This is a knife attack. NSFW and bloody.

The result probably would've a dead intruder. Fine by me in this case. But in a house with 120 rooms, and police already on the way, I don't think they needed to confront the guy and attack him. It'd seem safer to exit the home and wait for police.

The Reverend wrote:

Guage wtf ? I'm shure that's some line from some movie and you have out nerded me .
And d helix , crime rates are lower in areas where guns are legal . Its simple logic . Can't wait for somone here to say its not true

Not that I want to be argumentative about the 2nd Amendment, as I happen to agree, but this kind of evidence doesn't really work for me when determining the rightness or wrongness of laws...at least not as a standalone argument.

After all, dictatorships where you die for almost any crime also lowers crime rates. I'm not signing up to live there, are you?

Funny thing is, hitler took away all the guns. So did the commie countries.

Not really the point I was making.

And regardless, there's certainly more than one kind of bad. Anarchy has it's hangups too. The world isn't divided into things hitler won't let us do, and things we shouldn't.

Obama won't let me carry nukes

Canada has stricter guns laws, we have no more crime then the US, but our murder rate sure is lower. (Maybe a third of the US.)

Maybe we just have a more violent culture in America.

MD, that is certainly not out of the question.

It could also be due to the fact handguns and semi-automatics aren't regularly available. You know, guns designed for killing people.

In the US between 2000-now there were 12,632 homicides by Firearm, most of which were committed with handguns.

In Canada between 1999-2010 we had about 2000, not really anything to be proud of but still.

Just putting that out there, I actually disagree with regulation. But I also disagree with people who think it doesn't work.

Norway has some of toughest firearm legislation in world but 84 people were just massacred and more wounded by a guy using a gun. Regulation only works to disarm the law-abiding.

Brevik also appeared to be a law abiding citizen. Anyone can snap, anyone can be a murderer all it takes is the right motivation, and a weapon. It's not always a gun, but it's usually the most powerful thing they can get their hands on.

This "law-abiding citizen" killed 77 people before he was stopped, how he kill them? With LEGAL weapons, he bought guns and killed 69 people with them. Guns and ammo he bought from the US by the way, Norway's laws stopped him from illegally obtaining weapons.

And he killed those people by utilizing a country with guns laws so open he could easily obtain his weapons of mass murder.

I repeat, gun regulation saves lives, the only reason those people died is because he was able to obtain guns from the US. Would he have found another way? Maybe, but I doubt the scale of it would have been so massive.

It is (more or less was) possible to get a license for m-14 for hunting with clips taking four bullets. All he had to do was to abtain some 30 cap clips, and he had himself a weapon qualified for warfare.

M-14 should never have been legal obtainable since it's so easy to "modify", but I guess somebody haven't been eating their vegetable.

I think what this guy did was tragic and evil. I also think if Norway trusted its own citizens more there would have been several guys like me around who pack pretty much constantly and would have dropped the sick bastard before he got twenty feet. Switzerland is just brimming with guns but the gun crime rate there is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The fact is that evil and deranged people do evil and deranged things. 3000 were killed with two airplanes in my country. No guns were used. If you want to kill large numbers of people you don’t need firearms. Just some easily concocted poison and access to a town water supply is all it takes.

If guns laws was less in Norway, there wouldn't be many more guns, just more crazy people with guns. We aren't to crazy about guns, we prefere skiing.

Dogman wrote:

We aren't to crazy about guns, we prefere skiing.

I wish the world was populated with more people that though that way. It would be a better place.

Hell no! We easy wins in the winter olympics FTW!

Hazmat wrote:

The fact is that evil and deranged people do evil and deranged things. 3000 were killed with two airplanes in my country. No guns were used. If you want to kill large numbers of people you don’t need firearms. Just some easily concocted poison and access to a town water supply is all it takes.

There's the bottom line, right there. Well said, Hazmat.

I guess somebody would have noticed your tankers if you tried to poison the water sluppy. Unless you live in Gotham oc.

Where I live there are several small towns that have open reservoirs that are not secured by anything more than a chain-link fence and a normal padlock. You don’t need a tanker full of poison because you only need to contaminate the filter points. In a town nearby we drank beer at the reservoir when I was a kid. There are only three filter points and they are easy to get to. A real psycho could have hundreds dead before people even figured out what was going on. A person could make enough poison for that in an afternoon for just a few hundred dollars.

Jeeze, glad I drink the bottled stuff.

Hazmat wrote:

The fact is that evil and deranged people do evil and deranged things. 3000 were killed with two airplanes in my country. No guns were used. If you want to kill large numbers of people you don’t need firearms. Just some easily concocted poison and access to a town water supply is all it takes.

Go tell that to the families of the victims from mass shootings and firearm homicides, it's a lot easier to simple buy a gun an open fire. Why do you think so many people do it? Why do you think so many gun related deaths occur in countries without gun regulation?

Just because there are more effective ways of killing lots of people, doesn't erase the deaths cause by deranged people, who get their hands on a gun an decide to play target practice.

Think of all the people who still be alive today if not for easy access to firearms? 9/11 was a terrible loss, but that doesn't mean stuff like columbine and Virgina tech deserve any less attention.

I can apply for a license to obtain a glock, I'd probably get it too, I've had my gun license since I was 17. Gun regulation keeps guns away from those who shouldn't have them, it doesn't disarm law abiding citizens, I'm 19 and I own 2 rifles and 1 shotgun. Mind you I do suffer because I can't own a semi-automatic with armor piercing rounds, oh poor me.

Sleepless wrote:

Go tell that to the families of the victims from mass shootings and firearm homicides, it's a lot easier to simple buy a gun an open fire. Why do you think so many people do it? Why do you think so many gun related deaths occur in countries without gun regulation?

Just because there are more effective ways of killing lots of people, doesn't erase the deaths cause by deranged people, who get their hands on a gun an decide to play target practice.

Think of all the people who still be alive today if not for easy access to firearms? 9/11 was a terrible loss, but that doesn't mean stuff like columbine and Virgina tech deserve any less attention.

I can apply for a license to obtain a glock, I'd probably get it too, I've had my gun license since I was 17. Gun regulation keeps guns away from those who shouldn't have them, it doesn't disarm law abiding citizens, I'm 19 and I own 2 rifles and 1 shotgun. Mind you I do suffer because I can't own a semi-automatic with armor piercing rounds, oh poor me.

No one here is taking attention away from columbine or any other mass shooting. It appears that you have missed the point. Whether firearms are allowed or not, if people want to kill, then people will find a way to kill.

You forget that besides the guns, the two individuals who shot up Columbine were also carrying a large amount of improvised explosive devices. In the absence of those firearms, they most likely would have focused on them. Or perhaps stolen a truck and drove it through the school. Or barricaded doors and burned it down. Would that have made Columbine any less horrific?

Don't think about these events as someone going crazy with guns, they are the acts of a deranged individual determined to kill as many people as possible. That's the point Hazmat was making.

Proteus speaks sueth.

Proteus wrote:

Sleepless wrote:

Go tell that to the families of the victims from mass shootings and firearm homicides, it's a lot easier to simple buy a gun an open fire. Why do you think so many people do it? Why do you think so many gun related deaths occur in countries without gun regulation?

Just because there are more effective ways of killing lots of people, doesn't erase the deaths cause by deranged people, who get their hands on a gun an decide to play target practice.

Think of all the people who still be alive today if not for easy access to firearms? 9/11 was a terrible loss, but that doesn't mean stuff like columbine and Virgina tech deserve any less attention.

I can apply for a license to obtain a glock, I'd probably get it too, I've had my gun license since I was 17. Gun regulation keeps guns away from those who shouldn't have them, it doesn't disarm law abiding citizens, I'm 19 and I own 2 rifles and 1 shotgun. Mind you I do suffer because I can't own a semi-automatic with armor piercing rounds, oh poor me.

No one here is taking attention away from columbine or any other mass shooting. It appears that you have missed the point. Whether firearms are allowed or not, if people want to kill, then people will find a way to kill.

You forget that besides the guns, the two individuals who shot up Columbine were also carrying a large amount of improvised explosive devices. In the absence of those firearms, they most likely would have focused on them. Or perhaps stolen a truck and drove it through the school. Or barricaded doors and burned it down. Would that have made Columbine any less horrific?

Don't think about these events as someone going crazy with guns, they are the acts of a deranged individual determined to kill as many people as possible. That's the point Hazmat was making.

It's not about what they could have done, it's about what they did. It's about not ignoring the fact that the reason those kids were killed and maimed, wasn't because they could've burned the school down, it's not about whether they could have blow it up, it's because pissed off kids had access to guns.

Yeah I'm sure deranged people could kill by other means, but that doesn't mean giving them access guns is a good idea.

The asinine logic of "I'm sure they'd find another way anyways,"" is bullshit, it's like saying, "That guy looks like he's going to kill people... lets make it easier for him, if we don't give him guns I'm sure he'd just find another way anyways."

Sleepless wrote:

Gun regulation keeps guns away from those who shouldn't have them, it doesn't disarm law abiding citizens,

that is a logical fallacy.

law abiding citizens obey the law.

if a law says they can't get a gun, they aren't going to get it. plain and simple.

criminals do not obey the law. if they want a gun, they will get it, legally or illegally.

I can't own a gun, but I can get one pretty easily, its just a matter of money.

but I'm not going to, why? cuz I'm not a criminal.

My friend just bought a gun recently (put hollow points in it, as per my recommendation on what will fuck you up the most).

it's not easy in CA, even legally.

This thread has wandered way off course. We do seem do do that here. LOL