I can't believe this. No one takes responsibility for themselves anymore. That shooter acted on intent and would have carried out the attack whether he obtained the guns legally or illegally, the same with other high profile shooters. They didn't all decide to shoot up a group of people because they had a gun. They did it because they were sick in the head and planned it so meticulously.
Sometimes I wonder if the Brits in the past talked about banning knives due to Jack the Ripper attacks.
leviathan91
they did.
Actually weapons of all sorts were banned from being owned by commoners at that time. you had to have a permit or be a gentlemen/royalty.
Really? This was back then?
Who would have known? :? I wonder if that stopped the attacks.
]
no weapons had been banned for hundreds of years before jack the ripper.
I can see that this thread has predictably turned into a gun control debate, which was exactly the purpose of the shooting. Just like the Colorado theatre massacre. Fortunately it backfired in CO and people starting buying guns like hotcakes. I can only hope the same happens here. I hate to have to say this, but I bet we see at least a couple more mass shootings in the US/UK this summer. People aren'tquiteworked up enough to give up their 2nd amendment just yet. Won't take that much more though.
hartsickdiscipl
your right, we cant let the Illuminati have its way.
FIGHT THE POWER
(by power i mean bigfoot, i mean that's who's really in charge,right?)
I can't believe this. No one takes responsibility for themselves anymore. That shooter acted on intent and would have carried out the attack whether he obtained the guns legally or illegally, the same with other high profile shooters. They didn't all decide to shoot up a group of people because they had a gun. They did it because they were sick in the head and planned it so meticulously.
Sometimes I wonder if the Brits in the past talked about banning knives due to Jack the Ripper attacks.
leviathan91
they did.
Actually weapons of all sorts were banned from being owned by commoners at that time. you had to have a permit or be a gentlemen/royalty.
one angle I read regarding motive is that he may have carried this out in an attempt of violence against Muslims but didn't know Sikhs aren't Muslims, and he had a 9-11 tattoo on his arm... of course that doesn't conclude anything but it's an angle to look into, to be honest though that also crossed my mind as an option even before reading about it; anyhow, wonder what we'll find out lamprey263
THANK YOU for at least attempting to get this thread back on track.
[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"] Isn't it ironic how gun legislation allows people to get their hands on a gun easily to commit crimes in rural areas, and to counter that is to provide the victims in rural areas with guns also? What on earth would this solve? They have guns, so we should too? How about just take away their guns? That last one would provide much more benefits on the long run.DrTrafalgarLaw
I'm not even talking about guns. In fact the last real murder to happen in my area was committed with a knife. Most guns used in crimes aren't even obtained legally to begin with. Somebody isn't going to use a gun in a crime knowing it could trace back to them.
Someone, somewhere has obviously bought that gun or maybe even stole it or manufactured it. Fact it, the lenient legislation of gun ownership has allowed guns to thrive in your society. Most crimes over here do not take place with a gun. Banning guns decriminalizes an area or country, part of enforcing the ban is doing strip searches on unsuspecting people. You can save a lot more lives by catching people red-handed with a gun and other lethal tools as a part of a country-wide ban on guns, then you would by endorsing to carry guns to counter trigger-happy criminals like these. I rest my case, I've said what I wanted and I should sleep. Goodnight everyone.
i thank god that people like him hold no influence over our government.
Log in to comment