Facebook

Sounds good, although I am not sure it will happen! My fault the last one fell flat. :icon-rolleyes:

You are welcome to your conspiracy theories. Having listened to Mister Trump’s address at the NRA Convention, it doesn’t sound as though he has any intention of taking your guns away. Talking of the 2nd Amendment? He intends to … “Preserve it - cherish it - take care of it.” He wouldn’t tell a porkie. :-"

By cutting off their balls. If noone has balls then there’s no more threats.

Without guns how will we defend ourselves from donald trump’s army of nazis?

Uh, thanks! :neutral_face:

Its probably just another attempt to force people into accepting gun control.
Its funny, as horrible and sick as the anti-gunlobby is, starting all their mass shootings, killing all these people just to get guns off the street.

Murrka

Demokkkrats.

Death to each and ever filthy piece of scum of them.

Aw… You sound disappointed, MagsJ. It would be nice to have a beverage (sounds good). However, selfish sod that I am, the prospect of travelling 120-140 miles to do so holds little appeal. Should it happen that you are ever down this way, I would be more than happy to have any number of beverages! :slight_smile:

Statistically, 160,000 humans on Earth die every day.
These mass killings make less than 0.01 of the deaths.

Fact is, people are a bunch of inherent cowards looking out for #1 - themselves. When someone dies they freak out and instantly assume it will be them. If you want to understand gun-control, follow the path of cowardice.

Since their line of thinking is inherently self-centered and short-term focused, they have no sympathy for people who live in areas with high crime, no sympathy for oppressed people, no sympathy for people who fear tyranny, and no sympathy for people who actually need guns.

Jakob: Several witnesses claim seeing multiple shooters (this can also be seen on video),

Perhaps show it?

Jakob: it is absolutely ludicrous to believe that a poor retired accountant with a gambling problem living in a retirement home with no experience handling weapons

A poor retired accountant?

youtu.be/SPZFN6VFFow

I wouldn’t normally bother. However, having began the thread…

Where is ‘this way’? :confused:

cross.jpg
cross5.jpg

A brief glimpse. Now you know. :slight_smile:

Canterbury?

Cambridge?

Winchester?

Chelmsford?

Banbury?

:-k

I’m not very well-travelled as far as the UK is concerned.

“I’m not very well-travelled as far as the UK is concerned.”

Me neither. You have NC1 as a starting point. (Your location as given)

D: “Down this way…” Ruling out Banbury, Chelmsford, Cambridge.

Clue: He dwells in the heart of the city.

Guns cost too much. They are all about money, regardless of who ever they harm or help.

How much would I need to pay to purchase a gun? I am in the UK. I have tried googling gun prices in the USA - “this site cannot be reached”. Is there a similar gun culture in Canada?

…nice marinas :wink:

Is it a famous writer that dwells in the heart of the city?

Yes… that’s a trek I agree, but if I’m ever down that way, I’m heading straight to the marina for drinks… and maybe visit you. :-k

:laughing:

Lucky you… what a beautiful place to live. Has it always been home?

Yes, it has always been home, Magsj. Expensive place to live! You get what you pay for! :slight_smile:

Pro gun crazies really need to think through realistic scenarios.

Someone breaks into your house, whether to steal from you or harm you, are you ready with your gun? Consider a few things:

  1. This doesn’t happen often, to most people it never will, so you won’t expect it.
  2. People are unlikely to break into your house at a time when you’re likely to expect it, even if you’re trying. You will probably be busy or relaxing if you’re even awake - it will much more likely be in the middle of the night when you’re asleep.
  3. If you keep your gun(s) around ready to use, people are far far more likely to use guns on themselves than against others, or to shoot others by accident - especially kids. And an intruder could just as easily find it first.
  4. If you keep your gun(s) safe they’re even less accessible if you’re ever attacked. You won’t have time to unlock them and load them, and you’ll likely be full of adrenaline, shaking and not thinking straight.
  5. Even if you’re ready with your gun, if you’re not trained to army standards you will very likely miss, and you will very likely not be able to bring yourself to hurt or even kill another human being. This even happened to most soldiers in the World Wars.

There are better ways to protect your home that stop people getting in in the first place. Most crime is opportunistic, and if you don’t give the opportunity in the first place then you wouldn’t need the gun.

In public places like schools and cinemas, a guy comes in and starts shooting, already the damage is done. A hero with a gun, assuming he has a clear shot and has a good aim (and he will be priority one for the attacker obviously) will stop it continuing once most of the damage is done at best. Again, adrenaline, shock, disorientation, guns can be very very loud. The attacker will usually shoot themselves at this point or soon after anyway, if they realise their spree is coming to an end, they’ve usually planned to anyway. It would be better if he didn’t have access to a gun in the first place, another weapon would have done much less and is much easier to counter attack. Who trusts a guy who brings a gun around with him everywhere anyway? Or even a knife? If it was common knowledge that most people did this, how scared would you be to even go outside? Even if there were an armed security guard, even they’re not going to be paid or trained like someone in the army, they’ll be there to resolve the odd minor act of violence or other disturbance but their incentive and ability to take down someone who out-guns them will be minimal.

Countries that banned guns see much less gun violence, fact. Other weapons will still be used instead but they don’t kill and injure nearly as many people. When these weapons are illegal they cost much much more because of the risk in selling them, meaning if you had the money you’re probably not likely to want one, and if you’re mentally unstable enough it’s probably apparent and the vendor probably won’t trust you enough to sell you any.

Onto government “turning against its people”.

a) if a government turns against its people, they are just old men in suits - they would need to convince the very people they’re turning against, the ones who happen to be in the armed forces, to do their dirty work. It’s not like in films and video games where the government has hordes of nameless, faceless minions.
b) these days their firepower is going to far outweigh what you are likely to have at home if anything, and with drones etc they won’t even have to turn up or involve the army and they’ll be far more lethal and with the reactions and accuracy of their technology you stand zero chance. What good are your guns then?

THINK IT THROUGH. Apply some realism to your rationale and you’ll find pro-gun arguments make literally no sense.

About the video, it’s not that good of one. At that level of sophistication you’d be better off sharing the comedian Jim Jefferies’ bit on gun control - he says everything I’ve just said, but it’s funnier if you like his sort of humour.

Yeah, yeah, yeah! All very interesting, Silhouette, but what’s any of the above got to do with where I live? :slight_smile:

Seriously, thanks for your very considered post. I find it difficult to challenge anything you say (perhaps question your assertion that all gun owners are crazies… 98% tops). I am sure one or two will still seek to justify gun ownership.

Thanks, I watched the video. Very funny, and as you acknowledge, pretty much what you posted. Difficult to argue with him!

One further thought, it occurred to me, should the government wish to turn on ‘the people’, they need only taint the water supply. No real need for mass destruction by way of drones or F15’s or 16’s or 17’s, or tanks! :slight_smile: Either way, the point is made, ‘your’ guns would be ineffective against such an ‘enemy’.