NationStates Jolt Archive

According to news reports several gunmen have opened fire inside a crowded mall in Kingston New York. Police report as many as 3 gunmen.
Several mall patrons have been injured or killed.
They are awaiting video feeds from the mall at any moment.
One gunman has been captured by law enforcement. Police are seeking the remaining gunmen.

how do you know its terrorists and not just random shooters?

oh, and source?

how do you know its terrorists and not just random shooters?

oh, and source?
Anytime you have some one shoot up a crowded mall, its an act of terrorism.

Fox News.

The men were wearing all black from head to toe. If it was a random shooting, the gunmen would not go through that trouble. This already sounds terrorism related. They had clearly been planning this.

I saw the news, too. It's on there.

What is with America and guns. Your constitution is a joke for the most part.
People die because of your right to own guns.

What is with America and guns. Your constitution is a joke for the most part.
People die because of your right to own guns.
This has nothing to do with guns.

This has nothing to do with guns.

"3 gunmen", it has something to do with guns.

This has nothing to do with guns.
its a shooting, it has everything to do with guns

What is with America and guns. Your constitution is a joke for the most part.
People die because of your right to own guns.

People die because someone chooses to kill them.

By the way, when another Hitler comes along and decides to take over a random country in Europe and the populace can't do jack shit about it because they don't own any weapons, I'll be shaking my head in pity as I saddle up to come help you.

"3 gunmen", it has something to do with guns.
They sound illegal, though. It sounded like Uzis were used.

Machine guns and pistols were being used. One suspect is described as husky, and it is believed that they were firing at random mall patrons.
This has the looks of an attempt to drive fear, insecurity, and terror into people by causing violent injury and death. I seem to remember similar events in Europe and the mideast and other parts around the world a decade or two ago.

According to news reports several gunmen have opened fire inside a crowded mall in Kingston New York. Police report as many as 3 gunmen.
Several mall patrons have been injured or killed.
They are awaiting video feeds from the mall at any moment.
One gunman has been captured by law enforcement. Police are seeking the remaining gunmen.

Did anyone here read Teeth of the Tiger?

The men were wearing all black from head to toe. If it was a random shooting, the gunmen would not go through that trouble. This already sounds terrorism related. They had clearly been planning this.
Black from head to toe isn't much trouble. Yes it is terrorism, but maybe not in the sense we've all had drilled into us for the last couple years.

I wouldn't want to speculate but if this turns out to be international terrorism carried out by men paid by Iran, well, you know we just got our excuse for invading Iran.

Did anyone here read Teeth of the Tiger?
? Is that a book?

People die because someone chooses to kill them.

By the way, when another Hitler comes along and decides to take over a random country in Europe and the populace can't do jack shit about it because they don't own any weapons, I'll be shaking my head in pity as I saddle up to come help you.

And people find it a lot easier to enact this choice with guns readily available.

I wouldn't want to speculate but if this turns out to be international terrorism carried out by men paid by Iran, well, you know we just got our excuse for invading Iran.
and if it turns out to be something like Columbine, just some guys going and shooting, then America needs to look at its gun laws

What is with America and guns. Your constitution is a joke for the most part.
People die because of your right to own guns.

So you'd feel better being stabbed to death with a kitchen knife than shot? That's not a threat. It's just stupid to think a weapon is responsible for a person's death. We prosecute murderers, not bullets.

And people find it a lot easier to enact this choice with guns readily available.
Bullshit.

and if it turns out to be something like Columbine, just some guys going and shooting, then America needs to look at its gun laws
No. We need to look at our mental health laws.

People die because someone chooses to kill them.

By the way, when another Hitler comes along and decides to take over a random country in Europe and the populace can't do jack shit about it because they don't own any weapons, I'll be shaking my head in pity as I saddle up to come help you.

Lol. That’s what the military is for. The only thing that comes from people having guns is death. Yes it is true that people kill people but the gun makes it easier to do it. I mean at least use swords or something so it’s more honorable.

Bullshit.

Thank you for your considered, educated and reasoned response!!

Lol. That’s what the military is for. The only thing that comes from people having guns is death. Yes it is true that people kill people but the gun is an easy way to do it. I mean at least use swords or something so it’s more honorable.
Look at Europe where guns are supposed banned, people there are still being killed by gunmen and suicide bombers. Women are being raped cause they have no legal means of self defense.
Ain't no way in hell America would subject its people to that.

Thank you for your considered, educated and reasoned response!!
Must have been something I smelt. ;)

Yay, look at us, we can turn innocent suffering into a "debate" on a countries gun laws, rather than feeling sypmathy. Can't the argueing and attacks wait until after the suffering.

Yay, look at us, we can turn innocent suffering into a "debate" on a countries gun laws, rather than feeling sypmathy. Can't the argueing and attacks wait until after the suffering.

"Life is pain. Anyone who tells you different in trying to sell you something."- Princess Bride.

Look at Europe where guns are supposed banned, people there are still being killed by gunmen and suicide bombers. Women are being raped cause they have no legal means of self defense.
Ain't no way in hell America would subject its people to that.
That's a sweeping generalisation. Guns are not banned in all European countries.

But as we are into huge generalisations, have a look at the comparitive murder and rape crime rates in Europe compared to USA. USA's is significantly higher than many European countries.

Can we stop arguing about guns, and get back on topic?

That's a sweeping generalisation. Guns are not banned in all European countries.

But as we are into huge generalisations, have a look at the comparitive murder and rape crime rates in Europe compared to USA. USA's is significantly higher than many European countries.

The war on drugs in certainly a big factor in this.

Can we stop arguing about guns, and get back on topic?
yeah. Agreed.

"Life is pain. Anyone who tells you different in trying to sell you something."- Princess Bride.
Doesn't mean we can't try and help, or at least feel bad.

Look at Europe where guns are supposed banned, people there are still being killed by gunmen and suicide bombers. Women are being raped cause they have no legal means of self defense.
Ain't no way in hell America would subject its people to that.

F.Y.I.

I live in America. And that doesn’t happen as often as you act like it does. On a side note, English cops are allowed to have guns (at least I’m pretty sure they are). If they used more sensible stunning weapons the criminals couldn’t get the guns in the first place. Criminals get guns from cops if they can't get um from a store. I think only highly trained professionals should have guns (such as snipers and the military). Not that I’m saying cops aren’t highly trained I’m just saying they shouldn’t have guns.

:mp5: =bad

The war on drugs in certainly a big factor in this.
True, the Europeans have do have lax drug laws, hence they don't have as high a crime rate as we do. Look at Amsterdam for example.

Look at Europe where guns are supposed banned, people there are still being killed by gunmen and suicide bombers. Women are being raped cause they have no legal means of self defense.
Ain't no way in hell America would subject its people to that.

Only someone trying to justify guns would come away with a no brainer like this!!! And hey lets blame it on terrorism and freak out 250 million people into wanting more guns!!!

The men were wearing all black from head to toe. If it was a random shooting, the gunmen would not go through that trouble. This already sounds terrorism related. They had clearly been planning this.
It's called organised crime, specifically pre-meditated murder.

Only someone trying to justify guns would come away with a no brainer like this!!! And hey lets blame it on terrorism and freak out 250 million people into wanting more guns!!!

Yes, let’s also have a system with colors and meters so we can scare people into believing what we say is true.

F.Y.I.

I live in America. And that doesn’t happen as often as you act like it does. On a side note, English cops are allowed to have guns (at least I’m pretty sure they are). If they used more sensible stunning weapons the criminals couldn’t get the guns in the first place. Criminals get guns from cops if they can't get um from a store. I think only highly trained professionals should have guns (such as snipers and the military). Not that I’m saying cops aren’t highly trained I’m just saying they shouldn’t have guns.

:mp5: =bad
Yes, and take away their ability to defend the general public. The second amendment is bout Joe Shmow having a gun for his own self defense.
Also according to your requirements, all veterans would be able to have guns since they was in the military.

Lol. That’s what the military is for. The only thing that comes from people having guns is death. Yes it is true that people kill people but the gun makes it easier to do it. I mean at least use swords or something so it’s more honorable.

My uncle was walking down the street when a racial riot was happening. He ran back into his house, where my grandfather was there. He was stabbed in front of him. My grandfather has owned a weapons since that day, and regretted not having one that day. But I guess it's okay to see your son stabbed (because you don't have a gun), and remain helpless...or perhaps he should have been 'honorable' and got out a sword.

Only someone trying to justify guns would come away with a no brainer like this!!! And hey lets blame it on terrorism and freak out 250 million people into wanting more guns!!!
ah yes a familiar argument by opponents of the US Constitution: Let's close our eyes and pretend everything is dandy so we can ban guns. After all we don't have a right to use all means to defend ourselves.
As I stated earlier: Bullshit.

what the hell is all this "get out your sword" stuff? What world are you living in? The 13th century? I thought this was the 21st.

Dang, nothing on the web about it yet.

Yes, and take away their ability to defend the general public. The second amendment is bout Joe Shmow having a gun for his own self defense.
Also according to your requirements, all veterans would be able to have guns since they was in the military.

Lol.
1. If a veteran had a gun what would they do with it? Yea, an old person on a walker is trying to rob a bank. Suuuure they are.
2. I meant people currently in the military.
3. If nobody had guns in the first place people would only need to be trained in self defense (such as martial arts) to defend themselves and old defenseless people could just get a different weapon like mace.

what the hell is all this "get out your sword" stuff? What world are you living in? The 13th century? I thought this was the 21st.


I was being sarcastic on his comment; but I hope to god he was kidding.

what the hell is all this "get out your sword" stuff? What world are you living in? The 13th century? I thought this was the 21st.

Swords are less likely to kill and it is more honorable to kill someone with a sword than to just pull a trigger. Using a sword requires skill, using a gun is quite easy and doesn’t require much time to learn how to use properly.

Lol.
1. If a veteran had a gun what would they do with it? Yea, an old person on a walker is trying to rob a bank. Suuuure they are.
2. I meant people currently in the military.
3. If nobody had guns in the first place people would only need to be trained in self defense (such as martial arts) to defend themselves and old defenseless people could just get a different weapon like mace.
As asked before, what world are you living in?

1. Just because you are a veteran doesn't mean you're an old person. If a person was in the military more than 5 months, he is a veteran eligible for veteran's benefits.

2. You can't do that. Its illegal due to it being discrimination.

3. If nobody had guns, we'd have a much higher violent crime rate. If Americans gave up their right to bear arms, the criminals would take advantage to cause more harm to our society.

I was being sarcastic on his comment; but I hope to god he was kidding.
same here.

ah yes a familiar argument by opponents of the US Constitution: Let's close our eyes and pretend everything is dandy so we can ban guns. After all we don't have a right to use all means to defend ourselves.
As I stated earlier: Bullshit.

Most people don't think everything is "dandy". They just think there is a better way to defend themselves other than guns and that guns aren't needed because they only cause death.

3. If nobody had guns in the first place people would only need to be trained in self defense (such as martial arts) to defend themselves and old defenseless people could just get a different weapon like mace.

I sure this would have helped my uncle when an angry mob of black males came to attack him. *heavy sarcasm* By the way, we as a family never hated or provoked any person because of their race (or anything for that matter).

I use to train in martial arts, and it's ridicolous to assume that a person can defend themselves against a mob. All he could do is run. And when he can't out run that mob, he'll have to defend himself some way. Sadly you wouldn't leave him that option.

Swords are less likely to kill and it is more honorable to kill someone with a sword than to just pull a trigger. Using a sword requires skill, using a gun is quite easy and doesn’t require much time to learn how to use properly.
Since when the hell did murder or attemted murder or other crimes have anything to do with honor. This is the 21st century not medieval times. Chivalry is extinct. Its every man for himself.

Rayguns, Uzis, Swords, Clubs, Sling shots... it is not he weapon that is used to create the terror (although I think bombs are way more effictive than guns anyday) it is the state of mind(lessness) of the perpetrator that people fear. If there were no guns, this crime would have been done with knives, and so on. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Same with rocks, swords or whatever is the weapon of choice.

As asked before, what world are you living in?

3. If nobody had guns, we'd have a much higher violent crime rate. If Americans gave up their right to bear arms, the criminals would take advantage to cause more harm to our society.

By that reckoning the crime rate in the UK is HUGE!!! Not to mention some of the other european countries. But i suppose that doesn't matter to a pro-gun nut.....i mean someone who believes in the constitution (that was wrote how many hundred years ago??)

Most people don't think everything is "dandy". They just think there is a better way to defend themselves other than guns and that guns aren't needed because they only cause death.
Lots of things cause death, like that soda you be drinking. It's been directly linked to throat and stomach cancer.
Or how bout cars and alcohol and ecstasy and other drugs. Smoking causes death in nonsmokers. Taking risks at times causes death.
If you don't want to own a gun, that's your right but you have no right to violate my right to own a gun if I so chose.

As asked before, what world are you living in?

1. Just because you are a veteran doesn't mean you're an old person. If a person was in the military more than 5 months, he is a veteran eligible for veteran's benefits.

2. You can't do that. Its illegal due to it being discrimination.

3. If nobody had guns, we'd have a much higher violent crime rate. If Americans gave up their right to bear arms, the criminals would take advantage to cause more harm to our society.

1. You are right on this one.

2. How so???? I mean that people in the military need guns to fight of course but I didn't mean in this country. I think if you are in your own country you should get your gun taken away (unless you are a police sniper or we are being invaded of course). If you are in another country you should be allowed to have your gun (unless you’re not at war with that country or you’re not in the military).

3. Not true. Although I can't prove it I have HEARD that people have done studies that show the opposite. I someone wants to they can look this up for me to prove weather I am right/wrong.

Lol.
1. If a veteran had a gun what would they do with it? Yea, an old person on a walker is trying to rob a bank. Suuuure they are.
2. I meant people currently in the military.
3. If nobody had guns in the first place people would only need to be trained in self defense (such as martial arts) to defend themselves and old defenseless people could just get a different weapon like mace.
1. Not all veterans are old geezers.
2. Okay, point taken.
3. This puts some people at a seriuos disadvantage. Say you have an old but severe sports injury. Nor is mace a complete deterent. Many SWAT members get the lovely opputunity of having to continue with their task with a facefull of it. And this before they are out of trianing. And they are not the toughtest people out there.
4. I hate guns, and refuse to own one. I don't like the fact that so many people do own them, nor do I like many of the things they are used for. I despise the fact that they are used for killing. But jsut because I belive that should it be forced on everyone else. No. In fact, I'll go as far as hell no.

As asked before, what world are you living in?
I think he lives in Europe.

Actually, the fact that the violence rate in the US is so much higher than in Europe isn't based only on the fact that people are allowed to get guns. In Switzerland, everybody has a gun and they don't spend their time in shooting each other on a scale similar to the US. In my opinion, it's because US society has a lot of serious troubles.

By that reckoning the crime rate in the UK is HUGE!!! Not to mention some of the other european countries. But i suppose that doesn't matter to a pro-gun nut.....i mean someone who believes in the constitution (that was wrote how many hundred years ago??)
This is America not the UK. The culture here is way different than it is over there. In America its dog eat dog. You won't find many polite people over here. Or people who care for more than their own interests.
We got this saying in the states: If it don't affect me, it either don't exist or it never happened.

if any one wants a link here it is

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147490,00.html

im not sure how to make it a link so jus copy n paste

Lol. That’s what the military is for. The only thing that comes from people having guns is death. Yes it is true that people kill people but the gun makes it easier to do it. I mean at least use swords or something so it’s more honorable.

Not to say guns aren't bad, but the guy has a point. Hitler took power "legally", remember? The German Congress gave him total control of everything suspending civil liberties. The military was under his control.

Lots of things cause death, like that soda you be drinking. It's been directly linked to throat and stomach cancer.
Or how bout cars and alcohol and ecstasy and other drugs. Smoking causes death in nonsmokers. Taking risks at times causes death.
If you don't want to own a gun, that's your right but you have no right to violate my right to own a gun if I so chose.

True, many things do cause death other than guns but Guns are responsible for a huge amount of deaths and that they are not a good idea.

Look. Everybody just shut up. You're not even arguing on the same page.

Gun advocates say: Guns make it easier for sane people to defend themselves. Do you want to die?

Gun bashers say: Guns make it easier for criminals to kill people. Do you want to die?


Your argument is going like this: A. Yeah, but B. No, think about A. You would really think to take away B?

You're not arguing about the same thing! Argue about the same thing or shut up. For example, you could debate the following:

In a cost-benefit analysis between effectiveness and attainability, which is better: the right to self-defense or the right not to need it?

In the U.S., all of the statistics point to (you guessed it) self-defense. What happens in Europe and Canada is irrelevant because they have completely different cultures.

1. You are right on this one.

2. How so???? I mean that people in the military need guns to fight of course but I didn't mean in this country. I think if you are in your own country you should get your gun taken away (unless you are a police sniper or we are being invaded of course). If you are in another country you should be allowed to have your gun (unless you’re not at war with that country or you’re not in the military).

3. Not true. Although I can't prove it I have HEARD that people have done studies that show the opposite. I someone wants to they can look this up for me to prove weather I am right/wrong.
3. there are no independent studies that prove this. All studies to date were funded by anti gun groups and as such their findings are biased and invalid.
I once took a course on community policiing that was taught by a police chief and he said the anti gun studies were bogus.

Since when the hell did murder or attemted murder or other crimes have anything to do with honor. This is the 21st century not medieval times. Chivalry is extinct. Its every man for himself.

Something like that.

The rest of this goes out to anyone whom believes that taking guns away is the thing to do.

...the death and crime rate has always went down when the war on drugs went down. Look at the numbers before any drug law took place, and you'll find America had a very low crime rate, and gun deaths were extremely low. I ask that you research it yourself, as I did already. Any knowledgeable person will know this.

It's my opinion that the institution of ghettos and the war on drugs has been the biggest factor in gun deaths in America.

I think he lives in Europe.

Actually, the fact that the violence rate in the US is so much higher than in Europe isn't based only on the fact that people are allowed to get guns. In Switzerland, everybody has a gun and they don't spend their time in shooting each other on a scale similar to the US. In my opinion, it's because US society has a lot of serious troubles.


mainly...american urban society...us rural kids have a couple of guns a piece...our crime rates are virtually non-existant

This is America not the UK. The culture here is way different than it is over there. In America its dog eat dog. You won't find many polite people over here. Or people who care for more than their own interests.
We got this saying in the states: If it don't affect me, it either don't exist or it never happened.

I have heard that, and it's pretty sad. But I suppose a nation built on blood is going to take more than 300 years to clean it's self. (and that's not an attack on anyone personally as the UK has it's crosses to bear).

As as long as someone feels they can justify carrying something that is made to kill!!! Nothing else but to KILL then there is a long, long way to go and I think I will give the US a miss for future holidays!!

True, many things do cause death other than guns but Guns are responsible for a huge amount of deaths and that they are not a good idea.
Contrary to what you might believe, cancer, car accidents, and the like all cause more deaths in the US than guns do.

As as long as someone feels they can justify carrying something that is made to kill!!! Nothing else but to KILL then there is a long, long way to go and I think I will give the US a miss for future holidays!!
made to kill, yes...perfectly accceptable to go into your backyard with a 22 and shoot cans, or take an AK-47 to a driving range? absolutely...that's actually alot of fun


sidenote: never try to shoot an AK as fast as you can...

Other sources:

Latest news from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6964215/):

Gunmen open fire in upstate New York mall

At least one person hurt; one suspect in police custody

The Associated Press

KINGSTON, N.Y. - At least two gunmen opened fire Sunday inside a mall in upstate New York, authorities said.

The gunmen began shooting inside the Hudson Valley Mall in Kingston, about 52 miles south of Albany. One gunman was taken into police custody.

Mayor James Sottile said at least one person was hurt and taken by helicopter to a hospital.

Authorities restricted access to the mall, and several helicopters and police teams surrounded the area.


CNN doesn't seem to have it covered yet. Let's try to stay abreast of the situation.

I have heard that, and it's pretty sad. But I suppose a nation built on blood is going to take more than 300 years to clean it's self. (and that's not an attack on anyone personally as the UK has it's crosses to bear).

As as long as someone feels they can justify carrying something that is made to kill!!! Nothing else but to KILL then there is a long, long way to go and I think I will give the US a miss for future holidays!!

That's too bad. There isn't too much shooting in Florida, etc.. It's a good thing that Detroit isn't a vacation city...

I sure this would have helped my uncle when an angry mob of black males came to attack him. *heavy sarcasm* By the way, we as a family never hated or provoked any person because of their race (or anything for that matter).

I use to train in martial arts, and it's ridicolous to assume that a person can defend themselves against a mob. All he could do is run. And when he can't out run that mob, he'll have to defend himself some way. Sadly you wouldn't leave him that option.

Lol. A mob. When is a mob going to chase you around. I am sure the cops would know about a "mob" and would deal with it. Now a group of people is a diffrent story. Like 5 or 6 people. Hell I dont know martial arts and I could easily take out 5 or 6 people. You just have to be a dirty fighter. Pick up a stick or somthing. be smarter than them for a change. Oh and if the group of people didn't have guns that would make it easier to get away.

That's too bad. There isn't too much shooting in Florida, etc.. It's a good thing that Detroit isn't a vacation city...
yeah, southern illinois doesn't rerally have too much gun violence either...we have enough sense to shoot things that either a)are not alive in the first place, and are in an area where nobody's gonna get hurt...or B)are in their hunting season...deer sausage or jerky anybody?

Contrary to what you might believe, cancer, car accidents, and the like all cause more deaths in the US than guns do.

I didn't say that they didn't. I am just saying that guns cause a lot of deaths. I didn't say they were the biggest contributor to death in the nation.

according to this guns are number 13 cause of death in the US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr52_09p9.pdf

according to this they are number 10:
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Number 12 here:
http://www.sandh.com/keyes/deaths.htm

So your argument that guns are not the leading nor among the leading causes of death has no weight in reality.

according to this guns are number 13 cause of death in the US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr52_09p9.pdf

according to this they are number 10:
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Number 12 here:
http://www.sandh.com/keyes/deaths.htm

So your argument that guns are not the leading nor among the leading causes of death has no weight in reality.

Read my other message.

mainly...american urban society...us rural kids have a couple of guns a piece...our crime rates are virtually non-existant

Exactly...in my town you'll never see a murder by gun or anything for that matter. Go to the city, where there's a welfare state, with drug laws in full enforcement,...then you got death. The vast majority of gun death are there. Mostly young black males.

That's why Oakland is trying to legalize weed and others there are trying to legalize all drugs. They don't want that shit taking down their society. Rightly so.

That's too bad. There isn't too much shooting in Florida, etc.. It's a good thing that Detroit isn't a vacation city...
The same can be said in Cali. I lived there my whole life and we didn't have that many gun related homicides, but what there were, made the news.
I was in Georgia and the same there. And now I've been in Arizona for over a year and Arizona has some of the laxest gun laws in the country. Still the same as the others. There aren't a lot of gun related homicides which is very much counter to what the anti gunners are claiming. Should note that just about everyone in Arizona owns a gun.

Exactly...in my town you'll never see a murder by gun or anything for that matter. Go to the city, where there's a welfare state, with drug laws in full enforcement,...then you got death. The vast majority of gun death are there. Mostly young black males.

That's why Oakland is trying to legalize weed and others there are trying to legalize all drugs. They don't want that shit taking down their society. Rightly so.

Young black males!!! That might be true statistically but it does sound a little racist even if you didn't mean it that way. Try to rephrase the way you said that before a mod comes to shut this thread down. Unless you were trying to be racist, then you just go away because we don't like you and we have no place for racists here (that is if you are a racist, if you’re not just rephrase).

Lol. A mob. When is a mob going to chase you around. I am sure the cops would know about a "mob" and would deal with it. Now a group of people is a diffrent story. Like 5 or 6 people. Hell I dont know martial arts and I could easily take out 5 or 6 people. You just have to be a dirty fighter. Pick up a stick or somthing. be smarter than them for a change. Oh and if the group of people didn't have guns that would make it easier to get away.

It's a race riot...what else do you call it. Mob is definitely a firm figure for such an occurence. Do you recall the man in the truck in the LA riots? Do you think the cops were helping him or he had a chance? Generally, cops mostly get to crime scenes after such an event.

My uncle injured his arm that year (skateboarding), and could not run like normal, nor really defend himself. They broke into his house when he got back in. So all that rationalization is meanlingless, because your asking the impossible from an old man [my grandfather] to cater to your idealogy. Their only options was gone. My grandfather should have owned a weapon, and should have shot each one of them...

Young black males!!! That might be true statistically but it does sound a little racist even if you didn't mean it that way. Try to rephrase the way you said that before a mod comes to shut this thread down. Unless you were trying to be racist, then you just go away because we don't like you and we have no place for racists here (that is if you are a racist, if you’re not just rephrase).
That's not racist, its a sad fact of life in Oakland.

It's a race riot...what else do you call it. Mob is definitely a firm figure for such an occurence. Do you recall the man in the truck in the LA riots? Do you think the cops were helping him or he had a chance? Generally, cops mostly get to crime scenes after such an event.

My uncle injured his arm that year (skateboarding), and could not run like normal, nor really defend himself. They broke into his house when he got back in. So all that rationalization is meanlingless, because your asking the impossible from an old man [my grandfather] to cater to your idealogy. Their only options was gone. My grandfather should have owned a weapon, and should have shot each one of them...

Ask yourself this. Would a gun really help in this situation? I mean if he was injured and all. And if it was a group they could have taken him if he had a gun anyway (injured or not).

That's not racist, its a sad fact of life in Oakland.

I know that I just said it sounded that way and that it should be rephrased.

It's a race riot...what else do you call it. Mob is definitely a firm figure for such an occurence. Do you recall the man in the truck in the LA riots? Do you think the cops were helping him or he had a chance? Generally, cops mostly get to crime scenes after such an event.

My uncle injured his arm that year (skateboarding), and could not run like normal, nor really defend himself. They broke into his house when he got back in. So all that rationalization is meanlingless, because your asking the impossible from an old man [my grandfather] to cater to your idealogy. Their only options was gone. My grandfather should have owned a weapon, and should have shot each one of them...
The fact is, that if there is riot or an angry mob, there is not much the police can do but let them blow off steam. Unless you are advocating the police open fire with live rounds on a lot of American citizens. That simply will not happen. US law enforcement will not massacre their own people.

More suspects are being rounded up around the mall. That means this was clearly organized and it involved more than 3 people.

Young black males!!! That might be true statistically but it does sound a little racist even if you didn't mean it that way. Try to rephrase the way you said that before a mod comes to shut this thread down. Unless you were trying to be racist, then you just go away because we don't like you and we have no place for racists here (that is if you are a racist, if you’re not just rephrase).

I'm not pc, but I'm not definitely not a racist. Do I have to say 'African American'?...I'm not at work. Of it something else, which appears racist?

Note:Most of the black friends I've had in my life, prefered the term 'black' to African American. I'm hoping this board isn't that pc.

Wait so how is it TERRORISM?

Because it's NY? And they had guns, masks and were probably planning it? You can't go calling every violent crime terrorism, it endumbens.

The fact is, that if there is riot or an angry mob, there is not much the police can do but let them blow off steam. Unless you are advocating the police open fire with live rounds on a lot of American citizens. That simply will not happen. US law enforcement will not massacre their own people.

that's why they developed non-lethal riot-weapons....i still wouldn't want to be shot by one though

12 more arrests have been made in connection to the event.

Did anyone here read Teeth of the Tiger?
Yeah. It was only a matter of time before this happened. We have been lucky for years. I guess our luck ran out

Fox News.

Oh well no wonder you're calling them terrorists, Fox's definetion of a terrorist is "One who does not vote for the Republican candidate." And for the person who said right after you "oh, and source." I would ring your neck, do you really think that Whittier- just goes around making up fake stories?

that's why they developed non-lethal riot-weapons....i still wouldn't want to be shot by one though
the police won't use the non lethal stuff either until the crowd has had an ample time to calm down.

The fact is, that if there is riot or an angry mob, there is not much the police can do but let them blow off steam. Unless you are advocating the police open fire with live rounds on a lot of American citizens. That simply will not happen. US law enforcement will not massacre their own people.

Really? You think that massacres of American people never happened. Don't make me name all the times (remember a certain collage incident). Anyway, what you say is false. Swat teams can HELP to deal with a mob at least a little.

Oh and I am going to leave this thread now because nether of the sides are going to get anywhere on a silly online thread.

Oh well no wonder you're calling them terrorists, Fox's definetion of a terrorist is "One who does not vote for the Republican candidate." And for the person who said right after you "oh, and source." I would ring your neck, do you really think that Whittier- just goes around making up fake stories?
this has nothing to do with people's voting records. these people probably aren't even registered to vote. this has nothing to do political ideology. People were being killed.

Well, so far nobody has thrown out the M word yet. I hope they're a bunch of white suburban Christians ... I wonder if they'll be called "Christian Terrorists" ...

Nah ... probably not.

Oh well. Only 1 person hurt? Not very good shots, are they?

Well, I found out where it happened. It was in Kingston, about fifty miles south of Albany. It is unlikely to be terrorism, as stuff like this happens all the time on the West Coast.

Did anyone here read Teeth of the Tiger?

THAT is an excellent book.

Ask yourself this. Would a gun really help in this situation? I mean if he was injured and all. And if it was a group they could have taken him if he had a gun anyway (injured or not).

Yes, the gun would have helped. My uncle was injured, not my grandfather.

I did ask my granfather that, and he deepily believe that it would have helped. The entrance to the house was only one way. They destroyed his front door to get in and steal. So a 45 or shotgun to the door would have scared anyone off.

Well, I found out where it happened. It was in Kingston, about fifty miles south of Albany. It is unlikely to be terrorism, as stuff like this happens all the time on the West Coast.
I don't think so. And Albany is on the east coast not the west coast.

according to this guns are number 13 cause of death in the US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr52_09p9.pdf

according to this they are number 10:
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Number 12 here:
http://www.sandh.com/keyes/deaths.htm

So your argument that guns are not the leading nor among the leading causes of death has no weight in reality.

Not really telling the whole story there.....where do the stat's come from? What is the cross spread? for example I doubt that there are many 18-25 year olds dieing of Heart Disease (although mcdonalds are doing their best to change that).

Anyway the chances are that most people being shot are gun holders themselves?? If that's the case then it's probably a good thing to have!! (statistics come from Menace to Society, Bonnie & Clyde, Scarface etc.....) :mp5:

I don't think so. And Albany is on the east coast not the west coast.
Yeah, but it could very well be a gang fight. I could be wrong, but I do doubt it were terrorists. If they were, then they were probably lunatics working alone.

OOn a side note, English cops are allowed to have guns (at least I’m pretty sure they are). If they used more sensible stunning weapons the criminals couldn’t get the guns in the first place. Criminals get guns from cops if they can't get um from a store.

Care to provide a single shred of evidence that criminals in England have got guns from cops even once never mind as a matter of course?

Its every man for himself.

If it is indeed 'every man for himself', then why are you still clinging to the constitution?

Care to provide a single shred of evidence that criminals in England have got guns from cops even once never mind as a matter of course?
i dont even think regular police in England carry a gun

Okay. I live in a rural area. I have yet to hear of a gun-related incident around where I live.

I never see gun-related incidents from rural areas on the news.

On the other hand....

This happened in NY -- big city.

Also, lots of gun-related deaths in NY -- big city.

Lots of gun-related deaths in Harrisburg -- a big city. (Pennsylvania (my homestate) capital)

Lots of gun-related deaths in Phillie -- a big city.

LA riots of 93' -- big city.

Catch the point? Oh yeah, thought I'd tell you -- guns are banned in most majour cities in America. Most gun related crimed occur in a big city. Most poverty occurs in a big city. Most drug use is in the big cities.

Coincidence? I think not.

Granted, those are from personal observations and no source, so I may be wrong, but I think Whittier here can vouch for me.

[QUOTE=Derscon]


Catch the point? Oh yeah, thought I'd tell you -- guns are banned in most majour cities in America. Most gun related crimed occur in a big city. Most poverty occurs in a big city. Most drug use is in the big cities.

I think the drug use comment is a bit Naive....where is the link to using drugs and guns??? Again Drugs are used widespread in the UK and we don't have a fraction of the gun deaths!!!

QUOTE]

i dont even think regular police in England carry a gun

In certain areas armed police do operate as a matter of course - airport security and around nuclear facilities. Regular police will carry firearms in other areas in certain circumstances, but it is far from a matter of course. Wikipedia gives a figure of only 7% of the Metropolitan police being trained in use of firearms. Of course... our beloved home country is different, and I made no claims that criminal elements here have not received aid or weapons from the security forces.

Okay. I live in a rural area. I have yet to hear of a gun-related incident around where I live.

I never see gun-related incidents from rural areas on the news.

On the other hand....

This happened in NY -- big city.

Also, lots of gun-related deaths in NY -- big city.

Lots of gun-related deaths in Harrisburg -- a big city. (Pennsylvania (my homestate) capital)

Lots of gun-related deaths in Phillie -- a big city.

LA riots of 93' -- big city.

Catch the point? Oh yeah, thought I'd tell you -- guns are banned in most majour cities in America. Most gun related crimed occur in a big city. Most poverty occurs in a big city. Most drug use is in the big cities.

Coincidence? I think not.

Granted, those are from personal observations and no source, so I may be wrong, but I think Whittier here can vouch for me.

You're confusing New York City with New York State. This shooting was ninety miles north of New York City.

I think the drug use comment is a bit Naive....where is the link to using drugs and guns??? Again Drugs are used widespread in the UK and we don't have a fraction of the gun deaths!!!

The link isn't between using illegal drugs and using illegal guns, instead between selling illegal drugs and using illegal guns - witness the turfwars of Manchester, Glasgow and Belfast.

Lots of gun-related deaths in Harrisburg -- a big city. (Pennsylvania (my homestate) capital):

I thought I heard on the news something that we'd had our first murder in over a year or something recently? Maybe I'm mistaken..

Would it be in bad taste to suggest that the OP was jumping the gun?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/13/mall.shooting/index.html

Police said the shooting appeared to be the work of a lone, male gunman who was apprehended by witnesses after running out of ammunition for his "assault-type rifle."

...

Officials said there does not appear to be any link to terrorism.



Of course, nothing guarantees that these reports are the whole truth.

Lots of gun-related deaths in Harrisburg -- a big city. (Pennsylvania (my homestate) capital):

I thought I heard on the news something that we'd had our first murder in over a year or something recently? Maybe I'm mistaken..

I didn't.....oh, I did put deaths, didn't I. Crap.

You live in Harrisburg? I'm not too far off.

Look. Everybody just shut up. You're not even arguing on the same page.

Gun advocates say: Guns make it easier for sane people to defend themselves. Do you want to die?

Gun bashers say: Guns make it easier for criminals to kill people. Do you want to die?


Your argument is going like this: A. Yeah, but B. No, think about A. You would really think to take away B?

You're not arguing about the same thing! Argue about the same thing or shut up. For example, you could debate the following:

In a cost-benefit analysis between effectiveness and attainability, which is better: the right to self-defense or the right not to need it?

In the U.S., all of the statistics point to (you guessed it) self-defense. What happens in Europe and Canada is irrelevant because they have completely different cultures.

Some good points here. The US is already so gunned-up that disarming civilians just like that would be disastrous, especially considering the global PR that the States are getting these days. I would, however, be a good idea to keep better records of who has what kind of firearm. I'm sure many people will scream "privacy! the government has no right to know what brand of rocket launcher I possess!" But if privacy were really so special, there are a lot of issues that are currently being debated which woul dbe easily tossed out the window. Unless there are plans for impartial, ultra protective police robots in the works, America should make an effort to have all legal guns be registered.

Did anyone here read Teeth of the Tiger?

I did!

Tom Clancy has been giving these terrorists ideas!

I didn't.....oh, I did put deaths, didn't I. Crap.

You live in Harrisburg? I'm not too far off.

I live about half an hour away from there.

I have seen America struggle with the problems of being on top, such as terrorism, I am glad I live in a country in which the last terrorist attack I remember was in the 1980's and involving fake tylenol bottles, not guns or large aircraft.

If there has to be one hegemonic power, I am glad they speak my language, are democratic, and haven't invaded.

Christ sake, in the early 90's a guy opened fire in Australia. Killed 32 people, we didn't feel the need to turn it into a sports report and call it TERRORISM!!!!! like fox. Pathetic.

Christ sake, in the early 90's a guy opened fire in Australia. Killed 32 people, we didn't feel the need to turn it into a sports report and call it TERRORISM!!!!! like fox. Pathetic.

Um, FOX isn't calling it terrorism.

Also, anything that is meant to make terror is terrorism. So, if the gunmens purpose was to instill terror, then they are terrorists. A terrorist isn't just an Arab with an AK-47.

Anytime you have some one shoot up a crowded mall, its an act of terrorism.

Ummm... no. Terrorism involves threatening or killing civilians to further a political end. It does not include a few nut-cases who get their rocks off shooting innocent people.

I am turning on the news now... We'll see if there is a "purpose" to all this.

Some good points here. The US is already so gunned-up that disarming civilians just like that would be disastrous, especially considering the global PR that the States are getting these days. I would, however, be a good idea to keep better records of who has what kind of firearm. I'm sure many people will scream "privacy! the government has no right to know what brand of rocket launcher I possess!" But if privacy were really so special, there are a lot of issues that are currently being debated which woul dbe easily tossed out the window. Unless there are plans for impartial, ultra protective police robots in the works, America should make an effort to have all legal guns be registered.

And how would registering guns reduce the level of crime when the majority of crimes committed w/ firearms are purchased illegally?

Oh, Whittier, Whittier, Whittier.... what will we do with you?

Don't you know that only Muslims are terrorists? :P

Seriously, though, you're trusting Fox News to be fair and unbiased?

You need to stop being such a republican. Seriously. I worry about you.

Ummm... no. Terrorism involves threatening or killing civilians to further a political end. It does not include a few nut-cases who get their rocks off shooting innocent people.

I am turning on the news now... We'll see if there is a "purpose" to all this.
no its not just for political reasons. There are religious reasons also that are used, also cultural reasons.