jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 06, 2015 12:05PM
Nothing could go wrong. Most Americans can control both of those.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 06, 2015 09:38PM
"Most". So for the ones that can't?
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: December 06, 2015 11:53PM
Darwanism eventually takes care of the rest.
Still can't get over you cats down in Oz lettin the govt take your weapons away
without a massive shit storm over it. Even the cops here in Texas have straight
up sworn they'd never be party to such an unconstitutional act.
Thanks to the Muslim zealots recent BS, coupled w/Obozo and the rest of the limp
wristed scum sucking leftists recent calls for even more useless gun control
measures, guns/ammo sales are at an all time high here.
If one of the thousands of Muzzy immigrants you cats have there decides to go
apeshit at work with an illegal AK, Mac 9 or such pulse, I sure hope throwin
pens, pencils or a keeboard at 'em manages to save ya.
woberto Report This Comment Date: December 07, 2015 12:08AM
Yawn.
Don't confuse terrorism with mass shootings, of which you yanks have has over
1000 recorded since
Sandy Hook.
You cannot stop terrorism by implementing more gun control in the USA. Nor can
more guns stop it. You are fucked.
However you CAN reduce gun deaths and possibly mass shootings by implementing
more gun control in the USA. But it seems that you don't care about that.
An emotional teenager, an angry husband, a disgruntled employee. This happens
every single fucking day in Australia but nobody grabs a gun and kills someone
for hurting their feelings. If butt-hurt still exists after a day then maybe
there will be an assault but it won't be deadly unless the persons involved have
a mental illness.
God Bless America.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: December 07, 2015 02:18AM
Not sure where you get your stats, unless shootings of more than 1 count as
mass shootings to help manipulate that viewpoint.
More gun laws will never fix the problem, which is fucked up people.
Most of the actual mass shootings that do occur take place in gun free zones
which only further drives home the pointlessness of such a manical concept.
We all have the right to our varied opinions. Thankfully, my country and laws
still allow me to return the favor should some wacko decide to use myself or
others deaths as their ticket to nirvana.
woberto Report This Comment Date: December 07, 2015 04:47AM
As per the Sandy Hook link in the above post...
"Using the definition many people operate under — shootings at a public
place in which the shooter murdered four or more people, excluding domestic,
gang, and drug violence — they appear to be getting more common, according to
an analysis from Harvard School of Public Health researchers."
Looks a bit shaky because it should read "shot four or more people"
instead of "murdered four or more people". Not everyone dies of
course. I suspect the figures are correct but the interpretation is rather
biased. But hey, 5111 people shot in 1044 mass shootings. Go America!
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 07, 2015 01:26PM
It appears more and more states are adopting open carry laws which allows
people to legally carry handguns openly. Kim Texas allows for open carry as
well (I think I read that somewhere). Arkansas is following suit our gun laws
have been relaxed and decriminalized so far. If gun free zones didn't exist
then quite possibly this couple would have been shot down before they killed so
many. Do criminals obey the law?
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 07, 2015 09:13PM
The *VAST* majority of criminals here don't have access to guns.
If the laws didn't allow such easy access to guns, then there's a very high
chance "criminals" (being anybody breaking the law) wouldn't have been
armed with anything serious to begin with, thus negating the requirement of
others' access to guns.
I actually don't massively disagree that in a place with easy access to
weaponary, that having weapons is reasonable to defend yourself. I'm more a
proponant of not requiring it in the first place, because nobody else has it
either.
Sure, major criminal networks will have access to guns; that's the case here in
Melbourne, we see effectively mafia style hits, it's happened a bit lately.. but
they're shooting each other so who gives a fuck? They're not storming office
functions or schools.
[
www.humanosphere.org]
I also don't buy the whole "well if they didn't have guns, they'd kill each
other some other way" argument. It's really fucking hard to kill 14 people
at a party with a knife.
woberto Report This Comment Date: December 07, 2015 11:09PM
Some faggot posted this [
imgur.com] but it's on the right track.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 08, 2015 01:21PM
The problem I see here in the US with getting rid of guns is the massive
numbers of guns there are here. Unless you can magically make guns disappear
around the world then it just can't be done. Just like in San Bernidino
shooting it took the police way to long to arrive to the scene, if some had been
carrying they might have been able to reduce the amount of dead.
There are terrorist accomplishing their tasks with knives also. Terror can be
created with any weapon not just guns. We will be seeing all sorts of attacks
around the world probably mostly with guns and explosives. Terrorists have guns
and somehow get them into the countries they go to and if they don't have access
to guns they can use explosives quite easily or just walk around crowded places
stabbing people with knives.
I make no apologies but I have a gun I carry with me everywhere and if someone
breaks into my house they will be carried out.
pulse Report This Comment Date: December 08, 2015 08:58PM
Yes, terrorists use knives. There was an incident this week in the London
Underground of such a thing happening.
2 people slashed, none critically, and offender was taken down with a taser.
Now, imagine it was a gun...
I agree with you, the US is too hard now to get rid of them because they're
everywhere. That was my point above. In the rest of the ("western"
world where they're not so pervasive, the
murder/death rate is nowhere near as high as the US; you have to go to basically
lawless places to get a death rate as high as America's.
I'm not against needing a weapon to defend yourself when you have very high
crime rates and all those around you have weapons. I just believe it shouldn't
have got to that point in the first place.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: December 09, 2015 12:49PM
Might as well said gunpowder never should have been invented but it was and
guns followed. This is why I don't watch "Into the Badlands" because
the premise is off. Guns are removed? What did they do, erase all knowledge of
how to make gunpowder and basic guns from everyone. Most people know how to
make rudimentary zip-guns or even blunderbusses.
Millions of guns were purchased since Odama was elected. I have carried a gun
all my life and never had to use it except in the line of duty in the military.
The vast majority of people who own guns do so responsibly it is a very small
minority who don't raise their children properly or use their guns wrong. It is
the small number of people who have no respect for laws or rights of others who
keep the police too busy to protect everyone. So therefore we have to be able
to protect ourselves for whatever the length of time it takes the police to
respond. Different cities take different times to respond, some as long as 30
minutes or more. Here in this small town it averages 10 to 15 minutes, I have a
scanner and have measured the calls from the time dispatch gives the officer a
call to the time the officer checks '97(arrival).
