mass shooting in orlando

[felly100]

And why should you have fewer options for shooting targets because someone else can't be trusted?

Go back far enough and ALL guns were designed to kill people, it was literally why guns were invented, if you're advocating banning all guns then you're on the wrong forum.

What matters is whose hands they are in.

Where did he mention banning all guns?

Pull your neck in,Digger has been a member on here a long time,not two minutes like you m

[Jamesey1981]

Where did he mention banning all guns?

Pull your neck in,Digger has been a member on here a long time,not two minutes like you m

I'm entitled to my opinion and to disagree with people the same as everyone else, no matter how long I've been a member, so YOU wind your neck in, and while you're at it how about reading the posts properly, if you're going to ban guns that are designed to kill people which is what he is suggesting then you'll be banning everything back to the matchlock and beyond, I'm sure he isn't advocating banning all guns, what I'm doing is making a point.

 

Feel free to disagree with my opinion, but don't you dare tell me I'm not entitled to have one because I haven't been here long enough.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Jamesey1981

[rjimmer]

I have never understood why, in a supposedly civilised society, American civilians feel the need to own guns for personal protection. Is the place so lawless?

And in Northern Ireland?

[Hamster]

So this guy wouldn't have done what he did if he could only have a shotgun?

You're living in a dream world and your argument is nonsense, which gun he used is completely irrelevant, it would have happened just the same with whatever firearm or even improvised weapon that he could get his hands on.

 

 

Explain how the choice of gun was irrelevant ? Have you seen/heard the recordings of this even ? The horrific rate of fire and ease of reloading a fresh high capacity magazine has absolutely everything to do with this. Only a fool would think the same numbers could be killed and injured with more conventional arms.

[digger]

where did I advocate banning guns ? I've re read my post and still can't see it. I was questioning the need to own such a gun to punch paper. The argument that the perpetrators of these crimes would use other weapons is nullified by the fact they don't need to so haven't. It worked in Australia

[Jamesey1981]

 

Explain how the choice of gun was irrelevant ? Have you seen/heard the recordings of this even ? The horrific rate of fire and ease of reloading a fresh high capacity magazine has absolutely everything to do with this. Only a fool would think the same numbers could be killed and injured with more conventional arms.

But it would still have happened, and with a home made bomb he would likely have killed more.

If you read all of my post then you'll see that I don't think this guy should have been able to get any gun, let alone an AR, but that doesn't make it the fault of the AR.

[Hendrix's rifle]

 

If you look at the type of weapons you can buy in America then yes certain weapons do need restricting, who really needs an AK47?

Loads of pigeons or just a really **** shot

[Jamesey1981]

where did I advocate banning guns ? I've re read my post and still can't see it. I was questioning the need to own such a gun to punch paper. The argument that the perpetrators of these crimes would use other weapons is nullified by the fact they don't need to so haven't. It worked in Australia

I edited my last post to explain my point better with where I'm coming from with the banning all guns statement.

 

Australia isn't America and isn't in any way a comparison, I do think that it's too easy to get guns in America, but the kind of gun doesn't make any difference, Canada allows similar weapons to be on sale but limits who can get them, and they don't have the same issues, that's the way to go, not banning a type of gun where what you should be doing is blocking access for unsuitable people.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Jamesey1981

[69chris]

these threads always start off ok then just go round and round going nowhere......... they really are pointless as, as its been proven plenty of times before, we on here will never agree on anything

 

RIP

[Dekers]

where did I advocate banning guns ? I've re read my post and still can't see it. I was questioning the need to own such a gun to punch paper. The argument that the perpetrators of these crimes would use other weapons is nullified by the fact they don't need to so haven't. It worked in Australia

 

Why does anyone want to use any gun for target work, why on earth would these guys be target shooting at 1000 yards with powder?

 

 

Why not?

 

Crack on with your arguments, I'm not getting involved with that lot, but I feel it is not down to you to dictate who can shoot with whatever gun on paper!

 

[digger]

ok. I still didn't suggest banning them. I'm aware that Australia isn't America, however if you research the statistics they banned weapons involved in mass shootings and mass shootings stooped. Incidents of mass killings in Australia using cars/ knives / pipe bombs / radishes have so far been nil. I agree that strict access control is needed. my take is a single Canadian has an IQ slightly higher than a whole small town in America. I've been to both countries several times and the ignorance displayed in American gun stores is stupifying.

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by digger

[ordnance]

 

ok. I still didn't suggest banning them. I'm aware that Australia isn't America, however if you research the statistics they banned weapons involved in mass shootings and mass shootings stooped.

Means nothing it could be coincidence, that could be the still case if no firearms were banned.

[Jamesey1981]

Well said, I'm out before I get in more of an argument.

There are people that I am not going to agree with and that aren't going to agree with me, so there's no point to us going round in circles.

 

these threads always start off ok then just go round and round going nowhere......... they really are pointless as, as its been proven plenty of times before, we on here will never agree on anything

 

RIP

Edited June 13, 2016 by Jamesey1981

[rodp]

You all miss the part that's of most importance. He was muslim, they were gay. When it reaches the situation where muslims wreak havoc in non muslim countries just because they don't agree with their lifestyle then it's muslims that need control, not firearms.

That's the root of the problem, not what he used to kill them with.

[ordnance]

And in Northern Ireland?

 

Results from the 2013/14 Northern Ireland Crime Survey (NICS) estimate that 10.0% of all households and their adult occupants were victims of at least one crime in the previous year. This represents the lowest rate since the measure was first reported in NICS 1998 (23.0%).

A comparison of findings from NICS 2013/14 and the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) 2013/14 shows that the risk of becoming a victim of crime remains lower in Northern Ireland (10.0%) than in England and Wales (17.0%)

 

 

Crime statistics in Northern Ireland are notable for several reasons. Firstly, contrary to the media image, the province suffers from very low levels of crime. According to both recorded crime figures and victim surveys Northern Ireland has one of the lowest levels of crime in Western Europe. For example, recorded crimes for 1990 showed that it had the lowest rate of recorded crime per 1,000 of the population compared with all 43 police constabulary areas in England and Wales. While the 1989 International Crime Survey (van Dijk, Mayhew and Killias, 1991) found that it had the lowest rates of victimisations for all the fourteen countries surveyed

Edited June 13, 2016 by ordnance

[Ollieollie]

You all miss the part that's of most importance. He was muslim, they were gay. When it reaches the situation where muslims wreak havoc in non muslim countries just because they don't agree with their lifestyle then it's muslims that need control, not firearms.

That's the root of the problem, not what he used to kill them with.

well said

[chrisjh]

Donald Trump has said he will stop anyone traveling to the US from countries with terrorists :hmm:w​​ell that's Ireland snookered

[scotslad]

You all miss the part that's of most importance. He was muslim, they were gay. When it reaches the situation where muslims wreak havoc in non muslim countries just because they don't agree with their lifestyle then it's muslims that need control, not firearms.

That's the root of the problem, not what he used to kill them with.

 

I'd imagine devout christains and many other religous bascket cases are responsible for many more killings wether gay/coloured/jew etc or not but no one brings up there religion.

 

By sounds of it bloke was a nut job who for some bizare reason jumped on a band wagon.

 

The sheer ammount of shootings in USA wether this was terrorist motivated or just someone wanting publicity, sadly the number killed is almost irrelevant as within the next month or 2 the death toll from this will be overtaken by more 'normal' mass shootings.

The ammount of shootings and ammount killed in them is just absolutely staggering

 

America has 2 problems far far too many nut jobs and far far too many guns floating about, mixing the 2 together is never a good combo

[saddler]

 

 

*WHY is that then?

Why do people who carry out this type of thing use automatic weapons?

Was it an automatic weapon? (or semi-automatic?) Know the difference?

 

*Ever used an AK, or are you purely relying on media coverage of them? (er, ever even SEEN an AK?)

No...but I have never seen an nuclear bomb but I know what they are capable of

Ah - same thing then. I also KNOW what legally available tobacco & alcohol are capable of.

 

NONE of the "type of weapons" sold in the USA are not also as easily purchased in the EU (aside from most of the UK that is!)

MOST European countries also have more open laws on self-defence

Don't understand this question

NOT a question - ALL the guns that are sold in the USA are also sold in Europe (aside from most parts of the UK)

MOST of the US states & a lot of the EU states also have laws that allow arms for self-defence = so for THAT type of activity a scoped .22 rimfire is not too suitable; pistols & shotguns mainly, sometimes semi-auto rifles are the choice.

An AR is also a VERY capable hunting rifle

 

 

Using your logic, WHY would ANYONE in one of the most dense urban populations of England NEED a gun of any sort?

Sporting guns

...in the middle of a housing estate? No TescoExtra up your road? They sell all the meat you'll need...meat comes from the shops not fields!

(NOT my stance - just the same anti-logic that you've displayed, that the main UK non-shooting public would also have as default mind-set)

 

[digger]

 

 

Means nothing it could be coincidence, that could be the still case if no firearms were banned.

Do you really believe it's a coincidence? ?

[ab1964]

I see Trump has already pitched in with a "....I told you so!" Bad timing this for the USA, for the presidential race and for all Muslims.

I'm a Yank and I'm voting for Trump.

 

Obama & Clinton are part of the disease - Trump is the best cure at the moment. Sometimes you need a change, even if you don't like what change looks like.

[Scully]

The Americans have a multitude of problems within their society and guns are merely a part of them, but if we want to apply the logic of banning a certain type of firearm as some suggest, and mass killings will cease, then let's apply it and see where the logic takes us.

Self loading centre fire rifles were banned after the mass shootings at Hungerford, and there have been no mass shootings with these types of firearms since.

Contrary to popular belief centre-fire revolvers and pistols were not banned following Dunblane; they are still available to own given certain criteria. As of yet there has been no repeat of this horrendous act. Shotguns and rifles are still widely available to own following the mass shootings in Cumbria, and again as yet, there has been no repeat of this act either. Logic dictates it's only a matter of time before another takes place? What is there in place to stop it?

Bearing in mind all of the major shootings ( outside acts of terrorism committed with illegally held weapons ) in the UK have been carried out by licensed shooters using their own legally possessed firearms, where do we apply the logic of banning certain types of firearms?

[ab1964]

I have never understood why, in a supposedly civilised society, American civilians feel the need to own guns for personal protection. Is the place so lawless?

1) Because Cops cannot be everywhere. 2) Cops are not a personal Protection Force 3) Sadly, too many Americans are violent 4) The most lawless places in the US are the places where firearms are restricted 3) Texas, Florida, where concealed carry is legal - there's less gun crime than New York City and Chicago where guns are severely restricted. 5) Out law guns - and only out laws will have guns 6) Americans believe each person has an inherent right to self defense 7) Go here for the rest of the story: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Edited June 13, 2016 by ab1964

[ordnance]

Donald Trump has said he will stop anyone traveling to the US from countries with terrorists :hmm:w​​ell that's Ireland snookered

Our sort of terrorists are OK with Donald Trump.

 

 

Trump attended fundraiser for Sinn Féin before London terror attack

Republican presidential candidate attended a 1995 dinner in New York for Irish party accused of supporting terrorism just before attack in London.

[ordnance]

Means nothing it could be coincidence, that could be the still case if no firearms were banned.

Do you really believe it's a coincidence? ?

What do you base your view on that the banning of some firearms are why there have not being any mass shootings in Australia since port arthur, whats your evidence. ? ?