It very sad, all my tought is with the familly,


As it been said we do have very hard policy on gun here, but still some people find way to get some, this sad day revive some memory here in Montreal, we had one in september and other one few year ago Dec. 6, 1989at the Polytechnique Of Montreal. I go to College in Montreal, what scare me the most is that governement cut expensive on the public education, were do you think they cut first!? SECURITY, Want to college today and no one told us that there taking care of this new threat we have . As a exemple at the Montreal University there only 5 guard on duty

I hope that those sadly event will be take as exemple and that there will be action in way that we will never see that again .....

 

This IS an example of gun control. The bad guy had guns, the innocent trying/wanting to protect themselves did not.

I feel that those that believe we need tougher gun contol laws should be asked to put a sign on their front door, visible from the street, noting that this house is a gun free zone. I am pretty sure I know the answer that will be givin my most. If I was looking for place to pick to rob, I know it definately influence my decision.

The media and politicians should be proud to take an event like this to push the gun control agenda.

Just my

 

Has anyone else noticed he has "crazy eyes?"




Just like:


And...

 

I suppose it can make sense to think that tougher gun laws only make it harder for the law abiding to get guns, but statistics prove otherwise.

As noted previously, in countries with strict gun laws there is a drop in gun related deaths. If the laws in the US work so well, then why do these things keep happening? There have been shootings in Canada as well, but not nearly at the same rate. In Canada, the weapon of choice is a knife – not a gun. It’s pretty hard to kill 30 people with a knife.

The right to bear arms was included so that a well-organized militia could take on the British Army and secure an independent America. Well, the task is done. America has been independent for some time now, and I don’t think the British intend to invade. I don’t think Washington and Jefferson thought that the second amendment would be used to justify owning weapons that should only be in the hands of the police or other trained professionals.

If guns work so well in self-defence, why do so many innocent people get killed? Should everyone in the States be expected to own a gun, just because they may be forced to have to use it to protect themselves?

 

Gotta love when someone from another country talks about our American constatution I for one think its funny when someone does somthing like this they blame the whole country, but yet this person is not even from the united states, hmmm maybe we should keep americans armed and some people out of our country..Just my 2 cents

 

Exactly...

The point is to make it difficult for the random idiot who "snaps" in a moment of rage. The determined killer will find a way to kill people, no matter what laws are in place. That happens everywhere, even places with strict gun laws. The REAL point of gun control is to prevent the guy who gets pissed at his wife because she burnt the meatloaf from pulling out a gun and blowing her head off. The REAL point of gun control is to prevent the guy who got a F on his class paper from going home and pulling out Dad's Glock 9 and going back to school and pumping bullets into his English class. If he doesn't have a gun available to him at that moment of rage he cant shoot people. Which is exactly why, in Canada, when people snap, they grab a knife and start stabbing people simply because guns aren't available. It's awfully hard to stab more than 1 or 2 people before the cops show up.

Taking the opposite approach and say EVERYONE should have a gun is the reactive approach. Meaning, after the gunman has already killed one or two or three people, THEN people can defend themselves. Gun control is a proactive approach. It seeks to prevent the gunman from having a gun in the first place. It's the philosophical difference between getting a flu shot BEFORE you get the flu, or taking Tamiflu AFTER you have the flu. It's cheaper, easier and more effective to prevent the problem from occuring before it happens that to try to stop it after it's started.

Those are the situations that gun controls prevent. And it's proven by the gun crime statistics of countries with strict gun laws. Acts of random gun violence are lower than here.

The other point is that the moment the gun owner pulls his gun HE has to defend himself LEGALLY. Because if he pulls his gun suddenly he's the focus; "did he need to pull his gun? was he really being threatened with grave danger? did he have non-lethal options?" Living in the most litigous society in the world, that's a VERY REAL scenario. If a gun owner pulls his gun in any situation but the most obvious case, the gun-owner is likely to find himself (at the least) at the receiving end of a life-destroying law suit, and more than likely facing criminal charges for unlawful discharging of a weapon or manslaughter or some other charge.

 

This was a tragic situation. I think everyone here will agree. It's amazes me that as soon as something like this happens, all the anti-gun law people come out. You want to make a good point, preach the day before, not the day after.

That is the key sentance right there.

Is the system perfect? Hell no. IS there a better system? Depends on who you ask. Would a different system helped in this bad situation? Maybe.

Bottom line, is if you want to get a gun, legal or not, you can get one. Most owners of guns that buy them legally, never harm anyone with them. Guns in different countries are harder to get. But they do seem to get them.

 

You're right... the last thing we need is someone else's perspective. The last thing we need is to learn from the successes and failures of other countries.

The answer is 'to keep them foreign'rs out of 'Merica."

... and "the ugly American" rears its head. No wonder everyone hates us.

 

But if we allow the government to take away Constitutional rights then we lose everything America stands for! That's more than just some stupid pieces of paper with outdated laws on them. That is the very meaning of this country! If we allow the loss of our Constitution rights then what’s next? The loss of the 13th amendment so there's a return to slavery, the loss of our 1st amendment so we all have to be Christian and can't speak our minds, or the loss of our 4th amendment so police and military could just bust into your house whenever they felt for whatever reason they feel like with no cause or evidence? Do you see where I'm going with this? And who is to choose what rights to take away and what ones we should keep? I guess you have to be a true born American to understand and appreciate your Constitutional rights. I don’t own a gun nor do I want to but I’ll be damned if someone is going to take away my Constitutional rights in any form!

 

Will Canada adopt me? True born American here still waiting for MY RIGHTS!!