The NRA run this 'guns in schools' bollocks to deflect from the real problem -them.
They are a problem but so too are the government caught trafficking illegal arms to known criminals and covering it up. Perhaps people do need to take stock of what the world is coming to. Media lies and spin have a lot to answer for too. No guns is the ideal answer but as I said until they have it they should be protecting the children. I can't believe people disagree with child protection until it is no longer nesscessary.
This is an interesting debate but I think your twisting people's words Baron Polo and being disengenious by suggesting that anyone is has said they "disagree with child protection" - you simply can't honestly make that claim based on the comments here.
This is an interesting debate but I think your twisting people's words Baron Polo and being disengenious by suggesting that anyone is has said they "disagree with child protection" - you simply can't honestly make that claim based on the comments here.
My commnts are in agreement that no guns are the way forward but my words are being twisted to suggest I agree with NRA bollox. Not the case. As I say what harm can it do to protect the children with armed guard until the proper gun laws are in place to disarm all. People disagree with that by the above comments. We are on the same page here ,the difference being that imo its better to have the protection in place for the children ( protection that was removed in gun laws years ago) until total disarmament takes place. Whats so wrong with that? If it saves one life its a good thing. Also if they fail to implement gun bans then the schools and the children in them would a safer. Whats so wrong with that? The argument that adding more guns isn't the answer is correct but implenting a law , which they did many years ago, to make the vulnerable even more vulnerable was insane. It cost many young lives and destroyed many families. I would imagine its purpose was a good one but in an armed society where we immerse our children in violence it hasn't worked out too well. Armed guard isnt going to protect and save all but until that society is disarmed then it may be a nesscessary evil. What chance have they got anyway when the government ship illegal arms to criminal, some of which have been used to kill US border agents. The place is insane. And incidently I never said people disagree with child protection ( I'm sure they all want children protected), I said disagree with child protection until it is no longer nesscessary. That is they don't seem to want armed guards to protect the kids until the country is disarmed and then those guards can be removed. Big difference. Whos twisting what? Still everyone has their own view. Mine is different but I see no harm in it tbf. BTW no more NRA crap. They mean nothing.
There's no persuading me that Alex Jones is a responsible gun owner - who needs 50 guns in their home for protection? The second amendment wasn't put in place to allow people like him to fulfil his fantasies. He is a marvellous argument for taking all the guns away.
Indeed he is a good case for the argument but an even better counter argument is the government trafficking guns to known criminals!! Who is the crazier?? Imo it isn't Mr Jones. If its about being responsible......well nuff said. The thing is guns are a way of life there so we have to work with that. Don't forget that there are already gun laws in place and alarmingly these laws make the children extremely vulnerable to these attacks. The kids , those that are unable to defend themselves, should be protected the most imo. People like to debate these issues from a position of safety but put it this way.........My 5 year old child is at school and a crazed lunatic comes in with guns (Alex Jones anyone?)...and he starts shooting. Standing between my child and the crazy is a brave teacher protecting them,like what happened in reality. Do I want that teacher armed with a gun ? 100 percent YES. That armed teacher would certainly shoot the crazy and save lives. Its not an ideal scenario but a very real one for parents in the States. If my child was shot and killed because they failed to provide protection then I would have their ass!! Let them bring in laws if they want , which would be good, but let the most innocent and vulnerable be the last ones to be disarmed.
You're right about the culture, but until they acknowledge that very culture isn't helpful there's no opportunity for change. No-one's suggesting there's an easy answer, and their constitutional right to bear arms is a very difficult problem. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't make an attempt at long term transformation of their culture.
40 years ago people turned a blind eye to what Jimmy Saville was up to, because that was the culture of the day. It's unthinkable now. We've undergone cultural change that took decades to achieve. It might take 100 years for the USA to relinquish their guns, but if they could start by acknowledging they have a problem and make a start to increasing gun control, such as to restrict semi-automatic weapons to the military, say, then things would at least be better even if not resolved.
By the way I think the gun trafficking argument is a bit of a red herring. They're not selling them to their own citizens, so whilst there may be some controversy I don't believe it's directly relevant to the problem in the USA.
The argument that to arm the teachers is to protect the children is the same argument that led to cold war arms escalation in the 1980s, and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest anyone's safer because there are more weapons about. It's entirely invalid, and indeed belied by the very latest incident in which the gunman was talked down by the teacher - there's no way that would have happened if the perpetrator imagined the teacher might have a gun he would use against him. The teacher would have been killed too.
For example, one big problem is that the culture leads people to believe that they are at risk if they don't own a gun. Of course if everyone laid down their right to bear arms that risk would be virtually eliminated overnight. The alternative - buy more guns - is exactly what they've been doing for generations, and it's solving nothing.
Well said OA. This bollocks that the NRA and BaronPaulo seem to be espousing is frankly nauseating.
You can blow that out your arse Rizzo. Obviously you didnt read what I said. I care nothing for the NRA nor arming Americans. I said I would like to see them disarmed but the children in schools and soft targets should be the last to be disarmed. You are obviously happy with the current gun laws that see children getting murdered in mass shootings. I don't like it.
But don't you see it's the very prevalence of guns that is causing the issue. How on earth is putting more guns in schools going to solve it? And what happens when your child is shot by a teacher who's temporarily lost it with them and has a gun to finish it off?
It's madness - the only solution, short of solving the world's mental health problems overnight, is to severely restrict the availability of the guns being used to kill these kids.
Look forward to him answering questions on phone hacking; he was quoted as saying hacking voicemails was easy the password is nearly always 0000. Dream scenario would be that he stays in US and away from UK TV but if he does have to come back I hope he is thoroughly investigated. He has worked at both Mirror and News of the World, where his links to phone hacking need to be explored. And will he shut the ¤%!? about arsenal and Wenger.
On a brighter note Oxlade Chamberlain has just scored a splendid goal for Liverpool against Man City. Something Piers, Arsen and all the Arsenal fans can delight in together.
I think I heard the other day that Morgan is the only person Trump follows on Twitter! It may have been one of very few, but I thought I heard the word "only".
After the Manchester terror attack his initial instinct was to go after Ariana Grande for God's sake. Is that the behaviour of a decent measured guy in public life and the media? Or is it the behaviour of a self serving, publicity hungry c*nt with less empathetic skill than a pebble?
My wife is Head of News/Input at GMB, so deals with him on a daily basis. I’m not allowed to tell you what she thinks of him, but I can say that he has increased their viewing figures, which is all that matters to the bosses at ITV. A bit like a manager winning matches being arguably more important than whether you like him (or his football).
I can also say that much of his on screen and online presence is designed to rile people.
Personally I’m not a fan, but having said that, when he’s taking on someone I don’t like I find my opinion changes.
Comments
based on the comments here.
The argument that adding more guns isn't the answer is correct but implenting a law , which they did many years ago, to make the vulnerable even more vulnerable was insane. It cost many young lives and destroyed many families. I would imagine its purpose was a good one but in an armed society where we immerse our children in violence it hasn't worked out too well. Armed guard isnt going to protect and save all but until that society is disarmed then it may be a nesscessary evil.
What chance have they got anyway when the government ship illegal arms to criminal, some of which have been used to kill US border agents. The place is insane.
And incidently I never said people disagree with child protection ( I'm sure they all want children protected), I said disagree with child protection until it is no longer nesscessary. That is they don't seem to want armed guards to protect the kids until the country is disarmed and then those guards can be removed. Big difference. Whos twisting what? Still everyone has their own view. Mine is different but I see no harm in it tbf.
BTW no more NRA crap. They mean nothing.
40 years ago people turned a blind eye to what Jimmy Saville was up to, because that was the culture of the day. It's unthinkable now. We've undergone cultural change that took decades to achieve. It might take 100 years for the USA to relinquish their guns, but if they could start by acknowledging they have a problem and make a start to increasing gun control, such as to restrict semi-automatic weapons to the military, say, then things would at least be better even if not resolved.
By the way I think the gun trafficking argument is a bit of a red herring. They're not selling them to their own citizens, so whilst there may be some controversy I don't believe it's directly relevant to the problem in the USA.
The argument that to arm the teachers is to protect the children is the same argument that led to cold war arms escalation in the 1980s, and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest anyone's safer because there are more weapons about. It's entirely invalid, and indeed belied by the very latest incident in which the gunman was talked down by the teacher - there's no way that would have happened if the perpetrator imagined the teacher might have a gun he would use against him. The teacher would have been killed too.
For example, one big problem is that the culture leads people to believe that they are at risk if they don't own a gun. Of course if everyone laid down their right to bear arms that risk would be virtually eliminated overnight. The alternative - buy more guns - is exactly what they've been doing for generations, and it's solving nothing.
It's madness - the only solution, short of solving the world's mental health problems overnight, is to severely restrict the availability of the guns being used to kill these kids.
And will he shut the ¤%!? about arsenal and Wenger.
In addition he is a c*nt.
Don't agree always the way he conveys his points and will always hold his morals in doubt during his time at The Mirror but think he's OK.
With regards to Trump, he calls him out when necessary which is refreshing compared to most of his "supporters".
Is that the behaviour of a decent measured guy in public life and the media?
Or is it the behaviour of a self serving, publicity hungry c*nt with less empathetic skill than a pebble?
I can also say that much of his on screen and online presence is designed to rile people.
Personally I’m not a fan, but having said that, when he’s taking on someone I don’t like I find my opinion changes.
I’ve only met him once and he was fine.
Just ignore him
:-)