Shooting in downtown Prague | 14 dead

Dr. Dwayne said:
Lots of places do because people are afraid of other people, usually irrationally.

Hunting and wilderness protection, possibly personal protection in exceptional circumstances are the only scenarios I think are reasonable.
Click to expand...
I'd say firearms are only for the military, law enforcement and if you really want to stretch it, forest rangers.

There's no reason for a civilian to possess a firearm, let alone a semi-automatic one. Screw hunting, it's just a repugnant sport and hasn't been a matter of bringing food to the table for centuries.
 
calodo2003 said:
Yeah, a father & his two month old daughter.
Click to expand...
Just... why?

I realise that understanding the motivations of these psychos is a fruitless endeavour but... I just cannot wrap my head around how someone could do that.
 
That_Bloke said:
I'd say firearms are only for the military, law enforcement and if you really want to stretch it, forest rangers.

There's no reason for a civilian to possess a firearm, let alone a semi-automatic one. Screw hunting, it's just a repugnant sport and hasn't been a matter of bringing food to the table for centuries.
Click to expand...

I live in Canada, your experience may be different elsewhere.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Yeah I was wondering about that one as well but felt the barrel didn't look right.
Click to expand...
The SIG-550 didn't look right either, no matter in which configuration. In fact the whole front part of the rifle just looks bizarre and I can't make head or tail of it. It's mostly due to the low-res picture, so I went for the CZ since it looked the least awkward and it's well, a Czech firearm.

Dr. Dwayne said:
I live in Canada, your experience may be different elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I have to reluctantly agree when it comes to wilderness defense in Canada, but not in Europe. I'm myself a bit of of a gun nut, quite passionate about firearms, and had military service so I know how to use one, but I've never felt the need to acquire one as a civilian. Anything that can kill a human being, or a living creature for that matter, should be kept off the hands of the ones who aren't part the institutions that have the monopoly on violence.
 
He was a sick fcuk. Glad that he's dead.
I wonder if this will be a watershed moment for Czechs similar to the UK and Oz where they banned guns after a mass shooting.
 
That_Bloke said:
The SIG-550 didn't look right either, no matter in which configuration. In fact the whole front part of the rifle just looks bizarre and I can't make head or tail of it. It's mostly due to the low-res picture, so I went for the CZ since it looked the least awkward and it's well, a Czech firearm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my first thought was the classic green but Swiss Arms is owned by Sig now. But the picture isn't detailed enough, it could well be an AR-15 without an A2 front sight and an aftermarket stock that has that euroish angle on it.

QUOTE="That_Bloke, post: 31465802, member: 117704"]
I have to reluctantly agree when it comes to wilderness defense in Canada, but not in Europe. I'm myself a bit of of a gun nut, quite passionate about firearms, and had military service so I know how to use one, but I've never felt the need to acquire one as a civilian. Anything that can kill a human being, or a living creature for that matter, should be kept off the hands of the ones who aren't part the institutions that have the monopoly on violence.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. It's definitely less of a need in the UK and lots of Europe. Over here it's difficult to have one rule for some and not others but we have a very strong system of controls in place and carrying firearms in public isn't normalized.

Personally, I enjoy target shooting and almost all of my guns are heavily controlled (kept trigger locked in a safe at home, transported trigger locked in a locked container only between home and the shooting range and only discharged at a range as well).
 
This mass shooting disease is coming to Europe sadly. It happened twice in Serbia, now in Czechia.
You know we live in a crazy World when football stadiums are safer than educational institutions.

Why these people just don’t kill themselves. How terribly mind has to break so someone can just shoot indiscriminately innocent people?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
It's hard to tell from that picture, mate. But the angle on the stock has a more European look to it, so I'm going to go with a Swiss Arms rifle now known as the Sig SG 550.
Click to expand...

That_Bloke said:
Looks more like a CZ BREN 2 rifle.
Click to expand...
oplo.jpg
https://i1.prth.gr/images/w1360/files/2023-12-21/oplo.jpg
 
That_Bloke said:
I'd say firearms are only for the military, law enforcement and if you really want to stretch it, forest rangers.

There's no reason for a civilian to possess a firearm, let alone a semi-automatic one. Screw hunting, it's just a repugnant sport and hasn't been a matter of bringing food to the table for centuries.
Click to expand...

As much as I favour strict gun control I disagree here. Farmers need guns, with shotguns being the obvious weapon of choice, and I don't see anything wrong with bolt action rifles for hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

There is absolutely no need for semi automatic rifles or sidearms. And there is definitely no need for all the modified versions and near military grade weapons you often see confiscated by the authorities. The same as extended mags or other upgrades.

I went to purchase a non two tone Airsoft rifle here in the UK recently but to do so I have to prove I've joined a club, and have played twice in the last three months. That's for a fecking Airsoft rifle FFS. Btw the nearest Airsoft centre is nearly 2 hours from me.
 
langster said:
As much as I favour strict gun control I disagree here. Farmers need guns, with shotguns being the obvious weapon of choice, and I don't see anything wrong with bolt action rifles for hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

There is absolutely no need for semi automatic rifles or sidearms. And there is definitely no need for all the modified versions and near military grade weapons you often see confiscated by the authorities. The same as extended mags or other upgrades.

I went to purchase a non two tone Airsoft rifle here in the UK recently but to do so I have to prove I've joined a club, and have played twice in the last three months. That's for a fecking Airsoft rifle FFS. Btw the nearest Airsoft centre is nearly 2 hours from me.
Click to expand...
Truly not fond of hunting but I agree with you on the rest.
 
That_Bloke said:
Truly not fond of hunting but I agree with you on the rest.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, but may I ask where you live?

I personally don't go hunting either, but I have quite a few friends and customers in my pub who do. Although it's not something I enjoy, they do, but they don't go out just shooting shit for the fun of it. They do go out hunting for food and a couple are often employed by farmers to help with pest control, although that's mainly culling rabbit numbers who attack their crops at certain times of the year.

I used to be an avid sea angler and regularly fished in competitions when I was a teenager and in my early 20s. I then stopped catching for competitions and only went to relax or to catch fish to eat. Now I go maybe once or twice a year but it's been a huge part of my upbringing and life. As I live on the coast and have countless friends and customers in my pub who go angling and I struggle to see a difference between angling and hunting. In truth, it's the same thing, just using different tools for the same job. I eat meat and (lots of) fish, so really don't feel as if I can be against something that is done by people who wish to go out and source their own food rather than pay for it. Especially when it's more often than not a far more ethical way of feeding themselves and their families than buying meat or fish that have been farmed or caught in a far more inhumane or environmentally destructive manner.

Sorry for going off topic here.
 
Gotta say these guesswork posts about what exact model of a gun was used look a bit out of place.
 
RedTiger said:
Have any reasons come out yet?
Click to expand...

He was nuts and was fascinated but the idea of killing people. He realised that mass killing was more efficient than serial killing so he went for it. Absolute madness.
 
langster said:
That's fair enough, but may I ask where you live?

I personally don't go hunting either, but I have quite a few friends and customers in my pub who do. Although it's not something I enjoy, they do, but they don't go out just shooting shit for the fun of it. They do go out hunting for food and a couple are often employed by farmers to help with pest control, although that's mainly culling rabbit numbers who attack their crops at certain times of the year.

I used to be an avid sea angler and regularly fished in competitions when I was a teenager and in my early 20s. I then stopped catching for competitions and only went to relax or to catch fish to eat. Now I go maybe once or twice a year but it's been a huge part of my upbringing and life. As I live on the coast and have countless friends and customers in my pub who go angling and I struggle to see a difference between angling and hunting. In truth, it's the same thing, just using different tools for the same job. I eat meat and (lots of) fish, so really don't feel as if I can be against something that is done by people who wish to go out and source their own food rather than pay for it. Especially when it's more often than not a far more ethical way of feeding themselves and their families than buying meat or fish that have been farmed or caught in a far more inhumane or environmentally destructive manner.

Sorry for going off topic here.
Click to expand...

If a hobby causes mass violent death then it is just a hobby and needs to be stopped.
 
Wibble said:
If a hobby causes mass violent death then it is just a hobby and needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair though. You can't equate someone using bolt action rifles to those using near military grade semi automatic rifles and some with modifications and some of those modified to be fully automatic.

Take Australia or the UK as examples of strict sensible gun control they show that guns can be regulated properly yet still allow responsible ownership as long as they meet the strict criteria for owning one. Then if a licence holder, the guns legally available are not even anywhere close to those that are used in mass shootings. Can they be used for that? Of course, but the likelyhood of them being used in that way with as much success is vastly reduced, especially to the average hobbyist. It would take a lot more expertise, planning and good fortune to take out 60 people with a hunting fle than with an AR.

Add to that the fact it's not cool to walk around with a 2.2 rifle or as scary as someone flexing with an AR-15 and all the mods.

I can't believe I'm defending gun ownership in a way, but I think I'm just being pragmatic. As much as I would like a complete ban on guns, I don't think it would stop events like yesterday whereas restrictions and the banning of certain types would be the most reasonable answer as it would make the likelyhood of them happening far less and make obtaining those weapons so much harder or near impossible for the majority of people.
 
langster said:
I don't think that's a fair though. You can't equate someone using bolt action rifles to those using near military grade semi automatic rifles and some with modifications and some of those modified to be fully automatic.

Take Australia or the UK as examples of strict sensible gun control they show that guns can be regulated properly yet still allow responsible ownership as long as they meet the strict criteria for owning one. Then if a licence holder, the guns legally available are not even anywhere close to those that are used in mass shootings. Can they be used for that? Of course, but the likelyhood of them being used in that way with as much success is vastly reduced, especially to the average hobbyist. It would take a lot more expertise, planning and good fortune to take out 60 people with a hunting fle than with an AR.

Add to that the fact it's not cool to walk around with a 2.2 rifle or as scary as someone flexing with an AR-15 and all the mods.

I can't believe I'm defending gun ownership in a way, but I think I'm just being pragmatic. As much as I would like a complete ban on guns, I don't think it would stop events like yesterday whereas restrictions and the banning of certain types would be the most reasonable answer as it would make the likelyhood of them happening far less and make obtaining those weapons so much harder or near impossible for the majority of people.
Click to expand...

Our gun laws are fecked. Just not as fecked as they used to be before Port Arthur. Any restriction is better than no restriction but an almost total ban is better.

FYI I grew up using guns. I won't touch them now. Me not being a homicidal nutcase would still make me part of the problem, normalising gun use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.