What do you think?

My plan is always to grab the nearest fire extinguisher and wait by the door, then blast him in the face with it so that he's blinded and then smash him over the head with it.

and 7 seconds later there are no more textbooks to throw.

shooters face when he has a semi-auto rifle, and a bunch of kids just haphazardly threw books around as he opens fire.

I always thought I'd throw a book or chair or something at the gunman if he came in the room.

You have painted an epic picture in my head.

I think your school needs to focus more on grammar...

If i were to shoot up a school and some fucking kid threw a book at me, i'm pretty sure that kid would just be my next target.

In my country we solve this by employing citizens to keep law and order, and equip these people with guns. We call this group of people the police. It's not a perfect system but it works rather decent here.

Ever heard of Waco? 75 killed by our government, you so called police. No better reason to own a gun!

I have not heard of Waco, so i looked it up and to be honest i don't really get your argument.

The ATF were raiding a compound belonging to a cult due to suspicion that they were in possession of several illigal modifications of legal guns. It is unknown whether it was an agent or a cultist who fired the first shot, but a gun fight unfolds and people die.

So you're saying that we should be able to buy guns so we can have gunfights with the police when they show up at your house with a search warrant?

It is right that the raid was a major cock up by the ATF people in charge, but i dont see how this tragedy in any way can be an example of why you should be able to own a gun. I think it proves the opposite.

Also if you read my first reply you will see that it is not an actual statement on whether guns are good or bad. I was merely discrediting your statement that the only people with guns in a place where guns are illigal are outlaws. Both outlaws and authorised personel will have guns.

If marriage is outlawed, on outlaws will have in-laws.

yeah, but we've not had many guns for decades, thats what made it so easy for us to control them, we still get nutters with guns though from time to time. remember raul moats?

Remember how well that was handled though? Do you know how many fatalities there were?

There were 3 over 2 days. Not as bad as over 20 in less than an hour I must say.

If guns were outlawed in the US, the only people with guns would be criminals.

I'm an American, I wish we had gun control laws like that.

I've lived in England for almost 5 years now and for well over a decade in America. Since I've been here in England, I've seen more guns, heard about more people getting shot and seen a lot more problems because of guns, and even more about knives. Hell, two idiots on the bus were openly talking about their gun and even pulled it out, even though there was CCTV camera above their head. And when I lived in the part of Virginia that was almost completely rednecks and ghettos, there was barely anything. I mean a few people showed me their collections of guns and we went out and shot cans outside their house, but I've barely ever heard of crime with a gun over here. It could be a coincidence, but I have notice that the English race in general are "a bunch of angry cunts", in my friend's words. I just don't have a position or a bias, but I have noticed more gun violence since I've been here.

lol, controversy.

Handguns where banned in the UK in 1996 because a school was shot up

eh, no they weren't

news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm

I saw you haven't read or understood your own article properly.

That's a lie. Last year the Uk had 39 gun related deaths. You had over 9300. Your population is roughly ten times the Uk's yet your gun crime is around 300 times.

many of those gun related deaths are not in fact homicides. the truth is this: you brits lost your sack a looooong time ago when old willy the conqueror handed some country boys their asses on a stick. yall havent been able to escape the yoke of monarchy for hundreds of years...maybe you need more guns?

Queen has in practice no power, if you don't understand British history don't use it against people. Why would we need more guns?

keep telling yourself that. the queen has no power. the queen has no power...

Explain to me the last time the queen made any decision in our country?

obviously...im not privy to the inner workings of the british government. the suggestion that you needed more guns was a bit tongue-in-cheek. did you see our silly movie 'braveheart'? you know at the end where theyre executing willy wallace and he yells 'freedom'? sometimes freedom has a cost. some folks arent willing to pay it..some are.

okay. youre absolutely right...no power at all. merely a figurehead. why on earth do you pay a portion of your income to support them? nostalgia?

Because they generate massive income for the country....

through what? royal holdings? property? they pay taxes? is that what youre telling me?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
Uk gun crime statistics
www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Us gun crime statistics
If you look we're about even?
But ya'll ban all guns so how are our gun crime rates even
We even have a larger population So explain that
You talk about our mass shootings but they are committed by mentally unstable people
If we can find out why The UK has less mentally unstable than the US then we can solve the problem

You're looking at 2007 for the UK, before handguns were banned. The data for the UK in that article is old.

you have much less people and britain sux

Guns don't shoot up schools, madmen do.
It's a logical fallacy to ban the instrument and think the perpetrator dissappeared.

In other words, consider yourself lucky there's apparently less psychopaths in the UK than the US. That's your actual adnavantage.

Depends utterly on how crazy they are.

Equally crazy. Your argument's flawed and you're even trying to kid yourself into believing it. Pathetic.

Explain how exactly my argument is flawed.
I dare you.

Because, what your point pretty much boils down to is that it makes no difference to violent crime if guns are legal. In the UK, violent crime is actually more common, but gun crime is lower, thus refuting that claim. Gun crime in the USA is so high because it's so easy for petty criminals to get a hold of guns. It IS a problem.

That proves my point even more. If we have higher violent crime, but lower gun crime then our gun laws are obviously having the right effect.

Yes, but guns are useful for little more than violence. Fair enough, you can't ban knives because they're very useful in everyday life, but guns are useful for nothing but killing. I'm not saying banning guns prevents people killing each other, but you can't say it would reduce the number of people one person can kill.

fuck, wouldn't*

No, it was your troops, the fact that your civilians held guns had fuck all to do with it. Also, America should have joined the war earlier rather than wait and let millions of people die.

Yes because you wouldn't join for fucking ages.

It's a fucking world war. Who the fuck would see one of those happening and say to themselves "That looks like fun. Let's do that."

UK,Australia,France,New Zealand,Canada,South Africa,Greece,Yugoslavia,Bulgaria,Hungary,Romania,Croatia,Iraq,USSR

You should have joined in because there were atrocities being committed...

You are the worst kind of American. The kind that thinks they won the war all on their own. Other countries were fighting before the US EVENTUALLY decided to help against Germany, something they should have been doing from the start. Think about things before you say them.

I occasionally use an M4 or my Benelli (semi aulo 12 guage) for hunting. Game like coyotes and dove. There are other purposes for Assault weapons.

The 2nd amendment was created in a big part to protect us against a tyrannical government. We can't begin to do that with hunting rifles and shotguns.

I don't see what use an assault rifle would do against predator drones and trained soldiers

Tell that to the Taliban who are still fighting, and fighting hard might I add. Also, the US would never bomb their own people. And if they do, you can damn sure bet that another nation would intervene or we would find a way around that. Hitler and stalin took away guns from their people...I wonder why.

The Taliban use tactics most Americans wouldn't go to, ie suicide bombings, civilian shields etc. Also, they are usually trained for war, where as the American people are not. While you are probably right that they would never bomb their own people, I don't see why you would need to fight them in the first place (coming from a non-American).

The 2nd amendment was put in place as a "check and balance" against our government. Our founders knew governments could turn tyrannical, so they let us own any gun we can carry to protect against the government trying to impose what they want on us, and not what we want. If we didn't have guns, they could do anything they wanted without the possibility of any consequences. Maybe an ally would help the american civilians, part of the military would likely fight the government also. It's very hard to explain. Assault rifles are much more effective than bolt action rifles, even in untrained american civilians, it gives us more firepower.

You would be surprised what kind of people live in the US. I wouldn't put it past some or most Americans to do some suicide bombings. And a lot of us (Americans) with guns have some kind of formal training with said fire arms. We are war like people, in a way. Taliban are less trained than you're average joe here tbh. Also, if the gov tried to take away our guns...people would revolt. I'd bet anything on it. It's why they are trying to introduce giving guns to teachers instead of making it stricter or banning guns.

please stop acting like you know anything about the taliban and their abillities compared to the average american. its pathetic.

I know the abilities of the Taliban from people that have fought them. They are not that trained or organized. They give them a gun show them how to aim it and that's it. The really good ones are the old guys that have been fighting for years and the guys that are trained by the US military. Their main strength is the element of surprise and IED's. Other than that, they don't have shit. You're average American with a gun, is much more trained than that guaranteed. Our people are very experienced. So, please, don't talk shit. And it seems you have it out for me from all the replies. I strike a nerve?

Millions of Americans are good shots with guns.

in a calm environment maybe.

when it kicks off though you are more trouble to your own that the enemy.

No not really, you really think people would panic so bad that they start shooting their own people? No, bullshit, I know the trained soldiers would likely win every firefight, but there will be some losses. Think of the Americans who've been to war who are civilians now, think of the strong minded people. There are X factors you know.

not purposely!

it happeneds though stray bullets and panic kill innocents.

not everyone is army material

I think it says more about our society as a whole that we idolize objects at all. I mean, I like my guns and think they're awesome pieces of engineering and history, but they're just tools

You'd be much less likely to throw rocks at others knowing they'd throw back.

Except if there's a guy with a ballesta, you don't mess with the guy with the ballesta.
Ballestas.
P.S. Ballestas are one shot kills, guns, contrary to popular belief actually require multiple shots, unless it's a HEADSHOT

Well, I live in Europe and guns are not banned, but there are some rather strict restrictions and regulations, and it generally works. When it comes to violence in schools (or public places in general), locals seem to prefer stabbing weaopns.

(Oh, that gun was made in Europe, btw)

What restrictions are you talking about? Is it banned for civilians to own them, or is there some other restriction?

Like I said to the comment above, I appreciate the fact that you can discuss this without being hateful like most of the people I've had the displeasure of talking with.

No, civilians are allowed to own non-automatic weapons (I'm not into guns so this might be a bit misleading, but basically any gun that doesn't shoot too fast...). In order to get one, you have to obtain a license for it first (this doesn't apply to BB guns and such ). That means you have to go through a checkup, state a reason (hunting, sport... but self-defense is also a valid reason), and pass some kind of examination in controlling the weapon. Also, people with violent criminal past are excluded. With this license you are allowed to buy a gun, which gets registered at some authority. Also, the license is time limited (valid for several years, I believe).
I don't know the exact rules, but from my experience so far (several family members have guns), the procedure and the limitations seem pretty reasonable. I should also note that owning a weapon is rather unusual. Vast majority of weapons sold are hunting rifles.

But a gun isnt something that everyone would want/ need. alcohol in the 20s was different because before that everybody had it, it was part of daily life. banning automatic/assault weapons wont cause that kind of underground market because 1. guns people actually use will still be available 2. people dont use these types of weapons as commonly as alcohol

Except guns already have a black market in every corner of the inhabited globe. Banning them would only make that black market stronger.

Some people will likely still want guns anyways for protection, but if it is just the automatic ones, I don't mind. I guess the problem comes if attempts to go further than just banning automatic guns happens. I don't personally own a gun, but I want to have the right to protect myself from, say, intruders or a corrupt government if the time comes (that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and kill officials).

I appreciate that you're replying peacefully rather than the usual "STFU KILLER" I usually get.

i think the only guns that should be legal in america are handguns (for personal protection, and only ones with mags under 10 shots) and bolt rifles and small mag shotguns. anything else is obviously not made for hunting imo

I agree but still think that are automatic/semi auto guns should be banned and only single shot weapons be made legal, since owning a gun seems such a point of pride to so many Americans

My only issue with banning automatic guns is the recent situation of the U.S. government. It's starting to look like someone behind the scenes is pulling the strings on the government, and with how many scandals and situations are being covered up, it wouldn't surprise me if the time came when U.S. citizens had to fight the government for their freedom.
So many dictators that killed innocent people started by disarming citizens too, and Obama has advertised many of the same things Hitler advertised in his early years before he usurped enough power from other officials he could do whatever he wanted. If we could ensure it doesn't come to that, by all means, get rid of automatic guns.

You're really ignorant to how many coverups there are in government, aren't you?