WTF Denver shootings at Batman showing

[Raven]

I agree with that, I think they are overly comfortable with guns.

I think our laws are about right, as in the checks that are done and the requirements. I do however think pistols and more rifles should be legal.

 

[Tuthmes]

Everything I have read suggests he was a nut job which is my point the tests they have for owning a gun are nowhere near good enough.

Someone can be sane, pass your test and go insane in the years to come. It also still doesnt address the issue that those weapons will be easily available to everyone. In a legal way or illegal. Or someone's emotional state, or mistakes and fkups, or, or...

I have a few knives that would be considered illegal to most coppers, they would be considered weapons when they are in fact tools.

Compairing tools and/or knifes with guns and rifles.

This should be the first question on soze's test. Show a gun and a knive and ask if they are same. If not, why?

 

[soze]

Someone can be sane, pass your test and go insane in the years to come. It also still doesnt address the issue that those weapons will be easily available to everyone. In a legal way or illegal. Or someone's emotional state, or mistakes and fkups, or, or...

It is not a one off test in England and should not be in the States. And I am sorry but what you are saying does not work for me. Some people kill themselves driving cars and kill others. So should they be banned? A very very small minority misuse guns but a lot of the time they seem to be legal guns. So better checks could go a long way.

This guy did not suddenly go boom he ordered guns and ammo and waited for it all to show up. It was premeditated and if he had to justify the assault rifle and 100 round drum magazine to the police he may have been stopped.

 

[throdgrain]

Why do guns NEED to be legal?

Why do the NEED to be illegal?

 

[Aoami]

Because too many people can't be trusted?

 

[Raven]

That's blanket punishment though. Hundreds of thousands of people can't be trusted with alcohol, they either damage themselves with it or damage/kill others while under the influence. If it wasn't for alcohol 1000s of people every year would be alive.

If we banned cars there would no longer be road traffic accidents or deaths by dangerous driving. Far more people die by vehicle in one way or another than would die from being shot if more gun ownership was allowed.

 

[Aoami]

Good points, however I would argue that guns were invented as killing machines where as cars and alcohol weren't. Whilst id agree that all deaths related to all three things are just by products of their original purposes, you wouldn't go and legally buy a car or alcohol with the intent of murdering someone would you?

 

[Tuthmes]

It is not a one off test in England and should not be in the States. And I am sorry but what you are saying does not work for me. Some people kill themselves driving cars and kill others. So should they be banned? A very very small minority misuse guns but a lot of the time they seem to be legal guns. So better checks could go a long way.

This guy did not suddenly go boom he ordered guns and ammo and waited for it all to show up. It was premeditated and if he had to justify the assault rifle and 100 round drum magazine to the police he may have been stopped.

Yet again you are compairing things that cannot be compaired for the sake of your argument. Do you use your gun to drive you to your work or home? What is your intention when you drive a car? All this compairing of guns and rifles to other things you can kill people with is such an stupid argument. But to humor myself. If the only use for a car would be killing people, yes that would be the day to ban cars. You also could argue that we test people a lot more before they can drive a car. You also get checked a lot more when driving, etc, etc. Anyways...

Guns have only one purpose, to kill.

The point is it's not about misusing guns (well it is actually). The point is having them around. As Tom already stated, they up the ante (in more ways then one).

Sure, they should be available for certain members of our society (police, hunting), but not as a right for everyone (as is the case in the USA).

My point is he shouldnt have beeing able to buy an assault rifle at all and the 4-6k bullets that go with it. Nobody should have that right (in the case of assault riffles, not even the police). As for his mental state. He whas study'ing at the university (3rd or 4th year). All the weapons he hade he aquired legally. He went bezerk and already hade the weapons. If they where harder to come by it might have taken him longer to get them. People may have noticed he hade them, etc.

 

[throdgrain]

Good points, however I would argue that guns were invented as killing machines where as cars and alcohol aren't. Whilst id agree that all deaths related to all three things are just by products of their original purposes, you wouldn't go and legally buy a car or alcohol with the intent of murdering someone would you/

I wouldnt go and legally buy a gun with the intent of murdering someone either ...


Not unless you'd really pissed me off anyway

Oh, and guns arnt purely invented as killing machines either, my sweet little BBC child of the '90s

 

[throdgrain]

Guns have only one purpose, to kill.

The point is it's not about misusing guns (well it is actually). The point is having them around. As Tom already stated, they up the ante (in more ways then one).

Sure, they should be available for certain members of our society (police, hunting), but not as a right for everyone (as is the case in the USA).

My point is he shouldnt have beeing able to buy an assault rifle at all and the 4-6k bullets that go with it. Nobody should have that right (in the case of assault riffles, not even the police). As for his mental state. He whas study'ing at the university (3rd or 4th year). All the weapons he hade he aquired legally. He went bezerk and already hade the weapons. If they where harder to come by it might have taken him longer to get them. People may have noticed he hade them, etc.

See point #129, you screaming lefty.

 

[Aoami]

Oh, and guns arnt purely invented as killing machines either, my sweet little BBC child of the '90s

come now... what were they invented for? shooting up blocks of wood for the fire?

 

[Tuthmes]

See point #129, you screaming lefty.

I have left my caps loc untouched yet, republican!

Yes, guns are designed to "stop" people and animals:

​

 

[throdgrain]

come now... what were they invented for? shooting up blocks of wood for the fire?

Well I've been a gun owner all my life and I've never planned to shoot anyone, just like the VAST VAST majority of shooters ...

 

[throdgrain]

I have left my caps loc untouched yet, republican!

Yes, guns are designed to "stop" people and animals:

​

I honestly dont know what point you're trying to make.

 

[Tuthmes]

Well I've been a gun owner all my life and I've never planned to shoot anyone, just like the VAST VAST majority of shooters ...

Then why do you have one?

I honestly dont know what point you're trying to make.

That's ok, I dont understand what politics have todo with gun ownership either.

 

[throdgrain]

Then why do you have one?



That's ok, I dont understand what politics have todo with gun ownership either.

Why do I have one?

First question should always be : what the fuck has it got to do with you? Thats called civil rights where I come from.

But not to get your back up, and to answer your question, I have always shot targets ,paper or clay, and hunted off an on, all my life, just like god knows how many thousands of other people in this country, let alone in the US, where emasculation isnt always legislative.

The thing is, out there under your nose are many many people just like me, who do this stuff, but who always ended up getting legislation forced upon them by people like you; that is, with respect, people with lots of ideas but fuck all actual knowledge

 

[Aoami]

Well I've been a gun owner all my life and I've never planned to shoot anyone, just like the VAST VAST majority of shooters ...

I'm sure. However, it doesn't change the fact that, in the USA it remains very easy to legally obtain something that was invented with the sole purpose of killing other lifeforms does it? That is fact and not opinion.

 

[throdgrain]

I'm sure. However, it doesn't change the fact that, in the USA it remains very easy to legally obtain something that was invented with the sole purpose of killing other lifeforms does it? That is fact and not opinion.

No guns are made with the sole intention of killing other lifeforms, my hystestical chum. Before the ban there were loads of people in this country shooting pistols, but it only took 2 looneys to go mad and kill folks, and that was the end of pistol shooting (an Olympic sport) in this country. Fred West murdered and raped over 10 girls iirc, and buried them in his garden, are you suggesting we ban penises too?

 

[Mey]

What about people who do archery?

Should we ban bows as well? They're pretty dangerous.

 

[Tuthmes]

Why do I have one?

First question should always be : what the fuck has it got to do with you? Thats called civil rights where I come from.

Strong arguments you got there. Not sure anyone with that temper should be allowed to carry a gun though.

But not to get your back up, and to answer your question, I have always shot targets ,paper or clay, and hunted off an on, all my life, just like god knows how many thousands of other people in this country, let alone in the US, where emasculation isnt always legislative.

The thing is, out there under your nose are many many people just like me, who do this stuff, but who always ended up getting legislation forced upon them by people like you; that is, with respect, people with lots of ideas but fuck all actual knowledge

People like me? I don't even live anywhere near you. That also means there arent a whole lot of people just like you around me. Infact, if you where carry'ing a gun, I'd call the police and so would 99% of the people here.

I hate legislation as much as you do, but society needs rules (see the banking world aswell). Anyways, it's always fun to see how you want to turn this into a political debate, rather then debating the fact why you would want a gun. I take it you are pro legalizing weed and other drugs aswell?

What about people who do archery?

Should we ban bows as well? They're pretty dangerous.

Almost certain they are banned here in Holland aswell. Atleast the ones you can sport/kill with. You'd need a permit.

 

[Aoami]

No guns are made with the sole intention of killing other lifeforms, my hystestical chum. Before the ban there were loads of people in this country shooting pistols, but it only took 2 looneys to go mad and kill folks, and that was the end of pistol shooting (an Olympic sport) in this country. Fred West murdered and raped over 10 girls iirc, and buried them in his garden, are you suggesting we ban penises too?

You keep mentioning sport. If you enjoy shooting then what is wrong with going to a controlled environment to shoot, rather than having to own the guns yourself, which, as we know can lead to other things.

 

[megadave]

What motivates people to go and shoot people like that? Boggles my mind.

Can't ever see legislation changing in America regarding gun rights, would it even be enforceable? There would just be a huge black market.

Is there any need to change UK laws?

 

[throdgrain]

Strong arguments you got there. Not sure anyone with that temper should be allowed to carry a gun though.



People like me? I don't even live anywhere near you. That also means there arent a whole lot of people just like you around me. Infact, if you where carry'ing a gun, I'd call the police and so would 99% of the people here.

I hate legislation as much as you do, but society needs rules (see the banking world aswell). Anyways, it's always fun to see how you want to turn this into a political debate, rather then debating the fact why you would want a gun. I take it you are pro legalizing weed and other drugs aswell?



Almost certain they are banned here in Holland aswell. Atleast the ones you can sport/kill with. You'd need a permit.

How does where you live determine what sort of person you are? This IS a political debate, in the most basic sense, you are an apologist who would give away peoples rights in favour of more state control.

I would legalise some drugs actually, though not opiates. If you want to get onto that debate, well, bring it on, I suspect I've got a lot more real life experience than you in that field, as well as this one. Opinions are like arseholes mate, everyones got one, and you seen one, you seen 'em all.

 

[Job]

The thing is we glorify guns as killing machines, in fact the glorification of the gun is pretty well endemic in mainstream culture, because it is designed to kill, it has been fine tuned over the years for maximum killing potential, all gun magazines glorify it's damage potential, with an ever present unsaid theme of 'you could take out a crowd with this baby'.
And it comes as a surprise that occasionally some nutter takes them up on the offer and finds he does have a mass killing machine in his hands that gives him instant feedback to satisfy his fantasies.

 

[Raven]

Job in failing to understand the subject matter shocker...again

 

[DaGaffer]

Bit off as they're not legal over here What's it like in comparison with Yankland, which was the main point I was trying to make?

How is it a "bit off"? UK=guns really hard to get, minimal gun deaths. Switzerland=guns a lot easier to get, much increased gun deaths (absolute and per capita), USA=guns ridiculously easy to get, stupendous amount of gun deaths. NB. For those of you citing Canada, it has a third of the guns per capita as the US, and, oh look, just about a third of the death rate (although admittedly the suicide/homicide rate is very different - its the dark nights suicide correlation like Scandinavia I guess). Its actually really simple; the more guns you have in general circulation, the more people die. Yes there are countries above the US in terms of gun deaths, but in every case they're damn near failed states or suffer from massive social imbalance and unrest (the Estonia ranking in that link is an outlier - 1994 was the period when they were kicking the Russians out; I'm certain more up to date data would sit that figure drop dramatically).

You can argue for a gun ban on the basis of anything, dont make it right.

Just because that would make you unhappy, doesn't make it wrong either. The Americans have banned all kinds of things on public safety grounds in the past (from haggis to 3-wheeled ATVs) but not guns despite them being far, far more likely to kill you by accident.

The funny thing about gun panics is that anyone with basic chemistry and easily available chemicals can create far more deadly devices but I have yet to hear calls for a ban on chapati flour etc.

Because its a stupid argument? Just because people could create a bomb, doesn't mean they do. In fact the UK has precisely one example of a successful nutcase-bomber (rather than a terrorist network), and that was the guy who blew up the Admiral Duncan in Soho a few years ago. Guns kill people easily, especially if they're easily available. Making bombs is hard. You're never going to stop a truly determined madman, and it would be senseless to try, but that isn't the same as letting someone buy an AR-15 after a 3-day wait and ammo through the mail.

Banning is not the answer gun control is. I have a friend who recently got a .22 rifle and the police work involved was staggering. He had 3 visits where he was told his safe was not good enough and that he needed a separate ammo safe. If America had checks anywhere near the same as here maybe these nut jobs would not get so many guns.

^This. I'm not against gun ownership, but it should be a proper pain in the arse to do so. Gun ownership should be expensive, hard to do and closely policed. And despite the libertarians and misquoted Jeffersonianisms its demonstrably evident that such and approach works. And also that scare stories about the bad guys having guns and the public not are a load of shite as well. When was the last time you heard of a tooled-up burglar in the UK?

That's blanket punishment though. Hundreds of thousands of people can't be trusted with alcohol, they either damage themselves with it or damage/kill others while under the influence. If it wasn't for alcohol 1000s of people every year would be alive.

If we banned cars there would no longer be road traffic accidents or deaths by dangerous driving. Far more people die by vehicle in one way or another than would die from being shot if more gun ownership was allowed.

Once again, rubbish analogy. Try robbing a bank or shooting up a cinema with a bottle of whiskey. Now you can argue that alcohol abuse can damage others as well as the person doing the abusing, but alcohol is an enabler, not an implement. You can't actually kill other people with the alcohol (well you can, but its rather difficult). As for cars, see the argument above. Amazingly you don't get people going on killing sprees with the highly dangerous Ford Focus.

Oh, and guns arnt purely invented as killing machines either, my sweet little BBC child of the '90s

You don't mean "invented", you mean "developed". Guns certainly were invented as killing machines, the fact that there's now a sporting spin-off doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of guns in the world are still primarily killing machines (your beloved Remington 870 is in service with 20 militaries, they're not using them for skeet shooting). And in actual fact, if the primary role of guns was sporting, they wouldn't be so widely available in America. Its only the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" in the context of "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". I don't see much mention there of the "right to bear arms for a bit of clay pigeon shooting". So, frankly, spurious claims that guns aren't for killing people and are actually pink and fluffy sports toys that shoot rainbows and moonbeans, are a load of fucking bollocks.
So, in answer to your question:

Why do I have one?

First question should always be : what the fuck has it got to do with you? Thats called civil rights where I come from.

Because too many guns in circulation means too many dead people. Civil rights comes with civil responsibilities, but the Americans in particular seem to have forgotten that part of the agreement. I no more want guns easily available than I want bottles of anthrax. Of course if someone comes up with a sporting use for anthrax, I'll be sure to change my mind...

 

[Raven]

Once again, rubbish analogy. Try robbing a bank or shooting up a cinema with a bottle of whiskey. Now you can argue that alcohol abuse can damage others as well as the person doing the abusing, but alcohol is an enabler, not an implement. You can't actually kill other people with the alcohol (well you can, but its rather difficult). As for cars, see the argument above. Amazingly you don't get people going on killing sprees with the highly dangerous Ford Focus.

In single incidents maybe and even then there are incidents of someone mounting the pavement and mowing down a bus queue, either because they are drunk or because they are not fit to drive. I actually saw some coffin dodger mount the pavement once in town. He drove for a good 100 metres before crashing into a wall, thankfully and miraculously nobody was seriously injured as most people got out the way...apparently his foot got stuck or some shit.

How is 12 people getting killed in one sitting differ from 12 different people getting run over by a bad driver or drink driver at different times?

 

[DaGaffer]

In single incidents maybe and even then there are incidents of someone mounting the pavement and mowing down a bus queue, either because they are drunk or because they are not fit to drive. I actually saw some coffin dodger mount the pavement once in town. He drove for a good 100 metres before crashing into a wall, thankfully and miraculously nobody was seriously injured as most people got out the way...apparently his foot got stuck or some shit.

How is 12 people getting killed in one sitting differ from 12 different people getting run over by a bad driver or drink driver at different times?

Intent for a start. Your examples would be manslaughter, not premeditated murder. And you know what? Its fucking easy to do without guns. Its a lot more difficult to do without cars.

 

[Raven]

I agree, however a death is a death. If 1000 (random number pulled out of the air) people die a year by vehicle and 1000 people die a year from guns, what the difference? That is still 1000 deaths that could be avoided by banning vehicles. The fact that one is potentially pre-meditated is sort of moot when it comes to the outcome, someone dies.

 

[Scouse]

you want to turn this into a political debate, rather then debating the fact why you would want a gun.

He not only brought the political point up, which is a good one, he directly answered your question on why he wanted a gun.

He goes hunting. He shoots paper and clay targets. Nothing wrong with either of those things as hobbies.

Tuthmes old bean - you're so religiously hysterical over gun ownership you can't even read posts properly.




As for me? I used to be massively anti-gun ownership in the US. Now I'm older I'm pro-. I think that "the founding fathers" knew what they were doing...