Yeah read it. Link here for the others: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20518929
I love it when such things happen. :D

Either they missed the sarcasm 'cos they used Google Translate or that newspaper is run by Sheldon Cooper.

Two things: today's shooting, and for those Canadians, Liberal leadership campaign

rubberchickenben wrote:Two things: today's shooting...

*looks it up*

How many times has this same thing happened this year? I've lost count.

That's it: I'm officially done with humanity.

rubberchickenben wrote:Two things: today's shooting...

:unsure: ... :X

Gotta love how Canadian news covered this: "A tragic event in a country where guns are a right, and health care is not"

There was also a stabbing at a school in China, and thankfully no one died... just the comparison of the two incidents show that yes, insanity happens, but guns just make everything worse.

At least the US is unlikely to succumb to the same knee-jerk nonsense the UK did when something like this happened and banned handguns outright...

Captain Internets wrote:At least the US is unlikely to succumb to the same knee-jerk nonsense the UK did when something like this happened and banned handguns outright...

And do you know how many such massacres we've had since, compared to the US? Not to mention the gun-related death rates outside of major massacres?

Sentynel wrote:

Captain Internets wrote:At least the US is unlikely to succumb to the same knee-jerk nonsense the UK did when something like this happened and banned handguns outright...

And do you know how many such massacres we've had since, compared to the US? Not to mention the gun-related death rates outside of major massacres?

And how many did we have before the ban? Don't try and make it sound like we had a constant stream of massacres that was stemmed by it. Wikipedia lists Dunblane as our only major school shooting, and only handgun-centric major shooting. Hungerford and Cumbria were done with mostly and exclusively long guns.

Didier wrote:

rubberchickenben wrote:Two things: today's shooting...

:unsure: ... :X

Gotta love how Canadian news covered this: "A tragic event in a country where guns are a right, and health care is not"

Seriously? What newspaper wrote that?

---

Captain Internets wrote:

Sentynel wrote:

Captain Internets wrote:At least the US is unlikely to succumb to the same knee-jerk nonsense the UK did when something like this happened and banned handguns outright...

And do you know how many such massacres we've had since, compared to the US? Not to mention the gun-related death rates outside of major massacres?

And how many did we have before the ban? Don't try and make it sound like we had a constant stream of massacres that was stemmed by it. Wikipedia lists Dunblane as our only major school shooting, and only handgun-centric major shooting. Hungerford and Cumbria were done with mostly and exclusively long guns.

Well it's not just school shootings. There's also other public places, like malls, movie theatres, on the streets, military bases etc. where massacres can occur as well.

Truth be told guys I'm pretty sure that excepting countries currently in a full out war, most countries don't have as many public massacres as America. Even though their gun laws are extremely lax, I can't help but feel there are other conditions that are leading to all these shootings in America.

It's not just massacres, either. The everyday gun death rate is also huge in America. I don't entirely understand how anyone can look at the number of mass shootings and the number of gun deaths in general in America and not realise that something is fundamentally wrong.

Edit: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

wrote:Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern.

There is absolutely no reason to own a gun. They justify gun ownership by saying they need it to "defend themselves". That's bs. If you can walk into Walmart and buy a gun, chances are the other guy has one as well and you're not going to outshoot anybody. Get over yourself.

I get that some people hunt, but the limit for killing game isn't high enough that you need a gun in your house everyday. Idk about the US but around here, t's like one moose per year between two people so if its about the same, it's completely feasible for hunters to rent guns. And if the gun rental centers faced the consequences (jail/fines) for having their guns run amok, they'd be more likely to do decent background checks.



Anyway, on a side note: in my hood, if you break into a house in the middle of the night with a gun, you will have it wrestled out of your hands and you will be shot up with it.

!!!! Forum debate!!!!

In Alberta, it's not like we all sit around the table polishing our rifles with our cowboy boots on, but a lot of farmers keep guns on their property for coyotes or cougars. And I understand the self-defense argument. But if all your citizens are armed to the teeth, it only takes a half-dozen wackos for things to get out of control.

I think Obama should stick his finger to the NRA and make some changes to the gun laws in America. Don't need to ban them outright. (after all, then people would just go buy them from Mexican drug lords) but it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to make it slightly harder for people to kill each other.

Just sayin

I certainly think the US goes too far in the "gunz 4 every1!!" direction. I just looked and Canada's gun laws seem perfectly sensible. I just don't like it when people go full "guns r bad, mmkay?" and say ridiculous things like "There is absolutely no reason to own a gun."

Guns should never be brought into urban areas? Handguns that can be concealed should be illegal?

Guns aren't bad mmkay, but people can't be trusted around them and its not worth the risk.

Luciene wrote:Guns aren't bad mmkay, but people can't be trusted around them and its not worth the risk.

I feel that people can be trusted around them as long as reasonable precautions are taken, such as having sensible restrictions on ownership rather than, like, handing guns out at walmart :P , the gun murder rate in Canada is like 5 per million people, which is negligible, so I feel it is worth the risk.

Like the gun registry we spent billions on only to have it removed when another party came into power? I think the problem is the idea that you can reasonably decide who does and doesn't get to have a gun; anyone is capable of doing terrible things when pushed far enough. Dividing the world into "evil" and "good" is rather naive. And if I hear one more person say something liked "Well criminals can just get guns anyway," I think I'm going to scream because that's just a silly argument.

On the other hand, my mom and her family grew up in a small farming community, and as little as 40 years ago they had a shooting range at the local high school. It wasn't uncommon for kids to walk the hallways with rifles in their hands on the way to the range. The only mass murder in that area -to my knowledge- was the Donnelly massacre over 130 years ago.
I agree with Nero in that I highly doubt that the whole thing is as simple as a gun laws issue. Just as important may turn out to be gun attitudes in general; the idea that something invented solely to severely hurt/kill other creatures is a good problem-solving tool is ridiculous. Not to mention mental health care/stigma (I don't know how many people I've heard in the last 48 hours describe the Connecticut shooter as 'crazy'). Finally, and this is something I haven't heard talked about much, how the media in their own way, sort of glorifies mass murderers. I doubt many in the US remember the names of any of the Aurora, Colorado shooting victims, but plenty remember the name of the shooter...

Captain Internets wrote: the gun murder rate in Canada is like 5 per million people, which is negligible, so I feel it is worth the risk.

The risk of what? Wiki says there were only three cougar fatalities in North America, since 2000. And none since 2008!
And even if you have no value for human life, the economic cost of a gun injury/fatality is soo much larger than a cougar fatality. You’re going to have long drawn out lawsuits and inquiries for sure and if the killer doesn’t shoot himself, we’ll also have to pay for 25 years in prison. We have publicly funded healthcare so taxpayers also have to pick up the bill for the injured and the traumatized people. And generally the place where the shooting takes place is shut down for a bit. I’ll take a cougar attack (on someone else) any day.

Fuzzy Lobster wrote:
I agree with Nero in that I highly doubt that the whole thing is as simple as a gun laws issue. Just as important may turn out to be gun attitudes in general; the idea that something invented solely to severely hurt/kill other creatures is a good problem-solving tool is ridiculous.

You can't change gun attitudes without a little government intervention. Look at the laws for smoking. It's crazy, if you show smoking in a movie, it automatically gets rated R. We have all those pictures of people with holes in their throats on cigarette boxes. You can’t smoke anywhere, etc.

Luciene wrote:

Captain Internets wrote: the gun murder rate in Canada is like 5 per million people, which is negligible, so I feel it is worth the risk.

The risk of what? Wiki says there were only three cougar fatalities in North America, since 2000. And none since 2008!
And even if you have no value for human life, the economic cost of a gun injury/fatality is soo much larger than a cougar fatality. You’re going to have long drawn out lawsuits and inquiries for sure and if the killer doesn’t shoot himself, we’ll also have to pay for 25 years in prison. We have publicly funded healthcare so taxpayers also have to pick up the bill for the injured and the traumatized people. And generally the place where the shooting takes place is shut down for a bit. I’ll take a cougar attack (on someone else) any day.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about, who brought cougars into this?

Didier wrote: a lot of farmers keep guns on their property for coyotes or cougars.

But other than some exceptions (farmers, hunters, police etc.) guns really aren't necessary. I've heard a lot of pro-gun people say "Criminals will get guns illegally anyway. Gun control is just preventing decent non-criminal people from being able to defend themselves and making it easier for criminals to get away with home-invasions and robberies."

Well yeah, that's true. But even decent, non-criminal people can break down and have lapses in judgement. And most criminals just want your money. If you try and whip out a gun to shoot the guy up, you're just asking for someone to get killed.