quote:

ORIGINAL: ydd

As a fellow Canadian, I applaud your post Tkman117. I am grateful this man didn't have an automatic weapon. Our local MP has been a personal friend for almost 25 years, and was in the Conservative caucus room. As more details come out, I will be interested in reading how this homeless man managed to get his hands on a 30-30 Winchester Rifle. He was nothing if not determined (or hyped on drugs) to withstand 12 bullets before the Sergeant-at-Arms finished him off..

quote:

ORIGINAL: ydd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: ydd
He was nothing if not determined (or hyped on drugs) to withstand 12 bullets before the Sergeant-at-Arms finished him off..

Good argument against magazine capacity limits. Thanks!
K.

Not sure if your comment is sarcasm or not K. The twelve bullets that hit the gunman came from a multitude of weapons, and with that many guns being fired, certainly explains the 30+ gunshots originally reported. As for some of the other comments early on, I have not read or seen one single thing that suggests that this was more than a lone gunman with an agenda. A coward for shooting Cpl. Cirillo in the back yes, but only one coward.
BTW, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent is due to be laid to rest on Saturday, November 1st, in a private ceremony.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

By getting pissed off, by getting mad, by sending avery fucking troop we have and expending valuable resources tracking down terrorists, we are doing exactly what they want us to do. Waste resources, sacrifice lives. They want us to fight them, they want us to be provoked, to be fearful that each muslim might be a threat, that we're fighting a war which can't be won, etc. I'm saddened by this act of terrorism, by this murder, but by keeping a cool and steady head, we have the ability to see things like they really are, instead of charging the cape like the Americans did in iraq and end up getting stabbed by the sword.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

And yet we only lost only one life in this incident, as opposed to how many lives in so many american shootings?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

And yes, women do protect themselves. Just not with guns where a death would be almost guaranteed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

quote:


I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

TK...............I'm with you Digger but I have to point out that nobody ever won an argument and if you try, you are just wasting your time and getting both sides more steamed up..............rather like trying to teach a tiger to talk....................it ain't gonna happen and it just annoys the tiger.
You may discover the truth of the saying we have here that you can't put brains in monuments too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

We dont suddenly hate muslims, in fact we are facing a time where more people are coming out in support of muslims because we know that these extremists aren't the majority. We want peace, not conflict (although you people mistaken it as freedom), and I think that's the difference between us and you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

I don't think you quite grasp the fundamental issue, TK. Me, my sense is that in the USA it's *never* about society as a whole, It's about 'me' and 'how will I defend myself'. Americans don't instinctively think in social terms, they think in individual terms. Much more so than any other country in the first world, so far as I've seen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

here's an IDEA, if someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, MAYBE explain your position rather than just CALL THEM NAMES?

WHAT A CONCEPT

cause I definitely see her point. if not having guns saves lives, and someone is attacked with a knife or club, and the victim has NO GUN, who's live is saved? NOT THE VICTEM'S

Here is a better IDEA, read the fucking link. Then you might understand what I was talking about and people might not CALL YOU NAMES.

WHAT A CONCEPT.

FYI my link shows how lives have been saved due to laws being introduced. You can argue with me but you cant argue with facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA. Every gun on the planet will impact with more strength than a pound, from almost any distance. How many american killing sprees were done with a hunting rifle where the guy wasn't an expert sniper or marksman? In Cirillo's case, where the guy wasn't an expert shooter, then the gun of choice wouldn't ideally be a hunting rifle. He used a hunting rifle because it was easier to get, simple as that. If you swung a gun from left to right which can fire off 100 rounds in 20 seconds, you'll have a better chance of getting maximum casualties than if you shot the same way with a hunting rifle. Efficiency man, cmon, I know you're thick but you can't be this thick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

Just thought I'd add my two cents because of the morons I've been reading here on this forum lately. Here in Canada, the gun used to kill Cpl. Cirillo was a gun that people were able to get their hands on more easily due to the removal of the Long Gun registry by the current conservative government. If the Canada had the same accessibility to automatic weapons that the USA has, then you'd bet your ass that more than one innocent life would have been taken that day.

How many people would have been killed in an equivalent US shooting, with an AR15 instead? I think most intelligent people could come up with a much higher number than 1 and believe that it would happen. I mean, jesus christ, I can't believe how fear based the USA and you americans on here are. It's pathetic, you people are so afraid of every little thing, so afraid to even trust that other people have your best interest at heart. But then again I look at your politics, the people running your country and the opposing political parties, and I have no reason to think you shouldn't be afraid.

On one hand you have religious extremists, and on the other you have a bunch of spineless wimps, and both are bought out by industry and big money. Here in Canada, we have issues with government, sure, but we at least respect the law, we respect our leaders. I don't like Harper, I look forward to voting him out in 2015, but our media doesnt blame him for literally everything and anything under the sun, his opponents aren't trying to impeach him over little itty bitty things, his opponents don't liken him to hitler, Mao, stalin, or try to threaten him or promote the idea of a coup or civil war.

We have respect, honour, integrity. But americans? All they do is hate, fight, complain, and fear. Our reaction to this act of murder wasn't a feeling for revenge or bigotry, but a sense of loss and sadness, and a hope and determination that such an occurrence doesn't happen again. We dont suddenly hate muslims, in fact we are facing a time where more people are coming out in support of muslims because we know that these extremists aren't the majority. We want peace, not conflict (although you people mistaken it as freedom), and I think that's the difference between us and you. We have freedom, freedom to choose how to live our lives without the need of fear always being present in our lives. You have freedom, or at least you feel like you do, to do whatever the hell you want, and that scares a lot of people.

Go ahead and call me a bigot, I don't care. I honestly dislike America, I think Americans can be fine people but in general you have your priorities all warped and twisted and it's really quite sad. You value keeping your killing machines over the safety and lives of those you love, you value your own opinions over the right for others to live the way they want, you value hate and fear because it's the only thing that seems to get people interested in your sensationalized and corrupt political and media systems. You don't care about peace, and you sure as hell don't actually care about freedom, you care about winning, being right, and being the best.

That is why America will fail, why it is failing, and it will be just another in a long line of empires to have collapsed under their own weight of ignorance, selfishness, and arrogance. Canada doesn't have everything perfect, but we're a lot closer to it than America has ever been, thats for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Try living in a country where fear isn't a prevailing theme, you might find it a very civilized experience.