Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism

First topic message reminder :

Thursday saw yet another mass shooting bring death, carnage and frustrated misery to the US as nine people were killed by a gunman on a college campus. Chris Harper-Mercer was carrying four guns when he opened fire on the grounds of Umpqua Community College before being shot dead himself by police.






A clearly exasperated Barack Obama once again addressed the nation to urge for tighter gun controls - something vigorously opposed by many in the US. While the debate continues, this chart lays bare the stark reality of the numbers of US citizens killed on US soil by guns compared to terrorism related deaths and gun deaths in the UK. Despite the disparity, the US continues to spend billions of dollars every year on counter-terrorism ($16bn in 2012) while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) submitted a request for £1.2bn for 2016.

Obama expressed frustration that it was necessary for him to frequently console victims' families and that he was again calling for new gun control regulations."Somehow this has become routine," Obama said from the White House. "We've become numb to this. "We should politicise it," he said. "As I said each time we see one of these mass shooting, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. … It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel."


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/02/oregon-shooting-us-gun-deaths-uk_n_8232148.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Raggamuffin wrote:74 isn't really elderly these days.

However, there are people who deserve a hard slap on this forum, but nicko isn't one of them.

I knew Didge would take the bait though. HA HA!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:74 isn't really elderly these days.

However, there are people who deserve a hard slap on this forum, but nicko isn't one of them.

I knew Didge would take the bait though. HA HA!

Bait?

You were wrong again lol

Then made views to hit the elderly and then claim it was a joke.
Its a good thing I do not report you to the authorities with that attitude you have with the elderly, no doubt you would lose your job.
Lucky I am not bitter like you and that angry as you are with me.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I knew Didge would take the bait though. HA HA!

Bait?

You were wrong again lol

Then made views to hit the elderly and then claim it was a joke.
Its a good thing I do not report you to the authorities with that attitude you have with the elderly, no doubt you would lose your job.
Lucky I am not bitter like you and that angry as you are with me.

And you took it again - lol!

Seriously I cannot stop laughing at your immature little vendettas.
There there little boy, lol now you can run along and play ha ha ha

nicko wrote:"Royalty means nothing to oz"     Whenever a royal vists Australia  thousands of people line the streets waving the union flag!

That's what I mean...those visits and the flag waving. The Royals are good for flower shows and cross-country/stadium jumping competitions. Other than that, all they have to do is feed the Welsh Corgis.

Veya and I were discussing legislation and constitutional amendments.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:"Royalty means nothing to oz"     Whenever a royal vists Australia  thousands of people line the streets waving the union flag!

That's what I mean...those visits and the flag waving.  The Royals are good for flower shows and cross-country/stadium jumping competitions.  Other than that, all they have to do is feed the Welsh Corgis.

Veya and I were discussing legislation and constitutional amendments.

Well that's what the Royals do here as well. Nevertheless, most people still seem to admire them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's what I mean...those visits and the flag waving.  The Royals are good for flower shows and cross-country/stadium jumping competitions.  Other than that, all they have to do is feed the Welsh Corgis.

Veya and I were discussing legislation and constitutional amendments.

Well that's what the Royals do here as well. Nevertheless, most people still seem to admire them.

I admire them as well. But veya was saying that the Royals must approve constitutional amendments, and that is an impediment to the amendment process.

My point is that no Royal is going to stand in the way of political policy. That is a practice of a bygone era.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's what the Royals do here as well. Nevertheless, most people still seem to admire them.

I admire them as well.  But veya was saying that the Royals must approve constitutional amendments, and that is an impediment to the amendment process.  

My point is that no Royal is going to stand in the way of political policy.  That is a practice of a bygone era.

You also said they didn't know the Queen's name.

Just saying.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I admire them as well.  But veya was saying that the Royals must approve constitutional amendments, and that is an impediment to the amendment process.  

My point is that no Royal is going to stand in the way of political policy.  That is a practice of a bygone era.

You also said they didn't know the Queen's name.

Just saying.

Yeah...chalk it up to a figure of speech. The point is that she doesn't mean much to Oz politically.