1983-2011 Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 ^^^terrorist link possibly, Ayman al-Zawahiri Christopher Samir Zawahri :hmmm:
DomainK Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 So according to Reddit' date=' the perpetrator is of Lebanese descent. It's either Christopher Samir Zawahri born 8/06/1987 and John Samir Zawahri born 06/08/1989. The shooter killed his brother and Father as well. The house where 1st two bodies were found was owned by Samir S. Zawahri.[/quote'] Be careful about reddit investigations. Last time they messed up an innocent dead kid's family's life.
jalebi_bhai Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 FFS its United States' date=' not the libertarian haven of Somalia. Many of us lived in these areas years without the need of a gun.[/quote'] So just because you haven't had any bad experiences.....it doesn't necessarily mean that they are particularly safe places.......would you recommend someone to go on a vacation to Detroit???
Crookbond Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 In Los Angeles at least......there are a lot of areas that are simply not safe...... walking alone in South Central is pretty much like a death wish.......you do need some serious protection for yourself here.....security officials can also act like petty scum in many parts.... The appropriate solution would be fore the LAPD to take up that issue. You can't have untrained citizens loaded with guns in their hands.
Brainfade Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 Scary stuff. RIP to the innocent victims. The 2 biggest recent mass gun violence events have occurred in states with the strictest gun laws (Conn. and Cali.). Eighty people die each day of gunshot wounds in the US. EVERY DAY. Most in poor, inner-city neighborhoods that are not on the media's radar screens. Do we talk about them on this board? Not until a mass-killing like this occurs in a setting that is familiar to us - a college, a school, a mall. The kicker is that most of these deaths are caused by illegal weapons. It was definitely illegal for Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook killer) to be on those school grounds with firearms. I would venture to say that the perpetrator here did not possess weapons that are legal in Cali. So, the question is: who is doing the enforcement? Just making them illegal or banning them by law is not the answer - it is just a feel-good exercise. The only way to stop this is to have uniformly stringent laws in all states and actually ENFORCE them. Maybe confiscate and reissue after absolutely thorough background checks.
jalebi_bhai Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 That's the most moronic argument put forward by the gun fanatics. Fact I: Knives/Forks have a primary purpose in the culinary aspect. The fact that they're rarely used for violent reasons is unfortunate but in no ways requires as much regulation. Guns outside of hunting, whether for offensive or defensive purposes, have a very basic role: KILLING people or maybe in case of law enforcement badly injuring them. Fact II: A fork is as deadly as it was in 1645, maybe lesser. Modern day guns are far more catastrophic in the hands of irresponsible people. That in itself requires strict regulation on guns. Abhey oh.....I'm not a gun fanatic.......never have owned one and most probably never will..... Don't realize what is wrong with people on here.......most suffer from selective reading......For FFS, I'm not saying give every person a double barrel automatic shotgun......i'm mostly agreeing with you on the fact that gun laws need to be very stringent, with people being subjective to intensive background checks....... the guns made available to civilains should be limited.......probably to guns that carry only 5-8 mm bullets..... I also feel people fail to look at the bigger picture with regards to gun related violence......a lot of the times, gun related violence takes place in ganglands......that would mostly be South Central, Mid-City, Parts of Downtown here in LA.....a lot of them are largely drug-related.....with dealers/gang members fighting over drug dealing territory......a lot of gang members also get there guns illegally...... Definitely, there have been quite a number civilian shootings that have taken place over the last few decades......but if you actually take the time to look into these cases, there are many more compounding factors......in most cases, the perpetrators suffered from some sort of mental imbalance......people may argue that if these guys didn't have access to guns......innocent lives may not have been lost..........frankly though.....we can't say for sure......if not guns.....these people may have resorted to explosives made using common households products like soap.......many actually have....... the main point I'm trying to make is that......simply banning legal purchase of guns will not solve the problem of gun related violence.....it can in fact make innocent civilians even more vulnerable to criminal attacks...... I lived in the gangland of Inglewood (was a crips territory) for a while and witnessed all sorts of non-sense.......police car chases, flying choppers every other day.......the shopkeeper at a 7eleven just 300 metres away from my old place was robbed at gun point once......on occassions......the authorities can't help you get out of potentially life-taking situations......what do you do then?? IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE.....READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN AND REPLY SENSIBLY!! Off for a few hours......got to do 3-D modelling......:bye:.....
Clarke Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 So just because you haven't had any bad experiences.....it doesn't necessarily mean that they are particularly safe places.......would you recommend someone to go on a vacation to Detroit??? HAH, lived there some years (suburbs), used to go to downtown office & in the evenings/weekends to restaurants/casinos/theater/baseball/concerts etc as well as the famous people mover (jokingly referred to as the people mugger). Don't tell me I needed a gun there.
CSK Fan Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 Cause many pars in the US are not safe.......entire states like Michigan' date=' Georgia and states in the South and Mid-West can be extremely dangerous.......I agree with you on the need for gun ownership laws to be way more stringent.......but If you are a wealthy person in the US.......you need serious security to stay safe.......I still stand by my point about irresponsible people being more at fault.....if not guns......people would and do find other ways to harm others......[/quote'] 1) The gun is the most effective way to kill people and in large numbers 2) The ONLY purpose of a gun is to shoot and kill Clearly the solution is not to arm more people with gun but make the situations in those areas better and safer. In the UK even the police don't carry gun. Don't tell me the richest most powerful country in the world cannot make its states safer for it's own citizens
Muloghonto Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 But...but....guns don't kill. Guns = fundamental constitutional right. You got that right. Guns dont kill, people kill. Look at Switzerland and Canada - we have some of the highest per capita gun ownerships in the world ( Switzerland has a higher guns per capita than even USA IIRC) and our gun-related violence is miniscule. Ofcourse, it helps that we dont sell guns like candy from a store like in the states but you actually have to go through a lot of testing, hoops and demos to get a gun licence but whatever, my point is, allowing people to own guns doesnt equate to high gun crimes. Its a social/cultural thing more than simple access to weapons IMO.
Muloghonto Posted June 8, 2013 Posted June 8, 2013 Ridiculous reasoning. Why does the everyday person feel they need a gun? Not just any old gun, these mofos are able to buy sub machine guns with high powered cartridges without any dramas. They just don't learn, do they? Keep repeating the same ****ing mistakes over and over again. In my experience, the two biggest reason why people own guns is : a) they like to go hunting b) its insanely fun to go 'blammo' in a gun range. Nothing makes you feel 'alive' as much as pumping a target full of AK-47 bullets IMO. Edit: scratch that, skeet shooting is the most fun.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 btw may I ask' date=' where exactly do you live?[/quote'] I have done enough country hopping to realise that guns are not the answer. Carrying around military style sub machine guns in civilian cities on the basis of the second amendment is complete nonsense in the modern day and age, it is just used as an excuse to feed one's ego. And no, the answer to a bad gun with a gun is not a good guy with a gun. No guys with no guns is the answer, as is the case in many other parts of the world.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH the guns made available to civilains should be limited.......probably to guns that carry only 5-8 mm bullets..... Some more BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH The second amendment gives one the right to bear arms. Arms do not necessarily mean guns. By that definition, one should be able to purchase swords/knives/machetes/knuckle dusters and what not and justify them under the disguise of self defense. By your logic, instead of outlawing these instruments of death altogether, they should just limit them to a certain number per person. You can see why people here think you are a bit cuckoo :bird:
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 1) The gun is the most effective way to kill people and in large numbers 2) The ONLY purpose of a gun is to shoot and kill Clearly the solution is not to arm more people with gun but make the situations in those areas better and safer. In the UK even the police don't carry gun. Don't tell me the richest most powerful country in the world cannot make its states safer for it's own citizens 100% agree with the bolded part.......but a gun free society is not necessarily a safe society..... the UK is not a significantly safer place than the US......Terrorists attacks still take place......usually with homemade explosives......hate related crimes are still very rampant...... The USA has a higher number of people living in poverty and hence there is no surprise that there is a greater amount of crime.....this whole no gun = lesser crime doesn't hold true because crime is a combined result of a numerous factors......if people desperately want to harm others......they will do it no mater what..... Also, remember scenes from 26/11.....10 terrorists armed with assault rifles against the mumbai police who were armed with pistols and lattis.....it was unbearable to watch....numerous lives were lost.....this....in our 'gun free society'......
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 The second amendment gives one the right to bear arms. Arms do not necessarily mean guns. By that definition, one should be able to purchase swords/knives/machetes/knuckle dusters and what not and justify them under the disguise of self defense. By your logic, instead of outlawing these instruments of death altogether, they should just limit them to a certain number per person. You can see why people here think you are a bit cuckoo :bird: Before chatting your derogatory bollocks......tell me where do you live?? If you are not going to......I'm not going to bother debating with you.....
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 How is that bollocks? I am just taking your warped logic to its logical conclusion. And where I live has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Do you ask people where they reside before you answer their questions?
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 I have done enough country hopping to realise that guns are not the answer. 'Hopping'....doesn't make you an expert on the way a country functions.....reading a book on govt. doesn't make you president material...... Carrying around military style sub machine guns in civilian cities on the basis of the second amendment is complete nonsense in the modern day and age' date=' it is just used as an excuse to feed one's ego..[/quote'] I agree with you on this......
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 And where I live has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Do you ask people where they reside before you answer their questions? It most definitely does.......if it doesn't.....why not just tell me?......I wont come to your house and trouble you and your family........ The reason I want to know is because knowing where you live will help me understand your point of view in a better manner.....
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 You got that right. Guns dont kill' date= people kill. Look at Switzerland and Canada - we have some of the highest per capita gun ownerships in the world ( Switzerland has a higher guns per capita than even USA IIRC) and our gun-related violence is miniscule. Ofcourse, it helps that we dont sell guns like candy from a store like in the states but you actually have to go through a lot of testing, hoops and demos to get a gun licence but whatever, my point is, allowing people to own guns doesnt equate to high gun crimes. Its a social/cultural thing more than simple access to weapons IMO. Than you very much sir......:hatsoff:......This is pretty much what I'm trying to say.....make legal possession of guns a very stringent process with a lot of background checking....
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Fair enough......walk around South Central in LA with satyagraha as your weapon.......let's what you do when you are jumped by gang members.......also......people don't always purchase guns over the counter.......gangs almost always smuggle guns......if you take away people's right to defend themselves through legal means......you are only handicapping them further...... Basically long story short, according to you, if one does not have a gun, one cannot protect themselves. Have you ever stepped foot outside the US? For arguments sake, lets say we go ahead with your reasoning and I purchase my gun legally for my "self protection". In that case, I should be able to carry my gun to my church, my workplace, my super market, my movie theatre, my community centre and whatnot without any impediments. Since I have a gun, it only makes sense everyone else has a gun so they don't feel "left out".
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 HAH' date=' lived there some years (suburbs), used to go to downtown office & in the evenings/weekends to restaurants/casinos/theater/baseball/concerts etc as well as the famous people mover (jokingly referred to as the people mugger). Don't tell me I needed a gun there.[/quote'] Fair enough, I'm not saying you 100 % need a gun......I've never owned one myself and I used to live in friggin Inglewood.......lekin, you do agree that these places can get really really dangerous,right?
Recommended Posts