How the right allow terrorists to get hold of weapons.

Original post by Reue

too late it would seem

I suspect the people capable and wanting to do something like this would continue along that course rather than having a self-imposed time out.

Just imagine Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, Adam Lanza, Chris Mercer and all of these people if they lived in the UK.

They would have not had the physical 'option' to go and end everything they did so readily. You could argue that they would use knives or something else, but AR15s and handguns have a certain level of security and ease of use which assures them that they would actually be successful.

Reply 22

trumpisbae

Today we honour those brave guns who gave their bullets for our country knowing theyll never get them back :france:

Reply 23

Original post by Reue

Because making guns illegal certainly stopped both the Paris and Brussels attacks...

it would happen at the same rate as the ones in america if gun laws are lax.

Reply 24

TimmonaPortella

21

Original post by PrincessBO$$

How is right for anyone to have a weapon?
More gun control laws should enforced.

I think a lot of Americans see themselves as basically out on their own and responsible for their own safety in a dangerous place, which is becoming more and more understandable with every mass shooting imho.

Obviously you need to be able to stop suspected terrorists from acquiring guns, though I'd like to see some limitations to police discretion in that case, and preferably judicial oversight. I'm not sure the extent to which those were included in this bill.

Reply 25

TS/OP this news is bloody old. its 2015. i knew it a long time ago.

Reply 26

trumpisbae

Original post by HucktheForde

TS/OP this news is bloody old. its 2015. i knew it a long time ago.

Just like I knew that ted Cruz was the Zodiac Killer in 1954!

Bad! :beer:

Reply 27

Original post by Betelgeuse-

What does he barr the exits with? Does he do this on his own whilst multiple police are shooting at him and somehow missing him? How much fuel does he need and where does it need pouring to ensure the building burns quicker than Emergency services are on the scene?

I didnt say it was a gun issue but the access to guns makes atrocities like this easier to carry out. Whether you are mental loner intent on killing grey haired men, or Islamic state wolves looking to kill Gay people... its all so so much easier with an AR-15 at your fingertips

OK, so it's easier, that's subjective. You have to learn how to use a weapon first, how to reload it in the dark, how to aim it and how to burst fire, how to hit center mass etc. etc.

Seems much easier to start a fire at the exits, maybe block the fire exit with a high sided vehicle so no one inside will notice then set a timed fire on the roof exit and man the entrance fire yourself, if you were suicidal.

The argument that this scenario would have be less severe or not happened at all (if automatic weapons were illegal) is completely un-falsifiable and by extension unprovable, it's completely outside the sphere of rational discourse and into the realm of make believe. People are still likely to die from this atrocity and others are politicizing their suffering to forward their agendas.

Sure, in some situations automatic weapons make shooting sprees easier for certain individuals, it seems highly plausible that a number of disasters would have been less severe were these weapons not available to the pubic, but in this particular case, it's just not a tenable position. If you think it is, prove it.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 28

Original post by HucktheForde

It would have forced him to assault the club with a sticks and stones and maybe a knife.

or maybe he wouldn't do that if he couldn't get a gun.

Again, we go into the land of make believe. Maybe this, maybe that, what ifs and such.

Maybe he would have chosen another target, maybe more people would have died, maybe he would have built a catapult and commenced the bombardment of the club until it was in shambles. Maybe he decides to vent his rage in small doses, picking up homosexual prostitutes and killing hundreds of the next 40 years.

Seriously childish arguments, things might have been better, but they equally might have been worse had guns been removed from the equation.

Reply 29

Original post by HanSoloLuck

Again, we go into the land of make believe. Maybe this, maybe that, what ifs and such.

Maybe he would have chosen another target, maybe more people would have died, maybe he would have built a catapult and commenced the bombardment of the club until it was in shambles. Maybe he decides to vent his rage in small doses, picking up homosexual prostitutes and killing hundreds of the next 40 years.

Seriously childish arguments, things might have been better, but they equally might have been worse had guns been removed from the equation.

None of those you mentioned are both easier to achieve and will cause more harm than what had happened in orlando. They are either damaging but takes extensive effort (making a bomb requires years of training in chemical engineering), or less damaging but require lesser effort and time , which would have had police to stop them before it is too late. An assault rifle fits in both condition.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 30

Original post by HucktheForde

None of those you mentioned are both easier to achieve and will cause more harm than what had happened in orlando. They are either damaging but takes extensive effort (making a bomb requires years of training in chemical engineering), or simple but will take a massive effort and time , which would have had police to stop them before it is too late. An assault rifle fits in both condition.

Nope, in my hypothetical scenario the catapult kills everyone, then it kills the universe.

What, you don't think it's fair I can just make stuff up, welcome to crux of your argument. If you are allowed to make outlandish claims that don't need to be proven and can't be proven, then so can I.

So without guns available he builds a catapult that destroys the universe, seems to me that it's a good thing he could get guns.

Reply 31

Original post by HanSoloLuck

Nope, in my hypothetical scenario the catapult kills everyone, then it kills the universe.

What, you don't think it's fair I can just make stuff up, welcome to crux of your argument. If you are allowed to make outlandish claims that don't need to be proven and can't be proven, then so can I.

So without guns available he builds a catapult that destroys the universe, seems to me that it's a good thing he could get guns.

I dont make claims based on hypothetical scenario so I have nothing to respond to one.

Regards

Reply 32

Tempest II

16

Americans & their firearms laws really do seem crazy to most Europeans, especially us Brits.
I'm actually quite glad we have strict firearms laws even if they do seem a bit too restrictive at times.

I do wonder if American culture influences gun violence as Canadian gun crime is pretty low even if you take into account population differences.
“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings, which do not include Quebec figures.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/04/news/how-american-gun-deaths-and-gun-laws-compare-canadas

As this is from the end of 2015 it doesn't include that shooting Canada suffered in the last couple of months; still mass shootings in Canada are rare.

Reply 33

Original post by Tempest II

Americans & their firearms laws really do seem crazy to most Europeans, especially us Brits.
I'm actually quite glad we have strict firearms laws even if they do seem a bit too restrictive at times.

I do wonder if American culture influences gun violence as Canadian gun crime is pretty low even if you take into account population differences.
“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings, which do not include Quebec figures.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/04/news/how-american-gun-deaths-and-gun-laws-compare-canadas

As this is from the end of 2015 it doesn't include that shooting Canada suffered in the last couple of months; still mass shootings in Canada are rare.

The problem is not guns, focusing on guns is wrong at the first place.

The heart and core of american gun violence problem is the NRA.

Reply 34

Original post by HucktheForde

I dont make claims based on hypothetical scenario so I have nothing to respond to one.

Regards

What's this then.

Original post by HucktheForde

It would have forced him to assault the club with a sticks and stones and maybe a knife.

or maybe he wouldn't do that if he couldn't get a gun.

Seems like a claim based on the hypothetical scenario were no guns are available, wouldn't you know that everything is hunky dory is this tall tale of a world without guns. HA !

Reply 35

Original post by HanSoloLuck

What's this then.

Seems like a claim based on the hypothetical scenario were no guns are available, wouldn't you know that everything is hunky dory is this tall tale of a world without guns. HA !

It isn't. It is common sense fact that if gun laws are a bit tighter that said shooter would have less of a chance of using an assault rifle and higher chance to resort to other methods or not at all. Those were examples, not hypothetical scenario. Even hypothetical scenarios have to abide by realistic common sense and rule. Catapult that destroys the universe does not fit into this discussion, into star trek maybe.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 36

Original post by HucktheForde

It isn't. It is common sense fact that if gun laws are a bit tighter that said shooter would have less of a chance of using an assault rifle and higher chance to resort to other methods or not at all. Those were examples, not hypothetical scenario. Even hypothetical scenarios have to abide by realistic common sense and rule. Catapult that destroys the universe does not fit into this discussion, into star trek maybe.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That is a claim on a hypothetical scenario where guns are removed from the equation, which is simply pulled out of thin air to suit your position.

If he didn't have a gun, he might have built a universe destroying catapult.

Learn to have proper discourse with someone and stop arguing hypothetical's, it's not even funny anymore, it's just stupid. Very, very stupid.

Reply 37

Original post by HanSoloLuck

That is a claim on a hypothetical scenario where guns are removed from the equation, which is simply pulled out of thin air to suit your position.

If he didn't have a gun, he might have built a universe destroying catapult.

Learn to have proper discourse with someone and stop arguing hypothetical's, it's not even funny anymore, it's just stupid. Very, very stupid.

Says the guy who thinks he would build a catapult that will destroy the universe. Hahahahaha...how can people not find it funny?

It is a common sense example to back up my main point, not a hypothetical claim drawn straight out of star treks.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 38