3 people dead including the shooter. this is on the front page of CNN. i guess somebody went into the mall and started firing an assault rifle at people. multiple others were wounded. this happened literally like 5 minutes from my house. [url=http://www.katu.com/news/local/Shooting-Clackamas-Town-Center-183077691.html] link to news article
Not sure if I should make a new thread, but there was a school shooting in Connecticut a few hours ago.
Another gun loving sick **** murdered innocent people and this time there's many kids dead. Great job America, just let the pawn shops sell guns to anybody and it'll keep happening. We need to call our congressmen and bring down the NRA first, then ban all the ****ing guns for good!
Another gun loving sick **** murdered innocent people and this time there's many kids dead. Great job America, just let the pawn shops sell guns to anybody and it'll keep happening. We need to call our congressmen and bring down the NRA first, then ban all the ****ing guns for good!
As horrifying and tragic as this event is, you're missing the point here. Gun control would not have prevented the shooting. Criminals, as a rule, don't follow the law. It's part of the job description. As is the case with Anders Breivik, the man responsible for the Utoya shooting in Norway, Adam Lanza could have acquired his weapons through gun restriction regulations, or internationally if he chose to. Furthermore, this isn't some gun-nut going on a rampage. The first victim of the shooting in Connecticut (which isn't redneck territory, by the way) was the shooter's mother, which hints at some very intense personal issues between the two. The murder probably would have happened regardless of the weapon chosen.
not in this case. in others it still could. i'm not going to do the same debate again as i did yesterday. so plz. do not reply.
I'm glad you won't repeat that debate, as your argument was incredibly flawed. Anyways, the topic is mass shootings, and your argument for gun control was focused on robberies and other smaller crimes, so it wasn't exactly relevant, and neither is the comment you just made.
My point here, as you actually just said, is that gun control won't prevent these horrific crimes, and that SSTG was blaming the NRA for the choices of a single individual who was most likely unrelated and would commit the crime regardless of the availability of legal firearms
this shouldnt be a debate about gun control, everyone has their own opinion whether it be right or wrong. people are going to die no matter what. hell, lets just ban knives too while were at it. im sure a lot less people would die from stabbings. lets ban penises too, because im sure a lot less women would get *****
I'm glad you won't repeat that debate, as your argument was incredibly flawed. Anyways, the topic is mass shootings, and your argument for gun control was focused on robberies and other smaller crimes, so it wasn't exactly relevant, and neither is the comment you just made.
whatever. you guys just keep shooting. the less, the better.
One: According to the article, they were not his guns, so you can't say that banning guns would have prevented this, as he would have found some somewhere.
Two: I fail to see how the NRA is involved.
Three: Let's all just forget the bill of rights, the founding fathers weren't in their right minds, but were being controlled by the NRA.
It is sad yes, but I don't think it was preventable, except by locking up/killing the guy before he committed the crime, which is also illegal.
Another gun loving sick **** murdered innocent people and this time there's many kids dead. Great job America, just let the pawn shops sell guns to anybody and it'll keep happening. We need to call our congressmen and bring down the NRA first, then ban all the ****ing guns for good!
You do realize that there is a background check on every legal sell of a firearm when the person buys it right?
whatever. you guys just keep shooting. the less, the better.
Glad to hear that some of you guys sound disgusted to even think about the United States. Like it is all of America's fault that there are a random killing spree. How would you prefer America does it? Stick everybody to chains and completely order them how their lives will go?
so you can't say that banning guns would have prevented this, as he would have found some somewhere.
actualy is this a reason to ban them. if guns were illegal than he couldn't just "found some somewhere" he would have needed to contact a dealer 1st. and if he did so. then it were his own guns and he would be a "criminal" for just owning them already. and if the police would follow the dealers activity, than this could have been prevented.
Stick everybody to chains and completely order them how their lives will go?
everything that it takes to change the violent part of the culture. starting whit closing the NRA. and only guns allowed under heavy control and bureaucracy.(not only a simple background check) + lots more police following the dealers activity. as for the police themselves, they have to learn to shoot at legs and not the body/head.
and if the police would follow the dealers activity, than this could have been prevented.
if you're relying on the police for everything, you're missing out on something, we can't afford to put a policeman on every dealer, let alone paying to find every dealer.
shoot at legs and not the body/head.
No. Hands use guns, hands will continue to use guns unless something severs the connection, be it a shot to the hand, or to the head. We shouldn't risk the lives of police just because they could possibly save a life
if you're relying on the police for everything, you're missing out on something, we can't afford to put a policeman on every dealer, let alone paying to find every dealer.
a team to find them and solo or groups of 2/3 cops following multiple dealers from a distant place. if the amount of dealers become to great. then arrest some and give them some jail time. meanwhile focus on the remaining and new dealers.
(i'm not saying that it would have prevented it. only that it could)
No. Hands use guns
i think most will drop the weapen and grab whatever spot they have been hit. but that line was a bit of a extra. i dont mind to drop it.
I think that it's very bad that as we reel from this shooting there is a shooting in New England where a greater number of people were killed than in Oregon. If you take way all the hoops a law abiding citizen is expected to go through to get a firearm, it will make it easier for guns to fall into criminal hands. Take away all gun regulation and the bad boys will split their sides with laughter.
You do realize that there is a background check on every legal sell of a firearm when the person buys it right?
How does that help? Many shootings and murders are done by inconspicuous people that lose it. Also, once you acquired a firearm, you can resell it to anyone as far as I know.
Also, once you acquired a firearm, you can resell it to anyone as far as I know.
That varies by state. Private sales cannot be done for people in other states unless the license has been transfered previously. Online sales or sales through commission require background checks, as it's not considered a private sale. Often, states require the seller to contact the authorities and give information about the sale in case it's used in crimes.
