Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Drayno

Batman Shootings

349 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

None of the above

I am STAUNCHLY pro second. But I'm also the father and husband of a couple of wonderful people and as such would be willing to compromise IF a true compromise could be found that did not just set precedent for the next round of rights being usurped. There is room in the middle but the extremists from both sides keep the issue deadlocked. But if my choice is NO ownership versus unhindered ownership with no middle ground then I'll take my chances with ownership. And not to be argumentative of your point about hi power, hi capacity weapons but more people die from .22 caliber every year than any other kind of long gun.

The right to own guns of any sort for the entire United States isn't worth the life of one child. Not one.

If a complete ban would save the life of one person, it would be worth it.

And of course it would save the lives of many.

And for all those who think that private gun ownership is so important that it is worth the life of even one child, then they should ask themselves if they would willingly sacrifice their own child so that their fellow Americans could keep their guns.

There are some 'rights' that are are so important that they are worth fighting and even dying to protect.

This is not one of them.

The USA has gone beyond the point where it can "have it's cake and eat it" when it comes to gun ownership.

This level of gun ownership and ease of sourcing weapons is now for many reasons inextricably linked to the horrifying number of people killed by guns.

The reasons WHY so many people shoot each other in the USA might be many and complex but the bottom line is that access to weapons allows them to act. reduce the number of weapons out there and make it more difficult to get guns and fewer people will die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

People seem to forget that when the police entered the theater and realized an assault weapon was being used they radioed for help. Police are trained enough to know they can't match up with their pistols. Swat teams carry automatic assault weapons. It's a shame when the citizenry can out firepower the law. There is no reason for a citizen to need those kinds of weapons. After they defused the shooter's apartment, the police spokesman looked right into the camera in response to the reporter's question and said "You better believe we're mad". This is indeed a very volatile situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno

Sure, banning all private gun ownership could save lives..

But then the prohibition of guns would cause an influx of more gun-related deaths.

Not to mention, without the public owning guns, there would be absolutely no one to prevent a totalitarian take over, I might remind you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

I'm not saying we should ban private gun ownership. But I see no reason why a private citizen would need that kind of firepower to protect his home or his family from an intruder. Should we just started issuing these things to every household? Crying that everyone wants to ban gun ownership because someone says these types of weapons shouldn't be available to the average Joe is absurd. Legitimate, responsible gun ownership is practiced by hunters and private citizens everywhere. It's when you arm yourself to the teeth with the ability to attack the public that common sense has to prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socio

Seriously who wants to walk around with a gun 24/7 with the intention of being able to shoot anyone who may or may not threaten your survival. That sounds healthy

This guy:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/17/video-excellent-concealed-carrier-stops-an-armed-robbery/

Ah, sweet justice — drink it in, it always goes down smooth. There are few things that warm my heart quite so much as watching a lawfully armed citizen give a good lesson to a couple of bad guys who seek to threaten, intimidate, and possibly cause fatal bodily harm to others while undermining the rule of law. In an Internet cafe in Florida the other night, two armed robbers likely gained a newfound respect for the Second Amendment, the hard way:

You have to watch the video at the link, that old man popping off rounds at the two robbers then watch those two robbers crapping their pants as they run for their lives!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno

I'm not saying we should ban private gun ownership. But I see no reason why a private citizen would need that kind of firepower to protect his home or his family from an intruder. Should we just started issuing these things to every household? Crying that everyone wants to ban gun ownership because someone says these types of weapons shouldn't be available to the average Joe is absurd. Legitimate, responsible gun ownership is practiced by hunters and private citizens everywhere. It's when you arm yourself to the teeth with the ability to attack the public that common sense has to prevail.

I understand your reasoning.

I have just been around responsible, law-abiding, gun owners my entire life.

My grandpa, rest his soul, a former full-bird Colonel in the USAF, was quite armed to the teeth. He never had anything resembling a automatic rifle. But he did hold numerous bolt action rifles; including my .243, numerous shotguns, and sidearms - in fact, he had an entire gun closet. So, I can support your stance that, unless you were, or currently are in the armed services, it does seem a bit like overkill to own such powerful weapons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toadie

Is it just a power trip, ego booster to have a gun???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Is it just a power trip, ego booster to have a gun???

Not for most. Many people, including women, enjoy hunting and target practice. You have a right to protect your home and family, but if your neighbor sets up a machine gun nest and puts a missile launcher in his yard, he has issues. People don't need to have that kind of weaponry to accomplish a legitimate goal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter

I love gun ownership debates, rarely do you ever get so many people arguing over stuff they know little to nothing about.

How many people here actually know what an assault rifle is to begin with? I keep on seeing that assault rifles should be banned for private ownership for the USA but isn't in important to know what one is trying to ban.

An assault rifle is by definition a weapon that can be fired from the shoulder (has a buttstock), must have selective fire abilities, which means at least one semi auto along with a fully auto firing ability, has at intermediate-power cartridge, must have a magazine and not belt fed, and has a range of at least 300 meters. Such weapons can be bought legally in the USA, but they require a grade 3 gun permit which is rather hard and expensive to get and has extensive background checks before one is granted. That means guns that can only fire at semi-auto firing ability is not an assault rifle since they do not have the selective fire ability, which is what most people get since getting an assault rifle is so difficult.

Now that brings up banning semi-auto weapons, which would include a decent amount of hunting rifles, some shotguns, pistols, and what I feel most people want banned here the AR series of rifles, which honestly makes no sense to me.

The only difference between R-15 VTR Tactical (which is used to hunt varmint) and an AR-15 is the magazine, which can easily be expanded or reduced. I tried to post picture of both but it wouldn't let me for some reason.

Basically it comes down to people either wanting to ban all guns, or people wanting to ban guns that look like military weapons.

I would also like to point out that Switzerland gives all it males a military assault rifle, or an automatic pistol for officers, yet you never hear of Switzerland having gun problems despite how they are expected to keep their weapon and all needed equipment at home. Even once military service is finished since Switzerland has a militia based military if they decide to keep their weapons they send them to the weapon factory and have their full auto ability removed and can only be semi-auto, like most weapons in the USA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toadie

Is that what forums are for arguing about stuff people know little about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

I love gun ownership debates, rarely do you ever get so many people arguing over stuff they know little to nothing about.

How many people here actually know what an assault rifle is to begin with? I keep on seeing that assault rifles should be banned for private ownership for the USA but isn't in important to know what one is trying to ban.

An assault rifle is by definition a weapon that can be fired from the shoulder (has a buttstock), must have selective fire abilities, which means at least one semi auto along with a fully auto firing ability, has at intermediate-power cartridge, must have a magazine and not belt fed, and has a range of at least 300 meters. Such weapons can be bought legally in the USA, but they require a grade 3 gun permit which is rather hard and expensive to get and has extensive background checks before one is granted. That means guns that can only fire at semi-auto firing ability is not an assault rifle since they do not have the selective fire ability, which is what most people get since getting an assault rifle is so difficult.

Now that brings up banning semi-auto weapons, which would include a decent amount of hunting rifles, some shotguns, pistols, and what I feel most people want banned here the AR series of rifles, which honestly makes no sense to me.

The only difference between R-15 VTR Tactical (which is used to hunt varmint) and an AR-15 is the magazine, which can easily be expanded or reduced. I tried to post picture of both but it wouldn't let me for some reason.

Basically it comes down to people either wanting to ban all guns, or people wanting to ban guns that look like military weapons.

I would also like to point out that Switzerland gives all it males a military assault rifle, or an automatic pistol for officers, yet you never hear of Switzerland having gun problems despite how they are expected to keep their weapon and all needed equipment at home. Even once military service is finished since Switzerland has a militia based military if they decide to keep their weapons they send them to the weapon factory and have their full auto ability removed and can only be semi-auto, like most weapons in the USA.

For what purpose do you need this gun? And no, I'm not talking about banning all guns at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter

Not sure which gun you are talking about.

As I said the R-15 VTR Tactical is a hunting rifle used to kill varmint, the AR-15 is basically the same thing. It fires the same caliber so it will have similar characteristics, as for magazine size it is so easy to get or make different size magazines that any difference in size of the magazine is not important. That leaves merely a cosmetic difference with one looking like a normal hunting rifle and the other looking like the military issue M16. From what I remember of varies hunting laws you can use an AR-15 to hunt in most states, with the only exception being the few states that do not allow semi auto weapons to be used in hunting, but those states do still allow the purchase of such weapons, just can't hunt with them. So why ban a gun based purely on how it looks while other guns that have similar characteristics are not banned because they look more like traditional hunting rifles.

As for assault rifles and machine guns there is no reason to ban them. The amount of people that own them are small in comparison to the population, being composed mostly of either collectors of either a certain era or type of gun or people who just enjoy guns that much. Extremely few crimes are committed with assault rifles or machine guns legally bought, most of the crimes committed with such weapons where bought illegally so banning the legal purchase of such weapons just hurts the few people who acquire such weapons legally and would do nothing to stop the crimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn

In the Uk we have almost eliminated this sort of shooting because we've made it so difficult to get this type of gun (you can't own handguns or automatic rifles in the UK)

The argument that gun control doesn't work because it doesn't affect criminals, doesn't hold water in this type of situation more often than not. Reason is these people aren't career criminals with access to black-market guns. They are seemingly 'average' citizens who are not on the authorites 'radar' most of the time, which is why they can (as in this case) go and legally buy these weapons when one day they snap and decide to plan mass murder.

Doesn't matter if you ban handguns or automatic rifles in the U.S.A. to keep individuals like this from killing so many people, like this guy just recently did. They will find a way around it with the use of homemade bombs or some other undiscovered way the human race has yet to come up with, which will do far worse than any type of gun as the IRA has proven to you several times in the past. Were there is a will, there is a way...human igenuity is known for that.

Also in the UK, the sale of any types of explosives, chemical components that can easily make explosives etc is regulated.

Which is why in the UK it's usually not the authorities that foil terrorist plots, it's the fact that often the home made bombs are so difficult to get right that they don't go off properly and the would be assasins are captured.

We are used to evil bombers, we fought the IRA for long enough and they were proper terrorists, not 'first offence' crazies. So when extremist terrorists wanted to start blowing things up, they did not always succeed becuase there are already laws in place to make procuring the raw materials dificult.

Makes no difference how much you regulate the materials or chemical components for making bombs here in the U.S.A. or even in the U.K. You can take any natural ingredient or household chemical that is regulated or not regulated to make homemade bombs, especially a incendiary bomb like napalm. And if a individual is educated enough and knows where to look, he/she will even find the three major ingredients to make gunpowder from nature itself. You don't have to go far if you know what your doing and what other items you can find those ingredients in. And as you say "did not always succeed", still not good enough from my perspective, because we both know it means they (IRA) did succeed some of the time. Which means some people died from evil bombers and that still sucks my friend. I would rather have it "did not ever succeed ", which is a big difference to me, but that would only happen in a fantasy world...right? Because as luck would have it for me, in this god forsaken world I live in, my ass would be among the casualties if that became a major problem over here in the U.S.A.

The USA has a completely different approach to dangerous items, guns especially.

This won't change that, None of the other mass shootings did. The huge amount of people shot each year in the states doesn't change the laws and the NRA and pro-gun lobby are so vocal and powerful that it's unlikely that any politician could manage to make the changes that would be needed to begin to reverse the body-count.

True. So why do we preach about it, as if it makes any difference? Besides that I'm worried more about homemade bombs anyway, with these nut jobs who go on killing sprees. Especially if we completely ban guns altogether, that will just make things worse here (U.S.A.) in that respect. Though it may stop children from accidently shooting their little brothers and sisters, yet on the otherhand it won't stop the nutters from trying to kill all of us including our children.

The soultion would start with a generation long tightening of gun laws until the numbers held privately were a fraction of those now held, with the complete banning of assault rifles and fully automatic weapons of any sort.

Won't stop people killing people though, especially with bombs. Don't you think that's really, really, important?

The alternative is an continuing esscalation of the current situation where you have the utter madness of an 'arms race' between criminals and the general public, assault weapons in private hands, armed militias and extremist private organisations that when things do go wrong can turn into a 'waco' type situation, and every nutcase who'se had a bad time having the ability to 'go postal' or become the next 'clocktower sniper' or any of the other euphemisms that you have to describe this type of situation. Metal detectors at every school, shopping centre etc.

When in any modern society you have average law abiding citizens convinced that they need an assault rifle in the house or need to carry a concealed pistol because they are afraid of crime, what it says is that not only is something hugely wrong in that society, but also that the state has failed to provide adequate protection for it's citizens and the police and justice system isn't effective enough.

Sounds like we're S.O.L. then, from the way you described it. But some of us would rather take our chances I guess. Lol. Maybe you could pray for us. And most importantly I think your right with the portion I put in bold of your paragraph.

Attitudes need to change.

Whether you believe that the right to bear arms should be kept or sacrificed for the greater good, only the most ardent supporters of gun ownership wouldn't admit that it was not designed for modern society and is being misused and taken advantage of in many wyas.

Fat chance in a attitude change and what you said may be, but many in the U.S.A. would say it's their constitutional right to own a gun, regardless. And as a American I support that under our constitution, despite my own personal beliefs. Bye, bye modern society.

Edited by Purifier
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhantomFlanFlinger

You can ignore that the US has a problem but others wont.

In the UK we get one every few years not every other day. We have 1/4 your population. This isn't about US bashing its about a society problem there that needs fixing.

Errrm...im from the UK..do you remember the riots,Raoul Moat,Derrick Bird etc...Derrick Bird even had a gun license plus so did Michael Ryan.My brothers in the police on Merseyside and they have at least one shooting per week..and thats just from a small part of Merseyside...not the full county.There are shootings all the time in the UK mate...they just dont report on them anymore.I'm not getting at you personally but a tragedy has happened in the US and the last thing you need is someone saying how different our country is when in truth..it isn't.!

Edited by BrianPotter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

The spirit of the second amendment is to give the people a option should our government become too tyrannical. If we wilfully give up our rights, it will be just a matter of time before they become exactly that. Heck we are armed to the teeth right now, and it still doesnt stop this government from trappling on the constitution. As horrible as this situation is, I for one would rather deal with the consequences that come with freedom, then deal with the consequences of to little freedom.

I find it odd that in these discussions no one brings up the gun violence brought on by our government. Its all they know. Rule by threat of force. These people have killed at least a million innocent middle eastern folks through extreme violence in the last 11 years. Then act as though what they had done is swimming in honor. These people have little to no regard for human life. I have no doubt in my mind they would turn thier guns on us if it helped reach thier goals. My line in the sand is drawn at confiscation. My government cant be trusted anywhere near enough to let them disarm us. The founders knew this well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of the above

Doesn't matter if you ban handguns or automatic rifles in the U.S.A. to keep individuals like this from killing so many people, like this guy just recently did. They will find a way around it with the use of homemade bombs or some other undiscovered way the human race has yet to come up with, which will do far worse than any type of gun as the IRA has proven to you several times in the past. Were there is a will, there is a way...human igenuity is known for that.

Hi Purifier,

Absolutely, you can't legistlate against people going nuts and wanting to go on a killing spree. But by making it very diffficult for them with strict legistlation of weapons you can make it much less likely that they will succeed, or at the very least limit the damage that they can do.

This type of person is not a natural career criminal. If they could not legally buy weapons, so decided to go and see if they could contact people who could sell them an illegal automatic weapon the likely outcome would be more often arrest or becomming a statistic themselves. Without the 'contacts' or knowledge they are unlikely to succeed.

The very thing that makes this type of person difficult to spot before they take their legally held guns out and start shooting people (their lack of 'previous' police attention etc) is the same thing that will work against them if they decide to attempt to find a soource for these weapons on the black market.

Similarly, as we have recently seen in the UK, people doing 'research' into how to make explosives under the strict rules we have here in the Uk fail as often as they succeed or come to the attention of the authorities during the 'R&D' phase and are arrested before they can impliment they terrible plans.

Limiting opportunity does work.

Makes no difference how much you regulate the materials or chemical components for making bombs here in the U.S.A. or even in the U.K. You can take any natural ingredient or household chemical that is regulated or not regulated to make homemade bombs, especially a incendiary bomb like napalm. And if a individual is educated enough and knows where to look, he/she will even find the three major ingredients to make gunpowder from nature itself. You don't have to go far if you know what your doing and what other items you can find those ingredients in. And as you say "did not always succeed", still not good enough from my perspective, because we both know it means they (IRA) did succeed some of the time. Which means some people died from evil bombers and that still sucks my friend. I would rather have it "did not ever succeed ", which is a big difference to me, but that would only happen in a fantasy world...right? Because as luck would have it for me, in this god forsaken world I live in, my ass would be among the casualties if that became a major problem over here in the U.S.A.

Our system is very strict, very heavy and would seem draconian compared ot the USA. But it does make a difference.

As with guns, the substance controls are attempting to limit opportunity by limiting availability.

Yes you are right there are always ways to make a bang. But the more difficult you make it the better.

The IRA were an effective and organised terrorist organisation with contacts in the US, Lybia and elsewhere that provided them with semtex and military weapons. That's the big difference. You might not be able to stop someone from being able to get hold of 'something' that will go bang, but if you can stop them from being able to get high explosives then again you limit their options.

Remember that in the UK even owning a book which tells you how to make explosives can be an offence. Should some crazy decide to start researching on the net, then it SHOULD get noticed and bring them to the attention of the authorites. When the IRA were planting half a ton of IED under a road they were dangerous enough, when they could do the same with a few pounds of semtex, they were extremely dangerous.

Also of course the 'lone crazy' doens't have the support mechanisms of the terrorist organisation.

True. So why do we preach about it, as if it makes any difference? Besides that I'm worried more about homemade bombs anyway, with these nut jobs who go on killing sprees. Especially if we completely ban guns altogether, that will just make things worse here (U.S.A.) in that respect. Though it may stop children from accidently shooting their little brothers and sisters, yet on the otherhand it won't stop the nutters from trying to kill all of us including our children.

I think that we preach because it does have to change. The illusion that good people are safer for carrying a gun or having one in their sock drawer is completely missing the point. Good people might feel safer knowing they can protect themselves, but it's only when those same good people think "wait a bloody minute, I pay my taxes, I shouldn't have to carry a gun to feel safe, I don't want to feel like I have to carry a gun and I don't want to ever to confronted by someone else carrying a gun" that things will start to change.

This 'arms race' between private citizens, the police and criminals is madness.

Remember the 'good old days' when criminals carried knives or zip-guns? Now they've got glocks.

When I was a kid, if someone went bat s**t crazy they might climb a high building with a hunting rifle, now they walk into a theatre with armfulls of semi automatics.

The answer to this type of problem was never gong to be 'more guns'.

It's not ever just going to be about legistlation and gun control, becuase that doesn't address the underlying causes, but it's still got to happen and it would be a start and it would make people look for alternatives to the problems.

Won't stop people killing people though, especially with bombs. Don't you think that's really, really, important?

I don't agree. I think that it would make a difference. The current situation clearly isn't working. Would less guns equal more deaths? Most would say no. Therefore it's a start.

Sounds like we're S.O.L. then, from the way you described it. But some of us would rather take our chances I guess. Lol. Maybe you could pray for us. And most importantly I think your right with the portion I put in bold of your paragraph.

I just had to google S.O.L! :unsure2:

If your family (gods forbid) had been victims of this latest nutter, would you feel differently?

Prayer: For when you want to do nothing and still feel like you're helping.

Fat chance in a attitude change and what you said may be, but many in the U.S.A. would say it's their constitutional right to own a gun, regardless. And as a American I support that under our constitution, despite my own personal beliefs. Bye, bye modern society.

I know you are right there.

But your government drove a plough through the constitution after 911 and got away with it.

The US people need to choose carefully when it comes to which rights are worth protecting and which are in fact being used against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of the above

This guy:

http://hotair.com/ar...-armed-robbery/

You have to watch the video at the link, that old man popping off rounds at the two robbers then watch those two robbers crapping their pants as they run for their lives!

How can anyone think it's good to live in a society where a pensioner feels the need to carry a gun?

Edit: I've checked and he did hit them both apparently, so I shouldn't impune his aim!

This incident does seem to have had a 'lucky' outcome. It's certainly not something worth celebrating, more a shocked sigh of relief that it didn't go terribly wrong.

For christs sakes, the big issue about pensioners should be whether the state is taking good enough care of them and should we let them drive!

Edited by Atlantia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of the above

Errrm...im from the UK..do you remember the riots,Raoul Moat,Derrick Bird etc...Derrick Bird even had a gun license plus so did Michael Ryan.My brothers in the police on Merseyside and they have at least one shooting per week..and thats just from a small part of Merseyside...not the full county.There are shootings all the time in the UK mate...they just dont report on them anymore.I'm not getting at you personally but a tragedy has happened in the US and the last thing you need is someone saying how different our country is when in truth..it isn't.!

That's simply wrong.

So Raoul Moat wouldn't have been more of a threat with automatic weapons? The recent riots wouldn't have been worse with guns being the norm in them instead of a few isolated incidents?

And a few dangerous places in the UK do not represent the country as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skookum

The logic of it all baffles me.

Americans don't let anyone get behind the wheel of a car legally without lessons and a licence. Why, because a car can be a lethal weapon if used incorrectly and very dangerous to other people.

Yet you let somebody go in an purchase an AR15 assault rifle, a weapon so lethal it is chosen by some special forces without any training or licence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toadie

USA sounding so screwed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

Errrm...im from the UK..do you remember the riots,Raoul Moat,Derrick Bird etc...Derrick Bird even had a gun license plus so did Michael Ryan.My brothers in the police on Merseyside and they have at least one shooting per week..and thats just from a small part of Merseyside...not the full county.There are shootings all the time in the UK mate...they just dont report on them anymore.I'm not getting at you personally but a tragedy has happened in the US and the last thing you need is someone saying how different our country is when in truth..it isn't.!

We are not talking a gang land shooting because someone didnt pay their drug money or was selling drugs on someone elses patch.

We are talking about crazed shooters like Derrick Bird. Derrick Bird had few friends, the people in his pub tried to bait him relentlessly until he finally snapped and when on a trigger happy road trip. I would accept Moat into the list too.

There you have named the two most recent crazed shooters we have had in the UK.. Both happened in 2010. None in 2011 and none so far this year. Going back before them they is a large gap of quietness. Thats whats different here. They are far rarer than in the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The right to own guns of any sort for the entire United States isn't worth the life of one child. Not one.

If a complete ban would save the life of one person, it would be worth it.

And of course it would save the lives of many.

And for all those who think that private gun ownership is so important that it is worth the life of even one child, then they should ask themselves if they would willingly sacrifice their own child so that their fellow Americans could keep their guns.

There are some 'rights' that are are so important that they are worth fighting and even dying to protect.

This is not one of them.

The USA has gone beyond the point where it can "have it's cake and eat it" when it comes to gun ownership.

This level of gun ownership and ease of sourcing weapons is now for many reasons inextricably linked to the horrifying number of people killed by guns.

The reasons WHY so many people shoot each other in the USA might be many and complex but the bottom line is that access to weapons allows them to act. reduce the number of weapons out there and make it more difficult to get guns and fewer people will die.

Your opinion about my rights is duly noted. I will make my own choices as will you in matters that concern you. I don't really understand what concern it is of a non US citizen what we do with respect to gun ownership. How does it affect anything in your life except possibly your feelings toward America and Americans? It really should be a non issue to anyone not directly affected, don't you think? Can you imagine the reception I would receive if I started pontificating to you about laws, customs, etc that you have in your country that I felt were immoral or insane?
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toadie

Yes but clearly your laws are not working when you compare the stats between gun and car related deaths in America there is not much difference where as Australia there is a massive difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Yes but clearly your laws are not working when you compare the stats between gun and car related deaths in America there is not much difference where as Australia there is a massive difference

Toadie why does it matter so much to you? No offense, but not a single death in my country impacts Australia at all. You are free to find fault with our way of doing things but that does not make you correct in every instance. We've always been known for being hard headed and it's come in handy for the western world a few times. When we start shooting up Oz and GB you guys will have a legitimate beef :w00t: 'Til then just allow us our eccentricities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhantomFlanFlinger

We are not talking a gang land shooting because someone didnt pay their drug money or was selling drugs on someone elses patch.

We are talking about crazed shooters like Derrick Bird. Derrick Bird had few friends, the people in his pub tried to bait him relentlessly until he finally snapped and when on a trigger happy road trip. I would accept Moat into the list too.

There you have named the two most recent crazed shooters we have had in the UK.. Both happened in 2010. None in 2011 and none so far this year. Going back before them they is a large gap of quietness. Thats whats different here. They are far rarer than in the states.

I didnt mention 'gangland killings'.These are normal days for a police force of a large county.Stop sitting in your ivory tower pontificating...you are coming across silly now!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.