At least 5 killed in shooting outside Pittsburgh; police searching for 2 gunmen - Polidicks

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/10/at-least-5-killed-in-shooting-outside-pittsburgh-police-searching-for-2-gunmen.html?intcmp=hpbt3[/url] [QUOTE]At least five people were killed and three others were wounded late Wednesday when gunmen ambushed a backyard party in a Pittsburgh suburb, officials said. Allegheny County Lt. Andrew Schurman said that four women and one man were killed in the shooting at a house on Franklin Avenue in Wilkinsburg, just east of downtown Pittsburgh. Schurman said four of the victims were killed on the home's back porch. A fifth victim died from her injuries at a local hospital.[/QUOTE]

Ugh. When will the fucking U.S do something about these shootings? Glad I don't live there right now.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905841]Ugh. When will the fucking U.S do something about these shootings? Glad I don't live there right now.[/QUOTE] Never... NRA has the republicans deep within their grasp.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;49905898]Never... NRA has the republicans deep within their grasp.[/QUOTE] Why does everyone always act as if the NRA is responsible for things like this? They don't want these things happening either, probably more than the rest of the population because they always get blamed for things like this for some reason.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49905954]Why does everyone always act as if the NRA is responsible for things like this? They don't want these things happening either, probably more than the rest of the population because they always get blamed for things like this for some reason.[/QUOTE] they're blamed for this stuff because more guns (which is what they want) are NOT going to solve this problem it'll make it worse, WAY worse

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905983]they're blamed for this stuff because more guns (which is what they want) are NOT going to solve this problem it'll make it worse, WAY worse[/QUOTE] According to what evidence? Because there's large bodies of research that have shown that past gun control efforts and proposed future ones would have absolutely no effect on stuff like this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that "more guns = more crime." As a matter of fact, America has more guns now than it ever has, and it's at 40-year lows in violent crime and homicide rates.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49906412]According to what evidence? Because there's large bodies of research that have shown that past gun control efforts and proposed future ones would have absolutely no effect on stuff like this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that "more guns = more crime." As a matter of fact, America has more guns now than it ever has, and it's at 40-year lows in violent crime and homicide rates.[/QUOTE] Most of the research I've seen has been ridiculous shit like "well we implemented a no gun zone in a small area of a place flooded with guns and it didn't stop killings". Well no shit, if you can go literally a town over or even just outside of a building it's not going to stop guns getting in. That kind of research is about as conclusive as drawing dicks of graph paper and handing it in. There have been several examples of countries that have done quite well after implementing gun control so while it's totally correct to say it may not work as well in the US especially due to the difference in volume of guns (which even if it works, could have a time lag in effect), I'd lean towards believing it would have a positive effect. Keep in mind as well not all "gun control" is just "ok you don't get to have guns now". Canada just makes you take a safety course and apply for a license, and it's really not a huge deal.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49906412]According to what evidence? Because there's large bodies of research that have shown that past gun control efforts and proposed future ones would have absolutely no effect on stuff like this. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that "more guns = more crime." As a matter of fact, America has more guns now than it ever has, and it's at 40-year lows in violent crime and homicide rates.[/QUOTE] But they block absolutely everything don't they? More background checks etc

[QUOTE=Elspin;49906459]Keep in mind as well not all "gun control" is just "ok you don't get to have guns now". Canada just makes you take a safety course and apply for a license, and it's really not a huge deal.[/QUOTE] Canada's laws would be fine if it weren't for the Prohibited list, AKA "we banned these guns because they look scary, we might do the same to your gun on a whim, and there's nothing you can do about it".

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905983]they're blamed for this stuff because more guns (which is what they want) are NOT going to solve this problem it'll make it worse, WAY worse[/QUOTE] Um. Gun free zones and areas with the most restrictions are the most dangerous, just saying. (NYC, Detroit, Baltimore, DC, LA, etc)

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;49906495]Canada's laws would be fine if it weren't for the Prohibited list, AKA "we banned these guns because they look scary, we might do the same to your gun on a whim, and there's nothing you can do about it".[/QUOTE] There's a few that are probably banned for goofy reasons like any laws, but the vast majority of prohibited firearms are just automatic, or have barrels considered dangerously short, or fire explosives, etc, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[QUOTE=Elspin;49906524]There's a few that are probably banned for goofy reasons like any laws, but the vast majority of prohibited firearms are just automatic, or have barrels considered dangerously short, or fire explosives, etc, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.[/QUOTE] Read up on your countries laws. The prohibited list covers many, many more firearms than that. And thats not even getting in to restricted weapons and their absurdity.

I grew up in Pittsburgh. This isn't a gun issue at all. Who ever this was would have used anything to kill these people. Pittsburgh is a small city but one with very unique and closed off view. A lot of my friends back home had severe anger issues tied into a racist mind set. A lot of the city is like that. Stop with the fucking, oh, it's because he had a gun, fuck guns. Why don't you morn the dead and stop looking like a know it all. People died because someone was mentally unstable and found a means to an end. He could have stabbed them. He could have choked them one by one. The only reason you comment was because a gun was involved. Shame on you. It really is a shame. That city is amazing. Hell it's up and coming. But there is a fierce underbelly to it that you would not believe. It really is a shame that someone brought themselves to that point in their lives where this was the decision they had to make. Why can't that be the discussion? Oh wait, I know, because that's to hard, to big, to ambiguous. Anywho, if you do visit pittsburgh check out the O in Oakland. Best dogs you'll have any where around. Unless you go to the Brighton hot dog shop haha

[QUOTE=evilweazel;49906871]Read up on your countries laws. The prohibited list covers many, many more firearms than that. And thats not even getting in to restricted weapons and their absurdity.[/QUOTE] I'm very familiar with them thank you, I'm a license holder. I already mentioned that there are special restrictions that may or may not be goofy, but in case you want to read up on what I literally just explained here's the official RCMP website's definition of a prohibited firearm [QUOTE]Prohibited firearm* means: a handgun that [b]has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length[/b], or is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge, but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union, a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted, [b]is less than 660 mm in length, or[/b] is 660 mm or greater in length and [b]has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,[/b] [b]an automatic firearm,[/b] whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm in the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted.[/QUOTE] Again, exactly what I posted, of course there's things that don't match that definition and I did mention that there's things on the list banned for other reasons, but largely that's the scenario for banning. I find it hilarious that people like you tell someone from another country to read up on their own laws that they were correct on whilst simultaneously telling people from other countries that they "simply cannot understand our culture" in reference to gun laws v:v:v That and there's nothing wrong with the classification of restricted and non-restricted firearms, non-restricted firearms are all you need for hunting and/or defence in the wilderness and cannot be concealed. It doesn't take a genius to understand this. Most crimes are comitted using handguns, most sports only use longer firearms, thus they're separate classes and neither are banned. Not a bad idea.

You are missing the entire list covered by [quote]any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm in the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted.[/quote] [url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/page-2.html#docCont]Here is that list,[/url] which consists of a large number of arbitrarily banned firearms. This is the "list of scary banned guns" that people talk about, and it's entirely arbitrary and ridiculous. It consists of more than "a few" guns. As for the other things you highlighted, you missed highlighting the crucial [quote]a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,[/quote] Which basically means those guns are only banned if they're sawed-off. If a gun is factory-made with any of those then it is either a) non-restricted if it's not semi-automatic, or b) restricted if it is semi-automatic. As for sport shooting, obviously clay shooting is the most popular form of shooting sport in Canada, however I'd wager that in second is IPSC pistol shooting competitions. By saying "most" shooting sports use long guns, you're entirely ignoring IPSC, PPC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, 3-gun, and Olympic handgun. As for long gun, I can think of the various shotgun sports, IPSC rifle/shotgun, Cowboy Action Rifle/shotgun, 3-gun, Olympic smallbore, and Service Rifle, and Service rifle is specifically done with AR-15s. There are plenty of shooting sports done with handguns, and I guarantee that if people could hunt with handguns that tons of hunters would carry either a .22 or a Taurus Judge for shooting partridge while out hunting other things, so that way they wouldn't have to carry a .410 shotgun as well as the gun they're using for whatever it is they're hunting. Frankly I can agree with licensing and training, and to an extent the restricted category, but the prohibited list is largely arbitrary. Not just the list, but banning sawed-offs when you can get them factory-made and banning short-barrelled pistols is also stupid. I also find it stupid that I can't shoot a handgun on crown land or even my own property, but I can shoot a 50-calibre rifle. I also personally had to buy a new gun for coyote because my AR-15 is arbitrarily restricted, because it would make a fantastic coyote gun, but I can't hunt with it. We have some things that work, that are agreeable, and that help, but there's a lot of arbitrary, useless, stupid crap that is literally founded on lies and falsified statistics. To back up the "falsified statistics" claim, here's a report from the RCMP about some of the "statistics" the Coalition for Gun Control, and later Liberal Government, used to push the Firearms Act: [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12745706_1564388533887071_2678475491886981339_n.jpg?oh=3eda1fb7f53e6c9c6abfd595a9d2429d&oe=5765CB8F[/url] [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12743990_1564388537220404_802595312274143719_n.jpg?oh=5c9d4c4bd0426f19ebb627dd39abf3c1&oe=576A7901[/url] [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12742665_1564388540553737_1956578710776885942_n.jpg?oh=806409040817c881faf69e4448670114&oe=576BB9A6[/url] [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12743993_1564388577220400_7519440235396248965_n.jpg?oh=8c10a565769282fb96839a0a05f670da&oe=576C9E6D[/url] They quite clearly state the "statistics" used are misrepresented and overblown.

Typical day in Wilkensburg. It's really a shame. This is the shit I hear about on the local news every day.

Two gunmen shot five people at a BBQ in Pittsburg? Sounds an awful like something gang related to me.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49907354]You are missing the entire list covered by [url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-462/page-2.html#docCont]Here is that list,[/url] which consists of a large number of arbitrarily banned firearms. This is the "list of scary banned guns" that people talk about, and it's entirely arbitrary and ridiculous. It consists of more than "a few" guns.[/QUOTE] I did not miss the list, I explicitly mentioned it in my post, twice actually. It's a few relative to the varieties of firearms that are not banned, I didn't mean to imply it was only 1 or 2 items and that's diving into semantics anyhow. [QUOTE]As for the other things you highlighted, you missed highlighting the crucial Which basically means those guns are only banned if they're sawed-off. If a gun is factory-made with any of those then it is either a) non-restricted if it's not semi-automatic, or b) restricted if it is semi-automatic.[/QUOTE] That's true but you're forgetting the top half, shorter than 105mm is banned regardless of whether or not it's modified, and either way neither contradicts what I said which was that prohibition can be based on barrel length. [QUOTE]As for sport shooting, obviously clay shooting is the most popular form of shooting sport in Canada, however I'd wager that in second is IPSC pistol shooting competitions. By saying "most" shooting sports use long guns, you're entirely ignoring IPSC, PPC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, 3-gun, and Olympic handgun. As for long gun, I can think of the various shotgun sports, IPSC rifle/shotgun, Cowboy Action Rifle/shotgun, 3-gun, Olympic smallbore, and Service Rifle, and Service rifle is specifically done with AR-15s. There are plenty of shooting sports done with handguns, and I guarantee that if people could hunt with handguns that tons of hunters would carry either a .22 or a Taurus Judge for shooting partridge while out hunting other things, so that way they wouldn't have to carry a .410 shotgun as well as the gun they're using for whatever it is they're hunting.[/QUOTE] While there are many [i]types[/i] of sports that involve handguns the vast [i]quantity[/i] of people taking part in sports such as hunting and professional shooting are using long guns. Not that it matters, you can obtain a restricted license if you need one for a sport you wish to take part in and Canada has actually removed handguns from the prohibited list to facilitate certain sports. [QUOTE]Frankly I can agree with licensing and training, and to an extent the restricted category, but the prohibited list is largely arbitrary. Not just the list, but banning sawed-offs when you can get them factory-made and banning short-barrelled pistols is also stupid. I also find it stupid that I can't shoot a handgun on crown land or even my own property, but I can shoot a 50-calibre rifle. I also personally had to buy a new gun for coyote because my AR-15 is arbitrarily restricted, because it would make a fantastic coyote gun, but I can't hunt with it.[/QUOTE] I already agreed that some of the restricted stuff is silly, but I think the category has solid basis. [QUOTE]We have some things that work, that are agreeable, and that help, but there's a lot of arbitrary, useless, stupid crap that is literally founded on lies and falsified statistics. To back up the "falsified statistics" claim, here's a report from the RCMP about some of the "statistics" the Coalition for Gun Control, and later Liberal Government, used to push the Firearms Act: [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12745706_1564388533887071_2678475491886981339_n.jpg?oh=3eda1fb7f53e6c9c6abfd595a9d2429d&oe=5765CB8F[/url] [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12743990_1564388537220404_802595312274143719_n.jpg?oh=5c9d4c4bd0426f19ebb627dd39abf3c1&oe=576A7901[/url] [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12742665_1564388540553737_1956578710776885942_n.jpg?oh=806409040817c881faf69e4448670114&oe=576BB9A6[/url] [url]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12743993_1564388577220400_7519440235396248965_n.jpg?oh=8c10a565769282fb96839a0a05f670da&oe=576C9E6D[/url] They quite clearly state the "statistics" used are misrepresented and overblown.[/QUOTE] There's a disagreement between several groups about statistics but either way it doesn't contradict with the statement I made. Hell, take [url=http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/pg6-2-eng.htm]this quote from the RCMP website itself that directly and undeniably supports my claim[/url]: [QUOTE]As a national average, handguns are the preferred firearm for homicide; however long guns were used in approximately one-third of these instances. Handgun statistics are more reflective of major urban centres. Outside of the larger urban centres, and in cities and towns where the population is 100,000 or less, the firearm of choice is mostly the long gun. Recent findings also show that the spousal homicide rates have declined significantly, particularly with respect to long guns.[/QUOTE] Pretty much exactly what you'd expect.

[QUOTE=Elspin;49907744]I did not miss the list, I explicitly mentioned it in my post, twice actually. It's a few relative to the varieties of firearms that are not banned, I didn't mean to imply it was only 1 or 2 items and that's diving into semantics anyhow.[/quote] It's many in terms of the available semi-automatic firearms on the market, and I do feel you were downplaying the size and scope of it given the category of firearms it covers. [quote]That's true but you're forgetting the top half, shorter than 105mm is banned regardless of whether or not it's modified, and either way neither contradicts what I said which was that prohibition can be based on barrel length.[/quote] I highlighted that part specifically because you implied that all guns with those specifications were banned. They are not, only guns that are modified after manufacture to have those specifications are. I acknowledged the short-barrelled pistol ban existing when I declared it as being arbitrary later. [quote]While there are many [i]types[/i] of sports that involve handguns the vast [i]quantity[/i] of people taking part in sports such as hunting and professional shooting are using long guns. Not that it matters, you can obtain a restricted license if you need one for a sport you wish to take part in and Canada has actually removed handguns from the prohibited list to facilitate certain sports.[/quote] The only sport it facilitates in Olympic shooting, though most of the handguns used in the other forms of shooting wouldn't be banned anyways, except PPC, since it uses revolvers, which usually come in 4" barrel lengths and 4" barrelled pistols are illegal. There is no exemption for those. There is also more to professional shooting than Olympic and shotgun, there are professional shooters in all of the above disciplines I listed. They're just not as popular in the public eye since they're not in the Olympics. [quote]There's a disagreement between several groups about statistics but either way it doesn't contradict with the statement I made. Hell, take [url=http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/pg6-2-eng.htm]this quote from the RCMP website itself that directly and undeniably supports my claim[/url]: Pretty much exactly what you'd expect.[/QUOTE] I didn't deny the validity of what you said about most guns used in crime being handguns, that's rather undeniable, I was talking about the "sports" part of that and interpreting it as "sport shooting" rather than including hunting in it.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49905954]Why does everyone always act as if the NRA is responsible for things like this? They don't want these things happening either, probably more than the rest of the population because they always get blamed for things like this for some reason.[/QUOTE] the nra get blamed because they're a bunch of collosal dickbags with their hands firmly wedged up the assholes of most senators. it's nigh impossible for federally funded studies into the effects of gun legislation and proper analyses of gun violence to occur as the second such a thing is suggested that sweet, sweet lobby cash causes most of the politicians voting on it to scream no as loud as possible. it's pretty well known how much the nra impede research into the safety of the country. can't be impacting those nra member fees or be seen disobeying the manufacturers can we now?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49907820]the nra get blamed because they're a bunch of collosal dickbags with their hands firmly wedged up the assholes of most senators. it's nigh impossible for federally funded studies into the effects of gun legislation and proper analyses of gun violence to occur as the second such a thing is suggested that sweet, sweet lobby cash causes most of the politicians voting on it to scream no as loud as possible. it's pretty well known how much the nra impede research into the safety of the country. can't be impacting those nra member fees or be seen disobeying the manufacturers can we now?[/QUOTE] You do know that's a load of bullshit, right? The CDC was de-funded for pushing an agenda, and was banned from performing research for the purpose of pushing an agenda. The head researcher was quoted specifically as saying he wanted the CDC to tarnish the image of guns and gun owners the same way they had tobacco, despite it being nowhere near as cut-and-dry of an issue as the cancer that tobacco products cause. They have and still do conduct research into gun violence and deaths. Obama specifically commissioned one from them a few years ago, giving them $10 million for it, and it was completely ignored because it didn't sing the praises of gun control like people expected. [url]http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3[/url] The reason the NRA rallied behind the de-funding was because the CDC was pushing an agenda against guns at the time. The idea that it's illegal for them to conduct any research into guns is an outright lie. The idea that the NRA doesn't support research into gun violence and ways to prevent it is also a lie. The idea that the NRA is at all supportive of America's gun violence is also ludicrous and borderline slanderous. The NRA promotes safe gun use and offers a number of safety courses, as well as other instruction courses on how to use firearms. They are entirely opposed to felons owning guns as well. The NRA are not some hicks running around trying to toss assault rifles out of the back of a van in the ghetto like people like you seem to like to imply they are. As I've said, they're just as outraged at the issues with gun violence that America has, they just don't feel that impeding people's rights is a reasonable way to deal with it.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905983]they're blamed for this stuff because more guns (which is what they want) are NOT going to solve this problem it'll make it worse, WAY worse[/QUOTE] So why is gun crime at an all time low nationwide while more people own guns?

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905841]Ugh. When will the fucking U.S do something about these shootings? Glad I don't live there right now.[/QUOTE] Never. deal with it.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905841]Ugh. When will the fucking U.S do something about these shootings? Glad I don't live there right now.[/QUOTE] Shootings are already major crimes? You act like if you live in the US you will get shot simply by walking outside. It's not that dangerous here. There is a crime problem, yes. And yes, there are some cities with high murder rates, but you're not gonna be a victim as easily as you think you might be,

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905841]Ugh. When will the fucking U.S do something about these shootings? Glad I don't live there right now.[/QUOTE] You'd probably choke on the sweet air of [U][B]Freedom[/B][/U], commie. Seriously though, do you think we dodge bullets on the way to work or something?

[QUOTE=King of Limbs;49906917]I grew up in Pittsburgh. This isn't a gun issue at all. Who ever this was would have used anything to kill these people. Pittsburgh is a small city but one with very unique and closed off view. A lot of my friends back home had severe anger issues tied into a racist mind set. A lot of the city is like that. Stop with the fucking, oh, it's because he had a gun, fuck guns. Why don't you morn the dead and stop looking like a know it all. People died because someone was mentally unstable and found a means to an end. He could have stabbed them. He could have choked them one by one. The only reason you comment was because a gun was involved. Shame on you. It really is a shame. That city is amazing. Hell it's up and coming. But there is a fierce underbelly to it that you would not believe. It really is a shame that someone brought themselves to that point in their lives where this was the decision they had to make. Why can't that be the discussion? Oh wait, I know, because that's to hard, to big, to ambiguous. Anywho, if you do visit pittsburgh check out the O in Oakland. Best dogs you'll have any where around. Unless you go to the Brighton hot dog shop haha[/QUOTE] Well tbh there would probably be less people dead if he decided to choke them one by one. Noone is arguing that guns themselves cause people to kill but guns make it massively easier to kill more people, more efficiently.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905841]Ugh. When will the fucking U.S do something about these shootings? Glad I don't live there right now.[/QUOTE] Right? Getting shot at everyday really blows! Also, you should do us all a favor and stay in Canada.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49905841]Ugh. When will the fucking U.S do something about these shootings? Glad I don't live there right now.[/QUOTE] Ugh. When will people realize that evil is everywhere in the world? [QUOTE=OmniConsUme;49905898]Never... NRA has the republicans deep within their grasp.[/QUOTE] Funny, the NRA recruiting guy selling memberships at discounted prices this past weekend was had a Pro-Democrat bumper sticker on his car. But then again someone who doesn't know something will only talk from their own life time brainwashing of hate from a party. Glad I signed up for them.

[QUOTE=zerglingv2;49908783]You'd probably choke on the sweet air of [U][B]Freedom[/B][/U], commie. Seriously though, do you think we dodge bullets on the way to work or something?[/QUOTE] You dont???

[QUOTE=Paxton;49909688]Funny, the NRA recruiting guy selling memberships at discounted prices this past weekend was had a Pro-Democrat bumper sticker on his car. But then again someone who doesn't know something will only talk from their own life time brainwashing of hate from a party. Glad I signed up for them.[/QUOTE] !!personal anecdotes!! you finding the democratic nra member doesnt mean the nra isnt a massive sponsor of the republican party also guys, calling the nra shitty isnt saying we should disarm anyone or anything. im in the military and like my guns but the nra is p scummy.