Definitely not to a school.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
One of the most American headlines I have ever read.
Unintentional (ok sure)but still she has a fecking gun at school...
Sort of proves a point that gets made often about guns and how safe do they make you and those around you.
Though reading the article the police are still looking at this.
Last edited:
Not to school for sure.
feck your guns I have a seatbelt bitches!
#tank
Wasn't there a story about someone at a school having a crossbow??!!!
The Americans are just insane when it comes to guns and access to them.
They are killing machines pure and simple, so why should as many people as possible have access to them?
It makes no sense at all on any level.
The Americans are just insane when it comes to guns and access to them.
They are killing machines pure and simple, so why should as many people as possible have access to them?
It makes no sense at all on any level.
I wonder if Lingard has one.
Oh come on, lets try leave that to one side, and talk about the actual topic here.
That is a bit of a stereotype and not really helpful. The majority of Americans are in favor of more gun control. America maybe insane but quite a lot of its citizens are no different to people anywhere else.
I don't think we should be focused on how many people have access. The discussion should be what type of guns and how they are bought/track and used. Some simple measures would dramatically reduce mass shootings, crime and suicides over time. Once America is used to sensible gun control in a generation or two maybe more restrictions can be implemented.
A middle ground has to be found for any sort of debate and legislation to succeed.
The fact that any debate seemingly should be around guns and their availability is the insane part, why on earth should people away from the military and the police (and Olympians for the events that require them) have access to them in the first place?
What good does having easy access to them bring to anyone?
They are killing machines and nothing more than that, why people would want them in the first place I have no idea, nevermind multiple ones and of different kinds!
If American citizens are no different to anyone from anywhere else, then why do they need any guns at all? I have lived a perfectly good life and never come into contact with even the smallest of them (aside from seeing them on a police officer), so if what you are saying is true, that Americans are just like myself, then most of them should be happy to have them banned totally then, as they should be able to live their lives quite easily without them.
The actual feck. So it turns out that sometimes guns wound people on their own. Or it may have been the backpack's fault.
Last edited:
"It's too early to talk about backpacks".
Crazy, and it will just continue like this, because they believe that everyone should have easy access to killing machines, rather than not having them at all.
The mind boggles, it really does.
Ban the backpacks from Muslim countries.
That's scary. It's an yield low enough that somebody may deem it practical.
The majority of them do not have guns. Around 30% of households have a gun, and for arguments sake lets say 5% have legitimate reasons like being in remote areas. So basically we are down to 25%, of which I would guess 50% would gladly surrender them if the law changed. Now you are down to that hardcore 10-15% that defend the second amendment and maybe support the NRA.
You have to factor in the argument things like the republic nature of the US. Its not one country like say the UK, its a collection of States. Many laws are at the State level. The gun debate will have to be in baby steps over a few generations before the problem is truly resolved.
Americans are actually starting to regulate themselves to some degree. A drop from 51% to 36% with reduced gun laws is pretty dramatic.
Last edited:
What has being in a remote area got to do with needing a killing machine?
There should be a law passed down from high above at government level, but you know that will never happen, it just seems ingrained into the culture to have at least one.
It should be a simple case of banning them, and only allowing them in certain cases (like for example in the movies or Olympic/Paralympic required people) such as police and the military.
Killing machines should not be in the hands of children, nor those in crowed areas, or in fact most of the general population, there just isn't any need for them at all ever.
More evidence it is a small cabal holding the country to ransom.The majority of them do not have guns. Around 30% of households have a gun, and for arguments sake lets say 5% have legitimate reasons like being in remote areas. So basically we are down to 25%, of which I would guess 50% would gladly surrender them if the law changed. Now you are down to that hardcore 10-15% that defend the second amendment and maybe support the NRA.
You have to factor in the argument things like the republic nature of the US. Its not one country like say the UK, its a collection of States. Many laws are at the State level. The gun debate will have to be in baby steps over a few generations before the problem is truly resolved.
Americans are actually starting to regulate themselves to some degree. A drop from 51% to 36% with reduced gun laws is pretty dramatic.
I am one of the most anti-gun members of this site yet even I understand the need for hunters to have guns and for farmers to need rifles and shotguns.
Probably because I have grown up surrounded by farms here in the UK and every farmer I know have rifles (usually. 22's) and shotguns. And I have lots of friends who enjoy hunting.
Hunting is huge in the states as you would expect with such diversity of land, especially in rural areas. The same as Canada, a country that has far fewer gun related crime.
Probably because I have grown up surrounded by farms here in the UK and every farmer I know have rifles (usually. 22's) and shotguns. And I have lots of friends who enjoy hunting.
Hunting is huge in the states as you would expect with such diversity of land, especially in rural areas. The same as Canada, a country that has far fewer gun related crime.
You really don't help your argument using the term "Killing Machines". American is a huge country and many people live in remote areas where there are real dangers. There are also a lot of people that do actually hunt and eat what they kill. Plus there are a lot of people that are members of sporting clubs and shoot for fun. Any gun debate as to have provisos for those groups or it will be very hard to move forward.
Sorry for the pedantry but you live in the United States. America is a huge continent, two actually, and I've friends who cringe if they hear someone from the US refer to themselves as American. Feck my Brazilian mate Joey usually starts a fight over it it winds him up so much
There was actually a huge Twitter fallout about it recently with thousands of people from Canada and North America moaning about the fact Trump said "God bless America" rather than the "United States of America" at the end of his State of the Union address the other day.
Anyway sorry to derail the thread just thought I'd mention it....
Sorry for the pedantry but you live in the United States. America is a huge continent, two actually, and I've friends who cringe if they hear someone from the US refer to themselves as American. Feck my Brazilian mate Joey usually starts a fight over it it winds him up so much
There was actually a huge Twitter fallout about it recently with thousands of people from Canada and North America moaning about the fact Trump said "God bless America" rather than the "United States of America" at the end of his State of the Union address the other day.
Anyway sorry to derail the thread just thought I'd mention it....
"In English, the unqualified term "America" typically refers to the United States of America, with "American" typically referring to people and things from that country."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/America
Most Central and South Americas are fine with that definition. I live in a City that is very diverse and has a lot of people from other parts of the Americas.
I have said previously or mentioned special cases (like Olympic/Paralympic events where guns are required), so you can add in sporting clubs to that as well, but in the main guns are killing machines, so not quite sure why my use of that terms is not doing me much good?
If it is for hunting other animals or humans, then end result is still the same, things get killed using these machines, hence killing machines as a good name for them!
Most people should be able to live their lives without the need for ever coming into contact with a gun (lets use that term for the moment, rather than killing machine), so it is good that people are not buying as many as they did previously, but the fact that there are still people that are doing so, is a huge problem (away from the groups that have already been mentioned), they really need a bit of help.
You should need to take a test of some sort, if you are not affiliated with a club, or part of an acceptable business where guns are needed (like in the movies for example, and even then in that case, guns should only be on loan with a time for bringing them back when the filming has finished), to prove that you are mentally sound for owning one, and that should be it, one gun maximum per general populace, so nothing of the sort that we saw in Las Vegas where he had loads of them should be allowed to happen.
There should be regular checks on people who have a gun to make sure that they only have one, and not more than that, because having more than can only lead to incidents like Las Vegas if unchecked.
But what about farmers? Or hunters?
Like I said I'm probably one of the most anti gun posters here but what you are suggesting will not only never happen, it's also completely impractical too.
Vegas could never happen if assault rifles were banned. If only bolt action rifles with 5 bullet capacity magazines were all that was allowed and shotguns under special licence for farmers etc then all of these mass shootings would be eradicated. How ever You have to deal with handguns too and that's a problem in itself. BUT it's the assault rifles and the stupidly large magazine capacity that is the main problem in mass shootings. Well that and the seriously disturbed lunatic who carries them out that is.
It's just extremely naive to say one gun etc because if you live out in the sticks where bears and wolves are present and if you own pets or have kids or a farm then I can definitely see why you would want a gun. Even more so if you enjoyed hunting too.
Last edited:
So much nonsense in the above post. Lets start with movies, they don't use real guns so not even part to the gun debate. So you're are saying its OK if you're affiliated with a gun club, guess what gun clubs affiliation would sky rocket. One gun is all you need hey? Do you really know the first thing about firearms?
I am a member of two gun clubs. One is sporting clays and I own three shotguns, each has a different purpose. I am also a member at a rifle range where long range shooting is very popular. I have two rifles for shooting there, three if you include my AR, because at different distances you need different calibers.
My uncle is an avid hunter/ fisherman and he eats what he kills. He has a couple of different rifles for that.
I don't think he's the problem. It's the AR15 assault rifles etc that need to go.
I don't think he's the problem. It's the AR15 assault rifles etc that need to go.
Exactly Billy.
I agree with what you are saying. Its not really the ARs that are the problem, its the large capacity magazines. I would also throw in semi-auto but many hunters use semi auto these days. I think a first good step would be limit rifle magazines to five rounds, and handgun mags to ten rounds. That and sensible gun registration, tracking and after sales and things will start to improve.
There is absolutely no reason why a civilian should have a weapon other than possibly a shotgun or bolt action hunting rifle in case they hunt or live in an area where there are potentially dangerous animals. Why it is legal for people to own handguns, nevermind assault rifles, I’ll never understand.
Agreed. Although I think most hunters would be fine to give up semi auto rifles.
People in remote areas do need a handgun, often a bloody big one, for protection. What about sport clays, and competitive target shooting with rifles and hand guns?
Semi-auto is good for Hog hunting. Those little buggers hang around in gangs and are fast aggressive little buggers.
Lol I know. My uncle and I got chased by one and just made it onto the hood of his truck.
At the very least you can limit these assault weapons to members of a hunting club only. And then the club should bear some responsibility about that member.
Hence why I wrote that in special cases they can have a shotgun or a hunting rifle.
And obviously if they shoot in competitions they need a rifle. Depends on what kind of rifle you’re talking about, though.
Looks horrifying doesn't it. That was my thought when I saw long range rifles at a gun shows 16 years ago. Why would anyone want or need a sniper rifle was my thought. These days guns like this are very popular with sports shooters and gun enthusiasts.