Nine dead in US mall shooting
-
Your logic doesn't make much sense, you're pretty much saying to prevent shootings we need to give more civillians guns. They should ban firearms entirely and the entire thing wouldn't even have happened.Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:Indeed it has.
If more upstanding citizens were encouraged to obtain handgun carry permits, perhaps one of them could have taken down the mall shooter and reduced the casualty count. -
Lol...it was like the argument put forth by some people during the V.Tech shooting...say if the students were allowed to bring in guns, the shooter would have been put down in a short time.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:Your logic doesn't make much sense, you're pretty much saying to prevent shootings we need to give more civillians guns. They should ban firearms entirely and the entire thing wouldn't even have happened.
But I think a war would be more likely to break out within the school, lol. -
Some people here are saying citizens should be allowed to carry weapons so governments cannot opress them, someone else is saying rural areas need protection because of far distance to police.
All these are not reasons.
Which other country is like America?
Which other country is applying the principle, let's allow the people to have weapons, so government cannot oppress them. I dont know any countries doing this, mostly they apply democracy or parliament of some sort for this purpose.
Also people in rural areas or isolated areas can have weapons to protect themselves. Which countries apply this principle?
I dont think in America they do it because of those reasons. Mostly it's because of the constitution. Since the constitution says it, it affects people and their thoughts and the society. There are people who say, the right to bear arms is an inalienable right of each and every citizens guaranteed in constitution.
So, like this, how to argue? There is a school of thought that people 'have the right to bear arms'. But if they think in a society people have the 'right' to equip themselves with lethal weapons, if lethal weapons are circulating around, then dont be surprised accidents happen.
It's all the 'fault' of the constitution. It sets the foundational stone for all the views and beliefs of that society. A large section of their society will never escape from the view that carrying arms is a 'right'. I dont think their brethrens in UK, Canada, Australia have this problem.
Meat Pao. -
It's the internet. It can turn grown men into immature children, since they don't have to take any responsibility. I've seen many people in their twenties who behave worse than me on the internet, simply because they can.Originally posted by Demonight:I think all the people who posted after him should be held accountable as well..you DO NOT encourage a person to take another person's life whether it be on the internet or face to face..they should all be considered accessories to murder -
I think it's a 'damned if you do' 'damned if you don't' type of argumentOriginally posted by Meat Pao:Some people here are saying citizens should be allowed to carry weapons so governments cannot opress them, someone else is saying rural areas need protection because of far distance to police.
All these are not reasons.
Which other country is like America?
Which other country is applying the principle, let's allow the people to have weapons, so government cannot oppress them. I dont know any countries doing this, mostly they apply democracy or parliament of some sort for this purpose.
Also people in rural areas or isolated areas can have weapons to protect themselves. Which countries apply this principle?
I dont think in America they do it because of those reasons. Mostly it's because of the constitution. Since the constitution says it, it affects people and their thoughts and the society. There are people who say, the right to bear arms is an inalienable right of each and every citizens guaranteed in constitution.
So, like this, how to argue? There is a school of thought that people 'have the right to bear arms'. But if they think in a society people have the 'right' to equip themselves with lethal weapons, if lethal weapons are circulating around, then dont be surprised accidents happen.
It's all the 'fault' of the constitution. It sets the foundational stone for all the views and beliefs of that society. A large section of their society will never escape from the view that carrying arms is a 'right'. I dont think their brethrens in UK, Canada, Australia have this problem.
Meat Pao. -
If you've read the constitution you would know that it says that you have the right to bear arms if you're in a militia but Americans seem to ignore that part.Originally posted by Meat Pao:Some people here are saying citizens should be allowed to carry weapons so governments cannot opress them, someone else is saying rural areas need protection because of far distance to police.
All these are not reasons.
Which other country is like America?
Which other country is applying the principle, let's allow the people to have weapons, so government cannot oppress them. I dont know any countries doing this, mostly they apply democracy or parliament of some sort for this purpose.
Also people in rural areas or isolated areas can have weapons to protect themselves. Which countries apply this principle?
I dont think in America they do it because of those reasons. Mostly it's because of the constitution. Since the constitution says it, it affects people and their thoughts and the society. There are people who say, the right to bear arms is an inalienable right of each and every citizens guaranteed in constitution.
So, like this, how to argue? There is a school of thought that people 'have the right to bear arms'. But if they think in a society people have the 'right' to equip themselves with lethal weapons, if lethal weapons are circulating around, then dont be surprised accidents happen.
It's all the 'fault' of the constitution. It sets the foundational stone for all the views and beliefs of that society. A large section of their society will never escape from the view that carrying arms is a 'right'. I dont think their brethrens in UK, Canada, Australia have this problem.
Meat Pao. -
You're right of course but it's still sad to see people condoning the murder of innocentsOriginally posted by ArdusKane:It's the internet. It can turn grown men into immature children, since they don't have to take any responsibility. I've seen many people in their twenties who behave worse than me on the internet, simply because they can. -
If you give them the rights to own firearms, other people will have to surrender their rights to have their own lives.
How ironic. -
DonÂ’t be too quick to tighten gun control. The gun is innocent.
If you follow the news, youÂ’ll notice a pattern that lead to the killing.
The signs are similar to what Cho Hseong Hui had been through.
The killer was a maladjusted youth – he could not cope with the demands and stresses of daily living. Incidentally he also had emotional problems and was tactlessly sent to a mental house for evaluation. It must have pissed him off. Plus he had been a bully victim and had met with a series of unfortunate events. All these caused great damage to his psyche and he just snapped.
The killings should prompt the need to identify and to provide the correct mode of treatment for maladjusted people. -
a bit off topic but, the quote in your sig by 'Anonymous' is actually Mel Bernstein from the 1983 movie Scarface.Originally posted by googoomuck:DonÂ’t be too quick to tighten gun control. The gun is innocent.
If you follow the news, youÂ’ll notice a pattern that lead to the killing.
The signs are similar to what Cho Hseong Hui had been through.
The killer was a maladjusted youth – he could not cope with the demands and stresses of daily living. Incidentally he also had emotional problems and was tactlessly sent to a mental house for evaluation. It must have pissed him off. Plus he had been a bully victim and had met with a series of unfortunate events. All these caused great damage to his psyche and he just snapped.
The killings should prompt the need to identify and to provide the correct mode of treatment for maladjusted people.
on topic, this is what America's lax gun laws brought upon itself. -
I'm also a loserOriginally posted by jojobeach:They boy who did this has a very sad background.
He dropped out of school.
Got kicked out of his home.
No where to go.
Was taken in by a good samaritan.
Worked in a fast food restaurant.
Something happened at work and I think he lost his job.
Gave up on life, and took more along.
In his letter to the one who took him in.
He apologies, that he didn't want it to end this way.
He felt he was a loser with nothing to look forward to, now he'll be famous.
The lady was interviewed and with tears in her eyes she said " I thought things are finally looking up for him, then this happens."
So people.
Please give others a chance. Don't be mean.
When a person is facing desperate times, extend your helping hand, NOT drop more stone to bury him.
So when and when will I be famous? -
do eeet maggot do eeetOriginally posted by maggot:I'm also a loser
So when and when will I be famous?
NOT -
Ok Superheat hydrogen then it will cause fusion which produces heliumOriginally posted by CUM ON MY FACE:do eeet maggot do eeet
NOT
Provide I have the equipment for that
-
Guns don't kill.
Humans using them do.
Might as well ban knifes etc since people use them to kill? -
Here's an interesting statistics (2004)
Base on this figures, there's a more pressing need to ban motor vehicles !
It's an over-reaction to gun control.
LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (latest data)
ALL CAUSES 2,169,518
Heart Disease 720,862
Cancers 514,657
Strokes 143,481
ACCIDENTS 89,347
Motor Vehicle 43,536
Falls 12,662
Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434
Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685
Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195
Fires and flames 4,120
Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473
Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086
Natural/Environmental factors 1,453
Firearms 1,441
Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650
Pneumonia and influenza 77,860
Diabetes 48,951
Suicide** 30,810
HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555
Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513 (15,908 involved firearms)
Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429
* A Harvard University study suggests 93,000 deaths annually related to medical negligence, excluding tens of thousands more deaths from non- hospital medical office/lab mistakes and thousands of hospital caused infections.
** Approximately 60% involve firearms.
*** Approximately 60% involve firearms. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates 1,500-2,800 self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians and 300-600 by police annually. -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
WRONG! The leading cause of death is LIFE! Because people are alive that's why they die. Only people who are alive can die.
Here's an interesting statistics (2004)
Base on this figures, there's a more pressing need to ban motor vehicles !
It's an over-reaction to gun control.
LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (latest data)
ALL CAUSES 2,169,518
Heart Disease 720,862
Cancers 514,657
Strokes 143,481
ACCIDENTS 89,347
[b]Motor Vehicle 43,536
Falls 12,662
Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434
Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685
Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195
Fires and flames 4,120
Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473
Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086
Natural/Environmental factors 1,453
Firearms 1,441
Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650
Pneumonia and influenza 77,860
Diabetes 48,951
Suicide** 30,810
HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555
Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513
Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429 [/b]
So...quick, stop people from being alive! -
Hopefully there is no reservists and active armed forces personnels resembles the shooter
Even if have no one can prevent because everybody so "bo chap" so such incidents will occur
Example: an armed escort "takes out" the ammo party after they drawed ammunition and makes his ways to crowded areas with the deadly load
-
Ah...I be nice, you be nice, everyone be nice. The problem with people is there are bastards who will step on other people's toes.....autocratic superiors, bullies..Originally posted by maggot:Hopefully there is no reservists and active armed forces personnels resembles the shooter
Even if have no one can prevent because everybody so "bo chap" so such incidents will occur
Example: an armed escort "takes out" the ammo party after they drawed ammunition and makes his ways to crowded areas with the deadly load
Don't take on a wimp. -
I know the gun is innocent but it provides a means of killing people. The gun's sole purpose is to kill and banning it will certainly reduce the number of deaths each year. If this was the only time something like this happened then okay I can understand not blaming guns but this kind of thing happens so much in America.Originally posted by googoomuck:DonÂ’t be too quick to tighten gun control. The gun is innocent.
If you follow the news, youÂ’ll notice a pattern that lead to the killing.
The signs are similar to what Cho Hseong Hui had been through.
The killer was a maladjusted youth – he could not cope with the demands and stresses of daily living. Incidentally he also had emotional problems and was tactlessly sent to a mental house for evaluation. It must have pissed him off. Plus he had been a bully victim and had met with a series of unfortunate events. All these caused great damage to his psyche and he just snapped.
The killings should prompt the need to identify and to provide the correct mode of treatment for maladjusted people. -
Having ordinary people having guns in the USA is a legacy from the slavery in the
US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4vGtDPSxiY
They are still defending the use of gun now to protect themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_OBGbly29Y -
I would still say do it for him but first, I would like to parachute him into an Al Qaeda training camp before he pulls any trigger. He wants to go out, let him go out in style and for a worthy cause. Beats the suicide bombers anytime.
-
Gun makers slogun:"If there's more Guns in America, there will be less shooting!"Originally posted by Pitot:Guns don't kill.
Humans using them do.
Might as well ban knifes etc since people use them to kill? -
Here are more reasons why many Americans are against gun control.Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:I know the gun is innocent but it provides a means of killing people. The gun's sole purpose is to kill and banning it will certainly reduce the number of deaths each year. If this was the only time something like this happened then okay I can understand not blaming guns but this kind of thing happens so much in America.
Politically, there has been talks on tighter gun control by the Democrats and the Republicans. America is now in the midst of a presidential race. Neither party wants to endorse tighter gun control as both are aware that it can cost them votes.
Historically, the AmericansÂ’ forefathers fought and died for freedom. Now that they are enjoying freedom, they are not going to give up the right to bear arms; thereÂ’s a tendency that tyranny can creep up on them. Tyranny is natural and is all around the globe. It has happened in SINGAPORE and itÂ’s happening in Russia.
Statistically, the homicide rate has fallen over the last 12 years. Easy access to guns result in deaths more common in drug deals and gang fights. The world is a better place because these people are gone. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has actually gone up sharply because criminals, who donÂ’t obey the law, have the upper hand. In America, guns play an important role in self-defense. More than 100,000 cases of self-defense occur every year.
In lax gun control America, non–gun homicide rates are 3 times higher than England’s non-gun homicide rates. This statistics indicate that murder rates don’t fall because they can’t use guns. -
Reminds me of the guy who went to Orchard with a SAR21.Originally posted by maggot:Hopefully there is no reservists and active armed forces personnels resembles the shooter
Even if have no one can prevent because everybody so "bo chap" so such incidents will occur
Example: an armed escort "takes out" the ammo party after they drawed ammunition and makes his ways to crowded areas with the deadly load -
That guy only got 8 roundsOriginally posted by LatecomerX:Reminds me of the guy who went to Orchard with a SAR21.
Will there be a guy with at least 3000 rounds? Or with 40mm grenades?
We shall wait perhaps