Florida shooting ...

Philly_Q

Assuming his "foot thing" didn't hinder him too badly...

littlegreenman

Cadet Spurs "I'll be there in a jiffy...   ...ow, my foot!"

What a *fill in the blank*

HAL9000

So he’d have run in unarmed. Can’t hold a weapon in those tiny hands then?

ICBM

littlegreenman said:

Trump would have gone in! What an absolute fuckwit...

It’s a shame there isn’t a way of arranging it for next time there’s a school shooting...

And sadly there will be a next time.

Axe_meister

He'd go in would he? Just like he voenteeres for the Vietnam draft.

stickyfiddle

Chalky said:

stickyfiddle said:

CHRISB50 said:

Teetonetal said:

crunchman said:

Given US culture, you will never ban handguns but you could limit magazine sizes.

I have seen articles suggesting that.  6 shots would be enough to defend yourself but would make it more difficult for a nutter.

I think that is stage 2 or 3 though.  Banning semi-automatic rifles and making some kind of background/mental health check mandatory would be the first thing to do.  If you look at the link I posted above, a large majority of US citizens are in favour of both of those measures in recent polls.

What is the argument for letting someone with known mental health issues have easy access to a gun? 

They start bringing up contravening their 2nd amendment rights. 

Which is interesting, cos you can't imagine the founding fathers meant "the right to bear arms, even for nutters who intend to murder children in their classrooms"...

Though in their current mood the NRA would probably still try and argue the case for it. 

Er, don't forget the Founding Fathers were pro-slavery and anti-police.  If you got rid of the NRA tomorrow, Americans would still end up with very few gun controls compared to here. You really need to learn about Americans to understand their culture, and stop thinking it is similar to the British culture, cos it aint.

I’m very aware of American culture thanks. Are you suggesting that the found.ming fathers were pro-school-shootings? My point is that hiding behind an amendment to the constitution is a crap argument either way. 

No one is saying that removing the NRA or banning AR15s is “the solution”, just that weakening the NRA’s influence and putting tighter controls on the most restructure weapons are the obvious first steps on a very long journey.

thankfully, a growing number of corporations are already distancing themselves from the NRA, removing discounts for members etc, so it looks like change might actually be coming

Teetonetal

The problem I can see is that they add a few controls, weaken the NRA then it happens again (because the guns are already out there) and you get the backlash against existing and further regulation.

This is a long game that will take generations to solve.

Neil

VimFuego said:

fing is, you keep up with the "there's nothing we can do" and "banning them won't work" world weary cynical line without offering any evidence that gun control won't work nor offering any alternatives. Clearly, things as they currently stand are not working, gun control in other countries has worked, so I see no reason why it won't work in america. Offering up tired objections is just supporting the status quo, which we know isn't working. 

TBH I am world weary of all the massacres of the innocents that have taken place in the USA.

I don't like ordinary citizens owning AR15's etc 

Because they speak "English" people here mistakenly think Americans are just like us, they are nothing like us, especially when it comes to guns.

When handguns were banned here, there was a bit of an uproar here from shooters saying that now only criminals had access to guns but on the whole they were meekly handed in because we are British.

Conversely in the US the great big middle part is rather like the wild west, many people own quite large tracts of very cheap land and want to protect it. Guns are ingrained in the American psyche like they never were or would be here. 

They would never hand in their guns and the government know it. And that's just the ordinary folks, once you get into the many militia groups out there I'm pretty sure an armed insurrection would follow any serious attempt at gun control.

That IMO is why the US government has not issued bans.

I would love the see semi auto rifles banned but I'm cynical enough to know it will never happen and certainly no hand wringing from foreigners is going to make the slightest difference to what happens in the US.

The action has to come from within the US and I can't see it happening.

Let's face it Presidents have been shot and nothing changed. 




 

Emp_Fab

I can't wait for that - sorry to be so profane, but  -  utter cunt, to visit the UK.  I'll be quite happy to risk a criminal record for the privilege of chucking a giant turd at Fuckface Von Clownstick's car.  I'll even practice in the garden to make sure my technique is good enough to get a big wet turd to land right on his windscreen - live on national TV.

Do you think the security people will be searching for giant turds ?

p90fool

Emp_Fab said:

Do you think the security people will be searching for giant turds ?

Well if they do a cavity search they'll have to arrest the whole crowd. 

Chalky

@stickyfiddle said "I’m very aware of American culture thanks. Are you suggesting that the found.ming fathers were pro-school-shootings? My point is that hiding behind an amendment to the constitution is a crap argument either way. 

No one is saying that removing the NRA or banning AR15s is “the solution”, just that weakening the NRA’s influence and putting tighter controls on the most restructure weapons are the obvious first steps on a very long journey."


No. Your words show you don't understand American culture.

Americans want gun control like the British want "more affordable housing".  We say we want more affordable housing, but we want those houses built somewhere else, there's not enough space locally, and it can't affect ordinary folks who don't want the value of their house to go down. We want it but we want it to impact others, not us.

Same with Americans and gun controls. Sure about half of them say they want tighter gun controls. But no, it doesn't apply to them or the folks in their family or friends because they are all sensible and careful people who know how to handle guns safely and properly and would only use the guns to defend life and property if they absolutely had to. Any gun controls are only needed for the mad people and the bad people.

This is how American culture views gun controls. I have met Americans who deplore guns, and would never own one. But they still can't bring themself to the point of saying their gun-owning family members and friends should be prevented from owning them. Why? Because they believe it is a matter of liberty and they do not like government telling them what they can and can't do.

We have no similar concept of liberty in Britain, nothing like it at all. We expect 'big government' to tell us what to do, often insisting it should be responsible for controlling everything we do.  This difference is the biggest factor in our cultural differences, but certainly not the only one.

The NRA is a symptom of American culture, not a cause. Think of it like UKIP - a manifestation of feelings, not a driving force of them.  Both are ultimately irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Trump is a tosser in our British view. But don't for one second think that Americans feel the same about him. Their relationship with their President has no equivalent in British politics. Nothing like a Prime Minister at all. And look what the news today says...

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Where did the Republican Trump-haters go? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43220700

HAL9000

Well, despite my earlier post about Trump dancing to the NRA’s tune, it actually looks like he might (and I stress ‘might’) actually be doing something about gun control...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43235969

Also, see...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43223279

Might we be seeing a bit of common sense?

Kilgore

HAL9000 said:

Well, despite my earlier post about Trump dancing to the NRA’s tune, it actually looks like he might (and I stress ‘might’) actually be doing something about gun control...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43235969

Also, see...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43223279

Might we be seeing a bit of common sense?

I can't believe the Don is doing anything apart from looking after his own interests.
Passes buck to congress. No agreement, the Don blames both Dems and Reps, saying it's nothing to do with me.

Flink_Poyd

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/a-georgia-teacher-fired-a-shot-in-his-classroom/ar-BBJJfTI?li=AAnZ9Ug

BigBearKris

Kilgore said:

HAL9000 said:

Well, despite my earlier post about Trump dancing to the NRA’s tune, it actually looks like he might (and I stress ‘might’) actually be doing something about gun control...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43235969

Also, see...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43223279

Might we be seeing a bit of common sense?

I can't believe the Don is doing anything apart from looking after his own interests.

Me neither.

It isn't entirely impossible though that after seeing yet another tragedy something would crack in him. I honestly don't know what can I expect of him anymore.

Axe_meister

He is desperate to get more votes. He can see the headlines and is looking to capitalise on it. He has no long term game though and until the BRA say "no more cash" he will ride the popularity wave.

bodhi

littlegreenman said:

Trump would have gone in! What an absolute fuckwit...

I suppose his plan would be to go in and grab the gunman by the p*ssy.

seany65

I'd like to know, in the history of all the mass shootings in the US, how many were done in locations that the shooter(s) knew there would be very few (if any) gun aimed back at them, and how many locations the shooter(s) knew there would be some (if not a lot) of guns aimed back at them?

ICBM

seany65 said:

I'd like to know, in the history of all the mass shootings in the US, how many were done in locations that the shooter(s) knew there would be very few (if any) gun aimed back at them, and how many locations the shooter(s) knew there would be some (if not a lot) of guns aimed back at them?

Given that many - I think most, but I may be wrong - end up either with the perpetrator committing suicide, or 'suicide by cop', I suspect it wouldn't make a lot of difference. The most recent one seems to be unusual in that the gunman has been caught alive - and from the reports that he was wearing body armour and a military-type helmet, he did presumably expect to be fired back at.

They would be almost certain to kill someone before being stopped anyway, since they're generally going to have at least some element of surprise.

VimFuego

seany65 said:

I'd like to know, in the history of all the mass shootings in the US, how many were done in locations that the shooter(s) knew there would be very few (if any) gun aimed back at them, and how many locations the shooter(s) knew there would be some (if not a lot) of guns aimed back at them?

well, it's up to you to prove that the lack (if any) of armed responders was that major cause of these shootings and not the easy availability of firearms.