Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 60 comments are related to the topic:
Two year old shot dead by four year old
Two year old shot dead by four year old
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 60
|
By:
calpol racket
 |
|
By:
^^^^ the unfunniest comment on here in weeks.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Hey Study, hope you are well and winning, Your problem on this fred is you are talking too much,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Sense.  |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
Yes I'm good thanks, off out now GL and GN.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
So you think arming the French Resistance was a mistake?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
In Israel everyone has a gun
|
|
By:
3 year old boy seriously injured in a suspected deliberate acid attack in Worcester
|