Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting In Ca
28 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spathiphyllum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi umm - shooting blind again - ter-daah !
yeah - they said on the Beeb there had been over 200 mass shootings and I read somewhere that a mass shooting was over two....
but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.....
if they put up wire netting and were searching everyone
then they were previsaging violence werent they ?
yeah - they said on the Beeb there had been over 200 mass shootings and I read somewhere that a mass shooting was over two....
but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.....
if they put up wire netting and were searching everyone
then they were previsaging violence werent they ?
There is, apparently, a fair difference between 'assault weapon' and 'assault rifle', the latter being a military weapon for rapid fire.
That may be why the casualty count is relatively low compred to some incidents.
https:/
That may be why the casualty count is relatively low compred to some incidents.
https:/
The gun situation in America is never going to change. They could probably save more lives by changing the way they report on it, ie less sensationalising. If it got less publicity, like deaths from road accidents for example, it would be less interesting to nut jobs, and they'd just shoot themselves at home without having to go on a rampage.
Ludwig - // If it got less publicity, like deaths from road accidents for example, it would be less interesting to nut jobs, and they'd just shoot themselves at home without having to go on a rampage. //
An interesting premise, but sadly I fear it is one without merit.
History shows that the majority of mass shooters are themselves killed.
I doubt notoriety is actually the prime motivation for what they do, and removal of it is unlikely to prevent any future occurrences.
The motivation is clearly not a desire for fame - merely a desire to kill complete strangers and accept the very real risk of being killed doing it.
An interesting premise, but sadly I fear it is one without merit.
History shows that the majority of mass shooters are themselves killed.
I doubt notoriety is actually the prime motivation for what they do, and removal of it is unlikely to prevent any future occurrences.
The motivation is clearly not a desire for fame - merely a desire to kill complete strangers and accept the very real risk of being killed doing it.
//The motivation is clearly not a desire for fame - merely a desire to kill complete strangers and accept the very real risk of being killed doing it. //
I didn't mean to suggest it was, and yes they obviously expect to die. It's always a case of, 'I intend to die, but I'm going to take as many of you lot with me as I can'.
I just meant that if these things weren't so widely reported as an event, they wouldn't act as an inspiration to other nutters. They'd probably just be happy to blow their own brains out at home and be done with it.
Of course I also realise they have to be widely reported, and will continue to be. It was just an observation.
I didn't mean to suggest it was, and yes they obviously expect to die. It's always a case of, 'I intend to die, but I'm going to take as many of you lot with me as I can'.
I just meant that if these things weren't so widely reported as an event, they wouldn't act as an inspiration to other nutters. They'd probably just be happy to blow their own brains out at home and be done with it.
Of course I also realise they have to be widely reported, and will continue to be. It was just an observation.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.