Results 301 to 325 of 333

  1. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    By the way, here's an update on the case of the Pecan Park Raid we discussed earlier.
    Surely police officers can be trusted with firearms, right?
    https://reason.com/2019/08/23/housto...d-with-murder/
    What the **** has this case got to do with NZ Police let alone gun reform in our country?

    You really are not doing the argument against MSSA being banned any favours, have you stocked up on tinfoil recently?

  2. Post
    theradio wrote:
    And your point is...? If it's that police shouldn't have guns, then fair enough. If your point is that citizens should be armed, which I suspect is where you were going with that, then this is a ridiculous case in point.

    What is a middle aged couple with an AR-15 going to do against armed police? Threaten them and cause an armed standoff with police? Because those always end well. Shoot the police? Sure, I guess that's a win if you consider life in prison as an ok outcome.

    Please tell me how more guns would have helped in this situation because I am really not seeing it.
    My point is that the police are no more trustworthy with firearms than normal citizens are.
    Their whole, "only we can be trusted with these guns" line is total bullshit.

    Also, that middle-aged couple would have had a decent chance of holding off those cops if they had AR-15s and could get to them quickly enough. They could have at least held out long enough for other police to arrive so they could negotiate their surrender safely. The first lot of cops were essentially there(totally unlawfully) for the purpose of murdering them, so the couple would be 100% justified in using lethal force. It might not be pleasant, but if an officer endangers your life through gross negligence or dereliction of duty you can legally shoot them. It would ultimately be better for the corrupt cops to get killed in the act of committing a crime than for the innocent couple to get killed for doing nothing wrong.

  3. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    My point is that the police are no more trustworthy with firearms than normal citizens are.
    Their whole, "only we can be trusted with these guns" line is total bullshit.
    Because of one case that happened in the USA, NZ cops aren't trustworthy with guns. Sure.

    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    Also, that middle-aged couple would have had a decent chance of holding off those cops if they had AR-15s and could get to them quickly enough. They could have at least held out long enough for other police to arrive so they could negotiate their surrender safely. The first lot of cops were essentially there(totally unlawfully) for the purpose of murdering them, so the couple would be 100% justified in using lethal force. It might not be pleasant, but if an officer endangers your life through gross negligence or dereliction of duty you can legally shoot them. It would ultimately be better for the corrupt cops to get killed in the act of committing a crime than for the innocent couple to get killed for doing nothing wrong.
    Perhaps you can legally shoot them in the States (but good luck with surviving the aftermath of that) but not in New Zealand, you can't, and thank god for that. Anyone in New Zealand who believes that they can legally shoot a person endangering their life should have their license immediately revoked. Unless things have changed since I got my license a decade ago, they specifically ask you what you would do in that scenario, and there is only one right answer.

    There have been cases where people were discharged without conviction for using appropriate lethal force with a firearm, but that was due to the discretion of the judge. It is still an illegal act, and the judge simply took mitigating circumstances into consideration.

    We do not have a culture in NZ of self defense with firearms, and thank **** for that. It hasn't worked out so well for the USA.

  4. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    What the **** has this case got to do with NZ Police let alone gun reform in our country?

    You really are not doing the argument against MSSA being banned any favours, have you stocked up on tinfoil recently?
    The police have been putting out a lot of rhetoric about how only they can be trusted with MSSAs and about how they should be taken off people who bought them legally. They conveniently gloss over the fact that the last licensed gun owner who committed a murder before March was a 20+ year police officer who killed his ex-wife and tried to kill her new partner. Totally trustworthy...

    Also, the tinfoil is in the kitchen drawer where it belongs. I'm more of a baseball cap person.

  5. Post
    theradio wrote:
    Because of one case that happened in the USA, NZ cops aren't trustworthy with guns. Sure.


    Perhaps you can legally shoot them in the States (but good luck with surviving the aftermath of that) but not in New Zealand, you can't, and thank god for that. Anyone in New Zealand who believes that they can legally shoot a person endangering their life should have their license immediately revoked. Unless things have changed since I got my license a decade ago, they specifically ask you what you would do in that scenario, and there is only one right answer.

    There have been cases where people were discharged without conviction for using appropriate lethal force with a firearm, but that was due to the discretion of the judge. It is still an illegal act, and the judge simply took mitigating circumstances into consideration.

    We do not have a culture in NZ of self defense with firearms, and thank **** for that. It hasn't worked out so well for the USA.
    Firstly, see my latest post.

    Secondly, have you even read the New Zealand laws regarding self defense?
    You are legally allowed to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend yourself.
    That does include firearms where applicable. You might not be allowed to own firearms specifically for the purpose of self defense, but you absolutely can use them for that if necessary. The people who got prosecuted for it were just victims of the police trying to punish them by way of legal costs, so as to discourage other people from defending themselves. There was no sound legal basis for the charges.

    I don't know what you mean by it not working out for the USA.
    Their murder rate is now less than half what it was in the early 1990s when it was much more difficult to get firearms for protection. For every one murder with a firearm, at least ten people successfully defend themselves with a firearm. That is based on the most conservative numbers; it's more likely to be in the 50-100:1 range.

  6. Post
    You really shouldn't use the USA as a basis to assess NZ firearms laws. Our culture and use of firearms is completely different. In all my years of watching gun debates I have never seen a number indicating the ratio of successful defenses you are claiming - usually it is quite the opposite where a gun owners gun is used against them. You really need to back that up with some data.

  7. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    Firstly, see my latest post.

    Secondly, have you even read the New Zealand laws regarding self defense?
    You are legally allowed to use reasonable and proportionate force to defend yourself.
    That does include firearms where applicable. You might not be allowed to own firearms specifically for the purpose of self defense, but you absolutely can use them for that if necessary. The people who got prosecuted for it were just victims of the police trying to punish them by way of legal costs, so as to discourage other people from defending themselves. There was no sound legal basis for the charges.

    I don't know what you mean by it not working out for the USA.
    Their murder rate is now less than half what it was in the early 1990s when it was much more difficult to get firearms for protection. For every one murder with a firearm, at least ten people successfully defend themselves with a firearm. That is based on the most conservative numbers; it's more likely to be in the 50-100:1 range.
    If you can't legally own guns for self defense, why say self defense should be reason to have guns?

    You want a law change permitting guns for self defense? Vote on it. Country will say no.

  8. Post
    Paddles wrote:
    If you can't legally own guns for self defense, why say self defense should be reason to have guns?

    You want a law change permitting guns for self defense? Vote on it. Country will say no.
    I'm not sure if it is specifically a law, more a police policy that they will not give you a licence for that reason. Happy to be corrected though.

  9. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    You really shouldn't use the USA as a basis to assess NZ firearms laws. Our culture and use of firearms is completely different. In all my years of watching gun debates I have never seen a number indicating the ratio of successful defenses you are claiming - usually it is quite the opposite where a gun owners gun is used against them. You really need to back that up with some data.
    While it is notoriously difficult to measure defensive gun uses, there has been some research done. According to the Violence Policy Centre, a hardcore anti-gun organisation, there were 235,700 defensive gun uses between 2007 and 2011. That works out to more than 45,000 per year. The numbers have likely increased since then, as the number of people with permits to carry guns has doubled, not including the 16 states where permits are no longer required. If there was any way the VPC could shrink those numbers they would, so we can safely assume that is the minimum number of cases. You then have to take into account all the incidents that don't get reported. That is significant because people aren't that likely to report that they pulled a gun and the criminal ran off, as opposed to incidents where they were forced to fire. The vast majority of the time, the criminal flees without any shots being fired. There are also about 10 states where carrying a gun isn't legal(unless you have political connections), so you couldn't report a defensive gun use without incriminating yourself. Those states also tend to have large populations and high crime rates, further increasing the numbers. Factoring in those cases, it is highly unlikely that the number of cases per year is less than 100,000. The absolute minimum number equates to 4.5 defensive gun uses per gun homicide, and the more likely figure equates to 10 DGUs per gun homicide.

    I'd just like to dispel the notion that you are more likely to have your gun used against you than use it to defend yourself. I honestly don't know who came up with that nonsense. The idea that a criminal is going to respond to having a gun pulled on them by trying to snatch it off you is absurd. They would have to be insane to try a suicidal tactic like that. This isn't the movies; if you try to snatch someone's gun off them, they will shoot you without much difficulty. Criminals are cowards looking for an easy target, not a fight. As soon as you present a firearm you are anything but an easy target. They are going to walk or run away, not risk getting themselves killed by their intended victim. It would be foolhardy for them to stay and fight, especially as they would be arrested if they sought medical attention for any injuries they sustained in the fight, assuming they even survived the confrontation. They're not willing to die for a wallet and a phone.

  10. Post
    Th3WhiteKnight wrote:
    I'm not sure if it is specifically a law, more a police policy that they will not give you a licence for that reason. Happy to be corrected though.
    It is in the Arms Code, which the police issue in their power to reject license applications. Its basically regulative even though it is not technically a regulation per se, as they have legislative powers to deny licenses. You can judicially review it if you disagree with their decision. The Police's Arms Code states it is based on common law decisions that using a firearm is excessive force in "anticipation" of a crime. This seems to me to be a correct interpretation of the texts without reading all the cases in full (not to suggest that there never can be mistakes in the texts). Basically - under our common law interpretation of the Crimes Act, a crime must be under way, like a machete being weilded at you, before the threat is imminent to be reasonably sufficient to use a gun.

    Because there is no imminent danger when you apply for a FAL, even if you anticipate it, that is not good enough reason to obtain a FAL and own a gun. Ergo, gun ownership for self defense is no reason. The question is, iif you have a gun for another purpose, and use it for defense, was that reasonable?

    Basically, there is positive reason in any NZ law, common or statute, that permits gun ownership as self defense. This is not Murica. And if you shoot a machete wielding robber, the cops will charge and prosecute you... even if you win in court... The question being then for the Courts - did you reasonably need to discharge the firearm at the person? Or if you produced the fire arm and told them to leave, would that have been more reasonable?

    You may like the gun ownership for self defense argument. But most the country is not having it.

  11. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    I'd just like to dispel the notion that you are more likely to have your gun used against you than use it to defend yourself. I honestly don't know who came up with that nonsense. The idea that a criminal is going to respond to having a gun pulled on them by trying to snatch it off you is absurd. They would have to be insane to try a suicidal tactic like that. This isn't the movies; if you try to snatch someone's gun off them, they will shoot you without much difficulty. Criminals are cowards looking for an easy target, not a fight. As soon as you present a firearm you are anything but an easy target. They are going to walk or run away, not risk getting themselves killed by their intended victim. It would be foolhardy for them to stay and fight, especially as they would be arrested if they sought medical attention for any injuries they sustained in the fight, assuming they even survived the confrontation. They're not willing to die for a wallet and a phone.
    You're just talking paranoid bullshit.

    Every post you make is just another argument for stricter gun control.

    Go post some more nonsense in in the Hunting websites with the other weirdos.

  12. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    While it is notoriously difficult to measure defensive gun uses, there has been some research done. According to the Violence Policy Centre, a hardcore anti-gun organisation, there were 235,700 defensive gun uses between 2007 and 2011.
    Lets just get rid of the filler and get to the point... from VPC:

    The use of guns in self-defense by private citizens is extremely rare. VPC research has found a gun is far more likely to be used in a homicide or suicide than in a justifiable homicide. More guns are stolen each year than are used in self-defense.
    and

    According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the three year period 2014 through 2016, in only 1.1 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.” As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the three-year period 2014 through 2016, the NCVS estimates that there were 16,115,500 victims of attempted or completed violent crime.

    During this same three-year period, only 177,300 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense
    So there you go, out of 16 MILLION events only 1.1% involved DGU . I'm not sure how you come up with DGUs per gun homicide. That's just pure fantasy.

  13. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    You're just talking paranoid bullshit.

    Every post you make is just another argument for stricter gun control.

    Go post some more nonsense in in the Hunting websites with the other weirdos.
    If you think I'm wrong then by all means, feel free to disprove anything I've said or any of the statistics I've quoted.
    I would love to see you try to put together an argument based on solid facts and statistics.
    Or you can just stick to name-calling. That's a lot easier. We wouldn't want you to get out of your depth here...

  14. Post
    Paddles wrote:
    It is in the Arms Code, which the police issue in their power to reject license applications. Its basically regulative even though it is not technically a regulation per se, as they have legislative powers to deny licenses. You can judicially review it if you disagree with their decision. The Police's Arms Code states it is based on common law decisions that using a firearm is excessive force in "anticipation" of a crime. This seems to me to be a correct interpretation of the texts without reading all the cases in full (not to suggest that there never can be mistakes in the texts). Basically - under our common law interpretation of the Crimes Act, a crime must be under way, like a machete being weilded at you, before the threat is imminent to be reasonably sufficient to use a gun.

    Because there is no imminent danger when you apply for a FAL, even if you anticipate it, that is not good enough reason to obtain a FAL and own a gun. Ergo, gun ownership for self defense is no reason. The question is, iif you have a gun for another purpose, and use it for defense, was that reasonable?

    Basically, there is positive reason in any NZ law, common or statute, that permits gun ownership as self defense. This is not Murica. And if you shoot a machete wielding robber, the cops will charge and prosecute you... even if you win in court... The question being then for the Courts - did you reasonably need to discharge the firearm at the person? Or if you produced the fire arm and told them to leave, would that have been more reasonable?

    You may like the gun ownership for self defense argument. But most the country is not having it.
    Therein lies my point. The police will prosecute you if you defend yourself with a firearm, even if they know it was justified. Luckily Carvell had wealthy friends who covered his legal expenses. Most average people would go bankrupt winning a case like that. The only way to prevent that is for the judge to dismiss the charges with prejudice, meaning the police have to foot the bill. Unfortunately he didn't in the Carvell case. The police are so determined to push the narrative that people should be disarmed and helpless against criminals that they will unjustly prosecute and attempt to bankrupt anyone who successfully defends themself. That is basically the definition of malicious prosecution.

  15. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Lets just get rid of the filler and get to the point... from VPC:



    and



    So there you go, out of 16 MILLION events only 1.1% involved DGU . I'm not sure how you come up with DGUs per gun homicide. That's just pure fantasy.
    What you're doing here is actually going the other way, from the point to the filler.
    More specifically you're going from the facts to their opinion.

    There's a reason why I made it clear that they were a hardcore anti-gun organisation.
    Their statistics may be somewhat accurate but they editorialise them with heavily biased opinions.
    For instance, they state that there were 235,700 DGUs before stating that DGUs are "extremely rare."
    How is 235,700 rare? That makes no sense. How can they argue against their own numbers?

    They also use wording that is purposefully misleading. They couldn't say that there were more homicides and suicides than DGUs, because their own numbers proved it to be the other way around. What they did instead was compare homicides and suicides with justifiable homicides, which are very rare. That does nothing to prove their point that guns aren't useful for defence, though. Quite the contrary, in fact. People who defend themselves with firearms have no interest in killing their attacker. All they are interested in is stopping the attack. Therefore, they will start by simply presenting a firearm, which is enough to end the confrontation in most cases. If that fails to deter their attacker, they will shoot to stop the threat. As with police shootings, they are likely to miss their target between 60% and 75% of the time, but the gunfire is enough to scare off all but the most determined(or crazy) attackers. Then we finally get to incidents when they (a) present a firearm, (b) discharge the firearm, and (c) strike their intended target. It is very rare for defensive gun uses to get that far. The firearms they are using are typically handguns, so most of the people they do end up having to shoot don't die. In fact, about 85% of people shot with handguns don't die. Handguns, due to their need for compactness and concealability, have to make major compromises in ballistics and lethality, and as such they just don't do anywhere near the damage of a rifle or shotgun(typically handguns deliver at most between one-quarter and one-sixth the energy of a rifle or shotgun). That said, the point is not to kill the attacker but to stop the attacker, so lethality is of little consequence. That is why many people carry very low-powered pistols, such as .22s or .25s. They are highly unlikely to kill your target, but it's still enough to stop an attacker, so who cares.

    For the above reasons, it is very rare for DGUs to result in a justifiable homicide. At most about 3-4% of DGUs involve justifiable homicides. I would argue that is a good thing, and only serves to make a stronger case for defensive gun use. It is much better to be able to defend yourself without having to live with taking another human life. No sane, reasonable person would want to kill another person if they could avoid it. The fewer people that have to get killed the better. Many people who carry firearms also carry a less-lethal option, such as a baton, TASER, or OC spray.
    Even more people carry one of those options instead of a firearm, and generally they are quite effective. From a legal and moral standpoint, you're much better off if you can get away with using pepper spray instead of a firearm, although it is still a good idea to have a lethal option in case your first choice is ineffective.

    Let's say for argument's sake that 16 million figure is correct. There are still 177,300 people who successfully defended themselves. Are you making the case that it would be better if they weren't able to defend themselves?
    That 177,300 includes a whole lot of potential assault, battery, robbery, rape and murder victims.
    Would you rather see them be successfully victimised than defend themselves?
    I'm not sure what sort of case you're trying to make here.

    As for how I came up with DGUs per homicide, it's pretty basic math.
    I took their number of DGUs over a five-year period, which is 235,700.
    I then divided that by five to get a yearly average, which is 47,140.
    I then took the average number of homicides per year, about 10,000.
    47,140 divided by 10,000 is 4.714. That's even higher than the 4.5 I quoted earlier, but you get the idea.

    Contrary to what my algebra book would have me believe, there's no fantasy in math-it's just numbers.
    People can come up with whatever ridiculous opinions they want, but the numbers don't lie.

    P.S. I have to give you credit for actually looking up the source I quoted. That's a lot more effort than most of the people on this forum put it.

  16. Post
    For **** sake, you are pointing out statistics from another country entirely.

    Try to actually post something relevant to New Zealand in your bullshit stats, or **** off to the USA.

    Basically any stat you use from the US proves you have no stat from NZ.

  17. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    As for how I came up with DGUs per homicide, it's pretty basic math.
    I took their number of DGUs over a five-year period, which is 235,700.
    I then divided that by five to get a yearly average, which is 47,140.
    I then took the average number of homicides per year, about 10,000.
    47,140 divided by 10,000 is 4.714. That's even higher than the 4.5 I quoted earlier, but you get the idea.

    Contrary to what my algebra book would have me believe, there's no fantasy in math-it's just numbers.
    People can come up with whatever ridiculous opinions they want, but the numbers don't lie.
    You don't get it. There is no correlation between DGUs and homicides. I could put out a stat of DGUs per cow and it would be equally as relevant as your point.

  18. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    You don't get it. There is no correlation between DGUs and homicides. I could put out a stat of DGUs per cow and it would be equally as relevant as your point.
    I never drew a correlation. There isn't one.
    All I was doing was pointing out that their opinion was bullshit and went against their own statistics. I may have compared the numbers but I don't believe I ever claimed they were somehow connected.

  19. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    For **** sake, you are pointing out statistics from another country entirely.

    Try to actually post something relevant to New Zealand in your bullshit stats, or **** off to the USA.

    Basically any stat you use from the US proves you have no stat from NZ.
    Yes, I am using statistics from another country. There isn't necessarily any direct connection.
    I was using the US as an example as they have a much larger data set for analysis.
    We just don't have the same amount of statistics available here.
    That said, we can still learn from overseas statistics, as many of the same principles apply here.

    If you believe my statistics are "bullshit," feel free to disprove them.

    As for the statistics we do have about New Zealand, they break down as follows:
    Typically about 40-50 murders per year, one of the lowest per capita rates in the world.
    Typically less than 10 murders involving any kind of firearm per year.
    Less than one per year involving a "Military-Style Semi-Automatic".
    We do have terrible sexual assault and dog attack statistics(more than 3,000 and 10,000 per year respectively), so clearly there is a need for people to have the means to protect themselves. Unfortunately the laws here are purposefully set up in a way that makes defending oneself from that sort of crime as difficult as possible. As a result of that, there are few statistics on people successfully defending themselves as they are largely prevented from doing so by the laws. Quite frankly it is ridiculous that people aren't even allowed pepper spray, which is ideal for both dogs and human attackers while being of little use to criminals. Even Western Australia allows people to have pepper spray. Surely we can do better than that.

  20. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    I never drew a correlation. There isn't one.
    All I was doing was pointing out that their opinion was bullshit and went against their own statistics. I may have compared the numbers but I don't believe I ever claimed they were somehow connected.
    Seriously WTF?

    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    As for how I came up with DGUs per homicide

  21. Post
    Kiwigunguy wrote:
    If you believe my statistics are "bullshit," feel free to disprove them.
    It's not the statistics are bs, it's that they are irrelevant. The US is an entirely different environment, it's like using stats from the arctic to make conclusions applied to the sahara. From their laws to the very guns they use - we are chalk and cheese. Their laws specifically allow for armed self defence and defence or property rights. Their gun culture is primarily based on pistols and ARs (in fact you show them the average kiwi hunting rifle they freak and ask why you need a 'sniper' rifle). They have massive cultural and crime issues. They have massive border issues.

  22. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Seriously WTF?
    WTF is right. Just because you compare two numbers doesn't mean you're saying they're connected.

    That's like comparing the number of deaths from car crashes with the number of deaths from cancer. They are two separate numbers with no direct connection whatsoever.

  23. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    It's not the statistics are bs, it's that they are irrelevant. The US is an entirely different environment, it's like using stats from the arctic to make conclusions applied to the sahara. From their laws to the very guns they use - we are chalk and cheese. Their laws specifically allow for armed self defence and defence or property rights. Their gun culture is primarily based on pistols and ARs (in fact you show them the average kiwi hunting rifle they freak and ask why you need a 'sniper' rifle). They have massive cultural and crime issues. They have massive border issues.
    Most of the firearms we use here are(or were) the same as the US. The only ones that differ are small concealed-carry pistols and guns made to fit their laws, such as AR pistols and Serbu Super Shortys, etc. Even then there are still plenty of Walther PPKs, snub-nose revolvers, and sub-compact Glocks here. The guns people use for a given purpose, say competition or hunting, are usually similar around the world(where local laws will allow). Not that many people hunt with ARs in the US. People there mostly use the same hunting rifles we do-Remington 700s, Winchester Model 70s, Tikka T3s, and Howa 1500s are all huge sellers over there. Hell, they've sold more than 7 million Winchester 1894 lever actions. They mainly use pistols and ARs for target shooting and competition, which we do(or did) as well. Pistols aren't that common here, but ARs became very popular and were a common sight at most shooting ranges. ARs are just the most popular rifles of our time. In 50 years, it will probably be something new. Fads come and go in the firearms world, same as everywhere else. It should be noted however, that semi-automatics are nothing new. Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, shotguns, 22s, and pistols were all available on the commercial market prior to World War I, and long before they saw widespread military use.

    While the laws regarding owning and carrying firearms for defense are different, you will still generally be cleared if you are involved in a justified defensive shooting. The police might try to bankrupt you, but you will be acquitted eventually.

    I won't deny for a second that they have massive border issues. That's 100% true. I don't think most people from other countries really grasp what it's like to have tens of millions of people living in your country illegally. For us that would be the equivalent of the population of Tauranga living in New Zealand illegally. Not only that, but they inexplicably have just the same access to public schools, healthcare, government issued IDs, etc. You would think those things are only available to legal residents, but unfortunately not.

    I don't know that I'd say the US has massive cultural and crime issues. They do fairly well considering the factors working against them. They have densely-populated low-income areas, a very diverse population, a long border with a country in near anarchy, and pharmaceutical companies trying to get everyone hooked on opiates. Yet despite all that, the US is still safer than just about any other country in the Americas, with the exception of the much more sparsely populated Canada. I'm not sure they could do that much better with the cards they've been dealt. Look at the closest countries with even close to the same population, Mexico and Brazil. Both of those countries have way higher murder rates, rampant corruption, political instability, etc. By those standards the US is doing surprisingly well.

  24. Post
    Another big shooting in the US. Must be a day ending in Y.

    Also there was a big one the night before but no deaths so it wasn't really reported.

    The obvious answer is that they need more guns.

  25. Post
    suntoucher wrote:
    Another big shooting in the US. Must be a day ending in Y.

    Also there was a big one the night before but no deaths so it wasn't really reported.

    The obvious answer is that they need more guns.
    Of course. If they had more guns this wouldn't have happened.

    That's just basic maths...