Can't see anything wrong with this, to be honest.Very true. It's more of a cathartic thing for us Europeans. We're incredibly frustrated by the lunacy of it all, and our only outlet is to rage on a forum. SAF isn't going to listen to anything we say on here either, but we rant away anyways.
Plus I find the "utopia wont happen so lets give up" attitude so depressingly defeatist. If you're just waiting for the old gen to die off, then why not take steps to make the transition easier when it comes? Help shape the new generation more sensibly, ostracize the outdated, prevent the old nutters from instilling the same attitudes in their children and maybe save a few kids from getting their ears blown off in the mean time.
The lesson is, never try
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I didn't see it but that sounds like bollocks to me. Gun crime and suicide has reduced as has theft of legal guns. Most actual gun crimes these days seems to be predominantly Middle Eastern/Lebanese gangs and bikies shooting each other over drug territiry and the like although a mate of mine who is a cop had to kill someone last year. He was walking into work when he saw somene with a gun about to kill 2 collegues from behind with a gun. Suicide by cop probably I'm guessing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_po...ing_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_po...ing_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia
Fair enough. i still think there are lots of Dems who don't want gun control though. Hence Obama's "clinging to God and guns" gaffe in the 08 primaries.
The "it's a different culture" thing is important though, because is it. Politics boils down to competition between values in the end, and for Americans freedom, including the freedom to walk around armed, is the trump value.
Daddy can't take away their toys, because they live in a democracy, and one set up so that he is quite weak domestically. You think it's bad policy and so do I, but the reality is that as a nation they're prepared to accept lots of gun-related deaths as the price of the freedom to walk around armed... in much the same way that we're prepared to accept the risk of being beheaded on the internet by religious people as the price of freedom to call God a cnut while eating Ritz crackers.
I don't see that changing anytime soon, though you're right to say people who believe it ought to change shouldn't be defeatist but should get out there persuading people.
I've heard quite a few people on the radio today saying this event has led them to see that there is no need for military-grade weaponry in society. This was on Dennis Miller where it's all righties moaning about Obama day-in, day-out.
I'm still sticking by my belief that this event is different and will have a major effect. The main reason they didn't want to give an inch on gun control is because they see it as a slippery slope that will eventually completely disarm them. It's a crap argument and I think many of them are seeing that now.
I'll bet Excal is gutted that he isn't able to be in on this debate.
I'm still sticking by my belief that this event is different and will have a major effect. The main reason they didn't want to give an inch on gun control is because they see it as a slippery slope that will eventually completely disarm them. It's a crap argument and I think many of them are seeing that now.
I'll bet Excal is gutted that he isn't able to be in on this debate.
It's not going to change anytime soon but the sooner you make a start the sooner it does change, even if that's in 20-30 years.
It's also just the way the US right operates, isn't it. Never give one inch, on anything. Always double down, always come out swinging. I think as much as slippery slope fears, it's due to them despising anything they view as weak. Like this episode featuring Paul Ryan:
For a virtuoso display of this principle in action, return to another vintage Ryan moment: his Dave profile from last year, where he awed a swooning reporter by opening up the budget to a random page and fingered a boondoggle. The item Ryan pointed to was the Obama administration’s reform of the student-loan industry. “Direct loans—this is perfect,” Ryan said. “So direct loans, that’s new spending on autopilot, that had no congressional oversight, and it gave the illusion that they were cutting spending.”
The exchange is so perversely revealing that it rewards explanation. For decades, the government helped make college more affordable through “guaranteed loans”—it encouraged banks to lend money to students by promising to repay the banks if the students defaulted. Banks were making billions of dollars in profits at virtually no risk. The General Accounting Office, a kind of in-house fiscal watchdog for the federal government, issued sixteen reports over the years noting how the government could save money simply by issuing the loans itself and cutting out the middleman.
It was the simplest, no-brainer pot of savings you could find—ending pure corporate welfare, just like in the movie Dave. The cause attracted support from think tanks, as well as the moderate Wisconsin Republican Tom Petri, an eclectic reformer who is sort of the real-life version of the Paul Ryan character who appears on television. Two National Review editors endorsed eliminating guaranteed loans in an article advocating a new reform conservatism.
The banks lobbied fiercely to protect their gravy train. Among the staunchest advocates of those government-subsidized banks was … Paul Ryan, who fought to protect bank subsidies that many of his fellow Republicans deemed too outrageous to defend. In 2009, Obama finally eliminated the guaranteed-lending racket. It could save the government an estimated $62 billion, according to the CBO.
Not everything in Ryan’s career, and possibly nothing at all, is quite so undeniably venal. You could pluck any other single example out of Ryan’s long history of strident conservatism and he would be able to defend it, at the very least, on ideological grounds. A tax cut for the rich, a hike in military spending—all those could be explained as a blow for the cause of Reaganism. This was an almost astonishingly unlucky break, an instance where he lacked even ideological cover—standing up for higher spending at the behest of a powerful lobby lacking any plausible rationale for its subsidy.
At the moment the page opened to that unfortunate item, Ryan’s heart must have stopped. Here was a reporter trying to cast him as a movie-hero outsider, and he was performing on cue. Yet the book opened to a page that, cruelly, just happened to expose the gap between Ryan’s image and the reality more clearly than anything else possibly could have.
Ryan probably knew, even in that split second, that he stood little chance of exposure. (The overlap between television news reporters and people with a detailed understanding of the federal budget is quite small.) Yet a lesser politician might have panicked, or hesitated, or possibly tried to flip to a different page. In that moment, Ryan revealed the qualities that have propelled him to his current position. As cool as can be, and as winsome as ever, he said, “This is perfect.”
The exchange is so perversely revealing that it rewards explanation. For decades, the government helped make college more affordable through “guaranteed loans”—it encouraged banks to lend money to students by promising to repay the banks if the students defaulted. Banks were making billions of dollars in profits at virtually no risk. The General Accounting Office, a kind of in-house fiscal watchdog for the federal government, issued sixteen reports over the years noting how the government could save money simply by issuing the loans itself and cutting out the middleman.
It was the simplest, no-brainer pot of savings you could find—ending pure corporate welfare, just like in the movie Dave. The cause attracted support from think tanks, as well as the moderate Wisconsin Republican Tom Petri, an eclectic reformer who is sort of the real-life version of the Paul Ryan character who appears on television. Two National Review editors endorsed eliminating guaranteed loans in an article advocating a new reform conservatism.
The banks lobbied fiercely to protect their gravy train. Among the staunchest advocates of those government-subsidized banks was … Paul Ryan, who fought to protect bank subsidies that many of his fellow Republicans deemed too outrageous to defend. In 2009, Obama finally eliminated the guaranteed-lending racket. It could save the government an estimated $62 billion, according to the CBO.
Not everything in Ryan’s career, and possibly nothing at all, is quite so undeniably venal. You could pluck any other single example out of Ryan’s long history of strident conservatism and he would be able to defend it, at the very least, on ideological grounds. A tax cut for the rich, a hike in military spending—all those could be explained as a blow for the cause of Reaganism. This was an almost astonishingly unlucky break, an instance where he lacked even ideological cover—standing up for higher spending at the behest of a powerful lobby lacking any plausible rationale for its subsidy.
At the moment the page opened to that unfortunate item, Ryan’s heart must have stopped. Here was a reporter trying to cast him as a movie-hero outsider, and he was performing on cue. Yet the book opened to a page that, cruelly, just happened to expose the gap between Ryan’s image and the reality more clearly than anything else possibly could have.
Ryan probably knew, even in that split second, that he stood little chance of exposure. (The overlap between television news reporters and people with a detailed understanding of the federal budget is quite small.) Yet a lesser politician might have panicked, or hesitated, or possibly tried to flip to a different page. In that moment, Ryan revealed the qualities that have propelled him to his current position. As cool as can be, and as winsome as ever, he said, “This is perfect.”
In fact, in that statement - "Gun-control activists have children's blood on their hands" - they didn't just not give an inch, they took a foot or two. It's Israeli-style not giving an inch.
I do believe that there are many repubs who have been too scared to support gun control because of the effect it would have on their constituents. The public mood following this might just change enough of their minds. There have already been a few who've come out and said they are willing to work on the issue.
Paul Ryan can piss off. At least Boehner is starting to come around to the idea that he needs to work with dems rather than just oppose everything. I hope he wins his battle with the nutters.
Paul Ryan can piss off. At least Boehner is starting to come around to the idea that he needs to work with dems rather than just oppose everything. I hope he wins his battle with the nutters.
Who's Paul Ryan?
veep nominee, on Romney's ticket.
If only Jesus had owned a semi-automatic weapon, we wouldn't be sitting here waiting for him to come again.
Hell, would have won that pesky Vietnam war if not for the desperate gun shortage.
More guns solve every problem!
Nah I don't buy that. The crucial nubin of freedom of expression is that you should be free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't impinge on others. Our freedom to call God a cnut is putting no one but ourselves in danger. Sammsky would hunt me down for that stunt, there would be no collateral (unless he had a large assault weapon of course) It's like riding around without a helmet. I'll take my chances for my beliefs.
Blocking gun laws for the sake of your own macho bullshit is very much (IMO) putting others in danger. So to me it easily crosses that line from personal freedom to dangerous societal damage.
It's just fecking insane! A gun is a thing designed with no other purpose than to kill. Assault weapons are designed specifically to kill humans. What sane people would consider having one an ingrained part of their culture? None.
Water guns? Ahhh..toys you say.
you're putting too much rationale into this.
This US is the also the only well developed nation that doesn't provide healthcare for it's people.
You heard the shit storm that was that debate? You'd think that Obama and those lefty liberals were taking their children away - and all they were trying to do is give some health care to every person in the country, not just those that can afford it.
Oh know nothing of him. Is he a nut as well?
He's a Randian...so yes.
Well it's not like he's suddenly realised the virtues of non-partisan governance. It's just he's intelligent enough to realise that unless he makes a deal now, in about 2 weeks Obama will get all the revenue he could ever need, without needing to offer any cuts in return.
Some of the other House Republicans don't seem to have quite figured that out yet though.
Well what with the internet and shit, anyone calling God a cnut might now be setting off a good deal more carnage than any assault weapon can muster. That retarded film in America springs to mind. Yet you wouldn't give up the right. (If I remember right, you treasure the right to shout religious abuse at funerals!)
Yanks feel the same about guns. I don't think they're right any more than you do, but different societies make their own social contracts based on different hierarchies of / trade-offs between values. So I don't think a top-down imposition of 'sanity' is a good solution.
I actually think if Congress somehow banned guns, there'd be civil war. Though that would be quite an amusing demonstration of how they're not much of a defence against the power of the federal government.
Not sure if this article has been posted but pretty informative about the NRA's influence.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...le/democratic-fear-inflates-myth-of-nra-power
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...le/democratic-fear-inflates-myth-of-nra-power
Doesn't seem all that informative...
You were saying 
feck.
I like this article too. Just shows what these idiots are all about: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat.../even-friends-must-toe-the-line-or-face-wrath
As I said before, it's all about money:
As I said before, it's all about money:
N.R.A Members vs. N.R.A Leaders:
Here are some well-thought out comments responding to the article:
N.R.A. Members Vs. N.R.A. Leaders
Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster is a professor and the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Updated December 17, 2012, 8:29 PM
Recent poll numbers from Gallup suggesting that fewer Americans want to strengthen our gun laws should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly with respect to policies designed to keep guns from dangerous people. A Frank Luntz survey found, for example, that 3 out of every 4 N.R.A. members favored a system that required all prospective gun buyers to pass a criminal background check. In addition, large majorities of N.R.A. members support employee screenings at gun stores, mandating reporting of stolen firearms, prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms and prohibiting violent misdemeanants from receiving permits to carry concealed guns. These measures are not in place in most states and are vigorously opposed by N.R.A. leaders and lobbyists.
Maybe now, gun owners will speak out for common sense reforms that would save lives with little or no impact on law-abiding gun owners.
Extremists views on weapons that oppose any regulation on guns and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition may be gaining ground in some parts of the country. But the spate of mass shootings, particularly the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the extreme stances by the N.R.A. will certainly make some gun owners speak out for common sense reforms that would save lives with little or no impact on truly law-abiding gun owners.
The former House member, Gabrielle Giffords, who was seriously wounded in a mass shooting almost two years ago, and her husband, Mark Kelly, are the obvious candidates to take up this cause. Both are long-time gun owners whose lives have been devastated by gun violence. Kelly was one of the first to challenge elected officials to put citizen safety ahead of special interest lobby groups following the Sand Hook shooting. Others will follow. Joe Scarborough, former U.S. Representative with an A+ rating from the N.R.A., had harsh words for the N.R.A. and the gun lobby as he called for meaningful reforms to our gun policies.
The N.R.A. is not going away and will continue to be a force in gun policy and politics. But expect more gun owners to follow leaders like Giffords, Kelly and Scarborough. This will be the game-changer.
Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster is a professor and the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Updated December 17, 2012, 8:29 PM
Recent poll numbers from Gallup suggesting that fewer Americans want to strengthen our gun laws should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly with respect to policies designed to keep guns from dangerous people. A Frank Luntz survey found, for example, that 3 out of every 4 N.R.A. members favored a system that required all prospective gun buyers to pass a criminal background check. In addition, large majorities of N.R.A. members support employee screenings at gun stores, mandating reporting of stolen firearms, prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms and prohibiting violent misdemeanants from receiving permits to carry concealed guns. These measures are not in place in most states and are vigorously opposed by N.R.A. leaders and lobbyists.
Maybe now, gun owners will speak out for common sense reforms that would save lives with little or no impact on law-abiding gun owners.
Extremists views on weapons that oppose any regulation on guns and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition may be gaining ground in some parts of the country. But the spate of mass shootings, particularly the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the extreme stances by the N.R.A. will certainly make some gun owners speak out for common sense reforms that would save lives with little or no impact on truly law-abiding gun owners.
The former House member, Gabrielle Giffords, who was seriously wounded in a mass shooting almost two years ago, and her husband, Mark Kelly, are the obvious candidates to take up this cause. Both are long-time gun owners whose lives have been devastated by gun violence. Kelly was one of the first to challenge elected officials to put citizen safety ahead of special interest lobby groups following the Sand Hook shooting. Others will follow. Joe Scarborough, former U.S. Representative with an A+ rating from the N.R.A., had harsh words for the N.R.A. and the gun lobby as he called for meaningful reforms to our gun policies.
The N.R.A. is not going away and will continue to be a force in gun policy and politics. But expect more gun owners to follow leaders like Giffords, Kelly and Scarborough. This will be the game-changer.
Here are some well-thought out comments responding to the article:
The first Ten Amendments, unlike the Ten Commandments, were not handed down at Mount Sinai, forever fixed and immutable. They were part of Version 1.0 of our deeply flawed Constitution -- the one that protected slavery, disenfranchised women, and lacked direct election of Senators, to name a few of those flaws.
But that same Constitution provides a mechanism for adopting or repealing Amendments, which is what we need to begin to do with the Second Amendment, starting now. An Amendment, which serves to protect the rights of gun owners to their lethal toys over the rights of children to a life at all, is repugnant and has no place in our Constitution; it should be repealed immediately. Impossible? So was the abolition of slavery -- until the Civil War made it possible, and it happened. Let us start this movement today!
But that same Constitution provides a mechanism for adopting or repealing Amendments, which is what we need to begin to do with the Second Amendment, starting now. An Amendment, which serves to protect the rights of gun owners to their lethal toys over the rights of children to a life at all, is repugnant and has no place in our Constitution; it should be repealed immediately. Impossible? So was the abolition of slavery -- until the Civil War made it possible, and it happened. Let us start this movement today!
The NRA probably cannot explain the meaning and intent of the second amendment. It stipulates that as part of a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. It does not say that all men are created equal with the right to own any weapons that they choose and to use them as their spirit directs. Yet that pretty much summaries what the NRA seems to claim. If one reads the second amendment and is familiar with a long debate about whether this country should support a standing army or should rely upon militias to protect the nation some context regarding the second amendment seems to become sensible.
At the start of the 19th century most Americans did not want to fund armies and navies, they wanted to rely upon militias. By the end of that century, we understood that militias could not protect the country, that standing armies and navies were indepensible. There is no reason that localities should not be able to restrict criminals and irresponsible people from possessing weapons, nor to limit where and when people may carry arms in public, all being covered under the well regulated militia stipulation. If the language of the amendment has been interpreted too loosely to enable firearms to be possessed irregardless of the reference to well regulated militia, then may be we need to amend the Constitution, again.
At the start of the 19th century most Americans did not want to fund armies and navies, they wanted to rely upon militias. By the end of that century, we understood that militias could not protect the country, that standing armies and navies were indepensible. There is no reason that localities should not be able to restrict criminals and irresponsible people from possessing weapons, nor to limit where and when people may carry arms in public, all being covered under the well regulated militia stipulation. If the language of the amendment has been interpreted too loosely to enable firearms to be possessed irregardless of the reference to well regulated militia, then may be we need to amend the Constitution, again.
It amazes me that in the US people I wouldn't trust to park my car are allowed automatic weapons.
Yes, women are allowed to own guns too. It's shocking.
how would you like to get into a road rage situation when you are in the South?
Schools show interest in Texas policy allowing teachers to carry guns
(CNN/KAUZ) – Harrold ISD is once again in the spotlight.
In 2007 the district made a decision so controversial it made worldwide headlines. Teachers would be allowed to carry a gun to school. In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, T.V. station KAUZ visited with Superintendent David Thweatt.
According to KAUZ, school districts across the nation are now looking at Harrold ISD and what they see is, for some, what they want.
He believes teachers armed with a gun will prevent a school shooting.
“My mantra has been this, as school personnel, with school children here, we are our first responders,” said Superintendent David Thweatt.“My goal is that if someone comes in and tries to hurt my little ones, that they are killed,” he said.
In 2007 the district adopted a policy called the “Guardian Plan.” It essentially allows teachers who have a concealed handgun license to carry a gun with them to school.
In the five years it’s been in place, Superintendent Thweatt said there have been no incidents at the school. He attributes that to the extra security measures they’ve taken.
“It’s like seeing a clock in the room it’s not even in your mind you just know that it’s there,” said Junior Harrison Thweatt, David Thweatt’s son.
“I like it because it kind of makes me feel safer, because it’s Harrold and we don’t have a police station here,” Junior Madison Templeton said.
That was the main purpose for the Guardian Plan: The nearest law enforcement agency was 30 minutes away. Should a shooter come to school, who would be left alive?
“We need to be here to protect our children not four, five, six minutes from now we need to protect them now with an active shooter,” Superintendent Thweatt said.
Father of two Michael Hopkins agrees.
“I don’t have any issues with it at all,” Hopkins said. “If one of those guys gets to the school and he’s met with armed resistance he don’t get to the classroom.”
There are 103 students walking the hallways of the Harrold school everyday. Superintendent Thweatt said it’s his job to protect his students and teachers the best he can.
“My call to the parents at the end of the day is your child is coming home,” Superintendent Thweatt said. “The bad guy, he’s dead.”
Superintendent Thweatt said Harrold ISD was the first in the nation to allow teachers to carry guns. Since then he’s spoken with districts across the state about his Guardian Plan.
Teachers who carry must also undergo extra training and can only use frangible bullets that prevent ricochet.
http://kdvr.com/2012/12/18/texas-school-allows-teachers-to-carry-guns/
Thinking back on my schooldays, I can think of at least a few teachers I wouldn't let nowhere near cutlery, nevermind a gun.
(CNN/KAUZ) – Harrold ISD is once again in the spotlight.
In 2007 the district made a decision so controversial it made worldwide headlines. Teachers would be allowed to carry a gun to school. In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, T.V. station KAUZ visited with Superintendent David Thweatt.
According to KAUZ, school districts across the nation are now looking at Harrold ISD and what they see is, for some, what they want.
He believes teachers armed with a gun will prevent a school shooting.
“My mantra has been this, as school personnel, with school children here, we are our first responders,” said Superintendent David Thweatt.“My goal is that if someone comes in and tries to hurt my little ones, that they are killed,” he said.
In 2007 the district adopted a policy called the “Guardian Plan.” It essentially allows teachers who have a concealed handgun license to carry a gun with them to school.
In the five years it’s been in place, Superintendent Thweatt said there have been no incidents at the school. He attributes that to the extra security measures they’ve taken.
“It’s like seeing a clock in the room it’s not even in your mind you just know that it’s there,” said Junior Harrison Thweatt, David Thweatt’s son.
“I like it because it kind of makes me feel safer, because it’s Harrold and we don’t have a police station here,” Junior Madison Templeton said.
That was the main purpose for the Guardian Plan: The nearest law enforcement agency was 30 minutes away. Should a shooter come to school, who would be left alive?
“We need to be here to protect our children not four, five, six minutes from now we need to protect them now with an active shooter,” Superintendent Thweatt said.
Father of two Michael Hopkins agrees.
“I don’t have any issues with it at all,” Hopkins said. “If one of those guys gets to the school and he’s met with armed resistance he don’t get to the classroom.”
There are 103 students walking the hallways of the Harrold school everyday. Superintendent Thweatt said it’s his job to protect his students and teachers the best he can.
“My call to the parents at the end of the day is your child is coming home,” Superintendent Thweatt said. “The bad guy, he’s dead.”
Superintendent Thweatt said Harrold ISD was the first in the nation to allow teachers to carry guns. Since then he’s spoken with districts across the state about his Guardian Plan.
Teachers who carry must also undergo extra training and can only use frangible bullets that prevent ricochet.
http://kdvr.com/2012/12/18/texas-school-allows-teachers-to-carry-guns/
Thinking back on my schooldays, I can think of at least a few teachers I wouldn't let nowhere near cutlery, nevermind a gun.
Yes. That's completely down to the fact you have guns. No other school in the world goes 5 years without incidents.
What happens when a mental ill teacher goes postal? Start arming kindergarten kids?
Alcohol would be a better example. As a society we know that a significant number of innocent people will be killed as a result of someone else's alcohol consumption (through drink driving and violence), but we are prepared to tolerate that in exchange for our freedom to drink. Some Americans feel the same way about gun ownership.
Drinking moderately does not kill. Shooting people moderately tends to.
Yes, I personally think it's right to allow (regulated) alcohol and favour a total ban on private gun ownership. However, Plech and I are just trying to explain how all societies have these trade-offs between freedom and negative consequences. It's not unique to America.
Fair enough. I thought you were using it to describe why guns should be allowed. My apologies.
That's the wrong correspondence.
In the analogy, drinking moderately equates to using your gun sensibly - getting training, locking it up properly, not going out strapped up like Rambo, etc.
Shooting at people without hitting them would equate to something like drink-driving without collisions.
Gun requests have tripled since the massacre
I am not kidding about this- They are now selling bullet proof back packs for kids when they go to school with Disney themes
I left Merseyside in the early 70s to get away from the villains and now my kids living in the states have to deal with this every day now
Enough
I am not kidding about this- They are now selling bullet proof back packs for kids when they go to school with Disney themes
I left Merseyside in the early 70s to get away from the villains and now my kids living in the states have to deal with this every day now
Enough
Sadly, another massacre is needed soon to keep the heat on the gun control issue. If not, it'll die out the way it always does.
Video game violence indeed.
Preferrably at an NRA convention or a gun-show exhibit. Perhaps that might get a message across to these nutters.
Yes, that's one of their favorite arguments, that these things don't happen at gun shows because everyone else is armed. Someone should show up in full protective gear and blast away.
All you need is some tear gas, flares and a few gunshots to cause some confusion. Dead cert to get a bloodbath.
Oh and there's feck all guns can do about snipers unless you're packing one yourself.