Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 20
20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

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.
Maybe you missed this part.




The worst shooting rampage was carried out by Anders Breivik in a country with some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.
If they want guns, they will get them. Hell, you can make a zip gun from two pieces of pipe and a sharpened bolt. Use that to ambush a cop and take his weapons. You can get weapons if you want them.


Okay, ammunition?




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


DEY TOOK RRR GUUUUNS!



Really though, who cares if only the worst and 3rd worst gun massacres were "done by a white man?" Everybody knows all these problems began when we started allowing race-mixin'!

(Yes, that is sarcasm.)
edit on 23-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
The splitting of hairs and semantic wrangling that has gone on in the wake of this tragedy (and others) has really disheartened and dismayed me. How do we define the "worst" mass shootings ever? 20 dead children isn't bad enough to warrant a fundamental change on some level, because there have been "worse" sprees? I mean... really? I just can't look at it in that light, personally. No, I believe fundamental change is clearly warranted.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm neither on the strict gun control side of the debate, or on the "the second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, period" side of it. My best friend was killed by someone with a gun when we were teenagers. I have never liked guns or wanted to be around guns, consequently. However, there are a multitude of people passionate about guns who have never harmed a fly. Good people. People I know and respect. So I cannot in good conscience simply give carte blanche to my government to take people's guns, either. Likewise, there are plenty of people with mental issues (hell, I'm one of them) who also wouldn't ever hurt anyone. Again, good people, and people I know and respect. So we cannot start aggressively scapegoating the mentally ill in a blanket fashion either, in my opinion. But those points aside, I also don't think that's the heart of the debate we should really be having at the end of the day, anyway (part of it to be sure, but not ultimately the crux of it.)

Guns have always been there. Mental illness has always been there. Yet these kinds of shootings have proliferated and become more frequent in the 21st century and in the years just prior. I think before we become impassioned, indignant, and dig into self righteous positions, we need to rigorously and soberly ask ourselves the simple question: why? What is the nexus between guns and mental health, the grey area where the two meet, that allows these incidents to happen with such appalling regularity in today's America? I don't know what the answer to that question is. Does anyone? I mean, really? With credible certainty, rather than speculation based upon emotion?

Until and unless we answer that, we won't know where to place our energy, effort, and calls for change, and everyone's bluster, anger, tears, demands, partisanship, and ideologies will be for naught. Nothing will change if we don't identify the real problem, and I haven't seen anyone adequately do that to my satisfaction. We're dealing with an as yet undefined, amorphous, unidentified set of circumstances and threats that we cannot rush headlong into trying to regulate or control without some very fundamental and serious questions being answered. If we do, and haven't answered those questions, then we run the risk of turning either gun owners or mental health - or both - into scapegoats.

If both have always been with us and yet this issue is an emerging problem in terms of its new frequency and severity, then clearly some new, as yet unquantified factor is in play. We must identify what that is, and deal with that in a comprehensive, specific manner. What we must not do, in my opinion, is rush to judgment and end up hurting people without actually changing anything for the better. (But we must also refrain from simply doing nothing or downplaying the seriousness of these horrible tragedies.)

Balance and rational, critical examination is required. Along with some modicum of respect and empathy for one another, I dare say. Just my opinion.

Peace.
edit on 12/23/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typos



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
We already have a national gun law. It is called the second amendment.

It's about 200 years out of date. Nobody has yet given a straight answer to the question of how exactly a bunch of semi or fully automatic weapons are going to protect you. If you don't have the support of the army then the best you can hope for is to occasionally loot supply depots and operate as an insurgency. If you do have the support of the army then you don't need your weapons.

Either way it seems you're reliant on the weapons of your army, rather than personal weapons. It's not like everyone here is advocating banning all guns either. In the UK I'm permitted to own a shotgun with appropriate security and background checking. If the worst came to worst I would be able to use that shotgun to defend myself. A pistol would be much less useful in that situation.

There are lots of good arguments for strong gun control, why are you acting as if the second amendment is an infallible argument. Do you agree with all laws that were in place at the time?


What you fail to realize or even consider is the Constitution of the US was written and worded very carefully so as to never become insignificant. Contrary to your belief, it is very precisely worded for a reason. There can be compromise made without violating what we based our country on.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
The worse shootings in history? Wars, all during war, there have been individual soldiers who have shot many more people than the worse one-time killers listed in the original posts. I don't have the names, but they are legion.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by thedigirati
 


Dude our news here in Australia has been calling the AR-15 and ASSAULT rifle and comparing it to M4's and M16 except that the rapid fire capability has been removed from the civilian version. I am simply copying what they are saying.


exactly OUR NEWS HERE.....I would not exactly cite any countries media as bastions of truth these days. They no longer promote freedom. The media is no longer for the people, by the people, and haven't been for a very long time. They no longer allow people to form thier own opinion by stating unbiased facts. What they do is try and alter the publics perceptions by taking "facts" and using those to fit the agenda of the corporations that own them. One can easily enough pick out the actual facts if you realize the bias in MSM, and accept the fact that they have their own agenda that is secondary to presenting facts. I am going to use an example that is ludicrous but bare with me. If I was a media outlet owned by a corporation that believed that using chemical weapons on civilians was not only acceptable but something my corporation truly believes in then I would take and may say that "There was a bombing in (random city name) today" but would totally fail to mention that the bombs in question were chemical bombs. The media says whatever it is that the government wants them to say. Or in the case of the US two completely different viewpoints as per the ineffective 2 party system of government.


edit on 23-12-2012 by Darkphoenix77 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
well it depends whether your after quality or quantity isn't it.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 





I find it completely delusional that the American people think their peashooters are going to protect them against their governments bombs, missiles, tanks, jets and chemicals.

Yeah I'm sure our government is capable of killing over 150 million of their own people nah don't think so. You can say they can bomb us and whatever but guess what there is too many of US, WE ARE EVERYWHERE. You won't stop # with your tanks, well take them over half of the american army would resign if a cival war broke out. You don't know jack. Have fun protecting yourself with sticks ill be just fine with my guns.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezappa
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


British boy killed in Connecticut school shootings

When British citizens are killed in your schools by nutjobs with guns then I think we have every right to an opinion on gun control.

How many UK Citizens have been killed/murdered while living or on holiday in the USA due to idiots with easy access to guns compared to how many US citizens have been killed/murdered while living or on holiday in the UK due to idiots with easy access to guns. I think if the tables were turned you would have an opinion too.


Disarm your criminals.
Get secure gun safes/vaults.
Ban concealable weapons.
Ban semi automatic rifles and rifles that look like M16s/M4s and other military style weapons.



Its harder to mass kill with just a double barrel shotgun but you can protect your property just the same.
let your Law Enforcement deal with the gun psycho like we do here. Don't be a hero.

In the event of a psychopath running round with a gun shooting indiscriminately at random people in shopping malls would you really pull you're own gun and start firing off rounds at the shooter? I think there is great possibility YOU would be shot at by the LEO's as a possible suspect psychopath with a gun indiscriminately shooting at random people in a shopping mall.

British people don't feel safe on your turf any more due to the amount of guns over there. Travel agents have leaflets here in the UK on how to act and stay safe in the USA due to your gun laws, like how not to walk up to people in cars to ask for directions as you could get shot for car jacking.

But seen as I do not live in the US then what I say means jack to you guys, but I think were allowed to have opinions on your gun laws when it involves the murder of British children and tourists.

edit on 23/12/12 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)





Disarm your criminals.
Get secure gun safes/vaults.
Ban concealable weapons.
Ban semi automatic rifles and rifles that look like M16s/M4s and other military style weapons
.


So this is your solution? Sorry, but totally unrealistic.

Disarm criminals (higher police presence and stop gutting law enforcement to save a dime would be a start)

Get safes/vaults. (A locked cabinet is sufficient imo)

Ban concealable weapons (any legal gun fits this category, which is a dumb argument, sorry)

Ban guns that look like military weapons (why?? does a weapons look make it more deadly? also pointless)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
faces of death shows some public executions



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
What exactly are we 'putting to bed'?

This thread seems kind of cold to me.
edit on 23-12-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


hypocracy on one level



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Closed for staff review.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join