Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
De nada

More shootings in the U.S.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, war baby said:

 

Just shoot ‘em.

Shoot who

 

1 minute ago, war baby said:

 

Just shoot ‘em.

Shoot who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Are school teachers allowed to carry guns if licensed? 

What am I saying??!

Yours maybe in jest but you are far from the only one calling for teachers to be armed. Or militarised guards at every school. God bless america 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

 

If there's one thing that scares me it's those white supremacist of arabic descent nutters

rumour is that he had "richards syndrome"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thankful to live in a country where gun ownership is tightly controlled.  Mass shootings are rare. 

Bad guys, of course, get hold of guns. But it's a lot harder to do in a place where there aren't many guns in circulation, and your average high school misfit is going to have to content himself with moping around sullenly,  vandalising things. Not buying an assault rifle and murdering 17 of his ex-schoolmates.

The argument that the counterbalance for bad guys with guns is to give 'the good guys' guns is baloney.  That just inflates the pool of available weaponry, increases the already awful toll of accidental shootings and creates an arms-race where the bad and the 'good' try to outgun one another.

There is no place in a society where the rule of law and democracy prevail for weapons that are essentially designed for fighting wars.  We have it more or less correct here in that basically the only firearm you can legally own (subject to a firearms certificate)  is a shotgun or a rifle, with a magazine limit of two rounds.  There is no need for more unless you intend to shoot someone.

I fear that even if the US did bring in tighter gun-control, it would be decades before the number of guns in circulation started to diminish.

Edited by guzzi
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, guzzi said:

I am thankful to live in a country where gun ownership is tightly controlled.  Mass shootings are rare. 

Bad guys, of course, get hold of guns. But it's a lot harder to do in a place where there aren't many guns in circulation, and your average high school misfit is going to have to content himself with moping around sullenly,  vandalising things. Not buying an assault rifle and murdering 17 of his ex-schoolmates.

The argument that the counterbalance for bad guys with guns is to give 'the good guys' guns is baloney.  That just inflates the pool of available weaponry, increases the already awful toll of accidental shootings and creates an arms-race where the bad and the 'good' try to outgun one another.

There is no place in a society where the rule of law and democracy prevail for weapons that are essentially designed for fighting wars.  We have it more or less correct here in that basically the only firearm you can legally own (subject to a firearms certificate)  is a shotgun or a rifle, with a magazine limit of two rounds.  There is no need for more unless you intend to shoot someone.

I fear that even if the US did bring in tighter gun-control, it would be decades before the number of guns in circulation started to diminish.

Don't get too bothered about it then. Just leave them to sort it out whenever they get round to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you are coming from with that, Lxxx. It takes Americans to be bothered, to come out on the streets in their millions demanding tighter gun control.  I can't effect any change any more than anyone else outside the US can, other than by voicing an opinion, and I only know a few Americans, all of whom probably already share my opinion.

I'm certainly not saying that because it will take decades to reduce the firearms in circulation, they oughtn't to change legislation.  Just pointing out that having an impact will take a long time.

But if you are saying that debate here is an utter irrelevance, then that has to be a truism.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, guzzi said:

I'm not sure where you are coming from with that, Lxxx. It takes Americans to be bothered, to come out on the streets in their millions demanding tighter gun control.  I can't effect any change any more than anyone else outside the US can, other than by voicing an opinion, and I only know a few Americans, all of whom probably already share my opinion.

I'm certainly not saying that because it will take decades to reduce the firearms in circulation, they oughtn't to change legislation.  Just pointing out that having an impact will take a long time.

But if you are saying that debate here is an utter irrelevance, then that has to be a truism.

 

22 hours ago, woody2 said:

its a liberal problem......

liberals want to disarm innocent people, leaving them defenceless against the criminally insane.....

liberals also want to keep those dangerous insane people out of prisons and asylums......

 

it still won't stop people with "richards syndrome"  doing the same again......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...