Today's mass shooting in the US

FTM said:
I own about 8 fly fishing rods..I can only use 1 at a time but I have many

guns are the same...and I am not against owning a gun, I know if I lived in a country that allowed easier access to gun ownership , I would have guns for hunting

I just think better control could be exercised over who has what..

or they should regulate the more extreme guns and accessories...does anybody really need a huge banana clip
Click to expand...

As far as the NRA are concerned every citizen in America is entitled to a gun because it is their constitutional right. As soon as you start chipping away at that and deciding certain people (except people convicted of crimes) can't own a gun, or you can't own certain types of guns, or accessories (what's an extreme gun?) then from the NRA's point of view it becomes a slippery slope and open to abuse. So all they do is argue against any and all changes. I mean you're literally wasting your breath even contemplating changes, they're so dead set against it that it's a pointless debate.
 
FTM said:
I own about 8 fly fishing rods..I can only use 1 at a time but I have many

guns are the same...and I am not against owning a gun, I know if I lived in a country that allowed easier access to gun ownership , I would have guns for hunting

I just think better control could be exercised over who has what..

or they should regulate the more extreme guns and accessories...does anybody really need a huge banana clip
Click to expand...

Its actually not that hard to own firearm in the uk. Anyone can have a shotgun its down to the police to give a reason why you cant. For firearms themselves there are requirements and you have to prove a reason for owning one but again thats not at all hard.
 
Last edited:
HybridX said:
Its actually not that hard to own firearma in tje uk. Anyone can have a shotgun its down to the polive to give a reason why you cant. For firearms themselves there are requirements and you have to prove a reason for owning one but again thats not at all hard.
Click to expand...

its still much harder than the us, and the key thing is it works, and works well enough to stop regular mass shootings.

it's not about completely restricting what you can access, just making it hard enough to put the casual folk off whilst not denying the true enthusiast the equipment for his hobby.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
The restrictions have also made guns and being pro-gun fairly unfashionable in the UK.
Click to expand...

Being pro gun or owning guns has never been down to being fashionable. Its always been a bit niche in the uk and always will be. Its been a lot less popular since Dunblane and the restrictions that came in place after it as they gutted all the handgun clubs in one move and ita reasonable to say at least 50% of all shooting clubs closed after that.

The license system and assessment system we have as well as all the documentation works well.... thats what the US needs. The restriction we have on what we can own is more of a placebo than anything else.
 
Last edited:
All these spree shootings staeted in the 1980s. The only one I can think of before then was the clocktower sniper and he had a large brain tumor that made him go mental.

So what happened in the 80s to cause the explosion? You could buy a brand new m60 machine gun if you felt like it before 1986.

Over/poor prescription of psyco active drugs? 1 in 6 Americans are on anti-depressants today.

Video nasties glorifying gun violence?
 
Evangelion said:
Kirk R. MacGregor has written an excellent monograph on this subject. Here's an excerpt: [..]
Click to expand...

Thanks for the references. I'll be reading those.

No, murder is unlawful killing. [..]
Click to expand...

Which is killing without permission from the authorities. If the authorities permit the killing, the killing is not unlawful. If they do not permit the killing, it is unlawful. It might or might not be necessary to get specific permission in advance for a specific killing. It might be covered by rules already stated by the authorities. They might also grant permission retrospectively.
 
DAIR said:
Is that so?

I don't know about you. But I'd feel terrified if anyone (regardless of their motivation). Went around shooting people.

Terror is Terror.
Click to expand...

terror might be 'terror' or terrifying even... it doesn't make it 'terrorism' though

the other poster gave yo0u the definition, what exactly are you struggling with?
 
Definition is perception.

Someone is not a terrorist for their beliefs, they are one for their actions, or their intended actions.

If you go into the world with the intention to kill random people you are a terrorist.

If you commit acts of terrorism, you are a terrorist.

You can look at two examples where the exact same thing happens

1) A terrorist hijacks a plane, then simply crashes it into the ground, killing everyone on board, you can make up any backstory you want to him.

2) You sleep with the wife of some super hacker guy, who decides to kill you by hacking into the plane you are on and crashes it into the ground killing everyone.
 
kwerk said:
All these spree shootings staeted in the 1980s. The only one I can think of before then was the clocktower sniper and he had a large brain tumor that made him go mental.
Click to expand...

''On August 13, 1903, 30-year-old Gilbert Twigg, armed with a 12-gauge double-barrelled shotgun, opened fire at a concert, killing six people and wounding at least 25, before killing himself. Three others died in hospitals afterward. The incident, while largely forgotten today, has been called "America's first modern mass shooting"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom