Hmm.. I think it is true. Newton's third law, if the bullet had enough force to knock someone over the recoil would knock the shooter over.

I live in Central America and work in most of the worst countries on that list.

Provided you are reasonably careful it is quite safe.

Agreed!

Also agree. A terrorist has a cause, and all that jazz. This bloke seems to have just gone fking daft.

Firstly, I'll start by saying that I mean no disrespect to any of the killed or injured in this latest massacre.


OK, here's my beef

Obama is making the visit, the queen is sending her sympathy and the local mayor is speaking on every channel the TV stations can provide. Everyone is shocked an appalled by what has happened to these 12 people. But hey, this number and more are getting killed every day in Syria. Children, young families, elderly people the whole shebang. Yet the West sits back and discusses the situation.

A life is a life and they are being taken every day by Bashar Assad and he continues to draw breath. The world is seriously out of balance.

Maybe I am, but I know what is right and wrong. What he is being allowed to do is wrong. Very very wrong.

Educate me; why could millions die if handled wrong?

I love how the poor mother of the six year old who has died does not yet know that her daughter is dead, and yet the media think it appropriate to plaster it all over national and world news so that every other fker knows before she does.

That is exactly the first thing I thought as well.

Sad that the child was murdered, but what was she doing there in the first place?

haven't read the whole thread but back to the argument about gun control laws that was going on earlier. there are any number of reasons why these massacres occur, but at the end of the day, none of them would be possible without access to guns, and not just any guns, but serious guns like assault rifles.

here in australia, the port arthur massacre in the late 90's saw over 30 people killed with what i believe was a similar weapon to one of those used here. the government response saw hundreds of thousands of guns destroyed under a gun buy back scheme, where owners hand in their weapons and are paid to do so.

in other words, even if there are plenty of guns out there in circulation, it only takes a bit of imagination to take them out of the equation. as far as i'm aware, this guy got his guns legally, and so do many people who commit these crimes. this still leaves the criminal element, and it is harder to control guns that fall into their hands. but then reducing them in the general population would presumably cause them to be harder to get for criminals, as a flow on effect.

even in a stiflingly conservative environment such as the US, where common sense laws such as this are infuriatingly hard to implement, some sort of moderate and less extreme measure could be put in place. i mean at least have some sort of blank restriction on the more serious sorts of weaponry such as assault rifles, what possible valid reason can anyone have for owning one of these in a domestic situation?

at the end of the day, it comes down to restricting guns, and keeping the few who do own them on a very short leash. you can look to other ways of reducing these sorts of incidents, but you'd be wasting your time and they'll happen over, and over, and over.