StringJunky

The article you link mentions about faddism, it's only faddist (or woke) if it disappears over time. If it becomes the integrated norm then it's progressive. I don't think the subject of Rowling's pique is going to go a way. That would make her a 21st century Luddite. I think this is the case but only time will tell.

Given that the Larry Nasser case is still pretty fresh in the memory and the subsequent effects on the US Olympic team, I don't think it will stand up to public or judicial scrutiny in the end. It's potentially a perverts charter and particularly egregious at the amateur level. Cretins.

This Smithsonian gun control history article seems to paint a different picture to the current Right-wing narrative of it becoming more restrictive with time. It seems it's actually the reverse.

You are assuming the goodies have the presence of mind and training to deal with the baddie in a tense situation. I don't believe a typical gun owner is equipped mentally to deal with it. It's a recipe for the innocent person to get killed. Outside of that remote encounter there's a umpteen other ways for that gun to cause harm to someone else or to themselves, which are more likely. Also that goodie could turn into a baddie should something cause them to become stressed enough. If it's to hand in such a scenario it will probably be used because it is so intuitive and easy to use. Impulsion and firearms are like matches and petrol.

Isn't this because males are statistically stronger and not because they are necessarily, inherently more violent in that scenario, and not that such women don't have the intent to do the same? I'm not asserting that, just that it arises in my mind. My stepdad broke my mum's arm 30 years ago. She's 5'2", he was 6ft. He was likely restraining her because she had a habit of lunging in a rage and grabbing a person's hair... she was violent. I walked in one day visiting and she said "He broke my arm", which was in plaster. She left me to imagine the rest... and it wasn't in her favour. I just said "Did he?" and changed the subject.

That would be beyond the pale to automatically think that a non-white person is automatically the villain.

The trouble is goodies and baddies look the same. If the goodies don't have guns, it makes the armed policeman's job a lot easier to differentiate.

Serious mental gymnastics going on. The lunatics are not the psychiatric cases. IIRC a person is killed by a gun every two weeks in the UK, and that might include Police Armed Response numbers as well. We have about 100 hospital admissions from knife crime a week plus the ones that don't get recorded. I think it would be fair to say that if guns were available to those offenders we'd have a death rate similar to the US per capita. It's not that we are any less violent. We have pretty much the same level of violent offending per capita, I would guess. It's pretty clear that our gun laws are preventing massacres.... you can't really kill 20 people with a knife in rapid succession before someone takes you on.

I just read somewhere that some staff will be armed in schools, but what if one of those has a psychotic and murderous episode...? Remember after 911, pilots cabins were lockable from the inside and an airline pilot locked it and crashed into a mountain? The devil is potentially in us all and the pro-gun self defence lobby seem to fail to realize or acknowledge that. It's not dangerous career criminals that are causing the massacres, it's ordinary people with severe mental issues. To a man, none of the perpetrators I've seen of these atrocities look like they are a member of MS13, who only actually seem to do the small stuff; a rival gang member here or there. The typical armed American citizen is not trained or equipped to deal with either. They've been watching too many movies.

Both of them, not just him.

Public discourse is their oxygen... and gravy.

But there's plenty of other accidental and premeditated scenarios for lethal and injurious things to happen whilst in possession, which are not an infinitesimal risk.

Some comments by the swimmer Lia Thomas on the BBC website today: An issue I noticed today seems to be that medically-supported transitioning occurs after puberty, when the adult potential is already developed. If the transitioning occured pre-puberty that criticism is removed. Whole other set of ethical issues to deal with here though as well. Could it not be that the 'confused' child is not confused and is merely, without as-yet sufficient contrary social conditioning, expressing their natural potential? Perhaps it is you that is confused because they aren't conforming to your decades-old, culturally-ingrained, stereotypical expectations?

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. The confounding factor is that they can both act which obscures the veracity of both positions. No doubt this will be turned into a political spectacle. Probably been a good career move for both of them in their respective interests: Depp's probably marketable again movie-wise and Heard will be the new figurehead for the #MeToo movement or other cause celebre. Personally, I think they both just spoilt, petulant people that feel they can sue on a whim and they are probably equal in blame.

OK.

I never got the sense he was taking a side swipe at anybody. Are you taking umbrage at this? This is a general statement about the collective human condition.

Having an easily accessible, loaded firearm in the home for personal protection... what can go wrong?

+1 @zapatos but I can't give anymore today.

The ignorance is all yours.

It works for many other countries. I would be very upset if we had a Second Amendment in the UK, as it would indicate to me that UK civil society had collapsed.

We know your thoughts on this and I'm pretty sure iNow created this thread to go in another direction. Either contribute in the spirit of the question or butt out.

Not sure if it's had the pleasure of being engaged by an NLAW yet.

Same with their Tank Terminator he said was in Ukraine... all ONE of them.

Solutions instead of obstacles.

@beecee if you quote it as source without caveats, you will be assumed to agree with it verbatim.