Asked about normal every day life, 'what's more important, children or guns?' what kind of beast even hesitates before answering!?

spot on

True DEMOCRACY. THE , PEOPLE SPOKE and were Listened to.

wrong go and read article 7 of the english bill of rights , we always had a culture of using arms for defence.

@@geezerp1982 we had the right but it wasn't cultural

@@hod2116 wrong, the fact it is considered a natural right by the people who framed the bill of rights tells you that it WAS CULTURAL ! it was very common place right up the 40s /50s for people to have firearms for home defence, go look up the siage of sidney street , citizens who legally carried their pistols joined the police in attempting to stop the terrorists ! the media has lied to you

I was 10, living an hour up the road.

America's future is literally killing itself so eventually they'll wake up but probably be too late

Most countries you named have way smaller population than US so they obviously have less gun deaths oh and 500 000 people are saved each year due to defensive use of firearm

Yeah america is not a free country at all and i hate it when they things like we are the land of the free we were the firstto stop slavery shit like that you still practice slavery today you just don't call it slavery

Taking small arms to a drone fight. It's an amendment, it can change

Yes they do. The following comment is solely about the Republican party. They are for guns regardless of the consequences. They are for freedom of religion except for Muslims and a number of other faiths. They are for freedom of speech unless it's speech they don't like i.e. human sexuality and slavery. They are for law and order until it's their guys who are criminals. They are for conspiracy theories instead of facts and science. And let's not even start on the economic and financial issues. One example though is when Republicans control the power they spend like drunken sailors on massive and permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy and throw crumbs to the working stiffs. When the Democrats are in power the republicans are all about cutting spending and bitching and moaning about the massive deficit. It's hard to wrap your brain around the number of dollars Trump just gave away to his friends or worse yet just frittered away without a care in the world. Think of that when you look at your pay stub next time. Biden has kept the government running efficiently and lowered the deficit in one year by l.5 Trillion Dollars. And now the idiots in congress want to impeach him. For what crime? Nobody including the republicans knows why. There's a few things to say about the Democrats too but those could be considered laughable next to what the Republicans do. So yes, I would agree that almost 50% of the US has some kind of mental problem.

Knowledge is dangerous to people who don't want you to ask questions and know they're lying.

DUNBLANE.

It was not the first mass shootings in the UK, it was the deadliest mass shootings in the UK 🤦🏾‍♂️. Wikipedia is free guys

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_Kingdom I don't think it was the 1st mass shooting in the uk.

​@@MultiMoomoo2 Hungerford was sadly the first. Michael Ryan was the scum that did it. He murdered 17 people in 1987.

It was the first school mass shooting not the first mass shooting Michael Ryan in Hungerford springs to mind in about 1988

​@@MultiMoomoo2I thought for a school?

As a Brit don't say shit like "there's no way the government can handle 300 million people", just look at China.

Statistically speaking the biggest threat in America for unnatural death would be Heart Disease, Diabetes, Falling, Cancer, Stroke, Flu, Alzheimer’s, etc. Nothing is being down about those things and they take far less to address legally compared to firearms. The government doesn't give a shit about us they have an agenda to be corrupt/incompetent. Why should I trust the government?

Don't forget The Hungerford massacre or Derek Bird in Cumbria

Another sad tragic day

@@sarahjoines9343 yes, hopefully will never have to revisit a day like this again

I would suggest to take a class and rent some firearms and learn about them. What you are experiencing is simple fear of the unknown. Vast majority of people who actually put forth the effort to learn about them no longer hold fear of firearms.

@@1911GreaterThanALL lol, my sides are killing me.

@@1911GreaterThanALL Agreed. It's certainly understandable why people in the US and the UK who have been personally impacted by these tragedies feel that banning access to firearms should be implemented. They are wrong. People who want to hurt others will always find a way to do it. The terrorists did it with box cutters and planes on 9/11. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols used bombs in Oklahoma City. So did the Unibomber Ted Kaczynski, and the FLNC and ISIS in France. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds. I could continue listing tragic events that were not carried out using firearms but I think my point is made. The US has always had guns, and a lot of them. If the guns were the problem why wasn't there a high incidence of shootings before the 1990s? The fact is, even if guns were completely banned in the US there'd be no decrease in violence. Law abiding citizens would turn in their guns, criminals wouldn't. Look at the major cities in the US with the strictest gun laws, they're more violent than ever. Restricting gun ownership only leaves the bad guys with guns and law abiding citizens unable to protect themselves. The problem isn't the guns, it's the crisis of the mental state, particularly of our youth. Faith and morality play less and less of a role in our society today. Kids of this generation are ill-equipped to deal with adversity and barraged with all the evils of the internet & social media. The violence will continue until and unless this problem is taken seriously, guns or no guns. Finally, for all those out there that want strict gun laws or to ban them altogether: With so many cities defunding the police, how will you protect your family if an intruder enters your home and police can't quickly respond? I'm seriously asking that question.

@@melanie7769 ​ Introducing gun control measures would make such a huge difference to the number of shootings though. If a kid with a mental disorder can easily get their hands on a gun and then go and massacre a class full of students, there's a problem right? Banning guns outright isn't strictly necessary if the right measures are taken. Sure, someone who wants to harm another will find a way. But a gun by it's nature is ruthless and there's no way to defend a bullet without armour. It can be used at a distance and as you know can cause horrible injuries or death. If someone tried to beat you with a bat for example, you might be able to run, wrestle, call for help and have time to survive. On the news, Instead of "10 students shot dead", the worst news story might become "15 year old arrested for stabbing 1 classmate before being tackled to the ground by other students". I think that gun ownership is so prolific in the US that many people feel defenceless without one. You are even scared of your own police because an officer might be a little too trigger-happy. They are probably shit scared of being shot by a civilian themselves which doesn't help the situation. I really think the policing in America needs to be reformed in a big big way. A good police force that you can trust will make society feel safer and that's definitely needed before people become more willing to surrender their guns. People who aren't aware of the amount of gun deaths in the US are staggered when they learn how bad it is. It's unfathomable to them. No other country has anywhere near the amount of gun crime as the US and no other country has anywhere near as many gun owners. Surely there's a link between the amount of gun crime/violence and the number of guns, no?. Of course dangerous criminals will always find a way to get their hands on whatever it is. But gangsters generally shoot other gangsters (or use ia gun to only invoke fear in an enemy or victim so they have control) rather than indiscriminately spraying bullets into crowds because you're having a bad day. The people who do that sort of thing and have that sort of mentality should never be allowed anywhere near a gun. A few simple rules would make a world of difference to gun crime in the US. Keep your right to own a gun if you want, but please have it heavily regulated to try and avoid mass shootings or other poimtless killimgs. Since the changes in the law the Uk hasn't had a single school shooting. Doesn't it make sense?

@@monofrida1 You make some good points, we just come at this from different points of view. In a perfect world, what you're suggesting might be appropriate, but we know how far from perfect society is. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for Americans have a way to defend themselves and their families against threats to them. It doesn't matter whether that threat is an intruder or the Federal government. The founding fathers considered it crucial for defense against tyranny, meaning government is more likely to act against it's own citizens when they know they are unarmed and vulnerable. History is littered with examplesof this. Here are a few: In 1911 Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 - 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians. In 1929 Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 - 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians In 1935 China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 - 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese. In 1938 Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 - 1945 they murdered 16 million Only innocent, law abiding people would turn their guns in, resulting in criminals being the only ones armed. Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up. In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate. As I said in my last post, America has always had guns and plenty of them. That being the case, why haven't school shootings been common throughout our history? I certainly understand that we are all horrified by the school shootings we've seen in the past 25 years, but why has it only been in recent history that this has happened? I reassert my belief that there is a societal crisis. The number of people who believe and have faith in a higher power has dropped dramatically in the past 25 years. The internet and social media have desensitized and isolated people in a way no generation before has been. It allows them to say anything with anonymity and no fear of consequence. Social media sets a standard for being "cool" that most people can never attain, leaving so many feeling unattractive and useless. Pornography and violence are readily available to be watched. While I do appreciate your opinions and understand how you could come to that conclusion, my opinion hasn't changed. I'm guessing that you don't know a lot about use and safe handling of a firearm. Also, there was one thing I asked that you didn't address: How would you defend yourself and your family against those that wish to harm you if guns were outlawed?

The problem with gun control in the U.S. is the scale is the worst out of any other country. Good luck attempting to enforce a gun ban or confiscation as the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution and not any agenda put forward by a singular leader - the same goes for law enforcement. To affect such a thing one would effectively need foreign law enforcement or military in order to effect a ban and confiscation as many gun owners would choose to use firearms against the government. This is the purpose of the second amendment. No other country I am aware of has such a concept of firearms.

@@1911GreaterThanALL I really don't know why you are trying to defend this situation under every comment!? On the one hand, it is "only" an additional article. Of course you could adapt/change it so that all this war equipment doesn't lie under every couch. On the other hand, it's pretty sad that there seem to be people who define themselves exclusively through it. NO ONE needs a fully automatic weapon with dozens of cartridges in civilian life! Not for hunting, not on a farm, and not for self-defense either. it's your sport? Okay, then the gun stays at the shooting range and is only used there. Are you a farmer? Okay, then a hunting rifle against the wolf/jackal/bear is enough. Do you want to protect yourself? Okay, then get yourself registered, properly trained in handling and safekeeping, get a gun license. But please stop defending those ridiculous self-appointed sheriffs.

@@JimbalayaJones "On the one hand, it is "only" an additional article. Of course you could adapt/change it so that all this war equipment doesn't lie under every couch." To amend the constitution it would require a supermajority of states to vote in favor of doing that. Majority of states are submitting legislation to put forth permitless carry of firearms. What do you think the odds are that the states are willing to redefine or remove the second amendment as written? Which country issues AR15s to their military? I'll wait. "NO ONE needs a fully automatic weapon with dozens of cartridges in civilian life!" Before arguing a topic at least learn said topic. Go read U.S. gun laws before even making this argument. It is clear you are ignorant of gun laws here. "it's your sport? Okay, then the gun stays at the shooting range and is only used there." Not even in the U.K. is this the law. You can have firearms housed in your home. Not even in Japan is this the law. "Are you a farmer? Okay, then a hunting rifle against the wolf/jackal/bear is enough." I'm not a farmer anymore and yet I live in somewhat secluded areas that still deal with potentially dangerous wildlife. I carry a 10mm handgun for that purpose. "Do you want to protect yourself? Okay, then get yourself registered, properly trained in handling and safekeeping, get a gun license." Registration involving a digital searchable database is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under FOPA clause of the GCA of 1968. Why? To make harder the confiscation of firearms on the grounds of the second amendment. They have caught the federal government attempting to establish this regardless and in effect proves the government breaking federal laws. Why should I trust said government willing to break the law? Why should I trust the government when as an arms dealer, handgun carry permit owner, and a level security clearance as well as instructor credentials I was falsely denied a firearms transfer? "But please stop defending those ridiculous self-appointed sheriffs." The Sheriffs are elected and they are bound by the Constitution just like any other politician or government agent should be. I fully support them supporting the Constitution. Americans shouldn't tolerate incompetence or corruption on the part of the government. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that conflicts is in fact not the law.

@@1911GreaterThanALL Sorry but I think you misinterpreted my points. I may have expressed it poorly, or kept it too general. To the "self-appointed" sheriffs. - I didn't mean to offend a sheriff in any way. My point went to the people who think that by owning guns they can make the world around them safer. Statistics all speak against this argument. Second Amendment - Yes, of course it needs that majority, I've never disputed it. But it would be possible. It's happened to other add-ons too. Fully Automatic Weapons - I didn't explicitly mention AR15 in any sentence. And that's exactly what I'm sticking to. My Opinion: Any fully automatic weapon should not be owned by private individuals. Sport - This was not about what the law is in other countries. What I meant here is that someone who wants to keep guns for sport certainly doesn't mind if you have to accept one or the other restriction. I wanted to refute the argument that nobody can then pursue their hobby/sport/fun anymore. Farmer - I didn't want to address you personally, but to say that in certain areas it is certainly right and important to protect yourself and your property. No question! A farmer needs a weapon for that, right. But this is not an argument for fully automatic weapons in the population. Self Protection and Registration - Again, my point wasn't directed at you personally. I have no doubt that there are people who know what they are doing and are conscientious. But the fact is that guns are far, far, far too easy and cheap to get. Evidence is everywhere in the world. Fewer guns = more security in general. I hope I was able to explain my points more clearly.🤘

@@JimbalayaJones "My point went to the people who think that by owning guns they can make the world around them safer. Statistics all speak against this argument." Which statistics? Texas carry permit holders commit less crimes per capita compared to the Texan police departments combined. If such persons commit far less crimes compared to the police then how would they be more dangerous or not make others more safe? "But it would be possible. It's happened to other add-ons too." What so called add-ons are you talking about? Anything is possible it really matter if it is probable. "My Opinion: Any fully automatic weapon should not be owned by private individuals." Why? Were such firearms involved in crime? When was a last fully automatic weapon used in a crime? Was he/she a legitimate owner complying with the NFA? All of these questions matter in regards to the legitimate ownership of fully automatic weapons. "I wanted to refute the argument that nobody can then pursue their hobby/sport/fun anymore." How do you customize or how do you do dry drills? That seems highly expensive and inefficient simply to dry run with your firearms that you are competing others for on the order of thousands of a second. You otherwise would do those things in the privacy of your own home and not incur the extra expense of traveling to whatever range you compete at. Some of those ranges are in the middle of nowhere and thus people frankly wouldn't do that. "A farmer needs a weapon for that, right. But this is not an argument for fully automatic weapons in the population." I don't believe I ever made the argument that fully automatic weapons are needed for pest control..... "But the fact is that guns are far, far, far too easy and cheap to get. Evidence is everywhere in the world. Fewer guns = more security in general." There are also evidence around the world for government misuse of power and not even specifically relating to firearms. Considering the purpose of the second amendment which is distrust of the government and possible use of force against the government it wouldn't be prudent to notify the government exactly what you have and where. If they already violate the law now why should any gun owner trust them on the subject when it is quite clear they break the law in regards to protections related to firearms. There is no reason for me to trust them on this topic too many abuses and nothing happens to those involved. Considering the violent crime rate America still would out pace other countries in terms of violent crime excluding firearms entirely. The only difference with us is that firearms defenses would no longer be possible given what you recommend and thus even less bonuses associated with firearms. Currently I can shoot anyone inside of my home with breaking and entering evidence being obvious. In public I can shoot anyone presenting a threat of serious bodily harm/forcible felony against myself or a third party. There are instances of armed people preventing or halting shootings in America with firearms. They simply don't get the media attention they should get.

Votes, that's why the UK government put out a huge thing about how they banned Hand guns, without actually banning hand guns, or the revolver used at Dunblane. There are still thousands of hand guns owned by civilians in Britain (under section 5 of the 1968 firearms act) and Northern Ireland never brought in a ban so a school shooter could just move there and then get the ferry over with their hand gun. Also the "hand gun ban" didn't ban revolvers it just means they have to be over 24 inches with at least a 12 inch barrell. So people just own long barrelled revolvers now. Obviously they could just cut them down with a hacksaw but it was about votes and not practicalities.

They like to ignore key words of the 2nd Amendment as well and twist it to what they want…. They conveniently don’t include the ‘as part of a well regulated militia’ part……..

Is that why Northern Ireland never restricted hand guns?

@@davedavids57 the Good Friday agreement ensures that NI has the ability to pass it's own laws, one of which is less restrictive firearms laws.

@@411russ So yes, I wouldn't say the UK was a democracy, a "representative democracy". The currently Tory government was elected by less than 44% of those who voted.

@@davedavids57 You've tagged the wrong person, but Jenny's point still stands, a representative democracy is a democracy so what she says is still right. Want the government to do a certain thing, lobby your MP, that's what the Dunblane parents did and they got the outcome they wanted.

This isn't correct. Hungerford occurred nearly 10 years before Dunblane and was actually the first real restriction in UK gun legislation After Hungerford semi-automatic rifles above .22RF calibre were banned but not semi-automatic pistols Dunblane led to restrictions on pistols The source video is incorrect also saying that semi-automatic weapons and pistols were banned after Dunblane. They are not banned, just much more severely restricted. There are far more semi-auto .22RF rifles in the UK than any other .22RF action

@@LargeDuke6 Thanks for the correction. Like most major events over time you forget the details, even though I remember Aberfan, and the Tori Canyon. My bad, should have looked it up rather than relying on memory. Take care.

@Graham Bloodworth All fine happy to help. By the way I meant to mention that your suggestion about restricting ammunition and reloading supplies already exists as these require a firearm certificate to purchase. Ammunition purchase is recorded and there are assigned limits to acquisition. Shotgun cartridges are not though. I have quite a lot of experience in this field 😀

@@LargeDuke6 In the States? That surprises me. What do you think about shotguns requiring a section one licence on the UK?

@Graham Bloodworth I don't understand the comment about the States? I am in the UK. I have extensive shooting expertise, military and civilian. I was talking exclusively about UK legislatipn

You also have to keep guns and ammo stored separately, police will come and inspect how you store them, they will even check how many rounds of ammo you have as you’re not allowed over 10kg of gunpowder (iirc) which includes the powder in your rounds

Yeah, a cruise liner called "Titanic" which thinks it's invulnerable to icebergs and goes full speed ahead because luxury cruise liners are not meant to have delays.

I used to love that song when it was first released. Then about six years later (I think), random conversation with Dad lead me to learning the story behind it. Hated it ever since. But it's one of those songs that stays with you. For good or bad. Because I still listen to it.

But things happen everywhere around the world if they have guns what stops them running around shooting more people it’s a lot more easier to shoot loads of people then it is to attack one person also even if you have a gun on you there’s no grantee your going to get to your gun in time we do have guns they are very very heavily regulated only certain people like farmers ect are legally allowed to have guns but trust me if there was guns in the uk it would not be good it would be a disaster we do get quite a few guns that are illegally smuggled into the country

Yes it's pretty silly, you can't even carry a spare sock for self defence. Also under British law writing the word zombie, or putting green paint on a knife even in your own home can get you up to five years imprisonment!!

People in the UK don’t walk around in fear of attack.

@@wendyfield7708 Huh, I am guessing you haven't left your village. I grew up in Hackney. Someone literally gets stabbed to death in that square mile every other day. I had kids at my school literally murdered at 15-16. We had major rioting in 2011, the police abandoned my housing estate for an entire week and we had to form a self defence committee. Don't believe me visit East London and have a look around at 2am. We all know you won't as your happy in your leafy Tory village. You make me sick.

@@wendyfield7708 are you from the uk and what area do you live in

Simply not true.

@@NickHobbs why don't ya go and look it up then?? U will find the data for offences with firearms on the office for national statistics website

@@MultiMoomoo2 I meant that people are unable to defend themselves. If you want proliferation of guns - move to the USA. They have more guns than people. Also see their murder rate, not working out that well is it?) Giving people more guns=MORE deaths. It's not rocket science

@Jermaine Anthony judging by your lack of any argument whatsoever, I think I'm safely ahead of you on that front. :)

@Jermaine Anthony obviously not eh? Easy to say by people who haven't been attacked in their own homes. Being a single mother, i would want something to defend myself with if intruders ever broke in to my home during the night. I live in a small town where they have closed the local police station and it can now take hrs for them to respond to emergency calls. A place that used to be very quiet but only the other month a pensioner got attacked and robbed in broad daylight next to a supermarket. Seems to be a lot more foreigners moving in around this area and surrounding areas and men have been known to just walk into peoples houses during the day and if there's someone in the front room they say they've gone in the wrong house but if the person happens to be upstairs then they are robbing anything they can get their hands on. And im the one thats not bright cos i'd rather be able to defend myself if need be?! U think all them gangs and drug runners in places like london, Liverpool, Manchester etc don't have guns? Do u think they've all got gun licences? Do honestly think our gun laws have eradicated shootings and gun crimes?! There were 2 shootings last year in neighbouring towns and i don't live in a particularly bad area nor in a big city. And nor are we allowed to actually have guns here in the UK unless we have a good reason and go through months of checks to obtain a licence but that doesn't stop people acquiring them if they really want them. People should actually try living in the real world for once!