Canadian police: 10 dead, 15 injured from stabbings

You may react before you are stabbed, shot, or punched, but you will react instantly when you are actually shot, stabbed or punched. You may even die instantly.
The police will only arrive after your attacker has finished with you.

It is better for you to gun down your attacker before you are shot, stabbed or punched, but the community as a whole will benefit even if you gun down your attacker after the felon strikes you -- if you are armed and can do that.

 

Your logic sucks. Such governments don't "treat you as an incompetent child". they protects you as an innocent child.

 

No. It is better that your attacker doesn't have access to a gun.

 

Attackers will always have access to guns. When guns are banned they become more valuable and effective for criminals.

If banning guns prevented gun crime why would gun crime ever soar after the ban?

 

In fact, governments that disarm their citizens aid and abet violent criminals.
Armed police are unable to keep the peace, and armed public can easily keep the peace.

“TOP STORY, Nova Scotia’s Mass Casualty Commission was formed to obsessively probe the details of Canada’s worst mass shooting and ensure that such a thing could never happen again. Instead, according to the families of those killed, it has devolved into a “restricted” process that has “further traumatized” the very people it was supposed to serve.

This week, a law firm representing 14 of the 22 victims killed in the April, 2020 tragedy announced they would be boycotting hearings after commissioners allowed two “critical” RCMP witnesses to evade cross-examination.”
NATIONAL POST, FIRST READING: Why inquiry into Canada’s worst mass shooting keeps hemorrhaging public confidence, By Tristin Hopper, 5/26/2022.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...eps-hemorrhaging-public-confidence/ar-AAXKU9j

 

Now, that's too silly.

I should maybe inform you that laws are only as good as they are enforced. Note I use the word "ENFORCE". Law and enforcement go hand in hand so never mind about the value of guns.

See my above statement for the answer and the remedy.

 

No. That is ridiculous unless governments are only disarming only non-violent criminals.

 

THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH: It will always be easy for criminals to obtain guns.

Just as it will always be easy for addicts to obtain illegal drugs.

“The men managed to produce lethal firearms from scratch
Sentencing, Judge Susan Tapping said the operation was "of the gravest possible seriousness".
She said: "Creating firearms like this had only one objective and that was to be sold to criminal customers who wished to use them with live ammunition.”
BBC, Men jailed over UK's 'first' gun factory in Hailsham unit, Published, 8 May 2019.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-48202765

In fact, criminals almost always get away with their crimes in spite of the armed police.

 

Now you've awarded yourself an "ignore". Have a nice day.

 

same thing and no they do not.

 

Governments can only disarm people who obey the law. It will always be easier for criminals to buy guns than to order pizza.

 

good idea-best not to watch someone totally eviscerate your silly arguments. It might be too traumatic

 

Wow, two ignores back-to-back.

 

Then you can pretend you did not read this post.

When the people are disarmed public enemies will buy more guns for reasons that should be obvious.

"Chris, a stocky but affable thirty-something South
Londoner recently retired from a career in armed robbery,
comes bounding back from the bar with a cheeky grin on
his face. 'It'll be about 20 minutes,' he says. 'Less time than
it takes to deliver a pizza and plenty of time for another
drink. Same again?'

We are sitting behind a busy pool table in the dingy annexe of
a pub on the outskirts of Catford which, according to Chris, is
one of the easiest places in the capital to buy an illegal gun. ...
Few will be surprised that the number of illegal guns used on
the streets of London is currently at an all-time high, with at
least two shootings and four armed robberies every day since
the start of the year...."
THIS IS LONDON, By Danny Brown, 2/28/02. (emphasis mine)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynam...?in_review_id=509803&in_review_text_id=473066

 

UHHHH, not in the US they do not. The SCOTUS ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you. Here in the US you are in charge of your own security, the gov is not responsible for your safety.

That's why 170 million Americans own 400 million guns. We're taking responsibility for ourselves like adults.

 

Not all of those people own guns because they are scared to death. Some of them enjoy hunting.

 

have you tried getting a gun in a country where they are banned? no, ididnt think so. organized criminals, who have the illegal guns dont just sell them to anyone, plus youve got to actually KNOW the crime gangs and anybody who knows the crime gangs is usually a gangster and gangster tend to no bother innocent ppl, theyre more concerned with turf wars or police.

 

on the nra payroll.

 

its legal to own a gun in uk if youre using it for hunting.

 

Look at the sentence you italicized. It says "could have", not "would have".

In fact, I don't know of a single person that carries a firearm, here or that I know, who has ever suggested having a firearm is an "automatic" win.

That strawman always and only comes from the left, and then said leftists like to argue against their own imaginary argument.

Having a gun if attacked is not sometimes better, it is always better. Regardless of the outcome, you have more potential capability if attacked. This is the reason you don't carry every other day, but every day.

There is certainly a reactionary gap, but that's not an argument that being unarmed is somehow preferable. That just means being armed is only part of the equation.

Additionally, the reason having guns didn't help these people has nothing to do with anything you discussed.

The reason having guns didn't help these people is that, in Canada, guns are required to be stored in such a way that they could never be brought to bear quickly.

To defend themselves, they would have had to get their gun from a safe, get the ammo from another location, load it, and otherwise prepare it to be used.

Not going to happen when someone has a go at you when you open the door.

 

The post i quoted cited statistics about the US.

 

Criminals will always know where to buy guns, just as people who use illegal drugs know where to buy them.

"Chris, a stocky but affable thirty-something South
Londoner recently retired from a career in armed robbery,
comes bounding back from the bar with a cheeky grin on
his face. 'It'll be about 20 minutes,' he says. 'Less time than
it takes to deliver a pizza and plenty of time for another
drink. Same again?'

We are sitting behind a busy pool table in the dingy annexe of
a pub on the outskirts of Catford which, according to Chris, is
one of the easiest places in the capital to buy an illegal gun. ...
Few will be surprised that the number of illegal guns used on
the streets of London is currently at an all-time high, with at
least two shootings and four armed robberies every day since
the start of the year...."
THIS IS LONDON, By Danny Brown, 2/28/02. (emphasis mine)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynam...?in_review_id=509803&in_review_text_id=473066

If gun bans worked gun crime would never spike after a gun ban.

 

like isaid, organized criminals dont generally bother the public, they are more a threat to other gangs and police. in the uk we have practically zero gun deaths of innocent ppl and if it does happen its generally accidental.

 

im just saying, in case you didnt know. its good to know other nations stance on guns.

 

Lol a twenty year old link! Wow, two shootings per day, let's all panic. Meanwhile in the US there are hundreds of shootings per day, so much for your guns make you safer