FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Breaking news! Orlando shootings
Breaking news! Orlando shootings
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Wasn't terrorism. Some guy got sacked from his job and decided to shoot some people. Crazy" Yes just read that, what goes on though it's all you hear lately, scary | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. " Yes not terrorism. Thank god | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? " it was hours ago...not just now..on the bbc site earlier | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god " Mmmm. I don't think there's a relief in one situation or the other. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god " Tell that to the 5 dead uns | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god " Yes, because people are much more dead when they've been killed by a terrorist. Phew!  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god " Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god I didn't intend it like that Yes, because people are much more dead when they've been killed by a terrorist. Phew! " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? " I didn't mean it like that , | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? " Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , " Out of interest how did you intend it? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? " Seriously!! It wasn't instead to read like that. I put it the wrong way , jeez | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy" That was a crude joke, right? Mass shootings in America aren't any more frequent than mass stabbings in London. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited " *was not | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? Seriously!! It wasn't instead to read like that. I put it the wrong way , jeez " Let her be! Obviously you all took it out of context. It's a relief of course that we don't end up having terrorist acts as a daily occurance. It's clear to everyone that a loss of life is sad whatever the cause, but we don't even hear that every day more than 5 people die in car accidents or the like. When terrorism is involved people may be dead just as much but it's definitely alarming above any other deadly cause ( viruses probably a bit more so tbh) | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead..." or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. " Arm bearing is the best way known to humans to protect lives. Even though they aren't without limitations . The shooting in Orlando was where people are allowed to carry guns. Sadly, we in UK aren't alowed to carry a toothpick and thus become easy victims of anyone who decides to attack. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. " Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Arm bearing is the best way known to humans to protect lives. Even though they aren't without limitations . The shooting in Orlando was where people are allowed to carry guns. Sadly, we in UK aren't alowed to carry a toothpick and thus become easy victims of anyone who decides to attack. " So, people in Orlando are allowed to carry guns and there is a chance that someone other than the shooter had a legal gun... yet 5 people are still dead. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel" I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy That was a crude joke, right? Mass shootings in America aren't any more frequent than mass stabbings in London. " Well ues they are. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence That was the first of many, many links supporting my claim I found in google. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Arm bearing is the best way known to humans to protect lives. Even though they aren't without limitations . The shooting in Orlando was where people are allowed to carry guns. Sadly, we in UK aren't alowed to carry a toothpick and thus become easy victims of anyone who decides to attack. So, people in Orlando are allowed to carry guns and there is a chance that someone other than the shooter had a legal gun... yet 5 people are still dead. " And your point? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. " then you should never be allowed near any weapons on account of you having the wrong attitude | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. " Is there anuy evicdence that that has ever hapened in America? Or is there lots of evidence that the killers head to where guns are restricted? Oh and 8 minutes from first 999 call to the terrorsists being killed, I;d take that and highly trained armed police over pissed up have a go heroes carrying a gun on a night out, it would be carnage | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Arm bearing is the best way known to humans to protect lives. Even though they aren't without limitations . The shooting in Orlando was where people are allowed to carry guns. Sadly, we in UK aren't alowed to carry a toothpick and thus become easy victims of anyone who decides to attack. So, people in Orlando are allowed to carry guns and there is a chance that someone other than the shooter had a legal gun... yet 5 people are still dead. And your point? " One that you won't get, so there is no point flogging the point. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. " So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Arm bearing is the best way known to humans to protect lives. Even though they aren't without limitations . The shooting in Orlando was where people are allowed to carry guns. Sadly, we in UK aren't alowed to carry a toothpick and thus become easy victims of anyone who decides to attack. So, people in Orlando are allowed to carry guns and there is a chance that someone other than the shooter had a legal gun... yet 5 people are still dead. And your point? One that you won't get, so there is no point flogging the point. " I won't get? How do you know? Can't you see that your statement lucks any logic? Are you allowed to carry an umbrella in England? Do you always carry it? Never been caught out in the rain without one? Or have it but it's too windy and you still get wet? Or simply prefer to dash for cover instead of digging in your bag? Do you get the point or is it too complex of a subject for you? Good night, luv...  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Is this going to be one of those debates where people try and argue that despite 10000 people being killed a year and countless more being injured guns somehow make America safe?" Yep, with some insults and goading thrown in. It's the forum back to normal. 
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy That was a crude joke, right? Mass shootings in America aren't any more frequent than mass stabbings in London. Well ues they are. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence That was the first of many, many links supporting my claim I found in google. " It's a rubbish claim, mate! America has lower crime than UK. In fact, Britain has the highest violent, specific violent crime in the developed countries. Do a bit better research than rely on a quick Google search. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. then you should never be allowed near any weapons on account of you having the wrong attitude" Lol, you are a wind up merchant, I can see that? Wrong attitude to save 7+ 50 people? And your attidude? Oh, well, let the criminals do as they please... We are tolerant country.. Drinking causes brain cells death, mate. Put the bottle away. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy That was a crude joke, right? Mass shootings in America aren't any more frequent than mass stabbings in London. Well ues they are. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence That was the first of many, many links supporting my claim I found in google. It's a rubbish claim, mate! America has lower crime than UK. In fact, Britain has the highest violent, specific violent crime in the developed countries. Do a bit better research than rely on a quick Google search. " Do you have a link yo support your claim that gun crime is so low in America? Or are you dismissing points of view that distract from your opinion? How many people do you think are killed and injured each year then? And is the UK less violemy? Or is what we class as a violent crime a much brosder term? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Is this going to be one of those debates where people try and argue that despite 10000 people being killed a year and countless more being injured guns somehow make America safe?" Of course. Have you not realised yet that America is one of the safest countries in the world? Wait a moment. Have you been there? Actually, do you know where America is? You don't confuse it with Afghanistan by any chance? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. " But...who would carry a gun to work? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. then you should never be allowed near any weapons on account of you having the wrong attitude Lol, you are a wind up merchant, I can see that? Wrong attitude to save 7+ 50 people? And your attidude? Oh, well, let the criminals do as they please... We are tolerant country.. Drinking causes brain cells death, mate. Put the bottle away. " the fact that it's against the law for civilians to carry any kind of weapons shows that society agrees that arming the public is a moronic idea and it puts your way of thinking firmly in the minority thankfully. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. Is there anuy evicdence that that has ever hapened in America? " Hundreds of occasions every year. Hundreds of saved lives because of guns. Thousands more because of the deterrent that gun possession enforces. A would be mugger in England knows he only risks being caught (unlikely) by the police. A would be mugger in US knows he's risking his fucking life for someone's pocket content. Is it worth it ? Nah... I'd better find a job.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. then you should never be allowed near any weapons on account of you having the wrong attitude Lol, you are a wind up merchant, I can see that? Wrong attitude to save 7+ 50 people? And your attidude? Oh, well, let the criminals do as they please... We are tolerant country.. Drinking causes brain cells death, mate. Put the bottle away. " Okay I have to ask. Given the circumstances we know, say you were on tower bridge on Saturday night, you've got a concealed had gun. What would you gave dome to stop the attack and save those 7 lives and stop those people being injured? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. " I don't want armed civilians walking around our children, thanks. Jesus. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. Is there anuy evicdence that that has ever hapened in America? Hundreds of occasions every year. Hundreds of saved lives because of guns. Thousands more because of the deterrent that gun possession enforces. A would be mugger in England knows he only risks being caught (unlikely) by the police. A would be mugger in US knows he's risking his fucking life for someone's pocket content. Is it worth it ? Nah... I'd better find a job.. " So there are zero robberies in the US then?  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. Is there anuy evicdence that that has ever hapened in America? Hundreds of occasions every year. Hundreds of saved lives because of guns. Thousands more because of the deterrent that gun possession enforces. A would be mugger in England knows he only risks being caught (unlikely) by the police. A would be mugger in US knows he's risking his fucking life for someone's pocket content. Is it worth it ? Nah... I'd better find a job.. " The would be mugger in America could be armed? What then? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. " Exactly. I'd rather not have a gun. I'm from America, I'm more used to this argument than I can even explain. People are far more likely to die from their own weapon, or that of a family member, than from a stranger's gun. So no, I don't want a gun, and I don't want to be around people who carry guns. I know people with concealed weapons permits, and I won't be around them when they are carrying...in fact, I leave the house when I know one of their guns isn't locked in their gun safe. Show me the statistics favoring successful defense of civilians by non-police and non-military persons with weapons permits. Try to convince me with facts rather than trite analogies that don't properly apply to the situation being discussed. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. " I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jioso, could you attempt to make a point without flaming? It's not very nice and makes you come across as rude and not very compassionate. " I agree with you, Estella! Thank you for pointing it out. I'm so compassionate about the loss of innocent lives and so passionate about the right and the need to do everything we can to protect ourselves from low lives while facing opposition from all sides, government and people, that I raised my voice a bit. It's a battle of opinion though. I know noone here and have frankly no grudge against anyone. Anyway, for those who are willing to see the truth as it is, there's always plenty of research they can do for themselves. Just don't be a sheep. Use your heads. Good night all! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? Seriously!! It wasn't instead to read like that. I put it the wrong way , jeez Let her be! Obviously you all took it out of context. It's a relief of course that we don't end up having terrorist acts as a daily occurance. It's clear to everyone that a loss of life is sad whatever the cause, but we don't even hear that every day more than 5 people die in car accidents or the like. When terrorism is involved people may be dead just as much but it's definitely alarming above any other deadly cause ( viruses probably a bit more so tbh)" terrorist acts are a daily occurance. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) " So true. But we must let angry, ranty, insult, silly "fact" man have his say. I think I might take up knitting, Courtney seems a fervent fan of it, and I'd like to be able to do it. Can you knit, Lickety? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jioso, could you attempt to make a point without flaming? It's not very nice and makes you come across as rude and not very compassionate. I agree with you, Estella! Thank you for pointing it out. I'm so compassionate about the loss of innocent lives and so passionate about the right and the need to do everything we can to protect ourselves from low lives while facing opposition from all sides, government and people, that I raised my voice a bit. It's a battle of opinion though. I know noone here and have frankly no grudge against anyone. Anyway, for those who are willing to see the truth as it is, there's always plenty of research they can do for themselves. Just don't be a sheep. Use your heads. Good night all! " Do having dismissed evidence that disproves your arguments you think I should go away and Google evidence to prove myself wrong...   | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) So true. But we must let angry, ranty, insult, silly "fact" man have his say. I think I might take up knitting, Courtney seems a fervent fan of it, and I'd like to be able to do it. Can you knit, Lickety?" No, but I'm good at shopping for knitwear. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jioso, could you attempt to make a point without flaming? It's not very nice and makes you come across as rude and not very compassionate. I agree with you, Estella! Thank you for pointing it out. I'm so compassionate about the loss of innocent lives and so passionate about the right and the need to do everything we can to protect ourselves from low lives while facing opposition from all sides, government and people, that I raised my voice a bit. It's a battle of opinion though. I know noone here and have frankly no grudge against anyone. Anyway, for those who are willing to see the truth as it is, there's always plenty of research they can do for themselves. Just don't be a sheep. Use your heads. Good night all! " Glad to hear you agreed you came across badly. You did. And let's not start on the silliness of your points. Go have a sleep.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) So true. But we must let angry, ranty, insult, silly "fact" man have his say. I think I might take up knitting, Courtney seems a fervent fan of it, and I'd like to be able to do it. Can you knit, Lickety?" I can teach you 
I'm currently knitting a pink case for my handgun back in the US.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) So true. But we must let angry, ranty, insult, silly "fact" man have his say. I think I might take up knitting, Courtney seems a fervent fan of it, and I'd like to be able to do it. Can you knit, Lickety? No, but I'm good at shopping for knitwear. " Don't get your knitters in a twist. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) So true. But we must let angry, ranty, insult, silly "fact" man have his say. I think I might take up knitting, Courtney seems a fervent fan of it, and I'd like to be able to do it. Can you knit, Lickety? I can teach you
I'm currently knitting a pink case for my handgun back in the US. "Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) So true. But we must let angry, ranty, insult, silly "fact" man have his say. I think I might take up knitting, Courtney seems a fervent fan of it, and I'd like to be able to do it. Can you knit, Lickety? I can teach you
I'm currently knitting a pink case for my handgun back in the US. "Pink goes really well with gun metal grey. (Or, should that be gray for an American gun metal colour/color?) | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. Is there anuy evicdence that that has ever hapened in America? Hundreds of occasions every year. Hundreds of saved lives because of guns. Thousands more because of the deterrent that gun possession enforces. A would be mugger in England knows he only risks being caught (unlikely) by the police. A would be mugger in US knows he's risking his fucking life for someone's pocket content. Is it worth it ? Nah... I'd better find a job.. " You are kidding me right pmsl | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. Exactly. I'd rather not have a gun. I'm from America, I'm more used to this argument than I can even explain. People are far more likely to die from their own weapon, or that of a family member, than from a stranger's gun. So no, I don't want a gun, and I don't want to be around people who carry guns. I know people with concealed weapons permits, and I won't be around them when they are carrying...in fact, I leave the house when I know one of their guns isn't locked in their gun safe. Show me the statistics favoring successful defense of civilians by non-police and non-military persons with weapons permits. Try to convince me with facts rather than trite analogies that don't properly apply to the situation being discussed." It's very simple, American friend. People have different views. You side with Obama and Clinton on gun laws. This topic is enormous. Research and experience from both sides of the arguments and neither can convince the other. If guns were such a problem then one would have expected that a million Americans would die every day. There are about 106 guns for every 100 people in the States. The reality is that crime I'd lower the states where gun laws allow concealed carry and higher in the exclusion zones where, just as we, like maggots in UK, people become defenseless victims and a target for every criminal with a gun, knife, broken bottle and what not. Do a research. You'll need a month though. Not a Google quickie. And not your own experience either. It counts for nothing. I lived on the States and go there often and my experience is the opposite to yours,but it's still a small drop in the whole subject of psychology, criminology, statistics and variations of the basis of those statistics and tons more... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. Exactly. I'd rather not have a gun. I'm from America, I'm more used to this argument than I can even explain. People are far more likely to die from their own weapon, or that of a family member, than from a stranger's gun. So no, I don't want a gun, and I don't want to be around people who carry guns. I know people with concealed weapons permits, and I won't be around them when they are carrying...in fact, I leave the house when I know one of their guns isn't locked in their gun safe. Show me the statistics favoring successful defense of civilians by non-police and non-military persons with weapons permits. Try to convince me with facts rather than trite analogies that don't properly apply to the situation being discussed. It's very simple, American friend. People have different views. You side with Obama and Clinton on gun laws. This topic is enormous. Research and experience from both sides of the arguments and neither can convince the other. If guns were such a problem then one would have expected that a million Americans would die every day. There are about 106 guns for every 100 people in the States. The reality is that crime I'd lower the states where gun laws allow concealed carry and higher in the exclusion zones where, just as we, like maggots in UK, people become defenseless victims and a target for every criminal with a gun, knife, broken bottle and what not. Do a research. You'll need a month though. Not a Google quickie. And not your own experience either. It counts for nothing. I lived on the States and go there often and my experience is the opposite to yours,but it's still a small drop in the whole subject of psychology, criminology, statistics and variations of the basis of those statistics and tons more... " Oi young man, back to bed with you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm reminded of the research showing the cognitive deficits of steroid users. I'm just wondering why, if America is so safe, those with money choose to live in gated communities with security guards everywhere? (I need a shruggy shoulder emoji now.) So true. But we must let angry, ranty, insult, silly "fact" man have his say. I think I might take up knitting, Courtney seems a fervent fan of it, and I'd like to be able to do it. Can you knit, Lickety? I can teach you
I'm currently knitting a pink case for my handgun back in the US. "No need, just stick it between your but cheeks. Many girls do this too. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. Exactly. I'd rather not have a gun. I'm from America, I'm more used to this argument than I can even explain. People are far more likely to die from their own weapon, or that of a family member, than from a stranger's gun. So no, I don't want a gun, and I don't want to be around people who carry guns. I know people with concealed weapons permits, and I won't be around them when they are carrying...in fact, I leave the house when I know one of their guns isn't locked in their gun safe. Show me the statistics favoring successful defense of civilians by non-police and non-military persons with weapons permits. Try to convince me with facts rather than trite analogies that don't properly apply to the situation being discussed. It's very simple, American friend. People have different views. You side with Obama and Clinton on gun laws. This topic is enormous. Research and experience from both sides of the arguments and neither can convince the other. If guns were such a problem then one would have expected that a million Americans would die every day. There are about 106 guns for every 100 people in the States. The reality is that crime I'd lower the states where gun laws allow concealed carry and higher in the exclusion zones where, just as we, like maggots in UK, people become defenseless victims and a target for every criminal with a gun, knife, broken bottle and what not. Do a research. You'll need a month though. Not a Google quickie. And not your own experience either. It counts for nothing. I lived on the States and go there often and my experience is the opposite to yours,but it's still a small drop in the whole subject of psychology, criminology, statistics and variations of the basis of those statistics and tons more... Oi young man, back to bed with you. "How far from me art though? Wanna show you my gun? 
I've got just one. It's a concealed carry but I take it out quite often. Fully loaded!
Shoots out every time with no jam.
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? " I read it as, "thank God, it isn't yet another terrorist attack; we've just had one yesterday" She did not say that it was OK or they were less dead - Mrs. J - | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why do people always assume that bullets ALWAYS gravitate towards the bad guys? You know, like in the movies. Or something. There's a reason why the police try to clear the area of civilians when the know they are about to discharge firearms. A civilian caught a bullet on Saturday. Fired by CT-SFO. By accident. Let's multiply that by random numbers of lesser trained folk doing what they believe to be the right thing..." Seeing that you like watching movies, here is a link (if allowed by admin) for real life situations. That's why there is far less crime in US than in UK. https://m.youtube.com/results?q=gun%20civilian%20prevents%20roberry&sm=12 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited " Well said! Just because other people have read something wrong. And decided to jump all over you. Obviously the poster didn't mean it was OK for those people to be shot in any circumstance! Get a grip people! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited Well said! Just because other people have read something wrong. And decided to jump all over you. Obviously the poster didn't mean it was OK for those people to be shot in any circumstance! Get a grip people! "
There are some here who make it their life's mission to mis-read posts and then feign being upset. And it is always the same few people
- Mrs. J - | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited Well said! Just because other people have read something wrong. And decided to jump all over you. Obviously the poster didn't mean it was OK for those people to be shot in any circumstance! Get a grip people!
There are some here who make it their life's mission to mis-read posts and then feign being upset. And it is always the same few people
- Mrs. J -"I don't think anyone was feigning being upset. Just slightly incredulous that mass murder became somehow less tragic when it wasn't carried out by a muslim extremist | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited Well said! Just because other people have read something wrong. And decided to jump all over you. Obviously the poster didn't mean it was OK for those people to be shot in any circumstance! Get a grip people!
There are some here who make it their life's mission to mis-read posts and then feign being upset. And it is always the same few people
- Mrs. J -
I don't think anyone was feigning being upset. Just slightly incredulous that mass murder became somehow less tragic when it wasn't carried out by a muslim extremist"But that is not what she said at all. Some people twisted her words to make it sound as such - Mrs. J - | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited Well said! Just because other people have read something wrong. And decided to jump all over you. Obviously the poster didn't mean it was OK for those people to be shot in any circumstance! Get a grip people!
There are some here who make it their life's mission to mis-read posts and then feign being upset. And it is always the same few people
- Mrs. J -
I don't think anyone was feigning being upset. Just slightly incredulous that mass murder became somehow less tragic when it wasn't carried out by a muslim extremist"That's not what I said or meant at all | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I should of put it that either way if it was or not an act of terrorism it's an atrocity and an awful act to carry out however thankful that within days of Manchester yet another terrorist act was commited Well said! Just because other people have read something wrong. And decided to jump all over you. Obviously the poster didn't mean it was OK for those people to be shot in any circumstance! Get a grip people!
There are some here who make it their life's mission to mis-read posts and then feign being upset. And it is always the same few people
- Mrs. J -
I don't think anyone was feigning being upset. Just slightly incredulous that mass murder became somehow less tragic when it wasn't carried out by a muslim extremist"worst take | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. Exactly. I'd rather not have a gun. I'm from America, I'm more used to this argument than I can even explain. People are far more likely to die from their own weapon, or that of a family member, than from a stranger's gun. So no, I don't want a gun, and I don't want to be around people who carry guns. I know people with concealed weapons permits, and I won't be around them when they are carrying...in fact, I leave the house when I know one of their guns isn't locked in their gun safe. Show me the statistics favoring successful defense of civilians by non-police and non-military persons with weapons permits. Try to convince me with facts rather than trite analogies that don't properly apply to the situation being discussed. It's very simple, American friend. People have different views. You side with Obama and Clinton on gun laws. This topic is enormous. Research and experience from both sides of the arguments and neither can convince the other. If guns were such a problem then one would have expected that a million Americans would die every day. There are about 106 guns for every 100 people in the States. The reality is that crime I'd lower the states where gun laws allow concealed carry and higher in the exclusion zones where, just as we, like maggots in UK, people become defenseless victims and a target for every criminal with a gun, knife, broken bottle and what not. Do a research. You'll need a month though. Not a Google quickie. And not your own experience either. It counts for nothing. I lived on the States and go there often and my experience is the opposite to yours,but it's still a small drop in the whole subject of psychology, criminology, statistics and variations of the basis of those statistics and tons more... " I've done my research, thanks. I don't need to rely on quick Google searches. You, however, have shown me nothing that will convince me of what you are arguing. As I originally said, show me the proof that mass shooting have been stopped by people legally carrying concealed weapons who aren't cops. Show me the proof. If its true, then I'm sure it should be easy to find because the NRA would make it their motto. And it's ridiculous to say that gun crime should be in the millions daily because of the level of gun ownership in the U.S. if guns are indeed a problem. Things don't work that way. The fact is that gun crime is high in America and it's been getting worse. It is worse in the U.S. than in other countries with higher levels of gun ownership, which also signals that ownership is not itself the only problem. But it's definitely correlative in the U.S. There are many factors that influence the dangers of high levels of gun ownership. All that means is that it's ikl informed to say things like we'd all be safe if we all had guns, or to state that mass shootings are stopped by people with concealed weapons permits. It's just ridiculous and any amount of research would show that. And you're wrong, research and experience can convince people who are open to hearing both. I used to have a much stronger anti-gun sentiment than I do now. Just as Marc used to have a much stronger pro-gun sentiment than he does now. But we've both heard the facts and altered out opinions, as any reasonable person does. Trying to be condescending in your relies only works when you have the knowledge and facts to back it up. You've shown me neither. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thats what happens when you let every tom, dick or harry have a gun. Some loser eventually gets pissed off and its like the wild west!" I thought that only 18+yo are allowed on this site... Such a comment is normally made by someone half that age. Blame the guns and gun laws again. Take the guns away and all is peaceful. Losers can do no harm then. Weird logic, isn't it? I wish you were right, that would've meant that no guns equals no crime. But it's the opposite and proven without a fail in every situation in every country in the world for centuries. Gun is simply a tool. A murderer becomes one in their mind first. What tools they will use is secondary. If someone decides to kill because of a work dispute, he's a mentaly unstable person. The same person in the UK would use knives, acid, gas canisters, bricks, cars, baseball bats and whatnot... Focus on the cause, not the tools. On the other hand I can understand. We live in a nanny state. We have lost the ability to think with our own heads. We regurgitate what the telly tells us. But the Yankees have gotten it right. It works for them. Let them be. It's always give and take. We drive cars and the single biggest cause of death is car accidents. Yet we don't ban cars because of the advantages of car use. 5 employees died out of 300+million Americans. As sad as it may be any loss of life, it's the reality in this world. Thousands of lives are protected every minute in the country precisely because of gun possession. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thats what happens when you let every tom, dick or harry have a gun. Some loser eventually gets pissed off and its like the wild west! I thought that only 18+yo are allowed on this site... Such a comment is normally made by someone half that age. Blame the guns and gun laws again. Take the guns away and all is peaceful. Losers can do no harm then. Weird logic, isn't it? I wish you were right, that would've meant that no guns equals no crime. But it's the opposite and proven without a fail in every situation in every country in the world for centuries. Gun is simply a tool. A murderer becomes one in their mind first. What tools they will use is secondary. If someone decides to kill because of a work dispute, he's a mentaly unstable person. The same person in the UK would use knives, acid, gas canisters, bricks, cars, baseball bats and whatnot... Focus on the cause, not the tools. On the other hand I can understand. We live in a nanny state. We have lost the ability to think with our own heads. We regurgitate what the telly tells us. But the Yankees have gotten it right. It works for them. Let them be. It's always give and take. We drive cars and the single biggest cause of death is car accidents. Yet we don't ban cars because of the advantages of car use. 5 employees died out of 300+million Americans. As sad as it may be any loss of life, it's the reality in this world. Thousands of lives are protected every minute in the country precisely because of gun possession. " The single biggest cause of death is car accidents? You sure about that? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Thats what happens when you let every tom, dick or harry have a gun. Some loser eventually gets pissed off and its like the wild west! I thought that only 18+yo are allowed on this site... Such a comment is normally made by someone half that age. Blame the guns and gun laws again. Take the guns away and all is peaceful. Losers can do no harm then. Weird logic, isn't it? I wish you were right, that would've meant that no guns equals no crime. But it's the opposite and proven without a fail in every situation in every country in the world for centuries. Gun is simply a tool. A murderer becomes one in their mind first. What tools they will use is secondary. If someone decides to kill because of a work dispute, he's a mentaly unstable person. The same person in the UK would use knives, acid, gas canisters, bricks, cars, baseball bats and whatnot... Focus on the cause, not the tools. On the other hand I can understand. We live in a nanny state. We have lost the ability to think with our own heads. We regurgitate what the telly tells us. But the Yankees have gotten it right. It works for them. Let them be. It's always give and take. We drive cars and the single biggest cause of death is car accidents. Yet we don't ban cars because of the advantages of car use. 5 employees died out of 300+million Americans. As sad as it may be any loss of life, it's the reality in this world. Thousands of lives are protected every minute in the country precisely because of gun possession. " I thought it was heart disease and Cancer - Mrs. J - | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. Exactly. I'd rather not have a gun. I'm from America, I'm more used to this argument than I can even explain. People are far more likely to die from their own weapon, or that of a family member, than from a stranger's gun. So no, I don't want a gun, and I don't want to be around people who carry guns. I know people with concealed weapons permits, and I won't be around them when they are carrying...in fact, I leave the house when I know one of their guns isn't locked in their gun safe. Show me the statistics favoring successful defense of civilians by non-police and non-military persons with weapons permits. Try to convince me with facts rather than trite analogies that don't properly apply to the situation being discussed. It's very simple, American friend. People have different views. You side with Obama and Clinton on gun laws. This topic is enormous. Research and experience from both sides of the arguments and neither can convince the other. If guns were such a problem then one would have expected that a million Americans would die every day. There are about 106 guns for every 100 people in the States. The reality is that crime I'd lower the states where gun laws allow concealed carry and higher in the exclusion zones where, just as we, like maggots in UK, people become defenseless victims and a target for every criminal with a gun, knife, broken bottle and what not. Do a research. You'll need a month though. Not a Google quickie. And not your own experience either. It counts for nothing. I lived on the States and go there often and my experience is the opposite to yours,but it's still a small drop in the whole subject of psychology, criminology, statistics and variations of the basis of those statistics and tons more... I've done my research, thanks. I don't need to rely on quick Google searches. You, however, have shown me nothing that will convince me of what you are arguing. As I originally said, show me the proof that mass shooting have been stopped by people legally carrying concealed weapons who aren't cops. Show me the proof. If its true, then I'm sure it should be easy to find because the NRA would make it their motto. And it's ridiculous to say that gun crime should be in the millions daily because of the level of gun ownership in the U.S. if guns are indeed a problem. Things don't work that way. The fact is that gun crime is high in America and it's been getting worse. It is worse in the U.S. than in other countries with higher levels of gun ownership, which also signals that ownership is not itself the only problem. But it's definitely correlative in the U.S. There are many factors that influence the dangers of high levels of gun ownership. All that means is that it's ikl informed to say things like we'd all be safe if we all had guns, or to state that mass shootings are stopped by people with concealed weapons permits. It's just ridiculous and any amount of research would show that. And you're wrong, research and experience can convince people who are open to hearing both. I used to have a much stronger anti-gun sentiment than I do now. Just as Marc used to have a much stronger pro-gun sentiment than he does now. But we've both heard the facts and altered out opinions, as any reasonable person does. Trying to be condescending in your relies only works when you have the knowledge and facts to back it up. You've shown me neither." American Gods, it's merely your opinion. Not one of a reasonable person necessarily. And I'm not saying that you aren't reasonable but that you don't speak for any other person, reasonable or not, but yourself. For example, at least 200mln of your country men have opposing to yours views. Are you saying that most Americans are unreasonable for supporting the current status quo? Your facts are wrong. Jamaica for instance has higher crimes in lower gun ownership per capita . UK has no legal gun ownership and 2 to 3 times higher violent crimes than America. 4000 reported ra*pes in London alone each year. Many more go unreported. The whole of your vast country doesn't get that many in a year... I can see that you and I won't agree. No need to. But if you happen to be near me, I'd be happy to discuss it further. And I'll take you around the safest places in London. Well, it will never be as safe as US,but hey ho,what can we do? All the best ! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least dry. Exactly. I'd rather not have a gun. I'm from America, I'm more used to this argument than I can even explain. People are far more likely to die from their own weapon, or that of a family member, than from a stranger's gun. So no, I don't want a gun, and I don't want to be around people who carry guns. I know people with concealed weapons permits, and I won't be around them when they are carrying...in fact, I leave the house when I know one of their guns isn't locked in their gun safe. Show me the statistics favoring successful defense of civilians by non-police and non-military persons with weapons permits. Try to convince me with facts rather than trite analogies that don't properly apply to the situation being discussed. It's very simple, American friend. People have different views. You side with Obama and Clinton on gun laws. This topic is enormous. Research and experience from both sides of the arguments and neither can convince the other. If guns were such a problem then one would have expected that a million Americans would die every day. There are about 106 guns for every 100 people in the States. The reality is that crime I'd lower the states where gun laws allow concealed carry and higher in the exclusion zones where, just as we, like maggots in UK, people become defenseless victims and a target for every criminal with a gun, knife, broken bottle and what not. Do a research. You'll need a month though. Not a Google quickie. And not your own experience either. It counts for nothing. I lived on the States and go there often and my experience is the opposite to yours,but it's still a small drop in the whole subject of psychology, criminology, statistics and variations of the basis of those statistics and tons more... I've done my research, thanks. I don't need to rely on quick Google searches. You, however, have shown me nothing that will convince me of what you are arguing. As I originally said, show me the proof that mass shooting have been stopped by people legally carrying concealed weapons who aren't cops. Show me the proof. If its true, then I'm sure it should be easy to find because the NRA would make it their motto. And it's ridiculous to say that gun crime should be in the millions daily because of the level of gun ownership in the U.S. if guns are indeed a problem. Things don't work that way. The fact is that gun crime is high in America and it's been getting worse. It is worse in the U.S. than in other countries with higher levels of gun ownership, which also signals that ownership is not itself the only problem. But it's definitely correlative in the U.S. There are many factors that influence the dangers of high levels of gun ownership. All that means is that it's ikl informed to say things like we'd all be safe if we all had guns, or to state that mass shootings are stopped by people with concealed weapons permits. It's just ridiculous and any amount of research would show that. And you're wrong, research and experience can convince people who are open to hearing both. I used to have a much stronger anti-gun sentiment than I do now. Just as Marc used to have a much stronger pro-gun sentiment than he does now. But we've both heard the facts and altered out opinions, as any reasonable person does. Trying to be condescending in your relies only works when you have the knowledge and facts to back it up. You've shown me neither. American Gods, it's merely your opinion. Not one of a reasonable person necessarily. And I'm not saying that you aren't reasonable but that you don't speak for any other person, reasonable or not, but yourself. For example, at least 200mln of your country men have opposing to yours views. Are you saying that most Americans are unreasonable for supporting the current status quo? Your facts are wrong. Jamaica for instance has higher crimes in lower gun ownership per capita . UK has no legal gun ownership and 2 to 3 times higher violent crimes than America. 4000 reported ra*pes in London alone each year. Many more go unreported. The whole of your vast country doesn't get that many in a year... I can see that you and I won't agree. No need to. But if you happen to be near me, I'd be happy to discuss it further. And I'll take you around the safest places in London. Well, it will never be as safe as US,but hey ho,what can we do? All the best ! " Yet another non answer. You refuted facts that I never contended (I never said anything about countries with less guns having higher or lower crime rates than the US). And still, you've offeredd me no facts pertaining to the orginal issue about which you originally addressed me. If you have statistics backing up the original assertion that mass shootings are stopped by people with concealed weapons permits who aren't cops, then please direct me to them. I've asked over and over, and yet I've seen nothing except your arguments about things to which I've never referred. So, once again, in the absence of knowledge or facts, I'll concede nothing to your contentions. All the best, indeed! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy" I think there have to be 3 or 4 dead before they even call it a mass shooting now.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Arm bearing is the best way known to humans to protect lives. Even though they aren't without limitations . The shooting in Orlando was where people are allowed to carry guns. Sadly, we in UK aren't alowed to carry a toothpick and thus become easy victims of anyone who decides to attack. So, people in Orlando are allowed to carry guns and there is a chance that someone other than the shooter had a legal gun... yet 5 people are still dead. " A lot of people who carry guns in the US carry it to protect themselves, not others. If running is a better option, most will run.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. Is there anuy evicdence that that has ever hapened in America? Or is there lots of evidence that the killers head to where guns are restricted? Oh and 8 minutes from first 999 call to the terrorsists being killed, I;d take that and highly trained armed police over pissed up have a go heroes carrying a gun on a night out, it would be carnage" The UK/US gun/no gun argument is always a hotly contested one depending on your point of view. Have a look at the incidents of violent crime in US states that allow civilian gun carry against those who don't. It's interesting. As for the UK, I'm sorry to say that with few exceptions armed Police are not highly trained. Their standard of training in terms of shooting is worryingly low, and way out of date. Right now they are playing catch up, and learning the hard way. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy I think there have to be 3 or 4 dead before they even call it a mass shooting now.." 4 dead. If you injure 20 people it's not a mass shooting. It also excludes domestic violence and I believe sone gang related incidents. They have similar restricions on what constitutes a violent crime hence the claims above about their being less violennt crime in America | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy I think there have to be 3 or 4 dead before they even call it a mass shooting now.. 4 dead. If you injure 20 people it's not a mass shooting. It also excludes domestic violence and I believe sone gang related incidents. They have similar restricions on what constitutes a violent crime hence the claims above about their being less violennt crime in America " Exactly
Only four crimes count a "violent crimes" by most American statistical standards. The UK has a much wider reach in its definition of the same terminology. It's part of the reason why the statistics offered up in this thread are unreliable and misrepresented. The same can be said about the number of guns in the U.S. People like to assert that 200-300 million people have guns in the U.S. because that is the statistic often cited as the number of guns in the US, but there has been a growing trend of gun stockpiling in America - meaning more guns owned by less people. So the equivalency between the number of guns and the number of owners is illusory. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy I think there have to be 3 or 4 dead before they even call it a mass shooting now.. 4 dead. If you injure 20 people it's not a mass shooting. It also excludes domestic violence and I believe sone gang related incidents. They have similar restricions on what constitutes a violent crime hence the claims above about their being less violennt crime in America Exactly
Only four crimes count a "violent crimes" by most American statistical standards. The UK has a much wider reach in its definition of the same terminology. It's part of the reason why the statistics offered up in this thread are unreliable and misrepresented. The same can be said about the number of guns in the U.S. People like to assert that 200-300 million people have guns in the U.S. because that is the statistic often cited as the number of guns in the US, but there has been a growing trend of gun stockpiling in America - meaning more guns owned by less people. So the equivalency between the number of guns and the number of owners is illusory."Very misguided. There's a difference between how data is recorded and analysed in different countries. UK over 2000 violent crimes, US around 400. All per 100k people. When discounting the differences, in order to compare apples with apples, just under 800 in UK. This is according to the English records own admission. Still twice as much as in safer America. UK records murder only after conviction. US - all deaths that aren't natural, suicide or accident caused. Even then UK still has the highest crime in the whole of EU. And one of the highest in the Developed world. Certainly higher than US. More crimes in gun exclusion zones in the States than in gun carrying ones. Chicago , Illinois... the highest crime rate with the toughest gun restrictions. Huge crime increase after the introduction of the said laws. Likewise, Californian cities. No one here sugested that everyone in US has a gun. Someone may have 100 guns, while there are whole communities with no single gun. I don't know where you are getting with that. The discussion started about gun laws, not about whether a concealed carry 9mm can stop mass shooting. Even though there are plenty of real life occasions when that actually happened, if you cared to research the volumes of abundant information available. What's your next question? If North Korea attacked US would gun holders prevent the nuclear rockets from landing and exploding? I gave you tens of arguments in my previous posts. More here. When you address 10% of them, I'll give you another 10-20 for your perusal. Although, if you were to open your mind and look at the whole picture, you'd come up with another 20 reasons why guns aren't the problem and the world can't be a better place without them. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing on BBC or Sky news about it? Mass shootings in America are a pretty much daily occurence, press coberage over here is unusual because they are rarely seen as newsworthy I think there have to be 3 or 4 dead before they even call it a mass shooting now.. 4 dead. If you injure 20 people it's not a mass shooting. It also excludes domestic violence and I believe sone gang related incidents. They have similar restricions on what constitutes a violent crime hence the claims above about their being less violennt crime in America Exactly
Only four crimes count a "violent crimes" by most American statistical standards. The UK has a much wider reach in its definition of the same terminology. It's part of the reason why the statistics offered up in this thread are unreliable and misrepresented. The same can be said about the number of guns in the U.S. People like to assert that 200-300 million people have guns in the U.S. because that is the statistic often cited as the number of guns in the US, but there has been a growing trend of gun stockpiling in America - meaning more guns owned by less people. So the equivalency between the number of guns and the number of owners is illusory.
Very misguided.
There's a difference between how data is recorded and analysed in different countries. UK over 2000 violent crimes, US around 400. All per 100k people. When discounting the differences, in order to compare apples with apples, just under 800 in UK. This is according to the English records own admission.
Still twice as much as in safer America.
UK records murder only after conviction. US - all deaths that aren't natural, suicide or accident caused.
Even then UK still has the highest crime in the whole of EU. And one of the highest in the Developed world. Certainly higher than US.
More crimes in gun exclusion zones in the States than in gun carrying ones.
Chicago , Illinois... the highest crime rate with the toughest gun restrictions. Huge crime increase after the introduction of the said laws.
Likewise, Californian cities.
No one here sugested that everyone in US has a gun. Someone may have 100 guns, while there are whole communities with no single gun. I don't know where you are getting with that.
The discussion started about gun laws, not about whether a concealed carry 9mm can stop mass shooting. Even though there are plenty of real life occasions when that actually happened, if you cared to research the volumes of abundant information available.
What's your next question? If North Korea attacked US would gun holders prevent the nuclear rockets from landing and exploding?
I gave you tens of arguments in my previous posts. More here.
When you address 10% of them, I'll give you another 10-20 for your perusal. Although, if you were to open your mind and look at the whole picture, you'd come up with another 20 reasons why guns aren't the problem and the world can't be a better place without them. "I have never asked you a question beyond asking for statistics on when mass shootings have been stopped by a civilian with a concealed weapon. The reason I asked you that question is because it was my post objecting to that very assertion that you originally replied to me on. And I have yet to see any data on that. You just throw out other numbers that have nothing to do with what we were discussing. Show me the data on that. Show me where people were in a mass shooting scenario and it was handled competently by non-police personnel with a personal weapon. Tell me where the data can be found. As for violent crimes, I don't really see how it figures into a conversation about gun crime. Its why I kept ignoring the statistics you kept throwing out there. As I said earlier, there are other things that influence violent crime rates in a country other than gun ownership. There are countries with higher gun ownership and lower gun ownership than the US that have both higher and lower instances of violent crime. So I don't see how you could make an argument that it is gun ownership that is making the US this safe haven you keep claiming it is. The fact of the matter is that there are many things influencing the gun problem in the US. One of the most important was the Supreme Court ruling on the second amendment that was issued in 2010. It ruled that certain strict gun control laws were unconstitutional and it just so happens that there has been a marked increase in mass shootings in the United States since that decision. In the US in 2015 firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults. That is from the FBI's crime statistics. How states, the federal government, and the economy behave can influence violent criminal activity in the US, just as local government, national government, and the economy can influence violent criminal activity in the UK. There is no proven correlation between gun ownership and lower violent crime rates nationally. Now, back to the only question I've ever asked you, show me the statistics that show that mass shootings have been stopped by civilians with guns. And while you're looking for that, take a look at this, too: A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. (title: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010) And also please note that not everything I write on here is directed at you. My last comment was responding to someone else entirely, so I'm not sure why you had to note that no one here said every American had a gun. My point was that it was yet another false statistic that pro-gun individuals like to cite. I didn't say you or anyone here specifically said that. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned! "No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day. According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed. And this is all that matters. The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan. Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned!
No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day.
According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed.
And this is all that matters.
The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan.
Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives! "Nah, I meant you never answered the question -- you got burned. Fact! Also the wonderful thing about amendments is that they can be amended. Let's amend the 2nd amendment and not be douches. You say "I can never be burned on this gun debate" -- I find it additionally amusing how you continue having to make vacuous "big up" phrases to punctuate your apparent "information" -- it's a tad childish and durrbrainy. Make your points. But also an actual counter to someone else's opinion is about making counter points to the point they are making, you've not answered Courtney's question yet. Burn! Will you? Or is there no evidence? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned!
No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day.
According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed.
And this is all that matters.
The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan.
Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives!
Nah, I meant you never answered the question -- you got burned. Fact!
Also the wonderful thing about amendments is that they can be amended. Let's amend the 2nd amendment and not be douches.
You say "I can never be burned on this gun debate" -- I find it additionally amusing how you continue having to make vacuous "big up" phrases to punctuate your apparent "information" -- it's a tad childish and durrbrainy. Make your points. But also an actual counter to someone else's opinion is about making counter points to the point they are making, you've not answered Courtney's question yet. Burn!
Will you? Or is there no evidence?"Sorry, I was wrong about you last night, Estella. I posed tons of question, none of them was answered. Those who call themselves Gods and behave as if as they are, can't restrict the discussion to one question only. Nevertheless, it was answered even though only remotely connected to the debate. You can live in ignorance all you wish. But one thing is sure - you can't change any Amendments. The Americans can do it. But thankfully, they are smarter than that.
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"'Durrbrainy' isn't a 'big up' phrase? "No. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... or ended up like the shootout in the film the grand budapest hotel I'd choose a gun any time when faced with danger than awaiting the arrival of the police to put bodies in bags. An armed civilian would've stopped the other night terrorists in London sooner than the police did only after 7 dead and 50 injured. Is there anuy evicdence that that has ever hapened in America? Or is there lots of evidence that the killers head to where guns are restricted? Oh and 8 minutes from first 999 call to the terrorsists being killed, I;d take that and highly trained armed police over pissed up have a go heroes carrying a gun on a night out, it would be carnage" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned!
No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day.
According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed.
And this is all that matters.
The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan.
Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives!
Nah, I meant you never answered the question -- you got burned. Fact!
Also the wonderful thing about amendments is that they can be amended. Let's amend the 2nd amendment and not be douches.
You say "I can never be burned on this gun debate" -- I find it additionally amusing how you continue having to make vacuous "big up" phrases to punctuate your apparent "information" -- it's a tad childish and durrbrainy. Make your points. But also an actual counter to someone else's opinion is about making counter points to the point they are making, you've not answered Courtney's question yet. Burn!
Will you? Or is there no evidence?
Sorry, I was wrong about you last night, Estella.
I posed tons of question, none of them was answered.
Those who call themselves Gods and behave as if as they are, can't restrict the discussion to one question only. Nevertheless, it was answered even though only remotely connected to the debate.
You can live in ignorance all you wish. But one thing is sure - you can't change any Amendments. The Americans can do it. But thankfully, they are smarter than that.
Oh I'm crushed you feel bad about complimenting me last night. I'm not disappointed by your continual nonsensical spouting though, it tickles my funny bone.
Courtney's American. She is well smart.
I would've thought so, but nationality doesn't necessarily make one intelligent. And you know the stereotypical view on Yankees...
Too bad she can't understand what the whole discussion was about. Not that many posts, mind you. It's easy to go over them from the beginning... "your posts are ill -informed, ignorant , inaccurrate and completely moronic. it's a relief that most other posters on here can clearly see that. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned!
No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day.
According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed.
And this is all that matters.
The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan.
Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives!
Nah, I meant you never answered the question -- you got burned. Fact!
Also the wonderful thing about amendments is that they can be amended. Let's amend the 2nd amendment and not be douches.
You say "I can never be burned on this gun debate" -- I find it additionally amusing how you continue having to make vacuous "big up" phrases to punctuate your apparent "information" -- it's a tad childish and durrbrainy. Make your points. But also an actual counter to someone else's opinion is about making counter points to the point they are making, you've not answered Courtney's question yet. Burn!
Will you? Or is there no evidence?
Sorry, I was wrong about you last night, Estella.
I posed tons of question, none of them was answered.
Those who call themselves Gods and behave as if as they are, can't restrict the discussion to one question only. Nevertheless, it was answered even though only remotely connected to the debate.
You can live in ignorance all you wish. But one thing is sure - you can't change any Amendments. The Americans can do it. But thankfully, they are smarter than that.
Oh I'm crushed you feel bad about complimenting me last night. I'm not disappointed by your continual nonsensical spouting though, it tickles my funny bone.
Courtney's American. She is well smart.
I would've thought so, but nationality doesn't necessarily make one intelligent. And you know the stereotypical view on Yankees...
Too bad she can't understand what the whole discussion was about. Not that many posts, mind you. It's easy to go over them from the beginning...
your posts are ill -informed, ignorant , inaccurrate and completely moronic. it's a relief that most other posters on here can clearly see that."200+mln Americans disagree with you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned!
No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day.
According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed.
And this is all that matters.
The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan.
Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives!
Nah, I meant you never answered the question -- you got burned. Fact!
Also the wonderful thing about amendments is that they can be amended. Let's amend the 2nd amendment and not be douches.
You say "I can never be burned on this gun debate" -- I find it additionally amusing how you continue having to make vacuous "big up" phrases to punctuate your apparent "information" -- it's a tad childish and durrbrainy. Make your points. But also an actual counter to someone else's opinion is about making counter points to the point they are making, you've not answered Courtney's question yet. Burn!
Will you? Or is there no evidence?
Sorry, I was wrong about you last night, Estella.
I posed tons of question, none of them was answered.
Those who call themselves Gods and behave as if as they are, can't restrict the discussion to one question only. Nevertheless, it was answered even though only remotely connected to the debate.
You can live in ignorance all you wish. But one thing is sure - you can't change any Amendments. The Americans can do it. But thankfully, they are smarter than that.
Oh I'm crushed you feel bad about complimenting me last night. I'm not disappointed by your continual nonsensical spouting though, it tickles my funny bone.
Courtney's American. She is well smart.
I would've thought so, but nationality doesn't necessarily make one intelligent. And you know the stereotypical view on Yankees...
Too bad she can't understand what the whole discussion was about. Not that many posts, mind you. It's easy to go over them from the beginning...
your posts are ill -informed, ignorant , inaccurrate and completely moronic. it's a relief that most other posters on here can clearly see that.
200+mln Americans disagree with you. "Fuck off to America then, if it bothers you that much. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
"Oh! You've decided to answer me instead of sly ad hominem attacks? My research is correct. If it isn't, then do what I asked and provide your own data.I know this issue very well and the research is far from 2 minutes worth. I feel like you have a complex about Google searches, judging by the number of times you've referenced subpar research methodology. And I don't care what the "point of the thread" was. I made a comment on another user's specific post, and you decided to argue against me on that point, but then kept changing the goal post on what exactly we were talking about. I was clear about my interest in the thread from the beginning. If you don't like where I'm coming from, then don't keep responding to my posts when they aren't in reference to or about you. Just ignore them | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" your posts are ill -informed, ignorant , inaccurrate and completely moronic. it's a relief that most other posters on here can clearly see that. 200+mln Americans disagree with you.
Fuck off to America then, if it bothers you that much. "I knew you were going to post that. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
And this is Britain, and most Brits don't think so.
Nice of you to turn up and tell us how wrong we are. "You are welcome! You do as you wish in your country. Just as Americans do as they wish in their country. BTW, the thread was about the shooting in Orlando. The last time I was there for Christmas it was still in US. In case you thought we were discussing solely the peaceful safe gunless and kniveless old Britain... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned!
No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day.
According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed.
And this is all that matters.
The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan.
Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives!
Nah, I meant you never answered the question -- you got burned. Fact!
Also the wonderful thing about amendments is that they can be amended. Let's amend the 2nd amendment and not be douches.
You say "I can never be burned on this gun debate" -- I find it additionally amusing how you continue having to make vacuous "big up" phrases to punctuate your apparent "information" -- it's a tad childish and durrbrainy. Make your points. But also an actual counter to someone else's opinion is about making counter points to the point they are making, you've not answered Courtney's question yet. Burn!
Will you? Or is there no evidence?
Sorry, I was wrong about you last night, Estella.
I posed tons of question, none of them was answered.
Those who call themselves Gods and behave as if as they are, can't restrict the discussion to one question only. Nevertheless, it was answered even though only remotely connected to the debate.
You can live in ignorance all you wish. But one thing is sure - you can't change any Amendments. The Americans can do it. But thankfully, they are smarter than that.
Oh I'm crushed you feel bad about complimenting me last night. I'm not disappointed by your continual nonsensical spouting though, it tickles my funny bone.
Courtney's American. She is well smart.
I would've thought so, but nationality doesn't necessarily make one intelligent. And you know the stereotypical view on Yankees...
Too bad she can't understand what the whole discussion was about. Not that many posts, mind you. It's easy to go over them from the beginning...
your posts are ill -informed, ignorant , inaccurrate and completely moronic. it's a relief that most other posters on here can clearly see that.
200+mln Americans disagree with you. "and even that is completely inaccurate...the anti-gun feeling there is higher now than it has ever been..your numbers are from the 80's | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
And this is Britain, and most Brits don't think so.
Nice of you to turn up and tell us how wrong we are.
You are welcome!
You do as you wish in your country. Just as Americans do as they wish in their country.
BTW, the thread was about the shooting in Orlando. The last time I was there for Christmas it was still in US. In case you thought we were discussing solely the peaceful safe gunless and kniveless old Britain... "But you aint in America, are you sunshine? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do find it particularly distasteful, and I'm possibly slightly emotionally invested, because I'm from the Manchester area, that the victims of the two recent attacks are hardly even cold in the ground before some pro-handgun fretishist is getting a massive hard on at the tragedy and fapping himself into oblivion at the thought of being able to get his hands on a pistol. " it's worrying, as well as really pathetic...ill-informed macho cock waving at its worst! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
Oh! You've decided to answer me instead of sly ad hominem attacks?
My research is correct. If it isn't, then do what I asked and provide your own data.I know this issue very well and the research is far from 2 minutes worth. I feel like you have a complex about Google searches, judging by the number of times you've referenced subpar research methodology.
And I don't care what the "point of the thread" was. I made a comment on another user's specific post, and you decided to argue against me on that point, but then kept changing the goal post on what exactly we were talking about.
I was clear about my interest in the thread from the beginning. If you don't like where I'm coming from, then don't keep responding to my posts when they aren't in reference to or about you. Just ignore them "24h ago and you are still in the fog. " Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. " --------- So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps. When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least,dry " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
Oh! You've decided to answer me instead of sly ad hominem attacks?
My research is correct. If it isn't, then do what I asked and provide your own data.I know this issue very well and the research is far from 2 minutes worth. I feel like you have a complex about Google searches, judging by the number of times you've referenced subpar research methodology.
And I don't care what the "point of the thread" was. I made a comment on another user's specific post, and you decided to argue against me on that point, but then kept changing the goal post on what exactly we were talking about.
I was clear about my interest in the thread from the beginning. If you don't like where I'm coming from, then don't keep responding to my posts when they aren't in reference to or about you. Just ignore them
24h ago and you are still in the fog.
Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. "
---------
So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps.
When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least,dry "That never answered my point, as I said to you when you posted it. The analogy doesn't make sense in the scenario and it doesn't address the usefulness, or not, of concealed weapons permits in the face of mass shootings. Talk about being in a fog! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do find it particularly distasteful, and I'm possibly slightly emotionally invested, because I'm from the Manchester area, that the victims of the two recent attacks are hardly even cold in the ground before some pro-handgun fretishist is getting a massive hard on at the tragedy and fapping himself into oblivion at the thought of being able to get his hands on a pistol. " You reckon there's even a remote chance to get gun laws akin to the US in Britain? Where did you get this from, sunshine? ( It must be a polite word in drousy Manchester, hence returning the favour.) You are off topic entirely. Perhaps you can start another thread. We are talking about US. So if you have nothing to contribute on topic, just fuck off this board. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
Oh! You've decided to answer me instead of sly ad hominem attacks?
My research is correct. If it isn't, then do what I asked and provide your own data.I know this issue very well and the research is far from 2 minutes worth. I feel like you have a complex about Google searches, judging by the number of times you've referenced subpar research methodology.
And I don't care what the "point of the thread" was. I made a comment on another user's specific post, and you decided to argue against me on that point, but then kept changing the goal post on what exactly we were talking about.
I was clear about my interest in the thread from the beginning. If you don't like where I'm coming from, then don't keep responding to my posts when they aren't in reference to or about you. Just ignore them
24h ago and you are still in the fog.
Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. "
---------
So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps.
When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least,dry
That never answered my point, as I said to you when you posted it. The analogy doesn't make sense in the scenario and it doesn't address the usefulness, or not, of concealed weapons permits in the face of mass shootings.
Talk about being in a fog! "Ask your man to explain it to you. I don't care if a 9mm gun can be a match to a 7 strong gang armed with semi-automatic 100bullets per second rifles . That was never the point. Nevermind, you are in your own cloud. Still plenty of posts left before this thread closes at 175. Carry on.... Our of curiosity. Which state are you from? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do find it particularly distasteful, and I'm possibly slightly emotionally invested, because I'm from the Manchester area, that the victims of the two recent attacks are hardly even cold in the ground before some pro-handgun fretishist is getting a massive hard on at the tragedy and fapping himself into oblivion at the thought of being able to get his hands on a pistol. You reckon there's even a remote chance to get gun laws akin to the US in Britain? Where did you get this from, sunshine? ( It must be a polite word in drousy Manchester, hence returning the favour.) You are off topic entirely. Perhaps you can start another thread. We are talking about US. So if you have nothing to contribute on topic, just fuck off this board. " The topic was the loss of life in Orlando. You morphed it into a discussion about gun ownership being a good thing to prevent loss of life. Just because YOU don't like a contribution doesn't mean you have to be dick and start abusing people. Many (nearly all) the other posters absolutely disagree with your posts yet you keep banging on the same points. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do find it particularly distasteful, and I'm possibly slightly emotionally invested, because I'm from the Manchester area, that the victims of the two recent attacks are hardly even cold in the ground before some pro-handgun fretishist is getting a massive hard on at the tragedy and fapping himself into oblivion at the thought of being able to get his hands on a pistol. You reckon there's even a remote chance to get gun laws akin to the US in Britain? Where did you get this from, sunshine? ( It must be a polite word in drousy Manchester, hence returning the favour.) You are off topic entirely. Perhaps you can start another thread. We are talking about US. So if you have nothing to contribute on topic, just fuck off this board. " Yeah, and as I said. You aren't there, are you? But you do get a hard-on over the thought of having a pistol, don't you? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
Oh! You've decided to answer me instead of sly ad hominem attacks?
My research is correct. If it isn't, then do what I asked and provide your own data.I know this issue very well and the research is far from 2 minutes worth. I feel like you have a complex about Google searches, judging by the number of times you've referenced subpar research methodology.
And I don't care what the "point of the thread" was. I made a comment on another user's specific post, and you decided to argue against me on that point, but then kept changing the goal post on what exactly we were talking about.
I was clear about my interest in the thread from the beginning. If you don't like where I'm coming from, then don't keep responding to my posts when they aren't in reference to or about you. Just ignore them
24h ago and you are still in the fog.
Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. "
---------
So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps.
When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least,dry
That never answered my point, as I said to you when you posted it. The analogy doesn't make sense in the scenario and it doesn't address the usefulness, or not, of concealed weapons permits in the face of mass shootings.
Talk about being in a fog!
Ask your man to explain it to you.
I don't care if a 9mm gun can be a match to a 7 strong gang armed with semi-automatic 100bullets per second rifles .
That was never the point.
Nevermind, you are in your own cloud. Still plenty of posts left before this thread closes at 175. Carry on....
Our of curiosity. Which state are you from? "Ask my man to explain it to me? You can take that comment and shove it. And there ends any further discussion with you. You have proven you aren't worth it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do find it particularly distasteful, and I'm possibly slightly emotionally invested, because I'm from the Manchester area, that the victims of the two recent attacks are hardly even cold in the ground before some pro-handgun fretishist is getting a massive hard on at the tragedy and fapping himself into oblivion at the thought of being able to get his hands on a pistol. You reckon there's even a remote chance to get gun laws akin to the US in Britain? Where did you get this from, sunshine? ( It must be a polite word in drousy Manchester, hence returning the favour.) You are off topic entirely. Perhaps you can start another thread. We are talking about US. So if you have nothing to contribute on topic, just fuck off this board. Yeah, and as I said. You aren't there, are you? But you do get a hard-on over the thought of having a pistol, don't you?" I only get hard on from women. I had my fair share of guns when in the army,so I'm surely more mature and responsible on gun handling than the average Joe public to get excited at arms. The debate is about guns and crime in the US, my friend. References to UK were merely props for comparison. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And; also - To make comments about any killings of this nature and to hope to remove yourself from any context of current affairs in the UK is more than idiotic. " You are screwed in your head, it seems. Idiots are usually the ones to call others idiots. You have no idea what I said obviously. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do find it particularly distasteful, and I'm possibly slightly emotionally invested, because I'm from the Manchester area, that the victims of the two recent attacks are hardly even cold in the ground before some pro-handgun fretishist is getting a massive hard on at the tragedy and fapping himself into oblivion at the thought of being able to get his hands on a pistol. You reckon there's even a remote chance to get gun laws akin to the US in Britain? Where did you get this from, sunshine? ( It must be a polite word in drousy Manchester, hence returning the favour.) You are off topic entirely. Perhaps you can start another thread. We are talking about US. So if you have nothing to contribute on topic, just fuck off this board. Yeah, and as I said. You aren't there, are you? But you do get a hard-on over the thought of having a pistol, don't you? I only get hard on from women. I had my fair share of guns when in the army,so I'm surely more mature and responsible on gun handling than the average Joe public to get excited at arms. The debate is about guns and crime in the US, my friend. References to UK were merely props for comparison. " Not particulalry well chisen props, since nobody here (apart from a tiny minority of nutters) wants relaxed gun control. I shoot, and have been around gun owners all my life, these are probably the most pro-gun members of the UK population you are likley to find and nobody wants US style gun laws. I personally dont care what you shot in the army and I don't at all think it somehow excludes you from being a gun-fetishist, sorry. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And; also - To make comments about any killings of this nature and to hope to remove yourself from any context of current affairs in the UK is more than idiotic. You are screwed in your head, it seems. Idiots are usually the ones to call others idiots. You have no idea what I said obviously. " Unfortunately, I do, because its all written down, isn't it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Estella, the answer is that he doesn't have the stats to back up his original assertions. -God
Nor the intelligence to grasp that point!
Anyway, I did the research myself. There are no instances of mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian. There are, however, instances where gunman have been taken down by armed citizens. 10 that I could find in the past 10 years. Some of which were off duty soldiers. If someone else wants to put that in statistical format against the total number of armed crimes that have taken place in the same period, then we'll have an answer to my question on the statistical likelihood of being saved by an armed civilian. I'm too lazy to do it, but the numbers are paltry, and that's even if you extend the parameters beyond mass shootings.
You do realise that this was never the core of our gun ownership thread, don't you ?
Even if your 2min research was correct (and it isn't ), it doesn't contribute to the whole debate that guns aren't the problem but people and that guns allow otherwise defenseless people to protect themselves.
Just like umbrellas from the rain...Go back from the beginning to read what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sole reason that Americans got one decision right -on gun ownership.
Oh! You've decided to answer me instead of sly ad hominem attacks?
My research is correct. If it isn't, then do what I asked and provide your own data.I know this issue very well and the research is far from 2 minutes worth. I feel like you have a complex about Google searches, judging by the number of times you've referenced subpar research methodology.
And I don't care what the "point of the thread" was. I made a comment on another user's specific post, and you decided to argue against me on that point, but then kept changing the goal post on what exactly we were talking about.
I was clear about my interest in the thread from the beginning. If you don't like where I'm coming from, then don't keep responding to my posts when they aren't in reference to or about you. Just ignore them
24h ago and you are still in the fog.
Completely not true. There have been situations of mass shootings in the U.S. where people on the scene had concealed weapons. And they ran away, like every one else. Very often a concealed gun isn't powerful enough to stop the guns mass shooters have, not to mention that people get too scared in the moment to do anything. It's just a nonesense argument that the NRA pushes in order to increase gun sales. "
---------
So you'd rather not have a gun? It may hinder your running perhaps.
When it rains, I'd rather have an umbrella and boots on. I know I may still become wet a bit, but at least I have a better chance of remaining fully or partially at least,dry
That never answered my point, as I said to you when you posted it. The analogy doesn't make sense in the scenario and it doesn't address the usefulness, or not, of concealed weapons permits in the face of mass shootings.
Talk about being in a fog!
Ask your man to explain it to you.
I don't care if a 9mm gun can be a match to a 7 strong gang armed with semi-automatic 100bullets per second rifles .
That was never the point.
Nevermind, you are in your own cloud. Still plenty of posts left before this thread closes at 175. Carry on....
Our of curiosity. Which state are you from?
Ask my man to explain it to me? You can take that comment and shove it. And there ends any further discussion with you. You have proven you aren't worth it. "Don't be sulky Courtney. It wasn't meant as an offence. I would've said the same to Mark if he was to post. 'Ask your woman to explain to you. Why? When I see that someone willfully ignores rhyme and reason, I may ask their friends to assist. They may see the point where the first person failed. Nothing unusual. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And; also - To make comments about any killings of this nature and to hope to remove yourself from any context of current affairs in the UK is more than idiotic. You are screwed in your head, it seems. Idiots are usually the ones to call others idiots. You have no idea what I said obviously. Unfortunately, I do, because its all written down, isn't it. "It's not unfortunate. Just read it if you want to be on track. Putting words in my mouth and Hurling insults isn't beneficial for any discussions, although I must admit, I went overboard a bit last night too. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"And; also - To make comments about any killings of this nature and to hope to remove yourself from any context of current affairs in the UK is more than idiotic. You are screwed in your head, it seems. Idiots are usually the ones to call others idiots. You have no idea what I said obviously. Unfortunately, I do, because its all written down, isn't it.
It's not unfortunate. Just read it if you want to be on track. Putting words in my mouth and Hurling insults isn't beneficial for any discussions, although I must admit, I went overboard a bit last night too. "You're entire debate style revolves around personal insults. It's pathetic. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do find it particularly distasteful, and I'm possibly slightly emotionally invested, because I'm from the Manchester area, that the victims of the two recent attacks are hardly even cold in the ground before some pro-handgun fretishist is getting a massive hard on at the tragedy and fapping himself into oblivion at the thought of being able to get his hands on a pistol. You reckon there's even a remote chance to get gun laws akin to the US in Britain? Where did you get this from, sunshine? ( It must be a polite word in drousy Manchester, hence returning the favour.) You are off topic entirely. Perhaps you can start another thread. We are talking about US. So if you have nothing to contribute on topic, just fuck off this board. Yeah, and as I said. You aren't there, are you? But you do get a hard-on over the thought of having a pistol, don't you? I only get hard on from women. I had my fair share of guns when in the army,so I'm surely more mature and responsible on gun handling than the average Joe public to get excited at arms. The debate is about guns and crime in the US, my friend. References to UK were merely props for comparison. Not particulalry well chisen props, since nobody here (apart from a tiny minority of nutters) wants relaxed gun control. I shoot, and have been around gun owners all my life, these are probably the most pro-gun members of the UK population you are likley to find and nobody wants US style gun laws. I personally dont care what you shot in the army and I don't at all think it somehow excludes you from being a gun-fetishist, sorry. " Very well chosen, surely. The comparison was about crime levels. My point - guns aren't the cause of death in the US. ( Discussion stemming from Orlando shooting by a disgruntled employee.) If guns were the issue, gun free UK shouldn't have any violent crimes then, bar the odd illegal gun carring motherfucker. Paradoxically, crime is higher here than in US.... And so on and so forth... Anyway, just a quick brief, seeing that you seem interested. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Oh Jioso, you been burned!
No Estella, I can never be burned on this gun debate. Too much evidence in favour of gun possession. It's always an easy win win case ,even though there are no easy answers for prevention of crime. As long as there are evil people there will always be evil actions in this world . One doesn't need a gun to commit a crime. But one can protect life with a gun. Thousands of lives are protect this way every day.
According to some reports, 3500 ra*pes are prevented every day in America because the woman pulls out a gun or aserts that she's got one or the attacker believes she's armed.
And this is all that matters.
The rest is empty rethorics from the likes of Hitlery Clinton and Prick Morgan.
Long live the 2nd Amendment! Tough on motherfucking low lives!
Nah, I meant you never answered the question -- you got burned. Fact!
Also the wonderful thing about amendments is that they can be amended. Let's amend the 2nd amendment and not be douches.
You say "I can never be burned on this gun debate" -- I find it additionally amusing how you continue having to make vacuous "big up" phrases to punctuate your apparent "information" -- it's a tad childish and durrbrainy. Make your points. But also an actual counter to someone else's opinion is about making counter points to the point they are making, you've not answered Courtney's question yet. Burn!
Will you? Or is there no evidence?
Sorry, I was wrong about you last night, Estella.
I posed tons of question, none of them was answered.
Those who call themselves Gods and behave as if as they are, can't restrict the discussion to one question only. Nevertheless, it was answered even though only remotely connected to the debate.
You can live in ignorance all you wish. But one thing is sure - you can't change any Amendments. The Americans can do it. But thankfully, they are smarter than that.
Oh I'm crushed you feel bad about complimenting me last night. I'm not disappointed by your continual nonsensical spouting though, it tickles my funny bone.
Courtney's American. She is well smart.
I would've thought so, but nationality doesn't necessarily make one intelligent. And you know the stereotypical view on Yankees...
Too bad she can't understand what the whole discussion was about. Not that many posts, mind you. It's easy to go over them from the beginning... "I was using your own reference to Americans being smart! You set the premise. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"5 people dead is a terrible thing, I have not personally seen this on the news. Out of interest people keep referring to Orlando being a gun friendly area, this is true but does anybody know the gun rules of the place where this man worked? was it for example a federal building? Or is the company itself against the carry of firearms? Either of these could point to no one with a carry permit being armed. As for the argument that the uk should allow concealed carry, I back this 100%. Imo this should be implemented differently to the states, people who own an fac should be allowed to take training that will enable them to apply for a carry permit, Ever concealed carry was banned here ( straight after the jfk shooting, coincidence?) Gun crime and violent crime alike has risen exponentially. Armed citizens will not stop all mass shootings, this is obvious but many have been stopped by them, they just font get the same media coverage. A gun imo gives a person options, it gives a victim the opportunity to defend themselves. Theres an old american saying, god made man, funs made man equal. Imagine if you will a frail old woman being attacked by a well built six foot tall guy with a bat, or the old man shot to death in his home in st helens two weeks ago and this may start to ring true. A gun is not the answer to all problems but I for one would rather a mugger, ra,,pist or murderer with a bullet in them than an innocent persons life being destroyed by them." One thinking person on these islands 
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"5 people dead is a terrible thing, I have not personally seen this on the news. Out of interest people keep referring to Orlando being a gun friendly area, this is true but does anybody know the gun rules of the place where this man worked? was it for example a federal building? Or is the company itself against the carry of firearms? Either of these could point to no one with a carry permit being armed. As for the argument that the uk should allow concealed carry, I back this 100%. Imo this should be implemented differently to the states, people who own an fac should be allowed to take training that will enable them to apply for a carry permit, Ever concealed carry was banned here ( straight after the jfk shooting, coincidence?) Gun crime and violent crime alike has risen exponentially. Armed citizens will not stop all mass shootings, this is obvious but many have been stopped by them, they just font get the same media coverage. A gun imo gives a person options, it gives a victim the opportunity to defend themselves. Theres an old american saying, god made man, funs made man equal. Imagine if you will a frail old woman being attacked by a well built six foot tall guy with a bat, or the old man shot to death in his home in st helens two weeks ago and this may start to ring true. A gun is not the answer to all problems but I for one would rather a mugger, ra,,pist or murderer with a bullet in them than an innocent persons life being destroyed by them. One thinking person on these islands
"And again, the inability to consider the actuality that the evidence is not there to support the opinion postulated, and I hope not the inability to consider that no one opposed to gun carrying is pro innocent lives being destroyed by criminals. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I read it as, "thank God, it isn't yet another terrorist attack; we've just had one yesterday" She did not say that it was OK or they were less dead - Mrs. J -" Yes, I imagined that's what she meant. But how do we know for certain? If people are going to debate, they should have the communication skills to back themselves up,rather than relying on others to protect them. This is why social media is such a chore. And having seen the OP jump down someone's throat when she misunderstood them, all I can it's karma | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I read it as, "thank God, it isn't yet another terrorist attack; we've just had one yesterday" She did not say that it was OK or they were less dead - Mrs. J - Yes, I imagined that's what she meant. But how do we know for certain? If people are going to debate, they should have the communication skills to back themselves up,rather than relying on others to protect them. This is why social media is such a chore. And having seen the OP jump down someone's throat when she misunderstood them, all I can it's karma "Ey? If you have an issue can you pm me. And when was this you are referring to? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I read it as, "thank God, it isn't yet another terrorist attack; we've just had one yesterday" She did not say that it was OK or they were less dead - Mrs. J - Yes, I imagined that's what she meant. But how do we know for certain? If people are going to debate, they should have the communication skills to back themselves up,rather than relying on others to protect them. This is why social media is such a chore. And having seen the OP jump down someone's throat when she misunderstood them, all I can it's karma "I did explain myself if read the thread throughly and I didn't expect anyone to protect me thank you | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"That was several hours ago, wasn't it? A sacked employee killed 5 former colleagues. Yes not terrorism. Thank god Thank god? Seriously? So the shooting of 5 people in America is okay because it;s not a terrorist attack? I didn't mean it like that , Out of interest how did you intend it? I read it as, "thank God, it isn't yet another terrorist attack; we've just had one yesterday" She did not say that it was OK or they were less dead - Mrs. J - Yes, I imagined that's what she meant. But how do we know for certain? If people are going to debate, they should have the communication skills to back themselves up,rather than relying on others to protect them. This is why social media is such a chore. And having seen the OP jump down someone's throat when she misunderstood them, all I can it's karma
I did explain myself if read the thread throughly and I didn't expect anyone to protect me thank you "I for the life of me can't think when I've 'jumped down someone's throat' green arrow should show that | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is situations like this that enforce the need for LEGAL concealed carry. If one sane person would have been packing some heat. There might be zero dead or one dead... Who knows just an opinion. People who want to harm will do so in a plethora of ways. Arm bearing is the best way known to humans to protect lives. Even though they aren't without limitations . The shooting in Orlando was where people are allowed to carry guns. Sadly, we in UK aren't alowed to carry a toothpick and thus become easy victims of anyone who decides to attack. " Think how many would have died if the London attackers had access to legal firearms Every year roughly 30000 Americans are killed in gun violence. That's 10 September 11th Attacks each year. Think about that. Ten 9/11's every year. Weapons have no place in civilised society. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Ironically, to Brits, one of the strongest arguments you can make to vindicate our gun control laws is by being a firearms fetishist and getting a hard-on when terrorist attacks happen so that you can push your agenda. And, I say this as a Brit who owns legal firearms. " Well said. The people on this thread who are saying that the terror attack in London could have been prevented by a civilian with a legally-owned concealed firearm are talking out of their arses. It's the same argument that was used in the wake of the mass shooting at Pulse, Orlando...a load of gun-nuts screaming about how different it would have been if the people in the club had been allowed to carry firearms... In actuality, unless you are a trained member of law enforcement or the military, you are more likely to injure or kill an innocent bystander than shoot the perpetrator of a crime. In the London attack, highly trained armed police officers took out the three terrorists; HOWEVER, they also wounded a civilian in the process. What makes untrained civilians think that they would have been able to shoot the terrorists without hitting any members of the public, if even a police 'swat' team could not manage to do that? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" What makes untrained civilians think that they would have been able to shoot the terrorists without hitting any members of the public, if even a police 'swat' team could not manage to do that?" Because those kind of people usually think they're real hot shit tough guys and like to fantasise how they'd take out all the baddies and be the big hero. In my opinion, obviously... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
