Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)

[Dick7Access]

Okay, baby steps.

What was your purpose in saying:

Some want to take pictures. In some case it can be helpful, but not many. Look at the voter intimidation by the black panthers. Nothing was done.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Some want to take pictures. In some case it can be helpful, but not many. Look at the voter intimidation by the black panthers. Nothing was done.

I'm having a hard time following you. This is where I bow out and save myself the aggravation.

 

[Brianwarnock]

This thread has developed into a load of bullshit with some posts taking the piss, it should be shut down.

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

I'm having a hard time following you. This is where I bow out and save myself the aggravation.

They have video's of the voter intimation, but nothng was done.

 

[Dick7Access]

I'm having a hard time following you. This is where I bow out and save myself the aggravation.

Adam, don't get aggravated. I don’t know you, but I still think you are an ok guy.

 

[SmallTime]

Well, In Pakistan there's very weak gun laws, in fact there's very weak laws full stop. In remote areas even children carry firearms twice their own body size, and I can tell you that everyone knows someone or of someone who's been shot. So yes, absolutely and without question strict gun controls are a great thing and they work by enlarge. On the flip side restricting gun ownership also makes for easier population control.

What's even more telling, is the answers gun owners give to a question like why do you want to own a gun? 9/10 times the answer's 'it's for self defence'. I suppose against some else with a gun! So surly the best solution must be no more guns, much stricter arms control and much harsher punishments for illegal ownership.

I've yet to hear a well reasoned and convincing argument for the pro's of gun ownership especially in cities where there aren't wild beasts roaming around.

 

[Dick7Access]

In the USA we have wild beast in all our cites!!!

 

[Dick7Access]

just not the four legged kind

 

[SmallTime]

and I suppose they all have access to guns. I suspect many of your beasts would become puppies without the shooter.

 

[Brianwarnock]

NewYork police injure bystanders

Linkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

Now what were the amateur gunslingers saying about how it would be better if everybody carried a gun.

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

NewYork police injure bystanders

Linkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

Now what were the amateur gunslingers saying about how it would be better if everybody carried a gun.

Brian

Well we would have at least 9 more people to be shooting it up

 

[dan-cat]

NewYork police injure bystanders

Linkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

Now what were the amateur gunslingers saying about how it would be better if everybody carried a gun.

Brian

I'm not sure how they managed to hit nine different people shooting at a single target. They must have all been firing from different angles.

 

[Dick7Access]

NewYork police injure bystanders

Linkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

Now what were the amateur gunslingers saying about how it would be better if everybody carried a gun.

Brian

I had to dig a little deeper on that story. It seems those nine people were on the mayor’s hit list for ordering 18 oz. soft drinks.

 

[Vassago]

Obviously, police should no longer be allowed to carry guns. The guy shoots one person, they turn around and shoot nine trying to stop him? Really?

 

[Dick7Access]

Obviously, police should no longer be allowed to carry guns. The guy shoots one person, they turn around and shoot nine trying to stop him? Really?

Jax old buddy, it's no secret that I am a gun nut, but your above quote is starting to make sense.

 

[Fifty2One]

Those 9 were clearly standing too close to the original gunman trying to take a photograph.

Not all 9 injured were shot, if you care to delve deeper then some foreign news report who jumped onto the sensationalism bandwagon.

NewYork police injure bystanders

Linkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

Now what were the amateur gunslingers saying about how it would be better if everybody carried a gun.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

Those 9 were clearly standing too close to the original gunman trying to take a photograph.

Not all 9 injured were shot, if you care to delve deeper then some foreign news report who jumped onto the sensationalism bandwagon.

Really? Because this news report's title says it all...:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8720e2-eedf-11e1-afd8-097e90f99d05_story.html

"9 injured outside Empire State building were hit by police gunfire."

Sounds like all nine were shot to me. How else can you be injured by gunfire? Even "fragments" count, no matter how they want to word it to make it sound better.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I knew that the gun nuts would stay in denial, BTW how close were the people in the cinema to the shooter?

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

I knew that the gun nuts would stay in denial, BTW how close were the people in the cinema to the shooter?

Brian

Hey Brian, I am not in denial, but I am confused. It doesn't make sense to me how could the cops be that bad a shot. I can’t condemn or defend as there are too many unanswered questions in my mind. Thanks, however for considering me a gun nut.

 

[Fifty2One]

Washington Post - also on the bandwagon - amazing how these 'facts' are published in the media before investigations are completed.

Never the less I guess I am one of these "gun nuts" because earlier I posted that it makes sense for a gun owner to protect themselves. I also suggested that a person operating a firearm be properly trained. So as someone raised the issue of the NYPD taking down a shooter and the colateral damage, I will answer that with the thoughts that the patrol officers were not properly trained for the task they faced that day. 15 years service and never firing on patrol in the line of duty is a long time, discharging 16 bullets to gain 10 direct hits is also not very proficient operation of a sidearm. Confronting someone (who is armed and has just killed another person) where there are a lot of prospective secondary victims is also not a good plan.
Obviously Jeffrey Johnson, civilian who only shot his intended target, was a better marksman then Officer Craig Matthews or Officer Robert Sinishtaj. His actions prior to confronting his intended victim also showed he had better fore thought then the police officers.

Really? Because this news report's title says it all...:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8720e2-eedf-11e1-afd8-097e90f99d05_story.html

"9 injured outside Empire State building were hit by police gunfire."

Sounds like all nine were shot to me. How else can you be injured by gunfire? Even "fragments" count, no matter how they want to word it to make it sound better.