At least 3 killed in shooting at Michigan high school

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
8,003
2,302
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
Won't be here much longer, working on moving my company south to the states.

Enjoy being able to visit this message board while you still can, your government is working on a bill that would allow them to basically put an end to free speech online

But as long as they silence the ones you dont agree with, people like you will cheer for it
You are leaving?

On your way out, Don’t let the door knob hit you where the Good Lord split you.

Good riddance to ex commie rubbish.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,875
6,833
113
So that means this is not a mass shooting
4 dead, 7 injured. Guess this qualifies.


Since the parents quickly lawyered up, we haven't heard where the kid got the hand gun from. But I'm sure it couldn't be the parents gun because I was told legally owned hand guns aren't a safety risk.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,875
6,833
113
It is the greatest country on earth
With freedom comes risk

That land of the free thing is a good myth.
From the Cato Institute Freedom Index. But maybe all their published work of conservative viewpoints on the law is really just a cover so they can report the US isn't all that free.

The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, and Germany and Sweden (tied in 9th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Japan (11), the United Kingdom and the United States (tied in 17th place),

But sure, maybe 17 is better than 6.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,875
6,833
113
You seem to have a really really difficult time telling the difference between Canada and the United States I specifically said legally owned firearms in Canada are not a factor in the crime rate they are rarely used in crime
Right. Has a lot to do with Canada having much tighter regulations on handguns than the US. Still waiting for someone to tell me what civilian use handguns have in Canada other than target shooting.


dead is dead, hard to run in your home where most domestic violence happens.

insurance, people who shoot handguns have insurance at any club I have ever been too. Its cheap a few bucks a year for $5 million in coverage, Insurance measures risk and the risk is so low the cost is low. legally owned handguns are not the problem nor a risk to Canadians.
1638412291603.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

contact

Well-known member
Aug 1, 2012
3,629
988
113
Right. Has a lot to do with Canada having much tighter regulations on handguns than the US. Still waiting for someone to tell me what civilian use handguns have in Canada other than target shooting.
You made the claim that was the only legal use of handguns I challenged you to prove that , you have not I know what the other legal uses are. Now back up your claim
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,875
6,833
113
You made the claim that was the only legal use of handguns I challenged you to prove that , you have not I know what the other legal uses are. Now back up your claim
Go back and check the thread where you were posting with your other handle. I was quite specific about my wording.


According to the fire arms act, with the rare exceptions of people authorized to carry for defence purposes, the only uses for a handgun are target shooting and to look at.


Permitted purposes

28 A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied


  • (a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun
    • (i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or
    • (ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or
  • (b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is
    • (i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or
    • (ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.
  • 1995, c. 39, s. 28
  • 2003, c. 8, s. 21
 
  • Like
Reactions: shakenbake

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,875
6,833
113

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,484
113
Deaths is not the parameter. It is the number of people SHOT.There were already more than 4 people shot, making this already a mass shooting.
That's not the definition, according to what they go by in the USA.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,347
60,073
113
The definitions of mass shootings include domestics where more than 2 (or 3) people are shot, gangland shoot-outs with multiple vics and these public spree shootings. So it's hard to get much of an idea.
Yeah, there are a lot.

3 deaths or more. (With or without shooter included)
4 deaths or more (With or without shooter included)
3 people shot in one area in a limited time
4 people shot in one area in a limited time

And then I think some require only one person with a gun or only people "allied" together, so cross fire doesn't count.

It all gives slightly different numbers.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,347
60,073
113
That land of the free thing is a good myth.
From the Cato Institute Freedom Index. But maybe all their published work of conservative viewpoints on the law is really just a cover so they can report the US isn't all that free.
Cato Institute is well-known Marxist trash.
/s
 

poker

Everyone's hero's, tell everyone's lies.
Jun 1, 2006
7,733
6,010
113
Niagara

jalimon

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2016
6,970
6,840
113
The response to US mass shooting is like their response to covid.

All lost lives are a price worth paying if that keeps their imagined freedom intact.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,900
2,902
113
From Wiki... Media outlets such as CNN and some crime violence research groups such as the Gun Violence Archive define mass shootings as involving "four or more shot (injured or killed) in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter". Sometimes shootings involving three or more victims occur in non-public situations such as when one member of a family shoots all the other members in the family home. These killings are known as familicides and are not included in mass shooting statistics.

Personally, I would call this latest event a mass shooting. It kinda makes sense to call it that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar
Toronto Escorts