[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

I justify prison for those who attempt or plan harm to others...no matter the religion, gender, sexual orientation, race or other descriptor.

I justify prison for those who encourage real violence via their communication...no matter the religion, gender, sexual orientation, race or other descriptor.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but neither would I defend someone who reached that fate by virtue of proven murder or serious assault (sexual or otherwise)...no matter the religion, gender, sexual orientation, race or other descriptor.

I object to hate speech, but I believe we must all tolerate it and not have it banned. For one person's hate is another's cry for freedom.

So you're a totalitarian. Who decides for you this moral standard?

[ferris209]

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

Sounds like a Mafioso type of society. Great for movies, but that attitude gets innocent people killed - often by their own hand. (and I suspect you know that....of course it depends which department you serve - homicide is not the same as suicide or accidental death, so maybe you don't).

So, you think it's a "mafioso society" to prefer to see an assailant dead with a decent citizen still standing, as opposed to seeing a decent citizen dead and the murderer walking free until an investigation catches him? I have no clue what kinds of mafia people you are around but they actually sound like pretty swell folks.

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

And there you go....."this loser" would not have found it so easy to obtain a gun if guns were not available like candy. He would find it incredibly difficult to get his hands on a gun undetected in the UK....it's possible, but a rarer event and certainly not a cache of arms and ammunition sufficient to make Rambo proud.

Where are guns available "like candy?" Because that certainly is not the United States.

You truly live in a bubble man if you think he couldn't lay hands on guns even in the UK.

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

And as you illustrated, no armed civilian stopped "this loser"...despite the fact that there were armed civilians in the band! (and of course elsewhere). He was stopped by threat of capture...and if he'd not have killed himself he'd have been stopped by you brave folks in the police force.

You cannot predict every situation and this wasn't a situation where concealed carry helped, but it very well could have. What if I had been in the hotel room right next to him and instead of just calling 911 about the gunfire coming out of the room next to me, I could have burst in and ended with my concealed carry firearm. It unfortunately didn't happen, but having an armed citizenry increases the odds.

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

Your life as a cop would be a darned sight less stressful if you knew there were not nearly as many guns out there on the streets - don't tell me otherwise.

I will tell you otherwise, I want as many responsible citizens as possible well armed and prepared to back me up if I need it or prepared to terminate a threat before I can in order to stop more death and chaos occurring. This is something you have the luxury of just imagining, but I have seen chaos first hand and am prepared to face whatever evil presents itself to me.

It's all pretend and supposition to you, but a reality and probable for me.

[Broadjumper]

Originally Posted by anorexorcist ↗

For the dimwits: it's "terrorism" when violence is being used to push a social agenda. 9/11, Oklahoma City Bombings, and the Pulse nightclub shooting? Terrorism. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Columbine? Not terrorism. This? Who fucking knows yet. Good lord, it's pretty fucking simple and it has nothing to do with skin colour.

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism."

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism." The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

While no one yet knows the shooter's actual motives, I'm certain we can agree that (1) the act was"dangerous to human life" that violated criminal laws of a state or the United States AND intimidate[d] a civilian population. If it ain't terrorism, then it ain't far from it.

[-me-]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Ah I see. So you figure people bent on becoming murderers will decide to go back to updating facebook instead of killing if guns are not on the conscious minds as being easily obtained? Interesting.

Would that mean if we dropped a stock load of guns into UK, you'd all become brainless murdering asshole in its current demographic state?

Some would chose to murder if they were presented with a gun...no doubt about it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but there'd be a threat that wasn't there before.

Not "all", not many. But it doesn't take many, as US citizens keep finding out...Every. Single. Day!

But it's OK because Trump and others have given them "god's magic prayers" as the solution

[Meridian]

That was intense. The taxi driver tried to charge them then pretended she was joking!

[-me-]

Originally Posted by ferris209 ↗

So, you think it's a "mafioso society" to prefer to see an assailant dead with a decent citizen still standing, as opposed to seeing a decent citizen dead and the murderer walking free until an investigation catches him? I have no clue what kinds of mafia people you are around but they actually sound like pretty swell folks.

I think it's a Mafioso society to want anyone dead!

Where are guns available "like candy?" Because that certainly is not the United States.

You truly live in a bubble man if you think he couldn't lay hands on guns even in the UK.

In the UK it's possible to get a gun....but incredibly difficult - too difficult for the layman!

The numpty who a killed a "Remain" politician had to build a gun and import advice on how to do it....from the states!

Guns are available at gun fairs and are easily available. I presume you take it for granted. it's not like this in the UK. It isn't!

You cannot predict every situation and this wasn't a situation where concealed carry helped, but it very well could have. What if I had been in the hotel room right next to him and instead of just calling 911 about the gunfire coming out of the room next to me, I could have burst in and ended with my concealed carry firearm. It unfortunately didn't happen, but having an armed citizenry increases the odds.

It's incredibly rare - the stats show that.

"Studies have shown that unintentional shootings are four times as common as occurrences of gun use in legitimate home defense situations. You'd be more likely, statistically speaking, to shoot someone by accident than you are to shoot a home invader."

What isn't so rare are the instances of murder, suicide, accidental shooting, death by police (yep sometimes it does happen because the police must be ever vigilant) and all manner of gun related nastiness.

"when a child or teen is killed by a firearm, the gun that killed them comes from their own home fully 72 percent of the time"

Guns make people feel secure, but statistically they do far, far, far more harm overall than good.

I will tell you otherwise, I want as many responsible citizens as possible well armed and prepared to back me up if I need it or prepared to terminate a threat before I can in order to stop more death and chaos occurring. This is something you have the luxury of just imagining, but I have seen chaos first hand and am prepared to face whatever evil presents itself to me.

I have that luxury...because the UK don't have citizens with guns running around!

That is the difference - few guns = less death!
It's very, very simple.

[Ady347]

Originally Posted by Sibella ↗

Thank you! It's annoying as fuck. Take that shit to another thread, nobody cares about your political and gun control opinions.

Exactly im scrolling through all the bull. I wanna see close up pics of dead american girls

[Dodecahedron]

Holy fucking shit at this...

https://www.gq.com/story/inside-fede...-many-guns/amp

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Ady347 ↗

Exactly im scrolling through all the bull. I wanna see close up pics of dead american girls

Here's how to bypass all the discussions-

https://www.documentingreality.com/f...oncert-180704/

Just pound refresh over and over, and maybe, just maybe, something will pop up for you to fap at because that's generally where you'll find the updates.

Good luck!

[ferris209]

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

That is the difference - few guns = less death!
It's very, very simple.

I think I've found the problem, you actually think it's this simple.