blonde poker forum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/dec/14/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting-live

27 killed including 18 children. 

"To put it into context, the number of deaths in the 1999 Columbine shooting, previously the the worst mass killing at a US school, was 13"

Bloody hell.

:(

"CBS News reporting that the shooter was the father of one of the students. A 20 year old from New Jersey."

These look really young kids. I am guessing the shooter is only 20 years old so his son or daughter must be 4/5 years old max.

Michael Moore ‏@MMFlint

Only minutes away from pundits & politicians say, "This isn't the time to talk about gun control." Really? When is that moment?

Kids are 4-11 years old at the school :(

So sad.  One of the parents they spoke to (his son was OK) said it's shocking, but he wasn't surprised to hear it had happened. It's pretty sad when people start to half-expect these things. 

The Second Amendment is so wrong, but how do you "put the genie back in the bottle", as one commentator put it?

It's not the time for politicians to talk about it now - not when there are still parents who don't know if their children are harmed or not. But journalists and commentators can and should talk about it now.

All imo of course.

Oh my, this is so so dreadful, and depressing.

The families must be going through such torment.

The second amendment was written when guns were basically pop guns and you'd be pretty unlucky to be even injured if you were shot at by one.

Now people are using the amendment to justify buying uzis.

It's like someone who got the freedom of London actually driving a herd of sheep over London Bridge.

Be interesting to hear what these idiots have to say:

http://home.nra.org/

Ugh terrible.

Never going to get the gun laws changed in America in the near future, remember nearly half the country still votes Republican.

A local Police Officer just gave a press bulletin, and suggested there were "several fatalities".

Got to start a some point, they don't seem to get long in between shootings, they seem to average one every couple of months.  Terrible tragedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bFIYLimyRHU

From West Wing

 “Until the facts are thoroughly known, the NRA will not be making any comment.”

Been on here for 7 years and only just found the delete message button!

Poor poor kids, makes me so sad. Little ones :(

Do people think gun control would help? Or make things much harder for police by driving the gun trade underground?

I think its probably too far gone over there to retrieve now.

Absolutely would help, how could it not?

People who actively want to use guns for crime could still get them sure, but people who lose their heads for 2 minutes and pull their gun out and regret it for the rest of their lives, wouldn't have a gun to pull out.

The country is awash with guns mate, I really don't think it would make much of a difference.

I understand this.

But "law abiding" people would not have a gun.

Might not make a massive difference, but impossible it could do anything but cut the amount deaths.

Treyvon Martin would still be alive for example.

What you've got to remember is their society really is strongly divided on this issue. The anti gun crew probably don't have guns anyway, and the pro gun crew feel strongly enough about it that they would get their guns licenced if that law came into force. Its such a fundamental issue in their constitution that I can't see them tightening up too massively if they do change the law.

I think if they did crack down hard it probably would make a difference, but I don't think they are brave enough to take strong enough measures to make a difference.

Who needs an assault rifle for self-defence?

It doesn't really matter what you or I think really, there is very little chance of a change in the law that will make a real difference to the situation there.

Obviously gun control would make a small impact on people 'losing their heads' for 2 mins as camel put it. However i can't see it stopping any of these spree shootings which are almost always planned over the course of weeks. I also fear it would mean normal law abiding citizens would go about buying weapons illegally thus providing a new market to organised crime.

In the same way i think it would be hard for us to ban cigarettes or fish and chips

Growing up (I'm not yet forty) shotguns were left laying around my grandparents house - gun safety was considered to ensure shotguns were propped up in the corner of a room and cartridges in a bowl on the sideboard or in a belt on a door handle.

Me and my cousins were always playing army, etc with them (unloaded - we weren't quite that daft).

My dad was a little more sensible, his guns were kept in a wardrobe with the cartridges on a high shelf but again I used to get them out when I home alone.

Had I flipped one day, or if we had been burgled, there could easily have been some damage (though I suspect a lot less with a couple of shotguns than the USA has recently seen with pistols and automatic weapons).

When the UK controls kept getting stricker and the licence fees went up and up eventually my Dad couldn't be bothered with the hassle or expense and got rid of them.

Gun control would have a massive impact short, medium and long term.

Short term the majority of law abiding people would hand over their guns as they did in the UK when handguns were banned. If there is any kind of register you can't simply lose the guns.

Medium term to long term the supply of guns would reduce further as guns illegal guns are gradually discovered by the police and the supply of legal guns reduces as gun manufacturers close down due to lack of sales.

Some criminal's will always get access to guns but basic economics dictate that reducing the supply will drive up the price and drive down the demand. The average UK criminal doesn't carry a gun as they are hard to get hold off, incur serious jail sentences and are not needed as you are unlikely to be involved in a shoot out with the police or general public.

What % of the UK population owned a hang gun? I would bet my net worth the % in the US is at least 10x what it was in the UK.

That's without even mentioning the unregistered weapons in the USA

Statistics du jour

11/09/01 3k died
Since then in USA with guns 334k

Amount spent on the prevention of terrorism $3,000,000,000,000 ish

On gun controll to stop Americans killing themselves and others with guns - almost nothing

Reading the reports, admire the teaching staff who showed incredible bravery amid such fear & terror.

Unimaginably horrific.

It would certainly make it harder for a 20-year old kid to get hold of three of them.

There are a couple of other forums I go on where this is being debated heavily, there is a lot of US posters on them. Pretty much all of them bar 3 or 4 are defending their policy on guns in the US. That pretty much says it all really, nothing will really change, there just isn't the public support to change it.

Funnily enough nearly all the anti guns people opposing it on those threads are Brits with a few other euro's thrown in.

Exactly. It might take years for gun control to take proper effect but you have to start somewhere. As mentioned though- Americans believe it's their right to bear arms so doubtful it will ever happen. Pretty sad

There's a small chance that three shooting sprees in the space of 12 months might make some reconsider, and those against guns may protest harder than before.

I bet there will be some small changes, but I doubt they will make any difference.

Banning semi automatic weapons would be a great start.

The states with tighter gun control have fewer murders involving guns. Of course, this could be correlation rather than causation, but to think nothing can be done to reduce the number of killings by guns in the US is flawed imo.

But there is a big difference between what could be done and will ACTUALLY be done.

That's a different argument. 

Obama has hinted at stronger gun regulation in the past, and now he doesn't have a re-election to worry about he might actually decide to do something.  As has been mentioned, regulation on automatic assault rifles would be one of the easy first steps. Then there's controls on concealed weapons.

Interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

More interesting figures:

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc43/kinboshi/6974_10151316039805155_1963736502_n.png)

Not really is all part of the equation you have to put in the mix. Is all well and dandy us bleating from over here, but they simply don't think like us over there.

You make it sound like they don't know any of this and it hasn't already been presented to the top bods repeatedly.

Who doesn't?  I love the way you're basing what ALL Americans think based on the views of some.

There ARE states with stricter gun-control laws.  Would you be surprised if some of these laws aren't spread nationwide?

(via Eck):

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/newtown-and-the-madness-of-guns.html

Does seem that some Americans are thinking along the same lines as us 'rational' Europeans.

No, I just doubt they will make any difference, people who want guns will still have them one way or another.

Why do you doubt that?  The evidence seems to contradict it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

They won't make changes far enough to make a difference. I'm on your side mate, but I lived there for a year and I've seen first hand their attitude to guns and how precious they are about being able to have them. I do think they will probably make some changes, but they will be too superficial to make a real difference.

It goes back to their constitution as has been said and they get really heated up about anything that challenges it.

FYP

 ;D

Geo

Not much of a discussion or much point in just saying well it wont help their all so dumb with so many guns already. Tis very frustrating.


maybe they should just arm their school kids aswell so they can 'respond' if something happens?

You cannot argue to keep guns just because its a right hassle to change the culture and reduce the huge amount of guns people already own. You have to do whats morally right and just, the things that are hardest to change are often the most rewarding long term.

If you are for the right to have guns then you have to at least come up with a valid argument, above the problematic to change spiel.

old paul phillips blog on gun control

http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html?nojs=1

Wow:

" Now as it happens I believe that 0% of the gun deaths in the US are preventable through gun prohibition"

Let's just ignore the evidence and have a good rant about how marvellous the American Constitution is.

And there lies the problem. Its all well and good us ranting about how they should change stuff, but you have to understand how most Americans think to realise they will probably change very little that will make a difference.

Maybe if everyone changed their status or picture on facebook, then the US Govt might start to pay attention...

That's not enough Vinny - I fear it may take the bold step of many people liking a photo of a child with a vague, trite slogan.

:)

I think to a degree you are probably right but in the longer run the bureaucracy involved will reduce the number of people that have them.  I am vaguely friends with a guy that used to be involved in politics in Florida and he was involved to a degree in the 70's of making it easier for people to have concealed weapon permits.  When they introduced it in the first year he said 43 people in the whole of Broward County (Fort Lauderdale area probably a population of nearly 2m) had a concealed weapon permit.  Last year that number was up to nearly 50k.  The process of making it easier for them made more people own guns and I don't see why that can't be reversed albeit probably slowly.  Of course there will aways be some people that want guns and will take steps to own them irrespective of the laws.  Gangbangers in Moss Side have access to guns but if they are caught with them then there are consequences and that could be the same in the USA.

I assume this is true and not social media crap. If so, brave lady

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-LsTp9CAAApDNF.jpg:large)

I think history has shown though that it is possible to change the way people think if you try hard enough.

How does anyone know what was said in a conversation between a teacher and gunman, who both died shortly afterwards?

Kids in the cupboard told the police?

This might be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever seen:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/connecticut-shooting-tragedy-robbie-parker-17986590

I just don't see getting the genie back in the bottle in the USA. One estimate I read had it at 270 million guns in private ownership in the USA. How do you get them back?

Buy them back? With what?
Ban them and demand they are handed back? Think you'd have civil war right there.

It's easy to say ban them in a country where legislation for our own good (arguably) is accepted without much of a protest, that's our culture. It's a lot different where a significant amount believe that an armed population means protection against dictatorship in Government - and that group are vehemently against the current president.

There needs to somehow be a resetting of the American relationship with guns. To regard them as a tool, not the 'equaliser'. The 'strap on your guns & go to town to fix the problems' attitude needs to be changed.

Gun control would be difficult now. It would take generations to achieve. But that's no reason not to do it.

When these tragedies occur the shooter often has multiple weapons on him. Restricting their availability would eventually make these incidents less likely and reduce the number of fatalities when they do occur.

But before gun control can be implemented Americans need to change their selfish attitudes on this subject.

The pro gun lobby are all about 'my right to own a gun (or 6)'  in other words me, me, me.

What about the rights of those poor children and the brave teachers who die protecting them!

barely any americans can read their own constitution. as far as they are concerned the 2nd amendment is 5 words, 'the right to bear arms'...... never mind what the rest of the line says, and god forbid they consider when it was written and why.

Yeah but America is a selfish country end of......

oh yeh I know I detest the bulk of them.


it's just a shame they have so much influence on the rest of the world.


what's v interesting is I had no clue about the level of gun ownership in Switzerland (and the other place in the article I read that I now cant remember) that surprised me.

Saw an interesting piece on the news about the gunman.

In the UK he would almost certainly bee in hospital, his problems were so sever, in America, with no NHS, he was left to his own devices.

land of the free bitches.

no online poker but assault rifles galore.

Link please mate?

It was on BBC News 24.

You'll have to sit and watch it for a couple of hours, everything is repeated ad infinitum!

I think in a country where people create videos titled "5 Military Surplus Rifles everyone should own..." without comic intent, gun control will always be an uphill task

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEA0lNZCrY

This.

I watched a video from a US news website reporting on the story this morning and the 'your ad will close in 5 seconds' type advert before the video was for a weekend sale on ammunition at a gun warehouse.

Only 1 of those rifles is not available to a license holder in the U.K.

And look what happened when national healthcare was proposed. Sigh.

They should all be more like us. Guns are banned for all - apart from those who are allowed to have them - and there are no handguns found anywhere, no one gets shot and everyone lives in peace and harmony.

The sad fact is bad/sad/mad people will do bad/sad/mad things, whatever means are available to them. There is already a law in America against what happened, so another could not be guaranteed to have made a difference.

The whole thing is a rotten and grotesque tragedy. The answer to prevent it happening again is sadly more controversial and more complex.

Yes you are right that psychos hell bent on reaping havoc will do so but it's a lot harder to kill 28 people without firearms and far less likely to happen.

Oh, special offer at the local supermarket:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Bushmaster-M4A3-.223-REM-16-Patrol-Carbine/19235996?adid=1500000000000027727720

I want one.

But while it's easy to sit in the UK where we're almost all within calling distance from the emergency services, where the most dangerous wildlife is maybe the wild boar. Our lives aren't too affected by the majority not having access to firearms (although anyone with an interest in the countryside and ecology will tell you they are still needed).

Our population density is 650 people per square mile. the USA is about 80. It's perfectly feasible to live over a hour from the nearest police presence, there are numerous potentially lethal animals, and yes, there's people with guns, some of whom aren't nice people. The gun is actually a necessary tool for some people, and some countries seem to manage with a lot of guns, so perhaps the psyche of the people needs adjusting?

The population doesn't NEED automatic assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds of ammo from the supermarket.  Some people might need certain weapons for hunting, and some might argue the case to have a gun in the house for self-defence (another argument about the effectiveness of this and if it actually causes more deaths or not) - but that's not really what we're talking about here.  Having guns for hunting, etc., can be controlled through licensing and legislation. 

Also your figure for population density of the US is very misleading. Most Americans live in densely-populated urban and sub-urban land: "As of 2011, about 250 million Americans live in or around urban areas. That means more than three-quarters of the U.S. population shares just about three percent of the U.S. land area".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_density

Ah, the overdramatic reply to what wasn't said.

Read what I was replying to - another call for removing firearms when it's not that simple. BTW the majority of urbanites in your demographic MAKES my case - because the minority are even more remote then - there was nothing misleading when I'm trying to make a point that some people have very good reasons to have firearms. So my point stands.

The population in general don't HAVE automatic assault rifles, automatic weapons are strictly licensed and I can't find any record of one being used in a massacre. Restricting ammo purchasing would just be unenforceable, and would be just silly TBH. Concealed handguns, meh, yeah you're probably right, can't find any record of lunatic gunmen with concealed carry permits mind you.

A big problem is that the gun control debate comes up in the aftermath of a massacre, leading to oversimplified, overemotional argument without any though to practicality or plain necessity.

A lot of massacres are done with semi-automatic weapons; which aren't in any way needed for self defence or hunting.

Several states have tried banning them, but because there isn't a Federal nationwide ban they've all found it too difficult to maintain.

You can't fix the gun culture problem in the US with one single piece of legislation - but if they started with something like banning weapons which are basically produced for wars it would at least make a start.

As you suggested I don't think you'd ever need as big a restriction as there is in the UK, but a long term aim could at least be restricting weaponry to the people who might actually need them and at a level which is appropriate to what they need them for.

The reply wasn't overdramatic - it was in response to the fact that automatic assault rifles can be bought at the supermarket when there isn't a need for this.  Some people, might need some guns for some applications.  Doesn't rule out far stricter gun-control laws.  Your argument is irrelevant and really just muddies some relatively simple areas that could be dealt with by legislation.


Read what I was saying.  I was talking about controlling assault rifles, concealed handguns, and the ability to buy hundreds of rounds with no restrictions.


As does mine.  MOST of the population don't need to hunt.  Therefore they don't need guns for this purpose.  Still don't understand why assault rifles are needed. 


You must have looked hard: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/23/a-gunowners-case-against-assault-weapons/


Again, no need for assault rifles, concealed handguns, or the ability to buy loads of ammo (and high-capacity magazines) over the counter without stricter licensing.

Has anything changed since Bowling for Columbine?
Did that film make any difference at all to gun laws or mentality?

Sigh.

So you have a go and say I'm misleading people when my point is entirely valid in the context I used it, but you're right because you're having a different debate with no-one? Nice one kin.

[ ]automatic assault rifle. [X] semi-automatic rifle based on an assault rifle platform.

 Understand what you're discussing before being a smart arse. Ignorance doesn't make you right.

Ignoring the selective edit, your reiterated points, meh - you wanted 3 things, 2 are unconnected to massacres & one is an impractical nonsense, so failing completely on practicality.

Have fun with the thread - I'm out.

LOL @ "semi-automatic rifle based on an assault rifle platform" not being an 'assault rifle'.

I get your points and the view you're trying to put forward, but they're actually not relevant to overall argument of increased gun-control.  Guns don't have to be used in 'massacres' to have been used in homicides or suicides.  The goal of greater gun-control is to reduce deaths, and restricting the three things I mentioned would help towards this goal.  Saying it's "impractical nonsense" is interesting when referring to the restriction of the sale of high-capacity magazines in supermarkets. 

This is partly why I mentioned that the political debate surrounding gun-control is best had at a distance from a massacre like the one at that school. The large-scale massacres are tragic and very sad, but they don't account for the vast majority of homicides and suicides by firearms in the US.  Gun control needs to be strengthened (imo) to look at the wider picture.  Like you say, those who need guns for hunting, etc., should be allowed to under licensed restrictions, but that doesn't stand in the way of other controls.

I think the NRA and others from the pro-gun lobby carry far more weight in legislative terms than the film would have. I'm sure it reinforced the views of those who want greater gun-control, but I'm sure it was largely preaching to the converted (so to speak).

Interestingly (and depressingly), the 'assault weapons ban' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) expired in 2004, only a few years after the film was released.

So this isn't deemed excessive or worthy of a ban:

(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc43/kinboshi/300px-Kg99.jpg)

Why would anyone need that gun and the magazine carrying 32 rounds?

I have to disagree with this.  It is the perfect time to both have the debate and pass the legislation and I dont understand why the politicians always say "now is not the time to have the debate" in the immediate aftermath of things like this.  Action on gun control and ensuring it never happens again is the best possible thing, indeed the only good thing, that can ever come out of these kind of horrific events.

LOL at the selective dropping of AUTOMATIC from your definition - you don't understand what you're arguing and are shifting as you realise you were wrong. Face it, you stuck your nose in, started an argument over a point that wasn't being made and are still getting all evangelical about it.

You've somehow managed to change my point from limiting buying ammunition to restricting the sale of high-capacity magazines... You not able to read what has been said?
But they tried the ban on extended magazines. Didn't work - because it was impractical nonsense.

BTW I can't find where you said the debate is best had at a distance. Can find where I made comments to that effect though.

I think they help focus people's attention and certainly evoke a lot of passion and feeling - but that's not always the best way to put forward a case for or against something. Using evidence to support or discredit an argument is far more compelling. Of course, ignoring the issue and not debating it at all is worse.

I was talking about assault rifles that are semi-automatic. They have magazines that hold lots of rounds, and the user can shoot the gun (yes, one round at a time) by pulling the trigger, pulling it again, and again and again. Are these needed?

Did I get 'assault weapon' and 'assault rifle' mixed up?  I apologise for the semantic mistake I made.


I picked on one point you mentioned, the rest was referring to the whole debate on gun control.


Just because something is impractical , I don't think it's nonsense or a reason for it to be dropped.


First page of the thread?

Funny place America, quite a lot of evidence that harsh sentencing, 3 strikes etc & death penalty available in many states makes no real difference to behaviour when society is so fundamentally lazy & corrupt and when lives are often without purpose or meaning. Legislating against ownership is hardly a bigger deterrent than already exists.

Talking about gun control kind of misses the point I think - just something for the petit bourgeoisie to hand wring about without changing anything significant in society

Tend to the view that the US is so culturally different to every other Western 'democracy' that you can't usefully compare solutions there with here.

good post. Lots of questions to ask, I like the fact if you have mental health problems there what you going to do? without private health care? what are the measures to monitor unstable people and not give them gun permits etc?

One of the things that really tilts Americans is being told what to do and having controls put on them (even if they are not as free as they like to think they are), I would say that is as big as an issue as the guns itself.

So its all well and good us clucking away about what is good for them, but they will resist it on that point too.

if they could stop bastardising our language and learn to read English, they could read the first/second amendments, using the first to verbally point out what the second amendment actually says. Hint, it's not just the words 'the right to bear arms'.


Im a big fan of bear4rms though :p


also just many lols at no online poker. but guns. yeh sure.  best all use full metal jacket ammo too just incase dem kids be wearing body armour.

This errs towards where I'm thinking really.

Our societies are set up for us to aspire to things in a way that the devil takes the hindmost. Even the most socially conscious of us rarely get beyond hand wringing to a point where we directly act on things that are clearly unfair and where we're often the beneficiaries of an accident of birth.

Poverty is the root of this stuff and it's more extreme in America - it's true that there is a massive amount of gun crime, a huge prison population but the better off are pretty happy to have this status quo as the bulk of it happens among an element that they rarely come into contact with. Now and then it spills over to touch 'everyone' like this kind of shocking event.

We don't have the same level of gun crime but we're the same fundamentally. Many people pretty damn well off ignoring an underclass of mentally ill, under privileged etc. As long as the street crime and harassment is away from us then all is well.

How many of us give up any worthwhile percentage of our wealth or time to help people less well off in a direct way. I certainly know people who do, I know people who don't (like me, I give a bit but never enough to change my construct). On balance I'd say most don't and that's why I think these things happen. It's an eruption that we suddenly see but the lava is flowing all the time. I'm not gonna suddenly act like ' this has to be stopped' when I make no effort to really try and stem the tide the rest of the time

Do you need to?

How about Restrict / Ban the supply of ammunition?

Nothing like getting your sales pitch in quick


YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y88VNIeNSZo

That is incredible......"stock up on your mags because that is what they are going to ban".  I can just about accept the argument that people want these things to protect themselves, their homes etc but would would you need more than one lot of ammo?

Today's Telegraph carried a very thought-provoking piece which highlights not just the issue of gunmen running amok but also the high numbers of domestic killings involving guns and the incredibly high suicide rates involving guns. The author makes the point that suicide with a knife or gas or rope is hard and generally slow, whereas if you stick a gun in your mouth...

The NRA are a symptom of much that is wrong in the US. I dare say a lot of Haliburton's senior execs are also NRA members.

Land of the free? You're kidding right?

Recommended reading IMHO

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9749024/Americas-deadly-obsession-with-guns.html

very good article.  A sad sad mess they have, and one that will never change in our lifetimes.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/stop-school-shootings-by-letting-teachers-fire-back-say-texas-officials/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/stop-school-shootings-by-letting-teachers-fire-back-say-texas-officials/)

"As educators, we don’t have to be police officers and learn about Miranda Rights and related procedures. We just have to be accurate.”

Kin would you say banning cars that do more than 70mph in the uk should be brought in? Or even cars that accelerate quickly?

No. As 70mph is an arbitrary speed limit in the UK, and accelerating quickly can be useful and done safely.

Assault weapons...?

But there should definitely be stronger punishment for people who drive without a license, insurance, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or just drive dangerously.

Just WOW at the NRA press conference:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20807591

Basically: "Guns don't kill people, CNN and Call of Duty do."

Depressing news conference from the NRA. ' Let's have armed guards at every school'. Missing the point.Sad.

TEAM AMERICA FUCK YEAH

Danny Baker:

"Seems the NRA would argue John Lennon was really to blame for his own death because he wasn't quick enough on the draw."

I'm sure the NRA don't do irony, but this was happening during their press conference where they were calling for more guns:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/da-4-dead-including-gunman-along-rural-pa-road

I cant believe they let the onion write their statement. so incred.

You laugh but republicans really believe that, that's why there won't be massive changes. ' people kill people' is their line and don't make the mistake of thinking its just the NRA that think that, it's pretty ingrained to most on the right there.

NEWS! NRA calls for end to childhood obesity by putting McDonalds in every school http://bit.ly/RJePpO

Oh I know.  They're mostly the same people who are "pro-life" and are happy to shoot doctors who carry out abortions.

Pro American life tho. fk dem foreigns and non whites.

...and dem gays.

Just really trying to make the point that whilst your trying to ridicule them as some looney right wingers, their views are actually relatively mainstream over there.

Doesn't mean they're not loony right-wingers.  Most of them also believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.  A hundred million right-wing Americans can be wrong.

Also, I will continue to ridicule them as long as they have ridiculous ideas.

I have no doubt they think your view are looney left wing liberal propaganda too!  :D

that just makes them all fucking retards.

I'll get back to you on what they think you are  ;nana;

As we've already seen - they have ridiculous ideas, based not on evidence, but on vicious ideology and self-interest. I really couldn't give a toss what those idiots think about my views and opinions.

You should start a crusade over there then mate  :)up

Good choice of word.

rofl crusadeaments

Seemed appropriate especially for Boshi, I know he likes to spread the word and do a bit of preaching.  :D

Really?

You seem to like putting your view forward as much as I do. 

Relax I'm just trolling you a bit  ;nana;

I know.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT2YYLkIFZ4

.

While the NRA were giving their press conference there are reports of another mass shooting in Pensylvania.
4 killed and 3 injured and the NRA say this does not constitute a mass killing.

I hate the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' defence. I mean, are we all aliens over here in the UK?

If it weren't all so tragic, I'd post the Chris Rock sketch on gun control.

Rofl at the US.

"We demand that Mr Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."


31k person petition, yet Fox news can keep airing wat. Bill OReilly wat. HOW DO THE TIDES WORK THO.


It's also lucky everyone has guns, so that they can kill their volunteer firefighters the day before Christmas.

Story on the bbc here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729

I love the bit where he says to Mr Pratt (lol)

'You are a very stupid man, aren't you?'

(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/Andr4w/9c36b0ed006a03fb5c04a79c4c0997e2.jpg)

 rotflmfao

pretty much the same logic as saying Anders Breivik in Norway 'proves' that illegality doesn't get in the way

but hardly worth arguing the point with people who just wouldn't see how flawed the logic is

Simple solution to the Timothy McVeigh threat - we just give everyone their own Atom Bomb that way we would all be safer!

(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/Andr4w/909c30fb51c46b0c26500b3994a3ed92.jpg)

An American newspaper effectively did the same thing yesterday by publishing a list of gun license holder in 2 counties near the site of the school shooting.
It was intended as a name and shame exercise by an anti gun newspaper but has the effect of pointing burglars to non armed houses.

If you search for stories about burglars being shot in America you don't get many results

I'm assuming that somewhere there must be some statistics on how many criminals actually get shot by armed members of the public?

The results you do get though are about innocent people being mistakenly shot, and Americans regretting that the burglars who did get shot weren't both killed on the spot or neighbours shooting burglars even though the police on the 911 call told them to stay inside and not do it because they were very close to the area and could respond quickly.

All of those stories seem to suggest that the problem is definitely more to do with Americans in particular rather than their legal system.

The stories suggest to me that the ready availability of a gun, with which to shoot people, is the issue.

any links to increased burglary reports or are you guessing just like the legislators?

Americans are mostly complete twats, that's the real issue.

(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/Andr4w/e879b89bc9560b13889a8b8c40bbc3b1.jpg)

FYP

FYP a little bit more

oh god yes. I'm not a fan of the general public. Was just focusing on USA because we're talking about them obv!

Worryingly, I think this is true.

!

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo

I've fixed the links.

They clearly didnt take away his rights! Definatley not free speech!

How to make Piers Morgan seem reasonable!

Ugh, that was just annoying, fking big gob seppo.....

That is pretty hilarious really.....except for the fact he has a gun!!

That could have been an episode of the Onion

Great guest. Illustrates all the points Piers is trying to make without actually having to say a word.

WOW.
not very often Piers Morgan is next to someone on the screen and is the person I dislike most :)

That fella is a mentalist

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a449543/alex-jones-waves-gun-at-piers-morgan-in-conan-obrien-spoof-video.html

Conan is overhyped in the US but massively underrated elsewhere. This really tickled me.

http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

Just ;gobsmacked;

Our comments are never beating the ones underneath that article.

I quite liked this exchange:



Let's say my toilet is broken. I call a plumber, and...

1. He works on the problem.

2. He says it's fixed.

3. I pay him.

4. I check the toilet and it still isn't working.

5. He refuses to give me my money back.

I can shoot him.

And this goes for anyone else in the service industry - pizza delivery, electricians, contractors...   Yesterday 11:25am



reply


only at night time   Yesterday 11:30am


next reply

Only in Texas and only at night.   Yesterday 11:31am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26959628

It's just harder to kill loads of people with knives instead of guns.