People like that, blatant violent crime, lock them up for 6 months. If you do it again you’re gone for 2 years

These bleeding hearts thinking people like this need other services, the guy is obviously just a menace to society. As quasi said, people like this are better off dead.

Why’d they go and announce he’s wanted and let him know, could have just put some crack under a cardboard box with a stick and pulled the stick when he went to get it :shhh:

Another example of our fantastic justice system

https://apple.news/A4CsDi_tMReGJzSKaJJapQQ

That weapons ban worked amazing

What needs to be overhauled is whoever is making these determinations of an offender's public risk.

Like common fucking sense is that someone with multiple violent crime convictions and a history of failing to comply with pre-existing orders would always be a risk.

Like seriously what judge looks at 59 offences and thinks "well maybe THIS time he won't do anything bad".

It's like those two guys that escaped from the William Head minimum security prison here on the island a few years ago. They both had previous convictions for violent offences, but they decided to stick them in a facility where you can walk around the fence at low tide. And that's what they did, before proceeding to a man's house nearby and killing him why they were loose.

https://www.vicnews.com/news/two-men...osin-homicide/

Our justice system has been infiltrated by far too many fucking bleeding hearts.

Well he didn't get a gun, did he?

Can't ban everything.

My point being banning him from owning guns didn’t prevent him from killing more people than the vast majority “gun” violence

Maybe he should be have been locked away after the 40th time? 50th?

Or you could say that lack of easy access to a gun may have prevented a lot more casualties in the first place...

Justin’s angel wings grow a little larger with each hypothetical situation :fullofwin:

I guess Trudeau is responsible for the first 14 years of this guys stints in and out of prison too right? When Harper was primeminister?

Well whether it was him or Harper, when you’re committing countless felonies, you’d think it would eventually catch up to you. But obviously it did not

As I’ve said before, don’t really care who does it but something’s gotta change here. You get your family member stabbed to death or bashed in the head with a pipe, then 2 years later you run into that person at Red Robin

I agree with you there, but this is looooooong running for Canadian history.

death penalty would do well in Canada for those extreme cases.

Death penalty does not work for people who don't care if they live or die.

Our you could say that restricting and banning guns from legal ownership may have prevented a "good guy with a gun" from ending this murder spree a lot sooner.

A lot of killing can be done with a knife or an illegal gun ("72 per cent of the crime guns seized by Toronto Police this year had likely origins in the United States.") when people have nothing to defend themselves and they have to rely on police to save them.

I'd argue that in this case -- if the dead suspect was given the death penalty on his 30th conviction, there would have been at least 30 fewer victims from his subsequent 29+1 criminal offence.

At that point, it isn't a matter of whether it is a deterrent for the potential lawbreaker anymore. It's a measure to protect the rest of society so that we wouldn't be endangered by this repeated offender.

Isn't the "good guy with a gun" practically a meme at this point?

Bouncing Bettys is practically a meme at this point.
Good guys with a gun are really flourishing in the US.

How many legal guns where at Uvalde elementary school?

The ones being carried by the shooter and the ones on the hips of the police officers who were doing absolutely nothing.

Thankfully it is only a hypothetical. Although I don't know how it's possible to get stats on how many criminals were stopped from more violent gun crime because guns are harder to access here.

Maybe there's a survey they send around in jail for inmates to fill out. "How many times did you want to commit gun crime, but couldn't get access to a gun?" I dunno.

Of course, if the choice of available weapons to this guy when he decided to go on his spree were between a gun and a knife, do you really think he wouldn't chose the gun?

"I'm going to go murder a bunch of people today, but shit, better not take the gun, that's just too deadly!"

Well it’s being touted in the media as one of the worst mass killings in Canadian history and it was perpetrated by knives.

I guess you can consider it a blessing in a way that “one of the worst mass killings” in the history of a country is only 10 people.

It’s also a failure of the reservation system, if this has started in downtown Regina he would have been put down immediately.

But it was all done on a reservation with likely distant and slow police response and everyone living in close quarters.

I mean don’t be asinine if you were in a camp 50km out of the city and a guy went nutso with a knife he’d probably kill you and everyone else in the campground too and no one would ever know.

You could probably ballpark it a bit by looking at how many crimes are committed with legally owned guns in the US.

Yah just divide by 10 for population and you have a reasonable approximation.

Canada has better access to mental health care and less of a stigma for pursuing it. Look at that guy in Memphis who went on a spree. He doesn't seem well, irrespective of if his guns are legal or not.


There are a lot of things that go into horrible events like killing sprees.... but mental health is almost always at the core of them.


Both the Las Vegas sniper and the Nova Scotia mass murderer were white men with troubled backgrounds of roughly the same generation. They were firmly middle class, college-educated individuals who carefully planned their attacks. They slipped through the cracks and were able to plan their respective attacks despite showing warning signs through their lives of something being "off" about their behaviour. Both had the access and the means to get adequate mental care, yet neither pursued it.


I honestly believe that the next generation of spree killers can be, in some part, prevented through mental health assessments and treatment. Yes, restricted firearms access and red flag laws are a vital part of it, but the cold hard fact is that the majority of gun owners just don't commit these kinds of crimes.



Oh, and to bring it around to the "good guy with a gun" thing....


In the mid 1990s there was a mass shooting in a diner in Texas that directly led to the 20+ year war in Afghanistan after 9/11. All because people believed that Texans should be allowed to carry guns which led to the election of George W. Bush as Governor which led to his presidency which led to the heavy-handed response after 9/11. And now America has the Patriot Act and Canada participates in Five Eyes.

This is a ridiculous example, but its true. Clinton and Gore were (freshly) in office during the first WTC attack in 1993 and learned Bin Laden was behind the attack in 1996. There were no boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan looking for him after, although history would be different if there had.

The core of what I'm saying is that reactionary policy on either side can lead to some serious erosion of autonomy, freedom, and privacy. It is far better to be proactive when you are able, and treat the symptoms before it becomes a full-blown disease.