Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.
Got a breaking news topic or want to post the most recent issues for sensible, on-topic discussion? This is the forum for you.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
- Location: London | Posts: ∞
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.My first thought as well(Original post by Harry.K)
He probably thought they were muslim. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.Just because a law won't prevent 100% of gun related homicides, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Having more restrictive laws in place may reduce such deaths. To say that such laws make the innocent more vulnerable is completely ignorant - there have been over fifty massacres in the US in the last thirty years, tell me, how many of those have been prevented by civilians carrying guns?(Original post by pr0view)
Its not like America is the only place in the world where people are killed by guns, 4 people were shot in Liverpool last night despite our gun laws that clearly make the innocent more vulnerable and are a mere hurdle for anyone who wants a gun to kill members or the public.
The UK's laws won't prevent every shooting, but does that mean they are a failure? Absolutely not. The US's laws allowed the Aurora gunman to buy 6000 rounds of ammunition without raising any alarms, and have led to many deaths.
The US has the highest firearms related homicide rate of any developed nation, and one of the highest in the world. It is quite obviously a country that needs better gun control laws. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Location: Leeds
- Posts: 1,070
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.America definitely needs to ban assault rifles and bring in more regulations such as background checks and limits on ammunition however I agree with them when the say they have the right to defend themselves. Britain on the otherhand is the exact other end of the scale where no one has weapons but the state, criminals and a few farmers and gun clubs. Gun crime has also risen since the UK's last ban in 1997 I believe.(Original post by FDR)
Just because a law won't prevent 100% of gun related homicides, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Having more restrictive laws in place may reduce such deaths. To say that such laws make the innocent more vulnerable is completely ignorant - there have been over fifty massacres in the US in the last thirty years, tell me, how many of those have been prevented by civilians carrying guns?
The UK's laws won't prevent every shooting, but does that mean they are a failure? Absolutely not. The US's laws allowed the Aurora gunman to buy 6000 rounds of ammunition without raising any alarms, and have led to many deaths.
The US has the highest firearms related homicide rate of any developed nation, and one of the highest in the world. It is quite obviously a country that needs better gun control laws.
I think NI is something we should look upon where over 100,000 people own firearms and there is no significantly larger amount of shooting in NI despite its sectarian history.Last edited by pr0view; 05-08-2012 at 21:05. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 6,382
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.But that doesn't mean that they are allowed to randomly shoot people!(Original post by ryan84)
Perhaps, because the US constitution allows US citizens to bear arms? -
- Reputation:
- Adored and Respected Member
- Posts: 511
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.Makes it easier though doesn't it?(Original post by kka25)
But that doesn't mean that they are allowed to randomly shoot people! -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.Nothern Ireland actually has more gun related homicides than the US...(Original post by pr0view)
America definitely needs to ban assault rifles and bring in more regulations such as background checks and limits on ammunition however I agree with them when the say they have the right to defend themselves. Britain on the otherhand is the exact other end of the scale where no one has weapons but the state, criminals and a few farmers and gun clubs. Gun crime has also risen since the UK's last ban in 1997 I believe.
I think NI is something we should look upon where over 100,000 people own firearms and there is no significantly larger amount of shooting in NI despite its sectarian history.
However if you said 'we should look at switzerland, where every male owns a gun, but they have much less gun related homicides, or Canada where there are relatively loose gun laws too' , I'd say well, they don't need tight gun laws, but the figures, and the stories in the news show that the US does - Policy needs to be reactionary, a policy that suits the swiss or even the canadian doesn't suit the Americans.
You also say that by allowing widespread ownership of guns, Americans therefore have the right to defend themselves (implying that we don't ), but surely we still have the right, just not the right to defend ourselves with guns. Plus the actual 'defending yourself' bit hasn't seemed to work, like I said, of the fifty or so massacres in the US over the last three decades, none have been prevented by gun totin' civilians. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.(Original post by ryan84)
Perhaps, because the US constitution allows US citizens to bear arms?
... -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,126
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.Tbh it would be as easy to get a gun in Britian, despite its illegality here. I live in Birmingham and I'm sure that there's some areas around here where it would be really easy to get one and I've seen documentaries where people in London say that they can get a gun in 15 minutes. So it's not a case of getting guns, it's just the mentality of some people.(Original post by Charlottie93)
It's awful what has happened, the gunman has been found dead now and thankfully not too many were killed. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/05...t-sikh-temple/
It's an absolute disgrace, where do they get the weapons from is it really just that easy to get guns in America? All those people dying for no reason. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.Yeah, it would be easy if you knew the right people.(Original post by theonefrombrum)
Tbh it would be as easy to get a gun in Britian, despite its illegality here. I live in Birmingham and I'm sure that there's some areas around here where it would be really easy to get one and I've seen documentaries where people in London say that they can get a gun in 15 minutes. So it's not a case of getting guns, it's just the mentality of some people. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 202
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.Don't be ridiculous or idiotic, the gunman knew it was a Sikh temple.(Original post by Harry.K)
He probably thought they were muslim.
He probably hated all colored people.
Love & Support to the families & victims of the WC Sikh temple shooting. RIP! -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.Negged everyone that mentioned gun debate. Stop politicizing every ****ing event. Every wants to be a policy maker but no body wanna read long ass books on policy making. BRB stories about guns saving lives = yay legalize guns. Stories about guns destroying lives = boo, ban guns. It's a complex debate and all you idiots who think you're saying something intellectual aren't, you're just looking like a idiot who thinks they know something.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
Re: Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, USA.But, how many of these places where gun free zones? And you're forgetting the US states aren't all similar and some have more restrictions on guns. Plus, you haven't even accounted for how many lives have been saved by guns. This is a prime example of the simplicity of people and you still think you're in a position to be calling for any sort of policy change. Ha.(Original post by FDR)
You also say that by allowing widespread ownership of guns, Americans therefore have the right to defend themselves (implying that we don't ), but surely we still have the right, just not the right to defend ourselves with guns. Plus the actual 'defending yourself' bit hasn't seemed to work, like I said, of the fifty or so massacres in the US over the last three decades, none have been prevented by gun totin' civilians.
