Forum menu
The whole banning guns thing comes up every time something like this happens. We all agree it's sensible, half of america doesn't. Hoo hum, their choice. Never the twain shall meet.
The gun lobby are already saying that the lorry attack in Nice killed and injured more people, so guns aren't to blame.........
Yup. they would wouldn’t they 🙄
It’s what makes them such a special bunch of bellends.
The ability to make shite arguments to justify something so reduculous.
Imagine someone here being that stupid ?!
Would've been difficult to spray a crowd with a rented truck from the 32nd floor of a hotel across the (very wide) road though 🙄 (directed at the gun lobby, not the poster)
The only saving grace about this thread is that ninfan isn't here to get all moist over guns.
So on that basis:
[b]we're all in agreement that private ownership of auto/semi auto guns is unnecessary and should be banned yeah?
[/b](note: I'm all in favour of banning all guns as I hate the flippin things)
Sandy Hook so abhorrent thats its easier for some to make out its a conspiracy theory
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/09/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theorist-death-threats-prison
trump fanboy alex jones still pushing these lies too
[img] 
[/img]
Act of pure evil rather than terrorism according to the orange trumpster. That's a relief.
Just think about what percentage of the people you've ever met you would trust to be able to walk into a shop and buy an assault rifle? Then think of the absolute nutters you've met who couldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors
If we had gun laws like America every provincial town centre in the country at pub kicking out time would look like the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan
Actually, I think we're possibly more violent at a lower level than the Americans because we don't have guns. Most yanks avoid fisticuffs in case it turns into people unloading their magazines on each other, Brits on the other hand have a relatively consequence free attitude towards beating each other senseless during closing time on a Friday.
There'd be a spike of ww2 type carnage that would make American mass shootings look quaint - and then we'd end up avoiding each other like the Americans do.
Possibly. But I’d rather get punched on a semi regular basis For the next 40 years, than shot with an AK47 just the once.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence ]Gun violence graphic[/url]This is quite a depressing article - scroll down and realise its only over 3 years
Well, yes - that's a given Neal.
Bunch of idiots, their response will be to arm all country musicians and then they'll make it legal for dogs to buy guns.
This from the Gun Violence Archive shows that whatever it is they are doing isn't working
[img] 
:large[/img]
Actually, I think we're possibly more violent at a lower level than the Americans because we don't have guns. Most yanks avoid fisticuffs in case it turns into people unloading their magazines on each other,
Are you sure?
Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released
jwyeti - MemberHow on earth can anyone think there could ever be a need for citizens to protect themselves from the government and police?
Dunno, are they catalonian?
What's a "murder-suicide"?
You kill a person or persons before killing yourself.
Planning to kill yourself after killing another/others.
Actually, I think we're possibly more violent at a lower level than the Americans because we don't have guns. Most yanks avoid fisticuffs in case it turns into people unloading their magazines on each other, Brits on the other hand have a relatively consequence free attitude towards beating each other senseless during closing time on a Friday.
Possibly, whilst binge drinking yourself into a blubbering mess and then unleashing a haymaker on stranger isn't a completely uniquely British thing, but I'm proud to say we lead the world in Pisshead pugilism.
The problem with that sort of sudden mindless violence is it's, well mindless - it's not that long ago handguns were legal in the UK and many people owned them. Thankfully few of them decided they needed to be tooled up to go to the pub.
In the US, I'd bet a lot of the person on person murders committed with firearms started off as an argument, which turned into a fight, one side started to lose and pulled a gun.
Thank you, three people.
(-:
The whole banning guns thing comes up every time something like this happens. We all agree it's sensible, half of america doesn't. Hoo hum, their choice
I can only assume that they see the mass murder of innocents as acceptable collateral damage, which is outweighed by the need to keep the second amendment.
According to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
The NRA attitude is endemic and will take generations to undo.
Whoever posted the 'rich people making money' post has it nailed. It's like the tobacco industry but a whole lot quicker and a whole lot noisier.
The real sad thing about those gun stats is the number of '0-11' year olds killed every year.
Panorama did a show about James Holmes - the Dark Knight killer.
That was a worrying programme from start to finish.
The emphasis was on the behavioural changes caused by the drug but the easy access to guns enabled the escalation. Sad stuff.
I can only assume that they see the mass murder of innocents as acceptable collateral damage, which is outweighed by the need to keep the second amendment.
Privately they might, publicly they will usually just trott out the usual “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” like they’re living in some kind of western movie.
One argument that holds some water is that if they did do the unthinkable as license and control firearms the same way we do, it’s only the law abiding people who would comply with it.
The real gun nuts have little time for existing gun laws and have no problem ignoring them.
The hardened criminals aren’t allowed them anyway, but still do.
In many ways changing the law would be an awful lot easier than getting rid of the guns and it would be a massive job to maintain the law - from that point onward every subsequent murder would come with calls from the gun nuts “if only he’d been armed this would never have happened!”.
The emphasis was on the behavioural changes caused by the drug but the easy access to guns enabled the escalation. Sad stuff.
It was a terrible program and incredibly unscientific IMO. It's a bold claim to say his behaviour was *caused* by the drug, and they should have backed up the claim with much more rigorous evidence before broadcasting it.
According to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
I thought you were joking. 😯
According to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
They might well have done. But there's a gulf between claiming something and that something actually being true (as demonstrated repeatedly on STW).
There's a mass shooting in the US, it's not a great leap for them to go, "yeah, that was us" - free terror with one fewer exploding terrorists required.
Privately they might, publicly they will usually just trott out the usual “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” like they’re living in some kind of western movie.
Yeah, how come nobody in the crowd returned fire?
Another point amongst the calls for greater gun control:
Apparently toddlers shoot someone every week in the US!
Couple of the most recent ones:
[url= http://news.sky.com/story/toddler-shoots-two-three-year-olds-at-us-home-daycare-facility-11057689 ]Two three year olds shot by a toddler at a childminders house in Michigan (29 Sep)[/url]
[url= http://time.com/4964274/parma-boy-shot-himself-dads-gun/ ]3 year old fatally shoots himself with his dad's gun in Ohio (30 Sep)[/url]
😐
Yeah, how come nobody in the crowd returned fire?
Tricky when they’re 32 floors up in a hotel but I doubt they would do anyway.
tpbiker - MemberAccording to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
IS claimed responsibility when the eiffel tower caught fire during a fireworks display.
Just seen someone from the pro gun lobby in US speak on C4 news. Unbelievable.
As the presenter said at the end, it was enlightening to see his mindset. How Krishnan Guru-Murthy kept his cool I don't know
HoratioHufnagel - MemberIt was a terrible program and incredibly unscientific IMO. It's a bold claim to say his behaviour was *caused* by the drug, and they should have backed up the claim with much more rigorous evidence before broadcasting it.
The programme wasn't deeply scientific because the science is already well established. The link between ssri's and violent disassociative behaviour is a fact acknowledged by the manufactures themselves - they just claim that it is so small it's a risk worth taking. The programme was asking why ssri's weren't entertained as a possible contributing factor to his mental decline when they are known to do exactly that in some people and his down spiral accelerated with his use of prescription anti depressants.
Even the warning labels on the drugs reflect the fact that they may cause violent or suicidal thoughts and they have been removed from some countries. America has a a private health care system where drug companies actively court doctors to flog their products, and the doctors can get very wealthy doing so. Google SSRI anti depressant + mass shooting.
So you've got a giant continent (basically) with 330 million people, 58 million of whom claim to have depression or depression and anxiety and the whole place is awash with guns and pharmaceuticals ....what could possibly go wrong.
forzafkawi - MemberPrivately they might, publicly they will usually just trott out the usual “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” like they’re living in some kind of western movie.
Yeah, how come nobody in the crowd returned fire?
You're not allowed to carry handguns into concerts and even if you were they'd be useless against someone 300 metres away.
They might well have done. But there's a gulf between claiming something and that something actually being true (as demonstrated repeatedly on STW).There's a mass shooting in the US, it's not a great leap for them to go, "yeah, that was us" - free terror with one fewer exploding terrorists required.
Plus, it suits Trumps agenda for the blame to be pointed at IS.
Edit.
Man this incident is shocking. What I don't get, and probably should after reading some of the above, is that he was on the 32nd floor and about 200-300m away, would he basically have used military style guns?
Sorry if that is a stupid question but in my head I can't understand how one man can have killed and injured so many people from so far away. (It is just too insane in my head to understand)
How long before someone asks himself "58, eh? I could do better than that..."
Horrific for all involved and my sympathies are with family and friends of the dead and wounded. I am not in the least bit shocked though. The lack of proper mental health care and the overall attitude to firearms is sad. The worst thing is does anybody actually think changes will be made? There will be outrage and around the clock coverage for a few week and then things will just carry on as usual in the US of A.
Sorry if that is a stupid question but in my head I can't understand how one man can have killed and injured so many people from so far away.
I'm no expert but I imagine a bullet falling from 32 floors let alone fired as a projectile could do quite a lot of damage.
would he basically have used military style guns?
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15 ]Whammo[/url]
Sorry if that is a stupid question but in my head I can't understand how one man can have killed and injured so many people from so far away.
It isnt that far especially when you consider they were firing into a crowd. Even most low powered rifles would be lethal over that distance and accuracy is unlikely to have come into it.
I'm no expert but I imagine a bullet falling from 32 floors let alone fired as a projectile could do quite a lot of damage.
I don’t think they’ve said what type of gun he had, but these nutters seem to like AR-15 which is a supposedly semi-auto version of the M16 (US Army rifle) but this one was full auto, anyway it’s “effective range” is 400-1500m depending on ammo used. Doesn’t mean he could hit a target at that range - but he was basically firing into a sea of people, he really couldn’t miss.
That really is another thing, these weapons are horrifically powerful.
But of course you need a full auto assualt rifle with an effective range of 400-1500m to defend yourself yeah?
Good grief.