Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Faux

CNN: 7 Dead. Up to 30 People hurt; Shooting in a Wisconsin Sikh Temple; Children held as hostages

Recommended Posts

Rifles and Shotguns

I'm pretty sure the reason we have these is wildlife, whether for hunting or defense.

 

Semi-automatic guns (e.g. converted AKs) are legal. Overkill for wildlife, imo.

 

Any time someone says something like this it just shows how they have no clue what they are talking about. An AK styled semi automatic rifle is no more dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle, but since they look scary people rush to ban them. In fact an AK or AR 15 actually shoots a smaller round than say a M1 Garand, which is legal even in Canada.

 

M1 might be legal in Canada but you actually need a license to own a gun. In USA, you can walk up to a store and buy one without any background check.

 

Like I said, I'm not for banning guns because I understand their use especially for people living in rural areas. But the gun laws in the USA is just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1 might be legal in Canada but you actually need a license to own a gun. In USA, you can walk up to a store and buy one without any background check.

For starters, You can't say anything about gun laws in the US without acknowledging that different states have different gun laws. Some states require background checks, others don't. Compare Wisconsin (Which, based on a tiny bit of research, has fairly liberal laws) to California, which has strict gun laws, to see just how wide the difference can be... Though I can't imagine it being particularly difficult to get a gun illegally from the internet for someone who's into that sort of thing.

 

Also:

It is a felony to possess a firearm if you:

  • Have been convicted of a felony
  • Adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult would be a felony
  • Have been found not guilty of a felony by reason of mental disease or defect
  • Have been committed under mental health laws and ordered not to possess a firearm
  • Are the subject of a domestic-abuse or child-abuse restraining order
  • Are ordered not to possess firearms as a subject of a harassment restraining order.

Any person who knowingly provides a firearm to an ineligible person is party to a felony crime. Statute 941.29

http://en.wikipedia....nsin#Preemption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that most states have liberal gun rights. Even for the stricter states, nothing actually prevents someone from taking a gun from another state and bringing it over. If people can smuggle guns to Canada from US, crossing states would be a breeze.

 

As for your second point: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

tl;dr: individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because they are "under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale" ,doesn't mean that that the majority of gun shows don't require it. For an individual that doesn't live in the US, you need a more substantial argument to justify your first sentence.

 

 

For that matter, what do Wisconsin's laws have to do with this? Anyone could just as easily obtain any number of guns legally and bring them into another state legally. What's from stopping someone from doing this in the state with the strictest gun laws?


Working on max and completionist capes.

2435/2475

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should've posted this first.

Can we please show respect to the victims and hold off the policy debate for a while? I feel we should all be showing empathy, and at the very least wait for the complete picture before making hasty generalizations or statements we'll later regret.

 

What happened is a terrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims, their friends and families, along with the parents of the shooter. I can't imagine how they feel.

 

What irritates me with each of these events is the asinine commentary that occurs after each one, and how insensitive people can be to the victims and their families.

"If only there were no such thing as guns, these people would still be alive"

"If only everyone was carrying a gun and the damage could have been minimized"

"If only we had another law to try and prevent people from ... "

 

The unfortunate reality is that there are bad people in this world that want to harm others, and short of turning everyone into mindless zombies, there's absolutely no way people can prevent this sort of tragedy from occurring.

 

The last point I'd like to make, and one that's been stated over and over about how guns allow for worse massacres than knives, is simply wrong. Doing a quick google search on "mass knife attack" yielded 8 separate events that occurred in the past few years:

[hide]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...-china-19091840

http://edition.cnn.c....school.attack/

http://online.wsj.co...2326321030.html

http://en.wikipedia....school_massacre

http://en.wikipedia....habara_massacre

http://www.mixmag.ne...ouse-mafia-show

http://www.news-hera...2a780618632.txt

 

And lest we forget about how 9-11 was perpetrated

http://archives.cnn....tion.terrorism/

[/hide]

The difference between a gun massacre and a knife massacre is that no one in the media has a political agenda with knives, they only care about gun control.

 

EDIT:

Found this to be relevant

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779#.UB9QraPHkzx

The apparent gunman was shot and killed in an exchange of gunfire with the wounded police officer outside the temple and was one of the seven dead.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rob

Even if guns save lives, they take lives too. I'm not just talking about murders here, I'm talking about accidents. They save people but they also kill (innocent) people even when killing isn't intended.

I don't think anyone has provided any 'extreme' examples. We've only really been discussing the thread's topic's shooting and TDKR shooting.

 

If 40ish injured/killed or over a dozen killed are not an extreme example of gun violence, then I don't know what is.

 

12,632 people were shot and killed in the USA alone in the year 2007. That's equal to close to 37 people being shot and killed a day. So that's like today's shooting every single freaking day. Worse, actually, since in today's shooting it was 40 killed/injured instead of 40 killed. You can also tack on 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. Plus another 17,352 suicides using guns (although I'll admit that these suicides would probably be commit with another method if guns weren't accessible, but I think it's safe to say that some of them wouldn't have happened if they didn't have access to guns).

 

If you want an example that isn't extreme, there you go. That's yearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Great Britain needs to ban knives.

Ministers will today for the first time publish knife crime figures as part of the annual crime statistics. They are expected to show that there were over 20,000 knife crimes - 60 a day - where people were stabbed or mugged at knife point in the past year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/2419444/Knife-deaths-up-by-a-third-since-Labour-came-to-power.html

 

There's no way to get an accurate picture though.

Unlike gunshot victims, hospitals don't have to report knife related crime. So, the figures below may not paint the complete picture of knife crime across London as they don't account for unreported incidents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/2012/apr/12/london-knife-crime

 

That's not even to mention the number of times someone accidentally cuts themselves. Who knows how high the number might actually be?


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Great Britain needs to ban knives.

Ministers will today for the first time publish knife crime figures as part of the annual crime statistics. They are expected to show that there were over 20,000 knife crimes - 60 a day - where people were stabbed or mugged at knife point in the past year.

http://www.telegraph...e-to-power.html

 

There's no way to get an accurate picture though.

Unlike gunshot victims, hospitals don't have to report knife related crime. So, the figures below may not paint the complete picture of knife crime across London as they don't account for unreported incidents.

http://www.guardian....don-knife-crime

 

That's not even to mention the number of times someone accidentally cuts themselves. Who knows how high the number might actually be?

 

Knives are IIRC banned in public places now. just like guns, they should only be allowed in the correct places (in the home for knives). Knife crime is also much more reported in the UK than the Us because it is the worst dangerous crime we have (due to low gun crime). The government has been on a very large campaign in recent years to reduce the numbers of knives on the streets.

 

See the difference between the UK and US? Our government actually aim to tackle the problem instead of cowering away from it because it may lose them some power. The government should look after the country and its people first, then personal power second.

 

 

Also, on your previous statement about how common knife massacres are, you really generalised badly. For a start, most of those were in China, which is has a lot of problems with depression and mental illness' not being dealt with. The situation is completely different there and the rest of the civilised world. None of them however, were in the US. However, the main point I want to bring up is the scale. I may be mistaken, but most of them seemed to be between 2 and 10 people being stabbed, with usually only a very small fraction of that killed. Copare that to these gun massacres. While crime can happen with knives, they usually end up harming a lot less.

 

I also think the comparisons to knives is a lame diversionary tactic. Many things are dangerous, but just because there are other dangerous items, does not mean the most dangerous shouldn't be banned at al. Let's legalise bombs, because guns are just as dangerous?


Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!

zqXeV.jpg

Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the difference between the UK and US? Our government actually aim to tackle the problem instead of cowering away from it because it may lose them some power. The government should look after the country and its people first, then personal power second.

What's the problem? Guns, Knives, or violent crime and criminals? Banning guns in the UK hasn't stopped violent crime. It hasn't even stopped gun crime.

 

Also, on your previous statement about how common knife massacres are, you really generalised badly. For a start, most of those were in China, which is has a lot of problems with depression and mental illness' not being dealt with. The situation is completely different there and the rest of the civilised world. None of them however, were in the US. However, the main point I want to bring up is the scale. I may be mistaken, but most of them seemed to be between 2 and 10 people being stabbed, with usually only a very small fraction of that killed. Copare that to these gun massacres. While crime can happen with knives, they usually end up harming a lot less.

You didn't look at each of the articles. 8 killed, 5 wounded. 8 killed, 15 wounded. 8 killed, 32 wounded. 7 killed, 10 wounded. 4 wounded. 4 wounded. Also, if you had looked you would've known that there were 2 incidents in Japan, 1 in Dublin, and 1 in Columbus Ohio (last time I checked, that was in the US.)

 

I also think the comparisons to knives is a lame diversionary tactic. Many things are dangerous, but just because there are other dangerous items, does not mean the most dangerous shouldn't be banned at al. Let's legalise bombs, because guns are just as dangerous?

Bombs aren't legal, but you can fashion an IED from lots of household items. Bleach is legal. Ammonia is legal. Mix the two, violent reaction that will seriously harm people. Propane canisters are legal, which are basically bombs waiting to be set off.

 

The point I'm trying to make is this. You can legislate the heck out of anything, but in the end the only people you're harming are the law abiding citizens.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not seriously saying guns are less dangerous than knives are you ?


FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not seriously saying guns are less dangerous than knives are you ?

I'm guessing that the point he's trying to make is that violent criminals are going to commit violent crime with whatever they can, and that household items are surprisingly dangerous.

 

Still, the reason that people have a problem with guns is that they make it so much easier, and there aren't many legal uses for them outside of hunting and recreational shooting, while knives, bleach, and so on are pretty much required for everyday life. It's not a particularly good comparison in that regard.

 

Still, the criminal here apparently had ties to a white supremacist group. Much like the shooter in Colorado, I'm not sure if increased gun regulation would have stopped him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if guns save lives, they take lives too. I'm not just talking about murders here, I'm talking about accidents. They save people but they also kill (innocent) people even when killing isn't intended.

I don't think anyone has provided any 'extreme' examples. We've only really been discussing the thread's topic's shooting and TDKR shooting.

 

If 40ish injured/killed or over a dozen killed are not an extreme example of gun violence, then I don't know what is.

 

12,632 people were shot and killed in the USA alone in the year 2007. That's equal to close to 37 people being shot and killed a day. So that's like today's shooting every single freaking day. Worse, actually, since in today's shooting it was 40 killed/injured instead of 40 killed. You can also tack on 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. Plus another 17,352 suicides using guns (although I'll admit that these suicides would probably be commit with another method if guns weren't accessible, but I think it's safe to say that some of them wouldn't have happened if they didn't have access to guns).

 

If you want an example that isn't extreme, there you go. That's yearly.

 

I would like to point out that counting suicides in gun deaths is asinine. Someone who is suicidal will attempt it--with or without guns.

 

Regardless, the problem with guns in the United States is not that we have guns, but the fact that some states allow guns to be purchased far too easily, as well as the lack of training. Sweden is prime example of a country where gun control is taken seriously. Most anyone can buy a gun in the US depending on the state--I agree--which is not good.

 

I am absolutely tired of nanny government* supporters. In many cases, laws only hurt citizens who abide by the laws. We do not need less freedoms. What we do need is proper education, be it guns or otherwise. That is the problem in the US. If you live/lived here, you should/would know. Our education system is horrible, and the culture that comes from ignorance is even worse. An educated bloke is much less likely to kill someone than a "gangsta." Someone who is happy in life is also less likely to commit crimes than someone who is depressed and down on his or her luck.

 

In any case, I do believe it's not the gun culture that is at fault, but the lack of education about guns. I, personally, believe that there should be some sort of training in each and every state for a lengthy enough period to teach future gun owners. Furthermore, regular background checks should be a necessity. Guns may be a right given to the people of the United States, but this does not mean that we [Americans] should abuse said right.

 

*: Henry David Thoreau wisely pointed out that the best government is that which governs least. I believe this to be true as well. When you have an overpowering government, one that is in every aspect of your life, it does not help. It impedes on progress. There are so many idiotic, senseless laws out there. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe because legislation periods are way too long. Or maybe because politicians are just... politicians. Where are the laws that protect the citizen, instead of entangling him in a web of uncertainty?


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job contradicting yourself in the first two paragraphs. You just said USA should restrict gun purchasing but at the same time not lessen your "freedoms".

 

Anyway, update on the shooter:

 

He was armed with a
.
The gun was
by Page in Wisconsin
.
Four people were killed inside the temple, and two people, plus Page, died outside. Page killed five men and one woman, ranging in age from 39 to 84.
Three men were transported to
, including one of the responding officers.

 

 

Sounds like the guy was an Army veteran who had issues coming off his duty. 6 people dead because... well NY's Mayor Bloomberg said it for me,

 

"The fact that criminals, terrorists and other mentally ill people have access to guns is a national crisis," Bloomberg said during a visit to a Sikh community center in Queens.
Edited by Kimberly
Removed off-topic banter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, please remember that the forum rules still apply here.

 

If you don't like someone, use the ignore list. If you don't like a point someone made, you can say so - but you have to elaborate as to why. Personal attacks or "trolling" (statements made that don't positively contribute to discussion and aggitate users) aren't tolerated here, and have no place in the quality environment you all work so hard to maintain here.

 

PM me if you have any questions - or better yet, report those you see who are breaking the rules.


hzvjpwS.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
large fonts and bla bla

 

The gun being legally purchased is, well, obvious. You pointed out the lax Wisconsin gun laws in the first post.

 

And you think I contradicted myself, but I didn't. You seem to think the federal government controls state governments...that's not the case*. Technically, the Constitution should only limit the powers of the federal government. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise for the most part, except on gun laws, or the Second Amendment. Consequently, I believe that state governments should exercise their right to limit gun laws to prevent them falling into criminal hands. Of course, it won't do much, as I've pointed out--but it'll help considerably when a schizophrenic prone to violence is prevented from buying a gun from the normal routes. Such a person is unlikely, due to their illness, to find another route. The same goes for many other situations (children, teens, and young adults, for example, would find it mighty difficult to procure a gun even with the power of the internet or real life blackmarkets...).

 

*: It goes to show you don't know much about the United States government, its foundations, the reasoning of the founding fathers, etc. Implying "one government fits all" is pretty... idiotic. There is a reason why the United States has been successful, regardless of what you think.

 

semi-unrelated: By the way, you know what causes more harm than good in the United States? Food. The state of school food is absurd. Unhealthy food is considerably cheaper than proper sustenance. But I don't see you railing against crappy food? Why? Shouldn't the government focus on the "greater good?" More people die because of unhealthy life choices (imposed on others, no less!) than guns...


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
large fonts and bla bla

 

The gun being legally purchased is, well, obvious. You pointed out the lax Wisconsin gun laws in the first post.

 

And you think I contradicted myself, but I didn't. You seem to think the federal government controls state governments...that's not the case*. Technically, the Constitution should only limit the powers of the federal government. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise for the most part, except on gun laws, or the Second Amendment. Consequently, I believe that state governments should exercise their right to limit gun laws to prevent them falling into criminal hands. Of course, it won't do much, as I've pointed out--but it'll help considerably when a schizophrenic prone to violence is prevented from buying a gun from the normal routes. Such a person is unlikely, due to their illness, to find another route. The same goes for many other situations (children, teens, and young adults, for example, would find it mighty difficult to procure a gun even with the power of the internet or real life blackmarkets...).

 

*: It goes to show you don't know much about the United States government, its foundations, the reasoning of the founding fathers, etc. Implying "one government fits all" is pretty... idiotic. There is a reason why the United States has been successful, regardless of what you think.

 

semi-unrelated: By the way, you know what causes more harm than good in the United States? Food. The state of school food is absurd. Unhealthy food is considerably cheaper than proper sustenance. But I don't see you railing against crappy food? Why? Shouldn't the government focus on the "greater good?" More people die because of unhealthy life choices (imposed on others, no less!) than guns...

 

The fact that you brought up food in a weapon argument really doesn't help your case. People who eat their life away do so within their own rights. People who die from guns are on a separate sphere. That's how shrewd your logic is. Just because people die by obesity doesn't make it okay for people to be killed from shootings. That's like saying how more people die from old age makes death by murder even better. Kind of [bleep]ed up.

 

And your variance on federal vs state is irrelevant. Whether it's the state or on the federal level, limiting freedom is limiting freedom. It's the generality of it all that matters. Even if half your country bans guns, it won't make a lick of difference because of your open borders where people can cross states without being checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
large fonts and bla bla

 

The gun being legally purchased is, well, obvious. You pointed out the lax Wisconsin gun laws in the first post.

 

And you think I contradicted myself, but I didn't. You seem to think the federal government controls state governments...that's not the case*. Technically, the Constitution should only limit the powers of the federal government. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise for the most part, except on gun laws, or the Second Amendment. Consequently, I believe that state governments should exercise their right to limit gun laws to prevent them falling into criminal hands. Of course, it won't do much, as I've pointed out--but it'll help considerably when a schizophrenic prone to violence is prevented from buying a gun from the normal routes. Such a person is unlikely, due to their illness, to find another route. The same goes for many other situations (children, teens, and young adults, for example, would find it mighty difficult to procure a gun even with the power of the internet or real life blackmarkets...).

 

*: It goes to show you don't know much about the United States government, its foundations, the reasoning of the founding fathers, etc. Implying "one government fits all" is pretty... idiotic. There is a reason why the United States has been successful, regardless of what you think.

 

semi-unrelated: By the way, you know what causes more harm than good in the United States? Food. The state of school food is absurd. Unhealthy food is considerably cheaper than proper sustenance. But I don't see you railing against crappy food? Why? Shouldn't the government focus on the "greater good?" More people die because of unhealthy life choices (imposed on others, no less!) than guns...

 

The fact that you brought up food in a weapon argument really doesn't help your case. People who eat their life away do so within their own rights. People who die from guns are on a separate sphere. That's how shrewd your logic is. Just because people die by obesity doesn't make it okay for people to be killed from shootings. That's like saying how more people die from old age makes death by murder even better. Kind of [bleep]ed up.

 

And your variance on federal vs state is irrelevant. Whether it's the state or on the federal level, limiting freedom is limiting freedom. It's the generality of it all that matters. Even if half your country bans guns, it won't make a lick of difference because of your open borders where people can cross states without being checked.

 

Yet again you don't know what you're talking about. What is the point in saving lives one way but not another? Do you not see how "shrewd" your logic is? By the way, oftentimes poorer parents will feed their children crap because that's all they can afford. Now you're telling me those kids can do anything about it? Really? And school lunches are not any healthier than processed food. So, what can a child/student do?

 

And the state vs federal is extremely relevant. A large government can't govern properly. Local governments often have a much more impact than the federal. But I love how you only look at facts that help your case, disregarding the rest...


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Faux that bringing up other things that kill is just a fruitless answer to any question. The exact same argument comes up when people discuss legalising Marijuana, compared to alcohol and cigarettes.

 

I will say to this argument the same I say to that one: Make a topic on the regulation of those items and leave them out of this discussion.


Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!

zqXeV.jpg

Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Faux that bringing up other things that kill is just a fruitless answer to any question. The exact same argument comes up when people discuss legalising Marijuana, compared to alcohol and cigarettes.

 

I will say to this argument the same I say to that one: Make a topic on the regulation of those items and leave them out of this discussion.

 

It's not. It's extremely relevant to the question/argument. Why go after guns when there are plenty of things out there that do much more harm and, with the aid of the government, be regulated much more easily? Oh, yeah, because guns are only made to kill! The madness! You just don't like guns because the blame can fall on others much more easily than it can for much more important issues.


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Faux that bringing up other things that kill is just a fruitless answer to any question. The exact same argument comes up when people discuss legalising Marijuana, compared to alcohol and cigarettes.

 

I will say to this argument the same I say to that one: Make a topic on the regulation of those items and leave them out of this discussion.

 

It's not. It's extremely relevant to the question/argument. Why go after guns when there are plenty of things out there that do much more harm and, with the aid of the government, be regulated much more easily? Oh, yeah, because guns are only made to kill! The madness! You just don't like guns because the blame can fall on others much more easily than it can for much more important issues.

 

People are literally only capable of considering one thing at a time, you heard it here first folks.


FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that thing is boobs ;)

 

I don't think tightening gun laws would do much good, but it would probably help a bit....I think canada has a pretty fair compromise on guns, but I don't know how the US would take to it.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Faux that bringing up other things that kill is just a fruitless answer to any question. The exact same argument comes up when people discuss legalising Marijuana, compared to alcohol and cigarettes.

 

I will say to this argument the same I say to that one: Make a topic on the regulation of those items and leave them out of this discussion.

 

It's not. It's extremely relevant to the question/argument. Why go after guns when there are plenty of things out there that do much more harm and, with the aid of the government, be regulated much more easily? Oh, yeah, because guns are only made to kill! The madness! You just don't like guns because the blame can fall on others much more easily than it can for much more important issues.

 

I dislike the regulation because in my opinion it could save lives to change regulation and the culture in the US.

 

Other things need regulation too, and I agree that people are eating themselves to death, and that just as much, if not more effort needs putting into that than gun laws. However, this is a thread about a killing by gunshot. There are so man things that need regulating in the modern world, but in this thread at hand, it is guns that are the topic.


Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!

zqXeV.jpg

Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I disagree with Wisconsin's gun laws, I don't think guns are to blame here. Truthfully if the guy wanted to shoot up a temple, he'd have been able to get a gun illegally if there were stricter laws towards guns/guns were completely banned. Regardless, this is horrible and I hope there's going to be a peaceful resolution - or at least peaceful towards the hostages. If the shooter(s) are killed in the process then so be it.

If someone wants a gun, they will acquire it.

 

 

Yes, because the gun laws are crap in the first place. If they were made illegal now, there are still hundreds of thousands of guns in circulation which would indeed be easy to get illegally. But, Instead of thinking about the present, think about future generations. With a change of law comes the possibility of a change of culture with future generations, with guns being perceived rightly as bad things tor civilians to have, and the possibility of many being taken out of circulation, making aquiring them illegally much more difficult, stopping many of these shootings from happening.

 

no it wont. If somone really wanted they can make a molotov cocktail easily if they want to kill a group of people and are unable to find a gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I disagree with Wisconsin's gun laws, I don't think guns are to blame here. Truthfully if the guy wanted to shoot up a temple, he'd have been able to get a gun illegally if there were stricter laws towards guns/guns were completely banned. Regardless, this is horrible and I hope there's going to be a peaceful resolution - or at least peaceful towards the hostages. If the shooter(s) are killed in the process then so be it.

If someone wants a gun, they will acquire it.

 

 

Yes, because the gun laws are crap in the first place. If they were made illegal now, there are still hundreds of thousands of guns in circulation which would indeed be easy to get illegally. But, Instead of thinking about the present, think about future generations. With a change of law comes the possibility of a change of culture with future generations, with guns being perceived rightly as bad things tor civilians to have, and the possibility of many being taken out of circulation, making aquiring them illegally much more difficult, stopping many of these shootings from happening.

 

no it wont. If somone really wanted they can make a molotov cocktail easily if they want to kill a group of people and are unable to find a gun

 

I don't think a molotov cocktail has ever killed somebody let alone a group of people.


FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.