Da Shins Kelly wrote: » Apparently those fcukers from the Westboro Baptist Church are planning on making their way to Connecticut to picket the school in order to "praise God's judgement". Ugh. :mad:
paperclip2 wrote: » In the days after my brother was killed in a road accident there was a lot of laughter in our house. Remembering the things he'd said and done. Speculating about what he would think of the goings-on and imagining his take on the things people were saying about him. At his funeral quite a few priests officiated. My sister turned to me and whispered 'Its like being at a KKK rally.' Sitting in the front pew of the church I seriously got the giggles. It wasn't that I didn't care he was gone or that I didn't cry my eyes out when I was alone. You cant predict grief. You cant reason with shock. When something overwhelms you so completely your mind will do its best to protect you. That includes humour. It can insulate you from the agony for a while. But it doesn't last. The pain is real and will be felt. Those parents and families in Newtown are in agony and will be for years. I don't presume to judge how they choose or need to deal with a loss so crippling. Neither should anyone else.
smurgen wrote: » I can understand how a handgun might be used for self defence but a semi automatic rifle? Has there ever been a case where a member of the public stopped a potential mass killer with a semi automatic rifle?I honest think that banning these semi automatic weapons from public ownership would go a long way to reduce the amount of shootings like these. Why isn't a handgun enough for Joe Blogs?
folamh wrote: » http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/none-of-the-5-worst-shooting-rampages-was-carried-out-by-an-american/ Relative to the rest of the world, the frequency of mass shootings in America seems proportional to its large population. These incidents get more attention because of America's buzzing media culture.
smurgen wrote: » what a crap article. If you compare the usa gun related murder statistic to Switzerland's (the country with the highest rate of gun ownership in the world) you get 1 in 250,000 interntional murders per capital by firearm in Switzerland in 2009 v's 7.5 in 250,000 murders per capital by firearm in the U.S.
wordsmithi wrote: » Conspiracy theorists should read this carefully and realise that predicting how people act in awful circumstances is not really possible. May all those poor people who were murdered rest in peace.
LiamMc wrote: » All that proves is that the Swiss aren't very good shots. Never were, never will be.
folamh wrote: » http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/none-of-the-5-worst-shooting-rampages-was-carried-out-by-an-american/
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » An apologist for gun lusting
LiamMc wrote: » All that proves is that the Swiss aren't very good shots.
Blay wrote: » People dont carry rifles around with them in public for self defence so its unlikely anyone has ever stopped an active shooter with one.
smurgen wrote: » so what is the point of them?And why are people so against getting them banned?
Blay wrote: » People use them hunting and target shooting...I must have posted this 50 times across Boards to various posters in the last few days...people here in Ireland use them for exactly the same purposes. People are against them because people by their nature fear that which they dont understand. People all across the world own and use s/a rifles and dont kill people. The issue in America is about more than just firearms but people largely fail to see that. As I showed on this very thread, te ban Obama will bring in will change nothing...AR15's etc will still be available with minute changes that have no effect on the function of the rifle...like Clinton before him he justs wants to be seen to be doing something to appease the ban ban ban crowd when in reality nothing will be different.
smurgen wrote: » do you not think that a full ban on semi auto's will reduce the amount of murders? Could people not use normal, non rapid fire rifles for target shooting and hunting?
Overheal wrote: » it might marginally reduce the body count during massacres, but in the majority of homicides its really not going to matter much. Besides the impracticality of banning semi-automatics, you could argue a revolver is a semi automatic. In fact an example of a bolt-action handgun escapes me, short of gunpowder weapons.
smurgen wrote: » so what is the point of them?
And why are people so against getting them banned?
hooradiation wrote: » The answer is clear, Americans are to be limited to Flintlock pistols only. Anyone disagrees and they'll be reminded that it's just like the founding fathers and then asked why do they hate freedom.
smurgen wrote: » do you not think that a full ban on semi auto's will reduce the amount of murders?
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » Hitler needed to disarm the Jews before he made his mass arrests and round ups.
Sparks wrote: » Okay, let's restrict them to flintlocks only. Now, do you know how you reload a flintlock? You pour gunpowder (or a more modern propellant) into the barrel, then some wadding, then the ball (I'm getting details wrong here, but for argument's sake, ignore that for the moment). Now, that propellant... How much damage do you think a crate of that, filled with nails and put in a metal box, would do if you set it off? Or have you forgotten that some of the most devestating mass murders in US history used bombs and not guns? (Including the worst school massacre they ever suffered) Details. Lousy fecking details, always mucking up simple ideas...
