Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pandora wrote:

A lady with her elderly grandmother returns to her home yesterday to find a burglary
in process. This a fine upscale neighborhood south of us.
Yes the doors were locked, it was the middle of the day.

Two young thugs run from the house while one shoots the gun at the defenseless
40 year old woman ... why? no threat, they are getting away...
why because he is a piece of shit who cares nothing about life.

She's dead... dead. Sweet women, neighbors and friends describe her as.
She was 40 and now dead. Senseless.

I bet a number of women have or will go out to buy a gun because of this.
Rightfully so.

Bad guys are getting badder and they got guns! Unless you want to be a victim...
and maybe a dead victim... protect yourself, it is our basic right.

Given minimal restrictions on access to weapons and the proliferation of guns in your country... I'm afraid you're right, Pandora. If you can't beat 'em... then you may as well join them! I'm serious when I say this. If your country refuses to address the problem and simply accepts some of these events as an unfortunate spinoff for the right you wish to maintain, then get yourself armed and ready!

Is there a better solution than this though?

Another question (can't help myself): if it is shown that this 'thug piece of shit' has a mental illness... would you have a change of heart towards him?

redrock

pandora wrote:

was how an underage person can buy a rifle on line with their parents permission
and kids can't walk into a store and buy them cause they are carded..

Without - no questions asked. No questions REQUIRED BY LAW.

chadwick

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Given minimal restrictions on access to weapons and the proliferation of guns in your country... I'm afraid you're right, Pandora. If you can't beat 'em... then you may as well join them! I'm serious when I say this. If your country refuses to address the problem and simply accepts some of these events as an unfortunate spinoff for the right you wish to maintain, then get yourself armed and ready!

Is there a better solution than this though?

Another question (can't help myself): if it is shown that this 'thug piece of shit' has a mental illness... would you have a change of heart towards him?

fantastic question

g under p

chadwick wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Given minimal restrictions on access to weapons and the proliferation of guns in your country... I'm afraid you're right, Pandora. If you can't beat 'em... then you may as well join them! I'm serious when I say this. If your country refuses to address the problem and simply accepts some of these events as an unfortunate spinoff for the right you wish to maintain, then get yourself armed and ready!

Is there a better solution than this though?

Another question (can't help myself): if it is shown that this 'thug piece of shit' has a mental illness... would you have a change of heart towards him?

fantastic question

Yes, will there be ANY empathy if that criminal is deemed to have a mental illness even though at the moment he's considered by her a *thug piece of shit*?

peace

Peace

redrock

pandora wrote:

Two young thugs run from the house while one shoots the gun at the defenseless
40 year old woman ... why? no threat, .

How would the burglar know? From what you are saying and what with everyone seemingly arming themselves and packing, he may have thought this woman might have produced a gun and tried to shoot him. That could also be an explanation. Pre-emptive strike. Vicious circle.

g under p

redrock wrote:

pandora wrote:

was how an underage person can buy a rifle on line with their parents permission
and kids can't walk into a store and buy them cause they are carded..

Without - no questions asked. No questions REQUIRED BY LAW.

This is the part that has me in a quandry. It's not as if EVERY parent is going to be able to be on top of every purchase an underage teen will buy. This is TOO big a hole that a teen could purchase a rifle EVEN if it's for target shooting online WITHOUT any checks, this should NOT be. If there were just basic checks such as a registration, waiting period and a background check...where does these basic checks take away one's right to bear arms...WHERE?

What exactly is the RUSH to get your guns for protection, all I'm saying is keep it simple but just have some basic checks especially when dealing with gun purchases on the internet. I had no idea it was THAT easy to buy a rifle...get your credit card ready folks it is yours boom.

Peace

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

A lady with her elderly grandmother returns to her home yesterday to find a burglary
in process. This a fine upscale neighborhood south of us.
Yes the doors were locked, it was the middle of the day.

Two young thugs run from the house while one shoots the gun at the defenseless
40 year old woman ... why? no threat, they are getting away...
why because he is a piece of shit who cares nothing about life.

She's dead... dead. Sweet women, neighbors and friends describe her as.
She was 40 and now dead. Senseless.

I bet a number of women have or will go out to buy a gun because of this.
Rightfully so.

Bad guys are getting badder and they got guns! Unless you want to be a victim...
and maybe a dead victim... protect yourself, it is our basic right.

thats a very sad story.. it's a shame crime in this country is on the rise and their is even a need for people to carry guns in their homes in case of a crime like this. Pandora you need to visit somewhere like Australia and see a country that isn't controlled by crime and fear... you would like that.

I would love to come see New Zealand and Australia
but unfortunately my body will not allow that anymore.

Fear comes from not being prepared, from weakness. Some must live in fear
because of the neighborhoods though.
Crime comes from many factors and is a worldwide problem.

After watching J Edgar Hoover last night I appreciate crime and it's history,
and that of the crime fighters as well.
I hadn't given that much thought. Bad guys been around a long time indeed.

I'd disagree with this. Being afraid doesn't come from being under-prepared and weak. Fear is the biological hard-wiring we all possess that alerts us to flee from dangerous situations. We would all feel fear when in danger. Some people's sense of vulnerability gets overblown and they see the potential for catastrophe and danger as greater than it actually is. The ironic thing is that the more people are exposed to danger, the less fear they feel. They get desensitized to it. So it's quite possible that someone living in a "dangerous" neighborhood may just view various threats as something they have to negotiate on a daily basis, whereas someone in a "safe" neighborhood, like the one described in the most recent incident, might quite possibly feel a great more fear and vulnerability on a daily basis. Toting a gun or not, they're actually probably a lot less "prepared" and a lot more fearful.

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

say what? not dogs!!! :evil:

I think we might finally agree on something

The interesting thing is, that if you watch animals, you notice that most of them only become aggressive or attack when they feel cornered and afraid. That's my concern about more people being fed fear. The more we pump the idea of "fear" and lead people to believe they need to be armed and ready to attack at any moment, the more likely they will attack unnecessarily, as we've seen from some of the accident articles posted earlier in this thread.

PJ_Soul

Weapons manufacturer recalls bullets that fail to explode inside target.

http://www.theonion.com/video/manufactu ... fai,14319/

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

Weapons manufacturer recalls bullets that fail to explode inside target.

http://www.theonion.com/video/manufactu ... fai,14319/

The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.

With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).

Fuk me. It's just insane.

"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"

Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?

I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?

DS1119

ComeToTX wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

unless it was oneof the 75% OF LEGALLY obtained guns used in the now 57 or 58 mass shootings this country has seen in the last 30 years.

Gun control is all about saving lives right? I mean how many people died from smoking LEGALLY obtained cigarettes over the last thirty years? How many people alone died from secondary smoke from LEGALLY obtained cigarettes over the last thirty years? :fp: Shit, how many people in this country over the last 30 years were just killed over a pack of cigarettes? Like I said before...and now that a period of 30 years is brought up...I'm still waiting for the billions of stories to come out about firearms that are possessed or were possesed LEGALLY that WEREN't used in a crime. Something tells me I'll be waiting a while for those. :corn:

And just like the gun lobby the tobacco lobby spends millions to keep them legal and available.

And it all comes to choice. You don't want them...don't buy them. If you feel the country is to unsafe for you in it's current condition you have two choices...work to change it or leave. :fp:

DS1119

mickeyrat wrote:

you'll not see stories such those because they havent affected the lives of others.

Cigs on the otherhand have been shown to affect the lives of more than just the smoker. To the point there are now laws against smoking indoors in a number of municipalities. Hell even hospitals say you cant even smoke on their property outside !!! Same with a Honda plant near here. No smoking on the grounds. Some companies wont even hire if you smoke.

But that isnt what this thread is about. Its about the legally obtained weapons used in mass shootings and what solutions can be had to help stem these senseless tragidies.

How a\bout offering up a solution rather than a useless analogy that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand.

They aren't useless stories at all. Unfortunately in this country and worldwide we only hear about the negative stories. The only positive stories we read about are stories about puppies saved from a well or a cat rescued from a tree. Also, my analogies aren't useless. They take the basis of every argument against EVEN STRICTER gun control down to it's basic roots. Something that affects everyone. As soon as that happens the patriotism comes out from citizens. All of a sudden by taking away the cars from people as in my other analogy, even though it would save 2000% plus more lives per year in this country, everyone starts talking about the benefits of cars to society...starts waving the constitution...Makes no sense to me. If banning guns or making the laws even stricter are all about saving lives why not start with the biggest killer first? :fp:

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

allowing any idiot to walk to his neighbourhood gun store, flash his costco card, pick up a rifle, a shitload of ammo, and a cool armoured outfit so that he can do what he pleases with his new toy.

I read your entire post but just don't want to quote even with your compliment becasue it becomes too hard to type. I can walk into a Costco right now and with a cig in my mouth buy 100's of items than can cause way more damage than a rifle. To the people who think it's so easy to buy an assault rifle in the US...go buy one. It's easier to get a driver's license. SHit, if I were really so inclined and sick minded I could go get a five gallon jug of gas and a book of matches and go set an entire apartment complex on fire in about 4 minutes. But then again, I guees taking legally obtained firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens would stop any sicko from doing that. How about if we banned the cars, the sickos wouldn't have a method of travel to purchase the "easily" obtained firearms or even worse the gas and matches to go set fires instead. :fp: Perhaps everyone should be locked in separate rooms...no risk of anything there.

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Not my thing. Sorry to disappoint.

Well thank goodness for that. The thing is, the easy access of firearms online with no checks as redrock saw, means there's very little regulation in a lot of states. There is strong regulation on everything else you stated. Most people wouldn't even attempt to download child pornography even as an experiment because they know what would likely happen. Accessing guns online is easily done with little to no checks. That's frightening.

Not true. Have someone go through with it 100% and see what happens.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Weapons manufacturer recalls bullets that fail to explode inside target.

http://www.theonion.com/video/manufactu ... fai,14319/

The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.

With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).

Fuk me. It's just insane.

"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"

Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?

I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?

I can't tell if you realize that was from The Onion!

DS1119

Zoso wrote:

I still think buying a gun is living in fearquote]


You lock your doors at night correct? Does your car have an alarm? Isn't that living in fear? :fp: If no one comes into a LAW ABIDING CITIZENS home that has a LEGALLY OBTAINED firearm...no one is injured. Kind of like if a home invader knew every window or door of a residance he wanted to rob was booby trapped with a bomb...is he going in? Probably not.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

DS1119 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

you'll not see stories such those because they havent affected the lives of others.

Cigs on the otherhand have been shown to affect the lives of more than just the smoker. To the point there are now laws against smoking indoors in a number of municipalities. Hell even hospitals say you cant even smoke on their property outside !!! Same with a Honda plant near here. No smoking on the grounds. Some companies wont even hire if you smoke.

But that isnt what this thread is about. Its about the legally obtained weapons used in mass shootings and what solutions can be had to help stem these senseless tragidies.

How a\bout offering up a solution rather than a useless analogy that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand.

They aren't useless stories at all. Unfortunately in this country and worldwide we only hear about the negative stories. The only positive stories we read about are stories about puppies saved from a well or a cat rescued from a tree. Also, my analogies aren't useless. They take the basis of every argument against EVEN STRICTER gun control down to it's basic roots. Something that affects everyone. As soon as that happens the patriotism comes out from citizens. All of a sudden by taking away the cars from people as in my other analogy, even though it would save 2000% plus more lives per year in this country, everyone starts talking about the benefits of cars to society...starts waving the constitution...Makes no sense to me. If banning guns or making the laws even stricter are all about saving lives why not start with the biggest killer first? :fp:

Because we need cars to get around. They are a necessary risk and hardly the same as guns. Are you serious? Jeez man. How can it not make sense to you?

What do we need guns for? What purpose do they actually serve? You talk simple terms... okay... here it is in its most simple form: if there were no guns at all... would we hear of these senseless mass slaughters and the other episodes of violence associated with gun use?

You ignored my response to you with regards to tobacco. Legislation has been put in place to curb the effects they have on the general population (ie. smoking in public places). It was established that the effects of second hand smoke were significant enough to warrant change. Good enough. Too bad for the smokers who just love their smokes and don't give a shit about anyone else.

Likewise, it is obvious that some form of gun control is necessary. Too bad for the gun owners that want no restrictions at all because their accustomed way of life is threatened. It makes too much sense for the betterment of society.

And, for the record... the 'if you don't like it then leave' ultimatum further goes to prove my assertion that the people advocating for gun ownership have very little, if anything, to stand on. You spoke of analogies... here's a couple: If you don't like apartheid... then leave. If you don't like gorilla hand ashtrays... then butt your smoke out somewhere else. Change is necessary sometimes and it needs to be recognized when that time is upon us.

For the record, I'm not completely against gun ownership. I just think there needs to be an effective method of screening as well as a ban on certain types of guns and ammunition for that matter. The middle way. Fair enough?

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Weapons manufacturer recalls bullets that fail to explode inside target.

http://www.theonion.com/video/manufactu ... fai,14319/

The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.

With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).

Fuk me. It's just insane.

"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"

Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?

I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?

Becasue it's the law and or right. Does anyone need a car that can drive 205mph? They're available. People buy them. When an accident happens with them is usually tragic. Still they're legall to purchase, own, and drive. Where can they be driven at those speeds though? Closely monitored and regulated speed tracks is where...very similiar to shooting ranges. Also, you can drive them at those speeds on your own private property, similiar to guns as well. Maybe an issue like this won't be noticed however until someone is killed in a mass shooting by someone driving an overpowered sports car.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Weapons manufacturer recalls bullets that fail to explode inside target.

http://www.theonion.com/video/manufactu ... fai,14319/

The bullets have not been mentioned so far in this thread to my recollection, but their design demands consideration and discussion as well.

With that said... if you're going to have guns to shoot people... you may as well have the bullets guaranteed to 'explode inside of people' (resulting in a much more desirable quantity of tissue damage).

Fuk me. It's just insane.

"We at Steelhawk strive for customer satisfaction and will sell no hollow-point bullet that will not produce a devastating effect within the body cavity. You can rest assured that when you buy Steelhawk... you have guaranteed an obliteration of your intended target's organs!"

Sheer insanity. The press conference is surreal to me- it reminds me of one that might have been on Starship Troopers. The 'effect' that has people rubbing their palms briskly together in anticipation of is one that will play out on a human being somewhere. We're okay with this?

I can understand such bullets being produced 'military grade' or 'police issue'... but if we let Joe Shmoe have his gun... do we have to give him access to such bullets as well?

I can't tell if you realize that was from The Onion!

Yes, but there's a point to be made though. People work really hard to make things that hurt people. That was your idea behind posting the link wasn't it?

DS1119

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Because we need cars to get around. ?

Ask people who live in congested cities how important cars are for getting around. :fp: Who is it anyone's right to determne what is important to one person and not to another? Especially when it comes to rights in the US spelled out in the Constitution? Especially when it comes to legally obtained firearms? I read earleier in the thread and it's the truth a convicted felon can never own a firearm legally which i somewhat agree with and disagree with...yet he can possess a car. He can purchase booze (even if he was convicted of a crime that included booze). Shit, someone who gets behind the wheeel of a car drunk off they're ass and kills someone can serve their time...get out and then get a license again to do the same thing all over again if they want! Hell there's evn companies that will hire you as a commercial driver! :fp: Yet, he could never possess a LEGALLY OBTAINED FIREARM again. Legally obtained firearms are such a huge problem in this country. I say not only further regulate them lets just ban them all together. Makes perfect sense. :fp: