Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 28206
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont think you need any gun personally, but I am a Brit, and we are different re guns.

I mean, I would hazard a guess that a massive majority of assault rifle owners are not likely to do much other than sport and hunting with them, so would pass any checks and balances needed to own them anyrate. I also know that gun ownership is ingrained into your (I assume) culture, but a small change to #2 is all thats needed to reduce or eliminate the sort of thing we
I dont think you need any gun personally, but I am a Brit, and we are different re guns.

I mean, I would hazard a guess that a massive majority of assault rifle owners are not likely to do much other than sport and hunting with them, so would pass any checks and balances needed to own them anyrate. I also know that gun ownership is ingrained into your (I assume) culture, but a small change to #2 is all thats needed to reduce or eliminate the sort of thing we saw recently.
I'm English, but fail to see how gun control stops mass shootings. If it worked I'd be signed up to it but as I've said, Im a proponent of the guns don't kill, people do ( Goldy looking chain tastic I know )
 
Not one person, not one, has answered my question. Would gun control stop the person who determined to kill a lot of people ? They will do it, regardless and nothing will stop them. Removing guns - not " doable " by the way, or even reducing their availability isn't going to work. How many times have you heard " nothing would have stopped him / her, they were determined. I just don't believe gun control is going to stop the crazed gunman. Answer, will gun control stop the crazed, unstable person ?
It will stop some of them

You seem very much on the side of crazed, unstable people. Any reason for this?
 
This is the crux of my argument which is nothing will deter the person determined to carry out a mass shooting. The shooting in Plymouth recently is a good case in point. " Bare " that in mind please ( you deserved that, sorry )
so you think there's 0% chance tighter gun laws would have made any difference at all.
This kid would have found the ways and means and the Robb elementary shooting would definitely have happened anyway and been just as devastating?

What about age, do you think there should be restrictions on under 21's like there is for alcohol?
 
Also for some on here referencing the 2A (like @Spotty) It's important to understand where it came from.
Read up on Shays rebellion and the whiskey rebellion (or any number of slave rebellions) and the lack of a standing federal army.
The Bill of rights was written some 15 years after the republic was born and was, in a sense, an effort to rectify the early problems that came with nationhood.
The amendment is badly misinterpreted today and used as a weapon it's self.
 
Also for some on here referencing the 2A (like @Spotty) It's important to understand where it came from.
Read up on Shays rebellion and the whiskey rebellion (or any number of slave rebellions) and the lack of a standing federal army.
The Bill of rights was written some 15 years after the republic was born and was, in a sense, an effort to rectify the early problems that came with nationhood.
The amendment is badly misinterpreted today and used as a weapon it's self.

 
so you think there's 0% chance tighter gun laws would have made any difference at all.
This kid would have found the ways and means and the Robb elementary shooting would definitely have happened anyway and been just as devastating?

What about age, do you think there should be restrictions on under 21's like there is for alcohol?
Totally insane argument this one.
 
Yes " FFS ", that argument. Your going to deny millions upon millions of people's right to bare arms for an argument that isn't nor has ever, been proven to work. Wasn't there some evidence following a shooting in a cinema in New York that was interesting. A fella walked into a cinema and shot six people whilst they were watching a movie. On being interviewed he was asked why, when there were three cinemas in close proximity, he chose THAT cinema to walk into. He said the the one he chose had a strict no gun policy. It was he said " easier " to kill people without being shot at himself. Anecdotal evidence I know but interesting none the less.


What if the right to bugger dogs was part of the ammendment? Would you still cry about it being changed? Because itis equally as absurd as the right to bare arms is in 2022.
 
Yes " FFS ", that argument. Your going to deny millions upon millions of people's right to bare arms for an argument that isn't nor has ever, been proven to work. Wasn't there some evidence following a shooting in a cinema in New York that was interesting. A fella walked into a cinema and shot six people whilst they were watching a movie. On being interviewed he was asked why, when there were three cinemas in close proximity, he chose THAT cinema to walk into. He said the the one he chose had a strict no gun policy. It was he said " easier " to kill people without being shot at himself. Anecdotal evidence I know but interesting none the less.

"On February 8, 1864, Sumner submitted a constitutional amendment stating: All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry this declaration into effect everywhere in the United States."


Yeh, but cannot deny peoples dated rights to bare arms.......such a sh** argument



Outdates "rights" are there to be amended, hence the name amendment!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top