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

Originally posted by ForgottenRebel
Why is it that these anti-gun advocates keep calling everyone else nutcases? They are the ones who keep arguing the same points expecting different results. That's the very definition of insanity....

Errr...we argue the same points because they are valid?

I see what you are doing though, trying to paint gun control advocates as being nutjobs by a poor attempt to twist our words, but you are failing dismally.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Again... my point is very simple. Guns are not the problem. A person who wants to kill a large number of people will still find a way to do so. They do not need a gun to do it.

Then why do so many of them pick guns? You don't see the problem with your argument? You illustrate that they could use other techniques, but many of them stick to guns for good reason.

Perhaps you should consider this?

reply to post by MrWendal


OK, so what exactly are you saying? You don't want gun control because guns can be used to prevent attacks against which guns would be ineffective?

Your argument makes no sense mate.

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.

Norways gun laws are not all that bad. They only ban is on fully automatic weapons but they also have a collectors exception for that. Owning a gun a Norway is not hard but they do limit the number of each caliber you can own and require you have a method of safe storage for your guns. The US should get on board with requiring safe storage since most guns used in crimes are take of legal owners. All that being said crime is rare in Norway so pointing out srtrict gun laws would make on think they work.

Originally posted by exponent
No? How would having a gun bring you food and water? The people who have this food and water would also have guns.

I guess the point is YOU have food and water with a small group of friends and you are in the situation of whether you can protect it or not. It is not like the masses will ALL be running around with guns, or even if they happen to have one really know how to use it. The fact is there WILL be masses running around trying to get whatever they can and I can tell you I feel safe up against a large crowd of unarmed/poorly armed rioters.

The truth is well armed and stocked Americans will not be the ones running around in riots....

I find it funny that I was accused of paranoia. What's wrong with a well secured shotgun with limited ammunition? That's legal in both our countries but doesn't have much gang use and can't be concealed easily. It's about reducing the amount of firearms until they aren't required in normal life, not eliminating them entirely.

I don't think you would like our shotguns either...not your typical European two barrel 20 gauge.

So you got your shotgun and get off your limited couple of shots...then what...hehe

I agree that as that guy breaks into your house with a knife you got the advantage, but other than that you have little. BTW I have shot guns for protection too, I don't keep a loaded AR in my house since it is for hunting, sport shooting and SHTF senerio, but I guess that is wrong..

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by MrWendal

 

OK, so what exactly are you saying? You don't want gun control because guns can be used to prevent attacks against which guns would be ineffective?

Your argument makes no sense mate.

I have been very clear in my point. A person who intends to kill others does not need a gun to accomplish this.

Those who executed the acts on 7/7 wanted to kill people. They did not need guns to do it.

I am failing to see why you are having such a hard time grasping my point when I have been very very clear.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
i think they real reason they cry out is, they are just jealous, that the United States still has somewhat managed to hold on our freedom.

You lost me at this sentence. What a load of ignorant crap.

why don't they just mind their own business and let us worry with ours.

If only the US would do the same.....

you see my point exactly, you didn't address anything i wrote, until i insulted former british territories, and brits.
then you responded by calling it "ignorant crap.". no one likes for outsiders to criticize their country.
and you expect us, to just listen to all of you spew the "ignorant crap." and agree with you or not saying a word in response.

reply to post by exponent

Guns are an efficient and generally concealable means to killing....but deprived of them a depraved individual can kill scores with a baseball bat or machete. I dont think that the deranged individual who attacked school children in China the same day as Sandy Hook intended to kill them - just slash and main. If he could consciously cut off an ear or a finger then he could also have slit a throat(s). But guns are what the government fears in the hands of citizens also (look at the history of "weapons" control starting from the Shoguns of Japan during the Tokugawa Dynasty); even the Revolutionary War "started" when the British came to confiscate the weapons at the armory at Concord, Massachusetts.

Originally posted by exponent

Then why do so many of them pick guns?

Actually, according to the FBI more people in the US are killed with baseball bats than they are with guns.

You don't see the problem with your argument?

Not at all.

You illustrate that they could use other techniques, but many of them stick to guns for good reason.

Perhaps you should consider this?

Those "other techniques" actually account for more deaths per year than those who die at the hands of a gunman.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess the point is YOU have food and water with a small group of friends and you are in the situation of whether you can protect it or not. It is not like the masses will ALL be running around with guns, or even if they happen to have one really know how to use it.

Haven't people (maybe even you) just been pointing out how well armed the US is? How many guns there are? It can't both be that you're well armed and that nobody would have guns in a food riot. That's just silly.

The fact is there WILL be masses running around trying to get whatever they can and I can tell you I feel safe up against a large crowd of unarmed/poorly armed rioters.

You really feel safe against even a few people armed with firearms? I think you need to go look at the actual results of any 'shoot out' situation. The answer is generally: lots of death.

I don't think you would like our shotguns either...not your typical European two barrel 20 gauge.

So you got your shotgun and get off your limited couple of shots...then what...hehe

'hehe'? Clearly you're not thinking about this as an adult, just a child imagining playing with toys. Do you imagine yourself on top of a jeep with a minigun or something? If I ever have to use a shotgun in self defence and three shots (the standard non-license holding amount) is insufficient then I don't think any weapon is going to save me.

reply to post by MrWendal


I think you are deliberately muddying the waters mate.

This thread is about gun control. You have stated that people don't need guns to kill other people - and used an example of the 7/7 bombings, which we have established could not have been prevented even IF the UK didn't have gun control laws. So please, tell me again, what you point has to do with the context of this thread being gun control and whether or not guns can prevent tragedies like 7/7 happening?

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

How many tyrants have Americans overthrown again? I mean in America, not elsewhere?

Oh that's right....none.

Put up or shut up.

that's because in the past they know what could happen and stepped down or were voted now if they take the guns what you gonna do.
oh i know we can be like the goat hearders i posted about earlier.

More ignorant nonsense. Precisely how is the Patriot Act not an indicator of a tyrannous government for which you scream so loudly to keep your weapons against?

there again my point, if you really paid a attention to what happens over here, you would know there are many amercains who want and are actively trying to do some about dhs, Tsa and all the other tyrannous things the government has done.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

you see my point exactly, you didn't address anything i wrote, until i insulted former british territories, and brits.
then you responded by calling it "ignorant crap.". no one likes for outsiders to criticize their country.
and you expect us, to just listen to all of you spew the "ignorant crap." and agree with you or not saying a word in response.

You are the one who made the ignorant claim that people are "jealous" of America for it's "freedoms". That is a ridiculous statement. The rest of your post was so ignorant I didn't even know where to begin so I just left it at that.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by exponent

 

Guns are an efficient and generally concealable means to killing....but deprived of them a depraved individual can kill scores with a baseball bat or machete. I dont think that the deranged individual who attacked school children in China the same day as Sandy Hook intended to kill them - just slash and main. If he could consciously cut off an ear or a finger then he could also have slit a throat(s).

You defeat your own point here. Even if he didn't intend to kill them (which you have no proof of) there are endless examples of massacres which could not have been easily carried out with a knife or a bat. This is a really silly argument to try and put forward.

But guns are what the government fears in the hands of citizens also

Why? What does the government have to fear from you? The local police force will be much much better armed than you, with bulletproof vests, long range rifles and armoured vehicles at their disposal. Do you really think the government cares about your rifle?

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by exponent

Then why do so many of them pick guns?

Actually, according to the FBI more people in the US are killed with baseball bats than they are with guns.

Nowhere even close:

Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.8 percent) involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011.

www.fbi.gov...

Please don't post nonsense.

Those "other techniques" actually account for more deaths per year than those who die at the hands of a gunman.

edit on 22-12-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

Apparently not.

Originally posted by exponent
Such an arrogant position to take, yet England has seen its share of war. America is a land that does not know invasion and hardship.

And having an armed and deadly civilian populace has kept it that way and hopfully will continue to. Your lucky you had a water boundary during WWII, or you would be speaking German today...

Europe could not stop a Chinese invasion short of using nukes in their own lands...period....

You say Europe could quite handedly hold back a not well equip Chinese army, but 200 million weapons in the hands of American civilians would be dead meat. ..lol

You know in Afghanistan the Europeans are part of the ISAF, they wear that patch.....it is a running joke that it stands for I Saw Americans Fighting, or I Suck At Fighting... I have personally seen over the last ten years just how equipped and trained Europeans are....

reply to post by Xtrozero


Cue the chest beating and "America is the Greatest" catchphrase.....

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by exponent
Such an arrogant position to take, yet England has seen its share of war. America is a land that does not know invasion and hardship.

And having an armed and deadly civilian populace has kept it that way

It really hasn't. Having nukes has kept it that way. Being half a world away from war has kept it that way.

Your lucky you had a water boundary during WWII, or you would be speaking German today...

A particularly aggressive and unfounded thing to say.

Europe could not stop a Chinese invasion short of using nukes in their own lands...period....

Why would Europe nuke their own land? What are you even talking about here?

You say Europe could quite handedly hold back a not well equip Chinese army, but 200 million weapons in the hands of American civilians would be dead meat. ..lol

Civilians are not an army. Like I said, shell your town for a couple weeks and lets see just how many people are willing to fight or lay down their arms.

You know in Afghanistan the Europeans are part of the ISAF, they wear that patch.....it is a running joke that it stands for I Saw Americans Fighting, or I Suck At Fighting... I have personally seen over the last ten years just how equipped and trained Europeans are....

Wow, your hubris knows no ends eh. Funnily enough some of our first casualties there were caused by Americans, so for such great fighters you're not that great shots. How many recent wars have you won again?

Seriously, knock it off. America is a nation among many, under-performing most, not exceptional at all.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

you see my point exactly, you didn't address anything i wrote, until i insulted former british territories, and brits.
then you responded by calling it "ignorant crap.". no one likes for outsiders to criticize their country.
and you expect us, to just listen to all of you spew the "ignorant crap." and agree with you or not saying a word in response.

You are the one who made the ignorant claim that people are "jealous" of America for it's "freedoms". That is a ridiculous statement. The rest of your post was so ignorant I didn't even know where to begin so I just left it at that.

if it was so ignorant why didn't you respond by saying it was, instead of saying this.

You lost me at this sentence. What a load of ignorant crap.

that pretty much says that until i insulted the aussies and others you couldn't respond because the points i made about "peashooters and bombs, missiles,tanks jets" and about no out cry over them was correct.


.

reply to post by Kryties


That is the whole point, you could not stop the bombs, why not? aren't there laws against this sort of thing?

if as you say, you couldn't stop the bombs well then you need more bomb control laws? (see how silly this logic sounds?) wow your arrogance is amazing.
How come in America we don't have bombing like in London, are the US of A's laws against bombing stronger or something??
see how silly and arrogant this sounds? amazing!!