a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms (Read 1167 times)

ren

a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« on: March 12, 2024, 11:05:16 AM »
not even a 50 Kal
https://www.aol.com/canada-officials-could-not-stopped-173121955.html

Canadian prison service officials could not have prevented an inmate who was let out of jail from carrying out the country's worst ever mass stabbing in which 11 people died, an official report said on Tuesday.

Myles Sanderson, 30, also injured 17 people in a series of attacks across 13 sites in the western province of Saskatchewan in early September 2022. He died of a cocaine overdose shortly after being arrested.

The stabbing spree rattled a country unaccustomed to acts of mass violence.

A probe into his release, carried out by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC), said the preparation had been reasonable and appropriate and carried out by qualified staff.

The investigation "concluded that there were no pre-indicators or precipitating events that were known to CSC and PBC staff, or that staff could have acted upon to prevent this incident," the two organizations said in a news release.
Deeds Not Words

QUIETShooter

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2024, 01:17:52 PM »
In the spirit of "We've GOT to do something!!" it is far easier to take away from law abiding citizens than it is to address criminals and the crimes they commit......

And "they" (the asshat politicians and government leaders) get to say they "did" something.

rinse and repeat and people wonder why the same horrible things happen again and again.

Sometimes you gotta know when to save your bullets.

groveler

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2024, 01:57:55 PM »
In the spirit of "We've GOT to do something!!" it is far easier to take away from law abiding citizens than it is to address criminals and the crimes they commit......

And "they" (the asshat politicians and government leaders) get to say they "did" something.

rinse and repeat and people wonder why the same horrible things happen again and again.
It's not really anything the politicians can fix.
Although they are arrogant enough to think they can
with laws and progressive activist judging and law prosecution.
It is far more fundamental.
Society has to do it.
God,family, and country.  Practice that , infuse it into the children's heads.
Work with the bad ones. You will never escape evil but at least minimize it
and if they cross the red lines,  permanently remove them from society
no parole, be humane, but you are out!
 :wave:

Q

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2024, 04:16:02 PM »
Maybe Bronze Star Chris from Everytown Strategies can create new lobby group: Everytown for Knife Safety

"My name is Bronze Star Chris. I'm a veteran_ that makes me an expert on knives because I carried one during my deployment. I used them to open countless MREs. We should ban all assault knives and knives of war to keep our communities safe."

eyeeatingfish

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2024, 11:11:01 PM »
Wow, that's got to be a record or something. So sad. Good thing he didn't have a gun or it would likely have been worse.

changemyoil66

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2024, 09:33:50 AM »
Wow, that's got to be a record or something. So sad. Good thing he didn't have a gun or it would likely have been worse.

Or a nuke.

Begle1

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2024, 09:44:06 AM »
The usual rhetoric response to a mass murder without a firearm is, "but think of how much WORSE it would've been if he did have a firearm!"

What is the best rebuttal to that statement? 9/11 and OKC?

changemyoil66

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2024, 09:52:22 AM »
The usual rhetoric response to a mass murder without a firearm is, "but think of how much WORSE it would've been if he did have a firearm!"

What is the best rebuttal to that statement? 9/11 and OKC?

armed good guy stopping it in 10 seconds.

changemyoil66

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2024, 12:03:19 PM »
idiot

That's what someone who's not very pro 2A would say. I support the 2A, but...

Flapp_Jackson

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2024, 12:53:36 PM »
In Canada:
"Federal inmates are eligible for automatic statutory release under
supervision after serving two-thirds of their sentence."

How progressive of them ...

"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

pacwire

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2024, 03:04:21 PM »
As i read this, i too have drawn the conclusion that a "dangerous" tool, in the hands of a "madman" (aka one with mental issues) can kill.  This just goes to show you it's NOT just guns.....AGAIN Mental health, etc etc etc.

Should we ban all:  Knives, Vehicles, Guns, Pipes, Baseball bats, ROCKS...the list can go on and on and on....

In Japan, where they have very strict gun laws saw their Prime Minister murdered with a Pipe/trigger etc that was published on a video...Crude but it worked...should we ban videos too?

Where's the mental health assistance?

Oh and people on the "other side of the law" will always find their "tools" not caring if legal or not.

Where's the LOGIC in all of this?

Have a nice day!

Remember the word "ALOHA" (not sure how a word keeps us safe)



eyeeatingfish

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2024, 11:33:55 PM »
The usual rhetoric response to a mass murder without a firearm is, "but think of how much WORSE it would've been if he did have a firearm!"

What is the best rebuttal to that statement? 9/11 and OKC?

Personally I would say we don't need to rebut the argument, it is plainly true. I acknowledge this argument and instead, when they say "so we should ban guns", I point out that we don't toss out all of our rights and freedoms just because it makes us a little safer.

ren

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2024, 07:52:14 AM »
Wow, that's got to be a record or something. So sad. Good thing he didn't have a gun or it would likely have been worse.

What a stupid thing to say on this forum.
Deeds Not Words

Flapp_Jackson

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2024, 08:00:45 AM »
Personally I would say we don't need to rebut the argument, it is plainly true. I acknowledge this argument and instead, when they say "so we should ban guns", I point out that we don't toss out all of our rights and freedoms just because it makes us a little safer.

That's what you point out?  Why am I not surprised.

Taking away freedoms doesn't make anyone safer.  It makes us sitting ducks for criminals.  In the case of the 2A, doing so also ensure government can do anything they want with no fear of armed retaliation by the public.

There's no evidence that taking away protected freedoms makes us a little safer.  I don't know why you'd pretend it does just to make a point.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2024, 11:42:34 PM »
What a stupid thing to say on this forum.

Why? The statement is true, unless you want to argue that you could kill more people with a knife than a gun.

eyeeatingfish

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2024, 11:52:51 PM »
That's what you point out?  Why am I not surprised.

Taking away freedoms doesn't make anyone safer.  It makes us sitting ducks for criminals.  In the case of the 2A, doing so also ensure government can do anything they want with no fear of armed retaliation by the public.

There's no evidence that taking away protected freedoms makes us a little safer.  I don't know why you'd pretend it does just to make a point.

Swoosh! Why am I not surprised?

The argument is when dealing with someone who is wants guns more regulated and/or banned because they think it will make them safer. You can bicker back and forth with an in-depth nitpicking argument about whether we would be safer and maybe make a little headroom or you can quickly point out that many of our rights come with risks but we don't throw them out under the guise of safety.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2024, 11:35:26 AM »
Swoosh! Why am I not surprised?

The argument is when dealing with someone who is wants guns more regulated and/or banned because they think it will make them safer. You can bicker back and forth with an in-depth nitpicking argument about whether we would be safer and maybe make a little headroom or you can quickly point out that many of our rights come with risks but we don't throw them out under the guise of safety.

Counter-SWOOSH!

Punishing the innocent won't make the criminals any less dangerous.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2024, 10:53:30 PM »
Counter-SWOOSH!

Punishing the innocent won't make the criminals any less dangerous.

Triple swoosh

That isn't the point of the argument I am making.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2024, 12:16:35 AM »
Triple swoosh

That isn't the point of the argument I am making.

Maybe you need to learn better English.  Your point isn't getting through all your arguing.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

Re: a mass killing and it did not involve any firearms
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2024, 11:14:04 PM »
Maybe you need to learn better English.  Your point isn't getting through all your arguing.

Your skull is very thick so....