News Forum - Shooting in Oklahoma kills 4

[Thaiger]

After a school shooting in Texas rocked global headlines last week, there’s been another shooting in the neighbouring state of Oklahoma in the US. The shooter shot and killed 4 people in a medical building on a hospital campus in Tulsa yesterday before shooting himself dead. Tulsa Police Department Deputy Chief Eric Dalgleish said it was unclear what was caused the shooting. Police Captain Richard Meulenberg said that several people were injured, and that the medical complex was a “catastrophic scene.” The exact number of wounded was not immediately available. In light of the shooting, the Saint Francis Hospital locked […]

The story Shooting in Oklahoma kills 4 as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Thaiger said:

After a school shooting in Texas rocked global headlines last week, there’s been another shooting in the neighbouring state of Oklahoma in the US. The shooter shot and killed 4 people in a medical building on a hospital campus in Tulsa yesterday before shooting himself dead. Tulsa Police Department Deputy Chief Eric Dalgleish said it was unclear what was caused the shooting. Police Captain Richard Meulenberg said that several people were injured, and that the medical complex was a “catastrophic scene.” The exact number of wounded was not immediately available. In light of the shooting, the Saint Francis Hospital locked […]

The story Shooting in Oklahoma kills 4 as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

Another sick person that  wont be using state facilities for the remainder of their despicable existence!

[anarchofarmer]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Another sick person that  wont be using state facilities for the remainder of their despicable existence!

Sick person or sick nation? Billions spent with the armaments industry, how much on mental health and education? Switzerland has more guns but none of this nonsense? As an outsider (and happy to be such!) the simple mantras used to supposedly justify the right to walk around with a war weapon; to deny sexual health care, but refuse to care for the results; seem to imply a general lack of an ability to logically think about things! I think the technical term is brain washed!

[riclag]

2 hours ago, anarchofarmer said:

Sick person or sick nation? Billions spent with the armaments industry, how much on mental health and education? Switzerland has more guns but none of this nonsense? As an outsider (and happy to be such!) the simple mantras used to supposedly justify the right to walk around with a war weapon; to deny sexual health care, but refuse to care for the results; seem to imply a general lack of an ability to logically think about things! I think the technical term is brain washed!

War weapon ! Lol Your watching to much of the activist left pretending to be news journalists!

millions and millions of guns with safe and responsible owners .

To early to tell what set off this act of hatred by a deranged individual!

[Thaidup]

Too bad a woman with a gun wasn't there to stop him.

 

[riclag]

28 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

Too bad a woman with a gun wasn't there to stop him.

Good point! 

[anarchofarmer]

20 hours ago, riclag said:

War weapon ! Lol Your watching to much of the activist left pretending to be news journalists!

millions and millions of guns with safe and responsible owners .

To early to tell what set off this act of hatred by a deranged individual!

Surprised at your reaction to my using the manufacturers definition of their product! I had thought from your earlier comments that you were somewhat familiar with with guns.There re 2 classifications: personal protection and weapons of war! The rest of your comment merely underlines my point on people simply repeating mantras (penned by the NRA!) rather than engaging some brain power prior to  commenting.

[riclag]

14 minutes ago, anarchofarmer said:

Surprised at your reaction to my using the manufacturers definition of their product! I had thought from your earlier comments that you were somewhat familiar with with guns.There re 2 classifications: personal protection and weapons of war! The rest of your comment merely underlines my point on people simply repeating mantras (penned by the NRA!) rather than engaging some brain power prior to  commenting.

Wespons of war is a liberal term to control a gun control/rights narrative .weapons of war to me  are fully automatics not semi automatic rifles such as ar15’s .

oh by the way people kill  ,not guns!

[AndynPhuong]

41 minutes ago, anarchofarmer said:

There re 2 classifications: personal protection and weapons of war!

In another thread I pointed out that, say a Winchester Model 1907 is functionally the same as the ar15 'weapon of war', assault weapon, or whatever. Just the appearance is different. That rifle was in private civilian hands from, well, since 1907. 

[Rookiescot]

21 hours ago, Thaidup said:

Too bad a woman with a gun wasn't there to stop him.

Yes the answer to gun violence is MORE guns.

Its worked so far.

[Rookiescot]

5 minutes ago, AndynPhuong said:

In another thread I pointed out that, say a Winchester Model 1907 is functionally the same as the ar15 'weapon of war', assault weapon, or whatever. Just the appearance is different. That rifle was in private civilian hands from, well, since 1907. 

How many were in circulation in 1907 compared to today?

Thats the difference.

[Rookiescot]

34 minutes ago, riclag said:

Wespons of war is a liberal term to control a gun control/rights narrative .weapons of war to me  are fully automatics not semi automatic rifles such as ar15’s .

oh by the way people kill  ,not guns!

Oh yeah that old trope. Guns dont kill people, people do. So we either remove people or remove the guns. Which do you prefer?

[WilliamG]

39 minutes ago, riclag said:

Wespons of war is a liberal term to control a gun control/rights narrative .weapons of war to me  are fully automatics not semi automatic rifles such as ar15’s .

oh by the way people kill  ,not guns!

So is a AR15 not a wespon of war?

[vlad]

Over 40 people shot dead in 7 days nearly half of them kids. Way to go USA. 3 kids jumping a fence into your garden, no problermo get your assault rifle out and waste them it's your Right says your second amendment.

[AndynPhuong]

6 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

How many were in circulation in 1907 compared to today?

Thats the difference.

Thinking the production was around 500k or more of that model. Compared to around 20 million or so, for a ar15 type. Stands to reason the if there is many many more of something around, chances of that item being used is greater? Never fear, our govt is on top of the situation, and looking at passing new laws now. Sadly, some of the proposed laws are, well, already laws. The politicos, in all their wisdom, want to make that "more illegal". According to the governments own numbers, they are not doing and have not been doing a competent job of enforcing existing  laws.  

 

[Rookiescot]

4 minutes ago, AndynPhuong said:

Thinking the production was around 500k or more of that model. Compared to around 20 million or so, for a ar15 type. Stands to reason the if there is many many more of something around, chances of that item being used is greater? Never fear, our govt is on top of the situation, and looking at passing new laws now. Sadly, some of the proposed laws are, well, already laws. The politicos, in all their wisdom, want to make that "more illegal". According to the governments own numbers, they are not doing and have not been doing a competent job of enforcing existing  laws.  

Right so this comparison you keep using is utterly worthless then. Production was around 500k, how many of them were for military use and how many for civilian use?

But now we have 20 million (!!) AR 15's circulating is civilian hands. 

For what reason? What do you personally think an AR 15 is useful for?

[Freeduhdumb]

 

If you're for "gun control" then you're not really against guns, because guns will be needed to disarm the people and to continue to maintain compliance. So you really cannot be for real gun control. Ultimately you necessarily must be very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, historically so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. Therefore, there is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. Let us consider the historical genocides that have occurred following gun confiscations. Because there is a pattern, a historical precedent of gun control, and a resultant population that becomes unable to defend themselves... 

* 1911 Turkey established gun control... 1915-1917 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated

* 1929 Soviet Union gun control.. 1929-1953 20 million were exterminated

* 1935 China... 1948-1952 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated 

* 1938 Germany 1939-1945 13 million Jews/others unable to defend themselves exterminated

* 1956 Cambodia 1975-1977 1 million of the educated were rounded up and exterminated

* 1964 Guatemala 1964-1981 100,000 mayan indians unable to defend themselves murdered

* 1970 Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 Christians exterminated 

But of course it could never happen like this in America... 

https://frjohnpeck.com/gun-control-genocide/

[ExpatPattaya]

After hearing about this for 40 years I think the best thing to do is control gunpowder sales.

Many chemical are regulated as hazardous substances and gunpowder should be in the list.  It is a start.

The second amendment is not applicable to life in the 21st century, but the fraud has been perpetuated by organizations like the NRA for decades.  That will not change soon.  The other problem is the legislature or congress.  If you have more than 64% of your constituents asking for gun control and yet less than 50% of congressmen and women are willing to do what the people they represent want , that is not a democracy. 

 

[AndynPhuong]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Right so this comparison you keep using is utterly worthless then. Production was around 500k, how many of them were for military use and how many for civilian use?

But now we have 20 million (!!) AR 15's circulating is civilian hands. 

For what reason? What do you personally think an AR 15 is useful for?

 

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Right so this comparison you keep using is utterly worthless then. Production was around 500k, how many of them were for military use and how many for civilian use?

But now we have 20 million (!!) AR 15's circulating is civilian hands. 

For what reason? What do you personally think an AR 15 is useful for?

That is my point - they were all in civilian hands. Up until the 40's. And that is just one model of semi auto rifle. There are many more. Why were there not multiple cases of mass shootings then? With 20 million ar15's in civilian hands, why are they not used in 'more' crimes? Statistically, a small percentage. Although the instances they are used are terrible.  What has changed? not the availability of such weapons, they have been here. Laws? Laws were more lax in the decades before "common sense gun control laws".  My comparison is and has been - the government has failed in their enforcement of enacted firearms laws. I have pointed  out that the then VP, now president has said the government doesn't have the time or manpower to enforce all existing firearms laws, and that we need more "common sense" laws. Just last night, I watched him stand and lie to the American people about his "assault weapon ban". If you think I'm lying, look it up. I've pointed out that the governments own numbers point to the fact they are not enforcing the laws. Yet - the govt wants more laws. We've got laws, enforce them, and see what happens.  I've said hey - look at it rationally, and choose something that will work. You've continuously said ban the black rifle and everything will be ok, nobody needs one. OK, I get it. 

[AndynPhuong]

Just now, AndynPhuong said:

For what reason? What do you personally think an AR 15 is useful for?

A ar15 is useful for anything any firearm is legally useful for. Just like the 1907 I made a comparison of.  Of course, it could be used illegally.

[Vigo]

 

3 hours ago, AndynPhuong said:

In another thread I pointed out that, say a Winchester Model 1907 is functionally the same as the ar15 'weapon of war', assault weapon, or whatever. Just the appearance is different. That rifle was in private civilian hands from, well, since 1907. 

Winchester repeating rifle had magazine of 4-5 rounds. Surefire makes an AR-15  100 round magazine. Do you see the difference?

Lever action like Winchester are good for hunting. AR-15 is intended to kill people.

I had a firearm as a kid and grew up as a responsible gun user. When I look at how people mishandle firearms in Thailand and the gun culture of Philippines, much of Africa and USA, I support access to firearm regulations. Guns are not toys, but too many people  handle them like they are.

[ThaiFoodGuy]

I think the issue is so far gone now that unfortunately, yes the answer very well may be to promulgate gun rights and ownership rather than limit, control, or otherwise reduce it.

Gun control laws or policies would make sense in a nation with very little current gun ownership. In the USA, there are so many guns and in such high circulation that gun control effectively only makes it difficult to get a new gun or protect yourself from an assailant or malicious individual with a gun.

Unfortunately, in America, there are so many guns, and such a high instance of gun violence, that if more people were armed with a gun, it may either deter criminals from using guns in a violent way, or stop them altogether with fatal force.

Also, to repeal the 2nd amendment would not be a popular option for any politician. Democrats AND Republicans value gun rights, it's not just right wingers. Like it or not, the fact is that the American constitution does grant Americans the right to own guns, and to not have that right infringed upon by the government, and most Americans avail themselves of that right. To change the 2nd amendment would effectively be to take away the constitutional rights of Americans.

Again - from my perspective, at least, perhaps if more Americans avail themselves of that right, more Americans would potentially be able to STOP gun violence. It's not a GOOD solution, but I don't know what to say. Much smarter people than us have debated this for decades and nobody has found the right answer.

[Soidog]

Americans just need to wake up and stop this nonsense. It’s an embarrassment to a country that led the world for so long. The defender of freedom and liberty. The First Nation to place a man on the moon. This fighting and arguing over what needs to be done just needs to stop. Please, stop it and see that guns don’t kill. Guns in the hands of sick people kill. There will always be sick people. You just need to stop them getting guns so easily. 

[Rookiescot]

10 hours ago, AndynPhuong said:

A ar15 is useful for anything any firearm is legally useful for. Just like the 1907 I made a comparison of.  Of course, it could be used illegally.

Sorry but this is a non answer. What specific use does an AR 15 have that other weapons cannot achieve? 

[AndynPhuong]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Sorry but this is a non answer. What specific use does an AR 15 have that other weapons cannot achieve? 

It is a answer. Anything legal you want to use it for. For the time being, it is still legal to do that here. Sorry it irritates you so.