Shooting in California

josephryan1989

There are literally hundreds of millions of handguns in circulations and tens of millions of rifles and billions of rounds of ammo.

End of.

Heroin is available to anyone who wants it in the U.S. and is even available in high security prisons despite decades of a war on drugs.

So how could anyone imagine that a prohibition on fire arms could possibly work?

KingBrian2

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There are literally hundreds of millions of handguns in circulations and tens of millions of rifles and billions of rounds of ammo.

End of.

Heroin is available to anyone who wants it in the U.S. and is even available in high security prisons despite decades of a war on drugs.

So how could anyone imagine that a prohibition on fire arms could possibly work?

The gvt want a register. Answer the question, don't deflect.:mad:

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The gvt want a register. Answer the question, don't deflect.:mad:

Haha spoken like a true Irishman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs8QKXtCN9w

leavingirl

ceadaoin. wrote: »

WTF this is just bizarre. Would they not have had people guarding the place? How could this happen? Seems like there's a lot of potential evidence still there which has now been tampered with

Look, who do you think you are to question this? CNN guy who was in the house said they got the ok to look through the items. So all ok. They were Muslim ISIS and radicalized. You seen the muslim stuff in all the rooms. Shocking wasn't it? Why weren't these terrorists stopped is the question you should be asking. We need more surveillance, tougher gun laws and complete transperancy when the police need to access private info about people. Right?

The questions you ask put you in the category of a conspiracy theorist and thus a terrorist sympathiser.

With some luck new laws will now be drawn up to indite people like you who question anything the MSM says. Thought crimes will possibly result in you being detained in a mini Guantanamo Bay.

Manic Moran

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'm I correct in saying the gvt wants a register of gun owners while the gun owners distrust any gvt with lists of named individuals. Fear the gvt will clampdown on peoples right, is that the heart of the issue.

You are correct that some in government want such a thing. Attempts in the past have failed miserably, with compliance rates ridiculously low in States like California and Connecticut, and the entire registry concept was written off as a bad lot (after a few million wasted dollars) in Canada.

That's before the issue that a lot of people don't want it anyway.

KingBrian2

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are correct that some in government want such a thing. Attempts in the past have failed miserably, with compliance rates ridiculously low in States like California and Connecticut, and the entire registry concept was written off as a bad lot (after a few million wasted dollars) in Canada.

That's before the issue that a lot of people don't want it anyway.

People vote with their money Americans support the current laws on gun ownership. They do not want any change so they will continue to see blood shed on their streets. This is a societal problem that needs to be addressed by townships across America.

josephryan1989

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The gvt want a register. Answer the question, don't deflect.:mad:

A register is a non-starter. It's a joke and will not stop a single shooting or save a single life.

Amazingfun

leavingirl wrote: »

Thought crimes will possibly result in you being detained in a mini Guantanamo Bay.

Those evil/backward Americans huh?

Very amusing post. You do realize that people are in prison (or about to be) in Europe for "thought crimes"? The most recent being an 87 year old woman, Ursula Haverbeck, in Germany:

(lots more like her as well).

What kind of a threat does an 87 year old woman pose that she must be imprisoned for speaking words?

XR3i

such a thing couldn't happen in berlin

Amazingfun

XR3i wrote: »

such a thing couldn't happen in berlin

Or " I am Charlie and love free speech" France

Vincent Reynouard, French thought criminal.
http://balder.org/judea/Vincent-Reynouard-France-Persecuted-Revisionist-Historian.php

XR3i

Amazingfun wrote: »

Or " I am Charlie and love free speech" France

Vincent Reynouard, French thought criminal.
http://balder.org/judea/Vincent-Reynouard-France-Persecuted-Revisionist-Historian.php

i agree berlin is next, it has to be

although maybe "they" are a bit to sly to do it, take easy targets first(by that i mean berlin has a serious police force)

either way, i'll tell you from 15 years experience in berlin ,that there isn't a ****ing german left in berlin that can stand any ground, "excepting the few 70 80 year olds that have seen it all ready"

/rant over

The Sidewards Man

I have a friend from Galway who is residing in Germany he needs to know of this news.

KingBrian2

Amazingfun wrote: »

Or " I am Charlie and love free speech" France

Vincent Reynouard, French thought criminal.
http://balder.org/judea/Vincent-Reynouard-France-Persecuted-Revisionist-Historian.php

Take a step back the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were deliberately provoking an action by the works they were drawing. Not the law abiding Muslims still they generated a lot of anti Muslim sentiment in Paris with all the horrible drawings they made.

XR3i

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Take a step back the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were deliberately provoking an action by the works they were drawing. Not the law abiding Muslims still they generated a lot of anti Muslim sentiment in Paris with all the horrible drawings they made.

you obviously have skin in the game, and should be taken seriously


























not

#clueless

strelok

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Take a step back the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were deliberately provoking an action by the works they were drawing. Not the law abiding Muslims still they generated a lot of anti Muslim sentiment in Paris with all the horrible drawings they made.

the people working in the WTC probably had it coming too did they? that's what they get for partaking in the american capitalist global empire

Dohnjoe

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Take a step back the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were deliberately provoking an action by the works they were drawing. Not the law abiding Muslims still they generated a lot of anti Muslim sentiment in Paris with all the horrible drawings they made.

I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic

Boom_Bap

MOD
This thread has gone wwwaaaaaaayyyy off topic at this stage.

Please get it back to discussions on the shootings in California.

Jelle1880

Amazingfun wrote: »

Those evil/backward Americans huh?

Very amusing post. You do realize that people are in prison (or about to be) in Europe for "thought crimes"? The most recent being an 87 year old woman, Ursula Haverbeck, in Germany:

(lots more like her as well).

What kind of a threat does an 87 year old woman pose that she must be imprisoned for speaking words?

It's the law in Germany, and let's be honest: It's not just words is it ?

She has in the past told Jews that there will be another pogrom if they don't stop interfering with German matters.
That goes a little bit further than 'I don't believe the Holocaust ever happened'.

Germany has something called Volksverhetzung, she is well aware of this since she's been punished under that law in the past.

Who cares if she's 87, she is not some old demented woman who doesn't know what she's talking about.

And to bring it back on subject of the shooting in California

Since then there have been 2 more shootings that in the US can be classed as 'mass shootings'.

Some of the arguments I read against gun control baffle me.
Even bringin in rules to ensure that people with known mental issues (depression, psychoses,...) have no possiblity to buy a gun (or at least make it a lot harder) are met with resounding hostility. Because apparently it's unheard of that someone who is prone to violent outbursts or whatever may use a gun on themselves or others.

Because, and I quote someone who I spoke to that about: 'Who will say who is qualified or not ?'.

They genuinely believe their government is out to get them it seems, and they will make up false medical files to make sure people can't get guns anymore :pac:

It's a lost cause imo, they will never want more rules about gun ownership, and the fact that kids are being shot up while going to school is worth it to them.

JPNelsforearm

https://embed.gyazo.com/f07dab87164e293e8a94272bc61d947a.png

Picture of the lovely couple, never would have seen it coming....

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

https://embed.gyazo.com/f07dab87164e293e8a94272bc61d947a.png

Picture of the lovely couple, never would have seen it coming....

Might I ask what distinguishes them in that particular picture? Not seeing the firearms meself.

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic

People are being given a license to run down an entire religion which is also causing Muslims to live in an atmosphere of distrust and resentment. Free speech is being abused to bash a minority group.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

Might I ask what distinguishes them in that particular picture? Not seeing the firearms meself.

What do firearms have to do with anything? Firearms aren't dangerous, Islamists are.

Wompa1

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What do firearms have to do with anything? Firearms aren't dangerous, Islamists are.

Troll on! Troll on!

citytillidie

I know people who have been effected by one of the deaths and it is hard for them to tell their kids that their friends father is no longer about

The Randy Riverbeast

I dont know. If you got a small enough one you could throw him/her at someone and do some harm.

I would probably still choose the firearm if I wanted to do more damage. The Islamist tend to get a bit pissed after being thrown.

JPNelsforearm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I dont know. If you got a small enough one you could throw him/her at someone and do some harm.

I would probably still choose the firearm if I wanted to do more damage. The Islamist tend to get a bit pissed after being thrown.

How do you get a gun to kill someone of its own volition? You could wave pictures of mohammed and talk about Israel all day(as the chaps co worker did on the day he flipped) in front of a gun and it would just sit there, an attractively formed piece of engineered metal, nothing more. The odds of the Islamist attacking you, clearly, are far far greater in the same scenario.

The Randy Riverbeast

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How do you get a gun to kill someone of its own volition? You could wave pictures of mohammed and talk about Israel all day(as the chaps co worker did on the day he flipped) in front of a gun and it would just sit there, an attractively formed piece of engineered metal, nothing more. The odds of the Islamist attacking you, clearly, are far far greater in the same scenario.

If you pick up a gun and pull the trigger it can kill someone. If you pick up an Islamist and give them a bit of a pull they look at you confused. They may even enjoy it.

It all depends what you are planning on doing with it.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What do firearms have to do with anything? Firearms aren't dangerous, Islamists are.

Right then. What has them marked out as "Islamists" in that picture?

Call Me Jimmy

My personal feeling about gun control is that I'd take the chance of not being able to have a gun in a situation that requires one so that almost nobody has one when they go out of their mind or are simply enraged. I just think the odds are better that way.

c_man

Trump wants to ban Muslims from coming to the US in response to this shooting. Headcase.

Jelle1880

c_man wrote: »

Trump wants to ban Muslims from coming to the US in response to this shooting. Headcase.

And preventing American muslims abroad to come back I assume ?

The guy is bat****.

c_man

Jelle1880 wrote: »

And preventing American muslims abroad to come back I assume ?

Wonder does that include Muslims serving in the military?! It's gone beyond a joke at this stage.

conorhal

c_man wrote: »

Trump wants to ban Muslims from coming to the US in response to this shooting. Headcase.

Well I can't help but notice that Japan doesn't have an Islamist terror problem.....ever wonder why that is?

Why import a problem you don't need to? I'd happily draw up a black list of countries with a terrorism problem that presents a threat to national security and refuse a visa to anybody from that country.

Sudden Valley

conorhal wrote: »

Well I can't help but notice that Japan doesn't have an Islamist terror problem.....

Why import a problem you don't need to? I'd happily draw up a black list of countries with a terrorism problem that presents a threat to national security and refuse a visa to anybody from that country.

But what about Muslims that live in Europe? Or gulf state princes who probably spend millions in America?

RobertKK

conorhal wrote: »

Well I can't help but notice that Japan doesn't have an Islamist terror problem.....

Why import a problem you don't need to? I'd happily draw up a black list of countries with a terrorism problem that presents a threat to national security and refuse a visa to anybody from that country.

ISIS had no problem beheading a Japanese journalist.
Japan have also increased security measures as they fear an ISIS attack.

Also remember ISIS have also listed Ireland as one of the countries that they are against.
So no problem today, doesn't mean we won't have a problem tomorrow.

conorhal

RobertKK wrote: »

ISIS had no problem beheading a Japanese journalist.
Japan have also increased security measures as they fear an ISIS attack.

Also remember ISIS have also listed Ireland as one of the countries that they are against.
So no problem today, doesn't mean we won't have a problem tomorrow.

They didn't behead him in Japan though did they? There is little to no chance of a domestic terror attack there, why is that?

An external threat is another matter.

Ireland has 30 to 40 serious extremists here, (bar a couple of converts) we imported them. We really don't need to import other peoples problems.

Jelle1880

conorhal wrote: »

Well I can't help but notice that Japan doesn't have an Islamist terror problem.....ever wonder why that is?

Why import a problem you don't need to? I'd happily draw up a black list of countries with a terrorism problem that presents a threat to national security and refuse a visa to anybody from that country.

If anything Japan is probably an example of a country that would do well to get some migrants in.

RobertKK

conorhal wrote: »

They didn't behead him in Japan though did they? There is little to no chance of a domestic terror attack there, why is that?

An external threat is another matter.

Ireland has 30 to 40 serious extremists here, (bar a couple of converts) we imported them. We really don't need to import other peoples problems.

Japan has more Muslims than Ireland have, they have about 100,000. 10,000 of those are Japanese.

c_man

conorhal wrote: »

Well I can't help but notice that Japan doesn't have an Islamist terror problem.....ever wonder why that is?

Why import a problem you don't need to? I'd happily draw up a black list of countries with a terrorism problem that presents a threat to national security and refuse a visa to anybody from that country.

You're diverting. He's specifically targeting groups of people to bar from the country (including native born who happen to find themselves overseas at the moment). Do you really approve of that?

Dohnjoe

conorhal wrote: »

Why import a problem you don't need to? I'd happily draw up a black list of countries with a terrorism problem that presents a threat to national security and refuse a visa to anybody from that country.

So this would have included Ireland 20 years ago and we should have been blacklisted from going to e.g. England yes

Maybe we should let them in, but make them wear some kind of identifying marker, like I don't know, an armband, make it yellow yeah?

conorhal

c_man wrote: »

You're diverting. He's specifically targeting groups of people to bar from the country (including native born who happen to find themselves overseas at the moment). Do you really approve of that?

I can't see how he can bar US citizens from returning to America, but then nobody takes Trump seriously, he's a moron.

conorhal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So this would have included Ireland 20 years ago and we should have been blacklisted from going to e.g. England yes

Maybe we should let them in, but make them wear some kind of identifying marker, like I don't know, an armband, make it yellow yeah?

No it wouldn't have included Ireland, their problem was domestic terrorism, or is N. Ireland not part of the UK? they can hardly refuse entry to their own citizens.
Care to make an argument for an open boarders policy with active war zones with terrorist armies that explicity name you as a legitimate target?

asherbassad

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There are literally hundreds of millions of handguns in circulations and tens of millions of rifles and billions of rounds of ammo.

End of.

Heroin is available to anyone who wants it in the U.S. and is even available in high security prisons despite decades of a war on drugs.

So how could anyone imagine that a prohibition on fire arms could possibly work?

Possessing an illegal gun is a lot different to possessing illegal narcotics.
There is no craving to having a gun. You can choose to break the law and possess one or you can obey the law and NOT possess one.

An addiction to drugs is a LOT different. Criminalising the drugs is not all of a sudden going to magically eradicate a user's cravings.

asherbassad

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There are literally hundreds of millions of handguns in circulations and tens of millions of rifles and billions of rounds of ammo.

End of.

Heroin is available to anyone who wants it in the U.S. and is even available in high security prisons despite decades of a war on drugs.

So how could anyone imagine that a prohibition on fire arms could possibly work?

And for your information 85% of people (that includes gun owners) in the US want background checks.

conorhal

RobertKK wrote: »

Japan has more Muslims than Ireland have, they have about 100,000. 10,000 of those are Japanese.

The don't have any Islamic ghettos though, and a tiny number in proportion to their population, france has a 10% Muslim population and no end of trouble that would never be tollerated in Japan.

osarusan

conorhal wrote: »

There is little to no chance of a domestic terror attack there, why is that?

There could be one tomorrow, for all you know.

You're using the fact that there hasn't been one as evidence that there is little chance of one, but that is patent nonsense.

conorhal wrote: »

The don't have any Islamic ghettos though, and a tiny number in proportion to their population, france has a 10% Muslim population and no end of trouble that would never be tollerated in Japan.

woohoo! There's next to no chance of any domestic threat to Ireland so, by that logic.

Christy42

conorhal wrote: »

They didn't behead him in Japan though did they? There is little to no chance of a domestic terror attack there, why is that?

Curious as to how you conducted the threat assessment here. I would also be curious as to how much of any increased safety in Japan is due to a lack of action from the country in the middle east. I know ISIS would have no issue killing Japanese people but I imagine they hate the west more.

conorhal wrote: »

No it wouldn't have included Ireland, their problem was domestic terrorism, or is N. Ireland not part of the UK? they can hardly refuse entry to their own citizens.
Care to make an argument for an open boarders policy with active war zones with terrorist armies that explicity name you as a legitimate target?

I am also curious as to why we can't have something in between Open or Closed borders. Ajar borders we could call it. Potentially something like what we have but with a few additional security measures. Also Trumps point also closes the border to Muslims that aren't from an active war zone.

Dohnjoe

conorhal wrote: »

No it wouldn't have included Ireland, their problem was domestic terrorism, or is N. Ireland not part of the UK? they can hardly refuse entry to their own citizens.

I seem to remember bombs going off in England..

Care to make an argument for an open boarders policy with active war zones with terrorist armies that explicity name you as a legitimate target?

Yeah the IRA bombing England..

So using your logic, the UK should have barred Irish people..

Or would you like to modify what you said to get around this

Sheeps

Does anyone else here believe that Donald Trump was planted in the Republican Party by the Democrats to sabotage their election campaign and guarantee a Democrat in power?


With the hilarity of how outrages Donald Trump, it must be an elaborate joke.

Stereomaniac

I don't think that Trump was planted. He's always been a complete egomaniac. The Republicans tend to have these kind of characters.