It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
There are places in the highlands of Scotland where the nearest police are probably 2 hours away and guess what - not that many people get shot.
I would say most violent incidents are over in a matter of minutes if not seconds so the police are utterly useless in 99% of cases and just come and cleanup the aftermath so why not just disband them altogether and use the money you save to issue everyone from toddlers to pensioners with guns to protect themselves?
I would imagine for a concert like the one in Vegas the police were on scene for crowd control, but they didn't help much did they so the argument about police response time is pretty irrelevant. However I can understand you desperately clinging to it as this time the public having guns probably saved lives so in your mind case closed - easy access to guns saves lives (even though without a nutter having easy access to guns in the first place lives would not have needed saving).
Not sure if you have ever been to a “hood” or ghetto area in America. I’d imagine it’s a little different than Scotland. You can goto liveleak and watch all out gang wars with assault rifles and a ton of other crazy gang shootings. I will say I am not surprised about Vegas happening but the Texas shooting is a shock.
Who would have ever thought the next mass shooting would be in a tiny Texas town full of 600 people? I think we can all agree no one needs an assault rifle.
Also have to say that military courts/police not registering felony criminals, or letting the police know a soldier had an arsenal of weapons with the intent to perform a mass attack, is a major issue. Hopefully the victims family sues.
Although, If assault rifles were illegal and not sold in stores he most likely could’ve gone to the academy store and bought handguns and a hunting rifle. Hunting rifles can be purchased at 18 in Texas and pistols can be legally concealed in an 18 year olds vehicle. You have to be 21 to legally purchase a handgun however. Would’ve been incredibly easy for him to buy any of these guns.
Guns will never be taken away from anyone because “Its an American right”, sigh.
Could better security have stopped the Vegas shooter from entering a popular hotel with 20+ assault rifles? Could banning assault rifles completely have prevented any of these attacks? Would the shooters still find a way to obtain these guns through the black market?
Could they still get a handgun or hunting rifle and kill innocent civilians?
Are people getting inspired by previous mass shootings?
Talk about a country burying it's head in the sand.
How has this worshipping of weapons anything to do with a rational intent or need for self defence? It is completely mental and sickening, that's what it is!
But you are defending this culture. Could the mass shootings be prefented by banning (semi)autimatic guns? Yes, it could. Australia proves this. And like rural USA, rural Australia has few police, many towms without. But since they banned (semi) automatic guns they haven't had a mass shooting.
Imagine this guy coming into the church with only a hand gun. He wouldn't have been able to kill 26 people. Maybe six. That's 20 people more living then now.
The gangs? well they get those machineguns because they're readily availeable on the market.
Would gun violence dissapear? no. But it would be a lot, a lot less.
And those who love guns would still be able to go to their shooting club/range.
If I lived way out in the mountains I'd have a rifle or two, but handguns always seemed like accidents waiting to happen to me, so all I have is a Walther PPK/s spring bb gun.
The whole shooting lasted 7 minutes and he fired 400 plus rounds. With a handgun and judging by police response time he would’ve still killed a majority of everyone in the church.
Graphic but he walked aisle to aisle just point blank killing every person. I recently shot a handgun for the first time and I can honestly say if you point it point blank at 5-6 people on the ground repeatedly you’d kill them all. Then reload and move to the next..
Car chase wouldn’t have happened, police would’ve showed up 15-20 minutes later and he’s either get shot or kill himself. I see your point though. Keep in mind there’s not a range near every person and it can be expensive to join. Typically we just goto someone ranch or farm. Someone is always willing to let people come out.
It’s free. Plus shooting dove and deer versus a target is more appealing. It’s just the culture I guess. Like I said if I were to walk into a mall or restaurant and see a civilian walking around with a handgun on their waist it wouldn’t bother me. It never has. Seeing someone with a rifle in public would.
Just about sums it up when it wouldn't bother our American friend if someone was armed with a handgun in a 'restaurant or shopping mall'
All part of the 'culture' though eh ?
Be a bit draconian to clamp down on that too.
I was actually being sarcastic but never mind....
I was obviously not refering to you, which you had known if you had followed this discussion more closely...
Well try quoting the message you're referring too then.
Or we could go on a "romantic date". ;)
Damn, where are American gun laws when you need them!
Well we eat dove and deer so...
What state is your dove in after you've shot it with an assault rifle?
Or does it save you mincing it?
That too is legal in Texas.
So that is the point! It all makes sense now! :))
https://davelearningstuff.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/killing-hedgehogs-with-machine-guns-is-illegal-in-the-uk/
Indeed.
Hunting an unarmed dove with an assault rifle - how is that sporting exactly? Like Real Madrid playing a team of toddlers.
At least give the dove a Glock or something to give it half a chance to defend itself if you consider it a sporting contest.
Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are normally used for hunting with a carefully placed single shot. Then if there's time, aiming and taking a second shot. (They don't wildly fire off bursts in a killing frenzy that ruin meat or their interest in a trophy). Used that way, an AR-15 is pretty equal to less provactive rifles like the semi-automatic Marlin Glenfield .22 I had in my youth with a squirrel carved in the stock. But one is an assault weapon, one is considered more innocuous.
I'm thinking the use of automatic weapons on an animal, humans included excepting war, is illegal most everywhere including the US. And those folk would not be considered "hunters".
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
Apparently the country with the closest volume of guns per head of population to the U.S. is Yemen, which (un)surprisingly also has one of the highest mass shooting rates in the world.
The clearest correlation between mass shootings globally is the amount of weapons in a country. Reduce the amount of guns sloshing around and you reduce the number of mass shootings.
But as others have pointed out, the debate in the US has moved well beyond any discussion about how to reduce mass shootings. The NRA and Trump are not interested in saving lives. The debate is about the right of the gun industry to flog merchandise and rights of gun owners to kill. U.S. society's willingness, indeed enthusiasm for tolerating mass murder on a regular basis is well established. Really the only question is what would US popular opinion consoder NOT acceptable when it comes to killing other Americans. Is there a line to be drawn at all? It seems not. Kids, innocents, everyone's lives are a price worth paying to ensure Americans keep on buying vast quantities of guns.
I actually met one of the family who own Glock a few years back. He was a nice Austrian guy. Very wealthy.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html
Apparently the country with the closest volume of guns per head of population to the U.S. is Yemen, which (un)surprisingly also has one of the highest mass shooting rates in the world.
The clearest correlation between mass shootings globally is the amount of weapons in a country. Reduce the amount of guns sloshing around and you reduce the number of mass shootings.
But as others have pointed out, the debate in the US has moved well beyond any discussion about how to reduce mass shootings. The NRA and Trump are not interested in saving lives. The debate is about the right of the gun industry to flog merchandise and rights of gun owners to kill. U.S. society's willingness, indeed enthusiasm for tolerating mass murder on a regular basis is well established. Really the only question is what would US popular opinion consoder NOT acceptable when it comes to killing other Americans. Is there a line to be drawn at all? It seems not. Kids, innocents, everyone's lives are a price worth paying to ensure Americans keep on buying vast quantities of guns.
I actually met one of the family who own Glock a few years back. He was a nice Austrian guy. Very wealthy. He was definitley putting America First with his handgun marketing campaign.