Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fake

Shooting at Sikh temple 7 dead

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.co...-175002467.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

 

 

At least seven people were killed, including the suspected gunman, in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., south of Milwaukee on Sunday.

According to police, 911 dispatchers received multiple calls from the temple at approximately 10:25 a.m. local time. An officer who responded to the scene was treating a victim when he was "ambushed" by the suspected gunman in the parking lot, Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards said. The veteran officer was shot multiple times and rushed to Milwaukee's Froedtert Hospital where he underwent surgery, Edwards said.

The suspect was shot and killed by a second officer, police said. The gunman was not identified, and no motive was released.

Tactical units conducting a sweep of the 17,000-square-foot temple discovered four bodies inside and three—including the gunman—in the parking lot. Edwards said "weapons" were recovered, but would not elaborate. According to CNN, two semi-automatic handguns were recovered at the scene, and member of the temple described the gunman as tall male with what appeared to be a "9/11 tattoo."

There were initial, unconfirmed reports of multiple shooters and a hostage situation, though police said they believe there was just one gunman.

A spokesman for Froedtert Hospital said a total of three victims, including the officer, were admitted—two with gunshot wounds to the face and one with gunshot wounds to the abdomen. All three are in critical condition, the spokesman said. Other area hospitals were initially told to prepare for as many as 20 victims, though it appears that figure was precautionary.

Law enforcement officials are treating the case as an "act of domestic terrorism," police said, and the FBI is leading the investigation. The names of the victims in Sunday's shooting were not released.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Satwant Kaleka, the president of the temple, was one of the victims taken to Froedtert Hospital, according to his nephew, Gurmit Kaleka.

Dozens of worshipers, including women and children, were gathering for a meal before an 11:30 a.m. prayer service at the temple, or gurdwara, when the shooting occurred. There are about 500 members in the congregation, officials said.

Witnesses described a chaotic scene as worshipers reportedly hid inside closets within the building after the gunman opened fire inside.

President Barack Obama was notified of the shooting shortly before 1 p.m. (ET) by chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a senior administration official told Yahoo News.

"Michelle and I were deeply saddened to learn of the shooting that tragically took so many lives in Wisconsin," Obama said. "At this difficult time, the people of Oak Creek must know that the American people have them in our thoughts and prayers, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded. My administration will provide whatever support is necessary to the officials who are responding to this tragic shooting and moving forward with an investigation. As we mourn this loss which took place at a house of worship, we are reminded how much our country has been enriched by Sikhs, who are a part of our broader American family."

Mitt Romney released a statement, too. "This was a senseless act of violence and a tragedy that should never befall any house of worship," Romney said. "Our hearts are with the victims, their families, and the entire Oak Creek Sikh community. We join Americans everywhere in mourning those who lost their lives and in prayer for healing in the difficult days ahead."

Wis. Gov. Scott Walker said his office is working with the FBI and local law enforcement in its investigation.

"Our hearts go out to the victims and their families as we all struggle to comprehend the evil that begets this terrible violence," Walker said. "At the same time, we are filled with gratitude for our first responders, who show bravery and selflessness as they put aside their own safety to protect our neighbors and friends."

The Indian Embassy in Washington called it a "tragic incident" and said it has been in touch with the National Security Council and local authorities to monitor the situation.

Sunday's shooting comes less than a month after the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre, when 12 people were killed and 58 wounded during a midnight screening of "Dark Knight Rises."

Sikhism is a 500-year-old monotheist faith with about 27 million followers worldwide, including about 300,000 in the United States.

Since 9/11, Sikh groups in the United States have reported a rise in bias attacks. There have been more than 700 reports of hate-related incidents against Sikhs since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, according to the Associated Press. "Sikhs don't practice the same religion as Muslims," the AP noted, "but their long beards and turbans often cause them to be mistaken for Muslims, advocates say."

In the wake of the shooting in Wisconsin, law enforcement officials in other cities, including New York City, increased patrols near Sikh temples on Sunday. However, there is no known threat against Sikh temples in New York, the NYPD said.

 

I'm part Indian and while I am not a firm believer of any religion I do know a good amount about Sikhism. This is absolutely disgusting.

Edited by Lifted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9/11 tattoo > kills people?

what irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunate. Sikhs have come on the wrong end of attacks after 9/11 because of some visual similarities between them and Muslims. Seems like fear, guns and not ignorance, but evil as we've seen with the CO shootings, are running rampant in America.

 

This hits close to home because of the large Sikh population in my city, they are very generous people and their temple runs a 24/7 free food service where you are accepted regardless of race, religion, or social status. They are a very hard working people.

 

Condolences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are very generous people and their temple runs a 24/7 free food service where you are accepted regardless of race, religion, or social status. They are a very hard working people.

 

Condolences.

 

You'll find that all over the US and the world that you may always come to a Sikh temple in search of food and they would never turn you down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really sounds like a crazy person with a gun mistook Sikhs for Muslims, and decided to go shooting them because of the general anti-islam view in "right-wing" media. This is very, very sad, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time the United States starts asking itself how these crazies are getting guns with ease. Seriously, there needs to be a real debate about gun control without the NRA screaming like lunatics about the Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Authoritive figure]

 

Now is not the time to be discussing gun control

 

[/Authoritive figure]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time the United States starts asking itself how these crazies are getting guns with ease. Seriously, there needs to be a real debate about gun control without the NRA screaming like lunatics about the Second Amendment.

Crazy people will do crazy things no matter the circumstance. I'm not sure it's worth judging an entire nation's gun policy on the actions of several insane individuals.

So the least one could do is not empower such insane individuals, perchance? :huh: I mean, people will always be run over by cars, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have speed limits (nor that we ought to ban cars).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time the United States starts asking itself how these crazies are getting guns with ease. Seriously, there needs to be a real debate about gun control without the NRA screaming like lunatics about the Second Amendment.

Crazy people will do crazy things no matter the circumstance. I'm not sure it's worth judging an entire nation's gun policy on the actions of several insane individuals.

 

I think in this case, there is a reason to stop and cause to ask what holes in the legislation allowed this and the Aurora shooting to take place. We take the Aurora shootings for examples. The fact that the killer was able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun legally along with more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition from the internet shows there are failings in the system. I don't understand how the US still allows automatic weapons and equipment like bullet-proof vests (items used in war) to be sold legally.to civilians.

 

Even the FBI reports holes in gun background checks. Did you know there are no background checks involved in 2/5 of all gun transfers in the US in places like gun shows, internet purchases, Ads in news papers...etc. It doesn't even matter if certain states like California or New York has stricter laws because one can theoretically buy guns from Texas or Utah and cross state lines without being scrutinised by the individual state's authorities. That's insane.

 

And even if there are background checks and regulations, they are not properly implemented. Observe how the Tuscao shooter Jared Loughne managed to purchase a weapon from a gunstore despite a background check request being sent to the FBI and him having a history of erratic behaviour and run-ins with the police. Back in 2005, the Justice Department estimated the 3,000 people manage to purchase weapons each year when they really shouldn't, all because of of limitations in the background checking system.

 

That and many more policies must be fixed and it doesn't help to not admit that there is no problem cause there clearly is.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time the United States starts asking itself how these crazies are getting guns with ease. Seriously, there needs to be a real debate about gun control without the NRA screaming like lunatics about the Second Amendment.

Crazy people will do crazy things no matter the circumstance. I'm not sure it's worth judging an entire nation's gun policy on the actions of several insane individuals.

 

I think in this case, there is a reason to stop and cause to ask what holes in the legislation allowed this and the Aurora shooting to take place. We take the Aurora shootings for examples. The fact that the killer was able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun legally along with more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition from the internet shows there are failings in the system. I don't understand how the US still allows automatic weapons and equipment like bullet-proof vests (items used in war) to be sold legally.to civilians.

 

Even the FBI reports holes in gun background checks. Did you know there are no background checks involved in 2/5 of all gun transfers in the US in places like gun shows, internet purchases, Ads in news papers...etc. It doesn't even matter if certain states like California or New York has stricter laws because one can theoretically buy guns from Texas or Utah and cross state lines without being scrutinised by the individual state's authorities. That's insane.

 

And even if there are background checks and regulations, they are not properly implemented. Observe how the Tuscao shooter Jared Loughne managed to purchase a weapon from a gunstore despite a background check request being sent to the FBI and him having a history of erratic behaviour and run-ins with the police. Back in 2005, the Justice Department estimated the 3,000 people manage to purchase weapons each year when they really shouldn't, all because of of limitations in the background checking system.

 

That and many more policies must be fixed and it doesn't help to not admit that there is no problem cause there clearly is.

 

There is one problem here... People can get guns illegally. Having tight regulation wont stop people from getting them illegally(this sounds really familiar...), it just wont. The only way you can stop guns completely is if you throw privacy and the 2nd amendment out the window, and take away everyones guns and strip-search everyone before they enter any public place.

 

IMO, Allowing people to have guns and allowing people to have freedom and privacy don't play nice, and though I do not support gun usage(for other then hunting), it won't do any good to make them totally illegal. We've already seen what happens if you make something a lot of people like illegal(Marijuanna, Prohibition, ect.)

 

(Yes, I'm going to make an excuse. I'm sick and having trouble sleeping, so what I type and what I'm thinking may be two totally different things)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that people will take the illegal route. They always do. But that doesn't mean we leave gaping holes in gun control policies for crazies like the Tascon, Aurora or Sihk Temple to exploit. If these laws were in place and the authorities properly implementing them, there would be a good chance that alot of the shootings we now mourn could have been prevented.

 

Tackling the illegal gun networks is a different issue. But the problem of guns should be tackled one step at a time and the first step is plugging the loopholes and areas easily exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that people will take the illegal route. They always do. But that doesn't mean we leave gaping holes in gun control policies for crazies like the Tascon, Aurora or Sihk Temple to exploit. If these laws were in place and the authorities properly implementing them, there would be a good chance that alot of the shootings we now mourn could have been prevented.

 

Tackling the illegal gun networks is a different issue. But the problem of guns should be tackled one step at a time and the first step is plugging the loopholes and areas easily exploited.

 

I guess I was misunderstanding. I completely agree that the loopholes need to be patched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is one problem here... People can get guns illegally.
The point isn't quite the "people have guns" thing, because guns are diffused in other countries too (although not to that point, in the so-called 'developed countries' at least). Assuming America doesn't have an innate savagery compared to other countries, why is it that such shootings are much more common in the US than in other countries? Damnit, there's a third [hopefully just a third] of the country here that's governed by criminal organisations, you'd guess that weapons would be pieces of cake to obtain and use, but there's little more than isolated 'incidents'. Can it be that Americans are less civil than Italians? My answer is no, so what's the factor that makes such shootings so 'common'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly the guy was linked to a white supremacist group and performed in a white supremacist band (those exist? :blink: ). I don't know if he bought guns legally or illegally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is one problem here... People can get guns illegally.
The point isn't quite the "people have guns" thing, because guns are diffused in other countries too (although not to that point, in the so-called 'developed countries' at least). Assuming America doesn't have an innate savagery compared to other countries, why is it that such shootings are much more common in the US than in other countries? Damnit, there's a third [hopefully just a third] of the country here that's governed by criminal organisations, you'd guess that weapons would be pieces of cake to obtain and use, but there's little more than isolated 'incidents'. Can it be that Americans are less civil than Italians? My answer is no, so what's the factor that makes such shootings so 'common'?

Are they really that common or is the media here just obsessed with reporting them and turning them into a big deal? I don't know the facts.

 

Even then you have people like that Dutch guy who managed to do something quite similar, even with heavily restricted weapons laws. Again, I'm not sure it's realistic to define an entire country's gun policy on the actions of insane individuals. Consider how many guns are owned and used legally and without harming others- maybe it's really not that bad after all.

 

It still does not take away from the fact that there are gaping holes in the gun laws of the US which can and have been exploited for evil purposes. And it is the moral duty of the Federal government to find these limitations and fix them so that lives can be saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just awful. And say what you will about gun control, the US could increase control without making people lose their supposed freedom. You don't need more than a handgun to keep yourself safe, and perhaps a guns for hunting. Not the type of weaponry you see people get in the news for.

 

These kind of acts really make me sikh.

10/10 would laugh again and then feel terrible about said laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that people will take the illegal route. They always do. But that doesn't mean we leave gaping holes in gun control policies for crazies like the Tascon, Aurora or Sihk Temple to exploit. If these laws were in place and the authorities properly implementing them, there would be a good chance that alot of the shootings we now mourn could have been prevented.

 

Tackling the illegal gun networks is a different issue. But the problem of guns should be tackled one step at a time and the first step is plugging the loopholes and areas easily exploited.

 

Except that when you remove guns from the populace without tackling the impossible to solve black market you just have a more vulnerable public. Many guns committed in crimes are illegal as is.

 

 

Just awful. And say what you will about gun control, the US could increase control without making people lose their supposed freedom. You don't need more than a handgun to keep yourself safe, and perhaps a guns for hunting. Not the type of weaponry you see people get in the news for.

 

These kind of acts really make me sikh.

10/10 would laugh again and then feel terrible about said laugh.

Right to bear arms wasn't put in the constitution for exclusively for defense against another individual assaulting you. It was also meant to level the playing field as a last resort against a tyrannical government. In the unlikely but possible chance that a revolution was needed most people would be more comfortable in knowing that our defense wasn't limited to handguns and hunting rifles.

 

Either way I recommend people read this article that sums up my views on both Aurora and Sikh massacres.

http://reason.com/ar...not-an-argument

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that people will take the illegal route. They always do. But that doesn't mean we leave gaping holes in gun control policies for crazies like the Tascon, Aurora or Sihk Temple to exploit. If these laws were in place and the authorities properly implementing them, there would be a good chance that alot of the shootings we now mourn could have been prevented.

 

Tackling the illegal gun networks is a different issue. But the problem of guns should be tackled one step at a time and the first step is plugging the loopholes and areas easily exploited.

 

Except that when you remove guns from the populace without tackling the impossible to solve black market you just have a more vulnerable public. Many guns committed in crimes are illegal as is.

 

I'm not saying we strip people of their right to bear arms. Nor am I saying we ignore the illegal gun trade and black market. That needs to be addressed.

 

What I am saying is that there are gaping holes in gun control policy which can and have been abused to commit acts of evil. Those gaps must be filled.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way I recommend people read this article that sums up my views on both Aurora and Sikh massacres.
Uh, nobody so far in this topic has used 'outrage' as an argument, so downplaying everyone's posts (even those in favour of going GUNg-ho (sorry)) in such a way is...a red herring, at best.

 

Right to bear arms wasn't put in the constitution for exclusively for defense against another individual assaulting you. It was also meant to level the playing field as a last resort against a tyrannical government.
Well, all the weapons they could have didn't help the head of a structured armed organisation when the AMAGAD EVIL GUMMINT struck, didn't it? What makes you think that you'll be able to do more than someone pointing a finger saying "PEW PEW PEW" to - say - unmanned drones, tanks, et al.?

 

Except that when you remove guns from the populace without tackling the impossible to solve black market you just have a more vulnerable public.
Vulnerability matters depending on danger: if the danger of attacks is low, vulnerability matters little, and the other way around. I've already said
<snip>Damnit, there's a third [hopefully just a third] of the country here that's governed by criminal organisations, you'd guess that weapons would be pieces of cake to obtain and use, but there's little more than isolated 'incidents'. Can it be that Americans are less civil than Italians? <snip>

 

What I am saying is that there are gaping holes in fun control policy
Yeah there's a loophole that says that you can't ride waterslides backwards come on it's bollocks fudge tha police

 

:P

Edited by Arianna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that there are gaping holes in fun control policy
Yeah there's a loophole that says that you can't ride waterslides backwards come on it's bollocks fudge tha police

 

:P

 

My Catholic side's showing again. :blush:

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time the United States starts asking itself how these crazies are getting guns with ease. Seriously, there needs to be a real debate about gun control without the NRA screaming like lunatics about the Second Amendment.

Crazy people will do crazy things no matter the circumstance. I'm not sure it's worth judging an entire nation's gun policy on the actions of several insane individuals.

 

I think in this case, there is a reason to stop and cause to ask what holes in the legislation allowed this and the Aurora shooting to take place. We take the Aurora shootings for examples. The fact that the killer was able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun legally along with more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition from the internet shows there are failings in the system. I don't understand how the US still allows automatic weapons and equipment like bullet-proof vests (items used in war) to be sold legally.to civilians.

 

Even the FBI reports holes in gun background checks. Did you know there are no background checks involved in 2/5 of all gun transfers in the US in places like gun shows, internet purchases, Ads in news papers...etc. It doesn't even matter if certain states like California or New York has stricter laws because one can theoretically buy guns from Texas or Utah and cross state lines without being scrutinised by the individual state's authorities. That's insane.

 

And even if there are background checks and regulations, they are not properly implemented. Observe how the Tuscao shooter Jared Loughne managed to purchase a weapon from a gunstore despite a background check request being sent to the FBI and him having a history of erratic behaviour and run-ins with the police. Back in 2005, the Justice Department estimated the 3,000 people manage to purchase weapons each year when they really shouldn't, all because of of limitations in the background checking system.

 

That and many more policies must be fixed and it doesn't help to not admit that there is no problem cause there clearly is.

 

There is one problem here... People can get guns illegally. Having tight regulation wont stop people from getting them illegally(this sounds really familiar...), it just wont. The only way you can stop guns completely is if you throw privacy and the 2nd amendment out the window, and take away everyones guns and strip-search everyone before they enter any public place.

 

IMO, Allowing people to have guns and allowing people to have freedom and privacy don't play nice, and though I do not support gun usage(for other then hunting), it won't do any good to make them totally illegal. We've already seen what happens if you make something a lot of people like illegal(Marijuanna, Prohibition, ect.)

 

(Yes, I'm going to make an excuse. I'm sick and having trouble sleeping, so what I type and what I'm thinking may be two totally different things)

And 95% of gun crime in the US is committed with illegally-acquired weapons, according to the Department of Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time the United States starts asking itself how these crazies are getting guns with ease. Seriously, there needs to be a real debate about gun control without the NRA screaming like lunatics about the Second Amendment.

Crazy people will do crazy things no matter the circumstance. I'm not sure it's worth judging an entire nation's gun policy on the actions of several insane individuals.

 

I think in this case, there is a reason to stop and cause to ask what holes in the legislation allowed this and the Aurora shooting to take place. We take the Aurora shootings for examples. The fact that the killer was able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun legally along with more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition from the internet shows there are failings in the system. I don't understand how the US still allows automatic weapons and equipment like bullet-proof vests (items used in war) to be sold legally.to civilians.

 

Even the FBI reports holes in gun background checks. Did you know there are no background checks involved in 2/5 of all gun transfers in the US in places like gun shows, internet purchases, Ads in news papers...etc. It doesn't even matter if certain states like California or New York has stricter laws because one can theoretically buy guns from Texas or Utah and cross state lines without being scrutinised by the individual state's authorities. That's insane.

 

And even if there are background checks and regulations, they are not properly implemented. Observe how the Tuscao shooter Jared Loughne managed to purchase a weapon from a gunstore despite a background check request being sent to the FBI and him having a history of erratic behaviour and run-ins with the police. Back in 2005, the Justice Department estimated the 3,000 people manage to purchase weapons each year when they really shouldn't, all because of of limitations in the background checking system.

 

That and many more policies must be fixed and it doesn't help to not admit that there is no problem cause there clearly is.

 

There is one problem here... People can get guns illegally. Having tight regulation wont stop people from getting them illegally(this sounds really familiar...), it just wont. The only way you can stop guns completely is if you throw privacy and the 2nd amendment out the window, and take away everyones guns and strip-search everyone before they enter any public place.

 

IMO, Allowing people to have guns and allowing people to have freedom and privacy don't play nice, and though I do not support gun usage(for other then hunting), it won't do any good to make them totally illegal. We've already seen what happens if you make something a lot of people like illegal(Marijuanna, Prohibition, ect.)

 

(Yes, I'm going to make an excuse. I'm sick and having trouble sleeping, so what I type and what I'm thinking may be two totally different things)

And 95% of gun crime in the US is committed with illegally-acquired weapons, according to the Department of Justice.

The point, though, is that the average person doesn't have a way to see if a weapon has been acquired illegally if gun carrying is so diffuse, whereas, if I saw an armed person around my town I'd call the police right away (of course, assuming he isn't in uniform). :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time the United States starts asking itself how these crazies are getting guns with ease. Seriously, there needs to be a real debate about gun control without the NRA screaming like lunatics about the Second Amendment.

Crazy people will do crazy things no matter the circumstance. I'm not sure it's worth judging an entire nation's gun policy on the actions of several insane individuals.

 

I think in this case, there is a reason to stop and cause to ask what holes in the legislation allowed this and the Aurora shooting to take place. We take the Aurora shootings for examples. The fact that the killer was able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun legally along with more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition from the internet shows there are failings in the system. I don't understand how the US still allows automatic weapons and equipment like bullet-proof vests (items used in war) to be sold legally.to civilians.

 

Even the FBI reports holes in gun background checks. Did you know there are no background checks involved in 2/5 of all gun transfers in the US in places like gun shows, internet purchases, Ads in news papers...etc. It doesn't even matter if certain states like California or New York has stricter laws because one can theoretically buy guns from Texas or Utah and cross state lines without being scrutinised by the individual state's authorities. That's insane.

 

And even if there are background checks and regulations, they are not properly implemented. Observe how the Tuscao shooter Jared Loughne managed to purchase a weapon from a gunstore despite a background check request being sent to the FBI and him having a history of erratic behaviour and run-ins with the police. Back in 2005, the Justice Department estimated the 3,000 people manage to purchase weapons each year when they really shouldn't, all because of of limitations in the background checking system.

 

That and many more policies must be fixed and it doesn't help to not admit that there is no problem cause there clearly is.

 

There is one problem here... People can get guns illegally. Having tight regulation wont stop people from getting them illegally(this sounds really familiar...), it just wont. The only way you can stop guns completely is if you throw privacy and the 2nd amendment out the window, and take away everyones guns and strip-search everyone before they enter any public place.

 

IMO, Allowing people to have guns and allowing people to have freedom and privacy don't play nice, and though I do not support gun usage(for other then hunting), it won't do any good to make them totally illegal. We've already seen what happens if you make something a lot of people like illegal(Marijuanna, Prohibition, ect.)

 

(Yes, I'm going to make an excuse. I'm sick and having trouble sleeping, so what I type and what I'm thinking may be two totally different things)

And 95% of gun crime in the US is committed with illegally-acquired weapons, according to the Department of Justice.

The point, though, is that the average person doesn't have a way to see if a weapon has been acquired illegally if gun carrying is so diffuse, whereas, if I saw an armed person around my town I'd call the police right away (of course, assuming he isn't in uniform). :/

 

I'm not sure what kind of misconceptions you guys have in Europe but people don't typically walk around with guns in plain sight whether they're legal or not. Either way many high powered weapons can fit in a backpack.

 

Uh, nobody so far in this topic has used 'outrage' as an argument, so downplaying everyone's posts (even those in favour of going GUNg-ho (sorry)) in such a way is...a red herring, at best.

 

The article had little to do with people using outrage as an argument. It was meant to show that kneejerk reactions don't result in good policy decisions. It highlighted that things like the assault weapon ban really only legislated on appearance. That a background check showed this guy as perfectly sane. Among other things such as high capacity magazines. No one uses 100 capacity magazines because they jam. Even if they weren't legal it takes all of 3 seconds to change a cartridge.

 

Well, all the weapons they could have didn't help the head of a structured armed organisation when the AMAGAD EVIL GUMMINT struck, didn't it? What makes you think that you'll be able to do more than someone pointing a finger saying "PEW PEW PEW" to - say - unmanned drones, tanks, et al.?

 

Well first of all tanks are hardly invincible they're easily destroyed with large explosives and can be hijacked. Either way I don't see how this is an argument to ignore the second amendment and take peoples weapons.

 

 

Vulnerability matters depending on danger: if the danger of attacks is low, vulnerability matters little, and the other way around. I've already said

 

 

Except that low rate of attacks isn't an excuse for removing someones right to self defense.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.