another school shooting

[Richard]

58 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

How much would it cost for the local authorities over there allow a few security guards to be on guard of school premises?

As it seems like 9/10 shooting over there are to do with educational institutions.

Is that really an environment you would like to send your kids to though? It would just normalise the use of guns in everyday life even more

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

The first source you provided uses a table to show shootings from 2017. Working through the list, there were 19 shootings that killed 4 or more people. That is around 5.3% of the number you are alleging. 

 

Firstly, you responded to a post that quoted no source by claiming that a mass shooting event occurs every 50 days. Clearly you did so without even researching it, such was your haste to call bullshit to one of my posts (something you do with monotonous frequency).

 

Secondly, I have now provided several sources confirming my assertion, this being the most alarming:

 

18 hours ago, Buce said:

 

When that mass shooting happened in Vegas there was a statistic that in the previous 365 days there had been an average of slightly more than one a day (bear in mind that there has to be at least four victims for it to even qualify as one).

 

Edit: An even better (worse?) statistic: the Vegas shooting was the 1,516th mass shooting in 1,735 days.

 

American society is seriously fvcked up.

 

which is close enough to one a day as to make no difference in the context of your 'one every 50 days' claim. Yet still you doggedly try to defend your point rather than recognising that you are wrong and having the humility to admit it.

 

Maybe, instead of following me around an internet forum trying to score some imaginary point, it might be a good idea to leave your bedroom once in a while and interact with some real people. Who knows, you might even meet a woman (they are the ones with lumps at the front).

Edited 15 February 2018 by Buce

[yorkie1999]

Unless there's a fundamental change of attitude towards guns from everyone in America, it's impossible to stop these sort of attacks (no shit sherlock!) and that's never going to happen because they love their guns and they love the power that comes with guns. Feel sorry for innocent kids and stuff, but the blame lies solely on the good ole american way of life. 

 

God and guns
Keep us strong
That's what this country
Was founded on
Well we might as well give up and run
If we let them take our God and guns

 

FFS!

[lifted*fox]

Americans are idiots tbh. 

 

We're not a million miles away here though either, tbf. 

 

Try and desperately hold on to stupid traditions and the past because people are too thick / scared to move forward.

 

Whatever - let everyone wipe each other out / blow each other (ooh) into oblivion. 

 

Amazing to think that one day this planet will be void of life again and someone, something, somewhere will study our history and chuckle to themselves at how we got so close yet were still so far. 

 

Evolved, devolved and ****ed it all up. 

 

 

[Bryn]

7 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Banning guns, while desirable, wouldn't solve the problem at all because America is awash with firearms already. Bad guys would just buy them from criminals.

 

The only solution that I can see would be to make schools into high security institutions, with fences, locked gates, and armed guards at those gates. How practical that would be, I don't know.

 

This is one of the more reasoned arguments against banning guns outright, they're so common in the States and a full amnesty would be so unlikely to happen. The law abiding gun owners are probably right in saying they'd give their weapons up and be left in a country which still has hundreds of thousands of firearms still in the hands of bad people.

I think it's a bit of a case of where there's  a will there's a way though.

[Benguin]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Firstly, you responded to a post that quoted no source by claiming that a mass shooting event occurs every 50 days. Clearly you did so without even researching it, such was your haste to call bullshit to one of my posts (something you do with monotonous frequency).

 

Secondly, I have now provided several sources confirming my assertion, this being the most alarming:

 

 

which is close enough to one a day as to make no difference in the context of your 'one every 50 days' claim. Yet still you doggedly try to defend your point rather than recognising that you are wrong and having the humility to admit it.

 

Maybe, instead of following me around an internet forum trying to score some imaginary point, it might be a good idea to leave your bedroom once in a while and interact with some real people. Who knows, you might even meet a woman (they are the ones with lumps at the front).

I admitted I read it wrong and then you said no I meant 4 deaths. The first source you posted contradicted that.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you are ignorant of your own behaviour on the forum however if for any reason the 5 or so seconds it takes to type a post results in agitation for you and forcing you to resort to personal attacks, its not all bad for me. 

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I admitted I read it wrong and then you said no I meant 4 deaths. The first source you posted contradicted that.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you are ignorant of your own behaviour on the forum however if for any reason the 5 or so seconds it takes to type a post results in agitation for you and forcing you to resort to personal attacks, its not all bad for me. 

 

 

Once again you overestimate your importance to me - I think maybe that obsessive personality you have is playing up again.

 

I treat you with the same contempt as any other little boy hiding behind the safety of the internet.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Bryn said:

 

This is one of the more reasoned arguments against banning guns outright, they're so common in the States and a full amnesty would be so unlikely to happen. The law abiding gun owners are probably right in saying they'd give their weapons up and be left in a country which still has hundreds of thousands of firearms still in the hands of bad people.

I think it's a bit of a case of where there's  a will there's a way though.

Tbh in my own opinion, this is the *only* reasoned argument against a gun ban; the sheer impracticality of getting so many firearms out of circulation.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

Once again you overestimate your importance to me - I think maybe that obsessive personality you have is playing up again.

 

I treat you with the same contempt as any other little boy hiding behind the safety of the internet.

Okay then. Good luck with that.

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Still true.

Not quite. It's not an either/or deal. It should be both.

[420Hashish]

4 hours ago, Buce said:

 

But you live in Egypt.

Migrated to USA

[lifted*fox]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Tbh in my own opinion, this is the *only* reasoned argument against a gun ban; the sheer impracticality of getting so many firearms out of circulation.

city by city, state by state. 

 

it's a big task but it's perfectly possible with a proper plan over an extended period. 

 

they can start by limiting gun ownership to handguns (if they don't have a valid reason to own more powerful guns) with an amnesty on automatic rifles / shotguns / semi-autos and light machine guns, etc.

 

nobody needs an AR15 to defend themselves in a ****ing home invasion, etc. 

 

big guns are for men with small penises to sooth their inferiority complexes.

 

america lol. bunch of jokers. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Not quite. It's not an either/or deal. It should be both.

Absolutely it should be both, but I think it more feasible for one to happen at a time, followed by the other.

 

4 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

city by city, state by state. 

 

it's a big task but it's perfectly possible with a proper plan over an extended period. 

 

they can start by limiting gun ownership to handguns (if they don't have a valid reason to own more powerful guns) with an amnesty on automatic rifles / shotguns / semi-autos and light machine guns, etc.

 

nobody needs an AR15 to defend themselves in a ****ing home invasion, etc. 

 

big guns are for men with small penises to sooth their inferiority complexes.

 

america lol. bunch of jokers. 

A phased approach like you state is probably the most feasible idea in theory.

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

city by city, state by state. 

 

it's a big task but it's perfectly possible with a proper plan over an extended period. 

 

they can start by limiting gun ownership to handguns (if they don't have a valid reason to own more powerful guns) with an amnesty on automatic rifles / shotguns / semi-autos and light machine guns, etc.

 

nobody needs an AR15 to defend themselves in a ****ing home invasion, etc. 

 

big guns are for men with small penises to sooth their inferiority complexes.

 

america lol. bunch of jokers. 

If you remove all the guns from New York, what's stopping criminals from driving in from New Jersey with a boot full of guns? 

[lifted*fox]

be interesting to see what would happen if members of Trump's family were gunned down by a 'sane' person with one of these high-powered rifles.

 

I wonder what excuses he's trot out then? would it be all god and prayers or would he take a different action?

 

[lifted*fox]

Just now, Webbo said:

If you remove all the guns from New York, what's stopping criminals from driving in from New Jersey with a boot full of guns? 

 

there'd still be significantly less guns in new york? 

 

 fat tony and his mates from NJ popping by with a boot full of guns. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

30 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you remove all the guns from New York, what's stopping criminals from driving in from New Jersey with a boot full of guns? 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#New_Jersey

 

New Jersey state gun laws! 

 

Subject/Law	Long guns	Handguns	Relevant statutes	Notes
State permit to purchase?	Yes	Yes		A lifetime purchaser identification card is required for purchase of rifles and shotguns, as well as for purchases of handgun ammunition. A permit to purchase a handgun, valid for 90 days is required for each handgun purchase. Only one handgun can be purchased within a 30-day period. According to state law, purchase permits/identification cards are supposed to be granted on a Shall-Issue basis, but in practice many issuing authorities require the applicant to justify the need for a firearm before granting approval for the permit/ID card. Some issuing authorities have been known to arbitrarily deny purchase permits and ID cards.

Edited 15 February 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#New_Jersey

 

New Jersey state gun laws! 

 

Subject/Law	Long guns	Handguns	Relevant statutes	Notes
State permit to purchase?	Yes	Yes		A lifetime purchaser identification card is required for purchase of rifles and shotguns, as well as for purchases of handgun ammunition. A permit to purchase a handgun, valid for 90 days is required for each handgun purchase. Only one handgun can be purchased within a 30-day period. According to state law, purchase permits/identification cards are supposed to be granted on a Shall-Issue basis, but in practice many issuing authorities require the applicant to justify the need for a firearm before granting approval for the permit/ID card. Some issuing authorities have been known to arbitrarily deny purchase permits and ID cards.

Alright clever dick, some other city.

[leicsmac]

The issue with guns coming in from other places with lax gun controls is a salient one; Chicago is a key example of that.

 

However, a blanket federal ruling rather than a phased approach might end up resulting in more mess by the time all the guns are accounted for.

 

Way I see it though, one or the other has to happen.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/05/13/easiest-states-buy-gun/84261032/

[Benguin]

56 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely it should be both, but I think it more feasible for one to happen at a time, followed by the other.

 

A phased approach like you state is probably the most feasible idea in theory.

I worry that any thing like this might rile up the 2nd amendment folks and resort in a mini civil war. I'm right wing on most political views, very left on gun law and have read a lot of 2nd amendment views in various literature and videos and I have to say, most of them are bat shit crazy.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

These figures are from 2013 so shame they aren’t more recent... but from a quick look they seem to suggest states with more gun control laws coincide with less firearm deaths... so they have the evidence within their own ****ing country! 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I worry that any thing like this might rile up the 2nd amendment folks and resort in a mini civil war. I'm right wing on most political views, very left on gun law and have read a lot of 2nd amendment views in various literature and videos and I have to say, most of them are bat shit crazy.

Absolutely. There will be blood on the floor by the time this is done, no matter which route is taken.

 

The thing is though...long term, will there be less innocent bloodshed through a phased state-by-state amnesty, a blanket federal amnesty...or keeping the status quo? Because a decision has to be made on that score, backed up by evidence.

[leicsmac]

Well...

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/374050-white-supremacist-group-leader-claims-florida-school-shooter-was

[Stadt]

Absolutely baffling that one of the counters to stricter gun controls is basically, 'But you could still get guns' - absolutely true but even if it reduces gun deaths by 5% it's worth it. Currently when buying a firearm from a store there's a background check that asks basic stuff like "Are you a convicted felon?" and other information which is about as strong a porn site "Are you over 18?" pop up. An interview process and license is fairly common sense, the freaks at the NRA can still get their guns provided they're not insane. Additionally you don't need a background check to buy a weapon from a gun show, a bill was created trying to close the loophole but surprise, surprise Congress voted it down.

 

 

The shooter legally owned a firearm but then was expelled for bringing bullets in the school, is that not a big ****ing red flag? Surely the authorities were alerted and then he should have his AR15 removed.

Edited 15 February 2018 by Wookie