FRIHOST ē FORUMS ē SEARCH ē FAQ ē TOS ē BLOGS ē COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Yet another school massacre





kaysch
And again there was a guy killing 26 people at a school. The US president is shocked, like so many others. A lot of warm words, tears, big media coverage around the world, flowers, candles, greeting cards and whatever people tend to do in such a situation.
Some are calling for less arms in private hands, others call for more arms to deter others.
In other words: business as usual.
In two weeks time probably nobody will remember the name of the town anymore in which this happened (Newtown). Until the next massacre in 4 or 5 months when journalists will show material from the archives again.
I fail to understand why one of the leading nations in the world which claims to fight a war against terror and injustice in the world, with one of the highest costs per capita on prisons and crime investigation, is unable to cope with 18-year-olds running around schools and shooting classmates and teachers...
deanhills
With all of the violence on TV, together with a youth that are thoroughly bored, quite a large number from split parents who are not home so the youth have to fend for themselves and find entertainment in games with plenty of violence in it again, bullying that is rampant, guns that are freely available and even encouraged, I'm not surprised.

This is just so very sad, how can any one kill defenseless children like that. Guess the families of those six and seven year olds will be damaged forever. I'm really sorry this happened. It's beyond a tragedy. Wonder how many parents will opt for home schooling after this occurrence?

This story really gripped me:
Quote:
Kaitlin Roig, 29, a first-grade teacher, shepherded her 14 pupils, aged six and seven, into the lavatories adjoining her classroom. The space was so tight she had to help some of them climb on to a cistern.

She wheeled a bookshelf in front of the door and locked it. Roig said she had told the children she loved them because she thought these would be the last words they heard.

One of the boys tried to reassure her. "I know karate, so it's OK," he said.
Source: The Telegraph (UK)
twotrophy
deanhills wrote:
With all of the violence on TV, together with a youth that are thoroughly bored, quite a large number from split parents who are not home so the youth have to fend for themselves and find entertainment in games with plenty of violence in it again, bullying that is rampant, guns that are freely available and even encouraged, I'm not surprised.


From:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9747682/Connecticut-school-shooting-troubled-life-of-Adam-Lanza-a-fiercely-intelligent-killer.html

Quote:
Adam Lanza was reclusive, painfully shy and intensely bright. He also lived in a house full of guns./
And when the news broke on Friday of the murder of 26 people at a primary school in the town, and Ryan Lanza was hastily identified as the killer, people who knew the family knew they had named the wrong brother.
"Adam Lanza has been a weird kid since we were five years old," said Tim Dalton, a neighbour and former classmate, on Twitter. "As horrible as this was, I can't say I am surprised."
"This was a deeply disturbed kid," a family insider said. "He certainly had major issues. He was subject to outbursts from what I recall."
A further family friend said he had acted as though he was immune to pain.
"A few years ago when he was on the baseball team, everyone had to be careful that he didn't fall because he could get hurt and not feel it," said the friend. "Adam had a lot of mental problems."


Other reasons that caused him to shoot dozens of innocent children is due to his exposure to guns at a young age which has a similar effect to being exposed to violent video games at a young age such as Halo and Call of Duty. This incident shows the dangers of bad parents.

The USA should work on improving its security in places such as schools. This is a wake up call to improve security. Maybe they could tighten security having more regulations to guns. Guns cannot be banned in the USA because it violates their constitution. However, some people still think that the regulation of guns is a violation of the USA's constitution.

I feel angry to Adam Lanza who killed dozens of innocent children for no reason at all. It is good that he is shamed by having his name all over the media. However, I don't even think he feels embarrassed because of his mental problems. The USA should come hard on him.
zaxacongrejo
thats what happen when it esear to find a gun than cigarrets
kaysch
zaxacongrejo wrote:
thats what happen when it esear to find a gun than cigarrets

Which makes me think of the following: Why could those poor school-children not defend themselves better? All they had was probably pens or school books to throw at the assassin...

Why not hand out guns to every child in the USA? It would be in line with the second amendment to the constitution, and they could defend themselves much better in case of an assault.

On a global scale: Just marvel at this website and be astonished how easy it is to make children look happy and proud, just by giving them a high-quality gun.
http://www.gunsforthechildren.org

As a nice side effect, just think of the export potential and how many jobs could be created, not only in the USA but also in Russia, Germany or other countries which are able to produce high-quality arms. The world economy would certainly enjoy a boost. Wink Wink Wink

To train them, let's promote those games twotrophy mentioned... And make no mistake, this is not bad parenting, the idea is to train kids as early as possible so it becomes natural for them to use a gun - just to their own self-defence of course.

God bless America.
deanhills
twotrophy wrote:
I feel angry to Adam Lanza who killed dozens of innocent children for no reason at all. It is good that he is shamed by having his name all over the media. However, I don't even think he feels embarrassed because of his mental problems. The USA should come hard on him.
I'd feel more angry at the community that produced an Adam Lanza. There seems to be a theme running here as the other shooting incidents also featured Adam Lanza types. The Adam Lanzas in the US have to take responsibility for their actions, but so have those people who helped shape the events in their lives. Starting off with being allowed to be on his own too much. Not being productive, idle reclusive. Troubled. I'd say the root of all of the trouble is right there. Parents aren't taking proper care of their children. Society can't cope with these children and somehow they become victims of society, either bullied, or rejected, or both, and then take their revenge. When they are on their own in seclusion where society forced them to be, as that seems the only place they can survive in, there are plenty of of role models of violence in movies and games, compliments of TV channels and Games Tycoons bombarding the youth with their products of violence.

@Kaysch. I know you were just joking, but how could a 6-year child be trained to protect itself against a shooting gun? Sort of a little young I would say. On the same theme, I've seen evidence of teens in the US buying guns for sports. I don't see anything wrong with it however, as this is the opportunity where they could learn to treat guns with respect and be trained to use guns with responsibility. I don't think guns are the problem, but people are. Taking guns away won't solve the problem. The problem is with the society that produces an Adam Lanza.
kaysch
deanhills wrote:
I'd feel more angry at the community that produced an Adam Lanza. There seems to be a theme running here as the other shooting incidents also featured Adam Lanza types.

I fully agree.

deanhills wrote:
The Adam Lanzas in the US have to take responsibility for their actions

In a way he did. He paid with his life. Only that he probably planned to do so by himself withouth being brought by someone else to justice...

deanhills wrote:
@Kaysch. I know you were just joking.

I was.

deanhills wrote:
How could a 6-year child be trained to protect itself against a shooting gun? Sort of a little young I would say.

It can not. It's a child.

deanhills wrote:
On the same theme, I've seen evidence of teens in the US buying guns for sports. I don't see anything wrong with it however, as this is the opportunity where they could learn to treat guns with respect and be trained to use guns with responsibility. I don't think guns are the problem, but people are. Taking guns away won't solve the problem. The problem is with the society that produces an Adam Lanza.

I was joking when I suggested to give guns to children and train them to use them in a "good" way. But although you acknowledge that children can't behave in a responsible way, you seem to be serious about that idea. I have to admit I am really shocked, taking into account your otherwise pretty sensible posts here.

Let me be more drastic: If arms are not a problem but society that produces people who use them in a disrespectful way, why not selling the atomic bomb straight to Al-Qaida? Would you wonder why Al-Qaida dropped the bomb on, say, San Francisco once they have it and then blame society in general or the Qur'an, too?

Come on, deanhillls. You're a clever guy. And it's really simple: he who has no arm won't be able to kill anyone, no matter how well he has played Doom, Halo, Call of Duty or any other rubbish computer game. Or how hard his brainwash otherwise has been.
zaxacongrejo
kaysch wrote:
zaxacongrejo wrote:
thats what happen when it esear to find a gun than cigarrets

Which makes me think of the following: Why could those poor school-children not defend themselves better? All they had was probably pens or school books to throw at the assassin...

Why not hand out guns to every child in the USA? It would be in line with the second amendment to the constitution, and they could defend themselves much better in case of an assault.

On a global scale: Just marvel at this website and be astonished how easy it is to make children look happy and proud, just by giving them a high-quality gun.
http://www.gunsforthechildren.org

As a nice side effect, just think of the export potential and how many jobs could be created, not only in the USA but also in Russia, Germany or other countries which are able to produce high-quality arms. The world economy would certainly enjoy a boost. Wink Wink Wink

To train them, let's promote those games twotrophy mentioned... And make no mistake, this is not bad parenting, the idea is to train kids as early as possible so it becomes natural for them to use a gun - just to their own self-defence of course.

God bless America.


Are you from Texas?
You see i just told my wife 2 day ago this
ďThe guys on Texas will tell me that they will start to give guns to childís to protect themselves"
My wife answer; you are crazy
See ho is the crazy now ?
loll thatís not the right way to solve nothing, you see cognitive thought as stages of development and childís in those ages are far to complete those stages, only a ban can solve that problem, and even with a ban will take at least and never less than 15 years to clean the streets .itís a shame how a so developed country in this specific subject can be completely controlled from agencies like NRA, more this is just a start the next 10 years will be much worst
There are several kinds of pst a nation can also suffer from pst, and pst will revel himself in veterans now the USA are again full of them you see time bombs
zaxacongrejo
Quote:
I was joking when I suggested to give guns to children and train them to use them in a "good" way. But although you acknowledge that children can't behave in a responsible way, you seem to be serious about that idea. I have to admit I am really shocked, taking into account your otherwise pretty sensible posts here.


im almost sure this is TEXAS speaking haha lets shoot them all boy!!!!!
kaysch
zaxacongrejo wrote:

Are you from Texas?

LOL! No, I'm not, I'm from Hamburg in Germany.
See? I was trying to be funny, but actually there seems to be a sad truth in what I wrote...
Anway, this is exactly the cowboy clichee which Americans - otherwise a great nation - makes them lose so much respect around the world...
Which is a pity. I'd rather have my country dominated by Americans than by Chinese or Russians.
deanhills
kaysch wrote:
Come on, deanhillls. You're a clever guy. And it's really simple: he who has no arm won't be able to kill anyone, no matter how well he has played Doom, Halo, Call of Duty or any other rubbish computer game. Or how hard his brainwash otherwise has been.
Thank you for the compliment Kaysch. However, I'm definitely not clever. In this case I'd say I'm realistic, maybe even a fatalist. There is a gun culture in the US that is centuries old. I've been posting at a Forum where I had the opportunity of getting to meet gun lovers in their late teens. It was completely evident how they loved their guns. Guns are important to them and all of those participating in the discussions were proud of their knowledge of guns. Most have made a meticulous study about all kinds of guns and knives, know how to use their guns, and are passionate about collecting them. It would be completely unrealistic to think you could outlaw guns in the US. You'd get a large percentage of the US population completely up in arms.

The solution is more training and greater accountability and responsibility in gun ownership. Not the removal of guns.
kaysch
deanhills wrote:
It would be completely unrealistic to think you could outlaw guns in the US.


OK, deanhills. Thanks for the explanation, I was beginning to worry about you and your opinions.

But if it is unrealistic to disarm the clichee Texan-cowboy-style American - and it would probably be the only civilised people in the world where that would be a serious issue - do you seriously think that training would be a good second-best solution to the problem? In my mind if there is no serious attempt to disarm we will see the next massacre coming. Poor children who will die then...
sudipbanerjee
I am an Indian. I have an query regarding this types of incidents. For last few years we have seen that this almost regular incident in US. What is its reason?
deanhills
kaysch wrote:
But if it is unrealistic to disarm the clichee Texan-cowboy-style American - and it would probably be the only civilised people in the world where that would be a serious issue - do you seriously think that training would be a good second-best solution to the problem? In my mind if there is no serious attempt to disarm we will see the next massacre coming. Poor children who will die then...
I'd say it is not completely dissimilar to "free" drugs in Amsterdam. If you allow people to own guns, it is easier to control guns. If you take the right of owning a gun away, then people would get guns any way, and own guns illegally. The Government would then be unable to control the guns. Sort of the whole marijuana type scenario of your innocent guys ending up in courts that are already overloaded and your baddies knowing how to stay ahead of the game.

About the training, I'd say it would be a great opportunity to discover who should not be operating guns when you train them. Don't know how that can work, but by following the principle of Knowing your Gun Owner in the same way the investment industry has to follow the KYC (Know Your Client) principle, I'd say that would be the key to identifying potential problem owners.
rx9876
deanhills wrote:
I'd say it is not completely dissimilar to "free" drugs in Amsterdam. If you allow people to own guns, it is easier to control guns. If you take the right of owning a gun away, then people would get guns any way, and own guns illegally. The Government would then be unable to control the guns.


I do not agree this.
I'm in a country which do not allow people to own guns.
Indeed, people will try every way to own guns anyway, but it will NOT easy.

Illegal guns cost more than legal gun.
It's harder to get one.
People will inform the police when they saw illegal guns.

People could not just shoot everyone when they are angry, mad, drunk, or happy,
because all them got is something could harm less people, like knifes or vehicles.

There are too many benefis to ban guns,
but those gun industries just evade the truth or quibble to the people who have no clear idea.
deanhills
rx9876 wrote:
I do not agree this.
I'm in a country which do not allow people to own guns.
Indeed, people will try every way to own guns anyway, but it will NOT easy.

If your country has had this ban on guns for a very long period of time, then I'd agree with you, but if a country like the US has had its citizens owning guns for as long as the United States has been around, then it would create a war to put a ban on guns.
zaxacongrejo
Hi
Im so shocked with what deanhills wrote I donít know where to start loll
Ok kaysch you are from Germany a country that as the vaccine against guns
You canít imagine how I miss German electronics WITH LEADER.
Quote:
I'd rather have my country dominated by Americans than by Chinese or Russians.


Finally some one that thinks like me but they are coming for us soon or later problems will start to show up.

Quote:
There is a gun culture in the US that is centuries old.
Itís a constitutional right sure but with almost 300 years you see world changed a lot of times after that
I've been posting at a Forum where I had the opportunity of getting to meet gun lovers in their late teens. It was completely evident how they loved their guns. Guns are important to them and all of those participating in the discussions were proud of their knowledge of guns.


-censored- they love their guns in forums loll yeaa I love to shoot when Iím not a target, yes right
Let me tell you something for a period of 3 years in my life I had to carry a an M107 and a glock 9mm for everywhere I was told or left and no I didnít love my guns no way.
I love my life, again my life
Quote:
Most have made a meticulous study about all kinds of guns and knives, know how to use their guns, and are passionate about collecting them. It would be completely unrealistic to think you could outlaw guns in the US. You'd get a large percentage of the US population completely up in arms


Again -censored- study? Loll about what? Everything that as to do with guns is public
Also they come with manuals for everything they are supposed to do

Quote:
The solution is more training and greater accountability and responsibility in gun ownership. Not the removal of guns.


Im confused now i will have to ask this again are you from Texas? Loll

The problem only will be solved when the usa gov force NRA to be in their place not to have so much power like they have now ,you see oil and guns at the usa gov pyramid are right behind the president.
GUNS ARE A TOLL TO KILL, THEY ARE NOT A TOY, AN HOBBY OR A MEDICINE
In my opinion the problem here is all about money and the guns industries and the leak of power from the usa president to do anything about it
Just a curiosity today I have 0 guns not even a air riffle the knifes at my kitchen
Are round small and they almost donít cut unfortunately for me and what surrounds me, I have to carry 5 guns everywhere I go my head my legs and my hands.
kaysch
First of all, we probably all agree that there is a fundamental difference between using drugs and using guns. If you're using drugs your main idea is to harm yourself while guns primarily have one function which is to harm others. Or, as zaxacongrejo put it:
zaxacongrejo wrote:
GUNS ARE A TOLL TO KILL, THEY ARE NOT A TOY, AN HOBBY OR A MEDICINE


Secondly, we will probably also all agree on what rx9876 wrote:
rx9876 wrote:
Illegal guns cost more than legal gun. It's harder to get one.


Where we have different thoughts is probably on deanhill's view.
deanhills wrote:
I'd say it is not completely dissimilar to "free" drugs in Amsterdam. If you allow people to own guns, it is easier to control guns. If you take the right of owning a gun away, then people would get guns any way, and own guns illegally. The Government would then be unable to control the guns. Sort of the whole marijuana type scenario of your innocent guys ending up in courts that are already overloaded and your baddies knowing how to stay ahead of the game.


Not sure if that prohibition argument really works here. See, even in Amsterdam drugs are largely illegal. Only if you have a small amount of "soft" drugs like marijuana it will be tolerated. Still, hard drugs are forbidden as anywhere else in the world. If you want to use that argument, you should allow people to have knives, but not semi-automatic weapons which enable a potential assassin to kill dozens of people within seconds.
Also, I don't understand why a civil war will break loose if the USA were to establish a tighter form of gun control. Guns are allowed in Germany, too. But you need a a permit to use one. Social control forbids people to use many guns, so really few people make use of it. At the end of the day, deanhills ir probably right - there is a cultural issue involved.

But what that means is this: If owning guns is so deeply part of US-American culture as it seems, it will automatically mean, too, that there will be another massacre soon again. It proves my original point, but I find that deeply disturbing.
truespeed
Those who live in urban areas don't need guns,take them off them.
tingkagol
rx9876 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'd say it is not completely dissimilar to "free" drugs in Amsterdam. If you allow people to own guns, it is easier to control guns. If you take the right of owning a gun away, then people would get guns any way, and own guns illegally. The Government would then be unable to control the guns.


I do not agree this.
I'm in a country which do not allow people to own guns.
Indeed, people will try every way to own guns anyway, but it will NOT easy.

Quote:
Illegal guns cost more than legal gun.

In the Philippines, you can acquire a revolver for as low as 1000 pesos (25 USD).

Quote:
It's harder to get one.

I'm no gun enthusiast, and I definitely have never associated myself and do not have connections to the seedier side of my neighborhood. But it still alarms me that I know people who can easily acquire guns for me just as long as I have the cash. (See Danao. FYI - some of their guns end up in the US black market)

Quote:
There are too many benefis to ban guns,
but those gun industries just evade the truth or quibble to the people who have no clear idea.

I don't have the stats yet, but I would be making a case if largely most guns used in crimes are acquired illegally.

If legal guns are used in most crimes, maybe then we can talk about gun bans.
zaxacongrejo
truespeed wrote:
Those who live in urban areas don't need guns,take them off them.


There you go i forgot about that there are states in USA that guns are really need to almost everyone, like in Alaska there are towns where just to went for cigarettes you can suddenly find yourself facing a bear or a groups of wolfs, we can argue but they only need to sound to push them away, is not always the case, in some towns they are so used to humans that just the noise is not enough, and we have to consider hunt also and wild animals defense, but being honest with myself loll you donít want an AR15 a G3 an MP5 or even big guns like the M 107 to hunt loll no way
tingkagol
I've been reading a bit about gun violence in the US. This particular bit alarmed me:

Quote:
Policy targeted at the supply side of the firearms market is based on limited research, with this an active area of ongoing research.[8] One important consideration is that only 60-70% of firearms sales in the United States are transacted through federally licensed firearm dealers, with the remainder taking place in the "secondary market", in which previously owned firearms are transferred by non-dealers.[93][94] Most sales to youths and convicted felons take place through the secondary market.[95][96] Access to secondary markets is generally less convenient to purchasers, and involves such risks as the possibility of the gun having been used previously in a homicide or other crime.[97] Unlicensed private sellers were permitted by law to sell privately owned guns at gun shows or at private locations in 24 states as of 1998.[98] Regulations that limit the number of handgun sales in the primary, regulated market to one handgun a month per customer have been shown to be effective at reducing illegal gun trafficking by reducing the supply into the secondary market.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Firearms_market

Judging from what I've read, it seems most guns that have been used in crimes are acquired from the "secondary market" - i.e. previously owned guns. (The wiki article then states that "unlicensed private sellers were permitted by law to sell privately owned guns since 1998" - which just seems wrong to me and I couldn't verify the citation. So I'll just skip that bit for the time being.)

Then comes the bolded part: "one handgun a month per customer". 1 gun per month. That means an American can purchase a total of 12 guns in a year. So if I were American and began purchasing guns every month since I turned 21, I will have amassed an arsenal of 120 guns. Shocked

Now, I don't see the point why people need to own more than 1 gun. Let's be honest, that's all anyone really needs (unless you plan to arm your unlicensed wife and children or if you feel the need to shoot at intruders a-la C.O.D. akimbo style). One firearm is enough to scare off intruders, and, most importantly, it's also easier to secure and account for - therefore, the likelihood of Adam Lanza types finding your 1 weapon would be extremely low compared to having 20 guns lying around the house.

In my opinion, a sensible legislation would be to restrict Americans from owning more than one gun - i.e. 1 gun/person for their entire lifetime. Old/dilapidated guns should be surrendered to authorities in order to purchase a new one.
deanhills
zaxacongrejo wrote:

Im so shocked with what deanhills wrote I donít know where to start loll
It is OK to be shocked Zaxa, I don't mind. But I would be grateful if you left out the swear words.

zaxacongrejo wrote:
Bullshit they love their guns in forums loll yeaa I love to shoot when Iím not a target, yes right
Let me tell you something for a period of 3 years in my life I had to carry a an M107 and a glock 9mm for everywhere I was told or left and no I didnít love my guns no way.
I love my life, again my life
Looks as though your perception of a gun is one of essentially being owned to kill someone else with. Similar to this your perception of a nuclear weapon is something to attack other countries with instead of a deterrent from being attacked. As far as I could see from the forum I mentioned, the guys were enthusiastic about guns in general and owned guns more as a hobby or at most for defensive purposes or on hiking trips in the wild to shoot for food or protect themselves with. Not to attack or murder people.

zaxacongrejo wrote:
Quote:
Most have made a meticulous study about all kinds of guns and knives, know how to use their guns, and are passionate about collecting them. It would be completely unrealistic to think you could outlaw guns in the US. You'd get a large percentage of the US population completely up in arms
Again bullshit study? Loll about what? Everything that as to do with guns is public
Also they come with manuals for everything they are supposed to do
Perhaps you did not read what I said properly. I illustrated the love for guns with saying that the guys in the Forum were widely read about the subject. And yes it goes without saying that they got that information from manuals and public Websites. As well as discussions with one another.

zaxacongrejo wrote:
Quote:
The solution is more training and greater accountability and responsibility in gun ownership. Not the removal of guns.


Im confused now i will have to ask this again are you from Texas? Loll
I'm equally confused by your question. Why should being from Texas be significant when you are discussing guns? I'm not from Texas, but if I were that sounds like stereotyping to me.

zaxacongrejo wrote:
GUNS ARE A TOLL TO KILL, THEY ARE NOT A TOY, AN HOBBY OR A MEDICINE
I'd imagine every citizen in the US who owns a gun knows that too.

zaxacongrejo wrote:
Just a curiosity today I have 0 guns not even a air riffle the knifes at my kitchen
Are round small and they almost donít cut unfortunately for me and what surrounds me, I have to carry 5 guns everywhere I go my head my legs and my hands.
I don't own a gun either. However, that is my choice. If someone else chooses to say "yes" I respect their decision. As far as I can see the majority of individuals in the US support that freedom of choice as that freedom has been written into the Constitution of the United States, i.e. the right to bear arms.
deanhills
kaysch wrote:
Also, I don't understand why a civil war will break loose if the USA were to establish a tighter form of gun control. Guns are allowed in Germany, too. But you need a a permit to use one. Social control forbids people to use many guns, so really few people make use of it. At the end of the day, deanhills ir probably right - there is a cultural issue involved.
That is not what I said. There is a BIG difference between gun control and outlawing guns. If you check I said that if guns would be outlawed, people would get guns illegally, which would mean that one would not be able to control gun ownership. If they owned guns legally, that ownership could be controlled by for example a tighter form of gun control.

kaysch wrote:
But what that means is this: If owning guns is so deeply part of US-American culture as it seems, it will automatically mean, too, that there will be another massacre soon again. It proves my original point, but I find that deeply disturbing.
That is a given, I agree. Not because I want it to happen. But if the youth is constantly bombarded with games where there is plenty of violence most of the time, they love their games, and if the TV and Movies, as well as music is dominated with violence most of the time, and they are bored at home, mother and father are either at work or separated and they are forced to fend for themselves. That is the breeding ground for violence, plotting and planning. Take the youth in Norway for example - Anders Behring. He had plenty of time on his hands, was bored, and susceptible to being influenced. I think more of that is going to happen in Europe as well, whether people own guns or not. There is always a way to get to guns. Behring even posted a step by step document on the Internet to show how it can be done.
Ghost Rider103
zaxacongrejo wrote:
Hi
Im so shocked with what deanhills wrote I donít know where to start loll
Ok kaysch you are from Germany a country that as the vaccine against guns
You canít imagine how I miss German electronics WITH LEADER.
Quote:
I'd rather have my country dominated by Americans than by Chinese or Russians.


Finally some one that thinks like me but they are coming for us soon or later problems will start to show up.

Quote:
There is a gun culture in the US that is centuries old.
Itís a constitutional right sure but with almost 300 years you see world changed a lot of times after that
I've been posting at a Forum where I had the opportunity of getting to meet gun lovers in their late teens. It was completely evident how they loved their guns. Guns are important to them and all of those participating in the discussions were proud of their knowledge of guns.


-censored- they love their guns in forums loll yeaa I love to shoot when Iím not a target, yes right
Let me tell you something for a period of 3 years in my life I had to carry a an M107 and a glock 9mm for everywhere I was told or left and no I didnít love my guns no way.
I love my life, again my life
Quote:
Most have made a meticulous study about all kinds of guns and knives, know how to use their guns, and are passionate about collecting them. It would be completely unrealistic to think you could outlaw guns in the US. You'd get a large percentage of the US population completely up in arms


Again -censored- study? Loll about what? Everything that as to do with guns is public
Also they come with manuals for everything they are supposed to do

Quote:
The solution is more training and greater accountability and responsibility in gun ownership. Not the removal of guns.


Im confused now i will have to ask this again are you from Texas? Loll

The problem only will be solved when the usa gov force NRA to be in their place not to have so much power like they have now ,you see oil and guns at the usa gov pyramid are right behind the president.
GUNS ARE A TOLL TO KILL, THEY ARE NOT A TOY, AN HOBBY OR A MEDICINE
In my opinion the problem here is all about money and the guns industries and the leak of power from the usa president to do anything about it
Just a curiosity today I have 0 guns not even a air riffle the knifes at my kitchen
Are round small and they almost donít cut unfortunately for me and what surrounds me, I have to carry 5 guns everywhere I go my head my legs and my hands.


Argue all you want. Let's tone the language down some though, there are youngins browsing the forums.

Carry on...

Very Happy
zaxacongrejo
Quote:
Looks as though your perception of a gun is one of essentially being owned to kill someone else with. Similar to this your perception of a nuclear weapon is something to attack other countries with instead of a deterrent from being attacked. As far as I could see from the forum I mentioned, the guys were enthusiastic about guns in general and owned guns more as a hobby or at most for defensive purposes or on hiking trips in the wild to shoot for food or protect themselves with. Not to attack or murder people.


i have to disagree with you guns are meant to attack and protect
And they protect over passing the attack of the enemy valid to humans machines animal etc

Quote:
Perhaps you did not read what I said properly. I illustrated the love for guns with saying that the guys in the Forum were widely read about the subject. And yes it goes without saying that they got that information from manuals and public Websites. As well as discussions with one another.

I know that love loll, or maybe innocence,I had that love before I join the military, an illusion a big illusion I prefer reality sorry, yes some are pretty I have to agree I saw guns that are art , but thatís just a cover to foolish the eyes , and their engineering itís also passionate I agree, but again they are meant to kill like slot machines are meant to for casinos earn money , this is probably the 2 machines I know that are done with the goal of everyone literally everyone can use them ,by this I mean people that donít know how to write easily can use a gun or a slot machine because thatís as been considered when those machine were designed
About the Texas I was joking you see I have a lot of friends on Texas from all status by the way ,and I know how their love for guns and oil in some cases not all can blind their thoughts
You see thing like this
ďif you wana know if god exists cross this lineĒ
Ēdo not trespass risk being shoutedĒ
In California?
Quote:
I don't own a gun either. However, that is my choice. If someone else chooses to say "yes" I respect their decision. As far as I can see the majority of individuals in the US support that freedom of choice as that freedom has been written into the Constitution of the United States, i.e. the right to bear arms.

Yes right and them when the husband returns home drunk kills the wife easy right?
You see its normal things that happen ops!!!!!!
Or like the subject of this topic or better yet the bank assult
No way I disagree guns should be something restricted to authorities and military
Civil people as laws and police fire fighters etc to solve those kinds of problems
Is there home violence in your country? How many girls are beaten and killed for year?
Watch this please

zaxacongrejo
Quote:
Argue all you want. Let's tone the language down some though, there are youngins browsing the forums.

Carry on...


sorry i didnt mean to be rude, but now please explain me something does frihost accepts users with less than 18 years old?
rx9876
tingkagol wrote:

In the Philippines, you can acquire a revolver for as low as 1000 pesos (25 USD).


Interesting.
How do you know that?
Did you ask the black market gun seller, or you just google it?

Illegal stuff cost more than legal ones is a common sense,
just like steaks in India or pork in Muslim countries.

If you want to said illegal things is cheaper than legal ones,
please provide the legal price and the black market price of the weapons used by Adam Lanza
both in Connecticut.

The price of the same item in different areas can't be compared,
because you have to consider the local price index, GDP, etc...

The simplest way is to use Big Mac Index.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-13/the-economist-s-2012-big-mac-index-table-.html

tingkagol wrote:

I don't have the stats yet, but I would be making a case if largely most guns used in crimes are acquired illegally.

If legal guns are used in most crimes, maybe then we can talk about gun bans.

OK, you can say that, because the criminals don't want to use the guns registered.
That's total different categories of crimes.
People do crime on purpose will use the illegal guns, but banning gun will reduce the change that anyone can shoot someone with easy obtained guns.

If you haven't read this news, there is the link.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/china-us-school-attack/index.html

"And while several of the victims were reported in critical condition, none of the 22 children were killed. The 36-year-old suspect in China -- which has strict gun control laws -- attacked the children with a knife, according to local reports."

Some 8 years old students survived without any harm by blocking the wooden doors of the classroom with their own bodies.
If the murderer was holding guns instead of a knife, those students were all die already.

"The huge difference between this case and the U.S. is not the suspect, nor the situation, but the simple fact he did not have an effective weapon," said Dr. Ding Xueliang, a Harvard-educated sociologist at the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong."

"I don't think we should limit the free press ... but people are watching this, they are learning from these kind of attacks. They are becoming more and more organized, better planned -- and that is horrible."
truespeed
Has there been any mass shootings with illegally owned guns?

Making guns illegal for people who don't need them will reduce the chances of what happened in that school happening again.
tingkagol
truespeed wrote:
Has there been any mass shootings with illegally owned guns?

Excellent question.

  • Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased the guns he used to kill 32 people in the Virginia Tech school shootings. He had a history of being mentally unstable yet he was still able to legally acquire the weapons.
  • John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo used a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 to snipe and kill 10 people in Virginia. (The weapon was probably stolen from a licensed gun shop or a licensed owner)
  • Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold acquired guns through the secondary market, i.e. previously owned guns sold in gun shows. Shockingly, the sale of second-hand guns by unlicensed sellers were permitted by US law as of 1998:
    Quote:
    Unlicensed private sellers were permitted by law to sell privately owned guns at gun shows or at private locations in 24 states as of 1998.
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Firearms_market

  • And lastly, we have Adam Lanza, who used his mother's licensed weapons to kill 27 people in Sandy Hook School
tingkagol
Quote:
Making guns illegal for people who don't need them will reduce the chances of what happened in that school happening again.

Not everyone may need to own firearms, but certainly everyone needs something in order to protect themselves, their families, and their properties.

Picture this: if an armed criminal breaks into your home, how will you defend yourself? The answer to that question is entirely up to you. Some may say they're okay with a baseball bat or their karate skills, but I believe a lot of people will say they will need a firearm to better protect themselves. A lot of people will also prefer not owning firearms at all and just remain naively optimistic that they won't be victims of a future home intrusion. There have been numerous documented incidents where a felony in progress is stopped when a victim or third party intervenes with a licensed firearm. My point - I wouldn't want to infringe on the rights of others who do want to have at least one firearm to use for defensive purposes.

Most criminals interviewed in prison also confirmed that they are more likely to think twice before breaking and entering if they suspect the owner has a licensed firearm. Now, imagine a criminal who's about to break into your house knowing you can't legally own a firearm to protect yourself. What's going to stop them?
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
Most criminals interviewed in prison also confirmed that they are more likely to think twice before breaking and entering if they suspect the owner has a licensed firearm. Now, imagine a criminal who's about to break into your house knowing you can't legally own a firearm to protect yourself. What's going to stop them?
Excellent point. We probably need to take responsibility of our own safety, and being armed is both a great deterrent as well as helpful when being attacked. The part I'd like to see happening in this however is once someone owns a gun, that they should be compelled to attend regular training sessions in order to retain their right of owning the gun. As quite often when people aren't as in touch with their guns as they should be, they become careless and lose focus. They may not have the gun locked in a safe place. They may not be cleaning it as they should. They are not as practiced as they used to be with shooting the gun. And the gun gets used on them instead, and then goes missing outside the range of control, i.e. the gun becomes a stolen gun.

Bottom line, self defense is more than owning a gun. There is an enormous responsibility that goes with owning a gun for self defense and that part for me should include control where training plays a great role as to the correct use of the gun. This training would also reveal whether someone may not be qualified any longer to own the gun. I.e. they may have developed a disease, or are depressed, or whatever. Think there must be some kind of fitness test to own a gun that is repeated at regular intervals, in the same way we are licensed to drive and we need to have regular eye tests. Our cars also need to go through annual registration check-ups. Why not our guns?
kaysch
tingkagol wrote:
Most criminals interviewed in prison also confirmed that they are more likely to think twice before breaking and entering if they suspect the owner has a licensed firearm. Now, imagine a criminal who's about to break into your house knowing you can't legally own a firearm to protect yourself. What's going to stop them?

OK, here is some advice by our local police station:
- Get yourself any sort of dog. Even a small one will do the trick - as long as he makes a lot of noise,
- Install alarm systems which automatically switch on a lot of light around the house when somebody passes by
- Bar the windows and make entering take a thief lose time. Eventually he will give up and look for an easier target.
Bottom line: no need for everybody to get arms. There are other more peaceful deterrents to thieves.

deanhills wrote:
There is an enormous responsibility that goes with owning a gun for self defense and that part for me should include control where training plays a great role as to the correct use of the gun. This training would also reveal whether someone may not be qualified any longer to own the gun. I.e. they may have developed a disease, or are depressed, or whatever. Think there must be some kind of fitness test to own a gun that is repeated at regular intervals, in the same way we are licensed to drive and we need to have regular eye tests. Our cars also need to go through annual registration check-ups. Why not our guns?

Why not?
1. Ms Lanza's mom was apparently fit to own a gun, but to what extent would a such a test have helped prevent the current massacre? Remember he took the guns and then went amok. If there are guns around, some people will simply find their ways to use them.
2. You can never test somebody's intentions as to why he wants the gun. And even if you could, his intentions might change. Again, if an Al Qaida guy went to the local gun store, he can just buy an automatic weapon, no problem. After having spent some time in a training camp I assume he is in good shape and will pass all your tests with excellent marks.

By the way, today the NRA - as I predicted in my first post - proposed to have more guns, not less. Really clever, those guys.

What's really missing is that somebody suggests to arm children, too. After all, everybody pretends that this is about self defense and not about extending one's manhood by a large gun.

Anyway, the countdown is on. Still 1 week to go until nobody will discuss this topic anymore.
zaxacongrejo
i wonder why this kind of thing only happen at America valid to south and north ,exception for Anders Behring Breivik i dont see that kind of events and discussions in Europe, and we have much less police than the Usa , the dog example is a good example that we use a lot here
"are you afraid buy yourself a dog"
Inst this simpler? and you get a new friend , food costs less than bullets is less noisy and smells better
I also wonder why Canada a similar country to USA is exact the opposite can anyone explain me?
NRA only see money
thewiseguy
twotrophy wrote:

Other reasons that caused him to shoot dozens of innocent children is due to his exposure to guns at a young age which has a similar effect to being exposed to violent video games at a young age such as Halo and Call of Duty. This incident shows the dangers of bad parents.

The USA should work on improving its security in places such as schools. This is a wake up call to improve security. Maybe they could tighten security having more regulations to guns. Guns cannot be banned in the USA because it violates their constitution. However, some people still think that the regulation of guns is a violation of the USA's constitution.

I feel angry to Adam Lanza who killed dozens of innocent children for no reason at all. It is good that he is shamed by having his name all over the media. However, I don't even think he feels embarrassed because of his mental problems. The USA should come hard on him.


I disagree with a couple things and would like to state that gun regulation like everything else in this capitalist country is money driven therefore I am opposed to increased regulations because it then only wealthy citizens with outstanding records could own and posses firearms. Personally I'm against permits and regulations, I feel like guns should be registered so they know who shoots who and of course a background check is a wise idea but in that department as long as they have no violent crimes i.e. repeated battery, assault w/ deadly weapon, armed robbery, rape and all classes of murder. I feel the citizens have the right to protect themselves not only from each other but from this armed state as well which is obsessed with power and control.
Also, I don't feel his exposure to guns at a young age drove him to shooting a bunch of young kids; maybe to much grand theft auto but I doubt seriously it was the guns fault. Bad parenting, oh yes have to agree there, though he obviously knew what he was doing and I don't think it was for lack of gun safety education, it's apparent the kid had severe psychological issues aside from autism and was most likely extremely depressed. Something his mom should have been aware of no?
I also don't think he feels any shame, but that's not to say that he didn't since he turned the gun on himself, I'm wondering how he would still feel shame especially from his notoriety gained from the media..? I haven't read further into this forum so perhaps somebody else corrected you but I thought that was humorous of you Wink
zaxacongrejo
Quote:
I feel like guns should be registered so they know who shoots who


indians against cowboys again? one more time? bang bang for everyone?
zaxacongrejo


enought is enought
rx9876
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069042-pennsylvania-gunman-kills-woman-in-church-two-other-people-before-dying-in-shootout-with-police?lite

The killer killed a woman in the church, a man in private house, and the driver he crashed on his flee.
He also hurt 3 troopers.

The NRA suggested school guards to equip rifles after Conn. school massacre,
maybe they will suggest all churches to hire guards with rifles too after this event.
zaxacongrejo
rx9876 wrote:
The NRA suggested school guards to equip rifles after Conn. school massacre,
maybe they will suggest all churches to hire guards with rifles too after this event.



easy to understand isnít it?
1 police per school means 1 gun
Right?
so guns factories will sell more it seems AR 15 are sold-out lol
deanhills
The video reminded me of JoryRFerrell's threads about how justifiable the deaths of people are in countries that the US have invaded. Easy to make a war on a country where citizens are guaranteed to die in thousands, and children are orphaned, and/or die of lack of medication and starvation. However, when it happens in one's own back yard, guns all of a sudden become evil and a threat. I sense double standards here. Guns and armaments are OK for world peace and fighting for the US security, but then when it gets to domestic, all of a sudden guns are not OK.
zaxacongrejo
that way real life as 2 concepts civilains and troops or war and home problems
deanhills
zaxacongrejo wrote:
that way real life as 2 concepts civilains and troops or war and home problems
War seems to be less real in people's homes where they are spectators at arms length. Probably the way war is reported too, difficult to relate to the pain and suffering when people's homes are destroyed in foreign countries.
kaysch
On 16 Dec when I started this thread I predicted that all the worrying and crying would last for 2 weeks and that afterwards nobody would give a flying ****** about those children massacred.

And - BINGO! - the last entry in this thread was on 24 Dec, just 8 days after my original post, not even 2 weeks.

So what have we learnt so far?
- a US president who publicly shed tears at the loss of so many innocent victims
- lots of outcry, lots of tears, lots of flowers, lots of emotions
- the NRA that called for more arms, not for less to protect future victims
- 2 weeks of debate (including myself - I have a pretty strong opinion about spreading arms to potential maniacs)
- nothing

I don't know how you feel about this. But I am deeply frustrated that everything I predicted in my original post eventually turned out to be true. Except of course that journalists will refer to their archives in about half a year when the next massacre is due. But I am sure that will come...

So until then: happy forgetting and to all those future killers: it's the fault of the others, so be brave and revenge yourselves on them for making your lives so miserable...
deanhills
I don't think people have forgotten kaysch. How could they have? I'm more worried that people are getting desensitized to all of the violence. One bomb blast in a country not used to bomb blast would get people to go crazy, however when there are a few bomb blasts every month, like in some of the war torn countries, people are still shocked, but desensitized somehow.

I can't believe however that Obama is doing nothing about it. He looked genuinely distressed in the news casts, particularly since he has young children of his own. I'm sure he did relate and there must be a sub-committee in progress, plotting and planning a strategy of probably tightening gun control.
kaysch
deanhills wrote:
I don't think people have forgotten kaysch. How could they have? I'm more worried that people are getting desensitized to all of the violence. One bomb blast in a country not used to bomb blast would get people to go crazy, however when there are a few bomb blasts every month, like in some of the war torn countries, people are still shocked, but desensitized somehow.

I can't believe however that Obama is doing nothing about it. He looked genuinely distressed in the news casts, particularly since he has young children of his own. I'm sure he did relate and there must be a sub-committee in progress, plotting and planning a strategy of probably tightening gun control.


Again, you manage to shock me deanhills.
A country not used to bomb blasts? I assume you are referring to the USA? How many bomb blasts do you want me to list?
A sub-commitee to plot a strategy of tightening arms control? Didn't you say that was only possible at the expense of a civil war in the USA? Remember, it's in the 2nd amendment to the constitution to potentially shoot others, erm, own guns to defend yourselves.
Nick2008
Just because discussion has dwindled down does not necessarily mean that people have forgotten. In terms of recent shootings, I still remember the events of the Virginia Tech shooting in my state, the theater shooting in Colorado, and the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin.

In fact, it's a double-edged sword to advocate for more discussion and coverage. When our media glorifies the shooter and talks incessantly about all the crying and grief, the next mass murderer is watching all of it and thinking about all the attention he'll be getting. Yes, we need to remember and mourn, but we need to do it individually and spiritually and not incite widespread panic and hysteria. We need to concentrate on the families of the victims and not the shooter.

On the day following the Newton shooting I decided to do a little bit of a media experiment. For one hour I watched CNN and counted the amount of times they mentioned the name of the shooter. In the roughly 45 minutes of news (15 minutes of commercials) they never mentioned anything other than the shooting, and in talking about it they mentioned his name 25 times. This equates to having his name mentioned one time under every 2 minutes. If we ask any random person on the street today who was the one shooter in Newton, CT, quite a few would probably be able to answer. If we then asked them to name just one of the 26 victims, nearly none would be able to answer.

What really put me off is when the media interviewed the parents and asked ridiculous questions like "So how do you feel?" Really? Confused I mean, lets kill one of your loved ones and see how YOU feel! That type of "coverage" is absolutely not necessary and only further encourages copycat crimes.

kaysch, I understand your frustration with the lack of action and response. Remember, the same people who are divided on gun control are still the same people trying to fix it. The people we have in Congress today are more or less the same ones we had 4 years ago. Nothing quick and major will happen unless we can get new, progressive thinkers in the legislature who are not so concerned about party lines and expectations, but rather have the interests of their constituents in mind. It is only a shame that our voter turnout for Congressional elections is less than 40% in non-presidential election years, despite the legislative branch arguably being the strongest in our government.
capricornis
Judging by the discussion, I am guessing most of you guys are not from the US, or North America for that matter Smile That is, judging by the mostly civil tone of discussion. In US forums, discussion like this consists mostly of swear words, name-calling, and people telling one another "LEAVE THIS COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!"

The US constitution is the problem. This 1700s document is still considered relevant to issues in the 2000s, go figure. The previous massacres in the US changed nothing of gun laws. The recent one prompted spike in buying automatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Even the President doesn't dare openly say what obviously needs to be done. It is THAT BAD in the US.
truespeed
I asked this earlier in the thread,but has anyone ever gone on a mass killing spree in the USA with an illegally owned gun?

There has been mass shootings in the UK,every time the guns have been legally owned,it seems to me,the type of people who commit these crimes are not the type of people who have connections to illegal guns,make them illegal for people who live in urban areas and don't need them and these types of crimes would reduce sizeably. .
Nick2008
I've lived in quite a few countries, including Russia, Latvia, Canada, Czech Republic, and for now the United States. I agree with capricornis regarding the attitudes of many Americans. They tend to have "American Exceptionalism" and a belief that America is the best at everything. I can't tell you how many times my American friends have claimed that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, the best education system, the best infrastructure, the best internet acesss, the best everything. In discussing healthcare I pointed out that France and Austria have some of the most sophisticated healthcare systems in the world and they were ranked in the top 10 in the 2000 WHO report. One of my American colleagues responded with "The only reason Europe is any good is because America came in there and fixed it!" Nope, no credit to european health inventions or the work of thousands of European scientists, chemists, and doctors who studied at European universities. It's only America's "involvement" that matters in the end.

It is exactly because of this attitude and unwillingness to change that we can not get anything done in this country. I'm all for supporting and being patriotic about your native country but not when it becomes so overpowering that it distorts reality and causes people to not even consider something because it is "un-American."

This is why the US still hasn't adopted metric, because obviously it's "so hard" as some of my American colleagues claim. I'm still mind blown when the morning news says that today's high temperature is 36 degrees, I much prefer to hear 2 degrees (thank goodness for online weather with the C/F toggles). Oh yeah, and obviously it's much easier to remember 1,760 yards in a mile rather than 1,000 meters in a kilometer. Rolling Eyes

Basically, it's the American way or the highway. Wink
deanhills
kaysch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't think people have forgotten kaysch. How could they have? I'm more worried that people are getting desensitized to all of the violence. One bomb blast in a country not used to bomb blast would get people to go crazy, however when there are a few bomb blasts every month, like in some of the war torn countries, people are still shocked, but desensitized somehow.

I can't believe however that Obama is doing nothing about it. He looked genuinely distressed in the news casts, particularly since he has young children of his own. I'm sure he did relate and there must be a sub-committee in progress, plotting and planning a strategy of probably tightening gun control.


Again, you manage to shock me deanhills.
A country not used to bomb blasts? I assume you are referring to the USA? How many bomb blasts do you want me to list?
Don't think that is what I said. If you check, I actually said that if there had only been one bomb blast, they'd be very shocked, but the more bomb blasts there are, the more desensitized people become. I'm worried it's getting to that in the US.
kaysch wrote:
A sub-commitee to plot a strategy of tightening arms control? Didn't you say that was only possible at the expense of a civil war in the USA? Remember, it's in the 2nd amendment to the constitution to potentially shoot others, erm, own guns to defend yourselves.
Again you're twisting words out of context. There are already some rules in place for owning guns in the US. I'm saying that there must be some sub-committee in place that must be deliberating what they can do within the current status quo with regard to constitutional rights, whereby they can tighten the existing rules. Maybe even change some.
coolclay
Ok ok, I know I missed part of this conversation already and am jumping in a little late, but better late than never I guess.

Anyway I agree with Deanhills completely. Guns have been an ingrained part of our collective society since day one. Lets compare 1800's Europe to 1800's America. Europe was mostly a developed country with very little need for weapons of any sort, whereas the majority of America was wild and guns were vital for daily survival. 213 years later while guns may not be vital for daily survival in most areas, they certainly are in some places still. And where they aren't vital they are part of who we are. Our country was founded with guns, and they have become extremely prevalent.

Regardless many of our founding fathers decided that we should have the right to overturn our government if and when the day arises and that to do that guns in the hands of the people will be necessary.

Look at any of the recent revolutions around the world, and show me one that wasn't conducted with guns.

Say we out law every gun in the US. What is to stop some crazy from making a bomb. Making a bomb with some house hold chemicals is much easier and cheaper than buying a gun. Many terrorists have been able to kill a lot more people without any guns at all!

The real issue is another aspect of our culture.

That is our current culture where people with serious mental issues are not diagnosed and help is not available to them. Sane people even the most intense gun lover isn't going to go on shooting rampage, most people have this thing called morality that keeps us from taking others lives.

The unfortunate thing (as with many in our government) is the polarization of the issue. I think that our gun laws desperately need a serious overhaul, but the extremists on both sides are the ones that make the laws, and are unwilling to make any compromise whatsoever.

When the numbers of guns in a country almost equals the population you can't expect them to magically outlaw all guns, and have everyone just turn them in. Sure your average mom and pop will turn over their guns, but you can't expect your crazy nut job, or criminal to do so.
kaysch
Here are the statistics for Jan 13:

Taft, California: 1 wounded, 0 killed.
Atlanta, Georgia: 1 wounded, 0 killed.
Houston, Texas: 3 wounded + 1 heart attack, 0 killed.

Thanks for not doing any more serious harm, guys. And remember my prophecy: The next big revenge run will be in April or May 13...

God willing you'll be able to catch one of those semi-automatic guns as they will make your lives much easier... Remember, you're the good guys fighting the dark empire... Twisted Evil

Sick, innit? Evil or Very Mad
capricornis
I am baffled how some people still defend antiquated gun laws in the light of continuous mass murders... it is not the point of having 'illegal' vs. 'legal' guns, the point is that with tight gun laws there won't be ENOUGH guns circulating around to be branded/counted either as 'legal' or 'illegal'.. All illegal guns start as a legal purchase by someone.. If that is nipped in the bud by regulating the gun industry to produce smaller amounts of guns combined with tough rules which allows a very small part of the population to own them THERE WON"T BE ENOUGH guns to go around and be readily available for mass murders.
kaysch
While we're all eagerly waiting for the next amok run at a school to happen, this incident kills some of the waiting time (sorry, I couldn't resist). A 5-year-old gun owner kills his 2-year-old sister in Kentucky.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-ky-girl-accidentally-shot-killed-19079010#.UYMRNvPwBR1

In this context I particularly liked the Q&A posted on answers.yahoo.com:

Q: Should we - per NRA logic - be arming 2 year olds to protect them form 5 year olds?

My favourite answer to that question is this one:
A: It takes a good 5-year old with a gun to stop a bad one, not a 2-year old.

However the asker chose this one instead - which is nice, too:
A: After Boston, by NRA logic, we should be learning to make bombs because like guns, bombs don't kill people, people kill people

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130502100602AAjrNY4
Related topics
Supersize Me
Another really funny christian Joke/s
hp Goblet of Fire movie
Huh?. Another community.
irony: Liberal Church May Lose Funds Over Sermon
science vs. religion
F. Nietzsche
The Religion of Peace
Yet another Heart problem...
Jamie Foxx- Unpredictable *Review*
Mod Projects lots of info
Yet Another Idea..!
morality vs. ethics
Yet another set of dots
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.