1) Boozha thinks targeting Christians for death is "irrelevant". Sure chief, sure. http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/ 2) "The deaths of 16 children aged five and six together with their teacher in the Scottish town of Dunblane in 1996 was one of Britain's worst incidents of gun-related violence. Many local people said Hamilton was an oddball -- a loner obsessed with guns and young boys, someone who didn't fit into society. He was reported to have held a grudge against the Scouting movement and his local community after police questioned him about inappropriate behavior to boys in his care. Raymond Reid, secretary of a local shooting club that rejected Hamilton for membership, described him as 'sleazy.' 'He was just one of these people that you got a gut feeling about ... didn't like -- or at least I didn't particularly like him,' Reid said. Nevertheless, Hamilton held a permit to own handguns, possibly including the ones he used at Dunblane. " http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/ More than 19 years ago. Silver lining. 3) Of course the 2nd Amendment can be changed. I never said otherwise. 4) Agree that pistols are preferred for committing crime, just as you stated. "Good start" reveals your true motives. I ALREADY lamented that our culture is too violent. Not sure why you are implying otherwise. You put words in peoples' mouth a lot mate. Changing a law and improving a culture are 2 different things. Don't conflate por favor. Gracias.
because it is? i'm sure that guy who went and shot up a sikh temple some time ago was planning on shooting everyone regardless of race or religion. still he shot mostly sikh as i recall.
Which of the following 2 headlines is allowed in Murica? White guy guns down Muslims. Mixed race guy guns down Christians.
Not sure why you linked to an article that refutes your hypothesis that teleporting guns to Mars will decrease gun deaths on Earth. 5-1-2008 Described later by his sentencing judge as a "pathetic social misfit," the 28-year-old then reached into his sports bag and, in the manner that others might pull out a sweater, withdrew two military-style semi-automatic rifles, which he used over the next eight horrifying minutes to kill 35 people — men, women and children — in what remains Australia's worst mass murder. Though he'd acquired them illegally, Bryant used guns at Port Arthur that were lawful in Tasmania at the time. Howard argued there was no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons — and under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) these were all but banned. At huge cost, the government bought from their owners some 650,000 of the newly prohibited guns, which police destroyed. It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996. But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence." Other researchers have focused on mass shootings: there were 11 in Australia in the decade before 1996, and there have been none since. This appears to be a strong argument for gun laws designed to help prevent massacres like Port Arthur. But McPhedran argues that because "mass shootings have been such a rare event historically ... it's incredibly difficult to perform a reliable statistical test on such rare events." Massacres, she argues, are a separate research question. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html (Emphasis mine). "Assault weapon" is a make-believe term. The perp got the long guns illegally. Disarming law abiding citizens will never stop violent criminals. 1 + 1 still = 2.
how american to think what I said means that. all people = A US = A leads people trough B towards C US tries to export B. somewhere else= A leads people trough D towards C. US tries to replace D with B, not good.
What DJ was referring to in this instance is witness accounts that the OR shooter lined up students and asked them if they were Christian. If they said "yes," he shot them in the head. Otherwise, he shot them in the leg. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ans-for-killing-in-horrific-act-of-cowardice/
how long before the t̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶g̶r̶o̶u̶p̶ victims noticed the trend and did any not catch on quite as fast as the rest?
Personally I believe that gun ownership should be no different than owning a car. In the sense that both come with an immense responsibility and have the ability to end another person's life through negligence or mistake. There is a fairly large difference between handguns, rifles and assault weapons just as there is a large difference between motorcycles, personal vehicles or tractor trailers. Each is different in its purpose and ability to cause harm to either the user or other people. I believe that anyone has the right to own a firearm IF they are willing to undergo the proper training and pass a test (including background and mental evaluation) to acquire a license. I believe there should be different types of Licenses allowing the use of different types of firearms (Just as you need a different license to operate a motorcycle or tractor trailer. Each requires different training and a different test) and that licenses need to be renewed (Including a class and passing the test again) fairly regularly [5 years?]). I believe that every firearm should be registered to a particular owner just as vehicles are and that it needs to be more difficult to transfer a weapon from one person to another. Lastly I believe that no one should be allowed to use a firearm unless they at least have a "training permit" which means they have undergone the minimum safety training and that they are supervised by someone possessing a License. Improper usage or allowing someone without a permit to use your weapon could result in the weapon being impounded and a license revoked. Many people believe that the very definition of faith is the ability to accept that they may be persecuted and possibly killed because of their beliefs.
many people need dictionaries topical: inventor of the dictionary ability to accept death for what you think is important is called living.
Everyone focuses on guns and the relation to gun-related incidents when arguing against guns... but this is pointless. The important metric isn't the tools used for the violence, but the violence (and degree, assault vs. homicide for example) in totality. The NRA isn't arguing that more guns will reduce gun violence in totality (except maybe in gun-exclusion zones that are near non-exclusion zones), but violence in totality. Feel free to argue against that of course, if you wish, but make sure you've got the right argument to pick apart.
Specifically from the DEA and ATF. Thanks Fast and Furious (and similar types of Government operations)! I'm not 100% sure I can pull up a reliable source, but it supposedly also came out that part of the point of that operation was specifically to blame the 2nd Amendment for gun violence in Mexico (and thus have more reasons to enable further gun controls). Even if the aim is proper (I disagree but that's just my view) that kind of shenanigans is pretty messed up, if true. That said, I do believe certain other legal practices in the US aren't helping the situation in Mexico. (Anti-Drug laws and the "War on Drugs" in large part. It wouldn't get rid of them, but removing those would help cut into the cartels' market/income.)
markoth is saying people would still say they are christian after noticing the shooter choosing bodyparts based on awnser because it is their definition of faith thus exposing the dire need of dictionaries in the US. that and gun control.
The nature of faith doesn't have anything to do with dictionaries, though. A dictionary is just a descriptive tool for understanding common usages of words. The reality is that some people would answer to being Christian despite knowing he would shoot them in the head.
And how do you want to improve the culture then? With fairy sprinkles? With prayers to lord Trump? No, with suitable legislature. As for it being irrelevant whether or not christians were targeted, do you think christians are worth more or what? I'm one, I should know that they're not.
