That is exactly the issue right there. Billions are spent to 'stop' the former, while the latter, which is far more common, is just thrown under the 'shit happens' category.Originally Posted by GS
That is exactly the issue right there. Billions are spent to 'stop' the former, while the latter, which is far more common, is just thrown under the 'shit happens' category.
It's not like you to moan. Is everything okay?
I don't give a shit about 'media coverage,' I don't really follow the media. I give a shit about what politicians do/say in response. Jeb Bush saying 'well there's nothing we can do' after one shooting and then the Republican debate after San Bernardino focusing 100% on keeping all arabs out is what I give a shit about.
Anyways, I've said my part. Feel free to move on. Very sad event regardless of motive/response/whatever.
Listen Ian and Gerry, let's not start the sectarian sparring just as your lads are about to kick off in a major championship.
It's been more than half an hour since it happened so that ship will have sailed.
People getting preemptively annoyed over the direction the coverage might take is orders of magnitude more annoying than the coverage itself devoting an extra thirty seconds to talking about his religious background.
We're both prods.
Lots of Republicans feeling pretty conflicted about this I'd imagine.
What a shithole.
I don't disagree with your point, by the way. I just think it's inevitable that the coverage will be skewed and I can see why. They believe the former can be controlled if they take necessary steps, but the latter is a necessary evil for the second amendment to stand. I think it's insane, you think it's insane, most sensible people think it's insane, but America isn't yet ready (seemingly) to bin the second amendment.
Don't ruin my shit crow-barred joke with your facts, for fuck's sake.
Sorry.
I'm sure many do, but the unfortunate reality is that the NRA wield huge influence and they all want to be elected again.
You couldn't live in America - it's a shit country, all things considered.
I do think it is about much more than gun availability but I agree. What a country. :*)
The only way to stop the latter is to limit access to guns, which I think everyone needs to accept at this point America just isn't going to do. The former being a relatively new thing means that people will still see a hundred different ways they might be able to prevent it, but in thirty years' time if it's still happening once a month it'll likely be on the shit happens pile too.
Cheesy chips, anyone?
Well that's Trump elected.
Lesson to liberals: maybe time to put away with the 2nd Amendment phobia and put yourself in a position to defend yourselves. You don't see this shit happening at a Texas church; there's a reason for that.
Ben Carson practically did on Fox.
This twitter-account is a goldmine.
America has lots of guns and lots of homophobes; but nobody has ever taken it upon themselves to shoot fifty people in a gay bar. I don't think guns are necessarily the issue.
Larry Ashbrook.
Also, this happened in a nightclub. Are there nightclubs anywhere in America where the patrons are allowed to carry?
True. You do have to wonder whether it would've happened without the easy access, but they are, ultimately, so rare events that it is really hard to tell.
The question is why nobody bothers with this type of shit anywhere else. Can't be just guns, surely? Guns are not legal in Mexico but it would be piss easy to get one.
Pepe's desperate attempts in this thread to basically shift the blame on to white people is laughable.
Yes, that is exactly what is going on. Glad you're having a good laugh mate.
It's about access. The Mexicans are shit at preventing smuggling. The Americans let you buy it at Walmart. Neither is okay, and both are the largest contributing factor to this sort of event.
In the UK, gun access was drastically cut after Dunblane and it worked. It's not rocket science.
It's obviously the gays who are to blame. If those two blokes didn't kiss in public FFS.
Great day for the NRA and the industry it promotes. The usual post-shooting spike in sales, and a whole new demographic to scare into making themselves less safe.
And Australia, they are the perfect example of how it can work.
Why doesn't it happen in Mexico then?
EDIT: Worth noting that available as they might be, no one is carrying around a gun just for lulz in Mexico as they do here.
Nothing to see here, just more shit happens.
We never really had any mass shootings before Dunblane, but we've had Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird in recent years, and the overall firearm death rate has barely changed. We're not a great case study for gun control.
The Americans have too many mentals. I don't know whether their healthcare system and society generally (Beta Uprising) contributes, but where guns are the issue is that we don't have the easy out of gun rampages, since there is surely some cycle there, as if it's the 'done thing' if you're off your head.
Mexico isn't a safe country.
There was Hungerford about 10 years earlier.
I forgot him. It was still rare that we had them, and we've had them since.
Of course, you can't ban people from being unhinged, but I think it makes a difference that you can no longer get your hands on a firearm that takes more than a couple of rounds at a time.
Both are fucking islands. The example doesn't apply to the US.
In the US the state with the lowest gun crime rate (Wyoming) has one of the highest gun ownership rates. It. Is. Not. Guns.
Yeah it's not guns... I'm sure he could've achieved the same body count with a pen knife mate.
Yes I suppose the amount of coastline would make a difference.
He would still be able to purchase a gun if it was legal or if it wasn't legal.
It's pointless even bothering when you can post that kind of rubbish, at least Harold put some effort in.
Some politician in Texas posted a bible quote claiming men reap what they sow. Classy.
What I've always said is just how normal this shit has become here. Yeah it will make the news for a few days, Obama will do his karaoke but after that it's back to status quo. Nothing is ever considered on anything more than a very superficial level with guns. It gets forgotten very quickly.
Two guys were shot outside a shopping center two minutes from me a few months back. Didn't even make the local news.
Except this is totally different.
Gun crime rate in America, if you take out Blacks (who are concentrated in a few urban enclaves), is roughly equivalent to Belgium. Cities / states in America with the highest gun ownership often have very low crime (I'm at a bar so don't have access to the exact statistics; I'm happy to play this game in a few hours). It's not guns. If you think that guns somehow translate to more crime, you are an ignorant moron who refuses to accept the exhaustive empirical evidence to the contrary.
Thanks for the clarification.
It is though. Feel free to elaborate how it's the same as two blokes getting killed in an argument or whatever it was though.
Possession of a gun is the only way some twonk is walking into a room and killing fifty people though, so whatever the statistics say about crime in general it's worth having a conversation about limiting access.
Since It. Is. Not. Guns. what do you think is behind America having a hundred times as many mass shootings as the rest of the world combined?
He didn't say it was the same. You're a constant embarrassment to yourself, but you're not that stupid.
Black on black gun crime.
If someone is nuts and determined enough to kill 50 people, he's getting that gun regardless. The only way to stop him from killing 50, is for someone else with a gun to stop him.
America doesn't have 100 times more mass shootings than the rest of the world, if I'm not mistaken America ranks something like 110~ of all countries in gun crime.
America doesn't have a gun crime problem. Certain self-contained groups have a gun crime problem.
He did. How normal Islamic terrorists murdering 50 people is and how it'll only get like one day in the middle of a newspaper just like two blokes killing themselves outside of a 7-11.
Something something liberals. Clearly.
Stats are stats, well done. Whatever societal issues make people want to go out and kill lots of other people are exacerbated by the proliferation and ease of access to very effective weapons. If no-one can work out why they do it then it is sensible to limit access to the most effective weapons many of which don't have any civilian applications anyway (and don't say hunting, if you can't hunt with a shotgun or a simple bolt action rifle then you're rubbish at hunting). You could even give them all back afterwards if you do end up working it out. Also, the argument that people can still get hold of illegal things is laughable. I'd imagine someone within a short drive of my house could sell me some great drugs but to equate finding them with popping to a shop and buying something over the counter is about as silly as it gets.
Also, stop equating gun crime in general with mass shootings, they are clearly very different and doing so makes you look a bit silly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
