1 minute ago, bannork said:

 

 

 

The culprits in U.S. mass shootings are predominantly male and white.

A 2025 Statista analysis of events from 1982 to August 2025 indicates 84 out of 155 mass shootings were by white shooters (54%), and 149 of 153 shootings by male shooters (97.4%). 

Other data, however, shows a higher percentage of non-white perpetrators, with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reporting shooters who were 52.3% white and 20.9% black in its analysis of public mass shootings over a half-century. 

 

Age: The average age of perpetrators is around 34 years old. 

 

While mental health conditions are a risk factor, only a small percentage of perpetrators have a history of taking psychiatric medications. 

 

breakdown of culprits in US mass shootings - Google Search

 

Looks like the US will have to ban  white males from owning guns, especially if they're aged anywhere from 15 to 50.

 

 

 

 

Ouch.....they don't like facts.

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

 

 

 

The culprits in U.S. mass shootings are predominantly male and white.

A 2025 Statista analysis of events from 1982 to August 2025 indicates 84 out of 155 mass shootings were by white shooters (54%), and 149 of 153 shootings by male shooters (97.4%). 

Other data, however, shows a higher percentage of non-white perpetrators, with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reporting shooters who were 52.3% white and 20.9% black in its analysis of public mass shootings over a half-century. 

 

Age: The average age of perpetrators is around 34 years old. 

 

While mental health conditions are a risk factor, only a small percentage of perpetrators have a history of taking psychiatric medications. 

 

breakdown of culprits in US mass shootings - Google Search

 

Looks like the US will have to ban  white males from owning guns, especially if they're aged anywhere from 15 to 50.

 

 

Yeah, if they were black, or homosexual, or women or illegal aliens, the left would be wrapping them in cotton-wool and blaming the dead kids.

Just now, mogandave said:

Yeah, if they were black, or homosexual, or women or illegal aliens, the left would be wrapping them in cotton-wool and blaming the dead kids.

What a load of tripe. Man up for God's sake and admit the truth. white males commit most of the mass shootings and you're doing nothing to stop it except praying.

I support the death penalty for anyone instigating a school shooting. 

 

What say you lefties? 

 

I support prosecuting to the fullest extent extent of the law, and maximum sentences without parole for people that violate gun laws. 

 

What say you lefties?

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

What a load of tripe. Man up for God's sake and admit the truth. white males commit most of the mass shootings and you're doing nothing to stop it except praying.

Good God man, I never denied that!

 

 

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

I support the death penalty for anyone instigating a school shooting. 

 

What say you lefties? 

 

I support prosecuting to the fullest extent extent of the law, and maximum sentences without parole for people that violate gun laws. 

 

What say you lefties?

What's all this 'lefties' talk all the time? 

Can you talk normally?

Regarding your post above, yes, all good and fine. The problem is the US gun laws are ineffective. They're not strict enough.

Emulate the gun laws of  other Western countries.

1 minute ago, bannork said:

What's all this 'lefties' talk all the time? 

Can you talk normally?

Regarding your post above, yes, all good and fine. The problem is the US gun laws are ineffective. They're not strict enough.

Emulate the gun laws of  other Western countries.

How would you change the laws lefty?

1 minute ago, bannork said:

Emulate the gun laws of  other Western countries.

 

No, don't do that. Keep your freedoms intact. Don't let the state and other know it alls take your freedoms away.

 

Guns don't kill people.

 

People kill people.

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

No, don't do that. Keep your freedoms intact. Don't let the state and other know it alls take your freedoms away.

 

Guns don't kill people.

 

People kill people.

You say guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

 But a man with a gun can kill many more people than a man without a gun.

So people with guns kill many more people than people without guns.

The problem lies with people who have guns.

 

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

 But a man with a gun can kill many more people than a man without a gun.

So people with guns kill many more people than people without guns.

The problem lies with people who have guns.

 

You just need a car to kill many people. What you want to ban cars too?

 

Let's not be too nanny state.

26 minutes ago, bannork said:

Looks like the US will have to ban  white males from owning guns, especially if they're aged anywhere from 15 to 50.

yeah that would make your dream of culling us much easier

 

Keep dreaming tho 

 

wont happen

In the Soviet Union record players and Xerox machines were banned.

 

Banning everything is a losing game, a regressive, leftist mentality and bound to fail.

5 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

yeah that would make your dream of culling us much easier

 

Keep dreaming tho 

 

wont happen

lol, easy to wind up Trump boys. 

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You just need a car to kill many people. What you want to ban cars too?

 

Let's not be too nanny state.

Apples and oranges, you can't compare a weapon to a mode of transport. 

Stick to the topic- guns. Banning motor cars, you can start that thread yourself!

Regarding a nanny state. A bet you a lot of the parents and families of murdered victims of mass shootings would love stricter gun laws.

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup’s latest update on Americans’ opinions on gun laws finds a majority continuing to favor strengthening those laws. Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults say gun laws should be stricter, while 31% believe they should be kept as they are now and 12% favor less strict gun laws.

These attitudes, collected before last week’s mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, are unchanged from a year ago, but they reflect less support for stricter laws than in June 2022 (66%) after the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting.

Majorities have consistently favored stricter gun laws since 2015, with notable spikes in that view after prominent shootings such as in Uvalde and Parkland, Florida, in 2018.

 

Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws

8 minutes ago, bannork said:

Apples and oranges, you can't compare a weapon to a mode of transport. 

Stick to the topic- guns. Banning motor cars, you can start that thread yourself!

Regarding a nanny state. A bet you a lot of the parents and families of murdered victims of mass shootings would love stricter gun laws.

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup’s latest update on Americans’ opinions on gun laws finds a majority continuing to favor strengthening those laws. Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults say gun laws should be stricter, while 31% believe they should be kept as they are now and 12% favor less strict gun laws.

These attitudes, collected before last week’s mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, are unchanged from a year ago, but they reflect less support for stricter laws than in June 2022 (66%) after the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting.

Majorities have consistently favored stricter gun laws since 2015, with notable spikes in that view after prominent shootings such as in Uvalde and Parkland, Florida, in 2018.

 

Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws

 

You claimed the reason to ban guns is that a person with a gun can kill more than one other person. 

 

However, the same is true of a person with a car.

 

Indeed this has happened in multiple terror attacks where cars were used to kill a number of people.

 

So this rather invalidates your point that plurality of victims is cause for ban. Clearly it isn't. Cars are not banned.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You claimed the reason to ban guns is that a person with a gun can kill more than one other person. 

 

However, the same is true of a person with a car.

 

Indeed this has happened in multiple terror attacks where cars were used to kill a number of people.

 

So this rather invalidates your point that plurality of victims is cause for ban. Clearly it isn't. Cars are not banned.

 

 

It's a stupid argument that always gets wheeled out by the banjo playing gun lovers. The logic falls down with any ounce of critical thinking.

Cars are not designed to kill things, guns are. Guns have no other purpose than to kill, it is what they are designed to do.

You can overdose on paracetamol. We don't ban paracetamol, but we do ban heroin because it addictive and kills millions. Just like we don't ban cars.

Also how much training do you have to go through to earn a car license?
 

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Tell the rape victims and the people being jailed for “hate” speech.

Oh, you don't have rapes in America? Wow, I never realised.

Plenty of Americans have been jailed for incitement to violence, just as people in the UK have been.

On 8/27/2025 at 10:01 PM, bannork said:

Three people have died in a shooting at a US primary school, including the shooter, and 20 have been injured.

 

The Minneapolis city government said the shooter had been “contained” after gunfire at the Annunciation Catholic School, and there was no longer any “active threat” to residents.

Police, ambulances, FBI and other federal agents were on the scene as a person answering the phone there said students were being evacuated.

 

“There is no active threat to the community at this time. The shooter is contained,” the City of Minneapolis said on X.

 

Three dead and 20 injured in US primary school mass shooting

 

For God's sake Americans, just ban guns. It ain't that difficult. Most developed countries have strict gun laws. 

The UK has a problem with knives, but not with guns which will kill or injure far more.

After every incident where innocent people, including kids, are shot and killed, the usual high profile US public figures come out and announce they're praying for the victims. 

Before they do that, ban the damn guns, if anything for Christ's sake.

I read that as Bum guns before praying  hmmm... 

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Tell the rape victims and the people being jailed for “hate” speech.

This isn't about rape gangs mogandave, can't you answer or you only want to deflect off topic ?

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

I support the death penalty for anyone instigating a school shooting. 

 

What say you lefties? 

 

I support prosecuting to the fullest extent extent of the law, and maximum sentences without parole for people that violate gun laws. 

 

What say you lefties?

You going to put a kid to death when he steals papas gun and shoots his friend in a game. Stop deflecting your killing your kids due to your gun laws admit it.

38 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

It's a stupid argument that always gets wheeled out by the banjo playing gun lovers. The logic falls down with any ounce of critical thinking.

Cars are not designed to kill things, guns are. Guns have no other purpose than to kill, it is what they are designed to do.

You can overdose on paracetamol. We don't ban paracetamol, but we do ban heroin because it addictive and kills millions. Just like we don't ban cars.

Also how much training do you have to go through to earn a car license?
 

 

More leftist whining, but alas, your argumentation is just as poor as bannork's.  The design of guns to kill is of course perfectly legitimate, as they are designed to kill lawfully. Often guns are specifically designed for police forces or military units. If you were to ban guns because they are designed to kill, you'd quickly be left without a functioning police force or amy. It's a completely ludicrous argument only someone devoid of any common sense could come up with.

 

Wheeling out the ban on drugs is even more idiotic, since we've seen that the banning of drugs does not suceed in making the drug problem disappear, rather the opposite, the ban itself creates more problems,.

 

Training for driving must have been a crucial factor when the terrorist plowed into the crowds, sure.

 

The left really comes up with idiotic arguments. It's pathetic.

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

More leftist whining, but alas, your argumentation is just as poor as bannork's.  The design of guns to kill is of course perfectly legitimate, as they are designed to kill lawfully. Often guns are specifically designed for police forces or military units. If you were to ban guns because they are designed to kill, you'd quickly be left without a functioning police force or amy. It's a completely ludicrous argument only someone devoid of any common sense could come up with.

 

Wheeling out the ban on drugs is even more idiotic, since we've seen that the banning of drugs does not suceed in making the drug problem disappear, rather the opposite, the ban itself creates more problems,.

 

Training for driving must have been a crucial factor when the terrorist plowed into the crowds, sure.

 

The left really comes up with idiotic argumentrs. It's pathetic.

Nobody is talking about banning police from using guns.

It's about banning the general public from possessing guns unless they have a very good reason.

People with guns kill people.

It's as simple as that despite all your deflections.

 

 

 

This thread has died the gun lovers will not discuss anything. So its pointless trying to post against them. Im out of this one.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

In the Soviet Union record players and Xerox machines were banned.

 

Banning everything is a losing game, a regressive, leftist mentality and bound to fail.

Way, way off topic.

Wrong country, wrong objects 

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

More leftist whining, but alas, your argumentation is just as poor as bannork's.  The design of guns to kill is of course perfectly legitimate, as they are designed to kill lawfully. Often guns are specifically designed for police forces or military units. If you were to ban guns because they are designed to kill, you'd quickly be left without a functioning police force or amy. It's a completely ludicrous argument only someone devoid of any common sense could come up with.

 

Wheeling out the ban on drugs is even more idiotic, since we've seen that the banning of drugs does not suceed in making the drug problem disappear, rather the opposite, the ban itself creates more problems,.

 

Training for driving must have been a crucial factor when the terrorist plowed into the crowds, sure.

 

The left really comes up with idiotic argumentrs. It's pathetic.

Who said anything about removing guns from the police or the military? Are you that desperate that you'll come up with ludicrous scenarios in your own head?

13 minutes ago, bannork said:

Nobody is talking about banning police from using guns.

It's about banning the general public from possessing guns unless they have a very good reason

 

Aha!!!

 

So the state may have guns, but the souvereign whom the state serves is not allowed to have guns? 

 

That's the most illogical argument of all.

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Aha!!!

 

So the state may have guns, but the souvereign whom the state serves is not allowed to have guns? 

 

That's the most illogical argument of all.

Who is this souvereign of whom you speak?

17 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Who said anything about removing guns from the police or the military? Are you that desperate that you'll come up with ludicrous scenarios in your own head?

 

You said you'd ban guns on the grounds they are designed to kill, in which case all guns intended for police and military would be subject to that ban. It's an idiotic argument, and I was only playing along with your and bannork's silly thought experiment to illustrate how nonsensical your position is. 

Just now, bannork said:

Who is this souvereign of whom you speak?

 

We, the people.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

We, the people.

The people have been shown to be irresponsible regarding firearms, killing innocent people, thus the right to possess or use them has to be restricted.

The police and/ or army are to protect the nation and its people thus they are authorised to use guns in exceptional circumstances. ( In the USA far more than the UK where I've never seen a policeman with a gun).

You seem desperate to invoke other objects and citizenry into this conversation but the topic is about restricting the general public from possessing guns.