Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 . . . 24 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1331717 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 21:58:56 UTC - in response to Message 1331650.  


I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

I drag the kid with the stick off to a rubber room because I know if I don't and only take the stick he will just grab a rock and keep on beating.

That isn't true, Gary. Having broken up many fights between children I can tell you that is absolutely not true.

If we go your way eventually we have taken away every movable object, er isn't that a good description of a rubber room?

Most shootings happen in a moment of temper. Everyone loses their temper at some point in their lives. Some people who are under a lot of pressure in another part in their lives can snap and in a moment of fury want to lash out at people close to them. If they pick up a stick in their fury, they most likely hit out once then realise what they have done and stop. Unfortunately a lot of shootings occur in the home when exactly this situation has occurred, but rather than throwing dishes, or putting fists through walls, a gun is used. The consequences are often fatal. A moment of madness, just one moment and with access to a gun, lives are destroyed.

In your analogy you are suggesting that if someones gun is taken off them they will just pick up another gun. Rocks may be lying around in the street, but we should be living in a world where guns are not.

Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.
ID: 1331717 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1331721 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:15:13 UTC - in response to Message 1331717.  


Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.

I think the reason that we are having this discussion is because, unlike the knife attack that happened in China where 22 children were injured, 20 children were killed in Sandy Hook.

The difference is that in one case the weapon used was a knife, in the other the weapon used was a gun.

There really is a huge difference between an injured child and a dead one.

The line needs to be drawn.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1331721 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22149
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1331724 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:20:53 UTC

I agree, it would be great if there were no "weapons" of any sort, but we aren't.

The control of firearms is about controlling the risk by controlling something that it is possible to control.

Here in the UK we have some pretty serious firearms control, we also have controls on the knives, and other things that might be used as weapons. The don't stop people being shot, stabbed or hit with a blunt object, they reduce the risk of such acts.

As far as I can see the biggest obstacle in the US to sensible gun control is the NRA and the industry that supports them in generating a culture of paranoia. This paranoia instils in people the fear that if they don't have a gun they will get shot by someone with a gun. Since when did owning a gun stop someone being shot? In an encounter with an armed person even if you hit with your first shot someone has been shot - think how many people in our armed services have been shot in the last 100 years.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1331724 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22149
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1331733 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:29:42 UTC

Going back to the thread title,and answering the question.

Many years ago, when I first underwent any firearms training, our instructor, an old Corporal, handed us all mirrors at start of the first session in the training room. He told us to look at our faces "Ladies and Gentlemen, you are now looking at the most dangerous part of any weapon system - remember and learn".

This was before he lifted the cloths of the table at the front and uncovered enough small arms, automatics and other weapons to start a war, "These weapons are all perfectly safe despite being loaded, they are sitting on a table not being held in someone's hands". A salutatory lesson was learnt by all that day.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1331733 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1331753 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:49:25 UTC - in response to Message 1331721.  


Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.

I think the reason that we are having this discussion is because, unlike the knife attack that happened in China where 22 children were injured, 20 children were killed in Sandy Hook.

The difference is that in one case the weapon used was a knife, in the other the weapon used was a gun.

There really is a huge difference between an injured child and a dead one.

The line needs to be drawn.

We are having this discussion because you have all forgotten that the weapon of choice for the Manson family was the knife.

ID: 1331753 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1331755 - Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:52:23 UTC - in response to Message 1331733.  

Many years ago, when I first underwent any firearms training, our instructor, an old Corporal, handed us all mirrors at start of the first session in the training room. He told us to look at our faces "Ladies and Gentlemen, you are now looking at the most dangerous part of any weapon system - remember and learn".

This was before he lifted the cloths of the table at the front and uncovered enough small arms, automatics and other weapons to start a war, "These weapons are all perfectly safe despite being loaded, they are sitting on a table not being held in someone's hands". A salutatory lesson was learnt by all that day.

So vary true. It is the person who is the danger. More so if they are not trained.

ID: 1331755 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1331888 - Posted: 27 Jan 2013, 4:41:55 UTC

I have no firearms at this moment.
However. I defend my RIGHT to own then at any point in time I feel my security is jeopordized. Like today, like right now, like at any point I choose.
My choice right now......?
A nice, stainless .45 auto with a 9 shot clip. And several spare clips.
I happen to know what it takes to stop an intruder. Six shots or only five, as Clint said........it took seven. He did NOT stop until the last round hit his chest. You want me to empty my clip and then say.....Oh, shit? Not on my watch, morons.

And this is such an inane argument anyway you are having.

The second amendment is NOT about having a gun in the house to fend off criminals..
There were just not that many criminals at that time.

It was about, and right now is about, having the means to defend the public against.
Illegal search and seizure, and the 'don't tread upon me' legalities of a corrupted government. Which is what we have right now.

You cannot see the corruption at the federal level that is happening right now?

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1331888 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1331900 - Posted: 27 Jan 2013, 6:09:27 UTC - in response to Message 1331888.  

I have no firearms at this moment.
However. I defend my RIGHT to own then at any point in time I feel my security is jeopordized. Like today, like right now, like at any point I choose.
My choice right now......?
A nice, stainless .45 auto with a 9 shot clip. And several spare clips.
I happen to know what it takes to stop an intruder. Six shots or only five, as Clint said........it took seven. He did NOT stop until the last round hit his chest. You want me to empty my clip and then say.....Oh, shit? Not on my watch, morons.

And this is such an inane argument anyway you are having.

The second amendment is NOT about having a gun in the house to fend off criminals..
There were just not that many criminals at that time.

It was about, and right now is about, having the means to defend the public against.
Illegal search and seizure, and the 'don't tread upon me' legalities of a corrupted government. Which is what we have right now.

You cannot see the corruption at the federal level that is happening right now?

I'll repost this for you Mark because it seem to have got lost in the kerfuffle.

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

"This Article challenges the insurrectionist model. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions.[52]"

An interesting, well researched paper on the true history of the 2nd amendment. Also explains where I.D. is getting his information from.

It does appear that the 2nd amendment was drafted so that the Southern States could protect themselves from a slave uprising.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1331900 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1331901 - Posted: 27 Jan 2013, 6:19:37 UTC - in response to Message 1331888.  

It was about, and right now is about, having the means to defend the public against.
Illegal search and seizure, and the 'don't tread upon me' legalities of a corrupted government. Which is what we have right now.

You cannot see the corruption at the federal level that is happening right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Creek_raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
Yep, they are coming for you.

ID: 1331901 · Report as offensive
Profile Jim_S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 00
Posts: 4705
Credit: 64,560,357
RAC: 31
United States
Message 1332149 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 3:35:35 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2013, 3:45:25 UTC

With My Firearms I'm dangerous...I'm dangerous to Large Game Animals, Small Game Animals, Tasty Birds and Any Home Intruder or Steel Silhouette Target from 0 to 800 Meters.
I dislike Handguns, Assault Weapons and any untrained nut with a Weapon.
I also like a Shotgun for Game and Clay Pigeons and a .22 semi-auto for small Game and Target shooting.
However My Wife has a Handgun for self defense.

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)
ID: 1332149 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1332180 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 6:51:54 UTC

Does Utilitarian philosophy still reign?

The U.S.A. FBI crime statistics always show that many more violent crimes are prevented by the actual presence of guns than with them (these are the only comprehensive statistics available)It is something approacfhing 20-1 in favor of the victim. It may be ugly to certain people with enhanced sensibilites but doesn't mean it makes the citizzery that much safer.

From a practical point of view, guns that are modernally effective last now for hundreds of years. They are impossible to get rid of.

Further, the risk of putting American citizens against eachother due to draconian anti-gun laws is risky for society, alienating many that hold votes and political sway. It's just not wise or right. Since most gun owners exercise their right responsibly there's little to fear from such people.

Violent crime has been going DOWN over the past decade....even in Chicago.

Mass shootings are down.

In countries like U.K. violent crimes increase since their gun bans. Hacked to death with a machete in a shop is preferable perhaps to some.

What does someone actually fear from a person who is her/his neighbor with guns in his house? This is a mystery to most rational people. It almost smacks of psychological displacement where the desire to force others is projected upon someone else because of the tendencies of another. None of it makes much rational sense.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 1332180 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1332222 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 13:57:38 UTC - in response to Message 1332180.  

Does Utilitarian philosophy still reign?

The U.S.A. FBI crime statistics always show that many more violent crimes are prevented by the actual presence of guns than with them (these are the only comprehensive statistics available)It is something approacfhing 20-1 in favor of the victim. It may be ugly to certain people with enhanced sensibilites but doesn't mean it makes the citizzery that much safer.

From a practical point of view, guns that are modernally effective last now for hundreds of years. They are impossible to get rid of.

Further, the risk of putting American citizens against eachother due to draconian anti-gun laws is risky for society, alienating many that hold votes and political sway. It's just not wise or right. Since most gun owners exercise their right responsibly there's little to fear from such people.

Violent crime has been going DOWN over the past decade....even in Chicago.

Mass shootings are down.

In countries like U.K. violent crimes increase since their gun bans. Hacked to death with a machete in a shop is preferable perhaps to some.

What does someone actually fear from a person who is her/his neighbor with guns in his house? This is a mystery to most rational people. It almost smacks of psychological displacement where the desire to force others is projected upon someone else because of the tendencies of another. None of it makes much rational sense.

You raise a good point about the fear of firearms. I was raised around guns. taught they were not toys and the rules about handling them. There are some folks who just about wet themselves when they find out I have one. I have 5 duaghters. Three of them married men who like to hunt and target shoot. One is not keen on the idea of firearms and one goes into fits about hearing the word.

Now I keep all my firearms in a safe and so do the sons in laws who have firearms. The older grandkids who like to target shoot have been raised to know the rules also. They aslo know how to safely handle one. Now the other two daughters. They have kids, who have no clue about firearms. I was told flat out not to ever show them a firearm or even how to safely handle one.

All the kids know the rule that if you see a fire arm, stop, dont touch it and tell an adult.
But I ask you this. What if they are over at a friends house and they find a firearm. Id hope it was one of my grandkids who know the rules and knows they are not toys.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1332222 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1332243 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 15:16:13 UTC

I hear that certain southern Sheriffs will get to decide what is constitutional, instead of the Supreme Court.

Sure sounds rational to me, with me IQ of 62.
ID: 1332243 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1332364 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 22:41:28 UTC

http://news.yahoo.com/missile-launcher-shows-seattle-gun-buyback-174331546.html
SEATTLE (AP) — Seattle police worked with Army officials Monday to track down the history of a nonfunctional missile launcher that showed up at a weapons buyback program and determine whether it was legal or possibly stolen from the military.

A man standing outside the event Saturday bought the military weapon for $100 from another person there, according to Detective Mark Jamieson.

The single-use device is a launch tube assembly for a Stinger portable surface-to-air missile and already had been used. As a controlled military item, it is not available to civilians through any surplus or disposal program offered by the government, according to Jamieson.
...
Police witnessed the private exchange of the military launch tube near the gun buyback event, where gun buyers tempted those standing in long lines to turn in their weapons with cash.

"It was absolutely crazy what we saw out there," Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn said at a news conference Monday where officials announced they had collected a total of 716 weapons, including four confirmed as stolen.

Officers saw guns changing private hands without knowing whether the person buying the gun had the legal right to buy it, and those transactions are occurring all the time, McGinn said.

So prohibitions on assault weapons will work, just like laws preventing the public from having stinger missiles. I'm so glad I live in a country without criminals.

ID: 1332364 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1332968 - Posted: 30 Jan 2013, 22:16:11 UTC

Amerika has a mental health problem ...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Gerald Hume was described in the affidavit as a "known schizophrenic (who) hears voices, and requires treatment" and who has had "several mental health interventions with OCPD" and a history of violent behavior.

He didn't steal his guns or borrow them. He bought them.

"He bought them like any normal person would -- he got them at Walmart," said Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson.

Hume bought the rifles at the Walmart in Moore, Oklahoma, on September 25. The next day he bought the Glock at Gun World in the nearby town of Dell City, according to Nelson. Both are federally licensed gun dealers that conduct background checks. The checks, in theory, are supposed to stop certain people -- including the mentally ill with a history of violence -- from buying them.

What is this person doing walking the streets?

Want the what?
Last November, Oklahoma City police officers went to check on an elderly woman after relatives reported they hadn't heard from her in a while.

At 77, Janet Hume was living with her adult son, Gerald, who the family said was schizophrenic. Since she typically kept in close contact with relatives, police decided to investigate.

They visited the Hume home on three occasions. Each time, her son refused to let them inside, insisting "everything was OK," according to a police affidavit.

But it was far from it.

What police eventually discovered instead was a horrendous case that underscores how little the country's current gun laws can do to stop a mentally ill person from buying a gun -- even if, like Gerald Hume, they have a documented history of violence.

Before their third visit, detectives talked with one of Janet Hume's friends, who gave them troubling news.

"Janet Hume told her that Gerald has recently bought several guns," according to the police affidavit, which was seeking a search warrant for the Hume home.

That third time police went to check on Janet Hume, all hell broke loose.

Gerald Hume held police at bay for 11 hours, barricading himself inside the home as a police helicopter flew overhead. During negotiations, police records show Hume admitted shooting his mother in the chest.

At 4:30 a.m. on November 14, an Oklahoma City Police tactical unit finally forced its way into the home. Hume pointed his 9mm Glock at them. An officer used a stun gun on him; another fired a beanbag rifle at him. But police still had to rush him, pushing him down with their shields.

Police then quickly searched Hume's home, finding Janet Hume's body in a bedroom, the affidavit said.

While Hume's lawyer declined to be interviewed, the inventory of items seized from the home in relation to the case tells a gruesome story.

In addition to the handgun and three rifles, police also removed a Whirlpool freezer, a reciprocating saw and a serrated kitchen knife, according to the inventory, filed with the search warrant. They also seized a pair of blood-splattered safety glasses and a white plastic trash bag containing women's clothing that was "cut up/stained," the document said.

Authorities found parts of Janet Hume's body inside the freezer, along with the body of a house cat, the district attorney told the Oklahoman newspaper.

Again, why is a violent schizophrenic who hears voices doing walking the streets?

ID: 1332968 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1333014 - Posted: 31 Jan 2013, 0:53:23 UTC

Well, ya see, when someone is an inpatient, the caregiver working with them on their treatment sets up these goals. Goals to achieve before moving from 3rd to 2nd floor, 2nd to 1st, 1st to outpatient, outpatient to fully out in society without a net.
Then, in the late 80s, the goals were made ridiculously easy to achieve, the patients were told what goals they had to achieve, etc. ... . Hey, when you see that guy about 20 years old, brown hair, don't assume he's the son you haven't seen a few weeks and run up to him and start talking to him.
Why did they make the goals easy to achieve and known to the patients? It's cheaper. In the short run.
ID: 1333014 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1333194 - Posted: 31 Jan 2013, 16:32:57 UTC
Last modified: 31 Jan 2013, 16:35:27 UTC

It's the same story the whole world over. Mental health care being down graded to save costs.

Of course it was all done in the name of "patients rights" and "reintegrating them into the community" and all that blather, but mainly it was done to save costs.

In all countries it was conveniently ignored that there were those who needed constant supervision to make sure they stayed on their medication and those who were a potential danger to the community. The police are powerless, they cannot take action unless a person actually kills or injures someone, even if their relatives have advised the police that the person is a potential danger to themselves and others. The gaols have become defacto mental institutions. Even in Australia it is estimated that 50% of inmates have psychiatric problems.

The advantage here in Australia is that such people do not have ready access to firearms, therefore, when they go off the rails they are limited to less lethal weapons. Taking a knife to the top of a tall building has nowhere near the danger to the public as taking a rifle and a hundred rounds of ammunition.

There are very few votes in pushing for more spending on mental health.

T.A.
ID: 1333194 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1334258 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 13:44:29 UTC
Last modified: 3 Feb 2013, 13:59:33 UTC

One Of Our Noted Brainiacs stated there are No Attacks At A Gun Range, because that is Where The Guns Are.

Well, It Happened. Two Men. Gone.

Read The Story from whatever source you like.

WFAA/Channel 8 quoted unnamed sources as saying that Kyle of Midlothian and a neighbor had taken Routh on an outing to help him deal with post-traumatic stress disorder. Routh turned on the men and shot them in the back, the report added.

The sheriff said he could not confirm how the victims were shot.


Star-Telegram

Who Or What Is Dangerous?

Humans. Damn Dirty Handed Humans.

IGNORE Say: Humans Bad. Guns Good.

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1334258 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1334280 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 15:00:54 UTC - in response to Message 1334258.  

One Of Our Noted Brainiacs stated there are No Attacks At A Gun Range, because that is Where The Guns Are.


Really?
Who said that?
Coincidence that I saw a post like that in a "meme" a few hours ago on a social media site?
ID: 1334280 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1334320 - Posted: 3 Feb 2013, 18:12:19 UTC - in response to Message 1334280.  
Last modified: 3 Feb 2013, 18:13:49 UTC

It seems genuine. The story gets the first 3 pages of hits on Google for a search of "Two men shot at gun range"

T.A.
ID: 1334320 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 . . . 24 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.