Gunman kills 16 in Canada rampage

My heart goes out to the whole Canadian people.

My heart goes out to the whole Canadian people.

Same here. Canada has long had a sensible approach to dealing with weapons. Canadians in general are among the most peace-loving people I've met anywhere.

Looking for motive once again will probably be shown to be futile. Blaming it on 'mental health' likewise.

Unfortunately this mass-killing was consistent with every other gun murder: a person with a gun fired bullets that killed someone. Start with the gun and bullets to explain what happened.

More insanity thanks to guns.

This is why I do not support any stupid laws about owning guns. You give guns to a nut, things will get nuts!

I watched the press conference. The RCMP member answering media questions is the saddest police officer I have ever seen. He's not struggling to speak, he's simply crushed.

This is such a complicated crime scene over many locations they haven't even been able to count all the bodies. At least 10 so far. No words.

A word from this Canadian...let this story disappear from JT. It's bad enough at home.

Freedom has a high price... these shooting don't happen in other countries.

PTownsend - Canada has long had a sensible approach to dealing with weapons. Canadians in general are among the most peace-loving people I've met anywhere.

Looking for motive once again will probably be shown to be futile. Blaming it on 'mental health' likewise.

Unfortunately this mass-killing was consistent with every other gun murder: a person with a gun fired bullets that killed someone. Start with the gun and bullets to explain what happened.

I've noticed that a gun by itself is not able to hurt anyone. Neither can bullets. Guns with bullets are equally harmless, unless that gun, and bullets, are wielded by a monster/deranged human being. If you remove guns and bullets from the equation, you are still left with a monster/deranged human being who has chosen to hurt or kill people. Ending gun violence doesn't end violence. You still have to identify the monster/deranged human being before they use a knife, or vehicle, or poison, or anything else they can get their demented hands on, to murder their fellow human beings. Many people have seen, and heard these monsters before the monsters became deadly. These monsters have a history of having been previously reported to the police, or to employers, or to schools, and yet these monsters were still allowed to walk around. Human beings are still the problem, and you still have to identify, and detain, these monsters before they become deadly.

mental illness and personal responsibility of a person who did this. Not government policies, individual leaders or guns and billets.

It’s just so awkward for most posters here when things like this happen and they have all their cut and paste talking points but then notice it didn’t happen in USA.

It's very cool and normal that, when ten people - ten human beings- are murdered, your first thought is "how can I try to do a lazy dunk on the libz!?". It's not sociopathic at all. And it's great that this website allows comments like this! Very cool!

mental illness and personal responsibility of a person who did this. Not government policies, individual leaders or guns and billets.

Yes, this one specific incident is obviously attributable to the shooter.

The vastly safer society where gun deaths are a miniscule fraction of what they are south of the border despite similar rates of mental disorder among the population though are totally the result of government policies to get rid of guns.

Condolences to the families of the victims. This is an odd one. From a dailybeast article;

Wortman has been in the news before. In 2014, he responded to a CTV story about a cancer survivor who lost her teeth and could not afford replacements. He offered to make new ones for free.

“My heart went out to her,” Wortman said then. “There’s so many ways for people to get dentures, but it seems like the people who really need them are the people who are getting left behind.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/suspect-gabriel-wortman-claims-several-victims-in-portapique-nova-scotia-rampage-police?ref=scroll

It seems it started out as a motivated attack, which then became random.

I've noticed that a gun by itself is not able to hurt anyone. Neither can bullets. Guns with bullets are equally harmless, unless that gun, and bullets, are wielded by a monster/deranged human being. If you remove guns and bullets from the equation, you are still left with a monster/deranged human being who has chosen to hurt or kill people. Ending gun violence doesn't end violence. You still have to identify the monster/deranged human being before they use a knife, or vehicle, or poison, or anything else they can get their demented hands on, to murder their fellow human beings. Many people have seen, and heard these monsters before the monsters became deadly. These monsters have a history of having been previously reported to the police, or to employers, or to schools, and yet these monsters were still allowed to walk around. Human beings are still the problem, and you still have to identify, and detain, these monsters before they become deadly.

Above is ignorance pure & simple, as Rainyday says, just compare Cda & the US on gun violence you WILL find there IS NO comparison.

RIP to all the victims of this horrible series of crimes

Guns with bullets are equally harmless, unless that gun, and bullets, are wielded by a monster/deranged human being

or a suicidal one.

Firearms are the most lethal of the commonly available means of suicide in the US: 85% of gun suicide attempts end in death, while less than 5% of non-firearm suicide attempts result in death.27

Or a child who finds a parent’s gun under a mattress.

Unintentional shootings comprise 1.3% of gun deaths and 18% of gun injuries.33

The majority of unintentional shooting deaths involve people under 24, who are most often shot by someone else, usually someone their own age.

Or police officers/ regular Joes who mistake unarmed black people for legitimate threats.

Unarmed black civilians are nearly five times more likely to be shot and killed by police than unarmed white civilians.40

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gun-violence-statistics/

mental illness and personal responsibility of a person who did this. Not government policies, individual leaders or guns and billets.

Imagine living in a country where 16 is the highest body count for a mass shooting ever. now imagine living in a country where it wouldn't crack the top ten.

Freedom has a high price... these shooting don't happen in other countries.

What?

Another mentally disturbed individual, sad.

It's easy to say don't give guns to people with mental health issues, but people may not have had the mental problems a few years ago when they bought their gun or guns.

@reynardfox yep, that was one of the first kind of things that popped in my mind when I read this article. I’m from the US, so obviously I know what you’re talking about about this one cracked the top 10 in some countries, like the US unfortunately. That’s one of the things I’ll be looking forward to if and when I do move to Japan. Because Japan makes Canada look almost as lax as the US in terms of gun laws.

And also, since I didn’t say this in my previous comment, my heart goes out to all The victims and their families of this tragedy. It doesn’t matter what country you live in, nobody should have to go through this kind of nonsense. So my thoughts and prayers are with them, and I hope they will be able to heal from this tragedy.

When ere is a will there is a way. Humans are creative at things they need to do! Does Sarin ring a bell? What about poison curry? The insane will always find a way.

America has much to learn from Canada where guns are common, but mass shootings rare. In Virginia the Dems want to take away guns from people (who are mentally ill) whereas "Mango the Merciless" is having a meltdown over the so-called violation of the sacred Second Amendment.

ReynardFoxToday 11:21 am JSTmental illness and personal responsibility of a person who did this. Not government policies, individual leaders or guns and billets.

Imagine living in a country where 16 is the highest body count for a mass shooting ever. now imagine living in a country where it wouldn't crack the top ten.

I took a long vacation last summer that went to several Canadian cities - Niagara Falls, Toronto, Montréal, Oshawa, Ottawa, Quebec City, and more. Then I reentered the USA and looped thru New England and New York State to get back home. In all those cities in Canada (and I've been in others there too) you can walk the city streets solo or in groups, party, whatever and you generally don't to worry at all about something like this. Even in Montreal and QC where French is predominant I didn't worry one bit. Same for the First Nations reserves. This bloody crime is unspeakable, especially in Canada. They're not manipulated by loudmouth terrorist boors like Wayne LaPierre. This is so sad and it makes me sad, and stunned. Beyond belief.

Another mentally disturbed individual, sad.

Yes. Taking advantage of this to push some misguided, second amendment, NRA, "freedom" propaganda is sad.

Gun's kill people quickly... you never hear of massive killings with anything else but guns.... Offer $1200 for each gun handed in and destroyed (no questions asked) and watch how many guns come off the street.

Gun's kill people quickly... you never hear of massive killings with anything else but guns

Cars, airplanes, bombs. They kill lots of people quickly and efficiently. Like guns these are all items that in the hands of people can cause death, injury and disability.

The guy in Canada, a heavy gun control nation, was intent on killing innocent people. Is there a way he could have been thwarted by gun control? I doubt it.

@Wolfpack

Cars, airplanes, bombs.

Weird how you just rattled off three things that are MORE regulated than guns in the US. If you’re saying guns should by regulated like cars, airplanes, and explosives, I totally agree. Mandatory registration, licensing, testing, insurance requirements, the ability to have your license revoked for irresponsible use, etc.

ReynardFox:

Weird how you just rattled off three things that are MORE regulated than guns in the US. 

Not weird at all in the context of the quoted statement I was responding to.

Gun's kill people quickly... you never hear of massive killings with anything else but guns

You are correct that the things I listed are heavily regulated. But of course there is a reason for the difference between them and the right to bear arms. None of those things are specifically listed in the US Constitution as Civil Rights. These rights, like all other amendments in the Bill of Rights are exclusive to each individual citizen.

@Wolfpack

None of those things are specifically listed in the US Constitution as Civil Rights. These rights, like all other amendments in the Bill of Rights are exclusive to each individual citizen.

You are correct there as well. But here's the thing about rights, constitutional or otherwise. There are limits. There have to be limits. Free speech is not unlimited. Freedom of assembly is not unlimited (as we are finding with the corona lockdown). The right to bear arms is not unlimited. I'm a gun owner. A proud gun owner. But I also understand that my right to own a gun is not immune to nuance. That sometimes, like with the corona lockdown, I need to have my rights limited, my life inconvenienced, to help protect others. There are people out there who believe that the 2nd Amendment is a limitless carte blanche to own as much of whatever kind of weapon they like, regardless of whether or not they have the wherewithal or mental stability to wield the responsibility of owning a weapon as well as wielding the weapon.

I was taught from a young age that there are rules around guns. "Treat every gun as if it were loaded, even if it isn't". "Never point the gun at anything you don't fully intend to kill or destroy". "Never place your finger on the trigger until you are about to fire". "Be aware of your target and what's behind it." I was taught that there are grave responsibilities attached to gun ownership. I don't see these rules or limits as 'infringing upon my rights'. It's my responsibility to ensure the safety of others around me. And it's not just the 'personal responsibilities' that people like to wave around as some kind of justification for fending off gun regulations. There are social responsibilities as well. Those rules above are not just meant to keep me safe, but to keep everyone around me safe, be they others at the range or in my home. I believe that a responsible gun owner is someone who understands that they have a duty to protect others not only from their possible irresponsible use of guns, but from others as well.

To me, as a responsible gun owner, supporting common-sense gun laws to protect the public is no different than keeping the muzzle pointed downrange and away from others nearby.

It is sad this happen. The problem isn't the gun laws its actually punishing people and mental health. There is nothing wrong with owning firearms. I own two pistols for target practice and self defense. People don't ever bring up the fact guns save lives to or prevent killings.

@Thomas George

People don't ever bring up the fact guns save lives to or prevent killings.

Statistically-speaking, you're more likely to be injured by your own firearm or have someone you love injured by your firearm that you are to ever use it in self-defense. That's why things like trigger locks and gun safes are so important. Guns aren't the problem, per se, but the ridiculously easy access to guns by virtually anyone in the US is. As for Canada, my heart goes out to them. Gun laws are 100% effective, but neither are rape laws or murder laws. You never hear anyone talking about how we need to throw out murder laws because they don't stop 100% of murders.

*Gun laws AREN'T 100% effective,

ReynardFox: You are correct there as well. But here's the thing about rights, constitutional or otherwise. There are limits. 

I agree with you on that point. No right is unlimited. But of course you can’t get people who support abortion up to and after the child exits the womb in a botched abortion attempt to a agree with that. More viable human beings are killed by that somehow unrestricted “right” than by guns.

But again, my original response was to a comment stating this:

Gun's kill people quickly... you never hear of massive killings with anything else but guns

I was simply making the observation that this is a non-factual assertion. There are about the same number of automobile deaths as there are gun deaths in America despite the heavy regulation. No one is trying to take cars away from crazy people - and driving isn’t even a civil right in the US. Why would you want to severely restrict a civil right when it’s practically impossible to regulate partial birth abortions? Again - not in the Bill of Rights or even mentioned indirectly as is the right to bear arms.

This article is about a crazed mass killer in a nation without the Constitutional right to own a weapon for self protection and with strict gun control laws. That is for the Canadians to decide for themselves. Overall they seem to be happy leaving their self protection up to the government.

I am by no means advocating for unlimited gun rights in the same manner as abortion rights advocates advocate for keeping the government out of women’s bodies. I don’t own a gun myself. I would own one if I felt my community had become dangerous and I was unable to relocate.

To me, as a responsible gun owner, supporting common-sense gun laws to protect the public is no different than keeping the muzzle pointed downrange and away from others nearby.

I also agree with you on this. I like to make the point that in essence, a howitzer is no different from any other gun, except it’s huge and extremely powerful. Not even NRA absolutists are arguing for the right to own a gun that large. We all accept limits on gun lethality. But where do you draw the line? That’s what people who respect the Constitution are arguing over. It is reasonable for a gun owner to say that they should be able to buy a clip that can hold more than ten rounds.

For Canadian’s - they can outlaw all guns of any kind if that is what the people’s representatives choose to do. In America it will require a change in the Bill of Rights to accomplish any significant limitation on the right to gun ownership. That requirement is a big lift for the anti-gun activists.

I agree with you on that point. No right is unlimited. But of course you can’t get people who support abortion up to and after the child exits the womb in a botched abortion attempt to a agree with that. More viable human beings are killed by that somehow unrestricted “right” than by guns.

The right to an abortion is highly restricted. Very few people support unrestricted abortions through late term without a valid medical reason. Let’s try to keep the emotional arguments to a minimum.

I was simply making the observation that this is a non-factual assertion. There are about the same number of automobile deaths as there are gun deaths in America despite the heavy regulation. 

That’s aggregate number of automobile deaths. Individual accidents or intentional vehicular assaults don’t ever kill more than a handful of people. False equivalency.

Again - not in the Bill of Rights or even mentioned indirectly as is the right to bear arms.

Neither is the right to privacy.

It is reasonable for a gun owner to say that they should be able to buy a clip that can hold more than ten rounds.

Why is that reasonable. The drafters of the second amendment did not and could not envisage firearms with high capacity magazines.

In America it will require a change in the Bill of Rights to accomplish any significant limitation on the right to gun ownership

Do you think the assault weapons ban that limited manufacturers to 10 round magazines was a significant limitation on the right to gun ownership?

Look at the firearms laws in Hawaii and California and you’ll see there are restrictions on firearm ownership they people in South Dakota and Montana would consider significant limitations.

But where do you draw the line? That’s what people who respect the Constitution are arguing over. It is reasonable for a gun owner to say that they should be able to buy a clip that can hold more than ten rounds.

Personally, I draw the line with 'necessity'. What is the 'necessity' of a 100rd Beta-C mag? What possible, logic reason could a civilian have to -necessitate- owning something like that? I use the 100rd Beta-C mag as an example because it was used quite recently in the mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. The cops killed the perp with 30 seconds of him opening fire, and in that time, he was still able to fire over 40 rounds without ever having to reload and wound up killing 9 people. I see absolutely no reason why civilians should have access to such things. They don't -need- them; they -want- them. And -wanting- something, to me, isn't a good enough reason to be allowed to have it.

Ultimately, nuanced gun laws will never be a reality so long as 'gun-clutchers' see even the tiniest, common-sense law as the portent of some apocalyptic, deep-state conspiracy to take all their guns and murder them in their beds with black helicopters or something.

Chip Star (responding to Wolfpack)

I was simply making the observation that this is a non-factual assertion. There are about the same number of automobile deaths as there are gun deaths in America despite the heavy regulation. 

That’s aggregate number of automobile deaths. Individual accidents or intentional vehicular assaults don’t ever kill more than a handful of people. False equivalency.

Also, automobile deaths are overwhelmingly caused by driver error. Homicide by firearm has far more malicious intent. It’s a common comparison, but not an apt one.

Look at the firearms laws in Hawaii and California and you’ll see there are restrictions on firearm ownership they people in South Dakota and Montana would consider significant limitations.

Indeed. One could even argue that there was gun control in constitution era USA (mandatory appearances at musters and firearm inspections, gun-registries - often compiled via door-to-door surveys, bans on slaves Native Americans and loyalists possessing firearms and certain storage requirements for gun powder) that today’s gun rights advocates would consider too strict.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99

Chip Star: The right to an abortion is highly restricted. Very few people support unrestricted abortions through late term without a valid medical reason.

That isn’t true. The US House of Representatives voted this year against a law to make it illegal to require life saving care in the case of a failed abortion attempt. Any restrictions are considered a slippery slope and are not allowed to pass.

That’s aggregate number of automobile deaths. Individual accidents or intentional vehicular assaults don’t ever kill more than a handful of people. False equivalency.

Why false equivalency? 38,000 people sounds like a massive amount of people to me.

Neither is the right to privacy.

Now you are getting it.

Why is that reasonable. The drafters of the second amendment did not and could not envisage firearms with high capacity magazines.

There are a lot of things that the Founders didn’t envision that are legal - the Founders anticipated that in the way the Constitution was constructed. Most of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.

Do you think the assault weapons ban that limited manufacturers to 10 round magazines was a significant limitation on the right to gun ownership?

That’s not for the Federal government to say. If some states want to pass such a law, that’s fine with me. They just cannot impede the reasonable exercise of second amendment rights. Which of course is also a matter of reasonable debate - up to the point of preventing people from owning a gun - which some cities like Chicago have tried to do.

Wayne LaPierre keeps shouting 'BOO' and 'so-and-so will take ALLLLL your guns away' then he cackles when these shootings occur because he's getting all that money money MONEY. He's a greedy American Gaddafy.

That’s not for the Federal government to say. If some states want to pass such a law, that’s fine with me

Leaving it to the states is all well and good if we lived in a perfect world, but we don’t. Leaving it to the states has resulted in nothing but an appallingly ineffective patchwork. And here’s the thing about patchworks; they are usually riddled with gaps and holes.

For example, California has a huge problem with people circumventing their gun laws by simply hopping over the border to Nevada to get access to weapons they otherwise wouldn’t be allowed to have. The lax gun laws in NV affect not just Nevadans.

Or more graphically, a few years ago, a man in Mississippi killed a bunch of people at his job. The man was a convicted felon, with a felony assault conviction in I believe Michigan. He was legally ineligible to own a gun. But the gun laws in Mississippi were so lax and the background checking basically non-existent, that they didn’t even bother to see if he had any out of state felonies. They only checked Mississippi felonies. And so those people died because Mississippi’s threadbare laws failed to catch someone who was obviously forbade from owning a gun.

Gun laws are like vaccines and herd immunity; it doesn’t matter if everyone around you is vaccinated, if you decide to be a chucklehead and refuse vaccination because it “infringed upon your rights”, you’re not the only one liable to get sick. If lax gun laws in Texas only resulted in the deaths of Texans, that’s one thing, but a chain is only as strong as the weakest link and all the strict gun laws across the nation are undermined by the laxity of laws outside their territory and beyond their control. That’s why gun laws need to be made at a federal level too.