion? I may have seen such a report earlier, but I couldn't confirm on a quick glance at NationMaster. According to the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, the US has very slightly more assaults, twice as many rapes and three times as many murders per capita, but slightly less robberies and much less burglaries -- though again that's all the crime that's reported, not all that has actually happened.

Germany ranks lower than either country in every category, with 1/5th the amount of assaults and half the robberies per capita.

Guess what? Firearms are banned in Canada. You think it's legal to own an AK-47? Even in the 'states? It's NOT. And that predictably means that when good people cannot own an AK-47, the only people who will have AK-47s are criminals.

That would be the response from the medias....

You're right, Gun Registry and longer prison sentences have nothing to do with this...

Should the gun be registered or not, that won't have made any difference!

I'm much more in favor of a special governement agency who hunts gun dealers all across the country... They will have a lot of work to do in Kanawahke (which is an amerindian reserve)

No, it doesn't. I don't know if I agree with Critias (I believe in the right to self-defense against the government and its agents, the question of defense against other private individuals is less clear to me—and I'm very doubtful of the actual effectiveness of an armed populace in stopping things like this), but both because of what he believes and because historically events like this have heralded an immediate cry against private gun ownership, there is no better time—from his point of view, this is what happens when a course against gun ownership is taken.

~J

Well, I know that... And being from Montreal too, I don't even know someone who own a weapon except for a friend of mine who has a .22 hunting rifle (registered) locked in a gun case, with the ammos locked in another case, well hidden in his house... And imho, even hunting rifles should be illegal.

However, I don't think the guy used an AK-47 for this crime... There is no details yet in the local news that tells that kind of information...

This at least, I agree with.



I wear black clothes when I'm feeling melancholy, or want to look like I just stepped out of The Matrix.
I'm listening to metal now.
I watch violent movies sometimes.
I'm all about the violent videogames, man.


And yes, I know how to use guns, am learning how to use them and maintain them better than I know now, and I firmly believe in the right to bear arms.

Does that make me a school shooter? No.

You should be locked up... And I sure hope they throw the key away.

You're dangerous for society. Please, try to get some help before it's too late.

EDIT: It's very rare that I flame someone... But that kind of thinking is simply way too much irresponsible for me.

*shrug* This used to annoy me a lot more. It really doesn't anymore.

Psychiatry often uses "indicators" to help evaluate a patient. It's not that they can look at a patient and say "yes, he's doing the happy and productive thing, he's obviously manic"... but it's used as one of a series of possible symptoms of a possible problem.

Plenty of people match up with some indicators for various kinds of behavioral problems. That doesn't make us all crazy.

This guy's was a school shooter who, among other things, was into loud music, wearing long coats, and playing violent video games. Have we seen this pattern before? Yep... so these things might be indicators. Combine them with things like a serious interest in firearms, anger control problems, a history of mental illness, drug use, or any number of other indicators I'm sure we could come up with, and you're looking at an increased probability of the guy being a school shooter, from the psychiatrist's point of view.

Just because it's an indicator doesn't mean anyone who matches up with it has the same issue. A number of people who cause traffic accidents are intoxicated, but that doesn't mean anyone here who drinks is a drunk driver.

--------------------------------------

I'm fine with the majority of Canadians wanting guns to be illegal, since I don't live in their country. They can do whatever they want. The last 15 years in the States have seen an enormous bloom in the number of states in which you are allowed to carry a sidearm as a private citizen (permits are now easily available in something like 40 states, with them being difficult but varyingly possible in 8 others)... and those same years have seen a consistently dropping crime rate across most of the country. Conversely, some of the places in the States with the worst crime rates (Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, NYC, and Washington DC) are places where it's next to impossible for a legal citizen to legally carry a sidearm. Is there conclusive proof that these are linked? Not really, but it's certainly hard to argue that the level of restriction on firearm ownership/carry that these cities have in place is causing them to be low-crime areas.

The legal structure in place in Montreal at the moment didn't prevent a horrific crime. It's my sincere hope that any changes that are made in response to these events are more effective in the future.

20 people were shot, one fatally and 8 badly enough to be listed as being "in critical condition."

Exactly how much more "into a gunfight" do you think this event could have turned? What, exactly, do you think the police did when they arrived?

For having an opinion? For having a take on a matter that's different than yours?

We have an amendment that handles that too, thanks.

(edit: That's not meant to sound or to be jingoistic or "my country is better than yours". It's merely to make a point.)

News update from this morning by LCN (Le canal des nouvelles) and TVA: A lot of those said injuries are caused by people running away and by traumatism.

From what I heard, only 8 people suffered bullet wounds including the girl who died and the killer. 3 of those victims are between life and death. At least one of them have a bullet in the brain and it will be a miracle if he survive with all his mental faculties.

I'm a law-abiding citizen of the United States, living in Seattle and seeking employment as an EMT/firefighter. I have no history of mental illness, I have no criminal record, and I have a familiarity and respect for firearms that stems from having been raised with them.

Per Washington state law, I have a permit that allows me to legally carry a concealed handgun, a right that I choose to exercise on a regular basis. I do so because, while I recognize that police are a necessary and beneficial part of society, I also recognize that their ability to protect me from great physical injury or death is limited and I am unwilling to allow my continued survival to rely solely upon the actions of an imperfect institute.

Contrary to your accusations of this kind of thinking being "irresponsible," I feel that I've taken a great deal of responsibility for my continued survival and, possibly, the protection of those around me. I find your opinion that my choices are indicative of a mental deficiency that would make me so dangerous for society that I should be locked up insulting, ignorant, and offensive.

Why exactly should ShadowDragon be locked up, and the key thrown away? Because he disagrees with you? Because he made a rather tasteless comment regarding you? Because his thinking is "irresponsible"?

All that he did was type a few words on a keyboard and post them to Dumpshock. Since you don't appreciate them, you think he should be put in jail? I know you're trying to make a point, but you're still pretty sad, JesterX.

In your ideal world, I guess I'd have to go wait for the cops to show up at my door if I posted something negative like this, or anything else you felt was "irresponsible".

Good luck up there in Montreal, bubba.

Damn straight. Well said.

Much more for his wishful thinking:

He has a right to have an opinion on gun control... but wish anyone to be in a fire fight to see if they wished to have a gun is ... ... let's say ... "completely sick" to be politically correct.

If someone threaten you with a gun and you shoot him and kill him, YOU are a murderer (and should be put behind the bars unless you're a cop and you're doing your job...)

I'm not sure what traumatism is, but asides from that...

7 victims with gunshot wounds still qualifies, in my mind, as a pretty serious gunfight... and I'm still not sure why the police turning up and getting in a gunfight with the suspect is theoretically less dangerous than a private citizen getting in a gunfight with the suspect.

So my choices have just been reduced to "die or go to jail?" What ever happened to freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What if I kick him real hard and run away? Am I guilty of assault? Should I go to jail?

Actually, there's another thing I find really amusing about this whole concept... police, for some reason, are completely justified in a defensive shoot, whereas civilians are completely unjustified? What makes a police officer not "a murderer" in this situation? How can you ethically justify allowing some members of society (police officers) kill without reprisal in some situations, while punishing others for doing the same thing, despite the hypothetical situation being identical except for the career choice of the victim?

What did happen to them? They're not guaranteed by the Constitution, nor by any law that I'm aware of.

The Declaration of Independence, whatever you may think of it, is not law.

Edit: yes, Schaeffer, by those standards you would be a murderer. I'm getting the feeling that you think this shows an inherently obvious absurdity in the standards, but I'm not seeing it.

~J

I believe that would be Assault, as well as Fleeing the Scene of a Crime... You did run away after all, Shrike30.

We're not arguing law here, we're arguing concepts.

If I shoot someone in self-defense where I live, it's justifiable homicide, not murder, so the minute that I was told a defensive shoot made me a murderer (who should be put behind the bars, unless I'm a cop and I'm doing my job) it seemed pretty clear that we weren't talking law.

You're entitled to think that, of course. Of course, I'm also allowed to think that you have no idea what you're talking about, have never been put into any kind of dangerous situation, don't know much about crime laws, and have overly sensitive and hyper-rigid pat reactions to this sort of thing.

Precisely.

Ok, then. What happened to the person you just killed's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

~J