Paris Shootings

[MPH]

If you're a criminal with a gun in England, you can be pretty sure that no civilians are carrying a gun, if you're an armed criminal in the US, you can't be, so you would be more inclined to shoot first and ask later.

 

Obviously in the case of random violent shootings/terrorist attacks it is different, but an armed robber in the UK will know he will not encounter an armed civilian, so will have no need to use their guns just wave them around and point them at people will most likely be enough to get what you want.

 

 

So therefore, doesn't that nullify the rest of your point?

[Captain...]

So therefore, doesn't that nullify the rest of your point?

 

Not really, mass shootings and terrorist attacks are normally committed by nutters that are properly tooled up.

 

Suicide bombers, nutters with assault rifles, body armour, any armed civilian will most likely have a small hand gun, they will not stand a chance.

 

Tell me this next time you are out and see a couple of aggressive nobs kicking off, would you feel safer knowing they had guns? I hope your answer is no. Your argument is that you would feel safer in a mass shooting/terrorist attack, but you are very unlikely to be involved in any sort of incident where having a gun will protect you.

[Finnegan]

 

 

You're not going to win anyone over to your way of thinking with a come back like that.

 

I'm posting on Foxes Talk, not standing in the house of congress, I don't give a **** about winning anyone over.

 

In fact, anyone that actually NEEDS to be "won over" on the subject of gun control isn't someone I'm that bothered about convincing of anything. 

 

Not that I'm saying that's you, you're clearly not saying "free guns for all!" and I doubt your views on the issue are that simplistic but mine are, pretty much. I love Battlefield 4 and Kelly's Heroes as much as the next guy but actual gun ownership? Absolutely ****ing evil.

[MPH]

I'm posting on Foxes Talk, not standing in the house of congress, I don't give a **** about winning anyone over.

 

In fact, anyone that actually NEEDS to be "won over" on the subject of gun control isn't someone I'm that bothered about convincing of anything. 

 

Not that I'm saying that's you, you're clearly not saying "free guns for all!" and I doubt your views on the issue are that simplistic but mine are, pretty much. I love Battlefield 4 and Kelly's Heroes as much as the next guy but actual gun ownership? Absolutely ****ing evil.

 

 

 

Its a DISCUSSION board. You only make yourself look silly if you enter into a discussion and your response to someone is to calling them a ****ing retard . Where's the discussion in that?

 

 

and Gun ownership is evil?    oh my.... So you are calling my wife who owns a hand gun purely with the intention of defending herself evil? she's never had to use it thank God, but she has deep rooted , painful personal reasons for wanting to... but hey, yeah let's just call her evil for wanting to do that.

 

 

 

Showing yourself up in this thread i'm afraid, finners.

[MPH]

Not really, mass shootings and terrorist attacks are normally committed by nutters that are properly tooled up.

 

Suicide bombers, nutters with assault rifles, body armour, any armed civilian will most likely have a small hand gun, they will not stand a chance.

 

Tell me this next time you are out and see a couple of aggressive nobs kicking off, would you feel safer knowing they had guns? I hope your answer is no. Your argument is that you would feel safer in a mass shooting/terrorist attack, but you are very unlikely to be involved in any sort of incident where having a gun will protect you.

 

 

 

 too right i would say no. But you know what? i'd feel a whole lot safer if it was ME having a gun incase any of that crap came my way.

[Finnegan]

Its a DISCUSSION board. You only make yourself look silly if you enter into a discussion and your response to someone is to calling them a ****ing retard . Where's the discussion in that?

and Gun ownership is evil? oh my.... So you are calling my wife who owns a hand gun purely with the intention of defending herself evil? she's never had to use it thank God, but she has deep rooted , painful personal reasons for wanting to... but hey, yeah let's just call her evil for wanting to do that.

Showing yourself up in this thread i'm afraid, finners.

Let's just first deal with the obvious straw man there, I'm clearly not calling your wife evil. There's a difference between the concept of gun ownership and an individual who owns a gun. I'd like to think it's pretty obvious that I don't believe every individual who owns a firearm is evil. That'd be beyond ridiculous.

That dealt with, I'm not really showing myself up as anything, you're just regurgitating the same rubbish you're fed over there by the endless wave of gun lobby propaganda.

You think there aren't non-lethal personal defence weapons? You think every woman in every other country in the world without guns is getting raped left, right and centre? You think no man has ever used a gun to detain and/or sexually assault a woman?

I've been mugged a couple of times in my life, I wouldn't have been if I carried a gun (working under the assumption the muggers were unarmed, which seems pretty stupid in this scenario) - that doesn't mean I think it should be legal for me to carry a firearm just in case.

Do you genuinely not see how insane that is?

You've got so little faith in your fellow men, in the law and in law enforcement that you basically want the wild west in order to feel safe? It was called the wild west for a reason.

America's gun legislation is indefensible, there's how many shootings a year? I can't get my head around anyone that can think the guns themselves aren't an issue.

[Finnegan]

too right i would say no. But you know what? i'd feel a whole lot safer if it was ME having a gun incase any of that crap came my way.

But I feel safe knowing most of the idiots that live near me DON'T have guns. For ****s sakes, there's people on here that think St Matthews is terrifying. Can you imagine the Matthews if guns were easy to get hold of? Or even Beaumont Leys!

Christ. I'd want my own personal tank to feel safe if guns were common over here let alone a pistol of my own!

[MPH]

Let's just first deal with the obvious straw man there, I'm clearly not calling your wife evil. There's a difference between the concept of gun ownership and an individual who owns a gun. I'd like to think it's pretty obvious that I don't believe every individual who owns a firearm is evil. That'd be beyond ridiculous.

That dealt with, I'm not really showing myself up as anything, you're just regurgitating the same rubbish you're fed over there by the endless wave of gun lobby propaganda.

 

I'm not a member of any gun lobby group, i have never seen one of their commercials on tv and infact i don't know anyone who IS a member of any gun lobby group, so sorry, you're wrong

You think there aren't non-lethal personal defence weapons? You think every woman in every other country in the world without guns is getting raped left, right and centre? You think no man has ever used a gun to detain and/or sexually assault a woman? 

 

I  am guessing you have never been sexually assaulted/raped/ beaten to death. I don't think you are in any position to tell someone what might or might not of helped them to stop that  from happening or what might help make even a simple trip to get a loaf of bread feel a bit safer. Neither have you lost your wife that way.

 

Of course their are not lethal defence weapons... But bringing a knife out when someone is pointing a gun at you, or has broken into your home isnt going to get you very far is it?

I've been mugged a couple of times in my life, I wouldn't have been if I carried a gun (working under the assumption the muggers were unarmed, which seems pretty stupid in this scenario) - that doesn't mean I think it should be legal for me to carry a firearm just in case.

 

 

My guessing is those muggings didnt happen in America and probably were not done by a gang member wannabe who's initiation to join the gang is to shoot someone ( yes it DOES happen and i have someone in my church who can testify to that as his brother is now locked up for said offence).

Do you genuinely not see how insane that is?

 

 

No and you know why not? Because i live here.  But you know what IS insanse someone thousands of miles away thinking Americans should just take a chance and not carry a gun hoping they won't get shot by a person whom pulls a gun on them.

You've got so little faith in your fellow men, in the law and in law enforcement that you basically want the wild west in order to feel safe? It was called the wild west for a reason.

 

You are judging American culture by British culture. It doesnt work that way. It's actually quite narrow minded of you to think that way too.  What are gang initiations like in England? Probably doesnt include having to shoot someone. There's no wild West situation over here ( other than the criminals) just lots of law abiding citizens wanting to have a gun in their home/ car to protect themselves, Hoping they will never have to use it.

America's gun legislation is indefensible, there's how many shootings a year? I can't get my head around anyone that can think the guns themselves aren't an issue.

 

America is certainly not the murder capital of the world. Far from it, infact. Yet i don't see you spouting stuff off about all those murders in all the African and Central/South American countries. and i Don't see people taking pop shots at those countries... The Media is a powerful tool, They sometimes have their own agenda and so peoples thoughts are often controlled by that and i Understand that. People will complain about what they are told about. And funnily enough i used to think along very similar lines to you.

 

 

A video from someone who's daughter was in the Sandy Hook School.. Not trying to win you over... you're far too influenced by the media for I was once too, remember!)., just giving you someone elses point view as to why they would like the right to bear arms...

 

 

[Finnegan]

You might want to take a deep breath, read back over your post and think about how you've just argued my point for me before we go any further.

Pretty much every point you've just made involves the perils of having a country where firearms are so readily available.

As I said, even back when I was being much more flippant, I'm well aware guns aren't going to vanish overnight. I'm not seriously saying every lawful citizen should go and hand their gun back in immediately and hang around to get shot at.

The disarming of the states would, in all likelihood, take generations but it's a process that should have started some hundred odd years ago and be well underway now.

I reiterate, the idea of gun ownership being both a fundamental right and a principal principle on which a nation exists is backwards and frankly evil.

Mass civilian gun ownership, in any country (I'm not sure why you think the USA is being singularly targeted, although it is the most developed gun toting nation in the world) is as morally objectional as nuclear armament.

[MPH]

You might want to take a deep breath, read back over your post and think about how you've just argued my point for me before we go any further.

Pretty much every point you've just made involves the perils of having a country where firearms are so readily available.

As I said, even back when I was being much more flippant, I'm well aware guns aren't going to vanish overnight. I'm not seriously saying every lawful citizen should go and hand their gun back in immediately and hang around to get shot at.

The disarming of the states would, in all likelihood, take generations but it's a process that should have started some hundred odd years ago and be well underway now.

I reiterate, the idea of gun ownership being both a fundamental right and a principal principle on which a nation exists is backwards and frankly evil.

Mass civilian gun ownership, in any country (I'm not sure why you think the USA is being singularly targeted, although it is the most developed gun toting nation in the world) is as morally objectional as nuclear armament.

 

 

 

You might also want to read my previous point  on another reply to you of why it would make no sense to try and ban guns. 

 

 

And just because you call something backwards and frankly evil doesnt mean you are anywhere near the truth. I get that it makes you feel better about yourself... and thats great. 

[Finnegan]

Well obviously it's an opinion, that's what we're doing, isn't it? Swapping opinions?

I mean the fact yours is entirely contradictory is a little difficult but then neither of us are going to change our minds anyway.

Which just brings me back to one of my first points, I'm making a comment on a football messageboard, not trying to convince the mass public of the evils of the arms industry. I really don't give two ****s if I'm being brusk or arrogant about it, frankly.

[Merging Cultures]

Yes, drugs are illegal and they come across the border, but I had no idea where to get drugs from in Baltimore. It would be the same with guns. I wouldn't have a clue where to get one, and I wouldn't want to risk mixing with people who would be selling then.

Sure, criminals could get them, if they came up through the border. And they would use them on lawful citizens, but the majority of shootings by criminals would be against other criminals. As is the case right now, after the majority of shootings which are suicides.

What it would mean is that, a. Guns would be harder to get for everyone, but especially normal citizens, and b. That if people get annoyed, depressed or radicalised, it would be much harder for them to kill someone or themselves.

Is it too late to remove the guns? Of course not, that would be admitting defeat and saying the loss of 10's of thousands of lives each year means nothing. It's also giving into fear.

Having said that, I've got myself some non-lethal personal safety tools. I'll unload them all on the idiot that manages to get past my dogs.

[MPH]

Yes, drugs are illegal and they come across the border, but I had no idea where to get drugs from in Baltimore. It would be the same with guns. I wouldn't have a clue where to get one, and I wouldn't want to risk mixing with people who would be selling then.

Sure, criminals could get them, if they came up through the border. And they would use them on lawful citizens, but the majority of shootings by criminals would be against other criminals. As is the case right now, after the majority of shootings which are suicides.

What it would mean is that, a. Guns would be harder to get for everyone, but especially normal citizens, and b. That if people get annoyed, depressed or radicalised, it would be much harder for them to kill someone or themselves.

Is it too late to remove the guns? Of course not, that would be admitting defeat and saying the loss of 10's of thousands of lives each year means nothing. It's also giving into fear.

Having said that, I've got myself some non-lethal personal safety tools. I'll unload them all on the idiot that manages to get past my dogs.

 

 

You may not have a clue on where to get any drugs, but if you really wanted some you could ask around and soon get some...

[Merging Cultures]

You may not have a clue on where to get any drugs, but if you really wanted some you could ask around and soon get some...

Right, but that's a lot harder, and might attract the law, rather than being able to get one at a fair or a private sale, or from Bass Pro.

The risk of asking around for something illegal, and then having to deal with criminals isn't worth it IMO. And that would be they same for the majority of citizens, who have the potential to kill others, but are more likely to commit suicide, if they have easier access to a gun.

[MPH]

Right, but that's a lot harder, and might attract the law, rather than being able to get one at a fair or a private sale, or from Bass Pro.

The risk of asking around for something illegal, and then having to deal with criminals isn't worth it IMO. And that would be they same for the majority of citizens, who have the potential to kill others, but are more likely to commit suicide, if they have easier access to a gun.

 

 

Theres places and people to go and see where you might get what you're looking for and places to go where you won't get what you're looking for... 

 

 

 

Think about it... if they can get hundreds of thousands of items the size of people across the boarder ( illegal immigrants) then something the size of a gun would be no problem at all...

[Merging Cultures]

And the argument that if you really wanted to kill someone, you'd find a way, is tired and has been played out.

A. Car, blunt instrument, difficult to aim properly at speed and kill the target

B. Knife, dangerous at close range, ineffective at long distances, limited scale for number of targets

C. Bomb, requires expertise and planning, reduces potential for spur of the moment killing, see failed bombs at San Bernardino

D. Etc.

Easy access to guns makes it much easier to kill. Reduce, or ban, access to guns, makes it harder to kill.

[MPH]

Well obviously it's an opinion, that's what we're doing, isn't it? Swapping opinions?

I mean the fact yours is entirely contradictory is a little difficult but then neither of us are going to change our minds anyway.

 

 

Which just brings me back to one of my first points, I'm making a comment on a football messageboard, not trying to convince the mass public of the evils of the arms industry. I really don't give two ****s if I'm being brusk or arrogant about it, frankly.

 

, just declaring something as evil then ' : ooh ohh you just proved by point" 

 

Nice try... but just because you think i am contradicting myself or even you doesnt make it any more of a fact. and i really don't mean to be offensive but finners, you're better than this... its reallyu quite juvenile attempts to try and 'win' an argument/ discussion,,,

[MPH]

And the argument that if you really wanted to kill someone, you'd find a way, is tired and has been played out.

A. Car, blunt instrument, difficult to aim properly at speed and kill the target . yet they kill more people each year than guns.... Should we ban cars too? Or could it maybe be that its not the car thats the problem but the person driving it?

 

B. Knife, dangerous at close range, ineffective at long distances, limited scale for number of targets

C. Bomb, requires expertise and planning, reduces potential for spur of the moment killing, see failed bombs at San Bernardino

D. Etc.

Easy access to guns makes it much easier to kill. Reduce, or ban, access to guns, makes it harder to kill.

 

 

and also to you... watch this guys response to his daughter being involved in the sandy hook shooting...

 

 

[Merging Cultures]

Theres places and people to go and see where you might get what you're looking for and places to go where you won't get what you're looking for...

Think about it... if they can get hundreds of thousands of items the size of people across the boarder ( illegal immigrants) then something the size of a gun would be no problem at all...

Really weak argument.

I am sure there are places and people to go, but it requires a real commitment, would be much more expensive, and much harder to do. A deranged person is capable of anything, but the amount of planning and time it would take a person, potential reduces their anger and desire to kill.

People can get guns anywhere in the world, if they really wanted to. So again, it's a weak argument.

[Merging Cultures]

and also to you... watch this guys response to his daughter being involved in the sandy hook shooting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAYLr6u2FyY

Dude, when i was with Save the Children in DC, I was working with people who were first responders to Sandy Hook.

People who lived there, had kids that went to school there, grieved with their friends. Their account is much stronger.

What this guy says isn't incorrect, the issue isn't gun laws, it's the guns. And yes, we need more civility, more guns or easy access to guns hampers that by ensuring everyone is scared to death of each other.

[MPH]

Dude, when i was with Save the Children in DC, I was working with people who were first responders to Sandy Hook.

People who lived there, had kids that went to school there, grieved with their friends. Their account is much stronger.

What this guy says isn't incorrect, the issue isn't gun laws, it's the guns. And yes, we need more civility, more guns or easy access to guns hampers that by ensuring everyone is scared to death of each other.

 

 

 

Really not trying to be rude about it, but thats an opinion, not a fact....

Really weak argument.

I am sure there are places and people to go, but it requires a real commitment, would be much more expensive, and much harder to do. A deranged person is capable of anything, but the amount of planning and time it would take a person, potential reduces their anger and desire to kill.

People can get guns anywhere in the world, if they really wanted to. So again, it's a weak argument.

 

 

Again, thats just your opinion because you don't like what i wrote.... and yes a deraned person IS capable of anything... But at the moment it would require alot of planning and alot more ewffort, but i am pretty sure if you ban guns, there will be many more coming into the country that would be much harder to trace and account for because they would now be all coming in under the black market and would no doubt have their serial numbers scratched off. Would be much harder to trace the origin of that gun, it's original purchaser and how it got to be at the scene of the crime..

[Merging Cultures]

Really not trying to be rude about it, but thats an opinion, not a fact....

No problem, which part though?

[Finnegan]

, just declaring something as evil then ' : ooh ohh you just proved by point"

Nice try... but just because you think i am contradicting myself or even you doesnt make it any more of a fact. and i really don't mean to be offensive but finners, you're better than this... its reallyu quite juvenile attempts to try and 'win' an argument/ discussion,,,

I'm not trying to win an argument, I've told you that a number of times.

Repeatedly trying to bait me by questioning my intelligence or my integrity (yes, because I'm really calling an assault victim evil for carrying a PDS) isn't really going to get you anything you'd get without doing so, by the way, I'm bored waiting for my shift to end so I'll respond regardless.

And of course you point is contradictory. It's "guns should be legal to defend people against guns." I mean, what?

I'm off in a minute and Baltimore seems far more willing to engage you so I'll leave you with him. I'm pretty confident that his experience with guns and gun carrying individuals is about thrice ours combined, anyway, since you're not happy taking the thoughts of someone living in the safety of gun-free (I hope!) Blackbird Road.

[Merging Cultures]

Really not trying to be rude about it, but thats an opinion, not a fact....

Again, thats just your opinion because you don't like what i wrote....

Well, guns are banned in the UK, as are drugs. Both make it in to the UK illegally. Yet, there are relatively few shootings. They are facts.

Your arguments also are based on opinions because the US hasn't banned guns, so it is difficult to get empirical evidence to back things up either way. Except the evidence from UK and Oz showing it can work...

[Merging Cultures]

but i am pretty sure if you ban guns, there will be many more coming into the country that would be much harder to trace and account for because they would now be all coming in under the black market

Your opinion.

Also, don't forget their isn't a federal registry of guns in the US, and ones bought privately or at fairs don't have background checks etc. So, there already difficult to trace guns etc.