http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/133...after_murderers_have_sentences_cut_on_appeal/ This angers me so ****ing much... What exactly were the ****ing grounds for leniency to be shown? ****s...
Awful news in America as young white gunman in Charleston enters church and kills 9 black worshippers in a bible studies group. How long does it take to realise that selling guns to civilians isn't terribly bright.
I thought the answer was more guns not fewer? Like in Texas were they just passed a law allowing weapons to be carried on university campuses. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/05/texas-guns-campus/28553743/ Geniuses.
I see the Daily Mail is up to its dirty tricks again. All you need to do Mo is show them your gold medals. I and the rest of the UK are very proud of you!!
Very sad news about the killings in Charleston, South Carolina. Every radio station over there needs to play Frankie Goes to Hollywood's cover of Edwin Starr's "War" (What is a gun for...) every hour until the message sinks in!!
I do hope nothing iffy comes out. I just caught the news headline that he'd missed two tests prior to the London games. Hopefully all is fine and dandy though - it would be utterly depressing if not.
It is very sad news, but they'll continue to do it. Anyone with half a brain would realise that if you arm someone with the ability to kill, easier than before, then eventually it will happen, and more frequently than if you make it harder by taking the ability away. There are some things that can't be left to a population to self determine because people are not consistent and law abiding. Heads of the Western World, these folk. But why do they all have to be like Randolph Scott.?
But if you take their guns away how will they defend themselves if King George comes back? Surely a few dozen public massacres a year are worth it if it means they'll be free from the Red Coats and other imminent threats like the French and rebellious slaves.
Wow.! I never thought of it in that way, I'm sold. I know you're being ironic [at least, I hope so] but that's their argument, isn't it. The right to defend oneself from all-comers. The way any sensible nation deals with it is that by not having personal weapons, we have the occasional situation where one person shoots another because one got hold of a gun illegally. It's a rare thing. In the USA, deaths from handguns go on so frequently that they are barely reported unless there is a freakish total to the killing. Their method isn't really working, is it. And before someone else mentions it, yes I know the Swiss have more guns per person than anyone else in the Western World. They seem to have the right attitude about it though. That comes from education and not believing that they all live in Dodge City.
Exactly. Much of the argument from the NRA nuts centres around "it's not guns that kill, it's people" or blaming inadequate mental health provision. Okay, so if you have inadequate mental health provision, how about taking away the right to bear arms whilst you get that sorted out then....
I was indeed being ironic. I think the reason is irrelevant now. "The right to bear arms" was added to their constitution because it was a relatively lawless area and there was a constant threat of war at the time it was written, however now those threats have disappeared and the only threat to their safety comes from other people "having the right to bear arms". Its a civilian arms race. Every time some bloody shooting happens more of them ride their rascals down to the local gun shop to arm themselves, thereby putting more weapons into circulation paving the way for another shooting. As you said it doesn't help that a lot of these people believe they are constantly under threat and act accordingly. There was a stat a couple of years ago which said that the entirety of the German police force fired 99 bullets that year while in Brooklyn the police fired 80+ bullets.......in one altercation, with one guy.
Actually a lot of Americans will tell you the right to bear arms comes from the idea that governments should be answerable to, and somewhat scared of, the people. The people should have the power and ability to remove an oppressive government, by force of arms if necessary. Which is all well and good but technology has changed the situation since the 18th century. When the US Constitution, Bill of Rights etc were written the most advanced weapons technology was a musket (or something similar). A group of citizens with hand guns and/or rifles are not going to scare a government equipped with long-range missiles, drones, a highly advanced air force etc etc For the principle to truly apply these days you'd need to allow the general public to own F-22s!
So then, we've got Apartheid South Africa and white-supremacist Rhodesia there. Wonder what his motivations were.
