The US Shootings Thread

[Guest NGOG]

I figure we need a thread like this until America passes some sort of gun legislation.

Three shot dead in a mall in Columbia, Maryland.

[classicrawker]

I figure we need a thread like this until America passes some sort of gun legislation.

Three shot dead in a mall in Columbia, Maryland.

Then you have a long wait mate..............unless the U.S. becomes a military dictatorship and guns are confiscated we most likely will never see this happen............

[arnold layne]

Yeah Columbine was unique and interesting.

These nutters need to find a better, less tragic way to make the news. It's gotten really fuckin' old.

[Guest NGOG]

I figure we need a thread like this until America passes some sort of gun legislation.

Three shot dead in a mall in Columbia, Maryland.

Then you have a long wait mate..............unless the U.S. becomes a military dictatorship and guns are confiscated we most likely will never see this happen............

I'm not suggesting that you should outlaw guns entirely. But you could at least adopt a policy of background checks.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Maybe better treatments for the mentally ill?

[Guest NGOG]

Maybe better treatments for the mentally ill?

That would be good, but it's not relevant to the point. The point is that the mentally unstable shouldn't be able to obtain a gun.

There is nothing you can dispute about that statement.

Edited January 25, 2014 by NGOG

[AxlisOld]

I figure we need a thread like this until America passes some sort of gun legislation.

Three shot dead in a mall in Columbia, Maryland.

Outlawing pipe bombs sure worked for the Irish.

[Guest NGOG]

I figure we need a thread like this until America passes some sort of gun legislation.

Three shot dead in a mall in Columbia, Maryland.

Outlawing pipe bombs sure worked for the Irish.

Please tell me you aren't serious.

Northern Ireland was embroiled in a brutal civil war.

[foghat43]

Maybe better treatments for the mentally ill?

Maybe better treatments for the mentally ill?

That would be good, but it's not relevant to the point. The point is that the mentally unstable shouldn't be able to obtain a gun.

There is nothing you can dispute about that statement.

Depends on how you define mentally ill/unstable and where you draw the line between stable enough to own a gun vs. not? For example, millions of folks are on anti-depressants and could potentially be considered mentally ill? But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun or should be denied the right to self-defense.

[Guest NGOG]

For example, millions of folks are on anti-depressants and could potentially be considered mentally ill?

Yes, they should not have access to guns.

[foghat43]

For example, millions of folks are on anti-depressants and could potentially be considered mentally ill?

Yes, they should not have access to guns.

I disagree. Taking an anti-depressant may be one of many indicators that a person is not stable enough to own a gun, but that indicator alone should not prohibit a person from owning one.

Edited January 25, 2014 by foghat43

[AxlisOld]

I figure we need a thread like this until America passes some sort of gun legislation.

Three shot dead in a mall in Columbia, Maryland.

Outlawing pipe bombs sure worked for the Irish.

Please tell me you aren't serious.

Northern Ireland was embroiled in a brutal civil war.

Oh I'm sorry, do you not like someone taking a stereotype and making light of it?

[Damn_Smooth]

Yeah, gun control is exactly what we need.

[Guest NGOG]

For example, millions of folks are on anti-depressants and could potentially be considered mentally ill?

Yes, they should not have access to guns.

I disagree. Taking an anti-depressant may be one of many indicators that a person is not stable enough to own a gun, but that indicator alone should not prohibit a person from owning one.

Anti-depressants are renowned as having adverse effects on people. If somebody chooses to consume anti-depressants, they shouldn't have a firearm at their disposal.

I figure we need a thread like this until America passes some sort of gun legislation.

Three shot dead in a mall in Columbia, Maryland.

Outlawing pipe bombs sure worked for the Irish.

Please tell me you aren't serious.

Northern Ireland was embroiled in a brutal civil war.

Oh I'm sorry, do you not like someone taking a stereotype and making light of it?

Why are you against background checks?

Do you falsely perceive background checks as the first step towards an outright banning?

[foghat43]

Yeah, gun control is exactly what we need.

Yeah, gun legislation works so well...after all, schools are gun free zones and that's why shootings never happen there..you know, because folks who want to murder other people are all about respecting the law....

[Facekicker]

America is an open air lunatic asylum. They'd rather ban kinder eggs than assault rifles.

They sit by and watch their children being slaughtered in schools and cinemas and then defend these atrocities while hiding behind bullshit slogans and miniture American flags.

Land of the free, home of the brave.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Y'know, there's a lot of other countries with a lot higher rate of innocent people getting shot dead in, America really isn't that crazy in this regard.

[bran]

more people in chicago siigned up for handgun permits(when the ban was ruled constiutional) than people signing up for obama care.

guns will never be banned in the us. this is one issue that goes beyond the political parties of the us.

this thread will turn into another anti us thread all the while us fans and family members are told not to wear our countriies colors because we might be hurt or killed while attending the olympics in russia.

yet we know the tired and played out and bullshit narrative will remain. we know only the us has issues. just fucking let it rest already.

[AxlisOld]

more people in chicago siigned up for handgun permits(when the ban was ruled constiutional) than people signing up for obama care.

guns will never be banned in the us. this is one issue that goes beyond the political parties of the us.

this thread will turn into another anti us thread all the while us fans and family members are told not to wear our countriies colors because we might be hurt or killed while attending the olympics in russia.

yet we know the tired and played out and bullshit narrative will remain. we know only the us has issues. just fucking let it rest already.

Once, I walked down the street to get a gallon of milk. I was shot 48 times by minorities with assault weapons. WHY didn't I wear my bulletproof vest that day? Fuckin America.

[OmarBradley]

America is an open air lunatic asylum. They'd rather ban kinder eggs than assault rifles.

They sit by and watch their children being slaughtered in schools and cinemas and then defend these atrocities while hiding behind bullshit slogans and miniture American flags.

Land of the free, home of the brave.

Partially agree. The problem is not only guns as you've alluded it: it's people. Guns on their own do nothing, people pull the trigger. Personally, I can see the argument that people should be able to own weapons, but I think the con's vastly outweigh the pro's. Almost every week you hear about either a school shooting or a case where a 4 year old gets hold of a gun and kills someone accidentally. There have been statistics thrown about in this thread, I think a telling statistic would be what % of home break-ins/muggings/victimizing altercations have been resolved successfully by the homeowner/victim owning a weapon, and then comparing that statistic to how often someone is unjustly killed by a gun (breakdown for legally owned weapon vs. illegally owned weapon too). I'm not terribly opposed to having individuals own a weapon, but I think that the "gun culture" it instigates is deplorable. The "I'm an American and my country let's me own an assault rifle and I'm proud of it" mentality really puts me off and leads to me to believe certain individuals don't understand what America is about.

The Constitution defense should not hold up, there is debate as to whether or not the Constitution allows for personal ownership of weapons, though it is generally agreed that it does. However, it was written over 200 years ago... before there were semi-auto firearms that were accurate and reliable. Having an inaccurate musket that takes 3 minutes to load stowed away under your bed is a lot different than having a Glock or an AR15 in a back cabinet in your house. I know there's going to be disagreement with this viewpoint, but let's please try to keep it civil. As bran said, nothing is going to change, we're just engaging this issue for the sake of rhetoric at this point.

Edited January 27, 2014 by OmarBradley

[foghat43]

"Anti-depressants are renowned as having adverse effects on people. If somebody chooses to consume anti-depressants, they shouldn't have a firearm at their disposal."

There are so many things wrong with this line of reasoning...

So let's say they adversely effect 10% and of that 10% less than 1% actually use a gun in a violent crime...are we to punish the 99% for what the 1% do? We all know people how are on anti-depressants that would never hurt a fly.

What if a person is actually more mentally stable while on anti-depressants than he/she otherwise would be off of them (after all isn't that the point of the anti-depressant)? So let's force that person (or at least give him an incentive) to come off the anti-depressants so that he/she can purchase a gun?

What would the background check look for...current use or prior use...if prior use, how far back? If I took an anti-dpressant five years ago or 6 months does that mean I can't own a gun?

What if I am being treated with a drug that has multiple purposes (only one of which is to treat mental illness of some sort)...and I'm taking this drug but don't have any type of mental illness, but it shows up in the background check...what then?

So we are to deny someone's right to defend his life, family and property (or a woman to defend herself from a rapist) simply because he/she is taking an anti-depressant?

Edited January 25, 2014 by foghat43

[OmarBradley]

So we are to deny someone's right to defend his life, family and property (or a woman to defend herself from a rapist) simply because he/she is taking an anti-depressant?

There are ways to defend your life without using a firearm. I don't know enough to comment on the anti-depressant argument, but people need to realize this.

Edited January 25, 2014 by OmarBradley

[Guest NGOG]

"Anti-depressants are renowned as having adverse effects on people. If somebody chooses to consume anti-depressants, they shouldn't have a firearm at their disposal."

There are so many things wrong with this line of reasoning...

So let's say they adversely effect 10% and of that 10% less than 1% actually use a gun in a violent crime...are we to punish the 99% for what the 1% do? We all know people how are on anti-depressants that would never hurt a fly.

What if a person is actually more mentally stable while on anti-depressants than he/she otherwise would be off of them (after all isn't that the point of the anti-depressant)? So let's force that person (or at least give him an incentive) to come off the anti-depressants so that he/she can purchase a gun?

What would the background check look for...current use or prior use...if prior use, how far back? If I took an anti-dpressant five years ago or 6 months does that mean I can't own a gun?

What if I am being treated with a drug that has multiple purposes (only one of which is to treat mental illness of some sort)...and I'm taking this drug but don't have any type of mental illness, but it shows up in the background check...what then?

So we are to deny someone's right to defend his life, family and property (or a woman to defend herself from a rapist) simply because he/she is taking an anti-depressant?

Didn't read.

Yes somebody that is medicated for depression shouldn't have access to a gun. Why is that surprising?

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't think guns SHOULD ever be banned in the US, why should they? The issue with crime or murder or whatever is in people heads, it's about motives, it's about a state that people get into where they wanna murder, a gun is just a fuckin' instrument. Being peaceful ain't achieved by locking up or destroying anything that can cause harm in any way, being peaceful is when you can do that shit no matter whats within arms reach, trying to achieve a more peaceful society by way of controlling what the people have access to is contrary to the principles of a free society.

I fuckin' rate the yanks personally, God love em, thats the way to go about it, if there's a button in front of you that destroys the fuckin' planet you don't blame the button you blame the cunt that wants to push it. End of the day guns just a fuckin' instrument, it ain't guilty of nothing and like, you have no right whatsoever to be sanctimonious about low crime rates when you've achieved that by prohibiting freedoms, you ain't fuckin' achieved nothing there, any place anywhere could do that, it don't make you better people, it makes you resigned people.

I respect the man who has a gun on his kitchen table but DOESN'T use it to kill the bloke who shags his wife by choice than the bloke who gets enraged, probably would've killed the bloke who shagged his wife if he had a clean and easy way of doing so but chose not to and then later reconciled himself with the idea that she/he/both of them ain't worth it.

[bran]

i dont think the forefathers would have cared in all honesty. most households had guns for hunting i doubt they would complain or ban a gun that was accurate from 600 yards a way instead of a crappy musket that that couldnt hit the broadside of a barn at 200 yards.

i doubt they would have complained if their singleshot handgun that minutes to reload was replaced with a handgun that held 10 shots in a magazine.