17 Dead in school shooting.

[Rolluplostinspace]

Shouldn't you be happy about this? There's 17 less of us now.

You saw the bit about your country being anti intellectual yeah and again decided to prove the point.
You never fail.

You spend an inordinate amount of time bitching about Americans. It's an obsession of yours. You don't like them or their country. It's not anti intellectual to suggest that you would like less of them walking around this planet.

Where are all these posts I spend an inordinate amount of time making Maddog?
The event happened in your shithole I posted it up as news.
I also said I don't think prohibition is the right way to go etc etc etc.
Some of us hate your foreign policy and speak about it cowboy.
Tough shit if you don't like it now dry your tears.
Some kids didn't make it home from school that day.
That's pretty grim and then a knobhead like you turn up crying about your butt hurt feelings that have nothing to do with the real issues.
Poor little cowboy.

I rest my case. ;)

I can assure you shithole was thrown in there intentionally.
You think you have some kind of case in the middle of the tears of lots of families.
Freak.

[Avon Barksdale]

If you are seeing a new, undesired behavior in people, you have to identify the new stimuli that has been introduced to cause this new behavior.

Access hasn't changed, nor have the weapons themselves.

I will admit that use of the AR and its variants has increased even though availability hasn't changed.

I'm in the middle of reading an article and one of its theories (along with political radicalisation, aberrant behaviour and mental health issues) is the "contagion" impact of copycat killings which are highly planned and premeditated. I hadn't really thought of the issue in that way before.

[Guest]

It's Britain's fault?

Aus restricted gun ownership after Port Arthur and we did after Dunblaine. It didn't cause any sort of issue other than not having schools, pubs, anywhere where people meet up being shot to shit. It's not about social and economic issues at this level, it's about the availability of machines made to kill in the quickest way possible to anyone at all.

If someone is intent on killing though they will find a method of doing so though. We've seen that here with acts of terrorism involving motor vehicles. A gun is a tool so don't we ask why someone wishes to use it?

I don't buy the argument that is solely an availability issue and while of course drawing lessons from Australia will be useful they don't necessarily have the same social issues such as the use of opiates for example.

It's me again the New yorker, I own firearms Some for fun some hunting and some for protection.
I've had my license for different firearms for roughly 17 years. I had to go through a myriad of hassle to get a side arm. I was given one which is extremely hard to get within city limits because I put forward a good case to own one.
I can make a few phone calls on a throw away phone and buy any firearm I want with Ammunition . I can do this within The NY city limits. If I go upstate it becomes even easier to get weapons.
I used to live in the South West of England, I haven't visited there for several years. But I can guarantee you I can step off the plane and make my way to Bristol make a call and get picked up and driven to a bar where I would meet a man who could get what I wanted within an hour.

[Stooo]

Sure, that makes sense.

I accept that no law is ever going to be perfect and that some legislation could help reduce mass shootings but is availability the only issue and if not what else should be addressed? It seems to me that there are probably some other issues which need to be addressed at the same time.

Availability is the only issue.

[Guest]

It's Britain's fault?

Aus restricted gun ownership after Port Arthur and we did after Dunblaine. It didn't cause any sort of issue other than not having schools, pubs, anywhere where people meet up being shot to shit. It's not about social and economic issues at this level, it's about the availability of machines made to kill in the quickest way possible to anyone at all.

If someone is intent on killing though they will find a method of doing so though. We've seen that here with acts of terrorism involving motor vehicles. A gun is a tool so don't we ask why someone wishes to use it?

I don't buy the argument that is solely an availability issue and while of course drawing lessons from Australia will be useful they don't necessarily have the same social issues such as the use of opiates for example.

It's me again the New yorker, I own firearms Some for fun some hunting and some for protection.
I've had my license for different firearms for roughly 17 years. I had to go through a myriad of hassle to get a side arm. I was given one which is extremely hard to get within city limits because I put forward a good case to own one.
I can make a few phone calls on a throw away phone and buy any firearm I want with Ammunition . I can do this within The NY city limits. If I go upstate it becomes even easier to get weapons.
I used to live in the South West of England, I haven't visited there for several years. But I can guarantee you I can step off the plane and make my way to Bristol make a call and get picked up and driven to a bar where I would meet a man who could get what I wanted within an hour.

Any decent person would report anyone selling guns in a non-gun society.

[Guest]

WTF does that even mean ?

Apart from you trying to blame anyone and everyone else for the sad state of affairs that gives mentalists free access (yes, free access) to assault weapons and the ammunition to kill a battalion. Instead of realising that your gun control / complete lack of it is entirely down to the amount of money and votes donated to political parties by those with the very worst motives to lobby - greed.[/quote]





And there you have your answer, The mentalists can get their hands on weapons.
I read today that the left wing press were rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of laying this at Trumps feet.
One headline was Trump blames shooters school friends for not notifying authorities about him before hand.
But if you think about it Trump is not far wrong.
He must have been acting strange for a while and yet no one thought to tell the cops?
They have a thing over here about not snitching, It's youth thing and nobody wants to be a snitch. So you end up with 17 school mates dead.
Tell me something, If the government turned up at your house one day and said pack up you have one week to move out we want your house.
What would you do? pack up and leave?
Or would you barricade yourself in your house and put up a fight?
I'd imagine you wouldn't just say ok you win I'm off.
Now imagine trying to confiscate 300 odd million firearms from Citizens.
Tell you what when You ban knives and try take the knifes off of your Sikh population. Come back to me and we'll talk then.

[Stooo]

And there you have your answer, The mentalists can get their hands on weapons.
I read today that the left wing press were rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of laying this at Trumps feet.
One headline was Trump blames shooters school friends for not notifying authorities about him before hand.
But if you think about it Trump is not far wrong.
He must have been acting strange for a while and yet no one thought to tell the cops?
They have a thing over here about not snitching, It's youth thing and nobody wants to be a snitch. So you end up with 17 school mates dead.
Tell me something, If the government turned up at your house one day and said pack up you have one week to move out we want your house.
What would you do? pack up and leave?
Or would you barricade yourself in your house and put up a fight?
I'd imagine you wouldn't just say ok you win I'm off.
Now imagine trying to confiscate 300 odd million firearms from Citizens.
Tell you what when You ban knives and try take the knifes off of your Sikh population. Come back to me and we'll talk then.

Knives, seriously?

[Avon Barksdale]

It's Britain's fault?

Aus restricted gun ownership after Port Arthur and we did after Dunblaine. It didn't cause any sort of issue other than not having schools, pubs, anywhere where people meet up being shot to shit. It's not about social and economic issues at this level, it's about the availability of machines made to kill in the quickest way possible to anyone at all.

If someone is intent on killing though they will find a method of doing so though. We've seen that here with acts of terrorism involving motor vehicles. A gun is a tool so don't we ask why someone wishes to use it?

I don't buy the argument that is solely an availability issue and while of course drawing lessons from Australia will be useful they don't necessarily have the same social issues such as the use of opiates for example.

It's me again the New yorker, I own firearms Some for fun some hunting and some for protection.
I've had my license for different firearms for roughly 17 years. I had to go through a myriad of hassle to get a side arm. I was given one which is extremely hard to get within city limits because I put forward a good case to own one.
I can make a few phone calls on a throw away phone and buy any firearm I want with Ammunition . I can do this within The NY city limits. If I go upstate it becomes even easier to get weapons.
I used to live in the South West of England, I haven't visited there for several years. But I can guarantee you I can step off the plane and make my way to Bristol make a call and get picked up and driven to a bar where I would meet a man who could get what I wanted within an hour.

Right, and if these are highly motivated individuals who sometimes spend years planning these attacks they will find a way to achieve their aims and obtain the firearms they need to do so.

I've moved on to an article referencing a researcher specialising in gun violence at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health stating that "political, cultural and legal challenges" make it highly unlikely that the US could replicate Australia's approach but it doesn't specify exactly what those challenges are which makes me a little wary given the quality of some reporting.

[Guest]

It's Britain's fault?

Aus restricted gun ownership after Port Arthur and we did after Dunblaine. It didn't cause any sort of issue other than not having schools, pubs, anywhere where people meet up being shot to shit. It's not about social and economic issues at this level, it's about the availability of machines made to kill in the quickest way possible to anyone at all.

If someone is intent on killing though they will find a method of doing so though. We've seen that here with acts of terrorism involving motor vehicles. A gun is a tool so don't we ask why someone wishes to use it?

I don't buy the argument that is solely an availability issue and while of course drawing lessons from Australia will be useful they don't necessarily have the same social issues such as the use of opiates for example.

It's me again the New yorker, I own firearms Some for fun some hunting and some for protection.
I've had my license for different firearms for roughly 17 years. I had to go through a myriad of hassle to get a side arm. I was given one which is extremely hard to get within city limits because I put forward a good case to own one.
I can make a few phone calls on a throw away phone and buy any firearm I want with Ammunition . I can do this within The NY city limits. If I go upstate it becomes even easier to get weapons.
I used to live in the South West of England, I haven't visited there for several years. But I can guarantee you I can step off the plane and make my way to Bristol make a call and get picked up and driven to a bar where I would meet a man who could get what I wanted within an hour.

Any decent person would report anyone selling guns in a non-gun society.

When you leave your bedsit, You will find there aren't that many decent about in the real world.
What's the divorce rate as an example?
Couples can't even be nice enough to each other how do you think strangers will act

[Guest]

WTF does that even mean ?

Apart from you trying to blame anyone and everyone else for the sad state of affairs that gives mentalists free access (yes, free access) to assault weapons and the ammunition to kill a battalion. Instead of realising that your gun control / complete lack of it is entirely down to the amount of money and votes donated to political parties by those with the very worst motives to lobby - greed.

And there you have your answer, The mentalists can get their hands on weapons.
I read today that the left wing press were rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of laying this at Trumps feet.
One headline was Trump blames shooters school friends for not notifying authorities about him before hand.
But if you think about it Trump is not far wrong.
He must have been acting strange for a while and yet no one thought to tell the cops?
They have a thing over here about not snitching, It's youth thing and nobody wants to be a snitch. So you end up with 17 school mates dead.
Tell me something, If the government turned up at your house one day and said pack up you have one week to move out we want your house.
What would you do? pack up and leave?
Or would you barricade yourself in your house and put up a fight?
I'd imagine you wouldn't just say ok you win I'm off.
Now imagine trying to confiscate 300 odd million firearms from Citizens.
Tell you what when You ban knives and try take the knifes off of your Sikh population. Come back to me and we'll talk then.[/quote]

Why are most mentalists voters for the Republicans?

[Guest]

It's Britain's fault?

Aus restricted gun ownership after Port Arthur and we did after Dunblaine. It didn't cause any sort of issue other than not having schools, pubs, anywhere where people meet up being shot to shit. It's not about social and economic issues at this level, it's about the availability of machines made to kill in the quickest way possible to anyone at all.

If someone is intent on killing though they will find a method of doing so though. We've seen that here with acts of terrorism involving motor vehicles. A gun is a tool so don't we ask why someone wishes to use it?

I don't buy the argument that is solely an availability issue and while of course drawing lessons from Australia will be useful they don't necessarily have the same social issues such as the use of opiates for example.

It's me again the New yorker, I own firearms Some for fun some hunting and some for protection.
I've had my license for different firearms for roughly 17 years. I had to go through a myriad of hassle to get a side arm. I was given one which is extremely hard to get within city limits because I put forward a good case to own one.
I can make a few phone calls on a throw away phone and buy any firearm I want with Ammunition . I can do this within The NY city limits. If I go upstate it becomes even easier to get weapons.
I used to live in the South West of England, I haven't visited there for several years. But I can guarantee you I can step off the plane and make my way to Bristol make a call and get picked up and driven to a bar where I would meet a man who could get what I wanted within an hour.

Right, and if these are highly motivated individuals who sometimes spend years planning these attacks they will find a way to achieve their aims and obtain the firearms they need to do so.

I've moved on to an article referencing a researcher specialising in gun violence at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health stating that "political, cultural and legal challenges" make it highly unlikely that the US could replicate Australia's approach but it doesn't specify exactly what those challenges are which makes me a little wary given the quality of some reporting.

You have no idea what those challenges are? FFS

http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction.org/static/images/NRAtoRschart2.jpg

[Guest]

It's Britain's fault?

Aus restricted gun ownership after Port Arthur and we did after Dunblaine. It didn't cause any sort of issue other than not having schools, pubs, anywhere where people meet up being shot to shit. It's not about social and economic issues at this level, it's about the availability of machines made to kill in the quickest way possible to anyone at all.

If someone is intent on killing though they will find a method of doing so though. We've seen that here with acts of terrorism involving motor vehicles. A gun is a tool so don't we ask why someone wishes to use it?

I don't buy the argument that is solely an availability issue and while of course drawing lessons from Australia will be useful they don't necessarily have the same social issues such as the use of opiates for example.

It's me again the New yorker, I own firearms Some for fun some hunting and some for protection.
I've had my license for different firearms for roughly 17 years. I had to go through a myriad of hassle to get a side arm. I was given one which is extremely hard to get within city limits because I put forward a good case to own one.
I can make a few phone calls on a throw away phone and buy any firearm I want with Ammunition . I can do this within The NY city limits. If I go upstate it becomes even easier to get weapons.
I used to live in the South West of England, I haven't visited there for several years. But I can guarantee you I can step off the plane and make my way to Bristol make a call and get picked up and driven to a bar where I would meet a man who could get what I wanted within an hour.

Any decent person would report anyone selling guns in a non-gun society.

When you leave your bedsit, You will find there aren't that many decent about in the real world.
What's the divorce rate as an example?
Couples can't even be nice enough to each other how do you think strangers will act

Ever tried to answer a post instead of making stupid false assumptions and pathetic strawman arguments?

Try it one day, you NRA supporting cunt.

[Guest]

It's Britain's fault?

Aus restricted gun ownership after Port Arthur and we did after Dunblaine. It didn't cause any sort of issue other than not having schools, pubs, anywhere where people meet up being shot to shit. It's not about social and economic issues at this level, it's about the availability of machines made to kill in the quickest way possible to anyone at all.

If someone is intent on killing though they will find a method of doing so though. We've seen that here with acts of terrorism involving motor vehicles. A gun is a tool so don't we ask why someone wishes to use it?

I don't buy the argument that is solely an availability issue and while of course drawing lessons from Australia will be useful they don't necessarily have the same social issues such as the use of opiates for example.

It's me again the New yorker, I own firearms Some for fun some hunting and some for protection.
I've had my license for different firearms for roughly 17 years. I had to go through a myriad of hassle to get a side arm. I was given one which is extremely hard to get within city limits because I put forward a good case to own one.
I can make a few phone calls on a throw away phone and buy any firearm I want with Ammunition . I can do this within The NY city limits. If I go upstate it becomes even easier to get weapons.
I used to live in the South West of England, I haven't visited there for several years. But I can guarantee you I can step off the plane and make my way to Bristol make a call and get picked up and driven to a bar where I would meet a man who could get what I wanted within an hour.

Right, and if these are highly motivated individuals who sometimes spend years planning these attacks they will find a way to achieve their aims and obtain the firearms they need to do so.

I've moved on to an article referencing a researcher specialising in gun violence at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health stating that "political, cultural and legal challenges" make it highly unlikely that the US could replicate Australia's approach but it doesn't specify exactly what those challenges are which makes me a little wary given the quality of some reporting.

You have no idea what those challenges are? FFS

Horrific

[Rolluplostinspace]

Prohibition rarely works if ever.
Heroin was legal i this couna good idea.try in the sixties and we didn't have a heroin problem.
Unlike most of Europe and America at the time.
We had about a thousand registered addicts who were given pure heroin on script.
Then some bright spark decided to make it illegal and stop the scripts despite all the warnings that it would be an invite to criminals to take control of the heroin supply.
In no time at all heroin was flooding the streets with no scripts available.
Even then we didn't see an explosion in its use till the Shah of Iran was toppled and at the same time Russia was having difficulties in Afghanistan.
Heroin holocaust.
We all know about the banning of Alcohol in America and how that worked out.
Tony Blair banned most firearms in this country that had mostly never been a problem.
Soon as it happened it became easy for criminals to get guns impossible for honest people.
It's not the guns that are the problem as the link I supplied says.
American culture is the problem.
It would take generations to change attitudes and I don't think anyone is up to the task.
Prohibition is probably not a good idea.

[Rolluplostinspace]

By the way the shooter was on police radar since last year.