Jump to content

Shootings reported at Batman premiere


Recommended Posts

Perhaps if there had been a few more guns on that island in Norway someone might have shot Breivik before he was able to shoot 69 innocent people.

 

And the award for the most idiotic comment so far goes to.....

 

You should realise that the largest political party in this country to advocate wide availability of guns USA-style is the BNP. Breivik had links to the BNP and other far right groups in this country. Therefore you'd have more Breiviks here if you got your way.

 

See http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2011/04/30/bnp-kirklees-candidate-poses-with-gun-at-yorkshire-campsite-86081-28609068/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if there had been a few more guns on that island in Norway someone might have shot Breivik before he was able to shoot 69 innocent people.

 

If this is a serious comment, you have issues!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the award for the most idiotic comment so far goes to.....

 

You should realise that the largest political party in this country to advocate wide availability of guns USA-style is the BNP. Breivik had links to the BNP and other far right groups in this country. Therefore you'd have more Breiviks here if you got your way.

 

See http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2011/04/30/bnp-kirklees-candidate-poses-with-gun-at-yorkshire-campsite-86081-28609068/

 

If the BNP do advocate such a policy that doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.

 

If the BNP advocate breathing are you promising to suffocate yourself ?

 

Breivik had links to the BNP did he?

 

You are a master of the non-sequitur. Had the young NON BNP, NON BREIVIK youngsters had guns could they have shot Breivik before he shot so many of them?

 

You seem content with your imbecility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is a serious comment, you have issues!

 

Why? The poster correctly points out that they would have been able to defend themselves, is she incorrect? is it wrong to defend oneself?

please enlighten one and all as to the nature of the issues that you have in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely, criminals by definition have no respect for the law, the law abiding are disarmed giving the criminal a greater advantage over victims.

 

Had law abiding people been carrying firearms legally the maniac may well have been slotted before doing so much damage.

 

dear god - in the face of this oscenity,you're saying people should go to he pictures armed!

 

the US loses 15,000 a year fromguns - more die every 3 months than died in 9 11 and gun nuts think the answer is to go to the flicks with a gun.

 

jesus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dear god - in the face of this oscenity,you're saying people should go to he pictures armed!

 

the US loses 15,000 a year fromguns - more die every 3 months than died in 9 11 and gun nuts think the answer is to go to the flicks with a gun.

 

jesus!

 

Innocent people have died because a murderer went to the pictures armed.

 

Had some decent people been armed the murderer may well have been killed before exacting the death toll he did.

 

The logic of your post is that the evil will always carry arms and hurt people, those that are decent and humane shouldn't bear arms ergo the humane and decent must not only go in fear of their own lives but they must be prevented from aiding their fellow man in the event of something like this.

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if there had been a few more guns on that island in Norway someone might have shot Breivik before he was able to shoot 69 innocent people.

 

Nice idea, but...

 

1) Easier access to guns would make it easier for people like Breivik to get hold of weaponry to do such things

2) Easier access to guns makes it easier for people to copycat "successful" gunmen like Breivik.

3) Most (including Breivik) gunmen doing things like this aren't bothered about being shot / killed, so it doesn't put them off (Breivik wanted and expected to die as a martyr).

4) Most (including Breivik) gunmen doing things like this come prepared. Body armour, night vision / IR goggles / smoke grenades can all give the assailant a massive advantage over civilians trying to take down a gunman

5) [Most importantly] In the chaos that surrounds these types of incidents, having additional weaponry is likely to end up with many more innocents shot, especially after someone else starts shooting - how does someone else know who was the original perp, and who's their saviour? Don't worry, shoot both. Oh, I just missed and shot that girl instead.

 

Yes, if someone had given Breivik what he wanted and shot him, there might have been fewer deaths, equally, there could have been many more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.