Another Shooting In America?
Comments
-
An effort to show the stupidity of allowing assault rifles. No fllipen intent.cafcsinger said:
Helpful comment.ShootersHillGuru said:Personally I wouldn't own an assault rifle anyway. 500 rounds per minute. I mean what's the point. Get an Uzi at 1700 rounds per minute is the way to protect yourself and your loved ones.
0 -
Does anybody believe that ANY ban, on ANY type of gun, would cause people to turn them in? What would be left after law-abiding people complied?1
-
You are absolutely right. The boat has long sailed in the respect of doing anything positive to this lunacy in the USA.limeygent said:Does anybody believe that ANY ban, on ANY type of gun, would cause people to turn them in? What would be left after law-abiding people complied?
0 -
It's about the same as car accidents, but far fewer than accidental poisonings. Stupidity and carelessness to blame in most cases. Maybe we should ban cars as well?McBobbin said:
How many accidental deaths and injuries a year in the homes of law abiding gun owners? They might drop for a startlimeygent said:Does anybody believe that ANY ban, on ANY type of gun, would cause people to turn them in? What would be left after law-abiding people complied?
0 -
And that is the US's problem.limeygent said:
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:
That wasn't the question as you know.limeygent said:
I have no need for one myself.SELR_addicks said:
So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?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.
There is no need for Assult rifles and they are used by mass murderers but that is trumped by people should be able to own them if they want to and it's their right".
A sensible step would be to ban assult rifles but allow you to keep your shot gun. You would actually be safer but the absolutist policy of no gun control whatsoever is more important.
Even though gun freedom isn't working for the US and gun control has been shown to work as in Australia nothing must ever be allowed to stop your nice friends owning an assult rifle.9 -
People caught with guns thereafter are automatically criminals... same as in Australia after they banned guns and have not suffered a spate of shootings of innocent civilians since despite their law abiding citizenship being unarmed.limeygent said:Does anybody believe that ANY ban, on ANY type of gun, would cause people to turn them in? What would be left after law-abiding people complied?
1 -
If nobody had a gun, obviously nobody would get shot. If everyone had a gun would nobody get shot? Or would the overall murder rate be lower than if nobody had a gun but used knives? Just wondering what the optimum gun ownership rate to preserving human life might be.0
-
That the existing gun laws are so flouted should be an indication of how effective any new laws would be.0
-
For all that limeygent is getting unrelenting stick and incredulity here, bear in mind that his position is very typical of Americans, and moderate compared to many. Terrifying but sadly true1
- Sponsored links:
-
The gun companies and gun lobby must be in disbelieving wonder that the right to bear arms is still considered a legitimate rationale for this lunacy.0
-
How many intruders have there been in your neighbourhood in the last year that have killed or assaulted the residents?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.0 -
New laws worked in the UK after Dunblane. They worked in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting. Mass shootings in both those countries are now shocking by way of being so rare. In America, it's another week, another story. And the difference is not the laws, it's the fact that in America people try to justify deadly modern weapons by rules written several hundred years ago when a gun meant musket, not assault rifle.limeygent said:That the existing gun laws are so flouted should be an indication of how effective any new laws would be.
8 -
The shooter allegedly pledged allegiance to Daesh. Trump says that this shooting proves his point. Trump will try to use the shooting for his own political ends and to deflect any criticism away from the country's gun laws.
Daesh wants Trump as this fits into their aim of dividing all people between christian / muslim as they think this is leading to a big confrontation, which they think will win. Daesh are an Anti human death cult. Daesh also want Trump to win, as his actions and what he says, creates further division, which is what Daesh are all about. The hardline conservatives / hawks on both sides feed off each others actions for their own ends.0 -
BBC have just reported that he allegedly called 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS0
-
Oh the irony of ringing that number0
-
ISIS have said on their news network that they claim responsibility.0
-
I cannot see how anyone can justify owning an assault rifle in peacetime in a " civilised" country. If I was somewhere where I felt the need to own one for my safety, then I would not consider I was in a civilised place. Luckily I am somewhere that I don't feel requires me to arm myself to the teeth for that level of protection.
The other point I would like to make, is what level of gun is unacceptable - machine gun, howitzer, where is the line drawn?
Mass shootings in America will not stop, until there is a major shift in US thinking on their gun laws.0 -
I haven't read all the posts on here but it seems that the FBI/Law Enforcement Agencies were aware that the gunman had made Anti Gay/pro islamic extremist statements more than once but even so was allowed to keep his weapons as he 'worked in security'
This incident could well play into the hands of Donald Trump .. Islamic extremism/ murderer married to a Muslim immigrant .. the USA continues to be in a mess without any type of clean up in sight0 -
Which they would do, true or not. This is exactly the kind of situation that plays right into their hands.Karim_myBagheri said:ISIS have said on their news network that they claim responsibility.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
yeah bit of 'street cred' for isis either way.0
-
And so the circle gets more vicious!! Love visiting the country on holiday but it really is a barmpot of a nation.limeygent said:Protection against those who would do me harm, obviously, and is my right.
0 -
the vast majority of assault rifles have a much greater muzzle velocity and larger calibre ammunition than your Uzi .. Uzis are deadly in the right circumstances but as a rule, the good old assault rifle gives far more killing potential bang for your buckShootersHillGuru said:Personally I wouldn't own an assault rifle anyway. 500 rounds per minute. I mean what's the point. Get an Uzi at 1700 rounds per minute is the way to protect yourself and your loved ones.
0 -
-
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?0 -
-
The sole purpose of a gun is to inflict massive injury or death to whatever it is fired at. There is zero reason for anyone to own one. Plus im pretty sure the constitution has been amended once or twice so the right to bear arms bollocks doesnt really stand up to scrutiny1
-
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.Chizz said:@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family2 -
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.cafcdave123 said:
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.Chizz said:@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.0 -
By the law he has prevented a crime as the intruder had no legal right or reason to be in his home, the intruder would have also entered the house knowing that the home owners could very well be armed.Chizz said:
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.cafcdave123 said:
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.Chizz said:@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.0
