Just grow up and own your shit, not really hard. Hell, I've apologized to people on here when I've said off the wall shit. Doesn't make it right in the first place but it's not hard to act like an adult.
You coming on here and talking about "ha! I was drunk! jokes on you!" is petty and childish.
I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from but don't act "prescious" because I took a shot right back at you.
That's just the most recent one I could remember enough about to find on Google. I'm not presenting it as evidence that there are several a year, I'm presenting it as evidence that Sandy Hook wasn't the last one, or even the most recent one with a double digit death toll.Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
Lol orite mate, peace.
I'm agnostic about gun control but it really is not hard to come up with reasonable positions to not be where you are on gun control.
The policy of banning things doesn't have a great track record. It should generally be met with skepticism.
Gun violence is rare and mass shootings even rarer. If you have had guns in your family for generations without incident which scenario is more plausible: your kid is suddenly going to decide to shoot up his school or there is not much danger to guns?
There are background checks now that are far stricter than anything around circa 1980. Mass shootings may have occurred prior to that but Columbine has the same market effect as 9-11 in the American psyche. May be wrong but people who can't remember an urgency when you had virtually no restrictions may think things other than guns are more important.
A lot of the mass shooters got guns despite current regulations. Sandy Hook kid stole theirs (yes, from parents - I know) and Holmes, Roof, and the guy in Louisiana all should not have been able to get one. A lot of people would rather focus on fixing current laws than an outright ban. They get shouted down. Murphy (R-Missouri), a former psychologist, had been unable to get traction for years on measures to increase communication between cops and psychologists for years but had been shouted down in the maelstrom of stupidity that is our gun debate.
Mass shootings are the rarest form of gun deaths. The current debate focuses solely on that and then extends it to gang violence. It really is not unreasonable to argue that banning guns is not going to stop drug gangs who pull in $25,000 to $100,000 a corner from finding alternative suppliers. Which, of course, makes a lot of the gun debate about things which affect me but not thee.
Frankly, there are so many guns around that if reality matched the rhetoric we'd be Raqqa.
Finally, since this entire conversation is just virtue signaling from all sides, there are the simple political realities. It is a buzzsaw. Democrats are bad at politics because we have a tendency toward being scolds. The left is worse which explains them being the only people worse at politics than us. We lose entire chunks of the country because we condescendingly tell people they are stupid. Does gun violence, while tragic, really cause more suffering than uneven access to healthcare? And does the full throated yammering and outright distortion cause more opposition to things people would agree with?
None of this is an argument for anything other than the blinding zomg Muricans stuff is a overblown.
As always, you're blithering.
Ah yes, because the gun control lobby has used the same talking points and tactics you have. It has worked perfectly.
I always found the 'it's too difficult' argument to be lazy as fuck. I mean, making them illegal would be hard (to put it very mildly), but it would be a simple process if you put politics to one side and amend the constitution that all the retards cling to. I mean, it's as simple as taking steps to reclaim all of the registered guns. Then, you take the ones criminals have as and when you encounter them (coupled with prison terms for the offending persons).
Will you get low lives taking advantage? sure. Political backlash? sure. But more importantly - after a while the instances of gun grime would begin to fall away.
And that's the more extreme option of gun control (the one the gun lobby try to claim is the only other option to MORE GUNZZZ) There are pleanty of less extreme options available.
Toggle Spoiler
I appreciate what you're saying, but the actual and physical process of retrieving 300 million guns ...
Just the cost from assigning police or whoever to take on that task would be astronomical.
I'm not saying it's not worth trying I just really don't see how it's even remotely possible to get that type of cooperation from the American people, let alone get enough politicians on board to enact such a thing.
Plus I think it would actually incite a good deal of violence, what ...with all the "OVER MUH DEAD BODY" type folks in this country?
Personally, I don't reckon I would hand over my guns either, and I full well know there's a problem.
Edit: Plus, the initial taking away of guns from people who have them registered and would turn them in would create dozens of soft targets for crazy lunatics / thieving gangbangers / etc and would almost certainly cause an increase in such violent crime.
Then, sure, you catch the 'perp', take his gun, get that gun off the street. But there's still 1000s more that are roaming around that you don't know about.
I've said in the past the only way you get on a first step to gun control is if the public no longer feel the need to buy them. It's a product.
Bruh is such a fucking dumb American cunt. Yeah I'm drunk again. So what, come at me bro.
Meltdown in 5..4..3..2
Oh he's not logged in at the moment. Let's give the school girl bitch act some time to fulfill his prophecy.
Come at me bro.
Shut the fuck up you utter pest.
Lol. Fuck off Peter Mannion.
Leave him be, John. We don't all have to be like you on here, a miserable fuck.
LR, you numpty.
What's he like ey. The lovable town drunk.
Back out of it. Just in case.
shit. Deleted the post think I've just clocked on. Sorry.
Mum jokes are par for the course with LR. He doesn't have the wit to do better.
Your right John. I've pm'd you. I had genuinely forgotten. Sorry for that.
Waaaaay.
Wish my daughter good luck.
If John was Ant, you'd be the fourth person he'd put in hospital tonight.
What I think is hard for people outside the country to understand is just how engrained guns and gun ownership is within society - and on top of that, how much higher the level of distrust towards government is. There are measures you could pass to improve the situation in some ways, but in terms of a sweeping change... It's hard to imagine.
I find it sickening, no doubt. I hate guns and I'll never own one.
The thing is, people said similar about smoking here. 10 years on and smokers are mostly puffing on flavoured water vapour and it's even starting to become socially unacceptable to smoke outside in case someone gets a face full.
People adapt to situations alot quicker than you'd think.
'People don't trust the Government' always makes me lol as well. Mate, Texas Tony has a 22. Trump has 75 gazillion F-16's. The Government can do whatever the fuck they want even if all the Survivalists wet dreams did kick off.
What a fucking loser. Get drunk then hop on here and worry about me?
Pathetic.
In fairness he's home alone with a shit dog and a dead beetle for company. What else is he meant to do?
The 'culture of smoking in the UK' is a laughable comparison to a fundamental freedom enshrined and practiced for centuries since the founding of our country. Guns aren't going anywhere, they are essential to our concept of freedom and personal autonomy.
Constitutions are stupid. Found out the other day that the Serb one is based on some fucking questionable kingdom they want to restore to the 1300s. Freaks.
Is that the one which has Kosovo at its heart?
Do you take the founding of your country to be four years after the constitution was established, then?
I can't remember if you've spoken to this aspect of gun control before, so do you think that background checks should be applicable to anyone attempting to buy a gun?
This is it, isn't it.
I'm never going to understand the American love for guns, but if they think it's a constitutional right that they're allowed to have them then fine. What I can't get my head around is why things eminently sensible policies like background checks and / or banning the sale of things like grenade launchers is considered "an attack on OUR FREEDOMS".
Think so. They basically had the entire region apart from Bosnia until the Ottoman's crushed them. That nationalist fire has been burning for nearly a thousand years and is still going strong.
Yeah. I remember writing an essay on it at school for some debate thing and the resident Croatian did not like my line of argument that the Albanians had essentially annexed by stealth (or had been implanted into by foreign powers) the ancestral Serbian heartland.
First they came for the guys with the grenade launchers . . .
<got blown up>
The Bill of Rights is a codification of Natural Rights thought to be self-evident but which was argued future generations might veer away from absent some form of binding protection. So yes, the private right to bear arms (an extension of the Natural Right to self-defense) has been a part of the American ethos since (and before) its formal founding.
Sure, I can help here. Let's do a word puzzle:
Legislation written to take away the ____________________ to purchase a grenade launcher would, by definition, be taking away that said __________________.
Fill in the blank with the same word. Whether you agree with it or not it is what it is.
Is it swordfish? It's always swordfish.
At least 27 dead in church shooting, Texas.
Which flavour? White and mental or brown and terrorist?
I'll go with white supremacist and fully auto.
Marketing for Far Cry 5.
The gunman is dead. My bet is that he's some variety of nativist nut.
If only the priest had guns.
That town only has 600odd people, 30 of which are now dead. Have to lol at that.
I can only imagine the improvement losing 5% of Southend’s population would have.
Depends on which 5%.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
