Las Vegas
Comments
-
Shortfall wrote:
I suggest you Google "knife killings in China" which may disabuse you of your idea.
My money is on there not being an example of one man killing 50 with a knife. In any case gun laws should not only be to combat these kind of mass shootings, they grab the headlines but they contribute a small amount to the total number of gun deaths in the US.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I suggest you Google "knife killings in China" which may disabuse you of your idea.
My money is on there not being an example of one man killing 50 with a knife. In any case gun laws should not only be to combat these kind of mass shootings, they grab the headlines but they contribute a small amount to the total number of gun deaths in the US.
This is semantics. In the 2014 Kunming knife attacks 33 people were killed and there were 143 non fatal injuries. There are a number of worryingly similar events in China of late. If you'd have done a Google search of mass murder prior to the Nice, Barcelona and London Bridge attacks you wouldn't have conceived that 86 people could be killed and 458 injured by a deliberate vehicle attack. The point is that you can't ban every weapon or means of commiting mass slaughter. That's not to say we shouldn't take reasonable measures to protect ourselves or have an intelligent discussion about gun control, but as I've mentioned already, the elephant in the room that nobody seems to be looking at is the presence of mind altering legal and illegal drugs in the systems of so many of these attackers. If we're going to ban or control anything, perhaps we need to look at drugs again?0 -
It's not semantics to see a difference between one person killing or injuring 600 people and 8 people killing or injuring 176.0
-
KingstonGraham wrote:It's not semantics to see a difference between one person killing or injuring 600 people and 8 people killing or injuring 176.
Well if you say so. What list of household objects, tools and chemicals would you extend your ban to and what would the net effect be do you think?0 -
Shortfall wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:It's not semantics to see a difference between one person killing or injuring 600 people and 8 people killing or injuring 176.
Well if you say so. What list of household objects, tools and chemicals would you extend your ban to and what would the net effect be do you think?
Semi automatic rifles aren't household objects as most people would understand the term.0 -
Shortfall wrote:Well if you say so. What list of household objects, tools and chemicals would you extend your ban to and what would the net effect be do you think?
I'd include any other "household objects" that can fire a projectile at anything over 500 fps and can prove fatal at any range in excess of 20 feet.0 -
Singleton wrote:Shortfall wrote:Well if you say so. What list of household objects, tools and chemicals would you extend your ban to and what would the net effect be do you think?
I'd include any other "household objects" that can fire a projectile at anything over 500 fps and can prove fatal at any range in excess of 20 feet.
Which would leave a huge arsenal of easily obtainable weaponry, vehicles and chemicals available to any would be mass killer.0 -
Certainly not outside the USA at least, it's startlingly obvious to the rest of the world.KingstonGraham wrote:Shortfall wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:It's not semantics to see a difference between one person killing or injuring 600 people and 8 people killing or injuring 176.
Well if you say so. What list of household objects, tools and chemicals would you extend your ban to and what would the net effect be do you think?
Semi automatic rifles aren't household objects as most people would understand the term.0 -
Shortfall wrote:Which would leave a huge arsenal of easily obtainable weaponry, vehicles and chemicals available to any would be mass killer.
I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify for me?
Let's consider another question - should we allow members of the public to buy hand grenades and RPG's??
My response - No, because they can kill a lot of people and are dangerous.
Your response apparently would be - Yes, because they can probably make an IED or petrol bomb anyway so we may as well make it easy for them.
Is that correct?0 -
Shortfall wrote:Singleton wrote:Shortfall wrote:Well if you say so. What list of household objects, tools and chemicals would you extend your ban to and what would the net effect be do you think?
I'd include any other "household objects" that can fire a projectile at anything over 500 fps and can prove fatal at any range in excess of 20 feet.
Which would leave a huge arsenal of easily obtainable weaponry, vehicles and chemicals available to any would be mass killer.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Perfect is the enemy of good"?0 -
It's hard to look at the stats and say it's fine because those people would have been stabbed instead. We will never know for sure but I would say it's extremely unlikely that the number would be anywhere near as high. At any rate, how many people do you think it's ok to die before you decide it's for the greater good to ban them?
"Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide.[12] Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011, equivalent to a top 10 largest U.S. city in 2016, falling between the populations of San Antonio and Dallas, Texas.[12]"
"So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country."0 -
I think that pretty much sums it up, everybody else can see the fatally flawed logic.Singleton wrote:Shortfall wrote:Which would leave a huge arsenal of easily obtainable weaponry, vehicles and chemicals available to any would be mass killer.
I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify for me?
Let's consider another question - should we allow members of the public to buy hand grenades and RPG's??
My response - No, because they can kill a lot of people and are dangerous.
Your response apparently would be - Yes, because they can probably make an IED or petrol bomb anyway so we may as well make it easy for them.
Is that correct?0 -
What I find sickening here is that even though congress and the NRA are finally possibly agreeing on something needing MORE regulation (the bump stock, rapid fire device used), their huddled mass followers are running out and buying up said bump stocks at record pace. And sprinting out to buy more guns and ammo.
Sick, just sick in the head.
You can have a few guns to hunt and a gun to protect your family. But there is no reason on God's earth (or whatever earth you believe in) for someone to need the right to own dozens of guns and boxes and boxes full of ammunition on the scale of a small militia.
It boggles the mind.0 -
Singleton wrote:Shortfall wrote:Which would leave a huge arsenal of easily obtainable weaponry, vehicles and chemicals available to any would be mass killer.
I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify for me?
Let's consider another question - should we allow members of the public to buy hand grenades and RPG's??
My response - No, because they can kill a lot of people and are dangerous.
Your response apparently would be - Yes, because they can probably make an IED or petrol bomb anyway so we may as well make it easy for them.
Is that correct?
No. I have said there needs to be intelligent debate about gun control and we can take reasonable steps to protect ourselves from other things that may cause harm (reasonable being the operative word). However the one thing a huge number of these mass killers, spree killers and so called Islamist Jihadis have in common is a history of drug abuse or being medicated on SSRI type anti depressants. If this is the cause (and a proper enquiry is required to establish this) then the determined among them will find a way to commit mass murder even if every gun in the world was taken out of circulation.0 -
And what about the vast majority of gun deaths which happen outside of mass shootings? Like toddlers shooting people/ themselves accidentally, or road rage incidents which spiral out of control? Or even suicides when studies show suicide rates are higher when exposure to guns is higher? You can't spend billions of dollars a year protecting yourselves from terrorism when this is allowed to continue, it's frankly ridiculous when you look at the numbers involved0
-
You keep saying there's no point in gun control because if somebody really wants to they could go on a killing spree and murder thousands of people with something like a plastic spoon if they really wanted to. Guns make killing a lot of people easy because that is what they are designed for. They are designed to kill, nothing else, that is their sole purpose. You are defending guns and saying guns aren't the problem drugs are. Drugs may well be an issue, but guns facilitate killing and are completely unnecessary. The US has a huge problem with guns, it needs to be addressed. But there is not the will to do so. That is insane to any right thinking person.Shortfall wrote:Singleton wrote:Shortfall wrote:Which would leave a huge arsenal of easily obtainable weaponry, vehicles and chemicals available to any would be mass killer.
I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify for me?
Let's consider another question - should we allow members of the public to buy hand grenades and RPG's??
My response - No, because they can kill a lot of people and are dangerous.
Your response apparently would be - Yes, because they can probably make an IED or petrol bomb anyway so we may as well make it easy for them.
Is that correct?
No. I have said there needs to be intelligent debate about gun control and we can take reasonable steps to protect ourselves from other things that may cause harm (reasonable being the operative word). However the one thing a huge number of these mass killers, spree killers and so called Islamist Jihadis have in common is a history of drug abuse or being medicated on SSRI type anti depressants. If this is the cause (and a proper enquiry is required to establish this) then the determined among them will find a way to commit mass murder even if every gun in the world was taken out of circulation.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
You keep saying there's no point in gun control because if somebody really wants to they could go on a killing spree and murder thousands of people with something like a plastic spoon if they really wanted to. Guns make killing a lot of people easy because that is what they are designed for. They are designed to kill, nothing else, that is their sole purpose. You are defending guns and saying guns aren't the problem drugs are. Drugs may well be an issue, but guns facilitate killing and are completely unnecessary. The US has a huge problem with guns, it needs to be addressed. But there is not the will to do so. That is insane to any right thinking person.Shortfall wrote:Singleton wrote:Shortfall wrote:Which would leave a huge arsenal of easily obtainable weaponry, vehicles and chemicals available to any would be mass killer.
I'm not sure what your point is - can you clarify for me?
Let's consider another question - should we allow members of the public to buy hand grenades and RPG's??
My response - No, because they can kill a lot of people and are dangerous.
Your response apparently would be - Yes, because they can probably make an IED or petrol bomb anyway so we may as well make it easy for them.
Is that correct?
No. I have said there needs to be intelligent debate about gun control and we can take reasonable steps to protect ourselves from other things that may cause harm (reasonable being the operative word). However the one thing a huge number of these mass killers, spree killers and so called Islamist Jihadis have in common is a history of drug abuse or being medicated on SSRI type anti depressants. If this is the cause (and a proper enquiry is required to establish this) then the determined among them will find a way to commit mass murder even if every gun in the world was taken out of circulation.
You are misquoting me or misunderstanding me or both. I am NOT defending gun laws as they stand. I am NOT saying drugs are the sole cause of these rampage killings. What I am saying is that gun ownership has remained constant in America but this type of mass shooting has risen in tandem with availability and mass consumption of illegal drugs like cannabis and the increase in SSRI use. I am saying that there are limits to what America can do in terms of banning guns given the availability of both legal and illegal weapons including automatic and semi automatic rifles already in and the American's rabid defense of mass gun ownership.
Please let's have a debate about gun control but let's look at every other avenue such as the availability of, prescription of and side effects of SSRIs and whether cannabis is the harmless drug some would have us believe, and if it isn't then what can we do to limit it's use and abuse.0 -
Making it really difficult to get hold of a gun reduces murders/deaths used with a gun.
Making it really difficult to get hold of a knife would also reduce murders/deaths used with a knife, only it'd also reduce human's ability to chop stuff that isn't human flesh.
Difference is, a gun doesn't have much other use; save for a bit of country pursuits. Arguably that's good enough reason to have some, and sure enough, the gov't makes well regulated exceptions for that specific purpose.
The guns the states are talking about aren't really in the spirit of country pursuits are they?
Fairly sure you're a totally crap hunter if you need an AR15.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Making it really difficult to get hold of a gun reduces murders/deaths used with a gun.
Making it really difficult to get hold of a knife would also reduce murders/deaths used with a knife, only it'd also reduce human's ability to chop stuff that isn't human flesh.
Difference is, a gun doesn't have much other use; save for a bit of country pursuits. Arguably that's good enough reason to have some, and sure enough, the gov't makes well regulated exceptions for that specific purpose.
The guns the states are talking about aren't really in the spirit of country pursuits are they?
Fairly sure you're a totally crap hunter if you need an AR15.
I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .0 -
Shortfall wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Making it really difficult to get hold of a gun reduces murders/deaths used with a gun.
Making it really difficult to get hold of a knife would also reduce murders/deaths used with a knife, only it'd also reduce human's ability to chop stuff that isn't human flesh.
Difference is, a gun doesn't have much other use; save for a bit of country pursuits. Arguably that's good enough reason to have some, and sure enough, the gov't makes well regulated exceptions for that specific purpose.
The guns the states are talking about aren't really in the spirit of country pursuits are they?
Fairly sure you're a totally crap hunter if you need an AR15.
I don't find much to disagree with there but the pro gun lobby argue (with some justification I might add) that if you prevent law abiding people from owning a gun then the only people that do have them are the criminals. As the notorious monster John Gotti famously said: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun" .
Depends how difficult you make it to own a gun, right?
And tbh, I'd be quite happy leaving guns to cops & robbers. They can shoot each other to their heart's content.
At least the robber will know I'm not gonna shoot him, so he'll probably just wave it in my face and be off with my stuff, rather than shoot me when he thinks a twitch is me reaching for a gun.
Same goes for the police. They can assume that, chances are, the person doesn't have gun, so they can chill out.0 -
I was always told by some people who thought they were hard "never bring a weapon you're not prepared to use" and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's good advice, and it says a lot about the person using one, right?0
-
I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars0
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars
Quite.
Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars
Quite.
Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?
not forgetting your cat/dog/kids may accidentally shoot you0 -
I believe if a person buys a gun for protection the stats say it is most likely to be used by a loved one against the buyer or vice versa. A robber is more likely to use the persons gun against them than the buyer use it against an intruder. Yet again up the page Shortfall is agreeing with the pro gun lobby. There is no reason for the average person to keep a gun.Surrey Commuter wrote:I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars
Quite.
Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?
when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons
the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason
People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.
if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.0 -
burnthesheep wrote:What I find sickening here is that even though congress and the NRA are finally possibly agreeing on something needing MORE regulation (the bump stock, rapid fire device used), their huddled mass followers are running out and buying up said bump stocks at record pace. And sprinting out to buy more guns and ammo.
Sick, just sick in the head.
You can have a few guns to hunt and a gun to protect your family. But there is no reason on God's earth (or whatever earth you believe in) for someone to need the right to own dozens of guns and boxes and boxes full of ammunition on the scale of a small militia.
It boggles the mind.
Welcome to the American ideology. They believe that they need all these guns to protect them against the state by using them in a civil war. How likely it is that an elected government would seek to push it's voters to the point of civil war is beyond me. What is incredibly ironic is that they already are a very conformist society.0 -
I wonder,who was playing on stage when the shooting started?0
-
crumbschief wrote:I wonder,who was playing on stage when the shooting started?
See if you can get internet access then try this site www.google.com0 -
mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:I am sure the stats show that more homeowners get shot with their own gun than shoot burglars
Quite.
Why would a burglar shoot me if I don't have a gun?
when i lived in Midrand Johannesburg, a couple were butchered and set on fire, they were shot multiple times, they lived two plots down from my cousin, even his kids were taught how to use the family weapons
the female canoeist on the Amazon shot/raped/killed for no reason
People on drugs or with absolutely nothing in their lives dont value life, its a mistake to think that everyone thinks like we do in relatively civilised UK.
if i lived in the USA i d want a hand gun too.
My sister, who is British, is married to an American, she has lived in the US for 20 years, she refuses to let him have a gun; last time I checked they were both doing well.0
