Texting, then assulting ex cop, during movie equals death.

[Grayfox]

Wasn't the shooter a ex cop?

Seriously, I would make pass that guy a sanity test.

I think all cops, fire fighters and paramedics should have a test to see if they are suffering from PTSD when they retire or leave the force.
After all they deal with some crazy crap, just like soldiers in a war zone.

No doubt they will use such an excuse a means to get the charges dropped or reduced.

 

[mister dog]

General european viewpoint would be; that's what you get with US gun laws...

Anyone can carry one around and fire it at the slightest escalation. If this same situation would have happened in Europe, it would have ended with a fistfight, not someone dead in a hospital over a stupid thing like this.

 

[Zenith]

I think all cops, fire fighters and paramedics should have a test to see if they are suffering from PTSD when they retire or leave the force.
After all they deal with some crazy crap, just like soldiers in a war zone.

I have a much better idea. Let's just subject everyone to annual mental wellness checkups. Failing this test will get you locked in asylum or at least barred from access to anything that might be considered a weapon such as guns, knives, and cars.

Except me, of course. I'm perfectly sane. The government should really leave me alone, I'm fine. it's all those other people I can't control that are the real problem.

 

[Famine]

General european viewpoint would be; that's what you get with US gun laws...

Yeah, but Europeans who are aware of other cultures would know that's nonsensical - it's Florida's gun laws at best. Probably Tampa gun laws.

Anyone can carry one around and fire it at the slightest escalation.

Utter rubbish.

If this same situation would have happened in Europe, it would have ended with a fistfight, not someone dead in a hospital over a stupid thing like this.

Utter rubbish.

 

[mister dog]

Yeah, but Europeans who are aware of other cultures would know that's nonsensical - it's Florida's gun laws at best. Probably Tampa gun laws.

So if i get this right, it is not permitted to carry it around everywhere in Florida (so it is indeed stricter), yet the guy had one with him in the cinema. I bet even though the laws might be stricter in that state, guns are still as common as in other states because that is the general trend in America, almost every household has one...
So your argument holds some ground, yet the reality does not live up to it.

Utter rubbish

Thanks for countering my viewpoint in such a civilized and respectful manner 👍
Yes you can scan the papers of Europe for circumstances where a nut grabs a weapon of any kind (fists included), and kills someone for no reason. Fact of the matter is the probability of such cases is a lot lower in Europe. How else would you explain that we don't see instances of killing sprees in malls and other public places on a monthly basis, unlike in the states?

More guns around means more chance of violence concluding in fatalities, that is something which you just can't deny.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I have a much better idea. Let's just subject everyone to annual mental wellness checkups. Failing this test will get you locked in asylum or at least barred from access to anything that might be considered a weapon such as guns, knives, and cars.

Except me, of course. I'm perfectly sane. The government should really leave me alone, I'm fine. it's all those other people I can't control that are the real problem.

I thought the idea behind 'muricans wielding guns was self defense? You want to remove the right to self defense because someone is depressed?

 

[Famine]

So if i get this right, it is not permitted to carry it around everywhere in Florida (so it is indeed stricter), yet the guy had one with him in the cinema. I bet even though the laws might be stricter in that state, guns are still as common as in other states because that is the general trend in America, almost every household has one...
So your argument holds some ground, yet the reality does not live up to it.

No.

Your argument that it's because of "US gun laws" is incorrect - and one often trotted out by Europeans who don't really have any idea how the USA actually works.

The USA isn't a single country in that respect, rather a collection of fifty countries who've decided to legally work together from a neutral 51st territory called "Washington DC". They have a set of laws that says what the USA can't demand from the States (called "The Constitution") and one of those laws is the Second Amendment - which says the USA can't demand the States prevent citizens from having legal access to firearms. It's a little more complex than that - there are and have been federal laws (laws made by the USA) that restrict certain types of firearm and define "arms" and "citizens" in different fashions - but "US gun laws" are rather thin on the ground.

Gun laws are, for the most part, a matter for the individual States - and what's legal in one State isn't always going to be legal in other States. But then the States themselves also function like the USA does too - each state is made up of municipalities that have their own laws and the state itself is governed by a set of laws that says what it can't demand from the municipalities (also a "constitution", but a state one). So while Florida might say person X can have a firearm and Tampa may say they can carry it in Y, in Fort Lauderdale they may have different rules about where you can carry it. It is, however, the State that issues the firearm licence.

Florida is a Shall Issue state. Shall Issue states require that anyone carrying a handgun in a concealed fashion must have a licence to do so but that they will automatically be granted a licence if they apply for one and meet the criteria for it. Compare this to Constitutional Carry states (no licence is required), May Issue states (licences are issued at the discretion of local law enforcement) and No Issue states (concealed carry is not permitted). So in Florida you can carry a concealed firearm IF you have a licence to do so, which you will be issued IF you meet the State's criteria - though Open Carry (having a firearm visible while you carry it) is almost always illegal.

States' criteria vary, but commonly people convicted of violent crime, crime involving firearms or drug crimes will never be issued a licence. In addition, minors, other felons and people with certain mental conditions may be excluded from firearm possession.

So your statement "that's what you get with US gun laws... Anyone can carry one around and fire it at the slightest escalation." is utter rubbish on every conceivable level.

Thanks for countering my viewpoint in such a civilized and respectful manner 👍

It's neither a civilised nor respectful viewpoint to make swingeing statements without any evidence and, in fact, in the face of evidence and fact, just because you believe it.

You stated that a petty incident like texting in a cinema wouldn't result in someone dead in hospital in Europe. I showed you a single example, found in seconds (because it's on the BBC's front page) of a petty incident over a drink in a pub resulting in someone dead in hospital in Europe. It happens and it doesn't happen because of "US gun laws".

Yes you can scan the papers of Europe for circumstances where a nut grabs a weapon of any kind (fists included), and kills someone for no reason. Fact of the matter is the probability of such cases is a lot lower in Europe.

Which is more utter rubbish.

The levels of violent crime in the USA and the UK are directly comparable with one another. They are hard to generate reliably, due to the different classifications of crimes, but per capita the USA and the UK see pretty much the same rate of violence resulting in death and injury or perpetrated for sexual or larcenous acts. Despite the difference of a 90% penetration of legal firearms across all states and around 1% in the UK.

The fact is people can be utter bell ends to each other. It doesn't matter what weapons or imaginary laws are available to them - they kill and injure each other everywhere.

How else would you explain that we don't see instances of killing sprees in malls and other public places on a monthly basis, unlike in the states?

I'd like you to post up some of these killing sprees in malls and other public places that they see in the USA. 12 from the last year would suffice.

Bear in mind that a "spree" is defined as three or more deaths in a single location other than the perpetrator - and that since WW2 all but one such "spree" in the USA has been in a location where the victims were not legally permitted to carry firearms.

More guns around means more chance of violence concluding in fatalities, that is something which you just can't deny.

As does more knives.

Except they only increase the rate of injury and fatality, not the rate of violence.

 

[Brend]

Wait, so potential blindness by popcorn is justification to kill someone for you? I ask you this then, how many people have you killed? If popcorn is enough to get you going guns blazin' then surely you must have killed multiple people in your life.

Oh and BTW, I've been hit directly in the eye by a zipper (on a jacket) being whipped at my face, you know what happened? I had fuzzy vision for about 30 seconds and then I was fine. I hardly think you have to worry about some porpcorn blinding you.

I had to put that last line in my signature, quote of the year.

 

[Ibonibo]

...

You stated that a petty incident like texting in a cinema wouldn't result in someone dead in hospital in Europe. I showed you a single example, found in seconds (because it's on the BBC's front page) of a petty incident over a drink in a pub resulting in someone dead in hospital in Europe. It happens and it doesn't happen because of "US gun laws".Which is more utter rubbish.....

And that even can happen to high profile people, like F1 drivers
https://www.google.com/search?q=sut...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Zenith]

I thought the idea behind 'muricans wielding guns was self defense? You want to remove the right to self defense because someone is depressed?

Sarcastic post

 

[mister dog]

No.

Your argument that it's because of "US gun laws" is incorrect - and one often trotted out by Europeans who don't really have any idea how the USA actually works.

The USA isn't a single country in that respect, rather a collection of fifty countries who've decided to legally work together from a neutral 51st territory called "Washington DC". They have a set of laws that says what the USA can't demand from the States (called "The Constitution") and one of those laws is the Second Amendment - which says the USA can't demand the States prevent citizens from having legal access to firearms. It's a little more complex than that - there are and have been federal laws (laws made by the USA) that restrict certain types of firearm and define "arms" and "citizens" in different fashions - but "US gun laws" are rather thin on the ground.

Gun laws are, for the most part, a matter for the individual States - and what's legal in one State isn't always going to be legal in other States. But then the States themselves also function like the USA does too - each state is made up of municipalities that have their own laws and the state itself is governed by a set of laws that says what it can't demand from the municipalities (also a "constitution", but a state one). So while Florida might say person X can have a firearm and Tampa may say they can carry it in Y, in Fort Lauderdale they may have different rules about where you can carry it. It is, however, the State that issues the firearm licence.

Florida is a Shall Issue state. Shall Issue states require that anyone carrying a handgun in a concealed fashion must have a licence to do so but that they will automatically be granted a licence if they apply for one and meet the criteria for it. Compare this to Constitutional Carry states (no licence is required), May Issue states (licences are issued at the discretion of local law enforcement) and No Issue states (concealed carry is not permitted). So in Florida you can carry a concealed firearm IF you have a licence to do so, which you will be issued IF you meet the State's criteria - though Open Carry (having a firearm visible while you carry it) is almost always illegal.

States' criteria vary, but commonly people convicted of violent crime, crime involving firearms or drug crimes will never be issued a licence. In addition, minors, other felons and people with certain mental conditions may be excluded from firearm possession.

So your statement "that's what you get with US gun laws... Anyone can carry one around and fire it at the slightest escalation." is utter rubbish on every conceivable level.It's neither a civilised nor respectful viewpoint to make swingeing statements without any evidence and, in fact, in the face of evidence and fact, just because you believe it.

Ok, so you justify calling my argument "utter rubbish" (and the general European one for that matter), stating that gun laws depend on the different states forming the US, and they can differ from one state to the other so there is not a "US gun law" to speak of.

-Do you agree that the majority of US states have more liberal gun laws than in Europe?
-Do you agree that there are way more guns per head in all those US states together, than in all of the European countries put together?
-Do you agree that in the US a lot more people are permitted to carry around handguns in public, than in Europe?

If yes, than you cannot deny US "state" gun laws cause a lot more gun related violence as a consequence, and as such are the direct cause of said 'gun violence'.

You stated that a petty incident like texting in a cinema wouldn't result in someone dead in hospital in Europe. I showed you a single example, found in seconds (because it's on the BBC's front page) of a petty incident over a drink in a pub resulting in someone dead in hospital in Europe. It happens and it doesn't happen because of "US gun laws".Which is more utter rubbish.

You know as well as me that in general people in Europe carry a knife around at most, yes there are a lot of crazy bastards out there but the damage they can inflict with a knife hardly resembles the damage a single nut can do with a gun. Also in instances like this where it's 1 on 1, the outcome of a fight ending in a death is far greater with a gun than with a knife, if we would have had this same instance here with a knife instead of a gun; it would have been far less likely the victim would have died.

The levels of violent crime in the USA and the UK are directly comparable with one another. They are hard to generate reliably, due to the different classifications of crimes, but per capita the USA and the UK see pretty much the same rate of violence resulting in death and injury or perpetrated for sexual or larcenous acts. Despite the difference of a 90% penetration of legal firearms across all states and around 1% in the UK.

The fact is people can be utter bell ends to each other. It doesn't matter what weapons or imaginary laws are available to them - they kill and injure each other everywhere.I'd like you to post up some of these killing sprees in malls and other public places that they see in the USA. 12 from the last year would suffice.

Bear in mind that a "spree" is defined as three or more deaths in a single location other than the perpetrator - and that since WW2 all but one such "spree" in the USA has been in a location where the victims were not legally permitted to carry firearms.As does more knives.

Except they only increase the rate of injury and fatality, not the rate of violence.

If i recall from memory (don't have the time to go on an in depth investigation of all US killing sprees), in Europe we had one nut named Anders Breivik going on a killing spree in 2011, managing to execute 80 or more kids because he was using a gun (what would have happened if he only had a knife?), whilst i recall many killing sprees (again with guns) in the US. From the top of my head you had columbine, Virginia Tech, you had that nut killing tenfolds in the cinema at the batman screening dressed up as the joker, the nut in the school killing 30 or so small children a year ago, and many more instances like these but with less victims, and yes almost always on a monthly basis you read about it in the news. Your example of a single guy stabbed just doesn't compare to that.

Maybe it's the US mentality as in Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" the example is given of Canada where such things do not happen even tough there are apparently as much guns around as in the US, but there is no denying that liberal gun laws put society more at risk depending on the amount of crazy nuts in that particular area...

 

[Ibonibo]

Germany has the most "killing sprees" in Europe.

Remember last year in South France, a guy shooting at pedestrians.

We also have them. Not just Breivik.

From Wiki: just in schools:

Brasilien

• Amoklauf von Realengo, April 2011

Deutschland

• Amoklauf in Eppstein, Juni 1983
• Amoklauf von Eching und Freising, Februar 2002
• Amoklauf von Erfurt, April 2002
• Amoklauf von Coburg, Juli 2003[52]
• Amoklauf von Emsdetten, November 2006
• Amoklauf von Winnenden, März 2009
• Amoklauf von Ansbach, September 2009

Finnland

• Schulmassaker von Jokela, November 2007
• Amoklauf von Kauhajoki, September 2008

Großbritannien

• Amoklauf von Hungerford, August 1987
• Amoklauf von Dunblane, März 1996

USA

• Amoklauf an der Lindhurst High School, 1992
• Amoklauf an der Columbine High School, April 1999
• Amoklauf am Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, August 1999
• Amoklauf an der Virginia Tech, 2007
• Amoklauf an der Sandy Hook Elementary School, 2012

I agree that from a subjective viewpoint, it seems to happen more often in the US.

 

[Famine]

Ok, so you justify calling my argument "utter rubbish" (and the general European one for that matter), stating that gun laws depend on the different states forming the US, and they can differ from one state to the other so there is not a "US gun law" to speak of.

Yes.

It'd be like blaming British paedophilia on the fact that Spain's age of consent is 13 (or the Vatican's is 11) and saying it's because of "Europe's sex laws".

-Do you agree that the majority of US states have more liberal gun laws than in Europe?

Yes.

-Do you agree that there are way more guns per head in all those US states together, than in all of the European countries put together?

Yes.

-Do you agree that in the US a lot more people are permitted to carry around handguns in public, than in Europe?

Yes.

If yes, than you cannot deny US "state" gun laws cause a lot more gun related violence as a consequence, and as such are the direct cause of said 'gun violence'.

I absolutely can, because NO PART of those three statements includes violence...

But even if I did agree that more guns = more gun violence, it'd be completely irrelevant. The guns don't cause the violence, they're simply involved in it. More cars = more car crashes, but that doesn't mean "Europe's car laws" cause car crashes.

You know as well as me that in general people in Europe carry a knife around at most, yes there are a lot of crazy bastards out there but the damage they can inflict with a knife hardly resembles the damage a single nut can do with a gun.

Irrelevant.

Also in instances like this where it's 1 on 1, the outcome of a fight ending in a death is far greater with a gun than with a knife, if we would have had this same instance here with a knife instead of a gun; it would have been far less likely the victim would have died.

Absolute hogwash. Under 20 feet a knife will kill and injure with an order of magnitude more regularity.

If i recall from memory (don't have the time to go on an in depth investigation of all US killing sprees), in Europe we had one nut named Anders Breivik going on a killing spree in 2011, managing to execute 80 or more kids because he was using a gun (what would have happened if he only had a knife?)

An illegal gun.

Imagine what would have happened if he'd used a bomb! Oh wait, he did.

whilst i recall many killing sprees (again with guns) in the US. From the top of my head you had columbine

School campus = population disarmed. Perpetrators used illegally-held weapons.

Virginia Tech

School campus = population disarmed. Perpetrators used illegally-held weapons.

you had that nut killing tenfolds in the cinema at the batman screening dressed up as the joker

At the only cinema in his locale banning firearms. Oh and he used illegally held weapons.

the nut in the school killing 30 or so small children a year ago

School campus = population disarmed. Perpetrators used illegally-held weapons.

and many more instances like these but with less victims, and yes almost always on a monthly basis you read about it in the news.

Then you won't have any trouble showing me 12 spree killings from 2013. Which you haven't done - though you've just given five examples over a fourteen year period, all of illegally held weapons being used on a legally disarmed population.

Your example of a single guy stabbed just doesn't compare to that.

That was just from the front-page of the news - and meeting your previous criteria of "someone being dead in hospital over a stupid thing". Have you abandoned that now it's been proven wrong?

Maybe it's the US mentality as in Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" the example is given of Canada where such things do not happen even tough there are apparently as much guns around as in the US, but there is no denying that liberal gun laws put society more at risk depending on the amount of crazy nuts in that particular area...

Tell that to Russia.

You're using all the usual, tired anti-gun rhetoric that European blog commentators use every time there's a shooting in the USA. Europe has the same violent crime rate as the USA - we kill, injure, rob and rape each other at the same rate, we just don't use guns to do it. Tell me how that's better.

 

[Zenith]

It is generally ill-advised to use Michael Moore's work as a source in a debate.

 

[mister dog]

But even if I did agree that more guns = more gun violence, it'd be completely irrelevant. The guns don't cause the violence, they're simply involved in it.Irrelevant.Absolute hogwash. Under 20 feet a knife will kill and injure with an order of magnitude more regularity.

Aah "guns don't kill people, people kill people"; the most popular NRA argument.

Imagine what would have happened if he'd used a bomb! Oh wait, he did.

Delve into that news story and you will see the bomb he set off accounted for 12? deaths. The other 70 or so people he slaughtered with his handguns.

School campus = population disarmed. Perpetrators used illegally-held weapons.School campus = population disarmed. Perpetrators used illegally-held weapons.At the only cinema in his locale banning firearms. Oh and he used illegally held weapons.School campus = population disarmed. Perpetrators used illegally-held weapons.

Funny how you say "illegally-held" weapons; as in purchased legally but he should have considered not bringing them on his killing spree as carrying them around was illegal?

Then you won't have any trouble showing me 12 spree killings from 2013.

Ok you got me there, i didn't use the definition of a "spree" correctly. I'm sure you can use google as good as I can, i'm not gonna make a thesis of this discussion we are having.

You're using all the usual, tired anti-gun rhetoric that European blog commentators use every time there's a shooting in the USA. Europe has the same violent crime rate as the USA - we kill, injure, rob and rape each other at the same rate, we just don't use guns to do it. Tell me how that's better.

You're using all the usual, tired pro gun rhetoric that the gun lobby use every time there's a shooting in the USA

Violence is never good, but having guns ready available everywhere certainly does not benefit the peace.

As usual me and you are on opposite sides again, and it doesn't matter what one says to the other we are just too hard headed to give in to eachother, so this discussion can go on forever.

It is generally ill-advised to use Michael Moore's work as a source in a debate.

I respect the guy and the fact that he dares to raise points in public, that the general american public prefers to keep silent.

 

[Famine]

Aah "guns don't kill people, people kill people"; the most popular NRA argument.

Not really. But if you like.

I held five guns for around an hour and they didn't kill anyone. I'm told that they hadn't killed anyone independently before I got there, but I haven't checked on them in a while so they may have gone off and killed someone since.

Delve into that news story and you will see the bomb he set off accounted for 12? deaths. The other 70 or so people he slaughtered with his handguns.

If only bombs were illegal! He wouldn't have killed anywhere near as many with knives... oh, wait hang on.

Funny how you say "illegally-held" weapons; as in purchased legally but he should have considered not bringing them on his killing spree as carrying them around was illegal?

Nope, as in illegally held.

I know you probably still think everyone in America is allowed a gun despite the evidence that they aren't, but Harris and Klebold (Columbine) were minors, Lanza (Sandy Hook) and Cho (Virginia Tech) were disqualified through mental conditions and all four shootings took place in locations where firearms are illegal.

You know, delve into that news story a little...

Ok you got me there, i didn't use the definition of a "spree" correctly. I'm sure you can use google as good as I can, i'm not gonna make a thesis of this discussion we are having.

Make claim, back up claim. If claim cannot be backed up, retract claim.

You're using all the usual, tired pro gun rhetoric that the gun lobby use every time there's a shooting in the USA

To an extent, but with subtle differences. I'm not American and everything I say is factually backed up - what you're saying cannot be verified and you don't even acknowledge it.

Violence is never good, but having guns ready available everywhere certainly does not benefit the peace.

And yet in the USA they have the same violent crime rate as we do in the UK, despite them holding NINETY times as many firearms, normalised to population. Looks like it does nothing to the peace - but I'm sure you have facts to show it does rather than a strong anti-gun feeling.

As usual me and you are on opposite sides again, and it doesn't matter what one says to the other we are just too hard headed to give in to eachother, so this discussion can go on forever.

Not really. You'd only have to read what I've said and look up the information for yourself before realising that a feeling-backed argument of guns in a society = more violence doesn't stand up to a fact-based analysis that shows guns and violence are not directly related.

The facts show that an heavily gun-based society has no greater violent crime rate than a non gun-based society. In Europe we rape at the same rate, we kill at the same rate, we steal at the same rate and we injure at the same rate - we just don't use guns to do it. So tell me how that is better.

To pre-empt your answer I'll point out that it's not only not better, but a disgusting argument to think that guns cause violence as a result - it suggests that the level of violent crime in Europe is natural and the level of violent crime in the USA is artificially high because of guns and rather than us being pretty much the same type of people who choose to be violent in different ways, Americans are far, far less violent than us savage, barbaric Europeans. The argument that guns cause more violence is the argument that Europe is an uncivilised hellish tarpit of evil and that we have no concern for our fellow man whatsoever.

But then the socialist viewpoint that is so dominant over here promotes that mindset - your neighbour cannot be trusted to help you, so it's made law that he has to and we lock him up when he doesn't...

I respect the guy and the fact that he dares to raise points in public, that the general american public prefers to keep silent.

He's a whackjob. The points he "dares" to raise are hogwash that easily sway the non-critical thinkers and socialists of the world.

 

[Zenith]

I respect the guy and the fact that he dares to raise points in public, that the general american public prefers to keep silent.

Well that's true. I certainly do prefer arguments based in BS data and phantasy-land logic to be kept silent.

Not all opinions are equal. Moore's opinions approach conspiracy theorist levels of terrible.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Disclaimer: following paragraph is mostly speculation and opinion, and not factual. It's merely a statement of how I reacted when I first read about this shooting.

I see this incident happen, and I wonder about the mental health of the shooter. A lot of people could have carried a gun into the cinema, but I don't think there are very many sane people who would shoot someone for texting during a film. It's not a normal response. And this guy, who overreacted so violently, was a retired police officer, supposedly a responsible, upstanding member of society. I'd like to know what his medical background is and what kind of psychological testing he had done and when before he became and officer, and throughout his career. And of course, what kind of background checks were done when he purchased the gun. Should someone who has such anger management problems carry a gun? No, I don't think so. How did he get it? I don't know, though I'm sure the information is out there and Famine probably knows.

 

[Brend]

So, when do you start the 'Famine Fountain of Knowledge' encyclopedia, @Famine?

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Disclaimer: following paragraph is mostly speculation and opinion, and not factual. It's merely a statement of how I reacted when I first read about this shooting.

I see this incident happen, and I wonder about the mental health of the shooter. A lot of people could have carried a gun into the cinema, but I don't think there are very many sane people who would shoot someone for texting during a film. It's not a normal response. And this guy, who overreacted so violently, was a retired police officer, supposedly a responsible, upstanding member of society. I'd like to know what his medical background is and what kind of psychological testing he had done and when before he became and officer, and throughout his career. And of course, what kind of background checks were done when he purchased the gun. Should someone who has such anger management problems carry a gun? No, I don't think so. How did he get it? I don't know, though I'm sure the information is out there and Famine probably knows.

He wasnt shot because he was texting. He was shot because he assaulted the ex police officer in the face. I will change the title so it is more accurate. Based on the released facts in the published story.

 

[mister dog]

I held five guns for around an hour and they didn't kill anyone. I'm told that they hadn't killed anyone independently before I got there, but I haven't checked on them in a while so they may have gone off and killed someone since.If only bombs were illegal! He wouldn't have killed anywhere near as many with knives... oh, wait hang on.Nope, as in illegally held.

Yes yes, you already made the point that guns don't kill people, people kill people i get it already.

I know you probably still think everyone in America is allowed a gun despite the evidence that they aren't, but Harris and Klebold (Columbine) were minors, Lanza (Sandy Hook) and Cho (Virginia Tech) were disqualified through mental conditions and all four shootings took place in locations where firearms are illegal.

So they all aquired their guns in the criminal circuit? The fact that you can carry them around or not is not the point here, it's how easily available they are for the average nutjob.

You know, delve into that news story a little...Make claim, back up claim. If claim cannot be backed up, retract claim.

My claim still stands, all you did was nitpick on the meaning of the word "spree" to try and make it more difficult for me to look up instances were people started shooting others indiscriminately in the US, because this adds certain criteria. Seeing that you are mister factual in the flesh, i'm sure you would be able to find 12 news stories like that for 2013...
And if it turns out to be only 9 or 10 you have my sincere apologies.

To an extent, but with subtle differences. I'm not American and everything I say is factually backed up - what you're saying cannot be verified and you don't even acknowledge it.And yet in the USA they have the same violent crime rate as we do in the UK, despite them holding NINETY times as many firearms, normalised to population. Looks like it does nothing to the peace - but I'm sure you have facts to show it does rather than a strong anti-gun feeling.Not really. You'd only have to read what I've said and look up the information for yourself before realising that a feeling-backed argument of guns in a society = more violence doesn't stand up to a fact-based analysis that shows guns and violence are not directly related. The facts show that an heavily gun-based society has no greater violent crime rate than a non gun-based society.

So far all you did was post a link of that news story of the knife killing, and a link explaining the Florida gun law.
I think you want to prove the point that more guns does not equal more violence, whilst i am trying to say more guns = more chance of letal consequences which is a different matter.

In Europe we rape at the same rate, we kill at the same rate, we steal at the same rate and we injure at the same rate - we just don't use guns to do it. So tell me how that is better.

It is not, so the annual murder rate is the same for Europe and the US? I don't think so to be honest. Anyway like i said before it is not about the amount of violence, it's about how letal the consequences are of guns vs no guns in these given situations.

He's a whackjob. The points he "dares" to raise are hogwash that easily sway the non-critical thinkers and socialists of the world.

Nope I still like his documentaries and enjoy viewing them. In general you can nitpick on every little detail to try and prove someone is wrong (like you are doing with me), but what he does in general is raise the debate on topics that urgently need debating, which i can only applaud.

 

[The Stig Farmer]

Knives are better than guns, because you can outrun a guy with a knife. Can't outrun a bullet.

Of course it's rubbish because there's nothing to stop someone throwing the knife at you. Reckon this is the thought at work here.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

He wasnt shot because he was texting. He was shot because he assaulted the ex police officer in the face. I will change the title so it is more accurate. Based on the released facts in the published story.

And that's an excuse for killing him? From what I've read, both men handled the situation very badly.

 

[dylansan]

Here's a very enlightening comic on the boundaries of self-defense.

Some of you really ought to read it.

 

[Famine]

Yes yes, you already made the point that guns don't kill people, people kill people i get it already.

No you don't, otherwise you wouldn't still be trying to argue the point that it's the implement that matters.

So they all aquired their guns in the criminal circuit?

The firearms were legally held.

The fact that you can carry them around or not is not the point here, it's how easily available they are for the average nutjob.

There are five times as many firearms in the possession of criminals in the UK than in the hands of licensed holders - which would equate to a figure in the US of 1.5 BILLION illegally held firearms.

Going to argue about how easy they are to acquire in the UK now?

My claim still stands, all you did was nitpick on the meaning of the word "spree" to try and make it more difficult for me to look up instances were people started shooting others indiscriminately in the US, because this adds certain criteria.

Nope. That's the definition of spree killing. You made the claim that there's a spree-killing a month in the USA, so you back it up.

Seeing that you are mister factual in the flesh, i'm sure you would be able to find 12 news stories like that for 2013...
And if it turns out to be only 9 or 10 you have my sincere apologies.

You made the claim, you back it up.

Quick clue: You can't. So what you should be doing is retracting the claim.

So far all you did was post a link of that news story of the knife killing

Which proved your point that people don't just kill each other over nothing in Europe because we don't have guns utterly wrong.

I think you want to prove the point that more guns does not equal more violence

That's not how proof works. You cannot prove a negative.

whilst i am trying to say more guns = more chance of letal consequences which is a different matter.

I'm sure you are now (but bear in mind that so does more knives, more screwdrivers, more baseball bats, more cars and more pest extermination products. For that matter, so does more men and more black men [statistically], but that's one for another thread), but you still haven't even begun to recognise the unbelievable rubbish that was your first post in this thread:

General european viewpoint would be; that's what you get with US gun laws...

Which were nothing to do with it.

Anyone can carry one around

Which is untrue.

If this same situation would have happened in Europe, it would have ended with a fistfight, not someone dead in a hospital over a stupid thing like this.

Which is a fabrication.

It is not, so the annual murder rate is the same for Europe and the US? I don't think so to be honest.

Then don't think - look it up.

It depends on definitions and crime statistics - since countries use different definitions for murder (some include all instances of human death, some only include figures of crimes where a person has been convicted of the pre-meditated killing of someone else without reasonable defence) - and what you class as Europe. Russia - where firearms are illegal - has a murder rate (10.2/million) that dwarfs the USA's (4.7/million). It's literally more than double and, as a whole, Europe's murder rate is comparable to the USA's.

The death rate is too. The UK's is 8.8/1000, Spain's is 8.3/1000 and the USA's is 8.1/1000 - so it's not like the presence of lots of guns shorten the lifespan of an American compared to a Spaniard or Brit.

Anyway like i said before it is not about the amount of violence, it's about how letal the consequences are of guns vs no guns in these given situations.

It's entirely about the amount of violence - just because you're not killed when you're raped doesn't make your rape not worth talking about.

Weapons are used in more crimes than just ending someone's life - and you can end someone's life in more ways than just shooting them. The violent crime rates in Europe and the USA are about the same and suggesting guns are to blame for violence in the USA is to suggest Europeans are holding back on the violence because it's a bit harder.

Nope I still like his documentaries and enjoy viewing them. In general you can nitpick on every little detail to try and prove someone is wrong (like you are doing with me), but what he does in general is raise the debate on topics that urgently need debating, which i can only applaud.

They're not documentaries. Documentaries are factual - and when someone makes up "facts" based on unsupported feelings they have, like "guns are bad", you can guarantee they'll get nitpicked before too many people get these feelings and pressure governments into passing laws that destroy freedoms.

Michael Moore is, thus, a terrorist.

 

[playnthru]

He wasnt shot because he was texting. He was shot because he assaulted the ex police officer in the face. I will change the title so it is more accurate. Based on the released facts in the published story.

Now it's more mis-leading than ever? It's not a fact any assault took place. It's Reeves story.

AND..If what you just said is true? That's cold bolded, premeditated murder right?

If the popcorn hit Reeves in the face, then he fired, that IS premeditated murder! Premeditation only takes an instant, and you can't defend yourself after the fact. If he "assaulted" the cop then the cop fired. Murder! Not self defense.

From your story.

After officers read him his rights, Reeves told the detective that Oulson struck him in the face with an unknown object, and that’s when he removed a .380 caliber gun from his pants pocket. The report said Reeves fired the gun and struck Oulson once in the chest and that he “was in fear of being attacked.”

That is not self defense/End of story! By Reeves own words "that's when I removed my pistol".

You can't kill someone out of unreasonable fear, popcorn is not reasonable . And by Reeves own account the popcorn attack was already over.

Reeves is (And I'll bet will be convicted of) cold bolded murder.



I'm 100% in favor of self defense BTW. However it floors me to think some Americans really don't know much about the law even Ex-cops. Seem's the ones that don't are packin' heat.

 

[Northstar]

I think 1:20 of this song is rather fitting.



Also, a couple years ago I was at a 4th of July fireworks demo when someone with bad aim hit me with a diaper(I was sitting near a trash can). Looking back it seems my reaction of blowing it off was wrong, I should have beat the person mercilessly, lest my rights of self defense be taken away.

Nope I still like his documentaries and enjoy viewing them. In general you can nitpick on every little detail to try and prove someone is wrong (like you are doing with me), but what he does in general is raise the debate on topics that urgently need debating, which i can only applaud.

His movies exist solely to make conservatives look bad(and he fails at it). Let me know when the movie documenting the failure of Obamacare(or the thousands of other failed democrat plans) comes out.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Here's a very enlightening comic on the boundaries of self-defense.

Some of you really ought to read it.

I think people need to exercise restraint and common sense. But that's a pretty big ask.

 

[Blitz24]

Was there an eyewitness to confirm that there was an object thrown?

 

[mister dog]

@Famine ,to avoid quoting you again and taking up another half page of flaming, let's just keep it short.
I went on the net, looked for an article and found this:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...e-rate-higher-than-other-developed-countries/

The faces of those 20 first graders massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary School, their devoted teachers and the gunman’s mother have made the issue of gun control the subject of an impassioned national conversation, leaving many asking why there are so many mass shootings in the United States.

There are an estimated 88.8 civilian guns per 100 people in the United States, according to the Small Arms Survey, a number unparalleled to the rest of the world. With the right to bear arms written into the Constitution of the United States and the fabric of American culture, it’s no surprise that this number is higher than it is in other G-8 countries for which there is data.

But the United States also has a much higher rate of homicides by gun — 3.2 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Homicide Statistics.

Even Italy, the G-8 member with the second highest rate of homicides by firearm, comes in far behind the United States. According to United Nations data, a person is 4.5 times more likely to die from gun violence in the United States than Italy.

In France and the United Kingdom, the homicide by firearm rate is 0.1 per 100,000 people. That’s one in a million.

So; you still call my viewpoint "utter rubbish"? Easy access to guns means more murders, simple as that.