Mass shooting in Florida.

"We also know that when people are armed with powerful weapons,]

uhhh…thats blaming the gun.

If he had said "when people are desperate and deeply troubled" your point would be valid.

uhhh…thats blaming the gun.

If he had said "when people are desperate and deeply troubled" your point would be valid.

I'm surprised you'd draw that conclusion - that's not what I see at all. To me that type of reaction shows the fear on the side of the gun lobby that any mention of firearms restrictions equals a ban on firearms.

If you watch the entire vid link you will see that his main focus is not on firearms but similar to what you've shared. He does not blame the gun for the shooting but states the obvious that the type of firearm used allowed the gunman to inflict a higher degree of damage.

So Obama is blaming guns eh, where did you see that? Or is this another case of your preferred interpretation of what was actually said?

From the White House - is that a relevant link? If you don;t want to read, you can watch as well.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/09/press-conference-president-obama-after-nato-summit

The press conference he held in Poland after the shooting.

Obama said that “part of what’s creating tensions between communities and the police is the fact that our police have a really difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere,” Obama said adding that “If you care about the safety of our police officers, then you can’t set aside the gun issue and pretend that’s irrelevant."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFdxzHxmTUc

Very true. What those examples show is that given equal opportunites and the support to overcome their environment, underprivileged communities can change. However, now we need to ask why those programs of education and social support aren't being put in place.

^ that is the crux of the issue that no politician is willing to try to go out and get votes on, now is it? Also something I have been saying for years on NBR, but the educated Libs keep blaming guns and calling names based on their opinions - that'll take care of things 'round here, eh?

The government should be looking after its people, and the people should also be able to look after themselves. Empathy has been replaced with personal greed in North America and who knows if there really is a way to turn it around.

My opinion - probably not; they're too far down the hole now to dig themselves out. Therefore, based on what you see on how 'educated liberals' behave and assault people on the ol internet, I have more faith in self preparedness than in hoping someone elected will save the day.

Obama said that “part of what’s creating tensions between communities and the police is the fact that our police have a really difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere,” Obama said adding that “If you care about the safety of our police officers, then you can’t set aside the gun issue and pretend that’s irrelevant."

that is the crux of the issue that no politician is willing to try to go out and get votes on, now is it? Also something I have been saying for years on NBR, but the educated Libs keep blaming guns and calling names based on their opinions - that'll take care of things 'round here, eh?

why can't there be a distinction drawn between guns being part of the problem vs "blaming guns"? seriously, why make this an all or none argument? in the statement above obama is not blaming guns drectly but saying they are part of the equation. there's a big difference in what he said versus how you're interpreting what he said. if all you get out of his statements is that he's blaming guns then your bias is getting in the way looking at things objectively.

The government should be looking after its people, and the people should also be able to look after themselves. Empathy has been replaced with personal greed in North America and who knows if there really is a way to turn it around.

My opinion - probably not; they're too far down the hole now to dig themselves out. Therefore, based on what you see on how 'educated liberals' behave and assault people on the ol internet, I have more faith in self preparedness than in hoping someone elected will save the day.

taking that derisive attitude against "educated liberals" and "libtards" is not helping.

I'm not clear what your point is. Who is arguing against education and social support? Although I would argue that hundreds of years of systemic discrimination and marginalization can't be flipped like a switch, I have always held that education is the key - along with policies that support income equality. And in the US one of the biggest problems of inequality results from the way schools are funded. Poor neighbourhoods have poor schools which feeds the cycle.

My point is that the right is vastly more likely to ignore evidence and push agendas that suit their uneducated world view. An example is how Americans dismiss evidence of how successful more sensible gun laws can be - like they have been in Australia, and how they are in most civilized countries in the world. Would it be like flipping a switch after hundreds of years of gun worship? Of course not. But background checks and sensible laws on who can buy and carry a weapon would make a massive difference over time. Do you disagree with that?

Would you really feel safer walking around in an open carry state? Or walking around in London? I'll take door number two. Do you actually wish Canada's gun laws were like US gun laws? Or are you just being contrarian? Do you think our country is less safe because of our gun laws?

Intelligent conservatives don't actually believe the world is safer with more guns, they just like having guns. Even though their own homes are statistically less safe when there is a gun inside - their own gun. How about this genius who shot his own son but said "the gun didn't shoot my boy, I did." I'm pretty sure he and his gun worked as a lethal team. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/us/florida-father-shoots-son/

And it feels a little like pot calling kettle when you say "Canada is now socially acting like the US, in that people now prejudice against someone based on who they think someone voted." Right after you said " :lol: when facts come into the discussion, libs just have to resort back to their feelings."

You don't see Trump supporters attacking?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supporter-tony-pettway-charged-assault-tucson-rally-attack/

And protestors are different than Hillary supporters. People of all walks of life and across the political spectrum are disgusted with the fear and hate-based politics of Trump. Of course some of those people would be Hillary supporters but some of them would have voted for Dubya as well. I would bet most of those people aren't voters at all - simply disenfranchised under educated people with legitimate anger and frustration that boiled over in an incredibly anti-social and uncivilized fashion. Whereas Trump supporters at his rallies have been arrested for their actions against peaceful protestors. Encouraged by Trump.

I haven't seen any clips of protestors at Bernie or Hillary rallies being mistreated - but they likely exist.

I think we can agree that the US is in an incredibly fucked up situation right now, but I can't see how you can argue that conservative politicians south of the border are making anything better. Or have made anything better.

Do you actually think Obama has been a bad president? Was Dubya better? Did Dubya make the world safer by destabilizing the Middle East?

The problem is that I think you are smarter than that. I don't often watch threads like this, and I haven't read most of this one either, but it feels to me like you are more concerned with baiting those on here you disagree with and proving you are right. I know there are those on the other side of this argument doing the same thing, but I don't know them personally for the most part.

You are also too smart to be suggesting that I believe "criminals attacking law abiding citizens is the education and hate America needs - well that's your educated right to say such." I said nothing of the sort and never would. That is not the discussion strategy of an intelligent person. You manufactured a point that is unrelated to the one I made and are trying to suggest that is what I believe - when you know that isn't the case. Those people aren't 'Bernie supporters' they are Trump haters and they have no part in this argument. They certainly aren't liberals either - but I'm not suggesting that liberals don't behave badly either. So why are you adding arguments I didn't make to this discussion? You are better than that.

I know you are too smart to argue that 'Trump is a straight talker' or that he actually has a single concrete policy that would improve anything in the US or the rest of the world.

But maybe I'm wrong?

I don't see uneducated Trump supporters attacking educated Hillary supporters; regardless of state. I guess if you feel that criminals attacking law abiding citizens is the education and hate America needs - well that's your educated right to say such. Loud and proud. [HTML_REMOVED]-- see how profiling and prejudice works?

Even in the wake of the Dallas shootings, Obama is blaming guns, not the social issues and disparity between the poor and uneducated vs the wealthy. Tungsten actually has something there worth considering. I've listed in the past how experiments of education and social support has completely turned poor communities around and violence and drugs have dropped right off the chart - because simply making a law would have no impact. Drugs are illegal already, guns with criminals is illegal already, violence against others is illegal already - the list goes on.

I find it sad that Canada is now socially acting like the US, in that people now prejudice against someone based on who they think someone voted. If the NBR forum users' discrimination hasn't illustrated already how people love to hate based on opinion and not facts, well then Cam, go ahead and join the masses and sling shit as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t7PnrelFdY

Smart

And as far as your thread starter goes, here is some intelligent discussion about Black Lives Matter from a Marine Vet and retired police officer.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp5ht8ZwTaY

I find it sad that Canada is now socially acting like the US, in that people now prejudice against someone based on who they think someone voted. If the NBR forum users' discrimination hasn't illustrated already how people love to hate based on opinion and not facts, well then Cam, go ahead and join the masses and sling shit as well. t

Sounds good Zed, how about not calling everyone that disagrees with you a "libtard".

This conversation is actually coming around to something better… I think, but you have to admit you jump into these shit slinging e-fights. I always give you the benefit of the doubt and try to discuss issues (mainly gun related) rationally and you ignore most of them.

You can't make a stew without all the ingredients and America is brewing a giant shit stew. This involves racial tension, poverty, an unaddressed history of slavery, large areas of very low income in major cities, police with less than adequate training, income inequality, and yes… guns. We can point the finger at the criminal element but they are not making their own guns. They came from legit factories and were sold in legit stores.

I can't speak for everyone, but gun enthusiasts such as yourself are not even on my radar as being part of the problem they have in America, but you cannot deny that a weaponized society is going to be more dangerous to one another.

Most of us "liberals" on here have stated many times that we support Canadian gun laws. These are the ones allowing you to maintain your hobby. I think you have said that you support them as well. So unless you believe we should adopt American style gun laws and the 2nd amendment I think we are on the same page.

I'm not clear what your point is. Who is arguing against education and social support? Although I would argue that hundreds of years of systemic discrimination and marginalization can't be flipped like a switch, I have always held that education is the key - along with policies that support income equality. And in the US one of the biggest problems of inequality results from the way schools are funded. Poor neighbourhoods have poor schools which feeds the cycle.

My point is that the right is vastly more likely to ignore evidence and push agendas that suit their uneducated world view. An example is how Americans dismiss evidence of how successful more sensible gun laws can be - like they have been in Australia, and how they are in most civilized countries in the world. Would it be like flipping a switch after hundreds of years of gun worship? Of course not. But background checks and sensible laws on who can buy and carry a weapon would make a massive difference over time. Do you disagree with that?

Would you really feel safer walking around in an open carry state? Or walking around in London? I'll take door number two. Do you actually wish Canada's gun laws were like US gun laws? Or are you just being contrarian? Do you think our country is less safe because of our gun laws?

Now you see, if you read into how violent crimes, murders and stats are collected, and had you read the prior BS Gun thread on here, you would know that it is a fact in countries with higher gun ownership from law abiding citizens does not equate to more violent crimes. This is a myth to disguise what is not being addressed - social equality, as you have and I have already pointed out.

Australia has the same gun murder rate as before their gun bans, it is trending up and down as all countries do, but they have learned that removing guns from law abiding citizens doesn't prevent the criminals from owning them. No surprise there, but how come you don't quote that data and consider it before stating that the US Dems will use data first before enabling laws?

Law abiding concealed carry applications has increased 10 fold and US citizens have bought 30-40 million more guns since 2001 and guess what? Viilent crime is at an all time low.

I don;t here the Pres stating it is a racial/social issue. I do hear him saying that it is a gun/criminal issue; despite the data.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Intelligent conservatives don't actually believe the world is safer with more guns, they just like having guns. Even though their own homes are statistically less safe when there is a gun inside - their own gun. How about this genius who shot his own son but said "the gun didn't shoot my boy, I did." I'm pretty sure he and his gun worked as a lethal team. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/us/florida-father-shoots-son/

And it feels a little like pot calling kettle when you say "Canada is now socially acting like the US, in that people now prejudice against someone based on who they think someone voted." Right after you said " :lol: when facts come into the discussion, libs just have to resort back to their feelings."

I can't speak for all 'Conservatives', but yes, many people do believe that having more guns in law abiding citizen's hands is a good thing. Data backs up that guns in law-abiding hands are not the issues that need to be addressed as causing violent crimes. And after years of getting the same ol 'round here, I guess I do cater the soon-to-be-haters that will fling opinion over facts. The data is there to be read.

You don't see Trump supporters attacking?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supporter-tony-pettway-charged-assault-tucson-rally-attack/

There's one - compared to the hundreds of anti-rallies.

And protestors are different than Hillary supporters. People of all walks of life and across the political spectrum are disgusted with the fear and hate-based politics of Trump. Of course some of those people would be Hillary supporters but some of them would have voted for Dubya as well. I would bet most of those people aren't voters at all - simply disenfranchised under educated people with legitimate anger and frustration that boiled over in an incredibly anti-social and uncivilized fashion. Whereas Trump supporters at his rallies have been arrested for their actions against peaceful protestors. Encouraged by Trump.

I haven't seen any clips of protestors at Bernie or Hillary rallies being mistreated - but they likely exist.

I think we can agree that the US is in an incredibly fucked up situation right now, but I can't see how you can argue that conservative politicians south of the border are making anything better. Or have made anything better.

Do you actually think Obama has been a bad president? Was Dubya better? Did Dubya make the world safer by destabilizing the Middle East?

I like Obama, always have. Dubya was an idiot that damn near sunk that country - both of them. Trump is an idiot - but damn it's interesting to see what comes out of his mouth next. Middle east is fucked, too.

However, Trump isn't saying 'hate-based politics' that haven't already been said before….especially by the other Clinton. How soon Democrats forget, on the eve of putting another Clinton into power. I like how her rich white privilege is keeping her out of jail as the country screams for social equality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0

The problem is that I think you are smarter than that. I don't often watch threads like this, and I haven't read most of this one either, but it feels to me like you are more concerned with baiting those on here you disagree with and proving you are right. I know there are those on the other side of this argument doing the same thing, but I don't know them personally for the most part.

You are also too smart to be suggesting that I believe "criminals attacking law abiding citizens is the education and hate America needs - well that's your educated right to say such." I said nothing of the sort and never would. That is not the discussion strategy of an intelligent person. You manufactured a point that is unrelated to the one I made and are trying to suggest that is what I believe - when you know that isn't the case. Those people aren't 'Bernie supporters' they are Trump haters and they have no part in this argument. They certainly aren't liberals either - but I'm not suggesting that liberals don't behave badly either. So why are you adding arguments I didn't make to this discussion? You are better than that.

I know you are too smart to argue that 'Trump is a straight talker' or that he actually has a single concrete policy that would improve anything in the US or the rest of the world.

But maybe I'm wrong?

Not sure 'who' will 'solve' the 'issues' in the US. It appears there are many 'issues' and no matter whom is at the helm, if social equality is not addressed, it is going to be a long term for either candidate.

Personally, I don't care who wins and how things digress down south. We're Canada and make our own decisions, but social-media junkies' knee-jerk reactions are to compare ourselves to our southern neighbours, regardless of any facts at hand on how much different and autonomous we really are [HTML_REMOVED]--and these types are the ones that fling it the most; especially 'round here. I also don;t care if people think I am right - it makes no difference. I do find it interesting though that it is others that have to tell me I am wrong based on their feelings; I find it ironicaly amusing.

You're kinda right on most of the situation, kinda wrong about some of the assumptions. I'll still have beers with you anytime.

why can't there be a distinction drawn between guns being part of the problem vs "blaming guns"? seriously, why make this an all or none argument? in the statement above obama is not blaming guns drectly but saying they are part of the equation. there's a big difference in what he said versus how you're interpreting what he said. if all you get out of his statements is that he's blaming guns then your bias is getting in the way looking at things objectively.

taking that derisive attitude against "educated liberals" and "libtards" is not helping.

It's not an all or nothing - I was just quoting how he did blame guns and I didn't hear him saying he was going to do a damn thing about social equality and helping the poor. If you take that as an all-or-nothing about me supporting guns, you read into that wrong. Criminals are the problem. How they become that way is the issue that needs to be addressed. What can be done should be the solution, and that is going to take humanity, not blame of an object, to achieve.

I didn't think I used Libtards in this thread. Sorry

Law abiding concealed carry applications has increased 10 fold and US citizens have bought 30-40 million more guns since 2001 and guess what? Viilent crime is at an all time low.

you've tried this line of thinking before and it's been shown to be incomplete and inaccurate. you leave out the huge fact that fewer people own guns. there has not been an increase in gun ownership, but an increase in the number of guns owned per person. there is a huge difference between these two ideas and the stats you quote do not equate to more people owning guns like you would like to believe.

It's not an all or nothing - I was just quoting how he did blame guns and I didn't hear him saying he was going to do a damn thing about social equality and helping the poor. If you take that as an all-or-nothing about me supporting guns, you read into that wrong. Criminals are the problem. How they become that way is the issue that needs to be addressed. What can be done should be the solution, and that is going to take humanity, not blame of an object, to achieve.

I didn't think I used Libtards in this thread. Sorry

you incompletely and incorrectly paraphrase what obama said. if you were to have said that obama said guns were part of the problem then you would have a valid point but that is not what played out. you stated only that obama blames guns. again we see in this example that there is a huge difference in what was actually stated versus what you have intimated what was said. considering your stance and reluctance to discuss any level of gun reform it is easy to draw the conclusion that you are taking an all or nothing stance on gun control. if you do not want people to make that assumption then you need to be clearer and more importantly more direct in your statements.

as for obama doing nothing about trying to address social needs his plan for health care reform was a critical piece fo trying to pull up the marginalized. of course that initiative was effectively destroyed by the republicans.

and you have used derisive liberal references in this thread, in the very post that i quoted.

you've tried this line of thinking before and it's been shown to be incomplete and inaccurate. you leave out the huge fact that fewer people own guns. there has not been an increase in gun ownership, but an increase in the number of guns owned per person. there is a huge difference between these two ideas and the stats you quote do not equate to more people owning guns like you would like to believe.

you incompletely and incorrectly paraphrase what obama said. if you were to have said that obama said guns were part of the problem then you would have a valid point but that is not what played out. you stated only that obama blames guns. again we see in this example that there is a huge difference in what was actually stated versus what you have intimated what was said. considering your stance and reluctance to discuss any level of gun reform it is easy to draw the conclusion that you are taking an all or nothing stance on gun control. if you do not want people to make that assumption then you need to be clearer and more importantly more direct in your statements.

as for obama doing nothing about trying to address social needs his plan for health care reform was a critical piece fo trying to pull up the marginalized. of course that initiative was effectively destroyed by the republicans.

and you have used derisive liberal references in this thread, in the very post that i quoted.

Who's talking gun reform other than you? That ship sailed here in NBR on another thread that is now deleted. And, I was all for correct gun legislation. BUT, as I stated above - I love how NBR simply waits to pounce and say "you're wrong again". I laugh.

oh and by the way, your australia example isn't entirely accurate either.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/865295#vp_2

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

but if you have a source to share that shows otherwise please post it up so we all can evaluate it.

Who's talking gun reform other than you? That ship sailed here in NBR on another thread that is now deleted. And, I was all for correct gun legislation. BUT, as I stated above - I love how NBR simply waits to pounce and say "you're wrong again". I laugh.

you're providing a lot of info to support your case. you were the one that brought up the idea that obama blamed guns for the dallas shooting.

if you're all for correct gun legislation why do you consistently rally against the idea of it?

re waiting to pounce and say you're wrong, that's what happens in debates, point and counterpoint. one person makes a claim and then the other tries to prove it wrong with evidence to show that or to support their claim. that's the whole essence of debate, proving one's own stance and disproving the other person's stance. it's not like people are sitting here waiting to say you're wrong, we're taking issue with your stance and the information you're providing.