Parkland shootings

ib1yysguy said:
If this slaying of four officers teaches us one thing, it's that more guns in more places won't prevent violent crime.

All we ever hear after a shooting is how if there had only been more guns there it never would have happened. We hear this even after a shooting on a military base. But now, it happens in front of four armed and uniformed officers.

Basically, this tells us that more guns does not equal more protection.
Click to expand...

and less guns does not mean more safety.
 
ib1yysguy said:
So we can retire that tired old argument that if only the Virgina Tech students were allowed to carry guns (or whichever school has been shot up most recently by someone with a handgun) then everything would have been hunky dory?

It's pretty obvious, as this case makes clear to the non-retarded, that this argument is totally without merit.
Click to expand...

no, you moron. I would think that even YOU could see the difference between one man ambushing FOUR people and one man lining up 32. A world of difference.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You know that it's harder to get anti depressants or anti psychotics than it is to get a handgun? That's the state of gun control in this country. It's indefensible.
Click to expand...

bull shit. I just love the crackpot authority some fucktards have about a subject they obviously know nothing about.
 
Blaming this tragedy on the gun is ridiculous. This man was a convicted felon. He couldn't legally buy a gun anywhere. So the gun laws didn't work.

He was in jail for child rape and assaulting a police officer. And he was released on bond. WTF? Someone with his rap sheet and those serious charges should not have been released.

This bastard should have been in prison where he belonged. Keep the violent felons locked up and crime will go down.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If this slaying of four officers teaches us one thing, it's that more guns in more places won't prevent violent crime.

All we ever hear after a shooting is how if there had only been more guns there it never would have happened. We hear this even after a shooting on a military base. But now, it happens in front of four armed and uniformed officers.

Basically, this tells us that more guns does not equal more protection.
Click to expand...

Duh, Capt obvious!!! Next your going to tell us more cars means more traffic. WTF
 
WinterBorn said:
Blaming this tragedy on the gun is ridiculous. This man was a convicted felon. He couldn't legally buy a gun anywhere. So the gun laws didn't work.

He was in jail for child rape and assaulting a police officer. And he was released on bond. WTF? Someone with his rap sheet and those serious charges should not have been released.

This bastard should have been in prison where he belonged. Keep the violent felons locked up and crime will go down.
Click to expand...

Blaming cars for traffic is the same,

Dude was owed republican favors by Huckeby, what do you expect.
 
Well the bastard is not going to be a problem anymore. All thats left is an autopsy and a burial.
 
Watermark said:
Arkansas probably had 1/3 time parole, so it would've been more like a 30 year sentence without parole. It's still a pretty whopping sentence to give to a 17 year old who hasn't committed a murder.

This is why we should have some sort of rehabilitating role in prisons. We should have mental health facilities for prisoners.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting article.

"Montreal Murders at Record Low, Quebec Youth Crime Down: More Reasons Why We Should Leave Vengeance to the Lord and Not to Stephen Harper
EmailWritten by marysoderstrom on Jan-6-09 8:49am
From: marysoderstrom.blogspot.com
Before the newness of the new year slips away, I want to draw attention to something that happened—or rather didn’t happen—in Montreal in 2008. That is: the number of murders in the area served by the Montreal police (the city itself, and several surrounding suburbs) dropped to 29 from 42 the year before. It was the lowest number since the consolidated police force was set up. Quebec City (the province’s capital and its second largest city) didn’t have any murders at all. And this despite—or maybe because of—an approach to juvenile crime which is far less punitive than the one pushed by the Stephen Harper government.

In comparison, Philadelphia and Phoenix, Arizona report about 400 and 200 murders a year, even though they are about the same size as Montreal. Canada, which has not had a death penalty for more than 30 years and closely regulates fire arms, has murder rates which run consistently about a quarter of those in the US. Between 1996 and 2004, the murder rate in Canada was 1.82 per 100,000 population while in the US it was 6.3 per 100,000.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives campaigned last fall on a platform which pushed getting tough on "youth crime." Quebeckers didn't vote for the Conservatives, in part because of this. They had good grounds to be reluctant to sign on. To quote a Canadian Press story, “figures compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics show Quebec's emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation over incarceration has served the province well. In fact, the youth crime rate in Quebec has consistently been the lowest in all of Canada.

“In 2007, for example, for every 100,000 young people aged 12 to 17 in Quebec, just 1,610 were involved in a crime. In the Northwest Territories, the region where youth crime rates have traditionally been the highest, that figure was 10,491.”

So what does this prove? That punishment should fit the crime, and that vengeance doesn’t work.
http://www.zimbio.com/Criminology/articles/6/Montreal+Murders+Record+Low+Quebec+Youth+Crime

And another interesting article on youth crime.
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C16.htm

Conservatives, whether in the US or Canada, appear to be filled with anger and hate. Be it punishing our youth or sending them to the war slaughter people need to wake up and see the real picture.
 
cawacko said:
If you are being serious it seems pretty logical to understand that because one has a gun on them it doesn't prevent them from getting surprised attacked as it sounds like was the case with these officers. If someone had a gun on them at Va Tech the shooter would have still shot people initially but could have been prevented from shooting as many as he did.
Click to expand...

Cawacko, you should know that this way of thinking is much to simplistic for the anti-gun crowd. Their theory would likely be that if someone at V Tech had a gun they would have shot the wrong person thus making it more of a tragedy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top