Let's put This To Bed. The Five Worst Shootings Ever Were Not Done By Americans

reply to post by Logarock


Being the outback, one could get a license to buy and use a gun there....something you would have known had you a clue about our gun laws

reply to post by Kryties

It was a small error which was conveniently used to overshadow the fact that the weapon was used to kill 20 kids. One even described it as akin to being "collateral damage" as long as they got to keep their guns.

Guns don’t kill people. So called “assault weapons” don’t kill people. What was your point?

So yes, you jumped on a bandwagon long passed.....

My bad!

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by magilla
reply to post by exponent

 

Think you missed the point I made entirely. Where did I say I want to live in a place like Afganistan. My oint waws that they have been warring for a long while. Taliban is still there. Warlords still there.

I know it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges, terrain, culture, warlords and all. Point is superior fire power has not defeated them.

Superior firepower hasn't defeated them because the US isn't fighting Afghanistan. It's fighting a rogue element within Afghanistan.

Why not look at Iraq? How long did their army last? They were better equipped, funded and potentially motivated than a civilian militia would be, and they didn't manage a whole lot.

In respect to Iraq vs a potential conflict involving a civilian militia, the Iraqi army had notoriously low moral to the point some units gave up without a fight. In contrast, a determined group who is fighting for their homes and everything they are, well that's a whole different ball game. The Viet Minh were quite successful first against the French and again when the US tried their hand in south east Asia. It was a successful tactic in many places all through tout central and South America as well as Africa. Armed insurgency is what got Mandela locked up. It's how the US started off. History has proven time and again that the success if a fighting force lies as much in its will as its available firepower.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by seabag

 

It was a small error which was conveniently used to overshadow the fact that the weapon was used to kill 20 kids. One even described it as akin to being "collateral damage" as long as they got to keep their guns.

That wouldnt be anything new. I could name you some far bigger killers in our worlds, domestic, whos death toll is considered just the cost of doing bizz. Drugs, cars, strong drink ect.....and with whole industries built up around them.

reply to post by seabag


So you are saying Adam Lanza fired poo bullets out of his ass? Or did his nipples double as gun barrels?

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Logarock

 

Being the outback, one could get a license to buy and use a gun there....something you would have known had you a clue about our gun laws

I reckoned that much.....its just that I woundnt get a license to own a gun and dont intend on living anywhere that demands I do.

This post conveniently overlooks the Irgun massacre of more than 100 unarmed people, including women and children, at the Palestinian village Der Yassin in April 1948. Some of the deaths came from grenades instead of guns but it was a violent attack on civilians and every bit as vicious as the other examples in this post.

The sad thing now is that our country pays tens of billions in tribute to these same terrorists.

And an Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livini brags she murdered unarmed Arab scholars in Europe and practiced prostitution.

This behavior speaks for itself and reflects the morals and ethics of the perpetrators.

reply to post by Kryties


We must pass strict checks as well and our military would not bomb, nuke, or use chemicals on the people it wishes to enslave like some kind or Australian type place .

It is clear you know nothing about the gun laws in the USA.
The fact is the shootings only happen more often because the anti-gun nut jobs made gun free zones, or as like to call them criminal safe havens.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Do Nagasaki and Hiroshima count?

Couple of big guns there...

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by Kryties

 

We must pass strict checks as well and our military would not bomb, nuke, or use chemicals on the people it wishes to enslave like some kind or Australian type place .

It is clear you know nothing about the gun laws in the USA.
The fact is the shootings only happen more often because the anti-gun nut jobs made gun free zones, or as like to call them criminal safe havens.

Care to prove that last statement or......no?

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Logarock

 

Being the outback, one could get a license to buy and use a gun there....something you would have known had you a clue about our gun laws

I reckoned that much.....its just that I woundnt get a license to own a gun and dont intend on living anywhere that demands I do.

You don't have to have a gun. It is crazy to foist weapons on people who don't want them.

It's like flooding the streets with drugs and assuming only the good people are going to use them and stop when they should. Just like anything else...people take things to extremes and ruin it for everyone else.

reply to post by newcovenant


Yes, look at news reports of where almost all of the shootings happened.

Lets go to the "black and white only" side, how many mass shootings at a gun show vs how many in a gun free zone?

Need links or can you Google?
Every school shooting that I can think of, that spa shooting, I think that movie theater shooting was as well, but can't remember.

Here is another fact I can prove right now if you wish, all the shooting were done by criminals and not one law stopped them.

You realize that these are not 'assault weapons' that are used in these shootings. They are rifles that 'look' military. They are semiautomatic. Just like a pistol, or a shotgun or that rifle your granpa uses. They are not automatic weapons that are being used. Not automatic. Yet, that is what is thrown around be cause it is scary. Fear mongering.

So, this means if the handgun I own has a 20 round mag (HK) it is more powerful but you would want to take it away because by your definition it is an assault pistol, right? Now, how the hell did we get here.

Oh no, now you want my shotguns....how about my bows???

This is not about gun control. It is about taking them away. I think they played it safe to everyone who wants it 30 days to buy what you need because there will be an executive order when returns from his vacation.

The recent shootings, if you look. occurred in malls that were CWP-free zones. The mall that was not was attacked recently by the kid who shot a few them himself in the food court and it was stopped by someone who had a weapon. He did not fire but the pussy shot himself when he saw there may be resistance.

The shooting in Newtown, he passed the high school were there is n SRO at the gate. Instead, he killed 20 little kids and 6 teachers. You want to disarm me now?

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Yes, look at news reports of where almost all of the shootings happened.

Lets go to the "black and white only" side, how many mass shootings at a gun show vs how many in a gun free zone?

Need links or can you Google?
Every school shooting that I can think of, that spa shooting, I think that movie theater shooting was as well, but can't remember.

Here is another fact I can prove right now if you wish, all the shooting were done by criminals and not one law stopped them.

A link would be good...
Adam Lanza was a criminal?

I remember a case recently, I think it was in NYC where the Police, in attempting to shoot a gunman ended up killing more innocent people than the gunman did.
Just sayin'

reply to post by esdad71


"How about my bows?"


That's a riot. Keep the bows. If you have anything nuclear, pass it over!

reply to post by muse7


Don't let the media fool you. Shootings happen all the time here, now it's a just hot topic. The city of Philadelphia has any where between 300-400 reported firearm homicides per year. (they consider that quiet compared to the 90's)

reply to post by paradox


I don't know how asking questions is an attack on your culture. I've noticed it's very hard to discuss this subject with a lot of Americans. Some will discuss without getting personal, but the ones who rave about their rights don't help their cause.

Is a 3 gun household not enough personal protection?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Kryties

 

It was a small error which was conveniently used to overshadow the fact that the weapon was used to kill 20 kids. One even described it as akin to being "collateral damage" as long as they got to keep their guns.

Guns don’t kill people. So called “assault weapons” don’t kill people. What was your point?

So yes, you jumped on a bandwagon long passed.....

My bad!

Correct, the bullet kills them. That is a nonsensical argument, that goes back and forth.

reply to post by DaesDaemar


I wasn't referring to you specifically. Just in general.

Personally, I'd be fine with that...but if they are allowed to further regulate our firearms, where does it end?

reply to post by paradox


That's why there must be compromise. If the government wants better gun laws then they need to give a little to get a little. That's up to Americans to sort out. I'm sure you can agree that their are many gun owners who shouldn't own them. It's about responsible ownership and personally I don't see a small arsenal as responsible.