• We haved removed all third party advertising (TPA) from Mi.Net and all advertising will now be in house. No Third party advertising will speed up loading times and means no cookies will be used by TPA. In order to keep our site running we hope you will support us at Patreon (links on site). Thank you for visiting Mi.Net and we hope to see you on the boards.

Terror News about terrorism - foiled attacks, arrests, threat level etc

The Police did very well.
The trans thing, IDK, most mass shooters are male? Be even sadder if this was a 'statement' about being male.

And pretty much anyone having what is more or less a mil grade self loading rifle with 20-30rnd mags, available, is crazy. Pistol is a defensive weapon, Rifle is an offensive weapon. Having seen other members of the military, on a range, after being trained, and still seeing live rounds being ejected, instructors leaping in to prevent ND's, etc. There are a good % of ,mil that shouldnt get a weapon, the % of civs must be even higher.

Also crazy is driving without a speedlimit, and the amount of booze us brits consume. But its difficult to get this to be a 20 person killing, at one time.

interactive map - click on each country:





View attachment 428012
UK 132 deaths, USA 37,000 Greenland very dangerous, 11 deaths, but only a few K people!
well, thankfully, your opinion is contrary to the US constitution
The Police did very well.
The trans thing, IDK, most mass shooters are male? Be even sadder if this was a 'statement' about being male.

And pretty much anyone having what is more or less a mil grade self loading rifle with 20-30rnd mags, available, is crazy. Pistol is a defensive weapon, Rifle is an offensive weapon. Having seen other members of the military, on a range, after being trained, and still seeing live rounds being ejected, instructors leaping in to prevent ND's, etc. There are a good % of ,mil that shouldnt get a weapon, the % of civs must be even higher.

Also crazy is driving without a speedlimit, and the amount of booze us brits consume. But its difficult to get this to be a 20 person killing, at one time.

interactive map - click on each country:





View attachment 428012
UK 132 deaths, USA 37,000 Greenland very dangerous, 11 deaths, but only a few K people!
homicide by all means in the US is trending down....
homicides by firearm type? handgun deaths FAR outnumber long guns/rifles used...
you know, its usually not a good idea to flaunt your ignorance.
handguns cant be used offensively? rifles cant be used defensively?
well, thats not ignorance, thats just stupid.
 
The Police are of course getting the absolutely well-deserved praise for bringing it to as quick an end as possible but I honestly think something should be said about the teachers who met them at the door and calmly gave the police keys and all the information possible about location of the kids, number of missing kids and directions.

Just remarkable.
Yep, they did great. Met the cops out front, gave update on situation inside. Cops went in. The school seemed to have a good and well-rehearsed plan, limited the casualties as much as they could.
 
well, thankfully, your opinion is contrary to the US constitution

homicide by all means in the US is trending down....
homicides by firearm type? handgun deaths FAR outnumber long guns/rifles used...
you know, its usually not a good idea to flaunt your ignorance.
handguns cant be used offensively? rifles cant be used defensively?
well, thats not ignorance, thats just stupid.
I dont see the word assault rifle in the constitution? Care to point it out?

at 37,000 people in 1 year, it would not be difficult to get it down, dont you think?

The defence, offence, definition, is an old British Army definition.

Any way, have it your way, keep losing kids. Makes perfect sense, no need for any action of any sort, carry on!
 
^-- No.. They don't want to define anything. They want to ban everything, so they want the word to be definition fluid so they can apply it as needed.

Then we won't have any murders, like in the UK and other civilized places. Not.
 
^-- No.. They don't want to define anything. They want to ban everything, so they want the word to be definition fluid so they can apply it as needed.

Then we won't have any murders, like in the UK and other civilized places. Not.
Of course we have murders, guns did 137 last year, knives about 3 times that. If we had the same rate as USA, we would have 8-10 thousand.

It’s not normal. In ancient times we hunted the bears and lions, so our kids would survive. But you guys just shrug it off, what is it, cost of doing business?

In U.K., we used to own slaves, beat our wives, sell our kids, etc. things move on. Your constitution has been amended, and a lot of your laws are not based on constitution-nothing about drugs or cars in constitution.

I’m not wishing guns away, but some controls, training, wait times, self loading, mag sizes.
 
It's remarkable, in my opinion, that the two parties can only ever think of demanding either more or fewer guns in response to every new mass shooting. Don't get me wrong; I'd absolutely argue that common sense calls for a reform of America's gun laws at least to such an extent that people who're dangerous extremists or psychologically unstable can't stock veritable arsenals; and that guns need to be safely stored (so that this madness of three-year olds killing their siblings with unsecured firearms finally comes to an end) … But I'd also argue there's an underlying issue that remains largely unspoken of. If by some miracle all guns in the US disappeared overnight, spree killers would simply start using knives or cars.

It's hard to deny that America is unique in the developed world with regard to the prevalence of mass killings. Why would that be so?

It seems to me the American people as a whole are rather distrustful of the state's monopoly on the use of force or its role as an arbitrator of inter-citizen conflicts; and judging by how positively vigilantism and the Old West's fist-law tends to be portrayed in US culture, I can't help but suspect that mass killings are somewhat of a dark side of American individualism. And then, of course, there's new phenomena aplenty plaguing that great country. For instance, there's big health's flooding America's society with psychotropics, which has long since been suspected to have caused a spike in antisocial behaviour. America is also a very wealthy country; many children grow up without the character-moulding effect of hardship, a generation of narcissists who will snap at the slighest issue and unlike their peers in Europe or Australasia have unfettered access to firearms.

Anyway, there seems to be a whole cocktail of problems and neither party dares to touch it. Because it would cost a lot of money to tackle the issue in earnest. And because the US political system punishes setting one's own accents. As an American politician, your only real hope of success is treating the other side as a foil; whether you like it or not, you're committed to the antithesis of whatever their thesis is. A vicious circle from which there is hardly any escape, and which prevents the introduction of new approaches to politicial discours. And at the end of the day, there's no need for them to try something completely new when parents agree to getting used to the notion of bullet-proof school bags.
 
School shootings has become part of the culture.
We don't have spree stabbings or running's overs or shootings in our schools.
We still have guns though no longer auto loading still able to reload and shoot more than a few and no school shootings. (touchwood)
They say within 13 days a copy cat will do it again,.
 
Well, the copy cat effect is another thing. It's been well established at this point these fuckers seek attention beyond anything else, and the media are quite happy to give it to them. In turn, they're glorified and idolised by those who're just as wrong in the head and potential school shooters themselves Tell you what, a ban on covering school shootings might save more lives than a ban on assault weapons. It would probably be just as unconstitutional, but at the very least the government could ask news outlets to voluntarily omit reporting on perpetrators and their motives. Might be worth a try.
 
When a hammer is all you have, all problems look like nails. When a gun is seen as the cornerstone of your physical and mental well being, well it becomes the only solution for any issue you face.

Even with regulation on more powerful firearms, I don´t think there would be a a change in the number of events, perhaps only events being less severe. There is a psychological and cultural issue at stake.

Guns have to stop being so important in the minds of people. Total unlimited access to guns is not the guarantee of freedom. Many nations have armed citizens. They take the gun as a plus in their protection and understand the recreational usage you can have with them.
 
I’m not wishing guns away, but some controls, training, wait times, self loading, mag sizes.
If you impose those behind a paywall then guns won't be a constitutional right. You can't say that voting is a right, then mandate that you take courses on law, history, social sciences, take exams, yearly qualiffication and then have the "right" to choose the person or party you want. Same with guns. Either they are a right or privilege, they can't be both at the same time.
 
We have guns for collecting, target shooting, hunting and self defense. Men naturally like nice things, mechanical stuff, hunting and defense. It would be impossible to not have guns. Unless they want us all to learn how not to be men.
 
When a hammer is all you have, all problems look like nails. When a gun is seen as the cornerstone of your physical and mental well being, well it becomes the only solution for any issue you face.

Even with regulation on more powerful firearms, I don´t think there would be a a change in the number of events, perhaps only events being less severe. There is a psychological and cultural issue at stake.

Guns have to stop being so important in the minds of people. Total unlimited access to guns is not the guarantee of freedom. Many nations have armed citizens. They take the gun as a plus in their protection and understand the recreational usage you can have with them.
what you are saying makes absolutely NO sense.
 
The US has had the right to bear arms for nearly 250 years. Has the murder rate always been much higher in the US than it has in other similar societies?

Seems to me like a more recent development as is the phenomenon of the mass killer. Media culture, drug epidemic, a politically motivated legal system and mental health crisis multiplying each other's detrimental effects and politicians not only looking away, but actively denying these problems are the real problems imo.

Guns only make it a little easier to commit a crime.
 
And then, there is the case of Shinzo Abe.


In Japan, one of the country, if not the country, with some of the strictest, if not the strictest, gun laws around the world and endlessly taken as an example by gun-grabbers.

And yet, someone managed to build a gun. And use it. And kill someone with it.

Someone also managed to get his hands on nerve gas and released it in the subway, but that's a story for another time.
 
Last edited:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
It happened six years ago, why is this being published only now? Let me guess, up until last week they were too busy investigating Trump to do anything else?
 
When a hammer is all you have, all problems look like nails. When a gun is seen as the cornerstone of your physical and mental well being, well it becomes the only solution for any issue you face.

Even with regulation on more powerful firearms, I don´t think there would be a a change in the number of events, perhaps only events being less severe. There is a psychological and cultural issue at stake.

Guns have to stop being so important in the minds of people. Total unlimited access to guns is not the guarantee of freedom. Many nations have armed citizens. They take the gun as a plus in their protection and understand the recreational usage you can have with them.
what does anything you are saying here, have to do with anything?
when a hammer is all you have everything looks like a nail? what does that mean in the context of the situation? did you just like the way it sounds?
how does that glib phrase address mental health issues?
how does it have anything to do with crime?
last I checked, homicides by all means are trending DOWN in the US. isnt that a good thing?
"culture" has NOTHING to do with anything. mental health is the reason why people kill others, it doesn't have to do with having a weapon, or not... law abiding, mentally healthy citizens are not going to be tempted to engage in some nefarious deed just because a legally owned rifle of some sort is sitting around.
do you think rifles have some sort of evil intent? do you think they are animate sentient objects that are trying to subvert their owners through some kind of thought manipulation?
keep blaming the guns, and you will get nowhere. start addressing the reasons behind crime and mental health, and you might start to get somewhere.
 
"Total unlimited access to guns is not the guarantee of freedom"

wat?

First of all: "Total unlimited access to guns"?
WTF? Where? What country does that?

Second: "guarantee of freedom"?
That's... that's not... wtf?!
What is a "guarantee of freedom" to begin with?
Where is "freedom" "guaranteed"?
What text says and/or talks about "guaranteeing freedom"?
In the context of the US, where in the constitution is there any stipulation of "freedom" being "guaranteed"? *plot twist, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says AT ALL*

Third: "access to guns" in relation to "guarantee of freedom"?
What???


Not only does it have ZILCH to do with anything, but the mere premise has a few dozen extra chromosomes in it...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top