Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

School attack in Canadaland.Follow

#1 Feb 23 2016 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Canadian school stabbing

So, this is pretty horrible. No question there. This about 15 minutes from where I am. However, as bad as this is when I read this I thought "At least it's not the US" because if this happened in the US it would have been guns, not knives, and lots of people would be dead. Maybe that's just Canadian bias but I don't really believe it is, perhaps you can convince me.

I'm posting this for two reasons,

First, those who say people would just use knives if they didn't have guns now have an example of the difference between a gun attack and a knife attack. Lots of these people would be dead if this had been guns.

Second I want to point out the difference in reporting angle in Canadian media vs US media, this is not an ATTACKZZOMGBBQELEVENTY!@!!@!!!111!!!!! it's a tragedy and the focus is on the mental health of those involved both directly and indirectly rather than the perpetrator who is in custody and no longer an immediate threat.

I don't recall seeing anything like this on US reports of school attacks, if I did it was drowned out by the liquid hatred your articles are written with:
the article wrote:
Counselling services will be made available to students.
"People have suffered physical injuries, but we never take light of the fact there's other things we have to look into, like emotional well-being," Calder said.

This is how you prevent others from following this path.
#2 Feb 23 2016 at 1:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm as in favor of gun control as anyone but I guarantee you that every school shooting in the US has resulted in counseling made available for students, faculty and others affected by the tragedy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Feb 23 2016 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Counseling services are available here for shootings and stabbings, reporting about it just doesn't really get ratings or clicks. Counseling after the fact won't prevent future attacks any more than putting a gun in a random locker for a random faculty member to use.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Feb 23 2016 at 1:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
And it was a girl. Go go equality, I guess. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5 Feb 23 2016 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I agree that counselling after the fact won't prevent future attacks but what will prevent them is how we report it, how it's treated, how there's little attention given to the suspect etc. We report it as a mental health issue rather than a terrorist attack, we report compassion rather than fear. That matters a lot more than people seem to think it does.
#6 Feb 23 2016 at 1:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm as in favor of gun control as anyone but I guarantee you that every school shooting in the US has resulted in counseling made available for students, faculty and others affected by the tragedy.


That's exactly what I suspected, I'm referring more to the style of reporting but I wasn't as clear as I could have been.
#7 Feb 23 2016 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm as in favor of gun control as anyone but I guarantee you that every school shooting in the US has resulted in counseling made available for students, faculty and others affected by the tragedy.


That's exactly what I suspected, I'm referring more to the style of reporting but I wasn't as clear as I could have been.


That's because our media is more interested in turning each such event into a gun control debate than one about mental health, either for the victims or for the assailant. And that tends to drown out the other conversations. Heck. Even a stabbing in Canada gets turned into a gun control argument for the US.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Feb 23 2016 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I'll also point out that in many ways Canada's gun control laws are less restrictive than in the US (obviously various by region of course). I have a friend who has in-laws in Alberta, and he goes shooting there every time he visits. Something that is much more difficult and annoying to do here in the hippy dippy land of California. There's also very little data supporting any reduction in violent crime involving firearms in Canada as they've implemented gun control measures over the last 50 years or so (just as there isn't in the US).

The differences between the US and Canada with regards to gun violence has very little to do with their respective laws. I could speculate as to what does cause those differences, but that would be a whole topic of discussion by itself. And I think the more key point is that it *isn't* gun control laws. So pointing to the increased rate of shootings in the US and concluding that if we just passed tighter gun control laws, it would solve this problem, is likely barking up the wrong tree.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Feb 23 2016 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I could speculate as to what does cause those differences, but that would be a whole topic of discussion by itself.
Black people and Mexicans. It's okay, you can just say it. You said it last time (dressed in "less heterogeneous society...") so there's no reason you can't do it again. You blame US gun violence on black people and Mexicans.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Feb 23 2016 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
So pointing to the increased rate of shootings in the US and concluding that if we just passed tighter gun control laws, it would solve this problem, is likely barking up the wrong tree.
We have rifles and shot guns. We don't all own assault rifles and/or hand guns.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#11 Feb 23 2016 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So pointing to the increased rate of shootings in the US and concluding that if we just passed tighter gun control laws, it would solve this problem, is likely barking up the wrong tree.
We have rifles and shot guns. We don't all own assault rifles and/or hand guns.
Be fair. We don't all own assault rifles or hand guns either. It's like three guys in Texas that have enough that statistically it just looks like we all do.
#12 Feb 23 2016 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I could speculate as to what does cause those differences, but that would be a whole topic of discussion by itself.
Black people and Mexicans. It's okay, you can just say it. You said it last time (dressed in "less heterogeneous society...") so there's no reason you can't do it again. You blame US gun violence on black people and Mexicans.


Before we can even discuss this, we have to separate the issues of general gun violence (which is much more common, but gets little of the attention), and the issue of mass shootings (representing a very small percentage of gun crime, but gets a massive amount of attention). If you want to talk about gun violence, or even homicides by firearms, then yeah, you kinda do have to look at the stark differences in such rates among different groups of people, with race often being a dividing line. If you want to talk about mass shootings, that's a whole different thing.

Um... But in both cases, there's pretty much zero evidence that any form of gun control short of somehow managing to appeal the 2nd amendment and seize every privately owned firearm in the US and prevent any illegal sales or ownership of firearms in the US, would actually affect the results, much less "solve" these problems. General gun violence is an extension of crime in general, and aligns itself along poverty lines. As long as Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately poor, they will suffer from (and commit) disproportionately more gun violence. It's not that they are innately more prone to violence, but that they are statistically more likely to be poor.

And yes, you're more likely to see such statistical differences in societies that are more diverse than those that are more homogenous. For the very obvious reason that if you live in a nation where say 95% of the population is of one common ethnicity, you don't have a large enough minority population to create enclaves of poor people from said minority where crime and alienation will be high. There's a lot of pretty complex sociological factors involved, and it's certainly not correct to just say "blame it on blacks and Mexicans". I get your reasons for characterizing my past statements on this topic in that manner, but that's just not a fair assessment at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Feb 23 2016 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Fuck your pussy country; I like my tragedies to be as tragic as possible.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#14 Feb 23 2016 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If my reason was "Blacks and Mexicans", I'd try and hide it with a lot of words, too.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Feb 23 2016 at 6:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So pointing to the increased rate of shootings in the US and concluding that if we just passed tighter gun control laws, it would solve this problem, is likely barking up the wrong tree.
We have rifles and shot guns. We don't all own assault rifles and/or hand guns.


Yup. Here's the funny thing though. Rifles and long guns are in the non-restricted category in Canada. Making them actually easier to obtain and use than in many parts of the US (where our nutty gun control folks tend to treat all firearms as "scary" and must be restricted as much as possible). Handguns and "really scary looking rifles" (which are *not* assault rifles since they are semi-automatic), fall into the restricted category, which makes them pretty equivalent in terms of ease to obtain as the same weapons are in most parts of the US (which again, ironically includes weapons not so restricted in Canada). Prohibited weapons are fully automatic weapons and weapons with very short barrels (of all base types), designed for ease of concealment. Which, again, isn't any more restrictive than in the US.

Carrying weapons around is a bit more restrictive than in the US, I'll admit. A base permit allows you to keep a weapon in your home, and only transport it for sale/purchase, to a shooting range, to a new home when you move, or if you're out in the wilderness hunting or something. Which is pretty much the same as it is in the US (with variations as to how they must be secured during transport, of course). Carry permits are more restrictive in Canada in general, and I'm not aware if Canada has a concealed carry at all. But again, none of these really affect gun crime. People who obtain carry permits (of any kind) don't commit even a tiny portion of gun crime. The obvious fact is that a criminal planning on using a firearm to commit a crime isn't going to worry about obtaining some kind of permit to own, much less carry, said firearm. Similarly, most mass shooting events in the US are committed by someone who merely owns a firearm, or takes it from someone else who does (Sandyhook shooter "borrowed" his mom's firearms, for example). There's no need to obtain a carry permit to commit a mass shooting. Merely having physical access to weapons is sufficient. Most mass shooters In the US (all that I can think of off the top of my head, although it's possible there are exceptions), had no criminal record which would have prohibited them from legally obtaining the firearms they used in their shootings, planned their attacks well in advance, so waiting periods were not an issue. So Canadian law would not have done anything at all to prevent them from committing the same attacks there, if they so desired.

It's hard to see how Canada's gun laws could possibly have any greater impact on their rates of mass shooting events than US gun laws do. Thus, the differences in resulting rates kinda have to be the result of some other factors. Again, we can talk about the various sociological aspects of this issue, but we should all conclude that it's not really about gun control. That's the simplistic feel good answer that our political Left leaps to, almost certainly because it's the one "solution" they can propose that they know most people, and especially most people on the Right, will oppose. This allows them to create a fight on the issue where they can paint themselves in the role of wanting to save victims from such senseless violence, and their opponents as terrible people who care more about their guns than they do about the lives of the victims. Insert footage of crying parents here.

And while that might win them some political points among the gullible and foolish (which sadly, makes up an alarmingly high percentage of our population), their "solution" doesn't actually do anything to address the problem itself. But it's a common pattern that our political Left does not actually pursue solutions to problems, but merely capitalizes on those problems for their own political gain. And gun control is no different.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Feb 23 2016 at 6:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you want to talk about gun violence, or even homicides by firearms, then yeah, you kinda do have to look at the stark differences in such rates among different groups of people, with race often being a dividing line.
On the one hand, you're not entirely wrong. If you want to look at the surface level of things only, then yes, blacks and hispanics do indeed have a higher rate of gun homicide.

But that's only correlation. There are other likely factors at play, including poverty(both blacks and hispanics have roughly a 2x higher rate of poverty vs whites), which is often a risk factor for crime of all kind. I can't say for certain what other factors are at play, but I strongly suspect "broken" homes are amplifying poverty's effect, since 2/3rds of black children live in single parent homes vs. 2/5ths for hispanics(about 1/4 for whites, if you're curious), at least according to my real quick check. I'm not going to speculate on the whys as to that, other than to suspect that it's likely another complex issue down to more than skin color. Drug use, often increased by those first two factors listed, is also likely increasing the number, if I had to guess.

So yeah, blacks and hispanics do have a higher rates of gun violence, but I think it's disingenuous to make any indication that it's because of their race and not because of other factors that happen to be problems endemic to their populations for reasons beyond my ability to armchair speculate.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2016 5:47pm by Poldaran
#17 Feb 23 2016 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If my reason was "Blacks and Mexicans", I'd try and hide it with a lot of words, too.


If that was my reason, you'd have a point. Again, that's what you *want* my reason to be, because it fits nicely in the narrative you want to sell. It's not, in fact, my reasoning at all. Heaven forbid you bother to read the actual reason.

I'll give you a hint: Poverty.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Feb 23 2016 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So other nations don't have these problems, not because they have more white people, but because of their robust social safety nets.

Ok. I'll accept that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Feb 23 2016 at 6:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you want to talk about gun violence, or even homicides by firearms, then yeah, you kinda do have to look at the stark differences in such rates among different groups of people, with race often being a dividing line.
On the one hand, you're not entirely wrong. If you want to look at the surface level of things only, then yes, blacks and hispanics do indeed have a higher rate of gun homicide.

But that's only correlation. There are other likely factors at play, including poverty(both blacks and hispanics have roughly a 2x higher rate of poverty vs whites), which is often a risk factor for crime of all kind. I can't say for certain what other factors are at play, but I strongly suspect "broken" homes are amplifying poverty's effect, since 2/3rds of black children live in single parent homes vs. 2/5ths for hispanics(about 1/4 for whites, if you're curious), at least according to my real quick check. I'm not going to speculate on the whys as to that, other than to suspect that it's likely another complex issue down to more than skin color. Drug use, often increased by those first two factors listed, is also likely increasing the number, if I had to guess.

So yeah, blacks and hispanics do have a higher rates of gun violence, but I think it's disingenuous to make any indication that it's because of their race and not because of other factors that happen to be problems endemic to their populations for reasons beyond my ability to armchair speculate.


Yeah. I already said that, in the same post you quoted from:

gbaji wrote:
General gun violence is an extension of crime in general, and aligns itself along poverty lines. As long as Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately poor, they will suffer from (and commit) disproportionately more gun violence. It's not that they are innately more prone to violence, but that they are statistically more likely to be poor.


You're correct that broken homes have a big part to play. They also play into poverty itself, of course. But, not having a strong family support structure (and especially a father figure in the home for young males), can quite easily translate into seeking out that sense of family elsewhere, which leads to higher gang participation rates, which of course, leads us to increased violence, including gun violence.

I guess my point is that this is not some innate function of race, but merely a construct of current statistics. If white people were the minority in the US, and disproportionately poor, and disproportionately more likely to be born out of wedlock (or have some other combination of negative impact on their family structure), they'd be the ones with the higher crime rates, higher violence rates, higher drug addiction rates, higher rates of incarceration, higher rates of police shootings, and yes, higher rates of gun violence.

I think one has to be a pretty blatant racist to try to argue that this is caused by race, rather than pre-existing social factors which happen for historical reasons, to weigh more heavily on some racial groups than on others. The question (and solution) should be: "how do we fix that poverty gap?" And "more gun control" doesn't do that. It doesn't even come remotely close to doing that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Feb 23 2016 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
The difference between Canadia and America is that Americans are assholes.

Demea wrote:
Fuck your pussy country; I like my tragedies to be as tragic as possible.


____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#21 Feb 23 2016 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're correct that broken homes have a big part to play. They also play into poverty itself, of course. But, not having a strong family support structure (and especially a father figure in the home for young males), can quite easily translate into seeking out that sense of family elsewhere, which leads to higher gang participation rates, which of course, leads us to increased violence, including gun violence.

I guess my point is that this is not some innate function of race, but merely a construct of current statistics. If white people were the minority in the US, and disproportionately poor, and disproportionately more likely to be born out of wedlock (or have some other combination of negative impact on their family structure), they'd be the ones with the higher crime rates, higher violence rates, higher drug addiction rates, higher rates of incarceration, higher rates of police shootings, and yes, higher rates of gun violence.

I think one has to be a pretty blatant racist to try to argue that this is caused by race, rather than pre-existing social factors which happen for historical reasons, to weigh more heavily on some racial groups than on others. The question (and solution) should be: "how do we fix that poverty gap?" And "more gun control" doesn't do that. It doesn't even come remotely close to doing that.

So, you agree that systemic racism is still alive and well, and that it is intrinsically tied with poverty.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#22 Feb 23 2016 at 7:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So other nations don't have these problems, not because they have more white people, but because of their robust social safety nets.

Ok. I'll accept that.


You're the one who keeps turning this into an issue of race Joph. As typical of a liberal, you obsess over the statistical symptoms, while ignoring anything that might possibly lead in the direction of a solution. In the US, poverty happens to align by race. I've spoken at length in other threads as to why this has been the case historically, and why it is still the case today. Other countries are other countries. The alignment between gun ownership and gun violence only works because you're looking just at the someone circular "gun violence". When you look at homicides as a whole, you find that there's little to no correlation between rates of gun ownership in various countries and their resulting homicide rates. Someone wanting to kill someone else is going to use whatever tools are available to them.

Your argument is like claiming that blue cars cause people to crash because the rates of crashes involving blue cars are higher in areas with higher rates of blue cars than in areas with lower rates. But that's silly. You'd need to look at the rates of all crashes regardless of color, and then draw conclusions from that. Does the presence of more blue cars in a given population increase the overall rate of crashes. Presumably not. And in the same way, you can't just look at "gun crime" being higher in places with higher rates of gun ownership. You have to look at all crime rates, and compare them based on areas with high gun ownership rates to those without.

And when you actually do that, you'll find there is no correlation between higher gun ownership rates, and higher crime rates. There's also no correlation between high gun ownership rates and high violent crime rates. Interestingly enough, as I did the last time we had this discussion, if you actually generate a ratio of relative homicide rates to gun ownership rates within most countries (meaning you divide the homicide rate by the gun ownership rate to see if "more guns" really does mean "more homicides"), and you'll actually find a negative correlation. The US has a gun ownership rate that is 17 times higher than that in the UK, yet a homicide rate that is only 3.8 times as high. So we have fewer homicides per gun than the UK does. Bit weak for your taste? Let's look at something closer. France and the UK have nearly identical homicide rates, yet france has a gun ownership rate that is 4.5 times higher than that in the UK. Why on earth would that be the case? If guns caused more violent crime (and presumably more homicides), shouldn't France have a higher homicide rate? Let's look at things on the other side of the pond. The US has 7.5 times as many guns per person than Mexico, yet Mexico has 5 times the homicide rate. That's a complete reversal of what gun control advocates assume. How can that be? Shall we look in the other (relevant to this thread) direction? The US has 3.6 times the gun ownership rate as Canada, but only 2.7 times the homicide rate. Ok. We could argue that's at least directionally correlated. Maybe. But not very strongly.

Point being that none of the data out there supports the idea that more guns equals more homicides. You are not safer from the fear of death living in a society with a very small amount of guns versus one with a very high amount. It's far more likely that the differences in these crime rates have to do with other factors, and very very very little at all to do with guns. Yet, bizarrely, that's what the Left has decided to pin it's political agenda on. But the problem with this process is that in order to maintain that narrative, they have to ignore all the actions and data that does not match their narrative. And by doing that, they are actually hiding and ignoring the real underlying causes of these problems in the US. We can't work to solve violence in the inner cities, because one whole side of our political structure actively ignores that violence, except to use it as a backdrop for the broader gun stats when arguing for gun control laws. They don't look at the ridiculously strong correlation between impoverished neighborhoods and homicide rates because that might accidentally make people think that the problem is poverty and not guns. So they ignore that, and it festers and grows worse over time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Feb 23 2016 at 7:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
So, you agree that systemic racism is still alive and well, and that it is intrinsically tied with poverty.


If by "systemic racism" you mean "a welfare state that keeps Blacks and Latinos from escaping poverty"? Yes. Yes, I do.

Welfare tends to keep those on it poor, and keep their children poor. So if you start with a disproportionately higher rate of poverty among Blacks than Whites, and you then create a welfare state to "help the poor", guess what's still the case 3-4 generations later? You still have a disproportionately higher rate of poverty among Blacks than among Whites. And all the things that come with a disproportionately higher poverty rate will be there too. Higher crime rates. Higher victimization rates. Higher drug addiction rates. Higher gang membership rates. Higher incarceration rates. Higher rate of police shootings. Everything negative is higher when that rate is higher.

I'm sure that the liberals of 50 years ago had the best of intentions when creating the welfare state (actually, I don't, but let's pretend that they did, just for the sake of argument), but the fact is that the results have been disastrous, especially for Blacks in this country. The rest of the country has moved on, while they have been stuck in the same spot for 50 years. That's what we ought to be solving.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Feb 23 2016 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So other nations don't have these problems, not because they have more white people, but because of their robust social safety nets.

Ok. I'll accept that.
You're the one who keeps turning this into an issue of race Joph.

Nah, you did last time. I mean, you know the talking point buzzwords to dress it up but it wouldn't hurt you to be honest about it. No sense in blaming me just because I know what the "heterogeneous nation" dog whistles mean.

Edit: I'll admit that it just occurred to me that it's entirely possible that YOU didn't know what it meant when you copied it from whatever conservative site you absolutely never read...

Edited, Feb 23rd 2016 9:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Feb 23 2016 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If my reason was "Blacks and Mexicans", I'd try and hide it with a lot of words, too.


He said poor people too, give him credit.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#26 Feb 23 2016 at 11:25 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Poor people is a coda for blacks and mexicans.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 378 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (378)