wednesday1 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yep dunblane in 1996. Our last mass shooting was two years ago. I can only remember 3 in the past 25 years but am prepared to be corrected. But now you're just lobbing insults/unfunny jokes. You want to arm yourselves to the teeth with all kinds of firearms, go right ahead. When 45% of 'em are prepared to vote for Romney, maybe they get what they deserve! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pb1977 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yep dunblane in 1996. Our last mass shooting was two years ago. I can only remember 3 in the past 25 years but am prepared to be corrected. But now you're just lobbing insults/unfunny jokes. You want to arm yourselves to the teeth with all kinds of firearms, go right ahead. The only UK mass shootings I can remember are 2010 in Cumbria, 1996 in Dunblane and Hungerford in 1987. So yeah 3 in 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Shopping malls are horrible places, I can understand someone going mental with despair at humanity in such a place. The shooting occured at a spa across the street from a mall. Malls can be awesome places to hang out as long as the criminal and disruptive elements are kept firmly in check. Like casinos, they aim to make the atmosphere enticing and make you want to stay and spend money. When our eldest was small, the children's play area at the mall in our town was one of her favorite places. We could literally spend hours there and she still kicked up a fuss when informed it was time to go home now. And when she was old enough, she got a job there. On a rainy day it often saved my sanity to have a nice, indoor place to bring the kids to play. I could sit with a (non alcoholic ) drink and they could let off some steam. If I were going to run amok with a gun, I think the DMV would be my very first choice. Crowded, long lines, lots of rules and regulations and staffed by apathetic government workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 When 45% of 'em are prepared to vote for Romney, maybe they get what they deserve! Sadly, this would happen no matter who was in the white house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Thanks for the links, it gives a little more credence to the "I want a gun" argument. ... I live in a state which permits 'concealed carry' and apparently it's not too difficult to get a cc permit. (I'm not so sure that - concealed carry - is such a good thing.) The state also has a 'stand your ground' law which permits somebody who has been attacked or has reasonable grounds to believe he is about to be attacked imminently (you don't have to be shot first) to defend him/herself using lethal force. Prior to the introduction of that law, if somebody was in your house and threatening you you could shoot him, but if you were both outside and he pulled a gun on you, you were supposed to run away (and hope he wasn't a good shot.) The law is flawed; a (too large) number of people have claimed the right to defend themselves under 'stand your ground' and had the claim dismissed - so it's obvious that the cases in which the law applies are not understood clearly. There have, however been a rather larger number of cases in which the argument was upheld. It is claimed that since the law was introduced, the number of attempted (and successful) muggings has reduced significantly. It seems that some of the would-be muggers/robbers/burglars don't like the odds. One other really good thing about the law, IMO, is that 'If you are injured whilst committing a crime, you are disbarred from suing the person who injured you.' - So if a burglar is shot (and survives) whilst breaking into a house, that burglar can't sue the shooter. It's been argued (in towns where gun ownership is very high) that such ownership has reduced the number of muggings/robberies/burglaries. I wouldn't know. I live in a community where gun ownership is probably considerably higher than the national average and the owners can use them, too. It's a very low-crime community. We have security patrols (unarmed) and people do tend to keep an eye on the neighbourhood. There was one burglary some years ago and the burglars were apprehended by a number of armed (and very annoyed) residents. They were not handled gently. Apparently the word got out that this is a bad place to rob and the local robbers don't come here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Sadly, this would happen no matter who was in the white house. Unless you all grow some balls and put someone in the Whitehouse with real conviction and credibility, I can't see that happening as the Presidency is about how much money you have in your pocket. Conviction, credibility and big money tend not to be good dancing partners. That's not a US dig btw..it's a Western capitalist thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I live in a state which permits 'concealed carry' and apparently it's not too difficult to get a cc permit. (I'm not so sure that - concealed carry - is such a good thing.) The state also has a 'stand your ground' law which permits somebody who has been attacked or has reasonable grounds to believe he is about to be attacked imminently (you don't have to be shot first) to defend him/herself using lethal force. Prior to the introduction of that law, if somebody was in your house and threatening you you could shoot him, but if you were both outside and he pulled a gun on you, you were supposed to run away (and hope he wasn't a good shot.) The law is flawed; a (too large) number of people have claimed the right to defend themselves under 'stand your ground' and had the claim dismissed - so it's obvious that the cases in which the law applies are not understood clearly. There have, however been a rather larger number of cases in which the argument was upheld. It is claimed that since the law was introduced, the number of attempted (and successful) muggings has reduced significantly. It seems that some of the would-be muggers/robbers/burglars don't like the odds. One other really good thing about the law, IMO, is that 'If you are injured whilst committing a crime, you are disbarred from suing the person who injured you.' - So if a burglar is shot (and survives) whilst breaking into a house, that burglar can't sue the shooter. It's been argued (in towns where gun ownership is very high) that such ownership has reduced the number of muggings/robberies/burglaries. I wouldn't know. I live in a community where gun ownership is probably considerably higher than the national average and the owners can use them, too. It's a very low-crime community. We have security patrols (unarmed) and people do tend to keep an eye on the neighbourhood. There was one burglary some years ago and the burglars were apprehended by a number of armed (and very annoyed) residents. They were not handled gently. Apparently the word got out that this is a bad place to rob and the local robbers don't come here. The "stand your ground law" in your State is highly flawed even to the point of being ridiculous. I refer you to the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Martin was visiting the lady friend of his father who lived in the complex according to news reports and ended up being shot by Zimmerman who ignored the police dispatcher's warning to " stay away from Martin and let the police deal with it" No doubt Zimmerman thought he was "standing his ground" by acting like the Sheriff of Dodge City and getting into a punch up with Martin and worse still getting his butt kicked by Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Unless you all grow some balls and put someone in the Whitehouse with real conviction and credibility, I can't see that happening as the Presidency is about how much money you have in your pocket. Conviction, credibility and big money tend not to be good dancing partners. That's not a US dig btw..it's a Western capitalist thing. I don't think it's a case of Americans voting the wrong one in, you'd be hard pressed to find a poll that supports much in the way of gun control. It's enshrined in their constitution and most want it left in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think you can attribute a lot of the deaths in the 2011 Norwegian shooting to the remote location of Utoya Island. These incidents can happen at anytime and anywhere in the most unexpected places. Unfortunately they seem to happen more often this side of the pond but I fail to see why after every such incident the anti-gun people come out of the woodwork and start howling about taking away guns owned by millions of law abiding citizens. It makes no sense. If a speeding drunk driver plows into a crowd of people killing and maiming 20 or 30 does that mean that every car should be confiscated? Collective punishment for the sins of a few is only a mindset of mental nincompoops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Gunman is now dead. Just on the news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.