• Two US TV journalists shot dead on air
    1,049 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Minimal;48549764]If people really want to stop mass shooting and gun violence. They need to stop shit like this that gives attention to these mass shooters.[/QUOTE] Society needs to know about these mass shootings so that something is done about them.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48549805]Society needs to know about these mass shootings so that something is done about them.[/QUOTE] Report it like educated adults instead of something that belongs next to a column about Bat Boy Lives
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48549805]Society needs to know about these mass shootings so that something is done about them.[/QUOTE] The mass media doesn't care about informing the public, it cares about ratings and the most disgusting and revolting stuff gets high ratings, which in turn leads to more ad revenue. Most violent deaths are from suicide, which is a mental health issue. Second to that is gang violence. Which is a socio-economic issue. As it mainly happens in very poor areas where people feel they have to resort to selling drugs to make money. Solving those issues would cause violent crime in general to decline. But legislators and the media don't want it solved. Because these issues keep them making money and in power. Along with it not being the easy path.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48549651]I mean restrict the sale of handguns to those with licenses for them. If you're a law abiding citizen, you should be able to prove it with a criminal/mental health background check and registration of the gun. Furthermore, they ought to close the loopholes of buying guns from private sellers. You shouldn't be able to sell a gun to just some random Joe without de-registering the gun, getting the necessary documentation and background checks, and waiting 30 days. It should be 100% illegal to sell a gun without a license to sell guns. Then, guns should be restricted to what can be used for self defense or hunting. A 9mm glock? sure. a .50 cal desert eagle? maybe not. AR-15? No. Then, perhaps a restriction on the ammunition of guns. x bullets per week/month, with a tax on the bullets as well to make bullets more expensive and therefore you wouldn't be able to buy as many of them at a time. I think after a decade or so of this, we might be able to move towards a more european or east-asian system of removing guns from our country almost entirely, making the only guns legal in the US those used for hunting in more rural areas.[/QUOTE] You've just explained very clearly why Americans do not trust the concept of a gun registry and believe that such a system only exists to take people's guns away at some point in the future.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48549805]Society needs to know about these mass shootings so that something is done about them.[/QUOTE] Not to be a dickhead head but this isn't just some random "mass shooting". I wouldn't even call it that, this is double homicide/double murder. Guy planned on murdering these two. I don't get why people are calling it a mass shooting.
[QUOTE=Dougz;48549698]They can't seriously be printing this, can they? [t]http://i.imgur.com/q9jcE66.png[/t][/QUOTE] what the actual fuck
Welp, someone's getting fired when that prints.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48550270]You've just explained very clearly why Americans do not trust the concept of a gun registry and believe that such a system only exists to take people's guns away at some point in the future.[/QUOTE] I think that that line of thinking represents a decay of (or maybe just a persistent lack of) the faith that the people of our nation have in democracy and democratic values. because we live in a government that responds to the will of the people, it should be obvious to anyone that outright gun bans would be impossible to implement without fairly large majority support. the question at that point ends up becoming: "if it's what the majority wants, and it's not infringing on the minority in a dangerous way, who cares?" it seems like, increasingly, we care less and less about the value of democracy as an institution, while increasingly believing that a personal ideological dogma should be dominant. before we can fight problems of bipartisanship, we might need to fundamentally re-affirm the fact that democracy is still far preferable to any alternative that has yet been presented, and recognize that fact even in a scenario where one's personal beliefs aren't reflected 100% in policy. furthermore, instead of encouraging whining about how x people think y thing, there should be a greater effort of educating, winning hearts and minds, competing for positions when possible, and compromising when not.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48549651]AR-15? No.[/QUOTE] About that; the AR-15 is pretty much one of the most reliable hunting rifles on the market. This is due to the fact that you can reconfigure what type of ammo it can use depending on what you are looking to hunt; not to mention its accuracy when hunting all various sorts of animals - varmint to larger game. It's low recoil makes it ideal for hunters who are new, or those who are getting older and can not deal with as much recoil. Or really anyone who doesn't want to lug around a heavier gun. Please don't act like you know anything about firearms when you don't. The AR-15 has been around since 1959, and the first civilian models hit the market in 1963 - a year before Kennedy's assassination. They're not some scary new technology.
[QUOTE=MR-X;48550273]Not to be a dickhead head but this isn't just some random "mass shooting". I wouldn't even call it that, this is double homicide/double murder. Guy planned on murdering these two. I don't get why people are calling it a mass shooting.[/QUOTE] It's a buzz word and enables you to use it as a mass shooting statistic so you can inflate the numbers and scare Europeans. [editline]27th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;48550389]About that; the AR-15 is pretty much one of the most reliable hunting rifles on the market. This is due to the fact that you can reconfigure what type of ammo it can use depending on what you are looking to hunt; not to mention its accuracy when hunting all various sorts of animals - varmint to larger game. It's low recoil makes it ideal for hunters who are new, or those who are getting older and can not deal with as much recoil. Or really anyone who doesn't want to lug around a heavier gun. Please don't act like you know anything about firearms when you don't. The AR-15 has been around since 1959, and the first civilian models hit the market in 1963 - a year before Kennedy's assassination. They're not some scary new technology.[/QUOTE] I like my AR-15. I don't pretend to want to use it for hunting or self defense, and I don't think I should have to. It's fun to shoot paper and play Barbie with it. I don't hunt because I couldn't make myself shoot a random animal knowing I could just go buy already killed meat at the store. Only animals I've killed have been coyotes and water moccasins and I did that with a shotgun. Obviously there are plenty of Americans for whom hunting is a necessity, but it's their right either way - for me I can't justify it with a Wal-Mart five minutes down the road. I think sport is reason enough for a responsible person to own a firearm. Why thirty rounds? Because it's more fun than ten. I don't [I]need[/I] to have a better reason. I think people that try to use the hunting/defense argument weaken the position of the largest demographic of gun owners - those that just enjoy the way they work and like to punch holes loudly.
[QUOTE=xamllew;48550354]Welp, someone's getting fired when that prints.[/QUOTE] Haha you think they'll get fired. They're a tabloid and they know it.
[QUOTE=xamllew;48550354]Welp, someone's getting [B]a raise[/B] when that prints.[/QUOTE] fixed.
Oops nvm, thought that was an actual reputable paper. Borderline snuff porn would be exactly the shock and awe they'd want then.
tabloid makes me sad.
[QUOTE=Dougz;48549698]They can't seriously be printing this, can they? [t]http://i.imgur.com/q9jcE66.png[/t][/QUOTE] And people say the internet is killing the newspaper industry.
I will probably regret asking but: Can someone who is not butthurt with only few arguments like: 1) Shut up, you don't know my life, I love my guns, I have rights to own them. 2) For personal protection (against each other basically) 3) Guns don't kill people, metal people do (even though you could go mental any day without planning it) 4) It's easy to buy guns illegally so banning them would be useless. so can someone who preferably has lived in US in past and now moved to different country where gun control is strict - give a better reason to own guns?
[QUOTE=Dougz;48549698]They can't seriously be printing this, can they? -Image of newspaper cover with clips from shooters perspective-[/QUOTE] Assuming fake as i can't find it on their twitter page.
[QUOTE=arleitiss;48551375]I will probably regret asking but: Can someone who is not butthurt with only few arguments like: 1) Shut up, you don't know my life, I love my guns, I have rights to own them. 2) For personal protection (against each other basically) 3) Guns don't kill people, metal people do (even though you could go mental any day without planning it) 4) It's easy to buy guns illegally so banning them would be useless. so can someone who preferably has lived in US in past and now moved to different country where gun control is strict - give a better reason to own guns?[/QUOTE] We don't have to, though. Just because you feel we shouldn't have them doesn't mean we need to justify them to you. But if you need an actual, contemporary reason for owning guns: - Most of the US landmass is rural where hostile wildlife exists. Firearms are regularly used in farmwork to protect livestock and human life privately in rural areas. - The US was founded on firearms, their use, and their right to be possessed. Disarming the law-abiding populace of firearms, if you manage to do it without getting whoever comes to take them slaughtered, would only make them absolute targets for the presently well-armed criminal populace. - The armed private populace of the United States guarantees its sovereignty as a nation. As Gordon W. Prange (often misattributed to Vice Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto) said, "You cannot hope to invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It also guarantees that the armed forces of the United States would face certain slaughter should the government attempt to turn on the populace, which is the basis of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are a myriad of other rights and reasons as to why law-abiding citizens of the United States [I]will[/I] posses firearms. Of the arguments that oppose these reasons and rights, however, "Because I think it's bad," is not on the list. The pretentiousness of your argument is mind blowing. Those four reasons you listed alone are plenty of reason in themselves, what exactly makes your presenting them magically render them invalid?
[QUOTE=Sonador;48551421]We don't have to, though. Just because you feel we shouldn't have them doesn't mean we need to justify them to you. But if you need an actual, contemporary reason for owning guns: - Most of the US landmass is rural where hostile wildlife exists. Firearms are regularly used in farmwork to protect livestock and human life privately in rural areas. - The US was founded on firearms, their use, and their right to be possessed. Disarming the law-abiding populace of firearms, if you manage to do it without getting whoever comes to take them slaughtered, would only make them absolute targets for the presently well-armed criminal populace. - The armed private populace of the United States guarantees its sovereignty as a nation. As Gordon W. Prange (often misattributed to Vice Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto) said, "You cannot hope to invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It also guarantees that the armed forces of the United States would face certain slaughter should the government attempt to turn on the populace, which is the basis of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are a myriad of other rights and reasons as to why law-abiding citizens of the United States [I]will[/I] posses firearms. Of the arguments that oppose these reasons and rights, however, "Because I think it's bad," is not on the list. The pretentiousness of your argument is mind blowing. Those four reasons you listed alone are plenty of reason in themselves, what exactly makes your presenting them magically render them invalid?[/QUOTE] Exactly the kind of reply I expected.
[QUOTE=arleitiss;48551451]Exactly the kind of reply I expected.[/QUOTE] what's the point of this post tbh
[QUOTE=Sonador;48551456]what's the point of this post tbh[/QUOTE] Was looking for answer for moreof someone who used to live in US but then moved to EU and hear what they think of gun controls and do they prefer strict or free gun control but I expected any person from US to basically say what you said in a bit aggressive/angry manner.
[QUOTE=arleitiss;48551469]Was looking for answer for moreof someone who used to live in US but then moved to EU and hear what they think of gun controls and do they prefer strict or free gun control but I expected any person from US to basically say what you said in a bit aggressive/angry manner.[/QUOTE] Right, but the entire point of my post is to explain that the US is completely different from most other, or at least EU, nations. If it were possible, strict control of guns would be great. But it's not possible here, yet, anyway. Attempting to enforce EU laws in the US would be a complete bloodbath on all kinds of levels.
You can ban guns, but you will never be able to get rid of guns. If someone really wants a gun, they'll get their hands on one. That makes a blanket ban on guns in a country where being able to have a gun is seen as a constitutional right a pretty silly thing to strive for. People need to accept that their utopian perfect dream society will never exist.
Someone just shared an image on Facebook claiming the fiancee of the reporter who was shot tweeted about her death at 6:34 when the shooting happened at 6:46. Which proves its all Illuminati NWO tin foil hattery. Timezones are a strange thing.....
[QUOTE=V12US;48551602]You can ban guns, but you will never be able to get rid of guns. If someone really wants a gun, they'll get their hands on one. That makes a blanket ban on guns in a country where being able to have a gun is seen as a constitutional right a pretty silly thing to strive for. People need to accept that their utopian perfect dream society will never exist.[/QUOTE] People don't want a "utopian perfect dream society", they want a hometown where they can go outside without actively fearing for their life. This defeatist attitude ensures that this will continue to happen, over and over. [URL="http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131"] It brings a certain onion article to mind.[/URL] 30,000 people die on average in the US every year from violence or accidents, and many more have been shot and injured. In 2010 there were [URL="http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf"]only 230 "Justifiable Homicides."[/URL] They also significantly increase the chance of an individual committing suicide. And if an attempt is made, it is far more likely to be fatal. Similarly, using a gun makes it much easier for a criminal to kill another, both due to lethality and the notion that it is less personal than doing so with a knife or blunt weapon. Due to the prevalence of firearms, situations with criminals often escalate. You are [URL="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099?journalCode=ajph"]4.46 times[/URL] more likely to be killed by a criminal when carrying a gun. Guns are not tools, they are weapons. They are used to kill, that is their intended design and their ultimate effect. It doesn't matter what people do with them in their free time. To compare them to cars is fallacious, as cars are intended as a mode of transportation.
[QUOTE=Lexinator;48551418]Assuming fake as i can't find it on their twitter page.[/QUOTE] [url]https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/636724797678977025[/url]
If you fear for your life just because you went outside, you either live in Detroit, a third-world warzone, or Mad Max.
[QUOTE=Streecer;48551691]People don't want a "utopian perfect dream society", they want a hometown where they can go outside without actively fearing for their life. This defeatist attitude ensures that this will continue to happen, over and over.[/QUOTE] The way to do that is to stop the fearmongering. Not blanket banning shit and taking away people's liberties. People who give away freedom for the sake of security deserve neither and will end up with neither.
Again going after guns to solve violence is like cutting a limb off a tree in order to kill it. Not only that but the vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegal guns. How exactly does banning legal guns stop people from buying a glock from the trunk of some dudes car? If you want to stop "gun" violence then go after the underlying causes of "gun" violence, like racism, gang culture, or most importantly our horrible mental health system. If you ban guns those problems won't go away, neither will the violence associated with them. The only argument that anti-gun people have is "Guns make it easier to kill people" which is inherently flawed because [I]A lot of things[/I] make it "easier" to kill people.
Did the shooter die or is he still in critical condition?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.