FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Shooting roots…
Shooting roots…
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
""I don't like Mondays" by the Boomtown Rats was written about a school shooting in 1979, they were touring the USA at the time. As far as I can remember, they've always been a problem. No other western country has a similar problem, I believe guns are the problem."  | |||
" While they should NEVER happen at all, guns are not the problem. " Gun absolutely are the problem, and a major part of the problem. Why ? Because they facilitate a higher body count in a shorter period of time. That's exactly what they are designed to do. Kill and/or immobilise as many people as quickly as possible. Yes, there is a bigger problem here, with the stability of the offenders in question, but having access to the right tools to do the job only makes it easier for them. I've stayed in the US with a few families and I can state that within 5 mins of entering their house, two things have occurred. 1. We love your accent, say something. 2. Do you want to see our guns ? I know I'm English and supposed to be "The Villain", but asking me to prove it and then offering me your armaments seems a bit foolish. | |||
" While they should NEVER happen at all, guns are not the problem. Gun absolutely are the problem, and a major part of the problem. Why ? Because they facilitate a higher body count in a shorter period of time. That's exactly what they are designed to do. Kill and/or immobilise as many people as quickly as possible. Yes, there is a bigger problem here, with the stability of the offenders in question, but having access to the right tools to do the job only makes it easier for them. I've stayed in the US with a few families and I can state that within 5 mins of entering their house, two things have occurred. 1. We love your accent, say something. 2. Do you want to see our guns ? I know I'm English and supposed to be "The Villain", but asking me to prove it and then offering me your armaments seems a bit foolish. " So, to your mind, is the problem the guns as you stated at first or is it the (your words) BIGGER PROBLEM of metal stability? | |||
"I'm not sure that the body counts would be as high if the miscreants "only" had knives... " No, that’s true, but the initial intent to murder and become immortalised would still exist, kids would still die and get hurt. That’s the real issue isn’t it? The fact that kids are being killed by other disenfranchised kids. That, needs to be tackled and stopped. | |||
| |||
| |||
""I don't like Mondays" by the Boomtown Rats was written about a school shooting in 1979, they were touring the USA at the time. As far as I can remember, they've always been a problem. No other western country has a similar problem, I believe guns are the problem." Maybe the records only started as the number rose in recent times. It is definitely a problem, no doubt, but it also seems that US society somehow produces these people. Take Adam Lanza out of the US and put him in Canada where guns are just as widespread, would he have ended up doing what he did? Or would the society he was in create a different person? | |||
"I'm not sure that the body counts would be as high if the miscreants "only" had knives... No, that’s true, but the initial intent to murder and become immortalised would still exist, kids would still die and get hurt. That’s the real issue isn’t it? The fact that kids are being killed by other disenfranchised kids. That, needs to be tackled and stopped." So you don't think we should reduce the body count (by taking the guns out of the equation) while you sort out disenfranchisation in the next generation? | |||
"Guns absolutely are the problem. Standing within arms reach of someone so you can stab them Is much more difficult than firing from 50 yards away. The body count would be far lower. You can shoot someone through a door. I don't disagree that the mental health problems are huge. But they are no worse in the US than here, Germany, France, Canada or anywhere else yet no where else has these issues " I'm pretty sure the classroom isn't 50 yards. Whilst a gun gives the user a certain detachment I don't think a person who would shoot a child at point blank range would shy away from using a blade or a blunt instrument. But yes, a firearm is way more efficient. | |||
| |||
"Guns absolutely are the problem. Standing within arms reach of someone so you can stab them Is much more difficult than firing from 50 yards away. The body count would be far lower. You can shoot someone through a door. I don't disagree that the mental health problems are huge. But they are no worse in the US than here, Germany, France, Canada or anywhere else yet no where else has these issues " Actually, besides those 13 large scale incidents, pretty much all of the others barely hit higher than 2/3 deaths and injuries combined. So, in reality, someone with the intent of the Columbine shooters armed with knives and axes could very easily have still hit the same numbers. Most firearm incidents at schools are not committed by people who have that indiscriminate mass murderer intent that creates large body counts. The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself. | |||
"I'm not sure that the body counts would be as high if the miscreants "only" had knives... No, that’s true, but the initial intent to murder and become immortalised would still exist, kids would still die and get hurt. That’s the real issue isn’t it? The fact that kids are being killed by other disenfranchised kids. That, needs to be tackled and stopped. So you don't think we should reduce the body count (by taking the guns out of the equation) while you sort out disenfranchisation in the next generation? " Taking guns out of the equation isn’t possible. This is the problem, every time something like this happens, everyone says get rid of the guns… you literally can’t! That was never an option, there have always been too many guns to be able to get them all back. So the only solution is to stop those kids from becoming who they end up becoming. They also attack the WRONG guns! Every time this happens they go after semi automatic rifles, when almost all big shootings happen with pistols. It’s almost like no one in power, on either side, actually wants it to stop. | |||
| |||
"The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself." I don't think anyone is discounting that at all. After all, guns don't kill people, people do. But they don't half make it jolly easier to do so. As _etcpl said earlier, neither the mental state of the perpetrators or the availability of guns are mutually exclusive issues. Both need to be deal with. Disarm the nation, and heal the troubled. | |||
"If a house was on fire and the arsonist was a teen obsessed with fire, the fire brigade wouldn't start by assisting that teen with their mental health. They would put out the fire. Then, once the immediate risk was dealt with, they might refer to child services and mental health support." That’s a terrible analogy. What you said, in fact, backs up what I’m saying. That the problem starts well before the end event and needs to be caught and fixed by others before it happens. Because reacting to each individual fire (or shooting) doesn’t fix the issues that caused it in the first place. Neither does banning petrol or matches. To use your analogy. | |||
"The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself. I don't think anyone is discounting that at all. After all, guns don't kill people, people do. But they don't half make it jolly easier to do so. As _etcpl said earlier, neither the mental state of the perpetrators or the availability of guns are mutually exclusive issues. Both need to be deal with. Disarm the nation, and heal the troubled." And by disarm, where does that end? Just guns? Knives? Axes? Look how many stabbings there are in this country, look how tightly restricted knives are? Do any of those restrictions help? No. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you take away from someone with criminal murderous intent? Especially, as in the case of school shooting, murderers who choose really easy targets. Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do. Take away the guns and maybe next time it will just be a bomb? The tool isn’t what matters, it’s the perpetuation in the creation of these murderous little monsters. | |||
"That’s a terrible analogy. What you said, in fact, backs up what I’m saying. That the problem starts well before the end event and needs to be caught and fixed by others before it happens. Because reacting to each individual fire (or shooting) doesn’t fix the issues that caused it in the first place. Neither does banning petrol or matches. To use your analogy." It's actually a very good analogy. The only way it backs up what you are saying is the acknowledgement that there are two issues to be dealt with. However, we need to deal with the more inmediate need and prioritise immediate changes that can be made. Improve gun control and *then* we can work on the more long-term need. | |||
"The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself. I don't think anyone is discounting that at all. After all, guns don't kill people, people do. But they don't half make it jolly easier to do so. As _etcpl said earlier, neither the mental state of the perpetrators or the availability of guns are mutually exclusive issues. Both need to be deal with. Disarm the nation, and heal the troubled. And by disarm, where does that end? Just guns? Knives? Axes? Look how many stabbings there are in this country, look how tightly restricted knives are? Do any of those restrictions help? No. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you take away from someone with criminal murderous intent? Especially, as in the case of school shooting, murderers who choose really easy targets. Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do. Take away the guns and maybe next time it will just be a bomb? The tool isn’t what matters, it’s the perpetuation in the creation of these murderous little monsters." It's relatively easy to get a shotgun licence in the UK. So why aren't there more gun deaths in the UK? Because we've never had ridiculous legislation written saying that we should permanently be able to be armed. That's the sole difference between the USA and any other modern, civilised country. Many countries permit gun ownership, under a range of laws and ownership requirements. What most don't is enshrine it in their constitutions and claim it's impossible to remove from legislation, despite the very law being called an 'amendment'. There have been many changes to the constitution over time. There's no reason why there can't be a change to the 2nd amendment. But stupid people don't want to because of paranoia, an obsession with guns and of course the sheer volume of money involved in their manufacture, sale and of course - use. A | |||
"That’s a terrible analogy. What you said, in fact, backs up what I’m saying. That the problem starts well before the end event and needs to be caught and fixed by others before it happens. Because reacting to each individual fire (or shooting) doesn’t fix the issues that caused it in the first place. Neither does banning petrol or matches. To use your analogy. It's actually a very good analogy. The only way it backs up what you are saying is the acknowledgement that there are two issues to be dealt with. However, we need to deal with the more inmediate need and prioritise immediate changes that can be made. Improve gun control and *then* we can work on the more long-term need." I disagree but fair enough. My view point is that out of the hundreds of millions of guns and hundreds of millions of families with guns, there are extremely specific guns that create these tragedies and they aren’t the ones in 99.9 of the US populations hands. The majority of them don’t kill anyone. | |||
"The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself. I don't think anyone is discounting that at all. After all, guns don't kill people, people do. But they don't half make it jolly easier to do so. As _etcpl said earlier, neither the mental state of the perpetrators or the availability of guns are mutually exclusive issues. Both need to be deal with. Disarm the nation, and heal the troubled. And by disarm, where does that end? Just guns? Knives? Axes? Look how many stabbings there are in this country, look how tightly restricted knives are? Do any of those restrictions help? No. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you take away from someone with criminal murderous intent? Especially, as in the case of school shooting, murderers who choose really easy targets. Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do. Take away the guns and maybe next time it will just be a bomb? The tool isn’t what matters, it’s the perpetuation in the creation of these murderous little monsters. It's relatively easy to get a shotgun licence in the UK. So why aren't there more gun deaths in the UK? Because we've never had ridiculous legislation written saying that we should permanently be able to be armed. That's the sole difference between the USA and any other modern, civilised country. Many countries permit gun ownership, under a range of laws and ownership requirements. What most don't is enshrine it in their constitutions and claim it's impossible to remove from legislation, despite the very law being called an 'amendment'. There have been many changes to the constitution over time. There's no reason why there can't be a change to the 2nd amendment. But stupid people don't want to because of paranoia, an obsession with guns and of course the sheer volume of money involved in their manufacture, sale and of course - use. A" I agree with you that storing of firearms and deeper background checks etc would be very beneficial, I don’t disagree with any of that. But someone intent on murdering a bunch of people will ALWAYS find a way. There is a black market in every nation, I could go to Bristol and get a gun in minutes. So taking away legal firearms, most of which don’t get used for murder is not a great way to go. Because those who want to murder will get what they need somehow. The fact that these are kids who are slipping through the net of parents and teachers is a much bigger issue. How is that still happening? How has that lesson not been learnt? They should be getting spotted way way way before it gets to this stage. | |||
"Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do." You might be right, but I'm not sure. I wonder if there is something about the psychology of holding a gun that feels more powerful (even invincible) than holding a machete. And I can imagine a class of kids, or just a couple of teachers, attempting to disarm someone holding a machete. If Lanzas had a machete, he might have secured some deaths, but I doubt it would be the same as with a gun. And I do wonder if such an attack would even tale place with a machete, due to the psychology of holding a gun. | |||
" Taking guns out of the equation isn’t possible. This is the problem, every time something like this happens, everyone says get rid of the guns… you literally can’t! That was never an option, there have always been too many guns to be able to get them all back. So the only solution is to stop those kids from becoming who they end up becoming." It's not possible to stop selling them? It's not possible to have amnesties, buy-backs? FWIW, I agree that better education is also needed, but when evolution is being treated as an alternative religion over there, I'd suggest THAT strand is going even less well... | |||
"The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself. I don't think anyone is discounting that at all. After all, guns don't kill people, people do. But they don't half make it jolly easier to do so. As _etcpl said earlier, neither the mental state of the perpetrators or the availability of guns are mutually exclusive issues. Both need to be deal with. Disarm the nation, and heal the troubled. And by disarm, where does that end? Just guns? Knives? Axes? Look how many stabbings there are in this country, look how tightly restricted knives are? Do any of those restrictions help? No. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you take away from someone with criminal murderous intent? Especially, as in the case of school shooting, murderers who choose really easy targets. Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do. Take away the guns and maybe next time it will just be a bomb? The tool isn’t what matters, it’s the perpetuation in the creation of these murderous little monsters. It's relatively easy to get a shotgun licence in the UK. So why aren't there more gun deaths in the UK? Because we've never had ridiculous legislation written saying that we should permanently be able to be armed. That's the sole difference between the USA and any other modern, civilised country. Many countries permit gun ownership, under a range of laws and ownership requirements. What most don't is enshrine it in their constitutions and claim it's impossible to remove from legislation, despite the very law being called an 'amendment'. There have been many changes to the constitution over time. There's no reason why there can't be a change to the 2nd amendment. But stupid people don't want to because of paranoia, an obsession with guns and of course the sheer volume of money involved in their manufacture, sale and of course - use. A I agree with you that storing of firearms and deeper background checks etc would be very beneficial, I don’t disagree with any of that. But someone intent on murdering a bunch of people will ALWAYS find a way. There is a black market in every nation, I could go to Bristol and get a gun in minutes. So taking away legal firearms, most of which don’t get used for murder is not a great way to go. Because those who want to murder will get what they need somehow. The fact that these are kids who are slipping through the net of parents and teachers is a much bigger issue. How is that still happening? How has that lesson not been learnt? They should be getting spotted way way way before it gets to this stage. " You're trying to focus on one small part of the problem. School shootings and kids accessing guns. It's not that simple. You can't spot potential shooters in advance. Someone can be perfectly sane, sensible and have no mental health issues or grudges against anyone, or have political or religious affiliations on the day they choose to become a gun owner. And then somewhere down the line, months, years or decades....something becomes a trigger and they become a killer. Sometimes it's as simple as them having a bad day. Sure. As you say there's a black market everywhere. But why make it so easy to obtain a gun? Why sell in supermarkets? Why require minimal background checks and virtually none when it comes to second hand sales? And that's before you take into account the huge number of legally owned guns that are stolen. Here's an idea. Let people have as many guns as they want. But change the law so they can only have 6 bullets each. Plenty enough to protect themselves (as many claim) from muggings, robberies and car jackings. Plenty enough to be the 'good guy with a gun' that never seems to e present at the right time in the right place. But not enough to kill more than 6 people even if they're a crack shot. Would definitely put an end to all those pesky double digit gun massacres that upset the NRA and the gun lobbyists....... 
A | |||
"Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do. You might be right, but I'm not sure. I wonder if there is something about the psychology of holding a gun that feels more powerful (even invincible) than holding a machete. And I can imagine a class of kids, or just a couple of teachers, attempting to disarm someone holding a machete. If Lanzas had a machete, he might have secured some deaths, but I doubt it would be the same as with a gun. And I do wonder if such an attack would even tale place with a machete, due to the psychology of holding a gun." Any weapon in general is a position of power over unarmed people. A gun may be more, but many atrocities have occurred without the use of guns. Terror attacks and genocides have both been committed with knives and machetes. And I’m the case of terrorism, people did very little to prevent that, they all ran for their life or froze because a knife will still strike the same fear into an unarmed person as a gun. The only people that could really do anything were the armed police. Unfortunately in the US, perversely, all the areas around schools, where these very attacks happen, it’s a gun free zone, which prohibits armed security being in close proximity. They have to wait for the police to arrive however long later. | |||
| |||
"The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself. I don't think anyone is discounting that at all. After all, guns don't kill people, people do. But they don't half make it jolly easier to do so. As _etcpl said earlier, neither the mental state of the perpetrators or the availability of guns are mutually exclusive issues. Both need to be deal with. Disarm the nation, and heal the troubled. And by disarm, where does that end? Just guns? Knives? Axes? Look how many stabbings there are in this country, look how tightly restricted knives are? Do any of those restrictions help? No. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you take away from someone with criminal murderous intent? Especially, as in the case of school shooting, murderers who choose really easy targets. Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do. Take away the guns and maybe next time it will just be a bomb? The tool isn’t what matters, it’s the perpetuation in the creation of these murderous little monsters. It's relatively easy to get a shotgun licence in the UK. So why aren't there more gun deaths in the UK? Because we've never had ridiculous legislation written saying that we should permanently be able to be armed. That's the sole difference between the USA and any other modern, civilised country. Many countries permit gun ownership, under a range of laws and ownership requirements. What most don't is enshrine it in their constitutions and claim it's impossible to remove from legislation, despite the very law being called an 'amendment'. There have been many changes to the constitution over time. There's no reason why there can't be a change to the 2nd amendment. But stupid people don't want to because of paranoia, an obsession with guns and of course the sheer volume of money involved in their manufacture, sale and of course - use. A I agree with you that storing of firearms and deeper background checks etc would be very beneficial, I don’t disagree with any of that. But someone intent on murdering a bunch of people will ALWAYS find a way. There is a black market in every nation, I could go to Bristol and get a gun in minutes. So taking away legal firearms, most of which don’t get used for murder is not a great way to go. Because those who want to murder will get what they need somehow. The fact that these are kids who are slipping through the net of parents and teachers is a much bigger issue. How is that still happening? How has that lesson not been learnt? They should be getting spotted way way way before it gets to this stage. You're trying to focus on one small part of the problem. School shootings and kids accessing guns. It's not that simple. You can't spot potential shooters in advance. Someone can be perfectly sane, sensible and have no mental health issues or grudges against anyone, or have political or religious affiliations on the day they choose to become a gun owner. And then somewhere down the line, months, years or decades....something becomes a trigger and they become a killer. Sometimes it's as simple as them having a bad day. Sure. As you say there's a black market everywhere. But why make it so easy to obtain a gun? Why sell in supermarkets? Why require minimal background checks and virtually none when it comes to second hand sales? And that's before you take into account the huge number of legally owned guns that are stolen. Here's an idea. Let people have as many guns as they want. But change the law so they can only have 6 bullets each. Plenty enough to protect themselves (as many claim) from muggings, robberies and car jackings. Plenty enough to be the 'good guy with a gun' that never seems to e present at the right time in the right place. But not enough to kill more than 6 people even if they're a crack shot. Would definitely put an end to all those pesky double digit gun massacres that upset the NRA and the gun lobbyists.......
A"You should be able to spot them in an education environment? If they’re doing their jobs right. Why aren’t the parents seeing it either? That’s sever neglect in both parties right there. I suppose we could go around the issue a million ways. It just doesn’t sit right with me that guns are always the thing to blame when 99 percent of guns never get used to murder kids? Maybe one day the balance will be gotten right. It seems to be right in Canada? Maybe the parents and teachers are more vigilant? Maybe the school system is better. Who knows? | |||
"I also wonder why OP is only focusing their statistical analysis on school shootings. Do all the workplace shootings not matter, or do they just not fit the narrative? What about all the police shootings of unarmed citizens? Are the police officers disenfranchised as well? Or do they not count because they're not mass shootings? People do bad things. People with guns are able to do more bad things quickly. Why would anyone be against making it harder to lots of bad things???" Because that’s what recent events make the subject be about? It’s also the only time anyone gives a fuck about guns. No one gives the slightest shit about them after a weekend in Chicago? You know what truly makes bad people do bad things more quickly? Their intent. Most of the school shootings in the US do not have someone with that much murderous intent. Again, since 2000, 13 have had high number of injuries and death. There is a world of difference between the Columbine shooters of this world, who would have created the same devastation with any other weapon and all of the other incidents. Should any of them happen. No. | |||
"The mental state of the people behind the gun creates the difference, not the actual gun itself. I don't think anyone is discounting that at all. After all, guns don't kill people, people do. But they don't half make it jolly easier to do so. As _etcpl said earlier, neither the mental state of the perpetrators or the availability of guns are mutually exclusive issues. Both need to be deal with. Disarm the nation, and heal the troubled. And by disarm, where does that end? Just guns? Knives? Axes? Look how many stabbings there are in this country, look how tightly restricted knives are? Do any of those restrictions help? No. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what you take away from someone with criminal murderous intent? Especially, as in the case of school shooting, murderers who choose really easy targets. Take way Adam Lanzas gun and he would have hit the same number of deaths with a machete, because that’s exactly what he wanted to do. Take away the guns and maybe next time it will just be a bomb? The tool isn’t what matters, it’s the perpetuation in the creation of these murderous little monsters. It's relatively easy to get a shotgun licence in the UK. So why aren't there more gun deaths in the UK? Because we've never had ridiculous legislation written saying that we should permanently be able to be armed. That's the sole difference between the USA and any other modern, civilised country. Many countries permit gun ownership, under a range of laws and ownership requirements. What most don't is enshrine it in their constitutions and claim it's impossible to remove from legislation, despite the very law being called an 'amendment'. There have been many changes to the constitution over time. There's no reason why there can't be a change to the 2nd amendment. But stupid people don't want to because of paranoia, an obsession with guns and of course the sheer volume of money involved in their manufacture, sale and of course - use. A I agree with you that storing of firearms and deeper background checks etc would be very beneficial, I don’t disagree with any of that. But someone intent on murdering a bunch of people will ALWAYS find a way. There is a black market in every nation, I could go to Bristol and get a gun in minutes. So taking away legal firearms, most of which don’t get used for murder is not a great way to go. Because those who want to murder will get what they need somehow. The fact that these are kids who are slipping through the net of parents and teachers is a much bigger issue. How is that still happening? How has that lesson not been learnt? They should be getting spotted way way way before it gets to this stage. You're trying to focus on one small part of the problem. School shootings and kids accessing guns. It's not that simple. You can't spot potential shooters in advance. Someone can be perfectly sane, sensible and have no mental health issues or grudges against anyone, or have political or religious affiliations on the day they choose to become a gun owner. And then somewhere down the line, months, years or decades....something becomes a trigger and they become a killer. Sometimes it's as simple as them having a bad day. Sure. As you say there's a black market everywhere. But why make it so easy to obtain a gun? Why sell in supermarkets? Why require minimal background checks and virtually none when it comes to second hand sales? And that's before you take into account the huge number of legally owned guns that are stolen. Here's an idea. Let people have as many guns as they want. But change the law so they can only have 6 bullets each. Plenty enough to protect themselves (as many claim) from muggings, robberies and car jackings. Plenty enough to be the 'good guy with a gun' that never seems to e present at the right time in the right place. But not enough to kill more than 6 people even if they're a crack shot. Would definitely put an end to all those pesky double digit gun massacres that upset the NRA and the gun lobbyists.......
A
You should be able to spot them in an education environment? If they’re doing their jobs right. Why aren’t the parents seeing it either? That’s sever neglect in both parties right there.
I suppose we could go around the issue a million ways. It just doesn’t sit right with me that guns are always the thing to blame when 99 percent of guns never get used to murder kids?
Maybe one day the balance will be gotten right. It seems to be right in Canada? Maybe the parents and teachers are more vigilant? Maybe the school system is better. Who knows? "See that's where your argument fails. You've stated that if guns are taken away then these incidents would still happen but with more basic weapons. So why aren't they? Either here, elsewhere in Europe, in Australia and even in the USA? They don't. Which kind of fucks up your 'it's not about the guns' argument. The simple fact is that guns enable someone to cause maximum damage with minimum effort. It doesn't matter if your target is older, stronger, faster, smarter or further away. Any other weapon requires you to be up close and personal and to be quicker or stronger than your target. At least quicker and stronger than the second......... Stop looking at schools in isolation. There's no point. It doesn't matter if it's a school, a church, an office building, a McDonalds, a concert, a sporting event or a political rally. At present there is nothing that can be done to stop mass killings. And that's down to easy access to guns. Pure and simple. A | |||
| |||
" It’s also the only time anyone gives a fuck about guns. " Speak for yourself. I was against guns last week too. | |||
"Terror attacks and genocides have both been committed with knives and machetes. And I’m the case of terrorism, people did very little to prevent that, they all ran for their life or froze because a knife will still strike the same fear into an unarmed person as a gun." That is, in fact, simply incorrect. A number of terror attacks in the UK have involved members of the public disarming terrorists. And I can't believe you actually think a knife will evoke 'the same fear' as a gun. Nevertheless, you are clearly set in your view, though I'm unclear why you seem to present the situation as an either/or. | |||
"Terror attacks and genocides have both been committed with knives and machetes. And I’m the case of terrorism, people did very little to prevent that, they all ran for their life or froze because a knife will still strike the same fear into an unarmed person as a gun. That is, in fact, simply incorrect. A number of terror attacks in the UK have involved members of the public disarming terrorists. And I can't believe you actually think a knife will evoke 'the same fear' as a gun. Nevertheless, you are clearly set in your view, though I'm unclear why you seem to present the situation as an either/or. " Indeed, I'm not aware of another country where a terrorist has been disarmed and incapacitated with a narwhal tusk and a fire extinguisher. Only in the UK. | |||
"Terror attacks and genocides have both been committed with knives and machetes. And I’m the case of terrorism, people did very little to prevent that, they all ran for their life or froze because a knife will still strike the same fear into an unarmed person as a gun. That is, in fact, simply incorrect. A number of terror attacks in the UK have involved members of the public disarming terrorists. And I can't believe you actually think a knife will evoke 'the same fear' as a gun. Nevertheless, you are clearly set in your view, though I'm unclear why you seem to present the situation as an either/or. " It’s not an either/or. My title was the root. You can’t do anything without attending to the root. Especially not in a case like the US. Taking all the guns back ISNT going to happen, it physically can’t. Thus, these shooting will still happen. So what’s the alternative approach? To make sure these kids don’t keep on being created! | |||
| |||
" It’s also the only time anyone gives a fuck about guns. Speak for yourself. I was against guns last week too." I’m speaking for the people in power in the US. They don’t care until it’s politically important for them. Every weekend the Chicago death toll ticks higher and higher. But those deaths aren’t something that shock the voter base. Also, a gun can’t hurt you. Only a person with a gun can. | |||
| |||
"Still waiting for the explanation of why gun sales can't cease, and amnesties occur. I know I'm repeating myself, I didn't want you to be the only one." The guns already exist. You think they are going anywhere now? You know the saying “no point in closing the door after the horse had bolted”. You could always train your horse not to bolt though? Maybe keep your eye out for it displaying nervous behaviour so you can close the door before it bolts? See what I’m saying? | |||
" Also, a gun can’t hurt you. Only a person with a gun can. " And a person without a gun can't, all other factors being equal. | |||
"Hang on... "genocide has been committed with a machete"???? No it hasn't. Ever. Given the definition of the term, you'd need a couple of hundred machetes at the very least. " Don’t be obtuse. You know very well that the point was that people with murderous intent don’t need to have a gun to do it. | |||
"Still waiting for the explanation of why gun sales can't cease, and amnesties occur. I know I'm repeating myself, I didn't want you to be the only one. The guns already exist. You think they are going anywhere now? You know the saying “no point in closing the door after the horse had bolted”. You could always train your horse not to bolt though? Maybe keep your eye out for it displaying nervous behaviour so you can close the door before it bolts? See what I’m saying?" Perhaps you can look up the concept of "gun amnesty" instead of torturing a metaphor? | |||
"Hang on... "genocide has been committed with a machete"???? No it hasn't. Ever. Given the definition of the term, you'd need a couple of hundred machetes at the very least. Don’t be obtuse. You know very well that the point was that people with murderous intent don’t need to have a gun to do it." I'm obtuse????  | |||
"You can’t do anything without attending to the root. Especially not in a case like the US. Taking all the guns back ISNT going to happen, it physically can’t. Thus, these shooting will still happen. So what’s the alternative approach? To make sure these kids don’t keep on being created!" The approach is the one that I think everyone in this thread has agreed on. Increase gun control *and* do a better job of making sure such children don't fall through the net. Incidentally, I don't think anyone is suggesting all the guns should be taken back. That's the sort of thing the NRA scare people with, but no one is actually calling for that. Instead, they are saying we should make it harder for kids - or anyone - to get hold of guns. The reason why it is necessary to start with gun control is that assisting troubled teens is a long-term approach and how many shootings will happen in the meantine. Additionally, I'm not sure why you think potential shooters will be so easy to spot. It doesn't take a neglectful parent or teacher to struggle to discern if a lonely depressed teenager is a killer in the making, or simply a lonely depressed teen. So, some children will continue to fall through the net and when they do it should be haed work for them tonget hold of a gun. And, as we know from people with suicidal ideation, if there are barriers in the way of killing it *will* cause some people to reconsider, or put the idea on hold. They can then seek the kind of support that they need. | |||
"Many people believe that access to guns is the cause of school shootings in the US. Since the year 2000 (22 years) there have been 13 large scale school shootings (the US didn’t seem to have a school shooter issue before then even though there were just as many guns). By large scale, that’s indiscriminate shootings that resulted in double figures deaths and injuries (Sandy Hook, Columbine etc). The rest have all been gang related, accidents and personal grudges. Almost ALL major school shootings have been perpetrated by disgruntled students of the same school, one exception being Sandy Hook. There may be a few others but that is usually the case. While they should NEVER happen at all, guns are not the problem. These kids would do the exact same thing with guns or not, they’d use a knife or axe. The problem is allowing these murderous broken kids to fall out of society, to be bullied, to be forgotten, to not be included. To not be seen going down that path towards murder. There is also a huge problem with society’s weird obsessive love with mass murderers (Dahmer, Bundy, Jack the Ripper etc etc). These people earn cult followings! They are lauded, admired. Murder is a fast track ticket to infamy. Especially when kids are involved. One moment they essentially don’t exist, they walk through hundreds of people feeling unseen… they then take that out on others and become immortalised. Within minutes they will never ever be forgotten. They will never ever have a face no one recognises. The kids that are killed are important… but so was that kid who picked up a gun after months and years of abuse, bullying, being ostracised. That could have been stopped. Pulling a trigger is always the end point of years of parents and teachers not being engaged enough to see where that kid is heading." Absolutely outstanding post OP. I totally respect and admire your empathy. Due to MSM we are sooo quick to blame the guns or the mental state of the "shooter". Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Then their is the mental health thing. What put them in that mental state. "BULLYING" As you say. Schools need a more proactive attitude towards this. Not an excuse at all for their actions but 100% a catalyst. These people are on the outskirts of society and don't fit in. They are constantly reminded of this. To digress. I totally blame social media. If you don't have followers or create content that impresses your peers you are an outcast. Human nature dictates we are pack animals and have a need to fit in to a pack. If you dont feel that and you are a bullied loner how alone must you feel. As you suggest OP they just want noticed unfortunately actions like this is the only way they feel they can achieve this. Yes the access to guns can make this easier in certain states but as OP says knives can do same damage. Would you run toward a mad man with a knife any quicker than a man with a gun?? Probably not. Most suggest stricter gun laws. But what does this achieve. A shit load of criminals with illegal guns with no fear of robbing a law abiding citizen because they know they no longer have access to guns to defend themselves. Most gun crime by statistics is committed with illegal guns. Do we think tightening gun laws for law abiding citizens will stop this??? | |||
" Also, a gun can’t hurt you. Only a person with a gun can. And a person without a gun can't, all other factors being equal. " Really? Not even a person with a hammer? A knife? A brick? Fuck it, a prosthetic foot? If a person wants to do you harm, they will. Again, intent matters more than the tool. | |||
" It’s also the only time anyone gives a fuck about guns. Speak for yourself. I was against guns last week too. I’m speaking for the people in power in the US. They don’t care until it’s politically important for them. Every weekend the Chicago death toll ticks higher and higher. But those deaths aren’t something that shock the voter base. Also, a gun can’t hurt you. Only a person with a gun can. " Cool. So take away the gun and it's harder for that person to hurt you. Because......logic! And Chicago. That city that everyone comments on because apparently they have strict gun laws and lots of gun deaths so obviously gun laws don't work? Utter bollocks. Until there are border controls between each state and a means to stop people coming from A to B with guns it doesn't matter one bit whether one state has tighter laws than another. It doesn't matter the number of guns out there. It's a question of scale. It just means it'll be harder to do but it's certainly not impossible to stop selling guns, have amnesties/buy backs, ban private ownership and increase sentences for illegal gun possesion. Sure. It'll take take. Many, many years. But it took time and many, many years to end sl*very. Pretty sure sl*ve ownership used to be in that pesky constitution for a while too.........
A | |||
"The guns already exist. You think they are going anywhere now?" Gun amnestys work. | |||
"Still waiting for the explanation of why gun sales can't cease, and amnesties occur. I know I'm repeating myself, I didn't want you to be the only one. The guns already exist. You think they are going anywhere now? You know the saying “no point in closing the door after the horse had bolted”. You could always train your horse not to bolt though? Maybe keep your eye out for it displaying nervous behaviour so you can close the door before it bolts? See what I’m saying? Perhaps you can look up the concept of "gun amnesty" instead of torturing a metaphor?" Perhaps you can attempt to refute my point? | |||
" Most gun crime by statistics is committed with illegal guns. Do we think tightening gun laws for law abiding citizens will stop this??? " I'm so sick to death of hearing this phrase 'illegal guns'.
Where are all these 'iilegal gun' factories in the USA, churning out thousands of 'illegal guns' that are then 'illegally sold' to people?
There aren't any.
I'm sure there's the odd homemade firearm out there. But pretty much each and every gun used in crime was manufactured legally by a company in the USA, sold legally to someone who wanted it for whatever bullshit reason and who then had it stolen or sold it on and it then entered the black market or backstreet arms trade.
But they started out perfectly legal.
Why not reduce the number of 'illegal' guns out there by doing one simple thing?
Stop making guns to sell to the public. It's not fucking rocket science is it? Make less, sell less, lose less, and eventually if you remove what you can from current circulation then the total number out there will reduce.
Fuck me - it's simple maths!
Unless you're American it seems.......
A | |||
" It’s also the only time anyone gives a fuck about guns. Speak for yourself. I was against guns last week too. I’m speaking for the people in power in the US. They don’t care until it’s politically important for them. Every weekend the Chicago death toll ticks higher and higher. But those deaths aren’t something that shock the voter base. Also, a gun can’t hurt you. Only a person with a gun can. Cool. So take away the gun and it's harder for that person to hurt you. Because......logic! And Chicago. That city that everyone comments on because apparently they have strict gun laws and lots of gun deaths so obviously gun laws don't work? Utter bollocks. Until there are border controls between each state and a means to stop people coming from A to B with guns it doesn't matter one bit whether one state has tighter laws than another. It doesn't matter the number of guns out there. It's a question of scale. It just means it'll be harder to do but it's certainly not impossible to stop selling guns, have amnesties/buy backs, ban private ownership and increase sentences for illegal gun possesion. Sure. It'll take take. Many, many years. But it took time and many, many years to end sl*very. Pretty sure sl*ve ownership used to be in that pesky constitution for a while too.........
A"The reason I used Chicago is purely because, yes, there are lots of restrictions, but, there are also large numbers of people there with murderous intent. Look at London, there are huge restrictions on knives, and yet there are still many young men and women dying after having a 15 inch blade put through them. I’m not saying that gun control is a bad idea. What I am saying is that it has to be all or nothing for it to ever be more effective than tightening the net on disenfranchised young men. | |||
"Yes the access to guns can make this easier in certain states but as OP says knives can do same damage. Would you run toward a mad man with a knife any quicker than a man with a gun?? Probably not. " I'm struggling to follow some of the logic in this thread. The 'same' damage? Of course not. A child can run down a hallway and potentially escape from the knifed teen. If said teen has a gun, the same child will be shot in the back as they run off. Would I run towards a mad man with a knife if there was a classroom of children behind me? Of course, wouldn't you? In fact, I may simply pick up a chair and use it to delay the attacker. That would be pretty pointless against a gun. | |||
"Still waiting for the explanation of why gun sales can't cease, and amnesties occur. I know I'm repeating myself, I didn't want you to be the only one. The guns already exist. You think they are going anywhere now? You know the saying “no point in closing the door after the horse had bolted”. You could always train your horse not to bolt though? Maybe keep your eye out for it displaying nervous behaviour so you can close the door before it bolts? See what I’m saying? Perhaps you can look up the concept of "gun amnesty" instead of torturing a metaphor? Perhaps you can attempt to refute my point?" Guns existed widely in private hands in the UK and Australia til we restricted private ownership with new laws and guess what.....had gun amnesties. They work. Point refuted. And if you think it couldn't in the USA that just highlights how fucking dumb people there are, not that it couldn't be done if they really wanted to. A | |||
" Most gun crime by statistics is committed with illegal guns. Do we think tightening gun laws for law abiding citizens will stop this??? I'm so sick to death of hearing this phrase 'illegal guns'.
Where are all these 'iilegal gun' factories in the USA, churning out thousands of 'illegal guns' that are then 'illegally sold' to people?
There aren't any.
I'm sure there's the odd homemade firearm out there. But pretty much each and every gun used in crime was manufactured legally by a company in the USA, sold legally to someone who wanted it for whatever bullshit reason and who then had it stolen or sold it on and it then entered the black market or backstreet arms trade.
But they started out perfectly legal.
Why not reduce the number of 'illegal' guns out there by doing one simple thing?
Stop making guns to sell to the public. It's not fucking rocket science is it? Make less, sell less, lose less, and eventually if you remove what you can from current circulation then the total number out there will reduce.
Fuck me - it's simple maths!
Unless you're American it seems.......
A"So, no one should have guns then? That’s what I mean, this issue is either all or nothing. You either take all of them away (they can’t) or you take none of them away and you start fixing the society that creates these people. | |||
"Look at London, there are huge restrictions on knives, and yet there are still many young men and women dying after having a 15 inch blade put through them. " Ah that old chestnut. Funny that the UK lags far behind the USA in knife crime per capita as well as gun crime. You'd think that with all those guns available the yanks wouldn't bother stabbing eachother........... A | |||
| |||
"Look at London, there are huge restrictions on knives, and yet there are still many young men and women dying after having a 15 inch blade put through them. Ah that old chestnut. Funny that the UK lags far behind the USA in knife crime per capita as well as gun crime. You'd think that with all those guns available the yanks wouldn't bother stabbing eachother........... A" We have an entirely different culture! I would like to imagine that our school system is vastly better than the US, I have four sons and if any of them has even a slightly blue day the teachers are on it straight away! But in both places the restrictions make no difference at all to someone who wants to murder someone else. It’s as simple as that. | |||
"Ah yes, the absolutely logical take that having a fuck load of guns in your country has nothing to do with there being a fuck load of mass shootings. Impressively delusional. " The US isn’t the only country to have fuck loads of guns. So maybe there’s something in the culture besides the firearms that creates these mini mass murderers? No? | |||
" It’s also the only time anyone gives a fuck about guns. Speak for yourself. I was against guns last week too. I’m speaking for the people in power in the US. They don’t care until it’s politically important for them. Every weekend the Chicago death toll ticks higher and higher. But those deaths aren’t something that shock the voter base. Also, a gun can’t hurt you. Only a person with a gun can. Cool. So take away the gun and it's harder for that person to hurt you. Because......logic! And Chicago. That city that everyone comments on because apparently they have strict gun laws and lots of gun deaths so obviously gun laws don't work? Utter bollocks. Until there are border controls between each state and a means to stop people coming from A to B with guns it doesn't matter one bit whether one state has tighter laws than another. It doesn't matter the number of guns out there. It's a question of scale. It just means it'll be harder to do but it's certainly not impossible to stop selling guns, have amnesties/buy backs, ban private ownership and increase sentences for illegal gun possesion. Sure. It'll take take. Many, many years. But it took time and many, many years to end sl*very. Pretty sure sl*ve ownership used to be in that pesky constitution for a while too.........
A"Are you actually comparing gun ownership to sl×#ery? Come on? One is a human right the other is a horrendous scab on humanity. Gun ownership is a second ammendment right. Yes the constitution has been amended to abolish sla#×ry. But if you abolish the right to bear arms. Humans have absolutely no right to hunt. We are hunter gatherers by nature. | |||
"Look at London, there are huge restrictions on knives, and yet there are still many young men and women dying after having a 15 inch blade put through them. Ah that old chestnut. Funny that the UK lags far behind the USA in knife crime per capita as well as gun crime. You'd think that with all those guns available the yanks wouldn't bother stabbing eachother........... A" Also, that just goes to show it’s not the gun? If you have access to guns and they are what cause murders why would you bother using a knife? Oh, because the tool doesn’t matter, the wanting to murder someone no matter what tool you use does! I remember now… | |||
" Also, a gun can’t hurt you. Only a person with a gun can. And a person without a gun can't, all other factors being equal. Really? Not even a person with a hammer? A knife? A brick? Fuck it, a prosthetic foot? If a person wants to do you harm, they will. Again, intent matters more than the tool." If you think you can kill twenty plus people in a very short time span with a brick, a knife or a prosthesis, you're bonkers. Killing from a safe distance from behind a gun is a completely different ball game and mental space to bludgeoning someone to death or stabbing them to death. Bludgeoning and stabbing take a degree of strength, often repetitive movement and the victim will fight back. You are likely to be injured in the struggle. It's physically demanding and you will become tired from the effort. Standing at the other side of a room or down a hallway with your finger on the trigger is completely different. It's much more impersonal and far easier to dehumanise the individual because you are not within arm's reach, looking into the whites of their eyes, so to speak, as you murder them. And no, the Rwandan genocide was not committed with a machete. It was committed with rifles, machetes and r@pe. Lots and lots of the thing beginning with R. And with the fear of being killed yourself (moderate Hutu who tried to assist or shelter Tutsi people were themselves killed. | |||
"Look at London, there are huge restrictions on knives, and yet there are still many young men and women dying after having a 15 inch blade put through them. Ah that old chestnut. Funny that the UK lags far behind the USA in knife crime per capita as well as gun crime. You'd think that with all those guns available the yanks wouldn't bother stabbing eachother........... A We have an entirely different culture! I would like to imagine that our school system is vastly better than the US, I have four sons and if any of them has even a slightly blue day the teachers are on it straight away! But in both places the restrictions make no difference at all to someone who wants to murder someone else. It’s as simple as that. " The only difference is we don't have easy access to guns. There are the same issues faced by kids in schools, adults in work and people in all walks of life in all parts of society. We just don't have the option of going home and picking up a gun, or going to asda and buying one, or having one of our kids steal one of our guns that they can't buy themselves. We have people with mental health problems, substance abuse issues, depression, anger management, social anxiety, racial/religion based hatred....all the bad things that are out there in any society. Except easy access to guns. That is the over-riding difference between us and America. The over-riding 'cultural' difference is a perceived need to own a gun. That is all. A | |||
"Ah yes, the absolutely logical take that having a fuck load of guns in your country has nothing to do with there being a fuck load of mass shootings. Impressively delusional. The US isn’t the only country to have fuck loads of guns. So maybe there’s something in the culture besides the firearms that creates these mini mass murderers? No? " The US is way out ahead on the leader board of gun ownership per person. And no shit there's something in the culture - a gun culture that celebrates and glamourises guns and encourages their use. | |||
| |||
"But if you abolish the right to bear arms. Humans have absolutely no right to hunt. We are hunter gatherers by nature. " Bullshit. You can legally own a hunting rifle in the UK. You can legally own a shotgun. You can in certain parts of the UK still legally own a handgun. Yet we don't have a constitutional 'right to bear arms', so sorry but I'm calling bullshit on your assertion that removing the 2nd amendment will prevent people from hunting. It'll prevent people from walking the streets with AR15's, or handguns on their belts, or having a starbucks whilst nestling a shotgun on their knee. Removing the right to bear arms doesn't mean no gun ownership. It just removes the perceived 'right' of any and every total fucking moron to possess one just because it says they can on a piece of centuries old paper. Get with the times FFS. The wild west ended a long time ago. A | |||
"Ah yes, the absolutely logical take that having a fuck load of guns in your country has nothing to do with there being a fuck load of mass shootings. Impressively delusional. The US isn’t the only country to have fuck loads of guns. So maybe there’s something in the culture besides the firearms that creates these mini mass murderers? No? The US is way out ahead on the leader board of gun ownership per person. And no shit there's something in the culture - a gun culture that celebrates and glamourises guns and encourages their use. " That’s true, and yet they aren’t all dead even though they have more guns than people? So again, considering most of their guns don’t end up killing people, maybe the owness should fall on the people and root causes rather than just saying guns bad. I did mention culture in my op. Only my mention was of the part of the culture that allows lost kids to propel themselves into infamy via murder. | |||
" Most gun crime by statistics is committed with illegal guns. Do we think tightening gun laws for law abiding citizens will stop this??? I'm so sick to death of hearing this phrase 'illegal guns'.
Where are all these 'iilegal gun' factories in the USA, churning out thousands of 'illegal guns' that are then 'illegally sold' to people?
There aren't any.
I'm sure there's the odd homemade firearm out there. But pretty much each and every gun used in crime was manufactured legally by a company in the USA, sold legally to someone who wanted it for whatever bullshit reason and who then had it stolen or sold it on and it then entered the black market or backstreet arms trade.
But they started out perfectly legal.
Why not reduce the number of 'illegal' guns out there by doing one simple thing?
Stop making guns to sell to the public. It's not fucking rocket science is it? Make less, sell less, lose less, and eventually if you remove what you can from current circulation then the total number out there will reduce.
Fuck me - it's simple maths!
Unless you're American it seems.......
A
So, no one should have guns then? That’s what I mean, this issue is either all or nothing. You either take all of them away (they can’t) or you take none of them away and you start fixing the society that creates these people."What nonsense. These "illegal" guns were in circulation before strict gun laws came Into effect. No factories churning out "illegal" guns. As in uk before 96 I think. Responsible gun owners either handed in or registered their firearms. Look at London and Liverpool for example more firearm crime than anywhere in Europe. Also glasgow is the murder capital per capita in Europe. We have strict gun and knife laws. So sorry but your point is irrelevant. Criminals will always find a way. Plus "illegal" is self explanatory. It's not legal yet Criminals seem to have them regardless. | |||
"The argument that if you want to kill people it doesn't matter what weapons you have available is so utterly stupid. By this logic, let people have plutonium and build their own nukes, they'd kill millions with a knife anyway! " Stupid comparison. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" What nonsense. These "illegal" guns were in circulation before strict gun laws came Into effect. No factories churning out "illegal" guns. As in uk before 96 I think. Responsible gun owners either handed in or registered their firearms. Look at London and Liverpool for example more firearm crime than anywhere in Europe. Also glasgow is the murder capital per capita in Europe. We have strict gun and knife laws. So sorry but your point is irrelevant. Criminals will always find a way. Plus "illegal" is self explanatory. It's not legal yet Criminals seem to have them regardless." If an American buys a gun tomorrow (legally) and it's stolen next week it becomes illegal, yes? It was still perfectly legal when originally purchased. Criminals will always try to find a way. So why make it easy for them? Otherwise what's the point of having any laws if some people will break them? Why not just make everything legal? Because....you know....criminals and stuff........ A | |||
"The argument that if you want to kill people it doesn't matter what weapons you have available is so utterly stupid. By this logic, let people have plutonium and build their own nukes, they'd kill millions with a knife anyway! Stupid comparison. " Agreed. It's a false equivalence statement which is not pertinent. | |||
| |||
"But if you abolish the right to bear arms. Humans have absolutely no right to hunt. We are hunter gatherers by nature. Bullshit. You can legally own a hunting rifle in the UK. You can legally own a shotgun. You can in certain parts of the UK still legally own a handgun. Yet we don't have a constitutional 'right to bear arms', so sorry but I'm calling bullshit on your assertion that removing the 2nd amendment will prevent people from hunting. It'll prevent people from walking the streets with AR15's, or handguns on their belts, or having a starbucks whilst nestling a shotgun on their knee. Removing the right to bear arms doesn't mean no gun ownership. It just removes the perceived 'right' of any and every total fucking moron to possess one just because it says they can on a piece of centuries old paper. Get with the times FFS. The wild west ended a long time ago. A" Right so you are agreeing with my point? Strict checks allows you to have a gun legally?? As here in UK?? You do realise this is case in most states in the US?? Gun laws are not the problem. People are the problem. Take Canada for example. More LEGAL guns per population capita than the US yet very little gun crime are guns a Problem in Canada???? You only now mention AR15. Is that your true beef?? I do kinda agree with you here. U could argue an assault rifle is not needed for home or personal defence. That said the lax law on these guns tend to be in the southern border states. Which tend to have a high "Mexican Cartel" insurge. Putting yourself In the shoes of family protection against this. Would u rather have a single shot rifle, shotgun, or an assault rifle in the name of protection???? P.s handguns are only legal in northern ireland and for gamekeepers in uk at a push. | |||
| |||
" What nonsense. These "illegal" guns were in circulation before strict gun laws came Into effect. No factories churning out "illegal" guns. As in uk before 96 I think. Responsible gun owners either handed in or registered their firearms. Look at London and Liverpool for example more firearm crime than anywhere in Europe. Also glasgow is the murder capital per capita in Europe. We have strict gun and knife laws. So sorry but your point is irrelevant. Criminals will always find a way. Plus "illegal" is self explanatory. It's not legal yet Criminals seem to have them regardless. If an American buys a gun tomorrow (legally) and it's stolen next week it becomes illegal, yes? It was still perfectly legal when originally purchased. Criminals will always try to find a way. So why make it easy for them? Otherwise what's the point of having any laws if some people will break them? Why not just make everything legal? Because....you know....criminals and stuff........ A" In theory yes. But a legal gun is registered serial no ect. If that is stolen then a responsible owner would report the theft immediately. In most states gun theft is extremely low. As in UK. They must be stored in very specific and safely locked conditions. Not all movies are accurate. Also every gun has a unique identity. Rifeling in barrel ect. In layman's terms a fingerprint. Legally REGISTERED guns being stolen and used for crime are few and far between. | |||
" What nonsense. These "illegal" guns were in circulation before strict gun laws came Into effect. No factories churning out "illegal" guns. As in uk before 96 I think. Responsible gun owners either handed in or registered their firearms. Look at London and Liverpool for example more firearm crime than anywhere in Europe. Also glasgow is the murder capital per capita in Europe. We have strict gun and knife laws. So sorry but your point is irrelevant. Criminals will always find a way. Plus "illegal" is self explanatory. It's not legal yet Criminals seem to have them regardless. If an American buys a gun tomorrow (legally) and it's stolen next week it becomes illegal, yes? It was still perfectly legal when originally purchased. Criminals will always try to find a way. So why make it easy for them? Otherwise what's the point of having any laws if some people will break them? Why not just make everything legal? Because....you know....criminals and stuff........ A In theory yes. But a legal gun is registered serial no ect. If that is stolen then a responsible owner would report the theft immediately. In most states gun theft is extremely low. As in UK. They must be stored in very specific and safely locked conditions. Not all movies are accurate. Also every gun has a unique identity. Rifeling in barrel ect. In layman's terms a fingerprint. Legally REGISTERED guns being stolen and used for crime are few and far between. " Registered? Bwahahahahaha. Is there a database for every gun sold and owned in the USA? Really? From the NRA-ILA website. " There is no universal, national gun registry or federal license required to own a gun, and the vast majority of states don’t require registration or licensing" "Federal law prohibits a universal, national gun registry. Eight states prohibit state-level gun registries. Only Hawaii requires registration of all firearms, while only a few states require registration of certain firearms. Only three states (Ill., Mass., and N.J.) require a license for all guns. New York requires a license for handguns." So sorry. But again, calling bullshit on that argument. As for 'kept in locked conditions'? Again. Bwahahahaha. Here's some stats about the USA a quick Google produced. In 2020, there were 369 unintentional shootings by children, 142 of which resulted in death. An analysis of 145 school shootings since 1999 found that 80 percent of the firearms used were taken from the student’s home or the home of a family member or friend. Both gun dealers and individual gun owners are targets for gun thieves. An estimated 200,000 to 400,000 firearms are stolen every year. And in an analysis of 23,000 stolen firearms recovered by police officers, the majority of these weapons were found to later be used in crimes such as murders, armed robberies, and kidna*pings. In 2019, the FBI reported that more than $116 million worth of firearms were stolen and that only 11.6 percent of these firearms were able to be recovered. A 2017 study found that the people most susceptible to gun theft are those who own a large number of guns, frequently carry guns outside of their homes, or do not practice safe storage methods in their home. Massachusetts is currently the only state to require that gun owners store their firearms locked when not in use. I could go on. But it's pretty easy to counter every single point you made. But keep telling us guns aren't the problem. A | |||
"This is an issue only the Americans can resolve. They have to maintain a balance between second amendment rights versus the safety of the public." And that there is the problem. Those two things are not equal. There is no balance - safety of the public far outweighs their beloved (and misinterpreted) 2nd amendment rights. What amuses me about the boner they all get over the 2nd amendment is that it was literally a change to the constitution, i.e an amendment. So updating and changing the apparently sacred document is hardly an alien idea, or unthinkable proposition. | |||
| |||
"The same Americans that scream ‘pro-life’? You can’t be selective about it. They will never change. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"This is an issue only the Americans can resolve. They have to maintain a balance between second amendment rights versus the safety of the public. And that there is the problem. Those two things are not equal. There is no balance - safety of the public far outweighs their beloved (and misinterpreted) 2nd amendment rights. What amuses me about the boner they all get over the 2nd amendment is that it was literally a change to the constitution, i.e an amendment. So updating and changing the apparently sacred document is hardly an alien idea, or unthinkable proposition." I’m sensing sarcasm/disdain towards that part of the constitution. As I said, it is for Americans to decide. As Brits, we are happy with our gun laws but our history is different to theirs. I’m trying to maintain a neutral stance given my nationality | |||
"Terror attacks and genocides have both been committed with knives and machetes. And I’m the case of terrorism, people did very little to prevent that, they all ran for their life or froze because a knife will still strike the same fear into an unarmed person as a gun. That is, in fact, simply incorrect. A number of terror attacks in the UK have involved members of the public disarming terrorists. And I can't believe you actually think a knife will evoke 'the same fear' as a gun. Nevertheless, you are clearly set in your view, though I'm unclear why you seem to present the situation as an either/or. Indeed, I'm not aware of another country where a terrorist has been disarmed and incapacitated with a narwhal tusk and a fire extinguisher. Only in the UK. " One got taken out by an australian with a big heavy drain cover. There was also a menaly dusturbed guy who tried to go on a stabbing spree in a Birmingham department store a few years ago who got smashed up by the 2 security guys using a bat and golf club. | |||
| |||
" What nonsense. These "illegal" guns were in circulation before strict gun laws came Into effect. No factories churning out "illegal" guns. As in uk before 96 I think. Responsible gun owners either handed in or registered their firearms. Look at London and Liverpool for example more firearm crime than anywhere in Europe. Also glasgow is the murder capital per capita in Europe. We have strict gun and knife laws. So sorry but your point is irrelevant. Criminals will always find a way. Plus "illegal" is self explanatory. It's not legal yet Criminals seem to have them regardless. If an American buys a gun tomorrow (legally) and it's stolen next week it becomes illegal, yes? It was still perfectly legal when originally purchased. Criminals will always try to find a way. So why make it easy for them? Otherwise what's the point of having any laws if some people will break them? Why not just make everything legal? Because....you know....criminals and stuff........ A In theory yes. But a legal gun is registered serial no ect. If that is stolen then a responsible owner would report the theft immediately. In most states gun theft is extremely low. As in UK. They must be stored in very specific and safely locked conditions. Not all movies are accurate. Also every gun has a unique identity. Rifeling in barrel ect. In layman's terms a fingerprint. Legally REGISTERED guns being stolen and used for crime are few and far between. " You can legally make a gun from an 80% parts kit that has no serial number and is legal to own and use just not sell unless you serial number it and are a licenced gun maker. This is one loop hole they are trying to shut in the states... But will probably fail. But if they do ban 80% kits get ready for 70% kits. The percentage is the amount of assembly and drilling and stuff you have to do to complete the gun. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Access to guns is absolutely the problem despite what the pro lobbyists say. They keep quoting the constitution but it was written when the most advanced weapons were muskets. Now they have automatic rifles. The constitution is hugely out of date. I don't understand why they can't see that it needs to be rewritten for these modern times. "That’s true, that was the weaponry then, but the tragedy of mass shootings is relatively new. High powered high capacity firearms have been around in the US since the end of the First World War. And yet these incidents didn’t start occurring for another several decades? So those guns weren’t the problem? Even though they were just as lethal. So maybe, just maybe, it’s something in society that is causing these people to do this in the first place? There are hundreds of millions of guns, more than people, and most of them never get turned on a person, and even less get used in these types of mass murder events? It seems to me, that if you stop the creation of these monsters, you stop the incidents? Also, no one has an automatic weapon, they are illegal. And side note, most shootings are with pistols not rifles. Not that that makes it better, it’s just ridiculous that after every event where a handgun was used the target for gun control is not the weapons that were used? I agree with someone else’s post though where they said to let every one have as many guns as they want, but limit the bullets they can own at any one time. | |||
"I’m sensing sarcasm/disdain towards that part of the constitution." | |||
"No disdain at all. However, I don't think the constitution needs to be held as sacrosanct. I was merely making 2 points. Firstly, the 2nd amendment is ofte misunderstood and misapplied. Secondly, the 2nd amendment is literally an amendment- a change. It demonstrates that the constitution needn't be perceived as a static or unalterable document. I’m sensing sarcasm/disdain towards that part of the constitution." Understood, I see your point | |||
