Some random homeless guy walked into a high school in this little town (more like a bedroom community) outside of Vancouver a couple of days ago, and stabbed two girls. A 13 year old died, and the other, 14, is still in hospital. Teachers grabbed the guy and held him until cops arrived..... just mentioning because the overwhelming sentiment in the area (besides the usual, like anger and sadness, etc) seems to be 'thank god he didn't have a gun'.
I saw the clip documenting this. Brutal.
But to your point... it was just a knife and not a gun- could have been much worse.
There are quite a few things that could have been much worse. Guns are far from the scariest weapons nutjobs could use. My first thought is "too bad he was not stopped before he was able to kill the girl".
Guns are far from the scariest weapons?
I beg to differ. Is there another accessible weapon that poses the lethality a gun does inside a closed environment with a large population of people in it such as a school?
Do you seriously think one of the girls should have been packing heat and blown this freak away before he stabbed them? In the event students were in the habit of carrying guns... to this point in time... there would be significantly more dead teens as a result.
OMG, No! Damn, some of you guys make some broad assumptions. I was more talking about school safety protocols that make it to where not just anyone off the street can gain entry into the schools. Where the fuck did I say the girls should be packing heat? You spun that up in your own head. As far as other weapons, pressure cookers have proven to be pretty effective in taking down large populations quickly... IEDs are what scare the shit out of me.
Thanks for clarifying. There are gun advocates who think people should be armed so you'll have to excuse me for thinking that is what you were getting at.
Home made bombs and things such as bio weapons are illegal- these items are of the sensational variety and don't really have a place in the gun argument. Including them is employing a tactic to try and minimize the potential guns possess. This incident was one injured and one killed because it was a knife. If the weapon was a gun... the numbers might be a lot different.
Pressure cookers are illegal? Pretty sure going to a school and stabbing someone is illegal too. You only follow laws if you choose to. The only reason I mentioned things other than guns was because you asked what could be deadlier... If you do not want the question answered, why ask it?
You're missing the point: Canada isn't saturated with guns. Further, we don't sell urban assault weapons to average joe citizens and owning a handgun is a serious endeavour that requires multiple applications: our psycho idiots can't go to the Denny's claw machine and pull a handgun for the price of a dollar... or to the Big 5 sporting goods to claim a machine gun off the rack (at a sweet 20% red light sale).
Edit: homemade bombs are illegal. Again... another deflection point to minimize the risk carried with guns. I understand why you use them though... how else can you argue against common sense?
Lol, and you claim you are making a common sense argument by exasperating the availability of guns in the US? Last time I checked, "machine guns" are highly regulated and claw machines don't pick shit up. Maybe Canada is not saturated with guns, but why should that stop them from taking measures to prevent wackos from the street from walking in and stabbing a couple of girls? If someone really had an agenda and wanted to shoot up a school, I am willing to bet that they could find the means in even anti-gun Canada and walk in just like this wacko did. Because you are in a bubble does not mean you are immune. It probably just means that no one really gives a shit about making headlines in Canada.
It's harder for a 15 year old to find a black market arms dealer then it is to grab his step dad's AR-15 and extended clip from the closet.
Okay, I concede, Canooks should ignore any and all safety protocols and put up a big sign on the front of their campuses saying anyone and everyone is welcome in. Good luck with that.
We've been doing it for years. No big whoop.
And Jason replied to your notion that if someone really had an agenda and wanted to shoot up a school, I am willing to bet that they could find the means in even anti-gun Canada and walk in just like this wacko did. Obviously... when there are no assault rifles lying around waiting to be used to kill a bunch of people... there are no people getting killed by assault rifles.
But it's "no big whoop" when two girls get stabbed by some hobo. Got it, moving on, stab away.
__________________________________________________ (quoting is fucked up) Of course it's a "big whoops" when two girls get stabbed by some crazy meth head. It's a tragedy. But what are you trying to say? Besides feeling sadness and being angry with the guy and being glad he was caught and knowing he will have his day in court and examining if anyone dropped the ball with this kid in the "system" (he's only 21), what would you suggest should be done? I already said that there is some talk about locking all the access doors, but I don't think that's reasonable in a high school. Sure, in an elementary school some security is needed, namely to prevent parental interference as someone mentioned. But in high school, no, I don't think responding to a freak occurrence by placing restrictions on everyone who didn't nothing wrong is a stupid way to handle such an event, especially not in schools. I think a lot of Canadians would agree with me. That doesn't mean they will take those measures that this high school where the attack was though.
My original point, before some of the other people here blew things out of proportion and caused a stir, is that the line of thought of "well, glad it wasn't worse" does nothing to preventing it from happening again. It is much more productive to learn from events and try to implement ways of preventing them from happening again whether it be locked doors, training staff to be more aware, etc. I don't have a magical solution, but saying "glad it wasn't worse" and brushing events like this off helps no one. That was my only point, others turned it into a giant anti-gun clusterfuck.
Well it does kind of help, because Canadians saying things like that is really saying "we are glad we don't have a gun culture." I think some feel threatened by the gun culture problem in the US, so it is important that we reinforce that to maintain our Canadian view on the issue. When a guy comes into a school wielding a knife, guns come into the convo because 1) it tells us that yes, our current avoidance of guns/culture is good, since it could have been much worse if we allowed US gun culture to seep in, and 2) it says "don't you dare think about arming teachers or anything stupid like that just because of this tragedy". Anyway, my guess is that things will be discovered about this young man's life that show how our social system is not doing a good enough job dealing with troubled youth, drug addiction, and how young criminals are dealt with, and that maybe if those things were better handled, and this guy had benefited from that, none of this would have happened. Hopefully that would lead to some real changes in those contexts. In other words, focus on prevention rather than defense. That would be a typical Canadian response to this, besides that school talking about closing off access.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Some random homeless guy walked into a high school in this little town (more like a bedroom community) outside of Vancouver a couple of days ago, and stabbed two girls. A 13 year old died, and the other, 14, is still in hospital. Teachers grabbed the guy and held him until cops arrived..... just mentioning because the overwhelming sentiment in the area (besides the usual, like anger and sadness, etc) seems to be 'thank god he didn't have a gun'.
I saw the clip documenting this. Brutal.
But to your point... it was just a knife and not a gun- could have been much worse.
There are quite a few things that could have been much worse. Guns are far from the scariest weapons nutjobs could use. My first thought is "too bad he was not stopped before he was able to kill the girl".
Guns are far from the scariest weapons?
I beg to differ. Is there another accessible weapon that poses the lethality a gun does inside a closed environment with a large population of people in it such as a school?
Do you seriously think one of the girls should have been packing heat and blown this freak away before he stabbed them? In the event students were in the habit of carrying guns... to this point in time... there would be significantly more dead teens as a result.
OMG, No! Damn, some of you guys make some broad assumptions. I was more talking about school safety protocols that make it to where not just anyone off the street can gain entry into the schools. Where the fuck did I say the girls should be packing heat? You spun that up in your own head. As far as other weapons, pressure cookers have proven to be pretty effective in taking down large populations quickly... IEDs are what scare the shit out of me.
Thanks for clarifying. There are gun advocates who think people should be armed so you'll have to excuse me for thinking that is what you were getting at.
Home made bombs and things such as bio weapons are illegal- these items are of the sensational variety and don't really have a place in the gun argument. Including them is employing a tactic to try and minimize the potential guns possess. This incident was one injured and one killed because it was a knife. If the weapon was a gun... the numbers might be a lot different.
Pressure cookers are illegal? Pretty sure going to a school and stabbing someone is illegal too. You only follow laws if you choose to. The only reason I mentioned things other than guns was because you asked what could be deadlier... If you do not want the question answered, why ask it?
You're missing the point: Canada isn't saturated with guns. Further, we don't sell urban assault weapons to average joe citizens and owning a handgun is a serious endeavour that requires multiple applications: our psycho idiots can't go to the Denny's claw machine and pull a handgun for the price of a dollar... or to the Big 5 sporting goods to claim a machine gun off the rack (at a sweet 20% red light sale).
Edit: homemade bombs are illegal. Again... another deflection point to minimize the risk carried with guns. I understand why you use them though... how else can you argue against common sense?
Lol, and you claim you are making a common sense argument by exasperating the availability of guns in the US? Last time I checked, "machine guns" are highly regulated and claw machines don't pick shit up. Maybe Canada is not saturated with guns, but why should that stop them from taking measures to prevent wackos from the street from walking in and stabbing a couple of girls? If someone really had an agenda and wanted to shoot up a school, I am willing to bet that they could find the means in even anti-gun Canada and walk in just like this wacko did. Because you are in a bubble does not mean you are immune. It probably just means that no one really gives a shit about making headlines in Canada.
It's harder for a 15 year old to find a black market arms dealer then it is to grab his step dad's AR-15 and extended clip from the closet.
Okay, I concede, Canooks should ignore any and all safety protocols and put up a big sign on the front of their campuses saying anyone and everyone is welcome in. Good luck with that.
We've been doing it for years. No big whoop.
And Jason replied to your notion that if someone really had an agenda and wanted to shoot up a school, I am willing to bet that they could find the means in even anti-gun Canada and walk in just like this wacko did. Obviously... when there are no assault rifles lying around waiting to be used to kill a bunch of people... there are no people getting killed by assault rifles.
But it's "no big whoop" when two girls get stabbed by some hobo. Got it, moving on, stab away.
__________________________________________________ (quoting is fucked up) Of course it's a "big whoops" when two girls get stabbed by some crazy meth head. It's a tragedy. But what are you trying to say? Besides feeling sadness and being angry with the guy and being glad he was caught and knowing he will have his day in court and examining if anyone dropped the ball with this kid in the "system" (he's only 21), what would you suggest should be done? I already said that there is some talk about locking all the access doors, but I don't think that's reasonable in a high school. Sure, in an elementary school some security is needed, namely to prevent parental interference as someone mentioned. But in high school, no, I don't think responding to a freak occurrence by placing restrictions on everyone who didn't nothing wrong is a stupid way to handle such an event, especially not in schools. I think a lot of Canadians would agree with me. That doesn't mean they will take those measures that this high school where the attack was though.
My original point, before some of the other people here blew things out of proportion and caused a stir, is that the line of thought of "well, glad it wasn't worse" does nothing to preventing it from happening again. It is much more productive to learn from events and try to implement ways of preventing them from happening again whether it be locked doors, training staff to be more aware, etc. I don't have a magical solution, but saying "glad it wasn't worse" and brushing events like this off helps no one. That was my only point, others turned it into a giant anti-gun clusterfuck.
Every action we take has pros and cons. Making a decision to lock all the doors of a school because of one incident like that might, on the surface, appear to reduce the risk but also has unintended consequences that may cause increased risk overall. Locked doors, armed guards, metal detectors - all decrease the sense of the school being a welcoming, open place and turn it into a prison-like setting where kids feel more stressed and don't want to be. They reduce the chance that kids are going to get any fresh air and exercise during breaks because it's such a nuisance to funnel back through the one unlocked door. It's similar to the ridiculous restrictions that many parents and society as a whole now try to place on kids going anywhere independently by foot, bike, or public transit. Because of the fear of the vanishingly small risk of child abduction, we have a generation of unfit, obese children with little self confidence and no ability to navigate the world independently, which ends up putting them at higher risk in many ways. Life has risks; I would prefer we look at them within a wider context instead of continually making knee jerk decisions to clamp down.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
And here come the man-bun latte drinking cheerleaders...I brought up Obama because he let people convicted of gun crimes off the hook. Your comment is nothing but an attempt at trolling...and a poor one might I add. "Dignity" lmao!!!
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
I was going to respond, but since I'm a crybaby, I'm just going to go sulk in my Obama pillow.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
And here come the man-bun latte drinking cheerleaders...I brought up Obama because he let people convicted of gun crimes off the hook. Your comment is nothing but an attempt at trolling...and a poor one might I add. "Dignity" lmao!!!
If you don't want to get dirty... don't fling mud. You called pro-gun legislation people 'crybabies'... and then referred to Obama as 'their hero'. Don't be surprised when a little 'in kind' retort comes your way, Cletus.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
I was going to respond, but since I'm a crybaby, I'm just going to go sulk in my Obama pillow.
Are those the pillows that play Beyoncé when squeezed? Stick a tooth underneath it and the next morning you will have "change you can believe in".
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
I was going to respond, but since I'm a crybaby, I'm just going to go sulk in my Obama pillow.
Are those the pillows that play Beyoncé when squeezed? Stick a tooth underneath it and the next morning you will have "change you can believe in".
no, it plays Jay-Z's remix; "I got 99 Problems but the Trump ain't one"
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
I was going to respond, but since I'm a crybaby, I'm just going to go sulk in my Obama pillow.
Are those the pillows that play Beyoncé when squeezed? Stick a tooth underneath it and the next morning you will have "change you can believe in".
no, it plays Jay-Z's remix; "I got 99 Problems but the Trump ain't one"
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
And here come the man-bun latte drinking cheerleaders...I brought up Obama because he let people convicted of gun crimes off the hook. Your comment is nothing but an attempt at trolling...and a poor one might I add. "Dignity" lmao!!!
If you don't want to get dirty... don't fling mud. You called pro-gun legislation people 'crybabies'... and then referred to Obama as 'their hero'. Don't be surprised when a little 'in kind' retort comes your way, Cletus.
Lol, I can take it, no crybaby here. Pretty sure there is much more mud slinging directed towards the gun rights advocates. Crybabies throw out generalizations like "one tooth" and "yokel" when they get offended. It's a pretty clear identification marker of a crybaby...look it up. You will also see "waaaa people have guns" and "waaaaa, someone shot a deer" in the crowd. Back on topic, though, do you agree with Obama's stance of leniency and clemency towards people convicted of gun crimes?
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
And here come the man-bun latte drinking cheerleaders...I brought up Obama because he let people convicted of gun crimes off the hook.
Are you sure about that? Clemency is not a pardon, they are still felons. Are you sure that they haven't already served their time for the firearm convictions? It seems probable to me, it's not like they pick people at random for clemency. Surely they were vetted at least in a very cursory way. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are making a big assumption. I read through the link some, but I don't have enough data service to do a decent analysis. What I read makes your statements look hollow. The sentences listed seem to be the overall sentences that were given for the drug AND firearm crimes. Even so, many of them are nearly done with their sentences anyways. All of them that I read have been in prison for 10 years or more, which seems a reasonable sentence for a drug and firearm conviction, particularly considering that having the drugs was the primary factor that made the firearm posession illegal in the first place.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
And here come the man-bun latte drinking cheerleaders...I brought up Obama because he let people convicted of gun crimes off the hook. Your comment is nothing but an attempt at trolling...and a poor one might I add. "Dignity" lmao!!!
If you don't want to get dirty... don't fling mud. You called pro-gun legislation people 'crybabies'... and then referred to Obama as 'their hero'. Don't be surprised when a little 'in kind' retort comes your way, Cletus.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
And here come the man-bun latte drinking cheerleaders...I brought up Obama because he let people convicted of gun crimes off the hook.
Are you sure about that? Clemency is not a pardon, they are still felons. Are you sure that they haven't already served their time for the firearm convictions? It seems probable to me, it's not like they pick people at random for clemency. Surely they were vetted at least in a very cursory way. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are making a big assumption. I read through the link some, but I don't have enough data service to do a decent analysis. What I read makes your statements look hollow. The sentences listed seem to be the overall sentences that were given for the drug AND firearm crimes. Even so, many of them are nearly done with their sentences anyways. All of them that I read have been in prison for 10 years or more, which seems a reasonable sentence for a drug and firearm conviction, particularly considering that having the drugs was the primary factor that made the firearm posession illegal in the first place.
this was the point I made earlier, and I think is probably the driving factor for it.
yeah, most or all to do with drug offenses. not like he's granting clememcy to those convicted of using the gun in crime. possession of said gun.
Regardless, they were willfully disregarding current gun laws, should they not be held accountable for illegal possession of firearms? What is the point of new restrictions when there is a blatant disregard for current restrictions by our president?
yeah, they were also willfully disregarding current drug laws. if they didn't have a drug conviction in the first place, it wouldn't have been illegal for them to be carrying those firearms.
Okay, the anti-gun crybabies always rant about how guns should not be in the hands of criminals, yet are apologetic when their hero lets felons convicted of trafficking drugs while being illegally in possession of firearms off the hook. If you want to be tough on gun crimes, then be tough on gun crimes. You can't have it both ways.
Their hero?
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
And here come the man-bun latte drinking cheerleaders...I brought up Obama because he let people convicted of gun crimes off the hook.
Are you sure about that? Clemency is not a pardon, they are still felons. Are you sure that they haven't already served their time for the firearm convictions? It seems probable to me, it's not like they pick people at random for clemency. Surely they were vetted at least in a very cursory way. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are making a big assumption. I read through the link some, but I don't have enough data service to do a decent analysis. What I read makes your statements look hollow. The sentences listed seem to be the overall sentences that were given for the drug AND firearm crimes. Even so, many of them are nearly done with their sentences anyways. All of them that I read have been in prison for 10 years or more, which seems a reasonable sentence for a drug and firearm conviction, particularly considering that having the drugs was the primary factor that made the firearm posession illegal in the first place.
Difficult to tell, when I google "Obama gun convictions", all I find are unfavorable articles about Obama's leniency towards gun crime perps. Is there data out there showing how he has taken a hard line approach on gun crimes? All I ever find is that there are fewer federal gun crime convictions and more people getting presidential clemency...I think his stance on guns is purely political, which should not be a surprise to anyone. Gotta get dem votes. Pretty sure Hillary will be no different. Put on this "guns are bad" hat and do nothing to help enforce current gun laws. If I were a firearms manufacturer, it might actually make sense to vote in Hillary as sales seem to go through the roof when dems are elected. With that line of thinking, maybe the best way to prevent people from mass purchasing firearms and ammunition would be to vote in...repubs? Lol I kid, I kid.
Well his general stance on guns isn't the primary factor in his clemency grants, it is unfair sentencing in drug crimes. The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed. That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!". The facts don't seem to matter.
Well his general stance on guns isn't the primary factor in his clemency grants, it is unfair sentencing in drug crimes. The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed. That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!". The facts don't seem to matter.
In my opinion, people convicted of drug crimes are the ones you would least want carrying weapons and the ones that should face the harshest penalties related to gun crime convictions. I'm not talking about your run of the mill pot dealer, but related to hard drugs that are associated with violence (meth, crack), which are the ones these criminals were convicted for. A very large percentage of violent gun crimes are associated with the illicit use or distribution of drugs. That would make it relevant to not give those convicted of carrying guns while dealing drugs any kind of leniency. So I am assuming that this push for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and everything is just smoke and mirrors? Again, show me some data that Obama has taken a hard line approach on enforcement of any firearm related crimes. I believe more and more that these talking heads just want to get their name on some kind of legislation and then care less as to whether or not it actually gets enforced.
Well his general stance on guns isn't the primary factor in his clemency grants, it is unfair sentencing in drug crimes. The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed. That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!". The facts don't seem to matter.
In my opinion, people convicted of drug crimes are the ones you would least want carrying weapons and the ones that should face the harshest penalties related to gun crime convictions. A very large percentage of violent gun crimes are associated with the illicit use or distribution of drugs. That would make it relevant to not give those convicted of carrying guns while dealing drugs any kind of leniency. So I am assuming that this push for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and everything is just smoke and mirrors? Again, show me some data that Obama has taken a hard line approach on enforcement of any firearm related crimes. I believe more and more that these talking heads just want to get their name on some kind of legislation and then care less as to whether or not it actually gets enforced.
It's not incumbent on me to prove talking heads care. I am just pointing out that the narrative put forward and backed by the link doesn't hold water.
Well his general stance on guns isn't the primary factor in his clemency grants, it is unfair sentencing in drug crimes. The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed. That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!". The facts don't seem to matter.
In my opinion, people convicted of drug crimes are the ones you would least want carrying weapons and the ones that should face the harshest penalties related to gun crime convictions. I'm not talking about your run of the mill pot dealer, but related to hard drugs that are associated with violence (meth, crack), which are the ones these criminals were convicted for. A very large percentage of violent gun crimes are associated with the illicit use or distribution of drugs. That would make it relevant to not give those convicted of carrying guns while dealing drugs any kind of leniency. So I am assuming that this push for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and everything is just smoke and mirrors? Again, show me some data that Obama has taken a hard line approach on enforcement of any firearm related crimes. I believe more and more that these talking heads just want to get their name on some kind of legislation and then care less as to whether or not it actually gets enforced.
yeah, at least on the surface, it doesn't exactly add up.
Well his general stance on guns isn't the primary factor in his clemency grants, it is unfair sentencing in drug crimes. The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed. That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!". The facts don't seem to matter.
In my opinion, people convicted of drug crimes are the ones you would least want carrying weapons and the ones that should face the harshest penalties related to gun crime convictions. I'm not talking about your run of the mill pot dealer, but related to hard drugs that are associated with violence (meth, crack), which are the ones these criminals were convicted for. A very large percentage of violent gun crimes are associated with the illicit use or distribution of drugs. That would make it relevant to not give those convicted of carrying guns while dealing drugs any kind of leniency. So I am assuming that this push for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and everything is just smoke and mirrors? Again, show me some data that Obama has taken a hard line approach on enforcement of any firearm related crimes. I believe more and more that these talking heads just want to get their name on some kind of legislation and then care less as to whether or not it actually gets enforced.
I'm of the opinion that these are the least worrisome gun owners given the current reality. I say this because typically, they target each other as they conduct their business. And, if one chooses to enter the drug world as a player... then getting shot is par for the course (it's an assumed and inherent risk within the drug trade).
Well his general stance on guns isn't the primary factor in his clemency grants, it is unfair sentencing in drug crimes. The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed. That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!". The facts don't seem to matter.
In my opinion, people convicted of drug crimes are the ones you would least want carrying weapons and the ones that should face the harshest penalties related to gun crime convictions. A very large percentage of violent gun crimes are associated with the illicit use or distribution of drugs. That would make it relevant to not give those convicted of carrying guns while dealing drugs any kind of leniency. So I am assuming that this push for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and everything is just smoke and mirrors? Again, show me some data that Obama has taken a hard line approach on enforcement of any firearm related crimes. I believe more and more that these talking heads just want to get their name on some kind of legislation and then care less as to whether or not it actually gets enforced.
It's not incumbent on me to prove talking heads care. I am just pointing out that the narrative put forward and backed by the link doesn't hold water.
Well his general stance on guns isn't the primary factor in his clemency grants, it is unfair sentencing in drug crimes. The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed. That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!". The facts don't seem to matter.
In my opinion, people convicted of drug crimes are the ones you would least want carrying weapons and the ones that should face the harshest penalties related to gun crime convictions. I'm not talking about your run of the mill pot dealer, but related to hard drugs that are associated with violence (meth, crack), which are the ones these criminals were convicted for. A very large percentage of violent gun crimes are associated with the illicit use or distribution of drugs. That would make it relevant to not give those convicted of carrying guns while dealing drugs any kind of leniency. So I am assuming that this push for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and everything is just smoke and mirrors? Again, show me some data that Obama has taken a hard line approach on enforcement of any firearm related crimes. I believe more and more that these talking heads just want to get their name on some kind of legislation and then care less as to whether or not it actually gets enforced.
I'm of the opinion that these are the least worrisome gun owners given the current reality. I say this because typically, they target each other as they conduct their business. And, if one chooses to enter the drug world as a player... then getting shot is par for the course (it's an assumed and inherent risk within the drug trade).
Legalize drugs. Doing so is decades overdue.
I definitely agree with you about current drug laws, prohibition just leads to to a competitive and violent market. The "war on drugs" has systematically failed. I feel that at this point, that would also render true with firearms as well. Thank goodness no one is trying to prohibit them as a strategy for success...
2 white collar crimes and 2 others, out of 95...yeah, not super significant.
Regardless of whether you consider the drug crimes of any importance, they were still felonies and they were in possession of firearms. Granted, there are not a ton of examples where drugs were not involved. We're nitpicking now, but this one does seem relevant: Carolyn Yvonne Butler
Crime: Three counts each of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a violent crime
Sentence: 48 years in prison
Butler robbed three banks at gunpoint in 1991 - one on June 4, another on July 10, and the third on November 22. She reportedly purchased a .25 caliber pistol in San Antonio two days before the first crime.
Though she appealed her guilty verdicts, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld her convictions.
2 white collar crimes and 2 others, out of 95...yeah, not super significant.
Regardless of whether you consider the drug crimes of any importance, they were still felonies and they were in possession of firearms. Granted, there are not a ton of examples where drugs were not involved. We're nitpicking now, but this one does seem relevant: Carolyn Yvonne Butler
Crime: Three counts each of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a violent crime
Sentence: 48 years in prison
Butler robbed three banks at gunpoint in 1991 - one on June 4, another on July 10, and the third on November 22. She reportedly purchased a .25 caliber pistol in San Antonio two days before the first crime.
Though she appealed her guilty verdicts, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld her convictions.
Yeah, I saw that, I am sure there is a reason clemency was granted, whether I would agree with it or not.
Comments
We've been doing it for years. No big whoop.
And Jason replied to your notion that if someone really had an agenda and wanted to shoot up a school, I am willing to bet that they could find the means in even anti-gun Canada and walk in just like this wacko did. Obviously... when there are no assault rifles lying around waiting to be used to kill a bunch of people... there are no people getting killed by assault rifles.
But it's "no big whoop" when two girls get stabbed by some hobo. Got it, moving on, stab away.
__________________________________________________ (quoting is fucked up)
Of course it's a "big whoops" when two girls get stabbed by some crazy meth head. It's a tragedy. But what are you trying to say? Besides feeling sadness and being angry with the guy and being glad he was caught and knowing he will have his day in court and examining if anyone dropped the ball with this kid in the "system" (he's only 21), what would you suggest should be done? I already said that there is some talk about locking all the access doors, but I don't think that's reasonable in a high school. Sure, in an elementary school some security is needed, namely to prevent parental interference as someone mentioned. But in high school, no, I don't think responding to a freak occurrence by placing restrictions on everyone who didn't nothing wrong is a stupid way to handle such an event, especially not in schools. I think a lot of Canadians would agree with me. That doesn't mean they will take those measures that this high school where the attack was though.
My original point, before some of the other people here blew things out of proportion and caused a stir, is that the line of thought of "well, glad it wasn't worse" does nothing to preventing it from happening again. It is much more productive to learn from events and try to implement ways of preventing them from happening again whether it be locked doors, training staff to be more aware, etc. I don't have a magical solution, but saying "glad it wasn't worse" and brushing events like this off helps no one.
That was my only point, others turned it into a giant anti-gun clusterfuck.
Anyway, my guess is that things will be discovered about this young man's life that show how our social system is not doing a good enough job dealing with troubled youth, drug addiction, and how young criminals are dealt with, and that maybe if those things were better handled, and this guy had benefited from that, none of this would have happened. Hopefully that would lead to some real changes in those contexts. In other words, focus on prevention rather than defense. That would be a typical Canadian response to this, besides that school talking about closing off access.
And Jason replied to your notion that if someone really had an agenda and wanted to shoot up a school, I am willing to bet that they could find the means in even anti-gun Canada and walk in just like this wacko did. Obviously... when there are no assault rifles lying around waiting to be used to kill a bunch of people... there are no people getting killed by assault rifles.
But it's "no big whoop" when two girls get stabbed by some hobo. Got it, moving on, stab away.
__________________________________________________ (quoting is fucked up)
Of course it's a "big whoops" when two girls get stabbed by some crazy meth head. It's a tragedy. But what are you trying to say? Besides feeling sadness and being angry with the guy and being glad he was caught and knowing he will have his day in court and examining if anyone dropped the ball with this kid in the "system" (he's only 21), what would you suggest should be done? I already said that there is some talk about locking all the access doors, but I don't think that's reasonable in a high school. Sure, in an elementary school some security is needed, namely to prevent parental interference as someone mentioned. But in high school, no, I don't think responding to a freak occurrence by placing restrictions on everyone who didn't nothing wrong is a stupid way to handle such an event, especially not in schools. I think a lot of Canadians would agree with me. That doesn't mean they will take those measures that this high school where the attack was though.
My original point, before some of the other people here blew things out of proportion and caused a stir, is that the line of thought of "well, glad it wasn't worse" does nothing to preventing it from happening again. It is much more productive to learn from events and try to implement ways of preventing them from happening again whether it be locked doors, training staff to be more aware, etc. I don't have a magical solution, but saying "glad it wasn't worse" and brushing events like this off helps no one.
That was my only point, others turned it into a giant anti-gun clusterfuck.
Every action we take has pros and cons. Making a decision to lock all the doors of a school because of one incident like that might, on the surface, appear to reduce the risk but also has unintended consequences that may cause increased risk overall. Locked doors, armed guards, metal detectors - all decrease the sense of the school being a welcoming, open place and turn it into a prison-like setting where kids feel more stressed and don't want to be. They reduce the chance that kids are going to get any fresh air and exercise during breaks because it's such a nuisance to funnel back through the one unlocked door. It's similar to the ridiculous restrictions that many parents and society as a whole now try to place on kids going anywhere independently by foot, bike, or public transit. Because of the fear of the vanishingly small risk of child abduction, we have a generation of unfit, obese children with little self confidence and no ability to navigate the world independently, which ends up putting them at higher risk in many ways. Life has risks; I would prefer we look at them within a wider context instead of continually making knee jerk decisions to clamp down.
http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/11/07/obama-grants-commutations-federal-inmates-gun-offenses/?utm_content=buffere37e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Why do pro-gun toothless yokels always bring up Obama when defending (hyuk hyuk) their right to own a gall darn gun?
* For the record... Obama is underrated. Not perfect (and nor could he or anyone else for that matter ever be)... he managed to reclaim some of your country's dignity after the previous donkey's mess.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Back on topic, though, do you agree with Obama's stance of leniency and clemency towards people convicted of gun crimes?
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are making a big assumption.
I read through the link some, but I don't have enough data service to do a decent analysis.
What I read makes your statements look hollow. The sentences listed seem to be the overall sentences that were given for the drug AND firearm crimes. Even so, many of them are nearly done with their sentences anyways. All of them that I read have been in prison for 10 years or more, which seems a reasonable sentence for a drug and firearm conviction, particularly considering that having the drugs was the primary factor that made the firearm posession illegal in the first place.
I thought you could, but I was just checking.
and obama is not my hero. this guy is:
www.headstonesband.com
The link you posted shows examples of people who have served their time and are being granted clemency on ridiculous drug crime sentences, not people who are being forgiven for non-violent firearm crimes, as it is being framed.
That narrative that we only need to enforce current laws, not add new ones is supported by this distraction tactic, "look, that POTUS that you hate isn't enforcing gun laws but wants to make new ones, see, we were right all along!".
The facts don't seem to matter.
I am just pointing out that the narrative put forward and backed by the link doesn't hold water.
www.headstonesband.com
Legalize drugs. Doing so is decades overdue.
https://www.google.com/amp/ijr.com/2015/12/496707-4-of-the-95-prisoners-obama-just-set-free-had-nothing-to-do-with-drug-sentences/amp/?client=safari
And then there is this.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/31/obama-gun-control-push-undercut-by-fall-in-prosecu/
Carolyn Yvonne Butler
Crime: Three counts each of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a violent crime
Sentence: 48 years in prison
Butler robbed three banks at gunpoint in 1991 - one on June 4, another on July 10, and the third on November 22. She reportedly purchased a .25 caliber pistol in San Antonio two days before the first crime.
Though she appealed her guilty verdicts, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld her convictions.