Another shooting in america

[buckshot]

From the Guardian....

An NRA public affairs spokeswoman, in response to a question about the Connecticut shooting, said: “Until the facts are thoroughly known, the NRA will not be making any comment.”

Well there's a surprise.

I would have thought that there were 3 obvious facts;

Man. Gun. Killings.

What the hell has this got to do with the NRA?

Tons, they refuse to even consider limiting gun availability here.

 

[BulgarianPride]

The weird thing is that I'm actually considering buying a gun now. I have a Grade-A crazy stalker who won't leave me alone and I know for a fact that she carries a gun. She's also made some veiled threats about my wife.

have you contacted the police?

 

[Lucky13]

From the Guardian....

An NRA public affairs spokeswoman, in response to a question about the Connecticut shooting, said: “Until the facts are thoroughly known, the NRA will not be making any comment.”

Well there's a surprise.

I would have thought that there were 3 obvious facts;

Man. Gun. Killings.

What the hell has this got to do with the NRA?

Tons, they refuse to even consider limiting gun availability here.

Why should they, how many have these massacres have been committed by NRA members?

 

[rick773]

I'm not arguing for guns or whatever but there's a lot more here(uk) that stops this stuff from happening besides gun laws .

I also think comparing the la riots and the guys in track pants stealing stuff riots is pretty unfair .

 

[DelToro]

From the Guardian....

An NRA public affairs spokeswoman, in response to a question about the Connecticut shooting, said: “Until the facts are thoroughly known, the NRA will not be making any comment.”

Well there's a surprise.

I would have thought that there were 3 obvious facts;

Man. Gun. Killings.

What the hell has this got to do with the NRA?

The NRA defends the right of Americans to bear arms. The NRA is a major lobbyist on behalf of the gun industry and has for many years argued that gun massacres are a price worth paying for th eliberty to own and use a gun.

It had got everything to do with the NRA.

 

[Essembe]

a very stupid argument.


If all zones were gun free then the perpetrators couldnt buy guns and travel to the gun free zone.
yes criminals dont obey the laws but it becomes harder to get illegal firearms if there are effectively no legal ones. Most illegal firearms start life as legal firemarms. I will grant you that the massive gun ownership in the US would mean that illegally available firearms wouldnt reduce for a generation after strict gun controls are introduced, but if you dont start it never happens

please expand your argument on fearful populations in england today. dont really follow it.

the last bit about the rule of law going missing, are you really arguing that the rule of law has gone missing in the states? That would indicate its no longer a civilised nation. You really want to argue that?

A gun free zone means you cannot carry your weapon there, eg. within a few hundred yards of a school. It has nothing to do with purchasing a gun.

"Without rule of law" can be a temporary situation, sometimes very localized. eg. the LA riots. eg. last summer, Reeves Corner in Croydon had their business burned to the ground. Looters raiding businesses and preying on the weak.

thanks for the put downs Pirate. I appreciate your characterisation of me and my thoughts.

they were not put downs they were responses to the points you've made, all part of the ebb and flow of democratic debate. Not trying to put you down fella trying to debate. hence these responses as well

I appreciate your clarification on the gun free zones. but it doesnt change the point. if everywhere is a gun free zone, you wouldnt be able to legally hold a gun to take to carryout the shootings, especially if it was illegal to buy guns as well.

OK, I agree localised breakdowns in the rule of law do not mean that a country is uncivilised, thanks for the clarification. However a localised breakdon in the rule of law would be made worse by widespread gun ownership and reduced with strict gun control. Supported by the figures from the london riots 2011 and LA riots in 1992. Virtually no firearms in London riots and 5 deaths. Lots of guns in LA and 53 deaths. To be fair the london riots only lasted three days and the LA 5 (or 6 depending on the source) but the difference is still stark.

I would also be very interested in the explanation of the fear in the english population you mentioned previously

Thanks mate. I appreciate the clarification too.

You know, I think its not just England but many countries where the population are more fearful than ever. Highly taxed, complete surveillance, increasing crime and violence, financial difficulties for much of the populace. Sounds like england, usa, most countries.

 

[buckshot]

The weird thing is that I'm actually considering buying a gun now. I have a Grade-A crazy stalker who won't leave me alone and I know for a fact that she carries a gun. She's also made some veiled threats about my wife.

have you contacted the police?

What would I say? That she keeps showing up at places I frequent and acting weird? The threats have been veiled so she really hasn't broken a law. She's just another unstable person with a gun and we have tons of them and apparently that's ok.

 

[SWP's back]

A gun free zone means you cannot carry your weapon there, eg. within a few hundred yards of a school. It has nothing to do with purchasing a gun.

"Without rule of law" can be a temporary situation, sometimes very localized. eg. the LA riots. eg. last summer, Reeves Corner in Croydon had their business burned to the ground. Looters raiding businesses and preying on the weak.

thanks for the put downs Pirate. I appreciate your characterisation of me and my thoughts.

And thank fuck we didn't have guns. We had looting, a few shops burnt. The shops were insured and many went to prison. What we didn't have was gun warfare on the streets and tens if not hundreds killed in gun battles.

Like you never have riots in the states.

You have 30,000 per year killed by guns, that is the old capacity of Maine Road, killed by guns. We have 100. Your population is 5 times ours, not 300 times.

Only a fucking idiot would still try and argue that guns make your country safer.

Oh my, another aggressive personal attack.

You asked and I quote

Only a fucking idiot would still try and argue that guns make your country safer.

My answer is Switzerland. No one invades that country as they know every adult has a gun.

-- Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:51 pm --

a very stupid argument.


If all zones were gun free then the perpetrators couldnt buy guns and travel to the gun free zone.
yes criminals dont obey the laws but it becomes harder to get illegal firearms if there are effectively no legal ones. Most illegal firearms start life as legal firemarms. I will grant you that the massive gun ownership in the US would mean that illegally available firearms wouldnt reduce for a generation after strict gun controls are introduced, but if you dont start it never happens

please expand your argument on fearful populations in england today. dont really follow it.

the last bit about the rule of law going missing, are you really arguing that the rule of law has gone missing in the states? That would indicate its no longer a civilised nation. You really want to argue that?

I wouldn't even enter into dialogue with someone capable of such fucking appalling debate and reasoning mate.

Fucking right wing NRA apologist nut job.

These personal characterisations are becoming quite agressive. Perhaps you could refrain from these please.

Tell you what mate, when my "aggressive personal attacks" kill 30 people including 20 kids then you can start complain.

As long as you make moronic apologies for your gun toting pals then I shall treat you with the disdain I see fit.

As for Switzerland, no one invades them as were the aggressors personal bloody banker. You really think the Nazi's (having wiped out most of Europe and just kicked a fucking huge hole in Russia - a country with more guns than the Germans had people) took a look at Switzerland and said "fuck this for a game of dominoes, these fuckers each have a 9mm hand gun"?

And you ignored the rest re 30,000 die vs 100.

Explain how you are safer having seen the stats? And by 'safer' I don't mean "holding a gun makes up for my own inadequacies and I can play the big man like John Wayne - pow pow"

 

[pirate]

The weird thing is that I'm actually considering buying a gun now. I have a Grade-A crazy stalker who won't leave me alone and I know for a fact that she carries a gun. She's also made some veiled threats about my wife.

have you contacted the police?

What would I say? That she keeps showing up at places I frequent and acting weird? The threats have been veiled so she really hasn't broken a law. She's just another unstable person with a gun and we have tons of them and apparently that's ok.

the problem with getting a gun is that it actually increases the chance of you pr a family member being shot.

 

[Lucky13]

From the Guardian....

An NRA public affairs spokeswoman, in response to a question about the Connecticut shooting, said: “Until the facts are thoroughly known, the NRA will not be making any comment.”

Well there's a surprise.

I would have thought that there were 3 obvious facts;

Man. Gun. Killings.

What the hell has this got to do with the NRA?

The NRA defends the right of Americans to bear arms. The NRA is a major lobbyist on behalf of the gun industry and has for many years argued that gun massacres are a price worth paying for th eliberty to own and use a gun.

It had got everything to do with the NRA.

The Constitution defends the right to bare arms , how many NRA members have committed a massacre?