Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

The UK restricts gun ownership because it doesn't want a killing spree so common in the USA.

 

This is a really bad whataboutism. The drugs you are talking about are illegal. There are laws against owning, selling and trafficking them. If you want to make it about whataboutism it means you would accept the same laws against guns and then simply leave it up to law enforcement failures to allow for the possession of guns like drugs. I don't think you want that equivalency and if you do you would me more of an anti gun fanatic than most here.

 

You don't seem to understand the point. Fentanyl is banned in the USA. The government doesn't issue Fentanyl, crack cocaine or heroin to thousands upon thousands of its employees. There are millions of doses of cocaine being sold legally. Yet millions of people get that banned stuff despite the severe penalties for dealing in it. and it kills many times more people than gun accidents or intentional homicides with firearms do. So your bullshit claim that a gun ban would keep a premeditated murderer from getting a gun is just that-BULLSHIT.

 

Why is it bullshit that I can go about my business with absolutely no fear of being shot?
I have been doing it for 73 years. I dont have enough years to turn that truth into bullshit.

 

England's collective bed wetting over guns was the sign of an impotent society that wanted to pretend it did something after Dunblane.

 

That's true with the vast majority of people in the USA. Your personal anecdotal evidence is worthless

 

Which shooters there do you believe do not qualify as "mass shooters"? I'm curious about the sort of stereotypes and biases you operate under.

Furthermore, I find your definition of "mass shooting" to be transparently self-serving. Why would we exclude domestic or gang-related violence?

Lastly, to illustrate just how patently absurd you definition is, the incident that is the subject of this thread, the Walmart shooting in Virginia, would not qualify as a "mass shooting" under your definition because the shooter knew the shootees (they worked together).

 

you missed his point entirely. A gun ban would be even less successful than the failed ban on Schedule One Narcotics

 

No YOU don't get it.
If you want to poison your body with the stuff then go ahead.
If you want to commit suicide with a gun go ahead.
But the first doesn't kill OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE. Including children.
The second one does.

 

As per the article I will provide

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm


This doesn’t mean that there weren’t countries who did not believe in the right to bear arms. Such as the Roman’s. But in many times throughout history England for example did not allow everyone to bear arms in the mid evil era

 

In other words when you have some reading comprehension

 

Gun laws will not work over here like they have in France because we are a more violent culture. You can’t point to your laws being the reason for that when your murder rate is much less anyway. Gun laws do not work. If they legalized guns in your country you would still have less murder than us. It’s a fact of life. It’s not applauding our violent culture it’s just an acknowledgment of the fact.

 

So you are saying we should remove all laws restricting narcotics because they do not work. I doubt that would be a winning platform for any politician.

AND if your answer is NOT to remove those laws does that mean they do make a difference. No law is perfect. A law against murders does not mean there are no murders. A law against drunk driving does not mean there is no drunk driving. It would be crazy to advocate getting rid of those laws just because those crimes still happen.

 

Gun manufacturers advertise with them that is true.

They do not lobby for gun manfacturers they lobby for their membership. In doing so they are in fact protecting basjjc human rights

 

Wrong on both.

Fentanyl

Wrong

It is you lacking in logic with your posts so much so that you seem too lack comprehension of what logic means

Your every post ignores the agency of the murderer.

 

It is not illogical it is historically sound.

 

Wrong and once again you lack comprehension of logic

We had a massive drug ban and war on drugs here for decades and it was a failure

 

They have taken no such oath

 

we should have no federal narcotics laws-that should be a state issue
we should not put users in prison
you apparently confuse malum per se offenses with malum prohibitum: trying to stop murder by encroaching on the gun ownership rights of lawful people is just plain stupid and clearly is intended to be an end rather than a means of stopping real crime

 

No. They advertise, organise and attend gun fairs, hold meetings and lectures, and spread the word across the i" net.

 

A bit like abortion then.
Preventing it in one place is pointless if it is legal elsewhere.

 

GUn fairs are for their members

TThe word they spread is the right to bear arms

 

I have no problems with a states rights argument for narcotic laws but that is not the crux of your argument. It was that since we still have a lot of narcotic deaths we should it is an example of why a law restricting guns would fail because the laws against narcotics failed. BUT we both know that if we allow drugs to just freely pass across the border as the op suggested was the problem it would result in more deaths. The fallacy was your argument that even though we have certain laws they fail and people still die from things like drugs. I simply expanded on it with the logical observation that all laws are not perfect. Crimes will still exist with the laws like murder and drunk driving but we do not advocate abolishing them. If we made it a state's issue and a state narcotic law still resulted in an overdoes death would you advocate getting rid of the law? Would you accept as an argument that we have other state laws but evidence those crime still exist as a reason for not enacting the law?

The second part of your argument is to totally change the topic. You gave up on the idea that laws that are not 100% effective do not have merit. We have laws encroaching on the ownership of many things. Are people be allowed to own illegal drugs if they are not using them or selling them. Do we not have laws against citizen's owning toxic chemicals? Should people be allowed to own other weapons of mass destruction simple because we have laws in place already that stops someone from using them illegally? Should people be allowed to own dangerous animals like tigers because we have laws already in place to access the damage or injuries they may cause?

 

Excuse me!!

“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the ...

https://www.govinfo.gov › html
(a) Enlistment Oath - U.S.C. Title 10 - ARMED FORCES

Even I know they do and I don't live in THE USA!

 

You are excused and good job defeating yourself and proving me correct

No where does it say the people or in the name of the people