Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Another Shooting In America?
Comments
-
I'm American and, unfortunately, I feel exactly the same way.orpingtonRED said:Without sounding like an unfeeling nasty person, i get no emotion to these shootings anymore. It is sad but sorry that is how i feel honestly i hardly even listen to it on the news as i know another will happen next week probably.
I was more shocked and felt sick hearing about the little kid thrown off the Tate at the weekend. It really disturbed me as a parent.
I dont mean to sound selfish, i probably do, but gun crime in US has been happening for so long and nothing changes. It makes me think it is up to to them then, they face these consequences if they want the law to remain as it is. I think i am becoming imune to shootings in America and that is quite sad2 -
0 -
The Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans are all mentioned in that last paragraph. The startling difference between the places in which those atrocities took place and modern-day America, is that they are all, now, peaceful and safe.Henry Irving said:
The political leadership that has forced change in those countries is missing in America. I guess the reason is that Americans don't yet see the problems they're experiencing and exacerbating.
Rwanda, in particular, suffered horrendous racial atrocities less than a generation ago. But it's now the among the most peaceful, safest nations in Africa, with a thriving, integrated population, driving industrial and economic growth.
Countries that initiate change by first facing up to the most extreme problems caused by domestic racial tension, animosity, fear, suspicion and hatred have proved that peaceful resolutions and long-term stability can endure.
Sadly, the United States hasn't reached that first stage yet. And the country's current leadership is ensuring that won't take place.7 -
Gun sales up in El Paso since the shooting - very good news for the gun manufacturers.
'If you want to be safe buy more guns' - brilliant logic.0 -
Reports of an active shooter at a Walmart in Louisiana0
-
Two customers got into a fight and both drew guns. Fired at each other and a bystander got hit. Bystander is in hospital but expected to recover. One person arrested, one person on the run.Callumcafc said:Reports of an active shooter at a Walmart in Louisiana0 -
If only he'd had his own gun too.13
-
I'm waiting for someone to walk into a gun club and open fire to disprove the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
That should have happened when the guy who American Sniper was based on was killed on a gun range. He was literally the best placed person to prove the good guy with a gun theory, but was killed by a lone nutter. Of course the story gets very little coverage, it wrecks the NRA narrative too perfectly.1 -
When Gabbie Giffords was shot I remember them interviewing a guy who was carrying. He said he thought about using it, but realized that when the police arrived he’d be a target.
Being a a good guy with a gun in a situation like this will probably get you killed.1 -
Actually, gun sales are up in all of America as these occur. Not because people want to feel safer per se, but because they want to buy one before they are not allowed.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:Gun sales up in El Paso since the shooting - very good news for the gun manufacturers.
'If you want to be safe buy more guns' - brilliant logic.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
1. If you're a good guy, get a gun.SomervilleAddick said:When Gabbie Giffords was shot I remember them interviewing a guy who was carrying. He said he thought about using it, but realized that when the police arrived he’d be a target.
Being a a good guy with a gun in a situation like this will probably get you killed.
2. Don't use it, in case other good guys with guns shoot you.
#logic0 -
I’ve spent about 20 hours on a range in the US and the protocol is extremely strict. The pistol in the instructors waistband is to shoot anyone who points a gun the wrong way.randy andy said:I'm waiting for someone to walk into a gun club and open fire to disprove the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
That should have happened when the guy who American Sniper was based on was killed on a gun range. He was literally the best placed person to prove the good guy with a gun theory, but was killed by a lone nutter. Of course the story gets very little coverage, it wrecks the NRA narrative too perfectly.
0 -
Baldybonce said:
I’ve spent about 20 hours on a range in the US and the protocol is extremely strict. The pistol in the instructors waistband is to shoot anyone who points a gun the wrong way.randy andy said:I'm waiting for someone to walk into a gun club and open fire to disprove the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
That should have happened when the guy who American Sniper was based on was killed on a gun range. He was literally the best placed person to prove the good guy with a gun theory, but was killed by a lone nutter. Of course the story gets very little coverage, it wrecks the NRA narrative too perfectly.You must be sick of it by now?
2 -
As soon as they open the door i’ll be out like a shot.DaveMehmet said:Baldybonce said:
I’ve spent about 20 hours on a range in the US and the protocol is extremely strict. The pistol in the instructors waistband is to shoot anyone who points a gun the wrong way.randy andy said:I'm waiting for someone to walk into a gun club and open fire to disprove the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
That should have happened when the guy who American Sniper was based on was killed on a gun range. He was literally the best placed person to prove the good guy with a gun theory, but was killed by a lone nutter. Of course the story gets very little coverage, it wrecks the NRA narrative too perfectly.You must be sick of it by now?
5 -
What state was this in? That's the tricky part, different states have vastly different gun laws. Also, there are different laws for gun ranges, etc.Baldybonce said:
I’ve spent about 20 hours on a range in the US and the protocol is extremely strict. The pistol in the instructors waistband is to shoot anyone who points a gun the wrong way.randy andy said:I'm waiting for someone to walk into a gun club and open fire to disprove the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
That should have happened when the guy who American Sniper was based on was killed on a gun range. He was literally the best placed person to prove the good guy with a gun theory, but was killed by a lone nutter. Of course the story gets very little coverage, it wrecks the NRA narrative too perfectly.0 -
Texas.0
-
It's ok everyone, Walmart has gotten straight to the heart of the problem. They're not just going to rely on preying any more, they're taking positive action.
https://www.unilad.co.uk/gaming/walmart-tells-employees-to-remove-violent-video-game-displays-guns-still-on-sale/?source=gaming&fbclid=IwAR3OKWTzauJAIs0LLqjPKiZBJkutQP8n5SMRRPLww8IMfxqkBhWoV5eLDMQ
3 -
What if I snatch that one?Baldybonce said:
I’ve spent about 20 hours on a range in the US and the protocol is extremely strict. The pistol in the instructors waistband is to shoot anyone who points a gun the wrong way.randy andy said:I'm waiting for someone to walk into a gun club and open fire to disprove the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
That should have happened when the guy who American Sniper was based on was killed on a gun range. He was literally the best placed person to prove the good guy with a gun theory, but was killed by a lone nutter. Of course the story gets very little coverage, it wrecks the NRA narrative too perfectly.0 -
...or just shoot him first. I'm not sure they've fully thought this through.2
-
Multiple guns i could use... Yey0
- Sponsored links:
-
A common problem across the pond.Bournemouth Addick said:...or just shoot him first. I'm not sure they've fully thought this through.3 -
The flaw i could see was while he was attending to us 3/4 others were unattended. Each booth had cctv which is monitored and we were in room with double glass bullet proof doors so i suppose it's about minimising risk.Bournemouth Addick said:...or just shoot him first. I'm not sure they've fully thought this through.0 -
This guy is probably worthy of a very long stretch inside for what he did...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49303879
2 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
Two separate mass shootings in Texas at the same time, in the last hour. Apparently 20+ shot between them. No idea how many killed at this point. So much for Texas thinking "open carry" laws would stop these. This is their third mass shooting in 2 months.
0 -
It's an Amendment. It should be amended.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.0 -
Exactly. I keep telling people this. The process exists for a reason.Chizz said:
It's an Amendment. It should be amended.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.
3 -
It all seems so juvenile. I remember playing ‘guns’ in Bromley when I was about nine. It’s about time America grew up.NapaAddick said:
Exactly. I keep telling people this. The process exists for a reason.Chizz said:
It's an Amendment. It should be amended.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.3
This discussion has been closed.
