It’s apparent that most of those who hold that they need a gun to defend their family and themselves from criminals are living in a ‘Die Hard’ fantasy world where they come to the rescue, despatching bad guys with a withering hail of well-aimed gunfire.

The father of three of my nephews and nieces, found people with attitudes such as yours money makers before he went to prison for armed robbery.

The reality is that when it does go down, those unused to action will either freeze, shoot one or more innocent passers-by, or themselves be despatched by the more hardened gunman, or by the police who will rightly take no chances on seeing a guy waving a gun around. “Kill ’em first, let God sort ’em out”.

Moggy

Where on earth do you get such a cockeyed make believe view of civilian firearm defense.
Maybe you could not hit the side of a barn with a shot gun at ten paces but then that is your fault.

You do have a bit of truth in that police can be as much as a threat as the criminals at times.
They come out of the academy resembling SS storm troopers in attitude and seem to be taught pray and spray too often.

Here is a site that give facts, not foolish statement that defense with a firearm is worse that just being a victim.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

So his political view and his apparent sexuality are important to the story? You bought them up yet they had absolutely nothing to do with the story either, did they?

If you knew anything about liberal press in the U.S. they did have a lot to do with how stories are reported.

You get bias everywhere, especially noticeable when it goes against what you believe.

Major neworks new is supposed to be free of bias, or at least try to be.
Here it is a major factor in politics.

Yes, of course. ‘Coz they aren’t human, after all. Totally forgot that the school authorities have full responsibility for every sick, gun-mad moron who goes mad and takes his gun to school; yeah, why not just ban schools rather than guns, eh?

That statement is simply stupid.
They are responsible for student safety and failed to provide a system that would probably reduced death toll greatly.

Why should dead children need a defense?
Now live children, yes, they should be nurtured and taught. And they should know that when there are no guns they are safe; when there are guns there is danger.

That statement goes beyond stupid to moronic.
The children could have had an active defense that would have left them alive.
You seem to prefer dead victims to living souls protected by a firearm.

Ignorant babble? So you tell us where else there is even a remotely similar number of massacres in a country regarded as civilised.

That statement reflects ignorant babble.

So again you dodge the question.

I repeat: That you even said that is amazing and bizarre.

“If you take away all the legal guns then all those left will be in the hands of criminals” is a saying that is quite true, but since – as far as I’m aware – all these massacres have involved legally-held weapons, which sort of makes attempts to blame gun ownership on defending against illegally held weapons a pretty poor excuse.

I believe that both the Arizona and Texas shootings were not the sort of events involving suicidal nutters.

The most recent Arizona shooting was two college fraternities exchanging insults and one dude pulled a gun.
The sad part is his friends did not stop him from shooting.

I have been in areas where illegal guns can be obtained.
If one is of at least average intelligence, and wariness it is not that hard, so leaving honest people unarmed is asinine at best.

I am many things but leg end, never.

defending the indefensible as you do though.

Weaponry does not have a day to day place in a modern civilised society

Only in your mind.

Sorry to go back so far…

What does his political opinion or sexuality (not that I heard anything about that this side of the pond, although there would probably be a few papers who would push that boat out) have to do with this? I should like to see some proof of these claims from a mainstream news site, rather than one with an agenda that would make Islamic State blush with envy.
Are you saying that ALL mass murdering shooters are liberal, homosexual democrats – and not decidedly at one extreme or another on the political spectrum, rigidly hetrosexual, happy men?

Did also notice you didn’t mention his skin colour – missed an opportunity to blow off a few stereotypes there, didn’t you…

His skin color means nothing, why did you bring that up.
You are the only one conveying a stereotype.

If you lived here you would be aware that the big network news some time back when a shooting took place said it happened because he was a member of the t-e-a party , which he was not and the network did nothing to correct that false statement until FOX plastered the news with the biased accusation made by one of the liberal networks.
Had the shooter been a Caucasian conservative, it would have been covered 24/7 for days on end.
The shooter was of the political social class that liberals rely on to stay in power.
Unless you live here and hear the biased reporting you will never truly understand.
As liberal as NPR is, they do at times have shows that expose that there is a bias, though not many.

Here is a bit of an example:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/03/sharyl-attkisson-resigns-from-cbs-news-184836
http://http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/01/bernie-goldberg-dan-rather-delusional-claiming-liberal-media-bias-sha

Hmm. So you don’t think the school board suffered on this occasion? Not like those injured or the families of those who died, but I am damned sure that there is misery involved whenever a gun is fired and a death occurs – or do you believe that they all sit back, toast the American way of life and chalk it up to experience?

No they suffered nothing except maybe guilt.

Maybe I am not quite up with the gist of your argument but…do you recall the shootings by postal workers, McDonalds employees or even when there had been a few shootings by Vietnam vets which made Americans wary of them? Arm American teachers and how long would it be before a few shootings cause demands for armed guards in each classroom?

So what, dead children with no defense is better in your world?

Ooooohkay…
The sky falling scenario – this would be the one involving guns, yes? Guns in school killing kids, yes? And you want to solve that problem by…throwing more guns at it?
The ones who want kids to die are gun owners, obviously. They cannot understand that their toy is a weapon that can kill when in the wrong hands; the above satire about the NRA wanting schools to be banned rings so damned true here it is unbelieveable – “we mustn’t get rid of our guns because it is our right to own them, it is just too bad that kids are being killed by them so lets employ gun owners in schools instead!” Wow. Jobs for the boys, yes?

Doesn’t it worry you that when someone talks about a school shooting you have to ask which one?

I will ignore that bit of ignorant babble as I am a ignorant of life in the U.K. as you are about life in any part of the U.S. of A.
My claim of what would happen there would be as silly as yours are of life here.

Must be an American thing. I believe the info is freely available over here.
And why keep the shooters name secret – to avoid embarrassing his shooting buddies?

That you even said that is amazing and bizarre.

So if the voting population says yes what happens then?
And if they vote no does that mean they don’t care about gun shootings and massacres, etc?

A majority of states, which is determined by voters in each state, has to ratify the amendment, then it is added.
Ir they vote no, they vote no.

Ah yes, there goes a happy man…

If Paul178 is happy making ignorant statements, well, to each his own.

“

As you continue to ably demonstrate!

I think you wanted to put this with the other post containing ignorant babble directly above it.

You know nothing of the U.S. or any organization that functions here other than your bombastic arrogant ignorant opinion.
May make you feel better but still just your opinion with zero substance.

You are a legend in your own mind.

An interesting article from the BBC website that highlights how few of these incidents are even judged newsworthy for the media in the United Kingdom to pick-up:

In the United States there have…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34424385

Is that the entire U.S. or just Chicago?

Odd how the Black Lives Matter people do not think that applies to Chicago.:confused:

My post still stands though Moggy.

Ignorance is bliss.

Might I enquire what would happen if a group of American citizens took up their rights under the second amendment, and formed a militia to protect their rights?

How far would they be allowed to go?

An organized miliitia did go head to head over land rights some months back.
Guns pointing at guns.

No shots were fired, fortunately for the militia, as the person they were defending proved to be only telling half-truths over what went on. I.e. they would have been protecting the rights of a scam when the full story finally came out.
It came about because the feds decided to use hammer where a thumb-tack was more than enough.

Isn’t the place supposed to be a democracy? If the bulk wanted something done about it legislation could go through tomorrow.

Moggy

We are a Democratic Republic.