Page 1 of 1

New York City shooting

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 15:24
by Hev60
More bad news this afternoon.

Several people shot and injured outside Empire State Building :0
Gunman has been killed.

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 15:32
by Ian6969
I really think the gun laws need to be looked at over in the USA, this sort of thing seems to happen way too often. But then again no politician over there dares to even mention removing the right to bare arms from the constitution

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 16:04
by honey lamb
Ian6969 wrote: But then again no politician over there dares to even mention removing the right to bare arms from the constitution

I really do believe you meant to say "the right to bear arms". |:)

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 16:13
by Ian6969
really do believe you meant to say "the right to bear arms".


nah, I was saying how George Bush would :D

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 16:59
by pjh
Someone, somewhere, is posting a message that says "If more people had been carrying guns in plain sight around the Empire State building at the time this would never have happened."

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 17:44
by stevebrass
I'll be going there Monday.

No doubt life will have moved on.

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2012, 18:09
by joeyc
I'm there now, hive of police cars buzzing around at the moment and police presence has been stepped up around other touristy areas. Other than that, yes life goes on...

I think gun laws should be changed in the states, but tbh it would be near impossible to recall all of the firearms out there at the moment or indeed find them all, especially with the market saturation being what it is.

Perhaps taking the constitution in context and allowing single shot muskets could be a goal for the politicians, but nothing else?!? No? Too literal :P

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2012, 08:35
by catsilversword
Ian6969 wrote:
really do believe you meant to say "the right to bear arms".


nah, I was saying how George Bush would :D



Or maybe quoting Larry the Cable Guy??? :)

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2012, 11:03
by flabound
Living here you tend to see things slightly differently...as Prince Philip would say 'guns dont kill people, its the person pulling the trigger' and in a way he is right. the gun laws certainly make you feel safer in your home, knowing that if some drugged up burgular comes through your window you can actually defend yourself.
the problem is that people wanting to do bad things will always get hold of weapons so is it really a bad thing if the 'good guys' can defend themsleves ?
in this case it seems it was someone hell bent on revenge against one guy and 8 more got hurt in the crossfire. Add in the fact the ARMED cops were able to take him out immediately and a situation that could have been far worse was dealt with.....

to be honest I always feel far safer in NYC than London but its still a shame.

what they do need to address IMO is not guns per se but the ability to walk in to a shop and go ' 2 choccy bars , a bottle of water, an AK47 and 50000 rounds of ammo please'

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2012, 11:52
by joeyc
flabound wrote:what they do need to address IMO is not guns per se but the ability to walk in to a shop and go ' 2 choccy bars , a bottle of water, an AK47 and 50000 rounds of ammo please'


Could not agree more.... how about a single shot musket being available over the counter? It was the most powerful firearm the drafters of the bill of rights and the constitution would have had.

Interestingly though there was a debate a few years back in the supreme court as to whether or not the second amendment protected the 'collective right' or the 'individual right' to bear arms... the former option would indicate the amendment was actually intended for government organised militia as opposed to the average citizen. Will see if I can dig out the article and post a link to it.. :?

Back to the shooting in NYC, the question that authorities will now face is was it in fact the police that shot fleeing bystanders as they were shooting at the armed gunman? or the gunman firing into the crowd?

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2012, 12:39
by flabound
what I am seeing is quotes that 'bullet shrapnel pieces, ricoched off the pavement and injured bystanders '. they cant tell if the dead gunman actually fired any more shots (at this time)

Re: New York City shooting

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2012, 20:12
by buns
flabound wrote:what I am seeing is quotes that 'bullet shrapnel pieces, ricoched off the pavement and injured bystanders '. they cant tell if the dead gunman actually fired any more shots (at this time)


BBC News is reporting that NYPD appear responsible for the injuries sustained by passers by


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

buns