Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: California gunman 'was filmmaker Peter Rodger's son' [View all]Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)45. I like the gun laws they have in Switzerland
Unless you can demonstrate an actual need for a handgun, you can't have one. Or the gun laws they have in the UK, which says essentially that unless you are a policeman or in the military, you cannot have a handgun.
After the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania, which left 35 killed and 23 wounded, the Australians enacted some draconian gun laws.
Of course, this would never fly with the gun nuts in the US, since keeping their precious firearms are more important that other people keeping their precious lives. Gun nuts really don't give a damn about other people.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
55 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Any 22 year old allowed 3 guns legally is living in a horribly gone wrong country.
Fred Sanders
May 2014
#15
Agreed. This thread was going in a sane direction till the NRA apologists erupted
FailureToCommunicate
May 2014
#23
Give us a good reason -- heck, give us a bad reason -- for a random 22-year-old to need 3 handguns
Fortinbras Armstrong
May 2014
#32
There is no good reason. But for that matter there is no good reason why any
totodeinhere
May 2014
#41
Why does anyone in the US "need" to make a speech, peacefully assemble, worship as they see fit?
24601
May 2014
#49
I didn't make it clear. I was agreeing with the poster, and adding a reaction to these recent
FailureToCommunicate
May 2014
#40
And btw, contrary to media reports, an "Assistant Director" is not a "Director"
Schema Thing
May 2014
#2
Could be. It's senseless to try and guess very much from very little information.
Schema Thing
May 2014
#12
The Media does not care for facts, sir, they are head hunters and headline hunters only.
Fred Sanders
May 2014
#16
Yes. They are more likely to move into producing or procuction managing than directing.
cui bono
May 2014
#26
Is it common for their income to include a percentage of the film's profits above salary?
Lodestar
May 2014
#34
hmmm, I'd say 50/50, but they often boss the actual Director around, lol -
Schema Thing
May 2014
#44
I'd guess bad editing before leaping to conclusions. Probably was "their" child instead of "the"
riderinthestorm
May 2014
#11
Doesn't it get old to blame Reagan for events 25 years after he left power?
former9thward
May 2014
#53