Mass Shooting in Nova Scotia April 18/19, 2020: misogyny and gun violence

travissmith wrote:

Ever heard of assault webbing and a sling? Leaving weapons at your feet should be an arrestable offence.

I have. The pouches on webbing are placed on a belt around the hips. By your hips and around back. Very uncomfortable to drive with and sit down with. Webbing is predominately used for long range patrolling and patrolling while you're wearing a large assault bag or rucksack.

Slings can attach the rifle in front of your body, which gets in the way and makes eating at a table near impossible. Slings also put the werapon on your back.  Good luck eating breakfast at Cora's with someone sitting next to you and you have bulging pouches on your hips and a rifle on your back sticking out the side.

What about using a tiny bathroom stall with all that gear? Hang a loaded gun and 30 pounds of gear on that tiny stall-door hook?

Quote:

Better to die fighting then.

No step on snek

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So I wish someone would change the title of this thread so we can talk about misogyny and other important issues instead of fucking gun control.

This song came across my FB feed and it moved me. Remember this conversation should be about this young woman and other victims and how to end the misogynist culture that gives rise to these women haters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQoD8xtanw&list=LLGhMmnhlCEhybKqymjooIG...

..nice

I referenced gays because you had that line about Israel moving away from "family values"-I assumed you had an issue with the country embracing some very mild LGBTQ rights measures.

Don't want to carry this discussion out any further in this thread-it could be the subject of a thread of its own-but my last things on this here are:

1) The state can't force people to have large families.

2) I know a lot of trans/non-binary people.  They are just living their personal truths and no good would come of the trauma that would be inflicted on them by forcing them to try and pretend to be their "dead genders".

3) To clarify for everybody else- if they didn't know-what "travis" was talking about, Sikh troops were in Haifa in 1918 during the liberation of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire.  The reference had nothing to do with the events of 1947-48.

4) The reason I asked about "travis"s identity was that, from what he was saying, I thought he might be FN, Inuit or Metis.

WTF does any of this have to do with the latest massacre by a misogynist that took place in  Nova Scotia.

Quote:

 
so they need to be take away from us 

Have fun trying: https://youtu.be/Eb79GpJbAy8

ਚਾਰੇਜੁਗਕਹਾਣੀਚੱਲਗਤੇਗਦੀ||
The tale of the Sword will reverberate across the Four Ages.

Without weapons, How will we stop cow slaughter?

Paladin1 wrote:

travissmith wrote:

Paladin you’re clearly trolling at this point

Yes, I don't expect the cross-dressers in the CAF to oppress shit anytime soon, considering they had to run to their man caves to record memoirs after at most a few dozen platoon level assaults by the Taliban.

What the hell happened to this place?  Back in the day, we had GOOD gun control topics on rabble babble, goldarn it all anyways!

This......this is just sad.

And in my opinion, a pistol calibre carbine along with a sidearm that shoots the same ammunition is a pretty good combination.  As long as your PCC is a lever action with wood on it and your handgun is a six shooter, that is.

All the guns I want to own are Prohibited.  Life is suffering.

Thread title changed, so knock it off with the gun porn and stick to the relevant points of the topic. Travissmith, you're new here so I'll cut you some slack. Please read our babble policy,  a policy you agreed to when you requested an account with rabble.ca. This is a progressive site, so sentiments that echo those of paranoid anti-government white militia gun fetishists are not welcome here.  Lots of other places on the Internet where you can indulge, but not here.

NDPP]</p> <p>[quote=travissmith]</p> <p>I don’t represent any culture but I’d only have full faith in the same men who liberated my Haifa.</p> <p> </p> <p>[quote=NDPP wrote:

Which men 'liberated' your Haifa from whom?

It was a reference to the Great War, when Sikh troops took Haifa for the Entente(they were part of the British forces), putting the city under British military control as opposed to its previous status as part of the rapidly-collapsing Ottoman Empire.  "travis" characterized this as liberation-it could also be taken as simply representing the transfer of that city from one empire to another.

Sikhs played no significant role in the Arab/Zionist conflict of 1947-48.

You weren't the only one who was wondering what the hell "travis" was talking about there.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-government-gun-control-friday-1.5549969

Doubleplusgood!!   Looks like 11 more guns innocent of any crime and likely rarely used in any crime will be added to the big bad Prohibited list.  I for one would like to thank Big Brother and all those hardworking comrades at the Ministry of Love for reducing Canadian gun crime by 73%!!!

I wonder how many lives would have been saved in Nova Scotia if police would have put a warning out sooner. Better ban X types of firearms to make it look like we're doing something.

Hand guns are made for killin',
they ain't no good for nothin' else.
And if you like to drink your whiskey
you might even shoot yourself.
So why don't we dump 'em people
to the bottom of the sea
before some ol' fool come around here,
wanna shoot either you or me.

lynyrd skynyrd, saturday night special

Paladin1 wrote:

Resounding victory as 1500 models and variants of firearms are now banned for legal use.

These guns are absolutely not used for hunting!  (except for indigenous people who might use them for hunting, and other select individuals who use them for hunting, but really they're not for hunting.  But hey can keep them for 2 years or longer)

The guns are absolutely too dangerous to be kept in civilian hands. People in possession of them have 2 years to decide to destroy them, turn them in for cash, deactivate them and keep them or maybe be grandfathered and just keep the fully functional assault weapons in their basement until they die (where they could be stolen?). As I said, too dangerous to own.

Many guns no one has really heard of , strange varients or ones people agree no one even owns, are banned.

Not banned is the SKS rifle. A semi-automatic gun (a military weapon which AK47 replaced, still un ise in many militaries). The SKS was used in the 3 BC murders by 2 young men last year, Canadian Forces veteran who killed his wife and daughter, and a handful of other shootings. The $250 gun remains available at places like Canadian Tire.

Also not banned, the semi-automatic version of the Israel Army Assault rifle. I wonder what that's about.

 

Ask NDPP.  He'll tell you.   And tell you.   And tell you.  And....

The rate of firearms homicide by licensed individuals (analysing data from 1997 to 2010) was 0.60 per 100,000 compared to an average national homicide rate of 1.85 per 100,000.

Firearm licensed individuals are 1/3 less likely to commit murder than an average Canadian.

Using evidence based science, Hurtin Albertin and I are the least likely on this forum to commit murder.

For curiosity sake let me find some stats on domestic violence.

Also not on the banned list, the semi-automatic version of the Chinese Army assault rifle. I can still buy one at my favorite gas station.

I see a firearms petition going around has 82,000 signatures in just over 24 hours. I don't think Trudeaus "4 out of 5 Canadians" lie is going to go very far.

Bill Blair is doing some hard core back pedaling after lawyers reviewing the OIC are saying it appears the wording means that many hunting shotguns will be banned too.

So some hunters can keep their semi-automatic assault weapons for hunting while hunters with hunting guns that weren't a threat (apparently) appear to fall on the banned list. Ouch.

Moving threads

eastnoireast wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

The Prime Minister made the April 18/19 attack about guns and not women.

 

as did the this thread title, originally.  

i see that misfit has just opened a spankin' new gun ban thread, so howsabout that's where gun stuff gets talked about now, not here.

Hi Eastnoireast

It wil be interesting to see a thread about a mass shooting, mysogony and gun violence not discuss guns but lets see where it goes. I'll move my response to Meg for you ;)

This article highlights that the RCMP is a big part of the problem. If what this women says is correct then this mass murder should never have taken place. I think she should have told the RCMP he was planning a blockade of an oil facility and had illegal weapons. It would likely have got their attention unlike domestic abuse or murdered and mising women.

t began, Boe said, around 2004, not long after GW bought a house in Portapique.

They weren’t even in that house for a year when [GW’s partner] ran over to my house one day saying that Gabriel was beating her up and she was scared. She wanted to hide somewhere because he had blocked her car with his truck so she couldn’t get out. But she managed to get away from the house.

Boe said she told GW’s partner that she needed to get help, that there were “a lot of services” and “a lot of places” that would keep her safe. Boe said she was unable to convince her, because, according to Boe, GW’s partner said that there was no way, because he was going to kill her.

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/he-was-a-psychopath/

CBC Radio's As It Happens interviewed a woman who once lived in the house next door that he burner down. She claims that she was forced to sell the house and move because of his violence. She went to the RCMP about him and they did nothing.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5567781

This is her interview with Carol Off

She told the RCMP that he had illegal firearms. They did nothing.

NDPP wrote:

Like so many bad things no surprise to find out most of the murderous firepower the killer used came from Amerikkka.

Nor is it a surprise.

It's too bad we're consumed by irrelative information like what kind of gun he used and not why didn't the police act on credible complaints sooner.

And how are police uniforms and vehicles available to the public?

I read a book called Defending Battered Women on Trial by Elizabeth Sheehy. In the book she devotes an entire chapter to the failure of our police and legal system in protecting women who are trying to flee violence at home.
 

She uses the case of Bonnie Moody to prove her point. She was a woman who was assured by the police that if she charged her boyfriend with assault that she would be guaranteed protection. 

He was charged with assault and sentenced to three weeks in jail. She received a restraining order against him. While she was in the hospital he entered her room and got through to her by using some other person's name as his own. She dotted all her "i's", she crossed all her "t's". She persistently went to the police for help. They failed her at every turn.

He ended up shooting her female best friend and shooting the arm off her six year old daughter before taking his own life as her final punishment for leaving him.

According to the book, women who have children and have had to change their identity can be easily tracked down because their children are in the school system. Either their children receive no education and suffer because of reduced future opportunities or the women suffer because men are given liberty to terrorize women with little societal deterrence.

This is why I am angry with Trudeau's order in council. It was a cheap optical stunt to avoid having to tackle the deeper and more pervasive issues that women have very little protection and few options who need to safely flee violent men in their lives.

And it is like the men who drink or consume recreational drugs and then assault. In the Supreme Court decision of Daviault, severely intoxicated men have been granted constitutional rights to be held criminally not responsible for their actions when they assault while severely intoxicated. The Liberal government with Allan Rock as the Minister of Justice back in the 1990s, quickly enacted a section in the criminal code which made assaulting while intoxicated a criminal offence due to the public outrage at the Supreme Court decision. They knew that it would not stand up to constitutional scrutiny but they enacted the law anyway in order to make it look like they did something.
 

Now, today, we have men who are assaulting while intoxicated and some are being acquitted because of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that overlooked the reality that women should have a constitutional right not to be assaulted by intoxicated men. And Elizabeth Sheehy has shown that some judges are not properly educated on properly maintaining the Supreme Court's standards and are letting some men off the hook for assault when stricter standards should have been in place to determine extreme intoxication.

In an excerpt from her here on pages 603-5, she refers to a Stephen Allan Compton who was acquitted of sexual assault where the court records did not indicate that any outside professional testimony was called upon to prove that he met the threshold which was legally required to establish lack of responsibility for his actions.

In an Alberta case R vs Blair, Sheehy writes to the that the judge assessed a  lack of responsibility of the accused's part due to a two day drinking binge. The Supreme Court ruling of Daviault placed a burden of the balance of probabilities on the accused to prove the very high threshold was met by bringing in collaborative evidence like blood alcohol test results and qualified expert testimony to justify the argument of extreme intoxication. A judges own assessment based on a two day drinking binge would not sstisfy that legal requirement. 

I want to know how to fix laws that stick, that don't intentionally violate the constitution and actually does something that takes violence seriously?

I am sick and tired of cheap political theatrics.

I made an error in post 96. Her name was Bonnie Mooney. It was her twelve year old daughter who had her arm nearly shot off.

Elizabeth Sheehy in her book, Defending Battered Women on Trial, talks about how Mooney tried to sue the police and the federal and provincial Attorneys General who are responsible for the police. All but one of her attempts to hold them responsible for their alleged negligence were unsuccessful. The lawyer for the police and the Attorney General suggested that she was responsible for the violence because she didn't leave. He also argued that her boyfriend was a psychopath and therefore fell outside the norm of what is considered normal for men. Therefore his actions fell outside the scope of the police department. Pp 56-7.

Sheehy states that these two arguments "work together to insulate the police, lawyers, judges from legal responsibility for failing to protect women and to encourage us all, collectively, to look the other way..." p. 59.

She also writes, "Ann Jones argues that the question why a woman does not leave 'is not a real question but rather a judgment.' It transforms an immense social problem into a personal transaction and implies that 'help is available to worthy victims.'" p. 60.

Elizabeth Sheehy pointed out that Bonney Mooney was blamed for not leaving even though she actually did leave. It was the direct result of her leaving Kruska that he commuted his violent murder suicide rampage. Despite her many attempts to formally hold people in positions of authority accountable for failing to protect them  she ultimately failed to convince anyone that it was their job to prevent a man from being brutally violent.

The message of the rest of the book is, when the police do fail women who need help and women do kill, the police seem to automatically charge them with first degree murder. They fail to acknowledge the extreme torture these women endured and they fail to see any hint of self-defence or justifiable homicide in their actions. Converseley, men who kill their woman partners are often charged with a lesser sentence like second degree murder. It is as though police officers, many of whom are men, perceive the murder of women as being less a murder than the murder of a man. 

One such example that I am familiar with was a young woman who was killed by her fiancé in Saskatchewan. She was from my home town. People close to the father of the woman knew that she had phoned him twice that day pleading with him to come and get her because he was going to kill her. He got a call later that night by the RCMP telling him  that her daughter had been killed. According to the testimony in court, she suffered blunt force trauma to the head. He rolled her body up in plastic. He placed her body in behind the furnace. He fled the scene and was arrested on a bus heading out of province.  According to another article, he had a prior conviction of assault causing bodily harm on a 23 month old child. Article. He was charged with second degree murder and pled guilty to manslaughter.

We clearly see that battered women have little formal protection. Thr police seem to ignore violence against them. They downplay acts of violence against women. They trivialize their deaths when they are murdered by their male partners. It is as though women are solely responsible for the abuse that men inflict on them.  They seem to forget that women are people.

pages 86-87, Sheehy writes:

"Sherri Lee Guy attempted to secure police aid in Ottawa in 1995 before her common law partner shot and killed her." 

"Brenda Moreside in Alberta made desperate 9-1-1 calls in 2005 when her ex tried to break into her home. The police refused to attend even though Stanley Miller had a record for serious violent offences including manslaughter, 'because he was breaking into his own home.' Moreside was found murdered in her home in High Prairie."

"Lucie Gelinas reported in 2001 to Laval police, Days before she was murdered and her three friends injured, that her ex-boyfriend Jocelyn Hotte, an RCMP officer, was stocking and threatening to kill her. Her complaint was 'unfounded' and no report was even filed by the officers whom she contacted."

"In Calgary in 2003, Belarus Feteke repeatedly contacted the police in fear to report that her former husband was threatening to kill her and her three-year-old son. Her complaints were characterized as a chronic nuisance and no action was taken. Mother and son were both murdered by the husband who then killed himself."

"Sheila Amero, Gayle Hull, and Wynn Russo survived deadly attacks by their former partners and initiated civil suits against the police for failing to respond appropriately to their calls for help in the face of grave danger."

Now, with Nova Scotia, we are hearing the very same thing.

1. He was a psychopath-an exceptional deviation from the norm.

2. Why didn't she just leave?

3. The RCMP were simply unable to do anything. This was beyond their scope and ability to intervene.

Beyond the shock of the rampage and the number of people that were killed, and the odd peculiar nature of the imitation police cruiser, etc., this is going to be considered an oddity and an exception to the norm. The RCMP will claim that nothing could have been done. Some band aid measures will be out in place that won't ever be enforceable, they will be just guidelines for the RCMP to follow which don't legally bind them to any wrongdoing in future failures to protect women from violence.

I don't expect to see any real social awareness about any real and meaningful institutional accountability to result from this.

"A man comes to work and shoots 15 co-workers. And what does every news reporter say? 'He just cracked and went berserk! He snapped!' I am here to tell you that never, ever, has happened. That is a process coming to that kind of violence that is as detectible as water coming to a boil"-Safety Consultant Gavin De Becker.

We've heard horror stories in this thread like those posted by Misfit and Meg. I'm seriously scratching my head about why these things continue to happen. A classmate of the 2 boys who shot 3 people before shooting themselves in Northern Manitoba last year said that they had been joking about killing since they were 13. Before the Ilsa Vista shooting in California, the shooter's parents and social worker called law enforcement but law enforcement didn't do anything.

We know the red flags, and we have increased surveillance of the population. How are these kinds of incidents still falling through the cracks and being allowed to happen?