Reject the premise.
Lack of access will never be possible no matter what laws are passed.
Deal with the perp - not the inanimate object.
These tragedies are nothing compared to what would happen with a disarmed populace.
Put the criminals in jail.
Guys with 2 page rap sheets need more prison time.
Would more gun control stop the muzzies from chopping off the heads of innocent people?
The guilt is with the person, not the tool.
Even idiots can understand that concept.
Too bad liberals can’t grasp it.
These numb nuts have no clue how many bolt action rifles have been standard military issue in modern times. If they did they’d want to ban them also.
Oh wait, they do want to ban them also. After they ban semi autos.
The real story here is that the government worshipers want us to have nothing more deadly than sling shots as deterrents to tyranny.
How many thousands of years of so called “mass shootings” will it take to equal one Pol Pot??
I don’t recall any libs wanting to ban military hardware (and assistance) for the police after they slaughtered the Branch Davidians. How many died there??
The real truth is that liberals are always lying when they claim liberties must be surrendered to save lives. The *cheapest* commodity in the world to the left is human life. Plain and simple. They do not give a damn about human life. They pretend to when it furthers their despotic agenda.
Any caliber that starts with a two is not “high.”
Wrong on several counts. As others have noted, you won't ever be able to deny access to firearms any more than you can deny access to any other product/substance that is "banned."
But this phrase in particular is wrong on two counts.
First, disarming the populace is not in fact a small price to pay. It is an erosion of freedoms and the ability to defend ones self. This is not in any way a "small" price to pay because it will lead to murder on a large scale. (google the 50+ million people killed in the 20th century - by their own governments after having been disarmed by those self-same governments)
Second, it will not avert murder. In fact so-called gun-control will increase violent crime. This is born out by both common sense and actual data collected from places (from cities to states to entire countries) that have tried it. After disarming the victim pool violent crime rates - including murder - increase and remain higher. Duh! Workplace safety for criminals...
Here is what i want to say to the author of this ridculous article:
Hey Dumbass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack
The 2014 Kunming attack was a terrorist attack[3][4][5] in the Chinese city of Kunming, Yunnan, on 1 March 2014. The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators[1] dead with more than 140 others injured.[4][6] The attack has been called a “massacre” by some news media.[7][8][9]
At around 9:20 pm local time, a group of eight knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city’s railway station.[10] Both male and female attackers were seen to pull out long-bladed knives and proceed to stab and slash passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants[11][12] and captured one injured female. In the afternoon of 3 March, police announced that the six-man two-woman group had been neutralized after the arrest of three remaining suspects.[1][8]
Wow a whole bunch of people killed with KNIVES!!!!
Blame the gun?
That is like blaming the auto makers for drunk driving deaths.
The guy in Norway had purpose. Went right after the people ruining his country. Killing their kids was inexcusable and unforgivable, but he knew who he wanted to hurt, and why.
Why is it so difficult for the left to understand the only way to protect against an idiot with a firearm is a confidant trained individual with a firearm?
more people are killed every single day by abortion then the entire year by gun violence (289 people shot every day compared to 3000+ aborted)
just the facts
High caliber. A give away that the writer is ignorant on the subject.
But let’s be helpful and not scornful. We can provide other terms for the gun fearing.
Really loud.
Black and scary.
Mean looking.
Bangy sounding.
Masculine flavored.
Hurty.
Military-ish.
Britain has a low homicide rate, but it has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, a violent crime rate that is higher than South African, and much higher than the United States. The only first-world nation with a higher violent crime rate than Britain is Australia, a nation that also banned and confiscated firearms, stripping its people of their ability to defend themselves from violent criminals.
But for people who only care about body counts, all the muggings, rapes, home-invasions and carjackings that happen to deliberately defenseless citizens is of no consequence.
Kehoe first killed his wife, firebombed his farm, and detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest school mass murder in the United States to this very day.
You Irish journalists need to go back to the pub and research more whiskey because your research and agenda for this article sucks.
Dr. Harold Shipman didn’t need a gun, and he is one of the most prolific serial killers in history. 250+ known and perhaps double that number that cannot be verified.
Ironically, he was ahead of his time, as there are NHS doctors who have likely murdered a thousand or more helpless people, for an annual national toll of over 30,000 legally murdered.
The Irish Examiner might have heard of that place called England, not far from where they are.
Nonsense (of course).
Lanza could have murdered the same number of children with a .38 caliber revolver and a pocket-full of ammo.
Lanza, or someone bigger and stronger than he, could have murdered the same number of children with edged weapons, or even with a lead pipe.
As an aside; I tried to find a definition of “high-calibre”, but couldn’t find one. I was thinking that “high” would be the same as “large”, and therefore .223 wouldn’t qualify. Anyone know?
So, an "assault .22", then?