nope, that didn't help infi's ridiculously misguided cause at all

I'm all for banning guns. I really think most civilians dont need a firearm of any type. Livestock farmers would be the exception. Security guards I would say are borderline. Sport shooters should be able to own a gun with heavy restrictions.

Infi needs to refocus his argument on things that make sense :P

^ lol how long b4 the nuke?

ultimatley its americas problem not ours.
interesting to see what happens though... (probably nothing)

i think infi is as much of a nutter as this guy was.

WTF was he thinking in this shot?

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/et/images/laraCho.jpg

infi.

Guns for self defence is a misnomer, why ?
In my opinion ...

• to safely store a gun in your house it needs to have a trigger lock and be stored in a gun safe. Maybe even with ammunition stored in a different location or the firing pin removed. To prevent accidents with over inquisitive young people. So in the case you do need it, you have to open a safe, remove a lock, and go to the other location and get your weapon. In which time you could have rung the police and got the hell out of the danger probably
  
• it escalates the violence in the situation, you have brandished deadly force, for the "crim" to continue their crime they must now apply deadly force, you have made it kill or be killed. At Taekwondo we teach people in a self defence situation if you get attacked, hands up and open not clenched, talk to the attacker in a calm tone and not to loud, to try de-escalate the situation.
  
• you have to be willing to kill someone, even if you think you are fine with it, it doesn't mean you won't be affected if needed to use such force.
  
• self defence is "reasonable force", shooting someone dead probably is excessive force in most situation, so you kill someone get some baggage and may end up in prison.
  
• you better be good with that gun, or you just gave the "crim" a gun to shoot you with.
  
• it increases the number of weapons available, I'll know you argue you can them anyway and you can, but its significantly more difficult and expensive.
  
• it means crims have to get better weapons and are more likely to use them for fear of the victim defending themselves.
  

"But laws don't stop guns being available"
True, There is a big difference between going to your local department store and buy a couple of high powered, semi automatic pistols and having to join a club and pass a licence test or knowing some for of serious criminal.

I doubt that Virginia Tech guy would have got 2 high powered semi automatic pistols with that much hollow point ammunition here.

I have been trained in 9mm browning pistols, .223 F-88 Aussteyers, 5.56 F-89 minimi, Mag58's, m72's, CharlieG's, "22"'s, shotguns. And because most of the training (all but 22's and shotties) was military I learnt to shoot them at humans, the vast majority of targets I shot at were human silhouettes and in the case of the electronic range they were human images. I have done live falling plate shoots in urban and and "jungle" environment. Been a member of a small bore rifle club and a skeet shoot club. Thankfully never had to actually shoot at someone. But if I had to, I think I could...
And after saying all that, never have ever felt "I wish I had a gun, I don't feel safe".

Guns serve a single purpose, and that is killing, they are not a life jacket, seat belt, or a helmet (or some other safety device). If guns make you safe, then why should countries be prevented from getting nuclear weapons ? they are just trying to stay safe.

i have to agree with obes again...

to my mind a hand gun is a point and click killing device, and everyone having a gun on them would not in anyway make the world safer. its completely counter-intuitive to say that.

to take it to the extreme, it'd be like if instead of hand guns, everyone had a big red button on their forehead that instantly stopped their heart. i sure as hell wouldn't feel safer knowing that anyone around me could kill me if they, on a whim, felt the need to.

this is my point. why wouldn't you want the law abiding citizens to be armed, and only have the criminals and wackos packing heat. i mean seriously, cut your balls off while you're at it.

In addition to the other points made above, the other obvious reason is that if you do find someone with a gun, then you can instantly assume they're not a law abiding citizen and take further action against them.

lolz ET

too much publicity for this guy

far too much

it's important to get mental health issues out there for discussion but this is just going overboard and giving other homicidal nutbars ideas

Yeah there will be other nutters out there thinking that can beat 32 people and they will also know the attention that will create afterwards...... man I hate the media.

When was the last time someone did something good that got this much coverage?

Yeah there will be other nutters out there thinking that can beat 32 people

that'd make a good computer game

Refer here:

my joke was posted before?

Nuked before.

nothing like racist jokes about tragedies to really make you look classy

too soon eh?

yeah we only like irwin jokes round here.