Vegas shooting incident

Billy86

In the time between the the Orlando nightclub shooting last June and this shooting on Sunday (477 days) there were 519 other mass shootings in the US, more than one per day.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Finally ended a 5+ year friendship with a guy after I sent him this story and called the woman a ****.

Many congrats to that guy.

Madd Finn

seamus wrote: »

Capitalism/Libertarianism over the last century has whipped the US up into a very competitive society. It creates a culture where there are no spectators, just winners and losers. If you're not wealthy, you're a loser, you've failed.

This has infected the entire culture and everything becomes binary - Left/Right, Communist/Capitalist, Men/Women, Black/White, North/South.

There is no room for the middle ground - If you're not with me, you're against me.
Thus, every man looks out for himself because he assumes that random Joe Bloggs on the street is a potential threat until proven otherwise.

Nail on the head. There are only two choices for just about everything in America: Coke or Pepsi, Nike or Reebok, Republican or democrat, Liberal or Conservative. Black or white.

It's a sort of bipolar disorder.

Mad, in other words.

Madd Finn

BattleCorp wrote: »

The criteria for being allowed a gun here is very strict.

In no particular order:

1. You must be of good character. In other words, the Gardaí must be of the opinion that you will be responsible with a gun. If you have a history of violence, substance abuse etc., then you can forget about it.

2. You must have a 'genuine reason' to have the gun. Apart from the very very rare exceptions, there are only three 'genuine reasons' for having a gun here in Ireland. These are hunting, vermin control and target shooting. Guns aren't allowed for self defence here.

3. You must provide character references.

4. You must grant the Gardaí permission to check up on you with your doctor - to see if you have a history of mental illness etc.

5. If you are getting a pistol, you must be a member of a range that caters for pistols.

6. If you want the gun for hunting, you must provide letters of permission to prove that you have land that you are going to hunt on.

7. There are secure storage regulations. I can't have my guns under my bed or under my pillow. They have to be secured in a safe when not in use. There are requirements for monitored alarms etc. if you have a certain number of guns.

There are lots of other things too but I'm still not fully awake so that'll have to do for now.

As a non gun owner I have no problem with any of the above. Responsible sensible people who want to hunt, shoot inanimate targets for fun or keep down animal pests operating under those restrictions are fine by me.

Are there many gun owners in Ireland (I'm asking genuinely) who feel that such restrictions are unfair and that they should have a constitutional right to tool up when going down the shops just in case anybody tries to steal their hubcaps?

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Many congrats to that guy.

Why?

Shurimgreat

Why would anyone need to own more than 10 guns?

Thanks to the NRA, people can own as many guns as they want, as powerful as they want, can transport them where they want and set them up where they want.

There is a lot of blame to go around in this instance. Starting with the NRA, then the politicians who take their side, then the voters who back more liberal gun laws.

Madd Finn

As a great Republican president once said: "The business of America is business"

And it looks like this incident has been good for business.

Especially if you're an arms manufacturer.

God Bless America!

Outlaw Pete

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Many congrats to that guy.

Why? He was right. She is a cunt.

https://twitter.com/starcrosswolf/status/914962473563779072

Grayson

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Why would anyone need to own more than 10 guns?

Thanks to the NRA, people can own as many guns as they want, as powerful as they want, can transport them where they want and set them up where they want.

There is a lot of blame to go around in this instance. Starting with the NRA, then the politicians who take their side, then the voters who back more liberal gun laws.

Collectors I suppose. Why would you need multiple star wars toys or anything else like that.

However with guns I do think it is different. We wouldn't allow people to stockpile pathogens for example.

Grayson

Are people still trying to bash "liberals" with this? How desperate must you be?

RustyNut

AnneFrank wrote: »

in the case of padraig nally it's lucky he had a shotgun

It's probably as well that frog ward hadn't. And even better that he hadn't access to military grade weaponry.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

Are people still trying to bash "liberals" with this? How desperate must you be?

Who are you talking to?

Nekarsulm

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Why would anyone need to own more than 10 guns?

Thanks to the NRA, people can own as many guns as they want, as powerful as they want, can transport them where they want and set them up where they want.

There is a lot of blame to go around in this instance. Starting with the NRA, then the politicians who take their side, then the voters who back more liberal gun laws.

That's a bit like a non-golfer, having had a go at Pitch & Putt,asking "why would anyone need more than 2 clubs"?

Different guns are used for different purposes.

If finances (and legislation) allowed, most avid shooters/hunters would love to have 10 (Or more) guns. A classic British sidelock for formal shoots (and investment purposes) an everyday boxlock for rough shooting, perhaps a semi auto for wildfowling, and meaby a 10 Bore for nostalgia. A nice XXV for snipe or woodcock, a couple of over/under for clay shooting, perhaps a 20 bore for a youngster to learn wit...h and a 410 for the garden. A .22 rifle for small game and vermin, a .223 or similar for Fox's and sheep flock protection against dog attacks, a full bore or two if deer staking is practiced. If a bit of competitive target shooting is on the cards, 3 or 4 more in the specified calibre. And many shooters will have a treasured gun that belonged to a father or grandfather. None of the above makes you a nutter.

Shurimgreat

The conspiracy nutcases also bear significant responsibility.

They peddle the nonsense that the government is out to get them and if they each don't have dozens of high powered weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo, the government will do this, that and the other to them.

I've seen one poster on this thread suggest there will be a Holocaust in America unless every private citizen is armed to the teeth.

These people in my opinion suffer a form of mental illness.

When the dust settles, the likelihood is the NRA will become even more entrenched in their views. The more of these kinds of massacres, the worse the NRA get. Its a vicious cycle. The NRA ideal is for everyone to walk around with a high powered assault rifle slung over their shoulder for "protection".

Zubeneschamali

Nekarsulm wrote: »

most avid shooters/hunters would love to have 10 guns.

Yes, and recent events referred to in the subject of this thread show why letting them is a bad idea.

Outlaw Pete

Grayson wrote: »

Are people still trying to bash "liberals" with this? How desperate must you be?

What the hell are you on about? You seem very thin skinned when it comes to liberalism.

In the last seven or eight posts on the thread republicans have been attacked four or five times, which nobody has moaned about.

Then someone posts about a CBS exec who called republicans 'repugs' and implied they deserved to be murdered, and you're trying to turn that into being about the 'bashing of liberals'?? Are you for real??

StringerBell

Bambi wrote: »

Just out of curiosity lads, how is the prohibition of narcotics working out in America?

I'm sure banning guns will be every bit as sucessful

Seems to have been a positive thing for Australia.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What the hell are you on about? You seem very thin skinned when it comes to liberalism.

In the last seven or eight posts on the thread republicans have been attacked four or five times, which nobody has moaned about.

Then someone posts about a CBS exec who called republicans 'repugs' and implied they deserved to be murdered, and you're trying to turn that into being about the 'bashing of liberals'?? Are you for real??

yesterday you were posting screenshots from a "liberals" facebook page trying to make out that it had some relevance to the shooting, today you're posting up about some woman that said something stupid.

Grayson

Bambi wrote: »

Just out of curiosity lads, how is the prohibition of narcotics working out in America?

I'm sure banning guns will be every bit as sucessful

Strangely it's the opposite because the Us sends guns to central america. The cartels in mexico get guns from the US.

WinnyThePoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What the hell are you on about? You seem very thin skinned when it comes to liberalism.

In the last seven or eight posts on the thread republicans have been attacked four or five times, which nobody has moaned about.

Then someone posts about a CBS exec who called republicans 'repugs' and implied they deserved to be murdered, and you're trying to turn that into being about the 'bashing of liberals'?? Are you for real??

The thing is. We know what your upto. Your too transparent. Desperate to turn this into a label fest.

Your looking to be outraged.

Beefy78

AnneFrank wrote: »

As someone pointed out earlier there is millions of guns already, new laws won't make a difference, and the industry is so big and profitable, it's crazy and I don't see a solution, I just hope our little island never ends up that way

New laws won't make a difference now but that isn't a reason for not introducing them. It's about changing the culture over time so that in 30 or 40 years this generation's grandkids can go to school or to Vegas without being worried about a being in the wrong place at the wrong time with a guy with access to almost military-level firearms having a bad day

Billy86

Madd Finn wrote: »

As a non gun owner I have no problem with any of the above. Responsible sensible people who want to hunt, shoot inanimate targets for fun or keep down animal pests operating under those restrictions are fine by me.

Are there many gun owners in Ireland (I'm asking genuinely) who feel that such restrictions are unfair and that they should have a constitutional right to tool up when going down the shops just in case anybody tries to steal their hubcaps?

I'd imagine the answer would have to be no - the number of gun owners in Ireland is far lower to begin with, and there isn't an emphatic need among the admittedly few I do know (mostly hobbyists, plus two or three farmers). The hobbyists I know here are big on safety etc and while they more or less to a man would really enjoy firing something like an AK47 I've never heard anyone say a thing about needing or having some right to own one. As for the farmers, something like a shotgun or rifle would do the trick I would imagine at least, as we've not got much in the line of dangerous animals and for the most part it would probably be used for something like scaring off foxes at night.

An old room mate of mine in Australia was a former young Olympics for shooting and insisted on keeping his rifle in the apartment since it was something that he'd had in his room since he was a kid, but also insisted on never having an ammo in the property either. I knew a few in Canada who did because they lived in more rural areas where some real vicious animals live (same with chunks of the US, it has to be remembered!) but they were more interested in just having something to make a really loud bang and scare off bears etc.

That said I have only known a handful of gun owners down the years, but I've not come across any from Ireland (or Canada or Australia) as fervent in their need for military grade weapons like parts of the US are so keen for.

BillyBobBS

The guns won't be banned people need to get over that. Maybe just maybe if a madman walked into Capitol Hill and killed hundreds of the people who make these laws we might just see some movement but until something like that occurs then It's NOT going to happen.

Heap taxes on ammo is the best chance they have but tbh even if ammo was made illegal people would still find a way.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

yesterday you were posting screenshots from a "liberals" facebook page trying to make out that it had some relevance to the shooting, today you're posting up about some woman that said something stupid.

I posted that because my friend went full retard and I had to put an end to a friendship where I was called a sexist racist for thinking what she said was bad.

By even thinking that her having no sympathy for the victims of massacre because of their stereotypical political affiliation was disgusting, I supposedly outed myself for only caring about straight white people.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

The thing is. We know what your upto. Your too transparent. Desperate to turn this into a label fest.

Your looking to be outraged.

All he did was agree with me that she was a c*nt. Do you also agree? I'm curious.

RasTa

CNN on the background. Automatic weapons are illegal but the accessory to turn a semi into an auto is legal.

lol america, idiots.

The only gun you should be allowed is a shotgun, handgun and a bolt action rifle. That's enough for your silly mindset.

Outlaw Pete

Grayson wrote: »

....you're posting up about some woman that said something stupid.

Eh, another user posted about the story actually and if I want to comment on what's posted, I will.

You immediately saw the story as "liberal bashing" when liberals weren't even fcuking mentioned. Just shows your mindset on the issue.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

We know what your upto. Your too transparent. Desperate to turn this into a label fest.

Oh, Columbo here.....

Look, I merely defended a user calling a fired exec a cunt and posted the tweet she got fired for. I didn't use any labels so how the hell could I be trying to turn it into a label fest?

mcgrath1992

what a terrible thing to happen , i have a friend who was just in the next street when it happened. Prayers go out to everyones family

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

CNN on the background. Automatic weapons are illegal but the accessory to turn a semi into an auto is legal.

lol america, idiots.

The only gun you should be allowed is a shotgun, handgun and a bolt action rifle. That's enough for your silly mindset.

Yeah seriously. How do they not realise that semi-automatic weapons weren't around in 1791.

c_man

Manic Moran wrote: »

How is easy. I've eight or nine: I went shopping. Why? Why not. How many of my five semi-auto rifles can I use at once?.

Hector Savage

So apparently this nutcase used a "bump fire stock" to increase the rate of fire from his guns ...

I came across this

http://www.slidefire.com/

This is why it will never change there .
How can you change that attitude ? "Founding fathers .... looking down .... right to bear arms ... blah blah ... "

Samaris

Tbh, as a definite liberal who thinks the American views on gun ownership are frankly dangerous, even I think that woman who made the comments was out of line. I get her basic frustration - maybe if the victims aren't black or Hispanic or gay or something else that can make it someone else's problem, there will be movement. First off, no, there won't. If twenty small children being shot in their classroom didn't do it, I don't think anything will. Secondly, it's a huge step from frustration to willing harm, even unintentionally, in innocent people and thirdly, the time to say something like that really, really is not just after 58 people were killed and over five hundred injured because they happened to be at a concert under the room of someone who really should not have had access to guns, no matter what his "reasons".

It was a contemptible thing to say. It shouldn't become The Story because it's not, but it was a contemptible view to espouse.

super_furry

What I find mental is the amount of Irish people who are so ingrained and invested in the American ultra right-wing mindset from their online communities, that they'll defend and argue for the NRA and the rights of people over there to own by guns capable of killing dozens of people in a minute or so, without any kind of checks or clauses.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah seriously. How do they not realise that semi-automatic weapons weren't around in 1791.

You never heard of the Trail of Tears brah? It's when the Founding Fathers, in 1830, blazed their way through up Route 66 on motorbykes with US flag bandanas, each with a fully automatic M16 in one hand, a sawed off shotgun in the other, and a grenade launcher strapped to their back, and they took every god damn motherf***er who got in the way of their freedom, right the f*** out!

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

What I find mental is the amount of Irish people who are so ingrained and invested in the American ultra right-wing mindset from their online communities, that they'll defend and argue for the NRA and the rights of people over there to own by guns capable of killing dozens of people in a minute or so, without any kind of checks or clauses.

I think it's more that they just enjoy contrarianism. There isn't the same big left/right thing here (there's plenty of young "left" as well though) so they "align" with the proper right-wingers in the US.

20Cent

Saw a good tweet that kind of sums up how messed up it is.
Owning a gun is a right, hospital treatment after being shot is a privilage.

kunst nugget

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh, as a definite liberal who thinks the American views on gun ownership are frankly dangerous, even I think that woman who made the comments was out of line. I get her basic frustration - maybe if the victims aren't black or Hispanic or gay or something else that can make it someone else's problem, there will be movement. First off, no, there won't. If twenty small children being shot in their classroom didn't do it, I don't think anything will. Secondly, it's a huge step from frustration to willing harm, even unintentionally, in innocent people and thirdly, the time to say something like that really, really is not just after 58 people were killed and over five hundred injured because they happened to be at a concert under the room of someone who really should not have had access to guns, no matter what his "reasons".

It was a contemptible thing to say. It shouldn't become The Story because it's not, but it was a contemptible view to espouse.

I don't get her basic frustration at all. What she said was outrageously cúnty - not being sympathetic to the victims because they're probably Republicans? That is inexcusable…

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

What I find mental is the amount of Irish people who are so ingrained and invested in the American ultra right-wing mindset from their online communities, that they'll defend and argue for the NRA and the rights of people over there to own by guns capable of killing dozens of people in a minute or so, without any kind of checks or clauses.

Are there many people in this thread like that? I haven't really seen it.

SafeSurfer

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd imagine the answer would have to be no - the number of gun owners in Ireland is far lower to begin with, and there isn't an emphatic need among the admittedly few I do know (mostly hobbyists, plus two or three farmers). The hobbyists I know here are big on safety etc and while they more or less to a man would really enjoy firing something like an AK47 I've never heard anyone say a thing about needing or having some right to own one. As for the farmers, something like a shotgun or rifle would do the trick I would imagine at least, as we've not got much in the line of dangerous animals and for the most part it would probably be used for something like scaring off foxes at night.

An old room mate of mine in Australia was a former young Olympics for shooting and insisted on keeping his rifle in the apartment since it was something that he'd had in his room since he was a kid, but also insisted on never having an ammo in the property either. I knew a few in Canada who did because they lived in more rural areas where some real vicious animals live (same with chunks of the US, it has to be remembered!) but they were more interested in just having something to make a really loud bang and scare off bears etc.

That said I have only known a handful of gun owners down the years, but I've not come across any from Ireland (or Canada or Australia) as fervent in their need for military grade weapons like parts of the US are so keen for.

Agreed. Legal urban gun ownership in Ireland is rare. Most firearms are owned by hunters, farmers and gun club members. Most firearms would be shotguns, single and double barrel mainly and non semi automatic rifles. There are further tight restrictions on the amount of ammunition you can store and the number of shots a firearm is permitted to fire. For example pump action shotguns are limited to 3 rounds.
Around 12% of Irish households own guns, which for a country with a large rural and farming population is low by European standards.

The difference I see between gun ownership in the US and in Ireland is that in the US guns are visible and ubiquitous.
You can buy guns in Walmart. Security guards are armed. The police are not only armed but have become increasingly militarised in recent years. They resemble a paramilitary force in many instances.

Contrast that with Ireland where, by and large police are unarmed and firearms just aren't a feature of everyday life.

jmayo

Pelvis wrote: »

He's white, he's mentally ill.

If he was brown, Islam!

I am really tired of this shyte where muslim is always being equated to "a brown person".
It it trying to drag race into it and then you get to play the racism card.

Do yourself and the rest of us a fooking favour and check out how many black people are muslims or how many white people are muslims.

Back on topic.
Some people just don't get it, guns to a lot of Americans is like booze to a lot of Irish.
It is now too late to try and rein in the amount of firearms.

Ever since the creation of the USA, there is a mindset of sorts that central government can't be totally trusted. Remember the civil war was not just about slavery, but the rights of states above those of federal government.
Then add in all the conspiracy nutjobs, religious loons, preppers and survivalists to the mix and you have a huge cohort of people who will fight with all the weaponary at their disposal to keep that weaponary.

Trying to leverage firearms off some of these people is pretty dangerous as was proven in places like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The US is different to the likes of Canada or Australia where the British had historically controlled access to firearms as a means of preventing rebellion.
When the US was founded the founding fathers had added in the allowance of firearms for the citizenry kind of as a means of keeping the government honest.

Of course they hadn't foreseen 50 round magazines on submachine guns and assault rifles being carried by loons.

Oh and all of the Constitutions which have explicitly stated the right to bear arms were/are in the Americas and were modeled on the US Constitution.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, another user posted about the story actually and if I want to comment on what's posted, I will.

You immediately saw the story as "liberal bashing" when liberals weren't even fcuking mentioned. Just shows your mindset on the issue.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104848825&postcount=83
No, that's your mindset. You can try to make this about me but i haven't once implied that the guy had any political affiliations that may have contributed. The only time I've mentioned politics is to say that it's highly unlikely that it has any relevance.

As for ads by google, it's surprising how many posts you actually went back and edited.

jimmycrackcorm

super_furry wrote:

that they'll defend and argue for the NRA and the rights of people over there to own by guns capable of killing dozens of people in a minute or so, without any kind of checks or clauses.

From the news so far it would appear that the shooter would have passed any checks.

20Cent wrote:

Saw a good tweet that kind of sums up how messed up it is. Owning a gun is a right, hospital treatment after being shot is a privilage.

You'd think that they'd give free treatment for gun victims...

WinnyThePoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, another user posted about the story actually and if I want to comment on what's posted, I will.

You immediately saw the story as "liberal bashing" when liberals weren't even fcuking mentioned. Just shows your mindset on the issue.



Oh, Columbo here.....

Look, I merely defended a user calling a fired exec a cunt and posted the tweet she got fired for. I didn't use any labels so how the hell could I be trying to turn it into a label fest?

Ok brother ..lets take a look

'Did I say it did, Chief? Nope. Read the post again: I said HE appears to have been an anti-Trump leftist'

'Jesus Christ. I said "going by his FB posts" and "going by" means 'appears' ffs!! And again, I was talking about that particular guy, not every single person on the planet who is anti-Trump'

'Oh ffs. Give it a rest. When that right wing nut drove a car into the crowd were you whinging about him being called out as such? I bet you weren't. Anyway, for what it's worth. ABC have just confirmed that the shooter was a 64-year-old white male. Not sure if that tallys with who this is rumoured'

'The reason I posted a screencap of likes was because of the sanctimonious moaning about someone being called a 'leftist'. I was merely showing why I did so. I didn't link to their page and nor did I name them, for reasons obvious'

'How does someone go from being married to an anti-Trump leftist to then being somehow acquainted with a right wing gun toting nut job? *Question posed based on latest speculation. No offense implied or intended'

'What the hell are you on about? You seem very thin skinned when it comes to liberalism.

In the last seven or eight posts on the thread republicans have been attacked four or five times, which nobody has moaned about.

Then someone posts about a CBS exec who called republicans 'repugs' and implied they deserved to be murdered, and you're trying to turn that into being about the 'bashing of liberals'?? Are you for real??'

riffmongous

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

From the news so far it would appear that the shooter would have passed any checks.
.

Well a pretty basic check is how many firearms you have registered, no way he was passing that

BillyBobBS

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh, as a definite liberal who thinks the American views on gun ownership are frankly dangerous, even I think that woman who made the comments was out of line. I get her basic frustration - maybe if the victims aren't black or Hispanic or gay or something else that can make it someone else's problem, there will be movement. First off, no, there won't. If twenty small children being shot in their classroom didn't do it, I don't think anything will. Secondly, it's a huge step from frustration to willing harm, even unintentionally, in innocent people and thirdly, the time to say something like that really, really is not just after 58 people were killed and over five hundred injured because they happened to be at a concert under the room of someone who really should not have had access to guns, no matter what his "reasons".

It was a contemptible thing to say. It shouldn't become The Story because it's not, but it was a contemptible view to espouse.

She was "out of line" and you "get her basic frustration".

Are you for real?

Samaris

By the way, that was alarming and depressing too, the swift attempt to pin it on some random bloke, and that it took off because he was a liberal and this was a chance to get one-up on this nebulous enemy. It started on 4chan and got caught up in the Facebook/Google algorithms that responded based on uses of the name. Because no-one reputable was using it (and there was no history on the name), it threw up rubbish from 4chan. Which people then believed straight off because it fit a convenient (if slightly insane) narrative. Also, there's an unfortunate man out there with a rather unusual name who now has internet rumours circling about him regarding the mass murder of 58 people! Because of lazy fact-checking and a deliberate crusade by the complete asshats that started it (I doubt 4chan were the only ones piddling in the fountain of truth, and I suspect that if these stories were traced back to their origins, those origins would look deeply dubious).

The internet is a dangerously double-edged sword.

BillyBobBS wrote: »

She was "out of line" and you "get her basic frustration".

Are you for real?

Yes. Did you read the rest, where I condemned what she said and pointed out exactly why it was unspeakable and contemptible or did you stop where you could take outrage at it?

Saying that "I get the frustration" does not mean I agree with it. I get Madrid's frustration with an illegal referendum - I condemn violence. I -get- peoples fear of mass Muslim immigration - I condemn calls to drown them all.

Yes, I am for real, and because I am for real, I can hold opinions that do not fit squarely into Black Or White. I am capable of nuance and I choose to use it when I feel necessary.

Nekarsulm

riffmongous wrote: »

Well a pretty basic check is how many firearms you have registered, no way he was passing that

As I understand it, there is no register.(except full auto centrifire rifles, sold up to 1986, newer ones are banned) Your ID is checked, and some States check your police record is clean, and you're good to go.

kunst nugget

Samaris wrote: »

..Winny also makes fair points there.

By the way, that was alarming and depressing too, the swift attempt to pin it on some random bloke, and that it took off because he was a liberal and this was a chance to get one-up on this nebulous enemy. It started on 4chan and got caught up in the Facebook/Google algorithms that responded based on uses of the name. Because no-one reputable was using it (and there was no history on the name), it threw up rubbish from 4chan. Which people then believed straight off because it fit a convenient (if slightly insane) narrative. Also, there's an unfortunate man out there with a rather unusual name who now has internet rumours circling about him regarding the mass murder of 58 people! Because of lazy fact-checking and a deliberate crusade by the complete asshats that started it (I doubt 4chan were the only ones piddling in the fountain of truth, and I suspect that if these stories were traced back to their origins, those origins would look deeply dubious).

The internet is a dangerously double-edged sword.

There seems to be a cold war of the civil war variety going on in the States and each side will use whatever they can to run down the other side and it doesn't really matter if it's true or not. As long as it feels true to them.

namloc1980

riffmongous wrote: »

Well a pretty basic check is how many firearms you have registered, no way he was passing that

No such check. No limit on the number of guns you can own as there is no central register of how many guns are owned by an individual.

Outlaw Pete

Grayson wrote: »

No, that's your mindset. You can try to make this about me but i haven't once implied that the guy had any political affiliations that may have contributed.

Again with this nonsense. Long before I got to the thread users were discussing that guy in great detail (given his close ties with Marilou). I merely said that going by the FB Pages he 'liked', he was a leftist and anti-Trump. Big fcuking deal.

The truth is that you (and your buddies) couldn't give a fcuk what I called some guy that was rumoured to have been behind the shooting. You all just got your panties in a bunch cause I used the word 'leftist'.

The only time I've mentioned politics is to say that it's highly unlikely that it has any relevance.

Ah yeah, butter wouldn't melt. Sure the stories you're linking to show that you ain't shy of the odd label yourself.

Grayson wrote: »

Here's a link about how right wing groups promoted the wrong man as the killer.

riffmongous

Nekarsulm wrote: »

As I understand it, there is no register.(except full auto centrifire rifles, sold up to 1986, newer ones are banned) Your ID is checked, and some States check your police record is clean, and you're good to go.

namloc1980 wrote: »

No such check. No limit on the number of guns you can own as there is no central register of how many guns are owned by an individual.

Yeah and that's the problem, there should be a register so when someone is stockpiling it can be spotted.