-
[QUOTE=2ndclasscitizen;695185]But if there's less guns around they'll have less opportunity to get them. Have a buyback of illegal firearms and there'll be less on the street.
How's more likely to get shoot: someone who confronts a robber with a gun with their own gun, or someone who just hands over whatever the criminal wants and doesn't give them any trouble?[/QUOTE]
I can understand where Fleet is coming from. Guns are illegal to everyone here and criminals have no trouble getting them. To the point where Mexico has one of the highest violent crime rates in latin america.
I honestly don't know anymore what is better, allowing responsible citizens to own guns or banning them. Maybe what works in one part of the world, doesn't work somewhere else. :(
-
Where does it stop though?
Crims get hand guns, people buy handguns
Crims get rifles, people buy rifles,
Crims get sub machine guns, people buy...
Its stupid.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695184]Guns can be made illegal, but criminals don't follow the law anyway! The problem isn't guns, it's mentally unstable people.[/quote]
The problem isn't guns by themselves. Neither is it mentally unstable people by themselves. The problem is that under the current gun legislation any number of potentially mentally unstable, murderous lunatics have pretty much unhindered access to firearms. If they have the cash, they can legally buy themselves the ability to commit mass murder.
Remove the access to lethal weapons and you massively reduce the potential for incidents of this kind. It's a very simple equation.
[quote]A gun is an inanimate object which doesn't hurt anyone; it's the nut behind the trigger who does.[/quote]
Again, the problem is that your laws allow the nuts to get their fingers on the trigger in the first place.
[quote]
If guns were made illegal that means homeowner would have no way to defend themselves if a criminal broke into his house. And you can bet that the criminal would have some kind of gun.[/quote]
See, this is the bit of the gun lobby's argument that just staggers me. What you're saying is that every American should hold the right to turn into a gun toting vigilante in the face of a criminal. If every homeowner has a gun, and every criminal has a gun, then what? Criminal tries to enter house, homeowner brandishes firearm, criminal responds in kind shots are fired, everyone ends up severely injured/dead. Hurrah. Darwin wins again. :rolleyes:
It's the POLICE that should deal with dangerous, armed criminals. Not the average Joe.
[quote]He would make one if he had to; banning guns doesn't mean criminals wouldn't have any. It just means the law-abiding citizens would be defenseless.[/QUOTE]
Banning guns would mean that criminals, potential criminals, and the mentally unstable would have their access to firearms massively restricted. Would that mean all criminals couldn't get guns? No, of course not. There are criminals in every country who have firearms regardless of legislation. Would it mean that significantly LESS people with criminal or psychotic tendencies have the potential to purchase and use firearms against innocent civilians? Yes, undoubtedly. Isn't that worth striving for, and worth perhaps rethinking the hugely outdated and largely irrelevant 200+ year old amendment on which all this debate ultimately hangs?
-
[QUOTE=Jack_Bauer;695191]The problem isn't guns by themselves. Neither is it mentally unstable people by themselves. The problem is that under the current gun legislation any number of potentially mentally unstable, murderous lunatics have pretty much unhindered access to firearms. If they have the cash, they can legally buy themselves the ability to commit mass murder.[/QUOTE]
They don't need the cash, they can still the guns they need. Or, as I said before, even make one.
[QUOTE]Remove the access to lethal weapons and you massively reduce the potential for incidents of this kind. It's a very simple equation.[/QUOTE]
How do you remove access? Again, passing laws doesn't mean a thing to criminals- that's why they're criminals.
[QUOTE]Again, the problem is that your laws allow the nuts to get their fingers on the trigger in the first place. [/QUOTE]
They would get them with or without those laws.
[QUOTE]See, this is the bit of the gun lobby's argument that just staggers me. What you're saying is that every American should hold the right to turn into a gun toting vigilante in the face of a criminal. If every homeowner has a gun, and every criminal has a gun, then what? Criminal tries to enter house, homeowner brandishes firearm, criminal responds in kind shots are fired, everyone ends up severely injured/dead. Hurrah. Darwin wins again. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]
What you call a "gun toting vigilante" I call a citizen exercising his right to protect himself and his family. How would you know that "everyone ends up dead?" Thousands of people have used guns in self-defense, meaning that the criminal was shot and they lived. Better than the alternative (the homeowner being killed). I have a .22 Remmington rifle (from the 1940s, but it is operational) in my house and you can bet if a violent criminal comes crashing into my house, I will certainly use it to protect myself and my mother. As the old saying goes, "Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6."
[QUOTE]It's the POLICE that should deal with dangerous, armed criminals. Not the average Joe. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, right. By the time I call the police (if I can actually get through) and they pull up to my house, the criminal could probably kill me 5 times over!
[QUOTE]Banning guns would mean that criminals, potential criminals, and the mentally unstable would have their access to firearms massively restricted. Would that mean all criminals couldn't get guns? No, of course not. There are criminals in every country who have firearms regardless of legislation. Would it mean that significantly LESS people with criminal or psychotic tendencies have the potential to purchase and use firearms against innocent civilians? [/QUOTE]
Again, if the criminal really wants a gun, he can get it. No matter what the laws are or if there are 1 million gun laws.
[QUOTE]Isn't that worth striving for, and worth perhaps rethinking the hugely outdated and largely irrelevant 200+ year old amendment on which all this debate ultimately hangs?[/QUOTE]
It's not an outdated amendment. As I said above, thousands of citizens are alive today because of that amendment.
-
[QUOTE=LTT;695132]Yeah, god forbid they try and make the constitution relevant to today's world. Only the military should have the right to bare arms. And really, what does the average Joe need 9mm handgun for? Hunting? Not for wild animals, they're used for hunting humans.[/QUOTE]
That's ridiculous. I'm a proud gun owner myself, and shooting guns at shooting ranges (or hunting) is a form of recreation just like anything else. I think screaming to ban guns is the same as screaming to ban cars, and to date, I'm quite sure that cars kill more people daily. In both cases, the fault lies at the people operating them; in the right hands, they're safe and fun.
-
ok, retards - did you even check the laws for virginia and think why/how the psycho got a gun?
[quote]Buying and owning a gun in Virginia does not require a permit, but without a gun permit only one handgun purchase per month is allowed, and there is no waiting period to acquire the gun.
The law is broad enough to allow people to buy assault guns and magazines without limit such as AK-47s and Uzi's
"Assault weapons are as easy to buy as hunting rifles,"
no restriction on the sale or possession of rapid-fire ammunition magazines that can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading
selling rifles and shotguns to children over 12 is permitted
In one controversial loophole, people can buy weapons at second hand gun shows without waiting periods or background checks
[/quote]
gee, i think that [I]may[/I] have had an impact on this.
banning guns is not even necessary in this instance (knee jerk reactions ftl). All it would take is a tightening of the existing (extremely lax!) legislation.
it would seem the problem is violent culture (in America, i guess? not many other massacres internationally), but i have no idea how to solve that one so good luck
what i can't believe is that someone got shot at 7am, but the university didn't go into lockdown or whatever until two hours later as i recall? if an evacuation had been called maybe more lives could be saved :(
-
[QUOTE=TVRs4eva;695202]That's ridiculous. I'm a proud gun owner myself, and shooting guns at shooting ranges (or hunting) is a form of recreation just like anything else. I think screaming to ban guns is the same as screaming to ban cars, and to date, I'm quite sure that cars kill more people daily. In both cases, the fault lies at the people operating them; in the right hands, they're safe and fun.[/QUOTE]
Right. I've been to a few gun shows and to target ranges and I've yet to see anyone go crazy and start shooting recklessly.
The only way to stop gun deaths is to ban mentally unbalanced people and that's impossible.
-
[QUOTE=hightower99;695041]I mean a school is probably the last place I would expect anyone to get shot (even in the US).[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately I have to disagree. Looking back there is a history of these mass shootings occurring at schools: From the University of Texas in 1966 to Columbine in 1999, with others in Massachusetts in the mid-90s, Oregon in 1998 I believe it was, and even last year at an Amish school in Pennslyvaina I believe it was.
Shootings can and do happen anywhere, its very sad that many of the big ones happen at school campuses or at places of business.
My take on the gun control issue: All I can say is that if a person wants to get a gun bad enough, he will do it, place all the restrictions and bans you want but you can't stop a truly determined bad guy. Or a normal person who loses his cool/goes off his rocker.
2000th Post.
-
[QUOTE=nota;695050]
Yeah mass murder is one thing .. but to even talk of gun control is beyond the pale, simply outrageous :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
But they will fight them and win to keep them... You ain't taking my gun off me sheriff! It's my god dam right to bare arms, I'll col cock you one up side the head if you try take it from me.
It might be the only thing they haven't tried to do and that's ban gun like we have, It's dam hard to get your hands on a gun here today. And you see killings and the only ones i know of in Melbourne have been the underworld killings..
Most night you here of a accident or someone beat to death run down strangled.. What you don't see is shooting victims mass murder it's very rare.
Thanks to that POS down in tassie people wanted gun control and i think it works good enough.
It's easier to shoot someone from a distance but get up and personal is much tougher because the victim can at least fight back against a knife or club some chance much more then a gun..
the U.S just might get tight gun control when Dubya moves out.
-
And in the wrong hands which they easily fall into as EVERYONE has them they kill lots of people real quick. The majority of illegal guns come from thefts of legitimately purchased guns... So really by buying a gun you are risking someone elses life if it gets stolen.
Basically if you buy a gun, leave it locked up at a firing range if its for "recreational" purposes. Otherwise its just a deadly penis extension in your home waiting to get stolen.
You dont drive a race car on the road or ride a horse to work?
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695196]Yeah, right. By the time I call the police (if I can actually get through) and they pull up to my house, the criminal could probably kill me 5 times over![/QUOTE]
You make it sound like every criminal with who gun breaks into a person's house with express motive of killing the people inside, rather than just stealing their stuff. I'm going to repeat myself:
[QUOTE=2ndclasscitizen;695185]Who's more likely to get shot: someone who confronts a robber with a gun with their own gun, or someone who just hands over whatever the criminal wants and doesn't give them any trouble?[/QUOTE]
-
[QUOTE=SlickHolden;695215]
the U.S just might get tight gun control when Dubya moves out.[/QUOTE]
Won't happen and it's got nothing to do with Bush. The Columbine killings happened in 1999 and Clinton didn't get tighter gun control laws. Tighter gun controls won't affect criminals- they will get them one way or another.
-
[QUOTE=2ndclasscitizen;695218]You make it sound like every criminal with who gun breaks into a person's house with express motive of killing the people inside, rather than just stealing their stuff. I'm going to repeat myself:[/QUOTE]
The problem is we don't know what is in the criminal's mind.
What should I do? Wait and see if he's a violent criminal? A lot of people are dead because they waited.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695222]Tighter gun controls won't affect criminals- they will get them one way or another.[/QUOTE]
No they won't, but they'll stop people with mental issues getting hold of automatic weaponry for the sole purpose of shooting up their school/place of work etc.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695206]Right. I've been to a few gun shows and to target ranges and I've yet to see anyone go crazy and start shooting recklessly.
The only way to stop gun deaths is to ban mentally unbalanced people and that's impossible.[/QUOTE]
Noone ever expected planes to fly into buildings on U.S soil.. So after that i would say never say never.
If someone kills my mother and i can find a gun easy and i get that gun and shot them, Am i mentally unbalanced?? Or just a son??.
If you think the mentally unbalanced only kill then the whole system is already ****ed.. Bob jnr buys his first gun @ 21.. At 25 he goes nuts one night and shots a guy who he was in a fight with.. Was he mentally unbalanced when he bought the gun?.. Stronger tighter restriction do work we are the proof. But it doesn't mean you can't have a gun you just can't pick it up in a local tuck shop and buy ammo from big-w. Go to McDonald's large burger and large coke.. You wont 45 ammo with that? Destroy any illigel guns they can find and have real tight restriction on them and have follow ups, Much like Clutch_monkey has with his weapons.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695224]The problem is we don't know what is in the criminal's mind.
What should I do? Wait and see if he's a violent criminal? A lot of people are dead because they waited.[/QUOTE]
Maybe. But running out holding a gun is always going to end up badly.
-
[QUOTE=baddabang;695146]
Honestly I'm not. It's not like anybody was going to pull a gun out of their waistband and shoot back at him. He was unopposed and easily unloaded round after round. Even if you were in that situation would you have gone up behind him and attack if you knew he had two very maneuverable hand guns?
[/QUOTE]
Actually in a situation where some lunatic walks into my classroom and without warning starts blasting people away I would probably try to use my desk to protect myself (here in denmark they are 1X2 meters and made from 3cm of highly compressed wood on a 4mm steel plate)
I am surprised that nobody had a gun of there own and used it for self protection.
and how did he get close enough to kill over 30 people with a 9mm and a .22?
I mean a .22 is not going to kill you unless he hits you directly in the heart or head and even the 9mm has very little effect past 40-50 meters.
Also to 2ndclasscitizen: In the US with the legal system as it is, it is actually smarter for you to go into a house and plan to kill everyone because if anyone is left behind then it is a whole lot easier to find you and then you not only get charged with theft but you are sued by the people for physcological damages. Of course in a state that still has capital punishment you run the risk of being put to death if you kill anyone but that doesn't seem to be that much of a deterrant anyways...
-
[QUOTE=2ndclasscitizen;695227]Maybe. But running out holding a gun is always going to end up badly.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't. As I've said, thousand of times gun have been used successfully in self defense. Both in the home and out in the streets.
BTW, I can see you are not familiar with the proper way to protect your home. You don't run out into the street waving a gun. That only happens in the movies. When the intruder enters your house, you stay behind a wall and point the gun in his direction. You then announce that you are armed; if you feel your life is threatened, you fire a warning shot. Many times, the criminal will run out of the house, saving your life and possibly his.
-
[QUOTE=SlickHolden;695226]Noone ever expected planes to fly into buildings on U.S soil.. So after that i would say never say never.[/QUOTE]
That's another good point. Those terrorists didn't need guns to commit their acts.
[QUOTE]If someone kills my mother and i can find a gun easy and i get that gun and shot them, Am i mentally unbalanced?? Or just a son??.[/QUOTE]
It would be up to a court of law to determine if you were mentally unbalanced when you shot him. However, doing that is forbidden by the law and would be an illegal act. Justice would be trying the man in court and having a sentence for his crime.
[QUOTE]If you think the mentally unbalanced only kill then the whole system is already ****ed.. Bob jnr buys his first gun @ 21.. At 25 he goes nuts one night and shots a guy who he was in a fight with.. Was he mentally unbalanced when he bought the gun?.. Stronger tighter restriction do work we are the proof. But it doesn't mean you can't have a gun you just can't pick it up in a local tuck shop and buy ammo from big-w. Go to McDonald's large burger and large coke.. You wont 45 ammo with that? Destroy any illigel guns they can find and have real tight restriction on them and have follow ups, Much like Clutch_monkey has with his weapons.[/QUOTE]
You can't tell in every case if someone becomes mentally unbalanced 5 or 10 years in the future.
Again, I will point out that Washington D.C. has the strictist gun laws in the country and it has the highest crime rate. I will also point out that years ago, I town in Illinois passed a law banning guns. The crime rate soared. And a town in Georgia passed a law requiring every household to have a gun. The house break-in dropped dramatically because criminals knew that if they broke into a house in that city, there was a good chance that they would have to deal with someone with a gun.
-
Or you could put an alarm system on your house and get contents insurance saving you the risk...
You say MILLIONS HAVE BEEN SAVED by owning guns in defence. I ask you this.
How many average home owners have been killed or injured by confronting a criminal with their "protection?"
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695231]That's another good point. Those terrorists didn't need guns to commit their acts.[/quote] Think you mist the point.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695231]It would be up to a court of law to determine if you were mentally unbalanced when you shot him. However, doing that is forbidden by the law and would be an illegal act. Justice would be trying the man in court and having a sentence for his crime.[/quote] Wouldn't matter a gun was easy to get i walked down to my local gun shop and bought one with no id 1 gun per month with no id.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695231]You can't tell in every case if someone becomes mentally unbalanced 5 or 10 years in the future.
Again, I will point out that Washington D.C. has the strictist gun laws in the country and it has the highest crime rate. I will also point out that years ago, I town in Illinois passed a law banning guns. The crime rate soared. And a town in Georgia passed a law requiring every household to have a gun. The house break-in dropped dramatically because criminals knew that if they broke into a house in that city, there was a good chance that they would have to deal with someone with a gun.[/QUOTE]
That's the point you can't pick anything, So be hard all round..
Instead of giving up after some trails why not let it stay on for ever and see how it is 5-10 years down the road..
Gun buy back crimes are dum enough for money they will sell there guns back.
D.C laws might be weak compared to others around the world.
-
[QUOTE=SlickHolden;695238]
Wouldn't matter a gun was easy to get i walked down to my local gun shop and bought one with no id 1 gun per month with no id.
That's the point you can't pick anything, So be hard all round..
Instead of giving up after some trails why not let it stay on for ever and see how it is 5-10 years down the road..
Gun buy back crimes are dum enough for money they will sell there guns back.[/QUOTE]
There are going to be murders as long as there are mentally unbalanced people around. Banning guns won't stop it; how could you confiscate millions of guns?
[QUOTE]D.C laws might be weak compared to others around the world[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but they are stronger than in other U.S cities and the crime rate is still higher.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695241]There are going to be murders as long as there are mentally unbalanced people around. Banning guns won't stop it; how could you confiscate millions of guns?[/quote] Buy back hand in guns we did it many years ago.
We had a nut in the 90's go off and kill many people down in Tasmania, After that we all got into gun laws and people didn't want guns easy to access, In time it worked, Today I'm more likely to be killed by a freak of nature rather then a gun shot wound.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695241]Maybe, but they are stronger than in other U.S cities and the crime rate is still higher.[/QUOTE]
If a strict gun law is to be passed it must be all states, Cause if not you can just pop over to virgina or some other state that is weak on gun control and pick one up easy. So it must be all not 1.
-
[QUOTE=Blue Supra;695216]... So really by buying a gun you are risking someone elses life if it gets stolen.[/QUOTE]
stolen firearms represented 0.06% of all registered firearms in Australia
taken from [I]Firearms theft in Australia 2004-2005[/I] ;)
[QUOTE=Blue Supra;695232]You say MILLIONS HAVE BEEN SAVED by owning guns in defence. I ask you this.[/QUOTE]
last quote from the US is about just over 60,000 cases, not sure how that correlates with overall deaths/homicides
-
[quote=Fleet 500;695184]Guns can be made illegal, but criminals don't follow the law anyway! The problem isn't guns, it's mentally unstable people. A gun is an inanimate object which doesn't hurt anyone; it's the nut behind the trigger who does.[/quote]
It's both. It's not just one or the other. You need a maniac to kill a person and a tool to do it with. With a gun, murder is simple. It's not like in developed countries where guns are illegal there are various knife murders (etc) to bring the country up to the US average. You'd be an idiot not to recognize that there's a correletion. Do you think the lunatics behind the Virginia Tech tragedy could've done it with a knife? A sword? A Bat?
A huge number of murders in the US are cases of domestic violence. You can see how it might be a heat-of-the-moment type of deal; if the same situation happens and there's no gun around, people don't really seem to go for the other methods. Guns make killing a person extremely easy, so they're dangerous at points of high tension.
Naturally I really don't think you can do anything about it at this point. Even if there weren't any domineering overpatriots in the US, there are simply too many guns out there to get rid of. It really sucks, but its the truth.
-
[QUOTE=SlickHolden;695249]Buy back hand in guns we did it many years ago.
We had a nut in the 90's go off and kill many people down in Tasmania, After that we all got into gun laws and people didn't want guns easy to access, In time it worked, Today I'm more likely to be killed by a freak of nature rather then a gun shot wound.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that law-abiding citizens will do that but the criminals won't.
[QUOTE]If a strict gun law is to be passed it must be all states, Cause if not you can just pop over to virgina or some other state that is weak on gun control and pick one up easy. So it must be all not 1.[/QUOTE]
The fact remains that the crime rate is higher in D.C. Why isn't it lower with all of the gun laws?
-
it's very sad this tragedy has happened. perhaps the problem, as i see it, has not been properly discussed, however.
What caused this person to get to such a stage where they purchased a gun and perpetrated such acts?
Who cares how, why? would it have stopped him if the gun he purchased was not so easily attained? or would it just have delayed such actions?
in the end this tragedy will always be used as a vehicle for others to push their agenda - both pro and anti gun control - and it actually sickens me.
Seriously, people.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog;695253]It's both. It's not just one or the other. You need a maniac to kill a person and a tool to do it with. With a gun, murder is simple. It's not like in developed countries where guns are illegal there are various knife murders (etc) to bring the country up to the US average. You'd be an idiot not to recognize that there's a correletion. Do you think the lunatics behind the Virginia Tech tragedy could've done it with a knife? A sword? A Bat?
A huge number of murders in the US are cases of domestic violence. You can see how it might be a heat-of-the-moment type of deal; if the same situation happens and there's no gun around, people don't really seem to go for the other methods. Guns make killing a person extremely easy, so they're dangerous at points of high tension.
Naturally I really don't think you can do anything about it at this point. Even if there weren't any domineering overpatriots in the US, there are simply too many guns out there to get rid of. It really sucks, but its the truth.[/QUOTE]
I think it's society in general. In the 1930s, for instance, there were many guns available, yet the crime rate was very low.
Even in the Old West of the late 1800s, it was common for men to walk around with a sidearm, yet shootouts in saloons or hotels did not happen everyday, even though it was during frontier times and life in the West was harsh and violent in many areas.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695259]it's very sad this tragedy has happened. perhaps the problem, as i see it, has not been properly discussed, however.
What caused this person to get to such a stage where they purchased a gun and perpetrated such acts?
Who cares how, why? would it have stopped him if the gun he purchased was not so easily attained? or would it just have delayed such actions?
in the end this tragedy will always be used as a vehicle for others to push their agenda - both pro and anti gun control - and it actually sickens me.
Seriously, people.[/QUOTE]
exactly. wait for the media sensationalism/profiteering to follow;)
[QUOTE]so far I've heard the following people blamed
- terrorist
- republicans
- the NRA
- GW Bush (pretty much everything on earth is his fault these days)
- video games
most likely none of which pulled any triggers at VTECH today.
who I have not heard blamed yet is
- the evil self center prick that did it
I live up the road from Columbine. The political/media blood orgy that is about to follow this is one of the most despicable events of humankind. Lawsuits will be filed, ineffective laws passed, books will be written, movies will be made, and some of the worst most egotistical human beings on our planet will be made rich and more infamous as a result.
As far as I'm concerned they are just as big of scum bags as this prick assassin, they just don't kill people, they exploit them and their greiving families for their own benefit.
[/QUOTE]
-
It's typical of a society where no one person ever takes responsibility for their own actions.
It's always the booze, the drugs or the World of Warcraft to blame.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695267]It's typical of a society where no one person ever takes responsibility for their own actions.
It's always the booze, the drugs or the World of Warcraft to blame.[/QUOTE]
if they're good enough, they might be able to slip SUV's in there too
-
Couple this to claims that it was actually El Nino and Global Warming which had an effect.
-
But the opposing side will claim we're due for an Ice Age to negate those claims.
-
Of course. but Al Gore will make a movie to convince people this was all global warmings fault - it put the bullets in the gun.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695269]Couple this to claims that it was actually El Nino and Global Warming which had an effect.[/QUOTE]
they'll have to move fast. Jack Thompson (LOL) has already appeared on american news apparently as an "expert on school shootings" pointing the blame to video games. No mention of how he's about to be disbarred from being a lawyer :D
-
Ah, the video game card. It's almost as easy to use as the black card.
-
Indeed.
Perhaps it should be made into a trading card or something.
watch as the media merrily skip around the fact the guy was an obvious wack-job and pulled the trigger......
-
[QUOTE=NSXType-R;694983]Yeah, seriously, what has this world gone to?:([/QUOTE]
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think this already deserves an answer. The current level of fatalaties is about similar to the number of civilian people who die in Iraq every day...
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695285]Indeed.
Perhaps it should be made into a trading card or something.
watch as the media merrily skip around the fact the guy was an obvious wack-job and pulled the trigger......[/QUOTE]
humans always take the path of least effort - it's easier to ban stuff than solve the base problem :D plus it looks good to your voters....hell, get SUV's and global warming in on the deal, you'd be unstoppable in political terms.
[QUOTE=henk4;695286]I haven't read the whole thread, but I think this already deserves an answer. The current level of fatalaties is about similar to the number of civilian people who die in Iraq every day...[/QUOTE]
yes...the fact that society is producing these kind of psychotics is a worry :(
-
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;695287]
yes...the fact that society is producing these kind of psychotics is a worry :([/QUOTE]
my comment was also inspired by the fact that I am currently sitting in a hotel room, watching BBC world and CNN.....