lol, I thought the same.You haven't exposed one of the mysteries of the universe there, I like wine, I'm all in favour of middle aged people being allowed to buy it.
Coincidence? Not really
lol, I thought the same.You haven't exposed one of the mysteries of the universe there, I like wine, I'm all in favour of middle aged people being allowed to buy it.
Coincidence? Not really
Isn't it a coincidence that the people who advocate gun ownership are the people who like owning guns...
Our laws on weapons mean only criminals have weapons. whether this is a success or not depends on how you measure it, but our violent crime and overall murder rates don't do the policy any favours.
I'm sure arming the general populace would help reduce violent crime. Perhaps in an alternate reality.
Personally i would love to be able to legally carry as a form of self protection as they can in Texas, the sense of self protection appeals to me. Even the churchmen in various states in America arm themselves.
But, can you imagine they legalised guns in Britain, it would be a pretty nasty outcome to say the least, because we are not a mature people, in the states they treat guns with so much respect and it fundamentally adds a whole new level to respect and responsibility that i sometimes wish i could be part off.
Compare the US to the UK for example, we are so conditioned to not protect ourselves and to have fairly controversial sentencings that it must really dumb us down a lot. Imagine we could all be armed and yet have utmost respect for our firearms. I suppose I'm saying, why can't we be more like the Americans.
Or alternatively, in places where it has been done in this reality
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry
Still, never let reality get in the way of random supposition.
And never let someone tell you "facts" on something that seems so prone to national variations are relevant in another nation. Because it is not necessarily so.
There is no good reason to let the public have guns in this country that would outweigh the potential harm.
(Spotlight fallacies such as highlighting Dunblane and making an appeal to emotion don't count).
Unfortunately, spotlight fallacies do count when they involve right wing lunatic/fundamentalist/survivalists gunning down all and sundry every few years. Yes you can go on a rampage with a kitchen knife but you can't kill 50 odd people in the space of half an hour.
And what's wrong with appeals to emotion they seem to have had quite a profound effect on you in a few areas.
Except this argument holds no water. If a person is driven enough to carry out mass murder then nothing will stop them. This is no reason to deny everyone else the opportunity to properly protect their families in their own home.
Unfortunately, spotlight fallacies do count when they involve right wing lunatic/fundamentalist/survivalists gunning down all and sundry every few years. Yes you can go on a rampage with a kitchen knife but you can't kill 50 odd people in the space of half an hour.
And what's wrong with appeals to emotion they seem to have had quite a profound effect on you in a few areas. If you want this kind of stuff just fly off to the states and join the Tea Party you'd fit in just fine.
Except this argument holds no water. If a person is driven enough to carry out mass murder then nothing will stop them. This is no reason to deny everyone else the opportunity to properly protect their families in their own home.
Access to the means to effectively carry out a spree killing would greatly increase the potential of that spree killing.
If guns are readily available and are commonplace all that means is that you get an escalation of opportunity and risk.
If guns are difficult to obtain, it is more difficult to access the most obvious means with which to effectively carry out mass murder.
It is also far easier to stop or escape from someone who doesn't have a projectile weapon than one who does.
Situation 1
Bloke walks into a community centre with a knife
Situation 2
Bloke walks into a community centre with a AK-74
Both have 5 mins to kill as many people as possible - who'd you reckon wins? My guess the 2nd chap doesn't have the ammunition or targets to last past 90 secs.