NSFW Today's shooting

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Another mentally ill man buys a legal gun in America.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
I read in the comments section on one site (Can't remember which, I was on the bog), people were saying that it wouldn't have happened if the reporter and camera man had been armed and if anything it shows why more guns should be around.

What an absolute load of bollocks.

I am all for freedom to own firearms but there has to be tougher tests for ownership, any sign of being mental and it should be a flat out no and you certainly shouldn't be able to buy them at the supermarket. I think we have it about right over here, though I think more gun types should be allowed but certainly not military spec automatic rifles and assault rifles. When the second amendment was put it in the world was a very different place, as were guns.

This is a great video and pretty much sums it up


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
fuckwit Republican candidates said:
But Republican presidential candidates hit back, with Ben Carsonsaying: “People are the problem, not so much guns.” Rival, and former Virginia governor, Jim Gilmore went further, saying:
Politicians were wrong today to go out there and begin to do the same old song about gun control when that is not the issue.

It’s infuriating because it’s diverting us away from what we can do to solve this problem and that is to identify people who are unstable.

There are always going to be unstable people, but guess what, other countries have them too and don't have 12,000 deaths a year from shootings. What would be the difference that causes that number? Well I just can't think...

Because it always bears repeating...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3WMx1blONU
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
Why doesn't Obama do something?

It's his last term. If he was really bothered he could make this is truly defining moment.
 

Trem

Not as old as he claims to be!
Moderator
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,293
Why doesn't Obama do something?

It's his last term. If he was really bothered he could make this is truly defining moment.
He is doing as much as he can within the boundaries he has. He has said some pretty close to the bone stuff about the American people and guns, something along the lines of "we don't have the common sense to have this many guns in this country". The guy is a good president and one of the best I have seen run that country in my lifetime.

As for Bill Hicks, another dead hero :(
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,439
Why doesn't Obama do something?

It's his last term. If he was really bothered he could make this is truly defining moment.

He can't issue executive orders to enact gun control, it needs to pass congress/senate so uh.. snowball in hell kinda expectation of change.
If Sandy Hook can't get america to get its shit together on guns, nothing will.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
Obviously he's not a dictator.

But its last term, he can sufgesf radical things and push them if he was seriously passionate about it
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,439
Obviously he's not a dictator.

But its last term, he can sufgesf radical things and push them if he was seriously passionate about it

The republicans hold the house and senate, he can't do shit that isn't outside his remit of being in charge of the executive branch.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015-10473981.html

I think it's fair to say that if we had that many mass shootings in the UK we'd all need guns for protection too.

image.jpg


The thing is, if everyone had guns and it worked, I'd be all for it, but loads of people do have guns and it doesn't:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

Most successful "civilian" interventions to stop shooting sprees are by off-duty cops, and even then the number of interventions is a tiny fraction of cases.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Just to add balance to this discussion and play devil's advocate a little :)


The gun laws in the states were written into their Constitution to protect the people from their own government.

Given the batshit craziness of the current lot of political hopefuls it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to see a future scenario that an unnopposed leader could start, for example, rounding up "undesireables" into, say, concentration camps. Maybe the illegal immigrants?

It's happened before in the US.

Then, perhaps, a strong and charismatic leader may want to go even further than simple concentration camps and may suggest a different solution, that the people would sign up to. There's well publicised precedent for this in multiple countries in the last hundred years.


When I say it's not a stretch of imagination I mean it. It would just be applying past history to a country that has already gone down that path in many ways. (I also think that you're a well-meaning fool if you don't think this is at least possible, given recent history all over the world and the identical nature of humans no matter geography).


I posit that the thing that's stopped their government going full retard in the past is the fact that large swathes of well-armed Americans would start shooting at them. Perhaps, in a country of 300 million+ people the gun death rate is the price of continued freedom?

Perhaps the things that tend to be linked with gun crime could be better managed? - Better education, more equal income, less poverty etc. etc. - would be a better solution than "ban guns".
 
Last edited:

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
Just to add balance to this discussion and play devil's advocate a little :)


The gun laws in the states were written into their Constitution to protect the people from their own government.

Given the batshit craziness of the current lot of political hopefuls it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to see a future scenario that an unnopposed leader could start, for example, rounding up "undesireables" into, say, concentration camps. Maybe the illegal immigrants?

It's happened before in the US.

Then, perhaps, a strong and charismatic leader may want to go even further than simple concentration camps and may suggest a different solution, that the people would sign up to. There's well publicised precedent for this in multiple countries in the last hundred years.


When I say it's not a stretch of imagination I mean it. It would just be applying past history to a country that has already gone down that path in many ways. (I also think that you're a well-meaning fool if you don't think this is at least possible, given recent history all over the world and the identical nature of humans no matter geography).


I posit that the thing that's stopped their government going full retard in the past is the fact that large swathes of well-armed Americans would start shooting at them. Perhaps, in a country of 300 million+ people the gun death rate is the price of continued freedom?

Perhaps the things that tend to be linked with gun crime could be better managed? - Better education, more equal income, less poverty etc. etc. - would be a better solution than "ban guns".

Bollocks.

The people in the US that have weapons and are pro-weapons but don't go mass murdering are usually the Republicans.

You know, the southerners who are inherently xenophobic and would happily allow the Government to lock up all the Mexicans.

Which you even post an example to - the US were locking up the Japanese based on their skin colour - Did the people think 'Perhaps this is wrong' or did they spit at them and agree with the Government?

I know you're I DONT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, but it doesn't work in a country like America where the people who are protecting those rights are more bat shit crazy and less liberal than those who don't want weapons.

If it was in a place like Northern Europe, perhaps I could sympathise a bit more, since people *seem* to be a bit more liberal and sound-minded.

Besides, wouldn't the first person to decide to act upon their right to resist their government be deemed as the terrorist anyway?

It's a nice idea in principle, but in reality it doesn't work - The issue was post-independence, because everyone had a gun because they were protecting their country, so rather than taking them away, the decision was 'Oh, you defended YOUR country, so its YOUR right.'

If I'm not mistaken, it was discussed in the UK too during WW1. - You aint fighting for no monarchy, you're fighting for your country.

Fifth edit - Perhaps we should start practicing the law that is in the UK where we have to practice the longbow every day to beat the French aristocracy on horsies, that's just as legimitate as the freedom-to-massacre.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Your post is contradictory in many places tbh - I'm not persuaded by your argument. And as I pointed out in my post - the solution to a lot of the points you raise is better education and better economics.

With our without guns a lot of those problems would be massively reduced. If they still have their guns you still reduce gun crime dramatically by tackling these problems - and there's plenty of evidence in the states that that solution works.


Aside from that - we should be looking at those solutions for other problems, never mind gun crime, but gun crime's hogging the headlines and taking the limelight off solutions we should be implementing (and are well within our capabilities to implement) anyway...
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
Just to add balance to this discussion and play devil's advocate a little :)


The gun laws in the states were written into their Constitution to protect the people from their own government.

Given the batshit craziness of the current lot of political hopefuls it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to see a future scenario that an unnopposed leader could start, for example, rounding up "undesireables" into, say, concentration camps. Maybe the illegal immigrants?

It's happened before in the US.

Then, perhaps, a strong and charismatic leader may want to go even further than simple concentration camps and may suggest a different solution, that the people would sign up to. There's well publicised precedent for this in multiple countries in the last hundred years.


When I say it's not a stretch of imagination I mean it. It would just be applying past history to a country that has already gone down that path in many ways. (I also think that you're a well-meaning fool if you don't think this is at least possible, given recent history all over the world and the identical nature of humans no matter geography).


I posit that the thing that's stopped their government going full retard in the past is the fact that large swathes of well-armed Americans would start shooting at them. Perhaps, in a country of 300 million+ people the gun death rate is the price of continued freedom?

Perhaps the things that tend to be linked with gun crime could be better managed? - Better education, more equal income, less poverty etc. etc. - would be a better solution than "ban guns".

The Second Amendment was NOT written to protect the people from their own government. That is egregious nonsense.

Second Amendment said:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Despite current interpretations (and there's a really good article on the how the Supreme Court ended up ignoring the entire first half of the amendment here), the Second Amendment is an individual right, in the service of a societal obligation to defend the state.

Apart from anything else, if that was the reason, it would be a giant waste of time because an M1-Abrams trumps a pickup truck with a gunrack full of AR-15s every fucking time.
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
I read in the comments section on one site (Can't remember which, I was on the bog), people were saying that it wouldn't have happened if the reporter and camera man had been armed and if anything it shows why more guns should be around.

Sadly an often used reason by gun supporters and a very deluded one.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
The Second Amendment was NOT written to protect the people from their own government. That is egregious nonsense.
I disagree strongly with your point of view. I think the founding fathers of the US government knew very well what they were doing when they made the right to bear arms an individual liberty.
The 2nd Amendment provides an interesting insight into the Founding Fathers' attitude toward government. The new nation had recently freed itself from a government controlled by others, not themselves. They saw themselves as a people, and government as a separate, sometimes despotic and oppressive entity. If they could not have arms, they would be helpless before this other entity; they would be like slaves.


But either way - if the gun law thing is such a hard nut to crack, why is everyone ignoring my point about societal reform that is proven to lower gun crime?

Surely rational people would use all avenues open to them rather than narrow their focus on the one thing they can't achieve?

Huge gains could be made in other ways. There are loads of things that can be done but no will to do them. Instead, people whine about gun laws...
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
I disagree strongly with your point of view. I think the founding fathers of the US government knew very well what they were doing when they made the right to bear arms an individual liberty.

Yeah, right, they just didn't actually put it in the words they wrote down. Handy.

But either way - if the gun law thing is such a hard nut to crack, why is everyone ignoring my point about societal reform that is proven to lower gun crime?

Surely rational people would use all avenues open to them rather than narrow their focus on the one thing they can't achieve?

Huge gains could be made in other ways. There are loads of things that can be done but no will to do them. Instead, people whine about gun laws...

Fuck's sake Scouse. You seriously think America could achieve societal reform and equitable wealth distribution more easily than it could achieve gun control? Are you on crack?
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Fuck's sake Scouse. You seriously think America could achieve societal reform and equitable wealth distribution more easily than it could achieve gun control?
No. But you can certainly make inroads, small incremental changes that can be done and aren't sexy.

The problem is that there's no political capital to be gained from doing that. But that's exactly what needs to happen in tandem with other efforts. Or do you disagree with that too?
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
No. But you can certainly make inroads, small incremental changes that can be done and aren't sexy.

The problem is that there's no political capital to be gained from doing that. But that's exactly what needs to happen in tandem with other efforts. Or do you disagree with that too?

Fine. But that's not going to bring gun-related deaths down by a factor of a 1000, which is what you'd need to do in order to normalise America in relation to the rest of the developed world.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Fine. But that's not going to bring gun-related deaths down by a factor of a 1000, which is what you'd need to do in order to normalise America in relation to the rest of the developed world.

I'm not against that. But tell me how to do that and solve the problem I outlined in my original post.

If you can't do both, then it's a non-starter for me. In the absence of that I think the correct answer is to do the best you can to minimise the problems and accept the hit...
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,842
@DaGaffer you need to remember that @Scouse openly goes on about he doesn't care about other humans.

So revolution even in weird ways is good.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
I'm not against that. But tell me how to do that and solve the problem I outlined in my original post.

If you can't do both, then it's a non-starter for me. In the absence of that I think the correct answer is to do the best you can to minimise the problems and accept the hit...

Well its clearly not a non-starter, because there are plenty of other countries with inequitable economies where they don't spend all day shooting each other in the face. You're sat in one.

Gun control can happen, but its going to need a counterweight to the NRA lobbyists (read that article I linked; the role of the NRA in shaping study of the Constitution to inform the Supreme Court is an eye-opener), and a bit like the way the death penalty is being pushed back; more proactive gun control laws at State level, which do exist, but still need more toughening because its trivially easy to just go to the Wal-Mart in the next state over and get tooled up, even if you're own state has tighter rules (a gun-shipping version of the Wire Act would be a start).
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
@DaGaffer you need to remember that @Scouse openly goes on about he doesn't care about other humans..
That's @Moriath, not me. I do care, very much. Which is why the solution to this problem has to not create a another problem that history shows is clearly the worse one.

@DaGaffer - your solution doesn't solve my issues. Yes, gun control is clearly not a non-starter - but as far as I'm concerned if it doesn't solve the original point then I'm not interested in the discussion tbh - it's one we've had many times before.

Yes, we're sitting in the UK where gun death isn't an issue. But we're also sitting in a country which for nearly two decades has been on the path of slowly eroding civil liberties, increases in the existence of secret courts and their jurisdiction, effective detention without trial, massive increases in inequality, increasing right-wing leanings in both government and amongst the general population.

I am clearly concerned about gun deaths. But there are other considerations in this discussion that seem to be dismissed out of hand because they're inconvenient...


Edit: I will get to your article but I'm currently packing the car to leave in 25 minutes for a 4 day jaunt to Wales :)
 
Last edited:

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
Usa needs to do what australia did and ban all guns etc.

But it wont happen. @Scouse is right im the one who doesnt care. They can blow themselves to bits for all i care. As long as they stay away from me.
 

Trem

Not as old as he claims to be!
Moderator
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,293
In all fairness, humans are generally cunts. There are some lovely ones like me obviously and Teedles and Jup at a push :eek: but for the most part humans haven't done themselves any favours. From the top right down to the bottom it is all a false way of being and existing and it has caused massive amounts of jealousy and inflated self worth without reason.

I do find it hard to rustle up any sympathy for the majority of things that happen anymore, and now the newsreader and her cronies on that network are sitting there holding hands and saying a prayer for the ones killed, no they fucking aren't, they are saying a thank you prayer that it wasn't them.
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
In all fairness, humans are generally cunts. There are some lovely ones like me obviously and Teedles and Jup at a push :eek: but for the most part humans haven't done themselves any favours. From the top right down to the bottom it is all a false way of being and existing and it has caused massive amounts of jealousy and inflated self worth without reason.

I do find it hard to rustle up any sympathy for the majority of things that happen anymore, and now the newsreader and her cronies on that network are sitting there holding hands and saying a prayer for the ones killed, no they fucking aren't, they are saying a thank you prayer that it wasn't them.
And thanks for the publicity hehe
 

Edmond

Is now wearing thermals.....Brrrrr
Moderator
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
11,518
In all fairness, humans are generally cunts. There are some lovely ones like me obviously and Teedles and Jup at a push, oh and @Edmond. he's a top bloke and no mistake.......... :eek:.

Aww, thanks dude:love:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom