• Two US TV journalists shot dead on air
    1,049 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Hanso;48551813]Did the shooter die or is he still in critical condition?[/QUOTE] He's dead.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48551782]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?[/QUOTE] Illegal guns are generally legal at some point in their life. The legal market feeds the illegal market. Guns aren't just created illegal, they are stolen from legal owners, mis-sold by firearms dealers, sold in private sales to less than reputable people, vanished from production lines or imported from other countries (importing is negligible in the US iirc).
[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] it's a land conquered upon the violent deaths of millions of people and animals, it's inherent to the culture that basically developed while conquering the land fo hundreds of years
[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] The only legitimate reason I see in this post is the first point. The second is mere appeal to tradition, as well as an argument for more effective enforcement of gun control such that criminals do not have access to guns as well, rather than an argument against gun control. The third point it plain nuts because do you honestly think that a militia will be able to overwhelm the US armed forces if they really decide to attack the populace? They would be hilariously out-gunned and out-manoeuvred. [QUOTE=Kyle902;48551782]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.[/QUOTE] Almost all illegal guns started their lives as legally purchased weapons. Also, only 3-5% of all gun violence can be linked to mental health issues. In fact, having mental health issues predisposes one to gun violence against oneself more than anything else. It is not a major contributing factor for the vast majority of gun violence. And yes, a lot of things make it easier to kill people, but none do so quite as much as guns, and none are designed specifically to kill people. Face it, the easy availability of guns is a major contributing factor to gun crime. Yes, gun control alone is a one-dimensional way of dealing with the problem. But so is looking only at gang violence or mental health. Implementing gun control measures does not preclude implementing measures to combat crime in general. They can work hand in hand to reduce gun violence.
so the shooter sent a letter claiming he was motivated by the charleston shootings, and blame his reason was because racism, he praised the VA Tech killer, and said something about bringing a "race war"
[QUOTE=Chaotic Lord;48551704][url]https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/636724797678977025[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah it's not fake so I think they're planning on printing it.
[QUOTE=joes33431;48550363]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.[/QUOTE] It's a natural consequence. People have always been self-interested and self-absorbed, that's just part of our nature, and it's nothing new (and it's not necessarily a bad thing from a self-preservation perspective, although it often does in fact lead to bad things as history has demonstrated; greed is destructive); it's just easier to be this way now than ever before with the rise of technology and social media, and people aren't as ashamed of it anymore because it's such a common and visible thing. Shit, the bigger fuckwits of our age don't even try to come up with coherent arguments for their views-- they just fall back on "well I have a right to my opinion [despite the fact I'm a massive retard] and my vote counts". Democracy is basically a self-destructive institution due to inherent human competition and self-centeredness. It's the best worst form of government we've got, to quote Churchill. On a macro level, you've got collective groups of people with different perspectives fighting with each other for their group's views (party vs. party, ideology vs. ideology, business vs. ethics, etc.), and while there's always been a micro level component that consists of individuals within these groups watching out for themselves and their personal interests in the midst of it all, it's gotten even worse in recent times now that more people have adopted these ideas that they're special/unique and that they matter to the world (when in truth, they're just as mediocre and irrelevant as the rest of us are) and their opinions are important-- regardless of who they are and how much they actually know/qualified they are to make decisions. In this Age of Me, yeah, personal ideological dogma does matter more to your average person than the actual principles of democracy do; I mean, like I said before, personal dogmas always did matter, but it has absolutely gotten worse as the times have changed and the people have changed with them. Just look at how polarized our politics have become today, and it's almost expected for people to be this way; when they aren't out for themselves, they're out for their side like it's a sports team in a game. Still, I'm glad someone else noticed this.
Of course we should ban guns. We banned alcohol in the 30s, and banned most drugs, and both of those worked VERY nicely...
[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] You don't get to say "Haha hey americans why do you want to own a gun and by the way all these reasons don't count now why do you want a gun checkmate!!" Sport, hunting, collection and protection are all valid reasons for owning a firearm.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48549677]Criminal background checks happen. Mental health records are asked for via FFL. FFL paperwork is required for gun sales no matter if private or in a store. What? Stop picking and choosing the "scary" guns. You sound like a very clueless CNN. Banning certain gun types does nothing. Maryland (where I live) is a clear example of that failure. X bullets per week. Dear Lord that's hilarious. Ban guns entirely? Yeah okay. Let's remove 300 million guns. Oh, but wait. Criminals have guns too and they don't follow laws and their guns account for millions of guns that the US can't take because they're not accounted for. Your "plan" sounds like bullshit spewing from somebody who knows absolutely nothing about firearms. Go take a class in common sense and statistics before you go trying to change laws.[/QUOTE] Well you don't have to get angry about it. Calm down dude. I think we should ban guns that are superfluous because they're not necessary for self defense or hunting, like a .50 cal Desert Eagle or an AR-15. A 9mm and a shotgun should be enough for both of those purposes. But still, we need to ban the private sale of guns from people who have no license or background check requirements. This is something you haven't addressed. I agree, outright banning guns [b]NOW[/b] would be harmful, but if we were to slowly restrict guns more and more to the point they were at BEFORE the republicans of the 1980s removed all the stops then we should be able to get to a level of europe, australia, or east asia
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48551876]The only legitimate reason I see in this post is the first point. The second is mere appeal to tradition, as well as an argument for more effective enforcement of gun control such that criminals do not have access to guns as well, rather than an argument against gun control. The third point it plain nuts because do you honestly think that a militia will be able to overwhelm the US armed forces if they really decide to attack the populace? They would be hilariously out-gunned and out-manoeuvred.[/QUOTE] There's a misconception even among Americans that our armed forces can turn on us at any time. This happened in the 1700s because the occupying British army was detached from the populace and had no ties to it. The right to bear arms in the context of defending against tyranny isn't for shooting up the army, it's for seizing the civilian side of a government that's gone off the rails. The US military isn't going to be massacring US citizens; hell, they'd be on our side. [editline]27th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;48552332]Well you don't have to get angry about it. Calm down dude. [B]I think we should ban guns that are superfluous because they're not necessary for self defense or hunting, like a .50 cal Desert Eagle or an AR-15. A 9mm and a shotgun should be enough for both of those purposes. [/B] But still, we need to ban the private sale of guns from people who have no license or background check requirements. This is something you haven't addressed. I agree, outright banning guns [b]NOW[/b] would be harmful, but if we were to slowly restrict guns more and more to the point they were at BEFORE the republicans of the 1980s removed all the stops then we should be able to get to a level of europe, australia, or east asia[/QUOTE] You're welcome to think that but eventually you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Also; do you realize that prior to the 1980s you could own a machine gun with just a $200 tax stamp? There were very few restrictions.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48552332]Well you don't have to get angry about it. Calm down dude. I think we should ban guns that are superfluous because they're not necessary for self defense or hunting, like a .50 cal Desert Eagle or an AR-15. A 9mm and a shotgun should be enough for both of those purposes. But still, we need to ban the private sale of guns from people who have no license or background check requirements. This is something you haven't addressed. I agree, outright banning guns [b]NOW[/b] would be harmful, but if we were to slowly restrict guns more and more to the point they were at BEFORE the republicans of the 1980s removed all the stops then we should be able to get to a level of europe, australia, or east asia[/QUOTE] Ban things because they're not practical. Yup, stupid idea. Ban super cars while you're at it too, they're not practical and they're dangerous because they can go over 200mph. Invalid argument.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48552348]Ban things because they're not practical. Yup, stupid idea. Ban super cars while you're at it too, they're not practical and they're dangerous because they can go over 200mph. Invalid argument.[/QUOTE] IIRC he actually agrees with that too & thinks classic cars should be removed from roadways or scrapped. You will notice a certain theme among self described liberals and it's that they don't want liberties for anyone if it's not something they're interested in or can afford.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48552350]IIRC he actually agrees with that too & thinks classic cars should be removed from roadways or scrapped.[/QUOTE] Good grief people are dense.
I'm a gun owner and have a lifetime conceled carry permit and I was surprised to see that looking at the statistics for Indiana, I am more likely to be on the receiving end of a gun crime, murder, robbery or assault, than I am to be involved a violent car crash. That puts the issue in perspective for me. I would never agree to a total ban, but large reform of the buying process could work. Stricter requirements to be eligible to purchase firearms, manditory arms training courses, long waiting periods, limitation of firearm types available to the public. For example here in Indiana you have no need for an ar-15, you can't legally hunt with it because of our terrain, they are not the most ideal home protection guns, they are purely either for sport and entertainment, or as a security blanket that makes you feel like you'll be top dog in the impending economic collapse caused apocolyptic wasteland. I think all existing guns should be grandfathered in, you shouldn't force people to destroy or give up their guns, but just restrict future purchases because that will make a notable difference a hundred years from now.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;48552452]I'm a gun owner and have a lifetime conceled carry permit and I was surprised to see that looking at the statistics for Indiana, I am more likely to be on the receiving end of a gun crime, murder, robbery or assault, than I am to be involved a violent car crash. That puts the issue in perspective for me. I would never agree to a total ban, but large reform of the buying process could work. Stricter requirements to be eligible to purchase firearms, manditory arms training courses, long waiting periods, limitation of firearm types available to the public. For example here in Indiana you have no need for an ar-15, you can't legally hunt with it because of our terrain, they are not the most ideal home protection guns, they are purely either for sport and entertainment, or as a security blanket that makes you feel like you'll be top dog in the impending economic collapse caused apocolyptic wasteland. I think all existing guns should be grandfathered in, you shouldn't force people to destroy or give up their guns, but just restrict future purchases because that will make a notable difference a hundred years from now.[/QUOTE] Careful man, with actual thoughtful reasoning like that you might get shot in this thread.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48552332]Well you don't have to get angry about it. Calm down dude. I think we should ban guns that are superfluous because they're not necessary for self defense or hunting, like a .50 cal Desert Eagle or an AR-15. A 9mm and a shotgun should be enough for both of those purposes. But still, we need to ban the private sale of guns from people who have no license or background check requirements. This is something you haven't addressed. I agree, outright banning guns [b]NOW[/b] would be harmful, but if we were to slowly restrict guns more and more to the point they were at BEFORE the republicans of the 1980s removed all the stops then we should be able to get to a level of europe, australia, or east asia[/QUOTE] Wouldn't make a difference. A gun's a gun. 9mm is worse than an AR-15 anyway. The round is bigger, the gun is easily concealable. The only advantage most people contribute an AR-15 to having over a handgun in these types of shootings is magazine capacity. But even that doesn't make a difference. Say you shoot one round per second for a minute and you take 3 seconds to reload. The AR-15 will require 1 reload of 3 seconds. so he'll shoot 57 rounds over that minute. The 9mm with 15 round mag will have to reload 3 times to shoot 60 rounds, meaning he'll shoot 51 rounds over the minute. 6 rounds over the course of a minute is negligible
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48552332]I think we should ban guns that are superfluous because they're not necessary for self defense or hunting, like a .50 cal Desert Eagle or an AR-15.[/QUOTE] And reduce gun crime by what, less than 1%? Wow good idea mate that'd really help. [QUOTE]But still, we need to ban the private sale of guns[...][/QUOTE] Please explain how you would enforce that. [QUOTE]BEFORE the republicans of the 1980s removed all the stops[/QUOTE] What the fuck? 1986 and FOPA ringing any bells? [QUOTE]then we should be able to get to a level of europe[/QUOTE] You do realize European gun laws aren't nearly as strict as you'd wish? Seriously. The more you post, the more you come across as either horribly misinformed or willfully obtuse.
the perpetrator was black. WHAT A BIG SURPRISE [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Racist Gimmick" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=GabeNgine;48553004]the perpetrator was black. WHAT A BIG SURPRISE[/QUOTE] Bro, that bait can be seen from space.:s:
[url]http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/27/watch-wdbj7s-heartbreaking-moment-silence-slain-reporter-alison-parker-cameraman-adam[/url] The WDBJ7 staff reporting on the event this morning, holding a moment of silence. Pretty powerful stuff.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48553032][url]http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/27/watch-wdbj7s-heartbreaking-moment-silence-slain-reporter-alison-parker-cameraman-adam[/url] The WDBJ7 staff reporting on the event this morning, holding a moment of silence. Pretty powerful stuff.[/QUOTE] As if the broadcast wasn't enough, the comments are really dampening my mood today.
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3212142/The-human-tape-recorder-TV-murderer-criticized-bosses-appalling-journalistic-standards-reprimanded-wearing-Obama-badge-report-elections.html[/url] Interesting read [editline]27th August 2015[/editline] [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3212361/Horrified-fiancee-slain-cameraman-watched-control-room-future-husband-killed-live-TV-day-wedding-dress-arrived.html[/url] This is just sad. :(
[QUOTE=coolgame8013;48553314]As if the broadcast wasn't enough, the comments are really dampening my mood today.[/QUOTE] I am a bit late, but should mention, there are already truthers to this. They are taking a screen cap of the fiances tweet about her death made at 6:34am, 12 minutes before she died. Truth is, the tweet was made at 9:34am, and when you set twitters timezone pacific time it changes the time to 6:34am. So because people are too stupid to understand timezones, the victims families and friends are currently being or are about to be harassed by paranoid lunatics who think this will be used to pass gun control. I had a good mood today until people started pissing me off about this.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48555950]I am a bit late, but should mention, there are already truthers to this. They are taking a screen cap of the fiances tweet about her death made at 6:34am, 12 minutes before she died. Truth is, the tweet was made at 9:34am, and when you set twitters timezone pacific time it changes the time to 6:34am. So because people are too stupid to understand timezones, the victims families and friends are currently being or are about to be harassed by paranoid lunatics who think this will be used to pass gun control. I had a good mood today until people started pissing me off about this.[/QUOTE] Yeah people are calling the whole thing a hoax. It's fucking downright disrespectful, not to mention disgusting.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48556109]Yeah people are calling the whole thing a hoax. It's fucking downright disrespectful, not to mention disgusting.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Fucking heartless people.
I think one of the worst parts about this is that the shooter prepared all his social media profiles and everything, knowing people would flock to check them out. He posted the video knowing thousands of people would view and share it. It's sickening knowing that people gave him exactly what he wanted. Why would you even share a video of someone being shot dead?
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48556278]Agreed. Fucking heartless people.[/QUOTE] And the media is turning it into a blockbuster. I saw yesterday a headline: "if we watch the shooter's video, does he win?" And the first line was: "To watch or not to watch?" What the fuck. [editline]27th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sharker;48556315]I think one of the worst parts about this is that the shooter prepared all his social media profiles and everything, knowing people would flock to check them out. He posted the video knowing thousands of people would view and share it. It's sickening knowing that people gave him exactly what he wanted. [B]Why would you even share a video of someone being shot dead?[/B][/QUOTE] Mental health issues, not gun issues. People called me stupid for saying he was a lunatic, but, ta-da, he was. Yet again. Another case of someone sick in the head. He would have killed another way if he didn't have a gun. All cases like this will end up with a different story of how they killed the person/people.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48556394]Mental health issues, not gun issues. People called me stupid for saying he was a lunatic, but, ta-da, he was. Yet again. Another case of someone sick in the head. He would have killed another way if he didn't have a gun. All cases like this will end up with a different story of how they killed the person/people.[/QUOTE] That's a big assumption to make, considering guns are one of the most impersonal and easiest ways of killing another person. It's a lot easier for someone to shoot someone else repeatedly from a bit of a distance than it is to get right up close and personal and stab them repeatedly. If for instance he used a knife instead of a gun, at the worst he may have killed only one of the journalists, which, although still a horrible outcome, is a marginally better outcome than having two deaths.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48556519]That's a big assumption to make, considering guns are one of the most impersonal and easiest ways of killing another person. It's a lot easier for someone to shoot someone else repeatedly from a bit of a distance than it is to get right up close and personal and stab them repeatedly. If for instance he used a knife instead of a gun, at the worst he may have killed only one of the journalists, which, although still a horrible outcome, is a marginally better outcome than having two deaths.[/QUOTE] Walking up to an unarmed woman and watching her before dumping a mag into her body is pretty personal in my opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.