Are all the Politicians, Celebrities, etc calling for banning guns going to give up their armed security? No Why? Because of the millions of illegal guns in the hands of criminals, who don't give a sh1t about gun laws. Until you clear those off the streets you cannot expect law abiding citizens to give up theirs.
It's a never ending cycle that's not going to change anytime soon, like it or not.
Side note; weren't guns banned from this event for safety concerns?
I'm sure the irony isn't lost on even the thickest of Americans (and a few British idiots too)
What amazes me is that the Far Right believe that this is far better use of school resources than an extra teacher, or help for kids with mental problems, etc.
Imagine if this was the UK. And, say, £30,000 cut from every school budget, and the loss of classroom space.
There are 32,000 schools in the UK, so that is £1BILLION lost from the education budget every year. But we don't need it. Why? Because we have sensible gun laws in this country.
How much was spent on school security after Dunblane?
Side note; weren't guns banned from this event for safety concerns?
I'm sure the irony isn't lost on even the thickest of Americans (and a few British idiots too)
What amazes me is that the Far Right believe that this is far better use of school resources than an extra teacher, or help for kids with mental problems, etc.
Imagine if this was the UK. And, say, £30,000 cut from every school budget, and the loss of classroom space.
There are 32,000 schools in the UK, so that is £1BILLION lost from the education budget every year. But we don't need it. Why? Because we have sensible gun laws in this country.
How much was spent on school security after Dunblane?
A tiny fraction of what is already being spent on schools in the USA.
And no similar atrocities in the UK since. 26 years and counting. Thank goodness. Why? Most important reason is we attacked the source of the problem. Gun control. Because we are a Country that protects our children.
Not one that is beholdent to the gun lobby. Someone should start a Conspiracy Theory about that...
Side note; weren't guns banned from this event for safety concerns?
I'm sure the irony isn't lost on even the thickest of Americans (and a few British idiots too)
What amazes me is that the Far Right believe that this is far better use of school resources than an extra teacher, or help for kids with mental problems, etc.
Imagine if this was the UK. And, say, £30,000 cut from every school budget, and the loss of classroom space.
There are 32,000 schools in the UK, so that is £1BILLION lost from the education budget every year. But we don't need it. Why? Because we have sensible gun laws in this country.
How much was spent on school security after Dunblane?
A tiny fraction of what is already being spent on schools in the USA.
And no similar atrocities in the UK since. 26 years and counting. Thank goodness. Why? Most important reason is we attacked the source of the problem. Gun control. Because we are a Country that protects our children.
Not one that is beholdent to the gun lobby. Someone should start a Conspiracy Theory about that...
Roughly 7,000 of our 130,000 police officers are armed police officers. Either at places like airports or the UK equivalent of SWAT.
Roughly 700,000 of 700,000 of US police are armed.
You will always need a limited number of armed police. They tend to shoot at people roughly 10 times a year-unlike the USA. In relation to rare, specific threats.
Any sane person knows that. And to pretend otherwise is just lapping up the nonsense the US gun lobby feed you. So they can sell guns.
At which point for "self protection" does anyone need a weapon that fires at 600 rounds per minute?
The only people who need assault rifles are the army, murderers, and people wanting to compensate for their tiny peni5es.
Roughly 7,000 of our 130,000 police officers are armed police officers. Either at places like airports or the UK equivalent of SWAT.
Roughly 700,000 of 700,000 of US police are armed.
You will always need a limited number of armed police. They tend to shoot at people roughly 10 times a year-unlike the USA. In relation to rare, specific threats.
Any sane person knows that. And to pretend otherwise is just lapping up the nonsense the US gun lobby feed you. So they can sell guns.
At which point for "self protection" does anyone need a weapon that fires at 600 rounds per minute?
The only people who need assault rifles are the army, murderers, and people wanting to compensate for their tiny peni5es.
"600 rounds per minute"? You've been watching too many Rambo movies. Only the military version has a fully automatic mode. I'm guessing you also think AR stands for "assault rifle".
Roughly 7,000 of our 130,000 police officers are armed police officers. Either at places like airports or the UK equivalent of SWAT.
Roughly 700,000 of 700,000 of US police are armed.
You will always need a limited number of armed police. They tend to shoot at people roughly 10 times a year-unlike the USA. In relation to rare, specific threats.
Any sane person knows that. And to pretend otherwise is just lapping up the nonsense the US gun lobby feed you. So they can sell guns.
At which point for "self protection" does anyone need a weapon that fires at 600 rounds per minute?
The only people who need assault rifles are the army, murderers, and people wanting to compensate for their tiny peni5es.
"600 rounds per minute"? You've been watching too many Rambo movies. Only the military version has a fully automatic mode. I'm guessing you also think AR stands for "assault rifle".
Let's assume it is Semi-Automatic. Let's assume that the shooter has not bought the various gizmos that increase speed. Let's factor in reload time. Let's call it at the lower end of estimates. 50 rounds a minute. Potentially 50 people shot every minute. Or 3,000 an hour. Again-who needs that kind of firepower? Same 3 groups as before.
The ArmaLite Rifle. Not called the "Assault Rifle", because that was Hitler's Sturmgewehr. Even American gun manufacturers don't want to be Nazi Tribute acts. Must have been pure coincidence used the AR initials.
Just keep believing the people who want to sell stuff. Because the prime movers in the gun lobby are exactly the same as Big Pharma. With the addition of politicians thinking of their own votes.
But you keep on trying to pick holes in any argument in support of less guns. And bow down to the US Gun lobby. While pretending it is still 1791.
Roughly 7,000 of our 130,000 police officers are armed police officers. Either at places like airports or the UK equivalent of SWAT.
Roughly 700,000 of 700,000 of US police are armed.
You will always need a limited number of armed police. They tend to shoot at people roughly 10 times a year-unlike the USA. In relation to rare, specific threats.
Any sane person knows that. And to pretend otherwise is just lapping up the nonsense the US gun lobby feed you. So they can sell guns.
At which point for "self protection" does anyone need a weapon that fires at 600 rounds per minute?
The only people who need assault rifles are the army, murderers, and people wanting to compensate for their tiny peni5es.
"600 rounds per minute"? You've been watching too many Rambo movies. Only the military version has a fully automatic mode. I'm guessing you also think AR stands for "assault rifle".
Let's assume it is Semi-Automatic. Let's assume that the shooter has not bought the various gizmos that increase speed. Let's factor in reload time. Let's call it at the lower end of estimates. 50 rounds a minute. Potentially 50 people shot every minute. Or 3,000 an hour. Again-who needs that kind of firepower? Same 3 groups as before.
The ArmaLite Rifle. Not called the "Assault Rifle", because that was Hitler's Sturmgewehr. Even American gun manufacturers don't want to be Nazi Tribute acts. Must have been pure coincidence used the AR initials.
Just keep believing the people who want to sell stuff. Because the prime movers in the gun lobby are exactly the same as Big Pharma. With the addition of politicians thinking of their own votes.
But you keep on trying to pick holes in any argument in support of less guns. And bow down to the US Gun lobby. While pretending it is still 1791.
While schoolkids die.
There are so many difficulties with this argument. It seems that many Americans seem to value gun ownership, over the lives of their kids. I am sure that they could legislate around the edges of this, but with little real effect. I dont even think that any restrictions around automatic, and semi-automatic rifles really matter when it comes to killing say 20 to 30 people, as you wouldnt need the latest technology available to enable you to kill little kids trapped in a classroom, if you were so inclined. Although I do understand that these weapons would allow someone to kill an awful lot of people in a very short space of time, where they might have targeted people exiting a concert, or a similar event. You could do some terrible damage with 2 or 3 handguns. (I have posted some details below.) A hunting rifle seems adequate for shooting people at a distance, as another recent shooting showed. Legislating against lunatics not being permitted to buy guns will only have a limited effect. They already legislate against felons owning guns. They just buy them on the black market, and seem to have no problem. There are more guns than people in the USA. If you outlawed gun ownership tomorrow, it would drive the purchase underground. How long would it take to get 320 million guns out of circulation?
Firstly, there would have to be a will to solve this problem, or at least to reduce the number of incidents. I dont think that there is a will, and am not sure how they would solve the problem if there was.
The Glock 18 accepts typical Glock magazines, from ten to seventeen rounds, but a handgun with a rate of fire of 1,200 rounds a minute can empty a standard pistol magazine in a blink of an eye. In order to help feed the Glock 18’s voracious appetite the company released thirty-three round magazines.
How do you turn a Glock 18 into an automatic weapon?
Turning the selector switch counterclockwise down, on the other hand, turns the Glock 18 into a fully automatic weapon with a rate of fire nearing Germany’s fearsome MG42 machine gun. In fully automatic mode the Glock 18 has a rate of fire of 1,200 rounds per minute.
But it would most certainly not be some sort of cure-all for what are deep-seated problems in US Society.
It's not just guns-Democrats and Republicans both largely fail to take account of one another's position. To put it in a British context, in some senses it is like Farage on 1 side, and Corbyn on the other. It is not helped by the hapless politicians at the forefront, by which I mean Biden as well as Trump. Arguing without listening to anyone else, like 2 residents in an Old People's Home.
The 1 bit where I totally agree with @VespaPX is that this most certainly isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
But if we could start with people not being able to kill loads of people in seconds. If the Police could not use that sort of firepower to try and justify not reacting sooner? Things would not be perfect.
But it would most certainly not be some sort of cure-all for what are deep-seated problems in US Society.
It's not just guns-Democrats and Republicans both largely fail to take account of one another's position. To put it in a British context, in some senses it is like Farage on 1 side, and Corbyn on the other. It is not helped by the hapless politicians at the forefront, by which I mean Biden as well as Trump. Arguing without listening to anyone else, like 2 residents in an Old People's Home.
The 1 bit where I totally agree with @VespaPX is that this most certainly isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
But if we could start with people not being able to kill loads of people in seconds. If the Police could not use that sort of firepower to try and justify not reacting sooner? Things would not be perfect.
But they would at least be less bad.
The Americans seem to react to an incident such as this one, and go quiet until the next one. Maybe I shouldnt have said the arguments are difficult. There is not an argument as far as I am concerned. It is difficult to see the steps they could take, from where we are today, that would make a real difference. You could restrict the supply of automatic weapons, but we all know that where there is a demand for something that people cant get hold of legally, it creates a demand for illegal supplies. I am also not sure that if the guy responsible for the school shooting couldnt have got his hands on any rifle, that he wouldnt have chosen alternative weapons, and we would have ended up with pretty much the same result. Its a very sad state of affairs. I am not advocating doing nothing, and giving up, but I am at a loss as to what steps they could take that would be acceptable to the majority, and actually make a difference.
But it would most certainly not be some sort of cure-all for what are deep-seated problems in US Society.
It's not just guns-Democrats and Republicans both largely fail to take account of one another's position. To put it in a British context, in some senses it is like Farage on 1 side, and Corbyn on the other. It is not helped by the hapless politicians at the forefront, by which I mean Biden as well as Trump. Arguing without listening to anyone else, like 2 residents in an Old People's Home.
The 1 bit where I totally agree with @VespaPX is that this most certainly isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
But if we could start with people not being able to kill loads of people in seconds. If the Police could not use that sort of firepower to try and justify not reacting sooner? Things would not be perfect.
But they would at least be less bad.
The Americans seem to react to an incident such as this one, and go quiet until the next one. Maybe I shouldnt have said the arguments are difficult. There is not an argument as far as I am concerned. It is difficult to see the steps they could take, from where we are today, that would make a real difference. You could restrict the supply of automatic weapons, but we all know that where there is a demand for something that people cant get hold of legally, it creates a demand for illegal supplies. I am also not sure that if the guy responsible for the school shooting couldnt have got his hands on any rifle, that he wouldnt have chosen alternative weapons, and we would have ended up with pretty much the same result. Its a very sad state of affairs. I am not advocating doing nothing, and giving up, but I am at a loss as to what steps they could take that would be acceptable to the majority, and actually make a difference.
People used to say exactly the same about foxhunting in this country.
But it would most certainly not be some sort of cure-all for what are deep-seated problems in US Society.
It's not just guns-Democrats and Republicans both largely fail to take account of one another's position. To put it in a British context, in some senses it is like Farage on 1 side, and Corbyn on the other. It is not helped by the hapless politicians at the forefront, by which I mean Biden as well as Trump. Arguing without listening to anyone else, like 2 residents in an Old People's Home.
The 1 bit where I totally agree with @VespaPX is that this most certainly isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
But if we could start with people not being able to kill loads of people in seconds. If the Police could not use that sort of firepower to try and justify not reacting sooner? Things would not be perfect.
But they would at least be less bad.
The Americans seem to react to an incident such as this one, and go quiet until the next one. Maybe I shouldnt have said the arguments are difficult. There is not an argument as far as I am concerned. It is difficult to see the steps they could take, from where we are today, that would make a real difference. You could restrict the supply of automatic weapons, but we all know that where there is a demand for something that people cant get hold of legally, it creates a demand for illegal supplies. I am also not sure that if the guy responsible for the school shooting couldnt have got his hands on any rifle, that he wouldnt have chosen alternative weapons, and we would have ended up with pretty much the same result. Its a very sad state of affairs. I am not advocating doing nothing, and giving up, but I am at a loss as to what steps they could take that would be acceptable to the majority, and actually make a difference.
People used to say exactly the same about foxhunting in this country.
But it would most certainly not be some sort of cure-all for what are deep-seated problems in US Society.
It's not just guns-Democrats and Republicans both largely fail to take account of one another's position. To put it in a British context, in some senses it is like Farage on 1 side, and Corbyn on the other. It is not helped by the hapless politicians at the forefront, by which I mean Biden as well as Trump. Arguing without listening to anyone else, like 2 residents in an Old People's Home.
The 1 bit where I totally agree with @VespaPX is that this most certainly isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
But if we could start with people not being able to kill loads of people in seconds. If the Police could not use that sort of firepower to try and justify not reacting sooner? Things would not be perfect.
But they would at least be less bad.
The Americans seem to react to an incident such as this one, and go quiet until the next one. Maybe I shouldnt have said the arguments are difficult. There is not an argument as far as I am concerned. It is difficult to see the steps they could take, from where we are today, that would make a real difference. You could restrict the supply of automatic weapons, but we all know that where there is a demand for something that people cant get hold of legally, it creates a demand for illegal supplies. I am also not sure that if the guy responsible for the school shooting couldnt have got his hands on any rifle, that he wouldnt have chosen alternative weapons, and we would have ended up with pretty much the same result. Its a very sad state of affairs. I am not advocating doing nothing, and giving up, but I am at a loss as to what steps they could take that would be acceptable to the majority, and actually make a difference.
People used to say exactly the same about foxhunting in this country.
Sick Family.
Donald Trump Jr blames 'crazy teachers and drug-addict mother' not guns for Uvalde school massacre where teen armed with AR-15 rifle killed 19 students and two teachers
The former president's son, 44, said Salvador Ramos would have killed people anyway with a 'bat or a bomb or some sort of improvised device or a machete'.
Comments
Oh yes ....... 'coz they're ****' DANGEROUS , and they KILL people !
No
Why?
Because of the millions of illegal guns in the hands of criminals, who don't give a sh1t about gun laws.
Until you clear those off the streets you cannot expect law abiding citizens to give up theirs.
It's a never ending cycle that's not going to change anytime soon, like it or not.
And no similar atrocities in the UK since. 26 years and counting. Thank goodness. Why? Most important reason is we attacked the source of the problem. Gun control. Because we are a Country that protects our children.
Not one that is beholdent to the gun lobby. Someone should start a Conspiracy Theory about that...
https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-changed-laws-ended-school-shootings-after-1996-dunblane-massacre-2022-5?r=US&IR=T
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/police-arms-and-weaponry/
Roughly 7,000 of our 130,000 police officers are armed police officers. Either at places like airports or the UK equivalent of SWAT.
Roughly 700,000 of 700,000 of US police are armed.
You will always need a limited number of armed police. They tend to shoot at people roughly 10 times a year-unlike the USA. In relation to rare, specific threats.
Any sane person knows that. And to pretend otherwise is just lapping up the nonsense the US gun lobby feed you. So they can sell guns.
At which point for "self protection" does anyone need a weapon that fires at 600 rounds per minute?
The only people who need assault rifles are the army, murderers, and people wanting to compensate for their tiny peni5es.
You've been watching too many Rambo movies.
Only the military version has a fully automatic mode.
I'm guessing you also think AR stands for "assault rifle".
The ArmaLite Rifle. Not called the "Assault Rifle", because that was Hitler's Sturmgewehr. Even American gun manufacturers don't want to be Nazi Tribute acts. Must have been pure coincidence used the AR initials.
Just keep believing the people who want to sell stuff. Because the prime movers in the gun lobby are exactly the same as Big Pharma. With the addition of politicians thinking of their own votes.
But you keep on trying to pick holes in any argument in support of less guns. And bow down to the US Gun lobby. While pretending it is still 1791.
While schoolkids die.
It seems that many Americans seem to value gun ownership, over the lives of their kids.
I am sure that they could legislate around the edges of this, but with little real effect.
I dont even think that any restrictions around automatic, and semi-automatic rifles really matter when it comes to killing say 20 to 30 people, as you wouldnt need the latest technology available to enable you to kill little kids trapped in a classroom, if you were so inclined.
Although I do understand that these weapons would allow someone to kill an awful lot of people in a very short space of time, where they might have targeted people exiting a concert, or a similar event.
You could do some terrible damage with 2 or 3 handguns. (I have posted some details below.)
A hunting rifle seems adequate for shooting people at a distance, as another recent shooting showed.
Legislating against lunatics not being permitted to buy guns will only have a limited effect.
They already legislate against felons owning guns.
They just buy them on the black market, and seem to have no problem.
There are more guns than people in the USA.
If you outlawed gun ownership tomorrow, it would drive the purchase underground.
How long would it take to get 320 million guns out of circulation?
Firstly, there would have to be a will to solve this problem, or at least to reduce the number of incidents.
I dont think that there is a will, and am not sure how they would solve the problem if there was.
The Glock 18 accepts typical Glock magazines, from ten to seventeen rounds, but a handgun with a rate of fire of 1,200 rounds a minute can empty a standard pistol magazine in a blink of an eye. In order to help feed the Glock 18’s voracious appetite the company released thirty-three round magazines.
How do you turn a Glock 18 into an automatic weapon?
Turning the selector switch counterclockwise down, on the other hand, turns the Glock 18 into a fully automatic weapon with a rate of fire nearing Germany’s fearsome MG42 machine gun. In fully automatic mode the Glock 18 has a rate of fire of 1,200 rounds per minute.
But it would most certainly not be some sort of cure-all for what are deep-seated problems in US Society.
It's not just guns-Democrats and Republicans both largely fail to take account of one another's position. To put it in a British context, in some senses it is like Farage on 1 side, and Corbyn on the other. It is not helped by the hapless politicians at the forefront, by which I mean Biden as well as Trump. Arguing without listening to anyone else, like 2 residents in an Old People's Home.
The 1 bit where I totally agree with @VespaPX is that this most certainly isn't going to be resolved any time soon.
But if we could start with people not being able to kill loads of people in seconds. If the Police could not use that sort of firepower to try and justify not reacting sooner? Things would not be perfect.
But they would at least be less bad.
Maybe I shouldnt have said the arguments are difficult.
There is not an argument as far as I am concerned.
It is difficult to see the steps they could take, from where we are today, that would make a real difference.
You could restrict the supply of automatic weapons, but we all know that where there is a demand for something that people cant get hold of legally, it creates a demand for illegal supplies.
I am also not sure that if the guy responsible for the school shooting couldnt have got his hands on any rifle, that he wouldnt have chosen alternative weapons, and we would have ended up with pretty much the same result.
Its a very sad state of affairs.
I am not advocating doing nothing, and giving up, but I am at a loss as to what steps they could take that would be acceptable to the majority, and actually make a difference.
Donald Trump Jr blames 'crazy teachers and drug-addict mother' not guns for Uvalde school massacre where teen armed with AR-15 rifle killed 19 students and two teachers
The former president's son, 44, said Salvador Ramos would have killed people anyway with a 'bat or a bomb or some sort of improvised device or a machete'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10867591/Donald-Trump-Jr-blames-crazy-teachers-drug-addict-mother-not-guns-Uvalde-school-massacre.html
She's cute though