19 year old kills 17 at Florida high school

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer said:

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Gun related mass murder/hostage taking in Australia:

Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured

Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured

Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect

Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

You really want to compare?

Australia

  • Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured
  • Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured
  • Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect
  • Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

Total time elapsed: 12 years.

  • Total amount of deaths: 13
  • Total amount of injuries: 12
  • Total amount of casualties: 25.

United States Of America:

  • Las Vegas Shooting - 2017 - 59 dead, 422 injuries.
  • Orlando Nightclub Shooting - 2016 - 50 dead, 58 inuries
  • Sutherland Springs Church Shooting - 2017 - 27 dead, 20 injuries

Total duration: 2 years

  • Total amount of deaths: 136
  • Total amount of injuries: 500
  • Total amount of casualties: 636

Now tell me, why won't America ban guns?

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#202  Edited By mimisalome

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which your initial statement "seems" to miss.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mimisalome said:

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

- What?

- when did i brought it up?

- when did i said that it didn't made any difference?

like I already said I just pointed something that you "miss" in your statement:

"Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996."

base on fact that is obviously NOT true.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#205  Edited By CitizenSurfer

@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

- What?

- when did i brought it up?

- when did i said that it didn't made any difference?

like I already said I just pointed something that you "miss" in your statement:

"Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996."

base on fact that is obviously NOT true.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

Based on facts, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996...

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

- What?

- when did i brought it up?

- when did i said that it didn't made any difference?

like I already said I just pointed something that you "miss" in your statement:

"Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996."

base on fact that is obviously NOT true.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

According to facts, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996...

So shooting 6 people killing 3 and injuring 3 more is "factually" NOT mass shooting?

lol what?

I don't get it.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

- What?

- when did i brought it up?

- when did i said that it didn't made any difference?

like I already said I just pointed something that you "miss" in your statement:

"Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996."

base on fact that is obviously NOT true.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

According to facts, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996...

So shooting 6 people killing 3 and injuring 3 more is "factually" NOT mass shooting?

lol what?

I don't get it.

Take it up with the Australian government

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

- What?

- when did i brought it up?

- when did i said that it didn't made any difference?

like I already said I just pointed something that you "miss" in your statement:

"Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996."

base on fact that is obviously NOT true.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

According to facts, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996...

So shooting 6 people killing 3 and injuring 3 more is "factually" NOT mass shooting?

lol what?

I don't get it.

Take it up with the Australian government

lol... so basically what the Aussy government said is a "fact"?

I wonder what would you think if Donald Trump said that gun violence in America is just a myth.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

- What?

- when did i brought it up?

- when did i said that it didn't made any difference?

like I already said I just pointed something that you "miss" in your statement:

"Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996."

base on fact that is obviously NOT true.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

According to facts, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996...

So shooting 6 people killing 3 and injuring 3 more is "factually" NOT mass shooting?

lol what?

I don't get it.

Take it up with the Australian government

lol... so basically what the Aussy government said is a "fact"?

I wonder what would you think if Donald Trump said that gun violence in America is just a myth.

When has Donald Trump ever said anything that is reliable?

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

When has Donald Trump ever said anything that is reliable?

Why should it matter?

If we use your own logic, then you should just need to "take it up with the (US) government" if you have any (symantic) complain

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer said:

When has Donald Trump ever said anything that is reliable?

Why should it matter?

If we use your own logic, then you should just need to "take it up with the (US) government" if you have any (symantic) complain

We have taken it up with the government, It was called Protests and Investigations. Hell Impeachment is even on the cards, you on the other hand had no true retort and had to deflect the entire thing because you're terrible at debating.

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

5954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#212  Edited By mimisalome

@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:

When has Donald Trump ever said anything that is reliable?

Why should it matter?

If we use your own logic, then you should just need to "take it up with the (US) government" if you have any (symantic) complain

We have taken it up with the government, It was called Protests and Investigations. Hell Impeachment is even on the cards, you on the other hand had no true retort and had to deflect the entire thing because you're terrible at debating.

Wait a minute...

So if some government statement agrees with your narrative they are considered "facts".

However when it does not you can dismiss it as not a fact.

Lol Ain't that pretty convenient exploit.

you on the other hand had no true retort and had to deflect the entire thing because you're terrible at debating.

im not even debating you.

Im just pointing out your narrative about australia's last mass shooting happened in 1996 is obviously NOT a fact, as presented with actual evidence.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:

When has Donald Trump ever said anything that is reliable?

Why should it matter?

If we use your own logic, then you should just need to "take it up with the (US) government" if you have any (symantic) complain

We have taken it up with the government, It was called Protests and Investigations. Hell Impeachment is even on the cards, you on the other hand had no true retort and had to deflect the entire thing because you're terrible at debating.

Wait a minute...

So if some government statement agrees with your narrative they are considered "facts".

However when it does not you can dismiss it as not a fact.

Lol Ain't that pretty convenient exploit.

you on the other hand had no true retort and had to deflect the entire thing because you're terrible at debating.

im not even debating you.

Im just pointing out your narrative about australia's last mass shooting happened in 1996 is obviously NOT a fact, as presented with actual evidence.

So if some government statement agrees with your narrative they are considered "facts".

Yeah because they're really going to lie about mass shootings aren't they......

However when it does not you can dismiss it as not a fact.

Still waiting on you to provide a single instance of when Donald Trump said something that can be considered reliable.

im not even debating you.

Yet here you are.

Im just pointing out your narrative about australia's last mass shooting happened in 1996 is obviously NOT a fact, as presented with actual evidence.

Except it is a fact, as the evidence shows.

You still haven't answered my question by the way.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@willpayton said:

@mimisalome said:

US can't even employ a common sense-base practical solution to a very fundamental security issue.

You have this kind of tragic security breach problem in school because your school security is non-existent.

You don't even need to be that smart, schools in developing countries already resolved this issue by putting up a wall, and hiring security guard that will inspect incomers for deadly weapons and apprehend trespassers and intruders.

And yet the safest countries in the world have schools without shootings, without any armed security guards or walls around their schools.

Flawed logic.

Criminality is a complex social issue and your comparative example may not apply in the case of the US.

Meanwhile enforcing basic security procedures against unwanted trespassers and contrabands are fundamentals even in the absence of rampant criminality

Having schools that are walled off and guarded by soldiers is not "basic security procedures", that's living in fear and paranoia. If that's what you want, you can move to South Africa. But, that's not what I want.

And it's not flawed to compare with other industrialized Western countries. Sure certain groups in the U.S. have a fetish with guns, but I'm not willing to surrender and let a minority tell me how to live my life and tell us how we run our society. What IS flawed logic is saying that we should be taking cues from developing countries and how they deal with things. We're not a developing country, and we should be striving for more than just having a lawless society where everyone has to walk around with an arsenal of weapons just to feel safe enough to leave their house.

We even have the situation now where these right wingers in the U.S. are being helped by Russians who are employing bots and trolls in order to try to create fear, division, and discord in the U.S., and those on the right are perfectly willing to accept this and go along with them. This is a sad and dangerous state of affairs that we're moving into.

Avatar image for biteme_fanboy
BiteMe-Fanboy

8950

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@citizensurfer: Do you really think USA could ban guns, as in making it illegal for a citizen to own a firearm, could happen without any kind of huge backlash, as in, another civil war? As I said in my previous post, there are mannnnnyyyyyy guns out there that law abiding citizens will refuse to give up. Even if they did, there are mannnnnyyyyyyy guns out there that criminals have, which would boost a huuuuuuuuge illegal firearms market.

The only option America has is too make it very difficult to purchase a firearm legally. Banning them entirely is out of the question.

As I said before, America is way too far up the creek with its gun rights to turn around now. The citizens hold their right to bear arms way too dearly, and would fight to protect it.

I do own guns, no I'm not a crazy NRA gun nut, I agree there needs to be stricter rules placed on the purchasing of firearms, but I just can't see guns being 100% banned and made illegal.

No one is going to happily turn their guns in whenever the government says "Hey, your guns are now illegal, turn them in or go to jail." Well, ol Mr. Redneck (or any kind of law abiding gunowner) will be sitting on his porch with his guns in hand waiting for them to come take it.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#216  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Gun related mass murder/hostage taking in Australia:

Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured

Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured

Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect

Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

You really want to compare?

Australia

  • Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured
  • Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured
  • Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect
  • Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

Total time elapsed: 12 years.

  • Total amount of deaths: 13
  • Total amount of injuries: 12
  • Total amount of casualties: 25.

United States Of America:

  • Las Vegas Shooting - 2017 - 59 dead, 422 injuries.
  • Orlando Nightclub Shooting - 2016 - 50 dead, 58 inuries
  • Sutherland Springs Church Shooting - 2017 - 27 dead, 20 injuries

Total duration: 2 years

  • Total amount of deaths: 136
  • Total amount of injuries: 500
  • Total amount of casualties: 636

Now tell me, why won't America ban guns?

Look at El Salvador. More applicable to the U.S. since it is on the same continent and not landlocked by water. Gun Control doesn't work there. In fact, most places liberals mentions like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, etc... are all Islands.. They don't have a smuggling problem like America does.

Avatar image for thekillerklok
Thekillerklok

10419

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Even if you go about banning guns how do you think you will actually manage to collect them all?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Even if you go about banning guns how do you think you will actually manage to collect them all?

Same way they collect all the illegal drugs.

Avatar image for boschepg
boschePG

6325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

@willpayton: just to hop in a little about basic school security procedures - when 9-11 hit the way we check into airports drastically changed. Schools and churches predominantly are soft targets because there is really no deterrent.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Look at El Salvador. More applicable to the U.S. since it is on the same continent and not landlocked by water. Gun Control doesn't work there. In fact, most places liberals mentions like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, etc... are all Islands.. They don't have a smuggling problem like America does.

Trying to compare the U.S. to El Salvador, a third-world country with a population less than that of New York city, is absolutely ridiculous.

Why dont you compare it to large first-world country like Germany? Germany has some of the worlds strictest gun laws, still has a large gun ownership rate, but has only a small fraction of the gun deaths per capita than the U.S. has.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boschepg said:

@willpayton: just to hop in a little about basic school security procedures - when 9-11 hit the way we check into airports drastically changed. Schools and churches predominantly are soft targets because there is really no deterrent.

Yes, but the solution is not to build a wall with machine gun turrets around everything. That's basically what they have to do in South Africa, and it's a miserable way to live, and those who cant afford the most expensive security guards and walled housing are shit out of luck. Almost every other first-world nation has schools and churches and malls and other "soft targets" but they dont need such drastic security measures, nor do they want them. They deal with their problems in much saner ways than we do.

Avatar image for supergoku17
SuperGoku17

7220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#223  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@willpayton said:
@cable_extreme said:

Look at El Salvador. More applicable to the U.S. since it is on the same continent and not landlocked by water. Gun Control doesn't work there. In fact, most places liberals mentions like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, etc... are all Islands.. They don't have a smuggling problem like America does.

Trying to compare the U.S. to El Salvador, a third-world country with a population less than that of New York city, is absolutely ridiculous.

Why dont you compare it to large first-world country like Germany? Germany has some of the worlds strictest gun laws, still has a large gun ownership rate, but has only a small fraction of the gun deaths per capita than the U.S. has.

Those laws don't stop mass shootings. They are done with semi-auto handguns in Germany, and often are obtained illegally.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/munich-shooting-germany-strict-gun-control-laws-did-not-prevent-attack-7152576.html

Germany also isn't bordering a smuggling country.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for supergoku17
SuperGoku17

7220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for iamverysmart1
IAmVerySmart1

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme said:
@supergoku17 said:
@cable_extreme said:
@supergoku17 said:

@willpayton: Gun Control would solve everything

Not in America.

Why not?

Did drug control work?

Could you explain why does control not work in America? It worked well in some other countries.

I have been for a big portion of this and other forums.

A big problem is the amount of guns we currently have. If we ban semi-automatic rifles, millions already made and owned would be easily accessible and even trade-able well after the new law, since those guns would be grandfathered. This means people would still legally be able to trade semi-automatic weapons with a serial number showing it was made before the date of the new law.

Secondly, with there being so many guns currently in America, that is no way to collect the guns, especially with around half of the nation willing to protect their property. And we have the 2nd amendment which other countries do not.

Lastly if you suggest imposing gun control, how would that have stopped the last few shootings? The Las Vegas shooter for example had no indicators of devious behavior. Micro management of a populace of 230 million people with a current 300 million guns is just not possible. The Florida shooter for example, he did show signs of deviant behavior, but legally he cannot be denied rights unless he is verified by a psychiatrist to be mentally unstable (which he wasn't), or he needs to be a convicted felon. What do you suggest we could implement to catch would be shooters without unjustly infringing on people's second amendment rights?

Avatar image for iamverysmart1
IAmVerySmart1

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@iamverysmart1 said:
@cable_extreme said:
@supergoku17 said:
@cable_extreme said:
@supergoku17 said:

@willpayton: Gun Control would solve everything

Not in America.

Why not?

Did drug control work?

Could you explain why does control not work in America? It worked well in some other countries.

I have been for a big portion of this and other forums.

A big problem is the amount of guns we currently have. If we ban semi-automatic rifles, millions already made and owned would be easily accessible and even trade-able well after the new law, since those guns would be grandfathered. This means people would still legally be able to trade semi-automatic weapons with a serial number showing it was made before the date of the new law.

Secondly, with there being so many guns currently in America, that is no way to collect the guns, especially with around half of the nation willing to protect their property. And we have the 2nd amendment which other countries do not.

Yeah, this what I understood of the problem. In principle control is almost a mandatory part of governing, but the existing stockpile that people already have is going to be difficult to collect back. Regarding the 2nd amendment, I believe some people were criticizing it for being outdated, etc etc. This I'll leave it to them to argue why or how.

I will just add this (almost obvious) point though, absolute freedom and complete self-responsibility is not practical too. Just like most other real life matters, a middle ground is necessary.

Lastly if you suggest imposing gun control, how would that have stopped the last few shootings? The Las Vegas shooter for example had no indicators of devious behavior. Micro management of a populace of 230 million people with a current 300 million guns is just not possible. The Florida shooter for example, he did show signs of deviant behavior, but legally he cannot be denied rights unless he is verified by a psychiatrist to be mentally unstable (which he wasn't), or he needs to be a convicted felon. What do you suggest we could implement to catch would be shooters without unjustly infringing on people's second amendment rights?

For this particular point, I don't think any laws introduced is going to be foolproof. The idea is not to completely stop these incidents but to limit them/lower the chances of them happening. Would restricting firearms from convicted felons and mentally unstable people lead to a decrease in these incidents? Logically it should be. But in practice I do not know since I don't have access to the statistics.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@iamverysmart1:

Yeah, this what I understood of the problem. In principle control is almost a mandatory part of governing, but the existing stockpile that people already have is going to be difficult to collect back. Regarding the 2nd amendment, I believe some people were criticizing it for being outdated, etc etc. This I'll leave it to them to argue why or how.

I will just add this (almost obvious) point though, absolute freedom and complete self-responsibility is not practical too. Just like most other real life matters, a middle ground is necessary.

The 2nd amendment will never be done away with.

No one said anything about absolute freedom, nor complete self-responsibility.

For this particular point, I don't think any laws introduced is going to be foolproof. The idea is not to completely stop these incidents but to limit them/lower the chances of them happening. Would restricting firearms from convicted felons and mentally unstable people lead to a decrease in these incidents? Logically it should be. But in practice I do not know since I don't have access to the statistics.

Well, we have laws against murder, didn't stop them.

Why don't we regulate cars more than guns? 1,827 people have been killed in mass shootings total since 1966, the amount of people who die from intentional or unintentional car accidents are MUCH higher at about 40,000 PER YEAR link. the source puts it at about 101 deaths per day, yet no one cares. But 1,827 people out of 230 Million people die in mass shootings since 1966, guns are evil....

Liberal anti-gun agenda blows it out of proportion. The U.S. isn't even the top nation in gun deaths, it doesn't even make the top 30.

Avatar image for supergoku17
SuperGoku17

7220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@iamverysmart1 said:
@cable_extreme said:
@supergoku17 said:
@cable_extreme said:
@supergoku17 said:

@willpayton: Gun Control would solve everything

Not in America.

Why not?

Did drug control work?

Could you explain why does control not work in America? It worked well in some other countries.

I have been for a big portion of this and other forums.

A big problem is the amount of guns we currently have. If we ban semi-automatic rifles, millions already made and owned would be easily accessible and even trade-able well after the new law, since those guns would be grandfathered. This means people would still legally be able to trade semi-automatic weapons with a serial number showing it was made before the date of the new law.

Secondly, with there being so many guns currently in America, that is no way to collect the guns, especially with around half of the nation willing to protect their property. And we have the 2nd amendment which other countries do not.

Lastly if you suggest imposing gun control, how would that have stopped the last few shootings? The Las Vegas shooter for example had no indicators of devious behavior. Micro management of a populace of 230 million people with a current 300 million guns is just not possible. The Florida shooter for example, he did show signs of deviant behavior, but legally he cannot be denied rights unless he is verified by a psychiatrist to be mentally unstable (which he wasn't), or he needs to be a convicted felon. What do you suggest we could implement to catch would be shooters without unjustly infringing on people's second amendment rights?

However, it seems like you have the notion that 'it cant work, so why bother?' mentality.

Not if you banned the ownership of such weapons. If you made it illegal to posses these things, most people would likely hand them over if asked because otherwise they would be getting into trouble with the law. I am not saying the law should be so that you got punished for owning these things while they were legal, but set a date, say that after this date they are illegal to own and buy and anyone found doing so after this date is getting the book thrown at them.

You have half the country willing to defend itself, when they are asked by a camera crew. I am pretty sure the tone is somewhat different if a couple of officers are ringing your doorbell. As for the 2nd amendment... it's an amendment, meaning it's a change to the original script, meaning it itself can be changed. It secures the right of Americans to bear arms... it doesn't say what type of arms they should be allowed to carry.

How about a waiting period between purchase and actually having the weapon in your hands? A gun is after all not like groceries or a toy, and if you are a normal happy apple-pie eating American, you shouldn't have a problem with a bit of waiting if you know you are going to get your purchase.
How about banning the car-boot sales systems at gun shows that seems like a massive loophole that allows people to buy things without registering them?
Or how about trying to limit what people can legally have lying around that makes these mass shootings such a breeze to do in America? Like putting cap on how big a clip can be? Setting limits on rate of fire? Ban items that increase both of these?

Regardless of solutions, it's not going to be something thats done with the snap of your fingers. It will take time and effort, but with you should eventually get to the point where the usage of an illegal weapon-type using in a mass shooting is nearly unheard of.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@outside_85:

However, it seems like you have the notion that 'it cant work, so why bother?' mentality.

Not if you banned the ownership of such weapons. If you made it illegal to posses these things, most people would likely hand them over if asked because otherwise they would be getting into trouble with the law. I am not saying the law should be so that you got punished for owning these things while they were legal, but set a date, say that after this date they are illegal to own and buy and anyone found doing so after this date is getting the book thrown at them.

Might be how it works in communist countries but here in America, a big portion of the population would not freely give their guns to the government. The main reason is those guns would be grandfathered, courts cannot get around that. Same reason why older model cars still don't legally require a seat belt.

You have half the country willing to defend itself, when they are asked by a camera crew. I am pretty sure the tone is somewhat different if a couple of officers are ringing your doorbell. As for the 2nd amendment... it's an amendment, meaning it's a change to the original script, meaning it itself can be changed. It secures the right of Americans to bear arms... it doesn't say what type of arms they should be allowed to carry.

I doubt it, they even have a signed militia where if such a thing happened again, they would group up and we would have a big battle.

Guidelines for 2nd amendment defense

example of a Texas militia

It will not be pretty and the government knows it. Of course the government would win, but would it be worth to kill people who are fighting for what they consider is their constitutional right? After the assault weapons ban (previously) there was a huge surge in Republicans and they get the legislation negated. Florida even just now after the shooting overwhelmingly shot down a gun control bill targeting semi-automatic weapons.

How about a waiting period between purchase and actually having the weapon in your hands? A gun is after all not like groceries or a toy, and if you are a normal happy apple-pie eating American, you shouldn't have a problem with a bit of waiting if you know you are going to get your purchase.

How about banning the car-boot sales systems at gun shows that seems like a massive loophole that allows people to buy things without registering them?

Or how about trying to limit what people can legally have lying around that makes these mass shootings such a breeze to do in America? Like putting cap on how big a clip can be? Setting limits on rate of fire? Ban items that increase both of these?

Well, many states including Texas (my state) do not have gun registries. There isn't a loophole with gun shows if your state doesn't have mandatory registering of firearms.

Limit what people can legally have lying around? Why not arm people? A gun is the greatest equalizer of any weapon. If a group of guys come running into a school with knives and kill people (like the train attack in China), you cannot defend yourself without a gun. If a guy with a gun comes into a school and is instantly outnumbered by armed guards and/or teachers then not only would it be a deterrent, but it would prevent lives lost. I can tell from talking to you, you don't have a lot of experience with guns (not trying to be mean) but how exactly can you put a limit on rate of fire? Are you saying no semi-automatic? People can manually pull triggers just as fast as full auto guns even without bump stock attachments. I have a few semi-automatic rifles and my .557 colt m4 allows me to pull and shoot at any rate of fire I please. A pump action shotgun(or even a semi-automatic contest shotgun) can shoot at insane speeds and deal more damage per shot. Anyone who handles guns know it isn't magazine capacity that is a problem, if I wanted to shoot alot, I'd take more magazines since they would be smaller, I could shoot nearly as much and reload in less than a second. This applies to all guns pretty much besides bolt actions, but that didn't stop the sniping mass shooting done by Charles Witman in University of Texas who sniped people from a tower and killing 14 people. '

In Germany, semi-auto rifles aren't available and they do not have a smuggling border-nation like Mexico, so people went and shot up schools with handguns and killing lots of people. People in China and other nations like Japan have high rates of blade and machete attacks. People will use whatever they can to hurt people, a gun is the only way most people can defend themselves.

Regardless of solutions, it's not going to be something thats done with the snap of your fingers. It will take time and effort, but with you should eventually get to the point where the usage of an illegal weapon-type using in a mass shooting is nearly unheard of.

About 1600 people have died in mass shootings since 1966, for a population of 230 million with 300 million firearms, statistically, that isn't that bad. 40,000 people die every year from vehicles and there are less vehicles than guns. People even use vehicles as weapons. Why aren't we banning vehicles?

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
MarvelandDCfan24

8538

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nothing will be done if a liberal in office didn't anything when little kids got blown away why would they care about high schoolers

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@cable_extreme:

Might be how it works in communist countries but here in America, a big portion of the population would not freely give their guns to the government. The main reason is those guns would be grandfathered, courts cannot get around that. Same reason why older model cars still don't legally require a seat belt.

If the government, or should I say, cops, are standing on your doorstep? I am pretty sure the tune is different. Those old model cars however are not ones you'd normally drive around in, neither are they banned. If you make a gun illegal to have, then you can grandfather it as much as you like, it's still illegal to have it. Like if you have some cocaine lying around from your grandfather who worked at Coca Cola when they use that in it, thats still illegal even if it's super old.

I doubt it, they even have a signed militia where if such a thing happened again, they would group up and we would have a big battle.

Guidelines for 2nd amendment defense

example of a Texas militia

It will not be pretty and the government knows it. Of course the government would win, but would it be worth to kill people who are fighting for what they consider is their constitutional right? After the assault weapons ban (previously) there was a huge surge in Republicans and they get the legislation negated. Florida even just now after the shooting overwhelmingly shot down a gun control bill targeting semi-automatic weapons.

And then the first militia is either mowed down by professional soldiers or sent to prison for a million years and a big chunk of the others fold because things just got serious.

They know, but the war on drugs is even less pretty, more difficult and yet they are still fighting it. Yes, but how much money are the gun manufacturers throwing at the GOP to do this? Let me just say I find it really odd no one on the right is even concerned about this part. The NRA is practically run by the people and companies who make a living of making and selling weapons. They tell their members they are all about constitutional rights, yet everything they seem to do is some how increasing gun sales?

Well, many states including Texas (my state) do not have gun registries. There isn't a loophole with gun shows if your state doesn't have mandatory registering of firearms.

Limit what people can legally have lying around? Why not arm people? A gun is the greatest equalizer of any weapon.
If a group of guys come running into a school with knives and kill people (like the train attack in China), you cannot defend yourself without a gun.
If a guy with a gun comes into a school and is instantly outnumbered by armed guards and/or teachers then not only would it be a deterrent, but it would prevent lives lost.
I can tell from talking to you, you don't have a lot of experience with guns (not trying to be mean) but how exactly can you put a limit on rate of fire? Are you saying no semi-automatic? People can manually pull triggers just as fast as full auto guns even without bump stock attachments. I have a few semi-automatic rifles and my .557 colt m4 allows me to pull and shoot at any rate of fire I please. A pump action shotgun(or even a semi-automatic contest shotgun) can shoot at insane speeds and deal more damage per shot.
Anyone who handles guns know it isn't magazine capacity that is a problem, if I wanted to shoot alot, I'd take more magazines since they would be smaller, I could shoot nearly as much and reload in less than a second.
This applies to all guns pretty much besides bolt actions, but that didn't stop the sniping mass shooting done by Charles Witman in University of Texas who sniped people from a tower and killing 14 people. '

In Germany, semi-auto rifles aren't available and they do not have a smuggling border-nation like Mexico, so people went and shot up schools with handguns and killing lots of people. People in China and other nations like Japan have high rates of blade and machete attacks. People will use whatever they can to hurt people, a gun is the only way most people can defend themselves.

And thats a pretty big mistake in my eyes. I mean, when cops in Texas get called out somewhere, wouldn't they like to know if there are any guns around? Although it does kinda explain why cops in America in general open fire as readily as they do... they have to assume everyone is armed.

Because adding more of the problem has never ever worked. Like car crashes wont decline just because cars get safer and safer to drive in, the static will just keep going up because people don't become better driver and because there are just more and more cars on the roads. Same with guns, they don't become safer just because there are more of them.
You can run away from a guy with a knife, and the guy with the knife is not going to be able to rake up the body count of a guy with a gun, since you can't outrun bullets.
Thing is that teachers and guards are there to protect the students, that means leading them to safety, not start western showdown... also it just means the shooter know to shoot the adults first, likely catching most of them off guard because the panic seems to be universal in all the shootings.
I've been in the army and run around with the M-16, I know enough, not that I needed to. Ban anything that can fire faster than the RoF limit? And yes, you can fire manually nearly as fast... but not for very long because your finger starts to hurt and you likely run out of shots. Also you are likely a terrible aim when doing this anyways.
And you are missing the point there. Every time you run out of ammo, you have to stop shooting and spend time replacing the clip giving people an opening to either escape or shoot back. The bigger your clip the less times you have to do this and the more pressure you can keep on the people you are aiming at.
In most cases of mass shootings, you are not dealing with a sniper, you are dealing with some dingleberry running around from room to room and shoots at whoever he finds.

And yet the body count is not on the scale of American shootouts, not are they anywhere nearly as frequent as they are in America. As for Mexico... how many mass-shooting weapons have been traced back to Mexico? I thought Americans generally stuck with buying American guns? Also Germany has neighbours like Poland which borders Ukraine and then Russia. You can hop in your car in Berlin and drive to Moscow. And you could use a chair against a knifeman if you really wanted to.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@outside_85:

If the government, or should I say, cops, are standing on your doorstep? I am pretty sure the tune is different. Those old model cars however are not ones you'd normally drive around in, neither are they banned. If you make a gun illegal to have, then you can grandfather it as much as you like, it's still illegal to have it. Like if you have some cocaine lying around from your grandfather who worked at Coca Cola when they use that in it, thats still illegal even if it's super old.

Perhaps for some people, but some people love their guns so much, they are worth protecting with their lives.

The coca cola thing is a bad example, they used cocoa leaves. Not criminally made cocaine. You can go buy cocoa leaves right now if you want to, it will make your mouth numb (lol). It takes a lot more than what can be humanly consumed to get a cocaine high for cocoa leaves. Like 1/400th a grain of cocaine per drink that was taken from cocoa leaves. They never used real cocaine...

And then the first militia is either mowed down by professional soldiers or sent to prison for a million years and a big chunk of the others fold because things just got serious.

They know, but the war on drugs is even less pretty, more difficult and yet they are still fighting it. Yes, but how much money are the gun manufacturers throwing at the GOP to do this? Let me just say I find it really odd no one on the right is even concerned about this part. The NRA is practically run by the people and companies who make a living of making and selling weapons. They tell their members they are all about constitutional rights, yet everything they seem to do is some how increasing gun sales?

The government wouldn't use it's military to fight its own citizens ( I hope), it would be an act of repression which is something so unjust that it is only mimicked in communist nations. Many soldiers would have a problem with shooting Americans, and many soldiers are pro-gun rights. There will be huge trouble from people if the government goes after their guns. You assuming they wouldn't is quite a dangerous assumption, they already have ready-made militias and compounds to live on if something like that ever happened.

The NRA is the reason our second amendment is still shining bright. I want to buy guns, I want to shoot guns, I want to defend my property.

And thats a pretty big mistake in my eyes. I mean, when cops in Texas get called out somewhere, wouldn't they like to know if there are any guns around? Although it does kinda explain why cops in America in general open fire as readily as they do... they have to assume everyone is armed.

Yeah, everyone pretty much is armed. I have a CHL for example which is a license to carry a handgun. I can open or conceal carry freely in accordance with Texas Law. Most people aren't hyper aware of bulges made by other people's guns under their shirt unless you too are carrying. You will be surprised just how many other people carry concealed firearms, much more surprised in how many people owning ar 15's. I wouldn't fight against the government, but I would go to court over it and try to even reach the supreme court pertaining to the second amendment and/or just compensation for relinquishing my property if somehow the grandfather clause wasn't in effect.

Because adding more of the problem has never ever worked. Like car crashes wont decline just because cars get safer and safer to drive in, the static will just keep going up because people don't become better driver and because there are just more and more cars on the roads. Same with guns, they don't become safer just because there are more of them.

You can run away from a guy with a knife, and the guy with the knife is not going to be able to rake up the body count of a guy with a gun, since you can't outrun bullets.

Thing is that teachers and guards are there to protect the students, that means leading them to safety, not start western showdown... also it just means the shooter know to shoot the adults first, likely catching most of them off guard because the panic seems to be universal in all the shootings.

I've been in the army and run around with the M-16, I know enough, not that I needed to. Ban anything that can fire faster than the RoF limit? And yes, you can fire manually nearly as fast... but not for very long because your finger starts to hurt and you likely run out of shots. Also you are likely a terrible aim when doing this anyways.

And you are missing the point there. Every time you run out of ammo, you have to stop shooting and spend time replacing the clip giving people an opening to either escape or shoot back. The bigger your clip the less times you have to do this and the more pressure you can keep on the people you are aiming at.

In most cases of mass shootings, you are not dealing with a sniper, you are dealing with some dingleberry running around from room to room and shoots at whoever he finds.

If you have been in the army then yeah, you should know about guns. I grew up with them, my whole family are all gun nuts including me. A guy with a knife can achieve a massive body count, look at china and the train knife attack, a few guys went and killed 33 people and inured 130 all using knives. I'm not a runner, I am a big hunk of a man who probably couldn't outrun most athletic knife wielding foes. I wouldn't have to currently as I am armed. No one (unless they have bullet vest and such) has an advantage on me, I can fight at the very least 50-50 against someone trying to kill me. I will never be at a disadvantage since I can carry around a 9 mm.

Replacing a pre-loaded clip takes less than a second, I'll record me doing it with a handgun if you don't believe me.

Loading Video...

Think someone would have chances to get up from behind something and escape? All you have to do is press the mag release, grab another clip, stick it in and press the slide release and you can shoot again. It doesn't matter really how big the magazines are as you can switch them out within a second behind cover. I carry 2 extra mags with my firearm at all times and I still feel under geared.

And yet the body count is not on the scale of American shootouts, not are they anywhere nearly as frequent as they are in America. As for Mexico... how many mass-shooting weapons have been traced back to Mexico? I thought Americans generally stuck with buying American guns? Also Germany has neighbours like Poland which borders Ukraine and then Russia. You can hop in your car in Berlin and drive to Moscow. And you could use a chair against a knifeman if you really wanted to.

The point isn't current, cartels can't make a profit on legal items. I live about a 45 minute drive from the Mexican border in south eastern Texas. Cartels and smuggling is a big problem along with gang violence. The cartels make HUGE profit from illegal drugs to the point that you can buy any drug you want on the same street you live. Lets look at Germany, illegal guns in Germany is a huge problem. Now apply that to America who has smuggling cartels willing to profit off of anything where there is demand.

A knifeman has a huge advantage over you even if you have a chair. named a knife can kill you quite easily, but a chair cannot kill him easily.

Avatar image for chimeroid
Chimeroid

9274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:

@citizensurfer:

lol

How did you arrive to the conclusion that im comparing anything? I never even mention USA in my response.

Im just pointing out some facts with regards to Australian cases of mass murder.

Which you initial statement seems to miss.

You brought up shootings with the implications that banning guns made no difference.

- What?

- when did i brought it up?

- when did i said that it didn't made any difference?

like I already said I just pointed something that you "miss" in your statement:

"Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996."

base on fact that is obviously NOT true.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

According to facts, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996...

So shooting 6 people killing 3 and injuring 3 more is "factually" NOT mass shooting?

lol what?

I don't get it.

That was not a mass shooting. That was a multiple murder. Vastly different. The shooter's dog was killed and he was out to get revenge. John Wick style. His targets were intended. Not every multiple murder falls into mass shooting category.

Avatar image for TheGrat1
TheGrat1

725

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@chimeroid:

The United States Government defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least 3 people, excluding the shooter, are shot in a single incident. The intention of the shooter is irrelevant. Whether for traditional murder motives or because they are a crazy person shooting anyone.

Just fyi.

Avatar image for chimeroid
Chimeroid

9274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@TheGrat1 said:

@chimeroid:

The United States Government defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least 3 people, excluding the shooter, are shot in a single incident. The intention of the shooter is irrelevant. Whether for traditional murder motives or because they are a crazy person shooting anyone.

Just fyi.

The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed or injured, echoing the FBI definition[3][4] of the term "mass murder".

The definition you propose was brought forward later and is not really used by most researchers.

Crime violence research group Gun Violence Archive, whose research is used by all major American media outlets defines Mass Shooting as "FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter" differentiating between Mass Shooting and Mass Murder [Killing]and not counting shooters as victims

it is important to differentiate random gun violence and a very simple multiple murder.

Avatar image for jgames
Jgames

8513

Forum Posts

313

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#241  Edited By Jgames

Sort of sad that they shot down a proposal to have a discussion about banning assault rifle, but make porn a public health threat in Florida wtf.

Avatar image for iamverysmart1
IAmVerySmart1

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jgames said:

Sort of sad that they shot down a proposal to have a discussion about banning assault rifle, but make porn a public health threat in Florida wtf.

to be fair, pornography is said (by them, not me) to be more harmful than school shootings in the long run.

Avatar image for jgames
Jgames

8513

Forum Posts

313

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#243  Edited By Jgames

@iamverysmart1: XD just wow. I personally tried to stay in the middle when it comes to politics, and to be honestly both side can make me angry. But lately the righta have just annoy me, but maybe bc the idiots are louder bc of Trump.

Avatar image for iamverysmart1
IAmVerySmart1

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jgames said:

@iamverysmart1: XD just wow. I personally tried to stay in the middle when it comes to politics, and to be honestly both side can make me angry. But lately the righta have just annoy me, but maybe bc the idiots are louder bc of Trump.

Well to be honest I did not hear them saying that, but it is very clear that if priority of threats is on pornography as compared to school shootings, then pornography is deemed more harmful.

If I had to give an argument for that, it would be that pornography leaves people alive, which means these people would be adversely affected and pass down their corrupted minds down to the next generation, and the mind-corruption rate would be potentially exponential. At least school shootings leaves people dead, and people are much less likely to pick up the habit of killing.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer: Do you really think USA could ban guns, as in making it illegal for a citizen to own a firearm, could happen without any kind of huge backlash, as in, another civil war?

Tell me this then...

What damage will this:

No Caption Provided

Do to any of these?:

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

It wouldn't be a civil war, you'd get absolutely dogged on.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
CitizenSurfer

2642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Gun related mass murder/hostage taking in Australia:

Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured

Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured

Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect

Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

You really want to compare?

Australia

  • Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured
  • Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured
  • Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect
  • Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

Total time elapsed: 12 years.

  • Total amount of deaths: 13
  • Total amount of injuries: 12
  • Total amount of casualties: 25.

United States Of America:

  • Las Vegas Shooting - 2017 - 59 dead, 422 injuries.
  • Orlando Nightclub Shooting - 2016 - 50 dead, 58 inuries
  • Sutherland Springs Church Shooting - 2017 - 27 dead, 20 injuries

Total duration: 2 years

  • Total amount of deaths: 136
  • Total amount of injuries: 500
  • Total amount of casualties: 636

Now tell me, why won't America ban guns?

Look at El Salvador. More applicable to the U.S. since it is on the same continent and not landlocked by water. Gun Control doesn't work there. In fact, most places liberals mentions like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, etc... are all Islands.. They don't have a smuggling problem like America does.

  • Canada
  • Finland
  • Austria
  • France
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • Norway
  • Portugal
  • Slovakia
  • Denmark
  • Sweden
  • Italy
  • Germany
  • Hungary
  • Spain
  • Netherlands

Want me to continue?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17002

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#247  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@cable_extreme said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Gun related mass murder/hostage taking in Australia:

Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured

Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured

Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect

Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

You really want to compare?

Australia

  • Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured
  • Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured
  • Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect
  • Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

Total time elapsed: 12 years.

  • Total amount of deaths: 13
  • Total amount of injuries: 12
  • Total amount of casualties: 25.

United States Of America:

  • Las Vegas Shooting - 2017 - 59 dead, 422 injuries.
  • Orlando Nightclub Shooting - 2016 - 50 dead, 58 inuries
  • Sutherland Springs Church Shooting - 2017 - 27 dead, 20 injuries

Total duration: 2 years

  • Total amount of deaths: 136
  • Total amount of injuries: 500
  • Total amount of casualties: 636

Now tell me, why won't America ban guns?

Look at El Salvador. More applicable to the U.S. since it is on the same continent and not landlocked by water. Gun Control doesn't work there. In fact, most places liberals mentions like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, etc... are all Islands.. They don't have a smuggling problem like America does.

  • Canada
  • Finland
  • Austria
  • France
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • Norway
  • Portugal
  • Slovakia
  • Denmark
  • Sweden
  • Italy
  • Germany
  • Hungary
  • Spain
  • Netherlands

Want me to continue?

Add more information so I can understand the point you are trying to make. If it is about AR15 rifles. More people are killed from fist (unarmed) people than from all rifle types combined in the U.S. in 2016. People's fist kill more people than rifles....

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
decaf_wizard

17519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#248  Edited By decaf_wizard

@citizensurfer said:
@cable_extreme said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Gun related mass murder/hostage taking in Australia:

Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured

Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured

Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect

Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

You really want to compare?

Australia

  • Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured
  • Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured
  • Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect
  • Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

Total time elapsed: 12 years.

  • Total amount of deaths: 13
  • Total amount of injuries: 12
  • Total amount of casualties: 25.

United States Of America:

  • Las Vegas Shooting - 2017 - 59 dead, 422 injuries.
  • Orlando Nightclub Shooting - 2016 - 50 dead, 58 inuries
  • Sutherland Springs Church Shooting - 2017 - 27 dead, 20 injuries

Total duration: 2 years

  • Total amount of deaths: 136
  • Total amount of injuries: 500
  • Total amount of casualties: 636

Now tell me, why won't America ban guns?

Look at El Salvador. More applicable to the U.S. since it is on the same continent and not landlocked by water. Gun Control doesn't work there. In fact, most places liberals mentions like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, etc... are all Islands.. They don't have a smuggling problem like America does.

  • Canada
  • Finland
  • Austria
  • France
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • Norway
  • Portugal
  • Slovakia
  • Denmark
  • Sweden
  • Italy
  • Germany
  • Hungary
  • Spain
  • Netherlands

Want me to continue?

Please don't talk about my country if you don't know what your talking about. None of the regulations even Canada has would've stopped that shooting. If a person so chose, in Canada they could've legally gotten the same gun and used it in the same way if they felt like ignoring the law

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

@citizensurfer said:
@cable_extreme said:
@citizensurfer said:
@mimisalome said:
@citizensurfer said:

Australia's last mass shooting occurred in 1996.

Can you guess when they banned guns?

Gun related mass murder/hostage taking in Australia:

Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured

Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured

Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect

Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

You really want to compare?

Australia

  • Monash University Shooting - 2002 - 2 dead 5 injured
  • Hectorville Siege - 2011 - 3 dead 3 injured
  • Hunts Family Murder - 2014 - 5 dead including suspect
  • Sydney Siege - 2014 - 3 dead including suspect (1 was killed accidentally)

Total time elapsed: 12 years.

  • Total amount of deaths: 13
  • Total amount of injuries: 12
  • Total amount of casualties: 25.

United States Of America:

  • Las Vegas Shooting - 2017 - 59 dead, 422 injuries.
  • Orlando Nightclub Shooting - 2016 - 50 dead, 58 inuries
  • Sutherland Springs Church Shooting - 2017 - 27 dead, 20 injuries

Total duration: 2 years

  • Total amount of deaths: 136
  • Total amount of injuries: 500
  • Total amount of casualties: 636

Now tell me, why won't America ban guns?

Look at El Salvador. More applicable to the U.S. since it is on the same continent and not landlocked by water. Gun Control doesn't work there. In fact, most places liberals mentions like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, etc... are all Islands.. They don't have a smuggling problem like America does.

  • Canada
  • Finland
  • Austria
  • France
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • Norway
  • Portugal
  • Slovakia
  • Denmark
  • Sweden
  • Italy
  • Germany
  • Hungary
  • Spain
  • Netherlands

Want me to continue?

Please don't talk about my country if you don't know what your talking about. None of the regulations even Canada has would've stopped that shooting. If a person so chose, they could've gotten the same gun and used it in the same way if they felt like ignoring the law

None of your laws stop drug smuggling completely either, yet your are still enforcing it.

Avatar image for JPPT1974
JPPT1974

132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yeah as really it seems almost all of Europe bans guns and no smuggling there. USA needs to learn from this. Sadly if they do not, innocent people will get hurt or killed.