Another school shooting in the US

stuartw_b said:
The question is, is why when this sort of tragedy happens do people talk constantly about the guns and yet nothing about the lunatic who did it?
Click to expand...

There has been plenty about the lunatic who did it. Read the thread.

On a side note every time the anti gun lobbies attempt to ban guns, gun sales in the US go through the roof.
Click to expand...

I haven't see any anti-gun lobbies attempting to ban guns on this occasion. The most they've done is to call for restrictions on certain types of firearms, tighter gun control legislation, consistency between the states, and proper enforcement of existing laws.
 
NeilFawcett said:
As I asked before, why does an individual need this sort of fire power? - Why is it 10 guns makes you any safer than 1?

The US' attitude to guns is unhealthly, and to use the constitution to endorse this sort of sick love affair with fire arms makes a mockery of it.
Click to expand...

Judging by his post, I think he's more of a collector. He doesn't state that he needs them all for self defence, and there is nothing wrong with collecting them.

Problem is however is how do you differentiate between genuine collectors like him and the nutters ?
 
I've just watched those Piers Morgan videos, there's one with the guy he called stupid and another with three people, one who wrote a book called 'More Guns Less Crime'.

As much as I hate Piers Morgan, when he comes up against these right wing nuts like the gun lobby and Ann Coulter, he does surprisingly well and I find myself begrudgingly warming to him slightly.

I'd still to see him fall face first into broken glass and then set on fire but still, it could be worse.

The arguments put forward by the gun lobbyists is taken so far out of context; the guy in one of those videos claims that the murder rate of 3 per 100,000 in the UK is 10 times higher than 'certain areas' of the US where concealed carrying of firearms is legal is ridiculously specious. They're allowed to compare the murder rate of the entire UK, with 65 million people and the most dangerous areas of our inner cities like London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. with a couple of handpicked counties where everyone is a farmer and a sheriff is ludicrous.
 
MrLOL said:
Problem is however is how do you differentiate between genuine collectors like him and the nutters ?
Click to expand...

You don't, **** happens... if governments had a kneejerk reaction to everything that caused deaths we'd all be living naked in empty rooms. If he had murdered them all with a kitchen knife would we be talking about banning cutlery? nope.

The best way to deal with it is to try to understand why he felt he had to kill himself and more importantly murder lots of innocent civilians before he did so. Things like this are less prone to happen in the UK because we have a benefits system to support the poor/hopeless in society rather than any legal access to firearms, it's no surprise that the poorest countries have the highest crime rates, USA may be a wealthy country but they have a hell of a lot of poverty/massive inequality.
 
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
Why do some people have such problems grasping the concept that gun control doesn't necessarily = no guns? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Why do some people"
As you are quoting me, why don't you just say "me" instead of the farcical attempt at indirect wonderment? Nobody else in the room made the same jest did they.

His stance is an attack on their constitution, something they came up with and something that according to their founders shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say anything about only being able to choose from a selection of neutered designs.
I don't see anyone holding out against a future tyrannical government (which was what was the intent at the time of writing) armed only with plinking guns. If their government seeks to control a population by arming their police with such weapons, then their own constitution implies that the people should be able to own the same weapons.

If they want to control guns then the 2nd amendment has to be removed, so the government can stop pretending they serve the people but that the people serve them (which used to be the only thing that made their democracy unique).
 
Last edited:
Cleeecooo said:
That's what they're accepting already. They're not allowed to buy machine guns for example.
Click to expand...
It's pretty hard to vote for a pro gun party when both parties field candidates that are anti gun, successive states have conspired in making 'the right to bear arms' as untenable as possible, some have just banned them altogether.
Really, they should stop pretending they have an inviolate constitution because they just don't.

Many are just suggesting we neuter the selection a tad more to help prevent the crazies being able to kill so easily.
Click to expand...
Given the millions of lives they have lost in wars to maintain their way of life, it seems odd to give it all away based on what crazy people can do to a few tens of people.
 
Retarded amendments have been repealed before. Time to repeal another one. Will never happen though due to America's hard on for instruments of murder.
 
I know the 'proportionate response' suggested by the slightly less crazy people in America is a ban on assault rifles. I get that, it's the only argument they could win. But the actual sensible, right thing to do is repeal the whole bloody amendment because it's retarded.

There's democracies all across the world that function perfectly well without arming every single one of their citizens with deadly weaponry. It's unbelievably stupid.
 
Nobody stops to consider that we are busily arming chunks of the middle east, a group of people who frequently kill children for ***** and giggles. Nobody calls them crazy or suggests we take their weapons off them.
I think we are directing our anger at the wrong part of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom