Another Shooting In America?

limeygent said:

Protection against those who would do me harm, obviously, and is my right.

and here lies the problem when it comes to changing the gun law. even though it seems mad but these shootings actually give more weight to the argument of keeping the guns for protection against these people who shoot innocent people.

limeygent said:

It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

The same argument that says teachers should have guns to prevent school shootings?

limeygent said:

Protection against those who would do me harm, obviously, and is my right.

Perhaps. But for all the times people say that they do/should carry guns for protection, how many times have we EVER heard of some nutter on a rampage being stopped by Joe Q. Public with a gun he happened to be carrying? How many times have law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens actually stopped these lunatics, also gun-carrying? Can't think of any.

There is a slight difference between 'self defence' and a weapon that can fire five hundred rounds in a minute though.

limeygent said:

It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

Thought about giving that a lol but it's a long way from being funny.

Aren't there something like 6 billion guns in circulation in the US? It's all too late.

limeygent said:

No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?

Obama to address the nation at 6.30 our time......again. Hope, in this election year, he really hammers congress and the NRA for their resistance to sensible gun laws throughout his Presidency.

Are we talking about the country where nearly everyone can run round with a gun but in some places you can't even get into a bar let alone by a beer without identification.

Red_in_SE8 said:

Obama to address the nation at 6.30 our time......again. Hope, in this election year, he really hammers congress and the NRA for their resistance to sensible gun laws throughout his Presidency.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Henry Irving said:

limeygent said:

SELR_addicks said:

limeygent said:

No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?

I have no need for one myself.

That wasn't the question as you know.

I see no need for civilians to own these weapons, but I know people who have them. I wouldn't deny these people the right to own them because I don't see them (the people) as dangerous.

Henry Irving said:

limeygent said:

SELR_addicks said:

limeygent said:

No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?

I have no need for one myself.

That wasn't the question as you know.

But that is a typical answer from those who believe that any restrictions are a threat to their gun ownership.

limeygent said:

Henry Irving said:

limeygent said:

SELR_addicks said:

limeygent said:

No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?

I have no need for one myself.

That wasn't the question as you know.

I see no need for civilians to own these weapons, but I know people who have them. I wouldn't deny these people the right to own them because I don't see them (the people) as dangerous.

But that's the thing with mental/ emotional health....it can deteriorate over a short space of time with devastating effects and possibly impercebtibly to those around them.

I am sure there may well be a correlation of the stereotypical loner who's family may have concerns about their mental state before they've gone on a sickening rampage but I would bet there will be a good number whos friends and family will have had no idea what was going through their minds leading up to stuff like this.

How many times do the parents of these perpetrators come across genuinely shocked and give the "Had no idea they were capable" line. By having access to automatic weapons whether legally or by proliferation in a nation where ownership of firearms is constitutional then it's a ticking time bomb for every disturbed individual who's had enough and decides to go out in their own twisted blaze of glory for their warped cause.