Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Another Shooting In America?
Comments
-
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared a disaster emergency order following 51 shootings across the state during the July 4th holiday weekend. £100m will be set aside to address the problem. More people are presently dying from gun violence and crime than Covid.
Quite apt that the order describes the gun violence as a public health crisis.
0 -
Probably a lot of truth in this clip from The Simpsons when Homer got a gun, and it’s nearly 25 years old.
https://youtu.be/UtxxwcQ20Fw 3 -
If we had guns in the UK it would help solve the knife crime problem.10
-
what every US child must have .. Gun resembling Lego toy sparks backlash in US - BBC News0
-
Because it makes them safer 🤦🏻♂️hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I've never understood why Americans want to hang onto gun laws that cause so many unnecessary deaths?NapaAddick said:Super_Eddie_Youds said:
Interesting, I guess that now that the USA has one of the biggest and the most well armed militaries in the world, that is out of date...and needs, well, amendment.NapaAddick said:EveshamAddick said:
The second amendment was originally in relation to militias and their rights to bear arms. The rights of individuals in this regard are much more recent.Chizz said:
Maintaining Americans' right to bear arms is as sensible, responsible and safe as introducing the right to arm bears.CharltonMadrid said:It is 'the right to bear arms', not to bear sub-machine guns.Not true. That's just what some on the Left likes to say through a tortured, modern interpretation of the world "Militia."Back in the Constitutional era the USA had no significant standing army, which was intentional. The founders intended people themselves to be armed and form a militia when under threat. The idea that the militia could be armed but not the people is non-sensical because militias were wholly voluntary. We had no army. The people were armed. Americans has always been armed to the teeth and there was never a period where the guns were stacked up in some shack, awaiting use by a non-existent militia.In addition, all one needs to read to understand the meaning is the remainder of the Amendment..."...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Reagardless of what one thinks of the word "militia," the remainder of the verbiage is clear. The Amendments were created to place limits on government, not people. So when seen in context of the times, the whole intent of the Amendments is clear.Basically the Amendment means"In order to defend the country, government may not stop the people from being armed."I don't own a gun and I feel we need to address ownership of high-powered weapons, going to down the road of the meaning of "militia" is not a winning strategy. Better luck would be had just attempting to overturn the Amendment.
RIP to the fallen in more attacks today. Have not heard too much about them, which probably indicates it's happening a bit too often.
Indeed. Thomas Jefferson stated that Constitutions are for living, not the dead. He felt every generation within all countries should re-write their Constitution that best suited them and their times, not hang on to old ideas. No one in the USA ever mentions that. Also, the right to bear arms has a logical limit. Antonin Scalia, one of my favorite Supreme Court justices until he died 5 years ago once pointed out that the argument that owning arms shall not be infringed could also be applied to owning nukes. And since that was absurd and no one would be against limits on having nukes as personal arms, then the whole idea that arms cannot be regulated by "type" was plainly absurd. He is right. Combine the two thoughts and one could make a good argument for just replacing the Second Amendment altogether.0 -
The thought process involved in that guns design and production is beyond my understanding. The cynic in me thinks it’s more likely a publicity stunt.Lincsaddick said:what every US child must have .. Gun resembling Lego toy sparks backlash in US - BBC News0 -
It actually looks pretty cool, but obviously completely inappropriate.
You could walk into a store holding that and people wouldn't realise what it was. I say that as if that's a problem - completely legal thing to do in Texas.0 -
My town's turn now. Fortunately no one dead, though one person in serious to critical condition. https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2022/01/14/six-hospitalized-after-shooting-outside-wow-hall-eugene/6538579001/0
-
Distressing to say that that's a lucky escape.
There are just crazy numbers of shootings in the country.2 -
.0
- Sponsored links:
-
At least 10 dead in Buffalo.0
-
Ten people have been killed in a shooting at a supermarket in New York state, police say.
An 18-year-old man has been arrested at the scene in the city of Buffalo. He has not been named by police.
The suspect entered the busy supermarket on Saturday before opening fire while using a camera to live-stream the attack online, police said.
The FBI is investigating the shooting - which left three other people injured - as a racially-motivated hate crime.
At a news conference, police said the suspect was carrying heavy weaponry while wearing body armour and a tactical helmet.
Madness.
0 -
There was one white man in the store at the time, gunman managed to have the trigger discipline and control in the situation not to kill him. He even apologised to him for pointing the gun at him.
Truly messed up.1 -
The ability of someone who is severely deranged to get hold of serious weaponry is probably the main reason I would never move to America.3
-
Like many things, the story of the Boston Tea Party is a nice way of hiding the terrible truth from the good citizens of America. The Tea Party was in 1773. The year before, in a case brought in the English courts, Somerset v Stewart, the Judge ruled that an individual could not be taken from England into enforced bondage. The case involved a slave brought from the colonies to England by his master. The slave owner wanted to take him back. During the case the Judge also said that English Law did not allow slavery. And it would need an Act of Parliament to change that position. (In fact there was an Act in 1807 but it abolished the transatlantic slave trade.)Addickted said:You should have just paid the duties on the tea.
In 1773, the colonists could see the writing on the wall. Ironically, the Land of the Free wanted their freedom in order to continue to enslave others. George Washington's own plantation, Mount Vernon, had 317 slaves.
The Proclamation Line was another important factor. The British did not want the colonists expanding west beyond this line which separated the colonists from many of the Native Americans. This, of course, upset the colonists who wanted to be free to steal the land and resources from others and make their fortunes. (This is why the vast majority of Native Americans fought on the British side. In fact few British fought in this war, it was mainly American loyalists, Native Americans and mercenary Germans - the British had more important concerns - the wars against France and Spain.)
Keeping slaves and western expansion were much more important than a tax on tea! The slimeball, Washington, was known as the "Town Destroyer" by the Iroquois. In fact the largest operation undertaken during the war was to destroy Iroquois villages and burn crops. (Putin must have been taking notes!)
This takes us back to the Declaration of Independence. Which led to the drafting of the Constitution and the subsequent 2nd Amendment of 1791 - the right to keep and bear arms. Something which is, of course, ludicrously outdated.
One feels the USA would be a much nicer, much calmer place if we had not ceded control.
9 -
In this case it's not really gun control that's the issue.
The issue is the terrorism and the racist fundamentalist ideology that drives it.6 -
If cafcfan is right then no wonder the USA have such a complex about slavery. Do they teach this in their schools?
0 -
Or if we hadn't gone there in the first place!cafcfan said:
Like many things, the story of the Boston Tea Party is a nice way of hiding the terrible truth from the good citizens of America. The Tea Party was in 1773. The year before, in a case brought in the English courts, Somerset v Stewart, the Judge ruled that an individual could not be taken from England into enforced bondage. The case involved a slave brought from the colonies to England by his master. The slave owner wanted to take him back. During the case the Judge also said that English Law did not allow slavery. And it would need an Act of Parliament to change that position. (In fact there was an Act in 1807 but it abolished the transatlantic slave trade.)Addickted said:You should have just paid the duties on the tea.
In 1773, the colonists could see the writing on the wall. Ironically, the Land of the Free wanted their freedom in order to continue to enslave others. George Washington's own plantation, Mount Vernon, had 317 slaves.
The Proclamation Line was another important factor. The British did not want the colonists expanding west beyond this line which separated the colonists from many of the Native Americans. This, of course, upset the colonists who wanted to be free to steal the land and resources from others and make their fortunes. (This is why the vast majority of Native Americans fought on the British side. In fact few British fought in this war, it was mainly American loyalists, Native Americans and mercenary Germans - the British had more important concerns - the wars against France and Spain.)
Keeping slaves and western expansion were much more important than a tax on tea! The slimeball, Washington, was known as the "Town Destroyer" by the Iroquois. In fact the largest operation undertaken during the war was to destroy Iroquois villages and burn crops. (Putin must have been taking notes!)
This takes us back to the Declaration of Independence. Which led to the drafting of the Constitution and the subsequent 2nd Amendment of 1791 - the right to keep and bear arms. Something which is, of course, ludicrously outdated.
One feels the USA would be a much nicer, much calmer place if we had not ceded control.3 -
Tbf if it wasn't us then it would of been someone else. Imagine if the Belgium's had got there. Good God.stevexreeve said:
Or if we hadn't gone there in the first place!cafcfan said:
Like many things, the story of the Boston Tea Party is a nice way of hiding the terrible truth from the good citizens of America. The Tea Party was in 1773. The year before, in a case brought in the English courts, Somerset v Stewart, the Judge ruled that an individual could not be taken from England into enforced bondage. The case involved a slave brought from the colonies to England by his master. The slave owner wanted to take him back. During the case the Judge also said that English Law did not allow slavery. And it would need an Act of Parliament to change that position. (In fact there was an Act in 1807 but it abolished the transatlantic slave trade.)Addickted said:You should have just paid the duties on the tea.
In 1773, the colonists could see the writing on the wall. Ironically, the Land of the Free wanted their freedom in order to continue to enslave others. George Washington's own plantation, Mount Vernon, had 317 slaves.
The Proclamation Line was another important factor. The British did not want the colonists expanding west beyond this line which separated the colonists from many of the Native Americans. This, of course, upset the colonists who wanted to be free to steal the land and resources from others and make their fortunes. (This is why the vast majority of Native Americans fought on the British side. In fact few British fought in this war, it was mainly American loyalists, Native Americans and mercenary Germans - the British had more important concerns - the wars against France and Spain.)
Keeping slaves and western expansion were much more important than a tax on tea! The slimeball, Washington, was known as the "Town Destroyer" by the Iroquois. In fact the largest operation undertaken during the war was to destroy Iroquois villages and burn crops. (Putin must have been taking notes!)
This takes us back to the Declaration of Independence. Which led to the drafting of the Constitution and the subsequent 2nd Amendment of 1791 - the right to keep and bear arms. Something which is, of course, ludicrously outdated.
One feels the USA would be a much nicer, much calmer place if we had not ceded control.
The French did seize a fair bit and unless I'm mistaken (on my phone so can't really look this all up) they supplied arms to the independence side. To undermine us obviously. Plus they might of helped out the Confederate side during the cival war. Tbf I could be completely wrong about all this. Be nice if someone with more knowledge could put me right. Otherwise I'll wait till tomorrow when I get a computer in front of me. Cos it is interesting.0 -
If anyone would like this they're welcome. It's a bit too religious for me.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
The far-right are the new ISIS.
Terrorism that the police are too scared to crack down on.
MP killed in this country, mass-shootings and a coup attempt in America, New Zealand and Norway attacks.1 -
Don’t be quite so hard on yourself. I think your bonkers but hardly severely deranged.Huskaris said:The ability of someone who is severely deranged to get hold of serious weaponry is probably the main reason I would never move to America.
;0)7 -
Then the USA would probably have been Spanish, or maybe French. Everybody in the USA knows about the Pilgrim Fathers - all 130 odd of them - and their arrival in 1620. Many Americans are blissfully unaware that the City of St Augustine in Florida was founded by the Spanish in 1565. (St Augustine is a great place to visit and is a good diversion from Disney. By American standards it has some genuinely old buildings in the "historic downtown" area and lots of other stuff to see. It's a good day out.)stevexreeve said:
Or if we hadn't gone there in the first place!cafcfan said:
Like many things, the story of the Boston Tea Party is a nice way of hiding the terrible truth from the good citizens of America. The Tea Party was in 1773. The year before, in a case brought in the English courts, Somerset v Stewart, the Judge ruled that an individual could not be taken from England into enforced bondage. The case involved a slave brought from the colonies to England by his master. The slave owner wanted to take him back. During the case the Judge also said that English Law did not allow slavery. And it would need an Act of Parliament to change that position. (In fact there was an Act in 1807 but it abolished the transatlantic slave trade.)Addickted said:You should have just paid the duties on the tea.
In 1773, the colonists could see the writing on the wall. Ironically, the Land of the Free wanted their freedom in order to continue to enslave others. George Washington's own plantation, Mount Vernon, had 317 slaves.
The Proclamation Line was another important factor. The British did not want the colonists expanding west beyond this line which separated the colonists from many of the Native Americans. This, of course, upset the colonists who wanted to be free to steal the land and resources from others and make their fortunes. (This is why the vast majority of Native Americans fought on the British side. In fact few British fought in this war, it was mainly American loyalists, Native Americans and mercenary Germans - the British had more important concerns - the wars against France and Spain.)
Keeping slaves and western expansion were much more important than a tax on tea! The slimeball, Washington, was known as the "Town Destroyer" by the Iroquois. In fact the largest operation undertaken during the war was to destroy Iroquois villages and burn crops. (Putin must have been taking notes!)
This takes us back to the Declaration of Independence. Which led to the drafting of the Constitution and the subsequent 2nd Amendment of 1791 - the right to keep and bear arms. Something which is, of course, ludicrously outdated.
One feels the USA would be a much nicer, much calmer place if we had not ceded control.0 -
This https://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/american-revolution-mistake is an American's take on the matter. I suspect he's very much in the minority. I bumped into the article a couple of years ago and it made me interested in the subject.Karim_myBagheri said:If cafcfan is right then no wonder the USA have such a complex about slavery. Do they teach this in their schools?0 -
Plenty of this still going on in Britain - there’s a huge lack of knowledge of the horrors committed in the name of the Crown during the years of the British empire. We might have banned slavery earlier but not until we’d grown rich from it.cafcfan said:
Like many things, the story of the Boston Tea Party is a nice way of hiding the terrible truth from the good citizens of America. The Tea Party was in 1773. The year before, in a case brought in the English courts, Somerset v Stewart, the Judge ruled that an individual could not be taken from England into enforced bondage. The case involved a slave brought from the colonies to England by his master. The slave owner wanted to take him back. During the case the Judge also said that English Law did not allow slavery. And it would need an Act of Parliament to change that position. (In fact there was an Act in 1807 but it abolished the transatlantic slave trade.)Addickted said:You should have just paid the duties on the tea.
In 1773, the colonists could see the writing on the wall. Ironically, the Land of the Free wanted their freedom in order to continue to enslave others. George Washington's own plantation, Mount Vernon, had 317 slaves.
The Proclamation Line was another important factor. The British did not want the colonists expanding west beyond this line which separated the colonists from many of the Native Americans. This, of course, upset the colonists who wanted to be free to steal the land and resources from others and make their fortunes. (This is why the vast majority of Native Americans fought on the British side. In fact few British fought in this war, it was mainly American loyalists, Native Americans and mercenary Germans - the British had more important concerns - the wars against France and Spain.)
Keeping slaves and western expansion were much more important than a tax on tea! The slimeball, Washington, was known as the "Town Destroyer" by the Iroquois. In fact the largest operation undertaken during the war was to destroy Iroquois villages and burn crops. (Putin must have been taking notes!)
This takes us back to the Declaration of Independence. Which led to the drafting of the Constitution and the subsequent 2nd Amendment of 1791 - the right to keep and bear arms. Something which is, of course, ludicrously outdated.
One feels the USA would be a much nicer, much calmer place if we had not ceded control.3 -
It massively compounds the issue, they aren't mutually exclusive.Henry Irving said:In this case it's not really gun control that's the issue.
The issue is the terrorism and the racist fundamentalist ideology that drives it.
The equivalent person can do a huge amount more damage in America than they can in the UK. The terrorist attacks we have had in London in recent years would have been far worse if we did not have gun control. If that man had been armed with just a knife I would hazard a guess he would not have been able to murder 10 people. So yes, it is also a case of gun control, as well as tackling ideology. If I am getting shot at while I go about my daily business, my concern isn't the ideology of the person doing it, it's the bullets flying at me.
I don't really see the difference between the two, I would say the exact same about the terrorist attacks in London to be clear. Anyone who is willing to go and indiscriminately murder people is deranged in my mind, regardless of why they are doing it.JamesSeed said:
Deranged? Or brainwashed and massively racist? It’s a bit of a cop out to say these people are mentally ill.Huskaris said:The ability of someone who is severely deranged to get hold of serious weaponry is probably the main reason I would never move to America.
I am very, very glad we live in a country where those people don't have access to heavy weaponry.4 -
Brushing it under the carpet as a 'mental health incident' removes the why and how countries can prevent these atrocities in the future.Huskaris said:
It massively compounds the issue, they aren't mutually exclusive.Henry Irving said:In this case it's not really gun control that's the issue.
The issue is the terrorism and the racist fundamentalist ideology that drives it.
The equivalent person can do a huge amount more damage in America than they can in the UK. The terrorist attacks we have had in London in recent years would have been far worse if we did not have gun control. If that man had been armed with just a knife I would hazard a guess he would not have been able to murder 10 people. So yes, it is also a case of gun control, as well as tackling ideology. If I am getting shot at while I go about my daily business, my concern isn't the ideology of the person doing it, it's the bullets flying at me.
I don't really see the difference between the two, I would say the exact same about the terrorist attacks in London to be clear. Anyone who is willing to go and indiscriminately murder people is deranged in my mind, regardless of why they are doing it.JamesSeed said:
Deranged? Or brainwashed and massively racist? It’s a bit of a cop out to say these people are mentally ill.Huskaris said:The ability of someone who is severely deranged to get hold of serious weaponry is probably the main reason I would never move to America.
I am very, very glad we live in a country where those people don't have access to heavy weaponry.
Far-right propoganda has been left to fester on the internet and on television brainwashing people to be hateful enough to take these actions. But 'my free speech' I suppose.2 -
We’ll be having this discussion every few months for ever or until there is a change in americas relationship with owning guns. I don’t think it’ll be anytime soon.3
-
No they really aren’t.SELR_addicks said:The far-right are the new ISIS.
Terrorism that the police are too scared to crack down on.
MP killed in this country, mass-shootings and a coup attempt in America, New Zealand and Norway attacks.
Its what I did before I became a goat farmer.
The amount of foiled plots that don’t make the headlines would keep you awake at night.
You're welcome.12
This discussion has been closed.
