Canada Edmonton: Eight killed in 'senseless mass murder'

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

Seven adults and two children have been found dead in the Canadian city of Edmonton after what police called a "senseless mass murder".

One of the dead is believed to have killed himself. Police are not looking for any other suspects and are treating the deaths as domestic violence.
...
But when they returned at about midnight after receiving new information they found seven bodies - three women, two men and two children.

In the early hours of Tuesday morning, they found a body matching the description of the suicidal male at a restaurant 25 miles (40km) north-east of Edmonton.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30627630

[1step]

1. Canada's becoming more like US

That's not something to crow about.

[treestar]

6. Thats a leap

gun control is Canada is stricter than in the US, so how he got the gun is a question.

[1step]

7. Yes

But he still got it, sadly.

[Recursion]

8. Canada is still relatively highly-armed

It's odd: both Canada and the US have higher than average guns per capita, while the US has much higher than average deaths per gun and Canada much lower than average deaths per gun.

[treestar]

9. That's interesting.

Says something about the cultures of each.

[Shamash]

11. Hush!

It's all about the guns and only about the guns. Our culture, the way we raise our children and social attitudes are completely irrelevant when it comes to reducing firearm deaths. If we simply remove those demon-infested guns from civilian hands, everyone will suddenly be filled with spirits of goodness and compassion and all violence in this country will cease.

Well, once we get rid of all those demon-infested sweaters at Goodwill, anyway...

[laundry_queen]

13. Well this particular gun

was a handgun and those are fairly tightly regulated, which does make a difference. This gun was registered in 1997 but was reported stolen later. So this was a stolen handgun. More guns always equals more deaths, and this is a prime example of why.

[Shamash]

14. As I've pointed out elsewhere

Both the firearms homicide and overall homicide rate in Vermont is about the same as it is in England (some variance from year to year, but pretty close). In Vermont, no permit is needed for concealed or open carry, no background check is needed for private sales and it is perfectly legal to carry a gun into a bar. In England, all guns are tightly controlled and pistol possession is more or less illegal (to the extent that the British Olympic pistol team had to leave the country in order to practice).

So my point on culture being a more significant factor than availability still stands. It is just that doing a long-term adjustment to "us" is not as morally satisfying as pointing a finger at "them", nor does it make for good sound bites to fit into a 30-second campaign ad.

[laundry_queen]

22. Um, I did some reading

and I'm not sure where your stats are coming from. A link would be nice so I can compare it to my research. I disagree culture is a more significant factor. It's a piece of the puzzle, but not the most significant one. Right now, people are dying from guns, and culture change takes generation. We can do something right now to change the death rate, but some people choose not to because possession of an inanimate object is more important to them than the lives of their friends, neighbors and fellow humans.

[Shamash]

24. How do you figure that?

I am curious as to the methodology behind your disagreement. If two areas with radically different gun availability have about the same firearms crime rate, and areas within the same country (the US) have widely varying crime rates despite uniform federal gun laws, how do you figure that gun availability is the most important factor? If I can buy as many pistols as I want in Vermont and carry them virtually anywhere, and I can't buy a pistol at all in England, and yet the two have a comparable firearm homicide rate and overall homicide rate, then assuming availability is the biggest factor requires more than a statement of "disagreement" to be considered credible.

If you just want to say "I have no basis for my belief and refuse to change it despite any evidence to the contrary" then I understand. This means you have no rational basis for what you believe and the discussion is over. If on the other hand, you do have a solid argument to dispute my assessment that culture is a major factor, then I would love to hear it. As an aside, in addition to overall culture I believe there is economic opportunity, education, and other factors that reduce the appeal of crime (violent and otherwise), but which require political and actual capital to implement.

But if you really just want a quick fix with proven results and no votes by a Republican-majority Congress required, there have been programs in the US where the firearm homicide rate in a city (the capital of Connecticut) was dropped by 40% in one year, without banning any type of firearm or affecting regular gun owners in the least. And if someone's primary concern was decreasing the death rate, working to get programs like this implemented in other cities would probably be faster and save more lives than trying to get rid of the >99.9% of guns that are not and never will cause injury or death to anyone.

link

[laundry_queen]

25. Read my post

I'm saying the firearms death rate is different. I'd like to see your source for 'comparable' rates. Until you show me your source for 'comparable' rates, then I must conclude that you are making up statistics to support your view, because those stats are not what I found.

[Shamash]

26. Oh, since you put it that way

Fair enough. You have assumed that I am a liar because I have not provided links to back up my statement. Which is completely different than your assessment of the situation...which you have provided no links for.

So by your standards, I guess it is perfectly fair for me to assume you are making shit up to support your view? I was simply assuming you were shallow and biased rather than mendacious, but if I can straight up call you a liar and have you approve of that tactic, I can work with that.

And while we're dealing with social issues, is assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is lying, an attitude that you consider productive for everyone to have? I just want to get a feel for what you consider an ideal world, and right now we have:

1) no one should have a gun
2) anyone who disagrees with you is a liar with an agenda

I'm sold. I can't see any conflict or violence ever arising in Laundrytopia...

Vermont population, 2010: 625,745
US Census link

Vermont homicides, 2010: 7
FBI link

Vermont per capita homicides based on above: 1.12 per 100,000 population

United Kingdom population, 2010: 62,300,000
UK Office for National Statistics link

United Kingdom homicides, 2010: 714
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime link (XLSX file)

United Kingdom per capita homicides based on above: 1.14 per 100,000 population

Note the nearly identical homicide rates despite the vast and previously mentioned difference in firearm availability (according to other sources (which I might be lying about!) Vermont gun ownership is something like 42% and UK gun ownership is 1.34%). So, a difference in gun ownership by a factor of thirty made a negligible difference in the murder rate. A difference in availability and ownership did not keep people from getting murdered in these two areas, it just altered the proportion of the methods. So is your basic thesis a)"as long as we can reduce the number of people getting murdered with guns, who cares if criminals take up the slack with other weapons"? Or b) are you concerned about reducing the total number of people who are murdered, of which the people murdered with guns is a subset? Because only one of these two things actually provides a net benefit to society.

I repeat, cultural differences are more important than availability. Otherwise, rural areas of the US that are awash in firearms and have a proportionately higher rate of ownership would have a higher murder rate than cities with strict gun control and a smaller percentage of ownership, while it turns out the opposite is largely the case (unless I am making that up, too).

Are the US Census, UK Office of National Statistics, the FBI and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime objective enough data sources for you, or am I still "making up statistics to support my view"?

[laundry_queen]

27. Just as I thought.

You won't discuss gun deaths and you prefer insulting me with names and sarcasm. Typical. All you can mention is homicide rates. I could argue that the UK would have higher homicide rates if they had better gun availability so your "it's just proportional differences!" is laughable. It's also pretty silly and ethnocentric for you to argue that cultural differences are the most important and then compare your state to another country with a very different culture. And then bring up the urban/rural thing, ignoring that the UK is far more urban than rural.

You may be drawing your stats from reputable sites, but you need work on how to interpret them, that's for sure. You asserted gun homicides were the same for both places, and then came back with total homicide statistics. Come back when you are prepared to discuss gun deaths and can discern the difference between gun homicides and total homicides. Actually, no, don't come back. I'm done, as it's clear why you are here. I wonder if you've posted about anything else? Nevermind. I searched.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Over the past 13 years, Vermont's homicide rate is about 2.0, England & Wales about 1.3

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/2013ExternalReports/287659.pdf (166 homicides in last 13 years, Vermont population 627,000 = 2.0/100,000 per year)
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html (9760 homicides in last 13 years, England & Wales population 57 million = 1.3/100,000 per year)

and, of course, Vermont is rural, while England and Wales are urban. On the whole, homicides are more common in urban regions.

[Ken Burch]

2. A "senseless mass murder"?

Last edited Wed Dec 31, 2014, 12:28 AM - Edit history (1)

As opposed to the sensible kind?

[daleo]

16. Killing someone for ten million dollars is wrong

But it can be seen as rational.

Murder-suicide has to be senseless, almost by definition. Whatever goal or purpose the killer had for the murder, is negated by the suicide.

[olddad56]

18. is there any other kind?

[JEFF9K]

3. Few mass murders are sensible.

[shenmue]

4. Very sad

[brush]

5. Canada, not you too.

Seems this gun craziness is seeping north.

[1step]

10. .

[LiberalElite]

12. In the U.S. that would be

just another day.

[Johnny Rash]

15. Gangs related violence has been on the increase for a while, now!

I guess, the Harper Government can't hide the obvious, anymore!

[daleo]

17. This appears to be a domestic killing

Details are still sparse, but it looks like it is family related.

[Johnny Rash]

19. My point, exactly: It's Family related!

The Harper Government is well known for downplaying the Obvious: Why should this incident be any different?

[RussBLib]

20. one thing that never seems to be asked...

...is, why do these people (usually men) feel that they have no recourse to settle a conflict without using a gun?

What is it in their make-up, or the way they were brought up, that tells them that a gun is the only way out?

I have guns in my home. I have had some frustrating experiences, but never have I thought about settling things with my guns.

No one seems to ask why these people can't seem to handle conflict without resorting to violence?

[Skittles]

21. for gun humping paranoid assholes, violence *IS* an answer