199

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Cirrus

Cirrus

Active Member


View: https://youtu.be/yJqfNroFp8U
 
winjim

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
AndyRM

AndyRM

Elder Goth
winjim said:
Doubtless that will be spun as a good news pro gun story but it's really not. A man is dead, a woman will live with the trauma of having killed someone, the witnesses will be traumatised, and the system which was supposed to prevent the gunman possessing that weapon has failed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this.
 
C

Craig the cyclist

Über Member
winjim said:
Doubtless that will be spun as a good news pro gun story but it's really not. A man is dead, a woman will live with the trauma of having killed someone, the witnesses will be traumatised, and the system which was supposed to prevent the gunman possessing that weapon has failed.
Click to expand...
This also shows the total failure of bans and the futility of trying to introduce one. The shooter was already banned from owning a gun, but he had one. Do you really think another ban on top of the law, and his individual ban would have had him thinking he shouldn't have one?

The answer is to drop the ban nonsense and introduce education and maybe stricter sentences for breaching restrictions that may already be in place.

This will not be solved in any of our lifetimes, and politicians making the calls all know they will never actually be held to account on it.
 
Cirrus

Cirrus

Active Member
winjim said:
Doubtless that will be spun as a good news pro gun story but it's really not. A man is dead, a woman will live with the trauma of having killed someone, the witnesses will be traumatised, and the system which was supposed to prevent the gunman possessing that weapon has failed.
Click to expand...

Not going to argue with that as I agree with you.

Even if the US banned guns there are so many of them floating around that I doubt it would make any real difference.

A small glimpse into the thinking of some of the pro gun folk: https://www.youtube.com/c/Iraqveteran8888 some of the "gun gripes" videos show their thinking and distrust/paranoia re authority
 
theclaud

theclaud

Reading around the chip
Cirrus said:
Not going to argue with that as I agree with you.

Even if the US banned guns there are so many of them floating around that I doubt it would make any real difference.

A small glimpse into the thinking of some of the pro gun folk: https://www.youtube.com/c/Iraqveteran8888 some of the "gun gripes" videos show their thinking and distrust/paranoia re authority
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing as such, but it's common to see the States portrayed as an undifferentiated nation of gun nuts, where in fact gun owners are a shrinking minority, a minority of the minority are NRA members, about 3% of gun owners own about half the guns, and gun controls have majority support. It's a nation being held hostage by a loud and powerful minority.
 
Cirrus

Cirrus

Active Member
theclaud said:
Not disagreeing as such, but it's common to see the States portrayed as an undifferentiated nation of gun nuts, where in fact gun owners are a shrinking minority, a minority of the minority are NRA members, about 3% of gun owners own about half the guns, and gun controls have majority support. It's a nation being held hostage by a loud and powerful minority.
Click to expand...

Would not disagree with that.. the East and West coast are far more receptive to controls ( I think California are the most progressive) but places like Texas, Nevada and some southern states are quite pro gun (went to Texas on business 10 year’s ago or so, was shocked at the amount of people openly wearing guns in the office, tech firm, wasn’t anywhere near the majority but enough to make me feel decidedly uncomfortable.

The minority, as far as I’m aware, have/are turning away from the NRA as they think they aren’t doing enough for gun ownership (I know) they are moving over to GOA
 
Fab Foodie

Fab Foodie

Guru
And the beat goes on....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...latest-us-shooting?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
 
icowden

icowden

Legendary Member
Craig the cyclist said:
This also shows the total failure of bans and the futility of trying to introduce one. The shooter was already banned from owning a gun, but he had one. Do you really think another ban on top of the law, and his individual ban would have had him thinking he shouldn't have one?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It shows the futility of introducing a ban in a country where you can go to a local arms fair and buy weapons with cash.
You need to introduce *actual* gun control before bans can work.

In the meantime...

This is deadly to children in the US and is banned.:-

303883011_0_640x640.jpg

But this is fine:-

1654624219125.jpeg
 
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Über Member
icowden said:
No it doesn't. It shows the futility of introducing a ban in a country where you can go to a local arms fair and buy weapons with cash.
You need to introduce *actual* gun control before bans can work.

In the meantime...

This is deadly to children in the US and is banned.:-

View attachment 1387
But this is fine:-

View attachment 1386
Click to expand...
Guns are banned here and in most of Europe, yet criminals kills eachother with guns, so he does have a point. Apart from the more obvious point the Us isn't the uk, if you get something in the national government you have the indivudual states that can create loopholes, own laws and so on. Hell Obama never really managed to create a health care system and that is how crazy it may sound less contested than a weapon ban.

Whilst i agree a outright weapon ban would be the best option, i also think it not going to happen, not for the coming 10 years at least, so the second option much more restriction on the type of weapons sold how they are sold etc. doesn't sound that strange does it? So far as i'm aware Biden can just sign off an order to introduce such restrictions, whereas an weapon ban has to go to congress.
 
matticus

matticus

Guru
dutchguylivingintheuk said:
Whilst i agree a outright weapon ban would be the best option, i also think it not going to happen, not for the coming 10 years at least, so the second option much more restriction on the type of weapons sold how they are sold etc
Click to expand...

Of course an outright ban is silly - unless you plan to abolish your armed forces in 10 years time.

Now, this "restriction" thing you're talking about. That might be feasible. Like a sort of "gun control" maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom