For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hardballer
are you retarded? we're talking about weapons you can defend yourself with personally? you gonna nuke a mugger asking for your cash?
I was highlighting the absurdity of the 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' line of argument. Yes, it requires someone to pull the trigger but the gun still gives them the capacity to do it. Hence, no gun => people not getting shot. This line of argument seems to suggest that the illegality of guns is somehow unfair to the guns themselves, which is absolutely hilarious.
Original post by jammy66
Why do people other than those in the armed services and police need guns anyway, you can't do much with it apart from murder things.
The justification appears to be that, although a pistol is not needed as a defensive weapon now because few criminals have them we should be given the right to carry them so that more people have them giving rise to a greater likelihood of being attacked with guns, and this will in turn mean that we need to use them for self defence.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You'll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Mafia hit man
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate
The above quotes I found quite interesting. I believe that gun laws in this country should be liberalised by quite a lot. A complete ban on e.g. handguns seems very totalitarian to me.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You'll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Mafia hit man
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate
The above quotes I found quite interesting. I believe that gun laws in this country should be liberalised by quite a lot. A complete ban on e.g. handguns seems very totalitarian to me.
Original post by Good bloke
The justification appears to be that, although a pistol is not needed as a defensive weapon now because few criminals have them we should be given the right to carry them so that more people have them giving rise to a greater likelihood of being attacked with guns, and this will in turn mean that we need to use them for self defence.
Yeah that's true, although just because a few criminals have them doesn't mean we all need to have them for 'self defence' everyone should do some sort of martial arts. Though, if there is a raging shooter with a shotgun (cumbria incident) i can understand why people feel they need to have a gun.
Carry around bb guns, they are safer and don't kill just hurt which can disarm someone?!
Original post by jammy66
Carry around bb guns, they are safer and don't kill just hurt which can disarm someone?!
Carry around bb guns, they are safer and don't kill just hurt which can disarm someone?!
you're trolling, right? BB guns can't do ****"It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols--there weren't enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.
Closer home take the case of the Godhra carnage and the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Would wanton mobs have slaughtered so many innocent people with such disregard to consequences if their potential victims had been armed and ready to defend themselves?"
There are just so many reasons for allowing people to have guns.. i just guess it comes down to the government, and the people of the country, not trusting each other to have a gun.
Closer home take the case of the Godhra carnage and the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Would wanton mobs have slaughtered so many innocent people with such disregard to consequences if their potential victims had been armed and ready to defend themselves?"
There are just so many reasons for allowing people to have guns.. i just guess it comes down to the government, and the people of the country, not trusting each other to have a gun.
Original post by jammy66
Carry around bb guns, they are safer and don't kill just hurt which can disarm someone?!
Carry around bb guns, they are safer and don't kill just hurt which can disarm someone?!
I wonder how the gun lobby would feel if the carrying of pistols were to be legalised, but with stipulations that (a) all guns must be bright pink and (b) must be carried on the person at all times the owner was out of the house (no leaving them at home), on a frame on top of the head with the muzzle pointing downwards and (c) all ammunition had to be bought at the same location it is used with nothing carried away? Carrying or storing of either weapons or ammunition in any other way than this would lead to a ten year gaol sentence for a first offence, with no discretion. I don't think there would be much of a market.
What people tend to overlook in the argument against guns is that the vast majority of all gun crime is committed with stolen, or unlicensed weapons. Essentially, those with the right to bear an arm and no intention to use it are normally those that follow the law to most extents, those with an intent to use a gun for criminal purposes will obtain one even if they are illegal. And if they can't have a gun, they'll have a knife, axe or baton. None of which I can carry, why should I be at the mercy of a criminal?
Original post by jammy66
Yeah that's true, although just because a few criminals have them doesn't mean we all need to have them for 'self defence' everyone should do some sort of martial arts. Though, if there is a raging shooter with a shotgun (cumbria incident) i can understand why people feel they need to have a gun.
Carry around bb guns, they are safer and don't kill just hurt which can disarm someone?!
Carry around bb guns, they are safer and don't kill just hurt which can disarm someone?!
The risk with a BB gun or replica firearm is it can escalate a situation. you only ever draw a weapon your prepared to use. If someone is holding you up with a gun they may shoot at you (but why bother if they think you are unarmed). If you pull a gun then they more than likely WILL shoot at you. It gives them that extra reason to shoot you.
If they have no gun shooting them with a BB gun will probably just irritate them.
Also carrying a replica firearm in public (anything that looks like a gun (bb guns included (its why there now orange unless your RIF)) without just cause (especially pretending its real) carries the same penalty as carrying an fac weapon, which i believe to be 5 years prison.
Original post by Good bloke
I wonder how the gun lobby would feel if the carrying of pistols were to be legalised, but with stipulations that (a) all guns must be bright pink and (b) must be carried on the person at all times the owner was out of the house (no leaving them at home), on a frame on top of the head with the muzzle pointing downwards and (c) all ammunition had to be bought at the same location it is used with nothing carried away? Carrying or storing of either weapons or ammunition in any other way than this would lead to a ten year gaol sentence for a first offence, with no discretion. I don't think there would be much of a market.
How typical of an anti-freedom preacher to want even more government interference and laws clamping down on the freedom of citizens.
Original post by Selkarn
How typical of an anti-freedom preacher to want even more government interference and laws clamping down on the freedom of citizens.
I've just offered you the opportunity to own and carry a pistol, something you cannot currently do legally, and all you do is carp about a few trvial rules.
Original post by Good bloke
I've just offered you the opportunity to own and carry a pistol, something you cannot currently do legally, and all you do is carp about a few trvial rules.
Why don't you offer me the opportunity to own and carry a pistol, without the trivial rules? Does such level of citizenry freedom worry you?
Cool story I just read:
Parable of the Sheep
By Charles Riggs
Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.
One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"
One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.
That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them and cried "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!
The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"
The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried, "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"
"Baaaaaaaddd!", cried the flock,"the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock. They scare us!". So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.
In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return. Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaaddddd! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!".
And so they did. The great chief sheep and his court and council, encouraged by the words of their moneylenders and advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!". But the flock would not hear, and drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!".
Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!".
That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!". And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter. It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.
In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!". But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!". The other sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had forgotten that even they possessed teeth; how else could they graze the grasses of the pasture? It was only those who preyed, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another's teeth and claws, perhaps even the broad flat teeth of sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.
The bold sheep knew that the fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like other sheep, and raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which rose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit and could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.
So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.
They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!
Edit: another good quote
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry
Can't you anti-gun lot see that you're just brainwashed, like the sheep, to bleat "bad!" everytime you hear the word gun?
Parable of the Sheep
By Charles Riggs
Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.
One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"
One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.
That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them and cried "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!
The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"
The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried, "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"
"Baaaaaaaddd!", cried the flock,"the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock. They scare us!". So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.
In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return. Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaaddddd! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!".
And so they did. The great chief sheep and his court and council, encouraged by the words of their moneylenders and advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!". But the flock would not hear, and drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!".
Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!".
That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!". And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter. It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.
In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!". But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!". The other sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had forgotten that even they possessed teeth; how else could they graze the grasses of the pasture? It was only those who preyed, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another's teeth and claws, perhaps even the broad flat teeth of sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.
The bold sheep knew that the fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like other sheep, and raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which rose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit and could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.
So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.
They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!
Edit: another good quote
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry
Can't you anti-gun lot see that you're just brainwashed, like the sheep, to bleat "bad!" everytime you hear the word gun?
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Selkarn
Why don't you offer me the opportunity to own and carry a pistol, without the trivial rules? Does such level of citizenry freedom worry you?
The freedom to carry guns? You bet it does. However, my suggestions may offer a way forward which will reduce some of my fears. Armed people will be readily identified by everyone; people will not come forward and apply for a licence unless they feel very strongly about the need to carry a weapon; the public will be protected by the lack of ready ammunition; the person most likely to be injured when the inevitable accident occurs will be the gun owner. It all sounds very reasonable.
Surely you wouldn't argue that anyone should be able to carry any weapon they wish without licensing laws and other controls? This is the 21st century, after all, and the last wagon train rolled out a long time ago.
Original post by Selkarn you're trolling, right? BB guns can't do ****
you're trolling, right? BB guns can't do ****Hurt enough if they get you in your genitals, face, chin. My brother used his SMG to wake me up once.
Original post by Good bloke
I wonder how the gun lobby would feel if the carrying of pistols were to be legalised, but with stipulations that (a) all guns must be bright pink and (b) must be carried on the person at all times the owner was out of the house (no leaving them at home), on a frame on top of the head with the muzzle pointing downwards and (c) all ammunition had to be bought at the same location it is used with nothing carried away? Carrying or storing of either weapons or ammunition in any other way than this would lead to a ten year gaol sentence for a first offence, with no discretion. I don't think there would be much of a market.
Haha that's very true, suite them tbh
i think the sound of that is good tbf, for the safety of others i think something like that is a damn good idea... IMO there need to be stricter regimes on how to get a shotgun licence now!.. Original post by L-J-B
The risk with a BB gun or replica firearm is it can escalate a situation. you only ever draw a weapon your prepared to use. If someone is holding you up with a gun they may shoot at you (but why bother if they think you are unarmed). If you pull a gun then they more than likely WILL shoot at you. It gives them that extra reason to shoot you.
If they have no gun shooting them with a BB gun will probably just irritate them.
Also carrying a replica firearm in public (anything that looks like a gun (bb guns included (its why there now orange unless your RIF)) without just cause (especially pretending its real) carries the same penalty as carrying an fac weapon, which i believe to be 5 years prison.
If they have no gun shooting them with a BB gun will probably just irritate them.
Also carrying a replica firearm in public (anything that looks like a gun (bb guns included (its why there now orange unless your RIF)) without just cause (especially pretending its real) carries the same penalty as carrying an fac weapon, which i believe to be 5 years prison.
Indeed, that is very true. Twas mainly a light hearted joke. Then again if someone is holidinng you up and the gun is pressed againced the body, thats when knowledge of martial arts comes in handy,.
I was talking about it if guns were legalised, or would there still be tight restrictions on guns which are replicars?
EDIT - though if they did become legalised, it would get rid of the stigma.. "Im so hard i have a gun"....
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
The freedom to carry guns? You bet it does. However, my suggestions may offer a way forward which will reduce some of my fears. Armed people will be readily identified by everyone; people will not come forward and apply for a licence unless they feel very strongly about the need to carry a weapon; the public will be protected by the lack of ready ammunition; the person most likely to be injured when the inevitable accident occurs will be the gun owner. It all sounds very reasonable.
Surely you wouldn't argue that anyone should be able to carry any weapon they wish without licensing laws and other controls? This is the 21st century, after all, and the last wagon train rolled out a long time ago.
Surely you wouldn't argue that anyone should be able to carry any weapon they wish without licensing laws and other controls? This is the 21st century, after all, and the last wagon train rolled out a long time ago.
A gun without ammunition isn't a weapon. You said all ammunition would be restricted.
Original post by GwrxVurfer
There would be fewer casualties, because the criminals would not be so keen to use their guns. "More guns will mean more deaths" is an irrational soundbite, that is debunked with statistics which confirm that higher gun ownership reduce crime levels, due to the deterrent.
There would be fewer casualties, because the criminals would not be so keen to use their guns. "More guns will mean more deaths" is an irrational soundbite, that is debunked with statistics which confirm that higher gun ownership reduce crime levels, due to the deterrent.
We've already dealt with the high gun ownership in Switzerland, where, we discover, nobody has any ammunition on their property. Let's take the other high gun ownership western nation, the USA, where owners can hold ammunition which appears to be the model advocated by you (and is closer culturally to the UK in any event). Just remind me how the murder and gun crime rates per 100,000 population there compare with Europe?
Original post by GwrxVurfer
And how would that work on, for instance, a Glock? A round in the chamber (necessary for self-defence) means that the gun is cocked.
Funny you should mention this. I served in northern Ireland, on two tours and was allowed to carry a rifle, for self defence, but never needed to have a round in the chamber, why do you feel the need to be able to defend yourself in what are much safer times on safer streets with a weapon that is made ready? I survived being in Kosovo doing pretty much the same, as the ground war in Iraq, where the only time we would go about with out weapons made ready was when we were about to mount an attack.
The IRA aren't planning on shooting at you, or blowing you up, nor are the Fedayeen going to attack you with an RPG, so why do you need to have the freedom to walk the streets with a weapon ready to fire?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- can you put in your own earring straight after it has been pierced
- Rust trial: Armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was 'sloppy' before Alec Baldwin gun fired
- Anyone like punk rock (green day RHCP blink 182 ect)
- edexcel alevel English lit predictions 2023
- A Level Literature Coursework; Catch-22
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- english shooting an elephant
- GCSE Year 10 - Speaking & Listening Examination
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Help with bioinformatics
- english literature edexcel a level
- firing a cannon
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- Radiography Reading lists 2024
- Do better when I ignore A-Level teachers.
- 2023 Edexcel English Lit A Level - Predictions
- Went 34 in a 30 past a speed gun
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- hey can anyone give me feedback on my essay
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1291
Last reply 1 minute ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 1 minute ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 9 minutes ago
year 13 gyg journal : trying not to become an academic victim 🤡📖Last reply 10 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 13 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 15 minutes ago
Can I do medicine with these gcse grades and what unis would be most likely to acceptPosted 17 minutes ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 18 minutes ago
Work experience opportunity related to finance/economiczTrending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
