What tripe, people calling for banning guns are slightly less misguided than the ones asking to arm teachers? Sort it out.
Well done for tarring everyone with the same 'mob' brush btw, really helps your argument.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
What tripe, people calling for banning guns are slightly less misguided than the ones asking to arm teachers? Sort it out.
Well done for tarring everyone with the same 'mob' brush btw, really helps your argument.
Does anyone know the answer? Is it the society we live in, TV, video games, schooling, parents. Who knows
Yes, I saw that you ducked the issue.
In New Jersey schools are locked and they have a security camera by the door, but they open the door when someone rings the bell anyway, so right now have a cop in each school.
I'm sure there have been 'Adam Lanzas' in Ireland but the difference is they don't have the same capability for mayhem.
what issue? Tell you what, you tell us what your idea of 'Man control' is, and we'll debate it ok? Btw, electro-shock therapy is already taken.
The damn news papers already saying the shooting is in the second place in the ranking made by the media.
I think gun control would help for starters. With gun control these things would still happen, but far less frequent IMO.
It doesn't happen in Britain on anything like the scale that it does in America! The murder rate in America is about 4 times higher in America than it is in Britain. Britain did introduce much tighter gun controls when a similar tragedy happened in Dunblane in 1996!
Switzerland simply doesn't have the poverty and resultant social problems that America does. Ill tell you one thing though, if massacres like this started happening in Switzerland with American style regularity, they would introduce tighter gun control laws.
You guys shipped them to US
All these people banging on about how guns are necessary to protect against tyranny can feck themselves. The government has drones and tanks and fighter jets. Your guns won't do anything.
What this comes down to is that some people like guns and they don't give a shit how many innocent people get killed. Makes me furious.
What this comes down to is that some people like guns and they don't give a shit how many innocent people get killed. Makes me furious.
You would need to know why they did what they did.
The reason will not be, oh, I can legally go and buy a gun so I better shoot a load of innocent people.
So removing this will not solve the issue. It is a much more complex problem and I don't feel fixing one consequence will solve it.
They will work outside the law. Change their methods. You will be constantly chasing the physical implementation instead of dealing with the logical root.
Are drugs any harder to get hold off since making them illegal?
Here in Amsterdam they don't have cops at schools. Very very few people have guns.
You guys forget or don't know but he had to be 21 to buy a hand gun in new jersey
I don't think the reason this happens is because of the gun laws, but the gun laws allow you to carry these atrocities out much easier.
Bingo, poverty and social problems are correct, so why is no one saying we need to deal with the poverty and social problems?
Banning guns will still leave these problems so what will happen then?
Has there been any shootings in the UK since the Dunblane shootings? did these tighter controls work?
To be clear, i am not advocating lax gun controls. It would however be remiss of us to ignore the similarities between the perpetrators of these terrible crimes.
I get your point, but what I don't get is why you think gun control wouldn't at least start to help the problem? Why do nothing, when it's such an unnecessary situation in the first place?
Early this morning the Michigan Legislature passed a law allowing guns to be carried in schools, churches, day car centers and stadiums.
There's no way the government could even start to take guns away. There is no record of how many guns I own or what they are. If the police showed up right now and asked for them, all I would have to do is say I sold them privately and I don't remember who I sold them to and I would be completely legal. Very, very few people would give up their guns.
The world has officially gone mad.
If there were no guns nobody could be shot. It really is that simple.
The rate of deaths (not just the absolute numbers) increases with increased rates of gun ownership. This makes the relationship between absolute gun numbers and absolute gun deaths exponential or close to exponential. It is a complete no brainer but the US has this weird gun fetish based on thinking that they are still pioneers in the Wild West.
I would say it is absolutely impossible to enforce gun control at any level, legal or otherwise in the United States sans the introduction of a totalitarian police state.
300 million + citizens. A massive country. Unsecured borders. People who want to be armed, law or not, will be armed. Those are the facts.
What issue? The fact that in all societies and all nations - regardless of creed, colour or race - the vast, vast majority of murders and other acts of violence are committed by men.
You apparently believe it's a "non-issue" and not a relevant fact ... which is pretty much in keeping with the superficial and trivial nature of the rest of your comments.
Have fun being an airhead ...
This country is violent and besides the gangs issue I believe the reason was the way it was founded, criminals, the very poor, etc, that came from Europe, then the fact they fought and kill with no law at all in most of the country. I don't know, I tried to compare the Aussies with the yanks and the only thing I see that's different would be the diversity we have here comparing with them.
People would act illegally so let's not try. It is that sort of thinking that has got the US to where it is today. Debating who else to arm to prevent armed people killing small children. Utter madness.
Gun laws won't stop the other factors like poverty, unemployment, marital/relationship issues but it will prevent many people who are not in a stable frame of mind from doing major damage.
I understand what you mean and I agree that America can't simply say "no guns for anybody" and think that the problem will go, but they've got to prohibit guns whilst also looking at other social aspects.
It would have a major effect on these types of incidents, although it would be naive to think it will prevent them outright.
Valid point. If the government wants to wage war on you, there is only going to be one winner. To think that if you keep as many guns as possible in your shed, will make the goverment think twice, is stupid. You would be barricaded there in your house on your mobility scooter, with your 50.000 rounds of live ammo, and an enemy that could kill you without pulling a trigger.
I would agree with that.
Unfortunately though I think the only real prevention is taking away the capability. Even if Adam Lanza displayed every warning sign imaginable, and we don't know if that's true, what could really have been done? as far as I can see the only solution is to make sure that a would be attacker is as limited as he possibly can be. People will always be mentally ill and people will always be capable of snapping, but what they shouldn't be is armed to the teeth.
I mean, powerful automatic rifles and bullet proof vests are presumably easy enough to get hold of in America. Why? it's senseless.
Britain has some of the strickest gun laws and lowest fire arm related death rates in the world.
So what are you suggesting? Man control?
Get back to the football forum and stick to being a Bale fanny, it's amusing rather than offensive.
Quite.
Have fun not understanding why you are being laughed at yet again. I'm sure it happens often in your life.
Unless, of course, you do actually have a reasoned point about 'Man control'?
Tighter gun controls work of course. We have a murder rate about 4 times less than America, yet Glasgow used to have the highest instance of hospitalisation resulting from assault in the developed world. The problem of violence is still apparent, it is just that the tools to reek devastation are not available.
I can only think of one 'massacre' since then. A couple of years ago a man murdered 12 people with a shotgun. The guy never should have had a license, it was a failing by the police in renewing it. It barely compares to the situation in America.
I can see from the point of view of PR it would work well and I agree with you and others who say it would make a small difference but when the next lunatic uses a bus or chemical mix or whatever what then?
If people put their energy into the cause, the multiple implementations won't happen and won't need to be legislated against.
But you have also ignored the fact that less gun control works.
Switzerland as I have already pointed out has no gun control, everyone has automatic weapons yet they have less gun crime than UK, USA, in fact any other country you could mention.
It's almost as if the two things are connected somehow.
To be honest given the state of affairs that the USA is in economically I'm surprised there haven't been more cases of these types of incidents. You're right, if somebody really wants to commit these acts they will, regardless of laws. They obviously don't care about laws if they're about to commit murder.
But if somebody snaps, or has a bad day at work, surely removing a source of destruction like a gun will prevent social damage in the long run. As Grinner said, you daren't get involved in road rage incase the other person has a gun.
It's not about banning anything that can do damage, buses/cars/baseball bats have a primary function which isn't killing, whereas guns are only made for one purpose; to kill.
I know. It's also as there are perfectly reasonable points as to why people should be allowed to carry guns, but aren't allowed to speak about them.
First rule of gun club?
Switzerland's firearm ralated death rate is much higher than the UK's. And Switzerland does have gun control. Those are the facts.
Exactly. Anyone who talks about how many people are killed in car accidents needs to read this.