Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
Corpulent Tosser said:
YankeePorker said:
Funk said:
America needs to instigate gun control - we know it can work because it did in Australia.
Hell of a job that. I think that the estimate for the number of guns in the hands of the general public in the US is around 250 million. The toothpaste is well and truly out of the tube.
) then they would stock up on bullets. The fact that they want to stock up means even they believe it will have an impact.Then people will say, but that means only the criminals will get all the bullets and guns and not law abiding US citizens. But if you look at the UK, since guns were tightened up the use of imitation firearms is the one area where it's increased a lot, because they are easier to get and if the criminals get caught less of a penalty. I guess spree killings down the local Uk primary school with an imitation firearm is not that effective though... which is a good thing.
Shall we talk about accidental firearm fatalities in the USA per 100 000 people compared to the UK for all people killed from firearms for all reasons? Accidental firearm deaths in the USA is something nobody who supports guns can come up with an argument to say it is not really bad. The best they can manage is "with proper training..."
The problem is that guns are not just militia and self defence, they are also a social pastime. Hence why a kid can blow someones head off using an Uzi down the range which is called Burgers and Bullets. Or was it Hot dogs and Holsters?
Do a google search for "Dog shoots man" and see how many are in the USA compared to the rest of the world. Do US dogs have less background checks than in the UK? My dog Patch passed all his and now has a .44 Magnum. I've not been shot once. Having said that our cat Chester is still up the tree wearing a bullet proof vest and waving a white flag with 6 holes in it.
And people still try to defend it as "perfectly ok because somebody in a tricorn hat said it was" Though the second amendment is not even good English to be honest.....
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 2nd October 13:31
Gandahar said:
If you banned all bullets apart from .22 ( perhaps a clever move )
And people still try to defend it as "perfectly ok because somebody in a tricorn hat said it was" Though the second amendment is not even good English to be honest.....
Standard NATO assault rifle calibre is .223 in old money. Small calibre bullets can still kill very effectively. ) And people still try to defend it as "perfectly ok because somebody in a tricorn hat said it was" Though the second amendment is not even good English to be honest.....
The 2nd amendment is a fairly clear right to form local self-defence forces; how it got twisted into "every JoeSchmo has the right to pretend he is John Wayne" is not entirely clear, but it appears to have taken root in the 1960s.
Bluebarge said:
Gandahar said:
If you banned all bullets apart from .22 ( perhaps a clever move )
And people still try to defend it as "perfectly ok because somebody in a tricorn hat said it was" Though the second amendment is not even good English to be honest.....
Standard NATO assault rifle calibre is .223 in old money. Small calibre bullets can still kill very effectively. ) And people still try to defend it as "perfectly ok because somebody in a tricorn hat said it was" Though the second amendment is not even good English to be honest.....
Funk said:
The links with the sub-human scum on 4chan who goaded him on clearly show he felt ostracised by his peers and outside of the norms of human interaction. It may be stretching it but 4chan technically are an 'organised group' who advocated his actions as a 'beta' in this situation.
It's not stretching it, at all. You're completely and utterly off base.He wasn't a terrorist. That's why he wasn't labelled a terrorist. It is, to be frank, very clearly apparent.
The Americans have already accepted a restriction on their right to bear arms. No individual in the USA is allowed to have their own nuclear warhead, or thermo nuclear device, even if they could afford it. No one complains about this. No one thinks not being able to have their own nuclear missile is an infringement of their constitutional rights.
When the 2nd amendment was written, arms were single shot muskets. You had to load up with gunpowder and insert your ball bearing between each shot. No one had any concept of semi automatic weapons, let alone fully automatic weapons.
There is no way the founding fathers would have sanctioned handing out guns that can fire 100 rounds in a few seconds to any old Hicksville inadequate redneck who fancied one.
With great power comes great responsibility. Guns have great power, but they've chosen to give them out like sweets to f
king morons.
When the 2nd amendment was written, arms were single shot muskets. You had to load up with gunpowder and insert your ball bearing between each shot. No one had any concept of semi automatic weapons, let alone fully automatic weapons.
There is no way the founding fathers would have sanctioned handing out guns that can fire 100 rounds in a few seconds to any old Hicksville inadequate redneck who fancied one.
With great power comes great responsibility. Guns have great power, but they've chosen to give them out like sweets to f
king morons.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The Americans have already accepted a restriction on their right to bear arms. No individual in the USA is allowed to have their own nuclear warhead, or thermo nuclear device, even if they could afford it. No one complains about this. No one thinks not being able to have their own nuclear missile is an infringement of their constitutional rights.
That's the comical aspect of it. Part of their justification is to stop the state when it decides to attack its own citizens and take over the country it is already in charge of - a highly probable scenario vs all the death currently caused... The same state that has tanks, planes, drones etc. The citizens of the US have no contingency these aspects. Why is that not a breach of the second amendment?
"Amendments can't be repealed", is another one (except when prohibition was!).
dudleybloke said:
Chicago gets up to 33 shooting deaths every weekend. Mainly with illegally held weapons.
Perhaps not every weekend, eh? 2014 deaths were around the 400 mark, so averaging around 8 per week. Horrifying, obviously, but not quite at the level you imply.http://homicides.suntimes.com/2014/12/28/chicagos-...
longblackcoat said:
dudleybloke said:
Chicago gets up to 33 shooting deaths every weekend. Mainly with illegally held weapons.
Perhaps not every weekend, eh? 2014 deaths were around the 400 mark, so averaging around 8 per week. Horrifying, obviously, but not quite at the level you imply.http://homicides.suntimes.com/2014/12/28/chicagos-...
longblackcoat said:
Perhaps not every weekend, eh? 2014 deaths were around the 400 mark, so averaging around 8 per week. Horrifying, obviously, but not quite at the level you imply.
http://homicides.suntimes.com/2014/12/28/chicagos-...
I did say up to.http://homicides.suntimes.com/2014/12/28/chicagos-...
And this is just one city.
creampuff said:
GravelMachineGun said:
Not this again.
I'm a Muslim and I am sick of hearing this.
He didn't have a particular agenda, other than being a nutter. I would not call a lone muslim killer with no particular objective a terrorist either.I'm a Muslim and I am sick of hearing this.
I wouldn't call this murderer a terrorist either.
Gandahar said:
Bluebarge said:
Gandahar said:
If you banned all bullets apart from .22 ( perhaps a clever move )
And people still try to defend it as "perfectly ok because somebody in a tricorn hat said it was" Though the second amendment is not even good English to be honest.....
Standard NATO assault rifle calibre is .223 in old money. Small calibre bullets can still kill very effectively. ) And people still try to defend it as "perfectly ok because somebody in a tricorn hat said it was" Though the second amendment is not even good English to be honest.....
.22LR is another kettle of fish. That is quite low powered, even if it does have the same diameter. It is a much shorter bullet. Everybody has .22LRs. Boy scouts use .22LRs. My 8 year old niece has a single shot .22LR rifle. It's pink.
Edited by creampuff on Friday 2nd October 14:49
La Liga said:
hat's the comical aspect of it. Part of their justification is to stop the state when it decides to attack its own citizens and take over the country it is already in charge of - a highly probable scenario vs all the death currently caused...
The same state that has tanks, planes, drones etc. The citizens of the US have no contingency these aspects. Why is that not a breach of the second amendment?
"Amendments can't be repealed", is another one (except when prohibition was!).
Yeah, in this scenario, I always wonder who is going to decide when the government has become tyrannical and rally these people to rise up against them.The same state that has tanks, planes, drones etc. The citizens of the US have no contingency these aspects. Why is that not a breach of the second amendment?
"Amendments can't be repealed", is another one (except when prohibition was!).
Because apparently Tim McVeigh wasn't that person.
You know, the mass murderer who genuinely believed he was fighting a war against a tyrannical government who wanted to take away his weapons...
longblackcoat said:
creampuff said:
My 8 year old niece has a single shot .22LR rifle. It's pink.
Hey kids! Guns are toys!!!! Pink 'n' girly too!!!!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff