ironmanDX said:
Kasz216 said:
ironmanDX said:
chapset said:
Porcupine_I said:
chapset said:
An other case were a good guy with a gun could have saved the day |
Exactly! Just like a good guy with a bomb in Boston!
|
I see we got a smart man over the internet, some pussy tree hugers were mad at me when I said that in the thread about the boston bombing
|
He's not wrong. Where was your white armoured gunman? Nowhere. Shooting before that? Before that? It isn't a movie where the hero shows up at the perfect time to save the day. Real people, including wemon and children are dying. They don't get another chance to star in another shooting every other week.
|
Except... there have been plenty of shootings that have been stopped by people with guns. They just generally aren't national news stories.... because the gunman is killed before it gets to the Mass murder stage.
|
Is there a figure? A percentage? If guns were controlled better there wouldn't be a need. Read curls post about us here in Australia. Sure, you can argue some points but no mass shooting in 17 years? That's numbers you can't argue with. Especially considering we did have a shooting nearly every year before that. The USA need to wake up. Laws that apply to people one year, or century can easily be outdated.
|
The last mass murder before the Port Arhur murder happened in 1992 as far as i can tell.
So to say Nearly every year isn't factually true.
Additionally....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
So... neither of those statements are actually true. It's not like there haven't been other mass murders in Australia either.
It's also worth noting these mass shootings are vastly going up in the last few years... and gun ownership iin the US is actually... down. So the correlation doesn't really hold water. Unless you think gun ownership doesn't actually matter, but just the laws related to it.
