American politics

[Rock Strongo]

WTF

I thought that was a joke. Dear GHod.

It makes you wonder it really does, what is going on over there.

Should have read 'Muricah! though.

On a side note, just saw an interview with the Eagles of Death lead singer, saying (while crying I might add) everybody at the Bataclan that night should have had guns and lives would be saved. He have never seen a guy holding a gun get shot.

 

[scaramanga]

https://twitter.com/x/status/699706718419345408

Pure comedy reading his and his brother's quotes on his timeline.

Why does he spell it "America"?

If one of the guys who wants to be president can't spell "MurricafudgeYeah" then they're really fudged.

 

[scaramanga]

Should have read 'Muricah! though.

On a side note, just saw an interview with the Eagles of Death lead singer, saying (while crying I might add) everybody at the Bataclan that night should have had guns and lives would be saved. He have never seen a guy holding a gun get shot.

Got there first

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

https://twitter.com/x/status/699706718419345408

Pure comedy reading his and his brother's quotes on his timeline.

Yep that photo is in reaction to his poll ratings...he's contemplating ending it all.

 

[Dicko]

There's a video showing the making of one of those presidential campaign ads for Ted Cruz... and it's creepy as hell. He's so self-conscious that it shows him doing 10 takes of things, and getting his family to do awkward hugs and say I love you, and saying his mum prays for him or hours each day etc. So painful to watch.

 

[braineclipse]

Should have read 'Muricah! though.

On a side note, just saw an interview with the Eagles of Death lead singer, saying (while crying I might add) everybody at the Bataclan that night should have had guns and lives would be saved. He have never seen a guy holding a gun get shot.

I know this kind of contradicts our Norwegian sensibilities, but it remains true that the French gun control laws did nothing to help those victims at Bataclan.

Can we claim to know that the outcome had been worse had that kind of attack happened in a place where 10-15% of the population carries weapons?

(Not at all saying that the current US model is the ideal one should follow here just to be clear)

 

[Rock Strongo]

I know this kind of contradicts our Norwegian sensibilities, but it remains true that the French gun control laws did nothing to help those victims at Bataclan.

Can we claim to know that the outcome had been worse had that kind of attack happened in a place where 10-15% of the population carries weapons?

(Not at all saying that the current US model is the ideal one should follow here just to be clear)

If say those 10-15% were trained personnel comparable to bodyguards then sure, great idea. Not sure if I'd feel great knowing that the next guy could be holding a gun though, I'd rather assume he didn't.

 

[braineclipse]

If say those 10-15% were trained personnel comparable to bodyguards then sure, great idea. Not sure if I'd feel great knowing that the next guy could be holding a gun though, I'd rather assume he didn't.

Absolutely both positives and negatives with guns being around. Like you I prefer fewer guns in our society and I'm quite happy with the Norwegian model. But at the same time I think there are legitimate arguments for less gun control. And I think what was said by that singer is perfectly fine. There's a good chance that in this instance "good people with guns" could have saved lives. Though I'm also certain that in many other instances people with good intentions carrying guns in a chaotic situation would make a bad situation worse.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

There's a video showing the making of one of those presidential campaign ads for Ted Cruz... and it's creepy as hell. He's so self-conscious that it shows him doing 10 takes of things, and getting his family to do awkward hugs and say I love you, and saying his mum prays for him or hours each day etc. So painful to watch.

Ha.ha. this creep looks like Grandfather from The Munsters.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

With America being awash with guns, how come there has not been ONE instance where an armed citizen has successfully intervened to prevent a massacre? BTW there have been instances where an armed citizen has intervened...only to shot an innocent bystander.

 

[scaramanga]

With America being awash with guns, how come there has not been ONE instance where an armed citizen has successfully intervened to prevent a massacre? BTW there have been instances where an armed citizen has intervened...only to shot an innocent bystander.

Without looking into the details the obvious answer to me seems that people don't attack places that are heavily armed.

If you're a lone (or dual) gunman and you want a high death count, you're probably better off going for a school than an NRA meeting or a police station.

 

[braineclipse]

Without looking into the details the obvious answer to me seems that people don't attack places that are heavily armed.

If you're a lone (or dual) gunman and you want a high death count, you're probably better off going for a school than an NRA meeting or a police station.

Most attacks happen in so called "gun free zones". It's also a point that despite a significant discussion around gun control and concealed carry permits etc the vast majority of Americans with guns do not carry them around day to day.

 

[monkeybarry]

Most attacks happen in so called "gun free zones". It's also a point that despite a significant discussion around gun control and concealed carry permits etc the vast majority of Americans with guns do not carry them around day to day.

Locked safely in the home for when someone breaks in for self defence - which is a fair position. But good luck getting to it before the armed intruder takes you out

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Without looking into the details the obvious answer to me seems that people don't attack places that are heavily armed.

If you're a lone (or dual) gunman and you want a high death count, you're probably better off going for a school than an NRA meeting or a police station.

The nutjob pro gun lobby use this as a justification for people being armed. Seems it's invalid then.

 

[braineclipse]

Locked safely in the home for when someone breaks in for self defence - which is a fair position. But good luck getting to it before the armed intruder takes you out

An intruder is breaking into your house to attack you...

Option A: Somewhere in your house you have a gun safe it takes seconds to open with a gun and ammunition
Option B: Frying pan

I don't own a gun, I'm not a gun person. But in this scenario I know which option I would want.

 

[AuroRaman]

An intruder is breaking into your house to attack you...

Option A: Somewhere in your house you have a gun safe it takes seconds to open with a gun and ammunition
Option B: Frying pan

I don't own a gun, I'm not a gun person. But in this scenario I know which option I would want.

Option C: set the goat in the garden on them.

 

[scaramanga]

The nutjob pro gun lobby use this as a justification for people being armed. Seems it's invalid then.

We don't know how many attacks didn't go ahead because of the ownership of guns.

Unfortunately this is one of those issues where there are two very opposed sides, both very emotional and shouty with very little factual evidence from either.

 

[monkeybarry]

An intruder is breaking into your house to attack you...

Option A: Somewhere in your house you have a gun safe it takes seconds to open with a gun and ammunition
Option B: Frying pan

I don't own a gun, I'm not a gun person. But in this scenario I know which option I would want.

Me too - whichever one is closest to me, gives me the best angle/position to attack with surprise if needed and raised least possibility of being confronted before im armed.

In many of the US households I've been in this is often not the gun as it is securely locked away to prevent accidents.

The merit of the gun as an effective weapon is not in dispute by me - the opportunity to use it is.
Which of course segways into the old debate about less gun ownership = less guns = less probability of needing to use one

 

[monkeybarry]

We don't know how many attacks didn't go ahead because of the ownership of guns.

Unfortunately this is one of those issues where there are two very opposed sides, both very emotional and shouty with very little factual evidence from either.

In the absence of evidence, logical reasoning should be used
Bugger....

 

[scaramanga]

Me too - whichever one is closest to me, gives me the best angle/position to attack with surprise if needed and raised least possibility of being confronted before im armed.

In many of the US households I've been in this is often not the gun as it is securely locked away to prevent accidents.

The merit of the gun as an effective weapon is not in dispute by me - the opportunity to use it is.
Which of course segways into the old debate about less gun ownership = less guns = less probability of needing to use one

I can't understand why people wouldn't situate the gun safe next to where they sleep. It's probably a reasonably safe bet that the vast majority of incidents that might require a gun would occur when the homeowner is in bed (of those when they are in the house). That's why panic buttons are fitted next to beds too I assume.

I'm with @braineclipse on this one - I prefer the UK system where there are fewer guns but I'd absolutely own one if I lived in the US.