Say it ain't so, this has got to be a typo.

Yuck it up, asshole. Innocents are dead at the hand of a shooter and you're being glib. Laughing and joking around.

i don't think you've ever posted anything that didn't make you sound like a prick.

No wonder you're always dwelling on other guys JUNK! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And yet NOTHING Obama or the other Democrats have offered as "solutions" would have stopped this or the last 15 mass shootings. He'll even Obama's chief apologist Josh Ernest, admits none of Obama's changes would have stopped past mass shootings and offers a weak, it MIGHT possibly, maybe, hopefully, someday stop some unknown future, unspecified mass shooting.

Any idea when you and the other anti - gun folks will offer solutions that... you know, might actually work?

As this incident shows, even imposing the kind of strict gun laws libs wet dream over, mass shootings will still happen.

So, your excuse, WTF, is that relaxing the laws is what caused this? ROFL, absolutely hysterical.

So, your excuse, WTF, is that relaxing the laws is what caused this? ROFL, absolutely hysterical. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I'm posting the facts you silly fuck... draw your own conclusion. Countries that have tighter gun control laws have fewer death by guns. That is a fact. I am for no gun control laws at all, I wish more people had guns. I wish we were able to purchase RPG's. I wish the government did not keep a data base on all it's citizens. I wish there was no law against me shooting stupid fuckers in the head....but I was not posting what I thought or wished, I was posting a factual account of the record on gun control.


“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population),

The only thing that will stop this type of activity is total confiscation of all firearms from private citizens.

That is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Nobody wants to talk about it, but sooner or later, that is what "governments", (i.e., ruling class), want.

The people that will fill the brunt of this are average citizens who enjoy firearms, hunting, or simply feel safer with a solution other than curling up in the fetal position and begging for your life when some piece of human shit threatens you. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You're absolutely correct. Total gun confiscation. Lets examine what that really means to a country like ours. First of all our Constitution enables us by our second amendment rights "To Keep and Bear arms" in order to confiscate firearms from American citizens the Second amendment would have to be completely abolished and the vast majority of citizens whether gun owners or not would have to support that. Secondly how would existing guns in society be confiscated? I would wager by gun owners voluntarily turning their guns into government authorities. There would also have to be some sort of data base of those individuals who own guns and what type. also it wouldn't be surprising that a significant number of gun owners would resist this action and would refuse to turn in their guns. That's when a physical door to door confiscation type raids would have to be implemented for the government to obtain existing guns. That's when the trouble would start. We would probably experience large scale mayhem between armed citizens and government officials carrying out the confiscation efforts. All of this in an effort to reduce or eliminate gun violence in America. This action alone would create more violence and death than all mass shootings combined.

Jim

This happened in a remote area of Canada (really remote in fact), in an Aboriginal community. 17 year old kid shooting his family and then others.

Please explain how this is any reflection of the wide generalizations you dipshits are making?

This happened in a remote area of Canada (really remote in fact), in an Aboriginal community. 17 year old kid shooting his family and then others.

Please explain how this is any reflection of the wide generalizations you dipshits are making? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And the San Bernardino shootings took place in a state with some of the most stringent gun regulations in the nation, please explain how that was any reflection on the CLAIM from you antigun dipshits that we didn't have strict enough laws or enough background checks, even though the shooters actually passed the required FFL checks when they bought their handguns?

Shit! I guess we need to invade Saskatchewan and make sure they observe OUR gun laws. Then everything will be ok, right?

You continue to blow an ignorant wind out your ass, idiot!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

A teenager went on a shooting rampage in Canada and killed some people. How can this be? Canada has the kind of gun control that liberals have wet dreams about. Their crime rate is low because they have few race problems.

What I don't see is speculation on what kind of "assault" weapon was used.
A call for more gun control.
Trying to blame this on the gun. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You used to post some worthwhile things, but it seems you are working hard to change that. This post of yours is just dumb.

Because a law/rule/mindset doesn't eliminate all evil is not the same as saying it won't significantly reduce it.

Why don't you post the gun deaths per million per year for the US and Canada? Then let's talk.

"I saw a lot of snowflakes on my driveway today. The sun must have burned out and we will all freeze to death by tomorrow." That would have been as logical as your post.

You used to post some worthwhile things, but it seems you are working hard to change that. This post of yours is just dumb.

Because a law/rule/mindset doesn't eliminate all evil is not the same as saying it won't significantly reduce it.

Why don't you post the gun deaths per million per year for the US and Canada? Then let's talk.

"I saw a lot of snowflakes on my driveway today. The sun must have burned out and we will all freeze to death by tomorrow." That would have been as logical as your post.


Originally Posted by Old-T

+2

Is senility setting in? Of course, if I have to explain my post to anyone (but the idiots) then I failed somewhere along the way. The argue of the left is that more gun laws will stop or seriously slow the number of shootings in THIS country. Okay then, here is Canada with some pretty strict gun laws and it happens again. Can you not see the corellation? More gun laws, laws that have been on the books for years did not stop a mass shooting. This focuses on the weakness of the liberal argument; it's not guns, it's people who are to blame. What this has to do with the sun being destroyed, I don't know.

Is senility setting in? Of course, if I have to explain my post to anyone (but the idiots) then I failed somewhere along the way. The argue of the left is that more gun laws will stop or seriously slow the number of shootings in THIS country. Okay then, here is Canada with some pretty strict gun laws and it happens again. Can you not see the corellation? More gun laws, laws that have been on the books for years did not stop a mass shooting. This focuses on the weakness of the liberal argument; it's not guns, it's people who are to blame. What this has to do with the sun being destroyed, I don't know. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Again, the key is "or seriously slow down". So I asked you to post the gun deaths per million per year for the US and Canada. Then we can see if they have reduced the instances or not. Quite simple.

Some nut commits a crime with a gun, and you clowns want to punish the millions of lawful, responsible gun owners. How does that promote safety? Nuts and criminals will still find guns, or other means to wreak havoc. You are promoting thought police. We "think" you might commit a crime, so we are going take some freedom away.

A woman drives her car into a crowd. No one wants to confiscate cars. A woman stabs her husband with a kitchen knife. No one calls for a ban on kitchen knives. A child chokes on a marble, and no one wants to ban marbles. What do they do? They educate people to not let children have marbles.


The gun is not the problem.

Some nut commits a crime with a gun, and you clowns want to punish the millions of lawful, responsible gun owners. How does that promote safety? Nuts and criminals will still find guns, or other means to wreak havoc. You are promoting thought police. We "think" you might commit a crime, so we are going take some freedom away.

A woman drives her car into a crowd. No one wants to confiscate cars. A woman stabs her husband with a kitchen knife. No one calls for a ban on kitchen knives. A child chokes on a marble, and no one wants to ban marbles. What do they do? They educate people to not let children have marbles.


The gun is not the problem. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No but the nut with a gun is. How do you propose keeping the gun from the nut?

. . Okay then, here is Canada with some pretty strict gun laws and it happens again. Can you not see the corellation? More gun laws, laws that have been on the books for years did not stop a mass shooting. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I've answered you erroneous assumption with actual facts.

Watch wtf you ask for you fucking loon....You want answers, I got answers.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/04/news/how-american-gun-deaths-and-gun-laws-compare-canadas

But Canada’s relatively tight firearms laws were loosened when then PM-Stephen Harper scrapped the federal Long Gun Registry. While in existence from 1993 – 2012, the registry was a centralized RCMP database that linked all guns with their respective owners.


“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings, which do not include Quebec figures. Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah, he hates the truth. It cramps his style.

Some nut commits a crime with a gun, and you clowns want to punish the millions of lawful, responsible gun owners. How does that promote safety? Nuts and criminals will still find guns, or other means to wreak havoc. You are promoting thought police. We "think" you might commit a crime, so we are going take some freedom away.

A woman drives her car into a crowd. No one wants to confiscate cars. A woman stabs her husband with a kitchen knife. No one calls for a ban on kitchen knives. A child chokes on a marble, and no one wants to ban marbles. What do they do? They educate people to not let children have marbles.


The gun is not the problem. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're right, you are.