Another mass shooting

[Flashheart]

For starters, and to be a little pedantic, a missile tube IS NOT a gun. A missile is self-propellant. The tube does not fire the missile, it just holds it there and the missile does all the work itself.

Secondly, even if the missile silo was a gun, that does not make a submarine a gun. It makes the submarine a weapons platform. A platform that carries weapons such as missiles, torpedos and, to keep you happy, guns. An attack helicopter is not a gun. A battleship is not a gun. A jet fighter is not a gun. A tank is not a gun. They are all just weapons platforms.

But to keep to the point at hand and assault rifle IS a gun. Of course it fucking is.

[jonny72]

As, presumably, is a penis? Meets that description quite neatly.

I think you'd need to go for the more inclusive term of male genitals due to the role of the testicles.

Though thinking about it, based on some of the videos I've seen you could go for female genitals as well.

[sonicyouth]

Not sure about the dodgier countries, I was referring to the countries that are generally safe places to go. Canada has high gun ownership as does at least one of the Scandinavian countries for example, but neither have anything like the homicide rate you get in the USA. Obviously the easy access to guns enables it but on it's own it's not the cause.

The major distinction between countries in Scandinavia and the US is that gun ownership in Scandinavia is solely for hunting and not self-defence. Because of the whole self-defence/right to bear arms thing, gun ownership is massively higher than Norway or Sweden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I'm inclined to agree with the point you make about handguns and assault weapons - it's absolutely insane that you can buy consumer versions of military grade assault rifles, which as you say, are just killing machines.

[Red Frog]

Thanks, never quite sure on that one.

Really? You have a grammatical Achilles heel? A flaw in your pedantic armour?

"Who" only when it refers to the subject:

"The man who shot me" / "The man from whom I received this wound".

[Red Frog]

For starters, and to be a little pedantic, a missile tube IS NOT a gun. A missile is self-propellant. The tube does not fire the missile, it just holds it there and the missile does all the work itself.

Secondly, even if the missile silo was a gun, that does not make a submarine a gun. It makes the submarine a weapons platform. A platform that carries weapons such as missiles, torpedos and, to keep you happy, guns. An attack helicopter is not a gun. A battleship is not a gun. A jet fighter is not a gun. A tank is not a gun. They are all just weapons platforms.

But to keep to the point at hand and assault rifle IS a gun. Of course it fucking is.

I think you're all getting a little worked up over an inferior definition of gun. Now, if you were to use a proper dictionary,

http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gun
"a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise."

you could be reassured that the weapon involved was indeed a gun, and go back to discussing the real issues. Unless you prefer bollocks of course.

[Flashheart]

I think you're all getting a little worked up over an inferior definition of gun.

It's a discussion forum dear.

And your definition from your superior dictionary does not explain a self propelled missile. (The type that johnny was clearly referring to)

[Flashheart]

Anyways....

the laws in America have led to the whole gun culture being pretty much fucked up. It's been said that anybody could get a gun in the UK within two hours. In which case, why is there not more gun crime? The Yanks seem to think it's OK to have guns, even good to have guns. It just is not good to have guns even if they are considered necessary. Even the police in the UK don't want guns, they know they are not a good thing to have.
 
Most people around the world know that guns are in no way good and would much rather keep well clear whereas the yanks want shot guns and assault rifles for 'protection'.

[jonny72]

The major distinction between countries in Scandinavia and the US is that gun ownership in Scandinavia is solely for hunting and not self-defence. Because of the whole self-defence/right to bear arms thing, gun ownership is massively higher than Norway or Sweden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I seem to recall the high gun ownership in Switzerland (?) is related to military service. Not sure the exact reason, maybe they have a lot of reserves and they're all required to have a gun at home - something like that.

There is some peculiarities if you combine the above data with this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Especially around suicide - high gun ownership in western countries also leads to a lot of people shooting themselves.

[Bob's Orange]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[Samdy Gray]

[url width=900 height=701]http://legalbizzle.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/rjo0604h.jpg[/url]

[Red Frog]

It's a discussion forum dear.

And your definition from your superior dictionary does not explain a self propelled missile. (The type that johnny was clearly referring to)

Well, I'll concede that point, as long as it's the sort of self-propelled missile that comes out of a tube, like the Katyusha, rather than an unhoused one, like the Rapier or Scud.

[Paolo69]

I always thought a gun's a gun though. Doesn't matter how many bullets it fires per minute. If i get hit by a car and some cunt points out at my funeral that it was a MPV not a car then i'll haunt them from my grave...

[Honkytonk]

What it all essentially boils down to for me, is a law that was introduced to kill bears and British people that no longer applies in the modern age with modern weapons. Home defence is all well and good, but the only reason you need a gun is because the other guy might have a gun. He only might have a gun because the householder he's trying to rob might have a gun. Repeat Ad Nausem.

Get rid of assault weapons. It's not a massive step. No-one can reasonably explain why they need an assualt weapon. Perhaps, maybe, if the giddy thrill of firing one is something that you NEED in your life, then make it so they're kept safe at the Police Station for use by individuals with correct certification, under observation, instead of avaliable for any nutter with some forged papers to buy at a Walmart.

It drives me mental when a yank appears on the TV attempting to justify the RIGHT to buy assault weapons, and that 'no country is going to shame America into withdrawing them'. Us? The rest of the world? We couldn't care fucking less, go, implode on yourself in a riot of school shootings and gun violence for all we care, we just hate seeing 30 children shot by a nutter because some cuntbucket back in the C18th decided it'd be a good idea to build a country based upon the tenant of citizens being ready for invasion at all times. It's the 21st fucking century you cockbags, we don't take a minute and a half to reload our single shot blackpowder weapons anymore, we can kill thousands of people in the space of a minute with a hand-held weapon, or drop a bomb that annihilates entire cities and makes the locale uninhabitable for hundreds of years, what kind of antiquated bullshit is 'being able to have a gun for protection'?

I'm not in a stellar mood today.

[BruceChatwin]

Charlie Brooker Newswipe report from 3 years ago about how media coverage is culpable in propagating copycat mass murderers. The longer we continue to obsess over and glamorise these crimes in international media instead of localising these stories to the affected communities the longer these incidents will go on to propagate greater and worse examples.

[Colin Todd]

Yeah, just ignoring mass shootings will sort the whole issue right out.