Birmingham UK shootout

[JeanGary Diablo]

There is no point discussing anything with you . I have already proven you write lies . Remember it " never " happens in Europe . So I'm not wasting my time with you anymore . KR was found not guilty . But you are still trying make something out of it .

No one is saying it "never happens in Europe" or it never happens in Canada.

But you don't see a continuous stream of headlines about mass shootings each month in Canada or Europe; you do in the US.

We can go years without a major mass shooting in Canada, but the moment one happens people like you will stand up and scream how this proves Canadian gun control doesn't work.

With regards to Kyle Rittenhouse, yup, he was found not guilty. If I was deciding that case, based on the laws of that particular state, my verdict would have also been a firm "not guilty" -- because when you're judging a legal case, your personal feelings don't matter, you must follow the word of the law, and under the law he is not guilty.

Be that as it may, the issue with the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case is that it shows just how royally fucked up America's gun laws are.

In Canada or any other civilized country, Rittenhouse would have been arrested and detained by the police he encountered prior to the shootings, not given a bottle of water. Rittenhouse would have been charged with a long string of weapons offences, including:

- unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm
- possession of a prohibited firearm
- possession of weapons dangerous to the public peace
- possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition
- possession of a prohibited firearm in a place not authorized
- pointing a firearm without lawful excuse

This is how civilized countries operate; we don't encourage armed civilians -- especially 17-year-olds -- to walk around in public playing GI Joe.

 

[mandrill]

There is no point discussing anything with you . I have already proven you write lies . Remember it " never " happens in Europe . So I'm not wasting my time with you anymore . KR was found not guilty . But you are still trying make something out of it .

Just a parting shot for you since you are waiting .

You found only 4 examples in the last 7 years in a nation of 320 million people. I think that proves my point.

We'll just call your examples "The Exceptions that Prove the Rule". Like the dude from Hungary in 1744 who killed 2 people, 3 dogs and 2 pigs.

 

[mandrill]

Don't be involved in drugs and criminal activity . Your chances of being a victim of gun crime is almost zero . I see where your mind set is at you see murderers as courageous that kill with knives . I see both a criminals .

That's not at all what he said.

 

[sshotrr]

Agreed.



Don't put words in my mouth. I said it's easier for a coward to kill with a gun, and I stand by that.

Not my words your word . There is nothing courageous killing anyone expect to save your life or someone else's .

 

[sshotrr]

You found only 4 examples in the last 7 years in a nation of 320 million people. I think that proves my point.

We'll just call your examples "The Exceptions that Prove the Rule". Like the dude from Hungary in 1744 who killed 2 people, 3 dogs and 2 pigs.

I stopped at four because I proved my point . Showing you are wrong again .

 

[mandrill]

Not my words your word . There is nothing courageous killing anyone expect to save your life or someone else's .

Actually there is. It may be morally despicable, but it DOES take courage to fight with someone. He's got a point.

 

[mandrill]

I stopped at four because I proved my point . Showing you are wrong again .

If you go back to 1975, you could probably find a few more.

 

[sshotrr]

Actually there is. It may be morally despicable, but it DOES take courage to fight with someone. He's got a point.

Your points have been used up . Already showed you to be a wrong over and over .

 

[sshotrr]

If you go back to 1975, you could probably find a few more.

Are your bringing attention to your post with false information .

 

[basketcase]

In a country of 360 million people and 300 million plus guns . Billions of rounds of ammunition ....

And that's exactly the problem people are talking about. For example, this Michigan case exposed that the sate doesn't even require guns to be secured.

I also notice that you didn't explain what "punishment" you fear gun owners will be exposed to.

Do you think the gangbangers in Toronto lock up their guns . They only take them from the safe to the range ? By chance another gangbanger comes across on their way to a legal range and they shoot then ?

Do you think they care about 10 round magazine capacity . They have shoot outs on the streets in daylight with many people around . Yet JT says more background checks for legal gun owners . Ignoring the illegal guns and violence .

You have the same mind set as the government . Pick on the target that is 99.99% law abiding by all firearm laws .

So you avoided my question. Canada is one of the top countries in gun ownership per capita. Why is it that we have nowhere near as many mass shooting as the US?

Could it be because gun ownership here requires a universal background checks, mandatory safety courses, and guns have to be secured so kids can't get hold of guns and accidentally or intentionally shoot people?

 

[basketcase]

Brimingham UK stabbing at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

If you don't have a gun you grab a knife . If someone wants to kill another person they use what is at hand . As we have seen cars and trucks make a great tool for killing .

How easy is it to run after dozens of people and kill them with a knife? A quick search of the internet show the only mass casualty knife attacks were terrorists attacks committed by multiple people and one case where a guy killed a bunch of disabled people. Meanwhile there are hundreds of examples where a gun was used to shoot a bunch of people.

I know it interferes with the NRA propaganda but killing a bunch of people with a semi-auto is a lot easier than killing people with a knife and that is why mass casualty knife attacks are so much less common. There's a reason homicidal idiots like this Michigan kid choose a gun instead of a knife.

 

[basketcase]

...I said it's easier for a coward to kill with a gun, and I stand by that.

I think the coward statement also applies to all those who think they need to carry a gun for self defense, at least based on how rare sshotrr says shooting are. Oh wait, did he just undermine the need to carry?

...Your chances of being a victim of gun crime is almost zero ....

 

[barnacler]

OK, so this is always a debate where an essential point is almost never made.

Gun rights opponents see the issue as about crime.

Gun owners to a very significant degree see the issue of private gun ownership as an ultimate guarantee of individual rights and freedoms, both against criminals, but also AGAINST A CRIMINAL STATE/GOVERNMENT.

That essential part of the debate rarely comes up.

I like the idea that there is sufficient physical power in the hands of the citizenry that an authoritarian government could be met with force, if need be.

The United States, should the great mass of gun owners oppose it, would be virtually un-occuppiable by a tyrannical government, such as we see elsewhere in the world.

And, the history of the 20th century shows that far more people are killed by their own governments than by criminals. I hate to state the obvious, but WW2 and the Jews and gypsies and other groups, the purges in Stalin's era. Maos great leap forward, the Armenian genocide, Khmer Rouge, - I'm sure |I have missed a lot - those are the events that private firearm ownership gives a wanna-be dictator cause to pause.

Of course, the left poohs poohs this idea of a authoritarian regime taking over a developed western country as far-fetched, but I disagree. I think history is on my side here.

Power still rests on the barrel of a gun, and it is important that the state is not the only one able to control that power. If you trust people to vote, then you should also trust them with guns.

 

[mandrill]

OK, so this is always a debate where an essential point is almost never made.

Gun rights opponents see the issue as about crime.

Gun owners to a very significant degree see the issue of private gun ownership as an ultimate guarantee of individual rights and freedoms, both against criminals, but also AGAINST A CRIMINAL STATE/GOVERNMENT.

That essential part of the debate rarely comes up.

I like the idea that there is sufficient physical power in the hands of the citizenry that an authoritarian government could be met with force, if need be.

The United States, should the great mass of gun owners oppose it, would be virtually un-occuppiable by a tyrannical government, such as we see elsewhere in the world.

And, the history of the 20th century shows that far more people are killed by their own governments than by criminals. I hate to state the obvious, but WW2 and the Jews and gypsies and other groups, the purges in Stalin's era. Maos great leap forward, the Armenian genocide, Khmer Rouge, - I'm sure |I have missed a lot - those are the events that private firearm ownership gives a wanna-be dictator cause to pause.

Of course, the left poohs poohs this idea of a authoritarian regime taking over a developed western country as far-fetched, but I disagree. I think history is on my side here.

Power still rests on the barrel of a gun, and it is important that the state is not the only one able to control that power. If you trust people to vote, then you should also trust them with guns.

Give an example.

The US has an obsession with the War of Independence when it was saved - in its own imagination and myth-making - from "tyranny". But the weapons of that time were so basic that a guy could pick up his own musket from the wall and go out as well armed as a professional soldier. And local anti Crown landowners could arm and equip regiments as easily and quickly as the Crown could.

When has any other Western developed nation had to fight against "tyranny"?

Leaving aside that a division of Marines could take out any number of fat, middle-aged fuckers with AR-15's. And that's without anyone getting into a B-52 napalm-ing Oklahoma.

Where you get serious anti government violence is when military units mutiny and attempt to stage a coup - as happened in France in the late '50's. Those were not "citizens". They were elite French units who obeyed their crazy commanders orders to rebel and were then surrounded and made to submit by loyal regiments.

In Germany in 1919, the armed forces had ceased to exist and left and right wing factions armed themselved from leftover military stock. Most of those guys were serious ex-soldiers commanded by experienced ex officers. So again, not really "citizen militia".