Arizona shooting range accident

[Rudy Tamasz]

I do worry about those things. But this thread isn't about them. It's always the refuge of the person with no argument: 'You should be concerned about X instead'. Not surprised to see it in use here.

BDunnell, to be perfectly fair, wasn't it you who first brought up the military intervention thing and thus diverted the discussion from its initial topic?

[schmenke]

...Your attitude is a bit rich coming from a person hailing from a nation whose international military interventions have, time and again, been carried out without reference to the people of the countries concerned. Did they 'get a say'? No. They simply had to put up with American bombs falling on their heads. ....

Not necessarily uniquely US military intervention.

Let’s not forget that the campaign to intervene in Iraq was ratified by the UN and supported by the Multi National Force (i.e. “coalition”) which included many European nations. The falling bombs to which you refer are not necessarily American.

[BDunnell]

Not necessarily uniquely US military intervention.

Let’s not forget that the campaign to intervene in Iraq was ratified by the UN and supported by the Multi National Force (i.e. “coalition”) which included many European nations. The falling bombs to which you refer are not necessarily American.

1. The subject of this thread is an American one. Therefore mention of other countries who misguidedly joined in such campaigns is not relevant.

2. I know.

[BDunnell]

BDunnell, to be perfectly fair, wasn't it you who first brought up the military intervention thing and thus diverted the discussion from its initial topic?

No. Read back. Someone else did so first.

[555-04Q2]

But if gun restrictions had been in place there would have been fewer guns in circulation to start with and criminals would find it much harder to get their hands on one.

Did Oscar Pistorius have an illegal weapon?

If there were restrictions it would be even worse. At the moment we can get illegal guns on the Mozambique border for the price of a cheap watch. For the last 10 years our government has been trying to take legal guns away from citizens. The net result? Previous legal owners now have illegal unregistered ones to replace their legal ones that were confiscated. In our society, gun control will never work. Europe's circumstance are far different to ours.

Not sure of your point about Oscar?

[Rollo]

IMO criminals the world over find guns if they want one, it's simply the severity of the laws about illegal ownership that keeps them from doing so in many countries. This is where the US fails, and felons, people with mental problems, etc all have access that is far too easy.

The thing is though that because gun ownership in the United States is so widespread, no-one can expect that all the necessary background checks can or will be done. In some cases where guns are owned legally, owners don't think about who might have access to them; especially when it's members of their own family and given that roughly 1 in 5 people will go through some degree of mental illness in their lives, the likelihood of a mentally ill person having access to firearms is greatly increased.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The thing is though that because gun ownership in the United States is so widespread, no-one can expect that all the necessary background checks can or will be done. In some cases where guns are owned legally, owners don't think about who might have access to them; especially when it's members of their own family and given that roughly 1 in 5 people will go through some degree of mental illness in their lives, the likelihood of a mentally ill person having access to firearms is greatly increased.

What do you do, then? Logically speaking, you might be right. However, culture and history has much to do with any issue as logic. In simple terms, you don't ban guns where everybody historically owns guns. That's not going to work, anyway, or it might be even counterproductive. Similarly, you don't open access to guns, where people are not used to them culturally.

[BDunnell]

What do you do, then? Logically speaking, you might be right. However, culture and history has much to do with any issue as logic. In simple terms, you don't ban guns where everybody historically owns guns. That's not going to work, anyway, or it might be even counterproductive. Similarly, you don't open access to guns, where people are not used to them culturally.

One might equally ask why open access to guns should sensibly be permitted in a country where, according to one poll, 77 per cent of people believe that aliens may have visited Earth. That, too, appears counter-intuitive.

[Rudy Tamasz]

One might equally ask why open access to guns should sensibly be permitted in a country where, according to one poll, 77 per cent of people believe that aliens may have visited Earth. That, too, appears counter-intuitive.

It's way easier to be sarcastic than to offer a reasonable solution to an issue, isn't it?

How about banning knives, Islam, freedom of movement and violent computer games in a country whose subjects travel to other countries, stage violent performances showing their virtuosity with knives and referring to the teachings of Islam all along?

[BDunnell]

It's way easier to be sarcastic than to offer a reasonable solution to an issue, isn't it?

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, but making a serious point about intellect and suitability.