I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Funny Stuff

Oddee

Extreme Humor

Funny Videos

Free Samples

I hate retail

Gorilla Mask

Asylum

Urlesque

Chaostrophic

FreeGame Heaven

Viva La Games

Funny Games

Crazy Games

Insane Pictures

123 Games

Angelsfire.nl

Anon email

Nothing To Do?

Friday Fun

Funny stuff

DailyFreeGames

Escape Games 24

Pugorama

Comic World

CityRag



Back to Listing

2 Similar Stories, 2 Different Endings [Pic]

Hits: 12337 | Rating: (1.7) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 606 Posts
Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:06:02 PM
OldOllie: "(The Beltway sniper attacks) was not a "multiple-victim public shooting" in that it did not occur at one time in one location."

Thanks for moving those goalposts, just like I predicted. FYI, 4 people were killed in those attacks within a span of about 2 hrs. in Aspen Hill. I'm not surprised that "doesn't count" somehow to you.

Seriously, a simple Google search "shoots down" your absurd claim:
4 people shot, 2 dead, in multiple shooting in Roselle
4 Arrested in Quadruple Shooting

Feel free to move the goalposts again on these, Ollie, I'd expect nothing less of you.

MattPrince
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2223 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 2:55:46 PM
Lol you got me. carbine, smg, machine pistol all the same to me. You missed my point about the pipe bomb but no matter. This is obviously a religous matter to some of you.
Its your country, good luck.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13518 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 10:36:29 AM
Mexico also banned ownership of guns been working great there BTW......[/sarcasm]

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13518 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:45 AM
Those are sub machine gun not carbines and pipe bombs are banned meaning they no longer exsist right??? LOL! Keep the blind faith her majesty really does care about you....

MattPrince
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2223 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 10:01:42 AM
McGovern what is it with you and this bizarre class struggle you see over here? Carbines are always on display at major airports, protecting chavs as well as monarchy, so I'm not sure quite what you are tilting at there old chap.

As for guns being required for rebellion against corrupt governments, this is just a sign of your hypocrisy when it comes to this topic. Pipe bomb anyone?

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13518 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 7:02:28 AM
The UK will arm gaurds to protect the royals but the peons are not offered the same...

What could ever go wrong with complete blind trust and power being given to the government.....

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13518 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 6:56:20 AM
But on topic, the shooting was over very quickly. To pick out one person in a dark panic filled theatre with people running about, and accurately hit him AND ONLY HIM seems very difficult to me. And I won't believe anyone that says otherwise.


You have zero firearm experience of course you'd find it hard.

""A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"-Freud

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13518 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 6:46:20 AM
@MattPrince

Actually that gun vs. Apache happened when Russia invaded Afghanistan it worked. It was also said when the USA revolted again Britian we had no chance and were completely outgunned it also wound up working.

This guys apartment is all rigged up with pipe bombs and such we should also ban those I guess... Oh wait we did already see how well that works?

slobzs
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 33 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 6:14:51 AM
@MattPrince, I can give verification to the stats I gave. The info is from reliable and respected studies and publication and not from my fantasies. But space is short.

Yes, I did speculate and yes my teeth are blue. But so are other people with blue teeth in this discussion, when they say stricter laws in the USA would prevented this or if a legal gun owner could of stopped or slowed Holmes from killing. This whole discussion has been based on speculation.


MattPrince
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2223 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 4:56:12 AM
Fortunately the police were fairly quick off the mark and arrived within 7 minutes, an eternity to be facing down a gun, but they did put a stop to it. The point is - you can improve that response time and make sure there's fair coverage of an area with professionals, you can't rota civilians or expect them to behave well in this situation. (I'm sure there were some examples of the best of bravery in that cinema, just a shame that the coward with the gun will be the one remembered)

If, by chance any of you concealed carriers are ever in place to put a stop to a situation like this, then I hope (sincerely) that you are ice-calm and your aim is accurate.

MattPrince
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2223 Posts
Monday, July 23, 2012 4:30:53 AM
5cats said :- "WTF?? All it takes is MONEY! And apparently he had about $10,000 worth of equipment, legally obtained. If he'd have purchased stolen/ illegal items? It might have even cost less... but was certainly "available".

No, it takes more than money, it takes connections, and I would expect, a certain amount of nous and/or luck, (you dine with cannibals - sooner or later your gonna get eaten).

This attack (and the British incident you tried to smokescreen with) were carried out with guns obtained legally - you can speculate about what might have happened had they not been available till your blue in the teeth - but that's all it is, speculation. You can claim all the un-verified statistics you like, but in this one incident, the facts are clearly not in your favour.

slobzs
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 33 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:37:54 PM
Ok, last post in this rant of mine. In 2007 of the 50 states, 40 had passed concealed weapon laws. Those 40 states saw a faster fall in violent crimes, than the 10 states that did not have such laws in the same time frame. The crooks are thinking twice now adays from violent crimes. We are seeing an increase in other types of crime, such as identity thief and credit card fraud. A person who engaged James Holmes may not of survived against the body armor and weapons he had, but the 10,20 or 30 seconds he distracted Holmes would allowed that many more people escape to safety and unhurt. And @MattPrince you said "that's what the police and military are for in a civilised state". Do you really think that a person going on a shooting spree is going to stop from killing you while you call the police because you believe it's the police and military's job to protect you? Yeah, Good luck with that...

Remember: 'If they OUTLAW guns, only OUTLAWS will have guns'

slobzs
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 33 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:37:26 PM
While I'm on the subject of *more* gun restrictions, lets look at an interesting paper published by the Harvard Journal Law. It cites that in 2003 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found no gun control laws that reduced violent crime(including murder, armed robbery...), suicide, or gun accidents here in the US. The findings were validated by a study of 400 documents, studies, and reports done by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2004. An article I found from The Telegraph (a UK newspaper for those that don't know) cites in 2007 the UK had 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 vs the US with 466 per 100,00. If there was armed citizens in the UK maybe there wouldn't be so many crooks eager to commit violent crimes. In the late 1990's when the UK banned all handguns and most rifles there was an increase in criminal violence, by the year 2000 the UK had surpassed the US in violent crimes. Russia also banned handguns, but yet they have a murder rate 4x higher than the US.

slobzs
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 33 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:13:34 PM
While I'm on the subject of *more* gun restrictions, lets look at an interesting paper published by the Harvard Journal Law. It cites that in 2003 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found no gun control laws that reduced violent crime(including murder, armed robbery...), suicide, or gun accidents here in the US. The findings were validated by a study of 400 documents, studies, and reports done by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2004. An article I found from The Telegraph (a UK newspaper for those that don't know) cites in 2007 the UK had 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 vs the US with 466 per 100,00. If there was armed citizens in the UK maybe there wouldn't be so many crooks eager to commit violent crimes. In the late 1990's when the UK banned all handguns and most rifles there was an increase in criminal violence, by the year 2000 the UK had surpassed the US in violent crimes. Russia also banned handguns, but yet they have a murder rate 4x higher than the US.

slobzs
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 33 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:10:11 PM
Angilion, that 'one and only example I can find' was the result of a 5 second google search and it was on top of the list. It was a response to the question brought up by another poster. I didn't know I was required to find more than one to validate my point of find mass murder in the UK. Oh, wait the Dunblane massacre, guess what, I found another one. Give me a second I might find more if I really look hard, but that's not what going to do.

slobzs
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 33 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:09:24 PM
Angilion, in regards to your point of having more gun restrictions would of prevented that one that I listed from happening, I would have to respectfully disagree. At the time of the UK shooting, stringent bans of all handguns and large caliber rifles were in effect. Thus leaving shotguns and .22 rifles available to him. If those were also banned along with black powder firearms, you're right (in a sense) he could not of gone on his shooting spree with legally owned guns. BUT, who's to say he could not of bought an illegal firearm off the street to do what he did. Here in the States we have a restriction on fully automatic guns (there are a few citizens that can own one), guess who has possession of them? The criminals, the street gangs, and a couple of backwoods militia nutjobs. Just because an item is banned doesn't mean people can't get them. Bird was a man that was going to snap, no matter what. If it wasn't a gun, it would of been a kitchen knife, a chainsaw or what ever...

slobzs
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 33 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:09:21 PM
....to kill his brother, lawyer, and the next 35 people.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26157 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 3:38:34 PM
CNN Just had a spot where they "discussed" gun control.
They represented BOTH sides of the issue!
One guest Hates Romney and wants more gun control
The other guest wants More gun control and love Obama!
See! Completely UN-Biased!
They said things like: we don't want to take people's guns away (lie)
We don't want unreasonable restrictions (lie)
We want to have an "open dialogue" (lie)

One ranted about "automatic weapons" while the other decried the NRA's freedom of speech...

But HEAVENS NO! The MSM is not biased at all!

@MattPrince: "No known criminal associations"?? WTF?? All it takes is MONEY! And apparently he had about $10,000 worth of equipment, legally obtained. If he'd have purchased stolen/ illegal items? It might have even cost less... but was certainly "available".

Give your head a shake bro...

MattPrince
Male, 40-49, Europe
 2223 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 2:52:43 PM
"so we shouldn't have guns in the first place? We should sit wait for someone to come harm us, and not be prepared?"

Thats what the police and military are for in a civilised state. You appear to want to tend towards anarchy where its every man for themselves.

In the end though, I agree with Angillion, what works (better) for us, may not work as well for you. I sincerely hope we do not trend towards your position.

In terms of your speculation.. I don't think this guy, with no criminal associations would have found it easy to secure such effective weaponry if local gun laws hadn't permitted it legally.

Done something else maybe, but not this.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:27:29 PM
@carmium: Why is it that Europeans and Canadians try to involve themselves so desperately in US affairs and politics?

By the way, many Midwestern states, such as Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming have lower or comparable homicide rates as Canada. Midwestern states also typically have very relaxed gun laws. The problem isn't gun laws, it is the culture in various areas.

Then again, we are a republic. Despite the fact that Lousiana has a homicide rate of 11.2/110k (the highest), since I do not live there, my opinion should have no bearing there. Unlike your countries, our states are sovereign.

Also, to rebuff your claim, Colorado State University enacted policies allowing students to carry on campus, and saw a 60% reduction of crime. Meanwhile, the University of Colorado banned it, and saw a 35% rise in crime during the same span of time.

dirtysteve00
Male, 30-39, Europe
 375 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:52:24 AM
Two different situations as well though, one a psychopathic massacre, the other a robbery.
Nice of the pro/anti gun crowds to get out in front of this with their own agendas though.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:40:26 AM
First of all I don't believe anyone here thinks that my country is full of rampant gun-toting sociopaths, and psychopaths hell-bent on murdering or settling some pointlessly overdue score.


Advocates of increased carrying of guns by civilians state that the USA would be a far *more* violent place with far more homicides and far more violence in general if there was less gun ownership. Their clearly stated argument is that there are *many*, and I mean MANY, people in the USA right now who want to kill people and are only prevented from doing so by fear that they might encounter someone who can draw a gun and shoot them before they can pull the trigger of the gun they're already pointing at their victim.

So yes, you do think that the USA is "full of rampant gun-toting sociopaths, and psychopaths hell-bent on murdering or settling some pointlessly overdue score." Your argument makes no sense unless you believe that.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:33:23 AM
But on topic, the shooting was over very quickly. To pick out one person in a dark panic filled theatre with people running about, and accurately hit him AND ONLY HIM seems very difficult to me.


You're right. Also, he was apparently wearing body armour as well. So we're talking about having to shoot him in the head, which increases the difficulty even further.

Soldiers train repeatedly for that sort of thing because it's very difficult even for a highly trained and well equipped soldier. A special forces unit in the cinema could have stopped the killing sooner. It's very unlikely that a disorganised mob of civilians with handguns would have done.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:24:05 AM
I think that using the UK as an example to make any argument about gun control in the USA, or vice versa, is a deeply flawed argument anyway, even if the conclusion logically follows from the evidence. There are many similarities between our countries, but there are also some differences and the carrying of weapons is one of those differences. It's not "one size fits all".

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11623 Posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:21:24 AM
At best such restrictions would've only delayed the killings, as prohbition of any form does very little to stop people from getting the products/services they want. In this case, fully automatic weapons.


But the only example given in support of that argument shows the opposite. This sort of multiple killing by shooting people simply because they were there (i.e. not shooting chosen individuals for specific reasons) is extremely rare in the UK and the 1 example the person could find was carried out with legally held guns, not illegally obtained guns.

Very few people could obtain fully automatic weapons in the UK.

In short, citing the UK as a reason for *reducing* gun control in the USA is wrong. If anyone is going to use the UK as an example for the USA, their conclusion has to be *greatly* increasing gun control. But see my next post.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.