Let's put This To Bed. The Five Worst Shootings Ever Were Not Done By Americans

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
Well, as an Australian, our gun laws changed after Martin Bryant and we have had nothing like it since. Sure, you have gang warfare but those people will always find a way to get guns.

You mean non white Aussie anglos right?

Number one worst shooting done by Americans.

Approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during the Civil War. This number comes from an 1889 study of the war performed by William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore. Both men fought for the Union. Their estimate is derived from an exhaustive study of the combat and casualty records generated by the armies over five years of fighting. A recent study puts the number of dead as high as 850,000.


And try to take our guns and it'll happen again.


Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils. General John Stark

reply to post by korathin


What are you talking about?

reply to post by Sakrateri


Yeah, that will be the number of dead civilians if you take on your military.

Perhaps Australia hasn't had any major shootings since they banned weapons for the same reason America hasn't had any terrorist attacks since 911...maybe there just weren't that many terrorists waiting behind every tree after all...

America's entire culture of freedom stems from the ability to defend itself from government, it's not so much for hunting or self defense, it's for having the ability to fight it's own government should they stray with equal force. It's clearly written and explained and not up for debate. Freedom has a cost, I suggest those that are so frightened by life consider moving the hell out.

No offence but you all need to grow up. If you can't keep your children safe then maybe some other countries should take control of you. most of your arguments for having guns are bollocks.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by muse7

 

Your "Tyrrants overthrown" column is a lie. And you know it. How many revolutions has the world seen and you sit there and tell me no tyrrants have been overthrown by normal people with nothing but pitchforks in some cases? Please people. What happened was horrific but get a grip on reality before you allow your rights to go up in smoke....

The top of the list in the cartoon said "Second Amendment Scoreboard", so it was obviously about the US in particular, yet you start talking about other countries' governments. It is gun-rights fundamentalists like yourself who are always saying this is one of the main reason for citizens to have guns, i.e. to overthrow a tyrannical regime here, yet the issue has never come up, although hundreds of thousands have died from gun wounds.

And please don't bring up auto accident deaths, because gun deaths now outnumber auto fatalities in the US. This is done through better law enforcement, regulation and safer cars. Seems an argument for the same being done with guns.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

None of that explains why Australia hasn't seen anything close to a massacre since our gun ban. I walk outside with the knowledge that I do not have to fear having my head blown off by some nutcase who walked into a shop and bought a machine gun.

The American gun advocacy argument is delusional at best.

Just an idea here... but maybe the government doesn't need to drive somebody nuts that will go out and kill a bunch of people using guns. since they have what they wanted? The citizenry disarmed, could that be it? Hmm, sounds kind of logical.

Criminals and nutbars will ALWAYS find a way to procure weapons when they are motivated. Disarming a population makes the population waiting victims.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by Paschar0


And how much freedom would you say the American citizen has? You should have stood up to your government on its policies long before now. America is a democracy, the republic has died.

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
Well, as an Australian, our gun laws changed after Martin Bryant and we have had nothing like it since. Sure, you have gang warfare but those people will always find a way to get guns.

Umm...Australian murders, home invasions, gun assaults, and crimes all went up double digits, some WAY higher than others after your gun ban.

Sure, you didn't have any mass shootings but did your gun ban actually do more good than harm? Nope.

Argue all you like, our guns will not be taken from us. The worst that will happen is another Assault Weapons Ban, and it will be just as ineffectual as the last one. You don't have to understand, and we don't care if you don't. We look upon you with the same derision you show us. The fact of the matter is, the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right, and there is no room for debate on this. You prefer to be disarmed? Well, more power to you. I imagine it is quite comforting to have lower homicide rates with guns involved. What is comforting to me, is to know I can stand my ground and answer any threat, from anyone, on nearly equal terms.

Someone asked how many tyrannical governments were overthrown by our armed citizenry? Well, besides the one that gained us our liberty, the answer is obviously none. That should not mean the means are not necessary. If I were a lesser man, I would wish upon all of you meddling in our affairs, a day where you wish you had the right to be armed.

Last, I hear this argument often lately that our rifles and handguns would be ineffective against a military. Very interesting, I'm curious to see how you gather such an opinion. Our military has/was tied down for some years by poorly trained, poorly equipped Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, barely a quarter of our military as a whole were deployed to these countries, but I've seen the hardware they were using up close and personal, and it left a lot to be desired besides the odd PK machine gun. Mismatched, corroded ammo...rusted, junk AK's. In this imaginary scenario, I'd wager an armed US populace could do better in a similar situation if it came down to it.

There is a solution to this rash of mass shootings though, and it starts at home.

reply to post by newcovenant


When a person breaks the law they are criminals. Did I really have to spell that out for you?
A link? Ok, we will label Sandy Hook as gun free zone 1

Gun free zone 2
Gun free zone 3
Gun free zone 4
And that is only a few.
Now for the gun show links.

Sorry I really tried to find some, but can't. There must have been one maybe two murders at a gun show right?
Can't find any.

Now please stop trolling.

ETA: Yes the NYC cops need training, but what is your point? We all ( here in Connecticut) know that most people shoot a lot better than cops, maybe because cops don't spend that much time shooting?

Argue all you like, our guns will not be taken from us. The worst that will happen is another Assault Weapons Ban, and it will be just as ineffectual as the last one.

reply to post by Gainsayer


Or just as ineffectual as the one we still have in Connecticut.
Not that an "Assault Weapon" was used in Sandy Hook, we know the mother did not have an assault weapon.
But my brother just sold his assault weapon about 4 months ago. You can still have them with the ban, but the ban made then cost a lot more. 2-3 times the worth of the gun. (and that is still semi-auto only)

reply to post by eLPresidente


Really? Crime went up? Not what I'd expect from a growing population with more and more of them heading below the poverty line. How about America, the land of guns and safety, how much have these crimes increased in the same period?

reply to post by Gainsayer


On the military side of things. How happy would your neighbors be when they have no power or water because you decided to fight back? Remember, not every citizen thinks as you do.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Let's take a look at the five worst mass shootings in history.

Of the 5 worst massacres, two were carried out by Asians and one by an African constable. Only two were carried out by white men. The next man on the list was Latino. None were carried out by Americans. Of the worst shooting massacres in the United States in the last ten years, besides conventional lunatics like James Holmes, the Batman killer, and Adam Lanza, we have Jiverly Wong, a Vietnamese Chinese immigrant who killed 10 people at an immigration center, and Nidal Hasan, an Islamic terrorist who carried out the Fort Hood Massacre, who killed 13 people. The deadliest shootings have occurred in Japan, in Colombia, in the Belgian Congo, in South Korea, Norway and in Australia, along with the United States.

But, in all cases, they were men.

Once again, a whiney white men, looking to make himself look good by putting others down.

reply to post by DaesDaemar


Sorry, but this puts your argument, as well as all anti-gun arguments, to rest.
Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

Originally posted by peter vlar
In respect to Iraq vs a potential conflict involving a civilian militia, the Iraqi army had notoriously low moral to the point some units gave up without a fight. In contrast, a determined group who is fighting for their homes and everything they are, well that's a whole different ball game.

I assume you've never had to actually fight for your home then. Like I said, shell a town for a week and the vast majority of all combatants will lay down their arms and give up. When you've seen your home already destroyed and your friends or family killed you tend to get demoralised pretty quickly.

The Viet Minh were quite successful first against the French and again when the US tried their hand in south east Asia. It was a successful tactic in many places all through tout central and South America as well as Africa. Armed insurgency is what got Mandela locked up. It's how the US started off. History has proven time and again that the success if a fighting force lies as much in its will as its available firepower.

If you think that the Viet Minh won the war then I don't know what to tell you. Virtually none of these sorts of wars ever result in a 'win'. Again, do you really think you want to fight a war where you take 20 casualties for every casualty opposing you? Where your homes and communities are levelled with artillery?

Keeping guns for this sort of eventuality seems insane in my eyes. Better to form a genuine community like the UK did (twice).

reply to post by newcovenant


The 2003 nukleer ban on privatized plutonium took care of that...no more nukes to trade.

Originally posted by Gainsayer
Someone asked how many tyrannical governments were overthrown by our armed citizenry? Well, besides the one that gained us our liberty, the answer is obviously none.

Do you mean that gave white people their liberty? Actually from a British perspective, you gained nothing but a fervour for patriotism unmatched in the modern world. Your 'liberty' was in fact a double edged sword and now you cannot even own a device with any copyrighted content. You have lost so much that you'll never comprehend, and gained very little.

You lag the world in education, in infrastructure, in renewable power, in healthcare, in basically every category people measure.

That should not mean the means are not necessary. If I were a lesser man, I would wish upon all of you meddling in our affairs, a day where you wish you had the right to be armed.

When would any of us hit this day? We went through two world wars where citizens being armed wasn't of great significance and this is way worse than most of the things Americans imagine will happen to them.

Mismatched, corroded ammo...rusted, junk AK's. In this imaginary scenario, I'd wager an armed US populace could do better in a similar situation if it came down to it.

There is a solution to this rash of mass shootings though, and it starts at home.

If you read my posts in this thread I have been pointing out that yes, you could work as a functional insurgency and carry out hit/run tactics. Lets think about what that would entail though. You'd suffer an attrition rate of 40-100x higher than the people attacking you. You'd be forced to resort to mines/IEDs in public areas and you'd have to destroy the US' economic infrastructure.

It's not something anyone would want, and preparing for it is the major driver behind why it might happen. The rest of the world looks at the US in confusion, because you've seen virtually no hardship but are still convinced everyone is out to get you and that you are an exception to the rule.

You can see it in this thread, arrogance and hubris beyond belief, from a country that can't even provide basic medical care to its citizens. It just makes the rest of the world laugh I'm afraid.