Reply to: gun control

[AtW]

Shoot the mother****er in the head.

AtW.

No... armour piercing ammo with DU core ...

[AtW]

Yep, they choose soft targets right now, but if there are no more soft targets then how do they get the headlines and the attention? Yep, seek 'hard targets'.

Yes sure they might go for hard targets, but there are only so many loons out there and if their casualties go down by factor fo 10 then it solves problem given that every day more people die on roads - 3500 people die in UK from car accidents alone.

[NotAllThere]

I've figured out how the Yanks can address the gun control issue. A group of aggrieved loons need to walk into NRA headquarters with assualt rifles and slaughter the lot of them.

That should disprove their argument that the world is a safer place if everyone is armed once and for all, and hopefully plug the bulltulip volcano as well.

I'm not sure it would work - but we do need to find out one way or another. Certainly an interesting experiment.
:nazi:

[Bunk]

And my theory is that an attacker with the advantage of surprise, a few smoke grenades, a bulletproof vest and a semi automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine will do a lot more damage than that before they get it together to bring him down.

Where would you find someone like that though? Oh yeah, in the NRA

[Mich the Tester]

Apparently many of the finest military snipers come from that area.

Able to survive for weeks in the wilderness with only quadrupedal ruminants for warmth and tenderness.

[Mich the Tester]

Especially in Kentucky & West Viriginia.

No, they're Chicken****ers and Daughter****ers.

[Mich the Tester]

Shoot the mother****er in the head.

AtW.

Somehow I suspect 'mother****er' is a perfectly accurate definition of many NRA members, but Sister****er and Auntie****er would probably work too.

[d000hg]

How does anyone 'win'?

By not dying.

[darmstadt]

Just nuke America, problem solved and you get a ****-off big ice rink into the bargain

[doodab]

Which works as long as the attackers win.

How does anyone 'win'?

[Mich the Tester]

It would deter them it they knew they can only kill 2-3 peopel rather than 20-30, this deterrent is already in effect - they choose to attack soft targets with lots of unarmed people.

Yep, they choose soft targets right now, but if there are no more soft targets then how do they get the headlines and the attention? Yep, seek 'hard targets'.

I get the impression that most of the arguments I hear from those who campaign against gun control are actually contrived nonsense to avoid saying what they really feel which is ' I like guns and I want to own and carry guns so I'll use any convoluted argument I can conceive to defend my supposed right to do so, including the completely nutty argument that if I have a gun then you will be safer '.

[AtW]

Seeing as the crazy attackers usually kill themselves at the end of their rampage I can't see how the danger of being killed would deter them.

It would deter them it they knew they can only kill 2-3 peopel rather than 20-30, this deterrent is already in effect - they choose to attack soft targets with lots of unarmed people.

[AtW]

And my theory is that an attacker with the advantage of surprise, a few smoke grenades, a bulletproof vest and a semi automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine will do a lot more damage than that before they get it together to bring him down.

Yes, but such attacker would prefer to attack unarmed people because it would give higher probability of success - all serious shootings happened in places where people could not defend themselves because firearms were banned in those places.

Attacker might have advantage of suprise, but he does not know who is armed with concealed firearm - only takes one man to shoot the **** out of that scambag and save others.

[d000hg]

No, i think their argument that by being armed they are somehow safe is bollocks. The obvious way to prove this is to shoot them.

Which works as long as the attackers win.

[doodab]

Their argument is that by being armed it won't be possible for one crazy attacker to kill 30-40 people, that attacker would die pretty quickly, maybe take 2-3 with him.

This would be a deterrent because attackers go for crazy rampages precisely because they want to kill a lot of people - that's why they target places like schools which were specifically forbidden to have guns on premises.

And my theory is that an attacker with the advantage of surprise, a few smoke grenades, a bulletproof vest and a semi automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine will do a lot more damage than that before they get it together to bring him down.