Another mass shooting in the U.S

blatantrereg

Sparks wrote: »

What do you call a suicide bomber? I'm pretty sure they're fairly untrained by definition!


Boston was highly publicised. The bombs that went off every day for the previous week in Pakistan in the runup to the elections weren't; they were killing up to fifty people at a time and injuring hundreds.


If the context is mass killings, whom else do we look at?



Tokyo should jump immediately to mind, along with the most prolific mass killer in the UK's history...


The psychology of the people who do these kind of insane things is not generally defined by wanting to have fun. The teens in the school shootings you're thinking of when you think that are the very rare exception. Generally these are nutters who think they have a "mission" - see the mass shooting in Norway (where, again, a bomb was used).


Which would account for the individual homicides in the statistics; not the mass killings, which are almost always planned, if not fantasied about for months by those who carry them out.

I'm not talking about mass killing in general. I'm saying that a certain number of killings and injuries would not occur if people didn't have access to guns. The last bit of your post acknowledges that is the case. Therefore I'm going to leave it at that.

I did not appreciate your comments suggesting I should be jailed for life and fined a lifetime's earnings. Unnecessary, and intentionally aimed at causing distress.

blatantrereg

Sparks wrote: »

...says the chap who has just said he has illegal access to a firearm under conditions so safe that only one teenager has been shot under them. :rolleyes:

I don't. That took place nearly 15 years ago.

Anyway I've had enough of this thread.

MadsL

blatantrereg wrote: »

I did not appreciate your comments suggesting I should be jailed for life and fined a lifetime's earnings. Unnecessary, and intentionally aimed at causing distress.

He didn't suggest that.

He did however school you on firearms law, on which he is something of an expert. Nowhere did he suggest you should serve those penalties - only informed you of their existence.

If anyone should calm down, it is you.

Manic Moran

blatantrereg wrote: »

Shooting a brick in a field didn't strike me as a crime nope. Don't really see how an accident could have occurred. I was invited to do so by a member of the family that owned both the gun and the field, and I didn't question it. You knew that already though. Not sure what your hysterics are about. Trying to make a point, trying to intimidate me, or you just like dramatics? I'm guessing all three?

Possibly all three, but that doesn't mean his point is invalid.

Unfortunately, that is often the sort of regimen that we shooters have to deal with. All sorts of laws prohibiting things which are harmless or which make no sense, either because the laws are inelegantly written and cover more than they should, or simply out of ignorance (often also the one caused by the other). Yet by and large we follow them anyway.

However, there is the counter-argument. A lot of the laws also work on the basis of full compliance. The Canadian Firearms Registry and the California Assault Weapons Registry both failed miserably because the vast majority of owners decided that the potential liabilities which may result from compliance (e.g. confiscation) were greater than anything which may result from doing what they had been doing all their lives (using their firearms harmlessly). See the phrase "Tragic boating accident" (which apparently evolved from Canadian non-compliance). The threat of being unjustly punished for things which they did not do, or which are not a problem to begin with tended not to go over well.

There really is a lot more to the story than most people are willing to dig into.