Hockey_saint

I still wish they'd either stop using the "last time we won at Old Trafford since 1988" line or that they'd insert "in the league" in it somewhere because we last won at Old Trafford in 1992....Semantics I know but hey.

He has said several times he has had chances to join Barca and turned them down and that he believes in honouring contracts...He made that very clear to Morgan and he has publicly stated that he wants to stay here whilst he is contracted to...Surely this is the end of it? Also, I think it's really a Dutch thing isn't it? I mean, he's very much from the Cruyff school of football and Cruyff hates Van Gaal so it's not surprising they dislike each other (plus, look at the football Holland played under Van Gaal....not very "Dutch" was it?...more like how Man U are playing now). I think he's an honourable guy and does what he says....unlike certain Argentines.

Still....He's managed something we've rarely achieved!.....lost at Selhurst park

Nice little loss by MoPo's side at a ground we've rarely done the same at. Was getting a bit worried at one point that the north London yobbos would overtake us.

Well is a former saints player.....however I'm not old enough to know if he was any good for us or not...

Clearly it was a compromise to appease the gun lobbists. It's essentially a classic example of the United States throughout history where there are very powerful business (money people) behind such decisions...Kinda like the Boston tea party where, actually, the only reason they threw British tea in the water was because it was cheaper than the stuff the traders there could produce and they (the money people) agitated to get this to happen so I think the crux of this whole arguement could basically boil down to power and influence and the gun lobby, like the tobacco lobyists before them...have the power and influence to run rings around "democracy".

No, I don't think it's a good idea to be able to just walk in anywhere and buy a gun, no matter your age. The problem is that I think you'd even need tests if adults bought them but again, would these work? I doubt they would and a blanket ban would just drive them underground which would result in them proliferating where you wouldn't (or would?) want them proliferating....it's like a gordian knot :s

I wouldn't say it was confused (hey, I've had shedloads of neurosurgery and I tend to try to find tenuous links before I get to the crux...call it a neuro pathway issue) but I still think that there are always more issues at play than just the gun control issue...ok, I can see that as a poster pointed out above, the causal link is obvious and that should be the end of it but I always try to find more, perhaps look at the underlying issues, now maybe that appears grasping to you but take it as that. Maybe I should have come to the point quicker but I wouldn't consider it back-tracking. As far as Sarnia saint goes, he has a point, these threads often come off as a bunch of know-nothing foreigners sticking their two-pence in when they don't understand which, I pointed out that quite a few have a fair bit of experience in the field.

There were a great many of those generalisations running around this thread (ok, it appears from both sides of the pond). Maybe not from you but the title of the thread itself is a generalisation (I mean, for example, ask any Canadian if they're north American). I mean, I like Americans, I've stayed for months on ends with some lovely ones where they live and to me...well, Sarnia saint there kinda summed it up in that thread comes off as a bunch of ignorant Brits belittling citizens of the US....which we are not.

That's the problem isn't it? how do the anti-gun minority overcome the pro-gun lobby?....with their money, power, influence....and Charlton Heston? It's kinda the point I was making too.....more variables. (Plus, I assumed when you knew citizens of the united states, you stopped making vapid generalisations like "those yanks")

I never once said they didn't contribute. I said there were clearly other factors and that that argument was way too one dimensional and that we should look deeper into it. Also, you can use statistics to claim anything.

No, I've done the tourist thing, shot a gun in Vegas, been to some random bars in North Dakota with signs saying "we don't call the police". I don't know, I just know that historically, they were very well known for their gun ownership; it was commented upon in lots of 18th century journals; it's the way they lived with that "frontier" mindset of which guns go hand in hand and you just have to take into account the gun culture brought about by the African-American culture for whom, although times have changed, largely the status quo hasn't so you get a lot of resentment in society (I mean, look at South Africa during and after aparthied....a serious number of shootings occuring). So you understand why I mentioned slavery. I see all these added variables and my mind just says "ok, ease of gun-ownership is a factor but there MUST be many many more". There you go, in a nutshell.

It did feel like that didn't it? "why are you still here?" like those 4 have a god-given right to be where they are.

You've got a point. But it's a hell of a way to travel I suppose but then I suppose if you're after a gun. CB, I think another poster gave you a few examples, Raul Moat (sp?) for example. There are not that many but it's just what I'm trying to say, you could say "gun crime is much worse in the US than the UK" and you'd be right, I'm just more interested in WHY and I don't think a blanket statement like "it's because they can get guns easier" cuts the mustard. Please excuse my rambling (a lot of rambling) but essentially, this is the crux of what I'm saying.

I was simply trying to point out that more often than not there is an added level of "background checks" than simply walking up and buying a gun.

Thank you Bearsy. That would be one aspect that I would point at. But again one of many, many that we do not have here. My point actually is a bit more basal in that you sound like a moron if you a. ignore historical relevance b. rely on statistical data alone without thinking about those facts and c. you end up sounding like a German concerning world war 2 and the word that ends all debates online. It just sounds too one dimensional....maybe it fits in with the posters on this thread.

Succinct and I can't totally disagree with that. What I will say is that there are posters on this thread who either live or regularly go to the states so some of their responses, for me, are puzzling. The statistical arguement. Well, again, that takes into NO account whatsoever other variables that we do not have here (a huge history of slavery for example), ethnic tensions, the gap between rich and poor....these statistics take none of that into account. Me? I've been in supermarkets in most continental states and I can tell you without hesitance that I could not pick up a gun at every store I went to (if I was a citizen....most have laws preventing foreigners from buying them) but again, that would depend from state to state.

Then so can I without being accused of being on anything. It's a complex situation where answers like "because they have poor gun control (which isn't true, it varies from state to state...and the mindset of each person varies from...well, person to person) they shoot people up more than we do" are not really helpful or show how small-minded the person who says it is.

I am NOT on anything, just because you haven't got one or think you don't know people who could, doesn't mean you could not. Besides, can we try to stop generalising "the states" or"americans" (SIC)

What "similar arguments"? (it's American's by the way)....OOOHHH you mean ones like "I could get a gun and bust a cap in yo' ass blud", no, that would idiotic and again, you clearly have no understanding of the internet or how these things work. How do you think gangs get hold of their guns? do you think they walk into a shop and say "oooh hello siiirrr....I'll have that lovely item there please?" no. There are protocols to these things and these transactions and this country is small enough, once you've done some routing around to get your hands on one and don't play the fool and try to suggest otherwise or suggest I am in some way talking nonsense because I am not. Not to be brazen or boastful, but I bet I...and you, know someone who knows someone who can get you the assault rifle you desire...Simple numbers.

That was generally my point (without being insulted by VFTT or CB Fry there). The fact is, most people (even if they don't know they are) are only a few contacts away from someone who knows how to get their hands on any type of gun you want and if you don't believe that you either do not know the world you are in today or are living in cloud cuckoo land. I think a good example of our "effective regulation" in this country would probably be that of paedophile groups....who in, for example, GCHQ tracks and regulates their movements? mostly, no-one, they get reports from external agencies....now, if they, on their own, are that ineffective at handling this, how effective do you think they are at the gun black market?

I don't think....I know. Also, if you want a firearm in the UK you can get one. Let's not stereotype Citizens of the United States either. Most are law-abiding citizens who are just like you or I. You have to take into account their history, the dymanics of the beautiful wide and open spaces in the country they live (which, whilst being one of the most beautiful on earth, because it is so spread thin, a citizen needs to protect their property.) This just goes way back and is beyond what appears to be a lot of poster's understanding or the scope of this thread.

It isn't true, only certain types of guns are illegal. Which was my point, the politicians have reacted (generally with public blessing) and changed the law as and when required. The English Bill of rights stated that we, as Englishmen, were allowed to bare arms as and when needed, whilst adhering to the laws of the day....so does America's version but they tend to ignore the last part....As I say, interpretation.

It doesn't actually, if you read the rrest of my comment aboutt how we interpret the law....also how we respond to such events.

Perhaps you should ask Andy Murray or any of the kids from Dunblane murdered by the gun-obsessed paedophile that shot up their school. We have the same laws as they do. It is simply because we interpret ours differently....Specifically "the right to bare arms within the confines and parameters of the law".....Pap, that law came out long before their revolution and as I say, it's more about the interpretation of it; we could interpret it to mean exactly the same thing here but we er on caution and generally don't mind it being overruled by whatever law we contrive.