Friends in Las Vegas, please check in.

[Aticus100]

Redvex, interestingly you are not responding to any of the comments made but are simply "sticking to your guns" and insisting that somehow arming the populace will make the world a safer place.

In countries (like ours) where stricter gun laws have been enforced, mass killings have gone down. It's that simple.

The ridiculous notion that terrorist (or lunatic) attacks are somehow a fair fight where the average citizen can take effective action is Hollywood bullshit.

You cant treat these attacks in isolation. Sure, in every individual instance then if the right person were in the right place at the right time with a gun then the attacks could be stopped sooner.

But this is on such a scale that it comes down to statistics. And statically speaking, if guns are less available, then lunatics find it harder to acquire them and are therefore less effective on the whole.

All this "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun" falls flat on its face when you consider that until the point when he decided to murder 58 people and wound hundreds more, Stephen Padock, a mild mannered, law abiding, retired accountant would have been the NRA's poster boy example of a good guy with a gun.

Even in your unrealistic world where someone in the crowd spots a gunman in a window 32 stories up and manages to pull off a very improbable shot to defend the crowd, an assault rifle would be of little use.

Assault rifles are intended to lay down maximum rounds in minimum time against multiple targets. So owning one for self defence in bollox unless you actually believe in a Russian invasion, alien attack or zombie apocalypse.

The only reason anyone needs an AR is to compensate for their own self-perceived inadequacies.

I do not speak from a position of ignorance and please feel free to debate this rather than regurgitating pro-gun propaganda and soundbites.

[BeardedOne]

Meh. Story of my life. :/

I've heard from Kylie and Crona and haven't heard anything =bad= about anyone I know out there, so I'm less worried now than I was earlier.

After hearing of Ruby's passing not more than a day after I'd been chatting with her I've been a bit edgy.

B1 your thread has been totally hijacked.

[Ts RedVeX]

Redvex, interestingly you are not responding to any of the comments made but are simply "sticking to your guns" and insisting that somehow arming the populace will make the world a safer place.
- I am responding, and I do think you should stick to your guns.

In countries (like ours) where stricter gun laws have been enforced, mass killings have gone down. It's that simple.
- You will see that is not true if you read more than just the news' headlines.

The ridiculous notion that terrorist (or lunatic) attacks are somehow a fair fight where the average citizen can take effective action is Hollywood bullshit.
- If I was to get shot dead I would personally at least be able to take any action at all.

You cant treat these attacks in isolation. Sure, in every individual instance then if the right person were in the right place at the right time with a gun then the attacks could be stopped sooner.
- I agree (and your statement does contradict your previous statement about lack of efficiency).

But this is on such a scale that it comes down to statistics. And statically speaking, if guns are less available, then lunatics find it harder to acquire them and are therefore less effective on the whole.
- This is complete nonsense. If gun restrictions are in place, a lunatic or criminal who wants a gun is more likely to get one than an average law-abiding person.

All this "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun" falls flat on its face when you consider that until the point when he decided to murder 58 people and wound hundreds more, Stephen Padock, a mild mannered, law abiding, retired accountant would have been the NRA's poster boy example of a good guy with a gun. - I have no idea who this guy was and I assume that neither do you.

Even in your unrealistic world where someone in the crowd spots a gunman in a window 32 stories up and manages to pull off a very improbable shot to defend the crowd, an assault rifle would be of little use.
- I agree. I am no expert, but a rocket launcher would probably be better.

Assault rifles are intended to lay down maximum rounds in minimum time against multiple targets. So owning one for self defence in bollox unless you actually believe in a Russian invasion, alien attack or zombie apocalypse.
- or multiple targets, e.g. if you are dealing with a bunch of gangsters in a car. Rifles also have longer range. Again, I am no expert on firearms.

The only reason anyone needs an AR is to compensate for their own self-perceived inadequacies.
- One may as well get a bigger car for that purpose.

I do not speak from a position of ignorance and please feel free to debate this rather than regurgitating pro-gun propaganda and soundbites.
- There was not much to debate apart from gun-related statements.

My negative stance on attempting to make people check-in on social media remains.

[Aticus100]

There was not much to debate apart from gun-related statements.

Your suggestion that if the crowd in Las Vegas had been batter armed they could have defended themselves?

You suggestion that if the populace in general were better armed there would be less mass killings?

You could choose to offer some reason to support your point of view. You might even change my mind.

[Ts RedVeX]

If everyone was walking around with weapons, people would know what responsibility and respect mean. There would be no bullying because even a group of thugs could be taken out by a cripple. Communists would know better who they offer free rooms to - even if it were only for the possibility of having to rebuild a few rooms which blown up with bazookas in self-defense...

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

If everyone was walking around with weapons, people would know what responsibility and respect mean. There would be no bullying because even a group of thugs could be taken out by a cripple. Communists would know better who they offer free rooms to - even if it were only for the possibility of having to rebuild a few rooms which blown up with bazookas in self-defense...

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Everyone having guns doesn't instil respect or responsibility. Most people having guns would be a reactive thing. People all over the world test other people/groups who carry weapons all the time. and not everyone who owns a gun now would even be responsible enough or have enough control over their emotions and adrenaline to effectively use their weapon. You think it's as easy as drawing your weapon in a video game. Firing at a gun range is not the same as firing at an active shooter and remaining calm and still effective. Just like punching a heavy bag doesn't mean you'll be effective in an actual street fight.

Also a GROUP of thugs being taken out by someone who is crippled? If we're turn into a society where everyone is armed, what makes you think a group of thugs won't be?

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Also, try having your gun out trying to take out an active shooter on a campus. If you aren't law enforcement, you will get shot on sight.

[Ts RedVeX]

Finally someone starts to agree with me, in saying that firing a gun at a shooting range - with helpless targets that can maybe move around a bit - is not the same as shooting a target that can actually retaliate.

By saying "...everyone was walking around with guns" I meant that "potentially, anyone could be walking around with a gun". That is your freedom. Nobody tells you that you must walk around carrying a gun and nobody should tell you that you must not be carrying a gun. If you are an irresponsible individual, then maybe you had best not walk around with a gun. If you are irresponsible then maybe you had best at least show some respect and not undermine your constitution.

[MrFanti]

Ah never mind.....

[Aticus100]

Finally someone starts to agree with me, in saying that firing a gun at a shooting range - with helpless targets that can maybe move around a bit - is not the same as shooting a target that can actually retaliate.

By saying "...everyone was walking around with guns" I meant that "potentially, anyone could be walking around with a gun". That is your freedom. Nobody tells you that you must walk around carrying a gun and nobody should tell you that you must not be carrying a gun. If you are an irresponsible individual, then maybe you had best not walk around with a gun. If you are irresponsible then maybe you had best at least show some respect and not undermine your constitution.

And yet you have chosen to come and live on the UK where the most stringent of gun laws mean that there are very few gun incidedents.

There are plenty of parts of the world where any idiot with a few dollars can arm themselves to the teeth and where innocent people being shot is a dailey occurrence. And yet here you are in what, according to your reasoning should be a violent anarchic state where know one respects anyone and people kill others with no fear of retribution all the time. You are living proof that you are wrong.