nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

America can't handle guns

steddyeddy

Therefore we need gun control. It keeps happening again and again. America cannot handle guns at the moment. How many massacres will it take to demonstrate that.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Icaras

I thought the problem was they handle them too well!!!!!

Sh1tbag OToole

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Manic Moran

I suggest we fix our apparent disregard for the value of life and human dignity. I suspect that will solve a lot more problems than arbitrarily legislating certain physical items. Of course, that's more difficult.

DontThankMe

Guns don't kill people rappers do!

AbusesToilets

It only took about 12 hours for the usual round of sensationalist, mis-informed articles to come out. I look forward to Clinton detailing how her "Common Sense" gun reforms will prevent violent crime or terrorism.

Your Face

I got drunk last weekend, so you could say I can't handlebars.

Michah

steddyeddy wrote: »

Therefore we need gun control. It keeps happening again and again. America cannot handle guns at the moment. How many massacres will it take to demonstrate that.

We? Ireland has stringent gun control. America's gun laws are a matter for American citizens.

Sh1tbag OToole

Michah wrote: »

We? Ireland has stringent gun control. America's gun laws are a matter for American citizens.

T'always makes me lol. People get outraged by some lunatic in the states going on a shooting spree and they think the solution is to make Irish farmers give up their single barrel shotguns

5starpool

Manic Moran wrote: »

I suggest we fix our apparent disregard for the value of life and human dignity. I suspect that will solve a lot more problems than arbitrarily legislating certain physical items. Of course, that's more difficult.

Arbitrarily? Do you think it's a coincidence that all these mass murders happen with guns? Banning them all (which is about as likely as alcohol being banned in Ireland) would reduce the number of murders in the states by about 95% at least (well it would if banning them was the same as destroying them all).

There is zero good reason for a private citizen to need to own a gun, well except for the reason that every other c**t there has one, but whose fault is that?

jimmycrackcorm

Clearly the problem is that they don't have enough guns. If everyone had a gun then nobody would get a chance to mass murder before they got taken down. More guns is the answer.

Grayson

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Clearly the problem is that they don't have enough guns. If everyone had a gun then nobody would get a chance to mass murder before they got taken down. More guns is the answer.

And give everyone who goes on a plane a gun. After all, the guns themselves are harmless and it would help stop terrorism.

jackofalltrades

5starpool wrote: »

There is zero good reason for a private citizen to need to own a gun, well except for the reason that every other c**t there has one, but whose fault is that?

What about hunting and self-defence?

AbusesToilets

5starpool wrote: »

Arbitrarily? Do you think it's a coincidence that all these mass murders happen with guns? Banning them all (which is about as likely as alcohol being banned in Ireland) would reduce the number of murders in the states by about 95% at least (well it would if banning them was the same as destroying them all).

There is zero good reason for a private citizen to need to own a gun, well except for the reason that every other c**t there has one, but whose fault is that?

No reasons beyond self defense, both on a personal level and against the Government, hunting or shooting sports?

Your claim about reducing the murder rate is laughably inaccurate, as a quick google for the CDC and FBI statistics would clarify.

denismc

In one interview one of the pro-gun lobby suggested that if they were at the night club, the death count would have been lower as he would have taken the shooter out.
Similarly after the shootings in the Bataclan,Paris, the lead singer of the band reckoned if people were able to bring guns to the venue the death count would have been lower.
Imagine Copper's on a Friday night with everyone going around with automatic weapons, holy shoot!

diomed

Make it compulsory for everyone to wear bullet-proof body armour and facemasks.

feargale

Give guns to all the Russian and English soccer fans in France. That should ensure protection against ISIS as well as local fascist thugs. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

5starpool wrote: »

There is zero good reason for a private citizen to need to own a gun, well except for the reason that every other c**t there has one, but whose fault is that?

That last one is a good one. As is 'I'm older and can't swing a baseball bat like I used to', or 'I'm a 5'4" female and won't usually win a wrestling match against someone' or any other number of reasons someone may want a firearm for self defense. That's before you involve the Great Outdoors. There are some places in the US where if you go camping without a firearm, you're considered to be gambling with your life.

n one interview one of the pro-gun lobby suggested that if they were at the night club, the death count would have been lower as he would have taken the shooter out.
Similarly after the shootings in the Bataclan,Paris, the lead singer of the band reckoned if people were able to bring guns to the venue the death count would have been lower.
Imagine Copper's on a Friday night with everyone going around with automatic weapons, holy shoot!

Ever go to Prague? I'm told a lot of Irish folks do. Carrying concealed pistols into nightclubs is legal there, and even Irish folks cannot be denied a permit to carry one if they pass the checks.

Doesn't seem to have caused any significant problem that I'm aware of.

_Brian

Talking about gun control in America is like saying they need to build a fence to hold back clouds.

There are just so, so many guns out there in private hands and ammunition to fight a couple world wars, bringing in controls now is pointless. Last time I was in Dallas I had this conversation with a local I was working with who admitted he had in excess of 20 weapons. He said that the authorities have no idea who has guns stashed away or where to start.

They'd have a number of Waco style incidents trying to enter private compounds which are heavily fortified and manned by people who will fight and die to retain their right to bear arms.

Politically it may seem a big move to try and bring in gun control but ultimately it would only end with numbers of dead police officers who would have to enforce it.

Cortina_MK_IV

Had a glance at a different forum today and no surprise seen the same guy (American) spouting his usual second amendment guff that he has for years, even after Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. This topic will fizzle out after a few days/weeks until the next time and we'll be off again and there'll still be no change in US gun laws. The only difference next time will be the body count.

doolox

Even if you could decommision every gun in private hand in the US there is still a large body of knowledge in private hands on how guns are made and how they are supplied with ammo. Many on line articles exist on how to manually reload spent shells and customise rounds of ammo for various reasons.

It would not take much effort to drive this activity completely underground like the way drugs are made and distributed in spite of decades of prohibition and creating the largest prison population in the "free" world........

How will the ordinary "Joe Sixpack" respond if his guns are removed but the other more crooked neighbours retain and use theirs???

AbusesToilets

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

Had a glance at a different forum today and no surprise seen the same guy (American) spouting his usual second amendment guff that he has for years, even after Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. This topic will fizzle out after a few days/weeks until the next time and we'll be off again and there'll still be no change in US gun laws. The only difference next time will be the body count.

Please detail the changes you would make and how they would have an impact on criminals using guns.

Stigura

My, renewed, licenses arrived today, as it happens. I can handle my guns

[Deleted User]

Just like Paris, eh? Jesus, gun laws isn't the problem here, the problem is Islam extremists.

fryup

taking guns off americans is akin to taking hurley sticks off the irish..its enshrined in their culture

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

Just like Paris, eh? Jesus, gun laws isn't the problem here, the problem is Islam extremists.

Three problems, actually. 1. Islamic extremism as seen in ISIS, 2. Rampant homophobia (which yes, is against Islam, but isn't exactly loved and accepted by all non-Muslims either as has been seen many, many times before) and 3. lax gun control that makes it so easy for nutters to get armed.

The unholy trinity came together the other night and fifty people are dead.

There's not really much point zeroing in on any of the three and ignoring the other two -in this specific case- at least.

deaddonkey15

denismc wrote: »

In one interview one of the pro-gun lobby suggested that if they were at the night club, the death count would have been lower as he would have taken the shooter out.
Similarly after the shootings in the Bataclan,Paris, the lead singer of the band reckoned if people were able to bring guns to the venue the death count would have been lower.
Imagine Copper's on a Friday night with everyone going around with automatic weapons, holy shoot!

The gun nuts think this is such flawless logic. However the "good guy with a gun" is at best reactive. He can't shoot the bad guy until after the bad guy starts shooting, meaning a number of people could be killed before the good guy identifies the shooter and takes him out.

Now in the case of Aurora, or Orlando, both shootings happened in congested dark places. How does the good guy with a gun get a good shot at the bad guy? How does another good guy with a gun not mistake the good guy for the bad guy? I would imagine the "good guys" would be very keen to actually use their fire arm and play the hero in those situations. A number of trigger happy Americans having a shootout in a cinema or nightclub not fully sure of who is actually on their side, what could go wrong?

Samaris

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

The gun nuts think this is such flawless logic. However the "good guy with a gun" is at best reactive. He can't shoot the bad guy until after the bad guy starts shooting, meaning a number of people could be killed before the good guy identifies the shooter and takes him out.

Now in the case of Aurora, or Orlando, both shootings happened in congested dark places. How does the good guy with a gun get a good shot at the bad guy? How does another good guy with a gun not mistake the good guy for the bad guy? I would imagine the "good guys" would be very keen to actually use their fire arm and play the hero in those situations. A number of trigger happy Americans having a shootout in a cinema or nightclub not fully sure of who is actually on their side, what could go wrong?

Yeah. While there have been the odd few cases where something bad -hasn't- happened because someone had a gun (it does happen), in cases like last night, when some moron proclaims that if HE, Walter Mitty Soap, and his trusty weapon had been there, less would have died, because he would have instantly identified the shooter and taken him out, (his bullet presumably winding around the milling mass of panicked people in a dark, hazy, incredibly loud atmosphere), he really might as well say that if he had been there, he would have epically punched the shooter back into his mother's womb, spontaneously inducing a miscarriage and saving everyone's lives twenty-nine years in the past.

It's honestly about as likely.

[Deleted User]

Samaris wrote: »

Three problems, actually. 1. Islamic extremism as seen in ISIS, 2. Rampant homophobia (which yes, is against Islam, but isn't exactly loved and accepted by all non-Muslims either as has been seen many, many times before) and 3. lax gun control that makes it so easy for nutters to get armed.

The unholy trinity came together the other night and fifty people are dead.

There's not really much point zeroing in on any of the three and ignoring the other two -in this specific case- at least.

I just don't understand the fixation on the method, instead of the motive. Almost all the prominent political figures (Obama, Clinton, Sanders) just blamed gun laws which is abhorrent.

Islam is a concept, an ideology, yet we cannot talk about that as a motivational factor?

Moo Moo Land

DontThankMe wrote: »

Guns don't kill people rappers do!

Bullets kill people.

Harry Palmr

Ah Jebus, not another thread about Americans and their gun obsessions. These are like mass shootings....far too frequent