highlandjambo3 Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 On 01/09/2019 at 11:52, Peebo said: Pretty much. And depending on the perspective, it does follow some reasonably sound logic! But that could be said for a lot of things we don’t accept as they are bad for society overall. There was a push a while back to arm teachers at high schools and colleges to counter gun toting students......they genuinely believe that to be a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlandjambo3 Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 On 01/09/2019 at 19:09, bobsharp said: In the last few shootings police attendance has been prompt and although tragic loss of life it could have been worse without that response. I just wonder and although not religious pray it never does, but, if an individual was to do one of those attacks in Edinburgh first reponding police would be unarmed, how fast could the properly armed police get there in these days. I always tell the story in my day when we were going to look for an armed suspect I asked about us being armed, the response was that it had been authorised but no one knew where the key for the armory was kept. I am sure it is far improved now, but attendance time is something always considered for responses in emergency situation planning. The goal posts have changes a bit, in the past the odd sawn off shotgun/ bank robber would have been the main “armed” combatant the police had to deal with compared to your now average lunatic (in America) and hardline, trained and fanatical terrorise being today’s main threat. I believe (not itk) that a lot more “joe average” cop cars now carry locked weapons in the rear with the police officers “fire arms” trained to deal with an unexpected incident, unlike the armed response units set up to face a definite specific firearms incidents..... things are changing though (sad to say), I believe in the not to distant future we will loose a number of unarmed police officers in a major incident throwing up a serious debate about arming our police.......shame I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bindy Badgy Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 16 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said: There was a push a while back to arm teachers at high schools and colleges to counter gun toting students......they genuinely believe that to be a good idea. I used to post on the ESP forum (manufacturer of guitars used by Metallica, Slayer and so on). There were multiple people on there that genuinely believed that students should be allowed to open carry in schools as schools were 'weaponless areas for everyone except the killer'. Trying to have a sensible discussion with these people is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawdust Caesar Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 (edited) On 05/09/2019 at 16:15, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-mother-shoots-daughter-surprise-college-1457589 Here was the advice given to avoid this kind of thing happening "If you realize someone has a gun for protection, and they're not expecting you—announce yourself when you enter the home, or even if you're getting up to get a drink of water in the middle of the night, just announce yourself," But I love this comment made on that advice. "Daughter should have been armed as well. Only way this is solved is with more guns. When going to get water, laying down some suppressive fire will help secure your path to the kitchen." Edited September 6, 2019 by Sawdust Caesar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawdust Caesar Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 (edited) On 05/09/2019 at 16:15, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-mother-shoots-daughter-surprise-college-1457589 Edited September 6, 2019 by Sawdust Caesar oops double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Really not laughing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Also, another tweet popped up that I read this morning but can't find. Goes along the lines of a young girl is going to school and it has recently introduced armed guards at the gate. Her mother says it's protection in case someone with a gun comes in to school. Which is bad enough but her daughter responds, and this is young primary school equivalent 'What's to stop anyone turning up dressed as a security guard and guns, but really just wants to come in to school and shoot us all' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 As long as the NRA are spreading out millions of money to particularly politicians especially when seeking election not much is going to change. Like any family, group organisation when the leader of the group is corrupt, selfish,immoral and self motivated any bad situation will only get more critical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 5 hours ago, bobsharp said: As long as the NRA are spreading out millions of money to particularly politicians especially when seeking election not much is going to change. Like any family, group organisation when the leader of the group is corrupt, selfish,immoral and self motivated any bad situation will only get more critical. That's part of it, Bob. The other part is that most Americans want gun controls to apply only to 'bad guys'. They want the 'good guys' (which is themselves) to be allowed to keep their guns to protect their families. Protecting their families from what, is unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 8 hours ago, DETTY29 said: Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Really not laughing. "More toddlers kill Americans than terrorists". How true that is. Terrorists have succeeded in creating a level of fear in populations far greater than the actual danger they pose. It's also true that diabetes kills more Americans than terrorists, by a very wide margin. And the same can be said for most Western countries. It could be argued that we should be more afraid of sugar than we are of terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 48 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: "More toddlers kill Americans than terrorists". How true that is. Terrorists have succeeded in creating a level of fear in populations far greater than the actual danger they pose. It's also true that diabetes kills more Americans than terrorists, by a very wide margin. And the same can be said for most Western countries. It could be argued that we should be more afraid of sugar than we are of terrorists. Very valid. None of which will probably ever move in the correct direction. Well, safeties might be a reasonable middle ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 A well regulated Militia being necessaryto the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. A Militia is v ariously described as a civilian army an army of non professional soldiers.It seems obvious to me that a Country without or having a very small army would find it safer to not deny its population the right to defend themselves, their property and by doing so the small country of which they were part. Move ahead to 2019, there is a large U.S. military, there is a National Guard, there is armed law enforcement in Cities, Countys, States, and Federal Departments F.B.I, Border Security all armed and prepared to Serve and Protect. I read nowhere in that Amendment that any citizen has the need or right in 2019 be armed to protect either his home or his person. If the firearms were as in many other countries limited to those used for recreational purposes, and only obtainable after reasonable scrutiny for physical, mental, criminal record, and any other reasonable non invasive conditions it would be a safer place. A profit oriented association are using that in my opinion outdated legalese to make and distribute wealth, sometimes to the benefit of those who are invested with the responsibility to provide the legislation to see that these now non militia persons are protected by their government and not themselves or their neighbours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 All this yet trump chooses to focus on a ban on vaping because 6 people have died from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo, Goodbye Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 (edited) Even if Trump was anti-gun, it seems nothing would get done anyway. Last Week Tonight - Filibuster Edited September 14, 2019 by Jambo, Goodbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 2 hours ago, I P Knightley said: All this yet trump chooses to focus on a ban on vaping because 6 people have died from it. It's nothing to do with him being lobbied by his associates in the tabacco industry, it's because Melania is very passionate about the risks of vaping. Quite like this from Vanity Fair. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/donald-trump-vaping-ban/amp The First Lady, 'who has a son' but he doesn't mention who with is comedy gold when you watch a video of the press conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.