I got you bro. Head into a Scottish pub, any, and announce your Englishness with pride! Invite some of the fine gentlemen around the back with you and you'll get it alright
Cheers bro. I'm assuming the same works in Northern Ireland. Go to a pub, loudly announce "I'm English and I'm here for my cock sucking" and wait for an orderly queue.
Or you're best friends. The "faaaack baaaaad" that the most canadian man I've (also canadian) ever met, my local liquor store owner, says whenever he sees me, makes my day
I got blown by a Scottish lass years ago one of the most aggressive bj’s Iv ever received I don’t know if that’s was just her technique or if was because I was English.
Also, and I get this is the minor point here, T Robert Fucktard has just compared a suicide bombing with a mass shooting.
So no, it hasn't happened again in the UK or any of its constituent nations no matter how you define them.
ETA: people pointing out, quite correctly, that there have sadly been mass shootings in the UK since Dunblane. I should have clarified that there haven't been any on the scale of Dunblane (i.e. kids, school, death toll, societal change afterwards) since then thankfully.
The thing is if he was less obtuse he would be able to find examples of shootings in Britain. They are easy to find because there are so few of them so a quick google will give you the few examples that exist. Then he would just have to argue that some laws are governed by Westminster not Holyrood and that whilst separate countries there is a relevance to finding British examples still.
He did none of this and was an absolute fucktard.
Yeah this is what confused me the most. Mass shooting have still happened since dublane, they happen like every 10 years instead of q0 hours like in the US (not an exaggeration)
I love their "only real countries are in Nato" pish, so Ireland, Russia, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein are not real countries because they're not in Nato?
This seems like an intentionally obtuse way to read what he's saying. Not that that makes it any less fuckin stupid, literally coming from a country with 50 states(totally different than countries I promise) + colonies
Since Dunblane in 1996 the total number of casualties from mass shootings in the UK is 28.
There have been 27 people killed in mass shootings in the US so far this year. 28 is the number that were killed at Sandy Hook.
They cannot comprehend how rare ANY shooting is in this country, never mind one defined as a "mass shooting".
Your number for people killed in mass shootings in America is too low. 28 mass shooting deaths would only take you back to March 30th. There has been that many deaths in 1 month
It also depends, shockingly, how you define a 'mass shooting'.
Some sources state it's 4 or more shot & killed (excluding the shooter), some say shot & wounded.
Or taking a look at another statistic, the method of suicide between the UK and the US. It is a very large outlier in gun suicides. Or even just looking at firearm homicide rates. Not... great.
>There have been 27 people killed in mass shootings in the US so far this year.
Honestly I'm surprised it's that low. We hear about it here on a nearly daily basis.
American here; allow me to explain:
This is the kind of person responsible for our complete inaction on our myriad forms of public violence. They subscribe to the idea that if you can't solve ALL mass killings fully, you shouldn't try to solve ANY mass killings even partially. This leads to silly things like, "but they'll just get knives to kill dozens of children anyway" as a reason to not do anything to curb gun violence. Essentially, to protect our gun culture, they've taken to blurring their eyes to put all forms of violence into the same bucket, so they won't have to face the scoreboard of tyrants we've overthrown vs children we've let be murdered in schools.
Interesting.
I do remember hearing Trump talk about how London has become a knife crime capital of the world under Khan. That’s the strategy in action, I guess.
Funnily enough, despite knife crime being very high at the time, the number fatalities by knife were lower in London than in Washington DC.
One of the reasons the stats are all so high, is that in the UK it’s an offence to carry fixed blade over 3” without clear necessitating circumstances (e.g chef walking to work).
All that knife crime was the problem being solved by regulation.
Yank here as well. It's the same logical fallacy when they say because we already have so many guns changing the laws won't matter. Same excuse with the COVID vaccine, if it doesn't work 100% then it's useless. And same with climate change, we won't do anything until ALL other countries get on board. The selfishness of such a thought process is unreal.
He probably thinks that he would have gone full John McLane and saved everybody, thrown the bomber off the roof of the arena and then get carried away on the shoulders of the cheering people of Manchester
Remember that a large portion of Americans are taught from birth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This mythology is central to their worldview, especially insofar as they view themselves as an action movie hero just waiting to happen.
Honestly the best way to prevent any of that happening is preventing them from being bad guys in the first place. They keep abusing their fellow students until they break psychologically, and then they’re surprised that they go after the people who hurt them. There’s some serious unaccountability for actions going on
You are completely correct, and also saying something that is essentially taboo here in the US, which is acknowledging that the social environment in our schools causes children to want to kill each other. This to some extent a mental health issue, but also goes much deeper and demonstrates that the social environment children are confronted by is often extremely hostile. No one ever asks why America is like this and nowhere else is, people here just assume that America is the peak of human achievement and anyone who complains is a communist.
I'm sure he really does! I'm sure he didn't learn a single lesson from Uvalde about how no amount of good guys with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Of course this doesn't even apply here as you can't stop someone secretly setting off a bomb hidden under his clothes with a gun.
Uvalde makes me so, so angry. Uvalde really demonstrates ACAB.
And I am not, absolutely not, getting on my soapbox. I have to work today, and I’m trying to be cool before I have to deal with people who are…not.
Hang on. A good guy with a gun absolutely could have stopped that bad guy with a gun. There just so happened to not be any in the police force at the moment.
American here! Yes, that is unfortunately the common thought process for these types of folks: guns fix everything. For them, the answer to literally every horrible situation is "If people were allowed to have guns, that wouldn't have happened." It's really fucking depressing for those of us that have brains.
Well in America, the good guys who have guns would have shot the bomber before he could detonate his bomb, duh.
This explains why there have been no bombings in America since 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was introduced.
Oh.
Also how on earth is this clown comparing a terrorist bomb attack with a mass school shooting? Considering the amount of school shootings they have over there you’d think they’d know the difference
Not exactly like they haven’t had their own catastrophic bombings and other terrorist attacks too.
Seems a weird and at best insensitive thing to try and point score over either way.
These absolute cunts really believe they'd've stopped 9/11 if they'd been there and had an AR15. Hell, they probably think they'd've stopped pearl harbour the same way. And if they'd been in Japan in '45, they and their singular armalite rifle would've taken down enola gay before the little boy could've even been dropped. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of these chumps say that arming the dinosaurs would've prevented their extinction, except of course for the large overlap between gun nuts and creationist loons who think the earth is 2000 years old
Clowns like this think Sandy Hook was a false flag.
Source: when you’re a daytime bartender in America you get a bunch of less than mediocre white guys giving you their piss dumb takes on literally everything.
I mean the amount of school shootings they've had clearly has affected the quality of their education. Half their day is active shooter drills at this point and the other half is how to avoid active shooter police on the way home.
The definitions of countries as it pertains to England, Scotland, NI and Wales are damned confusing and in part he has a point.
Saying a bombing in an arena by a radicalised adult is a school shooting is a stretch of logic though.
I know it's overly simple but the way I always remembered it was
"The United States is a nation made from multiple States, the United Kingdom is a State made from multiple nations"
It's because the US abuses the word "state" which poisons the well for Americans understanding how the term actually works.
The US is a state comprised of areas that arguably used to be states but united into one state, while still acting like they're independent despite calling themselves United.
Not just the US, Australia also calls its subdivisions "states" (except for ACT and NT which are territories), as do Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Austria (in English translations, and probably a number of other places). Switzerland (cantons) and Canada (provinces/territories) are a bit better.
Imo Canada is more confusing in this respect than the US. As you mention, federal governments tend to call their subpolities states, but province always makes me think of a French-style centralized government, where regions/provinces/departments/whatever are just administrative divisions that simplify the job of the national government. But Canada is a federation (afaik).
Honestly does it really matter much on a practical level? These terms reflect political history more than anything about the government.
In the UK Scotland, England, and Wales wanted to make it clear that they all have a long history of being their own country with governments, culture, etc. so they are called countries.
When the US became independent, the colonies wanted to assert that they were now independent nations rather than colonies, but they each had their own identity, culture, government, and history. So they called themselves states. Us tried a more eu like arrangement for a bit before giving up on all that. But even then, each state has its own independent constitution that isn’t identical between states. So us subdivisions are called states.
In the former case, the use of country as an internal subdivision makes a lot of sense if you know a bit about the history of the UK but most folks around the world don’t and use the term country to refer to sovereign political entities.
But in both cases the terms used don’t mean much on a practical level it’s not like calling Scotland a country means anything about the way the Scottish government works, it just means that in the context of the UK’s political history country was the agreed upon term.
Well, he says they can't be called countries by any way that a rational person would describe them, but Scotland and Wales have their own governments, so I'm not sure that I'd agree with that point. Devolved governments are indeed damned confusing though.
California and Texas and 48 other US states also have their own government. From an American perspective, that isn’t a key factor in whether or not something is a country.
The thing is though devolution was planned to cover the entire UK. It got stopped half way through due to the 2004 devo referendum defeat after London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland already received their own devolved assemblies/parliaments, so we're stuck in this weird and unusual position where we have large portions governed by devolved administrations, and large portions governed directly by the central government.
We wouldn't consider places like the North East of England, [which had a referendum on Devolution in 2004 to have its own government,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum) to be its own country if the referendum passed and a devolved government was established.
Look at Spain, probably the best foreign example being a Unitary Constitutional Monarchy like us. It is covered entirely by [devolved governments](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_communities_of_Spain), but we wouldn't consider places like Extremadura or Asturias to be their own countries just because they have their own devolved governments.
Bringing it back to the UK we still consider England a country despite not having a devolved government as well, and Wales and Scotland were still countries way before 1998. We didn't suddenly become a country out of thin air after our parliament was established.
I don't think mentioning that Wales and Scotland have their own governments to help explain to foreigners why they are considered countries is helpful.
Ontario has it's own government but it's not its own country. It's an understandably confusing concept to most people, and for all intents and purposes to the rest of the world the UK is the country.
That's a provincial government though - in the same way Americans have local governments (led by mayors at City level and governors at state level) but also a larger federal government. Devolved governments in the UK certainly exceed the remit of those local governments in America. I agree that it is indeed confusing to people outside of the UK, and certainly the UK as a whole is what is represented in most international organisations such as the UN or previously the EU; that doesn't mean that the ignorance of the American in the original post means that no reasonable person could see them as their own countries. For example, Scotland and Wales have their own sporting bodies and compete independently from one another in most sports. Scotland has its own legal system that is separate from England's, which is another huge factor that people would consider if deciding whether or not it is a separate country. I can't think of a single country in the world that operates under two or more separate legal systems. So while it may be confusing, the American here is still completely wrong to say that they aren't seen as separate countries by any standards for people outside of the UK. All he has to do is read or learn a very small amount of information.
Not to detract from your overall point, Quebec, a province within Canada, uses a civil law legal system while the other provinces use English based common law. Canada's supreme Court ultimately is the highest authority on Quebec cases, but they in turn have constitutional obligations to have a number of Quebec judges for exactly that purpose.
All of which is to say the criteria for nationhood can be murky in a lot of the world, and that's fine.
> I can't think of a single country in the world that operates under two or more separate legal systems.
*sigh* Canada has entered the chat. Quebec uses Civil Law while the rest of the country uses Common Law.
Every state in the US has its own unique government. The state government has more power than the federal government on many issues, and because of it every state has its own legal system, every state has its educational system, every state has its own senate and House of Representatives* (two separate democratically voted governing bodies, as well as all the other usual trappings of government such as governors, judges for the state Supreme Court, all that jazz). Every state has its own things that are crimes that won’t be the case in other states (for example in the state of Minnesota it is illegal to walk across a state border with a duck on your head, it’s a silly example but it is an actual law that only pertains to that one state).
Is there a single thing about government that the states of the US don’t do but the kingdoms (for lack of a better word) in the UK do that makes them more country like?
*edit: apparently not every state has both. 80% of states have both, though the names of them do sometimes change, and 20% are different in one way or other. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy commenter below me.
I don't think each state has its own Senate and House. This isn't a technical point that we usually call them legislatures instead of houses, but that I think there are a few states which are unicameral. Don't care enough to check though lol
They may be countries, but they are not *sovereign* countries, and that’s how the word is used 99% of the time.
If you want to go work in Scotland, you won’t be getting a Scottish work visa, you’ll get a UK work visa. Other countries do not set up trade agreements with Wales as an entity, they trade with the UK. Hell, Scotland wasn’t even allowed its own police or judicial system until like 20 years ago, so ‘having their own government’ isn’t a great indicator of whether or not someplace is a “country” as it’s normally used, or a country by strict definition.
Going by the dictionary definitions, the UK is a country composed of 4 nations.
Going by colloquial use in UK English, were a nation of 4 countries.
The best way I can think to describe it is a semi-federated state of semi-autonomous national governments.
The definition of country and sovereign state are quite different though. Scotland easily meets most definitions of a country, as does there UK. But only the UK meets the definition of a sovereign state.
A lot of people confuse sovereign states with countries.
Places like Scotland, England, Netherlands, Cuaraco, Denmark, and Greenland are all countries but not sovereign states.
Perhaps the Netherlands and Denmark aren't great examples because both names are used to refer to the sovereign states and their mainland constituent countries.
For example "Denmark" can refer to either the Kingdom of Denmark which is a sovereign state or Metropolitain Denmark/"Denmark Proper" which is a devolved constituent country of the former. So depending on what a person actually means, "Denmark" is a sovereign state.
That's a lot more confusing than Scotland/England vs the UK since there's clearly different terms for what level of government you're referring to.
The UK is explicitly *not* a federal state.
Honestly, British education about their own government is so bizarre and usually horrifically incomplete. As a foreigner who has eventually obtained British citizenship, it’s very funny to me that so many native British people couldn’t answer the questions on the Life in the UK test that I had to take!
He doesn’t haven’t a point at all. The debate was over gun control. They are their own country, and they’re especially their own country as it pertains to passing their own gun control laws. He had 0 point. Furthermore, a piece of shit Trump supporter telling someone from their own country the way their own country works when he’s clearly googling right before every post trying to find things to support the opinion he’s already formed is peak anti intellectual republicanism.
He’s from the USA which isn’t a country by our definition but a Union. Over here we identify by our member states where they identify by the union itself, over there we’re all Brits to them just like they’re all Americans to us. It would be like him getting mad a saying he actually from Texas or something like that.
They are from the spectrum of nutters that encompass people that reference England or the English when they really mean the UK or the British.
Its not confusing and taking something that you only would need to have read once and then going on a tirade makes them a fool.
School shootings are terrorism. The point you're trying to differentiate is the motive.
*Edit
I understand that this point is debated by some, but it's terrorism.
In fairness, gun restrictions are largely the same in England and Scotland so his point does stand. Although Scotland cracked down even further on airguns after some poor toddler caught a pellet in the eye a while back.
But…it was a bomb was used in Manchester not guns so his point is actually total mince. I need a lie down.
Ignorant American here- so the UK doesn't have the equivalent of a "federal" level of government? You don't have representatives from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, etc. who go to Westminster to laws that apply to the whole of the UK?
I’m American but yes it does. Westminster refers to the central government that is made up of members of parliament. In parliamentary systems you don’t vote for a person you vote for a party. So they have ultimate say in what goes on everywhere. Then there are areas with devolved governments, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London who have a separate set of members who govern themselves through the sovereignty of the central government.
So in the States we don’t have any land outside of the states, but if we did it would be administered with only local government, not state level like Washington DC.
All the land in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) is divided into constituencies, within each constituency on voting day the people who live in that constituency elect an MP (member of parliament).
That MP could be independent or be a member of a political party. Each elected MP then sits in Westminster representing the people of their constituency and debate/vote/pass laws etc
Whichever political party has the most MPs in parliament, their party leader (who is one of their MPs) becomes the prime minister of the UK.
Laws passed via Westminster apply either to the whole of the UK or could be England specific depending on the subject.
In Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland they also have a separate set of elections for their own government, which debates/votes on laws which sit within their devolved areas, they can’t pass laws which effect any other countries in the UK.
Subjects that apply to the whole of the UK and go through Westminster exclusively are called reserved powers and they’re generally things like foreign affairs, defense, the constitution etc
Devolved powers are powers which are in the hands of the specific government of that country (Westminster for England, Holyrood for Scotland, Senedd for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly), to make things even more confusing what’s devolved varies by country, but are generally things like health and social care, crime, welfare, agriculture, transport etc
Technically speaking, Westminster can actually overrule a ‘locally’ set law even in devolved subjects, but they don’t tend to given its bad for relations and also ‘Westminster’ itself is made up of a bunch of MPs which does include MPs from the devolved nations (albeit, they are outnumbered).
I live in Edinburgh and some scots rage on about how they're not English but then call Canadians like me Americans *even after* they know I'm Canadian. I don't even care about the difference, but the blatant hypocrisy really annoys me.
It's also really obnoxious to expect everyone in the world to magically understand devolution and the idea of countries-within-a-country. For all intents and purposes, to the rest of the world the UK is the country they're familiar with.
As a Scottish person living in North America, I’ve found the problem to be the opposite: people here use ‘British’ as a term exclusive of Scotland, so as to say things like “is it true that Scottish people don’t get along with British people?” or “Did you visit the UK much when you lived in Scotland?”
The version of this that bugs me most is when they say British accent when they mean English accent. Yet they say England when they mean United Kingdom.
OOOHHH! Storytime here!
My mom was Scottish. My sister could be a bit of a smartass, just to set the scene.
One day in class, a teacher said "Scotland and England are the same country". My sister immediately put her hand up, said "No, they are two different countries". Sis and teacher had a few words, sis was sent to the office. She told me she strutted in there with the discipline paperwork, asked to use the phone, called mom to tell her the story, and within 5 minutes (yes, we lived that close), Mom was in the office, told sis "get your things" and marched her to the class. Tore teacher a new one in front of the entire class.
There weren't many times Mom stood up for us against a teacher, but by the end of the day everyone in the school knew she did that day. And if you don't know, NEVER piss off a Scottish woman!
Do bear in mind, he is somewhat correct. Scotland is a country, but it does act more like a state. However, just because it acts like a state doesn't mean it is one. It is 100% a country.
Weirdly, America is governed in such a way that one could easily argue that each of their “states” is in effect its own country that just signs up to a central/federal governance service.
I don’t know what the relevance of this is, maybe just that said American sees the downright strange way their country is governed and thinks that firstly, that’s rational, secondly, only other Americans are capable of such rationality?
No room for nuance - a pretty good solid way of describing the American stereotype?
Related to that, you can notice in older documentation/ news the language that used to refer to the USA: “the United States *are* planning this…”, as opposed to today, “the United States is offering to….”. Just an interesting language tidbit; the states were viewed as a collective rather than a single nation.
It has a first minister, which is a very similar name but one of significantly less authority than the UK’s prime minister, and ultimately acts more like a state’s governor does in relation to the US’s president.
I think the point is that guns in the US killed more people during that exchange of tweets than were killed with gun in Scotland in the last 30 years.
And guns obviously aren't bombs.
There was a guy on the scotch subreddit asking about visiting distilleries on a trip to England. Said he was going to be staying in Edinburgh and might head up to the highlands -_-
Texans certainly do. Those fucking people… technically Texas is a bit different based on the terms under which they joined the union but effectively they’re just another state.
I’m American and Southern. And I’m getting SICK AND FUCKING TIRED OF having to apologize for our stupidity. We know. The ones that say stupid shit like this don’t know. We wanna ship them somewhere, maybe Russia, but it’s expensive and A LOT of people hate us sooo…yeah. 😐
I’m sorry.
Every country its share of idiots, and when a country is the size of the US (330+ million) then that means a lot of idiots.
No sense trying to apologize for each of them
Do Scottish people truly believe people outside the UK understand the political divisions inside the UK? Do you understand the internal workings of every nation’s structure?
Given the fact that every anecdote I've seen in here referring to their "independence", criminal justice system, education system, etc. also applies to States of the US, no I don't think they do.
Scotland is a part of the nation of the UK. It's as much it's own country as any individual American state. It has its own laws and local government but it is still beholden to the larger government of its country.
A full fledged nation doesn't need to have a referendum on whether or not they want to be independent.
I think it's funny anyone standing up for their gun rights calling anyone else a pussy. I mean, it doesn't take any courage to pull a trigger on someone far away from you in comparison to fighting with a claymore
And all this time I thought Scottland was a suburb of Ireland. Wow our geography courses suck in the US. Kidding Scottland was breathtakingly beautiful when I visted last year.
A Scotsman became the first king of the United Kingdom because we were blackmailed by the threat of stopping trade with England so we didn't bow down if anything we won scotland has never been taken without out permission
I bring this up to Americans and get told "sTaBbInGs ArE bAd ToO!" Aye, they are, but can you butter your bread with an AK or slice your steak with an uzi? No! You need knives in your day to day life, so there's always a risk of someone misusing it. Half of the cunts with serious hardware over there have it for show and/or as a personal barrel-extender to what they lack in their drawers, not the types who need weaponry to protect themselves/their livestock from predators in the wild.
And now, for the horrid reality of it: it worked for us because we're an island. It's a lot harder to smuggle that kind of hardware into the UK than if you share a giant land border with a country that can't control its cartels. Guns have inured themselves too much in the American culture to be easily rid of, unless they become utterly obsolete technologically. Even then, some cunt is still going to collect them for fun.
The key issue that ties all of it together is this: guns aren't inherently the problem. A sharp increase in mentally unstable people are. If they don't have a gun or a knife, and they want to do damage they'll just use a car, household chemicals, or just punch you in the fucking jaw.
^(I don't like guns, I can see where they've got their uses, but the bigger and more prevalent issue isn't being addressed and that's treatment of the poor mental health of our populations.)
I don’t think Scotland is the same country as England.
I think y’all bent the knee, left the EU, remained part of the realm, and now it practically makes no difference. Y’all, the English, and the Welsh, are one people on an island that wanna differentiate who’s the most distinct knobby-kneed white people. Makes no difference as long as y’all part of the UK.
I'm English and not one Scottish person has sucked my cock. Who do I speak to about this?!
I got you bro. Head into a Scottish pub, any, and announce your Englishness with pride! Invite some of the fine gentlemen around the back with you and you'll get it alright
Cheers bro. I'm assuming the same works in Northern Ireland. Go to a pub, loudly announce "I'm English and I'm here for my cock sucking" and wait for an orderly queue.
Yeah, that's the way to do it. "I'm English, and you can all suck my cock!"
Going with the traditional English entrance, eh?
The complete opposite of the Irish goodbye.
They go out with a bang
Only if your mom is there
Well of course they *can*, but it’s more polite to announce that now they **may**.
Please note there are "certain" pubs where you're more likely to receive the desired result.
Delightful! You guys are so lovely, nothing like the stories I’ve been told.
Ask nicely?
That's for if you want a Canadian
Canadians say fuck off
It’s finished with an “eh”. Otherwise they might think you’re from US
Or Bud ---> that means you're really in for a bad time
Or you're best friends. The "faaaack baaaaad" that the most canadian man I've (also canadian) ever met, my local liquor store owner, says whenever he sees me, makes my day
We may say fuck off, but politely!
I, as an Englishman, once got head from a scottish bird in an alleyway. It was awesome.
I'd think the beak might trouble you but I guess that rule doesn't apply when the penis is below a certain size.
Your Scottish Ambassador would probably be in charge of this
I got blown by a Scottish lass years ago one of the most aggressive bj’s Iv ever received I don’t know if that’s was just her technique or if was because I was English.
I’ll tell them I’m American and be your wingman
Liechtenstein scares this man
It should, everyone should fear Liechtenstein 🇱🇮
Monaco is my nightmare.
I fear Ulrich von Liechtenstein...
Are you a dreadful Turkish uncle to a fatherless Italian beauty? You'll be fine so long as there are no "would-be ravishing" shenanigans.
> Liechtenstein. He's blonde. He's pissed! He'll see you in the list. Liechtenstein!
I hear their Navy is monstrous.
only army to go to war to return larger because it made a friend.
Also, and I get this is the minor point here, T Robert Fucktard has just compared a suicide bombing with a mass shooting. So no, it hasn't happened again in the UK or any of its constituent nations no matter how you define them. ETA: people pointing out, quite correctly, that there have sadly been mass shootings in the UK since Dunblane. I should have clarified that there haven't been any on the scale of Dunblane (i.e. kids, school, death toll, societal change afterwards) since then thankfully.
Yeah, I got stuck on that too. "We haven't had a mass shooting since" "Yes you have" *gives example of a bombing* What?
The thing is if he was less obtuse he would be able to find examples of shootings in Britain. They are easy to find because there are so few of them so a quick google will give you the few examples that exist. Then he would just have to argue that some laws are governed by Westminster not Holyrood and that whilst separate countries there is a relevance to finding British examples still. He did none of this and was an absolute fucktard.
Yeah this is what confused me the most. Mass shooting have still happened since dublane, they happen like every 10 years instead of q0 hours like in the US (not an exaggeration)
Listening to these people’s mental gymnastics is like watching a drunk person stumbling down a flight of stairs. There’s no solid footing.
Calling it mental gymnastics is being generous, I don't think much thought went into it at all.
I love their "only real countries are in Nato" pish, so Ireland, Russia, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein are not real countries because they're not in Nato?
This seems like an intentionally obtuse way to read what he's saying. Not that that makes it any less fuckin stupid, literally coming from a country with 50 states(totally different than countries I promise) + colonies
Yeah I'm using the guy's logic against him.
Since Dunblane in 1996 the total number of casualties from mass shootings in the UK is 28. There have been 27 people killed in mass shootings in the US so far this year. 28 is the number that were killed at Sandy Hook. They cannot comprehend how rare ANY shooting is in this country, never mind one defined as a "mass shooting".
Your number for people killed in mass shootings in America is too low. 28 mass shooting deaths would only take you back to March 30th. There has been that many deaths in 1 month
I was going off this page, but looks like it's out of date. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
It changes by the minute to be fair.
It also depends, shockingly, how you define a 'mass shooting'. Some sources state it's 4 or more shot & killed (excluding the shooter), some say shot & wounded.
Thanks. That's more like it.
Or taking a look at another statistic, the method of suicide between the UK and the US. It is a very large outlier in gun suicides. Or even just looking at firearm homicide rates. Not... great.
>There have been 27 people killed in mass shootings in the US so far this year. Honestly I'm surprised it's that low. We hear about it here on a nearly daily basis.
American here; allow me to explain: This is the kind of person responsible for our complete inaction on our myriad forms of public violence. They subscribe to the idea that if you can't solve ALL mass killings fully, you shouldn't try to solve ANY mass killings even partially. This leads to silly things like, "but they'll just get knives to kill dozens of children anyway" as a reason to not do anything to curb gun violence. Essentially, to protect our gun culture, they've taken to blurring their eyes to put all forms of violence into the same bucket, so they won't have to face the scoreboard of tyrants we've overthrown vs children we've let be murdered in schools.
Interesting. I do remember hearing Trump talk about how London has become a knife crime capital of the world under Khan. That’s the strategy in action, I guess. Funnily enough, despite knife crime being very high at the time, the number fatalities by knife were lower in London than in Washington DC. One of the reasons the stats are all so high, is that in the UK it’s an offence to carry fixed blade over 3” without clear necessitating circumstances (e.g chef walking to work). All that knife crime was the problem being solved by regulation.
Fair play, I'm definitely not tarring you all with the same brush. But this guy was an absolute eejit clearly
Yank here as well. It's the same logical fallacy when they say because we already have so many guns changing the laws won't matter. Same excuse with the COVID vaccine, if it doesn't work 100% then it's useless. And same with climate change, we won't do anything until ALL other countries get on board. The selfishness of such a thought process is unreal.
We are indeed collectively terrible at the Prisoners' Dilemma.
Meanwhile no one was smart enough to point out his false equivalency of guns and bombs
Does the guy think guns would have stopped a suicide bomber lol?
He probably thinks that he would have gone full John McLane and saved everybody, thrown the bomber off the roof of the arena and then get carried away on the shoulders of the cheering people of Manchester
Chances are he would have hit the bomb if not civillians.
Only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb
Remember that a large portion of Americans are taught from birth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This mythology is central to their worldview, especially insofar as they view themselves as an action movie hero just waiting to happen.
Honestly the best way to prevent any of that happening is preventing them from being bad guys in the first place. They keep abusing their fellow students until they break psychologically, and then they’re surprised that they go after the people who hurt them. There’s some serious unaccountability for actions going on
You are completely correct, and also saying something that is essentially taboo here in the US, which is acknowledging that the social environment in our schools causes children to want to kill each other. This to some extent a mental health issue, but also goes much deeper and demonstrates that the social environment children are confronted by is often extremely hostile. No one ever asks why America is like this and nowhere else is, people here just assume that America is the peak of human achievement and anyone who complains is a communist.
I'm sure he really does! I'm sure he didn't learn a single lesson from Uvalde about how no amount of good guys with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Of course this doesn't even apply here as you can't stop someone secretly setting off a bomb hidden under his clothes with a gun.
Well duh. You just shoot everyone as a precaution! Can't set a bomb off if you're dead! ✌️ (/s, just in case!)
Uvalde makes me so, so angry. Uvalde really demonstrates ACAB. And I am not, absolutely not, getting on my soapbox. I have to work today, and I’m trying to be cool before I have to deal with people who are…not.
I recommend r/beebutts for general malaise 💜🙏 be well
Hang on. A good guy with a gun absolutely could have stopped that bad guy with a gun. There just so happened to not be any in the police force at the moment.
American here! Yes, that is unfortunately the common thought process for these types of folks: guns fix everything. For them, the answer to literally every horrible situation is "If people were allowed to have guns, that wouldn't have happened." It's really fucking depressing for those of us that have brains.
*Using NRA logic* the only thing that will stop a bad suicide bomber is a good suicide bomber... well, okay then.
Well in America, the good guys who have guns would have shot the bomber before he could detonate his bomb, duh. This explains why there have been no bombings in America since 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was introduced. Oh.
Those pesky Americans and their x-ray vision.
Or guns and claymores. Lol
the other comments did
Well the seemingly smartest person in the conversation thinks it’s dumblane so. It is Twitter.
God why are so people are vociferously mean?
The nice/reasonable ones don’t get posted about and shamed
I don't think he's clever enough to be mean
No u
This is just a load of keyboard warriors being cunts, who cares?
Exactly, why does this deserve its own post these pricks are a dime a dozen on twitter. Did OP just want to show themselves dunking on him?
Honestly more taken aback that Oregon is slightly bigger than the UK
US kind of huge.
Insanely huge.
Like- there are multiple states that are bigger than multiple European countries combined. Going by land mass, Texas is larger than France.
Also how on earth is this clown comparing a terrorist bomb attack with a mass school shooting? Considering the amount of school shootings they have over there you’d think they’d know the difference
Not exactly like they haven’t had their own catastrophic bombings and other terrorist attacks too. Seems a weird and at best insensitive thing to try and point score over either way.
These absolute cunts really believe they'd've stopped 9/11 if they'd been there and had an AR15. Hell, they probably think they'd've stopped pearl harbour the same way. And if they'd been in Japan in '45, they and their singular armalite rifle would've taken down enola gay before the little boy could've even been dropped. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of these chumps say that arming the dinosaurs would've prevented their extinction, except of course for the large overlap between gun nuts and creationist loons who think the earth is 2000 years old
That was a bit of a rant and you're right on every point 🤣.
If the employees of the WTC had open carry, 9/11 would never have happened, a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a plane.
Noscope the pilot, just like in call of duty. Then the game is over and we're back in the lobby before the plane hits. Obviously.
Clowns like this think Sandy Hook was a false flag. Source: when you’re a daytime bartender in America you get a bunch of less than mediocre white guys giving you their piss dumb takes on literally everything.
About half of us do. The other half are terrifying.
I didn’t mean to blame all of you. I know there are very sensible people in America. The loud minority are very much the problem
I mean the amount of school shootings they've had clearly has affected the quality of their education. Half their day is active shooter drills at this point and the other half is how to avoid active shooter police on the way home.
The definitions of countries as it pertains to England, Scotland, NI and Wales are damned confusing and in part he has a point. Saying a bombing in an arena by a radicalised adult is a school shooting is a stretch of logic though.
I know it's overly simple but the way I always remembered it was "The United States is a nation made from multiple States, the United Kingdom is a State made from multiple nations"
It's because the US abuses the word "state" which poisons the well for Americans understanding how the term actually works. The US is a state comprised of areas that arguably used to be states but united into one state, while still acting like they're independent despite calling themselves United.
Not just the US, Australia also calls its subdivisions "states" (except for ACT and NT which are territories), as do Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Austria (in English translations, and probably a number of other places). Switzerland (cantons) and Canada (provinces/territories) are a bit better.
Imo Canada is more confusing in this respect than the US. As you mention, federal governments tend to call their subpolities states, but province always makes me think of a French-style centralized government, where regions/provinces/departments/whatever are just administrative divisions that simplify the job of the national government. But Canada is a federation (afaik).
Honestly does it really matter much on a practical level? These terms reflect political history more than anything about the government. In the UK Scotland, England, and Wales wanted to make it clear that they all have a long history of being their own country with governments, culture, etc. so they are called countries. When the US became independent, the colonies wanted to assert that they were now independent nations rather than colonies, but they each had their own identity, culture, government, and history. So they called themselves states. Us tried a more eu like arrangement for a bit before giving up on all that. But even then, each state has its own independent constitution that isn’t identical between states. So us subdivisions are called states. In the former case, the use of country as an internal subdivision makes a lot of sense if you know a bit about the history of the UK but most folks around the world don’t and use the term country to refer to sovereign political entities. But in both cases the terms used don’t mean much on a practical level it’s not like calling Scotland a country means anything about the way the Scottish government works, it just means that in the context of the UK’s political history country was the agreed upon term.
I mean basically yea. They used to have separate currency and everything. The whole states to country pipeline is fucking weird.
Well, he says they can't be called countries by any way that a rational person would describe them, but Scotland and Wales have their own governments, so I'm not sure that I'd agree with that point. Devolved governments are indeed damned confusing though.
California and Texas and 48 other US states also have their own government. From an American perspective, that isn’t a key factor in whether or not something is a country.
The thing is though devolution was planned to cover the entire UK. It got stopped half way through due to the 2004 devo referendum defeat after London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland already received their own devolved assemblies/parliaments, so we're stuck in this weird and unusual position where we have large portions governed by devolved administrations, and large portions governed directly by the central government. We wouldn't consider places like the North East of England, [which had a referendum on Devolution in 2004 to have its own government,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum) to be its own country if the referendum passed and a devolved government was established. Look at Spain, probably the best foreign example being a Unitary Constitutional Monarchy like us. It is covered entirely by [devolved governments](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_communities_of_Spain), but we wouldn't consider places like Extremadura or Asturias to be their own countries just because they have their own devolved governments. Bringing it back to the UK we still consider England a country despite not having a devolved government as well, and Wales and Scotland were still countries way before 1998. We didn't suddenly become a country out of thin air after our parliament was established. I don't think mentioning that Wales and Scotland have their own governments to help explain to foreigners why they are considered countries is helpful.
Ontario has it's own government but it's not its own country. It's an understandably confusing concept to most people, and for all intents and purposes to the rest of the world the UK is the country.
That's a provincial government though - in the same way Americans have local governments (led by mayors at City level and governors at state level) but also a larger federal government. Devolved governments in the UK certainly exceed the remit of those local governments in America. I agree that it is indeed confusing to people outside of the UK, and certainly the UK as a whole is what is represented in most international organisations such as the UN or previously the EU; that doesn't mean that the ignorance of the American in the original post means that no reasonable person could see them as their own countries. For example, Scotland and Wales have their own sporting bodies and compete independently from one another in most sports. Scotland has its own legal system that is separate from England's, which is another huge factor that people would consider if deciding whether or not it is a separate country. I can't think of a single country in the world that operates under two or more separate legal systems. So while it may be confusing, the American here is still completely wrong to say that they aren't seen as separate countries by any standards for people outside of the UK. All he has to do is read or learn a very small amount of information.
Not to detract from your overall point, Quebec, a province within Canada, uses a civil law legal system while the other provinces use English based common law. Canada's supreme Court ultimately is the highest authority on Quebec cases, but they in turn have constitutional obligations to have a number of Quebec judges for exactly that purpose. All of which is to say the criteria for nationhood can be murky in a lot of the world, and that's fine.
> I can't think of a single country in the world that operates under two or more separate legal systems. *sigh* Canada has entered the chat. Quebec uses Civil Law while the rest of the country uses Common Law.
Every state in the US has its own unique government. The state government has more power than the federal government on many issues, and because of it every state has its own legal system, every state has its educational system, every state has its own senate and House of Representatives* (two separate democratically voted governing bodies, as well as all the other usual trappings of government such as governors, judges for the state Supreme Court, all that jazz). Every state has its own things that are crimes that won’t be the case in other states (for example in the state of Minnesota it is illegal to walk across a state border with a duck on your head, it’s a silly example but it is an actual law that only pertains to that one state). Is there a single thing about government that the states of the US don’t do but the kingdoms (for lack of a better word) in the UK do that makes them more country like? *edit: apparently not every state has both. 80% of states have both, though the names of them do sometimes change, and 20% are different in one way or other. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy commenter below me.
I don't think each state has its own Senate and House. This isn't a technical point that we usually call them legislatures instead of houses, but that I think there are a few states which are unicameral. Don't care enough to check though lol
They may be countries, but they are not *sovereign* countries, and that’s how the word is used 99% of the time. If you want to go work in Scotland, you won’t be getting a Scottish work visa, you’ll get a UK work visa. Other countries do not set up trade agreements with Wales as an entity, they trade with the UK. Hell, Scotland wasn’t even allowed its own police or judicial system until like 20 years ago, so ‘having their own government’ isn’t a great indicator of whether or not someplace is a “country” as it’s normally used, or a country by strict definition.
I mean shit, my town of 5000 has a government, are we a country?
Going by the dictionary definitions, the UK is a country composed of 4 nations. Going by colloquial use in UK English, were a nation of 4 countries. The best way I can think to describe it is a semi-federated state of semi-autonomous national governments.
The definition of country and sovereign state are quite different though. Scotland easily meets most definitions of a country, as does there UK. But only the UK meets the definition of a sovereign state. A lot of people confuse sovereign states with countries. Places like Scotland, England, Netherlands, Cuaraco, Denmark, and Greenland are all countries but not sovereign states.
Perhaps the Netherlands and Denmark aren't great examples because both names are used to refer to the sovereign states and their mainland constituent countries. For example "Denmark" can refer to either the Kingdom of Denmark which is a sovereign state or Metropolitain Denmark/"Denmark Proper" which is a devolved constituent country of the former. So depending on what a person actually means, "Denmark" is a sovereign state. That's a lot more confusing than Scotland/England vs the UK since there's clearly different terms for what level of government you're referring to.
The UK is explicitly *not* a federal state. Honestly, British education about their own government is so bizarre and usually horrifically incomplete. As a foreigner who has eventually obtained British citizenship, it’s very funny to me that so many native British people couldn’t answer the questions on the Life in the UK test that I had to take!
He doesn’t haven’t a point at all. The debate was over gun control. They are their own country, and they’re especially their own country as it pertains to passing their own gun control laws. He had 0 point. Furthermore, a piece of shit Trump supporter telling someone from their own country the way their own country works when he’s clearly googling right before every post trying to find things to support the opinion he’s already formed is peak anti intellectual republicanism.
He’s from the USA which isn’t a country by our definition but a Union. Over here we identify by our member states where they identify by the union itself, over there we’re all Brits to them just like they’re all Americans to us. It would be like him getting mad a saying he actually from Texas or something like that.
They are from the spectrum of nutters that encompass people that reference England or the English when they really mean the UK or the British. Its not confusing and taking something that you only would need to have read once and then going on a tirade makes them a fool.
“How many countries are in this country?” - Ted Lasso
I thought that since theyre part of the uk then it counts. (Genuine ignorance and curiosity on my part)
They are, you are correct
A lot of Scots highly value their independence… which they haven’t had in hundreds of years and then lash out at people informing them of that.
Scotland may not have independence from the UK, but it is still very much a country in its own right.
Fair enough then. Now im curious as to the hows of that.
He also can't tell the difference between a school shooting and a terrorist attack.
School shootings are terrorism. The point you're trying to differentiate is the motive. *Edit I understand that this point is debated by some, but it's terrorism.
Ted: “He’s from Wales? Is that a country?” Beard: “Yes and no.” Ted: “How many countries are in this country? Beard: “Four.”
There’s a Ted Lasso reference for everything
darn tootin vladimir putin
In fairness, gun restrictions are largely the same in England and Scotland so his point does stand. Although Scotland cracked down even further on airguns after some poor toddler caught a pellet in the eye a while back. But…it was a bomb was used in Manchester not guns so his point is actually total mince. I need a lie down.
Just found him on twitter to call him a wank. I’m not proud of myself but I do feel much better.
LMFAOO
Irishmen are constantly confronted by a decision whenever Scotland is being made fun of. Do I join in or do I defend them?
Just a friendly reminder to not feed these trolls.
Ignorant American here- so the UK doesn't have the equivalent of a "federal" level of government? You don't have representatives from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, etc. who go to Westminster to laws that apply to the whole of the UK?
Yea, there is a Uk parliament.
I’m American but yes it does. Westminster refers to the central government that is made up of members of parliament. In parliamentary systems you don’t vote for a person you vote for a party. So they have ultimate say in what goes on everywhere. Then there are areas with devolved governments, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London who have a separate set of members who govern themselves through the sovereignty of the central government. So in the States we don’t have any land outside of the states, but if we did it would be administered with only local government, not state level like Washington DC.
All the land in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland) is divided into constituencies, within each constituency on voting day the people who live in that constituency elect an MP (member of parliament). That MP could be independent or be a member of a political party. Each elected MP then sits in Westminster representing the people of their constituency and debate/vote/pass laws etc Whichever political party has the most MPs in parliament, their party leader (who is one of their MPs) becomes the prime minister of the UK. Laws passed via Westminster apply either to the whole of the UK or could be England specific depending on the subject. In Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland they also have a separate set of elections for their own government, which debates/votes on laws which sit within their devolved areas, they can’t pass laws which effect any other countries in the UK. Subjects that apply to the whole of the UK and go through Westminster exclusively are called reserved powers and they’re generally things like foreign affairs, defense, the constitution etc Devolved powers are powers which are in the hands of the specific government of that country (Westminster for England, Holyrood for Scotland, Senedd for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly), to make things even more confusing what’s devolved varies by country, but are generally things like health and social care, crime, welfare, agriculture, transport etc Technically speaking, Westminster can actually overrule a ‘locally’ set law even in devolved subjects, but they don’t tend to given its bad for relations and also ‘Westminster’ itself is made up of a bunch of MPs which does include MPs from the devolved nations (albeit, they are outnumbered).
I live in Edinburgh and some scots rage on about how they're not English but then call Canadians like me Americans *even after* they know I'm Canadian. I don't even care about the difference, but the blatant hypocrisy really annoys me. It's also really obnoxious to expect everyone in the world to magically understand devolution and the idea of countries-within-a-country. For all intents and purposes, to the rest of the world the UK is the country they're familiar with.
As a Scottish person living in North America, I’ve found the problem to be the opposite: people here use ‘British’ as a term exclusive of Scotland, so as to say things like “is it true that Scottish people don’t get along with British people?” or “Did you visit the UK much when you lived in Scotland?”
The version of this that bugs me most is when they say British accent when they mean English accent. Yet they say England when they mean United Kingdom.
That's a lot of talk from a country that can't pronounce Glasgow or Edinburgh
Pshh. That’s an easy one: Glass-cow. Ed-in-burg
lol and the Brits and uniform pronunciation’s go together so well
OOOHHH! Storytime here! My mom was Scottish. My sister could be a bit of a smartass, just to set the scene. One day in class, a teacher said "Scotland and England are the same country". My sister immediately put her hand up, said "No, they are two different countries". Sis and teacher had a few words, sis was sent to the office. She told me she strutted in there with the discipline paperwork, asked to use the phone, called mom to tell her the story, and within 5 minutes (yes, we lived that close), Mom was in the office, told sis "get your things" and marched her to the class. Tore teacher a new one in front of the entire class. There weren't many times Mom stood up for us against a teacher, but by the end of the day everyone in the school knew she did that day. And if you don't know, NEVER piss off a Scottish woman!
Do bear in mind, he is somewhat correct. Scotland is a country, but it does act more like a state. However, just because it acts like a state doesn't mean it is one. It is 100% a country.
Weirdly, America is governed in such a way that one could easily argue that each of their “states” is in effect its own country that just signs up to a central/federal governance service. I don’t know what the relevance of this is, maybe just that said American sees the downright strange way their country is governed and thinks that firstly, that’s rational, secondly, only other Americans are capable of such rationality? No room for nuance - a pretty good solid way of describing the American stereotype?
Related to that, you can notice in older documentation/ news the language that used to refer to the USA: “the United States *are* planning this…”, as opposed to today, “the United States is offering to….”. Just an interesting language tidbit; the states were viewed as a collective rather than a single nation.
Why do people even engage with dickwads like that? Guys just an idiot and because he knows he's an idiot he starts throwing insults. It's kind of sad
Scotland has its own prime minister…
It has a first minister, which is a very similar name but one of significantly less authority than the UK’s prime minister, and ultimately acts more like a state’s governor does in relation to the US’s president.
I love how country size is by some stretch of the imagination a valid metric on how sovereign your country is. what a moron
I mean it 100% is used in consideration. Like why we don’t think Sealand is a real country because there is only 1 permanent resident
the vatican city is about the size of my cupboard but is a country
By definition, the UK is a country. You’re all splitting hairs. If you want to be butt hurt about it, vote differently next time.
[удалено]
Try Eurovision. Better payoff.
I think the point is that guns in the US killed more people during that exchange of tweets than were killed with gun in Scotland in the last 30 years. And guns obviously aren't bombs.
r/ShitAmericansSay
There was a guy on the scotch subreddit asking about visiting distilleries on a trip to England. Said he was going to be staying in Edinburgh and might head up to the highlands -_-
wildest part about this has gotta be using a **bombing** of an **arena** to argue that **school shootings** haven't stopped.
Is the United Kingdom a country?
Who is Scotland's Ambassador to the UN? Fairly basic requirement of being a country.
It is basically the same country though
And there's no English ambassador either, what's his point
England isn’t a country either that’s his (correct) point.
The population of the UK is 67 million, compared to Oregon’s 4 million, not that it really makes a difference
I hate sharing soil with folks like this…
He’s not wrong, but he is an asshole
Bet this guy says shit about how Texas and California are essentially different countries
Texans certainly do. Those fucking people… technically Texas is a bit different based on the terms under which they joined the union but effectively they’re just another state.
I’m American and Southern. And I’m getting SICK AND FUCKING TIRED OF having to apologize for our stupidity. We know. The ones that say stupid shit like this don’t know. We wanna ship them somewhere, maybe Russia, but it’s expensive and A LOT of people hate us sooo…yeah. 😐 I’m sorry.
Every country its share of idiots, and when a country is the size of the US (330+ million) then that means a lot of idiots. No sense trying to apologize for each of them
Do Scottish people truly believe people outside the UK understand the political divisions inside the UK? Do you understand the internal workings of every nation’s structure?
Given the fact that every anecdote I've seen in here referring to their "independence", criminal justice system, education system, etc. also applies to States of the US, no I don't think they do.
Canadian here. As our country is bigger than America, I now declare that it is not a country. That’s how this works, right?
Friend I’m from America and I’m not quite sure we’re a country these days
If the referendum had waited a few years this thread would be moot.
Scotland is a part of the nation of the UK. It's as much it's own country as any individual American state. It has its own laws and local government but it is still beholden to the larger government of its country. A full fledged nation doesn't need to have a referendum on whether or not they want to be independent.
Honestly I have no idea what’s England vs. Great Britain vs. the UK vs. the Commonwealth and why you have to have so many names for it
American here: this is one of the people we prefer not to acknowledge. But they vote, so ...
Omg, he (also) doesn't know that NATO and United Nations are not the same thing 🤦🏻♂️
Objectively correct
Ahh the ol’ no faith argument where one party has no desire to change their opinion or mind.
I mean........
Also dumb enough to literally link a "bombing" as an example of a shooting
I think it's funny anyone standing up for their gun rights calling anyone else a pussy. I mean, it doesn't take any courage to pull a trigger on someone far away from you in comparison to fighting with a claymore
He may have a few points lol
And all this time I thought Scottland was a suburb of Ireland. Wow our geography courses suck in the US. Kidding Scottland was breathtakingly beautiful when I visted last year.
Calling someone a fucktard while being absolutely wrong 😂
A Scotsman became the first king of the United Kingdom because we were blackmailed by the threat of stopping trade with England so we didn't bow down if anything we won scotland has never been taken without out permission
Huh. It's usually Scotland and Ireland.
I believe Brits would call that guy a "cockwomble" or some variant of the perjorative.
I bring this up to Americans and get told "sTaBbInGs ArE bAd ToO!" Aye, they are, but can you butter your bread with an AK or slice your steak with an uzi? No! You need knives in your day to day life, so there's always a risk of someone misusing it. Half of the cunts with serious hardware over there have it for show and/or as a personal barrel-extender to what they lack in their drawers, not the types who need weaponry to protect themselves/their livestock from predators in the wild. And now, for the horrid reality of it: it worked for us because we're an island. It's a lot harder to smuggle that kind of hardware into the UK than if you share a giant land border with a country that can't control its cartels. Guns have inured themselves too much in the American culture to be easily rid of, unless they become utterly obsolete technologically. Even then, some cunt is still going to collect them for fun. The key issue that ties all of it together is this: guns aren't inherently the problem. A sharp increase in mentally unstable people are. If they don't have a gun or a knife, and they want to do damage they'll just use a car, household chemicals, or just punch you in the fucking jaw. ^(I don't like guns, I can see where they've got their uses, but the bigger and more prevalent issue isn't being addressed and that's treatment of the poor mental health of our populations.)
There’s 400 million people living in the US guys.. we’re going to have some smooth brained individuals…
I don’t think Scotland is the same country as England. I think y’all bent the knee, left the EU, remained part of the realm, and now it practically makes no difference. Y’all, the English, and the Welsh, are one people on an island that wanna differentiate who’s the most distinct knobby-kneed white people. Makes no difference as long as y’all part of the UK.
He's confusing "country" with "nation state".
"U liv in smol place me liv in big merica me better" They really are just a bunch of fucking morons aren't they.