8 students, staff stabbed at Canadian school

Terrible meltdown. I guess the only good part is she had no access to guns

What kind of meds was this girl on?

Aha!! Stabbed! Not Shot down! 1 for the NRA! :D

Don't the gun nuts always claim that even if guns are illegal, people will still find a way to kill? Then why aren't there any deaths with this incident? If she had been carrying guns, you would expect someone would have ended up dead with this attack.

Yep, a CLEAR difference between things in Cda & the USA, glad no one was seriously hurt! If this were south of the 49th parallel.............there likely would be more hurt or worse, just sayin.

Hopefully that girl gets the help she needs and all the students weren't too traumatized by this.

Yep, a CLEAR difference between things in Cda & the USA,

Like what?

glad no one was seriously hurt! If this were south of the 49th parallel.............there likely would be more hurt or worse, just sayin

Maybe we should ban knives.

Don't the gun nuts always claim that even if guns are illegal, people will still find a way to kill?

. . . . & the winner is Strangerland! Congrats. I knew someone would say that.

What percentage would say her intent was to actually kill those 8 students? 10%, 80%? Somewhere in between?

Then why aren't there any deaths with this incident?

She was just a little girl. Not proficient with a knife. Didn't go for the vital arteries.

And leave it to the libs to try and disarm everyone whenever there are school shootings. Even the law abiding american gun owners who have nothing to do with crimes in their community. Some libs would like to see police officers unarmed too.

Yikes.

roughneck: "Aha!! Stabbed! Not Shot down! 1 for the NRA! :D"

Yeah, and how many were seriously injured and killed again, vs. the Michigan shooter earlier this week? You might want to think twice before CHEERING for something like this.

Wc626: "& the winner is Strangerland! Congrats. I knew someone would say that."

Ummm... because it is obvious. It's like trying to discredit someone who points to a fire and says there is a fire; not really surprising. You also knew, as such, that it would be brought up because it's proof that in a place where private ownership of guns is limited to hunting rifles and even then it is extremely safe, you have FAR less deaths in incidents where guns are not a factor. All you're doing is proving that.

bass4funk: "Maybe we should ban knives."

This moronic argument again. Okay, bass... we'll ban knives when you start showing us how your dad uses his 24 guns to slice vegetables or with his fork to eat dinner. Because, you know, guns serve purposes other than to kill, right? but knives don't!

it's proof that in a place where private ownership of guns is limited to hunting rifles and even then it is extremely safe

Yeah. Canada doesn't have scary black / latino street gangs everywhere too. Canadians are law abiding people. Wish the same could be said about the US. Look at places like Ferguson Missouri, they're animals. Canadian lives really-really matter.

Yep, a CLEAR difference between things in Cda & the USA,

Like what?

Like the fact that this girl was using a knife instead of guns.

She was just a little girl. Not proficient with a knife. Didn't go for the vital arteries.

Exactly. And would she have had a gun, she could have killed even being a little girl.

And leave it to the libs to try and disarm everyone whenever there are school shootings.

Yeah, if it weren't for us, no one would be pointing out the stupidity of legal guns for the people.

smithinjapan: Yeah, and how many were seriously injured and killed again, vs. the Michigan shooter earlier this week? You might want to think twice before CHEERING for something like this.

Please don't leave your sarcasm detector hat at home.

Wish the same could be said about the US.

If a majority of your fellow countrymen, especially your fellow white countrymen, would try to work to achieve a more inclusive society like the majority of Canadians are trying to do, the same might be said about the US. But if the bigots who want to return to the US's segregated days of the 1950's limit attempts at increasing inclusivity, you'll just have to watch your country continue to unravel.

But if the bigots who want to return to the US's segregated days of the 1950's

The 50's are irrelevant. During the Civil Rights Movement, (in the 60's) they got free. Then they got "high." Nobody made you throw ur life away to drugs, gangs and violence.

If a majority of your fellow countrymen, especially your fellow white countrymen, would try to work to achieve a more inclusive society like the majority of Canadians are trying to do

America does that & is doing that. But with all these generations of gangbangers unwilling to to drop the alcohol, rap music, drugs, gang-life and gun violence -then it is as YOU say, "Watch your country unravel."

Don't the gun nuts always claim that even if guns are illegal, people will still find a way to kill?... If she had been carrying guns, you would expect someone would have ended up dead with this attack.

@Strangerland

Agree. What you said should be a no-brainer, but apparently it boggles the minds of the pro-NRA crowd.

Even without guns mentally unhinged people will still find a way to attempt to kill — that much the gun nuts are right about — but what they don't factor in is that by far the easiest, quickest and most efficient way to kill one or many people is with a gun. If someone were intent on murdering me, I would obviously much rather that the person come at me with a knife than with a gun.

Reading this article gives me respect for Canada in having been fairly successful in not letting their own gun nuts hold their nation hostage as has happened in the U.S. Still, I have read that the gun insanity from south of the Canadian border has been increasing filtering over into Canada recently. Let's hope the plague does not spread.

This moronic argument again.

I keep forgetting, liberals think that knives can either not be a weapon that can inflict a lot of damage or that knives are safer. Talk about burying the head in the sand.

Okay, bass... we'll ban knives when you start showing us how your dad uses his 24 guns to slice vegetables or with his fork to eat dinner.

I need a gun to kill my dinner. I like hunting and shooting skunks and other pests that happen to wander on my property.

Because, you know, guns serve purposes other than to kill, right? but knives don't!

They can also save my life. Ask any rich person or politician or celebrity.

I keep forgetting, liberals think that knives can either not be a weapon that can inflict a lot of damage or that knives are safer. Talk about burying the head in the sand.

Ridiculous. Of course knives can kill. But they are not guns, which are made for killing, allow the weak to kill, and allow people to kill from far and with ease.

They can also save my life. Ask any rich person or politician or celebrity.

And in that, they kill others. Your pushing for legal gun ownership ensures that some innocents die, by owners of legal guns.

Ridiculous. Of course knives can kill. But they are not guns, which are made for killing, allow the weak to kill, and allow people to kill from far and with ease.

So how did we kill and protected ourselves before the invention of guns?

And in that, they kill others.

Just like other weapons before the gun, and?

Your pushing for legal gun ownership ensures that some innocents die, by owners of legal guns.

I covered stories of people being murdered and butchered by knives.

So how did we kill and protected ourselves before the invention of guns?

Wrong question. The right question is 'were weak people able to kill multiple people from far and with ease before the invention of guns?

The answer is 'no'.

I covered stories of people being murdered and butchered by knives.

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that your pushing for legal gun ownership ensures that some innocents die, by owners of legal guns.

Wrong question. The right question is 'were weak people able to kill multiple people from far and with ease before the invention of guns?

Oh, No you don't, answer the question. How did people kill and what methods were used before the invention of the gun?

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that your pushing for legal gun ownership ensures that some innocents die, by owners of legal guns.

Not even close. If there were and epidemic that thousands of people, millions of people are dying as a result of guns on minute to minute basis. Then you would have a compelling argument. But you libs are grasping at straws again. I believe we should ban knives as well and use spoons, unless someone tries to use it as a means of killing someone.

Oh, No you don't, answer the question. How did people kill and what methods were used before the invention of the gun?

It's irrelevant, as no one has claimed that people couldn't kill before the guns were invented. What we are claiming is that guns make killing too easy, and allow people to kill mass numbers from a distance. If you can find an equivalent before guns were invented, then I'll be happy to comment on that equivalent. But your question is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If there were and epidemic that thousands of people, millions of people are dying as a result of guns on minute to minute basis. Then you would have a compelling argument.

So you agree that there could be a situation where people who push for guns to be legal to the public would have responsibility for deaths by guns, and now we are only bickering as to the number of deaths that would bring about that responsibility.

It appears that you are willing to shed responsibility for around 20,000 deaths per year. Personally, I think the number is way below that. Basically, any time innocent people are killed because of legal guns, everyone who pushes for legal guns has some responsibility for those innocent deaths.

It's irrelevant,

Because it diminishes your argument?

as no one has claimed that people couldn't kill before the guns were invented.

So then you are saying, we used other weapons to kill and we did it successfully, in fact, we killed millions without the use of guns for thousands of years.

What we are claiming is that guns make killing too easy,

So is jumping off a building, what's your point?

and allow people to kill mass numbers from a distance.

Yes, it can, but it's not a problem that it happens every minute in every neighborhood at every time and all of the time.

If you can find an equivalent before guns were invented, then I'll be happy to comment on that equivalent. But your question is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No, it's just that as usual, you libs are just frustrated because there is no way that taking guns aways will curb the overall violence. If people want to kill you, they will use whatever they can get their hands on.

So you agree that there could be a situation where people who push for guns to be legal to the public would have responsibility for deaths by guns, and now we are only bickering as to the number of deaths that would bring about that responsibility.

I worry more about people dying from suicides which is far worse and much more of an epidemic than guns.

It appears that you are willing to shed responsibility for around 20,000 deaths per year.

That has nothing to do with the overall majority of people that are law-abiding citizens that don't go around shooting or killing people.

Personally, I think the number is way below that. Basically, any time innocent people are killed because of legal guns, everyone who pushes for legal guns has some responsibility for those innocent deaths.

But it's not the majority or the overall reason for gun deaths in the country and if you really want to make a difference in gun violence, target the gun infested gang areas where you have a lot of crime, in particular Black on Black crime where you will find the majority of gun deaths and gun violence.