Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[blue4eva77]

I asked you earlier, and you didnt reply. But, are you happy with the level of gun related deaths in the US?

Happy ? Little extreme Roydo. Don't see where you are going with this, but I would imagine anyone who is ' happy ' with anything death related would be considered inhumane.

I'm personally against the use of guns. I don't own one, I don't want one. It's been 10 years since I last fired one.

 

[neil999]

I assume this guy wanted to kill as many people as possible, so why didn't he get hold of a bazooka and some grenades as well? Could it be that they are illegal and so he couldn't???

 

[PhilM]

You maybe right but Charlottesville was not reported as such as well and that was deffo ideology based.

I'm not an expert on the Charlottesville incident, but what was their political goal? What were they trying to gain?

There's a different between an singable individual incident based on an ideological belief and an act of terror.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[abelard]

Gun-owners care much, much more - almost unimaginably more - about this issue than the people who are horrified by gun violence.

This will be out of the news cycle in a week - two max - and the people who are now outraged will soon go back to talking about other things, like Trump's latest covfefe on Twitter.

But gun owners care dramatically more about this than the forum does just now, and they care it about this much all the time.

The political organization and desire to do something meaningful about guns is puny compared with the political organization and desire to do nothing.

Political change takes concerted effort, strategy, and above all, real work. Speculating about the effect of potential legislation is just idle chatter until we're willing to invest as much energy as they do.

 

[LinekersLegs]

As I said earlier, terrorism is the use of, or threat of, violence to cause fear in the pursuit of a political aim.

Unfortunately however, sometimes it's a person with no political aim or desire; rather it's pure unnecessary violence for individual reasons.

Labelling it terrorism without meeting the above criteria does not help the situation as we need to clearly distinguish between the two.

Agree with the thrust of your comment but apparently, as definied by NV law, it is terrorism

 

[roydo]

Happy ? Little extreme Roydo. Don't see where you are going with this, but I would imagine anyone who is ' happy ' with anything death related would be considered inhumane.

I'm personally against the use of guns. I don't own one, I don't want one. It's been 10 years since I last fired one.

So why do you ,seemingly, think the gun laws in the US are sound?

 

[blue4eva77]

No you claimed banning them wouldn’t effect availability which is insane.

You’ve also refused to address the point that the vast majority of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally. Some are then altered which makes them an illegal gun another point you’ve yet to address.

How can ' banning ' them effect availability ?

How many millions of firearms are illegal in the United States ? There is literally millions.

Address your point ? Nothing to address Joey. Right now you can obtain a firearm legally. If suddenly there was a nation wide ban on weapons, they would still be obtained, just illegally. The mass shootings and gun related crimes will still continue.

 

[PhilM]

Agree with the thrust of your comment but apparently, as definied by NV law, it is terrorism

Tweets aren't showing on my phone so could you summarise it or screen shot please? Any such interpretation in law is worrying though.

 

[Toffeeslam]

I'm not an expert on the Charlottesville incident, but what was their political goal? What were they trying to gain?

There's a different between an singable individual incident based on an ideological belief and an act of terror.

Not according to the media, when a dude rams his car into protesters who are opposed to his beliefs seems to me no different to other 'terror' attacks around Europe I.e Nice and Berlin.

Just should be some consistency or is there something more sinister?

 

[SteveSC]

I'm personally against the use of guns. I don't own one, I don't want one. It's been 10 years since I last fired one.

So why the strong stance on the legality of weaponry then and doing something about them?

Whats mad is the legality of weapons is irrelevant in the current case because the guy owned all of the weapons it appears and they were legal. With the exception of him converting some of the rifles that is he owned them legally.

On a side note i do love the fact that someone who is against the use of them and who doesn't own or want one knows where to get one illegally haha!!

 

[blue4eva77]

So why do you ,seemingly, think the gun laws in the US are sound?

Hey ? Where did I say that.

My whole agenda here is that its my opinion that banning firearms wouldn't stop gun related crimes and mass shootings. That's it. That's just my opinion. No where have I said that I think gun laws are sound here in the U.S.

 

[LinekersLegs]

How can ' banning ' them effect availability ?

How many millions of firearms are illegal in the United States ? There is literally millions.

Address your point ? Nothing to address Joey. Right now you can obtain a firearm legally. If suddenly there was a nation wide ban on weapons, they would still be obtained, just illegally. The mass shootings and gun related crimes will still continue.

One of the few times it was attempted in the US, with fully automatic weapons, it did especially over time.

Of course there would be a) illegal production b) illegal importation c) illegal adaptation but unless all of these equal the current legal production levels over time there would be reduced availability due to confiscation/loss/component failure.

A ban isn't going to happen but surprised by your complete rejection of the concept that it would reduce supply.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

How can ' banning ' them effect availability ?

How many millions of firearms are illegal in the United States ? There is literally millions.

Address your point ? Nothing to address Joey. Right now you can obtain a firearm legally. If suddenly there was a nation wide ban on weapons, they would still be obtained, just illegally. The mass shootings and gun related crimes will still continue.

It's this kind of logic that completely exasperates those who believe that gun control should something that we should obviously strive for. Sure, you can't eradicate mass killings. But shouldn't we as a society reduce their likelihood of occurring? You cannot possibly come up with any argument that says more gun control would HAVE to have a positive impact (positive meaning less of them) on mass killings. If more gun control just stops ONE guy from shooting up a movie theater and killing 20 people, isn't that obviously worth it?

But no, in our black/white, mutually exclusive way of looking at issues, it's either you get rid of all mass shooting, or don't bother with gun control. It's just exhausting having these arguments.

 

[blue4eva77]

So why the strong stance on the legality of weaponry then and doing something about them?

Whats mad is the legality of weapons is irrelevant in the current case because the guy owned all of the weapons it appears and they were legal. With the exception of him converting some of the rifles that is he owned them legally.

On a side note i do love the fact that someone who is against the use of them and who doesn't own or want one knows where to get one illegally haha!!

Because I simply don't there is anything you can do to stop anyone from illegally obtaining a firearm, no matter what the law says. The strong stance is that you'll still SEE gun related crime. You'll still SEE mass shootings, even if it were illegal to own a firearm.

I'm lolling at the last sentence too. Because now you're judging all kinds. 1-10 for the attempt to troll and bait because you're a little triggered by my posts this afternoon.