Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Aroddo, Aug 5, 2012.
Yeah, it definitely could have been a lot worse.
What's strange about it? Somewhere around fifteen thousand people get murdered in the U.S. every year; the assailant in this particular case is not special at all. He is (excuse me--WAS) just another murdering dirtbag.
I'd like our non-American posters - esp. Arwon - to know that BasketCase is 100% correct.
20-30 years ago the "average" or "normal" American murder killed a single spouse, personal or business rival, or robbery victim at a time. Well, maybe 2 at a time.
But today the average murderer tends to be armed with several automatic weapons, kills multiple strangers, and has some form of insanity that just happens to manifest itself as homicidal tendencies following right-wing talking points.
"Massacres" are SOP in the USA. In some municipalities any murder of less than .0002% of the population is now considered routine and gets no special attention from the police or media. It's only when there's something especially sensational - like Batman or turbans - that you seen the crime receiving any attention.
It's simply the price a free nation is willing to pay to guarantee terrorists get all the guns they want and madmen stay colorfully feisty.
I don't know what they do in Australia for entertainment. Presumably it's usually something that doesn't involve guns...? (I was going to say "drinking", but I'm not sure that's any fun without a concealed weapon on your person.)
I swear, sometimes I think some people do this kind of stuff just to get their picture on the front page headlines. Otherwise I can't imagine why this seems to happen so much now and seemingly not so much in the past.
What makes you assume this is something that can be fixed?
Shouldn't we at least try?
The average american says no.
Can you though? I hate to quote a tired anti-gun laws talking point, but criminals will find ways to get firearms, no matter how severe the gun control laws are. It will be harder, yes, but it will still happen.
Why focus on an absolute zero-death goal? Why can't we enact policies that reduce the average number of deaths per year? Why should the opposition naming an impossible goal prevent everyone else from attempting to achieve a realistic one?
Enact mandatory - carrying of as a minimum a side arm and training in functional and appropriate usage for all able-bodied citizen - or - functional training and equipment as a 1'st/2'nd echelon medic.
In the name of freedom force everybody to defend or care for everybody else.
That could create a situation in which a shooter is shot, then the shooter's shooter is observed shooting someone and is shot, and the shooter's shooter's shooter is shot... I know you're not serious but a lot of people do seem to believe that if everyone's armed and regards day-to-day life as a war zone, then it'll be safer.
Yes, and that is why it won't work. In order for it to work everybody "drafted" in this sense would have to regular and continuous training in not to "just shoot and ask questions later", and that is communism, because "nobody is going to learn me who I am going to shot, this is a free country."
Separate names with a comma.