Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 177 total)
  • 26killed in america. sky news now.
  • Premier Icon willard
    Subscriber

    Just noticed your last post…

    Most states ban automatic weapons, leaving semi-auto as the only available option if you want something vaguely military. I think it was Clinton who tried banning assault-type weapons and that ban got rescinded by GW in his second term (I think).

    Interestingly, gun ownership has risen sharply both times Obama got elected on fears that he would try banning weapons.

    …and probably because his name sounded a bit, y’know….brown!

    Junkyard
    Member

    Don simon I would like you to have a think about how much worse it would have been had they had the right to bear arms

    Sad though the total is it is less deaths than this one incident

    It would tend to support the view [ poorly expresses in the comment you have chosen]that access to guns makes these incidents worse which was the point being discussed.

    Premier Icon willard
    Subscriber

    deadlydarcy – Member
    …and probably because his name sounded a bit, y’know….brown!

    Gordon??

    Is he actually still an MP?

    mudmonster
    Member

    How many kids have the US killed in drone attacks. How often does this get wall to wall coverage? Seems that in the eyes of the west, American kids lives are worth more.

    Premier Icon cynic-al
    Subscriber

    OOh davidjones15 is Don Simon?

    Yes.

    noteeth
    Member

    What can one say? Repeated polls have shown that the US public oppose tighter gun controls, or anything that would regulate the (IMO, absurd) availability of high-power weaponry.

    The consequences of lax gun laws make it all too easy for nutjobs to go postal. The gun lobby know & seem to accept this.

    Nobody needs an assault rifle.

    Nobody needs a car that can go faster than the speed limit

    Hundreds of people die every year in the UK as a result of speeding

    Yet repeated polls have shown that the UK public oppose tighter controls on cars and speeding

    Maybe our attitudes to risk and regulation aren’t so different from the Spam’s after all?

    Wow, you’re on to comparing cars and guns already? You normally wait till you’re really desperate to head there. We’re only on page 3 FFS. 😆

    Especially for the Zulu:

    Are you incapable of discussing the points Darcy?

    Do you really need to rely on ad hominem for everything

    is that really the best you’ve got?

    Go on, which of my points do you disagree with?

    Is it the interpretation of the US supreme Court judgement in Heller? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Or perhaps the Statistics on Gun ownership comparisons between the US and canada?
    http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html

    But the best you can really come up with is that?

    weak 🙄

    The US has such a short history and it’s mostly a history of US and THEM! Of division.

    There’s more profit in a system of division. People will defend what they know and love more fiercely if it’s perceived there’s a band of others out there doing the same for an alternative.

    The military moved away from relying so heavily on sharpened blades when firearms became more readily available.

    And now they use bombs.

    Then the next level was drones. Now there’s an even further ‘detachment’ through the use of robotic drones. Can killers be more detached from the action of killing than certain modern militaries have become?

    Anyway, I wandered off there. War is too big a business for there not to constantly be one going on for the USA.

    9/11 deaths: ~3000
    War on Terror per capita: ~ $4 mil per person (1.283 tril / 313 mil)
    Gun deaths: Chicago alone, over 4,000 people age 21 or younger (over last 4 years)
    Mental Health budget per capita: $90-270 dollars per person (cut by 1.6 Billion)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/87-gun-deaths-a-day-why-the-colorado-shooting-is-tragically-unsurprising.html
    http://www.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=147771

    Do you really need to rely on ad hominem for everything

    Calm down Zulu FFS. 😆

    Junkyard
    Member

    Are you incapable of discussing the points Darcy?

    Do you really need to rely on ad hominem for everything

    is that really the best you’ve got?

    Have you read the boy who cried wolf…chuckles

    Its amusing to read you doing this – shame you are only doing it for a reaction as usual though

    So, you really still can’t come up with anything better?

    Thats rather poor – I mean, I gave you the chance… but come on, you really can’t pick any holes in my argument?

    Its a pretty poor show isn’t it really? You’re really flagging – I mean, arguing with you is increasingly like watching my opponent turn up to a knife fight with a spoon. Its just upsetting to see you fall by the wayside like this.

    Hope you feel better soon 😕

    Junkyard
    Member

    Hold on were you not just complaining about ad hominems

    The high ground argument was short lived 😕

    Tom B
    Member

    Ah a nice Big Hitter troll thread. It’s threads like this where tagging is really missed 🙂

    Junkyard
    Member

    Volvo for sale

    On the pro-gun arguments:

    1)The Canada thing is rubbish. Canada has roughly half the gun ownership compared to the USA (22 percent vs 48 percent of households according to the document linked above). Further to that, in Canada, less than 12 percent of those households own any handguns, being the best guns for sneaking into places to do murders (and the best for killing lots of people quickly at close range once you have done so.) In the US, it is 58 percent.

    So Canada has less killings with guns, because they mostly buy guns that are only very good for hunting, mostly only own them in remote rural areas, and hence mostly shoot animals with them. In the USA, they buy handguns, which are good for killing people, keep them in busy cities, and often carry them all the time, and voila, they tend to kill people with them.

    So basically, guns don’t kill people, but providing vast numbers of people with the type of gun that is designed to kill people, tends to make it a lot easier for them to kill people.

    It also makes it way easier for them to commit suicide – hence the really really high rate of suicide in the US, particularly amongst teenagers. Similar percentages attempt suicide in many other countries, it’s just that we don’t provide about half our kids with a foolproof method of killing themselves. Unless one is to argue that any suicide, even amongst confused teenagers, is natural selection, by supporting widespread and unrestrained gun ownership, you are supporting this state of affairs – essentially saying that your ‘right to bear arms’ is more important than giving thousands of kids the chance to live at least until they are 18.

    2)If you arm the teachers, you are giving guns to many thousands of people, all of whom have every day easy access to kids, are regularly stressed out by kids and have mental breakdowns at at least the same rate as any other profession. So, you’re putting guns in the hands of a load of people, all of whom are the most likely people to have some kind of a breakdown around kids, and to be blaming the on kids at the point they have that breakdown. Nice idea.

    3)Further to that, and more importantly, assuming you want the teacher’s gun to be close enough at hand for them to shoot an intruder at a moments notice, you are putting a gun which is not safely locked up in a secure lock box (or else they’d never get it out in time), right near a load of kids. That’s not a recipe for an accident when a curious kid finds it (about 200 kids a year die from gun accidents in the USA, and more adults – according to some statistics at least, they have a significantly higher rate of accidental death by gun per 10,000 population than our murder rate).

    4)The mental health thing is a bit of a red herring – if mental health services had any way of knowing who was likely to go postal, the people would be locked up already. Other than that, if you seriously think that anyone with mental health issues shouldn’t be allowed a gun (the commonly stated statistic is that this would include approx 25% of people), logically, you’ve also got to say that they shouldn’t live in a house with a gun, which would mean probably a majority of people wouldn’t be allowed guns. It would also be an active deterrent for gun nuts to seek mental health support, as they’d know their guns would get taken away, so could actually make things worse. So the only logical thing to do there is to argue for extreme restrictions on guns.

    Joe:

    USA : 32% – http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf
    Can – the document linked to above gave a 1998 estimate of 26% – there’s plenty of discussion on the underreporting of firearms ownership in canada here: http://www.tbuckner.com/RealStory/GUNSTORY.pdf

    USA Vs Canada crime rates:

    http://web4.uwindsor.ca/users/m/mfc/41-240.nsf/0/10ff8b04ff3a317885256d88005720f6/$FILE/ATT8BNDV/0110185-002-XIE.pdf

    and

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/its-the-guns-_b_1700218.html

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg[/video]

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Junkyard – Member

    Hold on were you not just complaining about ad hominems

    The high ground argument was short lived

    You’re supposed to do as he says, not as he does. I’d suggest doing neither tbh.

    I’ve not seen any mainstream accounts of this yet.

    Is it still like this?

    “And they blame it on Marylin and the heroin
    Where were the parents at? And look where its at?
    Middle America now it’s a tragedy
    Now it’s so sad to see, an upper class city”

    I’m guessing the scapegoat of today is xbox games and weed?

    noteeth
    Member

    Nobody needs a car that can go faster than the speed limit

    Primary purpose of a car: to travel from a to b.

    Primary purpose of an assault rifle: to kill efficiently.

    You, as an ordinary citizen, might well need a car. You certainly don’t need an assault rifle. Public liberty has become confused with what amounts to a gun-fetish.

    Well, I agree, ‘legitimate’ gun owners (hunting etc) don’t need a fully automatic assault rifle.

    But nobody needs a car that can do 120+mph do they?

    Speeding drivers kill far more people than guns in the UK.

    druidh
    Member

    Fatal motor vehicle accidents in which speed was determined to be a contributory factor probably do outnumber gun deaths in the UK. However, many of those will have involved speeds of less than 70mph. So, even assuming we could govern all vehicles to that maximum, fatal accidents would still occur.

    lazybike
    Member

    800 under 5’s die every hour from illness and starvation…..nearly 7 million a year! maybe the 1st world gun owners (me included) should sell thier guns and do something usefull with the money, come to think of it no one needs more than 1 bike or phone or tv or car or pc etc etc. People in the future will look back on us and wonder why we did so little to help.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Speeding drivers kill far more people than guns in the UK.

    Its because we regulate the guns unlike the americans innit

    Premier Icon leffeboy
    Subscriber

    maybe the 1st world gun owners (me included) should sell their guns and do something usefull with the money

    Bizarrely the folks in the US are rather good at philanthropy as well (e.g. Bill Gates). It’s a difficult country to grasp

    Junky – Big book of Science: page 1, chapter 1

    correlation is not causation

    😉

    Junkyard
    Member

    Ah right so the lack of availability of guns in our country has no impact on the gun death rate and liberalising them would have no affect as it is just a correlation…interesting “scientific” argument from you as usual.

    No holes in that one hence your “joke”

    yunki
    Member

    People in the future will look back on us and wonder why we did so little to help.

    what we will be recorded as in history doesn’t bare thinking about..

    a pretty despicable nation of effete and braying self indulgent dandies I imagine

    lazybike
    Member

    I think our (1st world) main problem is greed, we’ve confused being greedy with being successful, if you have more than you need you are a success…..praise the greedy ridicule the needy.

    2nd amendment….Why?

    it goes something like this

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk[/video]

    b r
    Member

    800 under 5’s die every hour from illness and starvation…..nearly 7 million a year! maybe the 1st world gun owners (me included) should sell thier guns and do something usefull with the money, come to think of it no one needs more than 1 bike or phone or tv or car or pc etc etc. People in the future will look back on us and wonder why we did so little to help.

    You’ve not been to the 3rd world then? Maybe if their rich/powerful gave a toss, then we could be accused of doing nothing – but until those countries do more to help their poor, then I’m doing nothing else.

    Junkyard
    Member

    It not the best entry I have ever read for humanitarian of the year but fingers crossed for you

    Perhaps you could flash it up on screen over this song and Merry Christmas

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5eNa-q1Qpc[/video]

    Kevevs
    Member

    man with massive firepower kills lots of small children. I Say take away any possibility of massive firepower to any citizen and **** their so called constitutional rights. or at least legislate to anyone owning much more than a shotgun for vermin etc. Hugely deadly combat weapons do not belong in the hands of your ordinary person in the public arena. This is the only argument here. IT’s just wrong and impossible to change which is sad cos this will happen again and again 🙁

    Thing is Kevevs, a lot of folk can only get hard-ons with guns in their hands. Some of them here get hard just thinking about them, let alone using them. Imagine the cost of supplying Viagra to them instead?!?

    Kevevs
    Member

    well get those mixedup-**** in Gun therapy!

    bwaarp
    Member

    The coverage is getting pretty upsetting now – it’s not like your normal shooting coverage – distraught presenters vissibly bordering on crying etc. I’m a bit shaken myself now.

    Who the **** shoots a 6 or 7 year old with a rifle 11 times. I can’t even begin to consider what it must do those trying to identify them.

    What really concerns me is I think that the cats out the bag in terms of guns in the USA, there are millions and millions of illegal guns in the US and loads of recorded crime using illegal weapons….those states that have concealed carry laws have lower crime rates.

    So the Americans it seems have so **** their country by allowing easy access to semi automatic weapons that it’s become like nukes….ie certain countries have nukes and can’t get rid of them because international security is effectively a mexican standoff. If the legal guns are gotten rid of, it does seem that there will still be plenty of illegal guns and crime will actually increase. 🙁

    It has to start somewhere though…

    But it won’t.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 177 total)

The topic ‘26killed in america. sky news now.’ is closed to new replies.