84 dead in Norway gun attack...

[Neil]

Horrible! At least 84 people died when a gunman opened fire at an island youth camp in Norway, hours after a bombing in the capital Oslo killed seven, police say. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356

[Danny]

and of course first thing on the news is "enjoyed horror movies and call of duty" surprise, a percentage of horror film and violent game audiences are anti social psychopaths. everytime sensationalist news outlets see cause via correlation. wisely said by chris rock "what ever happened to just being crazy?" god forbid they focus on the fact that familys lost people they care about today because of one psychos choice to fuck up hundreds of peoples lives....

[shootemindehead]

Yep, it's on the news all day. Seems like some nutter Christian fundamentalist. He bought 6 tons for fertilizer and spent some time making a bomb. I wonder if it was part of his "plan" all along to follow up his attack on government buildings with the shootings of the kids on the island, or was it an after-thought.

[Mike70]

what i am waiting for: the giant walking pussies known as europeans to ban guns in yet another country over the actions of a kook.

[Neil]

what i am waiting for: the giant walking pussies known as europeans to ban guns in yet another country over the actions of a kook. But it works If people have guns to hand, then arguments are all the more like to turn out this way when the red mist drops - http://www.theprovince.com/news/kill...889/story.html Take the gun away, and quite simply, it can't be used... Would this argument have ended up with anyone dead, had a gun now been available? Noooope. And yes, guns can be obtained illegally, but let's not complicate a straight forward argument with straw men.

[JDFP]

But it works If people have guns to hand, then arguments are all the more like to turn out this way when the red mist drops - http://www.theprovince.com/news/kill...889/story.html Take the gun away, and quite simply, it can't be used... Would this argument have ended up with anyone dead, had a gun now been available? Noooope. And yes, guns can be obtained illegally, but let's not complicate a straight forward argument with straw men. Banning legal guns from being owned by U.S. citizens will ensure that only criminals have guns which they illegally obtained as opposed to decent U.S. citizens and criminals both having guns. Great way to ensure criminals can do even more damage and you can't protect yourself with your weapons! If the government wants to come for my guns, or anyone else for that matter, they will receive my guns barrel first. I'll be damned if my constitutional right and my ability to protect myself and my loved ones is being taken away from me. No doubt, this would be one of many steps of a corrupt government consolidating power to ensure we the people cannot defend ourselves from the power of a few. The right to bare arms is to protect innocent citizens from the machinations of autocracy and despotic leadership from taking absolute power. EDIT: If the "legal" federal government wants to ensure a revolution on their hands from various states in this country, they'd attempt to ban legal citizens from having fire arms. I guarantee it would result in a bloodbath in this nation and a possible revolt of unprecedented proportions. j.p.

[Danny]

I get the right to bear arms sort of stems from americans isolationist and ,if im honest, cultural distrust of ones neighbours that been ingrained since frontier times, but it almost seems like the modern american thinks they would be utterly defenceless in a violent situation without a firearm. I mean, morals and ethics of guns aside its essentially a crutch for being able to fight, its the epitome of the 'i cant fight so how do i take a guy down from a distance' viewpoint. I mean how much of it is "i need it because the enemy may have one" and how much of it is "i need one because i dont see another option"? I mean we dont have guns here so someone robs your house and it gets confrontational its scare tactics or brawling so its a completely foreign viewpoint but ive got a sword thats usually a family heirloom that hangs above the fireplace but ive used that at least 3 times to chase off a wannabe gangbanger after my tv or something. If someone came in with a gun i would be more inclined to think they were scared themselves, hence the firearm, and therefore more likely to do something very bloody stupid. Id probably either stay out the way if nobody else was home and let the insurance deal with it or try and talk the guy down with some bullshit but i wouldnt feel the need for a firearm of my own to retaliate because, honestly from a foreign standpoint, guns just symbolise desperation, cowardice and ego reinforcement for me and it is most definitely not the only way one man can defend himself from another. Of course i dont buy into the "those yankees love their guns so they must be eager for violence" viewpoint a lot of people outside america have 'looking through the window at the zoo' or whatever those kind of folks say but its kind of ironic in a way, the countries that dont let people 'bear arms' and say americans are psycho for wanting to are usually the ones where the gun collectors are more likely to GO psycho. But i guess thats the thing at the end of the day. Everyone in america can own a gun, so naturally the gun owner to gun nut ratio drops, think from the american perspective looking out at the rest of the world. If someone in a country that abhors guns hordes them odds are substantially higher that he is going out of his way to amass so many weapons for something sinister. Thats not a matter of right or wrong for gun ownership, i think it just mean you need one hell of a background check- particularly mental health before you can have one. I mean in some countries you can be judged mentally impaired enough to be unable to own and operate a car but still purchase a gun. In the hands of someone who is deeply disturbed how is the end result going to be any different there? driving a car into a crowd or opening up on them with pistols? its not the weapon its the user and the user needs a serious check before they can access them.

[Neil]

Banning legal guns from being owned by U.S. citizens will ensure that only criminals have guns which they illegally obtained as opposed to decent U.S. citizens and criminals both having guns. Great way to ensure criminals can do even more damage and you can't protect yourself with your weapons! If the government wants to come for my guns, or anyone else for that matter, they will receive my guns barrel first. I'll be damned if my constitutional right and my ability to protect myself and my loved ones is being taken away from me. No doubt, this would be one of many steps of a corrupt government consolidating power to ensure we the people cannot defend ourselves from the power of a few. The right to bare arms is to protect innocent citizens from the machinations of autocracy and despotic leadership from taking absolute power. EDIT: If the "legal" federal government wants to ensure a revolution on their hands from various states in this country, they'd attempt to ban legal citizens from having fire arms. I guarantee it would result in a bloodbath in this nation and a possible revolt of unprecedented proportions. j.p. Unfortunately the US is too far gone... There is no going back, at least no easily... There's simply too many weapons, and their ownership is too coveted! But in other countries, where gun control is stricter, gun ownership stands a chance of being adjusted. For example, here in the UK, where hand guns were basically removed. Now, the point at hand is - ignoring all the 'criminals have guns', and 'take it from my cold dead hands' nonsense - guns make killing easier. They are designed to do it, and do it well. Do we want to give such devices to teenagers with a grudge, drug addicts without a hope, and family members in a fit of rage? Personally I don't, because I see the only outcome being more deaths...