egafd.com

Robches,
Mexican drug cartels executing the opposition is one thing..kids on a night out at the cinema and ending up dead, shot by some crazed twat in the audience would make front page be it Paraguay,Chad or Mexico.

Oh its all okay now they said the gun man thought he was in a film and was batmans adversary.....

Yep here we go again trotting out the its not his fault its the fault of violent video games or what ever else they want to pin it on just as long as its not the failure of society.

They have him alive and in isolation - Ill bet they dont know what to do with him, bet they wished that they had shot him. would have been easier. Now they will have to do all the court stuff and this will drag it on until they sentance him to death.

The gun law needs to be changed or revoked - this is what causes all the issues in the states the availibility of guns and ammo. The laws relate to a time when there was a need to carry guns. Just like we have laws in this country that have been changed as they no longer fit the gun laws in the states no longer fit.

It would allow them to pull scum off of the street if the law was changed. No guns and you are carrying a gun would immediately class you as a felon and then that would enable you to be put away. simple solution and a big improvement to the country !

mrmcfister wrote:

> Robches,
> Mexican drug cartels executing the opposition is one
> thing..kids on a night out at the cinema and ending up dead,
> shot by some crazed twat in the audience would make front page
> be it Paraguay,Chad or Mexico.

Actually similar atrocities have been carried out in Mexico. Even mourning relatives of a dead soldier have been shot down by gunmen. But it's Mexico, not the USA, and private ownership of guns is already virtually banned, so it's not news.

Sam Slater wrote:


>
> And I'm telling you that if 10 protective parents in that
> cinema, who'd had little professional training with weapons,
> combat and coping with fear, adrenalin and immense hysteria,
> had pull out their guns and started firing who knows how many
> extra people would have been caught in the cross-fire. And even
> if the police showed up, how are a few coppers to know which of
> the dozen gunmen going crazy is the nutter? It would be chaos.
> Over 5% of soldiers' deaths in Afghanistan are attributed to
> friendly fire, and even more through accidents, and they're
> TRAINED soldiers.

Sam, I'm afraid you are like someone who has never seen a car trying to imagine driving on a motorway. A masked lunatic calmly walking around executing people is not a difficult target, just like Anders Breivik. He was happy to kill unarmed people, but soon as he met an armed cop, he gave himself up sharpish.


> [quote]You seem to think that if places like college campuses
> pass laws banning guns, that somehow makes them safer.[/quote]
>
> Correctomundo! Would I want my daughter/son/niece/nephew on a
> campus where no one is armed (leaving them vulnerable to a
> nutter going mad with a gun) or a campus where everyone's
> young, hormonal, argumentative, drunk, high and sexed-up, but
> carrying a gun 'just in case'? Only a nutter would pick the
> second.

You seem incapable of understanding that "gun free zones" do not mean no-one is armed, they merely mean no law abiding person is armed. They present a lunatic with a target rich environment where they know they can operate for a length of time with impunity, until someone with a gun does turn up.

Adding to the above, it seems that the cinema in this case was a "gun free zone". The owners posted signs to that effect, and in Aurora the council have made it a crime to disregard such signs. Thus, the killer knew that there could be no legally armed people in the cinema whilst he acted out his fantasy. He may be mad, but he's not stupid, these guys never try and take out biker bars do they? Sorry Sam, all "gun free zones" do is advertise the fact there are plenty of unarmed targets there.

Yet again, you seem to be obsessed with people being protected by a specific, thankfully rare (even in America) crime: mass killings by nutters of unarmed civilians.

Yet again you fail to see that in arming civilians to protect themselves from this specific threat, you increase the likelihood of everyday disputes ending in death; you increase the likelihood of accidents happening from people fooling around with guns, young kids getting a hold of these guns, or just someone forgetting a gun is loaded/safety catch off etc etc and that this will all contribute to MORE deaths per year, year in year out.

Yet again you fail to see that strict gun control would make it harder for any nutter to acquire a gun. That's not to say it would make it impossible, but harder nevertheless. I'm saying making it harder for nutters to acquire guns would mean fewer nutters having guns and fewer nutters going on the rampage. I'm saying stricter gun controls means fewer citizens carrying guns which means fewer accidents involving guns. That is my logic and looking at gun control and deaths involving guns on a global scale the data available seems to indicate that the stricter the gun laws of a country, and fewer guns available to the general populace, the fewer deaths related to guns.

Not that any of my logic or this data will change your mind. You seem willing to accept more deaths from guns just so people are in a better position to protect themselves from nutters with guns by arming them with guns - failing to also see that arming untrained civilians with guns doesn't necessarily mean every stand-off and shoot-out leaves the nutter dead and civilians high-fiving each other on their accomplishment of riddling the bad-guy with holes. It could, more likely, mean anyone in the vicinity will be at an added risk from more bullets shooting through the air from many more directions.

Most people PANIC when they think their life is in danger. If they have a gun a good proportion of people will shoot anyone that scares them. Think about it. You're being shot at and dive under a table. You get out your gun and see a guy running towards you with a his gun out. You quickly aim and pull your trigger. He's dead. Fantastic. Except, he was just another plucky civilian who heard the gunfire and came to help. Oh, dear. I don't blame you. You was being shot at and in a state of panic. You're not used to assessing such a situation with calm and awareness......you're FUCKING SHITTING YOURSELF!!! Get it, Robches?

People die by texting in the bath while their phone is on charge. People die from choking on chicken drumsticks. People die from shoving things up their arse and perforating their colon and getting an infection. People are half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee do stuff like check what week they're going to have by reading a starsign column from Russell Grant. People who are poor and struggling will give their last ?20 to a fucking clairvoyant so they can have a chat with Uncle Alf who died from lung cancer the summer past. People are fucking idiots at times and I include myself here. I don't want a fucking gun, I don't want anyone living with me having a gun and I don't want any of my family, neighbours or friends having guns. At some point one of them will think it's a good idea to threaten somebody with their gun or fuck around with said weapon, putting others at risk. Forget it. It's crazy.

There's that old saying, isn't there? The type of people who want to carry guns are the very people who shouldn't be allowed guns.

Sam:

I am afraid you are talking from a position of complete ignorance, I rather doubt you have ever seen or used a gun in your life. In those US states which allow licenced concealed carry, there has been no problem of the sort of shootings you imagine. A very small fraction of one per cent of permits are revoked if the holder breaks the law (any law, such as drink driving), but as a body those who legally carry are very law abiding. I am afraid your prejudice and ignorance simply does not allow you to comprehend this.

In the Aurora case, as in so many others. the nutter chose a place where the legal carry of guns was not allowed. These people are not stupid, they want to kill unarmed people, not the sort who can shoot back. But given that he was able to make viable and deadly bombs, it is clear he was going to kill people come what may. That's the problem with these people, they don't seem to obey the law. Bad of them isn't it?

You've not read any of my reply at all, have you Robches?

If you have, you've conveniently ignored every point I've took the time to explain. I may as well be talking to a brick wall - a thick brick wall.

Sam Slater wrote:

[quote]You've not read any of my reply at all, have you Robches?
If you have, you've conveniently ignored every point I've took the time to explain. I may as well be talking to a brick wall - a thick brick wall.[/quote]

I think that Robches is stuck on auto-repeat on this issue. Like a pre-recorded phone message: Automated. Repetitive. Unthinking.



Robches wrote:

[quote]I rather doubt you have ever seen or used a gun in your life.[/quote]

You don't need to have seen or used a gun to know that they are very dangerous things in the hands of the unhinged, the unwary, the stupid and the careless.

Or would you disagree Robches?

- Eric

I don't know why he keeps pointing out that these places of massacre are 'gun free' places when my point was about untrained civilians pulling out guns in times of panic.

And while he repeatedly says these nutters specifically target gun-free zones (all conjecture btw) I'm left wondering why a massive gun-free zone like the UK isn't some sort of haven for gun-toting lunatics. This joker could have saved up a few extra quid, come over here and fucking ruled the place, according to Robches. Could it be he'd have found it much fucking harder to purchase an M4, smoke grenades and all the ammo in the UK?

I don't know what my experience of guns has to do with anything either but I let that slide.