I didn't realize you're the mouthpiece for the USA.

Tell ya what, I'll keep posting possible solutions TO YOUR problem

and you keep ignoring anything is wrong at all in the first place.

Please do, I enjoy the occasional chuckle your uneducated posts on the subject give me....


Ive already, in another thread, explained, with a link, how gun violence has been decreasing over the past 20 years. Remember? It was the same thread where you falsely stated that a felony conviction was the only way to lose firearm ownership here....and then, when you were presented with state by state evidence of laws already on the books concerning mental health reasons for having firearms removed, you crawfished....and said a court order is the same as a felony conviction

Continue posting...and Ill keep chuckling.
But, by all means, stick around...you just may learn something about U.S. firearms laws you obviously know nothing about to begin with.

Oh Holy Hoplophobia,Batman!

I suppose they bolted too,or did they Hammer?

http://www.examiner.com/article/10-hurt-hammer-attack-man-barges-into-government-office-unleashes-attack


The Assault-Hammer



There were 10 hurt in a hammer attack when a man assaulted numerous people in a British Columbia aboriginal government office. Some of the victims were critically injured -- while others suffered non-life threatening injuries.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police were called about a man who had a weapon at the Bridge River Indian Band office. By the time they arrived at the scene of Wednesday's attack, the suspect had been restrained. He was unconscious after the 10 were hurt in the hammer attack, according to ABC News on October 14. Police attempted to resuscitate the man, but he was pronounced dead.

Michaela Swan, who's with the Interior Health Authority, said that two victims are in critical condition while another two are in serious condition; six of the others have non-life threatening injuries.

According to The Vancouver Sun, there were 10 hurt in the hammer attack because after the suspect attacked one person, he beat those who attempted to jump in and help. It's unclear if the person he first targeted was a random individual or someone that the man intended to personally harm. It's also unknown how the man was restrained by the time police arrived.

It's unclear what prompted the hammer assault because a motive for the suspect's actions hasn't been revealed. An investigation is ongoing after 10 were hurt in a hammer attack.


Hammering Jehoshaphat!

Its that whole "We know whats best for you" attitude some have. I actually have no issue with John being anti-gun....for himself. But when his views start trampling on my Constitutional right, then I have an issue. Dont like firearms? Fine...just stay outta my right TO like em.
I dont expect alot of people outside the U.S. to understand that...and thats ok....I dont understand alot that goes in in other countries and figure they do whats best for themselves...and I certainly dont make uneducated suggestions about what they should be doing.
Im bored of it...he can think what he wants...and make all the circle jerk jokes that he wants so he'll appear omnipotent...
At the end of the day, a firearm is just an object....metal and wood and plastic....not some evil being the anti-gunners want you to believe it is.


They who can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.- Ben Franklin

I guess you're "special"?


Anyone else would have understood that a court order on someone who is mentally unfit to have weapon privileges is quite similar to a person being convicted and considered unfit to have weapon privileges.

Keep murking up the shallow waters, it's making you look very deep.

I thought it was pretty funny, I enjoyed seeing you all come down on a student protest on weapons in sync is all


Tell ya the truth, I'll bundle up all Texans as unable to beat a Canadian team in baseball HAHAHA! Go Blue Jays!

What "privileges" are you babbling about?
seems you can't distinguish between a Right and a Privilege,yet you insist to lecture others!

What is the stated goal of the Gun Free Zone sign and the accompanying legislation? To create, they say, a safe environment for all who occupy that area.

Far from their stated objective, Gun Free Zones have proven to be effective in accomplishing at least 2 things:

It transforms a law abiding citizen into a CRIMINAL simply because he chooses to ignore the sign, opting to remain ARMED for the protection of the helpless potential victims within that area
It welcomes and emboldens REAL CRIMINALS by advertising target rich, virtually resistance-free environments

And while Piers Morgan and other Media and Government talking-heads want to focus your attention on and seek to criminalize the type of weapon used in mass shootings, an obvious fact hangs in the faces of all who have the ability to see through the propaganda and come to an objective, emotion-free conclusion.

Let's REVIEW:

Columbine High School - 13 Killed (GFZ);

Aurora Colorado Movie Theater - 12 Killed 58 Wounded (GFZ);

Edmond OK Post office - 14 KILLED (GFZ);

University of Texas - 18 KILLED (GFZ)

Washington Navy Yard - 12 Dead (GFZ);

Luby's Restaurant in Killeen Texas - 23 KILLED (GFZ);

Fort Hood Military base - 13 killed (GFZ);

Virginia Tech - 32 Killed (GFZ);

Sandy Hook Elementary School (even though there is ZERO evidence to suggest that anyone died that day, and mountains of evidence which points to Media cover-ups, Government foreknowledge of the event, crisis acting and tampering with potential evidence; including the fact that there's not even one snapshot of the gunman from the newly installed school security cameras) it's reported that 27 people lost their lives. Sandy Hook was a (GFZ).

The evidence of the negative effects of such Gun Free Slaughter-Zone signs, as well as the dangerous nature of Gun Control laws in general, is overwhelming

But rather than offer rational, effective solutions, how do the media-trained masses and their super star Hollywood hypocrites respond to such insane laws? They demand MORE LAWS. IF an area that is supposed to be 100% free of guns doesn't work what's the use of piling on MORE LAWS and adding more signs. It would be like modifying the sign to say This is REALLY REALLY a Gun Free Zone AND WE MEAN IT!!! Yeah, that'll get those criminals to think before they act. If you like this video, give it a thumbs up, share it and let us hear your comments on the Gun Free Zone topic.



It is quite obvious that "Gun Free Zones" do NOTHING to deter criminals. People who intend to harm other for their own self interests will NEVER pay attention to laws that are supposedly designed to protect citizens. Quite to the contrary, those who obey the signs are usually the ones who end up leaving such a zone in a body-bag.

Gun free zones should provide bullet proof vests to all who enter.

This is just disturbing... Are you denying the infant massacre at this school ever happened? Or are you just repeating Bullchit, when you know it's complete bullchit trying to support your opinion? Fail!



Gun free zones should be enforced as such with searches and metal detectors

As if I'd trust anyone to respect the zones in yer neck of the backwoods

try to keep up with the whole article, it's about people getting shot in gun free zones, not your narrow minded liberal Canadian views on crap that really doesn't concern you in the first place... your so scared of getting shot, stay up in the safe canada gun free zones, don't worry about whats happening below you...

to bad they are illegal too...

You can't post bunk and not expect to get called on it, the WHOLE article is bunk if it denies Sandy Hook

Since this is a international site... I'll express myself any puckin way I want

whatever, your meaningless, liberal Canadian gun views mean nothing here... just smile and wave, seems you canucks are good at that...

That just hurt


Game on! No Not baseball, your season is DONE!

true, baseball in Texas is over...

I agree...lets take a look..

Except thats not what you said. You said only a felony conviction could have a firearm taken away here. Then I showed you several state laws already on the books about mental illness that can have firearms taken away...so, to save face, you implied a court order is the same as a felony conviction.
What if I told you there are some MISDEMEANOR convictions that can lead to weapons being taken away? Would you then equate those to felony convictions?
What if I told you there were certain ARRESTS, with no convictions, that can lead to weapons being taken away? Would those, also be the same as felony convictions?
The answers to questions #2 and #4 would be yes...because you only care about saving face after making a stupid statement like "only felony convictions get guns taken away".and somehow attempting to make it look like you knew what you were talking about...#Fail
Not to mention all the crimes committed with guns by CONVICTED FELONS...and yet you would want more laws

Btw, taking into acct your vast lack of knowledge of U.S. firearms laws, Ill go ahead and let ya know that there ARE certain ARRESTS and MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS that can lead to gun confiscation....thus solidifying your lack of knowledge of our firearms laws.
But you keep posting and Ill keep chuckling...

Not nearly as "special"as you, it seems...

I won't quote you because your posts are trash and repetitive. You've had all the opportunities to steer me right on the reality that not even convicted felons can completely be denied their right to own a firearm, you choose to harp on mental illness?


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/243851-house-votes-to-allow-gun-restoration-rights



The House late Tuesday night gave voice vote approval to a proposal allowing people to petition the federal government to restore their right to obtain firearms.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) offered an amendment to the annual spending bill for the Justice Department to ensure that people who are prohibited from buying guns can apply for a restoration status.

Current law allows people who cannot legally buy guns to petition their local district court. But legislative riders in place since 1992 prevent the Justice Department from processing the applications.

ADVERTISEMENT

Buck argued that people shouldn't necessarily be bound to past crimes or mistakes unrelated to gun laws for the rest of their lives.
"America is a land of second chances. One mistake should not define your future. A law-abiding, 45-year-old dad who made one mistake at 18 should have the choice of how best to protect his family or to take his kids hunting. He should have the chance to make a petition to restore his constitutional right to bear arms. This solution is long overdue," Buck said.

"This bill does not intend in any way, shape, or form to allow a violent criminal to possess a firearm," Buck stressed.

Heritage Action, an influential conservative group, issued a statement in support of Buck's amendment earlier in the day and pledged to include the vote on its legislative scorecard.

No one spoke in opposition to Buck's amendment during House floor debate and no lawmaker demanded a roll call vote.

Buck, incidentally, garnered headlines earlier this year for his display of an AR-15 assault rifle emblazoned with the American flag in his Capitol Hill office.

The District of Columbia bans the possession of assault weapons. But Buck coordinated with federal authorities ahead of time before bringing the rifle, which was locked and unloaded, to Washington to ensure it didn't violate local gun laws.

A separate amendment offered by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) would cut the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) budget by $250 million, or 20 percent. But it was rejected by voice vote.

Byrne argued that the threat of budget cuts would force the ATF to reevaluate how it functions. He cited botched operations like the Fast and Furious gun-tracking scheme that resulted in Mexican drug trafficking groups obtaining guns.

"I am all for safety and responsible gun ownership, and the ATF does have a role to play in that. But this amendment would simply require ATF to return to its core functions and responsibilities. It would cause ATF to look at itself in the mirror, find areas where they can cut back, and refocus on their true priorities," Byrne said.

But Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), the author of the underlying legislation, expressed concern that cutting ATF's budget by the margin proposed by Byrne would constrain its functions.

"I just don't want to see the ATF devastated," Culberson said.

The House is expected to vote on final passage of the Justice Department funding bill on Wednesday.