Oslo Blast Gun Derail

[mistermack]

Switzerland while liberal by European gun standards has stricter gun laws than even the most liberal US state. It's crime to carry or even possess a loaded weapon outside a sporting event.

Carry a hand gun in a Swiss city and you are likely to be executed by the police (sod trials) as quickly as you would in any other European country

And yet practically every Swiss household has at least one firearm available with which it would be possible to break all those laws like the Norwegian nutcase did. The presence and availability of firearms is not a causative factor in itself, or Switzerland would have depopulated itself by now. Logical disconnect ignored by PC sheeple, naturally. But of course, they are to be forgiven for that oversight by virtue of the fact that they're themselves so picturesque, nice and obedient to those who tell them what their opinions are.

Everybody know's that you can't go by the Swiss. While the whole of Europe was killing each other, the Swiss were coining it, and practising their yodels. Fuck em, I wish they WOULD depopulate themselves.

[Gallstones]

That's why I speak out so strongly against the idiocy of disarmament of law-abiding citizens

Your solution to gun crime is to arm everybody rather than disarm everybody. That's fucking hilarious.

Here's an idea: shut down the gun making companies. Every last fucking one of them. Ban every last gun except those held by the military. The general public is not allowed to handle radioactive material or keep rare animals for ethical and safety reasons, so let's make the same principle apply to guns.

If anyone is then found with a gun and live, viable ammo they are locked up for life with no parole - hell, I'll even gift you the death penalty on this one - and remember they don't even have to fire the gun, they just have to be in possession. What's that I hear you say? Oh, the "rights of the individual" ... well, since we're chucking abstract social policies in the bin and statistics don't matter, let's just cut to the chase and solve this problem once and for all.

If guns become so incredibly rare and hot on the mean streets of America, it might just put one kid off the effort of trying to get one, and it might just save one life - and if we're talking about the individual level, that's worth destroying every gun in the world for, right?

The Problem (people killing people) isn't guns.
Removing guns will not remove the Problem.

On May 16, 2005, Kootenai County, Idaho Joseph Edward Duncan III murdered three people in their home; a mother, her 13 yo son and her boyfriend. He killed them by beating them to death. No gun. He then kidnapped the younger daughter and son so he could repeated rape them. He ended up killing the boy later.

The Problem (people killing people) isn't guns.

[Gallstones]

Seth makes me puke. 87 kids are dead and he makes it an opportunity to spew his libertarian bullshit. He should be ashamed of himself.

That's a bit of an overreaction, isn't it? He's suggesting what he thinks would have saved lives. The fact that his opinion on that differs makes you "puke?"

Some people are emotional about these things. Overly so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth makes me puke. 87 kids are dead and he makes it an opportunity to spew his libertarian bullshit. He should be ashamed of himself.

That's a bit of an overreaction, isn't it? He's suggesting what he thinks would have saved lives. The fact that his opinion on that differs makes you "puke?"

Some people are emotional about these things. Overly so.

I think it's a natural reaction to making political hay out of other people's misfortune. It shows that no harm is to grievous for some folks to fail to try and score points off it.

[mistermack]

The Problem (people killing people) isn't guns.
Removing guns will not remove the Problem.

On May 16, 2005, Kootenai County, Idaho Joseph Edward Duncan III murdered three people in their home; a mother, her 13 yo son and her boyfriend. He killed them by beating them to death. No gun. He then kidnapped the younger daughter and son so he could repeated rape them. He ended up killing the boy later.

The Problem (people killing people) isn't guns.

That's very poor logic.
Guns are part of the problem, and removing all guns will remove part of the problem.
It's not a difficult concept.

[Warren Dew]

He obtained six tons of bomb fuel legally too.
Ban fertilizer.

Banning fertilizer doesn't sound like such a terrible idea. We'd be forced to switch to sustainable organic farming, which would be a good thing for the environment, and provide better quality food to boot.

Of course, a lot of people would starve to death, but the world is overpopulated anyway. Maybe we should hold off on the gun ban until a couple years after the fertilizer ban, to avoid lingering deaths.

[Gallstones]

The Problem (people killing people) isn't guns.
Removing guns will not remove the Problem.

On May 16, 2005, Kootenai County, Idaho Joseph Edward Duncan III murdered three people in their home; a mother, her 13 yo son and her boyfriend. He killed them by beating them to death. No gun. He then kidnapped the younger daughter and son so he could repeated rape them. He ended up killing the boy later.

The Problem (people killing people) isn't guns.

That's very poor logic.
Guns are part of the problem, and removing all guns will remove part of the problem.
It's not a difficult concept.

No, thinking that removing guns will remove the problem is childishly naive.

Humans are primates prone to violence and abusing one another. That is the Problem. It isn't fists or sticks or clubs or knives or fertilizer, or gasoline or guns.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Humans are primates prone to violence and abusing one another. That is the Problem. It isn't fists or sticks or clubs or knives or fertilizer, or gasoline or guns.

The issue is impulse killing, I think. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife on impulse than it is to pull the .32 out from a purse and peg that bitch that is sitting with your man at the bar. So I believe that guns facilitate violence rather than cause it.

[Don't Panic]

He obtained six tons of bomb fuel legally too.
Ban fertilizer.

Banning fertilizer doesn't sound like such a terrible idea. We'd be forced to switch to sustainable organic farming, which would be a good thing for the environment, and provide better quality food to boot.

Of course, a lot of people would starve to death, but the world is overpopulated anyway. Maybe we should hold off on the gun ban until a couple years after the fertilizer ban, to avoid lingering deaths.

Plenty of other ways to make explosives, you might want to shut down the internet, burn all chemistry books and shoot all the chemists first.

[MrJonno]

Ban neo-nazi libertarian shits starting with a few on this forum. They wanted dead socialists and how they have a 100 of them. Fucking animals and their cult of individiuality

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He obtained six tons of bomb fuel legally too.
Ban fertilizer.

Banning fertilizer doesn't sound like such a terrible idea. We'd be forced to switch to sustainable organic farming, which would be a good thing for the environment, and provide better quality food to boot.

Of course, a lot of people would starve to death, but the world is overpopulated anyway. Maybe we should hold off on the gun ban until a couple years after the fertilizer ban, to avoid lingering deaths.

Plenty of other ways to make explosives, you might want to shut down the internet, burn all chemistry books and shoot all the chemists first.

The Mythbusters made coffee creamer explode.

And they did it the hard way, too.

[Warren Dew]

Plenty of other ways to make explosives, you might want to shut down the internet, burn all chemistry books and shoot all the chemists first.

Valid point.

Of course, the point is equally valid about guns, as Seth pointed out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1376982.stm

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Plenty of other ways to make explosives, you might want to shut down the internet, burn all chemistry books and shoot all the chemists first.

Valid point.

Of course, the point is equally valid about guns, as Seth pointed out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1376982.stm

They are not equivalent, however. You have to be in physical contact with a person to use a knife, unless you want to throw it away of course. Charles Whittman on the Texas Tower with a knife is a quite different matter than him with a box of guns.

[Gallstones]

Ban neo-nazi libertarian shits starting with a few on this forum. They wanted dead socialists and how they have a 100 of them. Fucking animals and their cult of individiuality

No one wanted anyone to be dead.

The level of ignorance and intolerance you expressed above would embarrass any decent, sensible human being.
You are little different from the caricature you have created of those you fear and hate. It is irrational.

[Warren Dew]

They are not equivalent, however. You have to be in physical contact with a person to use a knife, unless you want to throw it away of course. Charles Whittman on the Texas Tower with a knife is a quite different matter than him with a box of guns.

The details of the technique are different, sure. For example, it's much easier to kill someone who is dodging and struggling with a knife, as you risk the gun being taken away if you get too close. And of course to maximize effectiveness, as in Whittman's case, one would do physical training rather than sharpshooter training. Ultimately it doesn't matter to the people who die in these mass murders, though.