Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Another Shooting In America?

1…78101213…75

Comments

  • Options
    WSSWSS
    edited June 2016
    Addickted said:

    To be fair WSS, I also have weapons legally held in the UK.

    Though at my age, I'd be lucky to fire four rounds in a minute.

    For different reasons I presume though?

    You're not clinging on to an outdated "right" that was written centuries ago for very different purposes.
  • Options
    Red_in_SE8Red_in_SE8
    edited June 2016
    limeygent said:

    It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

    The place was protected by armed security guards. In fact, the gunman exchanged fire with the security guard before going into the club.
  • Options
    Karim_myBagheriKarim_myBagheri
    edited June 2016
    limeygent said:

    Protection against those who would do me harm, obviously, and is my right.

    and here lies the problem when it comes to changing the gun law. even though it seems mad but these shootings actually give more weight to the argument of keeping the guns for protection against these people who shoot innocent people.
  • Options
    Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    limeygent said:

    It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

    There was.

    There was an armed policeman in duty according to the BBC report who exchanged fire with the killer.

    50 people still died.

    Dilemma for SOME of the fundamentalist Christians in US if it turns out it was an homophobic attack.
  • Options
    CharltonMadridCharltonMadrid
    limeygent said:

    It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

    The same argument that says teachers should have guns to prevent school shootings?
  • Options
    AddicktedAddickted
    WSS said:

    Addickted said:

    To be fair WSS, I also have weapons legally held in the UK.

    Though at my age, I'd be lucky to fire four rounds in a minute.

    For different reasons I presume though?

    You're not clinging on to an outdated "right" that was written centuries ago for very different purposes.
    God no.

    Fecking pigeons round here know not to shit on my motor though.

  • Options
    thenewbiethenewbie
    limeygent said:

    Protection against those who would do me harm, obviously, and is my right.

    Perhaps. But for all the times people say that they do/should carry guns for protection, how many times have we EVER heard of some nutter on a rampage being stopped by Joe Q. Public with a gun he happened to be carrying? How many times have law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens actually stopped these lunatics, also gun-carrying? Can't think of any.
  • Options
    WSSWSS
    Maybe because it's so alien to us in the UK is why we find the whole "right to bear arms" thing insane.

    There is absolutely no reason for any civilian to own a firearm just because they can. Yes criminals (or would be criminals) will always get guns if they wanted to but why make it easier?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    BedsaddickBedsaddick
    limeygent said:

    It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

    Thought about giving that a lol but it's a long way from being funny.
  • Options
    limeygentlimeygent
    .
  • Options
    SELR_addicksSELR_addicks
  • Options
    ValleyGaryValleyGary
    Aren't there something like 6 billion guns in circulation in the US? It's all too late.
  • Options
    limeygentlimeygent
    No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
    I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.
  • Options
    SELR_addicksSELR_addicks
    limeygent said:

    No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
    I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

    So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?
  • Options
    limeygentlimeygent
    SELR_addicks said:

    limeygent said:

    No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
    I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

    So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?
    I have no need for one myself.
  • Options
    Red_in_SE8Red_in_SE8
    Obama to address the nation at 6.30 our time......again. Hope, in this election year, he really hammers congress and the NRA for their resistance to sensible gun laws throughout his Presidency.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    RodneyCharltonTrottaRodneyCharltonTrotta
    .
    limeygent said:

    It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

    image
  • Options
    Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    limeygent said:

    SELR_addicks said:

    limeygent said:

    No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
    I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

    So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?
    I have no need for one myself.
    That wasn't the question as you know.
  • Options
    thenewbiethenewbie
    limeygent said:

    It's a pity there was nobody close by with a gun that could have stopped this attack sooner.

    image
  • Options
    clb74clb74
    Are we talking about the country where nearly everyone can run round with a gun but in some places you can't even get into a bar let alone by a beer without identification.
  • Options
    Off_itOff_it
    limeygent said:

    No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
    I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

    No, you're right. No matter how many innocents get slaughtered it will never change the mind of the gun-toting yeehah good old gun lobby boys doing Gods work in the sainted US of A.

    Makes you weep.
  • Options
    limeygentlimeygent
    Red_in_SE8 said:

    Obama to address the nation at 6.30 our time......again. Hope, in this election year, he really hammers congress and the NRA for their resistance to sensible gun laws throughout his Presidency.

    I wouldn't hold my breath.
  • Options
    1StevieG1StevieG
    limeygent said:

    Red_in_SE8 said:

    Obama to address the nation at 6.30 our time......again. Hope, in this election year, he really hammers congress and the NRA for their resistance to sensible gun laws throughout his Presidency.

    I wouldn't hold my breath.
    He has nothing to lose by telling it how it is.
  • Options
    limeygentlimeygent
    Henry Irving said:

    limeygent said:

    SELR_addicks said:

    limeygent said:

    No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
    I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

    So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?
    I have no need for one myself.
    That wasn't the question as you know.
    I see no need for civilians to own these weapons, but I know people who have them. I wouldn't deny these people the right to own them because I don't see them (the people) as dangerous.
  • Options
    happyvalleyhappyvalley
    The sooner they all shoot each other the better. Trump will sort it all out.
  • Options
    SomervilleAddickSomervilleAddick
    Henry Irving said:

    limeygent said:

    SELR_addicks said:

    limeygent said:

    No matter which side of this argument you are on, you will never be persuaded by the other. It's the same over here.
    I'm at an age now where I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag. I keep a pump-action shot-gun in my house, and hope that any intruder would be persuaded to leave by the noise the gun makes when a shell is chambered. If not, I'm prepared to protect myself and my family.

    So you agree there is no need for the public to be able to buy and own assault rifles?
    I have no need for one myself.
    That wasn't the question as you know.
    But that is a typical answer from those who believe that any restrictions are a threat to their gun ownership.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!