This is a very upsetting thing, especially to children who are too young to have even attempted to enjoy life, and far too young to ave done anything against anyone else, and if they did somehow affect the person they couldn't have known what they did or done it on purpose, as they are simply too young to understand whatever was happening to them.
School shootings are very old and I usually pass them by without saying anything due to the fact they seem to happen far too regularly due to some child being unable to take being bullied with any common decency and instead lashing out like a fucking useless cunt and killing people. But to hear it was towards such children, it truly upsets me.
Gagsy wrote:You have more violent crime though. In the end this is really about mental health. People are slipping through the system who need help.
Sorry America. This stuff just makes me so mad, and sad due it being children. Its just not right at all how anyone can be able to do that if they want to.
Alas though we do indeed have crimes still it doesn't change the fact we are able to all get along with our lives without any weapons for self defence. The only guns we have are for sport and owned by a low percentage of the population and when it comes to knives and other weapons most of us have nothing with the actual capability to kill someone with. The most dangerous things the majority of us would have would be power tools, kitchen knives and perhaps some sports equipment like bats. We don't look at such things as defensive items though. Of course there are those who would go around with actual dangerous knives on their person, but usually those are the same types of people who are regularly involved in such crimes.
The United Kingdom is a very vulnerable country in terms of the population, and the lack of self defence does indeed make us more susceptible to attacks. Yet we get on with our lives without fears of being attacked which makes the needs of such things none existent. If we were to carry around dangerous weapons it would only make things worse for everyone, as there is the chance of them being used incorrectly. The biggest problem of all is the fact that, if you do carry something for self defence with you then obviously it will effect your mindset, as you will be constantly aware you have such a weapon and you are aware of the reason you have it. So you will always have the gnawing fear of having to use it. Added to the fact that when you have something you have the need to use it, and that is only going to become a growing problem. If you spend money on something you need to make the cost worth it after all, buying a sandwich toaster or a weapon it is all the same.
Of course this is how our country has grown over the centuries, we have grown up with having little to no self defence and as such our minds have all adapted to such things. If America was to suddenly throw away all the terms of self defence then there is no question to people feeling more scared and vulnerable as a result, as Americans have grown used to having that un-required protection for so long that it has become required for many of them. That is sadly how the country has grown compared to ours. And you can blame the amendment for that which people have been so quick to talk about during this thread. It would take likely several generations for the country to truly become used to having no self defence and as a result it likely isn't going to happen anytime soon. But that is the difference between us and why we as a country are able to live without protection while feeling completely safe. That and of course the view of "it won't happen to me" which is always helpful to us all, and for the majority of us is true to believe.
Of course the long text above is not to be argued about in this thread, as of course it is just a statement on our true differences and though it could be talked about I don't really see there being anything which the ever so angry posters in this thread can jump at going "STFU YOU WRONG" about which I have basically been witnessing for 2-3 pages of the total thread so far. But if you do really want to start another random argument then go to the section below in which I actually posted something with some worth to discuss, and as a result will not be discussed and instead will just be yelled at and flamed and be given threats to my life over, the usual stuff in this thread.
But in an actual response to the thing people are constantly mentioning in this thread, about how it is impossible to change laws due to your amendments. I have to point out that such a view is entirely fabricated. Laws naturally change it is what keeps society working. For example in England the town used to be allowed and advised to punish a wife (often to death) drowning her for speaking loudly, now we can all safely agree that a review of that law making it an illegal practice and murder / manslaughter was a good thing and that the current state of the country and its population wouldn't be as good as it is today if it was still legal and practiced.
Whether it be religious texts or countries founding principles the refusal to change something based of some ancient and clearly out of date views of society is an ignorant belief that has already held back many countries in the third world, the likes of which claims it is still legal to kill someone based off some very ancient view in the Quoran etc. (yea forgot how to spell it and spellchecker doesn't believe it exists)
I am in no way saying "let's break the amendment for making guns illegal" but I am pointing out that using such an argument is ridiculous and out of date. If the amendments contained a line that said "It is legal to slaughter any foreigner in your way." Would you still be backing that up to this day? Just because it isn't as stupid as that obviously fake example I just made up doesn't mean it is free from being changed for eternity if a need to change it did arise. What if you were invaded and they threatened to kill every single person without mercy if you didn't change the amendments, would they still not be changed? When there is a need law changes. There is no exception.
So kindly don't try and argue that it is impossible to change a law due to some foundation when it is the basis of our evolving culture to do such a thing. It was against all laws of England that Parliament took power from the Monarchy but they did it, an incredibly bloody civil war was involved but it did happen. So don't claim it is impossible as if there is some magical barrier which can't be penetrated.
I write too much when tired.