Two year old shot dead by four year old

chest?

er!

this wouldn't have happened if the 2yo had been armed

Arm the terrible 2s?

As long as you do a background check first.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, ... 7,965 gun-related deaths in the United States this year so far - including 380 children under age of 11.

Guns aren't the problem.

Apparently.

Clearly in this tragic case the owner did not look after the gun correctly.

40,147 knife crimes in the UK in the year to March 2018. If its not guns its knives. We are getting ever more violent cultures in the west due to rise of gangs and imported drugs.

These horses getting right out of hand.

Jul 21, 2018 -- 4:11PM, InsiderTrader wrote:

Clearly in this tragic case the owner did not look after the gun correctly. 40,147 knife crimes in the UK in the year to March 2018. If its not guns its knives. We are getting ever more violent cultures in the west due to rise of gangs and imported drugs.

If the owner of the gun wasn't a gun owner, it wouldn't have been an issue.
It's not a gun vs knife problem, they're both wrong.

Defending gun ownership by saying "what about knives, then?" is not a defence, it's deflection.

No matter how many, or who, gets killed by guns, you defend ownership of guns in some way.

Drugs and gangs are of course entirely new phenomena.

Certainly on the rise in London PP.

'Gangs and weapons on the rise on London streets, front line police team warns'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gangs-weapons-london-metropolitan-police-territorial-support-group-sergeant-paul-perversi-a8293411.html

Mr Lammy made the comments in the wake of a stabbing on Wednesday evening, which left 18-year-old, Israel Ogunsola, dead.

On Thursday he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: "What we’re seeing today is the worst I’ve ever seen it. There are parents, friends, families, schools traumatised and grieving. And there is absolutely no sign at the moment of reduction in the violence.

“There is no single cause. What I’m concerned about is what drives the gangs in the turf wars and that’s an £11bn cocaine drugs market. We are the drugs market of Europe and I think the police and our country have lost control of that drugs market. You have children as young as 12, 13, being recruited into gangs to run drugs.

“I’m hearing nothing about what we’re going to do. Drugs are prolific. It’s like Deliveroo, they’re as prolific as ordering a pizza. You can get them on Snapchat, WhatsApp. That in the end is driving the turf war and it’s driving the culture of violence that’s now becoming endemic.”

If you dont believe Mr Lammy when he says there is a problem I am not sure what ever I can say o convince you PP.

I taught my kids not to play with matches. They were hidden but not locked up (the matches not the kids...)

For a parent to have a gun in the house that isn't in a double locked gun cabinet defies logic.

We've all watched John Wayne films etc. Has anything changed or maybe just got a whole lot worse?

Knives in London are different. We all have knives in the kitchen. The problem here is a complete breakdown in morality, led by absent fathers and sh*t fathers.

Bring back the birch.

This issue - (4 year old shoots 2 year old) has nothing at all to do with knife crime in London - nor about drugs (unless there was a Calpol racket going on).

The stuff about knife crime in London/the UK is brought up by Insider Trader as an aside, because it's an opportunity to keep the on-topic stuff afloat.
Especially if there the opportunity of forcing someone not of the alt-right to have to agree with a Labour MP, like it's important.

What has the drug trade/knife crime in the UK/gangs, have to do with "4 year old shoots 2 year old" in the USA?

What has an parent not keeping a gun out of a 4 year old's hand got to do with gun control. He could have had a knife or anything if parents are not around to check.

It was not the gun that killed the poor 2 year old. It was the fact that a 4 year got hold of a weapon and used it.

Join the dots Study.

Family breakdown underpins all of this.

The liberal dream is reaching climax. You should be happy. Break down the traditional family unit, reduce the role of fathers and bullseye..carnage. Well done!

My brother stabbed me with a biro once! Boy do he pay when dad got home. See, discipline. It works.

It was not the gun that killed the poor 2 year old. It was the fact that a 4 year got hold of a weapon and used it.
The 2 year old that was shot by a bullet from a gun wasn't killed by a gun?

FFS

Australia has 5,500,000 legally licenced firearms for a population of 24m. Not quite sure what you are going on about Akabula. Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership. Guns dont kill. People do.

I don't dispute the need for discipline, injera.

I just think there is NO NEED AT ALL for people to own guns.

Of course fecking guns kill people.
If people pointed a coat hanger and shouted BANG, there wouldn't be a dead person.

On the basis that not everyone can be trusted with a gun, then everyone shouldn't have one.
They are not necessary for anything.

was lammy the one who blamed it on white coke use and supply to them?

Studyform you are using guns to blame a wider shift in society. Switzerland is generally a much happier place than the USA. Single parent families make up 6% of households in Switzerland compared to 16% in the USA. I suggest you look at things like this rather than just blaming the tools.

The pint IT is that strict rules on gun ownership make a difference.

No, I'm blaming a gun for shooting a 2 year-old. Couldn't give a flying feck where the gun was from or who didn't look after it.
No gun, no dead 2 year old.

You cannot take guns of everyone for one tragic accident.

Akabula the automatic weapon used in Australia in the last mass shooting was already illegal. There are still millions of guns in Australia.

I know there are IT but there are controls on who can own them.
America could do with something similar.

STUDY - u are away of the mark with what ur writing.  The root cause here was the owner did not have the weapon(s) out of reach from the children.  It's like someone dangerously driving a car and have been involved a crash.  It's NOT the cars fault.  It's the person who has been driving it.  Same situation here. Are u going to ban all cars because some people are wreckless??

I don't see how that would help in this case. It was not like it was an automatic rifle used.

One tragic accident?????
No mass shootings then, or murders all over the place?

No guns, no mass shootings either.

Kriskin.
We need cars to travel, we don't need guns.
Eventually and with some luck we may even have driverless and accident-free cars.
We still won't need guns.

Without guns how do people defend themselves from the criminals or if the government goes rogue. How do people hunt? The British took arms off the settlers and then repressed them. With no arms they could not defend themselves.

Do you think the arms of a rogue government could be repelled with a gun?
Criminals fought off with guns just commit more crimes with guns.

Do you have a gun?

I live in the UK. So no.

In that case, how do you fend off criminals and a rogue government?

Or get dinner?

STUDY - i'm not disagreeing with some of ur points.  In this instance it was the owner of the weapon who is at fault.

Without question Kriskin and no doubt the family will never properly recover from this tragedy.
This makes the point even more valid. No gun, no careless parent has a gun for this type of accident to happen.
It's not like it's the first time there's been an accidental fatality with a gun.

Darwinism at work. I don't see what the problem is here.

calpol racket

^^^^ the unfunniest comment on here in weeks.

It was mine.
Part of a sarcastic comment, a bit out of context.
You could get a job with the Mail with work like that Donny.

The early posts were less funny tbh.

Hey Study, hope you are well and winning, Your problem on this fred is you are talking too much,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,









Sense.

I'm ok(ish) mate, thanks.
Overworked, no winning, but not losing much.

I always talk too much...



You're right...


Sense

Hope you're doing at least as well!

Yes I'm good thanks, off out now GL and GN.

STUDYFORM
21 Jul 18 19:49
Joined: 26 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 18,924 | Blogger: STUDYFORM's blog
In that case, how do you fend off criminals and a rogue government?
Rate reply:
| report
block user
STUDYFORM

STUDYFORM
21 Jul 18 19:50
Joined: 26 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 18,924 | Blogger: STUDYFORM's blog
Or get dinner?

^

In the UK we do not have the same history of being repressed and the police are not generally armed.

Repression has nothing to do with gun ownership.
In fact it is almost certainly the least repressed who are the biggest advocates of gun ownership.

STUDYFORM
21 Jul 18 19:46
Joined: 26 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 18,924 | Blogger: STUDYFORM's blog
Do you think the arms of a rogue government could be repelled with a gun?

^

In short yes. Just because the rogue government has more weapon options does not mean they cannot be stopped if the population has a means to defend themselves. Why do you think the British armed the French Resistance. The USA armed the mujahideen. The soviets armed the vietcong. These armies all faced much larger and stronger oppressors. But if you disarm the population they have no means to protect themselves.

As British troops sailed to Boston in 1768, the Boston Gazette reported that the ministry commanded things "more grievous to the people, than any thing hitherto made known," the first of which was "that the inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." By 1774, the British were routinely conducting warrantless searches and seizures of firearms in the Boston area, leading the Gazette to exclaim that "what most irritated the people next to seizing their arms and ammunition" was the arrest of patriot political leaders. King George III ordered the seizure of any firearms imported into the colonies.

Just after the Redcoats' attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/05/31/when-the-redcoats-confiscated-guns/e38d0810-af85-4949-8d93-3da746601e65/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.073f2c42e178

If you dont understand history (even modern history) you will never be able to debate this topic. You are looking at it out of context from a teenage idealist point of view.

I'm sorry I don't meet your lofty standard of debate, or, as I prefer to put it; agenda-driven tripe.
It's a shame I'm no longer a teenager, for lots of reasons.
But my little rebuttal, fwiw...

Not only is your argument basically flawed as the world has changed a bit since the time of the US war of independence, along with the types of weapons in existence.
If the removal of firearms by the British had been effective, being the supposed tyrants in your clip, then they wouldn't have lost the war, would they?

As for the arming of the mujahedeen, the French resistance, the 'Vietcong' (a made up US Army word, as it happens), there were other reasons for arming them.
The main two being:
1. It keeps conflict "over there" and not "over here" - in all your examples.
2. Sales of arms makes lots of money for a few influential, usually sociopathic, wealthy people.
WW1 might have ended sooner if this hadn't been the case.

It would seem that your desperation to prove the same old points on here leave common sense or reason behind.

I prefer common sense or reason to blind debate.

Actually, I've been making my point for a couple of hours now, going to bed is preferable. So for all the reasons given. Any further debate will have to be on your own, you can consider it a massdebate if you want.

So you think arming the French Resistance was a mistake?

Now, I didn't say that, did I?

This is what you do and it is wrong of you.
Unless you think the entire free world is the French resistance.

Night.

I am not doing anything except questioning your logic that guns need to be banned because of this tragic incident.

Of course the world would be a better place with no guns, no swords, no nuclear weapons etc. But we are where we are. If one side is disarmed the other side will take advantage.

Whatever you think of Piers Morgan, he had the guts to speak out about guns in America and it cost him a lucrative career. Respect to him.

People who live in the countryside have guns for their own protection
can not rely on the government or police or anyone else , that’s how it is

If you have a family it’s your own responsibility to be a responsible parent
That means being very careful and cautious regarding firearms
Anyone can become a parent unfortunately

Countries such as America and Britain are becoming more violent not less
It’s the nature of our societies .
One solution , perhaps the only one , is for people to live within their own gated communities
This fur example is what happens in other violent societies such as S Africa

You could venture out to the city or town to work , whatever , but then return home to a safe environment , perhaps communities of hundreds or even thousands of people

they could ban guns within their own communities , without the need for the government to be involved
It would be nothing to do with the government , just their own decision
They would have a means to protect themselves by insulating themselves from the government and its decisions

In Israel everyone has a gun

3 year old boy seriously injured in a suspected deliberate acid attack in Worcester