This was about due.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45315970

We haven't had a one for a few days.

Christ on a bike - shooting gamers now?  GAMERS??

Boru

Thank you NRA leadership, for once again, protecting the corporations instead of making public safety your priority.

If sell more worked, we'd be the safest nation on the planet.

(August 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Christ on a bike - shooting gamers now?  GAMERS??

Boru

Two scenarios I've seen so far: One, game gets eliminated and trips off. Two, someone walks in and starts busting caps.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, one of the witnesses used that same old bullshit argument, "I don't blame the guns".

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK! Yes it is true an object cannot do anything by itself. But that does not change that a disturbed person REGARDLESS of motive got access to a firearm, and no, I do not give a fuck if it was illegally or legally obtained.

I fail to see what would be wrong with a shop making sure whomever buys one isn't selling it to a disturbed person, because legal at time of buy does not prevent someone from becoming a criminal after a legal buy.

It is very possible and happens all the time, that a disturbed person, be it a mentally ill person, a domestic abuser, religious or political radical, racist, or disgruntled worker, can have no record at time of buy, fly under the radar only to go on to get violent with that firearm.

It is bullshit to think only criminals get them. One can be legal with no record and become a criminal after a legal buy.

(August 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Christ on a bike - shooting gamers now?  GAMERS??

Boru

First person shooters... of course.

(August 26, 2018 at 4:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(August 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Christ on a bike - shooting gamers now?  GAMERS??

Boru

First person shooters... of course.

Wait for the litany of standard bullshit excuses.

1. It's the violent video games.

2. Its the criminals.

3. Its the domestic abusers.

4. Its the terrorists.

5. It's the mentally ill.

Only for the sane to say, "We agree, lets do something about it."

Only to have those asshole shout, "NO!"

It has never been about those things. Those can be motives sure, but in every case, access is the common link. It still amounts to a disturbed person, regardless of motive, having access.

And I am so fucking sick of the fallacy the sane are looking for a 100% ban. NO, all we are saying is we need to stop making them like candy and handing them out like candy. But yea, you do not need big clips or spray weapons. NONE of what I just typed is a call for a 100% ban.

I am looking for a 100% ban.


































But, unlike them, I'm willing to compromise!

(August 26, 2018 at 4:03 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(August 26, 2018 at 3:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Christ on a bike - shooting gamers now?  GAMERS??

Boru

Two scenarios I've seen so far: One, game gets eliminated and trips off. Two, someone walks in and starts busting caps.

Three, they had access regardless of motive.

---

(August 26, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I am looking for a 100% ban.


































But, unlike them, I'm willing to compromise!

Minn, I love you, but no, that wont happen. 

Japan allows firearms too, despite what some might think. The reason they don't have the amount of firearm deaths we do, isn't because of a ban, but the attitude they have about them. They have better economics and lower pay gap, and value education, and a better sense of responsibility for their neighbors, so when you live in a safe place, and don't have to fear being shot, you don't feel the need to own one, outside say hunting or sports shooting.

Australia too, does not ban them, but after 1 mass shooting they got their act together.

I am not for a 100% ban, for the most part because it is impractical. I certainly am for an attitude change. I am sick of the attitude that "rights" means "no rules" and "sell more" which has  nothing to do with the HUGE responsibility that owning one requires.

You don't need to carry them in public, unless you have a job that requires it, like a police officer, or licensed private detective, or licensed security guard. But I am not against having them for home protection if they are locked in a safe unloaded away from children. I am certainly for better vetting to insure disturbed individuals, even with no record, don't get their hands on them. I am not against using them for hunting either.

The NRA only has about 5 million members. But there are 55 million firearm owners, so the NRA does not represent the majority of owners. And I think you remember a couple months ago Fox did a survey which blew up in their faces which said even most firearm owners want something done.

Keep your guns. You just never know when Kim Jung will try to take over and you need to be prepared!
Or maybe a zombie apocalypse? You can never be too careful I say.