Shooting in Nevada

[AgnesIO]

That's because you have an irrational fear of guns and don't understand that somewhere like the US, hundreds of millions of people own firearms and never use them on other people - it's just a small percentage which get used and of those that get used, the vast majority are used by law abiding citizens to defend themselves from scumbags.

My biggest and a much worse fear than yours is if there is ever government tyranny - because what will we have to fight back with?

The Syrian's seem to have done pretty well there, and I don't think they all had RPG's before they fought.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Syrian's seem to have done pretty well there, and I don't think they all had RPG's before they fought.

Uh what's the point your trying to make here?

Syria to my knowledge has very strict gun laws (I am not even sure they are even legal there) and consquently has been ruled by the same family for decades with an iron fist - and i'd be willing to bet that if anything, gun laws would have been made stricter during the time that the Assad's have ruled Syria for the simple fact that an armed people ultimately cannot be enslaved.

Nearly all regimes have sought to ban or very much restrict guns as soon as they attain power.

[AcarioRuiz]

This is why 12 year-olds should not be allowed mature games.

[AgnesIO]

Uh what's the point your trying to make here?

Syria to my knowledge has very strict gun laws (I am not even sure they are even legal there) and consquently has been ruled by the same family for decades with an iron fist - and i'd be willing to bet that if anything, gun laws would have been made stricter during the time that the Assad's have ruled Syria for the simple fact that an armed people ultimately cannot be enslaved.

Nearly all regimes have sought to ban or very much restrict guns as soon as they attain power.

Isn't my point obvious? You said (and I quote);

My biggest and a much worse fear than yours is if there is ever government tyranny - because what will we have to fight back with?

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the Syrians have a pretty impressive opposition - who have an incredibly assortment of weapons. We do not need guns to protect ourselves against the government, and suggesting that we may do one day is hypocritical of you to say the least (after all, our First Past the Post system protects the big parties, doesn't it? Or at least, that is what you would argue if this were a political debate!)

Hasn't it been proven, that if you carry a knife you are more likely to be injured by one? That clearly therefore applies to guns. Furthermore, the evidence is ALREADY THERE, why not check out an excellent list of US school shootings - and once you've done that, you can compare it to the list of UK school shootings. Now, the USA is a bigger country than the UK - but lets wipe that argument out now shall we, when I point out if we start since 1996 (the Dunblane Shooting) there has been 1 shooting in the UK versus over 80 (possibly more, I lost count) in the USA! In contrast, the USA's population is about 5 times bigger than the UK.

[Kardan]

Only somebody completely bonkers could twist reality like you just have.

What is so hard to understand about this? gun free zones, the only people who obey them are law abiding citizens whereas the only people who don't pay attention to them are the insane maniacs (usually drugged up) who are out to kill people. So it's a realllyyyyyyyy simple choice: either you allow the law abiding people to arm themselves against the crazy people or you don't and instead rely on the Police who take minutes to get there.

That's all this comes down to and you know deep down yourself that faced with a lunatic, you'd rather have a gun rather than cower in the corner and be shot.

Considering we're talking about the US where guns are pretty widespread, you would be right in most cases. But in this case, where it was a 12 year old boy - who clearly didn't get a gun legally it's pretty clear that if his parents didn't have a gun, this wouldn't have happened. Hence why we don't have any 12 year olds going around shooting kids in the UK.

Also, I totally called the fact you'd say that gunners are usually drugged up

[-:Undertaker:-]

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the Syrians have a pretty impressive opposition - who have an incredibly assortment of weapons. We do not need guns to protect ourselves against the government, and suggesting that we may do one day is hypocritical of you to say the least (after all, our First Past the Post system protects the big parties, doesn't it? Or at least, that is what you would argue if this were a political debate!)

Uhhhh yes they do. But the point is, and the entire point in the gun amendment in the US constitution is, to firstly prevent tyranny from happening and if tyranny does occur then the people then have the capacity to repel the regime. Syria clearly lacks this as it's been ruled now by the Assad family for decades - with thousands over the years being targeted, tortured and killed - something that, if guns were protected, the regime would have to be more careful doing. The entire reason, if you read what the US Founders wrote, why guns are put in the constitution is because the Founders rightly saw that the threat of tyranny always comes from within a nation rather than outside of a nation.

As for FPTP - yes our system is a good system and it does protect against tyranny. But it's not infallible.

Hasn't it been proven, that if you carry a knife you are more likely to be injured by one? That clearly therefore applies to guns. Furthermore, the evidence is ALREADY THERE, why not check out an excellent list of US school shootings - and once you've done that, you can compare it to the list of UK school shootings. Now, the USA is a bigger country than the UK - but lets wipe that argument out now shall we, when I point out if we start since 1996 (the Dunblane Shooting) there has been 1 shooting in the UK versus over 80 (possibly more, I lost count) in the USA! In contrast, the USA's population is about 5 times bigger than the UK.

But then I could also compare cities in the US with strict gun controls with ones with more lax gun controls and point out how cities such as Detroit (where guns are basically banned) have a much higher rate than more lax cities. I could also point out how statistics showing the many more lives saved by guns every year are never given any airtime.

Considering we're talking about the US where guns are pretty widespread, you would be right in most cases. But in this case, where it was a 12 year old boy - who clearly didn't get a gun legally it's pretty clear that if his parents didn't have a gun, this wouldn't have happened. Hence why we don't have any 12 year olds going around shooting kids in the UK.

Then the solution is to punish those who don't take care of their guns rather than disarming and thereby punishing the vast majority of law abiding gun owners who are sensible with their guns.

Also, I totally called the fact you'd say that gunners are usually drugged up

Indeed, because it's true.