shooting at quebec city mosque, 5 reported dead

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is a very simple and short answer though, which is that the overwhelming majority of research shows that gun ownership increases your odds of being the victim of homicide and suicide.

Shockingly enough, being constantly in close proximity to an instrument that was created for the purpose of killing people makes it more likely you will be killed. It's kind of common sense.

That wasn't my point though. I have a pocket knife and am therefore more likely to cut someone open than if I didn't have one. I have a car. I am more likely to kill someone with it than if I didn't drive. They are rather self obvious points unrelated to the matter of comparative statistics and that renders "the short answer" non applicable to the actual question.

People look at figures and say "UK is X times safer than the US", but the differences are far less than graphs and commonly relied upon figures suggest. If someone wants to compare fairly then look at New York rates as they are currently reported then with convictions in London. I suggest doing the same thing with Vermont and England and England might not look good at all.

 

[desura]

Has anyone found an archive of his Internet comments? I'm not kidding, but he looks like the typical tech site frequenter.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

That wasn't my point though. I have a pocket knife and am therefore more likely to cut someone open than if I didn't have one. I have a car. I am more likely to kill someone with it than if I didn't drive. They are rather self obvious points unrelated to the matter of comparative statistics and that renders "the short answer" non applicable to the actual question.

I think you are missing his point though. If you don't have access to a car you can't run someone down. If you don't have access to a gun you can still kill yourself. You are just far less likely, statistically speaking, to do it or be successful than if you had the gun.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think you are missing his point though. If you don't have access to a car you can't run someone down. If you don't have access to a gun you can still kill yourself. You are just far less likely, statistically speaking, to do it or be successful than if you had the gun.

People are less likely to be shot if there are no guns, but that's not an argument really. That's akin to "water is wet".

Truth is gained by taking properly obtained information and applying a consistent, critical, rational and unbiased thought process which results in an honest starting place for discussion. Do the same but replace "unbiased" with "agenda driven bias" and you have politics.

 

[HomerJS]

On the shooter...

QUEBEC CITY (Reuters) - The French-Canadian student charged in a shooting spree that killed six people at a Quebec City mosque was known in online circles as a supporter of far-right French politician Marine Le Pen and described by a former classmate as a "nerdy outcast."

For those still denying terrorism, no mas yet??

 

[MomentsofSanity]

People are less likely to be shot if there are no guns, but that's not an argument really. That's akin to "water is wet".

Truth is gained by taking properly obtained information and applying a consistent, critical, rational and unbiased thought process which results in an honest starting place for discussion. Do the same but replace "unbiased" with "agenda driven bias" and you have politics.

That's not what the data shows though. People are more likely to attempt suicide if they have access to a gun than if they don't. It's easy, quick and requires a split second of decision making to do it. Without a gun they are likely not to even attempt.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not what the data shows though. People are more likely to attempt suicide if they have access to a gun than if they don't. It's easy, quick and requires a split second of decision making to do it.

Ok it happens. Now what?

 

[fskimospy]

People are less likely to be shot if there are no guns, but that's not an argument really. That's akin to "water is wet".

Truth is gained by taking properly obtained information and applying a consistent, critical, rational and unbiased thought process which results in an honest starting place for discussion. Do the same but replace "unbiased" with "agenda driven bias" and you have politics.

You aren't just more likely to die from a gun, you are more likely to die period. These results were arrived at after taking properly obtained information and applying a consistent, critical, rational, and unbiased thought process.

Gun ownership is a well known risk factor for violent death, meaning if fewer people owned guns it is highly likely that fewer people would die violent deaths. Suicide is the primary driver of this but it holds true for homicide as well. The reason for why suicide is so, so much higher is pretty simple: if I remember right gun owners are no more likely to attempt suicide than non-gun owners, but they are far more likely to succeed at suicide. Suicide is an impulsive act and most people who attempt it once never do so again, meaning if we just had fewer people using guns as that instrument we'd probably have more people alive.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You aren't just more likely to die from a gun, you are more likely to die period. These results were arrived at after taking properly obtained information and applying a consistent, critical, rational, and unbiased thought process.

Gun ownership is a well known risk factor for violent death, meaning if fewer people owned guns it is highly likely that fewer people would die violent deaths. Suicide is the primary driver of this but it holds true for homicide as well. The reason for why suicide is so, so much higher is pretty simple: if I remember right gun owners are no more likely to attempt suicide than non-gun owners, but they are far more likely to succeed at suicide. Suicide is an impulsive act and most people who attempt it once never do so again, meaning if we just had fewer people using guns as that instrument we'd probably have more people alive.

So your argument seems to come down to "In the event that something represents a potential danger, Constitutional rights must be undercut" or are you saying something else?

I'm for responsible ownership. You seem to be saying that isn't something which can absolutely guaranteed and therefore the right must be opposed. That's incredibly dangerous thinking.

My right to own is superior to the objections of others until the Constitution is changed. There may be people with intent to subvert that right and to them I'd say "How is that working out for you and Trump".

 

[fskimospy]

So your argument seems to come down to "In the event that something represents a potential danger, Constitutional rights must be undercut" or are you saying something else?

Nope, I'm saying there is room for reasonable additional regulations on firearm purchases.

I'm for responsible ownership. You seem to be saying that isn't something which can absolutely guaranteed and therefore the right must be opposed. That's incredibly dangerous thinking.

I have no idea how on earth you think that because I accept that gun ownership is associated with a higher incidence of violent death that the right must be opposed. That's nonsense.

The evidence clearly shows that gun ownership is foolish for most people, but people have the right to be stupid. I do think it indicates a number of common sense measures to cut down on gun violence are wise to implement though, like universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods, mental health exclusions, etc.

My right to own is superior to the objections of others until the Constitution is changed. There may be people with intent to subvert that right and to them I'd say "How is that working out for you and Trump".

Absolutely not, and this has never been the case. Your right to bear arms is superior to the objections of others absent a compelling government interest, advanced narrowly. That's it. The government has a compelling interest to prevent suicide and gun violence, and narrowly tailored methods to reduce that are absolutely within its powers. Rights have never been absolute and they never will be (and the founding fathers would have been aghast at such an idea). To do that would be anarchy.

 

[sdifox]

Can you people take your 2nd Amendment fight elsewhere? This is about Canada.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nope, I'm saying there is room for reasonable additional regulations on firearm purchases.



I have no idea how on earth you think that because I accept that gun ownership is associated with a higher incidence of violent death that the right must be opposed. That's nonsense.

The evidence clearly shows that gun ownership is foolish for most people, but people have the right to be stupid. I do think it indicates a number of common sense measures to cut down on gun violence are wise to implement though, like universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods, mental health exclusions, etc.



Absolutely not, and this has never been the case. Your right to bear arms is superior to the objections of others absent a compelling government interest, advanced narrowly. That's it. The government has a compelling interest to prevent suicide and gun violence, and narrowly tailored methods to reduce that are absolutely within its powers. Rights have never been absolute and they never will be (and the founding fathers would have been aghast at such an idea). To do that would be anarchy.

I can give you a case where there was "narrowly advanced regulation", Cuomo's law which took advantage of his unique power in this state to purposefully avoid legislative response and public input. Color me skeptical about what should be and what is.

That said I'm not for "everyone get's a bazooka".

What regulations, with specifics, do you suggest and what safeguards should be included as well as effective recourse? Mental health is mentioned. Who is excluded from ownership? Homicidal maniacs? Sure. How about the 17% of the populations which has or will have some form of depression? Will medical records be raided and HIPAA voided to make sure none have access? Will another stigma be attached to people with minor issues driving them underground and avoiding treatment?

This stuff matter.

What's your answer in specific terms? I'd genuinely like to know your answers to many concerns others have.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Can you people take your 2nd Amendment fight elsewhere? This is about Canada.

Nothing stays on topic, but yeah you folks do what you feel best.

 

[William Gaatjes]

There are idiots on both sides of the line.

It starts with hate, discrimination but often not open discrimination.
As soon as people come into power that seem to support the views of deranged people with extremist views, these deranged people will act.
It happens in every country. Regardless of religion, race or political view.
With Trump in the saddle of the US, this will happen more often now and the deranged muslim extremists will respond in return.
It is inevitable.

The future will be riddled with this ongoing feud.

 

[lotus503]

How ones determines to formerly describe the act. We all ought to be able to agree there is no place for this. By all accounts the guy was a RW extremist.

 

[norseamd]

I am. And I think the terrorists are winning given the last week of executive orders. Their main objective is to change our way of life and Trump is playing along like a dumb mutt.

Trump is playing along like a dumb mutt, but only dumb mutts believe he is nothing more than a dumb mutt.

You also need to realize that right wing Americans and Europeans and Islamic terrorists are allies, and they are fucking us up right now.

Yes, they are allies.

Just like right wing Israelis and Hamas are allies.

 

[norseamd]

The Onion has this line of reasoning covered:



http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/you-take-away-guns-and-someones-just-gonna-invent--51477

Its a lot simpler than you might think.

If you are only shooting knives, then there is no reason for them to have any handles, and thus they become a whole lot smaller without losing any of their blade. And if you realize that shooting projectiles are only going to hit in one direction unless you give them some spin, then you realize that only the tip is important, and thus you can get rid of the rest of the blade other than the tip of the projectile.

And what do you think you end up with?

A one shot mechanism that someone cant reload and that only works half-assed maybe not even doing shit?

 

[pcgeek11]

There is a very simple and short answer though, which is that the overwhelming majority of research shows that gun ownership increases your odds of being the victim of homicide and suicide.

Shockingly enough, being constantly in close proximity to an instrument that was created for the purpose of killing people makes it more likely you will be killed. It's kind of common sense.

Wow, I am really pushing the odds. I'm a few weeks from 62 years old and have owned a gun(s) of some sort since I was 10 years old. I even had a BB Gun at the age of 7.

I think I'm buying some lottery tickets on the way home.

 

[disappoint]

Trump is playing along like a dumb mutt, but only dumb mutts believe he is nothing more than a dumb mutt.

Resorting to dehumanization now? Are you trying to be part of the problem Obergruppenfuhrer norseamd?

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization

 

[agent00f]

I think of this more as hate crime than terrorism. I don't particularly like how everything is labelled terrorism.

Hate crimes are generally speaking worse than terrorism. Both target groups instead of individuals, but one is based.on historical subjugation with lasting & widespread social effects.

No great surprise which one the conservatives here are looking to downplay because, well, it's basically them.

 

[agent00f]

Just wanted to point out that the post above was written before encountering these predictable apologetics to protect their own:

San Bernardino involved more than one person. Which immediately raises the stakes from lone wolf / crazy person.
The wife, from Pakistan, had ties to Pakistan's infamous Red Mosque. There is nothing indirect about their terrorist link.
They were at the heart of the definition, having been in physical contact with terrorist organizations.

Orlando is interesting. Clear signs of mental illness, more of a lone wolf... yet made two pilgrimages overseas in recent years.
Though he had some opportunity, we have no evidence he was successful in making contact or supported by any group.
He took very heavily to the personification of Islamic Terrorism, but it was perhaps more symbolic than practical or physical.

This subject raises questions. Can terrorism be a lone wolf activity?
Or... without outside support, is it more of a individual hate crime?
Anyone can claim they are ISIS... that does not mean they were physically supported by them. Or even had contact.
Should we count them as terrorism / ISIS just because they want that recognition?

Maybe it's better to classify these events as hate crimes until we find clear indications of terror organization involvement.
Might help diminish their appeal in the eyes of the public, and distraught individuals in particular.
Maybe we make it more... glamorous by giving it an association greater than it actually is.

If we find an agreeable way to be consistent, it may help us discuss these things, or even combat their occurrence.

I would argue that this is terrorism because, like the San Beradino or Chattanooga or South Carolina mass murders, the shooter had a definite political goal, whether that be enacting political change, sparking a race war, or simply terrorizing a particular group into hopefully changing behavior. That places these people a step below even senseless mass murderers such as school massacre murderers or the DC snipers who simply want to murder. The organization might be only the Internet, which any mentally ill person can use to justify any point of view. Sure, this requires mental illness, but anyone who murders people he doesn't even know is severely broken even if a member of a group that nurtures the evil beliefs and intentions.

To me, hate crimes don't really have a purpose except in sentencing and in things which aren't crimes (or at least, not so serious) unless done to a particular person or for a particular cause.

There'll be more of these as a natural part of Trump/Bannon's "civic society" based on race resentment & superiority, and the same pre-enlightenment minds will be here trying to defend that ecosystem. It's simply the way of things.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Interesting article on the CBC that explains why he may not face terrorism charges and why it really doesn't matter in terms of punishment.

"It's a decision, however, that legal professionals say will ultimately have no noticeable impact if Bissonnette is found guilty on the six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with which he's now charged."
...

"He's facing multiple charges of murder, and the potential sentence goes beyond whatever could be imposed on him even if he was charged with terrorist activities," Sutton said. "There's no real purpose."

"If he's convicted of these crimes, he may never get out of jail."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...pect-may-not-face-terrorism-charges-1.3961837

If he's found guilty on all 6 murder charges he's ineligible for parole until he's served 150 years. So no, he's not ever getting out of jail.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, I am really pushing the odds. I'm a few weeks from 62 years old and have owned a gun(s) of some sort since I was 10 years old. I even had a BB Gun at the age of 7.

I think I'm buying some lottery tickets on the way home.

Nah, you've been dead for years. After all, these are experts.

 

[Commodus]

Interesting article on the CBC that explains why he may not face terrorism charges and why it really doesn't matter in terms of punishment.

"It's a decision, however, that legal professionals say will ultimately have no noticeable impact if Bissonnette is found guilty on the six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with which he's now charged."
...

"He's facing multiple charges of murder, and the potential sentence goes beyond whatever could be imposed on him even if he was charged with terrorist activities," Sutton said. "There's no real purpose."

"If he's convicted of these crimes, he may never get out of jail."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...pect-may-not-face-terrorism-charges-1.3961837

If he's found guilty on all 6 murder charges he's ineligible for parole until he's served 150 years. So no, he's not ever getting out of jail.

Yeah, terrorism charges are more symbolic than practical at this point. I can understand why people would want them, but I'm okay with simply labeling him a terrorist and getting an appropriately stiff sentence.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah, terrorism charges are more symbolic than practical at this point. I can understand why people would want them, but I'm okay with simply labeling him a terrorist and getting an appropriately stiff sentence.

Yeah, works for me. He's never getting out of prison.