James105

It's propaganda and like most others you are susceptible to it. You are told you need a gun to keep you safe and you believe that countries that do not allow people to legally own guns are the ones that are actually less safe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Every single interaction in America is made less safe by the presence of guns. The police have to be armed as everyone else could be armed which leads to numerous accidental shootings. Even the most simple of police interactions such as stopping someone for speeding becomes a significantly more dangerous encounter as the police have to expect the person they are stopping will also have a gun. The primary job of a gun is to kill people, it is not to save lives. It is very good at its primary job, which is why every other civilised country on the planet restricts their usage. Another 4 people dead today in a hospital in the USA where - quelle surprise - guns did not stop the guns. The shooter is only dead as he apparently shot himself.

This is just NRA sponsored propaganda. I know propaganda is effective as I have seen how well it works during the last 2 years with Covid. Once someone is convinced of their position they won't just defend it but will seek out and propagate the propaganda. Guns "save lives" in much the same way that "fire puts out fire" or "burgers make fat people thin".

Sure, but you are forgetting that since guns are legal the person who wants to rob you will also have a gun, making that interaction potentially more deadly than it would be in other countries that have tight gun control. Also, you are going to be taken by surprise in that scenario and already have a gun pointed at you so if you went for your gun you would most likely be shot and killed rather than just being robbed. The "hero with a gun" is just a fantasy that the NRA uses in its marketing/propaganda to make people like you part with your money. It just increases the chances of you getting killed by a gun. Every scenario you can possibly think of is made more dangerous/deadly by the presence of more guns.

Indeed, if you ever seek an explanation for the ridiculous then the answer can always be found by "following the money". I remain disappointed by the high volume of useful idiots who continue to support this money making venture at the expense of other people's businesses who rely on tourism.

And the NRA just wants your money - they could care less about the poor and middle class kids getting slaughtered as their kids are safe in their expensive schools with private security paid for by your gun money. They are peddling fear and you are buying it. They love mass shootings as guess what happens every single time following a mass shooting? Gun sales go up. Do you know why they go up? It's because they peddle the fear that this is the mass shooting that will result in some government bogeyman coming to take your guns away and you need more guns to defend your stockpile of guns. You then propagate this nonsense and the cycle continues. You can shout "second amendment" rights as much as you want but those of us on the outside can see clearly what is happening here and why it continues to happen.

Do you support the right of an 18 year old to legally buy an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, such as the one used in this latest massacre?

Yeah it seems that you have one group over there that seem to want to do whatever they can to stop little innocent kids getting slaughtered in school, and you have another group that seem to do whatever they can to ensure these little innocent kids continue to get slaughtered. Not sure why it ended up as a left/right issue over there as the rest of the world (no matter what political persuasion) doesn't view the safeguarding of children as a politically divisive issue and make efforts to make kids safe. I get why the NRA is okay with kids being killed by the products they make money from, simply because of the amount money involved and that is a language I understand even if it is morally reprehensible. I just don't get why the average American seems to be okay with it.

You seem to be cherry picking the second amendment. This is the full line: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" I don't even think your greatest legal minds can wrap their heads around the true intention of this line. Some think it means the "State" should have the guns, some (NRA) think it means the individual. It clearly needs updating and clarifying for the world today.

I don't think guns need to be banned as such, but I would like to see the second amendment respected properly unlike how Americans play fast and loose with it at the moment. For example, if (before being allowed to buy a gun), this latest nutter had been compelled to join his local, well regulated militia, and his local, well regulated militia had provided appropriate training on the safe usage of firearms, and once the nutter had proven himself to be not a complete nutter and obtained a recommendation from his local, well regulated militia before being allowed to buy a gun then that might be a good starting point, would it not?

I've not once said the AR-15 is an assault rifle. Here is a wikipedia page talking about assault rifles so that you can learn about what an assault rifle is. Hint: An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Just like 95% of guns sold in America (probably), an AR-15 is a semi automatic, which means the shooter does not need to manually put a round in the chamber between shots so the nutcase can just keep squeezing the trigger and kill a kid every second or so. Since it is a semi-automatic it gives law enforcement (you know, the good guys with the guns) no window of opportunity to charge between shots so they are left cowering in the corridor whilst the nutcase with the legally purchased semi-automatic rifle can carry on unimpeded. What is it with the car argument anyway? It's too stupid to respond to as even a small child could tell you that the main purpose of a car is transport and the and the main purpose of a gun is to kill. Is that one of the daft arguments from the NRA training manual or something?

Is that a problem unique to America or do you think that other countries face similar issues with their kids? If other countries face the same issues, why is it do you think that other countries do not experience the regular massacre of school kids by armed nutcases carrying high powered and legally obtained semi automatic rifles?

Not sure if you are aware, but your government has access to fighter jets, tanks, warships and tactical nuclear missiles. You are going to need bigger guns if that "really" is the reason you think you need them.

You know the police cowered outside the classroom for an hour letting kids bleed out as they were scared of getting shot by a high powered semi automatic rifle... right? Do you think they would have been so scared if the nutcase was only armed with... a hammer? Do you not think that most if not all the kids would be alive if he was only armed with a hammer? What kind of hammer are you talking about - Thor's Hammer or a normal hammer?

So your position is that a nutcase with a hammer can kill as many kids as a nutcase with a high powered semi automatic rifle with thousands of bullets? I can only presume this is parody at this point?

This was your question: "So your position is if the nutcase didn't have access to guns none of this would happen?" I clearly answered it by saying: "It seems that he could not obtain any gun until the law allowed him to. So yeah I think if he was not allowed to buy the gun there would be 19 kids and 2 teachers alive today. What do you think?" Ok so now you have moved onto hammers (somewhat ridiculously) but let's go with that. If the nutcase could only obtain a hammer to carry out his killing spree how many kids do you think he would have killed? The police did not confront the nutcase for an hour as they were scared of getting shot by his high powered rifle, even wearing body armour. Do you think they would have been equally scared if he only had a hammer or do you think the reason they were so scared of the gunman is because he was in possession of a legally obtained semi automatic rifle?

Probably their whole lives I would think due to less teenage hormones and the memories of school bullying that would have had time to fade. Maybe he would have found a job, found a girlfriend or a myriad of other things that happen as people "grow up" and become a little more responsible as the years go on. School shootings in particular are "typically" carried out by kids under 21, probably due to a bad school experience which is still very fresh in their minds. That 3 year gap between 18 and 21 would be a 3 year (post school) cool down period.

If he wanted to do that he could have done so when he was 17 could he not? The fact he didn't do it suggests that is not the case here.

If people are driving their cars drunk into classrooms and killing lots of kids in the supposed safety of their classroom I can see how that would be relevant to a discussion about a school massacre with a gun that makes it incredibly easy for someone to carry out said massacre in a school. How would we event stop that if that is the case? Do we need more good guys in cars to prevent the bad guys in cars killing the kids?

Let's look at the facts shall we. 2021 - nutcase asks his sister to buy him a gun as he was not legally old enough to buy one. She refused. Since we know his intention was to massacre kids with the gun then presumably if she had bought him the gun he would have used it then. May 2022 - as soon as he was legally allowed to do so he buys 2 semi automatic rifles. Used one of these weapons of destruction to massacre 19 kids in their school. It seems that he could not obtain any gun until the law allowed him to. So yeah I think if he was not allowed to buy the gun there would be 19 kids and 2 teachers alive today. What do you think?

I didn't realise that God himself wrote the second amendment. This changes everything.

Indeed it is a tragedy, but you chose to answer an unrelated question that you presumably asked yourself rather than the one I posed. Let's try again. Do you think those 19 kids and 2 adults would be dead today if that nutcase could not "legally" obtain his semi automatic rifle?

Not good no, but not quite as absurd as the current situation is. What do you think? Do you think those 19 kids and 2 adults would be dead today if that nutcase could not "legally" obtain his semi automatic rifle?

This specific nutcase wanted to buy a gun and presumably carry out this massacre back in March but was not legally allowed to so could not obtain one: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uvalde-texas-ramos-sister-guns-b2089185.html. The massacre did not happen until he could "legally" obtain his mass murdering weapon of choice. So if (lets say) the minimum age was 21 to buy a gun then that would be 19 kids and 2 adults alive today. So there is that I suppose.

Sure, that's why I put it in quotes as it is absurd and has not aged well. It's the part of the second amendment which might as well be written in invisible ink as I imagine most gun owners in America would be horrified at the prospect of being forced to join a "well regulated militia" as a condition of their continued gun ownership.

I read that the latest nutcase tried to get his sister to buy him a gun back in March. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uvalde-texas-ramos-sister-guns-b2089185.html Since he was not legally allowed to buy a gun in March this massacre was delayed until such time as he was legally allowed to buy a gun. Teenagers are a hormonal mess and many have fresh memories of the school bullying and a bad experience of school in their heads. If America really needs its guns to form its "well regulated militias" to help US States prevent the evil British taking over again then why not just make the minimum age to buy a gun 21? Maybe this kid would have calmed down by then and this would never have happened.