America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

Dirty, In canada you guys leave your school doors unlocked?!

Yes. During the school day the majority of doors in the schools are unlocked, so students and teaches can come and go. And guess what? We have very, very few school shootings. It's not the presence or absence of locked doors that makes the difference.

That's insane. I have to swipe my id card to get into my school. Preventive maintenance my friend. You really want an angry parent coming in or someone who isn't supposed to be there?

We also have very very few school shootings in the states.

Most of the elementary schools around here have made it to where you have to be "buzzed in" before even having access to the front office. The high schools usually have liaison officers and video monitored security as well as some having armed staff. I, for one, would sure as hell not want to start any trouble with either.

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

Dirty, In canada you guys leave your school doors unlocked?!

Uh, yeah. So that the students can come in from various entrances. What, in the US all the school doors are locked?? Damn, how do kids skip class???

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

why does everyone give so much credence to what "the intentions of the founders" were? who gives a shit? are they gods? are they infallible humans? they wrote a document that allows for ammendments.

if you write a document detailing what your wishes are for your family, do really expect them to follow it to the letter 300 years down the line?

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

Dirty, In canada you guys leave your school doors unlocked?!

Yes. During the school day the majority of doors in the schools are unlocked, so students and teaches can come and go. And guess what? We have very, very few school shootings. It's not the presence or absence of locked doors that makes the difference.

That's insane. I have to swipe my id card to get into my school. Preventive maintenance my friend. You really want an angry parent coming in or someone who isn't supposed to be there?

We also have very very few school shootings in the states.

Most of the elementary schools around here have made it to where you have to be "buzzed in" before even having access to the front office. The high schools usually have liaison officers and video monitored security as well as some having armed staff. I, for one, would sure as hell not want to start any trouble with either.

I believe the elementary school my daughters attend have all doors except for the front door locked during school hours. I could be wrong though.

my wife's daycare has a buzzer. but that's more to protect a child (and the staff) from a parent that isn't allowed access to said child, not from terrorists or shootings.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJPOWER said:

Jason P said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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?

Too bad. You will never get to be kewl like these dudes ordering a happy meal ...

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

jeffbr

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

why does everyone give so much credence to what "the intentions of the founders" were? who gives a shit? are they gods? are they infallible humans? they wrote a document that allows for ammendments.

if you write a document detailing what your wishes are for your family, do really expect them to follow it to the letter 300 years down the line?

We are a nation of law. We need to understand what that law says. To understand that, we need to look at a number of things. One of those things is to read the words themselves. Another is to understand the intent behind those words. Additionally we look at case law to see how it has been applied in the past. We can also look at altering the law either through new decisions, or by amending the text. But to ignore intent is to allow for any interpretation to be just as valid as the next, which takes away meaning, which leads to the words being irrelevant. So when someone claims that the Constitution says something that isn't there or doesn't understand the language being used, it is helpful to go back to the source material to see what was intended. Otherwise, the Constitution is simply words open to the whims of any crazy interpretation.

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

why does everyone give so much credence to what "the intentions of the founders" were? who gives a shit? are they gods? are they infallible humans? they wrote a document that allows for ammendments.

if you write a document detailing what your wishes are for your family, do really expect them to follow it to the letter 300 years down the line?

We are a nation of law. We need to understand what that law says. To understand that, we need to look at a number of things. One of those things is to read the words themselves. Another is to understand the intent behind those words. Additionally we look at case law to see how it has been applied in the past. We can also look at altering the law either through new decisions, or by amending the text. But to ignore intent is to allow for any interpretation to be just as valid as the next, which takes away meaning, which leads to the words being irrelevant. So when someone claims that the Constitution says something that isn't there or doesn't understand the language being used, it is helpful to go back to the source material to see what was intended. Otherwise, the Constitution is simply words open to the whims of any crazy interpretation.

I get that, but intentions have context. and that context is exponentially different to today's climate. you can't have real progress if you chain yourselves to history in every literal sense.

PJPOWER

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Jason P said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

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?

Too bad. You will never get to be kewl like these dudes ordering a happy meal ...

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

Jason P

I'm pretty sure my school had a welcome sign. Don't recall any checkpoints either.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

But it's "no big whoop" when two girls get stabbed by some hobo. Got it, moving on, stab away.

yep, that's exactly what he said.

Jason P

The hobo didn't have a shotgun? Man, Hollywood is messing with me.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

But it's "no big whoop" when two girls get stabbed by some hobo. Got it, moving on, stab away.

yep, that's exactly what he said.

Essentially

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

why does everyone give so much credence to what "the intentions of the founders" were? who gives a shit? are they gods? are they infallible humans? they wrote a document that allows for ammendments.

if you write a document detailing what your wishes are for your family, do really expect them to follow it to the letter 300 years down the line?

Easy there redcoat. The point was to clear the muddled minds of those that don't know how vocabulary was used back then.

HughFreakingDillon

redcoat?

PJ_Soul

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

redcoat?

Term of affection for the British in the 1770's.

You know, the reason why the US was founded and why they wrote the way they did.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

redcoat?

Term of affection for the British in the 1770's.

You know, the reason why the US was founded and why they wrote the way they did.

I know, but I didn't get why you were calling me that.

jeffbr

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

why does everyone give so much credence to what "the intentions of the founders" were? who gives a shit? are they gods? are they infallible humans? they wrote a document that allows for ammendments.

if you write a document detailing what your wishes are for your family, do really expect them to follow it to the letter 300 years down the line?

We are a nation of law. We need to understand what that law says. To understand that, we need to look at a number of things. One of those things is to read the words themselves. Another is to understand the intent behind those words. Additionally we look at case law to see how it has been applied in the past. We can also look at altering the law either through new decisions, or by amending the text. But to ignore intent is to allow for any interpretation to be just as valid as the next, which takes away meaning, which leads to the words being irrelevant. So when someone claims that the Constitution says something that isn't there or doesn't understand the language being used, it is helpful to go back to the source material to see what was intended. Otherwise, the Constitution is simply words open to the whims of any crazy interpretation.

I get that, but intentions have context. and that context is exponentially different to today's climate. you can't have real progress if you chain yourselves to history in every literal sense.

Sure, I get that. I don't think I've said that the document is unchangeable, or infallible. In fact, I believe I've said the opposite. But in order to have a conversation about altering it, we need to understand what "it" is or says. In many cases we can't even do that yet, as evidenced by people not understanding the purpose or intent of this particular amendment. When people don't even understand some of the basic language, it is hard to work from a mutually understood starting point to get anywhere. If the words have no objective meaning or intent, then we all just spin around in circles as we've been doing. For those who want to understand, intent is mostly pretty clear, and established case law is mostly pretty clear. It shouldn't be as hard as it is to use these things as a starting point to then make progress toward making it relevant for our time and context. But I'm not holding my breath because there is a lot of entrenchment on all sides. People who see no value in intent can't even speak the same language. People who are strict constructionists can't see any value in change. Those of us in the middle can only look at both of these sides and shake our heads.

unsung

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

redcoat?

Term of affection for the British in the 1770's.

You know, the reason why the US was founded and why they wrote the way they did.

I know, but I didn't get why you were calling me that.

Because I doubt the British gave a shit what they wrote at that time either.

The point is we were founded upon an idea that people did give a shit and tried to create a set of rules to ensure we wouldn't have to worry about turning into redcoats by an oppressive govenment again. Unfortunately government has created such a nanny state that we are headed back to that. Actually we are worse, people used to fight over a tax increase, now you're told to vote.

Maybe that's the problem, we should vote harder.

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.

While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!

Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.

But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.

why does everyone give so much credence to what "the intentions of the founders" were? who gives a shit? are they gods? are they infallible humans? they wrote a document that allows for ammendments.

if you write a document detailing what your wishes are for your family, do really expect them to follow it to the letter 300 years down the line?

We are a nation of law. We need to understand what that law says. To understand that, we need to look at a number of things. One of those things is to read the words themselves. Another is to understand the intent behind those words. Additionally we look at case law to see how it has been applied in the past. We can also look at altering the law either through new decisions, or by amending the text. But to ignore intent is to allow for any interpretation to be just as valid as the next, which takes away meaning, which leads to the words being irrelevant. So when someone claims that the Constitution says something that isn't there or doesn't understand the language being used, it is helpful to go back to the source material to see what was intended. Otherwise, the Constitution is simply words open to the whims of any crazy interpretation.

I get that, but intentions have context. and that context is exponentially different to today's climate. you can't have real progress if you chain yourselves to history in every literal sense.

Sure, I get that. I don't think I've said that the document is unchangeable, or infallible. In fact, I believe I've said the opposite. But in order to have a conversation about altering it, we need to understand what "it" is or says. In many cases we can't even do that yet, as evidenced by people not understanding the purpose or intent of this particular amendment. When people don't even understand some of the basic language, it is hard to work from a mutually understood starting point to get anywhere. If the words have no objective meaning or intent, then we all just spin around in circles as we've been doing. For those who want to understand, intent is mostly pretty clear, and established case law is mostly pretty clear. It shouldn't be as hard as it is to use these things as a starting point to then make progress toward making it relevant for our time and context. But I'm not holding my breath because there is a lot of entrenchment on all sides. People who see no value in intent can't even speak the same language. People who are strict constructionists can't see any value in change. Those of us in the middle can only look at both of these sides and shake our heads.

as you said, problem is, neither can agree on that intent. I don't see that ever changing.