And the whole “live by the sword, die by the sword”, “swords into ploughshares”, and “Prince of Peace” bit. But hey, MTG the pillockess still seems to think she is right (for a fairly loose drfinition of think).
Worth watching, very worrying.
6 Likes
7 Likes
Chapeau 
1 Like
His argument shows the chasm between common sense and rationalized nonsense.
He talks about specific gun types as if this is the issue? Sounds like swapping deckchairs on the Titanic. All guns are dangerous. Look at the global statistics, More available guns = more shootings, You don’t need the Institut des hautes études scientifiques to fathom this.
Yes people use them as a status symbol, machismo, Egotistical signaling, but this isn’t new - Immature men have been waiving their iron cocks about for as long as guns have been produced
The genie is out of the bottle, no one seems to know how to put it back in.
I believe 2020 was the first time they went a day without some form of mass shooting somewhere in the US for many years
You have to pick the battles you can win. Yes, from the perspective of a small island that wasn’t that big into guns anyway, we can go ‘why have x?’ but that’s not how Americans think; it’s an unbridgeable mental chasm that @edd9000 has done a better job of explaining in the past than I ever will.
In these mass shooting situations, a restriction on magazine size and certain ammunition types and the guns that fire them would make a difference and his point that a heavier, higher powered round is going to make difference to perception is- however morbidly- valid too. An elementary school child hit by that new 6.8mm round is going to disintegrate and I suspect that even the land of the free might take issue with that.
3 Likes
Small mercies 
I appreciate my perspective is that of a narrow islander. Equally The US is incredibly insular. Simply looking at gun crime / fatality stats globally there is very little argument (Other than a 17th century parchment) to logically support the current status / types / availability of guns in the US.
The noted compromises regarding which mechanical maiming - deathy device is acceptable is, in itself, insane.
…We know this, they probably know this but the guns are already out there. The question is 'how will meaningful change occur? Hunting gun lobbyists would be a start.
Apparently guns aren’t the problem, simply locking kids and lunatics at home solves the problem
It’s easier to maintain an anti-gun position here. I recall when @coco and I went out for dinner in the US as part of a group containing a very assertive, pro-gun, ex NYPD cop who’d been shot at on multiple occasions & who had very strong views about how you should respond to someone coming at you with a gun.
Whaddya gonna do? Wave ya dick at’em?
It’s too late.
1 Like
To quote Homer Simpson in an episode where he’s trying to buy a gun and is told he has to wait - ‘But I’m mad now!’
2 Likes
Before I knock the US, I remind myself that at least they have a formal, written Constitution, even if it has been wilfully misinterpreted to put >400 million guns into the hands of any wack-job, edgy-boychild, and fundamentalist-loon that wants one.
As a whole, the US finds >1 million dead from COVID perfectly acceptable - because ‘muh freedumbs’, so the most recent figure of ~14,000 gun homicides for 2018 looks inconsequential beside it…
Given it’s proved impossible to convince the entire population to accept a tiny injection to passively save lives, what possible hope is there of convincing a heavily propagandised - if not profoundly brainwashed nation - to relinquish its steel cock prosthetics?
The NRA alone has an annual turnover of $412,000,000 - “Fite me”.
Death. Cult.
3 Likes
Apparently they value the right to bear arms over the lives of their children. Hard to believe but hard to argue with. These god bothering cunts are simply not rational. Pro life and pro automatic weapons. Senseless.
Perhaps if they changed their motto to “To Serve And Prevent”, they’d get a clue.
2 Likes
Decades ago I met well-educated clever people in the US who believed that their government was so corrupt and venal that it might plausibly be necessary, if things went badly, one day to take arms and shoot them. If you can accept that then I guess it isn’t hard to accept that you should approach the school shootings prioblem by going for the shooters, not the guns.
It’s probably the case that if you set about restricting access to guns tomorrow no-one currently alive would be here to see them eliminated from the US criminal underworld and/or extremist nutjob population.
They were right about that (same here) but Bob and Mildred with an ar15 each isn’t going to do anything facing the most militarised police force in the west, plus the national guard plus the biggest military in the world. It’s always been a bullshit argument. Similarly the self defence argument looks a touch ropey when you have a small country’s worth of automatic weapons for the 2 of you.
And yet when confronted with a corrupt and venal president they decided to support him by storming the Capitol with the intention of subverting democracy. Oddly enough they forgot to take their guns to the revolution. You couldn’t make it up.
4 Likes