Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

[QUOTE=xxncxx;42799617]and what if he chased her down with a knife?[/QUOTE] He wouldn't. That'd be reckless endangerment of himself. Most people, even the crazies, don't chase people down when they are feeling threatened.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42799635]He wouldn't. That'd be reckless endangerment of himself. Most people, even the crazies, don't chase people down when they are feeling threatened.[/QUOTE] how exactly do you know he was threatened?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42799635]He wouldn't. That'd be reckless endangerment of himself. Most people, even the crazies, don't chase people down when they are feeling threatened.[/QUOTE] Something tells me this bloke didn't feel threatened at all. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] damnit ninja'd

Going after someone with a knife is still a lot more work than just shooting them. She wouldn't have died, its unlikely he had a knife on hand. Or would have one on hand just answering the door. Stop trying to shift the blame around, the availability of firearms is a contributing factor to this case whether you like it or not.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42799865]Going after someone with a knife is still a lot more work than just shooting them. She wouldn't have died, its unlikely he had a knife on hand. Or would have one on hand just answering the door. Stop trying to shift the blame around, the availability of firearms is a contributing factor to this case whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE] We're not shifting the blame around, you are. Are you seriously suggesting that if there were no firearms, he would have just not done the act out of laziness?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42800712]We're not shifting the blame around, you are. Are you seriously suggesting that if there were no firearms, he would have just not done the act out of laziness?[/QUOTE] The ease with which you can end someone's life, and the amount of time it takes to decide to kill someone are a major problem in firearm offences. He didn't have to do anything except pull the fucking trigger. No one can say whether or not he would have chased her down with a knife, but if he had used a knife, the chances of her living would have been hugely improved.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;42796561]The purpose of a shovel is to dig a hole. The purpose of a butter knife is to spread butter on bread. The purpose of a gun is to wound, maim, and kill it's wielder's target. So, yes a gun is a tool and it is up to responsible gun owners to see that guns aren't used against innocent people, BUT guns are made to kill. Everyone who owns a shovel is not trying to use it to kill people. Everyone who owns a gun knows that it's there to be used as deadly force against their target.[/QUOTE] This argument is stupid. It doesn't matter what the purpose of an object is, it doesn't have to be used for that purpose. The purpose of an object doesn't make it follow it by itself, you need a person to do it. If someone would design something to be extremely helpful but we would find out that it can be used as an extremely dangerous weapon, you wouldn't advocate banning it because it's not it's purpose right? And no, not everyone who owns a gun knows that it's there to be used as a deadly force against their target, unless you count shooting targets at a shooting range "deadly force". With your logic we should legalize a lot of drugs and explosives since they weren't designed to be harmful but to help. We should also ban bows, spears, swords, clubs, slingshots and such cause they WERE designed to wound, maim, and kill it's wielder's target. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42800760]The ease with which you can end someone's life, and the amount of time it takes to decide to kill someone are a major problem in firearm offences. He didn't have to do anything except pull the fucking trigger. No one can say whether or not he would have chased her down with a knife, but if he had used a knife, the chances of her living would have been hugely improved.[/QUOTE] So in other words, banning guns wouldn't fix any problems it would just make them less lethal?

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42795212]I'd rather like the ability to defend myself with a gun in Canada. Why? Because I can recall at least 10 shootings in 5 years within 5 blocks of me, and if someone threatens my life with a gun, because no matter what laws we have a criminal will get a gun if they want one,[B] just about every police chief in the country admits at least 70% of guns are smuggled into the country,[/B] I want to be able to respond with equal force to defend myself. Hell, I'd rather like just being able to defend myself without having to worry about being arrested for it, with a gun or not, because right now I'd be arrested for defending myself no matter what I used.[/QUOTE] Look at all those facts you're presenting.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42792519]people don't use chemical weapons for target practice or hunting may as well ban knives and forks because they can kill people even though their main use is cutting food[/QUOTE] I bet that it is a lot easier to defend yourself against a fork and knife than a gun. (You could throw it, I guess) Also, considering that you don't use a gun the same way you use your kitchenware...

Huh. Judging by the comments I've seen in this thread, being pro-gun is dumb and being anti-gun is dumb. What gun should I be to not be dumb?!

[QUOTE=Xenoyia v2;42801609]Huh. Judging by the comments I've seen in this thread, being pro-gun is dumb and being anti-gun is dumb. What gun should I be to not be dumb?![/QUOTE] avoid-sensationalist-headlines-gun

I was surprised by the number of agrees at the start, I thought FP had a strong pro-gun lobby squatting in SH.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42800785]So in other words, banning guns wouldn't fix any problems it would just make them less lethal?[/QUOTE] It would reduce the number of incidents in which people die (and possibly the actual number of incidents overall). That's an improvement, no matter how you look at it.

[QUOTE=Xenoyia v2;42801609]Huh. Judging by the comments I've seen in this thread, being pro-gun is dumb and being anti-gun is dumb. What gun should I be to not be dumb?![/QUOTE] The answer lies in the middle as with every thing ever in the world! You cannot be a theist or an atheist, you must be a...semi-theist? You can't be conservative or liberal, you must be a liberavative!

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42801764]I was surprised by the number of agrees at the start, I thought FP had a strong pro-gun lobby squatting in SH.[/QUOTE] We do. Look at the last few pages.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42801770]It would reduce the number of incidents in which people die (and possibly the actual number of incidents overall). That's an improvement, no matter how you look at it.[/QUOTE] if you ban handguns maybe which almost no one in the usa supports and people would outright resist. the awb had no real effect on crime.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42801907]if you ban handguns maybe which almost no one in the usa supports and people would outright resist.[/QUOTE] There's always gradualism, which always works when it comes to changing a country.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42802009]There's always gradualism, which always works when it comes to changing a country.[/QUOTE] it hasn't worked for the united states

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42802009]There's always gradualism, which always works when it comes to changing a country.[/QUOTE] It's also why the slippery slope "fallacy" isn't so fallacious.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42802115]it hasn't worked for the united states[/QUOTE] Depends on what you mean. Apparently about 20,000 laws exist regulating firearms in the United States. Then again, given that what's the NRA says, I'm doubtful of their claim.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42801907]if you ban handguns maybe which almost no one in the usa supports and people would outright resist. the awb had no real effect on crime.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about whether or not banning stuff would be possible, I'm talking about whether or not it would [I]work[/I]. I don't know much about guns, but I reckon that those weapons effected by the AWB were guns that cost quite a lot and therefore only appealed to those people who were less likely to actually do something stupid in the spur of the moment. Of course your legislation isn't going to have an effect when that legislation is targeting a group of people that aren't involved.

[QUOTE=amute;42801430]Look at all those facts you're presenting.[/QUOTE] [quote]Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair claimed Friday that 70 per cent of illegal firearms in Canada come from the U.S. and that "many" seized Thursday originated in the States.[/quote] [url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/border-agents-want-more-resources-to-stop-gun-smuggling-1.1373581[/url] Chief Bill Blair is the leader of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and when he speaks of all of Canada he speaks with the agreement of the other police chiefs across the country. [quote]In 2009, Toronto police seized 861 crime guns in the city, at least 70 per cent of which are smuggled in from the U.S. A crime gun is any gun that is illegally possessed or has an obliterated serial number, or is seized in relation to a criminal act, such as a shooting.[/quote] [url]http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2013/04/19/the_gun_pipeline_mules_who_bring_firearms_across_border_pay_high_price_for_fast_money.html[/url] [quote]The United States is the primary source for smuggled firearms or firearms parts into Canada... According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), in 2006, 96 per cent of all firearms seized originated in or transited through the United States... There continues to be significant cross-border firearms movement[/quote] [url]http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm[/url] [quote]according to the RCMP-led National Weapons Enforcement Support Team, a unit formed to combat gun smuggling, fully 94 per cent of crime guns they seized on Vancouver streets in 2003 came from the U.S.[/quote] [url]http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20050815_110483_110483[/url] And yes, I realize some of these articles have anti-gun bias in them as well. And when searching for the news articles I recall wherein the chiefs of police for Calgary and other cities repeated the 70% figure themselves I've come to realize that google is not as great at finding old news articles as I thought it would be, and that both Vancouver and Calgary's police websites are terrible. Also, based on the data in Toronto Police's annual report, 2011, it can be taken that as high as 85% of guns used in the city were smuggled into the country, nearly 50% of crime guns recovered are banned here, and the vast majority of crime "firearms" seized were either handguns or not firearms, over 90%. [url]http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/2011statsreport.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42801773]The answer lies in the middle as with every thing ever in the world! You cannot be a theist or an atheist, you must be a...semi-theist? You can't be conservative or liberal, you must be a liberavative![/QUOTE] Actually, there's nothing inherently WRONG with political centrism....

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42803223]Actually, there's nothing inherently WRONG with political centrism....[/QUOTE] yea there is. political centrism leads to no one getting what they want and a very confusing set of laws/policy that make no real sense but exist because centrists want to "compromise".

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42803489]yea there is. political centrism leads to no one getting what they want and a very confusing set of laws/policy that make no real sense but exist because centrists want to "compromise".[/QUOTE] Or it leads to a moderate position in the middle of the political spectrum that finds that delicate balance between government intervention and individual/corporate freedom.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42803509]Or it leads to a moderate position in the middle of the political spectrum that finds that delicate balance between government intervention and individual/corporate freedom.[/QUOTE] there is no agreement among the centrists(progressives, liberals, and conservatives) about where this "balance" is. whenever conservatives think they have found the balance progressives bitch about it and when progressives find the balance the liberals say it's bullshit. that's why i say nobody is happy because everyone is in constant arms over these small, seemingly inconsequential policy changes.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42803546]there is no agreement among the centrists(progressives, liberals, and conservatives) about where this "balance" is. whenever conservatives think they have found the balance progressives bitch about it and when progressives find the balance the liberals say it's bullshit. that's why i say nobody is happy because everyone is in constant arms over these small, seemingly inconsequential policy changes.[/QUOTE] Progressives and Liberals are usually one in the same.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42803509]Or it leads to a moderate position in the middle of the political spectrum that finds that delicate balance between government intervention and individual/corporate freedom.[/QUOTE] Which might work if everything were actually on that spectrum, but it's not. In some cases it's not a good idea to have a 'balance', because you get arguments about how people who make $1,000,000 a year and people who make $30,000 should have the same income tax rate, or that people should 'choose' between science classes teaching actual science and those that teach false controversies.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42803572]Progressives and Liberals are usually one in the same.[/QUOTE] progressives are "european socialists", believe in a social democracy, yadda yadda. liberals are sorta like the centrist between the conservative and progressive but generally believe in more "personal freedoms" and shit. i mean it's hard to explain because all these terms mean something sorta unique in different political environments, but in the usa there is a clear distinction between conservatives, liberals, and progressives.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42803489]yea there is. political centrism leads to no one getting what they want and a very confusing set of laws/policy that make no real sense but exist because centrists want to "compromise".[/QUOTE] Well what do you think should happen? Should all the minorities just bow to the party in power?