# Shooting in Dawson College - Montreal CEGEP



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Shooting in progress. Reports of 20 shots fired, three critically injured, but no deaths reported so far. At least one gunman still in the school, as best we can tell. The first reports were just before one o'clock, and the student population appears to have been completely evacuated by now. CBC radio has gone to a live feed from Newsworld, for those who want to follow the story. Frightening times.


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

Supposedly unconfirmed report of one gunman dead.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Details still sketchy at the moment; this is what's on the Montreal Gazette website right now:



> CanWest News Service, with files from CP
> Published: Wednesday, September 13, 2006
> 
> MONTREAL - A gunman has opened fire inside Montreal’s Dawson College - apparently in the cafeteria.
> ...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Dammit, the radio has gone back to normal programming. Someone who has a TV in their workplace will have to keep an eye on Newsworld for updates.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Let's hope this man wasn't also targetting female engineers and staff.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have Newsworld on and three are critically wounded. Many others woulded but not seriously. Apparently two gunmen, one reportedly shot dead by police SWAT teams and the second shot himself.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

For those wanting to follow the story, CBC radio has got their "a" team spun up, and are back to following the story. And yes, HowEver, the best we can hope for in this situation is that is random hatred, not focussed.
Latest news is that there are some students locked down in the building still, and that there are now two deaths reported. They may be the gunmen, but that is unclear.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

*


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Well, their "b" team....

So far the reports are that the gunmen were firing at random. 

Police briefing:

6 injured, 3 critical.
one shooter "neutralised", no more info about what that means.
believed to be more shooters still in the building.
Police refuse to confirm or deny any fatalities.

4 unconfirmed fatalities. I hope and pray that those rumours prove to be untrue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Confirmed four dead, 16 injured by RDI (French Newsworld). Possible third gunman.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/13/shots-dawson.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...treal_shooting_060913/20060913?hub=TopStories


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

English CBC radio is sticking with my numbers, interestingly. Apparently CNN's quality reporting (where's that rolling eyes smiley...) is saying that one of the gunmen committed suicide, but there is no actual confirmation of that.

For Montrealers and others with friends/relatives, call:

514-280-2880
514-280-2806

for the police hotline.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CBC Newsworld say 4 confirmed dead, 16 injured. Still say there may be third shooter at large. Police going door to door searching.


----------



## overkill (May 15, 2005)

Been watching the coverage all afternoon on both CBC Newsworld and CTVNewsnet, and the numbers keep jumping.

They just had a press conference at Montreal General, and they stated 12 admitted and 8 were in critical condition, 2 serious and 2 stable. Others wounded but not critical were apparently brought to other hospitals to not back up MG.

I have heard of 4 dead, but no real confirmation of that and if the gunmen were included in those figures. Lots to still be brought to light. Horrible day. I use to walk by there all the time when I lived in Montreal.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

wow, how did i miss this news.... i didnt hear anything about this in T.O. I have several friends there... going to call and hear about it first hand.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Right now they're saying 11 patients were admitted to hospital, 8 of these are in critical condition. The only confirmed death is the gunman; latest reports say he was shot by police.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Doug said:


> Right now they're saying 11 patients were admitted to hospital, 8 of these are in critical condition. The only confirmed death is the gunman; latest reports say he was shot by police.


Hopefully they all pull through.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

the forum date says september 13th.... is this old news? i see it on tv... i'm getting confused.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

VNJ85 said:


> the forum date says september 13th.... is this old news? i see it on tv... i'm getting confused.


Not unless you consider today, September 13th as old!


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

haha... my bad, i was looking at ical, i usually keep it open and it shows the date.

I quick glanced, and it said jul17, but i only noticed the 17. newb mistake! haha my bad.

GG


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

:-( They're reporting now that one girl has died.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

head shot.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

*


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

my friend lives down the street from the college, he says it's queit now.. but earlier it was crazy.

as for deaths.. the gunner, and a girl. Rumour is that it was a head shot for the girl. Though i wont be surprised if some people in the ICU don't make it. Reported a boy was shot 5 times in the chest.

Edit: Charest speaking on TV now. Says two people died. I guess that means excluding the shooter.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i heard on the radio that a teacher administered first aid to a student with a head shot at the entrance to the school
he said they waited 20 min. for EMT personnel since police initially weren't allowing ANYONE (including EMT) to the scene


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

Not that I am trying to be discriminatory, however the description of the "shooter" sounds like the typical streettrash kids around montreal. The homeless "gothic" looking punks who usually are on drugs and always try to bum spare change and a cigarette. "Squeegee guy" type.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

VNJ85 said:


> *Not that I am trying to be discriminatory,* however the description of the "shooter" sounds like the typical streettrash kids around montreal. The homeless "gothic" looking punks who usually are on drugs and always try to bum spare change and a cigarette. "Squeegee guy" type.


But you have.....

How many other "streettrash" kids have you heard going a gun rampage? 
- Posted from someone very familiar with Dans La Rue -


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I sometimes really hate the CBC. They already have anti-gun loonies being interviewed attacking the Conservatives.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Not really related to this incident... but imagine if you lived in Iraq right now. This kind of violence happens about every hour.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> I sometimes really hate the CBC. They already have anti-gun loonies being interviewed attacking the Conservatives.


Yeah, and next they will be saying IF the gun had been registered it would not have happened. BS!

On the other hand, if it IS registered, they will know the identity of the dead shooter. Does that help those he shot?

Either way the gun control law serves no purpose whatsoever in this case, but like you I can't stand the way the CBC tries to make an issue out of a non issue.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Not really related to this incident... but imagine if you lived in Iraq right now. This kind of violence happens about every hour.


Sadly, this is true - it does but it into perspective (what? over 60 dead today).


SINC the gun issue is a sensitive one in Montreal, given the last massacre we had here. The fact that the gun lobby (mostly from the West) has dismantled a tool that police forces have confirmed works is a topical issue. CBC or not (most media here reported the same).

There is a culture of guns and violence in the US, in part because of the easy access to such weapons. We certainly don't need to import another US vice.

Would it of prevented this tragedy, likely not - knowing the identity of the shooter does not help the victims but it does help police work.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC the gun issue is a sensitive one in Montreal, given the last massacre we had here. The fact that the gun lobby (mostly from the West) has dismantled a tool that police forces have confirmed works is a topical issue. CBC or not (most media here reported the same).
> 
> There is a culture of guns and violence in the US, in part because of the easy access to such weapons. We certainly don't need to import another US vice.
> 
> Would it of prevented this tragedy, likely not - knowing the identity of the shooter does not help the victims but it does help police work.


So does the autopsy AS, and very likely much more assistance than the gun registration. They at least can examine the brain for abnormalities. Much more informative than examining the gun to be sure it was the one used. Or maybe that it was stolen. Or perhaps it belonged to his father who they can now charge for allowing the kid access, even if he broke into the storage cabinet to get it. There's justice for you, for a grieving father, and believe me, that father is grieving tonight if indeed it was his gun, is held partly responsible. Yep that gun registry is a wonderful tool for law enforcement. Just like it prevented a 23 year old woman from being shot in the head at a stop light in Edmonton a few days ago. If that handgun had been registered she would still be alive. Bullfeathers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> So does the autopsy AS, and very likely much more assistance than the gun registration. They at least can examine the brain for abnormalities. Much more informative than examining the gun to be sure it was the one used. Or maybe that it was stolen. Or perhaps it belonged to his father who they can now charge for allowing the kid access, even if he broke into the storage cabinet to get it. There's justice for you, for a grieving father, and believe me, that father is grieving tonight if indeed it was his gun, is held partly responsible. Yep that gun registry is a wonderful tool for law enforcement. Just like it prevented a 23 year old woman from being shot in the head at a stop light in Edmonton a few days ago. If that handgun had been registered she would still be alive. Bullfeathers.


Ahh SINC, that's cute, you want facts when today you were one of the first with the rumours.... wait, you are using rumours again....


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Who needs guns? This society certainly doesn't. Guns bought for self defense are far more likely to result in death of the owner or a relative than in defending against attack. By all means arm the police (even border guards) since criminal elements will get guns from the US but there is absolutely no good reason for owning a gun in a city (there are alternatives to long guns for pest control on farms but farmers are not the problem).

The gun registry was doomed to failure because it was, at best, a poor compromise - a political attempt to appease the victims of gun violence. Energies should have been put into eradicating all urban guns and all handguns.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Who needs guns? This society certainly doesn't. Guns bought for self defense are far more likely to result in death of the owner or a relative than in defending against attack. By all means arm the police (even border guards) since criminal elements will get guns from the US but there is absolutely no good reason for owning a gun in a city (there are alternatives to long guns for pest control on farms but farmers are not the problem).
> 
> The gun registry was doomed to failure because it was, at best, a poor compromise - a political attempt to appease the victims of gun violence. Energies should have been put into eradicating all urban guns and all handguns.


:yawn: 

Same old, same old.

Either you get it or you don't. You don't get it.

Honest people who register guns don't commit crimes. Criminals will get their hands on a gun no matter what. We have the largest undefended border in the world and live next to a whole lot of guns. How well is drug prohibition working? 

Who are you to judge why somebody needs a gun? Cars kill more people than guns. Many people drive cars for pleasure (I bet half of traffic). If we are going to outlaw guns for pleasure, then cars used for pleasure should go as well. 

People who are against guns do it for ideological reasons. So if you are an ideologue nothing I said above will sway your opinion.

Socialists believe that the government is a solution to all problems. That's why the left wing believes gun control will work.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I don't want to get shot - that's true. Honest people who register guns are far more likely to have that gun discharge and maim or kill someone close to them than if they didn't own a gun. Gun clubs are also no solution since criminals follow people home or break into the clubs. Its a simple clash of rights. The right to bear arms and the right not to be shot. In this country, there is no right to bear arms.

I'm not judging why someone needs a gun. I am questioning why ANYONE needs a gun. The car analogy is utterly irrelevant since cars do something useful. What use is a gun?

Guns don't kill people, eh? Same old, same old.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I'm not judging why someone needs a gun. I am questioning why ANYONE needs a gun. The car analogy is utterly irrelevant since cars do something useful. What use is a gun?
> 
> Guns don't kill people, eh? Same old, same old.


Hunting, pest control, protection from wildlife, shooting for competition (clay trap shooting), shooting for fun and home protection.

The car analogy is completely relevant. If you aren't using it for a need (say work), then you strictly don't NEED to use it. Your actions have the potential to kill innocent people. How is that different from what you are suggesting with guns?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This deserves some Fisking....



Vandave said:


> :yawn:
> 
> Same old, same old.





Vandave said:


> Either you get it or you don't. You don't get it.


This is the new call of the NeoCons? WOW, what brilliant insight! What's next? "I know you are but what I'm I?"



Vandave said:


> Honest people who register guns don't commit crimes.





> Gun deaths and injuries in Canada are a serious public health problem, claiming more than 1200 lives each year and resulting in over 1000 hospitalizations....there is a relationship between access to firearms and deaths and injuries caused by firearms.


http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-1/d_e.html


> Despite the emphasis on illegal handguns and "the criminal element," we know that l*egally acquired rifles and shotguns are the weapons of choice in cases of domestic homicide.*
> Although opposition to firearm control tends to be most vocal where there are more guns, it is in these areas (*rural Canada and the west*) that *firearms figure most prominently in violence.*


http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/DomesticViolence.html



Vandave said:


> Criminals will get their hands on a gun no matter what. We have the largest undefended border in the world and live next to a whole lot of guns. How well is drug prohibition working?


What does this have with gun control? Nothing - another straw man argument.
As for the drug prohibition, look at how tightly the US is trying to control it and the problems they have fighting it. I'd say legalize more drug use here. 




Vandave said:


> Who are you to judge why somebody needs a gun? Cars kill more people than guns. Many people drive cars for pleasure (I bet half of traffic). If we are going to outlaw guns for pleasure, then cars used for pleasure should go as well.


How many guns are in circulation compared to cars? How many hours of use of guns versus use of cars? 





Vandave said:


> People who are against guns do it for ideological reasons. So if you are an ideologue nothing I said above will sway your opinion.


I have yet to here many cries for being against guns - what I've heard in gun control.... 




Vandave said:


> Socialists believe that the government is a solution to all problems. That's why the left wing believes gun control will work.


Gun control works - it's not a right/left debate (no matter how much you'd like it). Right wingers want corporate welfare for their fiends, what to keep you ignorant - so what's your point?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> Vandave said: Hunting, pest control, protection from wildlife, shooting for competition (clay trap shooting), shooting for fun and home protection.
> 
> The car analogy is completely relevant. If you aren't using it for a need (say work), then you strictly don't NEED to use it. Your actions have the potential to kill innocent people. How is that different from what you are suggesting with guns?


Because all of the uses you suggest for guns (except the laughable one - home protection) have bugger all to do with living in a city, that's why. You seem as ideologically blind as you accuse me of being. I must admit, I have a hard time understanding why people get a kick out of firing a chunk of metal at an animal but whatever helps their self esteem.....

If you honestly think that owning a gun should be allowed for home protection, then you're living in the wrong country. There was thread on this a while back where the statistics for home defense made no sense and where having a gun in th ehome actually increased the risk of personal injury (to the occupants). But don't worry, no politician has the cahones to stand up for gun control.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Because all of the uses you suggest for guns (except the laughable one - home protection) have bugger all to do with living in a city, that's why. You seem as ideologically blind as you accuse me of being. I must admit, I have a hard time understanding why people get a kick out of firing a chunk of metal at an animal but whatever helps their self esteem.....
> 
> If you honestly think that owning a gun should be allowed for home protection, then you're living in the wrong country. There was thread on this a while back where the statistics for home defense made no sense and where having a gun in th ehome actually increased the risk of personal injury (to the occupants). But don't worry, no politician has the cahones to stand up for gun control.


Wrong. People in the City go hiking in the woods all the time. Out here in BC, the wilderness is only 1/2 away. People run into bears all the time hiking or working in the Bush.

A lot of people who live in the City go hunting during their vacations and want to keep their skills sharp by going to a shooting range. It's only humane for the animal to get shot cleanly.

How is hunting a deer and eating it different than buying a burger? Both animals died for our wants. At least the deer got to live in the wild. Like it or not, we are a part of this planet and nature, not neutral observers. Nature is actually quite cruel. Being hit by a bullet and dying within a minute is a pretty good death for most animals that usually get eaten alive.

I personally don't agree with trophy hunting, but I think people have a right to do it. 

Have you ever gone hunting or spent time in the wild? I really doubt it. I have spent a lot of time in the backwoods and have family who go hunting and have a trapline.  I wish more people would get out and actually see what goes on and spend time with a hunter. I think a lot of people would change their minds if they experienced the other side of the argument.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> How is hunting a deer and eating it different than buying a burger?


the gun that killed that deer has to be stored somewhere and it can be stolen or used against a human being

if someone really "needs" a gun for sport, why not just get an air rifle that shoots relatively harmless pellets

i just don't know why anyone other than law enforcement and military needs a gun

is the gun lobby really that powerful in Canada?

oh, and just how many people are killed by evil bears each year?
betya, that burger kills more


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ahhhh..... yes, spend time with a hunter who makes a living out of showing people the back country but don't give me that line about weekend hunters being a justification. Are you saying that all hikers in BC are (or should be) armed? And please spare the sharpening of skills. I've fired shotguns at claypigeons and its about as hard as a midway target shoot as soon as you get over worrying about the recoil. I'm sure that firing a bullet at a deer at 500 yards is a lot harder (I wouldn't know) but how many people do that? And I don't think you are suggesting these people keep their rifles under the bed for protection....

If guns were tightly controlled in urban areas, there would surely be ways to protect the relatively few people who get a kick out of hunting. But you'd never trust it to get that far and I'd never expect it to - no politician has the balls.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Ahhhh..... yes, spend time with a hunter who makes a living out of showing people the back country but don't give me that line about weekend hunters being a justification. Are you saying that all hikers in BC are (or should be) armed?


Not all hikers go into serious bear country. Try doing work at Kimsquit:

http://www.bcgrizzlytours.com/general_info.htm

I have been there for work and my client wouldn't let me get more than 20 feet away from him. The gun was loaded and ready. 

If you spend enough time in the backwoods, you will have bear encounters. I know people who have been stalked by Grizzly bears.

Lot's of weekend hunters around the GVRD. Why isn't that legitimate?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

weekend hunters and alcohol go together like peanut butter and jelly


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> weekend hunters and alcohol go together like peanut butter and jelly


Just like the thought process of one who has never hunted. Pure jelly.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Just like the thought process of one who has never hunted. Pure jelly.


pure Alberta


----------



## Mad Mac (Mar 13, 2005)

Well I'm not getting into the urban side of this. I live on a farm, I don't hunt and I never liked guns. This summer I got 40 rare breed chickens to keep as pets. I also have a house cat that goes out in the day and a dog. I was late getting home one night(right at dusk), when I get out of my truck I could hear the chicks. I went back around to the chick shed and a family of racoons were killing them. The dog was out side the fence going nuts. I ran back to my truck and drove to my brothers to get a gun(maybe 3 minutes round trip). By the time I got back They had killed all the chickens and had gotten out of the fence and were after the dog. The gun was of little use now, so I did the only thing I could grabbed the dog and pulled the ***** off. I got the dog in the truck and started shooting the *****, I got 4 of the 10. The dog was ripped up pretty bad and had to be taken to the vets and my arm was clawed and bit so I had to go to the ER to get cleaned up and to get them to order rabies shoots. The next morning found my cat dead. If I had a gun at my house chances are I could have saved some of the chickens and stopped the dog and myself from getting hurt. People from the city don't get its not just the big stuff that can hurt you. I lost $800 of chickens and the vet bill for my dog was over 400.


----------



## SkyHook (Jan 23, 2001)

>


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)




----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Yep that gun registry is a wonderful tool for law enforcement. Just like it prevented a 23 year old woman from being shot in the head at a stop light in Edmonton a few days ago. If that handgun had been registered she would still be alive. Bullfeathers.


Come on now, SINC, be fair. It would appear that EVERY law Canada couldn't have saved that woman from dying. Does that mean we ditch everything else as well? If somebody is hit and killed by a car, and nobody can find the driver or the vehicle, does that mean we ditch vehicle registration?  

If you're going to point the finger, point it at the real problem--the shooter.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

And what kind of weapons did the gunman use? Were these weapons legal or already illegal in Canada? 

Voyager


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I gather the weapon used was NOT a hunting rifle. From the descriptions I heard it was an automatic weapon which makes it a *prohibited* weapon. VERY few people in Canada have a permit to own such a gun. Indeed, these guns are rare.

We don't know how the shooter came to be in possession of this gun. Gun control or no gun control these things can be bought on the street. It's just plain silly to suggest tighter controls would help. If someone wants a weapon they can get one, just as you can with any illegal item. I'm afraid there is no defense against a lone nut case and tragedies such as this can and will happen again.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

adagio said:


> I gather the weapon used was NOT a hunting rifle. From the descriptions I heard it was an automatic weapon which makes it a *prohibited* weapon. VERY few people in Canada have a permit to own such a gun. Indeed, these guns are rare.
> 
> We don't know how the shooter came to be in possession of this gun. Gun control or no gun control these things can be bought on the street. It's just plain silly to suggest tighter controls would help. If someone wants a weapon they can get one, just as you can with any illegal item. I'm afraid there is no defense against a lone nut case and tragedies such as this can and will happen again.



I think most most of the those are under a "grandfather" clause. They haven't been legal for years.

The shooter also had a web site, since taken down, which I gather was quite informative on his wishes and the way he wanted to die. His wishes and views weren't private.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Come on now, SINC, be fair. It would appear that EVERY law Canada couldn't have saved that woman from dying. Does that mean we ditch everything else as well? If somebody is hit and killed by a car, and nobody can find the driver or the vehicle, does that mean we ditch vehicle registration?
> 
> If you're going to point the finger, point it at the real problem--the shooter.


Manny, you missed my point entirely. I say that the hand gun registry, in place since the 30s and one of the toughest in the world, made no difference to the fact the girl is dead. The shooter bought or stole that hand gun on the streets of Edmonton. No criminal will register a weapon and that weapon is very likely now on the bottom of the North Saskatchewan river, tossed off a bridge. You cannot possibly argue that any more gun control will change that fact. Illegal guns for sale, imported from the US are on the streets of every major Canadian city. You just can't legislate them away.




adagio said:


> I gather the weapon used was NOT a hunting rifle. From the descriptions I heard it was an automatic weapon which makes it a *prohibited* weapon. VERY few people in Canada have a permit to own such a gun. Indeed, these guns are rare.
> 
> We don't know how the shooter came to be in possession of this gun. Gun control or no gun control these things can be bought on the street. It's just plain silly to suggest tighter controls would help. If someone wants a weapon they can get one, just as you can with any illegal item. I'm afraid there is no defense against a lone nut case and tragedies such as this can and will happen again.


From what I heard from witnesses on TV yesterday, the gun was much more likely to be a semi-automatic, that based on the testimony it fired one shot at a time, not "bursts" that an automatic would. If that is the case, that is a legal weapon in Canada and could be easily obtained. Restarting the long gun registry will do nothing to stop a nut case and you are right when you state "it will happen again". Any thinking soul cannot dispute that more legislation will prevent future attacks, nor will taking away rural residents varmint long guns make any difference whatsoever.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I stand corrected. Yes it was a semi-automatic rifle used. However, I was under the impression these are prohibited weapons now, since the gun control legislation?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

pic of gunman and more info. about him

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=d558898f-6bfb-4a79-aa4b-b1d60a940a1d&k=56193

his blog has been deleted, but it seems the media has gotten hold of it - saw images from his blog on CBC Newsworld this a.m.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

adagio said:


> I stand corrected. Yes it was a semi-automatic rifle used. However, I was under the impression these are prohibited weapons now, since the gun control legislation?


No, they are not Marg. This from the Canada Border Services agency on what guns are legal to bring into Canada:

Non-restricted firearms include:

semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have barrels that are at least 470 mm (approx. 18.33 inches) long, and do not otherwise fall into a restricted or prohibited category; and

single shot or manual repeating rifles and shotguns of any length, as long as they are not designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm (approx. 25.74 inches) by folding, telescoping, or other means.

Source:

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/E/pub/cp/rc4227/rc4227-e.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

will be very interesting to find out how the gunman obtained his weapon(s)


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Thanks, SINC.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Manny, you missed my point entirely. I say that the hand gun registry, in place since the 30s and one of the toughest in the world, made no difference to the fact the girl is dead. The shooter bought or stole that hand gun on the streets of Edmonton. No criminal will register a weapon and that weapon is very likely now on the bottom of the North Saskatchewan river, tossed off a bridge. You cannot possibly argue that any more gun control will change that fact. Illegal guns for sale, imported from the US are on the streets of every major Canadian city. You just can't legislate them away.


SINC, I got your point and I think my post is very much applicable. There are still those _people_ who also involved in criminal activity who use registered guns--ones that are either owned by said person, or stolen from somebody. But what about the hundreds of different scenarios in which the gun registry is helpful? I agree completely that you can't legislate guns away. The same goes for illicit drugs. How much money have we lost on that war? Is that particular battle worth the money we've spent on it so far?

If we don't do something to try to stop these things from happening, isn't that as wrong as allowing it to continue without _any_ restrictions? The gun registry is a huge foul-up, but not because it's a bad idea, IMHO--but because the people in charge of it are incompetent. I think it only addresses one area of issues related to guns... obviously we need to look at the other areas as well. 

There is no singular answer that will fix the problem. People will do whatever they want if they really want to hurt a person--gun or no.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I knew it. Reading that article about the guy he mentions first-person shooter video games. I was waiting for this to be pinned on video games and I'm sure it will at some point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> SINC, I got your point and I think my post is very much applicable.
> If we don't do something to try to stop these things from happening, isn't that as wrong as allowing it to continue without _any_ restrictions? The gun registry is a huge foul-up, but not because it's a bad idea, IMHO--but because the people in charge of it are incompetent. I think it only addresses one area of issues related to guns... obviously we need to look at the other areas as well.


The only way the registry would help is if the shooter owned the gun he used to commit the crime. Just for a moment, let's assume the Dawson shooter's gun was registered.

Now please explain to me how the registry helps after he did the deed and was shot dead by police?

Other than the police saying, "Yeah, he used his own gun", what other possible benefit could the registry have?

It is not the people who run the registry that are incompetent, it is the legislation itself that is flawed and totally useless.


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

I am not a gun owner or proponent thereof, however, I strongly feel that Gun Registration will never stop this type of tragedy. My understanding is that if you live in a major centre and have $500 you can purchase a gun without much difficulty on the street. Given that and the idea that you are going to commit a crime I have serious doubts that you will register it.

I think those who have legal firearms should be required to store them in a meaningful locked vault which is permanently fixed in place. In the event the firearm is stolen and a subsequent investigation shows it was not stored properly the owner should be subject to a serious fine and have his FAC revoked. That may help in one area, to keep some firearms out of the hands of nut cases and criminals.

I have no solution to the problem. It may help to have mandatory punishments for those with and those selling illegal firearms.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> The only way the registry would help is if the shooter owned the gun he used to commit the crime. Just for a moment, let's assume the Dawson shooter's gun was registered.
> 
> Now please explain to me how the registry helps after he did the deed and was shot dead by police?
> 
> ...


Again... you're using *one* scenario out of a possibility of thousands. If you limit the scope of ANYTHING to one very specific situation -- 99.99% of ANYTHING (legislation, police patrols, camera security, whatever) would be considered a failure at this point. You're also insinuating that all gun-related crime is committed with unregistered weapons. That is simply wrong.

You can't do anything to help protect the general public if you focus on one facet of an overall problem.

Do you believe people should be able to purchase firearms without registration? What are the benefits to anonymous firearms purchases? Is it better to allow people who have committed crimes and have eluded the police without a registered gun, or not if it can offer a lead to capturing the criminal?

To believe that the lawmakers created this registry specifically to prevent shootings is ludicrous--it's a tool to aid law enforcement in tracking down and finding potential leads. Plain and simple--it does not predict the future.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

The quick fix here seems to be banning all firearms rather than addressing the root of the problem.

What I find more interesting is how a person acquires the mindset that allows them to commit such a horrific attack. His Blog seemed to shed some light on that. This guy seems to have a lot in common with the boys at Columbine. His counter culture lifestyle, music, gaming and movie choices likely had great influence on what played out yesterday since they all seemed to glorify his actions or validate his views of society. 

I worry more about the root causes of such an event than the weapon he used to carry it out. That is something society needs to address for if it were not a semi automatic gun, it could easily have been a machete he was using.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> The quick fix here seems to be banning all firearms rather than addressing the root of the problem.
> 
> What I find more interesting is how a person acquires the mindset that allows them to commit such a horrific attack. His Blog seemed to shed some light on that. This guy seems to have a lot in common with the boys at Columbine. His counter culture lifestyle, music, gaming and movie choices likely had great influence on what played out yesterday since they all seemed to glorify his actions or validate his views of society.
> 
> ...


But then that would leave only criminals with illegal guns... :heybaby:


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

modsuperstar said:


> I knew it. Reading that article about the guy he mentions first-person shooter video games. I was waiting for this to be pinned on video games and I'm sure it will at some point.


Yes, I am sure this kid copied FPS games. It has all the classic signs of a First-Person-Shooter copycat. It also has signs of copycat idea's from the Colorado highschool shooting.

Does that mean ban and stop violent video games? I really hope not. Because one sicko got ahold of a dangerous gun was sadistic and suicidal, does not mean people commit these crimes because of video games.

Most people who play those games are not crazy and would not commit these crazy things. 

There will always be a crazy in a group. We'll just have to wait and see the political backlash now.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

modsuperstar said:


> I knew it. Reading that article about the guy he mentions first-person shooter video games. I was waiting for this to be pinned on video games and I'm sure it will at some point.


I think we need a FPS Registry to keep track of people who play video games.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Again... you're using *one* scenario out of a possibility of thousands. If you limit the scope of ANYTHING to one very specific situation -- 99.99% of ANYTHING (legislation, police patrols, camera security, whatever) would be considered a failure at this point. You're also insinuating that all gun-related crime is committed with unregistered weapons. That is simply wrong.
> 
> You can't do anything to help protect the general public if you focus on one facet of an overall problem.
> 
> ...


OK, make it any person who shoots someone else, every single one of them. Now please explain how the registry assists in solving the crime? Short of a dope dropping a gun registered to him at the scene, how would the registry help if he fled with the gun?

And let's talk gun crime, a guy in a mask holds up a bank or a convenience store with a gun. Please explain how the gun registry helps police solve the crime? What, does the teller or clerk write down the serial number on the barrel they are looking down, like they would write down the plate number on a car? The guy is long gone and the registry is of no help in that case either. The only thing it might do is give police a heads up there "may" be a gun in the house, but when police are called to a domestic disturbance for example, the first thing they ask the caller who dialed 911 is, "are their any guns in the house", standard police procedure. So that works without a registry as well. The spouse or any family member is aware if there are any guns in their home.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> OK, make it any person who shoots someone else, every single one of them. Now please explain how the registry assists in solving the crime? Short of a dope dropping a gun registered to him at the scene, how would the registry help if he fled with the gun?
> 
> And let's talk gun crime, a guy in a mask holds up a bank or a convenience store with a gun. Please explain how the gun registry helps police solve the crime? What, does the teller or clerk write down the serial number on the barrel they are looking down, like they would write down the plate number on a car? The guy is long gone and the registry is of no help in that case either. The only thing it might do is give police a heads up there "may" be a gun in the house, but when police are called to a domestic disturbance for example, the first thing they ask the caller who dialed 911 is, "are their any guns in the house", standard police procedure. So that works without a registry as well. The spouse or any family member is aware if there are any guns in their home.


Well, barring any additional details they may get from the clerks, video camera and witnesses, in your instance if a guy holds up a bank and they have an idea what type of gun it is by looking at the video, they can short-list a group of people's names and addresses who have a similar weapon in the area. If they don't have a lead on a face, car plate, etc. from witnesses... you'd have one more lead to go on.

But what if the police were getting a call about domestic disturbance and gunshots were being fired... wouldn't they want to know if/how many weapons may be in the house and what kind?

The more information they have readily available the better prepared they can be.

Now, how about answering my previous questions?

_ Do you believe people should be able to purchase firearms without registration?

What are the benefits to anonymous firearms purchases?_


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Don't most gun crimes happen between people who know each other already, most often in the same house?

Sure, you'll never do it and your friends never will either. It's those _other _guys we don't want having guns, and we want to make it a pain in the ass for them to have them and shoot the people they say they love so dearly.

The vast majority of people should not have the right to own weapons. They simply should not be available to them.


---


Of course, it's hard to stop the illegal sale of guns, but at least let's make it impossible for kids like Kimveer Gill to legally purchase weapons. Why condone this kind of idiocy?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Now, how about answering my previous questions?
> 
> _ Do you believe people should be able to purchase firearms without registration?
> 
> What are the benefits to anonymous firearms purchases?_


Sorry, I missed those two.

1. Absolutely, that is the way it used to be, but I stress only for small calibre long guns and shotguns. Hand guns should be registered and their use severely limited as they have been since the 1930s.

2. The freedom that comes with living in a democracy which was taken from legal gun owners by this act.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> The quick fix here seems to be banning all firearms rather than addressing the root of the problem.


The U.K. banned handguns in 1997.


> The new gun crime figures also show that handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on the weapons that followed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml
Gun crimes have have increased something like 35%-40% per year since the ban in the U.K. The real problem is that criminals break the law so new laws only give these types more laws to break.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Voyager said:


> The U.K. banned handguns in 1997.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml
> Gun crimes have have increased something like 35%-40% per year since the ban in the U.K. The real problem is that criminals break the law so new laws only give these types more laws to break.


I don't share the idea that the answer is a gun ban. Its just the popular knee jerk reaction to events like this. Yes the UK has tried this and it shows us how well that works.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Wait a minute, that Telegraph article talks about a flood of guns from the Balkans. The banning of handguns did not cause the increase and who is to say that without the ban, the number of guns wouldn't be higher. Violence begets violence. With a handgun ban, the police know that if they find weapons they are illegal.

A ban does not solve the problem but its part of a solution. If we accept guns as part of our society, then we should expect to suffer the consequences. I think our society puts guns very low on their list of priorities. We do not have a gun culture and we benefit from having a small fraction of the gun crimes (per capita) that are committed in the USA.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Wait a minute, that Telegraph article talks about a flood of guns from the Balkans. The banning of handguns did not cause the increase and who is to say that without the ban, the number of guns wouldn't be higher. Violence begets violence. With a handgun ban, the police know that if they find weapons they are illegal.
> 
> A ban does not solve the problem but its part of a solution. If we accept guns as part of our society, then we should expect to suffer the consequences. I think our society puts guns very low on their list of priorities. We do not have a gun culture and we benefit from having a small fraction of the gun crimes (per capita) that are committed in the USA.



That's the point. People think banning something will cause the problem to go away. The U.K. tried for a simple solution and it didn't solve the problem. In the end, who you punish are the vast number of law-abiding people. Really tough laws that are enforced will do more good. Let's ban plea bargaining and revolving door justice for repeat offenders for a change.That might actually make a real difference.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

As long as we have our gun-loving neighbour to the south, criminals this side of the border will ALWAYS have access to guns.

That does not mean that we shouldn't have gun control laws in place here. Guns do kill people. Legal, safely stored, always in control guns do kill people. They are deadly weapons.

What has happened in Montreal is not about banning guns. It's also not about removing restrictions on guns. Two people are dead. How many more people would be dead if more guns were involved, and bullets were flying everywhere.

It still amazes me though how ordinary citizens are allowed to own a gun, but can't own lawn darts.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Voyager said:


> That's the point. People think banning something will cause the problem to go away. The U.K. tried for a simple solution and it didn't solve the problem. In the end, who you punish are the vast number of law-abiding people. Really tough laws that are enforced will do more good. Let's ban plea bargaining and revolving door justice for repeat offenders for a change.That might actually make a real difference.


Because this is an ideological argument. Socialists believe the government can solve all problems. They believe government programs and psychologists can fix repeat offenders. 

Similarly, they think government can get rid of gun violence through legislation. 

The reality is that government can't solve all problems.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> The reality is that government can't solve all problems.


Amen to that!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The reality is that government can't solve all problems.


There never seems to be a shortage of people willing to blame the government for every little thing that goes wrong though.


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

Well here comes the old 'Guns are evil' crap again.  Once again the gun didn't go off on a rampage on it's own.

Nothing wrong with guns, it's people that are the problem. And even if the 'gun loving' US weren't, someone that wants a gun will find one. 

Living on a workin' farm without a gun of somekind is just well, dumb.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

maccam said:


> Living on a workin' farm without a gun of somekind is just well, dumb.


Indeed.


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

You know it really amazes me how stupid and idiotic some people really are. For some one to open fire at a school, they must clearly be the worlds biggest losers, and deserve to burn in hell. As far as I am concerned I wish Canada still had the death penalty because bastards like those deserve to die. If they take a life especially the life of a child then that person has no reason or excuse to live. PERIOD! He would just be wasting space in the jails.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Because this is an ideological argument. Socialists believe the government can solve all problems. They believe government programs and psychologists can fix repeat offenders.


Does this mean that you think that governments can't solve _any_ problems?

I consider myself a moderate socialist libertarian. That is, governments should do what they can about certain issues, and stay out of issues where it is either inappropriate or impractical for governments to interfere.



> Similarly, they think government can get rid of gun violence through legislation.


I don't think we can 'get rid of' gun violence through legislation (unless we could effectively impose a ban on all firearms... which would be great as far as I'm concerned...ravenous rampaging racoons notwithstanding). But we can have an effect on gun violence through legislation. One could argue that the profound difference in gun violence between Canada and the U.S. is largely the result of differing legislation.

I don't think the gun registry would've prevented either of the tragedies in Montreal, but they're the exception, not the rule. What gun control does is make illegal guns more expensive and easier to find. When all the guns in society are registered, any gun that is recovered by police can be tracked to it's original owner. If the gun was stolen from a legitimate owner, that theft will be on record and will be under investigation. The registry serves to link the crimes and improve the effectiveness of the investigations.



JPL said:


> My understanding is that if you live in a major centre and have $500 you can purchase a gun without much difficulty on the street.


That one of the things a _functional_ gun registry would change. If all guns were registered, it would become more risky to traffic in stolen guns, and therefore more expensive to purchase guns illegally.



MacGuiver said:


> The quick fix here seems to be banning all firearms rather than addressing the root of the problem.
> 
> What I find more interesting is how a person acquires the mindset that allows them to commit such a horrific attack. His Blog seemed to shed some light on that. This guy seems to have a lot in common with the boys at Columbine. His counter culture lifestyle, music, gaming and movie choices likely had great influence on what played out yesterday since they all seemed to glorify his actions or validate his views of society.


I agree with you up to here


> I worry more about the root causes of such an event than the weapon he used to carry it out. That is something society needs to address for if it were not a semi automatic gun, it could easily have been a machete he was using.


I don't think this sort of atrocity could be carried out by a psychotic teenager with a machete. Do you think the students would've sat there while he walked up to them with a machete and started hacking at them?

There is no doubt that people will continue to do bad things to each other with whatever tools they have available to them, but it's also obviously true that the more effective the tools, the worse the damage the nut-cases can do.

If you really believe that we should not be regulating fire arms, why not take it further? Should 'law abiding citizens' be allowed to buy RPGs, flamethrowers, artillery, nuclear weapons? What do you think this kid would've done with a howitzer?

Cheers


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

My only gun-control related question out of this is about semi-automatic weapons. Can anyone who supports guns here explain to me what the legitimate uses of such a weapon are? I'm asking seriously to try and understand the whole picture. I hear SINC and others agreeing that hand guns need to be limited, and obviously military weapons. I hear the arguments about why guns are justifiable for hunting (although I disagree), and for farmers (although I know many farmers who don't own any). I understand the point about target shooting so that we can win more olympic biathalon medals. But I don't see why single-action weapons aren't sufficient for those purposes. It certainly would have slowed this guy down if he had had a bolt-action or manual pump weapon. Not to mention that such weapons are notably less cool.

I am trying to find a legitimate learning about firearms out of this discussion, in the hopes of finding some sort of compromise, recognising that my preference ain't gonna happen.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A person who is experienced in a bolt action rifle with a clip of say 9 rounds can eject and reload a round in a half second or so. A semi automatic simply does that for him, albeit perhaps a small bit faster. One is a deadly as the other in my mind.

Now a single shot bolt action takes time to reload as you have to eject the casing and then insert a new shell and ram the bolt home, then cock it before you can fire.

A pump action shotgun has a magazine that will hold five shells, but you must have a plug in place so that it will not hold more than three in Canada, one in the chamber and two in the magazine.

All the rifles I ever owned were bolt action with a clip that operated manually with the exception of my .22 varmint gun which was a semi automatic for the simple reason I could run off a fox or whatever was at the chickens or calves by firing in quick succession. Most times you missed or hit an extremity causing little more than a bee sting type of wound at the distance from the target. They were mean to kill only at very close range and with a properly placed shot.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks, SINC, my knowledge level of guns is showing 

So a single shot bolt action is what I am talking about. And a shotgun is already limited in the number of shots it can take.

Your much smaller size varmint gun might well be a different category altogether, if it genuinely is unable to cause serious harm.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Does this mean that you think that governments can't solve _any_ problems?


I think the government does lots of good things and can help to solve many of our problems. But I do think many problems are beyond their control short of giving up our freedoms.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> A person who is experienced in a bolt action rifle with a clip of say 9 rounds can eject and reload a round in a half second or so. A semi automatic simply does that for him, albeit perhaps a small bit faster. One is a deadly as the other in my mind.
> 
> Now a single shot bolt action takes time to reload as you have to eject the casing and then insert a new shell and ram the bolt home, then cock it before you can fire.
> 
> ...


The weapon used was a very modern Carbine, a Beretta CX4 Storm. While it doesn't chamber rifle ammunition it can chamber handgun amunition (9mm or .40). My issue with this weapon is that it is advertised for sporting purposes... Unlike the firearms Sinc described, there is no purpose for a weapon of this kind in Canada.

Now Harper has issued a pledge to crack down and offer more effective legislation (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/14/harper-shootings.html). I for one am very interested to see what he comes up with. This is exactly the kind of thing he *doesn't* need. If he comes down too hard on guns he alienates part of his base in the west, if he does nothing or too little, he can kiss any progress he is making in Quebec goodbye.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The weapon used was a very modern Carbine, a Beretta CX4 Storm. While it doesn't chamber rifle ammunition it can chamber handgun amunition (9mm or .40). My issue with this weapon is that it is advertised for sporting purposes... Unlike the firearms Sinc described, there is no purpose for a weapon of this kind in Canada.


Thanks. That was what I was trying to get my head around. I can't see any legitimate purpose for such a gun, but my point of view on firearms is a little biased, so I try to check it at least a little 



da_jonesy said:


> Now Harper has issued a pledge to crack down and offer more effective legislation (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/14/harper-shootings.html). I for one am very interested to see what he comes up with. This is exactly the kind of thing he *doesn't* need. If he comes down too hard on guns he alienates part of his base in the west, if he does nothing or too little, he can kiss any progress he is making in Quebec goodbye.


Interesting point you make. It fascinates me that the tough love law and order stance never extends to guns.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> The weapon used was a very modern Carbine, a Beretta CX4 Storm. While it doesn't chamber rifle ammunition it can chamber handgun amunition (9mm or .40). My issue with this weapon is that it is advertised for sporting purposes... Unlike the firearms Sinc described, there is no purpose for a weapon of this kind in Canada.


Note I mentioned small calibre long guns in my post. Those in my mind are .22 calibre, .222 swift, 30.06, .38, all capable of killing most animals one would hunt.

There is no need in my mind for anything over .40 or .45 calibre and up as those should not be available to anyone but the military or police.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I don't think this sort of atrocity could be carried out by a psychotic teenager with a machete. Do you think the students would've sat there while he walked up to them with a machete and started hacking at them?
> 
> There is no doubt that people will continue to do bad things to each other with whatever tools they have available to them, but it's also obviously true that the more effective the tools, the worse the damage the nut-cases can do.
> 
> ...


Hi Bryan

Let me get something straight, I don't oppose gun legislation. I believe we're better off in Canada because of it though I don't feel the gun registry added anything to our safety. You had to have a background check before that came about and handguns were always restricted weapons as are assault rifles. Rocket launchers etc. are prohibited entirely. I do however oppose the idea that taking shotguns away from law abiding duck hunters will fix the problem. Its a known fact that illegal guns are easy to get if your in the wrong circles.

My point with the machete comment was that someone bent on death and destruction can always find a means to do it. 800,000 died in Rwanda from machete wielding maniacs. A handful of box cutters brought the United States to its knees and killed thousands of innocent people. Had this guy only had a machete, he may have opted for a coat full of pipe bombs tossed into classrooms or taking moms Dodge Caravan for a drive down the sidewalk. 

Acts like this are more the result of a wayward culture than the weapons they use. The most deadly weapons in the world are harmless without a malevolent individual holding them. We just seem to be turning out more malevolent people these days and thats what scares me. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Note I mentioned small calibre long guns in my post. Those in my mind are .22 calibre, .222 swift, 30.06, .38, all capable of killing most animals one would hunt.
> 
> There is no need in my mind for anything over .40 or .45 calibre and up as those should not be available to anyone but the military or police.


Grizzly hunting or protection. I have fired rifles in that calibre range.


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

30.06? Yes quite capable of killing almost anything.

When I lived in Calgary we used to clear land for some of the local farmers to earn extra money. The gun I used was a .22-250, small cal with a ton of velocity. It doesn't matter what cal the gun is, a .22 will kill a person just as easily as a .50 if used right.

Semi vs bolt action vs full auto is just a stupid argument. What do you think is more dangerous an M16 .223 or a .50 cal. bolt action? Saying that automatic guns are the problem makes no sense. Because the gun fires it's rounds rapid fire makes it more dangerous than one that doesn't? I'd rather be shot at by a lunatic with an automatic weapon than a single shot, fully auto is much harder to control, odds are he'd miss. If he's skilled then it doesn't matter what he's got.


----------



## SkyHook (Jan 23, 2001)

>


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

maccam said:


> Semi vs bolt action vs full auto is just a stupid argument. What do you think is more dangerous an M16 .223 or a .50 cal. bolt action? Saying that automatic guns are the problem makes no sense. Because the gun fires it's rounds rapid fire makes it more dangerous than one that doesn't? I'd rather be shot at by a lunatic with an automatic weapon than a single shot, fully auto is much harder to control, odds are he'd miss. If he's skilled then it doesn't matter what he's got.


Talk about stupid arguments... semi automatic weapons are far more capable of doling out "more" damage at a faster rate than a bolt action or pump action firearm. The ease and speed of reloading a semi automatic is also of particular importance. That is why military style clips are outlawed in Canada. Can you get them, sure thing, I knew a guy who had a 30 round clip for his chinese AKM (AK47 knockoff). The obvious difference being the ability to shoot 5 people or 15 people without having to reload.

As for the .223 vs .50 cal comment... yeah slight difference... one shoots through you, the other shoots through you and the house behind you. It's pretty clear the guy running around with an m16 will be better able to kill more people than some idiot running around with a Barret .50 rifle (which I am not even sure a person could fire from a standing position).

Me personally, I'd rather not be shot at, at all. So as far as I am concerned all firearms not specifically designed for hunting should be banned. And the ones which are allowed for hunting should be tightly controlled and monitored.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

not only far more damage, but even most gun lobbyists and our own gun toting SINC agree that automatic and semi-automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians

less guns, the better
it's a start and i'm sure the good people at the NRA fear that banning the sale of atuo and semi-auto weapons is only the thing edge of the wedge to an outright ban of guns


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> not only far more damage, but even most gun lobbyists and our own gun toting SINC agree that automatic and semi-automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians
> 
> less guns, the better
> it's a start and i'm sure the good people at the NRA fear that banning the sale of atuo and semi-auto weapons is only the thing edge of the wedge to an outright ban of guns


Just to be clear, I have told you before Michael, I don't own guns any longer. Note the tense used is "past" when I refer to guns I have owned.

As for an outright ban on guns, it will never happen as long as we live next door to the US. You planning on moving the country?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

There is only one way to stop guns from entering the country. Completely dome Canada. No people or goods go in or out. The UK went through *HUGE* expense banning guns and we see how well that's worked out. (and they are an island)

There's a lot more things our taxes need to be spent on and banning guns, and the cost involved, is not on the top of that list.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Ibbitson column excerpts. Yesterday's column was good too.

....................
It proves we have to get tougher on crime. It proves we have to save the gun registry. It proves the Tories don't get Quebec.

No it doesn't. It just proves we're ghouls.
..
On the day of the shooting, NDP Leader Jack Layton raised the spectre of illegal guns crossing the border. But at this writing, there is no suggestion the guns were illegally obtained. Mr. Layton spoke prematurely for only the 327th time.

Conservative supporters, conversely, argue that the shootings prove the need for a tougher law-and-order agenda. Stephen Harper repeated the party's commitment to strengthen the justice system when he spoke to reporters yesterday.

But the Prime Minister came much closer to the truth when he rhetorically asked: "How do you explain somebody who wants to end their life and who wants to end it by killing other people?"

You don't. And you don't legislate to prevent it. Because you can't.
..
It is important to remember, then, that any screeds from politicians and pundits seeking to twist the Dawson College shootings to fit some political narrative are both exploitive and irrational. Irrational, because there was no political narrative to the shootings. 
..
Exploitive, because such arguments dishonour the victims by co-opting their misfortune for ideological ends.

When terrible things happen, all of us search for root causes that can be identified and fixed. But sometimes there is no cause, beyond the proximate. 
....................


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> You don't. And you don't legislate to prevent it. Because you can't.
> ..


Almost... you can't legislate against crazy. You can however make it less easy for them to carry out their craziness. For example that rifle of his fell through a loophole in current legislation because it chambered handgun ammunition. Had it been treated like any other long barrel semi automatic firearm it would only have had a 5 round clip in it. That potentially could have lead to less injuries as he would have had to swap clips more often.



Beej said:


> It is important to remember, then, that any screeds from politicians and pundits seeking to twist the Dawson College shootings to fit some political narrative are both exploitive and irrational. Irrational, because there was no political narrative to the shootings.


To the best of our knowledge this wasn't a political act, however that doesn't set it outside of the political narrative. Many mundane daily events are not part of the explicit political narrative, however by the very nature of the interconnected society in which we live those events are inheirently part of the political narrative. Extreme events such as this speak volumes as to how we as a polity fail those around us and ourselves.



Beej said:


> Exploitive, because such arguments dishonour the victims by co-opting their misfortune for ideological ends.


Any more exploitive than the female police officer who was shot in Quebec last year? Part of the problem is the fact that politics has to cater to the lowest common demoninator. So it is not at all surprising or unexpected. What I find odd is how certain political segments will use mass killings such as 9/11 to exploitive ends yet feel perfect comfortable denouncing others as using tradegies to push forward a gun control agenda.



Beej said:


> When terrible things happen, all of us search for root causes that can be identified and fixed. But sometimes there is no cause, beyond the proximate.


Absolutely, to paraphrase you, sometimes "****" happens. I thinnk the issue here is lets just not make it easy for people to carry out these horrendous acts. Society controls certain items for very specific reasons which are in the public good. How anyone can come up with a reason to legitimately own a carbine is beyond me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> How anyone can come up with a reason to legitimately own a carbine is beyond me.


I interpret the phrase "beyond me" as "having no understanding of".

Why comment on something you don't comprehend?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I interpret the phrase "beyond me" as "having no understanding of".
> 
> Why comment on something you don't comprehend?


You can interpret it anyway you like... But explain to me then what possible reason a civilian in Canada would have to own a Berreta CX Storm carbine? If your response has anything to do with legitimate gun collecting... tell me how a single individuals right to collect a firearm outweighs everyone else's right to not be shot by said firearm.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> You don't. And you don't legislate to prevent it. Because you can't.


i heard something on the radio the other day that one of the big auto makers (ford, i think) was looking at putting in gizmos into all their cars to prevent an intoxicated person from starting the car (some sort of breathalyzer device)

the MADD people have made it very unfashionable to drive while intoxicated as have the anti-tobacco lobby w.r.t cigarettes

perhaps someone could create the same sort of social distaste for gun ownership (especially hand guns, semi and fully automatic weapons)

only when politicians see that there is a benefit to them (i.e. votes) will they suddenly have the "kohones" to deal with the issue


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

And if the only reason is to collect them so they look impressive on the wall, then they can be required to be non-functional.

Each tragedy like this can be a learning experience. The law is not perfect, and to learn from the times it fails is not political opportunism, it is reality. Opportunism is Layton talking about smuggled guns from the US when there is no proof or even hint of that being the case. Asking the legitimate questions about how the law might be tweaked to close loopholes is simply the intelligent thing to do. So, no semi-automatic weapons of any kind, all clip sizes limited, regardless of the ammo involved. It ain't perfect, but it's a compromise. da_jonesy said it best:



> you can't legislate against crazy. You can however make it less easy for them to carry out their craziness.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> You can interpret it anyway you like... But explain to me then what possible reason a civilian in Canada would have to own a Berreta CX Storm carbine? If your response has anything to do with legitimate gun collecting... tell me how a single individuals right to collect a firearm outweighs everyone else's right to not be shot by said firearm.


You have a greater chance of being hit by lightening than shot by a gun.

The enjoyment of use of a gun is something you have no concept of, unless you have been properly trained and experienced a gun's proper use. The right to own and use a firearm in a responsible manner has been entrenched in this country for hundreds of years.

Banning guns is akin to banning automobiles for using one to kill another human being.

And your chances of being hit by a vehicle is far greater than any gun. Since they are far more dangerous, I guess we should ban all vehicles too should we?

A gun is manufactured for a single purpose and that is to strike a target. Sometimes a crazy picks the wrong target, but 99.99% of gun owners never point a gun at another human. That is part of the proper training I underwent many years ago.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> You have a greater chance of being hit by lightening than shot by a gun.


Sinc, I have to call you on that one. It sounded way too outlandish so I looked it up.

Without looking too hard through Google. In Canada...

_Each year in Canada, lightning kills six to 12 people on average—not surprising, given that lightning hits Canada eight million times a year. Most victims are hit outdoors, when the storm is raging, and most are single-fatality cases_ 

_816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002_

The odds are about 100:1 more likely to be shot and killed than killed by lightning. 

I even looking at the number for the US.

_The National Weather Service publication Storm Data recorded 3,239 deaths and 9,818 injuries from lightning strikes between 1959 and 1994. _

Here is my source... http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd18jun99_1.htm

_The number of firearm deaths also declined, from 38,317 in 1991 to 37,776 in 1992. _

Here is my source... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/95facts/fs_436s.htm

Now of course those are US numbers... soooooo in the US you are *FAR* more likely to be shot than hit by lightning.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I see SINC avoids answering direct questions.
The gun registry debate is one that should be re-opened. I was against the scraping of the program. 

People are looking for quick answers as to "why" - so far the easy answers have been the Goth lifestyle, the video games, the music, the internet and guns. None of these answer the question. I don't see the direct connection with any of those and would prefer that the this not be used to re-open the debate but if incidents such as these make a subject topical again...


SINC is sounding more like a member of the NRA in the US....

The Beretta is sold as a "personal defence firearm" ideal for "professional use by police forces".
http://www.cx4storm.com/
All that BS about striking a target rings hollow given that the target in question is most likely another human....

SINC, I've been properly trained in gun use - at an early age - and still don't see what enjoyment you are talking about. 
The director of the CSSA seems to understand you...


> “To be perfectly honest it's a lot of fun to shoot,” said Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, who also owns a Beretta CX4 Storm.
> 
> “The little pistol calibre it comes in gives virtually no recoil. It's very accurate. The firearm is just one of those firearms that's just a lot of fun to spend a day at the range with.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060914.wtheGun14/BNStory/Front


I don't think that a gun registry would/can completely stop the kinds of incident at Dawson but the Conservative cry for "stronger laws" does nothing in counterpoint. 

Stockwell Day is permitting that certain guns no longer be registered. Don't you think that it will increase the availability and risk that such weapons represent?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Sinc, I have to call you on that one. It sounded way too outlandish so I looked it up.
> 
> Without looking too hard through Google. In Canada...
> 
> ...


Just a note: the gun numbers include a large suicide component. Not an order of magnitude, but it could be over half.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sometimes a crazy picks the wrong target, but 99.99% of gun owners never point a gun at another human.


So I guess that means what for Dick Cheney? I guess he falls into that .01%

Sorry off topic, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Just a note: the gun numbers include a large suicide component. Not an order of magnitude, but it could be over half.


Sure thing... go ahead an cut those numbers in half. You are still WAY more likely to be shot and killed than killed by lightning.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

You all know how I feel about guns, but in my continuing hope for intelligent, well informed debate, it needs to be noted that CBC radio has just reported that all of the guns this person owned were legally acquired and registered.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> So I guess that means what for Dick Cheney? I guess he falls into that .01%
> 
> Sorry off topic, but I couldn't resist.


It is so painfully obvious that the incident was an accident that one cannot class him as among the .01% that intentionally aim at another person.

In my youth, I had a co-worker spray me with shotgun pellets as he shot at a moving duck across a small slough. He forgot I was in the reeds and we had agreed to shoot ducks in a crossfire at a 45 degree angle to each other and he went 180. 

That happens from time to time in the excitement of the hunt. Luckily, my shotgun required reloading at that exact moment and I had my head down, pushing shells into the mag and was wearing a heavy leather lined hunting cap. It felt like a tap on the head, but did not harm me as the reeds deflected most of the shot.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I keep reading letters and comments that its not the guns that are the problem and that this psychopath (I will not repeat his name - he deserves no recognition, not even notoriety) would have found other ways to kill people. Maybe. But the fact is that guns are efficient at killing and maiming people. They are the weapons of choice. Unlike a bomb, a gun rarely fails to deliver and allows the gun holder to pick his multiple targets.

Of course there is a lot of gut reaction to this horror. The fact that the guns were registered will be used by the government to justify closing down the registry. The fact that another tragedy occurred in a place of education will lead to calls for metal detectors, etc. in schools. But this person did not fantasise about knives or fast cars, he was drawn to and obsessed by the death potential of guns.

The only arguments that people make in favour of guns are that there are legitimate uses (hunting - and protection from bears....), there are tons of guns in the US so banning will have no effect and cars kill more people than guns. With these arguments, its clear that there is actually no justification whatsoever for handguns and that rifles could be limited for specific use. Pleasure seems to me like a poor justification given the risks associated with it. The issue with the US is a poor excuse too, given the tighter border security. We could restrict importation of guns. The fact that many legitimately owned guns are stolen suggests that supply is not that great. As for the car comparison, the relative risks per object, be it a car or a gun are not even close and a car has entirely benign uses. A car is not designed to deliver lethal force.

Debate is good. There are arguments on both sides. The strength of the arguments is what counts.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Debate is good. There are arguments on both sides. The strength of the arguments is what counts.


Trouble is with the term "strength". While you find strength in being anti gun, I find strength in being pro gun. And both arguments are strong by definition of the proponent.

So we are back at square one, strength vs strength, with no clear winner ever.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I apologise SINC, strength was the wrong word. What I meant is how compelling each argument is. You are correct that volume doesn't mean much but reason does. There are no easy answers - for sure - but that doesn't mean we should not look for them. Unless anyone thinks we should accept this.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I apologise SINC, strength was the wrong word. What I meant is how compelling each argument is. You are correct that volume doesn't mean much but reason does. There are no easy answers - for sure - but that doesn't mean we should not look for them. Unless anyone thinks we should accept this.....


No need for apology Jim.

You and I can discuss the merits of one position versus the other and never reach compatible ground.

Then there are those whose view of guns is so restricted and with no experience with weapons at all, who will continue to foam at the mouth hollering for a total ban. They will never get their way, nor will you or I.

There may be some neutral ground in the future, but for now, guns do, and will exist for the foreseeable future.

For those of us who agree with that kind of freedom, that is a good thing. For those of you who don't, it is not. And therein lies the difference.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> No need for apology Jim.
> 
> You and I can discuss the merits of one position versus the other and never reach compatible ground.
> 
> ...


What a condescending load of claptrap SINC. 
Part of the debate is registering certain guns – something that you are clearly against.
You keep up bringing the tired arguments of a car – well, cars are registered. The gun loving yahoos have effectively removed that. 

Some of us have experience with guns – heck, I’ve often felt that part of my family is responsible for the extinction of half the animals “dans le bas du fleuve” given all the trophies they have. 

The are certain guns that serve absolutely no purpose to farmers or any other reason proposed by gun enthusiast. 

The reality is that the more prevalent guns are in a society, the more they will be used.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> What a condescending load of claptrap SINC.
> The reality is that the more prevalent guns are in a society, the more they will be used.


No AS, the reality is that people who share your opinion have a distorted view of guns. A gun is an inanimate piece of metal that is, in and of itself harmless.

Only when you add the human factor, does a gun become a weapon capable of death.

So when you think about it your view is more condescending than mine. Either that or you can't tell the difference between a piece of metal and a warped mind that used it for destruction of human lives.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

No SINC, my main view is that guns should be registered - like a car.

Your definition of a gun is childish. 
A gun is a weapon (human factor of not). It is designed to "inflict damage". 

We could take your argument and push it to say it's not guns that are dangerous but the bullets....

The gun registry is an important tool for police. Only the "cowboys"* want to remove it and make it easier to have access to guns. 
* that's condescending. 

The much maligned gun registry is not a horrible entity that the Cons and gun lobby have painted...


> Gun registry a bargain, study finds
> 
> Bill C-68, which created the federal gun registry in Canada, "appears to be considerably more cost-effective than previously believed when considering possible savings in terms of firearms violence reduction."


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

So I guess registering guns is just too difficult because a few farmers would prefer to go gopher hunting.... (that's condescending also)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> No SINC, my main view is that guns should be registered - like a car.
> 
> Your definition of a gun is childish.
> A gun is a weapon (human factor of not). It is designed to "inflict damage".
> ...


Call it whatever you will AS, but the simple fact remains that a gun is a piece of metal that will bring harm to no one unless their is a human holding it who decides to use it in an inappropriate way.

That is undeniable as by itself, it cannot inflict harm. Your definition is childish and fails to recognize the human factor. Without that being part of the equation, it is no more harmless than any other metal item. It is man himself to be feared, not the gun.

As for the registry stopping another attack like the Dawson one, forget it. Many, many years in the future it will continue to happen again. And again. In spite of any law passed. Just like other human tragedies. Better get used to it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It is also an indisputable fact that there are people who are either predisposed to cause as much harm to others as they can, or who will do so given a certain set of circumstances in which they find themselves.

Take away the guns, and you take away some of the harm. Make it harder to obtain and own a gun, and you take away some of the harm.

Not everybody is predisposed to drink and drive, but in societies that legislate the hell out of drinking and driving, there isn't very much of it.





SINC said:


> Call it whatever you will AS, but the simple fact remains that a gun is a piece of metal that will bring harm to no one unless their is a human holding it who decides to use it in an inappropriate way.
> 
> That is undeniable as by itself, it cannot inflict harm. Your definition is childish and fails to recognize the human factor. Without that being part of the equation, it is no more harmless than any other metal item. It is man himself to be feared, not the gun.
> 
> As for the registry stopping another attack like the Dawson one, forget it. Many, many years in the future it will continue to happen again. And again. In spite of any law passed. Just like other human tragedies. Better get used to it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

interesting to note that when pro gun types compare guns to cars they think it's a valid analogy until someone mentions that all cars are registered, then they go mute

also interesting is that the pro gun types, who are usually law and order types as well, ignore that police (at least those I have heard/read) support the gun registry


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM, the other argument that people say it that properly training people in gun use would somehow be more responsible.

Both Valery Fabrikant and Kimveer Gill practised at the same gun club, I wonder if this is what SINC means by proper training?

Of course Harper is going on about stemming the flow of guns from the US, as a way of stopping gun violence. In all 3 gun massacres/rampages in Montreal, the guns were legal, maybe he should look at toughening up the gun registry instead...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> As for the registry stopping another attack like the Dawson one, forget it. Many, many years in the future it will continue to happen again. And again. In spite of any law passed. Just like other human tragedies. Better get used to it.


You know, as however pointed out, if the kind of gun used were not so easy to get, the chances of this happening would of been minimized. The exaggeration of danger of illegals guns is only a small part of the problem. Gun violence is often done with registered weapons (see the 3 rampages in Montreal schools).

And SINC, your definition of a gun as a piece of metal is childish. A Stradivarius is not a piece of wood. Any gun training emphasizes that guns are a dangerous weapon and extremely vigilance has to be used when handling them. Human factor or not, a gun is designed to kill. Target practice (I can see you bringing that up) is only a proxy for the act of killing with a gun.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> And SINC, your definition of a gun as a piece of metal is childish. A Stradivarius is not a piece of wood.


It certainly is. In the hands of an accomplished musician it emits a beautiful sound. In the hands of a non musician it sounds like a screaming cat. But alone and untouched, it is many pieces of wood glued together and no more. As with an untouched gun, that fact is undeniable.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Is there anything you have better to do AS, or are you just being pedantic out of sheer boredom? Something tells me that if it was anybody but SINC you wouldn't have wasted your time.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Although AS and I may agree on this issue, I feel serverely left out by your comment, MPD.



« MannyP Design » said:


> Is there anything you have better to do AS, or are you just being pedantic out of sheer boredom? Something tells me that if it was _anybody but_ SINC you wouldn't have wasted your time.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Is there anything you have better to do AS, or are you just being pedantic out of sheer boredom? Something tells me that if it was anybody but SINC you wouldn't have wasted your time.


 Not necessarily. Some people like to argue for the sake of argument.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I think that SINC's views are overly simplistic in this case.

Oh wait Manny, I'm supposed to say let's ban the gun registry because farmers need to shoot gophers out West...
Guns are just pieces of metal, they don't do harm... yadda yadda - up yours


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

*My, my, my...*



ArtistSeries said:


> I think that SINC's views are overly simplistic in this case.
> 
> Oh wait Manny, I'm supposed to say let's ban the gun registry because farmers need to shoot gophers out West...
> Guns are just pieces of metal, they don't do harm... yadda yadda - up yours


Wow, what incredibly witty retorts, muffin. :lmao:

It's amusing at how much of a broken record you are--without fail, every single time SINC posts something, you come in like a little man-child and immediately go on the offensive. Did the Mrs. cut you off or something? Take a cold shower and get over it.

Do you cry this much in person? SINC never once said guns don't harm people you witless gnat. Simply put--guns aren't the problem, it's the person holding it. Is that too difficult to comprehend? Shall I type it in French?

How ironic that you call target practice a proxy of killing. Perhaps you regard Tofu as eating animal meat by proxy. To me it's still plant matter. 

Or is that definition childish and oversimplistic? beejacon


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

HowEver said:


> Although AS and I may agree on this issue, I feel serverely left out by your comment, MPD.


But your tact is classier, IMHO. Even though you agree, I hold your opinion much higher than AS. His modus operandi is akin to a red-faced brat kicking and screaming until he gets his way. If it doesn't work, he resorts to taunts and name-calling. :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Do you cry this much in person? SINC never once said guns don't harm people you witless nat. Simply put--guns aren't the problem, it's the person holding it. Is that too difficult to comprehend? Shall I type it in French?


:clap: :clap: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> It's amusing at how much of a broken record you are--without fail, every single time SINC posts something, you come in like a little man-child and immediately go on the offensive.


Manny, not that you'll likely reread this thread but I waited a long time before posting on this thread - the first people to come on here started repeating the rumours and various pieces of information heard over the media.

SINC was the sixth poster here. Our ministry of misinformation started posting about the four dead and two gunmen with a possible three. He continued to post that rubbish. 

My first post was @ #27 - not even commenting on the falsities that SINC had been posting - 
The debate thanks to Vandave veered towards gun registry with SINC doing a good job with the tired blame the Liberals or blame the CBC (that about tired old)...

The (if this is not too hard on your concentration efforts) the exchanges have been between a few members (SINC, Vandave, UTBJ and myself).

And then - wow look at that YOU and SINC post more often that I do... 
From post #38 to post # 108 nothing - Shall we compared how many times you posted then? 

Maybe we should look at the frequencies of the posts in this area
SINC = 25
AS = 10




« MannyP Design » said:


> SINC never once said guns don't harm people you witless nat. Simply put--guns aren't the problem, it's the person holding it. Is that too difficult to comprehend? Shall I type it in French?


Maybe you should try English first - I don't want to make it too hard for you.

Easy access to guns are part of the problem. There is no need for the kind of guns that the shooter had. And if someone wants to own them, then there should be some kind of control. 
SINC point seems to be that there should be no gun registration. 



« MannyP Design » said:


> How ironic that you call target practice a proxy of killing. Perhaps you regard Tofu as eating animal meat by proxy. To me it's still plant matter.


What is the point of target practice? 
The targets used in ranges are often silhouettes of men or animals. Yes you also have the familiar round one. 
You can also shoot clay pigeons - the point here is that you are practising a skill whose original goal is to kill. 

A gun is first and foremost a weapon. 


As for Tofu


> ofu is soya bean curd made from coagulated soya milk. ... textured vegetable protein or mycoprotein and is* used as a meat substitute* in a range of foods


www.vegsoc.org/info/soya.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I have to agree with Artistseries... claiming that a gun is a tool and that the person weilding the tool is a very simlistic argument. Society puts all sorts of rules and regulations around tools of all kinds. The rules are for the *public good*.

This why we have to have drivers licenses... clearly you wouldn't let a 12 year old buy a car and drive it, or for that matter let anyone drive who hasn't passed a drivers exam. A car has to be registered when it is purchased or changes hands... why is so hard for some people to do the same thing for guns?

Aside from the abysmal cost overruns and ineffiencient way the registry was run, it was in essence a very good idea. Why would any law abiding citizen not want to register their gun? What is it about guns as a tool that sets them apart from other tools like cars... why is their such a vocal portion of the population against registering a firearm and not also fighting registering their car?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Manny, not that you'll likely reread this thread but I waited a long time before posting on this thread - the first people to come on here started repeating the rumours and various pieces of information heard over the media.
> 
> SINC was the sixth poster here. Our ministry of misinformation started posting about the four dead and two gunmen with a possible three. He continued to post that rubbish.


And if YOU reread the thread AS, you would note that the thread starter RevMatt asked that anyone who had Newsworld available, which I did, to please post updates, which I also did.

I simply echoed what Newsworld was saying at the time it was happening. No more, no less. You may be correct about it being rubbish though, after all, it WAS the CBC.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I simply echoed what Newsworld was saying at the time it was happening. No more, no less. You may be correct about it being rubbish though, after all, it WAS the CBC.


CBC or not, there was a lot of rubbish said that day by journalists/media/TV looking for a story.
Even the police has gone back on it's stories a few times. 

I take back calling you "a ministry of misinformation" for posting those reports. The ministry in this case was journalists looking for any story.

(Manny, why did you remove calling me a loser that had nothing better do than post here at all hours? What happened to my not having any friends? Geesh... You don't mind posting about my supposed lack of sex life and calling me a baby... 
What's up with that Manny?)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> CBC or not, there was a lot of rubbish said that day by journalists/media/TV looking for a story.
> Even the police has gone back on it's stories a few times.


It's a good reminder of the 'fog of war' effect. I think 911 conspiracy theorists should look into that concept a little more.

In this case, there were a number of big inconsistencies such as:

- Some people reporting multiple shooters;
- Reports of multiple deaths;
- Police claiming to have killed the perp. when he shot himself.

And this was in one location over a period of many hours.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It's a good reminder of the 'fog of war' effect. I think 911 conspiracy theorists should look into that concept a little more.
> 
> In this case, there were a number of big inconsistencies such as:
> 
> ...


All honest confusion, which is not to say that your point isn't a good one. The last one in particular was unavoidable. The police shot him, and he died. There just happened to be a self-inflicted shot in the middle there. And from the number of shots being fired by the sounds of it, one more or less would have been pretty hard to pick out.

I do find it interesting, though, that all of the TV stations were reporting every little wild rumour, while the radio, which was just as live, and had reporters on sight from 5 minutes after it started, was very careful about holding off on anything until it was confirmed. Quite a comment on the culture of TV news (of all descriptions, not just the CBC).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> I do find it interesting, though, that all of the TV stations were reporting every little wild rumour, while the radio, which was just as live, and had reporters on sight from 5 minutes after it started, was very careful about holding off on anything until it was confirmed. Quite a comment on the culture of TV news (of all descriptions, not just the CBC).


The Montreal radio stations were not so restrained. 

Today, there was some comments in various newpapers about how certain members of the Ontario media has been on this story in an unethical manner
The closest to an English version of this story is:


> Laval police Lt. Louis Liboiron said no formal complaints were filed by the Gills but they called police around 10:40 a.m. because they felt harassed Liboiron said.
> 
> "The family does not want to see anymore journalists on their property and they do not want them at their son’s funeral," Liboiron said.
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d1692c15-f94f-4804-baf2-c20ffa1c682c&k=978


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Montreal radio stations were not so restrained.


Fair enough. I guess it IS a comment about CBC, then, at least in terms of radio vs TV 

Not surprising that some elements of the media have continued to be grotesque, really.

From that same story, some sign of sanity:



> Yesterday, at a memorial to the slain Anastasia DeSouza, the congregation included Gill in their prayers.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

This isn't about guns, being "Gothic", violent video games, etc...it's about a guy with a missing 'chip'. Just like Dohmer, Bernardo, the 'trenchcoat mafia' of Colombine, etc.

When will we stop blaming everything and everybody instead of the individual. He stepped over that fine line between fantasy and reality.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Is there anything that makes the "missing chips" persons more likely to step over that line?





kps said:


> This isn't about guns, being "Gothic", violent video games, etc...it's about a guy with a missing 'chip'. Just like Dohmer, Bernardo, the 'trenchcoat mafia' of Colombine, etc.
> 
> When will we stop blaming everything and everybody instead of the individual. He stepped over that fine line between fantasy and reality.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Is there anything that makes the "missing chips" persons more likely to step over that line?


Thats the age old question of Nature vs. Nurture..


----------

