Shootings at Pulse nightclub in Orlando

[The Clamp]

Is that Jesus?! I'd pictured someone really quite different.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 

[AK74]

Is that Jesus?! I'd pictured someone really quite different.

No, that's the late Fred Phelps.

 

[symyjym]

https://youtu.be/qBlwxqqAprQ

 

[Pavilionaire]

The ONLY way in which there will be proper gun law reform in the USA is if Hilary Clinton can tap into the female vote to get elected, then somehow use that female support to help drive the reforms though on a wave of popular female-led demand.

Clinton has already backed the group "Moms Demand Action" - if this group could gain more traction then change might be possible. I can't see any other way in which the Yanks will do this.

 

[Acker79]

No that's the extension of your position, not mine.

This discussion started because you took issue with my position that simply banning guns in the US wouldn't solve anything because they have a deep cultural issue, and to illustrate this I then drew a comparison with alcohol here. You suggested that wasn't a fair comparison because guns kill, drink doesn't unless mis-used - a position I don't agree with because I don't see it is relevant to the point being made.

I don't want either banned. I don't think simply tightening US gun laws will do any good at all.

It's not my position at all. And it wasn't me taking issue with your position that started this, it was you taking issue with my comment that was taking issue with Tyrone:

Tyrone suggested if you want a ban on guns because they cause damage, a ban on alcohol should be higher on your list because that causes damage too

Do you think British society would benefit from a toal ban on alcohol sales? Like all the violence socially and domestically and the billions of dollars that it causes in death and injuries etc

If you're concerned about eliminating things in socieities which cause people damage surely this should be highest on your internal agenda rather than US gun laws?​

My point was that was flawed logic from Tyrone, because wanting something that is designed to damage and kill banned doesn't mean you have to put priority on something that only causes damage or kills when it is misused first.

You took issue with that, trying to argue that the design and purpose of an item is irrelevant when deciding what to ban. That because both can cause damage they are the same, even though one is designed to cause damage and one is not. I'm merely pointing out that taking your position means we have to ban everything or nothing at all. Which is clearly a ridiculous position. Of course an items design, and any benefits need to be considered when banning, or supporting a ban on something.

Again, I'm not calling for a ban on guns. I'm simply pointing out that there is an important distinction between guns and alcohol: one is designed to damage and kill, the other is not so it is, imo, a flawed comparison.

 

[Diego Napier]

If you had their population you'd be up around 45,000 deaths.

So you think that invalidates the point then?

 

[symyjym]

The ONLY way in which there will be proper gun law reform in the USA is if Hilary Clinton can tap into the female vote to get elected, then somehow use that female support to help drive the reforms though on a wave of popular female-led demand.

Clinton has already backed the group "Moms Demand Action" - if this group could gain more traction then change might be possible. I can't see any other way in which the Yanks will do this.

I don't know why people have a problem with reforming the gun law. They would still be able to buy guns, but there will be more checks and a stricter process.

 

[Randsta]

Gun laws will never change in America ....they really are just that stupid!!!

 

[Postman Pat]

I don't know why people have a problem with reforming the gun law. They would still be able to buy guns, but there will be more checks and a stricter process.

Obama said he can stop someone who is deemed a terrorist risk from getting on a plane, but he can't stop them buying a gun.

 

[looney]

View attachment 75691

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/12/milo-breitbart-news-sunday/

 

[mona]

Gun laws will never change in America ....they really are just that stupid!!!

I think you'll find that the gun laws vary from state to state. Getting a gun in Florida is comparatively easy I believe.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't know why people have a problem with reforming the gun law. They would still be able to buy guns, but there will be more checks and a stricter process.

Simple - because the right to bear arms is enshrined in the American Constitution and the Yanks don't like to mess around this sacred document.

The fact that it was included was primarily because the US had a small standing army and needed the ability to conscript armed men quickly should the British / French / Spanish feel like another go.

You wonder when the Constitution was drafted whether anyone at the time made the point that state-sanctioned unbridled gun ownership might create a problem further down the line.

 

[whitelion]

I think you'll find that the gun laws vary from state to state. Getting a gun in Florida is comparatively easy I believe.

I was in a sports shop in Hollywood Florida in 1989 and bought a golf putter. The assistant offered me a pump-action shotgun for $99. I was going through a messy divorce at the time and whilst in two minds I politely declined.

 

[Postman Pat]

Simple - because the right to bear arms is enshrined in the American Constitution and the Yanks don't like to mess around this sacred document.

The fact that it was included was primarily because the US had a small standing army and needed the ability to conscript armed men quickly should the British / French / Spanish feel like another go.

You wonder when the Constitution was drafted whether anyone at the time made the point that state-sanctioned unbridled gun ownership might create a problem further down the line.

They used to allow slavery too.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I was in a sports shop in Hollywood Florida in 1989 and bought a golf putter. The assistant offered me a pump-action shotgun for $99. I was going through a messy divorce at the time and whilst in two minds I politely declined.

"If it's a hole in one you're after sir you won't need the putter. Try this."

 

[symyjym]

Simple - because the right to bear arms is enshrined in the American Constitution and the Yanks don't like to mess around this sacred document.

The fact that it was included was primarily because the US had a small standing army and needed the ability to conscript armed men quickly should the British / French / Spanish feel like another go.

You wonder when the Constitution was drafted whether anyone at the time made the point that state-sanctioned unbridled gun ownership might create a problem further down the line.

Yep, they also didn't have semi automatic state of the art military grade guns. Flintlock pistols was as advanced as it was at the time of the constitution.

 

[whitelion]

"If it's a hole in one you're after sir you won't need the putter. Try this."

That was pretty much it. Guns (then) were virtually given away.

Not sure if that's the case now.

 

[Pavilionaire]

That was pretty much it. Guns (then) were virtually given away.

Not sure if that's the case now.

Say what you like about Mike Ashley but one thing I've never been offered in Sports Direct when taking my son in for a new pair of footie boots is a Mossberg 500 Pump Action Shotgun.

 

[Maldini]

I was in a sports shop in Hollywood Florida in 1989 and bought a golf putter. The assistant offered me a pump-action shotgun for $99. I was going through a messy divorce at the time and whilst in two minds I politely declined.

I was also in Florida but in a gun shop looking for a pump action but the assistant offered me a golf putter.